theCPE

Its an observation flaw in that from our perspective space appears continuous with our naked eye and unsophisticated equipment. I wasn't suggesting space must be discrete ONLY due to an observation flaw and there are no mathematical implications.

Well. The universe/space appears continuous because of how we observe it, basically our eyes suck. But when you get down to the most fundamental level, thats where Planck's constant comes in, existence is discrete.

Yes, I believe space is discrete, don't see how it could be anything other. String theory, with or without "string bits" is silly.

I agree that it appears an appealing approach to use genetic algorithms to create AI, and I can assure you researchers are working in that field. One of my graduate professors worked in that field and he taught several courses where you get to work with genetic algorithms. Not trying to change your mind about concentrating on that field because your right, you may have some unique idea/perspective, but genetic algorithms are definitely researched and studied, and used. But pertaining to my example earlier...... Human brains evolved like you say over billions of years, and yet some human brains are not capable of solving or designing only moderately complex algorithms and problems. So maybe the best brains can't solve the AI "algorithm". Lets say we have another million years of evolution, then we will be smart enough to solve it right? We'll not necessarily since at this point in time natural selection in humans is pretty much non-existent. It may require a total wipe, and then maybe still the AI "problem" can't be solved. Uh....what? Take a fertilized human zygote, place it inside a "computer" and grow the human there? So you get a computer case with arms, legs, and a head sticking out?

Exactly, and that is a large IF. I agree. Absolutely. Which is why predictions about how "smart" computers will be in X years are so stupid. They rely on the principal of Moore's Law with the idea that computers just aren't FAST enough yet, or something similarly silly. It is up to computer scientist/engineers to develop an architecture or algorithm that models how pattern recognition and association works with neural pathways. My only argument is that discovering HOW and replicating isn't necessarily a given, it could be possible but not necessarily. All things that exist cannot be replicated by us is my assertion. As a simple example, do you think every human being has the ability to create complex algorithms to solve difficult problems? I imagine there is a level at which given infinite time someone could be "dumb" enough to not be able to come up with a correct algorithm to solve some specific problem. Now what if there is a problem or algorithm that needs to be designed that is so complex that it surpasses the capabilities of the smartest humans?

So anything that exists is made of matter and can be explained. I agree. From there I suppose the leap is that: If something already exists than we should be able to replicate it. That I don't think is necessarily true, just like the silly elementary school saying of "anything is possible" isn't true. Can we create AI or conscientiousness? It might be possible, but I don't think it is a given. And what numenta has released doesn't even approach true AI. Pattern recognition and expert systems can do some incredible things and provide some very sophisticated automated processes but that is still deterministic. It is so annoying when I read articles that were obviously written by people outside of the field predicting silly things like, "By 2010 computers will think like humans" etc....

Yes, I am familiar with numenta's goal. But that is my point. Sometimes people forget what HAS been done and what people are ATTEMPTING to do (goal). That is why it is always entertaining to look back at predictions. Interesting, I haven't heard any good arguments of why it should be possible to create AI. Cool, I'm sure Hawkins would be pleased to know someone on scienceforums.net came up with the same theories he did independently. BTW that quote of yours reminds me of the bar scene in Good Will Hunting....you know...the scene where the guy tries to pawn off other people's ideas as his own.... I've read his book too. Pretty good book with lots of interesting ideas, definitely makes you ponder. I'm eager to see what success his HTMs can provide but I'm not expecting anything much more sophisticated than pattern recognition within expert systems.

Numenta hasn't provided anything exciting yet.... Their "research release" is not very useful, and nothing new can be solved with their system that cannot be solved otherwise. Also, pattern recognition isn't a new concept, HTMs are only a slight modification of prior pattern recognition techniques. As usual it is premature to propose the future of AI is here or if truly thinking machines are even possible. What I find really amusing is the multitude of numenta fanboys in their forums that don't even understand or know Hawkins's theories.

• Black holes don't suck everything into them, unless the object is falling towards them in the first place. If the Sun were converted into a black hole (which it can't be because the Sun is not massive enough), the Earth would continue in its orbit unperturbed. Has to be the most common misconception I hear. Even in this forum I recall reading how black holes at the center of galaxies suck everything in.....

A picture would help.

It acts at the top of the block opposite the acceleration of the cart. It produces the counterclockwise rotation you are looking for. There are two ways to view it. Inertia or as a force. If you view it as inertia, think, what would happen if a block was standing on something that suddenly accelerated. Which way would the block rotate. If you view it as a force then the block is a rigid body. The acceleration of the cart (and it not slipping due to high coefficient of friction) is a force at the bottom of the block in the direction of the acceleration (frictional force). The rigid body translates that to a force at the top of the block in the opposing direction. Put a ruler or pencil or something on a table. Push perpendicular to it on one end. It rotates. There isn't a distinguishable difference to create that rotation whether you pushed in one direction at one end or the opposite direction at the other end. In this case the frictional force thanks to the coefficient of friction between the cart and the block is your finger. Maybe that makes sense.

the acceleration of the cart the block rests on creates a pseudo force that acts in the opposing direction of the carts acceleration at the top of the block.

