LadyAttis

I don't see the reason for Hegel's dialetics. I mean there are more leaner ways to form argumentations. o_O -- Bridget

Um no. And again, no. You shift base YET AGAIN. You have neer invalidated anything I've said so far. You've only whined about this and that even though I never misused a single term what-so-ever. So again where am I wrong in stating that physicists prior to Max Planck hadn't a clue to handle the 'UV Death' issue with light? And where am I wrong on that Planck devised specific minimum units of measure to which allow for errors in Classical Physics to be rectified? Where? Not a dang single place I'm wrong. You seem to want to manipulate and bully people you don't like for whatever reason. If you don't like me, IGNORE ME. It is a feature of this forum. I never have attacked you until now. You seem to have had it out for me since my first post here. If you want to continue to be hostile then I will be forced to place you on ignore. I suggest you explain your unjust hostility toward me. And it seems you essentially trolled away everyone else that wanted to reply to my posts since you take content with me. All in all, congrats on attacking and defacing a thread that hasn't a damned thing to do with physics, but you seem to have an anal nature that requires you to make an idiot of yourself, cheers and say hello to ignore. -- Bridget sprays Stephen with a heavy dose of Troll'B'Gone[tm]!

Any given general behavior happens to be not of cognition. Like salmon swimming up stream to breed, there's been no evidence to my knowledge that they have the capacity to think in the general terms we humans define thinking as. So that's my definition of instinct. But I defined it before you just didn't like it. Are you satistfied? -- Bridget

What I'm saying is that some critters don't have instincts like other critters. Like Salmons have instincts to breed that are pretty over-whelming from what I've read. But a great ape like humans will breed whenever they want to. Dolphins are pretty similar in that regard. and I believe the African Grey Parrot is similar too but don't quote me on that. o_O -- Bridget

Horse hockey! It wasn't until Max Planck that anyone ever attempted to make absolute minimums for energy, matter, space, and time. His scales are the very reason why the 'UV death' was corrected in many equations. You haven't invalidated the Planck measures. Never. So until you do your arguments are F-A-L-S-E. Thankyou, drive thru. -- Bridget

I think the biggest point I'm trying to make is that our current logic sets we use on computers are just the roadblock between true intelligence and AI. But I guess the next conclusion would be is such an intelligence compatible with that of human-like intelligence? I mean even though as I said that I'm proponent of strong-ai in some ways, I think it will still be different but still close enough to resemble an intelligence and etc. o_O Who knows, right now they're all pretty much proto-types officially. But all events are still causal and thus are responses are contigent on causality. But that doesn't mean we don't make decisions counter to the contigencies. Good point. -- Bridget

Wrong again. Only if you use the current system of logic that is used on computers. Even that logic is imcomplete. There is nothing in Rand's statements that put consciousness equal to reality and identity. Not one damned statement of hers. If you say consciousness is equal to reality and identity, then you're a transcendentalist. Not a supporter of objective reality. The current AI with If-Then-Else statements are incomplete, yes but with quantum computers and the new sets of language we're using on them, an AI can and will eventually be able to develop to handle ideas like context and so forth. Also not one of you have shown where humans become volitional. Are we or are we not animals? We gestate and are born. We evolved from other species as a species. There is nothing special about our origins. If you claim that we're 1. Not animals. 2. Didn't evolve and 3. We don't develop overtime. You'll pretty much disregard every bit of scientific data in the last 100 years that says so. I really want your views clarified. ^___^ This isn't exactly what I call rational thought if you don't accept what is known in science. -- Bridget

Not neccesarily since most functions of a person are automonic. Think about breathing. Then try to stop breathing. You sure can for a little while but when you pass out then you start breathing again. What causes this? Some mystical free will force? Or that it's beyond complete control of will. Free will is all fine and dandy but to ignore the causal nature of any person and entity is wrong. A does B thus causing C can never been violated unless it's in the context of other causal chains, which can be unrelated to the example chain. There's nothing wrong with this position it doesn't say that any entity with the capacity of memory and to respond to personality cannot break causal chains. They sure can and do everyday. As for AI's, people assume that the future AI's will be all a series of If-Else-Then statements. Well with the current work, they won't be, sorry. I didn't make the rules of progress and research. -- Bridget

Only in the classic physics models we get the UV death radiation burst. Max Planck normalizes the issue by only allowing light to come in specific frequencies and specific amounts of energy. That's because classical mechanics are not based on few things QM is which is discrete units. In Classical Mechanics, spacetime and all energy can form in arbitrary amounts. And even interactions can vary in the amount of spacetime and energy they use, which is absurd. If system A has the same particles as system B they behaviors should follow a similar path. But under Classical Mechanics, their behaviors can be totally random! This is the error of Classical Mechanics not the error of Quantum Mechanics. You're sorta taking Einstein's position on QM here, and that hasn't ever been resolve. That's because of what I said before, Classical Mechanics measures and so on are arbitrary. String Theory doesn't really even fit the term theory. It's more hypothesis. It takes already proven premises and then uses something unverified[extra dimensions and entities called strings] to make new predictions[i think they predicted new particles but I'm not sure, it's been a while]. But to verify String Theory[and M-Theory] would take a particle accelerator with more power than we can generate currently. But luckily Loop Quantum Gravity is going through another test, after failing a previous one. Who knows, maybe LQP gets the prize of being theory of everything. -- Bridget

