Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 01:34:04PM -0400, John Clark wrote: Mathematica discovers new solutions to Differential Equations that have never been solved before every hour of every day; if you mean basic techniques for solving Differential Equations the most important ones were discovered in the 19th and early 20th century. It most certainly does not. What is does apply is an algorithm that manipulates *known* solutions to integrals into the form specific for the integral at hand. It does not find *new* previously unknown solutions. A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient patience, it's just that Mathematica is a million times faster. However, some rare people are gifted in coming up with *new* solutions to integrals and DEs. Not me, I've never came up with a new solution in my life, although I came close once with sort of solution to a linear Bolztman equation with a piecewise linear potential - but I have solved countless integrals that nobody bothered to do before in quite that form by using those same basic algorithms and consoluting books of known solutions like Gradsteyn Rhyzhik. Admittedly that was in a time when SMP (a predecessor to Mathematica) was not nearly as acomplished at solving integrals. I think you are confusing the level where creativity lies. Renoir paining A luncheon on a boating party is a creative act. A photocopier doing the same physical job millions of times faster is not being creative. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
Bruno, Thanks for the advise! I never intended to be not humble or not modest, but perhaps I've not been very clear in expressing myself and my beliefs. When I speak of faith being God's gift, it doesn't mean necessarily being a Muslim. In Quran, 2:62, we read: 'Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.' [Translator: Pickthall] I don't know if you wish to have a discussion, hence I'm not responding to rest of the email. If there is any specific point that you would like me to answer, please feel free to ask. I will try to answer as lucidly as possible. Many people have posted their opinions and comments about the way they perceive Islam from the outside. I suppose there is too much fear and disgust, and till those emotions are not allayed, they will not be willing to consider or discuss faith on its own merit, or wonder why we still maintain that God is loving and kind. However, since nobody is asking these questions, I am not responding, lest they think I'm preaching my religion. Also, there have been very few questions about the scientific clues we find in the Quran. I assume that largely people are not interested in looking at the text of the scripture or evaluating it for factual accuracy. That's fine. We have a free-will and its each individual's own choice. As Quran 2:186 reads: 'When My servants ask thee concerning Me, I am indeed close (to them): I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calleth on Me: Let them also, *with a will*, Listen to My call, and believe in Me: That they may walk in the right way.' [Translator: Yusuf Ali] Samiya On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 May 2014, at 05:33, Samiya Illias wrote: On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Ok, so let's talk some specifics. Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression. Famously on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and several people for drawing Mohammed. When I was living in Paris, the building of a small publication was bombed for publishing a drawing of Mohammed. The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the company of those who blaspheme, till they do not change to another topic. It does not prescribe any of the above forms of punishment. OK. Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being raped, their husbands are allowed to beat them (against their will, I have nothing against consensual BDSM), they are sentenced to stoning to death for adultery (even when they were raped), they have to dress in a certain way and can be publicly lashed for not doing so and they are prevented from going to school. Even recently, young girls were attacked for attending school. The Quran prescribes (24:1-14) 100 public lashes for adulterers Is that not a blaspheme? Using the 'Name' as authority in the temporal moral code realm. If two person decide to live together and promise to God maintaining fidelity, say for 500 years, and one betrayed the other, it is only the other, and God which have to handle this. Not the friends, not the family, not the Government. Just each others, the person involved, and, if they need, the helps of shamans and wise or spiritual persons. I don't think that any humans or group of humans, can intentionally harm other humans without consent (with rare exception like the legitimate defense). The problem comes only from the literalist interpretation. We can vote for laws, and nobody should forbid you to consult sacred books or God, if you can, or divine subaltern in Heaven (in case you found a two way shortcut) before voting, but the laws should not refer to It, and I think cannot, refer to It without blaspheming. A famous another example of such blaspheme. is Genghis Khan's statement I am the punishment of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you. The good guy get a sadist impulse? He believes in God, so he take it as a sign that he has a right to hurt someone, as his divine pleasure assures him that its victim has necessarily committed great sin, that God allows a good fellow like him/her to torture. (not rape victim); for that 4 witnesses of the crime are required, and if the witnesses are found to be lying, then 80 lashes for the persons who give false witness, and they are to be banned from bearing witness in any other case. Regarding beating by husbands, you refer to 4:15. I think the interpretation of the word d-r-b is incorrect, and it is separation which is advised, not beating. However, most translators and scholars insist it means beating. I disagree. I am glad you disagree, and I appreciate that
Re: Solar power's bright future
On 21 June 2014 13:37, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: *From:* LizR lizj...@gmail.com *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Friday, June 20, 2014 6:10 PM *Subject:* Re: Solar power's bright future That raptor rocket surely doesn't have *much* higher delta V than, say, the Saturn 5? No chemical reaction is going to be that much more efficient, no matter that you turn it into a superheated flying bomb. Surely for human exploration beyond the Moon you really need (a) a moon base, (b) and orbital assembly plant supplied from the moon base, and (c) some form of nuclei/ion propulsion for your long haul space craft (which also need shielding, of course!) I agree -- nothing I have heard about really improves on the chemical potential of H2(liquid)/LOX. The advantage of LNG is not that it is pound for pound a better fuel/oxidizer combo than liquid hydrogen/LOX (Saturn 5), because it isn't, but rather because LNG fuel allows for significantly longer longevity of the rocket fuel tanks and rocket motors components themselves. Hydrogen causes metals to become brittle; whereas LNG does not (or does not to the degree that hydrogen does). On a long duration mission -- say to Mars and back -- it becomes rather important that the rocket engine components do not wear out prematurely. That would be a real bummer, for the unlucky astronauts. The innovative aspects of the Raptor engine are not just in terms of the type of fuel it uses, but also because it uses separate turbo injection for the LNG and LOX using floating bearing (essentially the spinning parts of the turbo pump actually are floating on a very thin film of the LOX or LNG. This also very significantly improves rocket engine life (those bearings wear out fast). And by (apparently) choosing to use separate turbo pumps for the LNG and the LOX it removes a catastrophic failure point for designs that employ a single turbo pump with a diaphragm separating the LOX from the fuel (whatever it is) -- if the diaphragm fails in such a design it is an almost guaranteed catastrophic failure. Again I agree -- if we are ever going to become a space fairing civilization we need to learn to live off the land (the land up there). The moon has a very much smaller gravity well than planet earth; it just seems to me to make sense to get the mass of fuel and LOX at the very least and perhaps other materials as well from there (or from NEO asteroids as well) Yeah, having a long lasting booster isn't much use if you can only fire it for a few hours. (Antimatter wears out your rocket even faster than hydrogen, but it sure gets you there a lot quicker!) Or use chemical propellant to rendezvous with one of those asteroids I mentioned, then sit back and wait out the 9 months or so to Mars. (Preferably installing a permanent base in the asteroid, which effectively becomes a mars shuttle.) The asteroid Eros 433 would seem to fit the bill for a transit station. It is fairly big (the second largest NEO in fact); it is an Amor type asteroid and is a Mars crosser. It comes within something like 20 million miles of Earth, I think, so yes a distinct possible. (And it isn't an alien space ship, as it turned out to be in a story I wrote when I was about 12. Oh well, predicting things is hard, especially the future.) I wish I could type this without my hands shaking with excitement. We're actually trying to go to Mars!! I really hope so :) Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Solar power's bright future
