It's been a while since a Slashdot comment made me laugh out loud!

Well... it's a label describing a particular mode of thought and argumentation. If you aren't one of the ones who thinks and debates in the way Mashiki is describing, then he wasn't talking about you.

Why not? This is the best possible case.

The argument in the original article is that a Touring Machine is limited by the data available to it (even if that data is infinite). This means that the TM can't make a "judgment" because it will always find the same result based on the data provided by the programmer.

QM based randomness means that "new" data is added to the system and the system must now accommodate this new and unpredictable scenario. It is the ability to analyze "new" data that allows for judgment.

Computers spend a LOT of power to eliminate the randomness. In-fact randomness is defined as an "error" in the typical computer and generally frowned on by the end user.

In addition we are talking about a Touring Machine which is a thought experiment and therefore not really subject to the laws of the universe..

Actually no, I am stating that the human brain is NOT a Turing Machine and can never be a Turing machine therefore any attempt to correlate the original article with "human judgment" is fallacious.

I did say that while I don't know for sure, the ability to integrate and question the randomness inherent in the Universe COULD provide a method of providing a truly independent judgment.

To answer your questions:

No, if you feed a human being the same information twice you often will NOT get the same response even when the person has no ability to remember (say through brain damage). For a fun image think of the movie "50 first dates". Now obviously the simpler the question the more likely you will get the same response, however when you have complex questions you start to get divergent answers. Agreed they do tend to be similar but not identical.

Remember the randomness affects everything and will end up having a large number of effects that will average out to an apparent deterministic system unless tested carefully.

Read the definition of a Turing Machine. They are absolutely deterministic.

My original post was simply pointing out that the human brain is NOT and can never be a Turing machine due to the fundamental randomness of the universe. This means that no study of Turing Machines can make any claim on human judgment calls.

I am not sure the random nature of the universe is sufficient to allow for true 'judgement' but it MIGHT.

My admittedly limited understand is that the randomness is a fundamental requirement of the theory.

I find QM interesting and have read up on it but I am certainly not a theoretical physicist...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics/

I know wikipedia but I am lazy and don't really care...

Check out "During a measurement, on the other hand, the change of the initial wavefunction into another, later wavefunction is not deterministic, it is unpredictable (i.e., random). A time-evolution simulation can be seen here.[28][29]"

There are two cited references.

A large number of quantum particles seem to act in a deterministic way but this is simple the law of large numbers.

Please tell me exactly when a specific electron is 14 billion 123 million 567 thousand 324 years and 23485723048752 seconds after the big bang...

You CAN'T!

It isn't just knowing the starting conditions it is about being able to calculate every state between the beginning and the end.

The problem with Turing machines is that they are by definition a deterministic system. A certain input will give a specific output. That is why they can't make a "judgment" call.

The universe as a whole is NOT deterministic as Quantum Mechanics proves. QM is based on true randomness (obvious a simplification but go with it for this conversation). Our 'machines' deal with this randomness and even incorporate it into some operations. So a specific input will NOT always generate the same response.

It is the assessment of random changes that MIGHT give us the ability to make these sorts of judgments....

Maybe the gnomes also release low energy neutrinos...

secondary reactions based around contaminants (as in non-H or He atoms).

One is the CNO cycle which is about 0.4% of the total solar energy.

Gan: Corn is defined as a small hard grain/seed

Wheat is corn
Rice is corn
Rye is Corn
Millet is Corn

Maize is also corn

The term Corn used in supermarkets is actually slang....

If you are going to be a vocab critic then at least get the vocab right!

As I mentioned in my original post, MOST of the value comes from legal protection and eminent domain land purchases.

For example, Bush's Energy law included a provision that prevents anyone from suing gas station owners from leaks that have contaminated local communities. This one provision is worth hundreds of billions and doesn't show up on the federal budget.

Most of the direct benefit actually comes from tax breaks which don't show in the budget.

Most of the real cost is not directly related to DIRECT subsidies. Most of the benefit comes from repairing the damage these energy sources do to health and environment. Look at how much the EPA spends to clean up oil related environmental damage.

Next, the federal government is not the ONLY source of subsidies. States provide roughly equivalent subsidies.

Finally, you say my number is crazy??? The EU countries also subsidize oil but no where near as much since they also tax the final product... The EU fuel cost is around $9 a gallon...