Grey VB world

[kedaman]

Just a thougt:
Woudnt it be nice for programmers instead of using prefixes to variables...
... if There were a specified color for each type like integers beeing blue, strings brown, variants grey and having arrays made italic, methods bold, so imagine how colorful the world of visualbasic could be one day. Also one thing, I'd like to have the code in tree style, so that I can expand and collapse Subs and functions that may never be changed. I'm getting tired of scrolling and scrolling my code. Sometimes I've have to use the Find keyword to get to a function. Just kidding. But actually when i'm scrolling trough it I may forget what Im looking for. And, it would be nice with a background to the code. Now im getting really enthusiastic. How about the code in HTML style, So that you can click on the link on a function call to get straight to the function. Woudn't that be just perfect. Anyone agree?

It also might get a little confusing with TOO many colors,
but generally speaking, I think that color-coding some things
will help somewhat.

I really like your idea about having it in a Treeview. Subs
can get really confusing when you have a lot of them. Hey,
maybe this could be a project for you to work on!!

[Buzby]

Right click on a variable or function / sub and select DEFINITION - that'll take you to the place where the variable, function or sub was defined. (then right click and use LAST POSITION to get back to where you were)

In Tools / Options switch off 'full module view' and then you only have to scroll through the current sub/function not the whole module.

[kedaman]

I didn't know that Last Position one, thank! But None of these really solved my problems, I don't like to have my code in VB3 style so that one goes down. This was just a thought okay? I'm not sure if it can be done, if I don't send this idéa to microsoft.

[Sam Finch]

I'd love to see a whole load more colours in VB trouble is there's not enough colours in VB's options to properly set apart your normal text and Identifier text. What I'd also Like to see is a visual studio package where you could have the same IDE for all the languages so it's just as easy to write a com object in C++ or Java as it is in VB. at the moment I'm completly stuck trying to write C++ functions that I can use in VB and there's some great stuff you can do in C++ that takes a lot of buggering about in VB can we please have something nice and 21st century for this.

[JeffSM]

My mainly project have about 400 bas and forms and whrn I need find a function/sub I type MyFuncName and click with the right button and choose "Definition".

I guess that Microsoft could allow us to create groups in the project explorer. This really 'll help us. To "not to be insane" I make the groups using prefix names for bas and forms.

Jefferson

[Serge]

Talking about the same IDE across all Visual Studio Tools. With version 7 they will share the same IDE.

[Sam Finch]

Hooray.

[kedaman]

I have thoughts of how programming could be in the future, like in the new era of VR, where programmers would be like as ordinary as a farmer is now. I know that different languages basically will try to unite or that an universal language will conquer, and that there would be som chaotic effects in making languages better, or simpler to use, while things get more complicated and harder to deal with. I don't really know what but like extrapolating how programming was 10 years ago compared to now, is like how we going to work after 10 years. I'm a sci-fi writer, and I need to know somewhat realistic things about programming in the future. How about another 100 years, any idéas?

[Gen-X]

Firstly... I dont want to rain on your Colour-Coded parade but what happens if you are colour blind?

Does that mean you can't be a programmer


But as for your future of programming how about we look at computers first. 3D graphics cards are becoming more and more common place and at some point operating systems will finally leave behind the bitmapped GUI and turn into a VUI (Virtual User Environment) where everything is in 3D and can be pulled closer, pushed away, etc.

Your environment will not just have a single flat screen but will have 6 screens, like the sides of a cube that you can rotate into your view.

As for programming languages you cannot just extrapolate from the last 10 years because computing has been growing exponentially. If you took the last 10 years it would give you the progress in a SINGLE year of the future.

The first step you will find is called "Polymorphic Programs". These will be applications that can change their form depending on the environment they run in or the tasks they are asked to perform. The structure of hardware will increase to allow both size of programs and speed of programs to increase dramatically and the languages will lose structure and gain more "abstract" concepts.

There won't be a "universal" language that wins out because language itself will become redundant. Now instead of using language to specify a function or a program you will use "concepts" and these concepts will be put into the computer either through direct thought or by verbal talking. In effect you will actually produce a central kernel or expert system to which you can give abstract concepts, pass the business rules and functional parameters to and then "TEACH" the program as if it were a child gaining information as it went.

