[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 56 KB, 460x858, screencap.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3062556 No.3062556 [Reply] [Original]

hey /sci/ i dont usualy visit this board but i came here to ask about these facebook posts by some guy.
What do u think about this, is he right or wrong?

>> No.3062559
File: 10 KB, 404x185, screencap 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3062559

1 is the guy who posted 2 is some other guy

>> No.3062566

shameless selfbump

>> No.3062579

Humans are biological computers.

>> No.3062588

bump

>> No.3062609

humans and other animals are preprogrammed with all kinds of stuff. like self preservation, various urges, lots of stuff. when you added all that to an artificial mind it would really begin to act like a person but just because it has the same processing power as a human mind that does not mean will be self aware or even care if you unplug it.

>> No.3062612

I think neither of them know a great deal about biology or computers and that it isn't a productive conversation.

>> No.3062651

>>3062612
this

>> No.3062657
File: 37 KB, 400x387, 1271470483119.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3062657

>Speaking as a computer engineer

That claim is entirely speculative, and equally, entirely inaccurate. There are already many computers that are in some ways equal to or completely superior to the human brain... its just that we cannot yet into fuzzy logic computing the way the human brain does.

You also have to realize that most of the human brain's power is being wasted on all kinds of things other than the object or problem in immediate attention, making the initial premise of the question.... shaky at best.

No one has any realistic idea what the power of computers will be in 50 years - further, no one even knows if 'laptops' will be a relevant concept then. I highly doubt they will.

>> No.3062666

>>3062657
>No one has any realistic idea what the power of computers will be in 50 years
it'll probably be roughly the same as it is today, given the disappointing rate of technological advancement. and after peak oil, everything will start going downhill.

>> No.3062677

>>3062666
>peak oil
>doesn't realize by that time we will be completely nuclear.
>cars will run on electricity provided by outlets that are fed from nuclear reactors
>oil isn't that important anymore

>> No.3062688

I fucking hate it when people compare internet or computing to the human brain. It's the typical chain mail bullshit that everyone likes to fantasize about. But really, no one fucking knows how the brain works, on what basis are they making this comparison?

Want to know one popular interpretation that has been most accepted in my neuro classes? Combinatorial pairing of synapses. Each synapse between neurons can hold information, and the pairing pattern AND strength AND duration AND type represent different information. There are like 50k synapses per neuron, with combinatorial pairing you know how many 'bits' of information that is? 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

I forget the exact number of 0's but it filled a fucking page.

>> No.3062694
File: 18 KB, 360x270, 1303076900030.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3062694

>>3062666
>computing power won't increase
>technology is declining
>the end of peak oil is a bad thing

>> No.3062697
File: 24 KB, 255x310, 1302817497794.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3062697

>>3062666

>666

>> No.3062706

>>3062677
what about aircraft? there's no way it could run on nuclear power. also, plastics. how to make them without oil?

>> No.3062719

>>3062688
Here's the thing. Anyone who tries to spark "intelligent conversation" on facebook is an aspie.

It's similar to how you wouldn't competitively play soccer against a toddler.

>> No.3062727

>>3062719
fucking this i hate these guys

>> No.3062734

>>3062706
>aircraft
>can't run on nuclear power
Stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.

>> No.3062749

>>3062706
>plastics. how to make them without oil?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=turning-bacteria-into-plastic-factories-replacing-f
ossil-fuels

Links? On your /sci/?

It's happening. Deal with it.

>> No.3062753

>>3062697
the electrons of fate have voiced their assent of my prediction.

>> No.3062767

as alan partridge would say: "scum, sub-human scum".

>> No.3062775

>>3062749
>It's happening. Deal with it.
That's very old news. There's no mention of its current progress. The project was likely a failure, just like the Bloom box.

>> No.3062780

>>3062734
getting severe radiation poisoning doesn't count

>> No.3062795

>>3062780
>>>/b/

Because I don't even know where to start correcting you.

>> No.3062805

>>3062775

6 months ago recent enough for you?

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jbb/2011/636170/

>> No.3062809

>>3062795
>>>/x/
claiming a highly-technological future is akin claiming that aliens have visited Earth

>> No.3062827

>>3062775
It was a three year old article. Do you expect old articles to have a little box which keeps track of ongoing research, which is automatically updated? Because, y'know if you're so eager for such a thing you should get off your arse and make it yourself.

http://www.biopolymersummit.com/Home.aspx

Is 2011 recent enough for you?

>> No.3062828

>>3062805
there's nothing in there about oil or plastic.

>> No.3062846

>>3062809
Do you even know how nuclear power works? Do you know what nuclear power is?

To be powered by nuclear energy does NOT mean spewing radioactive material into the air.

>> No.3062852

>>3062827
a quick search on google reveals that not many reputable sites are linking to biopolymersummit.com. it's probably just another meeting to attract gullible investors.

>> No.3062868

>>3062846
do you even know about the radiation poisoning that the people on board the aircraft would get? just read the wiki article.

>> No.3062899

>>3062868
>wiki article

>>3062883
Yo, let's just leave this fag alone. We've wasted enough time here.

>> No.3062902

>>3062846
Do you even know how radiation works?...

>Gamma Radiation

notsureiftrollingorjustverystupid.jpg

>> No.3062904

>>3062706
There are several ways an aircraft could rely on nuclear power, both directly and indirectly. It is possible to create aircraft whose power is generated entirely by a nuclear reactor, but this presents problems in that the reactor must be properly shielded, weighs plenty, and is an inherently dangerous object to have in the air, given the contamination that would result in the event of a crash.

On the other hand, aircraft can rely on nuclear power indirectly, by using fuels created with electricity provided by a nuclear reactor. Depending on circumstances, this may be the better way to go, though it is inefficient compared to direct power.

>> No.3062919

>>3062852

Maybe it is just a money-making exercise, in which case good on the scientists getting money out of fucking economists and investors. Meanwhile I'll be leaving this here

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%291097-0282/issues

>> No.3062929

>>3062828

You need to go back to school, Anon.

Butanediol, is a precursor to a huge number of synthetic materials, which, by the way, includes a good number of plastics.

>> No.3062936
File: 14 KB, 211x202, 1302716917562.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3062936

But what happens after peak uranium you nuclear power fanboy faggots

>> No.3062949

>>3062936
Uranium is not the only material that can be used to generate power in a nuclear reactor. Also, I remind you that nuclear power includes fusion power. Hopefully, fusion power generation will become practical long before peak uranium.

>> No.3062954

>>3062936
Fusion, I guess?

Don't ask me what happens after peak deuterium and tritium.

>> No.3062957

>>3062936
fusion

inb4 peak deuterium

>> No.3062959

>>3062949
wat

>> No.3062973

>>3062959
Could you pose a more specific question?

>> No.3062979
File: 8 KB, 240x218, 1274671632785.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3062979

Why does /sci/ have such a hard on for nuclear/fission power.

/sci/ is to neck beard to realize renewable energy is the only option for Earth. Enough equivalent power from the sun to power the entire US for a year reaches earth every second.

Nuclear is to dangerous

>> No.3062987

naw niggas.

We all know dark matter will be the future of energy.

>> No.3062993

>>3062979
that's hippy talk

>> No.3062995

>>3062979
Renewables generally have a problem providing baseload power, since they rely more on environmental factors. Nuclear power, in contrast, is inherently reliable as far as output goes, but that output tends to be difficult to change in short order. Thus, the ideal power generation infrastructure combines nuclear and renewables.

Fusion, as well, is clean. Nuclear power is dangerous when handled incorrectly, like many other things. Fission just happens to have things like potential radioactive contamination and an ignorant, poorly-informed public going for it.

>> No.3063000
File: 28 KB, 500x432, 1261166233073.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3063000

>>3062979
>/sci/ is to neck beard to realize renewable energy is the only option for Earth
>renewable

>> No.3063004
File: 40 KB, 560x432, haha_oh_wow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3063004

>>3062979
>Nuclear is to dangerous

>> No.3063015

Solar energy is the most viable option.

however it will never have the financial returns.

>> No.3063019

>>3062987
dark matter. what.

>> No.3063022
File: 41 KB, 366x367, 1261730705990.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3063022

>>3063015

>> No.3063035
File: 890 KB, 5000x4068, Trollface.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3063035

>>3062987
>dark matter

>> No.3063064
File: 87 KB, 200x200, 1304908575045.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3063064

>>3062979

Nuclear power (LFTR) is safe and should be put in to use right away.

You're right about the increadible amount of energy the sun has to offer us but the technology simply isn't ready in many ways. Either solar panels will have to be assembled and operated in space with the power being transmitted back to Earth or battery technology will have to follow the increase in cell efficiency so as to allow people to reliably and efficiently store massive amounts of power when the sun isn't available or when sun light is reduced, ie night time, storms, etc.

One of these things will happen (or something else we can't predict). You're right that solar power is the eventual future BUT nuclear power (most likely thorium) IS the immediate future. DEAL WITH IT.

>> No.3063084

1. About OP pic, the "we don't know what the brain is" crap is 19century crap.
Deal with it.
We can fully recreate a human with enough computational power.
If you object that then you should read biology, physics, computer science or you should take your 'soul' and gtfo.

2. About energy, we have tons and tons of ways getting energy if we actually implement them, which its hard because the big companies want to earn their buck.

Also about renewable energy, someone called him a hippie for believing renewable energy is the way to go..
It is the actual reality, renewable energies are easier and less dangerous than nuclear energy.
If you object that google the shit out it to learn about our renewable options.

The facebook conversation was more intelligent than yours itt.

>> No.3063095

>>3063084
>We can fully recreate a human with enough computational power.

Probably, but we can't yet build a full simulation of the human brain.

>> No.3063102

>>3062987

LOL, you mean anti-matter?

>> No.3063107

>>3063084
wow, sir, you seem to know a lot. luckily, only seem to.

search for: chinese room.

just because a computer can calculate something very fast OR even learn new things (in categories known to it, since it can NEVER learn a new concept).

imagine a robot capable of recognizing things. it knows a square box, it knows a ball, it knows a cylinder. but will it EVER learn that some boxes can be chests and can be opened? no matter how long the time will the machine have to think about it, for it opening the box will be the same as throwing acid on it

it will NEVER learn a new concept by itself.

neuman argued, if we wanted machines to resemble human brains, the machines would have to ERR

e.g. ask the human brain what colour is that wall?
80% of brain cells say red, 15 say blue, 5 say its TALL

>> No.3063109

>>3063084

Forget about google. Pick up some textbooks and get your information at source. Learn the science. Realize that renewable technologies are simply not where they need to be. Be exposed to the intangible complexity of the brain. See the error of your stupid ways. Repent.

>> No.3063114

>>3063064

Nuclear power is safe? I don't know about you, but Uranium 238 is radioactive for about 500 billion years. That shit isn't safe.

>> No.3063144

>>3063114
U-238 is primarily an alpha emitter. A sheet of paper would be sufficient to stop the majority of the radiation it emits. As long as you don't inhale or ingest it, it is not very dangerous at all.

You may not be aware of this, but the longer the half-life, the less radiation the substance outputs. The shorter the half-life, the faster the substance decays, and the more radiation you get in a given time period. Materials with half-lives approaching four and a half billion years, like U-238, are fairly safe.

>> No.3063173

>implying laptops will even be used in 50 years

I'm talking personal computers the size of a watch that project their screen and keypad.

Everyone will have one, they will be very useful. Serving as phones, portable T.V.s, computers, radios, gaming system, etc.

>> No.3063183

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,"

steven hawking

>> No.3063225

>>3063107
You've obviously never seen Watson on Jeopardy

>> No.3063237

>>3063225
Watson is a database with a particularly interesting search function.

>> No.3063253

>>3063237
A significant component, no?

It also satisfies
>neuman argued, if we wanted machines to resemble human brains, the machines would have to ERR
>e.g. ask the human brain what colour is that wall?
80% of brain cells say red, 15 say blue, 5 say its TALL

entirely.

>> No.3063255

>>3063183
hawking is a retard.

>> No.3063261

>>3063253
Indeed. It is able to replicate one of the abilities of the human brain quite well, though it requires quite a bit of resources to do so.

>> No.3063286

no one has mentioned the end of moore's law within a decade?

let's hope quantum computers have advanced enough by then

>> No.3063340

>>3063255
He's my uncle.

Don't disrespect him like that.