Long read. I took from it that I should put all my wealth in Apple stock. Done!
Thanks
Topic: No Money Exists Without the Majority - page 8. (Read 10269 times)
Quote
Faster in computation speed has nothing to do with duration in fitness during diversity over time.
filled with relatively modest amount of entropy , and then "spawn" it and "simulate"Problem is that the input entropy doesn't increase faster than evolution. We can't accelerate the process of the reproducing pre-existing diversity from the infinite history of adaption. Just the same as we can't go backwards in time. See my prior post on some math model about that.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402987
Quote
@Jessica Boxer:
That information is not lost when we die and is it not only recorded in the DNA, but also stored in the perpetual, living network (which isn't just here on earth). I wrote down the mathematical model which shows that the model of an infinite future, is the dual of the model of an infinite past (when measured in the entropy domain, not time). I am positing it is impossible to have an infinite future without an infinite past. The proof of this is as I already stated, that if the input entropy is finite then the future is eventually duplicitous and not infinite. Now please go find the edge of the universe for me so you can prove our future is finite. And I am not just talking about a 3D edge, but rather the edge where entropy (# of independent possibilities) does not continue increasing.
Kurzweil's technological Singularity is the (in my opinion ridiculous) claim that computers will be as or more innovative than humans.
Agreed and that will appear to be something like a technological singularity to the laymen (who will be unemployed), akin to Clarke's statement-- any sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic.
And all who pray to Malthus (not implying that is what you meant) will be missing the boat to the greater employment and productivity as human innovation is accelerated by these smarter computers.
Quote
Brains encode a lot more than what comes from the DNA, they encode the experience of a human life. Nonetheless, you are right it is far from infinite.
That information is not lost when we die and is it not only recorded in the DNA, but also stored in the perpetual, living network (which isn't just here on earth). I wrote down the mathematical model which shows that the model of an infinite future, is the dual of the model of an infinite past (when measured in the entropy domain, not time). I am positing it is impossible to have an infinite future without an infinite past. The proof of this is as I already stated, that if the input entropy is finite then the future is eventually duplicitous and not infinite. Now please go find the edge of the universe for me so you can prove our future is finite. And I am not just talking about a 3D edge, but rather the edge where entropy (# of independent possibilities) does not continue increasing.
Quote
However, I don’t agree that “singularity” scenarios are unrealistic, partly because there is not one such scenario.
Kurzweil's technological Singularity is the (in my opinion ridiculous) claim that computers will be as or more innovative than humans.
Quote
In a sense, singularity really just means a point in future beyond our capacity to make any reasonable predictions. That I am sure we will come to. However, the need for human computer replacement is weaker than that — it is the ability to solve engineering problems better than humans. Computers already do that in many areas already, and are continuing to do more and more.
Agreed and that will appear to be something like a technological singularity to the laymen (who will be unemployed), akin to Clarke's statement-- any sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic.
Quote
Things that used to be considered beyond the capability of machines are regularly taken over, and will continue to do so for a long time, eating up the information economy.
And all who pray to Malthus (not implying that is what you meant) will be missing the boat to the greater employment and productivity as human innovation is accelerated by these smarter computers.
Quote
Faster in computation speed has nothing to do with duration in fitness during diversity over time.
Let's assume for a moment, that your theory"to have intellect we need to start from
large portion of entropy injected into proto-brain and only then ..." is true in all aspects.
Why do you think, that quantity of entropy we need is so huge ? Any proof ?
My point was : if we can start from proto-brain
filled with relatively modest amount of entropy , and then "spawn" it and "simulate"
evolution in parallel and with speed 1000x times more than we have achieved for humans...
This will be enough for creation AI with potential well over humans' intellect.
thats exactly what I was hypothesising, a genetic algorithim that continuously evolves not only to better design itself, but to specifically tackle individual problems that are given to it, say you ask it to innovate a new kind of quantum tunneling protocol.
