flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > the world is waiting for ...

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
rugxulo wrote:
I've never heard anyone even slightly suggest that dropping those bombs was somehow evil.

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomic.htm
The justification for regarding the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as inherently evil, is that there was no MILITARY rationale supporting their deployment. The USA was, in mid 1945, fighting a very different kind of war, a war of ideology, specifically a fight against "Communism". People today forget that in 1945 the PCI (Communist Party of Italy) was the largest political party in Italy, with more than 50% of the population supporting it. In France, the percentage was lower, perhaps mid 30%, but the party there was very strong, too, since most of the leadership of the underground fighting the Nazi collaborators were from the Communist Party. China had been locked in civil war since the ShangHai massacre in 1927, and by 1945, the GuoMinDang was in full retreat. The Chinese Communist party achieved final victory, four years later. Intellectuals in all of these countries, Italy, France, China, and MANY others, including India, Iraq, Mexico, VietNam, Korea, and so on, LOOKED TO the Soviet Union for guidance, leadership, and technology to win the armed conflict with those who opposed socialist ideology, i.e. the English speaking world which had juxtaposed capitalism and slavery for more than a century of conflict with European socialist ideologues. In short, Truman and his advisors realized that Russia was, in 1945, on the brink of achieving a position of world wide domination. How to slow down the expansion of USSR? The atomic bomb was dropped, not to kill Japanese, military or civilian, but to demonstrate what would happen to Moscow, if the USSR did not back asway from the imminent threats in Rome and Paris. USA had no interest in Japan or the several hundred USA prisoners of war who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. USA was very worried about France and Italy joing the Soviet Union. In essence, the bomb was dropped to bolster the bargaining position of USA, which relented on China, in order to preserve its interests in western Europe, home to 90% of the USA's Caucasian populations' ancestors.
Apart from this argument, however, there is a second reason why this action was abhorrent. There are not many people from USA or any other country, in my opinion, who believe in kicking someone, when that person is lying on the ground, unconscious, bleeding, with broken limbs. In May, 1945, i.e. two or three months prior to the decision to drop the bomb, Japan asked the USA to accept an UNCONDITIONAL military surrender. They asked ONLY to keep their emperor. Nothing more. The official reason for rejecting their offer to surrender was this insistence on retaining their emperor, in a largely ceremonial role. Yet, AFTER dropping the bomb, the USA did accept the surrender, AND permitted the Emperor to retain his status.
Here's some documents:
http://www.dannen.com/decision/
My point is this: in assembly language programming, one would be VERY dissatisfied to encounter this kind of sentence:
I have a computer and I want you to make it work.
What kind of cpu, how fast, how much memory, what kind of work??? DETAILS, details, FACTS, that is what really separates an assembly language programmer from someone who works with high level languages, and doesn't care about the hardware. History is the same. Readers' Digest, and Time Magazine do not print the kind of analysis you require to conduct a thorough study of events. Whether it is advising a friend on the type of components needed for an upgrade, or writing a program to get widgets to work together in a factory, you would not turn to those kind of mind-numbing periodicals to learn computer science facts, and in the case of history and politics, it is precisely the same. You must get some genuine data before drawing conclusions, on anything in life. For assembly language to succeed, one must first define the nature of the data, THEN write the program. The alternative, spaghetti code, has its own correlate in the world of history and politics: misrepresentation and fraud to manipulate public opinion. There is little difference between Truman's lies about Hiroshima, Eisenhower's- Kennedy's- Johnson's- and Nixon's lies about Viet Nam, Reagan's lies about Nicaragua, or Bush's lies about Iraq. To really appreciate how long standing this evil has persisted one needs to read about Teddy Roosevelt, who single handedly ripped Panama away from Columbia, or post Jackson "manifest destiny" which led to the military conquest of Mexico, or even earlier, in the late 1790's when Thomas Jefferson, founder of University of Virginia, and author of the infamous tract, ostensibly representing "scientific" proof of the ill effects, genetically, of miscegenation, yet who singlehandedly inseminated enough of his black female slaves to leave about 10% of the current USA black population carrying his DNA, or even earlier, with Ben Franklin, SLAVE owner, appointed head of the abolutionist society. ok, that may be a tad more than "slightly"....
Smile
Post 27 Dec 2006, 13:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
rugxulo wrote:
DustWolf wrote:
the USA never actually fought a real, out of control, decimating war on their own territory

What about the Civil War? No one but Americans died there.