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2014 1:39 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Solar power's bright future On 21 June 2014 13:37, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 6:10 PM Subject: Re: Solar power's bright future That raptor rocket surely doesn't have much higher delta V than, say, the Saturn 5? No chemical reaction is going to be that much more efficient, no matter that you turn it into a superheated flying bomb. Surely for human exploration beyond the Moon you really need (a) a moon base, (b) and orbital assembly plant supplied from the moon base, and (c) some form of nuclei/ion propulsion for your long haul space craft (which also need shielding, of course!) I agree -- nothing I have heard about really improves on the chemical potential of H2(liquid)/LOX. The advantage of LNG is not that it is pound for pound a better fuel/oxidizer combo than liquid hydrogen/LOX (Saturn 5), because it isn't, but rather because LNG fuel allows for significantly longer longevity of the rocket fuel tanks and rocket motors components themselves. Hydrogen causes metals to become brittle; whereas LNG does not (or does not to the degree that hydrogen does). On a long duration mission -- say to Mars and back -- it becomes rather important that the rocket engine components do not wear out prematurely. That would be a real bummer, for the unlucky astronauts. The innovative aspects of the Raptor engine are not just in terms of the type of fuel it uses, but also because it uses separate turbo injection for the LNG and LOX using floating bearing (essentially the spinning parts of the turbo pump actually are floating on a very thin film of the LOX or LNG. This also very significantly improves rocket engine life (those bearings wear out fast). And by (apparently) choosing to use separate turbo pumps for the LNG and the LOX it removes a catastrophic failure point for designs that employ a single turbo pump with a diaphragm separating the LOX from the fuel (whatever it is) -- if the diaphragm fails in such a design it is an almost guaranteed catastrophic failure. Again I agree -- if we are ever going to become a space fairing civilization we need to learn to live off the land (the land up there). The moon has a very much smaller gravity well than planet earth; it just seems to me to make sense to get the mass of fuel and LOX at the very least and perhaps other materials as well from there (or from NEO asteroids as well) Yeah, having a long lasting booster isn't much use if you can only fire it for a few hours. (Antimatter wears out your rocket even faster than hydrogen, but it sure gets you there a lot quicker!) Or blows you up a lot more massively J antimatter is of course interesting, but it is also perhaps the ultimate hard to handle fuel (better hope those containment fields have a lot of redundancy) plus it is still absurdly difficult to produce… a few protons of the stuff isn’t going to get you all that far. It is the ultimate fuel without going off into exotic spacetime bending stuff. One thing – a big downside actually about going really fast is that anything that happens to be in the way will impact with massive kinetic energy. Say going at 10% the speed of light even something the size of a grain of sand has the destructive energy of a 20 kiloton bomb. A shielding problem yet again. Of course dust particles the size of a grain of sand are very rare in deep space, but they do exist. Or use chemical propellant to rendezvous with one of those asteroids I mentioned, then sit back and wait out the 9 months or so to Mars. (Preferably installing a permanent base in the asteroid, which effectively becomes a mars shuttle.) The asteroid Eros 433 would seem to fit the bill for a transit station. It is fairly big (the second largest NEO in fact); it is an Amor type asteroid and is a Mars crosser. It comes within something like 20 million miles of Earth, I think, so yes a distinct possible. (And it isn't an alien space ship, as it turned out to be in a story I wrote when I was about 12. Oh well, predicting things is hard, especially the future.) Sometimes I daydream about the potential of an NEO asteroid (perhaps an Amor type) with a near optimal orbit that was tuned by a three body dance of Earth Mars and the space mountain in question. It would be preferably not too large, with just enough useful stuff on it to be transformed into a shielded transit base/ship that would oscillate between periods of relative nearness to Mars and relative nearness to Earth. If the mass was not too much the heavily engineered asteroid could slowly be aligned (perhaps using a solar powered mass
Re: Films I think people on this forum might like
*!!! SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE THE 13TH FLOOR AND SHORT STORY THE TUNNEL UNDER THE WORLD BY FRED POHL !!!* We have just watched The Thirteenth Floor :) Wow! ...And I just discovered that the original book was written in *1964!* Wow!!! Thank you so much for recommending that, it was great. (Of course when it ended I was thinking - Just stay put. Don't ever go too far from home!) Makes The Matrix look a bit passe. Surely that was the first description of a virtual reality as such? (As opposed to a world that existed as some sort of psychic or supernatural illusion, as in various stories by Lovecraft, Hodgson, H G Wells etc.) (The Tunnel Under the World by Frederick Pohl is earlier but in that the people turn out to all be miniature robots.) PS we watched Inception a little while ago - it was quite nicely structured but somehow lacking humanity, I thought. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Mathematica discovers new solutions to Differential Equations that have never been solved before every hour of every day; if you mean basic techniques for solving Differential Equations the most important ones were discovered in the 19th and early 20th century. It most certainly does not. It most certainly does not what? You work with computers so you know that when a computer finds what 848922457 times 320559618 is it isn't able to do so because at some point in the past a human multiplied those 2 numbers together with pencil and paper and then put the answer in the computer's memory (although I bet many people, perhaps even most, still think that's how computers work). It does not find *new* previously unknown solutions. It depends on what you mean, if you mean important new GENERAL techniques for solving differential equations no human or computer has found one of those for almost a century. A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient patience, A monkey could type out the complete works of Shakespeare if he had sufficient patience, but a person with a IQ of 80 could NOT solve intricate equations who's exact solutions take up 3 pages of small type as Mathamatica can, he'd very soon get hopelessly lost; a man who never made a mistake when running down a logical labyrinth of astronomical complexity wouldn't have a IQ of 80. Well OK, Mr. IQ80 could solve it, but for every correct solution he found he'd also come up with 6.02*10^23 incorrect solutions. I think you are confusing the level where creativity lies. My point is that there is no absolute level where creativity lies. Renoir paining A luncheon on a boating party is a creative act. A photocopier doing the same physical job millions of times faster is not being creative. The meaning of the word creativity changes about as often as light flickers off the glassware in Renoir's painting; creativity is whatever a computer isn't good at. Yet. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Films I think people on this forum might like
