What's new
By:
Filters

BRAND NEW "EVOLUTION" THREAD

Which animals could you kill with no weapon?

  • Total voters
    17
carolinajazz said:
....what I bring to this discussion is nothing less than primo-excellent facts that are indisputable....and viewpoints and observations that are both reasonable and informative!
Click to expand...

We don't want to discuss the validity of evolution here. There is another big *** thread for that. Here we're discussing technology and men fighting animals.
 
Siro said:
We don't want to discuss the validity of evolution here. There is another big *** thread for that. Here we're discussing technology and men fighting animals.
Click to expand...

.....I don't mind talking technology at all! (Although I still have a "flip phone".....but the battery lasts 3 days with a charge!) and "men fighting animals" isn't a bad subject, either! I'm partial to reptiles, especially snakes! I know my East Coast and Southern snakes pretty well! Not an "expert", but you can quiz me, if you'd like! Here's one for you......did you know they have stopped making Coral Snake "anti-venom" for two reasons: 1) Nobody get's bit by them since they are very docile even when picked up by mistake. 2) They spend 95% of there life underground!
 
Siro said:
Sure thing. Here is a Wired.com link:

https://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive

It was all over science and technology news websites, so you can easily find as much information as you want. Keep in mind that there is a LOT of skepticism about the experiment in the scientific community, since the results are a probable violation of the conservation of energy (I say probably because NASA suspects if the results hold, then it is a product of not-yet-well-understood physics, like zero-point energy).

But if true, they think that thrust can be produced through spontaneous production of particles from the vacuum (particles fluctuate in and out of existence in a vacuum). That means a rocket will only need to carry a power supply, without any reaction fuel. The implications are... well, inconceivable. I don't want to get too excited in case it turns out to be a mistake, but I sure hope it's confirmed in the near future.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I completely understand the skepticism and it seems very warranted at this point. It would be amazing if things go the way the optimists are predicting. I'm glad that I have a better understanding now, and I'll keep my eye on the progress.
 
the sole of a shoe is a weapon, and anything else, even a fist or a palm crashing on a fly. . . . . .

oh, wait. I get it.

you got me on this one.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Do you ever eat meat? If so, what you must have really meant to say is that you pay people to murder animals for you.
Click to expand...

killing an an animal for sustenance is NOT MURDER.
killing an animal with your bear hands for fun, or to prove how manly you are is.



HELL TO THE YEAH FOR EATING MEAT
 
Always thought about this with dogs, pit bulls specifically. If one got hold of me, I always pictured myself, with a free hand, jamming my fingers and hand in through its' eye(s), ripping them out, and then going into the brain to gouge the hell out of it. I'm not sure I'd be able to fend one off any other way, without any weapons handy.
 
so taking this thread as having something to do with evolution is a sort of "Darwin Award" joke. Somebody just got tired of that endless thread where NCjazz and Siro never quit.
 
DutchJazzer said:
killing an an animal for sustenance is NOT MURDER.
killing an animal with your bear hands for fun, or to prove how manly you are is.



HELL TO THE YEAH FOR EATING MEAT
Click to expand...
If you are interpreting this question as killing for fun then you are reading something in to it that is not there. It simply asks what you believe you would be capable of doing.
 
Siro said:
I find that A.I. scenario somewhat implausible. Let's examine what we mean by artificial intelligence. Arguably, we have already created many forms of super-human intelligences. Computers can beat any human at chess. They are able to remember vast amounts of information perfectly. And they outperform humans in numerous ways (thus technological unemployment). But we don't really consider that "real" intelligence. When we talk about A.I. we're talking about reverse engineering human intelligence. A non-biological human-made being that possesses human like intelligence. For all intents and purposes, that A.I. would simply be "human". As in, the knowledge required to build a human intelligence out of inorganic materials is more or less the same as the knowledge required to transform existing organic intelligences to inorganic ones.

In other words, building a general A.I. can be thought of as building human intelligence through other means. We become the A.I. We replace ourselves with a superior version of ourselves, the same way we've been doing for hundreds of millennia. After all, that's what humans do; replace the processes of biological evolution by the incomparably superior cultural and technological evolution.
Click to expand...

This is actually not true.

A computer has a discrete, finite range of formulated calculations or "projections". . . . . and that program was designed by a human. . . ..

a human with a plan can reliably defeat the computer because we can always take any computer programmed result a few steps further, or see some "blind spot" or imperfection in the programmer's work.

I take my computer's hardest setting, and on average win six or seven games to every game I lose, and I only lose because I don't follow my plan or get tired of "thinking ahead". The programmer who wrote the program the computer follows limited the computer to ten moves simply because hardly any human will think further than that. . . ..

any program you can write, I can write one better.
 
babe said:
so taking this thread as having something to do with evolution is a sort of "Darwin Award" joke. Somebody just got tired of that endless thread where NCjazz and Siro never quit.
Click to expand...

What is that supposed to mean? I will always make an exit as soon as it gets dumb. There is no thread where I endlessly argue with anyone.
 
babe said:
This is actually not true.

A computer has a discrete, finite range of formulated calculations or "projections". . . . . and that program was designed by a human. . . ..

a human with a plan can reliably defeat the computer because we can always take any computer programmed result a few steps further, or see some "blind spot" or imperfection in the programmer's work.

I take my computer's hardest setting, and on average win six or seven games to every game I lose, and I only lose because I don't follow my plan or get tired of "thinking ahead". The programmer who wrote the program the computer follows limited the computer to ten moves simply because hardly any human will think further than that. . . ..

any program you can write, I can write one better.
Click to expand...

Um no. It actually is true. A computer does have a finite capacity (duh), but an average desktop computer has been able to project the entire game from the very first move for some time now. What I mean is, there is also a finite number of moves possible in chess, and the computer can see all of those moves easily enough that it can do it before each turn. Sure a ****ty program can be beat, but even something like Chess Master will beat the best players at the highest setting. Programs specifically designed to beat anyone cannot be beaten by any grandmaster, ever. A perfect game would allow a grandmaster to draw, however (which is why you play a series o games in chess tournaments).

But I don't know you. So I can't rule our you're super-human.
 
Siro said:
Um no. It actually is true. A computer does have a finite capacity (duh), but an average desktop computer has been able to project the entire game from the very first move for some time now. What I mean is, there is also a finite number of moves possible in chess, and the computer can see all of those moves easily enough that it can do it before each turn. Sure a ****ty program can be beat, but even something like Chess Master will beat the best players at the highest setting. Programs specifically designed to beat anyone cannot be beaten by any grandmaster, ever. A perfect game would allow a grandmaster to draw, however (which is why you play a series o games in chess tournaments).

But I don't know you. So I can't rule our you're super-human.
Click to expand...

Not super human.

So I'll combine in this a reply to both your comments.

"Stupid" is a judgment call, and we humans make those judgments as a sort of shortcut to reasoning endlessly. When you finally get through all the imaginable logical and factual items, I would hold that NC Jazz is right where you are wrong. You place faith in your logic. Truly "religious" people put faith in "something/someone out there" with imaginably superior "logic" and "facts". The bottom line is, you are despite your best efforts, still pretty stupid, and still a long way from knowing it all. . . . just like me. In all the vastness of space, in all the implications of "time", the statistics give the result that however smart we can be, it is probable that there is something/someone smarter.

As for "chess" being finite, however true that may be, a human has something more than a finite list of possibilities to choose from, which the best military men for example, would understand as "knowing your enemy" and exploiting that knowledge in some strategic manner. A human who knows the computer program can beat the program. And, for that matter, the fact is chess is indeed infinite.

why these two things are so. . . . well, it goes to philosophical contemplations of various kinds. . . and only can be so because we are something more than "logic" or "fact". We are creativity personified.


Some humans deny that essential feature of their nature and blind themselves to the infinites of our existence. Often, for a basically "dogmatic paradigm" that seems essential to some belief, which is in itself the thing that often provokes those very persons towards hating some other "dogmatic paradigm" however defined. . . . whether we call it "religion" or "authoritarian" or "statist", "moral" of "lawful".
 
Siro said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–computer_chess_matches

After convincing victories in two matches in 2005 and 2006, it appears that chess programs can now defeat even the strongest chess players.

That was 8 years ago. Computers are many times more powerful today.
Click to expand...

So the clock hasn't stopped ticking, and humans are still thinking. . . . . and will do so forever. . . .


Speaking on behalf of Deep Fritz 10, Matthias Wüllenweber, expressed an opinion I had not heard before. He was answering a question as to why Fritz 10 had not entered into the latest computer competitions such as Turin 2006? Matthias explained that preparing for a match against the world champion as opposed to a computer opponent was not the same thing. That a lot of preparation was necessary as the opponent was so different! The programmers live in fear that the human player will shut down the position and lock up the pawn structure. The program, unable to calculate long forcing sequences, plays without understanding and the programmers are humiliated. Such a situation is really a problem when playing Vladimir Kramnik but is not a problem when playing against computers. Against computers a different kind of preparation was necessary and the team of Fritz 10 felt it was best to use their preparation time for the human match and not a computer challenge. It was quite an irony to hear this side of a familiar discussion amongst humans.
Click to expand...

https://en.chessbase.com/post/seirawan-on-kramnik-vs-deep-fritz-game-one
 
babe said:
Not super human.

So I'll combine in this a reply to both your comments.

"Stupid" is a judgment call, and we humans make those judgments as a sort of shortcut to reasoning endlessly. When you finally get through all the imaginable logical and factual items, I would hold that NC Jazz is right where you are wrong. You place faith in your logic. Truly "religious" people put faith in "something/someone out there" with imaginably superior "logic" and "facts". The bottom line is, you are despite your best efforts, still pretty stupid, and still a long way from knowing it all. . . . just like me. In all the vastness of space, in all the implications of "time", the statistics give the result that however smart we can be, it is probable that there is something/someone smarter.

As for "chess" being finite, however true that may be, a human has something more than a finite list of possibilities to choose from, which the best military men for example, would understand as "knowing your enemy" and exploiting that knowledge in some strategic manner. A human who knows the computer program can beat the program. And, for that matter, the fact is chess is indeed infinite.

why these two things are so. . . . well, it goes to philosophical contemplations of various kinds. . . and only can be so because we are something more than "logic" or "fact". We are creativity personified.


Some humans deny that essential feature of their nature and blind themselves to the infinites of our existence. Often, for a basically "dogmatic paradigm" that seems essential to some belief, which is in itself the thing that often provokes those very persons towards hating some other "dogmatic paradigm" however defined. . . . whether we call it "religion" or "authoritarian" or "statist", "moral" of "lawful".
Click to expand...

This is like having a conversation with someone who woke from a 30 year old coma. Back in the 80s, people made that exact same argument. In fact, I remember an episode of Star Trek TNG where the argument that a "computer can't beat a good human player because it lacks intuition" was made for a computer in the 2300s! But you're wrong, just as they were. You cannot beat a computer that is trying to beat you at chess. This is a fact. You can fantasize about your awesome human-ness all you want. The FACT remains, you cannot beat a computer at chess. Go ahead. Get Chess Master, and try to beat it at the 3000 level. I'll send you $500 if you do. I'm dead serious.

And I don't have faith in my logic. I know logic works because it promises to work, and then it follows through. I know that taking into account all the variables, you can make reliable predictions. Not because I feel it in my heart. But because logic states that it should, then experience confirms it to be so. I would only need faith if I believed logic NOT to work. I would be denying the objective knowledge and experience that I have acquired first hand in order to satisfy an emotional need. The opposite does not require faith at all.

Also, I honestly don't remember this discussion with NCJazz. It must have been someone else. I'd have to go back and check, but I have zero memory of it. Was it about evolution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top