The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Profile of paros
  3. Show Posts
  4. Messages
  • Profile Info
    • Summary
    • Show Stats
    • Show Posts
      • Messages
      • Topics
      • Attachments
      • Thanked Posts
      • Posts Thanked By User
    • Show User Topics
      • User Created
      • User Participated In

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

  • Messages
  • Topics
  • Attachments
  • Thanked Posts
  • Posts Thanked By User

Messages - paros

Pages: [1] 2
1
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Why am I having trouble with Tolman's paradox?
« on: 22/06/2014 20:03:43 »
Reference material:

http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv6i21p1.pdf  (see diagram on page 5)

___

I still cannot see how a tachyon that merely moves faster than light necessarily reverses the order of events. I have been drawing Minkowski diagrams for several hours and I am still not seeing it.  All the diagrams that propose to demonstrate reverse causality merely draw in a tachyon moving backwards in time.  Thus as far as I am concerned they are inserting the conclusion into the premise.  The diagram from page five above is incorrect as far as I am concerned.  All signals traveling from B to A,  (be they tachyon, photon, or sound wave) must traverse from right-to-left going upwards.  Not downwards as tachyon2 was drawn in the PDF. 

Here is the original diagram followed by my correction:



Upon asking a non-expert, I was informed that I must have an accelerated frame whose future contains the past of a stationary observer.   So I did that exact thing.   I see no reverse causality again. Only that the tachyon will arrive prior to the light signal from A0.   The diagram below shows a stationary observer `"A"` and an observer `"B"` in an accelerated reference frame:



I still do not see how reversal of events can happen here. Only when we presume that tachyons "move backwards in time"  does this manifest. But I cannot see how that is asserted merely by a tachyon traversing a more shallow slope on the diagram than the light cone. 

More precisely:  Please explain why the tachyon from observer B to observer A must necessarily move backwards  in time in  ('downwards') the reference frame of A.




2
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Wheeler-Dewitt equation in plain english
« on: 28/01/2014 03:01:32 »
Thanks for the reply.
I noticed you didn't mention anything about time in your response.  All time vanishes in the Wheeler-DeWitt, which is usually the big, hot topic involved in this equation.

3
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Wheeler-Dewitt equation in plain english
« on: 27/01/2014 09:40:32 »
I have been studying canonical gravity theories lately and I have encountered the Wheeler-Dewitt equation.  I was wondering if anyone here knows physics well enough to answer some questions I have about that equation.   To the best of my knowledge, I will attempt to translate what the equation says into plain english. My translation is probably wrong.  I would welcome any corrections and the harshest criticism.

We are going to be looking at integrals taken over something called a phase space.  This is different from the so-called "path-integral formulation" of   QFT. Those are usually called  "flat space quantization".   The integral we are taking is the integral of the gravitational field over all possible (static) wave functions of all possible universes. This integral will have an associated functional that will associate the integral with a scalar. Call this scalar the "Hamiltonian Constraint."    The Wheeler-DeWitt equation in english goes:

H(x)|psi> = 0
"The functional over all possible universe phase states, given as a wave function, has a Hamiltonian Constraint equal to zero."


I don't disagree with the validity of that statement.  But I want to really understand what that means.  What sorts of realistic changes would see in a universe where the Hamiltonian Constraint was non-zero?

The only situation in which this equation had any application, that I know of, is in the Hartle-Hawking State. This might mean it is a toy model for cosmology, rather than a description of the universe as it exists now chock full  of galaxies. If I am wrong, correct away as you feel fit!

4
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Have you read Emmy Noether's Wonderful Theorem?
« on: 13/09/2013 21:55:24 »
This is a book which covers the relationship between conservation laws and symmetries in physical laws of nature. The book goes into depth about the meanings of Hamiltonian Mechanics and the Euler-Lagrange equation.  The Principle of Least Action is a central theme running through the chapters of the book.   

Has anyone read this or have a copy around?

http://www.amazon.com/Noethers-Wonderful-Theorem-Dwight-Neuenschwander/dp/0801896940


5
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Which one of these sentences best depicts the 'Principle of Least Action'?
« on: 13/09/2013 20:21:23 »
Quote from: imatfaal on 13/09/2013 11:43:44
The principle of least action is that the integral of the Lagrangian is minimized - but, as this is intimately connected with total energy in most investigations.