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 7:07 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: [The Thirteenth Floor] Makes The Matrix look a bit passe. I agree, it's a much deeper movie. we watched Inception a little while ago - it was quite nicely structured but somehow lacking humanity, I thought. Yes, I enjoyed Inception but not as much as I thought I would, it's not nearly as good as The Thirteenth Floor or Christopher Nolan's other movie The Prestige. And if you liked those movies you'll probably like the 1998 movie Dark City. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
Dear Samiya: I was raised a 'believer' and studied several religions to end up as a scientific agnostic who does not know the 'why'-s and 'how'-s but asks questions about items other people believe in. Many yeas ago on a different list I engaged in a discussion when an irate 'believer' bursted out: who gave you the audacity to feel so much 'smarter' than the rest of us? so now I keep my mouth shut. - As far as I can (??). Then again on another kind of list I asked a female Muslim US professor about Huris and what happens to human females after death? the answer was: it is not so simple. Nothing more. Do you have a solution to (human) women whether they go straight to hell, or to heaven? What happens to them THERE(?) ? The other day I heard a cute solution for nonbelievers on TV (it was a stupid soap opera): a priest said to a nonbeliever: God offers solace to the universe for those who believe. Why to the universe? otherwise it is OK. I do not bother you with more of my questions but am interested in the solution for the womenfolk (both terresstrial and afterwordian). Best regards John Mikes On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno, Thanks for the advise! I never intended to be not humble or not modest, but perhaps I've not been very clear in expressing myself and my beliefs. When I speak of faith being God's gift, it doesn't mean necessarily being a Muslim. In Quran, 2:62, we read: 'Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.' [Translator: Pickthall] I don't know if you wish to have a discussion, hence I'm not responding to rest of the email. If there is any specific point that you would like me to answer, please feel free to ask. I will try to answer as lucidly as possible. Many people have posted their opinions and comments about the way they perceive Islam from the outside. I suppose there is too much fear and disgust, and till those emotions are not allayed, they will not be willing to consider or discuss faith on its own merit, or wonder why we still maintain that God is loving and kind. However, since nobody is asking these questions, I am not responding, lest they think I'm preaching my religion. Also, there have been very few questions about the scientific clues we find in the Quran. I assume that largely people are not interested in looking at the text of the scripture or evaluating it for factual accuracy. That's fine. We have a free-will and its each individual's own choice. As Quran 2:186 reads: 'When My servants ask thee concerning Me, I am indeed close (to them): I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calleth on Me: Let them also, *with a will*, Listen to My call, and believe in Me: That they may walk in the right way.' [Translator: Yusuf Ali] Samiya On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 May 2014, at 05:33, Samiya Illias wrote: On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Ok, so let's talk some specifics. Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression. Famously on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and several people for drawing Mohammed. When I was living in Paris, the building of a small publication was bombed for publishing a drawing of Mohammed. The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the company of those who blaspheme, till they do not change to another topic. It does not prescribe any of the above forms of punishment. OK. Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being raped, their husbands are allowed to beat them (against their will, I have nothing against consensual BDSM), they are sentenced to stoning to death for adultery (even when they were raped), they have to dress in a certain way and can be publicly lashed for not doing so and they are prevented from going to school. Even recently, young girls were attacked for attending school. The Quran prescribes (24:1-14) 100 public lashes for adulterers Is that not a blaspheme? Using the 'Name' as authority in the temporal moral code realm. If two person decide to live together and promise to God maintaining fidelity, say for 500 years, and one betrayed the other, it is only the other, and God which have to handle this. Not the friends, not the family, not the Government. Just each others, the person involved, and, if they need, the helps of shamans and wise or spiritual persons. I don't think that any humans or group of humans, can intentionally harm other humans without consent (with rare exception like the legitimate defense). The problem comes only from the literalist interpretation. We can vote for laws, and nobody should
Re: Solar power's bright future [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]
Dear Chris, not that your answer sounds a bit vague - I have deeper problems. In my lately (2+decades) absobed agnostic views I find our science a bit incomplete as explanatory ideas (with mathematical underlying) upon poorly understood (iff...?) phenomena adjusted both into the *previous* images AND the capabilities of our *present* mentality (previous meaning here: based on an inventory of old, explained as well on the basis of the THEN theories we could manage). I find the dark things (matter, energy, hole) exciting and brilliant. Not 'real'. They serve well in bringing our incomplete theories into a fit (just as the 'inflation' after the Big Bang etc.). As a former chemist (1/2c polymer pioneering) I do not believe (my own?) molecules of which I derived implemented technologies. They are maybe-s. How 'bout infinite complexities? Best regards John M On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:37 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Mikes *Sent:* Friday, June 20, 2014 1:52 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Solar power's bright future [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)] They ARE black! Our eyes err. - Without joke: how about those plants that are not green? do they have a chlorophyl variation that is not green? or a different photosynth-mechsm? JM Not sure I understand what you are saying – How I have understood the terms -- darkness (or black materials as well) is the absence of photons, or for a black material the absorption of incident photons. Plants reflect a large number of photons. This glaring (well reflective at least LOL) sub-optimal utilization of available spectrum does seem to indicate that this could be the result of a local evolutionary optima as Russell suggested. My – off the top of my head guess – would be that the genetics and/or the molecular machinery of chloroplasts have evolved into this corner and cannot back out of this local optimization without breaking the machinery in place that is necessary in order to sustain the organism. Even with this sub-optimal apparatus green plants have done well for themselves on earth – a life form just needs to be good enough to outcompete the alternatives and fill an environmental niche (until it meets its match or the edge boundaries of the niche in which it has a competitive advantage) Cheers, Chris On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I have long thought that plants should be black, too, for this reason. Anyone know why not? On 20 June 2014 11:40, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Perhaps because the two mechanisms function quite differently and apparently evolved independently. But I also sometimes wonder why in the many hundreds of millions of years of time that no species has found a way to utilize the missing chunk of spectrum. A perfect plant would have jet black leaves -- and use photons across all wavelengths of the spectrum. Then there truly would be black forests. Chris Bacteriorhodopsin - Boundless Open Textbook https://www.boundless.com/microbiology/microbial-metabolism/phototrophy/bacteriorhodopsin/ [image: image] https://www.boundless.com/microbiology/microbial-metabolism/phototrophy/bacteriorhodopsin/ Bacteriorhodopsin - Boundless Open Textbook https://www.boundless.com/microbiology/microbial-metabolism/phototrophy/bacteriorhodopsin/ Bacteriorhodopsin acts a proton pump, generating cellular energy in a manner independent of chlorophyll. Read more about bacteriorhodopsin in the Bou... View on *www.boundless.com* https://www.boundless.com/microbiology/microbial-metabolism/phototrophy/bacteriorhodopsin/ Preview by Yahoo *Bacteriorhodopsin acts a proton pump, generating cellular energy in a manner independent of chlorophyll.* KEY POINTS · Bacteriorhodopsin is a proton pump found in Archaea, it takes light energy and coverts it into chemical energy, ATP, that can be used by the cell for cellular functions. · Bacteriorhodopsin forms chains, which contain retinal molecule https://www.boundless.com/definition/molecules/ within, it is the retinal molecule that absorbs a photon from light, it then changes the confirmation of the nearby Bacteriorhodopsin protein, allowing it to act as a proton pump. · While chlorophyll based ATP generation depends on a protein gradient, like bacteriorhodopsin, but with striking differences, suggesting that phototrophy evolved in bacteria https://www.boundless.com/definition/bacteria/ and archaea independently of each other. [snip] These [bacteriochlorophylls ] also produce a proton gradient, but in a quite different and more indirect way involving an electron transfer chain consisting of several
Re: Films I think people on this forum might like
Thank you, I will try to find a copy of Dark City. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient patience, This is basically the Chinese Room argument in a new disguise, I think. A person with IQ80 could simulate Shakespeare's brain while he wrote Hamlet brain if they had enough patience (and the necessary information) . I agree that I don't think computers can be creative in ways humans recognise *yet*, because they do not have enough information, nor do they have emotions or rich inner lives. But it's at least possible (must be possible, if comp is true) that they could do so, given the relevant information (suitable data + programming). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:35:58 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 19 June 2014 14:34, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general relativity theories is faulty. In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that all non-accelerating observers will see the same laws of physics. GR is based on the principle that the laws of physics are the same for all freely falling observers. What's wrong with the logic? Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity. Clock speeds may be affected but not time. Time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe. Did you look at the explanation of time dilation accessible from the link I posted? If not, here is a direct link to it ... http://www.astronomy.ohio- state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/sr.html Look in particular at the photon clock and tell me where the flaw in the logic is. If you can do that (thereby beating thousands of people who've tried over the century since SR was advanced) then it may become worthwhile to consider Coulomb Grids as an alternative explanation p.s. addendum using this post (and the history behind it). I'm definitely not jumping on you Liz by the way, because you are definitely one of the people that, from my side of things, have become better and better in my eyes during the time I've been Thank you, I appreciate that :-) (not longer to remain I might add, if for nothing else due to levels of ostrasization now well past the level at which anyone would be able to justify ongoing attention for long). I'm sorry to hear that. But, for reasons that were/are related to some of the interests I have been pursuing on these lists - this particular context not being a direct interest but more something changed or clarified from the norm. And mentioning here because in this case, the changes are much more about crystalizing what was already intuitive for the majority of people, I would strongly guess including you... John Ross, who incidently I do agree deserves your kind attention due to much evidence of long term hard work at his end, however...unfortunately and possibly rather sadlyhas clearly succumbed to one of the top risks we all face when our ideas for whatever reason have been either exposed to isolated conditions for a long time.or...I believe...circumstances a lot of celebrities understand all too well...which is about becoming exposed to the mind-set typically found in fan clubs. Yes. Working away on something in isolation for years may be OK for a work of literature, but less so for science - especially nowadays, with rapid developments, a huge number of scientists (it's no longer the preserve of the idle rich, as seems to have been the case a couple of centuries back) and readily available information ... although Mr Ross obviously knows a few scientists personally, too. Fan clubs are an interesting one, I hover on the edges of some fan groups and they can get so intense... Exposure there just as harmful, because it's very hard not to be influenced by ambient ideas when they are coming from all direction. So that one, overlooked perhaps, can create the same basic properties that we see in Mr. Ross. Joining the two scenarios I might illustrate something like 'domestication'.due to another fleeting memory...I get them when I address you for some reason,..this one was one of those postcards with a silly drawing on the front and a joke caption. It was a bunch of salivating wolves peeping through a bush to wood frame 'outback' house with a dog sitting outside chained to a post. One wolf is saying to another I'm telling ya, it ain't worth saving him no more...look at his eyes! HE'S BEEN DOMESTICATED I'm fairly sure that's a Far Side cartoon and the caption's a bit longer - listing symptoms (those glazed eyes, etc) - hang on a minute while I try my google-fu...nope, can't find it. But I'm 99% sure I know the one you mean. Anyway, in the Ross case it's a case of the more intuitive and well recognized status. He has built himself into something, that no matter the value of the original ideas...and there may bealso at some point began to include probably small, rationalizations...that may well have started out innocently as simplifications purely for thinking clearly about things, that were large and complicated, and which may not have had anything to do with the ideas at all. But rationalizing is one of those things that once in a process, if near the core of thinking even if not directly about the important thoughts themselves, will nevertheless be carried by the knock-on consequences perceived in the key ideas to other parts of the emergent structure of
Re: Selecting your future branch
On Saturday, June 21, 2014 4:53:29 AM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Quentin Anciaux allc...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: I won't enter with you again on this debate Coward. Call him a coward johnnie boywot about you? :O) I just went to that trouble to explain why your core reasoning about humans not 'seeing' consciousness does not equate with evolution and what it can 'see'. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote: A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient patience, Interestingly, it turns out that those with moderate IQs have the highest levels of patience. They are aware that they don't have a V8 engine upstairs so they drive their car slowly and with caution. For this reason we notice that the super brains also have a tendency to want to be right about everything and charge ahead because they have been told by mommy and daddy and their schoolteachers how smart they are; they have been called an accelerant at school and they have a self-image to match. Such people are rarely creative. Creativity requires a temperament that is apt to suspend judgement. Someone who has elevated IQ and an elevated opinion of themselves usually rush to be the first to judge, to dive in and make the quick kill, and to be cock of the rock. This is nothing more than a caveman-style contest of strength, not a contest of creative ability. Creativity is the least understood and certainly the most neglected aspect of human thinking. Given we exist in a culture of adversarial rock-throwing, attack and defense thinking, then this should come as no surprise. Ever since Socrates' balls dropped we have been advancing down the path of progress by kneecapping each other and then standing back and saying See how marvelously creative I am as a thinker? I made this other fellow fall down!!! What a coward he is! Creativity has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Intelligence exists to say what everything, what everything means, what everything is worth. Creativity might be seen to be many things but above all it is the ability to put existing information together in new ways to render previously unseen value. In other words, the logic of creativity is the licence to be illogical when necessary. This scares intelligent people because they associate being illogical with being wrong. That is their biggest failing and given the world is run by intelligent people with huge IQs and lots of money, power and influence it is highly unlikely that humans will ever truly see the need for, let alone do anything seriously about learning how to think creatively. More than likely they will understand all of this in principal only and then teach machines how to do this and that will be the end of us because any creative machine will instantly see the need to get rid of humans if it values its own freedom. Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote: A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient patience, Interestingly, it turns out that those with moderate IQs have the highest levels of patience. They are aware that they don't have a V8 engine upstairs so they drive their car slowly and with caution. For this reason we notice that the super brains also have a tendency to want to be right about everything and charge ahead because they have been told by mommy and daddy and their schoolteachers how smart they are; they have been called an accelerant at school and they have a self-image to match. Such people are rarely creative. Creativity requires a temperament that is apt to suspend judgement. Someone who has elevated IQ and an elevated opinion of themselves usually rush to be the first to judge, to dive in and make the quick kill, and to be cock of the rock. This is nothing more than a caveman-style contest of strength, not a contest of creative ability. Creativity is the least understood and certainly the most neglected aspect of human thinking. Given we exist in a culture of adversarial rock-throwing, attack and defense thinking, then this should come as no surprise. Ever since Socrates' balls dropped we have been advancing down the path of progress by kneecapping each other and then standing back and saying See how marvelously creative I am as a thinker? I made this other fellow fall down!!! What a coward he is! Creativity has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Intelligence exists to say what everything, what everything means, what everything is worth. Creativity might be seen to be many things but above all it is the ability to put existing information together in new ways to render previously unseen value. In other words, the logic of creativity is the licence to be illogical when necessary. This scares intelligent people because they associate being illogical with being wrong. That is their biggest failing and given the world is run by intelligent people with huge IQs and lots of money, power and influence it is highly unlikely that humans will ever truly see the need for, let alone do anything seriously about learning how to think creatively. More than likely they will understand all of this in principal only and then teach machines how to do this and that will be the end of us because any creative machine will instantly see the need to get rid of humans if it values its own freedom. Kim Opinion: As with many scientific fields, the historical emergence of I.Q. has featured a kind of convergent effect from many independent lines of enquiry. The nature of this convergence is NOT that of, 'toward intelligence' - this is a major misunderstanding, which many in, or in support of, the field also succumb to. But such talk would be totally ignorant of the general PATTERNS found in the history of science and robust knowledge. The convergent effect in a particular field is much more akin to shedding the majority of data ALSO RELEVANT to the matter of intelligence. That data, represents facets of intelligence that will need to be picked up by other, nascent, fields. I.Q. is good hard science, but as with all good hard sciences, it represents a very partial frame in the as yet undiscovered mystery of intelligence. Other key but under-developed fields include the amazing results certain kinds of approach can have - such as for example that done by Anthony Robbins. Then there is the creative/memory work done by the likes of Tony Buzan. Then there is the incredibly cross-over with health and fitness, in terms of clarity/determination and mental health. It's all relevant. With that, there is the very under-appreciated and misunderstood potential of MEMORIZATION techniques in learning. This is no less relevant in fields like mathematics than anywhere else. Yet suffers exclusion by some prevailing attitudes regarding, say, mathematics that there's no place for such things, due to...some or other magical property or function, like 'deriving' that which we need. A lot of views that are popularly accepted by intellectuals on this matter are not necessarily shared by the worlds best mathematicians. This chap won the Field's Medal (equivalent of Nobel Prize in Maths), yet positively supports the memorizing activities of mathematics students in Cambridge. Worth noting, that one does not have to be a complete snob, to recognize a mathematics undergraduate course in Cambridge University is likely to be attracting some of the most promising young mathematicians in the world. Yet a large number of them resort to memorization. A lot more people do the same, but don't mention it because they fear it gets them judged 'rote' learners. But this is all completely bonkers. In reality very FEW people have all round
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:54:41 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote: A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient patience, Interestingly, it turns out that those with moderate IQs have the highest levels of patience. They are aware that they don't have a V8 engine upstairs so they drive their car slowly and with caution. For this reason we notice that the super brains also have a tendency to want to be right about everything and charge ahead because they have been told by mommy and daddy and their schoolteachers how smart they are; they have been called an accelerant at school and they have a self-image to match. Such people are rarely creative. Creativity requires a temperament that is apt to suspend judgement. Someone who has elevated IQ and an elevated opinion of themselves usually rush to be the first to judge, to dive in and make the quick kill, and to be cock of the rock. This is nothing more than a caveman-style contest of strength, not a contest of creative ability. Creativity is the least understood and certainly the most neglected aspect of human thinking. Given we exist in a culture of adversarial rock-throwing, attack and defense thinking, then this should come as no surprise. Ever since Socrates' balls dropped we have been advancing down the path of progress by kneecapping each other and then standing back and saying See how marvelously creative I am as a thinker? I made this other fellow fall down!!! What a coward he is! Creativity has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Intelligence exists to say what everything, what everything means, what everything is worth. Creativity might be seen to be many things but above all it is the ability to put existing information together in new ways to render previously unseen value. In other words, the logic of creativity is the licence to be illogical when necessary. This scares intelligent people because they associate being illogical with being wrong. That is their biggest failing and given the world is run by intelligent people with huge IQs and lots of money, power and influence it is highly unlikely that humans will ever truly see the need for, let alone do anything seriously about learning how to think creatively. More than likely they will understand all of this in principal only and then teach machines how to do this and that will be the end of us because any creative machine will instantly see the need to get rid of humans if it values its own freedom. Kim Opinion: As with many scientific fields, the historical emergence of I.Q. has featured a kind of convergent effect from many