I'm going to assume you have more, and a much better education than I do, and that you're just a little smarter than me (because I know how smart I am and the likelihood of anyone being smarter).

Exactly. Let me make it clear. YES, THAT's WHAT I, AND PHILOSOPHERS OF MIND, AND COMPUTER SCIENTISTS (i.e. not "programmers" or "techies") ARE TELLING YOU.

I'm not going to give you citations. I'm only going to attempt to show you the petitio principii fallacy you're making, if you believe, and believe strongly, the opposite (which you obviously do, strongly, and think you can't possibly be wrong. But you are, sorry.).

You're assuming that mind is merely its physical constituents, and that synthetic duplication is possible for anything if even subatomic duplication were possible, when that isn't shown to be true. So really, that's two instances of the same fallacy. But first of all, there was this guy Heisenberg... etc... so your dreams of supreme technology are flawed. There's a limit to what will ever be possible, and what you propose, on its face, will never be possible (re: atomic-level duplication yada yada vapopsychoware and handwaving the existence human consciousness). And second of all, no matter how many subscribe to the computational theory of mind, it is flawed, and has been left behind by all serious academics about 20 years ago... including its strongest proponant, Putnam! We may someday figure out mind... but assuming we will do so by examing matter and whatever you throw at this... is a huge unknown. Then to assume its possible to duplicate mind... when we don't fully understand what mind/consciousness (externally) is... other than some weird effect of living brain.... again, is, upon the loose foundation that we may understand mind someday, to build this further belief that we can then synthtically create it... well... you're really a dreamer. A double-dreamer. That's good. But the limit, unfortunately, is that... StrongAI, true synthetic consciousness... not actually obtainable, again, unfortunately. Its analagous to magnets and coiled wire... and electricity... as mind/consciousness is an effect of living brain, so current is an effect of taking this stuff and moving it around in a certain way. The trouble is the living brain part... unless your simulator has some of that, its not going to get to consciousness... and if there is some real counterexample out there, of something dead, becoming alive.... I'd like to hear it. Once you get your head around Searle's Chinese Room, you realize its game over for the Reductionists, at least in "Mind," they're still pretty useful in Physics, Chemistry... etc.

You don't understand it, and even if you did, your strong AI will never ever ever be conscious. It may fool you into not being able to tell if it is conscious or not, but we know it can never be --the same way we know a dead human brain will never ever be conscious again. Consciousness is an effect of living brain. You're not going to get that in a clever subroutine. And if you can't realize that, you have deeper issues. Strong AI is a worthy pursuit, just as is, say, developing fast propulsion.. but those engineers that ultimately build the fastest engine know what the speed limit is... in an ideal sense, light speed. True artificial consciousness is your light speed... you can never quite get there.

Not really. None of those things you list are philosophically impossible. No matter how smart you think your AI is, it is never conscious, but cleverly responding to stimulus as programmed. Weak AI is ready for commercialism. Hard AI is impossible.

Only now do we feel the loss of President Ronald Reagan. The moment President Obama failed to dispatch Senator Fred Thompson with an elite-ops "A" team including Candice Bergen and Vice-President Dan Qualye, to deal with this egrigious crime, I smelled something, too.

quote>Oh come on. That statement doesn't stand up to the slightest snifftest.

You shouldn't breath that black stuff... that's all I meant. Perhaps I exaggerated with orders of magnitude...what of it?

Since its inception, Microsoft has ever been trying to control open standards, and UEFI is merely one example of their success at doing so. If you think Microsoft is not actively attempting to control every standard conceivable, you're a shill or an idiot, and probably the latter. I understand software is complicated, but Microsoft intentionally mandates their vendor lockin with every single thing they release, from new versions to updates to patches. I'm not going to bother with providing a trolling AC with examples, because since the 1980's there must be thousands if not tens of thousands of examples of Microsoft pushing this anti-competitive agenda. I'm not anti-MS, either. There's a lot of great software they have. But Microsoft is BAD for EVERYONE because of their business practices. Adobe, IBM, Apple, and Google have many examples of similar shenanigans, but all pale in comparison to what Microsoft has done and continues to do. We can only imagine how good Windows could be if Microsoft wasn't obsessed with fleecing everyone.

MS bad

When did it become the "quantum" uncertainty principle? I'm sure Heisenberg was not happy when we switched to the truncated "uncertainty principle," and even further to simply "uncertainty." But who's the asshole that added a superfluous and nearly meaningless word to an old concept? WHO REBOOTED? AND WHY?

This isn't stealing bread from a starving family. The sales inventory at all the studios remains constant. Explain to me how all the non-enterprise copyright violators cost production studios or entertainers even one cent? Theft it is, but it is not the same as crime because the victim has NO DAMAGES.

Interesting that it is a philosopher's ideas, because she should know very well hard AI is philosophically impossible.

Do ya think that's what makes this stupid? Well, consider the fact that a single ship polutes the atmosphere with more carbon in a day than all the cars in the United States in a year... then reassess this idea.

To put it politely, Microsoft does have a knack for "inadvertently" yet periodically breaking competing and usually free technologies in enterprise, and recently... competing OS on consumer hardware. The Linux guys keep up with them and fixes role 'em out, but I doubt the home user will fare so well. I don't even know if its possible to purchase new hardware that I can do what I want with, thanks to Microsoft.

It is far easier to debunk on its face: race does not exist in hard science, but only in sociology. Genetically, there is no "race trait." Biologically, it is not a characteristic that is used. Its really a crap concept and eventually we'll stop using it. But I have deep concern for them because most people find that biologists are not as smart as other races. (See? I can talk nonsense, too!)

I also think they're underestimating cats. But If they're connecting deep learning systems to telescopes (which is not explicitly stated), when a cat is positively identified, perhaps somewhere millions of light-years away and hundreds of thousands of light-years across, I guess we'll be sorry.

sort of takes the romance out of it
more on that
alright, if you're not trolling you deserve a letter grade off that project

you're right.. I see the flaws in my proposal. thanks... esp. the part about how "Crazzy Eddies Plastic Clockwork Solar Tracker Hacked OneOffs" might not market so well, nor do such good business compared to doing it right with safety and the economics of the homeowner in mind, not the cheapest possible solution.