Exactly. But what does this mean ??

Could you expand on what you mean by "intimately connected" ?

To answer this question, can you describe a universe (with conserved energy) in which least action is not abided by?  What sorts of differences would we see with falling apples and trajectories of objects and such?  (...or use any other toy example that best describes these differences)

Now those questions can be answered in several different ways. One way to answer them would be saying,  "If energy is conserved, it must be the case that the integral over the Lagrangian is minimized".  i.e.  PoLA is a different way of phrasing energy conservation. If one, then the other.  If energy conserved, then PoLA falls out at the bottom of the proverbial chalkboard. 

Is that true?  Or rather is PoLa a separable, disconnected property added on top or besides energy conservation?  Or are they two ways of stating the same thing? 

Again, the best way to answer these questions is describe some toy scenario in which energy is conserved, but PoLA is not abided by.

My best understanding at this point (today) is that the larger potential energy becomes, the faster it is converted back into kinetic energy, and the lower it becomes the slower it is converted.  I'm looking for some sort of rule-of-thumb way of understanding PoLA as well as  Hamilton's principle.  I know exactly what the equations say and I can repeat them back to you on a test. I can blindly apply Hamilton's principles to exercises in a textbook with pinpoint accuracy and get my A+ in the class.   But I want something more.  I want a more well-rounded understanding of what this means for our universe.

6
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Which one of these sentences best depicts the 'Principle of Least Action'?
« on: 13/09/2013 20:09:02 »
alancalverd,

This is a miscommunication. I meant to use the phrase "evolve in time", and I was not referring to biology.

7
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Which one of these sentences best depicts the 'Principle of Least Action'?
« on: 13/09/2013 06:27:35 »
Which one of these sentences best depicts the Principle of Least Action? And are any of these completely false?

  • A system that is under stress or strain will evolve in such a way as to relieve that stress.
  • Physical systems attempt to convert potential energy into kinetic energy as fast as possible.
  • The total energy of a system is conserved.
  • Physical systems tend to maximize potential energy. (?)
  • A physical system evolves in such a way as to keep the the kinetic energy nearly equal to the potential energy, if it can.

Before answering, I'm searching for an underlying philosophical principle, not more equations and more jargon. We all know what the equations say, and we can all go to wikipedia and find out how to define "action" as an integral and then demand the change in the path is a 'stationary point' in terms of calculus of variations. Yes and yes. We all know this already. We can bog each other down in jargon until we are blue in the face. But I'm trying to pin down what the equations MEAN in terms of the ontology and dynamics of the physical world.

8
New Theories / description of my research
« on: 12/08/2013 19:18:58 »
In 2009 I completed a piece of software inspired by Ken Stauffer's Evolve4.0c.  These simulations are called "ecosystem simulations" because they are genetic algorithms performed in "real space" with organisms who must live out their lives in an environment.   We use simple grid worlds to perform this simulation, because evolution is gratuitously slow, and desktop computers are limited in power.   Superficially, this research is categorized as "Artificial Life" , or ALife.

There are two styles of  ALife to speak of. One is the 1990s-styled Alife, and the other is 21st century Alife. 

In the 1990s-styled Alife sim, the organisms are given high-level actions to perform in the environment such as "ATTACK" and "EAT", or most embarrassingly, "REPRODUCE".   These are actions normally associated with entities who live in video games.  Regardless of this roughshod approach, those simulations did actually exhibit Darwinian natural selection, and they would self-perpetuate for weeks on end.  1990s-styled ALife stands as proof-of-principle for natural selection actually working the way scientists say it does.

21st-century styled Alife will henceforth be called 21C-Alife for short.  In rudimentary form, the simulation will primarily be concerned with some sort of "machine" which builds a copy of itself.  In these simulations we do not take for granted behaviors as eating or even reproducing.  An "attack" command would not be allowed.   Instead we want eating to actually physically be performed by the simulation's kinematics. Reproducing does not happen instantly, instead the organisms within the simulation have the duty of actually constructing  a copy of themselves in realtime from parts.  Things like "eating" are then seen as very abstract actions.  "Eating" is the machine selecting and discarding portions of the environment that it takes into itself through a pore in its body ("mouth").  Abstractly, "eating" is a form of discrimination of the environmental material by the organism/machine. In most cases the concept of "body" is also abstract here.

Despite the name I have given, 21C,  initial work on this was done by John Von Neumann in the 1950s. He wanted a cellular automaton that could reproduce a copy of itself,  with the target of the research being the question "Can a machine build a copy of itself?".   Von Neumann showed the answer to that question is yes. 

For decades, this research floundered and went ignored.  Very recently it has been picked up again by Tim Hutton, Robert Freitas, Ralph Merkle, and myself.  There is a parallel research tract being done by biochemists to produce a nano-scale protocell using real DNA, PNA, or similar.  It is my opinion that both approaches should inform one another. 

A number of foundational questions lie at the center of this research.

  • What is the qualitative difference between the self-replication seen in crystal growth, versus the replication of offspring from a stored string/data/genotype?   In the most abstract, mathematical descriptions of self-replication, we can assert that the various branches of a snowflake are "copies of themselves".  But that seems to be lacking something; some je ne sais quoi, which we understand only intuitively. Can we quantify this intuitive notion?    Progress on this question may involve deeper understanding of the relationship between form and function.
  • What precisely is the difference between raw material to be eaten for the purposes of building up parts of a machine's body, versus the machine's body?  In other words, how random does the "soup of raw materials" need to be for the machine to be said to be "constructing" itself to begin with?    This question is asking for a quantitative answer to what the verb "to construct" actually means.
  • The existence of self-replicators has two questions. Existence question 1.  Can replicators only exist in our universe at the molecular level?
  • Existence question 2.  Molecular self-replicators exist. Look out your window to see a tree.  That was easy to confirm.  However, trees have no eyes, no central nervous system, and they do not copy themselves through the use of levers, arms, or grippers.  Pushing the proverbial pendulum to the far extreme, we can imagine factories wherein the human engineers have been replaced by powerful artificial intelligence Androids, complete with hand-eye coordination,  complex memories, and language.  So we have a spectrum with two trivial answers standing at the poles.  Molecular self-assembly, "Tree-like" replication on one end, and powerful androids working factories at the opposite end.  Existence question 2 asks, are there any plausible replicators between these two extremums?   

In regards to the existence question no.2,  it is the opinion of this author that Von Nuemann's constructor strongly suggests that there can exist such a replicator between the two trivial extremes. That machine would be an artifact operating at "macro" scales that is capable of building a high-fidelity copy of itself.  Its manifestation in reality may end up being smaller than can be seen with the human eye, (but still significantly larger than molecules) and some early versions may have to replicate underwater.

Starting from a discipline of computer simulation, an ALife simulation containing self-replicating constructors is desired. And this simulation raises questions about how large the "genotype/data/tape" would need to be relative to the size of the rest of the machine.  Orthodox approaches derived from Von Neumann usually have the tape's information in identical size to the rest of the machine's parts, but this requirement is not strict.  This is seen in the videos linked in citation.

In any case, this research is highly interdisciplinary, and so the citations are drawn from branches of science that are widely separated. 


Citations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor




{book} Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines (Landes Bioscience, 2004) ISBN 1-57059-690-5

For comprehensive citations see, http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=48610.0



9
New Theories / interdisciplinary science forums
« on: 09/08/2013 21:06:00 »
I was wondering if anyone knew a place on the internet where people discuss science and technology topics that are interdisciplinary. I would like a place where people actually read the books that are brought up and are capable of genuinely discussing the material inside those books. I'm currently working on material that is included within the following publications. I want to apply the material in them to actual simulations or chemical lab experiments (if necessary). I cannot simply sit alone in a room and just read books. I need to "bounce ideas" of those who understand what I am asking and what I am working on.

The materials I am currently working with are listed here:
  • Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines , (Freitas Jr. R.A., Merkle R.C. ), (Landes Bioscience 2004), ISBN-10: 1570596905, ISBN-13: 978-1570596902
  •   Biology's First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems , ( McShea D.W. , Brandon R.N.), (University Of Chicago Press 2010), ISBN-10: 0226562263, ISBN-13: 978-0226562261
  •   Principles of Life , (Ganti, T), ( Oxford University Press USA 2003), ISBN-10: 0198507267, ISBN-13: 978-0198507260
  •   Protocells. Bridging Living and Non-living Matter , (Rasmussen S., Bedau M.A.), ( MIT Press, Nov.2008), ISBN: 9780262182683
  •   Signs Of Life. How Complexity Pervades Biology , (Sole R., Goodwin B. ), (Basic Books, Jan.2002), ISBN-10: 0465019285, ISBN-13: 978-0465019281
  •   Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life , (Rauchfuss H.) , (Springer, Dec.2008) ISBN-10: 3540788220, ISBN-13: 978-3540788225
  •   The Origin of Species , (Darwin, C.), (Barnes & Noble Classics, Dec.2003), ISBN-10: 1593080778, ISBN-13: 978-1593080778

Like to talk to someone who has read at least one of these and is ready to discuss. I would be tickled pink. Thanks.

10
Just Chat! / Intelligence as an Illusion?
« on: 08/03/2008 03:55:24 »
Quote from: rhade on 06/03/2008 10:47:08
If one is good at maths, but not English, does that make that person unintelligent? Or one could be a writer, but not much good at maths (like me) does that make one less intelligent? Or supposing you have a talent at sport. The brain has to make thousands of computations to kick a ball a particular way, etcetera ( I'm stealing one of Dr. Karl's points here). There are many different ways to view intelligence.

Yes because nearly all of them are wrong.  When young students start studying neuroscience or Artificial Intelligence they bring with them suitcases full of prejudices about how the mind works.  These prejudices can be couched in everything from religion to philosophy or even a false belief that the brain is like a motherboard inside a PC.

Let me just shoot down one of the things you implied in your post here.  You (implicitly) claimed that intelligence is somehow measurable as computations per second. 

Well, a microprocessor sends signals across itself roughly 10 thousand times faster than signals travel in the brain of a squirrel.  (We are talking the difference between nanoseconds vs milliseconds).  Yet show me a single supercomputer that can control a robot with the acrobatics and grace of a squirrel balancing on a branch.    If anything, motor coordination has something to do with good integration, rather than raw computational speed.  We build microprocessors a certain way because we require to understand how they work, so we can program them, so we can use them.   I guess the comparison here would be the wiring diagram of a squirrel's brain.  Is it possible, even in theory, to look at that diagram and "understand" how it operates?

11
Just Chat! / Intelligence as an Illusion?
« on: 08/03/2008 03:33:52 »
Quote from: another_someone on 01/03/2008 17:22:19
I would disagree that any other definition is doomed to failure, but I am quite happy with the definition you have offered (it is actually not so far from the definition I proposed - I used the term 'problem solving', whereas you are using the term 'adaptive behaviour' - I don't see a huge gulf between them).

There is no relationship between those two things!  "Problem solving" is business-speak. It is like an executive/corporate buzzword.  That's the way somebody who reads the Wall Street Journal would try to define intelligence in relation to an IQ test that they wholeheartedly believe actually measures something.

Anyway....
I think in terms of a scientific/biological/neuroscience perspective,  problem-solving would be subsumed under the behavior normally called PLANNING.   What is the "problem" that intelligence provides a "solution" to?  It's a failed way of looking at this.   In any case, it is fine for a philosopher to look at the world as "problems" with "solutions" but in science no such claims can be made.  We have to be a little more careful with our wording. 


Quote
The problem I have is that you seem to be implying that collectives of individuals (societies, even species) do not exhibit collective adaptation behaviour.  I cannot accept this assertion.

"Collective adaptation behavior" is a mental abstraction.  The only reason you cannot accept the assertion is because you are inventing mental categories up in your own head and then demanding I cater to them.  What you are probably going to do now is  conflate "adaptive behavior" with something like BIOLOGICAL CHANGE, and then point at a tree that heals itself and demand I admit that its "adapting its behavior".


Quote
As you say, homo sapiens have harnessed fire and developed complex language, but what you quite rightly did not say is that an individual homo sapien harnessed fire or developed complex language.

I'm pretty sure what I wrote was that humans have the ABILITY to control fire, which is completely different from saying "fire was harnessed".   I was not intending to point at technology and go "LOOK! Problem solving! Intelligence!".  I think that's what your own mind read, but it's not what I wrote or intended to communicate.   The use of fire is not in our genetics.  It is culture and has to be picked up by watching someone else do it during our lifetime.  That means that you have a suite of behaviors that you are born with, but using fire is not one of them. That particular behavior has to be learned.   So the suite of innate behaviors does not contain those which you engage in now as an adult.   It follows that your behavior changed.  More accurately, it follows that your behavior adapted.



Quote
Then again, we are not the only species to have developed language (in various forms), and there are species (such as bats and dolphins) that have learnt to use sound in ways that until the 20th humans had not learnt to master (and even then, they could only learn to master with the development of machines, and then the development was as a collective, since no individual could have made the development possible on their own).

That's simply false, sir.   Bats did not "LEARNT" to use sonar to navigate.   Natural selection produced that ability in their genes.  That is completely different from learning.   Cats have much better reflexes than human beings.  Birds of prey have much better vision than human beings.  However, human beings are many orders of magnitude more intelligent than birds.  What's the essential difference?   The difference is that we can CHANGE our behavior, and they cannot.

Let me make an analogy. A computer can perform long division several million times a second, and do so for hours on end, without messing up a SINGLE DIGIT.   Does this make your computer more intelligent than you?  Of course not.  They burn the circuitry into an integrated circuit during manufacture, and the entire behavior of that microchip can be completely described by a list of short machine code instructions.  (The list is called the Instruction Set). The chip's behavior cannot CHANGE.  In fact, if it does change, it is considered faulty.  Again, you can change your behavior, and the long-dividing supercomputer cannot.

I don't mean to get personal here, but I'm looking at your other posts on this thread, and you are attributing intelligence to bacteria, which don't even have a central nervous system.  I think you are trying desperately to define intelligence as some sort of ability to survive in an environment, and it's not working, and so you are posting ever more absurd sentences in this thread.   Yes, if you look at an entire species of bacteria, some of them are very good at surviving.   

I just want to tell you, very clearly now, that intelligence is NOT "ability to survive in an environment".   It has never meant that in any sense at all.  Plants and bacteria are the stupidest forms of life possibly imaginable since they have no central nervous system.   

12
Just Chat! / Intelligence as an Illusion?
« on: 01/03/2008 16:59:09 »
Okay so it is a demonstrable given that trying to pin down what "most people mean" by the word intelligence is a failed project from the beginning. Fine. 

Okay so it is a demonstrable given that anyone can post into this thread and give their "own personal defn" of the word intelligence. Fine.

We can go around in semantic and cultural circles like this all day long.  Fine.

(another_someone is calling for a defn of intelligence as if it is a floating entity existing in an invisible platonic realm of ideas.  So using this poetic metaphor, he is going to refer to nonsense categories such as the "group intelligence of all bacteria of some certain species."   Or even more bizarre, he is going to refer to the "group intelligence of all human beings on earth".   I can form disembodied, metaphorical categories until I'm blue in the face.  This does not lead to progress in science.)

This is why we must define intelligence as a biological fact.  We must forget the linguistic/semantic game of trying to tie down what "most people" mean when they use the word.  I don't really care what most people mean.  That game is useless to science and biology. I hope you all see that fact as clearly as I do.

Intelligence must be scientifically defined as adaptive behavior.  An insect can change its behavior in a tiny margin and only through repeated trials of aversive stimulus pairing.   As you go up the "totem pole" of intelligence,  each successively more intelligent organism can change its behavior to a wider degree. At the top is homo sapiens that can change their behavior so rapidly and effectively that they have harnessed fire and developed complex language and use technology and drive cars etc etc.

Any other alleged definition of intelligence is doomed to failure. And you don't have to accept this conclusion on faith.  Eventually this forum thread itself is going to demonstrate the truth of it.

13
Just Chat! / Artificial Intelligence
« on: 01/03/2008 16:35:57 »
Quote from: sophiecentaur on 24/02/2008 15:16:42
That's ok
Quote from: paros on 24/02/2008 15:04:00

An exchange would mean something like 
"I was having idea X, are you aware of anyone who has published on X?"
"Yes I am, try such and such person."


that's a fair enough comment.
But why not use the standard ways of searching for learned publications?
There have always been lists of abstracts of journals and, with the Internet, it is even easier to find stuff.
Information searching is a worthwhile skill to develop.

