Check under "Definitions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Printable View
Check under "Definitions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
they have very few conscious threads running
The majority of the brain is occupied with the subconsious. Balancing, for instance. You don't think about your balance as you walk. It's instinct. Your subconscious takes care of it.
conscious threads, a computer has the capacity to create as many conscious threads as it like well at least until its gb* ram is used up
Quote:
are notoriously inaccurate with most observations and calculations
Some more so than others, simply because they have not learned how to correctly analyze data. We learn how things work and our observations become sharper.
you know computers outdo us in this area
Quote:
have a built in lifespan
that's just plain bullsh*t. Some people die of natural causes at age 40, while others live to be over 100... definitely not built in.
ok, built in maximum lifespan
Quote:
are much less repairable
Not at all. The body is designed to repair itself. In the case of broken limbs, external influence is needed to position it correctly so it heals correctly. The body doesn't need drugs, they only make things a bit easier. I don't take medicine because it makes the body less able to fight things itself.
if medicine got its act together then potentially organic repairs would almost be as easy as digital repairs.
Quote:
are suseptible to emotions that interupt their conscious threading
Look at that and tell me that's a true statement. Emotions are conscious thoughts, so you can't peg them as interruptions. They are part of how the brain works. If you don't like it, tough. Emotions contribute greatly to the decisions we make. I would call them much more of an assistance than a hinderance.
lol, don't get all emotional on me TS. emotions are barely controllable by the conscious and they are a subconscious phenomenon, and they do interupt the conscious thread of hominid thinking.
Quote:
have other preoccupations that waste time, resources and energy such as sex
Not sure what rock you came from, but I happen to enjoy sex. It's definitely not a time waster, it's how we reproduce. There's not really much more that can be said to make it more important. Without sex, we wouldn't be here arguing about this.
sure however if you realise that we only need sex to evolve then you realise that for sex we get death. would you trade a couple of highs for eternal life?
Quote:
have to die to evolve
Once again, pure bullsh*t. We evolve over time if we need to, and the majority of "major" evolutions are actually mutations, which happen during reproduction, not death... see your previous BS statement.
lots of language there youngster, you been playing that grand theft auto game or visiting tatoo parlours recently?
we still have to die to evolve, at the moment anyway, the hu man genome can fix that though.
I'm pretty sure I just rendered every point you made absolutely useless. Care to give me more to disprove?
how about we stick with these for a sec.
we're already way past that definition :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
You proceeded to validate none of them. Impressive.
1:40 am, time for bed *wanders off and remembers not to swallow any toothpaste* ;)
ok, guys,
we have a person here who really needs to remember not to swallow the toothpaste.
for most of the people, this is subconsciousness (i hope)
in that way, there might be a possibility creating an organic computer
of course, using learning_c as template for his 'unconsciousness' and the many -- and not very productive -- questions.
(not to mention the capability of drawing conclusions out of crap.)
:rofl:
my advice is invest in a rainwater tank and don't swallow; toothpaste of course what did you think i meant? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBigB
have you ever watched bladerunner?
is a question's purpose to be productive?
what conclusions have i presented?
Septic fluid.Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
No.Quote:
have you ever watched bladerunner?
Only in the real world. This is CC.Quote:
is a question's purpose to be productive?
This entire thread, along with the others that you've ruthlessly injected your opinion into like a plague amongst a primitive society.Quote:
what conclusions have i presented?
Not to say CC is a weak society, the point is that your opinion is everywhere and highly unwelcomed now. We love yelling at each other... but for the most part, we know when to stop. It's like a game. And now you need to learn how to play.
In plain English, shut up.
I don't believe anybody in this entire thread has understood any piece of it. It has been like grabbing water: You can't quite get a handle on any part of it.
Was there ever a subject? Did it make sense? Was it ever based on a clear understanding of any subject, or just random musings without any particular base of knowledge?
Intelligence, learning, feeling, etc. are subjects I have thought about, and written programs for (not feelings, I never got that far, nor do I think anyone ever should intentionally, I believe they will emerge unbidden from certain code constructs) for a couple decades now. I believe it is within our grasp, but not something people would really be willing to attempt. However, I don't know if that, or anything else I have said, has any bearing on the vague and amorphous topic of this thread.
Cake?
Quote:
have you ever watched bladerunner?
No.
you should, it is a profound movie if not a little dark that summarises the hu man condition nicely ;)
Quote:
is a question's purpose to be productive?
Only in the real world. This is CC.
i thought it was a cough's purpose?
Quote:
LC what conclusions have i presented?
TS This entire thread, along with the others that you've ruthlessly injected your opinion into like a plague amongst a primitive society.
LC the point of the thread was to discuss what i consider to be an important topic. water poisoning although it effects billions and even makes 90% of one's brain, is still just a minor issue.
TS Not to say CC is a weak society, the point is that your opinion is everywhere and highly unwelcomed now. We love yelling at each other... but for the most part, we know when to stop. It's like a game. And now you need to learn how to play.