As I understand it the civil war was the British kind of war, where people wearing funny clothing standing in rectangle-shaped units and shooting at another one just like it. How many civilians exactly did that kill?

While aware of the civil war I simply would not exactly go as far as call the American civil war an "out of control, decimating war". The big diffence is in the amount of damage done and the way it makes people feel about war.

As for any radical decisions about Americans one would make from this... Well a cupple years ago I woulda been one of those people who went to trash the McDonalds for any random annoying thing an American could have done, buut... now I have friends in USA and I came to realize Americans are people too. So let me say all Americans really Have to do is realize that ignorance isn't bliss. History never forced them to realize it so far.
Post 27 Dec 2006, 20:14
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
Thank you Tom for once again reminding me there are Americans that I can respect. After reading MattBro's racist rant I needed your level headed input Wink

rugxulo, just to restate what I was meaning that Tom explained so well, Japan was defeated, there was no justification to drop those nuclear bombs, yet it was still done. For many decades now the super powers have battled and perpetrated unspeakable evil against innocent people in the belief their ideology was the correct one never once stopping to consider capitalism and socialism go hand in hand and any one ideology on it's own only leads to some group being disadvantaged, ending in civil/global unrest.


kohlrak, I know you are young but I hope you realise these debates are not only about Bush. Please reread Tom's post again to get some perspective on things. The world has been angry at the USA for many decades now and this belief of the young that it's all about recent events concern me greatly as it seems most people from the US are completely unaware of the role they played in the past.


Quote:

So let me say all Americans really Have to do is realize that ignorance isn't bliss. History never forced them to realize it so far.


Great line DustWolf Smile
Post 27 Dec 2006, 22:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
DustWolf wrote:
How many civilians exactly did that kill?


That war had way more U.S. casualties than WW2 because both sides were American. I'd consider that pretty horrible. Face it, pretty much every country has gone to war, and even though most (all?) people hate war as pretty lame, it does happen. We can NOT judge since we don't have all the facts (i.e., we weren't there, we didn't sit in on all the meetings, etc.). I know it looks bad (killing so many in such a quick fashion), but even though I cannot understand it, I must refrain from saying, "I'm better than that guy" or "He's a bigger sinner than I am" because I am not all-knowing. There are other sins as serious (or more so) than murder, anyways. All sins, big and little, are inherently evil.

Seriously, I'm not trying to spam this forum, but only God can truly judge because he's fair. Unlike us, He doesn't lie and knows everything we've done (good and bad). Luckily for us, He's a nice guy.

MichaelH wrote:
Thank you Tom for once again reminding me there are Americans that I can respect.


You may think that certain people (Bush?) get away with a lot of stuff, but let me say, for not one of his sins shall he go unpunished. This applies to him and everyone on Earth. Therefore, pray for him (God, help Bush end this war), do not hate him. The Bible is full of examples of wars and people who felt the righteous anger of God for their misdeeds (EDIT: see Ecclesiastes 8 or Sirach 16). Vengeance is the Lord's. It is usually not our place to "punish" others because we often overdo it. Forgive and love. This is the path to true happiness. EDIT: This is what God does, he is very forgiving and patient. It is not wise to abuse his generosity. (I have not been perfect myself: we all fall short, sadly). Again, I must quote a saint:
St. Thomas More wrote:
I'm the king's loyal servant, but God's first!


P.S. God is an actual living, breathing person ... the same one who parted the Red Sea, cured lepers, made water into wine, convinced Noah to build an ark, literally wrote the Ten Commandments on a stone tablet, talked to Moses in a burning bush, etc. This is not just a philosophy "be nice to everyone". This is truth. And, just to reiterate, I did not make any of this up.


Last edited by rugxulo on 31 Dec 2006, 00:46; edited 2 times in total
Post 28 Dec 2006, 03:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
And yet this argument continues, i wonder if anyone read my reply... Then again, people only hear/read what they want to. They read my post as an attempt to shut up both sides of the argument, but no, it's something that both sides don't want to hear, so they ignor it and continue arguing. This only proves me point, but will they read this? No... Moderators, please lock this thread.
Post 28 Dec 2006, 19:06
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
kohlrak wrote:
And yet this argument continues, i wonder if anyone read my reply... Then again, people only hear/read what they want to. They read my post as an attempt to shut up both sides of the argument, but no, it's something that both sides don't want to hear, so they ignor it and continue arguing. This only proves me point, but will they read this? No... Moderators, please lock this thread.


Relax, it's just that everybody wants to express his oppinion. Wink

This is the Heap after all, hard to get off topic here.
Post 28 Dec 2006, 20:01
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
rugxulo wrote:
P.S. God is an actual living, breathing person ... the same one who parted the Red Sea, cured lepers, made water into wine, convinced Noah to build an ark, literally wrote the Ten Commandments on a stone tablet, talked to Moses in a burning bush, etc. This is not just a philosophy "be nice to everyone". This is truth. And, just to reiterate, I did not make any of this up.


Hm. According to my findings, god is an artifact of the mind, natural to all inteligent beings. So, sure yeah, whatever makes sense to you, dude. Wink

Just don't let your judgement be altered by your oversimplified belief in the will of god, because if god wanted you or any of us to think differently, he would have made us so. Wink

(If I'm thinking this right, any inteligent being must be capable of internalizing concepts from it's environment. God is the obvious internalization of the universal group of all decisions, etc, etc. The point why this is interesting is that if you remain logically correct about these things and at the same time stick to the vocabulary that deeply religious people use to describe these things, it will actually make sense to them in the gut feeling and they will come to trust you... see how knowing how to program Artificial Inteligence helps one understand Natural Intelligence.)
Post 28 Dec 2006, 20:13
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
This topic always turns into a nasty flame battle, you're tellin' me to relax? Give this topic a week and you'll have everyone wanting to tear each other apart. Maybe it's innocent now, but wait till something contraversial hits... again...

Quote:
kohlrak, I know you are young but I hope you realise these debates are not only about Bush. Please reread Tom's post again to get some perspective on things. The world has been angry at the USA for many decades now and this belief of the young that it's all about recent events concern me greatly as it seems most people from the US are completely unaware of the role they played in the past.


I just noticed this post, i saw a bunch of "political talk" and ignore stuff and went through the posts again. I apologize for my quick post thinking that it's already out of control. Anyway, there are alot of things that are contraversial about history. I hear the war of 1812 debated yet today, and who really won the space race between America and Russia. Heck, they're trying to change written history. They're trying to go as far as asking if Davy Crocket really died at the alamo (american history), but who really cares? That'll end up contraversy as well.

Quote:
(If I'm thinking this right, any inteligent being must be capable of internalizing concepts from it's environment. God is the obvious internalization of the universal group of all decisions, etc, etc. The point why this is interesting is that if you remain logically correct about these things and at the same time stick to the vocabulary that deeply religious people use to describe these things, it will actually make sense to them in the gut feeling and they will come to trust you... see how knowing how to program Artificial Inteligence helps one understand Natural Intelligence.)


I'd love to see some one come up with a computer program that is self aware... I have an interesting theory that points out that God (as in Jahova) exists, but at the same time he dosn't. It's a bit complicated to explain...
Post 28 Dec 2006, 20:14
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
kohlrak wrote:
I hear the war of 1812 debated yet today, and who really won the space race between America and Russia. Heck, they're trying to change written history. They're trying to go as far as asking if Davy Crocket really died at the alamo (american history), but who really cares? That'll end up contraversy as well.


I'm thinking it's something like the difference between the Open Source Community and the Scene. Who is better, who was first? Open Source generally shares C code, Scene generally shared ASM (or just binaries, but like there's a differnece). Each spawned an artisical community. Each made people share and cooperate. Each made people rediscover their hate towards restrictive authority. Each came to be independently of the other and has seperate spiritual centers of it, geographically.

I think the problem is that people just find it insulting to stand by and ignore it while somebody else boasts about something very simmilar to what they kept politely quiet about thus far.

I don't see a problem in the information exchange, because sooner or later the hurt feelings driving it are going to subside and then people will have something educational to read and learn. So, relax. Wink

kohlrak wrote:
I'd love to see some one come up with a computer program that is self aware... I have an interesting theory that points out that God (as in Jahova) exists, but at the same time he dosn't. It's a bit complicated to explain...


Sounds like quantum physics. Wink

AI is not a problem, it's implementation is an issue of lazyness, like most of the problems of humanity. Not saying there are not tough problems to be solved, but realistically there are no such barriers like the ones you find in popular fiction (machines not having emotions, or lacking sufficient processing power). A few years back I had an interesting debate with a scientist working in the area of realistically simulated neural nets... turns out the huge performance problems were to be assigned to the point that all back-then existing neural net programs were running on Java or something akin to it. I think it's likely we'd have some of those in the FASM community too, since they DO realize that ASM is the way to go according to my information, they just don't like the programming interface usually.

Oh and by the way, a "theory" that has not yet been prooven is more accurately defined as "hypothesis".
Post 28 Dec 2006, 20:36
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
I don't see a problem in the information exchange, because sooner or later the hurt feelings driving it are going to subside and then people will have something educational to read and learn. So, relax.


Eventually... And would anyone read it? Is the cost of the time wasted grudging against each other worth the output of a large text that may never be read?

Quote:
Sounds like quantum physics.


I did skim over it, once. While skimming over it i realized that just like i often don't have a clue about what i'm talking about when talking about computers, humans havn't a clue about the universe, and never will have a clue because we really can't handle such knowledge. Everything we know is based on other things we know which is based on other things, but when it boils down to it, how do we know that the most basic things that we base what we know on is true? I often see scientific theories being based on another theory before it's even proven. Sometimes i see 2 theories proving each other, when perhaps both are false. Humans are completely out of their minds when they think they are bettering themselves... We still have the same brain we had many many years ago, the only real difference is the things outside our brains that influence our brains. Are we really better or worse than our ancestors?

Quote:
Oh and by the way, a "theory" that has not yet been prooven is more accurately defined as "hypothesis".


Hypothesis is often tagged as a "fact." That's how i always interpreted the word, which brings up something else i'd like to mention, that my science book says a theory is something that is tested many many times and never proven wrong. That implies that theories are the same as facts. Cute how we can't even efficiently convey ideas, eh?

I'd like to bring out a quote that i don't know who came up with... A quote that becomes more and more true to me everytime i think about it... "Science is only another way of looking at things, no better or worse than any other way of looking at things. It is just the 'current' way of looking at things." I've realized that when we talk about Creationism and Evolutionism, we often throw arguments of why we think the other can't happen, and then disprove each others arguments on why it can't happen and end up only proving that either can happen, and we really never have had any more evidence now than we did years ago. Often our "evidence" is based on other theories which we have "evidence" for that we've just learned to except rather than have proven. We see this in America's education, the real problem with Americans is that they accept everything they hear in school, and all school ever does is throw more information at them to accept, it's very seldom that they do any thinking. Usually our thinking is done in math class, and even then we don't do much of it. It's cute how many people don't beleive that .9 going down the line of infinity is actually 1. Sometimes i feel that debates are there to make us feel smart when we havn't a clue... It's competative, and when you beat a game you feel good, until you find out that everyone else beat that game as well. According to some elaborated creationism, everything we experience is for our pleasure, but of no real substance. For all we know we don't feel the same thing as the person next to us when we get hit, all we know is that we react the same way to that feeling. How do we really know how far away somthing is, since that is only a perception of our sight? We've proven that we aren't perfect, but why aren't humans perfect? Their brains? if so, then why are our eyes perfect when our brains aren't? What we see as 1 meter, could be 100 in reality. Our we really unbound, or are we bound by our perception? Humanists are people who think that we have infinit capability, but that was something humans themselves came up with. How do we know that we're truely unbound? We can only comprehend that which we have experienced. Just like we can only know love after we have been in love, or know how it feels to loose a loved one, after we've lost one. Sure, we can attempt to convey ideas through language, but that's not perfect. Perhaps our seemingly limitless capacity is due to our limitless downfall? the more and more we "discover" the more and more we think we are limitless. We have just as many limits as we had before. Yea, we can fly now, but we can also now fall to our deaths. We can swim now, but we can also drown now. We can now go further, faster (cars) but we are destroying everything along the way, and we are still bound by time which we attempted to beat. How much we've progressed is determined by how much of those progressions that we've seen. Every invention to beat the inevitable that we've come up with has a negative side effect that is equal in proportion. Just like when you push on something and make it move one direction, just as much force was pushing you away as well. I do beleive that's a "law of science." All of our solutions have been met with more challenges, and how do we know that not every single one of those challenges was the result of our solutions? Even disease... Every time we come up with a cure, it seems to come up with a cure for our cure. We're no better or worse than we were hundreds of years ago, it's the same story, differen't things in it. It's like little red riding hood, well, let's make her a kitten and the wolf a dog. Let's give it fur instead of clothes. Let's say a hole in the ground instead of a house. As the old saying goes, "Same circus, different clowns." We're really wasting our times, because we may very well learn absolutely nothing from this. Perhaps my even typing this was purposeless... On the debate on god, clearly we my as well beleive in one, it's created alot more good to have the morals created from that concept, rather than to live by the nothingness that the lack of the concept has created.
Post 28 Dec 2006, 21:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
kohlrak wrote:
Eventually... And would anyone read it? Is the cost of the time wasted grudging against each other worth the output of a large text that may never be read?


The thought has occured to me when I noticed your pageful block of non-formatted text. Razz

I think the same could be said about the entire Google Groups archive. It's so huge and so full of trolls you wonder if anybody ever reads any of it. But it is usable to me. The search engines attached to it allow me to filter out the stuff I don't need and I read.

Quote:
humans havn't a clue about the universe, and never will have a clue because we really can't handle such knowledge.


Don't overdo the thinking about it, but it is true that human understanding capacity is limited. According to my understanding, the things we percieve about the outside are reflected in the inside of our thinking system (brain). Thus our understanding (quality, not quantity!) is limited by the number of neurons in our brains, which IS limited.

I was only thinking about it because I was wondering how many GigaBytes is a human brain worth (and I came to the educated guess that a desktop computer with the right code can exceed the capacity of a human brain).

But it is the very point of our being limited that makes people not care about it. I suggest you do the same. Smile

Quote:
Perhaps my even typing this was purposeless...


Perhaps you have just pointed out why I think optimizing code can only really be done by a person using an assembler. Optimization simplifies ideas.. if you understand the message you are attempting to convey then there are always unique ways in which you can simplify it without causing the negative stuff usually associated with simplification.

In other words, because some people specialized in their areas, they each at least for a moment understood it. That allowed them to simplify the important stuff without hurting the logic behind it or altering the results acquired when taking what they told into account. By learning from them we manage to put more and more understanding into the same space of our heads. It is and always will be a simulation of our environment, it is innacurate and incomplete, however it is also worth it.

The logic working behind the god and spirituality, may either not have been conveyed well by the people who originaly came to understand it, or has simply been lost over the years, which is why it has become incompatible with the ways of thinking common to todays atheists. Doing a bit of the review and trying to figure out the true origins of the ideas, helps smooth out the incompatibilites, but it does not alter the idea. Understanding helps. Smile
Post 28 Dec 2006, 21:41
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
But it is the very point of our being limited that makes people not care about it. I suggest you do the same.


Eh, if there is a God, perhaps there is a way out of the cycle within my theory. If i am right, the cycle can only be broken with true understanding. If there is something outside our universe that made everything as stable as it is, the only thing that can help us exceed our limits is to study that, instead of trying to solve the inevitable. If there is nothing outside our universe, then it dosn't matter. If there is something outside our universe, it matters alot. Why do we waste our time "finding cures for cancer" or trying to "make it to mars?"

Quote:
Perhaps you have just pointed out why I think optimizing code can only really be done by a person using an assembler. Optimization simplifies ideas.. if you understand the message you are attempting to convey then there are always unique ways in which you can simplify it without causing the negative stuff usually associated with simplification.


Perhaps, but even perfect optimization could even produce a new voulnerability. You never know when something else will affect the normal run of your program, but that is a bit too philisophical for me right now, especially with my annoying mother here babling on about her problems that she herself created and how right i am about all her problems.

Quote:
In other words, because some people specialized in their areas, they each at least for a moment understood it. That allowed them to simplify the important stuff without hurting the logic behind it or altering the results acquired when taking what they told into account. By learning from them we manage to put more and more understanding into the same space of our heads. It is and always will be a simulation of our environment, it is innacurate and incomplete, however it is also worth it.


But you must remember that eventually that lost information may be needed. It's like trying to use 1 variable for your computer programs, just because you think it's more efficient and worth it. We need to reinvent all our facts before we can base anything on them.

Quote:
The logic working behind the god and spirituality, may either not have been conveyed well by the people who originaly came to understand it, or has simply been lost over the years, which is why it has become incompatible with the ways of thinking common to todays atheists.


This is true. I belive that it's possible that "god" is both a "greater nature" or "bigger container" (such as a container of universes) yet at the same time intellegent. As they always say, "God is everything." I wonder if anyone has ever really taken that thought into account and actually elaborated on it. Perhaps as computers are to us, we are to this "greater being." Perhaps some day our computers will develop simple circuits of their own. But a bigger question would be if this "God" is the greatest thing or if there's something greater that contains "him" or even if there is an on going cycle. I feel that humans are naturally arrogant.

Quote:
Doing a bit of the review and trying to figure out the true origins of the ideas, helps smooth out the incompatibilites, but it does not alter the idea. Understanding helps.


Trying to reinvent religion? Many meanings of words are changed, but the words themselves are never changed. Death is theoretically condemnation to hell. That was a meaning lost in just english words. Then you loose even more through language translation. Now, another question i throw at you is, "How do we know that the conclusion we come to will be the same as those who really understood this, and did they really understand everything?" I've come to understand that everything is simple yet complicated. Programming is simple once you've learned another programming language. What if understanding everything in this universe is as simple as one concept? Perhaps all our lack of understand everything is the result of someone's defective mind that introduced a new theory into us.
Post 28 Dec 2006, 22:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
kohlrak wrote:
If there is something outside our universe, it matters alot. Why do we waste our time "finding cures for cancer" or trying to "make it to mars?"


Life is pointless, face it. We only live it because it's fun. Laughing

Quote:
Perhaps, but even perfect optimization could even produce a new voulnerability. You never know when something else will affect the normal run of your program


Perfect optimization of an idea, being perfect does not introduce any vounrabilities. Of course, if we were to think out of the box, anything is possible (errorwise).

Quote:
But you must remember that eventually that lost information may be needed. It's like trying to use 1 variable for your computer programs, just because you think it's more efficient and worth it. We need to reinvent all our facts before we can base anything on them.


Yes. That's the point. A prediction is a simulation, it takes a limited number of factors and dissmisses the unlikely. It is the Only way it can produce a result sooner than it actually happens. My phisyscs profesor convinced me tho that predictions are usable nontheless.

Quote:
This is true. I belive that it's possible that "god" is both a "greater nature" or "bigger container" (such as a container of universes) yet at the same time intellegent. As they always say, "God is everything." I wonder if anyone has ever really taken that thought into account and actually elaborated on it. Perhaps as computers are to us, we are to this "greater being." Perhaps some day our computers will develop simple circuits of their own. But a bigger question would be if this "God" is the greatest thing or if there's something greater that contains "him" or even if there is an on going cycle. I feel that humans are naturally arrogant.


It is my personal belief that the concept of "god" encapsulates a somewhat different idea than you are describing here. Users are not everything to a computer. I guess it all depends on how you regard "inteligent", for example to me "inteligent" is "capable of understanding", to you it would seem "inteligent" is "capable of making independent decisions". In my world, a "god" can be the container of universes, not be inteligent and still do everything he does, in yours "god" is "inteligent" by the very defenition, for otherwise he could not have created our universe the way that it is. I think I understand you in this, do you understand me?

Quote:
Trying to reinvent religion? Many meanings of words are changed, but the words themselves are never changed. Death is theoretically condemnation to hell. That was a meaning lost in just english words. Then you loose even more through language translation. Now, another question i throw at you is, "How do we know that the conclusion we come to will be the same as those who really understood this, and did they really understand everything?" I've come to understand that everything is simple yet complicated. Programming is simple once you've learned another programming language. What if understanding everything in this universe is as simple as one concept? Perhaps all our lack of understand everything is the result of someone's defective mind that introduced a new theory into us.


No, no new religion. Really I think people come to conclusions about "god" for a reason. It means something to them. At that point the belief in "god" is all about the understanding of that particular meaning. I believe this is the understanding we are looking for.

For example, "going to hell" could be anything, but (even tho as I have realized numerous times in devoloping Artificial Inteligence, words cannot convey understanding, but using different words around the same idea again and again and again can almost proove understanding somehow) in my eyes, "going to hell" relates to the longterm influence of one's wrongdoing upon human society.

When contemplating about "god", beware of the core problem of human perception: Our perception of the environment is not objective, we observe from within a human society, almost half of the concepts important to us are purely artifacts of the sructure of our society. Inner space and outer space kind of thing, causes various anomalies in our understanding of things.
Post 28 Dec 2006, 22:42
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
Perfect optimization of an idea, being perfect does not introduce any vounrabilities. Of course, if we were to think out of the box, anything is possible (errorwise).


It does if we need part of what you used to come up with another conclusion. It's like writing programs. Often you end up forgetting how you got that answer, what if there is an exception to the rule? You forgot it. You need to reinvent the whole algoritham to fix that exception. More chance for flaw.

Quote:
Yes. That's the point. A prediction is a simulation, it takes a limited number of factors and dissmisses the unlikely. It is the Only way it can produce a result sooner than it actually happens. My phisyscs profesor convinced me tho that predictions are usable nontheless.


In other words, a guess that you hope always works, right? That's a hell of a thing to base your existance on.

Quote:
It is my personal belief that the concept of "god" encapsulates a somewhat different idea than you are describing here. Users are not everything to a computer. I guess it all depends on how you regard "inteligent", for example to me "inteligent" is "capable of understanding", to you it would seem "inteligent" is "capable of making independent decisions". In my world, a "god" can be the container of universes, not be inteligent and still do everything he does, in yours "god" is "inteligent" by the very defenition, for otherwise he could not have created our universe the way that it is. I think I understand you in this, do you understand me?


I don't mean god is everything to use and we are everything to a computer. I mean his intellegence to us is like our intellegence to a computer... it's hard to explain this. I see things as having 2 parts. Like a human has a body, and a soul or personality within it, as a seperate entity. Perhaps god is existance, and if it is intellegent, perhaps it is to us as we are to computers. Creators. Maybe our computers have their own way of worshipping us, but perhaps we don't realize it or appriciate it. It is simple with only it's parts and limited intellegence. We are more complicated and more difficult to understand intellegence. It's hard to explain this.. lol But perhaps if god is intellegent, it has another level of intellegence. Kind of like a computer is 1 part, we are 2 parts, and god is 3 parts. I really don't know how to explain this to you, cause i'm not 100% sure that you understand me. But yes i understand what you're saying. The real difference between our point of views, would then be, what we conceive as "intellegent." The real question then becomes, "is God self aware and with all the emotions that we make it out to be?" Perhaps it isn't, and perhaps it is. To know that, we must understand all the more simple things first. I beleive that God is more intellegent and emotional than us, and our emotions are mear emulations of his. As if WE are artificial intellegence. That's something we must also consider. Perhaps that if we are artificial intellegence, maybe this God would also know (if it is smarter than us as i beleive) how to make our artificial intellegence into real intellegence. Perhaps that is what heaven is. Being broken from the barriers that hold us, our "concience" being put into more intellegent things. Perhaps that in "heaven," if there is such a thing, we aren't human as we know it, but something else, and more real. Like taking a hard drive of a computer, and writing it to a human brain. Add the information that we are born with, then it is as good as us? According to my theory, we could become better, but that would only be possible if there is something other than us to bring us to "it's level of greatness," or at least a higher level. I think we should concern ourselves less with how our own planet works, and start concentraiting on how to appease a greater thing if it does exist. What matters is if that greater thing is intellegent or not. If it's not, absolutely nothing matters. If it's not, then perhaps the animals are smarter than we think, and perhaps their lack of intellegence is advancement, rather than a weakness. And don't get me wrong, i'm not by any means saying animals should have more "rights" than us or anyhting. I'm a firm beleiver that this "greater thing" is intellegent and that it intends for us to rule these creatures.

Quote:
No, no new religion. Really I think people come to conclusions about "god" for a reason. It means something to them. At that point the belief in "god" is all about the understanding of that particular meaning. I believe this is the understanding we are looking for.


Indeed, and we're all looking in the wrong places. We're too busy trying to manipulate nature and trying to escape the inevitable than to concentrait on this extreemly important topic. But let's not fall too far from the tree, and let me point out that we may not be able to come up with the answer to this. I beleive that humans will always screw up horribly. Perhaps all our faults will always prevent us from finding the answer. Perhaps the answer, we already have, but because of our condensing and compression of terms and concepts by erasing how we came to those conclusions we lost the meaning and we already had the answer to everything. Maybe we will find it again, and our condensing will once again erase the meaning so we must start the search again.

Quote:
For example, "going to hell" could be anything, but (even tho as I have realized numerous times in devoloping Artificial Inteligence, words cannot convey understanding, but using different words around the same idea again and again and again can almost proove understanding somehow) in my eyes, "going to hell" relates to the longterm influence of one's wrongdoing upon human society.


Interesting point of view.

If nothing matters, nothing matters, so it's best to be safe than sorry. If there really is a heaven or hell as we have since came to interpret, maybe it's best to "appease" this "God." Cause if if you can't, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway, but if we can, we can surely become better. It's hard to explain this. XD i never was one to be able to explain what i see well. What i'm trying to say, in a nut shell, is that if it is intellegent, by not trying to appease it we're hurting ourselves, but if it isn't intellegent, we're really not helping or hurting ourselves by bothering with trying to appease it. If it's not intellegent, we all suffer just as much pleasure and joy no matter what we do, but if it's intellegent, something after this equal amount of pleasure and joy will not be equal. Anyone feel like praying all the sudden just to be sure that we're "making it happy?" lol

Quote:
When contemplating about "god", beware of the core problem of human perception: Our perception of the environment is not objective, we observe from within a human society, almost half of the concepts important to us are purely artifacts of the sructure of our society. Inner space and outer space kind of thing, causes various anomalies in our understanding of things.


oh, indeed. The objective is to understand something outside of human society. To escape our human society, just as we want our computers to escape only being able to conceive things as 1s and 0s. I don't think they'll ever figure it out... Now i question if we are just as helpless of understanding things as our own creation, the computer? We restrict our methods of investigating to one thing. Right now it's science, but perhaps some day we'll have a new way of looking at things, but then we'll forget about science. We look at things from many ways, but we always see the same thing. We need a new way to look at things, not a new conclusion using our way of looking at things. Obviously, science isn't working. From my point of view, science is best from something that dosn't forget all the conclusions that lead up to that big conclusion. Perhaps our friend the computer will be able to efficiently use science, one day. But i don't expect computers to ever become as intellegent as us in the way that we are. As the old saying goes, "The shadow is only as good as the one that made it." We can't make the computer as good as us, until we make the computer into us.

EDIT: i was just thinking of a wonderful example of this. Perhaps some one would be curious enough to do the research. But ever since the sci-fi show "Star Trek" was on the air, it inspired many people to become scientists. We started to search for a posibility of life on other planets. We also started to investigate if "warp" is possible. Heck, beleive it or not, one look at quantom physics and you'll quickly say that the whole theory eruprted from star trek. Was Gene Rodenberry (the founder of Star Trek) some kind of profit? I highly doubt so. I took a quick look on quantom physics one night when i was bored, and i found the site by accident (I was actually reading "The Art of Assembly" and was looking for documents on a nand so i could try to build a simple processor). When i was reading it, i read something about positrons and stuff. They were referancing anti-matter. A concept created by Star Trek. That show influenced alot of our science today. One could theoretically say that we're actually manipulating what society can see. We wanted to see anti-matter. We wanted so badly to see alien life, that we ended up generating UFO stories and other such. We didn't want to be alone in the universe. I've noticed that many "Ghost stories" have turned out to be one's imagination. An imagination that caused the appearance of a ghost. A collective appearance as well. If some one says "this place is haunted," you will walk through it and think about that and will see signs that a ghost is there. A ghost may not actually be there, but because it was suggested to us, we look for evidence and find evidence. Back on the subject of anti-matter, a peculiar thing to mention is that there is a research plant that actually makes this anti-matter. They really don't know how to just manufacture it, but they have anti matter. I was sitting here and thinking of the Atom as well. A bunch of small electrons, floating around a huge core of protons and neutrons. The obligatory atom model is of sphearical objects floating around a big sphearicle object, just like planets in a solar system. Perhaps, an atom dosn't really look like that, if we could see it...
Post 28 Dec 2006, 23:30
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
MCD



Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 604
Location: Germany
MCD
you all write too much in this thread Very Happy
Post 29 Dec 2006, 06:53
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
@MCD: We are all waiting for a PLASTIC BAG! Laughing

YONG
Post 29 Dec 2006, 13:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
MCD



Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 604
Location: Germany
MCD
YONG wrote:
@MCD: We are all waiting for a PLASTIC BAG! Laughing

YONG

It's astonishing you didn't forget that after more than a year! respect Shocked

_________________
MCD - the inevitable return of the Mad Computer Doggy

-||__/
.|+-~
.|| ||
Post 29 Dec 2006, 19:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Big posts is what happens when you get into sensative areas, because there is alot to consider.
Post 29 Dec 2006, 19:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
wow, tom. you seem to be pretty educated. If i was on university where you would be teaching history, i'd even consider getting up at 8:00 to hear your lesson.
Post 31 Dec 2006, 09:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
Quote:
you all write too much in this thread


Right. Not sure about the world, but I am waiting
this gets LOCKED
and someone, hopefully not me Wink , finally
wins all the PLASTIC BUGS.
Laughing

_________________
Bug Nr.: 12345

Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!!

Status: Closed: NOT a Bug
Post 31 Dec 2006, 18:01
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  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


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.