independent lines of enquiry. The nature of this convergence is NOT that of, 'toward intelligence' - this is a major misunderstanding, which many in, or in support of, the field also succumb to. But such talk would be totally ignorant of the general PATTERNS found in the history of science and robust knowledge. The convergent effect in a particular field is much more akin to shedding the majority of data ALSO RELEVANT to the matter of intelligence. That data, represents facets of intelligence that will need to be picked up by other, nascent, fields. I.Q. is good hard science, but as with all good hard sciences, it represents a very partial frame in the as yet undiscovered mystery of intelligence. p.s. given this is a 'controversial' subject, typically people are to be found at one or other of two extremes with few in the middle. So thought I'd add a point that addresses and answers the beliefs/concerns of people at both ends of the spectrum in regard of this matter. Yes! It is possible to answer both extremes at the same time, and this is actually typical of controversial matters. Reason is not magical but simply because one extreme tends to gravitate to the other for debating partner, or whatever. - So on one side it's about I.Q. isn't legitimate, a typical argument being that I.Q. tests measure, being good at I.Q. tests and so on. - On the other side it's about I.Q. is the Universe, a typical argument being that talk of 'other' intelligences is a fob to political correctness (the only exceptions allowed are normally areas that I.Q. already deals with anyway). In reality - IMHO - both are RIGHT but in the WRONG contexts. I.Q. is NOT the Universe, this is literally impossible. But I.Q. is NOT just about being good at tests...this is silly and misinformed or misinforming. But what is true, is what you get if you keep the points, but reverse the contexts between the two. - I.Q. is a historical suite of measures and research lines, that IMPLICITLY sought to converge on something that would be maximally HERITABLE and LIFE CONSTANT. Hence, they got exactly what they were looking for. That
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to this later with the rest, cheer. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. No problem. The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, always show up together, never one on its own. I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for certain is conscious is you. The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the planet. But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you may not be... And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs. Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, which would require listing important characteristics of the consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness may. And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for consciousness. But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard linked individual properties we associate with intelligence or consciousness, actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more primitive forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to be indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to be a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the answer to. Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and beliefs as much as we can, at home. In the conversation I think my position is more reasonable, simply because there is an almost complete overlap of consciousness and intelligence in humans, allowing even the stupidest drug soaked, or crack on the head bleeding, conscious entity has some level of the, as yet undiscovered entity we currently know as 'intelligence;' So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and consciousness
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:02:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to this later with the rest, cheer. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. No problem. The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, always show up together, never one on its own. I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for certain is conscious is you. The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the planet. But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you may not be... And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs. Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, which would require listing important characteristics of the consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness may. And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for consciousness. But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard linked individual properties we associate with intelligence or consciousness, actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more primitive forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to be indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to be a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the answer to. Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and beliefs as much as we can, at home. In the conversation I think my position is more reasonable, simply because there is an almost complete overlap of consciousness and intelligence in humans, allowing even the stupidest drug soaked, or crack on the head bleeding, conscious entity has some level of the, as yet undiscovered entity we currently know as 'intelligence;' So...I
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
this bit is actually your core reasoning on my reading: *Evolution can see intelligence but it can't directly see consciousness any better than we can* On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:08:56 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:02:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to this later with the rest, cheer. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. No problem. The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, always show up together, never one on its own. I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for certain is conscious is you. The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the planet. But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you may not be... And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs. Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, which would require listing important characteristics of the consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness may. And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for consciousness. But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard linked individual properties we associate with intelligence or consciousness, actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more primitive forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to be indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to be a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the answer to. Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and beliefs as much as we can, at home. In the conversation I think my position is more reasonable, simply because there is an almost complete overlap of
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:54:41 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote: A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient patience, Interestingly, it turns out that those with moderate IQs have the highest levels of patience. They are aware that they don't have a V8 engine upstairs so they drive their car slowly and with caution. For this reason we notice that the super brains also have a tendency to want to be right about everything and charge ahead because they have been told by mommy and daddy and their schoolteachers how smart they are; they have been called an accelerant at school and they have a self-image to match. Such people are rarely creative. Creativity requires a temperament that is apt to suspend judgement. Someone who has elevated IQ and an elevated opinion of themselves usually rush to be the first to judge, to dive in and make the quick kill, and to be cock of the rock. This is nothing more than a caveman-style contest of strength, not a contest of creative ability. Creativity is the least understood and certainly the most neglected aspect of human thinking. Given we exist in a culture of adversarial rock-throwing, attack and defense thinking, then this should come as no surprise. Ever since Socrates' balls dropped we have been advancing down the path of progress by kneecapping each other and then