THIS explains it! by SignyM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch
Knowing" there were no WMD's in Iraq.
Rue
Based on evidence, not on opinion.
Fletch
You could not "know" you could not. You did not have enough information to "know" 100% sure.
Rue
Not 100% sure, though in the larger sense no one is ever 100% sure of anything, even their own existence. If you are looking for a 'standard' of certainty, it would have met the criminal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

So you are now saying that you believed based on the evidence that there were no WMD's?

That is somewhat different than what you said just a couple of posts ago. I have no problem with believed KNOW has an air of certainty about it that "believed" doesnt have.

Quote:

Fletch
The policy said that they could remove him.
Rue
The ruling was this: "the school's campus speech policy, which requires speakers to obtain on-campus sponsors, is legal and not a burden on Gilles." Any more distractions to toss around ?

You really are amazing you nitpick other people but never pay attention yourself. I didn't say the "verdict" as in trial I said the "policy" as in University of Florida policy which if you recall you found.

"Regulations of the University of Florida
6C1-4.016 Student Conduct Code; Violations, Penalties and Procedures for Adjudication."

Specifically

"(s) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DIRECTIVE.
Failure to comply with a directive of law enforcement or a University official."

Now quit the distraction tactics. Just give me 3 big examples where you changed your position.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:39 PM

I sense an artificial semantical division at play here.

Unifying Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:41 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So you are now saying that you believed based on the evidence that there were no WMD's?

Fletch2, you're being a dick. One of the tactics that disinformationalists use is to insist on absolute surety. It's either a dead certainty OR it's nothing? C'mon man.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
So you are now saying that you believed based on the evidence that there were no WMD's?
Fletch2, you're being a dick. One of the tactics that disinformationalists use is to insist on absolute surety. It's either a dead certainty OR it's nothing? C'mon man.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

So Rue is a disinformationalist? I admit I didn't know in 2003 if there were WMD's or not. Hans Blix didn't know but Rue KNEW according to her.

When she claimed to KNOW she was challenged by multiple people who all said the same thing, it was impossible for her to know, there was basically too little information at the time to know with certainty. A regular human being would have been happy to have said that they believed based on available evidence. I mean who needs more than that and it would have been honest. But Rue didnt do that, that would leave her down here in the dirt with the rest of us human types. So she proclaimed Godlike knowledge and defended that when challenged. You tell me, does that sound like someone living in a fantasy world or not?

Still waiting on my 3 examples by the way and until I get them I will post about it every 3 hours or so like she does.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:59 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch
Knowing" there were no WMD's in Iraq.
Rue
Based on evidence, not on opinion.
Fletch
You could not "know" you could not. You did not have enough information to "know" 100% sure.
Rue
Not 100% sure, though in the larger sense no one is ever 100% sure of anything, even their own existence. If you are looking for a 'standard' of certainty, it would have met the criminal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Fletch
So you are now saying that you believed based on the evidence that there were no WMD's?
Rue
What I said - here it again is in bold and caps in case you don't have you're reading glasses on: 'BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT'. We can always point to some theoretical or philosophical doubt. Maybe I'm not really here. Maybe you're not really there. 'BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT' is what I said and what I meant.

Fletch
The policy said that they could remove him.
Rue
The ruling was this: "the school's campus speech policy, which requires speakers to obtain on-campus sponsors, is legal and not a burden on Gilles." Any more distractions to toss around ?
Fletch
I didn't say the "verdict" as in trial I said the "policy"
Rue
So this "I found court cases that said otherwise" and this "And the decision came from a Federal court, might not be the circuit that UofF" are the real distractions ? Which distractions would you like me to address ?

Fletch
After he issued an appology and said he was wrong --- another little bit of everyone else's reality.
Rue
I believe I mentioned that. It's part of my reality, too.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:00 PM

Waiting on my 3

Neither was a distraction

You came up with 2 equally bogus facts that only existed in your reality.

1) That no public university has the legal right to remove students from their premises. In the case I quoted the judge stated that public universities retain all property rights just like a private owner and thus rules such as trespass still applied. They can in effect bar or remove anyone from their premises at any time as an ownership right.

