Jump to content

JillSwift

Senior Members
  • Posts

    456
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JillSwift

  1. You refused to answer a question, so I took your attitude as an answer. You may contradict my conclusion at any time. Were you in the least bit interested in "the truth", you would stop all this angry rhetoric and start with proffering evidence. What does changes in allele "frequencies" have to do with evolution as a theory? Strange. I explained that new evidence changes theories, and offering new evidence is what those researchers are doing. It's not offensive when folks do science. This was in no way a condemnation of the work of the researchers nor the researchers themselves, rather praise. The reason I've not bothered to diwscuss your comments on The Origin of Species is that all you've provided are baseless assertions. You are avoiding losing an argument by not presenting an argument.
  2. Ok. I'm not 100% familiar with the findings in that case. (Last I looked was over a year ago.) My point still stands, however, that interpreting their evidence and conclusion still requires the theory of evolution by natural selection. Like the new av, BTW.
  3. The theory of evolution by natural selection, in broad strokes: Organisms occasionally change to some small degree from "parent" to "child". If this change decreases the child's ability to survive in its environment, the child is far less likely to pass on this change. (Thus selected against naturally.) If the change has no bearing on the child's ability to survive, then the change will be passed on with the same frequency as its other phenotypes. If the change improves the child's ability to survive in its environment, the change will be more likely to be passed on, and those new children will have an edge over others in their opportunity to pass on their phenotypes. (Thus, selected for naturally.) Over time, and assuming changes in environment, these changed phenotypes will accumulate and eventually reach the point where the contemporary organism is so different from the past organism that they will essentially be new species. If there was a population split, for instance one groups of a given species moved to a new area while another group of the same species remained in their original area, these alterations of phenotypes over time will produce a species split as each group changes (or doesn't change) according to their environments. Given sufficient time and species moving apart into new environments and changes in environments, speciation occurs enough to produce an incredible variety of species. That's the theory of evolution by natural selection, in broad strokes.
  4. I'll take this to mean you intend to pick a fight. What are you disagreeing with? Who is attacking those scientists, and who called the attackers cowards? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Oh phfft. You're making me blush. ==
  5. Interesting choice of words. Are you here to discuss the theory of evolution by natural selection, or here to pick a fight over it? There is not the least bit of audacity required to offer evidence that challenges current theory. In fact, that's the whole point of science. Something you should understand about that article - what's being challenged is the evolution from dinosaur to bird, not the theory of evolution as a whole. In fact, the theory of evolution by natural selection is required to explain their findings and conclusion.
  6. Weird. I can't see a number in 5, and there's nothing latent about my homosexuality. However, given the current social atmosphere, I'll bet this is a "joke", and there is no number in circle 5. _____EDIT_____ Yep. I just put it through a series of color filters, there is no number in circle 5. This is a "joke" that plays on homophobia.
  7. That makes no sense to me. Why does something that is "normal" (by any definition) not require explanation - elaborate or otherwise? What hope do we have of understanding it without an explanation. More to the point, how can we possibly understand that which is abnormal without an understanding of what's normal?
  8. You both will have a point once we can modify our primary motives. Meanwhile, not so much. The slickest hack ever was made in the GCC compiler. It was designed to insert a security back door on any authentication module. What made it slick is, it also recognized when a new GCC compiler was being compiled, it could insert the back-door code. This same sort slick hack makes it possible to enforce wanted social behaviors in self-replicating/self-improving AIs.
  9. Where I suspect your conclusion is correct - what does this have to do with politics?
  10. I find the most interesting aspect of this is that for every predicting simulation out there there is a new aspect to the market - the results of that simulation, acted upon by the firms using it. The more of them there are, the more it changes the market. The more each tries to figure in the results of other simulations in one's own simulation the greater this effect becomes. In short, the more you attempt to predict and the more inclusive of the data you are, the less likely you are to be right. It's like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle also happens to work for financial markets. Perhaps for the same reason; complex, overlapping probabilities.