Initially the brain you use is the simplest building block possible, however as the brains mutate, a pattern emerges, and the most prolific and constructive "brains" become the parents of the latest generation of brains, this can continue until an optimal value is reached.
The problem with this approach is it does require something of the author, a series metrics that can be used to compare capabilities, however this approach is as close to optimal in solving almost any problem that I cannot forsee it not working just as well for innovating AI
Quote
Faster in computation speed has nothing to do with duration in fitness during diversity over time.
Let's assume for a moment, that your theory"to have intellect we need to start from
large portion of entropy injected into proto-brain and only then ..." is true in all aspects.
Why do you think, that quantity of entropy we need is so huge ? Any proof ?
My point was : if we can start from proto-brain
filled with relatively modest amount of entropy , and then "spawn" it and "simulate"
evolution in parallel and with speed 1000x times more than we have achieved for humans...
This will be enough for creation AI with potential well over humans' intellect.
ok now i'm actually going to read it - later.....
Quote
The key point is to understand difference between a deterministic and random function. A model generator can only create random variants if it has random input entropy.
What about using of pseudorandom functions, so good in randomness production, that their results nearly 100% random ?What if in the future those artificial brains
could be modeled( with the help of such functions) from their "parent" artificial brains (and each new arti-brain <-- unique(just like every brain of human)), but with speed of "spawning" many times
faster , than humans can naturally spawn themselves (and their brains ) ?
read parts of...
so is it pro crypto-coins or against crypto-coins?
so is it pro crypto-coins or against crypto-coins?
^
oh the internet.
: D
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402910
INFINITE input entropy? That seems highly improbable. A quick google search suggests that our DNA encodes up to about 1.5Gb worth of information so practically evolution will fall way short of “infinite” entropy without some serious refactors to our base code.
@JonCB:
Who has proven that DNA is the extent of the information content in our biological history and future?
A digital signature of a newspaper clipping or archaeological evidence can prove existence after a point in time, but no evidence can disprove all possibility of existence before a point in time. History is the (potentially multiple orthogonal) reality (ies) of the (orthogonal perspectives of) observers.
Considering that information content, entropy, and disorder mean the degrees-of-freedom a.k.a. independent possibilities, a finite biological information content would mean given a large enough population, then two or more humans would be entirely identical in terms of evolutionary impact. I posit that environment plays a role in evolution, and is not be fully determined by DNA. I posit that the environment has infinite entropy, because no one can comprehend what the extent of the universe would mean (we can never get there in any current theories unless we move faster than the speed-of-light), even the second law of thermodynamics says entropy trends to maximum.
I do have a visualization of the infinite extent of the universe; it is maximally disordered, i.e. the universe wraps back onto itself in the degrees-of-freedom domain, which I suppose may explain black holes. I had pointed out in the past that Erik Verlinde was able to mathematically derive the gravitation force from the qualities of the entropic force at the event horizon of the black hole.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402911
Quote
Quote
Quote
Every human brain is unique because of the infinite input entropy from evolution.
INFINITE input entropy? That seems highly improbable. A quick google search suggests that our DNA encodes up to about 1.5Gb worth of information so practically evolution will fall way short of “infinite” entropy without some serious refactors to our base code.
@JonCB:
Who has proven that DNA is the extent of the information content in our biological history and future?
A digital signature of a newspaper clipping or archaeological evidence can prove existence after a point in time, but no evidence can disprove all possibility of existence before a point in time. History is the (potentially multiple orthogonal) reality (ies) of the (orthogonal perspectives of) observers.
Considering that information content, entropy, and disorder mean the degrees-of-freedom a.k.a. independent possibilities, a finite biological information content would mean given a large enough population, then two or more humans would be entirely identical in terms of evolutionary impact. I posit that environment plays a role in evolution, and is not be fully determined by DNA. I posit that the environment has infinite entropy, because no one can comprehend what the extent of the universe would mean (we can never get there in any current theories unless we move faster than the speed-of-light), even the second law of thermodynamics says entropy trends to maximum.