I'm not trolling, Stephen is the one attacking me. -- Bridget

I have a serious question on this. Why have a Reserve? I'm not well versed in Economics so I really question what uses are there to a Reserve versus letting market forces reach their natural equilibrium. And is there any decent books on this that I should pick up sometime? -- Bridget

The website is grossly biased against Rand in such a way that really doesn't give credit to what the ol'Lass actually did compared to her comtemporaries. She was one of the few that actually delved back to the roots of thought in American culture and revitalized interest in the ideas of Reason, Objective Reality, and so forth. This site smacks of bashdom to me rather than a rational treatise on any particular differences between Jefferson and Rand. Although it could be hypothized that Jefferson would have disagreed on some points of Rand's but the point is really moot, he died well before she came to be. I just take contention with websites that are pure bashfests, personally. o_O -- Bridget

I think the better question is why do humans and a few other critters seem to be able to change their behavior in light of instinct? Humans, Great Apes, Dolphins, African Grey Parrot, and a couple other species seem to be able with various degrees change behavior not just to stimulus but to personal 'preferences.' In a way, I think the position of 'volition' in a given entity has to do with personality development. Humans have the seemingly strongest sense of personality/self of all the animals I cite. To unlock the mechanism that allows us to be this way will be a major step forward in a deeper understanding of why we and not the apes are building cities and so forth. -- Bridget

Um no. You're the one that doesn't have anything on the literature in the field. If GR/SR are wrong, why do we verify it in experiments everyday? The last work on it was with alteration of the constant of C in a given medium. They verified many interesting things such as the issue of communication pass C in a given medium. But you wouldn't know about that would you? Um I actually read Feynman's paper on QED, it's a very commonly printed paper in book form. Most of what he stated dealt with issues of sum of all histories of a given photon to explain the odd nature of a photon[its uncertainty]. So if I don't know all that much about QED why am I damned good on referencing that? What about Probability Amplitudes and how he uses them to explain sum-of-all-histories? Now now, is this a 'measuring' contest, because that's what I smell, a whole lot of testosterone. So you want to not reference your claims? And again with the authoritarian fallacy! Look, there is 1. No such thing as special knowledge or gnosis. If I wanted to debate special 'knowledge' I'll talk to a Christian/Muslim apologist, thankyou. So I suggest you stay on topic. 2. Authority can only go so far, I think you be best to read about how Authority is meaningless in the light of Reason. Go pick up Stirner's own book on this, The Ego and his own. 3. You don't know as much as you claim you know about physics. If GR/SR is wrong, why is gravity lensing still correct? What about the SR predictions on the variance of c in given mediums? And what about QM's predictions on the atomic model? Not to mention Dirac's own application of GR to QM, predicting anti-matter which CERN and company experiment on almost everyday[they have anti-electron[positron] and anti-proton 'breeding' facilities on their campuses]. But I guess you really really think those people must be 'unscientific.' But I as I stated before earlier, this is becoming a measuring contest, which has no basis in this thread since that was not the premise of this thread. I think you're acting a bit trollish in your behavior and cannot validate anything you state. You drop a couple things but never string it into the current issue of AI's, consciousness, and how AI's should be treated. I really wonder if I should just put you to my ignore list. Although I wouldn't like to since I'm not here to make enemies. But if you want to be agressive and trollish, then I'll be ablidged to counter with silence. -- Bridget

So I have to define the word objective for you now? Come on, this isn't a definition fight. If you want to make a definitions fight, find someone else. You full well know what the word objective means. If I hit a wall, then I'll bust my knuckles, thats objective. If I shoot a person in the head, they'll die, that's also objective. Introspection cannot be objective because it's an internalized event with no outside frame of reference. For anything to be objective, it must be tied to another series of events besides itself. Basically it must have context. Like a word, by itself it has no meaning but when you write a whole sentance of words that all follow an agreed upon set of rules[grammar and syntax] then you have context to that word. I really don't think you, yourself, understand the issue of objectively and reality. So if introspection is objective, is a hallucination objective as well? Qualified? Now now, this is classic authoritarian fallacy right there. I must be a Philosophy major versed in everything Rand wrote, spoke and etc? And same with her detractors? That's absurb more than my position. I make opinions, sir, not authoritive claims, unless it's on a particular position I'm more versed than often. I suggest you do the same yourself. And you haven't made any fallacies yourself? Hmmm, I think this is the pot calling the kettle black. I really don't think you have any sense of what you're talking about or you would have made some definitive claims with references by now. You claim I make sweeping statements, but you and Source have made the most libelous remarks about various scientific fields that I haven't seen since being on a fundumentalist Christian forum. I think you really need to stick to the topic I posted, which is AI's and their treatment. Thankyou. -- Bridget