Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
2013/8/23 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 8/21/2013 11:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/8/22 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 8/21/2013 11:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/8/22 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 8/21/2013 2:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Ok, and I'm fascinated by the question of why we haven't found viable algorithms in that class yet -- although we know has a fact that it must exist, because our brains contain it. We haven't proved our brain is computational in nature, if we had, then we would had proven computationalism to be true... it's not the case. Maybe our brain has some non computational shortcut for that, maybe that's why AI is not possible, maybe our brain has this realness ingredient that computations alone lack. I'm not saying AI is not possible, I'm just saying we haven't proved that our brains contain it. There's another possibility: That our brains are computational in nature, but that they also depend on interactions with the environment (not necessarily quantum entanglement, but possibly). Then it's not computational *in nature* because it needs that little ingredient, that's what I'm talking about when saying Maybe our brain has some non computational shortcut for that, maybe that's why AI is not possible, maybe our brain has this realness ingredient that computations alone lack. It's not non-computational if the external influence is also computational. If it is, you've not chosen the right level... the whole event + brain is computational and you're back at the start. But the reaction of a silicon neuron to a beta particle may be quite different from the reaction of a biological neuron. So AI is still possible, but it may confound questions like,Is the artificial consciousness the same as the biological. If it's computational, it is computational and AI at the right level would be the same as ours. But at the right level may mean including all the environment outside the brain. When Bruno has proposed replacing neurons with equivalent input-output circuits I have objected that while it might still in most cases compute the same function there are likely to be exceptional cases involving external (to the brain) events that would cause it to be different. This wouldn't prevent AI, It would prevent it *if* we cannot attach that external event to the computation... No, it doesn't prevent intelligence, but it may make it different. It does (for digital AI) if the ingredient is non-computational and that there is no way to attach it to the digital part without (for example) a biological brain. I don't see why that follows. Suppose the non-computational, external influence comes from the output of a hypercomputer? It cans till provide input to a Turing computer. So you could attach it to the digital part *but* that output of the hypercomputer is the non-computable part... you'll need it and you can't bypass it *and* it is not computable. Or even true randomness could, as is hypothesized in QM. Same thing. if that external event was finitely describable, then it means you have not chosen the correct substitution level and computationalism alone holds. Yes, that's Bruno's answer, just regard the external world as part of the computation too, simulate the whole thing. Well if your ingredient, is the whole of physics, then it's self defeating, Exactly. That's what I said below Brent and computationalism is false... if it's some part of it, then at that level the realness of our consciousness is digital and computationalism holds. Quentin But I think that undermined his idea that computation replaces physics. Physics isn't really replaced if it has to all be simulated. 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. -- 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.
God's God
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.
Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
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 cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com 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 agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com 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 meeke...@verizon.net 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
Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
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 smi...@zonnet.nl To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com 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 cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com 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 meeke...@verizon.net 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
Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: * 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 parallelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_parallel, RS/6000 SP Thin P2SChttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Scalable_POWERparallel-based system with 30 nodes, with each node containing a 120 MHz P2SChttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P2SC microprocessor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor for a total of 30, enhanced with 480 special purpose VLSIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-large-scale_integrationchess chips. Its chess playing program was written in C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language) and ran under the AIX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIX_operating_system operating system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 supercomputerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputeraccording to the TOP500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500 list, achieving 11.38 GFLOPShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFLOPSon the High-Performance LINPACK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LINPACK benchmark.[12]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)#cite_note-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: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
I AI the response is ever The next decade 2013/8/23 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: * 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 parallelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_parallel, RS/6000 SP Thin P2SChttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Scalable_POWERparallel-based system with 30 nodes, with each node containing a 120 MHz P2SChttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P2SC microprocessor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor for a total of 30, enhanced with 480 special purpose VLSIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-large-scale_integrationchess chips. Its chess playing program was written in C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language) and ran under the AIX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIX_operating_system operating system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer according to the TOP500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500 list, achieving 11.38 GFLOPS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFLOPS on the High-Performance LINPACK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LINPACK benchmark.[12]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)#cite_note-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?
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au 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?
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
Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
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 spudboy...@aol.com 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 smi...@zonnet.nl To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com 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 cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com 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 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 meeke...@verizon.net 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
Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com 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: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
2013/8/23 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com 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?
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: 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?
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?
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 meeke...@verizon.net 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?
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 cdemorse...@yahoo.com 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.