Now I know some people will call this artificially intelligent but unfortunately it will still only be as good as the boundaries it was given.... lets say as smart as a dog that just knows how to use a calculator and an encyclopedia. So while you maintain a level of computation like you have now you can include into it the rudimentary expert system of attempting to algorithmically pre-determine the next thing you want to do... like bringing you your slippers ;-)

It is already beginning now with the advent of the RISC chip. Manufactorers found they had so much free space left on the CPU because RISC is a smaller instruction base that they have started to make RISC+ chips that fill the free space with pre-parsers, memory predictors and the like.

[kedaman]

I don't know, people maybe can be cured from color blindness in the future. Still, you can work without colors, but it will be harder.

Why 6 screens? why not use some VR teqniques?

About these Polumorphic Programs, does this mean that anyone can be a programmer? Or is the user it's own programmer or what? How does these "abstract concepts" work?
Simple commands can always be missunderstood and what does the program do with those millions of unspecified specifics that can be connected to an "abstract concept"? I have tons of question here, but can you explain a bit further about just these polymorphic programs?

[V(ery) Basic]

If you ask me, Visual Basic is going to become as powerful as C++ in about 10 years, with API calls probably integrated into each project.

[HarryW]

Well err.. They're some very specific predictions considering how fast this industry changes.

Who will create these VUIs then? Where are these tools that allow everyone to create applicaions through direct thought or voice come from? Are you saying we're all going to end up relying on computers to write their own programs?

Sounds a bit like Terminator to me

[kedaman]

I need to post some background on what im writing:
I have a scenario where people live in peace under the year 2899, A higher being electronic organism (A technology of artificial intelligence to start a project to simulate evolution), that slippered out of human control and released into what I have called Hyperfield, not an electronic network, but a field, that goes parallell with earths gravitation field, have been controlling humanity for 400 years. As I have described this, people may think i'ts like terminator, but worse, humanity is prisoned by a higher being. But thats now what it is. The higher being has taken a role of protector of humnanity and People live in peace and harmony with nature. As no actual nationality is left, there are no politics and military. The bureaucrazy is under control of the protector. This doesn't make sense to you? You need to read the whole book to understand anyting. But it's not this I was to post here.

This Hyperfield, has replaced all computers and computer networks functionality, going trough everything in space, people can get information trough it, without using any computers or networks. As for memory storage and speed they are unlimited. Programming is still a big thing among people, there are computers, and people use them as a hobby, like millions of other things that have been obsolete for almost a millenium. But if this have to be true, I need programming and programming langugaes to be a part in the history between 2000 and 2120, not that it will be replaced by anything like Polymorphic Programs. I need people to stay active in controlling them selves not to be controlled by any other in 120 years. So what could possibly happen in programming languages for these 120 years? Anyone have ideas?

[Gen-X]

Kedaman.

First I want to say that your story idea sounds very much like a series of books I have read by the author Orson Scott Card called "Homecoming". The first book is called "Memory of Earth" and is about a computer called the "Oversoul" that was put in charge of protecting humanity from destroying itself on a planet called Harmony. Basically they wiped themselves out, fleed earth, landed on Harmony and spent the next 40 million years being protected by the Oversoul from being able to develop destructive technology. The people were geneticially manipulated to be able to have their thoughts altered by the Oversoul should they try to think of things like guns and weapons and spaceships etc.

As for the rest of it... here are my thoughts.

They currently already HAVE technology that allows you to track the position of a mouse on the screen from reading the electrical impulses at the back of the head. This technology is also used in the Apache helicopter such that the pilot only need "look" where he wishes to shoot and the targeting system tracks the position he is focusing on. This concept will be developed along with speach recognition (which funny enough have progressed along the lines of character recognition to now understand inflective vectors removing the need to be "programmed" with a specific voice in advance) to provide new input devices for computers.

So instead of just having the mouse and the keyboard we will include voice as an ability to input data and eventually hopefully thought. What this means is that computers can be programmed much faster than they currently are. Also, technology such as the electronic eye which has recently been tested and produces a signal received by the brain will lead the way into being able for us to receive INPUT at a lower level. The benefit of this is that at some point in the future we can interact with a computer directly which means the computer can also feed from us in being able to use our cognitive powers for computation.

Don't get me wrong, these computers will NEVER become what we truely call sentient... they will only ever be able to perform those tasks that have been PROGRAMMED into it and it will never be able to "LEARN" like we do... but they will have the capacity to change with the effecting environment and to be able to adapt up to the capacity of their programming. This might mean they can be as intelligent as say a dog but with the vaunted capacity of computers in terms of computation, retrieval and analysis... they just wont be able to hold high-level philosophical discussions.

