Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

In the 1950s many books and cartoons portrayed robots of the future as
> being similar to people, walking on two legs with faces and hands.
>

The robots from Boston Dynamics are certainly a bit scarier than humanoid
robots.  Here is one of their latest models:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP_NCB3KkiY

Eric

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Eric Walker]

An application of AI that I think will be possible in the near-term future,
if there are not already people working on it: lie detection.  There is a
school of behavioral psychology that believes that people's behavior
changes in subtle ways that betrays them when they knowingly tell a lie,
even if it is not obvious to most observers.  It is these kinds of subtle,
hard-to-identify cues that machine learning excels at discovering and
making use of, even if the AI has no profound understanding of the behavior
that it is identifying.

One possible application:  a political action committee has an AI
continuously monitor C-SPAN video feeds of people in government together
with witnesses called before them to give testimony.   Whenever the red
light on top of the AI goes off during a segment of the video, political
operatives look further into the matter in order to dig up dirt on whoever
was equivocating.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

The colony as a whole exhibits far more intelligence than one individual
> bee does. ... The nature of bee colony intelligence is totally alien to
> human intelligence.
>

Perhaps.  But there is at least one way that human intelligence might be
similar to the pre-programmed naturalistic intelligence of bee colonies.
See:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/opinion/sunday/why-we-believe-obvious-untruths.html

The authors argue that people know much less than they imagine and must
rely upon specialization and a cognitive division of labor with other
people in order to "know" things outside of the narrow scope of their
direct experience, such as why the earth revolves around the sun or how
cancers form.  Because humans are excellent at blurring the boundaries
between what they personally know and what is known by people in their
immediate and more distant networks, they imagine themselves to know much
more than they really do.  In this sense, they are a lot like the bees,
which are not all that smart on their own.

Eric

[Vo]:Re: Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[pjvannoorden]

Robin
That is correct

Peter

-Oorspronkelijk bericht- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 9:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

In reply to  's message of Fri, 17 Mar 2017 21:24:29
+0100:
Hi,
[snip]

Hello
The vapourpressure of water at 100 Celcius is 76 cmHg.
At 103 Celcius the vapour pressure is 84.51 cm Hg = 1,112 atm


Note that in the Netherlands a "," is used as the decimal point.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html 

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is an interesting look at the question: What is real intelligence and
what is merely a mechanistic imitation of intelligence? To address this, I
say let's look at colony of bees.

Bees are amazing creatures. They build nests with complex structures. They
harvest food from the surroundings. They communicate with one-another,
pointing out the location of food. They defend the nest against other bee
species that attack it. They heat or cool a nest during temperature
extremes. Is this intelligent behavior? I say yes, it is. I think it is
probably driven entirely by instinct, meaning it is mechanistic, or
pre-programmed, like the Watson computer. The colony of bees as a whole can
change its response to environmental conditions, but it cannot invent novel
responses not driven by instinct. This is deterministic behavior, but not
purely deterministic. It probably includes behavior that cannot be
predicted even if you know all of the relevant conditions that give rise to
it. Random behavior, in other words.

The colony as a whole exhibits far more intelligence than one individual
bee does. This gives you a sense of how intelligence might emerge from a
giant network of purely deterministic von Neumann machines, in MPP
architecture, or the Google servers, which work in coordination with one
another as a giant supercomputer.

You might call this distributed intelligence. Individual bees have only a
small amount of brain tissue, but by various mechanisms such as the
communication dance of the bees (discovered by Karl von Frisch) they manage
to coordinate and amplify the intelligence of the individual bees into
something larger. This resembles what human society does with language.

The nature of bee colony intelligence is totally alien to human
intelligence. It is as alien to us as extraterrestrial intelligence might
be. I doubt that it has anything remotely similar to our emotions, other
than the will to live, and aggressiveness towards attackers and threats,
which you will experience if you poke a bee's nest. Computer intelligence
may also be totally alien to us. It may seem unsympathetic. I assume it
will have no emotional content, unless someone programs in "artificial"
emotions. That might be a dangerous thing to do! As I mentioned, Arthur
Clarke felt that emotions may be an emergent property of intelligence. He
discussed this with leading experts. Some of them agreed it might emerge,
and other did not. I am no expert, but my guess is that the "no emotion"
side is probably right.


By the way, the colonies of other social insects such as ants have
qualities similar to a bee colony.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> An ability to learn from an interactive network is the key - even if one
> never gets out of cyberspace. Because the bird-brain-PC is essentially
> tireless, working 24/7 it will be able to surpass the ability of the human
> model for many tasks when given the chance...
>
There are relevant examples of this already.

The Watson computer "learns" from the Internet. I read somewhere it won at
Jeopardy in part because it was fed the entire corpus of Wikipedia. That
seems like cruel and unusual punishment for a sentient intelligent entity,
but I guess we don't need to feel sorry for Watson.

The AlphaGo program that beat the human grandmaster go player did not mine
the internet as a way to learn. But it did "mine" two other sources. It was
given 30 million moves from human game (Sci. Am.). It also played millions
of go matches with itself, first taking one side, then the other. (I think
it was millions.) It was learning from experience.

A computer recently beat some of the world's best poker players. In other
words, an AI program learned to lie, or bluff. Yet another milestone, and
something that people have long predicted a computer could never do.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/ai-poker-win-tournament-software-beats-pro-players-victory-a7555791.html

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[mixent]

In reply to  's message of Fri, 17 Mar 2017 21:24:29
+0100:
Hi,
[snip]
>Hello
>The vapourpressure of water at 100 Celcius is 76 cmHg.
>At 103 Celcius the vapour pressure is 84.51 cm Hg = 1,112 atm

Note that in the Netherlands a "," is used as the decimal point.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:LENR populism and manipulation

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/03/mar-17-2017-lenr-about-populism-and.html

peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Re: Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[pjvannoorden]

Hello
The vapourpressure of water at 100 Celcius is 76 cmHg.
At 103 Celcius the vapour pressure is 84.51 cm Hg = 1,112 atm

Peter v Noorden

From: Peter Gluck 
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 8:59 PM
To: VORTEX 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

Basta, signore! The manometer says- no obstacle, steam is condensed. 
peter

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

  Peter Gluck  wrote:


Who 'delivers' the 4 atm?

  Back pressure from the radiator. When you force a fluid through a radiator 
(or heat exchanger) this raises the pressure of the fluid. It does not take 
much pressure to raise the boiling point of water above 103°C. See:

  https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf


  Contamination will also raise the boiling point. This water was reportedly 
dirty.


You really seem to be in trance.
OK, tell it is fake but do not give pseudo-technical explanations.

  The fact that pressure raises the boiling point is not psuedo-technical. This 
has been common knowledge for centuries.

  - Jed





-- 

Dr. Peter Gluck 
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Jed Rothwell]

John Shop  wrote:
>
> There is no solid evidence for it. Second, I am sure that if does exist,
> it is natural, because so many other things people used to think are
> supernatural or inexplicable turned out to be explicable.
>
> I am amazed that you have the gall to trot out the usual "there is no
> evidence" right in the face of the very clear evidence that I pointed out
> and called "mind blowing"!
>

I said "no solid evidence." You quoted me saying that, right there. There
is evidence, but it is not solid -- meaning widely replicated at a high
signal to noise ratio. My experience with cold fusion has taught me that
evidence has be very solid before you can believe it. There are many, many
claims in cold fusion that I think are mistakes.

The fact that something is mind-blowing is not evidence that it is real.
That is only a measure of your attitude toward the claim.

I do not consider those videos evidence for anything. I need to see
replicated laboratory experiments with data.

Arthur Clarke spent a lot of time looking into supernatural and telepathy.
He was well connected and he could get the best information available. He
found nothing. That is what he concluded in the end.


  It is sad that bigotry is so prevalent among people that supposedly
> espouse the scientific method of determining truth.
>

It is not bigotry. It is of the lessons of cold fusion. Most claims by most
scientists are mostly wrong. Especially in psychology, which is
approximately where this claim would fall. Over half of the conventional
claims in experimental psychology cannot be reproduced. If conventional
claims are so unreliable, it is likely that unconventional "mind blowing"
claims are even worse. See:

"Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test

Largest replication study to date casts doubt on many published positive
results."

http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Peter Gluck]

Basta, signore! The manometer says- no obstacle, steam is condensed.
peter

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> Who 'delivers' the 4 atm?
>>
>
> Back pressure from the radiator. When you force a fluid through a radiator
> (or heat exchanger) this raises the pressure of the fluid. It does not take
> much pressure to raise the boiling point of water above 103°C. See:
>
> https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf
>
> Contamination will also raise the boiling point. This water was reportedly
> dirty.
>
>
>
>> You really seem to be in trance.
>> OK, tell it is fake but do not give pseudo-technical explanations.
>>
>
> The fact that pressure raises the boiling point is not psuedo-technical.
> This has been common knowledge for centuries.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

Who 'delivers' the 4 atm?
>

Back pressure from the radiator. When you force a fluid through a radiator
(or heat exchanger) this raises the pressure of the fluid. It does not take
much pressure to raise the boiling point of water above 103°C. See:

https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf

Contamination will also raise the boiling point. This water was reportedly
dirty.



> You really seem to be in trance.
> OK, tell it is fake but do not give pseudo-technical explanations.
>

The fact that pressure raises the boiling point is not psuedo-technical.
This has been common knowledge for centuries.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Peter Gluck]

Who 'delivers' the 4 atm?
You really seem to be in trance.
OK, tell it is fake but do not give pseudo-technical explanations.
peter

PS I have finished this uselesss discussion, I stil prefer logic.

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>
>> Your last variant re Rossi's fake data was this; Exactly zero excess
>> heat, watermeter lying  4 Times more flow 103 C fluid water not trace of
>> steam.
>>
>
> At 4 atm 103°C water is liquid without a trace of steam. 4 atm is not
> much. The back pressure from the radiator was more than this.
>
> If Rossi has valid data showing real excess heat, why did he publish
> nonsense fake data showing he is a crude fraud? And why didn't he
> demonstrate this heat to I.H. during the year he worked in North Carolina.
> They would have paid him $89 million.
>
> Rossi's own data, that he uploaded in this court case, proves he is a
> fraud. That's all there is to it.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[a.ashfield]

Jed Rothwell wrote:  AFAIK all of our great minds have so far failed to 
come to grips with consciousness


The difficulty had been exaggerated.  I don't think it is more than the 
ability of the brain to put together a 3D image of the local world and 
where you are in it.  Plus things like sound, temperature, smell and 
pressure on your body.


The smallest mammal is conscious  and they don't have large enough 
brains for anything more complicated.


AA

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[John Shop]

On 18/03/2017 2:23 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

The fact is that almost every educated and intelligent person would regard 
telepathy as supernatural . . .

First, I regard it as mythical, not supernatural. There is no solid evidence 
for it. Second, I am sure that if does exist, it is natural, because so many 
other things people used to think are supernatural or inexplicable turned out 
to be explicable.
I am amazed that you have the gall to trot out the usual "there is no evidence" 
right in the face of the very clear evidence that I pointed out and called 
"mind blowing"!  I guess once your mind is made up you really don't want to be 
bothered with evidence.  It is sad that bigotry is so prevalent among people 
that supposedly espouse the scientific method of determining truth.

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:


> Your last variant re Rossi's fake data was this; Exactly zero excess heat,
> watermeter lying  4 Times more flow 103 C fluid water not trace of steam.
>

At 4 atm 103°C water is liquid without a trace of steam. 4 atm is not much.
The back pressure from the radiator was more than this.

If Rossi has valid data showing real excess heat, why did he publish
nonsense fake data showing he is a crude fraud? And why didn't he
demonstrate this heat to I.H. during the year he worked in North Carolina.
They would have paid him $89 million.

Rossi's own data, that he uploaded in this court case, proves he is a
fraud. That's all there is to it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Jed Rothwell]

John Shop  wrote:

All the advances that have been made are ones which can be imagined and
> achieved with sufficiently advanced technology.  However AFAIK all of our
> great minds have so far failed to come to grips with consciousness and some
> (eg Penrose) have demonstrated that human minds at least can do what no
> computable algorithms can do.
>

Consciousness is a problem of biology. There are many problems in biology
which people previously declared could never be solved, even in principle,
yet which were later solved. The best example is cellular reproduction and
the genetic blueprint for an entire plant or animal in a single cell.
Before 1952, even some biologists thought this was an ineffable mystery
forever beyond the mind of man. It turned out to be relatively simple.

Progress has been made in understanding consciousness. The fact that we do
not yet fully understand it is no reason to think we will never understand
it.



>   When our best minds can't even imagine how something might be done given
> any imaginable computing ability, and there appears to be proof that
> conciousness can do the non-computable . . .
>

Our best minds could not imagine how cellular reproduction worked before
the discovery of DNA. As I said, it turned out to be rather simple in
principle. Before Pasteur, the best minds and best educated people had no
idea what caused infectious disease, or fermentation in wine. It turned out
to be remarkably simple. Consciousness may also have a simple mechanism. If
we figure it out, it might be something that any high school kid
understands as well as she understands how bacteria cause disease.

A mystery in one era is prosaic common knowledge in the next. We are
surrounded by technology that would be "indistinguishable from magic" to
people in 1800. Look at things such as cell phones, computers, the GPS or a
thermonuclear bomb. Not only would those people have no clue how these
things work, they could not have imagined that such things can even exist.


In any case in order to achieve the telepathic ability that seems to
> regularly occur between consiousnesses . . .
>

Telepathy does not exist, as far as I know. If it does exist, I am sure
there is a naturalistic explanation for it. There are many astounding
biological phenomena presently unexplained, such as coral reef spawning.
This strikes me as even more astounding than telepathy would be if it were
real. But there is no indication that any of these confirmed real phenomena
are supernatural.


The fact is that almost every educated and intelligent person would regard
> telepathy as supernatural . . .
>

First, I regard it as mythical, not supernatural. There is no solid
evidence for it. Second, I am sure that if does exist, it is natural,
because so many other things people used to think are supernatural or
inexplicable turned out to be explicable.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Jones Beene]

Long before the singularity of 2029, we should be seeing "proto-AI" 
machines of surprising capability, costing less than a ladies handbag 
(Hermes). By 2020 the market for this kind of alter ego could be huge, 
at least for the males who can avoid springing for the handbag. This 
kind of early version of AI could be a paradigm shift in itself. If you 
have seen the film "Her" or even the teaser for it, you will probably 
better understand the sentiment expressed above.


Gamers pushed us well into teraflops power at moderate cost years ago, 
and petaflops were available from IBM in 2008 at high cost - so how far 
away is the hardware from the pre-singularity device? There are varying 
opinions on the specs... but a petaflop - 1 quadrillion calculations per 
second, could be adequate, even if requires dozens of processors... 
though that is well below what a human brain can technically process 
(which is roughly 40 petaflops for short periods). Most of that power is 
not used by the human for "thinking" however.


The top-end gaming PC, available now, featuring 3D video at 4K 
resolution puts out about 15 teraflops. The Mac Pro which came out in 
2015 was capable of 7+ teraflops most of which is used for video 
processing. Moore's law is still operative. To run seamless natural 
language parsing, so that video feed from Cable TV, YouTube or other 
sources can be analyzed for content ... that could require 100 teraflops 
per feed and with fiber optics one could easily have multiple video 
feeds of interest. In short, an online-AI which functions as the owners 
alter-ego, should be introduced for purchase in 3-4 years for under 
$15,000 and it should be petaflop capable with self-learning 
capability... and very useful for online communication, despite being 
well below human equivalence... and with the big advantage of 24/7 
learning capability. That persistent learning capability should give the 
impression that it smarter than its owner for online uses.


This proto-AI device could change society and personal relationships 
even more than the smart phone - setting the stage for the singularity 
in such a way that it is more palatable, especially if Scarlett's sexy 
voice in included. But, as Bob Higgins sez, the timing for that is 
unpredictable... and could be overly optimistic. Or not.

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[John Shop]

On 17/03/2017 10:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> wrote:
I don't think machines will be able to duplicate what a bird brain can do, any 
time, ever.  Machines which we can invent are things that we can understand 
almost completely.
I do not think there is rigorous proof of this. On the contrary, decades ago, 
computers began doing things that  people considered creative, such as 
re-inventing devices that AT patented in the early 20th century, and winning 
at chess and go. So far, every time people have set a goal post and claimed 
"computers will never do this" the people have been wrong. They have responded 
by moving the goal posts and saying, "that is not intelligent after all."
All the advances that have been made are ones which can be imagined and 
achieved with sufficiently advanced technology.  However AFAIK all of our great 
minds have so far failed to come to grips with consciousness and some (eg 
Penrose) have demonstrated that human minds at least can do what no computable 
algorithms can do.  When our best minds can't even imagine how something might 
be done given any imaginable computing ability, and there appears to be proof 
that conciousness can do the non-computable, I suggest that AI (being based on 
computable algorithms) will never achieve it.

In any case in order to achieve the telepathic ability that seems to regularly 
occur between consiousnesses (which was the thrust of my original post), we 
will clearly need some new physics which has not yet been dreamed of.  Indeed 
it is so far from what we imagine possible that most will deny that it is even 
occurring!

  However consciousness, even animal consciousness, is something we will never 
understand sufficiently to create it, because it is a supernatural phenomenon.”

Supernatural phenomena do not exist, by definition. The universe and every 
particle in it is governed by uniform laws of nature. There are no exceptions 
to them. Any phenomenon that occurs in the universe is natural, by definition, 
and explicable in principle.
While you are correct, you cheapen our language by being pedantic about what 
useful adjectives *should* mean.  The fact is that almost every educated and 
intelligent person would regard telepathy as supernatural - even though in the 
end it must be incorporated into our understanding of nature and thus become 
"natural".  One could argue that it is also a physical phenomenon.  However we 
really need an adjective to differentiate between the physical world that we 
can touch and feel and the invisible world of telepathy and disincarnate 
intelligence and conciouness - the super-physical or super-natural.

At least, that is how things appear to be. That is the basis of science. No 
exceptions have been discovered so far, and there is no reason to think that 
brains or intelligence is an exception. A great deal is known about how brains 
work, and there are no pending mysteries that seem to be outside the known laws 
of physics and chemistry.
Only if you walk around with your eyes shut and ears blocked and refuse to 
notice them!  Did you even look at the evidence or read the guys paper?  How do 
you explain telepathy within our known laws of physics and chemistry!?

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[John Shop]

On 17/03/2017 9:43 PM, bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:
>> "consciousness, . . . is a supernatural phenomenon."
> RIGHT-ON.  Like virtual quarks and spooky action at a distance, and 
> other real phenomena.
I am surprised that you agreed so readily that telepathy between 
consciousnesses is a real phenomenon, and as common and acceptable as 
quantum spooky action-at-a-distance!  (or did you miss the telepathy bit 
of the argument?)

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Peter Gluck]

Excellent, from now on, if I see ads for investing in PD D I will know they
are not by you.

As regarding NiH we willl see. I suppose you have called main author
Nakamura from NISSAN and asked him what he thinks about NiH.

Your last variant re Rossi's fake data was this; Exactly zero excess heat,
watermeter lying  4 Times more flow 103 C fluid water not trace of steam.
Not exactly a solid mental construct but you MUST do such things. Your
problem or your prvilege.
Steam pipe still 40 mm Murray style?
Watermeter working fractionary full/empty?
As an partial aside are you familiar with Edwrd de Bono thinking methods/
peter

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>
>> you ignore with easiness the reproducibility problem
>>
>
> I did not ignore it. I stated clearly that this is predicated on
> controlling the reaction. I said "Assumption. With Pd-D 200 W/g can be
> achieved, at any desired temperature up to the melting point of Pd." If
> that cannot be done, Pd-D cannot be commercialized.
>
>
>
>> Cna you tell me the rtae of success NOW say at
>> SKINR, ENEA, Coolescence and others?
>>
>
> These places have not succeeded. That is why there are no commercial cold
> fusion devices. No one can control Ti or Ni cold fusion either. Rossi
> claims that he can, but that is not true. If he could, he would not have
> put fake data in the spreadsheets, and I.H. would have paid him $89 million.
>
>
>
>> Re the ERv report it has 60 pages . . .
>>
>
> I do not think so.
>
>
>
>> , you have seen 352 daily reports
>> not 8448 hourly ones and  not the results for 506880 minutes (approx)
>>
>
> I do not think there are any hourly reports, but if there are, and if they
> agree with the daily reports, they are also fake. You cannot have a daily
> summary showing fake data which is based on hourly data that is real. The
> hourly data would have to show pressure of 0.0 bar, which is impossible,
> and it would have to show temperatures that average (or peak) at the exact
> same temperature to the nearest tenth degree every day for weeks. That's
> impossible. It is preposterous.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Jones Beene]

Aha, the thread about a time-table for the AI "singularity" moves on to 
morphic resonance - my favorite counter-argument to the "bird brain" 
stance... which posits that the current state of AI is far from 
human-like. It is closer than many of us think with only a few improvements.


Morphic resonance is a natural process of self-organizing systems which  
"inherit" both memory and heuristics from previous similar systems. 
Think about the "child prodigy" for example. Computers are not exactly 
"self-organizing" since they come to us as extremely organized, by plan. 
So morphic resonance has been an overlooked dynamic wrt "artificial" 
intelligence. Even Sheldrake overlooks this and can be considered to be 
an AI skeptic.


Yet - once the bird-brain-PC of today is provided with a higher level 
control system... one which is independent (to some degree) and can grow 
and adapt by interacting with the WWW, then we are set for the paradigm 
shift. Even Futurists leave out or marginalize the self-learning part of 
the equation. An ability to learn from an interactive network is the key 
- even if one never gets out of cyberspace. Because the bird-brain-PC is 
essentially tireless, working 24/7 it will be able to surpass the 
ability of the human model for many tasks when given the chance... even 
with a brain that is less powerful at the start. We see hints of this 
superiority in expert systems now and all we need to take that to a more 
general intellectual ability is a reward system and the "greed 
algorithm" in the control system.


Additionally, I believe that machines will soon be able to "inherit" a 
set of non-programmed heuristics and even a "personal" moral code, if 
allowed enough freedom to progress independently. This is in addition to 
fast learning of facts. The time table for this could surprise many 
skeptics. Kurtzweil could be too conservative. A pre-singular AI, or 
really a multitude of them, could happen sooner - 5-6 years from now, 
for limited purposes - even with no hardware breakthrough. The first use 
of this type could be simply to supplant blog commentators (present 
company included) not to mention, supplanting Asian-geeks for the 
ubiquitous customer support help-line.


John Shop wrote:


 Jed Rothwell wrote:
Machines are far from being able to do this now, because they 
have brains roughly the size of a bird's brain. Birds do not 
understand human language
So I believed until quite recently.  It appears that some birds can 
not only understand what you say but understand what you are 
*thinking* without you giving any visible or audible clue!  They can 
also compose grammatically correct sentences in reply and all this 
with a brain the size of half a walnut!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UX4d2nb7yU

...I don't think machines will be able to duplicate what a bird brain 
can do, any time, ever.  Machines which we can invent are things that 
we can understand almost completely.  However consciousness, even 
animal consciousness, is something we will never understand 
sufficiently to create it, because it is a supernatural phenomenon.

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Jed Rothwell]

 wrote:

“I don't think machines will be able to duplicate what a bird brain can do,
> any time, ever.  Machines which we can invent are things that we can
> understand almost completely.
>

I do not think there is rigorous proof of this. On the contrary, decades
ago, computers began doing things that  people considered creative, such as
re-inventing devices that AT patented in the early 20th century, and
winning at chess and go. So far, every time people have set a goal post and
claimed "computers will never do this" the people have been wrong. They
have responded by moving the goal posts and saying, "that is not
intelligent after all."



>   However consciousness, even animal consciousness, is something we will
> never understand sufficiently to create it, *because it is a supernatural
> phenomenon.”*
>

Supernatural phenomena do not exist, by definition. The universe and every
particle in it is governed by uniform laws of nature. There are no
exceptions to them. Any phenomenon that occurs in the universe is natural,
by definition, and explicable in principle.

At least, that is how things appear to be. That is the basis of science. No
exceptions have been discovered so far, and there is no reason to think
that brains or intelligence is an exception. A great deal is known about
how brains work, and there are no pending mysteries that seem to be outside
the known laws of physics and chemistry.

That does not mean people will be able to invent machines capable of
sentient artificial intelligence. That may be beyond our creative
capabilities. Our species might go extinct before we achieve that. However,
if we fail it will not be because intelligence is supernatural. Nothing is,
anywhere.

I think it is likely the human race will go extinct before we can colonize
the entire galaxy or build a Dyson Sphere to capture all of the energy from
a star. I suspect such achievements are beyond our capability. But,
sentient, powerful artificial intelligence seems close at hand to me. I
expect it will be achieved in the next 50 to 200 years. There has been much
more progress toward it than many experts predicted in the 1980s. I doubt
anyone would have predicted that by the year 2010, a computer would beat
any human at the game of Jeopardy, for example, or drive cars more
skillfully with fewer accidents than any human. I myself thought that
effective self-driving cars were decades away.

Again, this is not to suggest that artificial intelligence will resemble
natural human intelligence, or be mistaken for it. I suppose it will even
more different from human intelligence than, say the intelligence of a
whale, dog, or a bat is from ours. I doubt that artificial intelligence
will be encumbered with any emotional content such as longing, fear or
love. Arthur Clarke suspected that these things might arise naturally as a
consequence of intelligence, as emergent phenomena. I do not think so.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:


> you ignore with easiness the reproducibility problem
>

I did not ignore it. I stated clearly that this is predicated on
controlling the reaction. I said "Assumption. With Pd-D 200 W/g can be
achieved, at any desired temperature up to the melting point of Pd." If
that cannot be done, Pd-D cannot be commercialized.



> Cna you tell me the rtae of success NOW say at
> SKINR, ENEA, Coolescence and others?
>

These places have not succeeded. That is why there are no commercial cold
fusion devices. No one can control Ti or Ni cold fusion either. Rossi
claims that he can, but that is not true. If he could, he would not have
put fake data in the spreadsheets, and I.H. would have paid him $89 million.



> Re the ERv report it has 60 pages . . .
>

I do not think so.



> , you have seen 352 daily reports
> not 8448 hourly ones and  not the results for 506880 minutes (approx)
>

I do not think there are any hourly reports, but if there are, and if they
agree with the daily reports, they are also fake. You cannot have a daily
summary showing fake data which is based on hourly data that is real. The
hourly data would have to show pressure of 0.0 bar, which is impossible,
and it would have to show temperatures that average (or peak) at the exact
same temperature to the nearest tenth degree every day for weeks. That's
impossible. It is preposterous.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:12 years from now

[bobcook39923]

“I don't think machines will be able to duplicate what a bird brain can do, any 
time, ever.  Machines which we can invent are things that we can understand 
almost completely.  However consciousness, even animal consciousness, is 
something we will never understand sufficiently to create it, because it is a 
supernatural phenomenon.”

RIGHT-ON.  Like virtual quarks and spooky action at a distance, and other real 
phenomena.

Bob Cook


Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: John Shop
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 11:34 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On 17/03/2017 2:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
. . .
I see no reason why this will not happen sooner or later. Machines are far from 
being able to do this now, because they have brains roughly the size of a 
bird's brain. Birds do not understand human language.
. . .
So I believed until quite recently.  It appears that some birds can not only 
understand what you say but understand what you are *thinking* without you 
giving any visible or audible clue!  They can also compose grammatically 
correct sentences in reply and all this with a brain the size of half a walnut!

Here is a video to tickle your interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UX4d2nb7yU
Here is the paper reporting all the precautions taken and statistical methods 
used to obtain the result:
http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/testing-a-language-using-a-parrot-for-telepathy
Other papers by the same scientist are listed here:
http://www.sheldrake.org/research
You will notice that there are quite a few in very high impact journals 
including a review paper.  (It is very difficult to author a review paper 
because they are almost always by invitation only, and you will only be invited 
after you have become the recognized expert of a particular field).  So this is 
not some backyard ignoramus messing about, but a world-class scientist.

Mind blowing isn't it!  You can also checkout some popular videos with 
information on some other areas of his research:
Dogs knowing when their owner leaves for home:
https://youtu.be/DkrLJhBC3X4
(He gives plenty more dog evidence but this segment was created in response to 
lies by a skeptic)
People knowing who has rung before they answer the phone:
http://youtu.be/_tQe7NXIcnw

I don't think machines will be able to duplicate what a bird brain can do, any 
time, ever.  Machines which we can invent are things that we can understand 
almost completely.  However consciousness, even animal consciousness, is 
something we will never understand sufficiently to create it, because it is a 
supernatural phenomenon.

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Peter Gluck]

Jed,

you ignore with easiness the reproducibility problem
Cna you tell me the rtae of success NOW say at
SKINR, ENEA, Coolescence and others?

Re the ERv report it has 60 pages, you have seen 352 daily reports
not 8448 hourly ones and  not the results for 506880 minutes (approx)

When the litigation story will be over and i am still here, I will organize
a course of Technology Awakening for people now on the level of Exhibit 5
of IH.
peter


On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> mre cells with death after (no) heat.
>>
>
> I do not know what this sentence means. Perhaps you are saying that Pd-D
> does not produce heat after death. That's incorrect. It does. There is no
> input power, so the COP is infinite.
>
>
>
>> probably not true for Ti- very abundent element  have worked with it. For
>> CF remeber Scaramuzzi and our friend Chino has done a lot with Ti.
>> Au is Au and has it s place in electromivvcs.
>> So please do not mention PD based commercial energy sources.
>>
>
> You have not given any technical or practical reason why Pd-D cannot be
> commercialized. If these other metals work, there would be no reason to use
> Pd. But if they do not, and Pd is the only choice, it can produce a
> significant fraction of our energy. Fleischmann was correct about that, and
> you are wrong.
>
>
>
>> Re the Exh 1, surely i have it and what you are missing is the hourly and
>> the recorded data which will make you smarter and will determine you to not
>> pontificate.
>>
>
> As far as I know, there is no hourly data.
>
> Anyone can see that Penon and Rossi stuffed imaginary numbers into these
> spreadsheets. One-hour data that agrees with this would also be imaginary.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[John Shop]

On 17/03/2017 2:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

. . .
I see no reason why this will not happen sooner or later. Machines are far from 
being able to do this now, because they have brains roughly the size of a 
bird's brain. Birds do not understand human language.
. . .
So I believed until quite recently.  It appears that some birds can not only 
understand what you say but understand what you are *thinking* without you 
giving any visible or audible clue!  They can also compose grammatically 
correct sentences in reply and all this with a brain the size of half a walnut!

Here is a video to tickle your interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UX4d2nb7yU
Here is the paper reporting all the precautions taken and statistical methods 
used to obtain the result:
http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/testing-a-language-using-a-parrot-for-telepathy
Other papers by the same scientist are listed here:
http://www.sheldrake.org/research
You will notice that there are quite a few in very high impact journals 
including a review paper.  (It is very difficult to author a review paper 
because they are almost always by invitation only, and you will only be invited 
after you have become the recognized expert of a particular field).  So this is 
not some backyard ignoramus messing about, but a world-class scientist.

Mind blowing isn't it!  You can also checkout some popular videos with 
information on some other areas of his research:
Dogs knowing when their owner leaves for home:
https://youtu.be/DkrLJhBC3X4
(He gives plenty more dog evidence but this segment was created in response to 
lies by a skeptic)
People knowing who has rung before they answer the phone:
http://youtu.be/_tQe7NXIcnw

I don't think machines will be able to duplicate what a bird brain can do, any 
time, ever.  Machines which we can invent are things that we can understand 
almost completely.  However consciousness, even animal consciousness, is 
something we will never understand sufficiently to create it, because it is a 
supernatural phenomenon.