Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Pete Dashwood on 22 Jan 2010 07:31 HeyBub wrote: > Pete Dashwood wrote: >>> >>> In my view, an awful lot of human inclinations can be laid at the >>> doorstep of biology. >> >> I agree. >> >> I'm currently reading Richard ("The God Delusion") Dawkins' latest >> book "The Greatest Show on Earth". He is primarily a Natural >> Historian who got pretty pissed off with Creationists and >> Fundamentalists undermining his life's work. Sometimes his >> frustration boils over, but mostly his books are extremely logical, >> well informed and readable. He shows in easily understandable >> language how Evolution has made us (and a number of other species) >> what we are over a VERY long period of time. >> Whatever religious views a person has, it is very interesting >> reading. (I was really hooked after his explanation in "The God Delusion" >> as >> to why moths spiral into lamps and candles...fascinating.) >> > > What flipped the switch for me was a book entitled: "Sexual Choices - > Why Women Pick the Men They Do" (it reads like a re-work of a > master's thesis). The author posited two unprovable axioms: > > 1. We each possess a genetic mandate to reproduce, and > 2. It's the female that does the choosing. > If you accept the definition of an axiom as a "self evident truth", then I would argue that neither of the above are axiomatic. 1. A genetic mandate to reproduce should be identifiable in the genome. It isn't.(we haven't identified a "let's get it on" gene.) However, the urge to reproduce is very strong in most people, so it would seem axiomatic to any people who feel the urge to reproduce very strongly. However, that isn't EVERYBODY, therefore it is NOT axiomatic that "We each possess a genetic mandate to reproduce". (Many people (I am one) spent most of their lives trying to AVOID reproducing (but enjoying the process that would lead to it), so item 1 above is far from axiomatic.) 2. Nope. Not always. I have rejected advances from certain females in my life and I'm sure many guys have, just as many females reject advances from guys. Successful mating occurs by mutual consent and not the will of one partner. (in fact, enforcing such "choice" on another is against the law...) I'm also bothered by the "unprovable axiom" statement. Certainly, neither of the above are provable (in fact, they can be demonstrated to be false, which means they are not axioms and is the nub of my argument.). I'm sure that SOME axioms are unprovable but I think that once something is shown to have exceptions, it kind of fails "axiomhood" on the grounds that an axiom has to be a self evident TRUTH. I think your "unprovable axioms" (because they can be shown to have exceptions) don't even qualify as "conjectures". Good example is Goldbach's Conjecture which says: "Any even number can be expressed as the sum of two primes." Not a fact, definitely not axiomatic, and, so far, not proven. It has been tested by computers with trillions of numbers and, so far, no number has been found which violates it. But it is still a conjecture... I suggest to you that your "unprovable axioms" are, in fact, simply perceptions, and subjective ones at that :-). > Once these axioms are firmly in hand, several theorems are provable. > I tried to get them firmly in hand but they trickled through my fingers like desert sand... :-) I've therefore snipped the consequent "theorems"... :-) > And so on. All in all, eye opening. The book made me the Lothario I am > today. You're a legend in your own mind, Jerry... :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 22 Jan 2010 08:44 Charles Hottel wrote: > "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message > news:7rs3ofF9jbU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> Charles Hottel wrote: >>>>> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in >>>>> message >>>> Actually, Charlie, I'm a bit disappointed with Kurzweil. >>>> >>>> The guy is certainly brilliant but some of this "GNR" technology is >>>> simply not being delivered. He claims Mitsubishi have a patent for >>>> nanotechnology and have had working nanobots for over 10 years now. >>>> >>>> Yet people are still having to donate blood to keep kids alive and >>>> arteriosclerosis is still life threatening, when nanobots could be >>>> cleaning up our arteries and doing the general job of blood. I >>>> can't see whether the technology is being suppressed by the God >>>> Squad or "commercial interests", but either way it is long >>>> overdue... I have a friend who has nine stents keeping him alive. He >>>> has to >>>> inject himself with insulin and some other medication 4 times a >>>> day. Nanotechnology could completely transform his life, but where >>>> is it? Stem cell research is being stifled by religious convictions, 40 >>>> percent of Americans believe the world was created by God within >>>> the last 10,000 years (in some countries this belief is even >>>> higher), it just looks like Science is losing the battle and >>>> Reason is being supplanted by Darkness. Some days I'm actually >>>> glad to be old... Pete. >>>> -- >>>> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." >>>> >>> >>> I posted this because I think Kurzweil is at least worth listening >>> to. I am sure he has studied this more than I have. No one >>> predicting the future is going to be right all of the time. From >>> his 'Singularity" book I rather expect more results coming out from >>> biotechnology before we get results from nanotechnology, though some >>> overlap will occur. I receive the KurzweilAI.net Daily Newsletter >>> and while it is difficult to keep up with all the research advances, >>> I have noticed regular claims of improvement in solar cell >>> efficiency. I am not saying he is right or that he is wrong, which is >>> why I am >>> not responding to HeyBub. I have no interest in defending Kurzweil >>> and arguing with HeyBub is pointless anyway. >>> >>> I have not heard the claims about Mitsubishi, but if it is true, the >>> only reason I can think of, for them not delivering the technology, >>> would be because there is somehow more money (profit) in not >>> releasing it. This seems counterintuitive because that technology >>> is certain to be a big money maker. I am sure your friend would be >>> willing to pay a lot to be restored to good health even if he had to >>> spend some portion of those extra years working to pay off the cost. >>> >>> Stem cell research has been slowed but progress is still being made >>> and ways are being found that do not require fetal stem cells. >>> >>> The earth used to be flat and also the center of the universe but >>> some progress has been made. Actually since everthing in the >>> universe came out of a volume smaller than an atom I guess some >>> argument could be made that everything everywhere is (was) the >>> center of the universe. >>> I am sure it is warmer there than here so go outside and enjoy the >>> sun and have a cool drink or anything else that might cheer you up. >> >> Thanks Charlie, I took your advice... :-) >> >> It is 28C here today. We had rain overnight but skies are clearing >> and blue is breaking through. >> >> Unfortunately, I have committed to doing some work so I will do >> that, but at least I can enjoy the sun while I do it :-) >> >> I DO feel sorry when I look around and see cases like the friend I >> mentioned, where the solution is "just around the corner" but it >> seems to be taking for ever to come into view. I may be >> oversensitive to this because my father (who my Mother and I both >> adored) died from heart problems in 1957 (at the age of 46...) and a >> few months after he died a technique was perfected that could have >> helped him. By 1960, bypass was available and could have saved his >> life. Them's the breaks... >> >> I guess we just have to deal with it. >> >> Pete. >> -- >> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." >> > I read your piece with interest, Charlie, and have made a few comments below. > Well that is very understandable. Kurzweil feels/thinks that a few > in our generation may live to benefit from these advances. That is > why he wrote "Fantastic Voyage" and he is certaianly taking all the > steps he can to try and become one of the ones to benefit. The sad > reality is that most of our generation will not benefit. There is no > worse, helpless feeling than to know that someone or something you > love is dying and that there is nothing you can do about it. Years > can pass and still the feelings remain. For some I think the only > way to end the feelings are when death comes at last. I understand what you're saying. Even after 50 years, I still miss my Dad. But I have come to terms with it and it doesn't hurt me to a point where only Death could release me. I think if that were not the case, then I would need help to deal with it. No one should have to suffer pain for life. I remember the humour and the wisdom and try not to think about the pain of his premature departure. (Besides, he'd be very upset if he thought I was going to mourn him at the expense of enjoying my own life... ) > > Kurzweil likes to focus on the positive. Me too :-) That's probably why I enjoyed reading him. >He says think what 2000 top > scientists could come up with if their brains worked at computer > speeds and never became tired. But technology is not often a neutral > thing, it is most often a two edged sword with downsides as well as > upsides. Besides getting a better Einstein we may get a worse Hitler > or Stalin. That is such an excellent idea. Well worth thinking on... >What if these AI intellegences get into a power struggle. > We humans are a multi faceted and a curious mixture (for want of a > better term) of good and evil. Not only the good will be modified > but the evil as well. I think we part company here, Charlie. I don't believe people are evil (I do believe there are aberrated people who behave very badly, but I don't believe they were born that way...). I don't believe in "original sin", and I can't believe a newborn baby is anything but a clean slate that life experience and the intellect of the child will write on. I can't imagine an advanced intellect being anything but good because it makes more sense to be good than bad. Morality doesn't require edicts laid down by supernatural beings; it is just sound common sense. If we all treat each other well, it will be more pleasant for all of us to live together. >Maybe I should use 'healthy and ill' > tendencies instead. Possibly. "Good" and "Evil" are emotionally charged words. >Will AI intellegence process so fast that > communication with unenhanced humans will be frustrating for them? Will > their pride in ther abilities be such that they devalue > unenhanced humans? Maybe they will think our atoms are of better use > in constructing new, more powerful computer intelligences. But if everybody is "enhanced" that's unlikely to be a problem is it? (Shades of Doctor Who and the Cybermen... :-)) Even if some people opt out, they are unlikely to be seen as a threat to the "enhanced ones". I imagine the new "super smart" people will be so busy grappling with the problems of the Cosmos that the enslavement or "re-engineering" of the rest of the population would be a very low priority. But I also accept that this is arguable and each of us will probably reflect what our own reaction would be. >Kurzweil > thinks that because they start off based on us they will feel a > kinship to us, but how many of the smartest and most accomplished of > us now feel a close kinship with the less brillant and less > accomplished. I have had to work with, and relate to, people who were much smarter than me and people who were less smart than me. I managed, and so did they :-) I don't recall ever feeling intimidated or superior to any of them. I hope Kurzweil is wrong on this :-) > It seems that our differences divide us more than > connect us and AI may magnify this. Kurzweil thinks we have a 50-50 > chance of surviving. I am more pessimestic. One reason nuclear > technology has not yet been used to wipe us out is that it is very > hard to develop. I don't think so, Charlie. People who don't have the necessary knowledge and technological infrastructure can simply buy it... >This could still change and may soon if Israel > attacks Iran in the near future. Whatever people may think of the Israelis, they are not idiots. Israel would only attack Iran if they believed there was a direct threat to the State of Israel from the Iranians. The Iranians are not stupid either. Why risk everything in an overt attack when you can simply do it covertly, over a longer time period? Most Arab states realise they will not destroy Israel by direct conflict. They don't need to. They can just foment unrest and give Israel an ongoing unsolvable problem. Fortunately, as time goes by, people on both sides of this conflict are getting wiser. Eventually (and it will be a very long time) they will realise that continued warfare is in nobody's interest and they'll start trading and living together. As people become better educated, they are less likely to be strictly religious, and the the religious grounds for war recede. Ordinary people find that peaceful co-existence is a better deal for their kids and they become less bellicose. Egypt was historically the first Arab state to make peace with Israel and many people gave it a year. Camp David was thirty years ago. Although this accord is not perfect, it has achieved its objective and prevented the two parties warring with each other. Both sides have profited by it and neither of them would cancel this treaty. >Biotechnology which could wipe us > out will be much easier to develop. Nanotechnology accidents of > runaway replication could turn the earth to goo. There are too many > fanatics who think that their religion is the only one true way to > God and they are more than willing to wipe out everyone on the face > of the earth who does not agree with them. They may envision a > scenario where they have an antidote for themselves and release a > biological agent to wipe out the nonbelievers, but then a mutation > occurs an poof humans are history. There will be a race between the > defenders and the destroyers of humanity just as today there is a > race between those who creat computer malware and those who defend us > against it. The first county to develop nanotechnology weapons could > pre-deploy them all over the world and with a single command wipe out > everything in a specified geographic area. Yes, they could. And yet, if they are one of the "good guys", they won't.. It isn't just about technological maturity, it is about moral maturity too. > > The idea of the singularity and all of the potential issues involved > seems to me to be highly complex and by no means is the outcome clear. > Agreed. > Instead of Artifical Intelligence we need Artificial Wisdom and /or > Artificial Spiritual Machines, otherwise our lack of emotional and > impulse control may be the end of us. Technology that becomes so > powerful as to resemble magic requires advanced wisdom to control it > use (or possibly mor often to decide not to use it). I am reminded > of an old science fiction film where we travel to mars and the aliens > tell us that we are technological teenages but spiritual infants. > Agreed also. > One thing that evolution shows is that most species eventually go > extinct. As, inevitably, will we. Eventually, our sun will go Nova and that will be it for us, unless we have left this planet already. Eventually, the Galaxy will collapse and it won't matter if we got to another star. Eventually, the entire Universe will collapse and it won't matter if we got to another Galaxy... The whole Human race is a pointless charade, inasmuch as it must eventually end. So why do we bother? Because these events are unthinkable times in the future. Something might happen that we never could have predicted that might change everything. Because we are capable of hope? Possibly, but more because, for most of us, dealing with existence from day to day is a rewarding and interesting pastime. People see their children doing better than they did. It gives things a purpose. (For myself, I find that just wondering what the Hell is going to happen next kind of keeps me going.... :-)) >Our intelligence may wipe us out or it may save us for a > while, I believe our intelligence will save us for a while; it is our stupidity that may wipe us out... >but eventually it looks like the universe will have a way to > get us in the end. PBS and the history channel have had many shows on > how this might happen. We may overcome some of them but it seems > unlikely that we can overcome all of them. I guess