As for anyone being a programmer that won't be the case. Programming will start to become an "art" just like most things are. Those people skilled enough in being able to explain things differently, think laterally, in abstract and in new ways will be the programmers of the future... pretty much what makes a GOOD programmer today. These people will be able to take that "core" of computer simulation and be able to shape it to perform the required task, they will foresee any problems that could occur and "guide" the polymorphic program into methods for adapting to complete this.... Very much like how parents teach their children.

Programs will still be based on an electronic system although binary may give way to trinary allowing for the adaptation of both fuzzy logic and computers that use the frequency of light to transmit information instead of electrical impulses that are measured for either a positive or negative amperage to determine binary 1 or 0. So those who will be programmers in the future will be people who are capable of thinking in this way and who seem to have an affinity for being able to communicate on the high levels of information exchange in having a computer talking with you directly.

Some people are just not cut out for this sort of thing... they cannot even program their VCR while others can take an electronic item and work it out in minutes regardless what it is... these people have the natural affinity for this kind of programming.

[funkyd77]

Right click on a variable or function / sub and select DEFINITION - that'll take you to the place where the variable, function or sub was defined. (then right click and use LAST POSITION to get back to where you were)

In Tools / Options switch off 'full module view' and then you only have to scroll through the current sub/function not the whole module.

You can also do this by placing the cursor on the variable / sub / constant etc and press <shift><F2>. this will take you to the definition. You can then press <ctrl><shift><F2> to get back to where you were. This action can be nested so you can go down a few times with <shift><F2>, and then come back a few times.

[kedaman]

Thanks, Gen-X

You told me about Orson Scott Cards books, but I haven't read them so I don't know but about my book: It's definitly not that kind of protector. There are several tasks that this higher being have like, doing the bureaucratic stuff and handles information like on internet but much more effectively. But it do not control humanity in any way, it just serves it. As for genetical manipulation, People have found out a way to reduce destructive thinking (by them selves). There are certain handweapons, not lethal but quite effective for use against crime of a part of that people who unknown to anyone escaped the genetical manipulation methods 700 years ago.

If they already have technology that connect brain to computer, or at least have begun, how soon will it be when we can controll computers completely only using our brains. Programming also could be like just thoughts of how a program should be, and the computer will do it for you. I don't want to use the phrase Artificial Intelligence, as it is used careless and could be missunderstood. But when you say that they can't be truely sentient, do you mean that we can't emulate human brain? I have no idea but I thought they're about to make this possible. And for these polymorphic programs, why? Ok, it's effective and simple but you can't do any micromanagements and inspections to see if the program works right at the spot. If you pull a bunch of abstract concepts together, how do you know what unexpected results could be caused? Also using fuzzy logic and trinary (I have no idea about this) would it make computers less digital? I think computers easily could slip out of our control if we don't know exactly what they're doing.

[Gen-X]

But it do not control humanity in any way, it just serves it.

I wouldn't exactly call it "control" over humanity... more like a gentle coaxing to NOT remember things that are destructive and lead to the destruction of the species... and this was programmed into it by the humans who launched the ship in the first place.

If they already have technology that connect brain to computer, or at least have begun, how soon will it be when we can control computers completely only using our brains.

Completely I would estimate probably 50 years. The reason I say this is that there are so many factors involved and other pressing matters facing humanity such as fossil fuels (which only have roughly 50 years left) and the environment

Programming also could be like just thoughts of how a program should be, and the computer will do it for you.

Kind of. As the computer will only be able to "process" and not to think or create or imagine then it will require us to be able to provide that input.

But when you say that they can't be truely sentient, do you mean that we can't emulate human brain? I have no idea but I thought they're about to make this possible.

Oh we can certainly emulate the human brain... but that doesn't make the creation sentient. Simply copying something isn't enough... We dont understand the human brain enough yet to be able to tell exactly what makes us think, feel, adapt. So they will be making computers more and more complex and they will emulate human brain function more and more.... but that is exactly what it is "emulation"... and it will only ever be as good as we tell it to be and until we know what we are talking about how can we tell it to do the things we don't know happen?

This about this. A single celled organism... an Aomeba. The simplest form of life and it is more "sentient" than the biggest and best computer we have today. Why? Because it can ADAPT, it can MUTATE. It doesn't simply survive by the parameters of its environment it can actually do thinks spontaneously. Now some may argue that it just means that these things have more complex algorithms than we do and that eventually we will be able to simulate that but they are forgetting the chaos/complexity theory.

And for these polymorphic programs, why? Ok, it's effective and simple but you can't do any micromanagements and inspections to see if the program works right at the spot. If you pull a bunch of abstract concepts together, how do you know what unexpected results could be caused?

Isn't that exactly what we think when we "TEACH" human children? We cannot micromanage them, and we can't inspect them to make sure they are working right. We can't even predict if unexpected results will be caused. That is part of this emulation of the human brain.

Also using fuzzy logic and trinary (I have no idea about this) would it make computers less digital? I think computers easily could slip out of our control if we don't know exactly what they're doing.

No, they aren't less digital... the term Digital refers to absolute states (1 and 0) while analog refers to a fluctuating state (a wave that travels BETWEEN 0 and 1). So Trinary will only be another step along the path of digital. As far as slipping out of our control, until computers manage to function without the need for electricity it will always be a simple matter of pulling the plug.

On the other hand... if you have seen the film "The Matrix" You will know that sometimes pulling the plug isn't easy.

[kedaman]

I have seen Matrix, yes, and I don't like it. In their world, there was a line "beyond this line computers control you" and on the other side "You control the computers." What was happening was that people going closer and closer this line, and without knowing they were on the other side were "computers control you". That is what is about to happen in our world too. (People may not agree here) But if were looking at our history, we have getting closer this line than ever. How deeply we ever beleive that we wont step over this line, some people will, and they will attract people to that side. (This is my vision, but others may also have corresponding theories.) The authority to "Pull the plug" concept will be given to more lesser people. Resulting in a gap between peoples, The controlled and the controllers (unless we all go to the controlled and let computers rule us)

In my book, the higher Being, is on the controlled side and will not attemt block if people needs to take back control. Actually as everything is working as a clockwork on the planet, there is no need to make certain decisions that will not follow any rules. As soon as the Alien ones, arrives the higher being will bring back the virtual democracy, to make decisions.

About mutation, why can't we make machines do that. Yes we can make it able to modify its source code if we want to. But I think we don't. I think also that we don't want to compare computers with children. But we could easily "pull the plug" of both of them. heh, that was not funny.

The RND function returns something between 0 and 1 and it's certainly not analog. However it is more simulating something anolog than binary that returns 0 or 1. If we can do almost everything except of analog variables, why is there need for trinary? I'm just asking. I don't know. Tell me.

[chockenberry]

If any of you read the newest previews of VB 7.0 you would find some of his requests are already implemented. The newest key features are:

Collapsible Routines
True Inheritence(Visual and Code based)
Customizable Code Format/Color
Built in Error Handling(Try..Throw..Finally)
Free Threading

[Hmpf]

Errrrrrr Thats all i have to say

You are Babling About Color Modification While i am trying to Type my name 100 times

well not excatly

but i am trying to solve my VB modem problems
and it never occur to me that it needs color modifcation

Hey , Are u Pondering What i am pondering
I bet your'e not

but here is an idea
i found in the internet a software called BrainWave Generator
it sends Low Freq Sounds To THe Brain
try to find an option called : "Terminator - The Colors Of Distruction 3 "

I Found Just "Meditation 3 "

But Hey , Thats My Brain




Goodbye and goodluck

[vbAlex]

all your descriptions sound like "the matrix" (movie) where the computers control the people and use them as a source of energy.....

it's a really good movie !!!

[Hmpf]

Haha Vbalex , is the first one that talks wisdomly

I also loved the matrix
Great Piece Of Work

I also Liked The PostMan

But Thats Another Thing and irrelevant

[Gen-X]

The RND Function isn't even SLIGHTLY random at all.

What it does is takes the number of seconds passed midnight when you turned your computer on, performs a complex equasion based on the clocking cycle of your machine and comes up with a pseudo-random number.

If you repeated the conditions under which you turned your machine on you would get EXACTLY the same set of numbers coming out of the RND function.

They HAVE however come up with a new way of getting random numbers (Thermal Noise) but again this is dependant on how hot your CPU is running and isn't truely random.

