The video is an interview with Wallace Thornhill, discussing the recent NASA data/heliosphere. You should listen to an alternative explanation instead of just requiring a NASA perspective because all they ever say is "we didn't expect this" and then come up with some asinine explanation using terminology that is delibrately vague eg "magnetic highway". Every discovery is a suprise to them because they're making predictions with a model that simply does not work.
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
The upcoming technological singularity / 'Alternative' scientific theorization
- Thread starter Psylex
- Start date
The video is an interview with Wallace Thornhill, discussing the recent NASA data/heliosphere. You should listen to an alternative explanation instead of just requiring a NASA perspective because all they ever say is "we didn't expect this" and then come up with some asinine explanation using terminology that is delibrately vague eg "magnetic highway". Every discovery is a suprise to them because they're making predictions with a model that simply does not work.
rangrz
Bluelighter
I'm on my phone.. my laptop is busted. I hate video on my phone.
Do you have text related to the video then?
I'd still like NASAs perspective too, and I'd like to see the raw.data with the math, not just pop science press release.
Do you have text related to the video then?
I'd still like NASAs perspective too, and I'd like to see the raw.data with the math, not just pop science press release.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
To revive the original topic, what would prevent a technological singularity from developing if a particular species is able to continue scientific and technological development over tens of thousands of years unabated without killing itself through war first? And if it turns out that the lightspeed barrier is insurmountable in communication and travel, would the development of localized technological 'singularities' in multiple locations have similar ontological and epistemological consequences? And if it turns out that no species can develop to this point, what does it say about the connection between the physical conditions of the universe and the ways in which it develops awareness of itself?
ebola
ebola
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
To be completely honest, if a perspective demands that you learn politics or science through youtube videos rather than journal articles, it is probably not worth your time...
ebola
ebola
rangrz
Bluelighter
That was also my line of thinking. I don't really think a YouTube video by a fringe "scientist" who apparently can't get past peer review, is going to be a sound source for stellar physics research.
P A
Bluelighter
But, see, you forgot about the conspiracy latent within the peer review process. Remember? 8)
P A
Bluelighter
Lol
rangrz
Bluelighter
You're Serious...
Absolutely. A theory or paradigm can only survive for so long when new data being returned continues to punch more holes in it. That's what happens with just about every new discovery in astronomy, it always "suprises" or "we never expected this". Sooner or later the final blow will be dealt when something is returned that invalidates one component of the paradigm and then the whole thing will need serious revision.
Some things are more than obvious though, such as the contradictory and plain bullshit nature of entities like blackholes or the Big Bang. It's all untestable mathematical nonsense theory, and yet the majority of so called smart people believe it. It's religious type thinking and it's embarresing that people still put faith in the ideas.
Some things are more than obvious though, such as the contradictory and plain bullshit nature of entities like blackholes or the Big Bang. It's all untestable mathematical nonsense theory, and yet the majority of so called smart people believe it. It's religious type thinking and it's embarresing that people still put faith in the ideas.
Comrade Kane
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 270
Ss stop being stupid.
Re technological singularity. We humans only need to invent Ai which if the doubling rate of computing power holds true will occur before 2020. That will be our last invention. Ai will be our collective child someone to continue our inheritance beyond the singularity which we cannot see past as that's the meaning of singularity.
Re technological singularity. We humans only need to invent Ai which if the doubling rate of computing power holds true will occur before 2020. That will be our last invention. Ai will be our collective child someone to continue our inheritance beyond the singularity which we cannot see past as that's the meaning of singularity.
What you spouted was more ridiculous than what I've been saying LOL
Comrade Kane
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 270
What is ridiculous about Ai? People used to say powered flight was an impossibility.
I'm not saying that Ai and the singularity will definitely happen I am just pointing out what will likely happen if scientific progress continues to accelerate.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
Kane said:
I'm not sure that Moore's law really predicts when we will develop effective AI. It does give a rough prediction of when we will have hardware capable of implementation of AI. Something more than raw computational firepower is necessary. Rather, we will need new types of complexity where programs are able to edit themselves and take representations of themselves as objects in new and varied ways.
ebola
Comrade Kane
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 270
Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.
— Simon Newcomb
— Simon Newcomb
Comrade Kane
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 270
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. - Charles Darwin
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
Who said that AI will never develop?
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
who said it hasn't already? i hate how ambiguously 'AI' can be used, and think there's much to be said for using it in a way that includes artificially-enhanced intelligence levels in humans (which we're already at, albeit in the infancy)
/shameless bump is shameless.
/shameless bump is shameless.
MyDoorsAreOpen
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 8,549
^ Indeed. If I invented a machine from scratch that I had reason to believe possessed true and testable intelligent self-awareness, I'd be very careful who I showed it to or told about it. The institutions most willing and able to make something like this happen have a lot of good reasons to be secretive about it. This is one of the main themes of the original novel Frankenstein.
It's not so tinfoil hat to suppose that something close to AI has already been invented, and only an inner circle of highly trusted US military elites, Sony executives, or rogue scientists in a compound in Siberia even have a clue it exists. It's the kind of invention that you wouldn't want the public to know all the details on until they'd already fully accepted many technological applications of it without realizing it. This is exactly how other controversial and existentially scary technologies have snuck in the back door to public acceptance, like nuclear weapons and genetically modified food.
It's not so tinfoil hat to suppose that something close to AI has already been invented, and only an inner circle of highly trusted US military elites, Sony executives, or rogue scientists in a compound in Siberia even have a clue it exists. It's the kind of invention that you wouldn't want the public to know all the details on until they'd already fully accepted many technological applications of it without realizing it. This is exactly how other controversial and existentially scary technologies have snuck in the back door to public acceptance, like nuclear weapons and genetically modified food.