Total War Center Forums  

Go Back   Total War Center Forums > Games, Activities, and Chat > Thema Devia
Register FAQ Rules Chat TWC Wiki Downloads Arcade Members List Calendar

Thema Devia Off-topic area. Here you are allowed to talk about anything. No spam, porn or warez.

Reply
Thread Tools
leeho730
Old November 23, 2005, 12:27 AM   #81

leeho730's Avatar
Landgrave

Posts: 1,529
+++++
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowan11088
Well I think I've been pretty well redeemed here, despite leeho's insult to my intelligence, and claim that I'm a "one-issue nutter", whatever that's supposed to mean (and I'd be curious to know what on earth that "one issue" is that has been present in all my posts on innumerable topics on this forum). As I already stated, the human brain has the 'hardware' to be faster than the most powerful supercomputer of today (though it's not far behind by now at all). That does not mean we can do arithmetic faster than computers, because we're wired to do far more complex and important things, leaving much less of the brain available for pure computation. Just being able to do calculations does not make one person more intelligent than another, nor a computer. If the slower calculator came up with a more intriguing and profound philosophical concept, I'd be tempted to say he was the smarter specimen.
The key is... to acknowledge the fact that human brain is nothing but an organic computing device. Specific chemicals and receptors are responsible for various activities including emotion, memory and reasoning. For example, it is possible to control one's emotion by the use of drugs (Prozac or other anti-depressant). More research will enable humans to understand the brain more so that these functions can be emulated by the computer programme.

René Descartes in 17th century proposed that bodies of animals are nothing more than complex machines. This is remarkably true, and it also applies to humans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia.org
Computer-assisted proofs are the subject of much controversy in the mathematical world. Some mathematicians believe that lengthy computer-assisted proofs are not, in some sense, real mathematical proofs because they involve so many logical steps that they are not practically verifiable by human beings, and that mathematicians are effectively being asked to put their trust in computer programming.

The reverse question can also be raised; if computers cannot be trusted to carry out lengthy calculations, since human beings are by no means infallible, why do some mathematicans place greater trust in lengthy human reasoning compared to similarly lengthy machine computation?

Other mathematicians believe that lengthy computer-assisted proofs are no more or less valid than any other type of proof, and that the problem of human verifiability can be addressed by proving the proof program itself valid. They reply to their opponents' arguments that computer-assisted proofs are subject to errors in their source programs, compilers, and hardware, can be resolved by multiple replications of the result using different programming languages, different compilers, and different computer hardware.

Another possible way of verifying computer-aided proofs is to generate their reasoning steps in a machine-readable form, and then using an automated theorem prover to demonstrate their correctness. Understandably, the approach of using computer programs to prove other computer programs correct does not appeal to computer proof skeptics, who simply see it as adding another layer of complication without addressing the fundamental issue of the need for human understanding.

Another argument against computer-aided proofs is that they lack mathematical elegance: however, this is an argument that is not restricted to computer proofs, but can also be advanced against any lengthy proof by exhaustion. A similar argument against computer-aided proofs and proofs-by-exhaustion is they provide no insights or new and useful concepts.

A more interesting philosophical issue raised by computer-aided proofs is whether they make mathematics into an experimental science, where the scientific method becomes more important than the application of pure reason on a Platonic realm of mathematical concepts. This directly relates to the argument within mathematics as to whether mathematics is based on ideas, or "merely" an exercise in formal symbol-manipulation. It also raises the question whether, if according the Platonist view, all possible mathematical objects in some sense "already exist", whether computer-aided mathematics is an observational science like astronomy, rather than an experimental one like physics or chemistry. Interestingly, this controvery within mathematics is occurring at the same time as questions are being asked in the physics community about whether twenty-first century theoretical physics is becoming too mathematical, and leaving behind its experimental roots.

As of 2005, there is an emerging field of experimental mathematics that is confronting this debate head-on by focusing on numerical experiments as its main tool for mathematical exploration.
Of course, computers can carry out more complex mathematical works than arithmetics, and computer-assisted proofs are as good as humans in some cases.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia.org
1990s and beyond
1990's: Major advances in all areas of AI, with significant demonstrations in machine learning, intelligent tutoring, case-based reasoning, multi-agent planning, scheduling, uncertain reasoning, data mining, natural language understanding and translation, vision, virtual reality, games, and other topics. Rodney Brooks' MIT COG project, with numerous collaborators, makes significant progress in building a humanoid robot.

Early 90's: TD-Gammon, a backgammon program written by Gerry Tesauro, demonstrates that reinforcement (learning) is powerful enough to create a championship-level game-playing program by competing favorably with world-class players.

1997: The Deep Blue chess program (IBM) beats the world chess champion, Garry Kasparov, in a widely followed match. First official RoboCup football (soccer) match featuring table-top matches with 40 teams of interacting robots and over 5000 spectators.

Late 90's: Web crawlers and other AI-based information extraction programs become essential in widespread use of the World Wide Web. Demonstration of an Intelligent room and Emotional Agents at MIT's AI Lab. Initiation of work on the Oxygen architecture, which connects mobile and stationary computers in an adaptive network.

2000: Interactive robopets ("smart toys") become commercially available, realizing the vision of the 18th century novelty toy makers. Cynthia Breazeal at MIT publishes her dissertation on Sociable machines, describing Kismet (robot), with a face that expresses emotions. The Nomad robot explores remote regions of Antarctica looking for meteorite samples.
Look at how fast AI is progressing... and there're still plenty of rooms for improvement!
leeho730 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Davy Jones
Old November 23, 2005, 01:00 AM   #82

Davy Jones's Avatar
Horsearcher

Posts: 10,959
off
Are we a virus?

(trying to get back on topic after the long off topic about human intelligence and computers )

Please, no more about computers vs human brain.

So are we a virus? Even by Mr.Smith's definition, we aren't.
Yeah we spread all over this planet and we use the Earth as a resource for everything, but are we the only living beings like that?

Lets go for the "numerous"
How about rats? Or cochroaches? or how about moss? Moss is all over the world along with grass and they quite numerous. If we wouldn't be around, there would be grass , moss, plans, trees. Same with bugs or microorganisms.

Let's go by "killing off the planet"

When we burn fossil fuel, we create carbon dioxide along with a bunch of "posiosnous" gases into the atmosphere, thus we are "killing" off the planet.

4 Billion years ago the athmosphere was made of H2O, hydrogen cyanide ,helium, ammonia , methane , sulfur, iodine, bromine, chlorine, argon etc. nasty stuff ...."poisonous".

A single vulcanic eruption is capable raising/lowering the average tempreture for a month(s), along with releasing many of those nasty gases many times in mass, compare to a city releasing over months through polluting vehicles.
Not to mention of the dust cloud covering the sun for days and vulcanic ashes and lava turning the local environment completely unhabitable. An that's all doing it without us. Or the ice age, freezing everything dead for thousands of years, or a meteor capable of sinking a continent or destroying a whole ecosystem along with 75% of all living things within minutes...depending on the size of the meteor.

This whole thing is that "we are parasites" are only looked from the human perspective. Yeah us humans may die along taking some animals/plants/living things into extinction, but it's nothing , zippo not much compare to what else will happen.
Life will go on, there will be another dominant organism or "parasite" or "virus-like" as we humans call it.

Actually global warming is the cure for us. The Earth's "natural" medicine. Oceans will rise? so what? more fish to live. Warmer? some animals die from draught, some places there will be rainforests. We're just afraid of our own little precious existence.
There natural "solutions" for being too numerous too. for example , viruses, diseases, those will keep our numbers down if we happen to over extend to much.

This whole "we are a virus of this planet" thing is made up by humans, because - as someone already mentioned it -humans are shortsighted. A self-gloryfing, thing, that makes us feel important.
Like we matter too much anyway. "we can destroy this planet" by being parasites, or take away all resources, yeah right, we are the resource ! wormfood.

If not a virus, but maybe a "bad itch?" or a better "dirt under the nail?"

This planet survived far worse things that humans have done or will do, I mean what does our 250 thousand years of human existence matter to a 4.5 billion years old planet anyway?

I'm not even gonna go into the concept of the human capability that we destroy ourself, because that would throw away the whole "are we a virus" concept, since viruses don't destroy themselves. So that makes us even worse?
Davy Jones is offline  
Send a message via MSN to Davy Jones
Reply With Quote
leeho730
Old November 23, 2005, 01:58 AM   #83

leeho730's Avatar
Landgrave

Posts: 1,529
+++++
We are parasitic because we are damaging our host without any benefit to the nature.
No organisms are more capable of causing such overall devastation of the nature than human.
And in fact we are even more stupid and short-sighted than viruses because viruses cannot harm each other?
Of course we're just afraid of our own little precious existence; otherwise we'd stop reproducing or start a nuclear war.

1. Air pollution KILLS

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia.org
Deaths
It is estimated that three million people may die of air pollution each year worldwide. 2.8 million of the 3 million mortalities may be due to indoor air pollution. 90% of the 3 million estimated deaths are in developing nations. 70,000 die each year in the U.S. (Some estimates are as low as 50,000 or as high as 100,000). Deaths from air pollution are compared to deaths from second hand smoke and chemical weapons. In the U.S, more people die from air pollution than from car accidents. They die specifically from agitated asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, lung and heart diseases, and other respiratory allergies. The EPA estimates that a proposed set of changes in diesel fuel technology (Tier 2) could result in 12,000 fewer premature mortalities, 15,000 fewer heart attacks, 6,000 fewer emergency room visits by children with asthma, and 8,900 fewer respiratory-related hospital admissions each year in the US.

The worst short-term civilian event from pollution in India was the 1984 Bhopal Disaster. Leaked industrial vapors killed more than 2,000 people outright and injured anywhere from 150,000 to 600,000 others, some 6,000 of whom would later die from their injuries. The worst single incident of air pollution to occur in the United States of America occurred in Donora, Pennsylvania in late October, 1948, when 20 people died and over 7,000 were injured. The United Kingdom suffered its worst air pollution event when the December 4th Great Smog of 1952 formed over London. In six days more than 4,000 died, and 8,000 more died within the following months. An accidental leak of anthrax spores from a biological warfare laboratory in the former USSR in 1979 near Sverdlovsk is believed to have been the cause of hundreds of civilian deaths.

Intentional air pollution in combat is called chemical warfare. Poison gas as a chemical weapon was principally used during World War I, and resulted in an estimated 91,198 deaths and 1,205,655 injuries. Various treaties have sought to ban its further use. Non-lethal chemical weapons, such as tear gas and pepper spray, are widely used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution

2. I suppose you can drink water safely from any random rivers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia.org
Consequences

Mercury in zooplankton (copepods) in the open ocean off New York and Atlantic City USA New Jersey
Oxygen depletion in the open oceanThe toxic chemicals and particles are carried out by the rivers into the ocean. In some areas of the world the influence can be traced hundred miles from the mouth, like in front of the Hudson river. As indicator filter feeding animals are used by the oceanographers, like copepods in the map of New York Bight. The highest toxin loads are not directly in front off New York but 100 km South, because it takes a few days to be incorporated in the tissue of the plankton. The Hudson water flows south along the coast due to the coriolis force. The second map shows areas of oxygen depletion, caused by chemicals using up oxygen and by heavy algae blooms, caused by too much nutrients, when the cells die, sink and decompose. Heavy fish and shellfish kills have been reported. The toxins make their way up the foodchain when small fish eat the copepods, then large fish, each step concentrating up ca. 10 times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/water_pollution

3.Name a single organism capable of producing a radioactive waste.

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

4. Erin Brockovich won a case for what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia.org
Erin Brockovich-Ellis (Broković in Serbian) (born June 22, 1960) is a woman who, despite lack of formal law school education, in 1993 was instrumental in constructing a case against the USD$30 billion Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), of California, alleging contamination of drinking water with hexavalent chromium in the southern California town of Hinkley. The case was settled in 1996 for $333 million, the largest settlement ever paid in a direct-action lawsuit in U.S. history.
5. Is there any organism capable of producing a petroleum oil and its by-products with ability to spill it into the ocean?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia.org
Safety and environmental concerns

MiRO refinery at KarlsruheOil refineries can become very large and sprawling complexes with vast numbers of pipes running throughout the facility. The refining process can cause many different chemicals to be released into the atmosphere - consequently a notable odor may accompany the presence of a refinery. Environmental groups have lobbied many governments to increase restrictions on how much material refineries can release, and many refineries have installed equipment and changed practices to lessen the environmental impact. In the United States, there is strong pressure to prevent the development of new refineries, and none have been built in the country for more than three decades. Many existing refineries have been expanded during that time however.

Environmental and safety concerns mean that oil refineries are usually located a safe distance away from major urban areas. Nevertheless, there are potentially dangerous exceptions to this rule, a particularly notable one being the Santa Cruz refinery 1 (Tenerife, Spain), which is sited in a densely-populated city center and next to the only two major evacuation routes in and out of the city.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery

6. I suppose whales can cause similar amount of damage to the environment as ships?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia.org
Ship pollution

Ships can pollute the waterways and oceans in many ways. There are spills from oil tankers, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide gases from exhaust fumes. Ships create noise pollution that disturbs natural wildlife, and water from ballast tanks can spread harmful algae.
7. I suppose mother nature can create natural mercury that can harm human? Even though fish usually contains highest level of natural form of mercury, it is non-toxic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia.org
Minamata disease is a form of mercury poisoning. Mercury attacks the central nervous system and endocrine system and adversely affects the mouth, gums, and teeth. High exposure over long periods of time will result in brain damage and ultimately death. It can pose a major health risk to the unborn fetus. Air saturated with mercury vapor at room temperature is at a concentration many times the toxic level, despite the high boiling point (the danger is increased at higher temperatures).

Through bioaccumulation, methylmercury in the environment works its way up the food chain, reaching high concentrations among populations of some species such as tuna. Mercury poisoning in humans will result from persistent consumption of tainted foodstuffs. Larger species of fish, such as tuna or swordfish, are usually of greater concern than smaller species, since the mercury accumulates up the food chain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning

8. I suppose you don't mind living in Chernobyl, and the accident was perfectly natural?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia.org
A 2005 UN report attributes 56 deaths until that point—47 accident workers and 9 children with thyroid cancer—and estimates that around 4,000 people will ultimately die from accident-related illnesses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident

9. It seems that mother nature is better off without human...

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia.org
Wildlife
In marked contrast to the human cost, the evacuation of the area surrounding the plant has created a lush and unique wildlife refuge. In the 1996 BBC Horizon documentary 'Inside Chernobyl's Sarcophagus', birds are seen flying in and out of large holes in the structure itself. It is unknown whether fallout contamination will have any long-term adverse effect on the flora and fauna of the region, as plants and animals have significantly different and varying radiologic tolerance compared with humans. However, it seems that the biodiversity around the massive radiation spill has increased due to the removal of human influence (see the first hand account of the wildlife preserve below). There are reports of mutations in some plants in the area, leading to unsubstantiated tales of a "forest of wonders" containing many strangely mutated plants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident

10. We cannot sunbathe without sunscreen cream or lotion anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia.org
Adverse effects on health
On this last point it is important to note that excessive sunlight exposure has been linked to all types of skin cancer, which are caused by the ultraviolet part of radiation contained in sunlight and sunlamps. Sunburns are mild to severe inflammation effects to the skin and can be avoided by using a proper sunscreen cream or lotion or by gradually building up melanocytes over days and weeks of increasing exposure. Another detrimental effect of UV exposure is accelerated skin aging (also called skin photodamage), which produces a rather ugly and difficult to treat cosmetic effect. The decrease in the atmosphere's ozone layer in the last decades is increasing the incidence of such health hazards and extra precautions should be taken by people who are exposed daily to strong sunlight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

Last edited by leeho730 : November 23, 2005 at 02:45 AM.
leeho730 is offline  
Reply With Quote
GodNeptune
Old November 23, 2005, 02:21 AM   #84

GodNeptune's Avatar
Freeman

Posts: 494
balance
We are like a virus in that we take alot from our host(Earth) and give little in return. No other animal consumes as many types of resources or the amount of resources that humans do. Most other animals have a constant resource base and don't search out for new types of resources. We contribute to the planet's atmosphere an unhealthy amount of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur. Our carbon contribution causes a greenhouse effect that warms the planet up and is causing glaciers to melt and coral reefs to decline. A large number of aquatic species have died out over the past 30 years because of the bleaching of coral reefs. And our sulfur and nitrogen contribution causes acid rain that is damaging to plants and water bodies. There are other living things such as rats that don't give much to the planet, but they don't cause that much harm to it either. I doubt that we could ever destroy the planet, but we certainly seem to be changing it for the worse in many respects.
GodNeptune is offline  
Reply With Quote
Spiff
Old November 23, 2005, 04:28 AM   #85

Spiff's Avatar
That's Ffips backwards

Posts: 5,559
+++++!!
!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GodNeptune
We are like a virus in that we take alot from our host(Earth) and give little in return. No other animal consumes as many types of resources or the amount of resources that humans do.
We're far beyond the capabilities of any other life form on this planet, it seems quite natural to me that we should have an effect on this planet proportional to that difference. The problem isnt people, its our disproportionate intelligence which we seem to possess by chance. As a species it seems we didnt ask to evolve this way, but id wage any other species that did would end up at the same point of being unsustainable. In this respect the harm we are doing is quite natural..

Since we dont have any other species at out level to use as comparison of what we should be doing its kinda hard to draw any conclusions. If life on this planet can survive an 85% extinction rate from meteors though, i'm not going to be so arrogant as to assume it wont survive us
Spiff is offline  
Reply With Quote
leeho730
Old November 23, 2005, 05:33 AM   #86

leeho730's Avatar
Landgrave

Posts: 1,529
+++++
May the force be with us...
leeho730 is offline  
Reply With Quote
DarkProphet
Old November 23, 2005, 05:53 PM   #87

DarkProphet's Avatar
Elector

Posts: 2,644
+++++!!
!
Strong the force in you is.


I think that there is no answer to the question.

Everything is debatable...

To some we are a virus, cancer, parasites, an annoying animal, supreme ruler of earth, or a parasitic plant, depending on your ideas, but we can may never agree.
Perhaps that is why philosophy was invented in the first place; debate, make a loose rule, and then debate over it again and again until the idea is widely accepted. But then people will break way and come up with better explanations.

Just try to keep on track please!
We shouldn't break away into AI talk, movie reviews or such.

OFF TOPIC:
I just remembered when the Jehova Witness ladies came to my house, they tried to get me to convert, but I jokingly told them that I was a satanist. They keep coming back to "save me" ever since.
DarkProphet is offline  
Reply With Quote
leeho730
Old November 23, 2005, 07:04 PM   #88

leeho730's Avatar
Landgrave

Posts: 1,529
+++++
OFF TOPIC:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkProph13
OFF TOPIC:
I just remembered when the Jehova Witness ladies came to my house, they tried to get me to convert, but I jokingly told them that I was a satanist. They keep coming back to "save me" ever since.
Watch "Black Books (a British sitcom)" episode 1...
leeho730 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Sétanta
Old November 24, 2005, 12:15 AM   #89

Sétanta's Avatar
High King

Posts: 8,534
+++++!!
!!!!!!
Agent Smith has a very good point

woot for the matrix
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be used until they try and take it away.
Staff Officer of Corporal_Hicks in the Legion of Rahl
Commanding Katrina, Crimson Scythe, drak10687 and Leonidas the Lion
Sétanta is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40 PM.


Forums powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.6 - Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.