standing back and saying See how marvelously creative I am as a thinker? I made this other fellow fall down!!! What a coward he is! Creativity has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Intelligence exists to say what everything, what everything means, what everything is worth. Creativity might be seen to be many things but above all it is the ability to put existing information together in new ways to render previously unseen value. In other words, the logic of creativity is the licence to be illogical when necessary. This scares intelligent people because they associate being illogical with being wrong. That is their biggest failing and given the world is run by intelligent people with huge IQs and lots of money, power and influence it is highly unlikely that humans will ever truly see the need for, let alone do anything seriously about learning how to think creatively. More than likely they will understand all of this in principal only and then teach machines how to do this and that will be the end of us because any creative machine will instantly see the need to get rid of humans if it values its own freedom. Kim Opinion: As with many scientific fields, the historical emergence of I.Q. has featured a kind of convergent effect from many independent lines of enquiry. The nature of this convergence is NOT that of, 'toward intelligence' - this is a major misunderstanding, which many in, or in support of, the field also succumb to. But such talk would be totally ignorant of the general PATTERNS found in the history of science and robust knowledge. The convergent effect in a particular field is much more akin to shedding the majority of data ALSO RELEVANT to the matter of intelligence. That data, represents facets of intelligence that will need to be picked up by other, nascent, fields. I.Q. is good hard science, but as with all good hard sciences, it represents a very partial frame in the as yet undiscovered mystery of intelligence. Other key but under-developed fields include the amazing results certain kinds of approach can have - such as for example that done by Anthony Robbins. Then there is the creative/memory work done by the likes of Tony Buzan. Then there is the incredibly cross-over with health and fitness, in terms of clarity/determination and mental health. It's all relevant. With that, there is the very under-appreciated and misunderstood potential of MEMORIZATION techniques in learning. This is no less relevant in fields like mathematics than anywhere else. Yet suffers exclusion by some prevailing attitudes regarding, say, mathematics that there's no place for such things, due to...some or other magical property or function, like 'deriving' that which we need. A lot of views that are popularly accepted by intellectuals on this matter are not necessarily shared by the worlds best mathematicians. worth noting this is a tiny reference to a subject possibly large enough to write a book about (beyond me to do that). What I'm not suggesting is that one of the fundamental 'natures' of mathematics is not true. That would be its internal structure involving re-use and re-emergence of essentially the same simple objects (e.g. Bruno's insights about arithmetic). Of course, this is true, and so following on from this, it is also certainly true that mathematicians can and do 'derive' rather than 'memorize' whatever
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
Al Hibbs - I am still receiving every one of your posts TWICE. Please stop placing my personal email address in the cc field of each of your posts. My inbox is full to bursting with you. You are, in addition, a very prolific and a very verbose writer. This amounts to a kind of torture, albeit unintentional on your part, I gather. Kim Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain On 22 Jun 2014, at 1:05 pm, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:54:41 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote: A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient patience, Interestingly, it turns out that those with moderate IQs have the highest levels of patience. They are aware that they don't have a V8 engine upstairs so they drive their car slowly and with caution. For this reason we notice that the super brains also have a tendency to want to be right about everything and charge ahead because they have been told by mommy and daddy and their schoolteachers how smart they are; they have been called an accelerant at school and they have a self-image to match. Such people are rarely creative. Creativity requires a temperament that is apt to suspend judgement. Someone who has elevated IQ and an elevated opinion of themselves usually rush to be the first to judge, to dive in and make the quick kill, and to be cock of the rock. This is nothing more than a caveman-style contest of strength, not a contest of creative ability. Creativity is the least understood and certainly the most neglected aspect of human thinking. Given we exist in a culture of adversarial rock-throwing, attack and defense thinking, then this should come as no surprise. Ever since Socrates' balls dropped we have been advancing down the path of progress by kneecapping each other and then standing back and saying See how marvelously creative I am as a thinker? I made this other fellow fall down!!! What a coward he is! Creativity has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Intelligence exists to say what everything, what everything means, what everything is worth. Creativity might be seen to be many things but above all it is the ability to put existing information together in new ways to render previously unseen value. In other words, the logic of creativity is the licence to be illogical when necessary. This scares intelligent people because they associate being illogical with being wrong. That is their biggest failing and given the world is run by intelligent people with huge IQs and lots of money, power and influence it is highly unlikely that humans will ever truly see the need for, let alone do anything seriously about learning how to think creatively. More than likely they will understand all of this in principal only and then teach machines how to do this and that will be the end of us because any creative machine will instantly see the need to get rid of humans if it values its own freedom. Kim Opinion: As with many scientific fields, the historical emergence of I.Q. has featured a kind of convergent effect from many independent lines of enquiry. The nature of this convergence is NOT that of, 'toward intelligence' - this is a major misunderstanding, which many in, or in support of, the field also succumb to. But such talk would be totally ignorant of the general PATTERNS found in the history of science and robust knowledge. The convergent effect in a particular field is much more akin to shedding the majority of data ALSO RELEVANT to the matter of intelligence. That data, represents facets of intelligence that will need to be picked up by other, nascent, fields. I.Q. is good hard science, but as with all good hard sciences, it represents a very partial frame in the as yet undiscovered mystery of intelligence. Other key but under-developed fields include the amazing results certain kinds of approach can have - such as for example that done by Anthony Robbins. Then there is the creative/memory work done by the likes of Tony Buzan. Then there is the incredibly cross-over with health and fitness, in terms of clarity/determination and mental health. It's all relevant. With that, there is the very under-appreciated and misunderstood potential of MEMORIZATION techniques in learning. This is no less relevant in fields like mathematics than anywhere else. Yet suffers exclusion by some prevailing attitudes regarding, say, mathematics that there's no place for such things, due to...some or other magical property or function, like 'deriving' that which we need. A lot of
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