See.. now you are simply changing the subject.  I have found publications and read them.   In fact, I have read several academic pubs from the internet that are over 200 pages long.    And the implication that you think I somehow don't have a information searching skill is an unnecessary insult.   

Academic pubs are a one-way street.   One writes and another reads. There is no EXCHANGE of ideas. I'd like an EXCHANGE of ideas.  I hope you see the difference.  I'm pretty sure I made that clear.   So what is the response of this forum?  That no such place exists anymore on the internet?  Is that the "final answer" that is being given by this forum?

14
Just Chat! / Intelligence as an Illusion?
« on: 28/02/2008 20:56:56 »
Quote from: rhade on 28/02/2008 10:57:20
Humans have hands to build things. Other creatures, which may have similar intelligence, don't have hands. I think I'm agreeing with another someone about taking human technology out of the equation here.

Okay well.  Is another_someone pointing out an absurdity in order to make a point without saying it directly, or is he actually stating what he means to say?   

I know that question sounds confusing. Let me write down the two possibilities so you can better understand what I am asking.
1) another_someone is showing that "intelligence" is a meaningless word because look at how stupid and contrarian people are when they forget to attribute any intelligence to the hardware.
2) another_someone is demanding that we should equally attribute intelligence to the hardware in order to be consistent.

Seriously, I don't know what he is 'getting at' here!

15
Just Chat! / Artificial Intelligence
« on: 24/02/2008 15:04:00 »
Actually I never made any concession to having ideas "accepted" or "rejected".

An exchange would mean something like 
"I was having idea X, are you aware of anyone who has published on X?"
"Yes I am, try such and such person."

The possibility that information may be reciprocated later is rare, but entirely possible.   If you look at my posts on the SF forum you will see me doing this exact thing.

16
Just Chat! / Re: Intelligence as an Illusion?
« on: 22/02/2008 01:04:44 »
Oh second thought, it looks like I gave you a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one.
Please disregard!    [;)]

17
Just Chat! / Re: Intelligence as an Illusion?
« on: 22/02/2008 00:56:52 »
Quote from: another_someone on 22/02/2008 00:42:14
. . . then how are we any qualitatively different from many other species . . .

The question is well stated.
Define intelligence as "adaptive behavior" and you have all you need to form a complete spectrum of all animals.

Let the scientific/biological definition of the word "intelligence" stand for adaptive behavior.  You can then form a complete totem pole of intelligence with insects at the bottom and primates and humans at the top.   Insects' behavior can be changed, but only very slightly, and only through repeated trials with an aversive stimulus.   Mammals such as cats and dogs have a much wider range of adaptation (the ability to adapt).   

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the Most Adaptive of all?   Yeah, that would be homo sapiens.

Melvin Konner authored a book (that is actually about anthropology) called The Tangled Wing.   I beleive chapter 2 of that book is called Adaptation.    You might want to peruse those pages to get an intuitive feel of the perspective I am using to deliver this post.

18
Just Chat! / Intelligence as an Illusion?
« on: 22/02/2008 00:29:07 »
Quote from: another_someone on 10/06/2006 17:51:25
Quote
Originally posted by Hadrian
This all shows us just how we and the planet are miss served by our illusion of human inelegance.

While I agree that humans can be very inelegant, I assume the word you wanted was intelligence.

Making this substitution, I would agree that much of our intelligence is illusory (this is part of the trouble in trying to define artificial intelligence, that we can never really get to grips with how illusory our own intelligence is).  The problem is that simply removing that illusion does not give us the intelligence we lack.

I'd love to talk more about this topic. 
Intelligence is an illusion? Are you taking a behaviorist stance here?  Something else?  Please expand!

MOD EDIT - See below

19
Just Chat! / Artificial Intelligence
« on: 22/02/2008 00:20:47 »
Quote from: another_someone on 15/02/2008 11:08:47
If you have read papers on the subject, then why not see if you can email the authors of the papers to ask the same question you have asked here.

Well I guess my response to this would be that these academic professionals are already kneck-deep immersed in a community of people doing research.  It's not clear that they would even 'want' a forum outside their cloistered walls.

20
Just Chat! / IEEE pubs
« on: 17/02/2008 02:15:39 »
It would be nice to have this one also.  [:P]
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jbp/is/2006/00000007/00000002/art00003

Pages: [1] 2
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.079 seconds with 65 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.