flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
 Home   FAQ   Search   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
flat assembler > Heap > Skynet versus The Red Queen -- Discussions on AI

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
Show me one single person who talks about the good old days BEFORE HE WAS BORN.

Research shows that fetuses do have mouth movements. But that does not fit your requirement, I guess.

Since it takes time for newborn babies to learn a spoken language, I am afraid that I can't find such a person.

Wink
Post 06 Sep 2017, 12:30
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
That, by definition, rules it out being any sort of hard science.

So, you are talking about only "hard" science, and "soft" science does not count. Right?

BTW, what is hard science? You know, your definition tends to be "a little" different from the generally-accepted one.

Wink
Post 06 Sep 2017, 12:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
If a scientific theory describes gravity perfectly and another describes gravity AND quantum phenomena perfectly, then the latter is obviously superior ...

Irrelevant.

We were discussing "definitions of things", not "theories".

Wink
Post 06 Sep 2017, 12:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
Fucking pisses me off ...

Your radical definitions and arguments also piss me off, too. Still, I do NOT use the F-word because I know that I need to show a little respect to my opponent even if I seriously disagree with what he/she says.

Wink
Post 06 Sep 2017, 12:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
... STOP LINKING STUFF when you don't even read my posts

Yes, I do read your posts but I can't respond to all of your unconventional arguments because most of them do not make any sense to me.

I need to link stuff to support my arguments. Science is evidence-based; I can't ask my opponent to simply take my word for it. Well, that's the primary difference between you and me, I guess.

Wink
Post 06 Sep 2017, 12:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
Yes, it's annoying.

What is truly annoying is judging other people with your own law.

Stop acting like a self-appointed lawmaker cum judge.

Wink
Post 06 Sep 2017, 12:59
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
you appeal to social norms / culture and other human-defined crap

We live in a society; we need to respect other people's values and cultures. What's wrong with adhering to social norms and cultures?

The vast majority of scientific concepts are human-defined. Are they crap?

Your argument sounds a little strange to me.

Wink
Post 06 Sep 2017, 13:14
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
Being aware that everything you care for is an illusion and still being a slave to the illusion is stupid.

If everything we care for/about is taken away, what is left in humanity?

Wink
Post 06 Sep 2017, 13:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
I on the other hand would appreciate the more logical my brain becomes and the less stupid stuff I can have with it (remove useless instincts and such).

Good for you. Hope that your dream will come true one day.

Wink
Post 06 Sep 2017, 13:23
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 868

YONG wrote:
Research shows that fetuses do have mouth movements. But that does not fit your requirement, I guess.

Since it takes time for newborn babies to learn a spoken language, I am afraid that I can't find such a person.

Sorry but it's clear you don't take what I say seriously and nitpick on pointless stuff... Confused I never intended "before he was born" to mean "in the womb" and you know that. I meant before he was conceived. Sigh. No point really.

Anyway, I've answered what science truly is many times so I'll just link it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.


YONG wrote:
If everything we care for/about is taken away, what is left in humanity?

Science? Discovery. Would allow us to learn more about the secrets of the Universe. AIs are one example, of course. The secrets of the Universe isn't just the cosmos.

Remember: science is not about building tools and technology, that's just a side-effect and is called engineering. Science is all about knowledge/discovery and thinking/imagination, not "practical stuff". It leads to it, but it's unrelated to it.


YONG wrote:
We live in a society; we need to respect other people's values and cultures. What's wrong with adhering to social norms and cultures?

The vast majority of scientific concepts are human-defined. Are they crap?

Scientific concepts are based on data, not opinion. I didn't say it's *wrong* to adhere to social norms.

It's *wrong* to use them as an *argument* or to stop you from fulfilling whatever -- i.e. using it as a reason against something is what's *wrong*. It's wrong because it's an artificial -- and pointless -- restriction/reason.

When I say I don't care about them, I mean in context of arguing. They mean nothing. They're not an argument, unless we're arguing about them (which we aren't). Religion is the same thing (and in fact part of many cultures in some).

I don't consider religion wrong, I'm open-minded. I just consider using it as an argument to be wrong in this context. Not that religion is wrong (it could be right, I'm agnostic), but that by itself as an argument is pointless since it doesn't adhere to the scientific method. What's there to even argue about with it? Nothing. It shuts down all arguments since it's fallacious.

Imagine someone saying "don't research X, because religion is against it". You'd ignore such argument, right? It's the EXACT SAME THING with culture/social norms for me. No god damn difference. Stop being so biased just because you personally like/respect the culture or social norms. Do the same with religion then, which is part of many cultures and ingrained into them.

Why can't you open your eyes and see this simple thing?

If a new discovery, such as AI, challenges social norms, that's *not* an argument against it. Not in the slightest. Just as any discovery that challenged religious beliefs were not bad at all, not in the slightest. Because that's your entire argument when you bring it. What's your problem, seriously? You're so stubborn to see such simple logic.

