Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Well, duh - DUH !!! (Score 1) 390

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).

if you create an atomically perfect simulation of a human brain then you are telling me that it will still not be conscious?

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.

Comment: Re:Well, duh (Score 1) 390

by catmistake (#48672219) Attached to: The Dominant Life Form In the Cosmos Is Probably Superintelligent Robots

But I'm working on Strong AI - and I can tell you definitively that while it is very difficult, it is not impossible. Consciousness is only impossible if you don't understand it.

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.

Comment: Re:Well, duh (Score 1) 390

by catmistake (#48644339) Attached to: The Dominant Life Form In the Cosmos Is Probably Superintelligent Robots

You mean like manned flight, the atomic bomb, or travelling faster than light?

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.

Comment: Re:False Falg? (Score 1) 236

The more this unravels the more I smell false flag.

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.

Comment: Re:So much for his career (Score 1) 161

by catmistake (#48639275) Attached to: Former iTunes Engineer Tells Court He Worked To Block Competitors

the UEFI standard which is nothing to do with Microsoft

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

Comment: Re:The Legit Bay (Score 1) 79

by catmistake (#48639163) Attached to: Anyone Can Now Launch Their Own Version of the Pirate Bay

if you think you can just suck the MONEY out of the system

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.

Comment: Re:The right to be presumed innocent? (Score 1) 90

by mjwx (#48630631) Attached to: Australia Moves Toward New Restrictions On Technology Export and Publication

No. Presumption of guilt would be to lock you up, then later determine if you actually were drunk or not.

Presumption of guilt would be 'you have been accused of drunk driving, unless you can prove otherwise you are hereby convicted'.

In Australia, if you get charged with DUI, the police have to have evidence. This can be in the form of a breathalyser reading or blood test but not in the form of "I smelled beer on his breath".

Once you're charged you have two options, the first is to contest it and take it to court. The second is to pay the fine which is considered an admission of guilt. Because the requirement for evidence for Australian Police is high, most opt not to go to court. High range DUI (over 0.08 BAC) has an automatic court appearance, most just plead guilty.

Even though we have random breath tests, you still go through the same legal system with the same chances to demonstrate your innocence. Convictions are not automatic.

Comment: Sigh, so many people dont understand the law. (Score 2) 90

by mjwx (#48630579) Attached to: Australia Moves Toward New Restrictions On Technology Export and Publication

The police can set up a road-block and demand that drivers provide a breath test and proof of their license at any time

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Abuse this privilege and it will be taken away from you.

If you dont like RBT's you have the choice not to drive. A lot of Australians like RBT's because it cuts down on drunk drivers. Whilst we're on that subject, you have no right to drink and drive.

The taxman can deliver an assessment that says you owe $xxxxx in taxes and you are presumed to be guilty unless you can prove you don't owe that much in tax.

That assessment is court admissible evidence that you do owe $xxxx in taxes. You have been demonstrated to be in arrears. The tax tables are published before the FY starts and the government it not permitted to change the tax tables once the FY begins. So you have no excuse for not knowing how much you owe. Of course as part of our legal system you get the opportunity to demonstrate those figures are wrong. This means you get the presumption of innocence as you get to challenge the assessment. The fact is most people choose not to because the assessment is accurate. You have no idea what presumption of innocence means.

As Midnight Oil so wisely said

What does Peter Garrett do? You strike me as one of those Freemen On The Land nutters. For the Americans playing along at home FOTL's are the equivalent of Tea Partiers, Libertarians and Rednecks all rolled into one completely retarded package.

Comment: Re:Dear Australia (Score 1) 90

by mjwx (#48630227) Attached to: Australia Moves Toward New Restrictions On Technology Export and Publication

Hate to break it to you, but the US is way ahead of Australia in that regard.

If you ever get pulled over by a cop while carrying a large amount of cash on you, you'll find out the hard way.

Also we can record our cops.

For every traffic stop, my dash cam records audio. Plus because they use things like breathalisers, I cant be pulled out of my car because the officer "smelled beer on my breath", there is a standard of evidence to be upheld.

Not that I've ever had trouble with the cops. I get pulled over into an RBT (Random Breath Test) site about once a year and pull out a minute or two later with a "thanks for your co-operation sir". This is in my boy-racer Nissan Silvia S15 with fart canon exhaust, it really pays not to be a self-important wanker when dealing with cops.

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android