I do have a visualization of the infinite extent of the universe; it is maximally disordered, i.e. the universe wraps back onto itself in the degrees-of-freedom domain, which I suppose may explain black holes. I had pointed out in the past that Erik Verlinde was able to mathematically derive the gravitation force from the qualities of the entropic force at the event horizon of the black hole.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402911
Quote
@me:
That should be plural domains.
I discovered that we can model an infinite extent of types (models) with either an inductive function from an unspecified origin towards an unbounded future, or with a co-inductive function from an unbounded past towards an unspecified final end.
In an inductive type system (e.g. most programming languages), the top type is never fully specified since it is the logical conjunction on all future types (and the disjunction of all semantics of those types) that will be created (and the bottom type can't be instantiated yet is inhabited by the conjunction of the semantics of all types). In a co-inductive type system (e.g. Haskell), the bottom type is never fully specified since it is the logical disjunction on all future types (and the conjunction of all semantics of those types) that will be created (and the top type can't be instantiated yet is inhabited by the disjunction of the semantics of all types).
Thus if we model our universe inductively with an unbounded future, there exists a mathematical dual model that is co-inductive with an unbounded past. So the degrees-of-freedom are unbounded in both origin and future given the duality of induction and co-induction.
Quote
> the universe wraps back onto itself in the degrees-of-freedom domain
That should be plural domains.
I discovered that we can model an infinite extent of types (models) with either an inductive function from an unspecified origin towards an unbounded future, or with a co-inductive function from an unbounded past towards an unspecified final end.
In an inductive type system (e.g. most programming languages), the top type is never fully specified since it is the logical conjunction on all future types (and the disjunction of all semantics of those types) that will be created (and the bottom type can't be instantiated yet is inhabited by the conjunction of the semantics of all types). In a co-inductive type system (e.g. Haskell), the bottom type is never fully specified since it is the logical disjunction on all future types (and the conjunction of all semantics of those types) that will be created (and the top type can't be instantiated yet is inhabited by the disjunction of the semantics of all types).
Thus if we model our universe inductively with an unbounded future, there exists a mathematical dual model that is co-inductive with an unbounded past. So the degrees-of-freedom are unbounded in both origin and future given the duality of induction and co-induction.
Quote
No because we can't reverse time and go back and encode (load into the model) the infinite entropy from the past and because due the Heisenberg (uncertainty) principle reality is a moving target that has changed as soon as any entity does anything including observe it.
Imagine a lot of artificial brains workingsay 1000x times faster than "natural" human's brain. What gives ?
But it started, Google X Lab
Quote
Each human brain is entirely unique. This diversity is the only way we get innovation. Evolution is about diverse fitness.
And what stops those scientists from makingevery new "modeled" artificial brain unique ?
Quote
No because we can't reverse time and go back and encode (load into the model) the infinite entropy from the past and because due the Heisenberg (uncertainty) principle reality is a moving target that has changed as soon as any entity does anything including observe it.
Imagine a lot of artificial brains workingsay 1000x times faster than "natural" human's brain. What gives ?
Quote
Each human brain is entirely unique. This diversity is the only way we get innovation. Evolution is about diverse fitness.
And what stops those scientists from makingevery new "modeled" artificial brain unique ?
That was my point
The creation of the uniqueness is done by the scientists, not by the computer model creating unique variants of itself.
The key point is to understand difference between a deterministic and random function. A model generator can only create random variants if it has random input entropy.
Nature is the only source of that random entropy, i.e. we humans.
The reason we can't model the edge of the universe is that it is disorder (but then we must get into my theory of the universe and the Entropic Force):
http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t124-theory-of-everthing
Quote
No because we can't reverse time and go back and encode (load into the model) the infinite entropy from the past and because due the Heisenberg (uncertainty) principle reality is a moving target that has changed as soon as any entity does anything including observe it.
