• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo

Mind boggling question...


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#31 struct

  • Guest
  • 565 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 20 October 2006 - 01:30 PM

Where do you get these wrong ideas ameldedic!!? You are saying that cows go faster than, let say, birds or flies since cows are larger. I have no idea how you have detected the motion of the atoms because obviously you haven't read much about them. Individual atoms that constitute the air that you breath are moving at much higher speed than you amaldedic (their collective motion may be slower than yours, even though sometimes air travels faster than you (in hurricanes, tornadoes, etc).
ameldedic, 1st you discuss nonsenses, 2nd your nonsenses are not related to this 'deep philosophical' topic that the others are discussing. So do them a favor (not me because I am enjoying this 'colorful' discussion) and let them discuss further. May be something will come out of that.

#32 brandonreinhart

  • Guest
  • 67 posts
  • 0

Posted 20 October 2006 - 04:22 PM

Every thread on this board goes all weird after one page.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#33 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 20 October 2006 - 05:14 PM

(brandonreinhart)
Every thread on this board goes all weird after one page.


I wonder if this is a subset of Murphy's Law, inverse modifier for Moore's Law, some kind of doppelganger of Godwin's Law, or a synthetic application of them all?

BTW, it is also not entirely true but there is a tendency for it to be true in a certain set of topics, particularly those that lack rigid scientific or factual parameters. The more it is about opinion the more problematic they become. Perhaps it is a qualitative aspect of opinions for their clichéd common character.

Ever hear the phrase?

"Opinions are like a**holes; everybody has one".

#34 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 20 October 2006 - 05:22 PM

The googly eyes seem obligatory at this point. [8)]

#35 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 20 October 2006 - 07:30 PM

I really hope we don't get into a debate over what philosophy is and isn't. ;)

The very definition of philosophy is to develop principles, doctrines, methods, or systems for some purpose.


I'm still trying to work this one out. First you start out attempting to define "philosophy" in one sentence (when there have been large volumes written on the subject), and then you use this precarious assertion to make yet another precarious assertion, mainly:

Harvey:  Anything that does not lead to a utility of use for a purpose, is by definition, not a philosophy.


Purpose, and what constitutes purpose, is entirely subjective. Using your logic, the same would also therefore apply to matters of utility. Assessments of non-utility merely demonstrate a particular perspective, as do opinions of what is and what is not philosophy.

Merely pointing out a possiblity is not a philosophy.


I would hope not. However it could be practicing philosophy or at the very least indicative of a philosophical system.

#36 ameldedic2

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 91 posts
  • 1
  • Location:South Dakota, United States

Posted 21 October 2006 - 07:24 AM

Where do you get these wrong ideas ameldedic!!?  You are saying that cows go faster than, let say, birds or flies since cows are larger.  I have no idea how you have detected the motion of the atoms because obviously you haven't read much about them.  Individual atoms that constitute the air that you breath are moving at much higher speed than you amaldedic (their collective motion may be slower than yours, even though sometimes air travels faster than you (in hurricanes, tornadoes, etc).
  ameldedic, 1st you discuss nonsenses, 2nd your nonsenses are not related to this 'deep philosophical' topic that the others are discussing.  So do them a favor (not me because I am enjoying this 'colorful' discussion) and let them discuss further.  May be something will come out of that.


You have a point and it does sound like I'm talking from a "philosophical" prospective, which is not science. I have read (to an extend) and went over Enstein's relavity brieftly in class. I have not had any time to do any research on this question and I also feel that I'm missing something important that would prove my question wrong.
Allow me to restate my question differently:

According to relativity, a plane that is traveling at a higher velocity than a stationary person on the ground is experience time dilation (http://en.wikipedia....i/Time_dilation), or in other words, time is relatively slower on the plane compared to the person on the ground. However, the psychological time experience for the person on the plane is the same: a minute is a minute.

Another example would that the rotation of the Earth. Because the earth's velocity is rotating at a constant value, more distance (due to radius size) is covered near the equator than at the poles; hence, time is slower at the equator relative to the north and south poles. Also, time dilation occurs when one experiences changes in altitude.

Now, lets have an individual and a ant race to see who is going to reach one meter first. As you know, you are much, much larger (this difference in size is far greater than a cow and bird) than an ant. Would the human experience time dilation since the size of an him or her would mean that more distance (more distance relatively to the same unit of time would mean a higher increase in velocity) is covered relative to a smaller object, such as the ant?

As I mentioned before, I might not be able to see what could be wrong with this question and reasoning. I could turn out to be completly wrong, but part of science is to investigate ideas, while ackowledging criticism from other people. [thumb]

Edited by ameldedic2, 21 October 2006 - 07:57 AM.


#37 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 21 October 2006 - 11:15 AM

Ameldic the differences in size have nothing to do with the time dilation effect of relativity nor is the relative difference in velocity that you describe sufficient to invoke GRT.

One of the problems when discussing GRT is the scale involved as it dwarfs the *normal* human perspective. The difference between an ant and human is minuscule when looked at in relativistic terms. Their differences in velocity less than we experience in jets. The difference between an astronaut and earthbound human for the rate of time is real and measurable but not by human senses. That difference is measured in nanoseconds. The difference in relative velocities is just too small to matter much.

If you transported the ant and the elephant to Jupiter they would still have the same relative experience of time as one another, however they would have a slower experience of time than on Earth. What you are not appreciating is that the experience is almost identical still to that of being on Earth. The amount of relative difference required to invoke GRT is vastly greater than you are describing.

For example the rate of nuclear decay on the Sun is slower than on Earth and those experiments have been done to confirm GRT but nonetheless that difference is still barely discernible by what we call a *human standard*. To invoke the time dilation effect you must be traveling at very large percents of of C or standing on a body significantly more massive than a G type star.

What controls the rate of time is the mass (not size or volume except as a function of *density*) at the heart of the gravity well we occupy and it has largely the same effect on the ant as the elephant. The speed of both travelling around the planet is far less in relation to one another then it is dominated and by the velocity of the Earth on its axis (1000+ mph at the equator) and the Earth around the Sun (67000+ mph) and this does not even include the rate of travel around the galactic center.

http://www.windows.u..._space/vel.html

http://www.physlink....perts/ae256.cfm

The difference in velocity between an ant and an elephant is not only less than the difference between being on a plane and the ground it is less than the difference between being in a car and standing. I encourage those interested in these kinds of thought experiments to make themselves far more familiar with the scale and scope involved, which is a thoroughly *nonhuman* perspective.

An object in orbit is travelling under the escape velocity of roughly 17000 mph but also this is relative to Earth not the star we are still both orbiting together.

Also time is not a *constant*, there is no universal constant for 't' and thus no universal standard to measure the dilation effect against. This *subjectivity* for time (hence why it is called relativity) is itself cause for great consternation in physics and a reason why many can conceptually and mathematically manipulate the theory but it is also an area for great opportunity if someone succeeds in further clarifying our present understanding.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 21 October 2006 - 12:50 PM.


#38 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 21 October 2006 - 04:14 PM

Ameldic, I recommend two great books, in this order:
The Elegant Universe
The Fabric of the Cosmos
Both by Brian Greene

You are clearly at a very early understanding of the current understanding of the nature of of universe, and these two books will put you at a much higher understanding, including quantum physics, string theory, quantum gravity, and M-theory, not to mention great explanations of Einstein's theories.

#39 ameldedic2

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 91 posts
  • 1
  • Location:South Dakota, United States

Posted 21 October 2006 - 05:08 PM

AI video:

http://video.google....al intelligence

opinions?

Edited by ameldedic2, 21 October 2006 - 05:50 PM.


#40 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 21 October 2006 - 06:29 PM

I enjoy Michio a lot. Of course if you spend some time reading our archives here you will find members on both sides of this very debate. Many of us lean towards what he is saying and others take Kurzweil's position.

It is still too early to determine who will prevail but I will say that given the past predictions on when AI would occur and how easy it would be, the less optimistic side is tending to have the better track record.

#41 ameldedic2

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 91 posts
  • 1
  • Location:South Dakota, United States

Posted 22 October 2006 - 07:58 AM

More interesting videos:

Featuring De Grey

http://video.google....8&q=michio kaku

Edited by ameldedic2, 22 October 2006 - 08:30 AM.


#42 MichaelAnissimov

  • Guest
  • 905 posts
  • 1
  • Location:San Francisco, CA

Posted 25 October 2006 - 11:49 AM

Ameldic, I recommend two great books, in this order:
The Elegant Universe
The Fabric of the Cosmos
Both by Brian Greene

You are clearly at a very early understanding of the current understanding of the nature of of universe, and these two books will put you at a much higher understanding, including quantum physics, string theory, quantum gravity, and M-theory, not to mention great explanations of Einstein's theories.


I also recommend "The Trouble with Physics" (2006) by Lee Smolin, a leading physicist, which goes into detail about how string theory is probably not as fruitful an avenue of research as we thought it would be...

#43 struct

  • Guest
  • 565 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 25 October 2006 - 04:17 PM

I recommend the school books first.

#44 ameldedic2

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 91 posts
  • 1
  • Location:South Dakota, United States

Posted 26 October 2006 - 04:08 PM

For those that did extensive research on Singularity, AI, etc., when do you think it will happen? I'm aware that it can happen anytime, but if you had to guess and your life was at stake? 2040-2060s?

#45 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 26 October 2006 - 04:28 PM

if you had to guess and your life was at stake?


Funny about the way you phrased this ameldedic2 because this is precisely why I think emotionality evolved as a form of reason. We make these kinds of guesses to face threats we do not fully understand but nonetheless perceive and it is the uncertainty of such analyses that I suspect can be algorithmically defined but not with current models. It is also the very dilemma that I think is holding back true Seed AI even more than hardware.

I see this as so ingrained in our cognitive structure that I suspect it is a branch of reasoning that is impossible to ignore if the goal is self aware *consciousness* or what we describe as *true intelligence*. I do not think there will even be a chance of a true AI until the issue of being able to make that kind of choice is programmed into it but of course being able to guess isn't just a matter of probability, it is also a matter of *values*(where friendliness enters), memory (as a databased weighted for reliability on a conviction scale for belief and knowledge) and *perception* (total input for the precision and qualitative range of sensory data within a subjectivity scale for reliability). To guess requires being able to have a *feel* for an option that may or may not always be valid or even obvious but must be intuited through inductive reasoning far more than mere deductive.

This is at the heart of organic consciousness and rooted in survival derived of evolutionary psychology IMHO. I don't think this is an impossible task to overcome at all but only if emotion is credited by computer scientists as a part of critical thought that must be defined and programmed into the cognitive structure for AI.

That is itself a significant debate because it introduces a certain level of subjectivity for the result that makes many people uncomfortable even if they credit the idea as valid, which most programmers do not in their strict definition of cognition that tends to dismiss emotion as an unnecessary component of reasoning. I consider this an example of a requisite *functional duality* for *consciousness* (as opposed to mere machine intelligence) and they do not.

I refuse to guess when without far more data than I possess unless you can demonstrate my life does depend on it. However to do so you must also provide much more data. ;))

#46 ameldedic2

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 91 posts
  • 1
  • Location:South Dakota, United States

Posted 26 October 2006 - 07:26 PM

I refuse to guess when without far more data than I possess unless you can demonstrate my life does depend on it.  However to do so you must also provide much more data. ;))


Well, what is your data? I was exaggerating on the way I phrased it of course. Nevertheless, according to Kurzweil, Singularity is projected to occur at approx. 2045. What do other people say about it?

#47 kgmax

  • Guest
  • 75 posts
  • 0

Posted 26 October 2006 - 11:00 PM

Sometime after I die. It is the singularity so almost by definition I cannot imagine it during my lifetime.
(/smartass off)
Futurist are not prophets, they make educated guesses. Back in 1999 I read a paper from some airforce study commissioned for the U.S. that had futurist give different future "situations" . I think there were at least 6 (it has been years and you cannot find it anymore)
I vividly remember one of those foretold small governments making alliances to change the world power. I remember one that foretold of terrorist attacking most likely a european ally and causing war. I remember that particular one with the terrorist thought that the U.S. would retain a loose and changing alliance with countries to combat the threat. I also remember that ( I think in the final comments on all of them) the U.S. would have to gain and retain a firm hold on space to continue to be the dominant world power.

Not sure why I rambled on about that other than to show that futurist make a bunch of guesses and only some of what they are predicting can come true. And never completely what they picture. That paper was referring to future by 2030 btw and I doubt that anyone thought terrorist would start causing global upheaval this early if ever.

20 bucks on 2038 !!

#48 MichaelAnissimov

  • Guest
  • 905 posts
  • 1
  • Location:San Francisco, CA

Posted 26 October 2006 - 11:52 PM

Well, what is your data? I was exaggerating on the way I phrased it of course. Nevertheless, according to Kurzweil, Singularity is projected to occur at approx. 2045. What do other people say about it?


Most predictions range from 2020 to 2040. What's most important is not exactly when the Singularity happens but avoiding the threat it presents (superintelligences that don't care about us disassembling us for raw materials) while fully navigating to the benefits.

#49 ameldedic2

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 91 posts
  • 1
  • Location:South Dakota, United States

Posted 28 October 2006 - 12:34 PM

Most predictions range from 2020 to 2040.  What's most important is not exactly when the Singularity happens but avoiding the threat it presents (superintelligences that don't care about us disassembling us for raw materials) while fully navigating to the benefits.


Is Singularity inevitable or can we as humans choose to live forever in our biological forms in the future?

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#50 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 03 November 2006 - 06:34 PM

I think as soon as computers are more intelligent than us, we might run into some problems.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users