I've always wondered what people with a B.S./M.S. in sociology or psychology plan to do upon graduation. What are your plans?

This seems like a severely edited version of an original puzzle. It has bits of lacking info as well as some added language (colors as opposed to guy one simply saying he doesn't know). And there is NO way that the blind man can know the colors of guy1 and guy2 hats. Unless the OP was making the colors addition intentionally to change the original problem. In which case guy2 would ALWAYS know his hat.....so eh. However, blind man has epiphany and knows his hat has to be BLACK. If his hat were red then guy 2 would KNOW his hat's color. Why? If guy 1 doesn't know than he sees black and black or black and red. If when guy 2 looks and sees red on the top of blind man he would KNOW his was black and could not be red. Thus blind man obviously has a black hat. He can't know the colors of the other two for sure because there is no distinguishable difference between the following four scenarios. Guy 1 red Guy 2 red blind black Guy 1 red guy 2 black blind black Guy 1 black guy 2 black blind black Guy 1 black guy2 red blind black

As a kid I would get a kick out of flipping my bicycle over on its handle bar and seat, peddling the wheel up to a fast speed and then trying to stop the tire with my foot (not in spokes, on tire). Great example of angular momentum, you can't just grab the tire and expect it to stop (great way to lose a finger, hand, or depending on how young an arm!) I also liked playing around with gyroscopes, small example of angular momentum (and some other concepts too). Once you get an idea of what angular momentum "looks" like it is pretty easy to understand it and relate it to linear momentum.

Mechanical engineering or electrical/computer engineering Either major can get you into robotics development either the more physical electric applications or with computer engineering you can delve more into intelligent machinery and AI. I'm a Computer Engineer and I love robotics and AI, I also am mechanically inclined, pretty good field IMO.

The OP's FBD is correct. The frictional force should point uphill. In this incident the friction helps (enables) angular acceleration and thus must be opposite the disc's motion and with the rotational motion. Imagine if there was no friction the disc would slide, right? Now instead of lets say you were talking about the driving wheels of a vehicle the friction is with the direction of the vehicle. If there was zero friction the vehicle would not go anywhere and the wheels would just spin, the friction pushes the vehicle forward.

Are you kidding me. The guy accused me of discussing christianity as opposed to science, the first person to quote anything of mine involving christianity wins a prize. Further, besides just being wrong and off base he acted indignently, If you act indignently to others expect the same in return. Anyway, any time spent responding on this board is just wasted time.

1) I didn't bring up the topic of creationism. 2) Me pointing out why both creationsim and atheism are in the same boat so calling one a mental disorder is absurd is not a discussion of christianity in any form. 3) Don't BORE me with your ineptness.

Do you doubt people were killed, maimed, ______ before religion was created? or Do you doubt that people currently are killed, maimed, ______ without religion being involved? Either one is quite silly, but if citations are truly needed you can check any news website for the answer to the later and google can help with the answer to the former.

Or we are minute and insignificant and are like an ant farm to IT. Or energy manifested itself from nothing and created our universe.... I don't disagree at all that organized religion was probably created to control the society and people. However, before organized religions tribes, people, whatever fought and killed just as much. And even today....in our country how many homicides/year are due to religion as compared to jealousy, greed, rage...etc etc....

Creationist are not any different than atheist. Both think they KNOW the what, why, and how of origin of life and existence when in fact there is zero evidence to support either side. Just like there isn't any proof to a benevolent God, there isn't any proof that a God or higher being doesn't exist. How does that saying go......only fools are certain? BTW for people citing religions as majority causes of problems in the world..... Do some research on ancient history, before religions were even established this world was a pretty evil nasty place with people killing etc.....

Field of study does matter..... My entire undergraduate career consisted of 3 - 4 different labs each semester. At the end of the semester a lab practicum had to be passed within the alotted time or you didn't pass the course. That is how engineering is done, at least at good engineering schools or at least in my experience through my B.S. and my M.S. If you don't learn anything till your M.S. you are wasting a lot of time and money.

Wow....I find that hard to believe if solely for the fact that the brain has retention limits. What major/field of study is this and is the undergraduate curriculum accredited?

I did a paper on BAI (brain-actuated interaction) that used an EEG (not sure what an egg machine is:)) just like the article you linked too. These systems can either be invasive or non-invasive, with the non-invasive systems being more desired for the exact reason that a few people pointed out, no cutting you open! No doubt being able to control robots, or even smaller more simple devices without the hands would be great, but these systems are FAR from that type of success, especially the non-invasive systems. One specific study posted results of 30-40% command error. Meaning 30-40% of the time the command the person tried to give didn't produce the proper results. This error was present with even the simplest commands: Left, Right, Center. There were only three commands to distinquish and yet 40% error!!! The problem.....the EEG sensors on the head monitor large regions of the head and not actual neurons or even specific neuron clusters. Even with highly increased signal processing it would be very difficult to distinquish true commands (imagine 20-30 commands for a robot) from the limited sensing abilities. In the experiments I read and (probably the one linked too here) the key to the apparent success of the test is the robot is automated and only requires suttle ques from the person mind controlling it.