Imagine a lot of artificial brains workingsay 1000x times faster than "natural" human's brain. What gives ?
Faster in computation speed has nothing to do with duration in fitness during diversity over time. We actually have to move through all the infinite time since the beginning of the universe in order to aggregate the same entropy that is in nature now.
P.S. For the Christians who are offended by evolution and an infinitely distant past for the starting point of the universe, note this is congruent with the bible if one notes that time is non-linear in the bible, i.e. the ancients had 1000 year life spans (if measured in today's years), thus movig backwards in time in units expressed relative to the duration of any year in the current time, would be exponentially approaching infinite time in the past, because note that the units of current time is always moving and getting slower (i.e. knowledge production via communication is accelerating), so there is no statement of fixed # of years in the past that can be made (even a picosecond later it has moved). In other words, history never has an absolute reference point. See the point in my next post.
From email:
Hope you don't mind, I will share my reply publicly but I won't attribute you by name. Some important points are raised below.
You didn't realize Armstrong was referring to a government enforced fixed price for gold within the reality that society will always use debt and thus require fractional reserves.
I don't hate gold. It is a form of money that individual capitalists can hold to opt-out of socialism, but if too many do then it is a war against socialism. If such a widespread standoff is taken to the extreme of 100% backing, it can result in a Mad Max Dark Ages (because of the power vacuum I described in my article). See my one paragraph rebuttal on why Western Rome collapsed:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402900
A rebuttal on 0% interest rates signaling trust & creditworthiness:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402880
Armstrong's point is precisely the same as yours, which is that if the price (value) of gold is fixed in a strict government enforced legal tender gold standard, then it is the same as Marxism. Armstrong is not against 1oz = 1oz, and he is saying the value will fluctuate which agrees with your conclusion. He is also saying (see other links in my article) that society will always use debt and thus fractional reserves will always be required, and thus 100% gold backing will never exist (any attempt to force it will plummet society into the Dark Ages). Note how I expounded on what Julius Caesar did:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2380965
And that is what I am saying with this article.
Also I I finally succinctly articulated why Kurzweil's Singularity (remember Dash's robots) is impossible:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402889
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2382656
Quote
> So funny. Your logic escaped me in the paragraph just before you quoted
> Armstrong. And when I saw you mention Armstrong's name, I breathed a sigh
> of relief, since I know he is an apt deceiver. I thought he thusly
> deceived you, which he did, and which I saw easily.
>
> His trick was to assume that the value of everything else must go up, by
> first introducing a word meaning that it can fluctuate, or go up and down,
> and then to blast gold for being fixed. Then, he confused the issue, by
> saying that if everything else must go up, then gold must go down. I
> agree!
>
> However, his trick is that he neglected to mention that if the value of
> wages and prices goes down, then the value of gold must go up.
>
> This does NOT mean gold needs an unstable value, or that gold is flawed in
> some way, which he states, and which you bought.
>
> In other words, gold is fixed in value, as 1 oz. = 1 oz. That's the only
> fix needed. Everything else, quoted in those terms, may go up or down,
> and there's no flaw in that, and yes, you can have that both ways.
>
> Armstrong. And when I saw you mention Armstrong's name, I breathed a sigh
> of relief, since I know he is an apt deceiver. I thought he thusly
> deceived you, which he did, and which I saw easily.
>
> His trick was to assume that the value of everything else must go up, by
> first introducing a word meaning that it can fluctuate, or go up and down,
> and then to blast gold for being fixed. Then, he confused the issue, by
> saying that if everything else must go up, then gold must go down. I
> agree!
>
> However, his trick is that he neglected to mention that if the value of
> wages and prices goes down, then the value of gold must go up.
>
> This does NOT mean gold needs an unstable value, or that gold is flawed in
> some way, which he states, and which you bought.