You also ask why we cannot "program" computers to mutate... Isn't it obvious?!!? To program something means it is no longer random, it is no longer a "mutation" because we have told it to do it at some point. We don't even understand how mutation works at the moment so how can we program a computer to do something we cannot understand.


That is why computers will never be MORE intelligent than us... because we can only give them what we KNOW and we don't KNOW all the answers so how can we make a being that has what we do not. Its the age old cliche of man.... The Creator can NEVER create something as good as itself.

[HarryW]

When you say that the inability to predict how things might turn out also exists in childraising, why would anyone actually want to build that feature in? Of what benefit is it to be unable to predict how a system will resond?

About the Apache thing - I thought they used lasers to track your eye's movement. Maybe I'm wrong. I can't actually remember where I got that from, and maybe it's an older version of the targetting system.

Also, Gen-X, you said that computers can never be more intelligent than us, because we cannot create something which knows more than we do. Maybe so, but did our ancestors (our creators) know more than us? I would say they knew less than us. We have the ability to learn things, that is why we know more now than the human race did even yesterday. We were not born with this knowledge.

So I agree that we cannot create something which is more intelligent than ourselves (not immediately) but to say that computers can never be more intelligent than us? That is assuming that they will never learn, and never is a word that needs careful thought before it is used. Depending on your theory of time, time may or may not be infinite, but there's definitey plenty of it left to develop computers that learn.

Oh and about randomness - I seem to remember that something that is truly random is white noise in an electronic signal. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that this can be harnessed.

On the subject of digital and analog, digital is not about numbers or values, it's about states. On or off. High or low. In the case of trinary I suppose that would be positive, negative or (in this case a value is a state) zero.

I would imagine Amoebae adapt through their mutation, in a similar manner to how bacteria adapt to antibiotics, the susceptible variations simply die, and the resistant ones live on to create an adapted population. This is not active adaptation, it is performed through mutation.

I would agree that emulating the human brain is not enough to say you have replicated it. There is a big difference between emulation and modelling. To re-create the processes in a human brain requires the properties to be modelled first, and the behaviours must then emerge, without being specifically defined.

Just a few of my thoughts on the subject.

[kedaman]

GENX:
I know RND is not random, but with some Randimize timer, is enough random for my apps. Also Rnd is great for use with creating scenarios based on a random number generator. RND -1:Randomize x

I know programming is not to mutate but creating ability to mutate can be done by programming. I'm not saying that we could program a mutation, but we could make machines that mutates. If you believe in evolution, you can see that we are predecessors from very primitive lifeforms, nobody actually created us, we're result of evolution. If you do not belive in evolution, then you must think that a higher being have created us, or that we are a coincidence and that bigbang/a creation of universe never happened. Im saying that if evolution is possible, we could imitate it.

HarryW: I agree, we need control over computers, I do not agree, as I explained, evolution is our creators (if, im not sure), but never our predecessors. I agree, it's about states, that in combinations will cause more complex values. But we cannot create analog variables, that can contain all values, the big R. ie sqr(2) and pi. Emulating brain behaivour (I think they have done this already at a simple stage) is not what I meant with emulating brain. I meant that we some day could copy the brain with nanotechnique, and emulate a true brain.

I need more details, not asbstract discussions like these. I allready have my abstracts in my book. Thanks so far anyway!

[chockenberry]

First, to say we evolved or just happened in today’s age of scientific enlightenment is ludicrous. What Darwin described as black boxes to opened and revealed, have actually revealed to opposite of what he desired. He hoped that when the eye for example was understood, it would be found to be a simple mechanism. What we have found instead is it is extremely complex.

Therefor, we can surmise that there must be a Creator. We would never say the a car or computer just happened, or that the sand evolved to silicon, and eventually became computer chips. No, we know they were created. So, if there is a creator, it does not matter how smart we have become, we did not create each other. We are, and can never be greater than the creator.

I would think therefor, that we could never creator a computer that would become smarter or greater than ourselves as a race. Even if we programmed it to learn, it would have to learn in the manner in which it was programmed to learn, and we could anticipate how and what it would learn through simulation programs that have the same logic. Computer sentience and artificial intelligence will always be just that, artificial, not real intelligence. It will be like vinyl, its just not real enough to fool anyone.

[HarryW]

As I understand it, the brain is built on neural nets. These are obviously very complex when brought together in the correct way, but individually they are, I would think, modellable. There are many more inputs than outputs in a neural net and these outputs are connected to the inputs of many more neural nets.

Okay, so assuming I have remembered that correctly, who's to say that a system that was similar in operation to a brain could not be constructed if the knowledge of the architecture of each net was available?

chockenberry: Maybe YOU can surmise that there was a creator from that, but personally I don't claim to be able to account for what happened in the last 15 billion or whatever years since the universe began.

Okay, so assuming there was a creator, and (quite obviously) we did not create each other, how does that imply that we can never be greater? I am not comparing mankind to God here (I assume that's what you mean by The Creator) but on what basis are you making these supposedly logical assumptions?

Before I get flamed by evangelists, I would like to state now that I am open minded to all religious views, so long as they are not forced on anyone or held up as fact that everyone should recognise. I have quite enough of my own to be adding other people's.

[chockenberry]

Harry,

My only question to you, is how do you come by your beliefs? Do you believe anything a professor tels you to be fact, or that the media throws at you as fact, even though it is openly admitted by the scientific community to be theory?Or do you research it yourself?

I, having been an athiest and evolutionist who set out to prove all though crazy christians wrong, can state catagoricly that I failed miserably. I could sit here and write out ten or twenty pages on this, but will address one simple thing you listed as fact. 15 billion years? You gotta be joking. First, carbon dating has been shown to be wrong across the board, second, as I look into the situation, I find that there is to much evidance that this planets could not be that old(i.e. the rate the earth is pulling away from the sun, the rate the moon is pulling away from the earth, the amount of lunar dust accumulated, etc...). You can believe what you want, but I must say it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in Christ.

[HarryW]

Hey I never said what my beliefs were. As a matter of fact I would like to think that there is a God, and if I'm anything I'm Catholic, but in my opinion my belief is not based on logic.

Oh and yes, of course I believe what the media tells me, yeah, just the same way as anyone who buys the Sunday Sport buys it for the high quality literature.

I am categorically NOT dismissing the concept of a creator, but your post was based on logical inferences that, in my opinion, did not hold true.

[chockenberry]

Touche'

[HarryW]

Hehe

Thanks. We must do this again sometime

[kedaman]

15 billion years since Bigbang, not Earths birth.

I'm officially lutheran, actually. But also, I don't beleive in a dot of this world is really existing, yeah, I'm one of those who really "don't beleive in nothing", which means I don't beleive in evolution, creation of greater beings, or any other theories. Never. But one thing I do believe is that whatever this is, it was created by "God", the word does not matter. This does not mean that I give a **** about everything, maybe we live in a world like matrix, or a computer simulation of life (THGTTG) =) but still I want to believe in things, but I never could be 100% sure of things. Even mathematical things like 2+2=4. It's just logics that I've learned from our worlds behaivour. (This is also a maybe) In another universe they have found that 5-7=9 (It's not working in our universe, it's not logical, but in their universe, it's basic math and to answer 2 at 1+1= will give 0 points (or maybe 1 point?)). Now, don't call evolution ludicrous, because it's a world wide spread theory, generally accepted in all sciences. And for me it seems logical but I can't tell you that I "beleive in it".

Some question here, Do you people believe that matter is everything in our world? Is physics gonna explain everything?

Is there anything that is called "soul" that needs to be attached to a lifeform, so that it should function properly? Can this "soul" make decisions or is it the lifeforms brain that does this?

If not we could create an animal, brain or human being, that functions properly and can be identical to one of us. (By using the statement FileCopy source, destination)
If there is a connection between "soul" and lifeform then we should get a simulation of something, or worse if this "soul" is to make decisions, dead matter.

[Iain17]

No matter what you say Kedaman, in no world would 5-7 = 9. Unless of course they had a differnt numbering system and their 5 was equivelant to say 10 and their 7 was equivelant to 1. Though these could be any numbers that produce 9. Or 9 might actually be -2.

In any case all i am saying is that if you have 1 item and you get another item then no matter which universe or numbering system you decide to use you will still have 2 items.

Though this thread is very interesting, and their are obviously some very intellegent people out there, that or they are sitting their typing in a statemnt written by someone else. A lot of yuor arguments are coming from false premises. And if you have ever done statistics you will know that if you start from a false premise you can prove anything. e.g.

Starting from the premise that 2 = 1 (which it blatanly doesn't) i can prove that i am God.

2 = 1.
God and Me are two entities.
Seeing as 2 = 1, me and god are one.
Therefore i am God.