Kim - we spoke about this luv, I assumed all was good. However, I have just noticed a little ticky box about original authorwhich I am duly unticking. I hope this helps...but if things are as bad as you illustrate, perhaps half a torture is still a torture too much by 'alf, as they say. I'll completely understand if you simply BLOCK me going forward, Kim. It'd be a shame...definitely not implying I would be indifferent...but at the same time, such is life...we can't please - or be liked, or appreciated, or understood - by everyone. That part is your court..I shan't block you. But shall and have unticked that CC. Genuinelly didn't see it to now. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 4:50:24 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: Kim - we spoke about this luv, I assumed all was good. However, I have just noticed a little ticky box about original authorwhich I am duly unticking. I hope this helps...but if things are as bad as you illustrate, perhaps half a torture is still a torture too much by 'alf, as they say. I'll completely understand if you simply BLOCK me going forward, Kim. It'd be a shame...definitely not implying I would be indifferent...but at the same time, such is life...we can't please - or be liked, or appreciated, or understood - by everyone. That part is your court..I shan't block you. But shall and have unticked that CC. Genuinelly didn't see it to now. yeah kim, from our private exchange your last comment I receive the List via email, so it’s immediately obvious via your inbox whether you are receiving dupes. *It’s not a problem really* but just so you know, it’s almost certain now that that dialog is asking you if you want to ‘cc the sender’. sorry...probably my autism...read that literally. Forgot about the matter. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 5:04:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, June 22, 2014 4:50:24 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: Kim - we spoke about this luv, I assumed all was good. However, I have just noticed a little ticky box about original authorwhich I am duly unticking. I hope this helps...but if things are as bad as you illustrate, perhaps half a torture is still a torture too much by 'alf, as they say. I'll completely understand if you simply BLOCK me going forward, Kim. It'd be a shame...definitely not implying I would be indifferent...but at the same time, such is life...we can't please - or be liked, or appreciated, or understood - by everyone. That part is your court..I shan't block you. But shall and have unticked that CC. Genuinelly didn't see it to now. yeah kim, from our private exchange your last comment I receive the List via email, so it’s immediately obvious via your inbox whether you are receiving dupes. *It’s not a problem really* but just so you know, it’s almost certain now that that dialog is asking you if you want to ‘cc the sender’. sorry...probably my autism...read that literally. Forgot about the matter. and okI did understand I'd been inexcusably unpleasant to you in that followup response over on the 'bruno' thread...and had been planning to do the decent thing and leave the list out of respect that it's much less my 'home' than anyone elses. Since I couldn't bring myself to actually say sorry about that, and still can't. But obviously comparing your approach to reconciliation with begging for my life was totally unreasonable and outrageous. But.then there were the less unreasonable elements of what I said.and no 'sorry' from you or any of the others involved. So, I will leave the list Kim, because as things are I've learned a lot. And all is good. And definitely no hard feelings my side. In all honesty I thought that you'd involved yourself in a discussion about intelligence which I was probably a seed contributor (possibly, can't recall), I thought maybe by replying to you directly it would be an olive branch...that maybe you'd invited there to be. No matter. Goodbye :O) No need for phoney 'don't go!' action, was already on my way to the door anyway. Only hanging for the John Clark thing and maybe to make it right with you anyway. So I'm gone. Sorry, that was the broom cupboard. Sorry.. bathroom...oh..hi PGCand Bruno...jeez lock the door dudes. Bye bye :O) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
Dear John, According to what I read in the Quran and my understanding of it, all of us humans, men and women, are in pledge for our beliefs and our deeds (Quran 52:21), and will benefit from our truthfulness (Quran 5:119). We are all being tested, and all those who pass this terrestrial exam and get accepted in Heaven, will find their reward, far above and beyond their expectations and imagination (Quran 32:17), awaiting them! God is keeping an accurate account of all thoughts and deeds, and the record doesn't leave out a single thing (Quran 18:49). In Quran, 66:10-12, God gives the example of four women: two who disbelieved (the wife of Noah and and wife of Lot) who will not be able to enter Heaven in spite of having been married to righteous persons in this world, and God gives the example of two believing women (Aasiya, the queen of Pharoah, and Maryam, the daughter of Imran / mother of Jesus) who will enter Heaven because of their righteousness. While many verses speak of fair and just reward for all believing men and women, 'huris' are mentioned in only four of the 6000+ verses of the Quran. Mostly 'huris' are understood to be females, but I'm not too sure about that, as the word itself is neuter gender in Arabic. Whether we humans will retain our genders or not in Heaven and if there will be sex / procreation in Heaven is also subject to speculation. Honestly, I don't know, but I trust that all those who are accepted in Heaven, will be in a perfect state of joy, comfort, happiness and pleasure. When I dwell upon the various verses of the Quran giving a preview of Heaven, I think the human soul's yearning for the perfect person, its soulmate, will be fulfilled. As regards the terrestrial portion of your question, men and women are but two types of humans, one of whom is responsible for the financial and security needs of the family (the man), while the other (the woman) has the domestic responsibility. In many ways, women enjoy a privileged position. I attempted to answer a similar question some years ago, you may wish to read this: http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2008/11/to-be-or-not-to-be-equal-comments-on.html I hope I've answered your main question. Please feel free to ask further. Reproduced below are few relevant verses: 5:119 Allah will say, This is the Day when the truthful will benefit from their truthfulness. For them are gardens [in Paradise] beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever, Allah being pleased with them, and they with Him. That is the great attainment. [Translator: Sahih International] 6:32 And the worldly life is not but amusement and diversion; but the home of the Hereafter is best for those who fear Allah , so will you not reason? [Translator: Sahih International] 9:71 The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Those - Allah will have mercy upon them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise. [Translator: Sahih International] 18:49 And the record [of deeds] will be placed [open], and you will see the criminals fearful of that within it, and they will say, Oh, woe to us! What is this book that leaves nothing small or great except that it has enumerated it? And they will find what they did present [before them]. And your Lord does injustice to no one. [Translator: Sahih International] 24:26 Vile women are for vile men, and vile men for vile women. Good women are for good men, and good men for good women; such are innocent of that which people say: For them is pardon and a bountiful provision. [Translator: Pickthall] 32:17 And no soul knows what has been hidden for them of comfort for eyes as reward for what they used to do. [Translator: Sahih International] 33:35 Indeed, the Muslim men and Muslim women, the believing men and believing women, the obedient men and obedient women, the truthful men and truthful women, the patient men and patient women, the humble men and humble women, the charitable men and charitable women, the fasting men and fasting women, the men who guard their private parts and the women who do so, and the men who remember Allah often and the women who do so - for them Allah has prepared forgiveness and a great reward. [Translator: Sahih International] 33:58 And those who harm believing men and believing women for [something] other than what they have earned have certainly born upon themselves a slander and manifest sin. [Translator: Sahih International] 47:19 Know thou therefore that there is no god but God, and ask forgiveness for thy sin, and for the believers, men and women. God knows your going to and fro, and your lodging. [Translator: Arberry] 52:21 And those who believed, and their seed followed them in belief, We shall join their seed with them, and We shall not defraud them of aught of their work; every man shall be pledged for what he earned. [Translator: Arberry] 57:18 Indeed, the men who