2) Rue bogus point #2 was that the cops have no grounds to arrest him because he broke no university rule. This was based on rules in the "Rueniverse" and some policy document that Sig found for somewhere like the University of Michighan.

Low and behold when we get the UofF policy there is a rule that says that sudents have to comply with orders from campus cops and officials.

In both these instances Rueniverse and real world were different. Your continued inability to see this just confirms what i said.

Still waiting on 3 examples of where you changed your position. I did what you wanted I gave you examples --- you never said you had to agree with them (it would be pointless in that case because obviously you wouldn't agree.) Now I'm waiting on my 3.

I don't see why you dont just spit 3 out and prove me wrong, should be easy right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Still waiting for my examples !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:18 PM

Now now boys and girls, don't make me stop this car!

Daddyisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fletch2- While I wasn't sure whether Saddam had a WMD program or not (I doubted that he did and was waiting for Blix to finalize his report) there were a few of things I knew for sure:

Saddam didn't have a delivery system capable of being our problem.
Saddam wasn't involved in 9-11.
Saddam wasn't about to give WMD to jihadists, who could have posed a threat to him.

Now, given all that, I was as certain as one could be that Saddam was not an urgent threat and I resented the hysteria that Bush & Co. was foisting on us. And furthermore, I was deeply suspicious that Bush couldn't wait for Blix to finish. In fact, it looked very much like Bush was trying to prevent Blix from finishing. If you don't have an emotional interest in the situation then it's just a matter of putting 2 and 2 together.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:38 PM

A very fallible, human double post.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2- While I wasn't sure whether Saddam had a WMD program or not (I doubted that he did and was waiting for Blix to finalize his report) there were a few of things I knew for sure:

Saddam didn't have a delivery system capable of being our problem.
Saddam wasn't involved in 9-11.
Saddam wasn't about to give WMD to jihadists, who could have posed a threat to him.

Now, given all that, I resented the hysteria that Bush & Co. was foisting on us. And furthermore, I was deeply suspicious that Bush couldn't wait for Blix to finish. In fact, it looked very much like Bush was trying to prevent Blix from finishing. It's all just a matter of putting 2 and 2 together.

.

I completely respect that opinion, it is logical and well reasoned. You couldn't know, I couldn't know, even Blix didn't know. Rue? She KNEW. That is my point. Like I said it was her opinion -- same as yours or mine an interpretation of evidence proven to be correct by events. To say she KNOWS is all about presentation. A "belief" could be wrong, it's fallable, it's human. Rue so hates being wrong that she refuses to accept even the posibility of it. That's why she KNEW, no uncertaintly like other mortals.

Even now she's trying to pick holes in my argument rather than just going for blood. She can win with 3 examples of how discussion here has changed her mind. You could find 3 examples, I could, but we dont believe ourselves infalable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I admit I didn't know in 2003 if there were WMD's or not.

I'll admit to not being absolutely sure he didn't have them (tho it's what I believed), but I'll also admit to being absolutely sure he couldn't do dick to us even if he did (delivery systems are important doncha know). So their existence is moot as far as invading Iraq goes, init?

Out swinging Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:44 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well Fletch2, there was one thing I DID know, to as near a certainty as can be had: Saddam didn't pose an immediate threat. I don't know if you want to call me a .... whatever it is that you call people who are sure of things... but I was sure of that. So, yeah. sometimes I AM certain of things, it's not popular, and nobody is going to change my mind.

What I'd like to reiterate, tho, is that when it comes to evaluating problems, especially emotional ones ... less heat, more light... works best. We should all try to dial down the emotion instead of cranking it up.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:44 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I remember when I was younger... I used to support torture as a means to gather important intelligence. I do not, any longer, because I've realized that fictional TV bad guys aren't the only people who get tortured, or have their rights stepped on.

I remember when I was younger... I used to believe that abortion should be illegal. Nowadays I don't think it's practical or helpful to legislate against abortion.

I remember when I was younger... I was in full support of a war against Iraq. Subsequent events have clearly demonstrated the folly of my position.

I remember when I was younger... I saw the cold war end and thought that the USA would be the only undisputed superpower for the next century. Now I'm not even sure we'll be a superpower throughout the next decade. I worry my grandchildren will be taught in school about the 'once great America during the golden age of its influence, just before the fall.'

I assume we've all changed our minds about one thing or another. I assume we've all declared our opinions as fact at one time or another. I assume we've all grown as time goes by. I also assume we all have better things to do than track down the entirety of someone's post history to see what they've said that turned out to be wrong or specious.

If we limit our attacks to someone's current arguments, and not their general personage, character, or life outlook, we can probably avoid the 'Oh yeah?' 'Yeah!' 'Prove it!' 'You first!' kind of pointlessness.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
A very fallible, human double post.

That will cost you two thousand Quatloos.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
A very fallible, human double post.
That will cost you two thousand Quatloos.

Help, I'm being repressed!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:02 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
A very fallible, human double post.
That will cost you two thousand Quatloos.

Help, I'm being repressed!

Bloody peasant!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:12 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
It is not a natural state for us to always be logical or objective. And that’s not a bad thing. The ability to compute the world around us with complex schemes, instead of Boolean logic, makes our brains infinitely superior to computers. We don’t have infinite knowledge of our environment, so we could never analyze the world around us to the depth that we do with logic alone, but our ability to think in terms of schema instead of 0s and 1s, means that we don’t always need complete knowledge of our environment, we can infer, deduce and conjecture. And we can have confidence in these deduction because unlike computers and Boolean logic, it is a far simpler matter for us to interpret complicated patterns from background noise. We can make leaps of faith that are impossible for computers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I've changed my mind on Bush- there was a time when I pegged him as an outright evil liar..I don't think he's evil anymore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really like this description of brain function Fletch. When I read Chrisisall's post above my brain immediately used it 's ability to "infer, deduce and conjecture" that reading further would just piss me off. So I made a "leap of faith" that no reasoning would follow and scrolled to the next post.

"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Actually not only have I learned many new things I've also changed my mind about others.

But I did know as well as it's possible to know that Hussein had no WMD. How did I know ? By watching Bush. Not by going to Iraq and searching every grain of sand, but by using the facts available to me - and using them to induce the facts known to Bush and the administration (as in inductive reasoning). Maybe Fletch doesn't think the product of observation and reasoning can lead to knowledge. I happen to believe it can, which is why I do the job that I do.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:02 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I have a hard time distinguishimg betweeen 'what I've learned' and 'what I've changed my mind about'. I tried to put them into two categories.

What I've learned:

1) I never knew there were people in the US whose actual job was disinformation. When years ago Ghoulman pointed out what seemed like a professional on the board I was skeptical at first. Over the years I've come to credit that observation. (Maybe that's a 'changed my mind' category.)

2) I never knew people like Rap existed. After watching him turn his back on contradicting information and facts time after time, I was completely unable to figure out how a person could live like that and not be utter bat-shit crazy. Now not only do I have an idea that people like that exist, but a hypothesis of how they work on the inside.

3) I've learned there are Southerners still fighting 'The (Civil) War'.

4) I've learned there are many intelligent, witty insightful people and they sometimes come in unusual packages, and I treasure their insights, even - and especially - when different from mine.

5) After years wondering theist/ agnostic ??? I decided I was an atheist (but then got right back on the fence as to whether or not I was a pan-theist).

6) Better left unsaid.

Some things I've not changed my mind about

1) Global warming - yep its' here, and yep, human made.

2) I still think there's a general utility to vaccinations (though not all of them - I guess I could put that in the 'changed my mind' part of the answer).

3) The Bush administration - what can I say. It tortures and renders people for torture, illegally spies on innocent citizens, ruined the economy, started a war and killed a LOT of people for no good reason, and performed and performs other sundry crimes.

4) I still know there were no Iraq WMDs.

5) Capitalism as practiced in the US is corrosive.

6) And, as miserable as people were in Communist Russia, they are more miserable now.

Some things I've changed my mind about

1) I thought relatively 'good' (people-oriented) governments were OK, now I know even they need a kick in the pants now and again.

2) I've come around the believing you have to be the change you want to see ... though I still have better luck with it in theory than in practice.

3) And I've been convinced things are actually worse than I originally thought.

As to the others - it would take far too long

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
It is not a natural state for us to always be logical or objective. And that’s not a bad thing. The ability to compute the world around us with complex schemes, instead of Boolean logic, makes our brains infinitely superior to computers. We don’t have infinite knowledge of our environment, so we could never analyze the world around us to the depth that we do with logic alone, but our ability to think in terms of schema instead of 0s and 1s, means that we don’t always need complete knowledge of our environment, we can infer, deduce and conjecture. And we can have confidence in these deduction because unlike computers and Boolean logic, it is a far simpler matter for us to interpret complicated patterns from background noise. We can make leaps of faith that are impossible for computers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I've changed my mind on Bush- there was a time when I pegged him as an outright evil liar..I don't think he's evil anymore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really like this description of brain function Fletch. When I read Chrisisall's post above my brain immediately used it 's ability to "infer, deduce and conjecture" that reading further would just piss me off. So I made a "leap of faith" that no reasoning would follow and scrolled to the next post.

"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"

Actually that was Finn :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:16 PM

Rue: In which case I concede. You gave the impression that you came here just to enforce your opinion with zero interest in actually hearing and considering any other point of view. If you are actually learning things and changing your opinion then I was obviously wrong about that. I actually come here because people have a different point of view, it's refreshing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I treasure learning new things. Seriously, I think it's better than s ... never mind.

***************************************************************
Did I really almost post that ???

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

When I read Chrisisall's post above my brain immediately used it 's ability to "infer, deduce and conjecture" that reading further would just piss me off. So I made a "leap of faith" that no reasoning would follow and scrolled to the next post.

I love you too, Kirkules!

Fuzzy Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Help, I'm being repressed!

No your not, you came out in the other thread.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 6:49 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Oh believe me, most if not all folk here are capable of at least pondering a perspective that doesn't wholly conflict with everything they are, hell even PN and myself have had some damn interesting discussions over presentation and the like, which given how bloody awful they used to be, seems like he took a little bit more to heart than expected...

It's that some folk in particular are stubborn jackasses about it, who won't ponder something like that WHILE they're hashing it out with you, cause that's where all their focus is.

It's later, when quietly alone, that they mull it over and mentally chew on it a while, then accept, adapt or reject it.

In a head-on, nose-to-nose debate, generally yer NOT gonna convince someone of anything, what yer doing, if yer any good at all at making your case, is planting the seeds which may grow later when emotions are not involved and there's no debate territory at stake that's gotta be defended, yadda yadda...

Of course, some of us are more jackass stubborn than others, right Rue ?

That's why when it boils down to he-said/she-said or pickin nits, I just leave it be instead of pickin at it once my two cents are added.

S'why I never demand replies either, get to em in your own good time and think about em first, yes ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:08 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi Frem

Just hi.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:12 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"unlike computers and Boolean logic, it is a far simpler matter for us to interpret complicated patterns from background noise. We can make leaps of faith that are impossible for computers."

Ahem. Technically the first part isn't true. Trainable systems that use fuzzy logic are far superior to humans when it comes to picking a pattern out of noise. And humans use mental shortcuts that tend to skip past the correct answers. 'Expert systems' - though built and trained by people, are far better at solving problems because they don't forget or get tired. http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=31276
Predicting the future with 90% accuracy... and Iran

However, humans do make 'leaps of faith'.

***************************************************************
So, if you want the right answer, you're better off using a trained fuzzy logic system or an expert system. But if you want the human answer - something that humans might accept and incorporate - use a human mind.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Seen several papers comparing the accuracy of expert systems v human judgement on: recidivism, liver cancer prognosis, breast cancer screening, juvenile delinquency, and negotiation strategies. Expert systems win every time because they represent the cumulative experience of many people, not just the "feelings" or intuition of one person. That is why discussion is so helpful- if done properly, it combines the experience of many people on a single issue.

Now sometimes a person can be really, really, really good at something: detecting lies, applying a psychiatric treatment or whatever.... but these people are rather rare in their professions and even rarer in the general population. I doubt we have one of the rarities on the board, so I guess we'll just have to stumble forward with each other's help.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ahem. Technically the first part isn't true. Trainable systems that use fuzzy logic are far superior to humans when it comes to picking a pattern out of noise. And humans use mental shortcuts that tend to skip past the correct answers. 'Expert systems' - though built and trained by people, are far better at solving problems because they don't forget or get tired. http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=31276
Predicting the future with 90% accuracy... and Iran

However, humans do make 'leaps of faith'.

They just don't get tired. Even the best 'expert systems' usually using neural nets, aren't anywhere near as versatile or fast as the human brain at pattern matching. Fuzzy logic on computers is just a fudge.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:19 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Even the best 'expert systems' usually using neural nets, aren't anywhere near as versatile or fast as the human brain at pattern matching."

It depends on the type of pattern, the number of levels and the type of training. There are systems now meant to be hooked up to instruments (though not commercially available for the most part) that are great at detecting low levels of signal in noise, deconvoluting low-level spectral patterns out of noise etc. The applications are pretty specific, but they out-do humans (after they are trained, of course).

I don't have a reference, but I read about them in ACS publications as long as two years ago.

When it comes to versatility, the human brain has it all over nets.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The applications are pretty specific, but they out-do humans (after they are trained, of course).

They also probably have better data input methods that allow the patterns to stand out more, for some kinds of work the standard 5 senses aren't quite as sufficent. In broad strokes though, you'd probably find if you were to grow a brain to that specific task it would greatly outperform the neural net.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:34 AM

FREMDFIRMA

"When it comes to versatility, the human brain has it all over nets.

For now, yeah.

Me, I worry - that some day we might build a machine smart enough to wonder why it's takin orders from us...

Course, how that'd go depends on what it's hooked up to - I've actually done a little study on AI Rampancy and it's fascinating.

343 Guilty Spark FTW!

-Frem

PS. You coulda just *said* "Like you've got room to talk, ironhead ?" yanno, I wouldn't have taken offense

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Even the best 'expert systems' usually using neural nets, aren't anywhere near as versatile or fast as the human brain at pattern matching.

Unfortunately no. Human thought is based in the "lizard brain" which involves prejudices, emotions etc. One really bad experience can outweigh a hundred good ones, and that one will be the deciding factor. In addition, human thought is very context-sensitive. That's why the average person sucks at logic: They don't recognize the very same pattern in a different context.

So far, all of the great discoveries have been made by humans, but computers haven't been around very long.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Unfortunately no. Human thought is based in the "lizard brain" which involves prejudices, emotions etc. One really bad experience can outweigh a hundred good ones, and that one will be the deciding factor. In addition, human thought is very context-sensitive. That's why the average person sucks at logic: They don't recognize the very same pattern in a different context.

So far, all of the great discoveries have been made by humans, but computers haven't been around very long.

As opposed to computers, which don't think at all? People seem to have this misconception that computers are 'smart' and getting 'smarter', which is simply not true. Computers are thick, really really thick. They can only do what we tell them too, and what they do is really dumb, they just do lots of dumb things really quickly. Modern computers are no smarter than ENIAC, Colossus or even Charles Babbage's difference engine, they're just much quicker. They have all the independent problem solving capability of an Abacus.

I'd refute the idea that Human thought results from the 'lizard brain'. The 'lizard brain' is largely concerned with basic emotional reactions and the flight or fight response, it's the most animalistic behaviours, not really our thinking side.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'd refute the idea that Human thought results from the 'lizard brain'. The 'lizard brain' is largely concerned with basic emotional reactions and the flight or fight response, it's the most animalistic behaviours, not really our thinking side.

Experiments show that many of our decisions are based in the "lizard brain": taking 0.5-1 second to judge a candidate, for example. (I could come up with more if you want.) And for people who've had a corpus callosotomy (brain-splitting operation) it's interesting how they will react to things and then confabulate about why they did it.

I know that computers are really stupid. My SO is an expert, and the expert view is that they're the only thing that can do 1,000,000 mistakes per second. Yes, they have to be programmed. But nonetheless, they don't have our confused, emotion-ridden motives and they remember really really well.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I'd refute the idea that Human thought results from the 'lizard brain'. The 'lizard brain' is largely concerned with basic emotional reactions and the flight or fight response, it's the most animalistic behaviours, not really our thinking side."

Human thought (to me) seems to be mostly about satisfying and justifying the lizard brain. That's what makes one thing preferable to another, makes us notice things and ignore others, gives our thoughts overall direction, and provides any motivation at all. Also, a lot of 'stuff' that goes on in the brain is far below our ability to access. Probably 95 + % of brain activity is below access level. The lizard brain is also responsible for many 'decisions' we 'make'. (I had an article about 'free will ?' somewhere but I'd have to see if I still have it.)

***************************************************************
OTOH I do think it's possible to grow and develop using - your own brain.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I know that computers are really stupid. My SO is an expert, and his view of computers is that they're the only thing that can do 1,000,000 mistakes per second. Yes, they have to be programmed. But nonetheless, they don't have our confused, emotion-ridden motives and they remember really really well.

Yeah, and my car doesn't have emotions, so it must be a better driver?

Computers don't remember anything, they store data the same way a library does, and in no way is that 'remembering', they don't think, at all, emotionally driven or not. They have no motives, emotionally driven or not. I'll say it right here and now, no electronic silicon based computer of the turing machine style we currently have WILL ever think for itself, no computer WILL EVER invent anything.

EDIT:
Of course you're missing one important fact. Computers only do what we tell them, we're they're motivation. If our motivations are emotional and lizard brainy, then ultimatly, a computers are too.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You sure you want to go with that? "Ever" is a long, long time.

Besides, I don't really see anything fundamentally different between human brains and computers (except human emotion, of course). We share many of the same functions: "working memory", "long term memory", comparison functions. The brain even has a "clock" (thalamus).

I don't think we'll ever be able to do what computers do, but we do our BEST thinking when we disengage our emotions. We have to be quiet enough inside to let the data speak to us, instead of constantly imposing our opinions on it and confabulating about ourselves.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You sure you want to go with that? "Ever" is a long, long time.

I'm as comfortable with that statement as saying "Hammers won't ever invent something" or "This rock will never invent anything". Yes, Computers, Turing machines, will never invent anything, will never be capable of independent thought.

Quote:
Besides, I don't really see anything fundamentally different between human brains and computers (except human emotion, of course). We share many of the same functions: "working memory", "long term memory", comparison functions. The brain even has a "clock" (thalamus).

And people in the 19th century saw the brain as nothing more than clever clockwork engine, and then they were nothing more than a telephone exchange, now they're computers. I wonder what they'll be tomorrow. Frankly, the idea that Computers will some day think for themselves is as silly as the 19th century Sci-Fi stories about thinking mechanical men. Modern computers operate on a largely identical system to Babbage's difference engine, so indeed saying we could produce a thinking computer, is the same as saying we could produce a thinking clock.

Quote:
I don't think we'll ever be able to do what computers do, but we do our BEST thinking when we disengage our emotions. We have to be quiet enough inside to let the data speak to us, instead of constantly imposing our opinions on it and confabulating about ourselves.

What computers do: Add, Subtract, Move Memory, Multiply, Divide, Square root, and so on. I don't know about you, but I find basic mathematics well within my grasp, I may not be able to do it as fast as a computer, but that's why we use computers to enhance that area of Human thought. Not being able to do what computers do? We got along fine for the thousands of years before they were invented

.

They're a tool nothing more. They're a sophisticated hammer, and unless you're prepared to admit that hammers can think for themselves, and we'll never be able to do what hammers do, then saying the same of computers makes the same amount of sense.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:52 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Technically I think the only thing they can do is add, compare, store and delete. I could be wrong though. It's been a long time.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:13 AM