Which is also blatant crap.

[kedaman]

I know, it's crap. But apparently you didn't understand what I was saying. Universe means everything, not just all particles energyforms, time and space, but also all laws of nature, the rules of this universe. In another universe say 67-dimensional crap-crap-crap version 4.987 We don't have these rules, maybe they don't even have something called time, It's all about existence. Also everything logical to us, may not apply to them, like 1+1=2 that is true in our world, but int their world not even false or true but #?(¤. This is just a thought: if there is other universes.

[Gen-X]

This is my personal opinion.

Evolution is crap

The current theories of evolution, spontaneous mutation and survival of the fittest only looks at the tip of the iceberg as far as the processes of life evolving on our planet are concerned.

Darwin while absolutely brilliant for his time was someone who floated on a BOAT. He saw everything there was to see from the surface but didn't have the equipment or even the perspicacity to bother looking below the surface.

I can sum up my opinion with one simple example :

Evolution tells us that life mutates randomly, and that when this mutation provides a Trait which is beneficial to the environment it lives in then that will proliferate, thus causing the "Evolution" of that species such that all members now have this new trait which increases their chance of survival.

Lets look at the Bat.

It mutated big ears. Is that a benefit? NO

It mutated a piercing scream. Is that a benefit? NO

It mutated a brain to process sonar. Is that a benefit? NO

Its only when the Bat mutated ALL THREE SIMULTANEOUSLY that a Trait that was of benefit was seen.

The laws of evolution tell us that mutation is a random event and that it happens sporadically throughout life in general. That makes it completely and TOTALLY impossible for a species to spontaneously mutate multiple traits that work in perfect uniscon to bring about a more adaptable species..... And it proves that Evolution did NOT occur as they say it did.

If you would like to hear my theory on what DOES happen I am happy to tell people.... But just have a good think about what I have said before trying to defend our current theory....

Remember... The "current" theory several hundred years ago was that the earth was FLAT... just because an entire world believes something does NOT make it true

[Gen-X]

I thought I would separate this from the other topic because it would get lost.

You mentioned to me about our ancestors knowing less than us and yet we are the product that eventually knows more.

Unforuntately you are talking about a completely different topic to the one which I was discussing.

Our Ancesstors did not create us... they simply gave birth to us... they did not sit down and design our blood vessels, our neurons, hearts and livers... they did not assemble everything together and come up with us... they simply copulated.

I was not talking about the progeny of a species eventually reaching a point of higher enlightenment... I was talking about the ability for a being to CREATE another being... that means knowing absolutely everything that went into it.. not simply using the existing pattern of genetic reproduction to serve its purpose.

Does that make sense?


The other point... about the mutation of computers to "evolve" as we did.

Our genetic pattern is a blueprint, every single possible eventuality and response to stimulation exists inside that blueprint. Mutation while it does occur is NOT responsible for evolution (See my reply to the other post) and those things which ARE responsible for evolution still have to follow a set of given rules.

We don't even UNDERSTAND the rules of evolution, or self-thought, self-awareness, emotions, irrationality....

So how can we ever program a computer to understand them?


Some say that because we "evolved" from single cell organisms that we could perhaps create a single celled computer and "evolve" it like we ourselves evolved... but again that requires us to know EXACTLY what the encoding was on the genetic structure of that single celled organism which we do not.

If we cannot even tell the pattern that created us how can we ever attempt to duplicate it!?!?!?!

Why do you think the cloning that is done today simply replaces the chromosomes of an already existing zygote and allows it to continue development inside a normal entity as if it was being naturally reproduces?

Its because we cannot actually CLONE... we can only fiddle

[V(ery) Basic]

There is no God.

We would all like to believe in a God, since our
brains cannot cope with the concept of 'alone'. When we imagine of people dying, we think of them watching over us
in heaven. Very cuddly, but it's a lot of bull.

God is a figment of our imagination. He is the answer to
every question which has no other answer, but not a correct
answer.
What's at the edge of the universe? More universe. And at
the end of that? Erm, God.

See? It's an all too easy way out of reality: there is not
superior being.

The world has been around for 4,600,000,000 years. In that time it was almost inevitable that (when life had formed) a 'superior' race would evolve. And that race is us. All our inventions were chance, it does seem like a lot of
chance, but I like to think of it like this:

If something happened (ie we discovered fire) then
something else didn't happen. After discovering fire
we, by chance, discovered how to farm. (It was bound to
happen sooner or later). With these luxuries, the human
race was able to advance more quickly than any other, as
with heat, shelter, and food, we had more time to think.
With thought we found out things, we experimented, we tried
to make sense of things.

We found sand made silicon by putting it on a fire (by
accident, again?). The thing is, things are bound to
happen, and there are many great discoveries still to be
made, since thise particular 'chances' haven't happened yet.

The univers began with a series of one-in-a-million chances
all following eachother. But think how many times these
chances HADN'T followed eachother, it was bound to happen
sonner or later.

Our world is all a series of chances, which had they gone
differently, we wouldn't be here to think about them.

Do you see the relevance of my last point? If 'we' hadn't
happened we wouldn't be here to be thinking about 'us'.
Therefore if we did come to existance (which we did) then we weren't created, we were just lucky.

The universe is one big lottery.

And an infinite lottery with infinite chances and infinite
possibilities, and we are just the outcome of a series of
events that happened by chance.

If you must believe in God, that God is luck.

And that luck produced us.

[Gen-X]

Iain

Firstly.. I dont mean to be rude... but you can't read!!!

The last postulate of the BAT was that it had a "brain capable of processing sonar"... NOT that the bat itself could listen in sonar... that is what the Ears and the Scream were for.

That was my point. In order to make a benefit the Bat had to do ALL of those things simultaneously in order to gain the ability of using echo-location. If it only did 1 then it would not be a benefit.

Because you can't think passed your nose

- Ears were only in SIZE, NOT increased ability to hear
- Scream was sub-sonic it couldn't scare anything but dogs (Thought you would have realised this one)
- Brain has nothing to process unless it has the ears to receive as a dish and the sub-sonic scream to pick up.

So I reiterate AGAIN (I did ask you to think about it first but obviously you didn't).

As for there being a God.... My thoughts are simple.

"God CANNOT exist because if he did his curelty and depravity in allowing injustice, famine, death, murder and the raping of little boys by catholic priests would only highlight that he is not PERFECT... and if he is not PERFECT then he cannot be a God"

Explain that one (And no "He has a higher purpose" drivel... that only shows blatant stupidity)

[HarryW]

*Puts on shades* Jeez it's getting hot in here! Lets all try to get along shall we? This is an interesting topic and it's a shame to see it spiral into a slanging match or God/no God argument. I don't personally feel I'm smart enough to say whether God is or isn't.

Anyway back to the topic...

When I mentioned our ancestors creating us, I didn't mean in terms of conciously building a living system of cells, I was referring to your analogy of teaching computers like we teach children. My point is that if you are going to say a computer can learn in the same way a child does, then how is it unreasonable to say that they might learn something more than we know? If the initial knowledge it has is the same as that of the system's creator(s), then it may be able to reason something out of it that we don't know.

'Mutation is not responsible for evolution'. Well I'm glad you cleared that one up for us all But seriously, if you think it all makes that much sense, write a paper on it and get it published in a scientific journal. There are many people researching this area I'm sure, and if you have something valuable to contribute, then you should make your findings known.

The concepts of self awareness, emotions and irrationality are pretty high-order functions and I'm not even sure if my cat is self aware. As I said previously, if we can understand neural nets then complex systems can be built up from them. I'm not saying it will be easy though. And your point about needing to understand the way the brain works in some of these areas is a valid one, although I don't imagine anything like this happening in the near future.

You make a lot of references to the impossibilities due to our lack of understanding, but that understanding may come with time and research. This is a complex issue and I don't think anyone can state any certainties.

Well anyway, about the bat analogy: I agree that these traits are not particularly useful individually. However, I would ask you to consider the converse argument - Of what detriment is it to the bat to have any of these traits? Just because a bat does not prosper above its peers does not mean that it is worse off. Apart from that, these changes did not happen overnight. I shouldn't think one day a baby bat with jumbo sized ears, a fully functioning sonar processing system and an ultrasonic squeak was born. The changes were, according to evolution, many and various and very, very slow.

As for your definition of a god, erm, excuse me but who ever defined what a god was and what a god should and shouldn't be like? As always I am ducking the issue of whether god exists or not, but I object to people making logical inferences which are a product of their own made-up rules.

By the way, that word..*Searches for word*...'perspicacity' - I haven't come across that before, what does it mean please?