>
> In other words, gold is fixed in value, as 1 oz. = 1 oz. That's the only
> fix needed. Everything else, quoted in those terms, may go up or down,
> and there's no flaw in that, and yes, you can have that both ways.
>
Hope you don't mind, I will share my reply publicly but I won't attribute you by name. Some important points are raised below.
You didn't realize Armstrong was referring to a government enforced fixed price for gold within the reality that society will always use debt and thus require fractional reserves.
I don't hate gold. It is a form of money that individual capitalists can hold to opt-out of socialism, but if too many do then it is a war against socialism. If such a widespread standoff is taken to the extreme of 100% backing, it can result in a Mad Max Dark Ages (because of the power vacuum I described in my article). See my one paragraph rebuttal on why Western Rome collapsed:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402900
A rebuttal on 0% interest rates signaling trust & creditworthiness:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402880
Armstrong's point is precisely the same as yours, which is that if the price (value) of gold is fixed in a strict government enforced legal tender gold standard, then it is the same as Marxism. Armstrong is not against 1oz = 1oz, and he is saying the value will fluctuate which agrees with your conclusion. He is also saying (see other links in my article) that society will always use debt and thus fractional reserves will always be required, and thus 100% gold backing will never exist (any attempt to force it will plummet society into the Dark Ages). Note how I expounded on what Julius Caesar did:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2380965
And that is what I am saying with this article.
Also I I finally succinctly articulated why Kurzweil's Singularity (remember Dash's robots) is impossible:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402889
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2382656
the entirety of human civilization can be modelled, every single gene that has ever been passed on can be modelled and simulated using a computer, something of this nature would be called a genetic algorithim.
No because we can't reverse time and go back and encode (load into the model) the infinite entropy from the past and because due the Heisenberg (uncertainty) principle reality is a moving target that has changed as soon as any entity does anything including observe it.
Thus there can never be any top-down model that catches up to evolution. We actually have to be born from all the genetic history to take part in the diversity of the reality. As smart as computers become, humans will leverage them to be even more innovative, because we have the entropy (diversity of thought/ideas/genetic history) to input into that tool. Notice in my OP, I made a big point about the difference being fungible sharing in society and the non-fungibility of knowledge production.
This is also why we can digitally sign with a newspaper clipping to prove the signing occurred after a point in time (as Satoshi did to prove that he did not pre-mine), but we can't use any absolute reference point for proving something happened before a point in time, rather different observers will have a different recollection of reality.
This is also why fungible money (can't be private) and can only be the will of the majority.
Thanks for raising the issue and enabling me to clarify the importance of the non-fungible diversity of knowledge production.
Hey pray wake me up when they can model what is at the edge of the universe (or model that there is no edge)...where the entropy of the universe trends to maximum (2nd law of thermodynamics)
Good read on some of Ceasars domestic policies, though your blog tends to ramble at times.
You should really look into Silvio Gesell's theories, he explains much the society wide chronic effects that lead to economic crisis (it's not the fault of bad actors but a result of the system) but devises a simple yet effective escape in making money lose face-value over time. This allows us to do away with both capitalism (the loaning of money at interest) and Marxist counter-reactions while preserving the free-market.
You should really look into Silvio Gesell's theories, he explains much the society wide chronic effects that lead to economic crisis (it's not the fault of bad actors but a result of the system) but devises a simple yet effective escape in making money lose face-value over time. This allows us to do away with both capitalism (the loaning of money at interest) and Marxist counter-reactions while preserving the free-market.
jackjack that is a hilarious (love the humor thanks), and in the rare case that you were making a serious criticism then perhaps your inability to distill any useful info is the vacuous space may be your cranium, lol. Just saying.
anderl, the sentient advance of knowledge will always be done by humans, never by computers. Kurzweil's Singularity is sensational nonsense (Luddites were making similar dire predictions, global warming and global cooling propaganda scares have repeated in history, etc). Computers and robots are just tools that will make us more productive at that task of creating knowledge. The unemployment is both due to destruction of private markets by the failing socialism and because most people haven't been training to be computer programmers, nanotech and biotech researchers, robotic engineers, etc..
These 78 year cyclical collisions between technological shift and socialism failure often do result in a Mad Max outcome, but more often on local scale (e.g. local strife and massacres) whereas the multiple-century Dark Ages have only occurred apparently 3 times in human history, which I documented in the following linked comment:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402880
anderl, the sentient advance of knowledge will always be done by humans, never by computers. Kurzweil's Singularity is sensational nonsense (Luddites were making similar dire predictions, global warming and global cooling propaganda scares have repeated in history, etc). Computers and robots are just tools that will make us more productive at that task of creating knowledge. The unemployment is both due to destruction of private markets by the failing socialism and because most people haven't been training to be computer programmers, nanotech and biotech researchers, robotic engineers, etc..
These 78 year cyclical collisions between technological shift and socialism failure often do result in a Mad Max outcome, but more often on local scale (e.g. local strife and massacres) whereas the multiple-century Dark Ages have only occurred apparently 3 times in human history, which I documented in the following linked comment:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402880
why do you think I'm speaking of a dire outcome. I"m all for it. I think it will be a net benefit overall. nothing dire about my speculation. we are not thee same human beings that walked the earth a hundred thousand years ago. heck from a social stand point we are much different than people 2-3 generations earlier. 2 to 3 hundred years from now we will still call ourselves humans but will be completely alien to what we consider being human now. again its the slowly boiling frog.
We technologists have looked deeply for an alternative to Bitcoin, that would eliminate its 51% attack vulnerability, and have concluded with the 51% Rule of Decentralized Agreement, which implies that no decentralized digital currency will ever be able to (sustain an) escape from the desires of the majority of society.
You really made five posts in a row?
Technologists? ...
your entire argument is invalid.
My entire argument in the OP was not about whether technological disruption is insurmountable this time, unlike in the past. The thesis of my article had nothing do with this issue and it was only a "Sidenote" in the OP.
http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/67819-artificial-brain-spaun-passes-iq-tests
your entire argument is invalid.
We are at the advent of producing artifical intelligence based off our own brain blueprints, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that once the basics work, a slight alteration to capacity will make a "spaun" brain more powerful than a human brain, which can then quickly be put to use in creating innovation and technological advances.
your entire argument is invalid.
We are at the advent of producing artifical intelligence based off our own brain blueprints, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that once the basics work, a slight alteration to capacity will make a "spaun" brain more powerful than a human brain, which can then quickly be put to use in creating innovation and technological advances.
Bwahahaha
Another naive Mathusian bites the dust.
I guess you missed the word "model" in your quoted article. And I guess you missed the phrase "new knowledge" in my post, implying dynamic creation of new models. Only humans innovate!
When you have a computer that innovates itself then call home again.
The fundamental reason a model can never innovate, is because knowledge creation isn't fungible-- one size does not fit all.
Each human brain is entirely unique. This diversity is the only way we get innovation. Evolution is about diverse fitness.
Sorry models won't do. The dynamic development of each individual human has diverse entropy that begins 1000+s of years ago...
the entirety of human civilization can be modelled, every single gene that has ever been passed on can be modelled and simulated using a computer, something of this nature would be called a genetic algorithim.
its a single brain, and its far from perfect, were not yet at the stage where we can tell it to go do something and it will think on its own and decide how to tackle a problem, however we are moving in that direction.
Think of this as a thought exercise; this simulated human brain running on a computer is hooked up to a 3d printer, a 3d scanner, and has the ability to use human like senses (sight, sound, touch, taste, smell, etc). This machine is able to move and interact with its environment, it drops an apple from a table onto the floor, it records its acceleration, velocity change, and so on and empirically determines newton's law of gravity.
Does that sound farfetched? I think were really really close.
your entire argument is invalid.