LC of course it isn't weak, its a programming forum and therefore by definition one of the strongest societies. I didn't yell, i made sound points and included some humour. i did use one personal insult, however, i don't think you really have much moral highground on that issue do you? :D :p
TS In plain English, shut up.
LC your points are sometimes interesting, but your insults need work.
SH I don't believe anybody in this entire thread has understood any piece of it. It has been like grabbing water: You can't quite get a handle on any part of it.
LC i have set the thread up to many of the computing and physics developments up to the present in order to have a sound foundation upon which to discuss the topic of the thread
SH Was there ever a subject? Did it make sense? Was it ever based on a clear understanding of any subject, or just random musings without any particular base of knowledge?
LC organic in the broadest sense describes the difference between hominids and digital life.
SH Intelligence, learning, feeling, etc. are subjects I have thought about, and written programs for (not feelings, I never got that far, nor do I think anyone ever should intentionally, I believe they will emerge unbidden from certain code constructs) for a couple decades now. I believe it is within our grasp, but not something people would really be willing to attempt. However, I don't know if that, or anything else I have said, has any bearing on the vague and amorphous topic of this thread.
LC amorphous, i got shivers, nice word, well at least not yet, although i think we have a nice conceptual framework to work with.
That's what I'm talking about. That's barely english, and it sure isn't grammatical. You were much more coherent in the other thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
True enough. I wonder if it will always remain that way. Though organic is generally just a word meaning "carbon based".Quote:
LC organic in the broadest sense describes the difference between hominids and digital life.
A conceptual framework is what we should be trying for. The only human level intelligence we are aware of takes well over a decade to develop. People talk about how smart their kid is, but if you set the SATs in front of a two year old, not only will he flunk, he will probably eat the pencil. That's not actual intelligence, that's proto-intelligence. If that is all that a human brain is capable of after two years of extra-uterine development, why is it that people want to throw a switch and have an AI system? We have no evidence that that form of intelligence exists anywhere in the universe. The intelligence we are aware of seems to require years to get organized, even with more processing power than any computer. Create a framework that can learn, but don't expect intelligence until that framework has been experiencing its world for a looooooooong time.Quote:
LC amorphous, i got shivers, nice word, well at least not yet, although i think we have a nice conceptual framework to work with.
Don't let anyone argue that a computer can't be intelligent because they flip a switch and it isn't as smart as a human. Flip a switch on a human and it isn't as smart as a human, either. A puppy is FAR more capable than a human baby within a week of birth. The human infant only begins to outpace the puppy after a year or so as far as being able to use its body and senses are concerned.
Originally Posted by learning c
i have set the thread up to many of the computing and physics developments up to the present in order to have a sound foundation upon which to discuss the topic of the thread
That's what I'm talking about. That's barely english, and it sure isn't grammatical. You were much more coherent in the other thread.
LC oh nooooo, here comes the black hole again :eek:
Quote:
LC organic in the broadest sense describes the difference between hominids and digital life.
SH True enough. I wonder if it will always remain that way.
exactly, which is why this thread will get interesting.
Quote:
LC amorphous, i got shivers, nice word, well at least not yet, although i think we have a nice conceptual framework to work with.
SH The only human level intelligence we are aware of takes well over a decade to develop. People talk about how smart their kid is, but if you set the SATs in front of a two year old, not only will he flunk, he will probably eat the pencil.
LC same with a learning computer, it would take time, although the growth in learning would be much faster with digital learning.
SH we have no evidence that that form of intelligence exists anywhere in the universe.
LC you clearly haven't watched close encounters of the third kind
SH The intelligence we are aware of seems to require years to get organized, even with more processing power than any computer. Create a framework that can learn, but don't expect intelligence until that framework has been experiencing its world for a looooooooong time.
LC depends how smart and efficient you make the learning.
SH Don't let anyone argue that a computer can't be intelligent because they flip a switch and it isn't as smart as a human. Flip a switch on a human and it isn't as smart as a human, either.
LC exactly and there are drugs that accomplish that effect in a hu man.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
Lord, I hope so.Quote:
exactly, which is why this thread will get interesting.
I'm not convinced of that, but I am not convinced that it is NOT true, either.Quote:
LC same with a learning computer, it would take time, although the growth in learning would be much faster with digital learning.
Yeah, I watched the original, and the re-cut version. Course, it was just a movie, and I was speaking literally.Quote:
LC you clearly haven't watched close encounters of the third kind
How well do you know that?Quote:
LC exactly and there are drugs that accomplish that effect in a hu man.
Quote:
LC exactly and there are drugs that accomplish that effect in a hu man.
SH How well do you know that?
LC its obvious. point is both hu mans and computers can be shut down.
Have you ever considered actually using the quote tags?
they are too difficult to use after more than one quote.
That's what the VBF Fx extension is for... if you use Fx, that is. Highlight the desired text, select Quote style out of the list, and boom. Instant tags.
Bah. The extension is better...
Not to mention the pain googlebots have to go through trying to figure out why it's even caching this thread. :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
And now that I've actually installed it on this computer, I can show you why...
w0000000000000000000000000000000000000t.
n00000000000000000000000000000000000000b.
in000000000000000000000000000000000000rganic.
Poor Googlebot. It must be so tired. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by litlewiki
Wait...........
wow that's pretty :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
i hope they get flown at least once a day ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
aren't you a bit young for bahing?:DQuote:
Bah. The extension is better...
you're right it is http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...of+light&meta=Quote:
Originally Posted by litlewiki
you're wrong it is
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...G=Search&meta=
why did they have to rename it to 'General Discussion'.....
i mean, cc (alone) gives a much better description of its intention
and if it's serious, everyone gives it a [serious] tag anyway...
btw, lc;
have you even bothered to look at the rating of this thread...
:afrog:
hi tbb, does the rating mean anything? how do i find out what the rating is?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBigB
well at least some people rated it :D the bow at my feet thread got a 5 out of 5 rating just for gloating about his kit, so i conclude either that the rating is meaningless or that i am not writing in a programming forum.
You are writing in the random section of a programming group.
ok, so what about ethical alignment?
in humans we start with a blank slate and are usually taught such concepts.
Dude,you misspelt hu man! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by learning C++
I like this thread, it's more entertaining than every other CC thread i've ever read :D
now based on the model of the hominid mind that we have so far ethical alignment could be arrived at in a number of ways
1. built into a hominid's subconscious thinking as are emotions
2. may not be built into subconscious and therefore creatable by the conscious mind as it develops
3. alternatively hominids could choose or are taught to go against their subconscious alignment
what's a dude?Quote:
Originally Posted by litlewiki
we know that with emotions we get chemical rewards and penalties that affect our functioning. for example feeling depressed has been linked with a reduction in serotonin and dopamine and some even suggest brain toxicity. by contrast feeling happy releases dopamine and serotonin making everything function at a higher level and many argue creates a lower level of toxicity. of course one needs to contrast a healthy person being put in negative situations against another who may have a pathological imbalance in such chemicals.
exactly the same could be occuring with ethical alignment, meaning that if one is born subconsciously with a particular alignment and one consciously chooses to go against it, one may get chemical penalties and brain toxicity. over time this could lead to premature aging and "ghosting" of people and personalities.
:rofl:
:lol:
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by learning_c
:lol:
so some people get a chemical reward from torturing and even killing others and they are called sadists while others get chemical rewards from doing good such as protecting and educating ;)
it is also therefore possible that some people are born without a chemical reward one way or another, so called neutral alignment.
it could make for some interesting family interactions and situations.
you are realizing that you're making a monologue, right?
definition 'monologue':
one way communication
and I -- and many other people in this thread -- are the critics on the monologue
true, some are critics, which every good thread needs, others contribute when they can, while a further section stop by to say they are enjoying the thread immensely.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBigB
"Leela, please wake up"
so before we discuss computers, let's work with the hominid mind. over time if we let hominids evolve naturally, eventually there would come a time when there would be a lot of hominids who would have a significantly increased mental capacity as history has shown. alternatively with genetic engineering we can add everlasting life (which could theoretically happen with a genetic mutation too) in addition to an artificial increase in intellectual function and capacity. a certain portion of these people would have various alignments from bad/cruel to neutral to good alignment.
so we have an evolving hominid mind either naturally or artificially, and various ethical alignments. what happens if a strain of super intelligent hominids with bad ethical alignment develops?
Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
Why do you think evolution will create more intelligent people? Is there some kind of adaptive advantage favoring this? Do smart people reproduce more? I would say the evidence for this is pretty meager. Evolution will only favor the traits that produce more reproduction.
do you realise what you just said :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Yeah, so?
ok, well staying with the current paradigms, as always resources and reproduction go hand in hand, and supporting a large family requires resources, i guess it is possible on welfare, however, most people would not wish to struggle through life with 7 children on welfare meaning there is a disincentive to reproduce without resources. logically being able to create wealth requires intelligence particularly as time and technology advance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Watch it, pretty amusing:Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
lol i haven't smiled so broadly in a long time :DQuote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
When i first read this thread, i thought it would never reach the second page and will probably die by the end of the week to be later resurrected in 4 years time by someone with too much time on their hands... I'm surprised it has reached 11 pages...
glad to have surprised you, and the thread has certainly covered some territory :D ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew G
so what happens if we have super intelligent sadistic hominids that evolve or are intelligently designed?
well then you would likely have a society based on satisfying the chemical rewards of those people ie cruelty, injustice and slavery.
by contrast if we have super intelligent good hominids that evolve or are intelligently designed then we would get a society founded on health, justice and liberty.