RE: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-23 Thread Chris de Morsella 
 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 12:58 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

 

 

 

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

 

 

> The computer requires a substrate in which to operate upon -- the CPU
chips for example are what our computers operate on. I know of no computer
that does not require this external structured environment  


 The human requires a substrate in which to operate upon -- the brain for
example is what our human minds  operate on. I know of no human that does
not require this external structured environment.   

Yes. and?

> Every computer in existence requires external enabling hardware.


>>Every human in existence requires external enabling hardware.

Yes but humans are not universal computing machines, if indeed we are
machines. Do we know enough about how our brains work and are structured to
the level that we would need to in order to be able to answer that question
with any degree of certainty? I was referring to the hypothesized
deterministic universe, in which everything that has happened can be
computed from the initial state and has followed on from that original set
of conditions. that we live in a deterministic universe and that everything
that has or will ever happen is pre-destined and already baked in to the
unfolding fabric of our experiencing of reality.

If a computer operates from within a local frame of reference and context,
but far from being isolated and existing alone is instead connected to much
vaster environments and meta-processes that are potentially very loosely
coupled -- based on in direct means such as say message passing through
queues or other signals - then can its own outputs be said to be completely
deterministic - even if we consider its own internal operations to be
constrained to be deterministic? Operations, especially ones that are parts
of much larger workflows etc. are being mutated by many actors and
potentially with sophisticated stripe locking strategies, for example,
having their data stores being accessed concurrently by multiple separate
processes. There are just so many pseudo random and hard to predict or model
occurrences - such as say lock contention - that are occurring at huge rates
(when seen from sufficiently high up any large architecture)

I find it hard to see how the resulting outcomes produced by such kinds of
systems can be determined based on a knowledge of the state of the system at
some initial instant in time.

 > If a computer requires a substrate which it can manipulate in order to
perform its logical operations then a universal computer is impossible
because the substrate would necessarily be outside and foundational to its
domain.


>>If a human requires a substrate which it can manipulate in order to
perform its logical operations then a universal human is impossible because
the substrate would necessarily be outside and foundational to its domain.

Agreed. Humans are exceedingly far from being universal. Our very sense of
self precludes universality.

Cheers,

-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/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-23 Thread Chris de Morsella 
Brent I agree, it seems to be an ever moving goal post. Already so much is 
being done by expert systems that up until a few years ago was the exclusive 
domain of humans -- for example automated arbitrage trading systems that are 
responsible for an ever growing slice of all the trades on the major stock and 
commodities exchanges in the world because not only are they so much faster 
than humans, but often are making better trades on average than human traders.
 
Part of the reason for this goal post moving that seems to be going on is due 
to how hard it is to really provide any kind of rigorous definition of what is 
the meaning of intelligence, self awareness etc.and so it is quite easy -- in 
the fog of semantic confusion -- to post facto claim that whatever had been 
previously proposed as a clear sign of AI is not really indicative of true AI.
 
Chris
 


 From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
  


On 8/23/2013 11:05 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
 
I AI the response is ever "The next decade" 
That's because as soon as a computer does what was formerly claimed to be 
possible only for human intellect, e.g. beat a world chess champion, prove a 
new theorem in mathematics, drive a car in traffic,... that thing is 
immediately demoted to "not real intelligence".

So AI is always what hasn't been done yet.

Brent
 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-23 Thread meekerdb 

On 8/23/2013 11:05 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

I AI the response is ever "The next decade"


That's because as soon as a computer does what was formerly claimed to be possible only 
for human intellect, e.g. beat a world chess champion, prove a new theorem in mathematics, 
drive a car in traffic,... that thing is immediately demoted to "not real intelligence".


So AI is always what hasn't been done yet.

Brent

--
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-23 Thread John Clark 
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
>
>

> > The computer requires a substrate in which to operate upon -- the CPU
> chips for example are what our computers operate on. I know of no computer
> that does not require this external structured environment
>

 The human requires a substrate in which to operate upon -- the brain for
example is what our human minds  operate on. I know of no human that does
not require this external structured environment.

> Every computer in existence requires external enabling hardware.
>

Every human in existence requires external enabling hardware.

 > If a computer requires a substrate which it can manipulate in order to
> perform its logical operations then a universal computer is impossible
> because the substrate would necessarily be outside and foundational to its
> domain.
>

If a human requires a substrate which it can manipulate in order to perform
its logical operations then a universal human is impossible because the
substrate would necessarily be outside and foundational to its domain.