My entire argument in the OP was not about whether technological disruption is insurmountable this time, unlike in the past. The thesis of my article had nothing do with this issue and it was only a "Sidenote" in the OP.
http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/67819-artificial-brain-spaun-passes-iq-tests
your entire argument is invalid.
We are at the advent of producing artifical intelligence based off our own brain blueprints, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that once the basics work, a slight alteration to capacity will make a "spaun" brain more powerful than a human brain, which can then quickly be put to use in creating innovation and technological advances.
your entire argument is invalid.
We are at the advent of producing artifical intelligence based off our own brain blueprints, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that once the basics work, a slight alteration to capacity will make a "spaun" brain more powerful than a human brain, which can then quickly be put to use in creating innovation and technological advances.
Bwahahaha
Another naive Mathusian bites the dust.
I guess you missed the word "model" in your quoted article. And I guess you missed the phrase "new knowledge" in my post, implying dynamic creation of new models. Only humans innovate!
When you have a computer that innovates itself then call home again.
The fundamental reason a model can never innovate, is because knowledge creation isn't fungible-- one size does not fit all.
Each human brain is entirely unique. This diversity is the only way we get innovation. Evolution is about diverse fitness.
Sorry models won't do. The dynamic development of each individual human has diverse entropy that begins 1000+s of years ago...
jackjack that is a hilarious (love the humor thanks), and in the rare case that you were making a serious criticism then perhaps your inability to distill any useful info is the vacuous space may be your cranium, lol. Just saying.
anderl, the sentient advance of knowledge will always be done by humans, never by computers. Kurzweil's Singularity is sensational nonsense (Luddites were making similar dire predictions, global warming and global cooling propaganda scares have repeated in history, etc). Computers and robots are just tools that will make us more productive at that task of creating knowledge. The unemployment is both due to destruction of private markets by the failing socialism and because most people haven't been training to be computer programmers, nanotech and biotech researchers, robotic engineers, etc..
These 78 year cyclical collisions between technological shift and socialism failure often do result in a Mad Max outcome, but more often on local scale (e.g. local strife and massacres) whereas the multiple-century Dark Ages have only occurred apparently 3 times in human history, which I documented in the following linked comment:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402880
anderl, the sentient advance of knowledge will always be done by humans, never by computers. Kurzweil's Singularity is sensational nonsense (Luddites were making similar dire predictions, global warming and global cooling propaganda scares have repeated in history, etc). Computers and robots are just tools that will make us more productive at that task of creating knowledge. The unemployment is both due to destruction of private markets by the failing socialism and because most people haven't been training to be computer programmers, nanotech and biotech researchers, robotic engineers, etc..
These 78 year cyclical collisions between technological shift and socialism failure often do result in a Mad Max outcome, but more often on local scale (e.g. local strife and massacres) whereas the multiple-century Dark Ages have only occurred apparently 3 times in human history, which I documented in the following linked comment:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402880
http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/67819-artificial-brain-spaun-passes-iq-tests
your entire argument is invalid.
We are at the advent of producing artifical intelligence based off our own brain blueprints, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that once the basics work, a slight alteration to capacity will make a "spaun" brain more powerful than a human brain, which can then quickly be put to use in creating innovation and technological advances.
read parts of...
so is it pro crypto-coins or against crypto-coins?
so is it pro crypto-coins or against crypto-coins?
It is not against crypto-coins in terms of advancing digital money for society. That will probably happen and efficiencies can probably be gained.
It is against the concept that crypto-coins will subvert the power elite and socialism and provide some lasting individual freedom in the way that is gained from truly "personal empowerment technology, e.g. portable energy-dense compact carbon fuels, the automobile, telephone, personal computer, internet, the open source software model, and coming 3D printers.".
The reason being that no currency will ever exist that isn't subject to control by the majority, as explained in the OP. There is even a technical justification in the OP.
Whereas, true personal empowerment technologies (such as the examples provided above) enable routing around facets of control of the majority.
Jump to: