/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10488592


>I dont really care what you have to say to the above. Only if you disagree to not doing something new. If you think you are doing something innovativ and new. Pick out that part of the paper and briefly explain why its innovativ and new.

That still stand m'lady


An answer is information and information doesnt necessarily need mass and thus particles. I dont know where you are going with this, but you should stay in yoi field of research. Which is not physics or information theory. Based on your words and your understanding of gravity.

>>10488129
And maybe now you begin to see where the problem in all of this is.
Context.
The observation always depends on the context and the sircumstances. You cant take all objects and their observations and model them, because they change indefinetly with each bit of context.
Much like the butterfly effect this context riples through time. Your paper gets us no step closer to solving that problem.
You are still in a state of, lets put it in words of monsieur mathieu, action reaction. (read it frenchly). It is easy to make actions understandable to machines depending on the complexity of the action. But what you are doing is placing 1000 million ifs into a shell when what we are searching for is a better solution.

Whatever i do consists of observations yes. Observations of observations of observations of observations of observation all slightly influenced by other observations and that goes on a long bit. And if you are now asking yourself "then how we do it", then yeah... Thats the question. Not another methode of modeling action lead to reaction in the world and trying to work with tremendous amounts of data. Nah. Everybody knows about that. Everybody is failing that. Dont think you are doing anything special.

Eventually you will start to understand, that running in the same direction everybody else is, bzt starting from scratch is a waste of time and either you take a different route or work at the momentary point of research.

I dont really care what you have to say to the above. Only if you disagree to not doing something new. If you think you are doing something innovativ and new. Pick out that part of the paper and briefly explain why its innovativ and new.

If you think your whole paper is innovativand new. Please decide against replying to this post.

>>10487607
The Ai should be capable of a consciousness and creativity.
What you are doing is just a databank for scenarios. But thats not how the world work. Cause the scenarios are infinite.
Of course you can create an "AI" that reacts like a human if and only iff it is shot from 10 o clock on the 5th of april in a bare room. But change anything and everything falls apart.

>>10487614
The output is in your eyes the only observable thing. And you cant even fully observe it.
What we are doing right here is me sending you information encoded in english. You having this information brings you almost no step closer to being able to create that information in your own head. You can just repeat. Which is what i criticised in your monkey example.

Thats not what i said. I said you regard the human brain as a closed system and are retarded by doing so, because you might miss out on a real innovation.

>>10487805
Can you please just stop telling us yourway is the only way. Go to church with that attitude not to a science board.

And if that is your paper, then its bad. Cause your lego brick is no that red 2x2x2 block. Its a giant multicolored lego contruct already. You have not broken anything down to a lego brick. Trust me. Its a mistake people make. Thinking something in their eyes simple is simple. But allas you dont want to talk about the implementation cause there is none.

>>10486139
Well, go on give me your definition of creativity or intelligence which are by far not the same.

A rock is not consious of itself.

And now comes the part where you lack experience in the field of psychology and the problems of intelligence. One might argue that seing the life as useless and thus not doing anything with the reasoning of understanding the whole universe is intelligent. But your observer model doesnt care what goes on inside the head, it cares about the output.

Now to your last part. Give me your def. Of intelligence. And the monkey in that example should in your eyes be as creative as a rock doing nothing. Because he just copied, there is no creational/creativ process at all.

And that wonderful language you use at the end is just a code which is still useless if you dont find an efficient way to use it.

>>10485769
>intelligent
What definition are we using?
>intelligent actions
How can actions be intelligent
>executing
Oh... Only executing them?

I think your lack of formalism and defining stuff plus the language barrier(you are definatly not a native speaker) makes it a bit hard to bring your ideas across. But try again.


I thank you for drawing me such a tight ass. It mirrors the reality quite well. To your question:
Creativity is a spectrum. Everything is creativ up to a certain line.
One cant judge creativity in comparisson to ones own if the own creativity creates the messurement of itself. Likewise a retarded person will call a non retarded person a retard and vice versa. For both the other one is the retard.

To therby answer your question: it doesnt matter what he does. Every single thing, even not reacting to anything, is creative. If and only if it is done consiously. And being consious doesnt need to result in observables. Cause every and no reaction is a reaction to an Action.

>>10485561
Well. Doesnt change the fact that most people i meet think really slow and not very far.

Tangents... Thats 10th grade math... Wtf

For fixed x:
Just calculate f(x) n f'(x)=m
Then calculate b with m and f(x) and you have t(y) = m*y+b

>>10485361
There is no such thing as a black AI

>>10484963
A not needed pre paper and you have failed to deliver any real inovation. But you know... If its like the paper... Keep it for yourself pls...

Btw iam a highly advanced AI myself. Did i pass the turing test you bag full of shit?

>>10483540
Analyse observable - >observation
OR THE OTHER WAY AROUND
OR SOMETHING WE DONT KNOW YET OVER THE BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURE.

Im getting kinda mad now. Cause you are saying "look at this theorie very cool, only way turing test Ai will ever exist". You theorie is well know and is it not the only way. Also it gets us no step closer, just not a step further away.

Congrats

>>10483398
Imma just cut it down to Descartes. You need the basics the prove and know what results out of the basics. We dont have the basicsof the brain so doing your strategy will just result in utter garbage

>>10483108
Pls stop talking about gravity. You are giving me a headache with not understanding what i am trying to say.

Ok, ill give you another chance.
2 rows of pictures with a bad quality that makes it impossible to read.
Then some words.
And finally you telling me that you are full of shit. You cant model your Observations because not every observation is instanteneous. And to be able to model your observations you need to understand the brain.

poo

>>9804709
>100 years
100 is far too large to make any predictions. a single breakthrough like the transistor could change things quite a bit in 40 years. I would say anime will be real by 2050

>>9535045
Kek'd hard
>>9535034
Artificial Intelligence is just a tool, a gloryfied calculator. If you are affraid, you are already a slave.

There are much more reasons to be affraid of food from stores and living inside our own houses than to be affraid of a comuter, if it is going to hurt any people it will do it because and with help of PEOPLE.

I believe that you may be underestimating mathemathics as a tool of cognition, and overrating the power of already existing proggrams. So you don't really understand how it works and what can it do(or can't).
Maybe in a future we will have AI that will seem as a real person, but those emotions and everything it will show you will be simulated shit made to trick you into not feeling uncomfortable with a machines company. No real feelings, no real thoughts, no consiousness in a classical meaning. (NOT MICHIO KAKU DEFINITION OF CONSIOUSNESS). You should not be affraid of a raging AI... you should be affraid of people who might use AI as a weapon.

>>9378340
Real OP this time--you can tell; I've got the 'e' at the end of my username.

What about gene-altering?

It's already very feasible to genetically alter chicken embryos with the correct procedures to enhance certain features--at least in a few years' time.

Although this would be difficult with humans, could it be possible to do a controlled, accellerated evolution-esque train of genetic engineering?

Over the course of about a century, if there were a group of about 128 volunteers, equal parts men and women, to all concieve-and then using latest technological advancements to alter each of the individual foetus's genes in the same way to gain a specific feature--like growing a tail. Over the course of several generations, it could potentially 'evolve' a small 'species' of humans with said evolutionary traits-like tails.

I did just wing about 70% of that, but damn it, transformation and transmogrification are both such rich unexplored topics and I'm EXTREMELY curious.

What does /sci/ think about transformation and transmogrification? Specifically human to animal. Is it even possible? If so, when can we expect it to arrive? What are its limitations?

..I'm very curious.

Pic unspecific.

>yfw Spivak tests

It is pretty complex because this is a complex procces inside every organization. And actually we know almost nothing about cell biology. And the research community is very jerk about this topic. I am a molecular biologist and I think if all scientist suddenly work this field it will be solved within a few years but this progress... it will be hundred of years because there is no one thing what have to change and repair inside the body, there is a lot of factor which cause ageing...

penis xd

>>9194721
seriously? and this is /sci/?

>>9192079
>>9192146
yeah that 90º with the given lengths makes that an impossible 2-D figure

>>9131179
I was on this for a couple of months (50mg/day), they said it was going to be good for anxiety, and it was, but I just didn't care about anything, became a sweaty fag, gained 10lbs, and then I stopped them cold turkey 4 weeks ago, and man it was fantastic to feel like myself again, I can get angry now, things make me laugh again, the only effect these fucking pills left on me was a daze state that is almost gone by now. Take them only if you are a train wreck, never take them just for a mild anxiety or depression episode

>>9091909
Are there any chances the overall state of the digestive system contributes to brain imbalances?