  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/groups/opt_out.

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-23 Thread Quentin Anciaux 
2013/8/23 John Clark 

> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013  Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
> >>  Then there are only 2 possibilities:
>>> 1) The ultra computer that simulates our world changes from one state to
>>> the
>>> other for a reason; if so then our simulated computers which change from
>>> one
>>> state to the other for a simulated reason can create a simulated
>>> simulated
>>> world that also looks real to its simulated simulated inhabitants.
>>>
>>>  2) The ultra computer that simulates our world changes from one state
>>> to the
>>>  other for NO reason; if so then its random and there's nothing very
>>> ultra
>>> about the machine.
>>
>>
>>
> > But the ultra computer I postulated is not a pure Turing machine. It's
>> behaviour can be influenced by entities external to our simulated universe.
>>
>
> Any Turing Machine can be influenced by anything external to it, such as
> me throwing a rock at the contraption.  I don't see the point.
>
>
>  >> Cannot comment, I don't know what "comp" is.
>>>
>>
>> > Come on John, we've been through this the other day. You do know.
>>
>
> I know what I don't know and I'm telling you I don't know what "comp"
> means, every time I think I do Bruno proves me wrong.
>

You're just lying... there is nothing more difficult than to explain a
thing to someone who doesn't want to hear it... comp is *computationalism*
and nothing else. So please stop pretending you don't know.

Quentin


> After over 2 and a half years of constantly seeing people on this list
> (and nowhere else) use that strange made up word I have come to the
> conclusion that I am not alone, nobody has a deep understanding of what the
> hell "comp" is supposed to mean.
>
> > Computation does not require causality. It can be defined simply in the
>> form of symbolic relationships.
>
>
> I'm not interested in definitions and I'm not interested in relationships,
> if state X isn't the reason for a machine or computer or brain or SOMETHING
> going into state Y  then an algorithm is just squiggle of ink in a book.
> Computation is physical.
>
>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/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-23 Thread John Clark 
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013  Telmo Menezes  wrote:

>>  Then there are only 2 possibilities:
>> 1) The ultra computer that simulates our world changes from one state to
>> the
>> other for a reason; if so then our simulated computers which change from
>> one
>> state to the other for a simulated reason can create a simulated simulated
>> world that also looks real to its simulated simulated inhabitants.
>>
>>  2) The ultra computer that simulates our world changes from one state to
>> the
>>  other for NO reason; if so then its random and there's nothing very ultra
>> about the machine.
>
>
>
> But the ultra computer I postulated is not a pure Turing machine. It's
> behaviour can be influenced by entities external to our simulated universe.
>

Any Turing Machine can be influenced by anything external to it, such as me
throwing a rock at the contraption.  I don't see the point.

>> Cannot comment, I don't know what "comp" is.
>>
>
> > Come on John, we've been through this the other day. You do know.
>

I know what I don't know and I'm telling you I don't know what "comp"
means, every time I think I do Bruno proves me wrong. After over 2 and a
half years of constantly seeing people on this list (and nowhere else) use
that strange made up word I have come to the conclusion that I am not
alone, nobody has a deep understanding of what the hell "comp" is supposed
to mean.

> Computation does not require causality. It can be defined simply in the
> form of symbolic relationships.


I'm not interested in definitions and I'm not interested in relationships,
if state X isn't the reason for a machine or computer or brain or SOMETHING
going into state Y  then an algorithm is just squiggle of ink in a book.
Computation is physical.

   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/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

2013-08-23 Thread Alberto G. Corona 
To talk about politics in a group is like  sex exhibition: it exert an
irresistible attention that disturb the whole group. That is one of the
main reasons why sex exhibition (and politics) is prohibited in most real
and virtual places: It makes impossible any other activity. it is like a
black hole that disolves the stablished network of pacific exchange of
information about different interests. The same happens with politics and
maybe other things that attract an instinctive attention. I hope not to
have switched the discussion to sex.


2013/8/23 

>  Surprising the uprising against Morsi, was centrally about economic
> stagnation, food prices, inflation, and unemployment-not per se' a
> political issue or even a religious one. These people, for the most part,
> were not objecting to Islamic Law (Sharia) for example, but being able to
> purchase enough rice, and lamb. One  writer, this week, compared the
> resistance of the Egyptian Army to the roll-over of the Wehrmacht, in
> Germany, in the 1930's. The old Prussian ruling class did suspect adolf
> would lead them into a bad (for Germany) military situation, but went
> along, as the people seemed to support the fuhrer, and wanted to avoid
> bloodshed in the streets, as we see in Egypt today. The military in Egypt
> may have chosen to take the less, disastrous, path, since Morsi's MB
> collectives, may have induced a calamity, in which Cairo and Alexandra
> would be vanished. Your support of the Islamist agenda (De Facto) is
> indeed, troubling.
>  -Original Message-
> From: smitra 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Thu, Aug 22, 2013 10:17 am
> Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
>
>  In these sorts of polls the proper context is missing. Then you can
> easily fall in the same trap as the Germans who supported Hitler. In
> Egypt you actually see this very clearly, a large fraction of the
> population who are against the Muslim Brotherhood are saying that the
> hundreds of dead civilians are not the responsibility of the security
> forces that these civilians deserved to die for supporting the Muslim
> Brotherhood.
>
> This is fascism, it is not per se that you have some evil dictator in
> power who is doing bad things, but it is a government who does "bad
> things" with the support of a large fraction of the population, and
> that then these "bad things" are perceived to be "good things".
>
> Saibal
>
>
>
> Citeren spudboy...@aol.com:
>
> >
> > Its a solid majoritarian opinion by the Umah (Islamic nation) tho'
> > their are huge schisms within Islam..Sunni v Shia, Amadi's (the good
> > guys).  A PEW opinion survey of Islamic states bears Alberto's views
> > out-sorry to say. It's not bigotry, if is true, nor is it propaganda,
> > if one is not, using a little truth to tell a big lie. It's telling a
> > big truth, about how the Faithful view the world, and to educate, and
> > accept the facts as they are. What to do about this if we are correct
> > is complicated.  Frankly, I am guessing that we might mitigate this
> > dilemma by focusing on the prime motivation within Islam--Life after
> > Death. It is, as we yanks say, "what gets them out of bed in the
> > morning" It's even more central to Islam then it is to
> > Christianity we can put our collective efforts there instead of
> > focusing on personal attacks, or ideological correctness.
> >
> > Mitch
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Chris de Morsella 
> > To: everything-list 
> > Sent: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 8:52 pm
> > Subject: RE: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
> >
> >
> >
> > More hateful stereotyping of a diverse group numbering over a billion
> > human beings by our very own fascist troll
> >
> > From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> > [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> > ] On Behalf Of Alberto G.
> > Corona
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:02 PM
> > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
> >
> >
> > Just follow the tv of muslim countries, and specially, the political 
> > debates.
> >
> >
> >
> > Google: hitler arab countries television
> >
> >
> >
> > It can not be otherwhise since te nazis and the muslims share the
> > same main goal. you know.
> >
> >
> >
> > Abu Mazen, the leader of the PLO after Yasif Arafat wrote its
> > doctoral thesis at the university about denial of the Holocaust.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Baaz party that ruled Iraq and Siria are inspired directly by the
> > Nazi party.
> >
> >
> >
> > There are hundred of examples of continuous praise of hitler or
> > hitler-inspired ideas in the musling world.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you search,  you can find a lot of nazi flags waved by muslim
> > fundamentalists. even on the top of mesquites
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/8/21 meekerdb 
> >
> >
> > On 8/21/2013 11:48 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> >
> > That Hitler is the most respected western figure in the muslim word
> > is a fact.
> >
> >
> >
> > What is the ev

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-23 Thread Chris de Morsella 
Okay I grant you that the Deep Blue machine is part of the sediment buried 
under Moore's Law  -- had not looked at the benchmarks as closely as I should 
have it was late at night and I am going to stick with that answer :) 
 
As for the larger discussion I guess it boils down to my doubt about the 
theoretical possibility of a universal computer. Every computer that we know 
about executes within a defined context -- its execution context, and within a 
local frame of reference under which it is executing. The execution context is 
bounded and limited and does not and IMO cannot extend infinitely. Though I am 
pretty certain others may disagree and will argue that a universal computer can 
exist that executes in a universal all encompassing context. I do not see how 
this can be. The computer requires a substrate in which to operate upon -- the 
CPU chips for example are what our computers operate on. I know of no computer 
that does not require this external structured environment  -- necessary to 
exist outside of itself so to speak in order for it to be able to operate on 
this substrate. 
Every computer in existence requires external enabling hardware. 
 
If a computer requires a substrate which it can manipulate in order to perform 
its logical operations then a universal computer is impossible because the 
substrate would necessarily be outside and foundational to its domain.
 
In any non-universal computer we are back to the limits posed by execution 
context and local frame of reference. A process may be shown to be 
deterministic within some frame, within an execution context, but because -- I 
argue -- there can be no all encompassing universal execution context that does 
not itself rely on some external substrate to enable its basic operations -- 
there will always be other execution contexts and processes which are operating 
independently of any context. 
 
Now when different execution contexts begin communicating messages to each 
other how can a global outcome be said to be deterministic within the scope of 
any given execution context. Each single execution context is operating in its 
own frame of reference and will be generating outcomes based on its own frame. 
However its own frame is not completely isolated from other frames of reference 
in the larger linked meta systems -- say the internet as a single loosely 
coupled dynamic entity for example comprised of perhaps billions of connected 
devices each operating in its own local frame.
 
I find the idea that this massive meta entity of millions and millions of 
separate servers can be described as being deterministic in it's whole. The 
individual executing agents or processes -- that together when linked by the 
trillions of messages being sent back and forth comprise this larger meta 
entity --  can be modeled in a deterministic fashion within their individual 
frames of reference and execution contexts. 
 
But can one say the same thing about the larger meta entity that emerges from 
the subtle interactions of the many hundreds of millions of executing processes 
that dynamically impinge on it and through which it emerges?
 
When one speaks of outcomes, they often depend on subtle variables that are 
rapidly varying for example such that the results of running a function may 
change from instant to instant. While within the execution context of the 
function producing the result we can prove it is deterministic once this 
function is loosely linked to other separately running execution frames it 
becomes harder to deterministically predict any given outcome until some 
threshold of complexity and noise is reached where it becomes impossible to 
work back from the outcome and show how it has been determined.
 
Metaphorically I suppose you could imagine a pond and random pebbles being 
tossed into it from many various directions. At first it will be possible to 
analyze the ripples and their interference patterns and work back to the time 
and place of each pebble hitting the water event and determine the angle, size 
speed etc. of each pebble. But play this forward and keep throwing more and 
more pebbles onto the pond's surface from different angles and speeds. After 
some time can one work back to the first pebble and determine the specifics of 
that single event? Obviously in practice we cannot do so no matter how much 
computing power we throw at the problem because the interactions and 
interference patterns of the millions of ripples spreading out from different 
points will grow exponentially more difficult, until all the computers in the 
universe working together would be unable to solve the problem for a big 
enough pond that is of course.
 
Perhaps one could even invoke quantum erasure -- and state that once an event 
has become so interfered with by other events that all trace of it cannot be 
distinguished from the noise in the system then in a sense has not that event 
been erased? 
 
And yet the current state of

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-23 Thread Telmo Menezes 
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Russell Standish  wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 05:10:05PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> Bruno did not invent the term "dovetailing" nor is he the only person
>> to use it in computer science. A simple google search will show you
>> this. I know you're a smart guy and understand the metaphor, so you're
>> just complaining for the sake of complaining. Do you also disapprove
>> of the use of a sewing term to describe a type of computation
>> (threading)?
>>
>
> I was a little puzzled by the etymology of "dovetailing" when I first
> heard it, as I knew about the carpentry term. However, it apparently
> comes from tilers, who describe a pattern of laying tiles as
> dovetailing. And that analogy makes more sense.

Ok. The analogy felt natural to me, looking at pictures like the first one here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dovetail_joint

I think some people also use the term for the traditional way of
shuffling a deck of cards, which also makes sense.

In any case, it's an established computer science term. Wolfram uses
it in "A New Kind of Science", for example.

Cheers,
Telmo.

> Cheers
>
> --
>
> 
> 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
> 
>
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-23 Thread Alberto G. Corona 
I AI the response is ever "The next decade"


2013/8/23 John Clark 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> *>> If it's not random then it happened for a reason, and things happen
>> in a computer for a reason too.*
>>
>> > Sure, but the "reason" may not be amenable to being completely
>> contained within the confines of a deterministic algorithm
>>
>
> What on earth are you talking about? The deterministic algorithm behaves
> as it does for a reason but does not do so for a reason??!!
>
>
>
>>  > if it depends on a series of outside processes
>>
>
> If it depends on something then it's deterministic.
>
>
>
>> *> > At the time it may have been a supercomputer but that was 16 years
>>> ago and the computer you're reading this E mail message on right now is
>>> almost certainly more powerful than the computer that beat the best human
>>> chess player in the world. And chess programs have gotten a lot better
>>> too. So all that spaghetti and complexity at the cellular level that you
>>> were rhapsodizing about didn't work as well as an antique computer running
>>> a ancient chess program.
>>> *
>>>
>>
>>
> ***> You are incorrect even today Deep Blue is still quite powerful
>> compared to a PC*
>>
>
> Not unless your meaning of "powerful" is radically diferent from mine.
>
>
>> > The Deep Blue machine specs:
>>  It was a massively 
>> parallel,
>> RS/6000 SP Thin 
>> P2SC-based
>> system with 30 nodes, with each node containing a 120 MHz 
>> P2SC
>> microprocessor  for a total
>> of 30, enhanced with 480 special purpose 
>> VLSIchess chips. 
>> Its chess playing program was written in
>> C  and ran under
>> the AIX  operating
>> system . It was capable
>> of evaluating 200 million positions per second, twice as fast as the
>> 1996 version. In June 1997, Deep Blue was the 259th most powerful
>> supercomputer  according to
>> the TOP500  list, achieving 11.38
>> GFLOPS  on the High-Performance
>> LINPACK  
>> benchmark.[12]
>>
>
> OK.
>
> > I doubt the machine you are writing your email on even comes close to
>> that level of performance; I know mine does not achieve that level of
>> performance.
>>
>
> Are you really quite sure of that? The computer I'm typing this on is an
> ancient iMac that was not top of the line even back a full Moore's Law
> generation ago when it was new, back in the olden bygone days of 2011. Like
> all computers the number of floating point operations per second it can
> perform depends on the problem, but in computing dot products running
> multi-threaded vector code it runs at 34.3 GFOPS; so Deep Blue running at
> 11.38 GFLOPS doesn't seem as impressive as it did in 1997.
>
> Right now the fastest supercomputer in the world has a LINPACK rating of
> 54.9 pentaflop*s, a *pentaflop IS A MILLION GFLOPS; so today that Chinese
> supercomputer is 4.8 millions times as powerful as Deep Blue was in 1997.
> And in just a few years that supercomputer will join Deep Blue on the
> antique computer junk pile.
>
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-23 Thread John Clark 
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>
> *>> If it's not random then it happened for a reason, and things happen
> in a computer for a reason too.*
>
> > Sure, but the "reason" may not be amenable to being completely contained
> within the confines of a deterministic algorithm
>

What on earth are you talking about? The deterministic algorithm behaves as
it does for a reason but does not do so for a reason??!!



> > if it depends on a series of outside processes
>

If it depends on something then it's deterministic.



> *> > At the time it may have been a supercomputer but that was 16 years
>> ago and the computer you're reading this E mail message on right now is
>> almost certainly more powerful than the computer that beat the best human
>> chess player in the world. And chess programs have gotten a lot better
>> too. So all that spaghetti and complexity at the cellular level that you
>> were rhapsodizing about didn't work as well as an antique computer running
>> a ancient chess program.
>> *
>>
>
>
***> You are incorrect even today Deep Blue is still quite powerful
> compared to a PC*
>

Not unless your meaning of "powerful" is radically diferent from mine.


> > The Deep Blue machine specs:
>  It was a massively parallel,
> RS/6000 SP Thin 
> P2SC-based
> system with 30 nodes, with each node containing a 120 MHz 
> P2SC
> microprocessor  for a total
> of 30, enhanced with 480 special purpose 
> VLSIchess chips. 
> Its chess playing program was written in
> C  and ran under
> the AIX  operating
> system . It was capable of
> evaluating 200 million positions per second, twice as fast as the 1996
> version. In June 1997, Deep Blue was the 259th most powerful 
> supercomputeraccording to the
> TOP500  list, achieving 11.38 
> GFLOPSon the High-Performance
> LINPACK  
> benchmark.[12]
>

OK.

> I doubt the machine you are writing your email on even comes close to
> that level of performance; I know mine does not achieve that level of
> performance.
>

Are you really quite sure of that? The computer I'm typing this on is an
ancient iMac that was not top of the line even back a full Moore's Law
generation ago when it was new, back in the olden bygone days of 2011. Like
all computers the number of floating point operations per second it can
perform depends on the problem, but in computing dot products running
multi-threaded vector code it runs at 34.3 GFOPS; so Deep Blue running at
11.38 GFLOPS doesn't seem as impressive as it did in 1997.

Right now the fastest supercomputer in the world has a LINPACK rating of
54.9 pentaflop*s, a *pentaflop IS A MILLION GFLOPS; so today that Chinese
supercomputer is 4.8 millions times as powerful as Deep Blue was in 1997.
And in just a few years that supercomputer will join Deep Blue on the
antique computer junk pile.

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/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

2013-08-23 Thread spudboy100 

Surprising the uprising against Morsi, was centrally about economic stagnation, 
food prices, inflation, and unemployment-not per se' a political issue or even 
a religious one. These people, for the most part, were not objecting to Islamic 
Law (Sharia) for example, but being able to purchase enough rice, and lamb. One 
 writer, this week, compared the resistance of the Egyptian Army to the 
roll-over of the Wehrmacht, in Germany, in the 1930's. The old Prussian ruling 
class did suspect adolf would lead them into a bad (for Germany) military 
situation, but went along, as the people seemed to support the fuhrer, and 
wanted to avoid bloodshed in the streets, as we see in Egypt today. The 
military in Egypt may have chosen to take the less, disastrous, path, since 
Morsi's MB collectives, may have induced a calamity, in which Cairo and 
Alexandra would be vanished. Your support of the Islamist agenda (De Facto) is 
indeed, troubling.


-Original Message-
From: smitra 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Aug 22, 2013 10:17 am
Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood


In these sorts of polls the proper context is missing. Then you can 
easily fall in the same trap as the Germans who supported Hitler. In 
Egypt you actually see this very clearly, a large fraction of the 
population who are against the Muslim Brotherhood are saying that the 
hundreds of dead civilians are not the responsibility of the security 
forces that these civilians deserved to die for supporting the Muslim 
Brotherhood.

This is fascism, it is not per se that you have some evil dictator in 
power who is doing bad things, but it is a government who does "bad 
things" with the support of a large fraction of the population, and 
that then these "bad things" are perceived to be "good things".

Saibal



Citeren spudboy...@aol.com:

>
> Its a solid majoritarian opinion by the Umah (Islamic nation) tho' 
> their are huge schisms within Islam..Sunni v Shia, Amadi's (the good 
> guys).  A PEW opinion survey of Islamic states bears Alberto's views 
> out-sorry to say. It's not bigotry, if is true, nor is it propaganda, 
> if one is not, using a little truth to tell a big lie. It's telling a 
> big truth, about how the Faithful view the world, and to educate, and 
> accept the facts as they are. What to do about this if we are correct 
> is complicated.  Frankly, I am guessing that we might mitigate this 
> dilemma by focusing on the prime motivation within Islam--Life after 
> Death. It is, as we yanks say, "what gets them out of bed in the 
> morning" It's even more central to Islam then it is to 
> Christianity we can put our collective efforts there instead of 
> focusing on personal attacks, or ideological correctness.
>
> Mitch
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris de Morsella 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 8:52 pm
> Subject: RE: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
>
>
>
> More hateful stereotyping of a diverse group numbering over a billion 
> human beings by our very own fascist troll
>
> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. 
> Corona
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:02 PM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
>
>
> Just follow the tv of muslim countries, and specially, the political debates.
>
>
>
> Google: hitler arab countries television
>
>
>
> It can not be otherwhise since te nazis and the muslims share the 
> same main goal. you know.
>
>
>
> Abu Mazen, the leader of the PLO after Yasif Arafat wrote its 
> doctoral thesis at the university about denial of the Holocaust.
>
>
>
> The Baaz party that ruled Iraq and Siria are inspired directly by the 
> Nazi party.
>
>
>
> There are hundred of examples of continuous praise of hitler or 
> hitler-inspired ideas in the musling world.
>
>
>
> If you search,  you can find a lot of nazi flags waved by muslim 
> fundamentalists. even on the top of mesquites
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/8/21 meekerdb 
>
>
> On 8/21/2013 11:48 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> That Hitler is the most respected western figure in the muslim word 
> is a fact.
>
>
>
> What is the evidence for this?  Are there polls?
>
> Brent
>
>
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>
> --
> 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...@goo

Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

2013-08-23 Thread spudboy100 


Well, to stay on topic, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is alive and well today, 
and is influential, as it is funded by different elements within the Islamic 
world. The Saudis will fund the Brotherhood, but not in Egypt, but Qatar will. 
Go figure. Is the MB fueled by hatred? No doubt at all. Did fascism and Nazism 
inspire them? Again, doubtless. In Jabotinsky's case, he looked to leverage 
against British rule, in Palestine. In the MB's case, they liked the 
organizational skills and philosophy of Adolf, and liked his thing about the 
Jews, as it seemed to them a quicker rout to paradise, to fulfill the Quaran, 
and the Buhkhari. Jobotinsky failed, miserably, with Mussolini, but, let us 
note. Since Smitra spawned this post, we end up talking about his views that  
supported Al Qaeda, but not their attacks against civilians, and seemed hold 
that "Western Imperialism,' bad, but Islamist Supremacy was just peachy. This 
is a view held by Progressives, round the world, and is exemplified by the ISM, 
International Socialist Movement.  I suppose these guys view Islamists as 
useful, fellow, travelers, to quote Stalin. 

-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Aug 22, 2013 12:37 pm
Subject: RE: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood



Jabotinsky, who is one of the most important historical figures of the 
development of Zionism in Israel was a great and open admirer of Mussolini and 
of the fascist ideology. Fascism – during that period of history was seen as a 
futurist/modern ideology and was admired by many including many Americans of 
the time. 
Does this mean Zionism and all modern Zionists love fascism – a fair number of 
them seem to Lieberman for example – but I hope you see how it is not fair to 
use Jabotinski’s great admiration for fascism and for Mussolini to characterize 
modern Zionism. His affinity for fascism certainly probably influenced his 
development of the Iron Wall ideology of Zionism (read about it) so it has 
certainly shown up, especially amongst his ideological heirs in the Likud 
Party, but one cannot therefore characterize all Israeli’s and even more all 
Jews as being therefore suspect of being fascists. That kind of idiocy would be 
shot down straight away; why is the same kind of false parallelism not shot 
down when the subject comes around to Muslims? Why the double standard?
Hope this illustration helps you understand how problematic it is to put, the 
peculiar affinities (for our way of looking at things) of historical figures 
into a modern context and use their ancient statements and beliefs to 
characterize whatever the movement or ideology, they had a part in founding, 
has evolved over the course of history since their times.
-Chris
 
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:49 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
 

The Al Bana brothers who essentially started up the MB, as opposed to similar 
movements, like Abu Salafia. They started the MB formally in 1928, and liked 
Mussolini's fascists (everybody did back then!) and followed forward in their 
love of Adolf when he achieved state power. Alberto is correct about the 
Baathists in Syria and Iraq, and many Muslim writers compare (favorably) Mein 
Kampf (struggle) with the commands to perform Jihad (struggle) against the Qfar 
(infidels). These writers and jurists see it as the same, sad to say. 
Christopher Hitchens (the atheist) and his friends got in a fight with members 
of the Syrian Nazi Party (part of Assad's coalition), and now Dawkins is 
actually comparing the Jihadist actions to the Reich (bully for Dawkins waking 
up). Cheers for Alberto's post as well.

 

Mitch

-Original Message-
From: Alberto G. Corona 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 7:02 pm
Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

Just follow the tv of muslim countries, and specially, the political debates. 

 

Google: hitler arab countries television

 

 It can not be otherwhise since te nazis and the muslims share the same main 
goal. you know. 

 

Abu Mazen, the leader of the PLO after Yasif Arafat wrote its doctoral thesis 
at the university about denial of the Holocaust. 

 

The Baaz party that ruled Iraq and Siria are inspired directly by the Nazi 
party. 

 

There are hundred of examples of continuous praise of hitler or hitler-inspired 
ideas in the musling world.

 

If you search,  you can find a lot of nazi flags waved by muslim 
fundamentalists. even on the top of mesquites

 


 

2013/8/21 meekerdb 


On 8/21/2013 11:48 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

That Hitler is the most respected western figure in the muslim word is a fact. 

 

What is the evidence for this?  Are there polls?

Brent


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything Lis

God's God

2013-08-23 Thread John Clark 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.