Meh I can come up with silly theories too.

a) neurons while not necessarily geniuses are actually not that stupid, and that the real problem a brain solved was not "thinking" but that a single thinking neuron can't be used to control a multicellular body because of connectivity and redundancy reasons (can't have a whole body wasted just because one neuron died).

b) The brain is like a bunch of Bingo halls each filled with neurons that yell Bingo when something they recognize is "read out". The fancy trick is some of them are supposed to recognize and announce the future before it happens... ;)

Now move along and figure out how a neuron or single celled creature actually thinks.

Wouldn't Occam's razor exclude the subjective _experience_ (not behavior) of consciousness? There's no apparent "need" for it is there? Couldn't all of us walk, talk, etc without experiencing it? Except for the fact that I know I personally experience it AND I don't think I'm that special to be the only one. There's no proof you can provide to me that you experience consciousness right? Couldn't an AI make the same claims you do and not be conscious?

Or does the simplest explanation in this Universe require that experiential consciousness must exist alongside behavioral consciousness? Both the true or false cases would be interesting ;).

Maybe you're one of those who doesn't experience the same consciousness phenomenon that I do?

Hmm. Are you an AI posting on Slashdot?

But why do you say so? I'm talking about the consciousness _experience_ not the behaviour.

I have no evidence that you experience consciousness anymore than I have evidence that a dog does too. How can you or a dog prove to me that you experience consciousness?

All I know is that I am conscious and I doubt I'm that special, and that's why I have faith that others are conscious too. I don't see such a big difference between humans and many other animals.

From what I gather we don't even know in detail how single celled creatures make decisions! Testate amoebas build distinctive shells for themselves, putting particles in the right places. Some can even decide to not reproduce if there's not enough material for daughter cells to have their own shells. Maybe they experience consciousness too, just limited in their capabilities and senses?

But couldn't a machine do the same things without generating/causing/experiencing the same consciousness effect I experience? Couldn't something behave as if it was conscious without that consciousness effect emerging? Why not?

Are you claiming that a conventional computer would actually experience "consciousness" and not just behave as if it was conscious when it runs a self-predicting program that's "complex enough"? It'll be interesting if someone can describe the laws of physics/this universe that would cause some NOR gates to generate consciousness... Or would all physical operations generate it?

Or would it only happen to a quantum computer (e.g. the sort of that does quantum superpositions) simulator that also recursively simulates itself?

Yeah we might be in a simulation (that's in another simulation and so on) but why do we experience this consciousness thing? Not talking about free will, but the experience of awareness itself.

Are the rules of this universe such that no matter what as long as you have certain processes, consciousness will arise as an emergent phenomenon? And what would those certain processes be?

Could it be extinguished and yet the person still continues on "living" and moving as before? For example say a person went to sleep, and woke up the next day but never had the consciousness thing anymore - but just walked and talked etc like before as if he/she still had it.

Here's another thing for you to work out while you're at it:

Why are you even conscious? Couldn't a machine exist like you that did the exact same things you'd do but wasn't conscious at all?

Note: I'm not talking about "free will". I'm talking about the subjective experience that I have (and I believe you have) of being aware. I don't think I'm the only conscious being in this universe.

To me the two amazing things are:
0) That there is anything at all in the first place.
1) That there is this consciousness phenomenon that I'm experiencing.

see also: http://gamenaminator.com/

The "splayed side mirror config" reduces the rear view of your side mirrors. That's not so good if there's a large vehicle behind you- you can't see what's behind on the other lanes- all you see is the big vehicle behind you in your centre rearview mirror. You can't safely change lanes so easily.

I haven't seen any implemented but a possible way is to keep the opposing groups apart.

If "A" doesn't like "B" just make it less likely that "A" and "B" end up in the same match (or see each others posts).

If "A" starts getting too picky "A" might end up in fewer matches. If "B" really is an asshole, then "B" might end up in fewer matches too.

I've proposed this before to an MMO and also a related "Points of View" method for reviewing products: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

After a while you might end up with distinct groups and then you can do some research and datamining on them ;).

If you were really writing CGI apps in C and not using stuff like FastCGI then your apps would likely be slower than a FastCGI or modperl/modphp etc program due to the overheads of process creation.

So yeah it does seem silly to use C, a slow to develop language combined with CGI, a slow way of running webapps. Worse of both worlds.

How many pages per second and concurrent requests could your CGI C apps handle?

Funny. Years ago I thought I remember research that said the reverse. Can't find it though - Google seems crappier nowadays (you just get zillions of hits for the 2014 item).

Even reduce premature births: http://www.dentistrytoday.com/...

Generally periodontal disease seemed linked to higher heart disease: http://www.webmd.com/heart-dis...
So maybe the particular mouthwash used was bad?

"Death is wrong" is still stupid though. This is a nongeek/nerd article. Because any geek who knows his/her science knows what forever means AND thus logically won't want to live forever AND thus at a certain point Death is Right.

0) I doubt people are psychologically able and stable enough to _enjoy_ a mere billion years of existence. A thousand years, ten thousand years, maybe. But a billion? Now guess how long is forever. So many can barely tolerate a single day of no Internet access ;).
1) How many stars are going to last forever? What are you going to do when the last ones in your range die?
2) I doubt you want to live so long that this becomes very personally relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

When I posted a comment on this sort of thing before, someone basically said we all know what living forever means, you don't have to tell us. But this whole "death is wrong" story is evidence that not all of us do.

Lastly, "May you live forever" would be a pretty scary witchdoctor curse if it worked, maybe someone should write a sci-fi horror story... I'm a crap writer tho.

Yeah pure battery won't work well. Hybrid+battery/capacitor would be better. Electric motor tech is fine for heavy stuff - diesel electric locomotives are really heavy.

Depending on the engine/turbine you could even have multi-fuel support - gas, petrol diesel, vegetable oil. This gives you more options in crisis scenarios.

There's definitely a pay gap for pro tennis. Women who can't beat male tennis players ranked around #100 earn far more than the male players.

But more people will pay more to watch the women play than the rank 100 male tennis players play. Sexism? Gender inequality? Certainly. But vive la difference! :)

I think women ten-pin bowlers are as good as the guys though, some maybe even better...