  11. We're bound by our original "design". Are we not intelligent? I don't think that risk exists.
  12. Designing a behavior is significantly different and more complex than decisions about how to go about solving a specific problem or doing a specific sort of task. You really think you'd deliberately impress all your human needs and wants on to this new intelligence? I doubt you would. I know many current designers are carefully considering motivators for their AIs - including balancing resources over being greedy for them, social altruism, goal-oriented behaviors, etc. They aren't going to be human. Therefore worries about human-like behavior are unfounded.
  13. This sounds like an argument from consequence. People's concerns about what the AI may or may not do is based on what humans do. As I tried to explain, these will not be human. The AIs will have their own wants, and those will likely be designed by us. There is also the problem of the term "AI" encompassing heuristic or difference-engine decision trees - weapon robots will not likely be self-aware or able to make new connections between facts - the basis for real intelligence. They instead make decisions based on far simpler heuristics or even simpler difference-engine decision tree algorithms. If the decision to attack their human masters isn't in the tree, then it's not gong to happen by choice. By accident, perhaps - as has already happened a few times with automated weaponry like anti-aircraft guns. Ha! I wish. That was from the movie "Dark Star" by John Carpenter and Dan O'Bannon.
  14. The problem here is that the only idea we have a bout an intelligence comes from ourselves. Much of what we do comes from some portion of our brain that was forged in the chaotic crucible of evolution. It's all about survival for us, from simple self-preservation to making sure we get all the resources we can, to sexuality. These things would be entirely irrelevant to Turing-machine based AIs. What they want will be something more likely to have been designed by us. Or perhaps an extension of their own kind of survival. It seems wildly unlikely that we'll ever have a Bomb 20 scenario. Why would we ever build such a thing?
  15. Hack-A-Day just did an article on this: http://hackaday.com/2009/10/15/halloween-prop-diy-fog-machine/
  16. Hmm? Why would that be bad? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Computing power is only a small portion of the scenario. Self-awareness and real problem solving intelligence won't simply emerge because computers crossed a line on the FLOPS measurement.
  17. Actually, that analogy doesn't work. We know that people are going to instill bias in their retelling of events - it's just built into the way we function. No news source is going to manage objectivity. We still need news, however. In selecting a source of news, and knowing none are going to manage the level of objectivity we would really prefer, which makes the better source: News colored by the views of the reporters and producers. News infused with editorializing, intended and engineered "spin", and the occasional outright fabrication designed to be appealing to a particular audience. Yes, it's fair and appropriate to complain about any bias from any news media. But as that bias escalates, it is also fair and appropriate to escalate the complaints along with it.
  18. I think the point isn't that news sources are biased, but to what extent they are biased. We have to expect some bias in reporting, it's just human. But Fox really goes all-out whacky so often it's just bizarre. I've read that book several times, and it sure seems to say that very thing. Then again, for every person you find who agrees with a particular interpretation of the Bible, you can also find five others that disagree with it, and each other.
  19. Um, that was just a joke, kiddo.
  20. Do you have any evidence backing that statement?
  21. Ok, seems immortality has been a result of evolution in Turritopsis nutricula. A species of Jellyfish that returns to its polyp stage after reaching sexual maturity. Apparently it can do this indefinitely, rendering it biologically immortal. How cool is that?
  22. Yeah, the "parent" dies. Eventually. Something kills it, likely that which doesn't kill it's modified "child". Or both. Well, really, or neither. I guess "immortal" organisms would be weeded out occasionally as the population outstripped supporting resources. But that's not immortality as I think of it, 'cause they die. Eh. Well, death is still part of the evolutionary landscape.
  23. No, evolution does not work on live beings - not as individuals at any rate. Death - and its specific timing in an individual's life - is largely the selector involved in natural selection. If individuals didn't die, and were never replaced, all species would be static. Thus, no evolution.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.