Zero means zero. It shouldn't even be mentioned, because that's what zero impact means. Logic and culture/social norms are two separate things, zero impact between them, and thus it can't possibly be used as an argument when it has zero weight.
Post 06 Sep 2017, 14:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
I've answered what science truly is many times so I'll just link it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.

Then, how come you did not count "social science" as a branch of science? The studies of social science are fully based on the scientific method.

Rolling Eyes
Post 07 Sep 2017, 06:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
Science? Discovery.

Are you cherry picking here?

How about history? Culture? Social norms and values?

You think that science is the most important thing here. But other people could have other preferences.

Your pick is not somewhat "superior"; it is just your preference.

Wink
Post 07 Sep 2017, 06:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
Scientific concepts are based on data, not opinion.

Science is NOT purely based on data; it is based on the interpretation of data. And the "interpretation" part involves opinion!

Refer to the following clip on "bias in interpreting data":

Is M73 really an "object"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4g2lfsCjJM&t=2m17s

Two groups of cosmologists, based on the same set of data, came up with two opposite conclusions!

Yeah, THAT is science!

Wink
Post 07 Sep 2017, 06:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
Science is all about knowledge/discovery and thinking/imagination, not "practical stuff".

I believe that "applied science" also belongs to science. Your definition sounds a little strange to me.

Confused
Post 07 Sep 2017, 07:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ProphetOfDoom



Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 120
Location: UK

YONG wrote:

Furs wrote:
Show me one single person who talks about the good old days BEFORE HE WAS BORN.

Research shows that fetuses do have mouth movements. But that does not fit your requirement, I guess.

Since it takes time for newborn babies to learn a spoken language, I am afraid that I can't find such a person.

Wink



Incidentally, babies start picking up language before they are born. See here:

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/01/02/while-in-womb-babies-begin-learning-language-from-their-mothers/
Post 07 Sep 2017, 07:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
I'm open-minded.

I don't think so.

While you are willing to explore radical ideas, you, on a number of issues, are prejudiced. For example, you still believe that

(i) there must -- or should -- be a reason/purpose behind the "creation" thing; and
(ii) spacetime must -- or should -- be quantized.

Yet, you also admit that there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support either claim.

You are biased -- just like the rest of us.

Wink
Post 07 Sep 2017, 07:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
Why can't you open your eyes and see this simple thing?

It goes both ways.

You want other people to listen to / accept your radical ideas. But when other people ask you to do the same, you just ignore their requests.

I challenged you with an equally-radical idea:

One plus one doesn't equal two
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1QiCPCgXJk&t=9s

Why didn't you bother to think about it?

At the end of the day, you just think that your radical ideas are somewhat better. And you simply ignore other people's equally-radical ideas.

Wink
Post 07 Sep 2017, 07:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
I never intended "before he was born" to mean "in the womb" and you know that.

According to you, I am always "wrong". How could I know that there was some hidden meaning behind your words? Rolling Eyes


Furs wrote:
I meant before he was conceived.

Before conception, the fertilized egg does not even exist. What "person" were you talking about in your original question? Rolling Eyes
Post 07 Sep 2017, 08:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 868

YONG wrote:
Are you cherry picking here?

How about history? Culture? Social norms and values?

Those have no value in a Universe as you believe (no creator etc). Science and discovery does because it enables you to KNOW and find out how the Universe works or is.

The fact that you think we already know the answer to the Universe shows just how deep and stubborn/ignorant you are. Hey, maybe humans DO have souls. Maybe. But without science we won't find out. We won't find out if culture is worthless or not using culture. That's the difference.

But of course, I'm talking to someone who ALREADY KNOWS the Universe is nothing special and that we're in an endless loop and arose from random fluctuations. I forgot, my bad. From the other thread I know for sure you're the "preacher type" right now.

(note: when I say we're in a simulation, it is just my BELIEF based on many factors I won't go into -- that's why I want discovery, to know FOR SURE -- on the other hand, you already know "for sure" anyway)


About the fetus thing: please man. I was talking about people thinking of stuff before their time as being better -- stuff they haven't experienced directly but imagined it based on historical data (books and so on). Yes, it may shock you, but people do have imagination. People can imagine things based on what they learn. Heck, simulation is crucial to science also. You can read of the laws of history and decide for yourself if it was indeed better or not, but it takes a bit of brain to figure out how it could look like in the future, sorry.

This applies no matter the era. To people 500 years ago, the "future" means today, 2017. To you, future means something special, but to them, 2017 was special. Had they changed their idiotic laws to cater to the "future 2017" we wouldn't have gone through so much pointless suffering over the years, but sure, let's repeat the same mistakes. I have zero respect for people who don't learn from history and think "this time it's different, because it's me, I'm more special than my ancestors and the laws I live in are more special than those of my ancestors'".

The fact that you agree it is "impossible" for the majority to think that stuff they haven't experienced (i.e era before their time) is "better" than their current era (what they experienced) proves my point anyway.
Post 07 Sep 2017, 12:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
Post 10 Sep 2017, 12:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2005 phpBB Group.

Main index   Download   Documentation   Examples   Message board
Copyright © 2004-2016, Tomasz Grysztar.