Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 22-26 August 2011 (1996-2000)
Boradis:
--- Quote from: pwhodges on 27 Aug 2011, 00:27 ---
--- Quote from: Boradis on 26 Aug 2011, 16:59 ---If this is a religious belief of yours I'll back off.
We aren't magical. If it can be done with wetware it can be done with hardware/software.
--- End quote ---
No, not religious. Just forty-five years in programming and other aspects of computing (mostly in a medical environment), plus a detailed awareness of genetics and the like,
--- End quote ---
I'm not going to challenge your claim of being a 55-or-older computer programmer and genetics expert, but ... you know how that sounds, right? I don't see how your expertise in genetics grants you deeper insight into human intelligence than the average person, but I'll take your word for it.
--- Quote from: pwhodges on 27 Aug 2011, 00:27 ---makes me feel that the mismatch between our capabilities and what's required is still almost inconceivably wide.
--- End quote ---
I didn't say it was right around the corner, and of course neither are you. But when I said "we're not magical" I was actually responding to this:
--- Quote from: pwhodges on 26 Aug 2011, 15:01 ---It may be (and I conjecture, because I don't know, any more than you do) that the task of emulating a human would bring us up against the limits of computability in such a way as would explain the uncertainty in the results in the case of humans themselves - thus possibly providing a basis for free will.
--- End quote ---
To me the above sounds vague and superstitious, like a "meddling in God's domain" hand-wave rather than an assessment of when computers will be up to it.
Edit: And I say "when" rather than "if" with confidence because I'm merely a wadded-up ball of meat the size of a small ham which has been running a human algorithm called "Robert M." for about 44.5 years now. I'm a physical thing in the physical world running a physical program made of weird-looking cells, electrons and chemical squirts. Evolution is a lot of things, but it's neither an efficiency expert nor an intelligent designer.
jwhouk:
The Internet is a case against intelligent design, but I'm more disposed to it being attributable to the human condition.
Carl-E:
--- Quote from: jwhouk on 27 Aug 2011, 04:47 ---The real basis of most Sci-Fi is the concept that one, seemingly overwhelming and impossible to overcome, problem has been figured out. Time travel, AI robotics, faster-than-light travel, genetics - it's usually one little thing that makes the difference.
--- End quote ---
A friend of mine in gradd school was in Nuclear Engineering. He was constantly upset that the only work that recieved grants was for power generation and weapons, when all he wanted to work on was a propulsion device.
We get what we pay for...
pwhodges:
--- Quote from: Boradis on 27 Aug 2011, 04:58 ---I'm not going to challenge your claim of being a 55-or-older computer programmer and genetics expert, but ... you know how that sounds, right?
--- End quote ---
Not really; eugenics had become unfashionable well before I was born. All I'm saying is that I have seen many so-called breakthroughs come and go.
--- Quote ---To me the above sounds vague and superstitious, like a "meddling in God's domain" hand-wave
--- End quote ---
Quite the opposite - I see the possibility that we might come up against the limits of strict computability within a finite physical space in trying to solve this problem, and a resort to technologies that involve probability and uncertainty then gives scope for variable answers without recourse to such flummery.
--- Quote ---Evolution is a lot of things, but it's neither an efficiency expert nor an intelligent designer.
--- End quote ---
It's actually rather good at producing the "good enough" result, though, and that's why some effort has been put into trying to emulate some aspects of it in self-improving software.
Carl-E:
--- Quote from: pwhodges on 27 Aug 2011, 08:43 ---
--- Quote from: Boradis on 27 Aug 2011, 04:58 ---Evolution is a lot of things, but it's neither an efficiency expert nor an intelligent designer.
--- End quote ---
It's actually rather good at producing the "good enough" result, though, and that's why some effort has been put into trying to emulate some aspects of it in self-improving software.
--- End quote ---
Whenever studying biological systems, I'm always amazed at how efficient evolution has made them. Nothing is wasted, and little is lost with the exception of some energy, which is a contribution to entropy anyway.
As for the intelligence of the design, I find it better than "good enough". In our own instance, for example, the kidney (which can be damaged by a blow to the back) has a built-in redundancy - we've got two, and can live fine with only one. Most of the liver can be damaged (or even removed), and it still functions nearly perfectly. More valuable systems are carefully protected - heart in the ribcage, brain in the skull, spinal cord in the .. spine. It's not perfect (bleeding out from a small arterial cut, for example), but if it's not intelligent, at least it's damned clever.
Oh, and how many systems store unused energy for later? I've got about 30 - 40 pounds of it myself, conveniently located around my middle... :laugh:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version