the fact that the > probablity of our continuance is not zero is a reason for some hope. Here and now, the continued existence of each and every one of us lends spice to the mix :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Howard Brazee on 22 Jan 2010 10:38 On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:49:57 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>> That's why I believe Democracy, while not being a perfect form of >>> Government, is the only one that guarantees freedom. >> >> There are no such guarantees in life. > >There are if you support the democratic principles. I am not powerful enough to achieve that result, and there are lots of powerful people who use their elections to stomp on freedom. >We are having this conversation. > >I rest my case. If this conversation is the only measure of freedom, you have a strong point. I'm sure we all can look at history to see states with similar democratic principles to what we see, that despite many people supporting the democratic principles, have fallen under the rule of despots who have taken away liberty (and often life). -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Alistair on 22 Jan 2010 10:39 On Jan 21, 10:29 pm, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > HeyBub wrote: > > Pete Dashwood wrote: > > >>> It's difficult. It's difficult because man is a "pack animal" and is > >>> compelled innately to be a member of a group. > > >>> The need, nay, the necessity, to belong to a herd is what drives > >>> devotees of Manchester United to do silly things, it explains > >>> nationalism, religious extremism, and maybe even stamp collecting. > > >>> People who hate Negros will root for them nevertheless if they are > >>> players on the home team. Descendants of both Irish Catholics and > >>> Irish Protestants will defend each other when sharing a foxhole. > > >> That is a beautifully expressed paragraph. > > >>> The urge to bond and defend your group against all others is a > >>> survival mechanism and deeply ingrained in the lizard brain. > > >> Not sure about that. Lizards are not gregarious... :-) > > >> I think it might have more to do with raising children, where there > >> is more safety in numbers. The more like-minded adults around, the > >> better chance the young have of surviving. > > >>> It > >>> cannot be denied. The best that can be done is to bend it to a > >>> larger group and an example of that is the military where all races > >>> serve in (mostly) harmony. > >>> Of course the faggots better not try to join... > > >> :-) > > >> Jerry, I generally enjoy your posts and appreciate your wry humour, > >> and comon sense, even if I don't always agree with your position. > > >> This is a very nice piece of writing. Thanks for posting it. > > > As for "lizard brain," I meant the Limbic System. As we know, the > > Limbic System is responsible for the four "F's": Fight, Flight, > > Feeding, and Reproduction. > > > And you're correct about the "safety/strength in numbers." If there > > is a switch in the brain somewhere that got flipped once upon a time > > to encourage group bonding, that bonding would prove evolutionarily > > beneficial; The "switch" would stand a better chance of being passed > > on than the "loner" switch. > > > Consider dogs. Dogs are pack animals and the survival of the "pack" > > works best when all the members simultaneously attack the prey or the > > enemy. (That's why yappy lap dogs get gobbled up by 'gators in > > Florida so easily - damned pooches run right up to the reptile's > > mouth and try to bark the one-ton lizard into submission. Zip! Right > > down the hatch. The dogs can't help it - they were wired that way.) > > > In my view, an awful lot of human inclinations can be laid at the > > doorstep of biology. > > I agree. > > I'm currently reading Richard ("The God Delusion") Dawkins' latest book "The > Greatest Show on Earth". He is primarily a Natural Historian who got pretty > pissed off with Creationists and Fundamentalists undermining his life's > work. Sometimes his frustration boils over, but mostly his books are > extremely logical, well informed and readable. He shows in easily > understandable language how Evolution has made us (and a number of other > species) what we are over a VERY long period of time. > > Whatever religious views a person has, it is very interesting reading. Certainly interesting; I finished it some time last year and told a Christian fundamentalist friend that I found the book to be a little preachy. I was amused to see that, when the Humanist Society in London put posters on the side of buses (with Dawkins' support) that the posters read "There is probably no God...". Looking for a cop-out? there is none bigger. The posters should have read "There is no God". After you have finished Dawkins, try "Why I am not a Muslim" by Ibn Warraq (a one-time Muslim). It details the foundation and rise of Islam and refutes the notion of Islam being a font of science and Arts. It also underlines the lies and hypocrisy surrounding Islam but I shouldn't preach to you; just read the book.
From: Howard Brazee on 22 Jan 2010 10:40
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:33:41 -0500, "Charles Hottel" <chottel(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >As of today's supreme court decision we are guaranteed that corporations can >buy and sell our polititions. (U.S. specific example, but the concept is much wider). Who do you think owns them now? Check out the Health Care bill and follow the money. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |