quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

CL; the US govt did in fact use a computer to determine the outcome of Iraq 1. It compulated all the possible outcomes and statical likelyhoods of such.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or


Many people talk about getting away, getting off the grid, but who wants to go without electricity, gas, cars, internet for example. Do you ?

I do but I don't.

So we are fucked. That is my conclusion. Have a nice day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Don't smoke anymore right now Hunky, it's hard to figure out your point. But if you meant what I think you meant, here goes.

IMHO technology is already destroying us, little by little. People survived before technology, but could we ? I doubt many of us could.

If you get you food at a store, take any medication, drive a car, all of that, you are dependent upon technology. How about if there was none ? None. Walk everywhere, hunt, grow crops, build your own cabin or hut or whatever. Survive.

One basic law of nature, and I don't know if this has ever been stated this way because nobody told me this, I just know this.

One is vulnerable to any upon which he is dependent.

I used the word he because that is proper English. I used the word any because it might not be a person, it could be a substance that is not found in nature. That extends the vulnerability to those who manufacture the needed material.

Many people talk about getting away, getting off the grid, but who wants to go without electricity, gas, cars, internet for example. Do you ?

I do but I don't.

So we are fucked. That is my conclusion. Have a nice day.

T

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

CL; the US govt did in fact use a computer to determine the outcome of Iraq 1. It compulated all the possible outcomes and statical likelyhoods of such.

...ah, game theory. Same thing suggested to JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis that a first strike was the best response. As history shows, computer models are far from perfect...or perhaps even far from perfectable. Consider weather forecasting.....how uniformly accurate is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

James Burke's "Connections" series, Episode I explains how vulnerable farmers are, too.

Got any horse collars about? Got any horses?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

CL; the US govt did in fact use a computer to determine the outcome of Iraq 1. It compulated all the possible outcomes and statical likelyhoods of such.

...ah, game theory. Same thing suggested to JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis that a first strike was the best response. As history shows, computer models are far from perfect...or perhaps even far from perfectable. Consider weather forecasting.....how uniformly accurate is it?

my guess is weather forecasts are subject to legal regs.

ahh the Cuban missle crises. interesting point.  when the chess player beat the computer i was relieved.  but it was close...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

I think humans are going to end up as "Jabba The Hut" type creatures hooked up to iphones. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

CL; the US govt did in fact use a computer to determine the outcome of Iraq 1. It compulated all the possible outcomes and statical likelyhoods of such.

...ah, game theory. Same thing suggested to JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis that a first strike was the best response. As history shows, computer models are far from perfect...or perhaps even far from perfectable. Consider weather forecasting.....how uniformly accurate is it?

my guess is weather forecasts are subject to legal regs.

ahh the Cuban missle crises. interesting point.  when the chess player beat the computer i was relieved.  but it was close...

...perhaps less to do with legalisms than the sheer complexity of the situation. To model anything (and thus accurately predict its behaviour) you need to be able to measure all the possible forces that affect it. Imagine a totally accurate map, accurate down to each piece of gravel on the road.....it would be indistinguishable from and as big as the territory it tries to describe........and thus redundant. There is always a practical limit to what models can tell us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

in terms of models- time and change do alter the course. for instance- im coherant this hour- 12 hours later- ill be asleep=- wind can push the gravel. throw in algebra and physics, chemisty and psycology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

in terms of models- time and change do alter the course. for instance- im coherant this hour- 12 hours later- ill be asleep=- wind can push the gravel. throw in algebra and physics, chemisty and psycology.

...so if we wanted to accurately model the behaviour of the friendly neighbourhood pahunkboy, we'd need....pahunkboy . No model can be complex enough without actually replicating him.

quote:

As history shows, computer models are far from perfect...or perhaps even far from perfectable. Consider weather forecasting.....how uniformly accurate is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Depends on how you define it....

Computers right now are not very smart....well, they are very stupid actually as most computer users find out for themselves the hard way.
Computers will do only what it is programmed to do. You give input to a computer, the computer processes it the way the program tells it to, and then it gives you output. And at the very basic level, it is nothing but 1's and 0's. On and off. There is no middle ground, there is no thinking going on.

There is a long run of hollywood movies that deal with the future and how artificial intelligence is one day going to take over. This is science fiction. Even though by the 2030s, processors will have the processing power equal to the human brain, computers still won't be able to measure up and have many disadvantages. The computer processor can only process one operation at a time. But since it is processing a billion operations a second, we don't notice how slow it is.
The human brain in comparison is processing many billions of operations a second at the same time. Every nerve in the body is reporting to the brain every millionth of a second. We don't always pay attention to every signal. The brain will only pay attention to what it thinks is important. Feelings of pain, hot, cold, a bee buzzing near by, etc...  And it can distinguish between those signals of what is and is not important. A computer can't do this, even if it equals the speed of the human brain. The computer can only process one thing at a time, would have to process everything, and if it were to try and take the load that the human brain takes, there would be a traffic jam of data rather quickly and the system will overload. The computer can't process all that information. The human brain also has the ability to adapt to a changing environment, solve problems analytically, and develop strategy. A human brain can also change its own direction. It can take the initiative all on its own to learn a skill or new material. A computer is limited to its programming and maximum output. And it's learning ability is very limited.

So destroy us in the literal sense I think is and probably always will be science fiction.

But what I think is much more likely is more of a merge of humans and machines. We already interact with computers every single day. Even if you don't use your PC, they are in our cars. They run traffic lights. In hospitals there are many people being kept alive by machines. Computers are major part of our armed forces. And just look around. Everyone is either talking on a cell phone or using a PDA. Computers are becoming a bigger part of our lives every single day. In the future, they may be able to develop a processor that can interpret signals from the human brain. This could replace missing arms or legs. Fix some elements of paralysis. It can repair eyesight or hearing. Or even pave way for the development of an artificial heart that will operate the same way your biological heart can operate (maybe even better).

So I think if you look at it in a figurative way, computers have already taken us over. They play a role constantly in our daily lives and in the future, they will be even more important to us.