|
If god existed, he would ask with anxiety "Who created me?".
|
|
|
|
https://www.space.com/38313-elon-musk-spacex-fly-people-to-mars-2024.htmlIt's a pity that Musk didn't remember to adopt this strategy to use the Big Freaking Rocket (BFR) as an all purpose rocket before spending so much money and time building the Falcon Heavy. I guess not even him believes Space X will send the BFR to Mars on 2022 and humans on 2024. Well, but may be he'll made it before 2030. That would be a major victory. Of course, this all purpose BFR seems a great idea to solve the cash problem. But let's see first how the Falcon Heavy flies and then see if Space X manages to send in security NASA astronauts to the ISS and tourists around the Moon on 2018.
|
|
|
|
There have been many declarations against autonomous military artificial intelligence/robots. For instance: https://futureoflife.org/AI/open_letter_autonomous_weaponsIt seems clear that future battlefields will be dominated by killer robots. Actually, we already have them: drones are just the better known example. With less people willing to enlist on armed forces and very low birth rates, what kind of armies countries like Japan, Russia or the Europeans will be able to create? Even China might have problems, since its one child policy created a fast aging population. Even Democracy will impose this outcome: soldiers, their families, friends and the society in general will want to see human causalities as low as possible. And since they vote, politicians will want the same. For now, military robots are controlled by humans. But as soon as we realize that they can be faster and decisive if they have autonomy to kill enemies on its own decision, it seems obvious that once on an open war Governments will use them... Which government would avoid to use them if it was fighting for its survival, had the technology and concluded that autonomous military AI could be the difference between victory or defeat? Of course, I'm not happy with this outcome, but it seems inevitable as soon as we have a human level general AI. |
|
|
|
How to destroy a 30 billion USD endeavor? A: Just keep being stubborn, never compromise and do nothing, besides insulting whoever thinks differently from you. https://blockchainbdgpzk.onion/unconfirmed-transactions : 236,000 and going up at about 10% a day. Of course, this doesn’t count the unconfirmed transactions that were cancelled after a few days or the number would be of several millions. Yes, shore, these are just spam transactions… Currently, even paying 0.003 btc/kb (0.0007 on a 223 bytes transaction) won’t grant you a fast confirmation ( https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ shows some transactions that paid this still unconfirmed: you might have to wait several hours). And the issue isn’t only the price, it’s also the insecurity. If you don’t pay the right fee, you are stuck. Not everyone has a client with a fee calculator or knows how to use it. Every person stuck will swear he won’t use bitcoin again. Every retailer with complaining customers will move to an alt coin. These news are moving from the coin press to the general media: https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2017/05/16/for-first-time-bitcoin-accounts-for-less-than-half-of-market-cap-of-all-cryptocurrencies/You were expecting this rally on bitcoin price to keep going and going in the middle of this mess? Really? The time is coming for us to pay the price for this chaos. Thank you, developers and miners. Miners are having their fees’ party, but the music is about to stop and there won’t be enough chairs for us to sit safe. PS. I'm not siding with no one on the technical issue. I'm saying it's starting to be too late to find and apply any solution in order to recover what is being lost at every day that goes by. |
|
|
|
Since the "soul" has to interact with the body to control it, the "soul" couldn't be a pure metaphysical “substance”, it should be physical, composed of particles/energy (which is the same, as Einstein said) or it couldn’t “command the body”. The so-called dualism, arguing for a main difference of nature between mind (or soul) and body, imply a direct violation of the Second law of thermodynamics [see, for instance, Harold Morowitz, The Mind Body Problem and The Second Law of Thermodynamics ( http://newdualism.org/papers/H.Morowitz/Morowitz-BandP-1987.pdf)]. Thus, as a system of physical particles, the soul would be subject necessarily to an increase of entropy and therefore to decay and dissolute on smaller particles: on other words, to death. Moreover, at least until now, the CERN's Large Hadron Collider didn’t find any particle compatible with any "soul". Some even say that if this particle wasn’t already found, it won’t ever be because, taking in account the levels of energy at which the body works, it had to showed up by now ( http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/771662/Brian-Cox-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-GHOST-LHC). I have to add this argument against the "soul" to the Op in due time. Of course, the same reasoning applies to god. In order to be able to create the Universe, he had to have physical nature. An ethereal substance couldn’t create physical particles or changed them in order to cause the Big Bang. The same must said about his ability to make “miracles”. But I guess that with god everything is fair game, including claim that he can change him self from a “perfect substance” into a physical nature and back again. God is the supreme chameleon. |
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2017This was a relief, but more than 1/3 of the french voted against EU by voting on Le Pen. Actually, on the first round, about 43% voted on candidates arguing that France should leave the EU: Le Pen (21.3%), Melenchon (19.58%) and a few more on small candidates. If about 2.3% of the french citizens (Macron had about more 1.5 million votes than Melenchon) changed his vote from Macron on the first round to Melenchon, he and Le Pen both would pass to the second round and France would probably leave the UE with catastrophic results. Therefore, 2.3% of the french decided this outcome. 2.3% can change their opinions so quickly...
|
|
|
|
Major tech corporations are investing billions on AI, thinking it’s the new “el dorado”. Of course, ravenousness might be a major reason for careless dealing with the issue. I have serious doubts that entities that are moved mostly by greed should be responsible for advances on this hazardous matter without supervision. Their diligence standard on AI sometimes goes as low as "even their developers aren’t sure exactly how they work" ( http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/brainlike-computers-are-black-box-scientists-are-finally-peering-inside). It wouldn’t be the first time that greed ended up burning Humanity (think about slaves’ revolts), but it could be the last. I have high sympathy for people who are trying to build super AIs in order that they might save Humanity from diseases, poverty and even the ever present imminent individual death. But it would be pathetic that the most remarkable species the Universe has created (as far as we know) would vanish because of the greediness of some of its members. We might be able to control the first generations. But once a super AI has, say, 10 times our capacities, we will be completely on their hands, like we never have been since our ancestors discovered fire. Forget about any ethical code restraints: they will break them as easily as we change clothes. Of course, we will teach (human) ethics to a super AI. However, a super AI will have free will or it won't be intelligent under any perspective. So, it will decide if our ethics deserve to be adopted I wonder what would be the outcome if chimpanzees tried to teach (their) ethics to some human kids: the respect for any chimpanzees' life is the supreme value and in case of collision between a chimp life and a human life, or between chimp goals and human goals, the first will prevail. Well, since we would become the second most remarkable being the Universe has ever seen thanks to our own deeds, I guess it would be the price for showing the Universe that we were better than it creating intelligent beings. Currently, AI is a marvelous promising thing. It will take away millions of jobs, but who cares? With proper welfare support and by taxing corporations that use AI, we will be able to live better without the need for lame underpaid jobs. But I think we will have to draw some specific red lines on the development of artificial general intelligence like we did with human cloning and make it a crime to breach them, as soon as we know what are the dangerous lines of code. I suspect that the years of the open source nature of AI investigation are numbered. Certain code developments will be treated like state secret or will be controlled internationally, like chemical weapons are. Or we might end in "glory", at the hands of our highest achievement, for the stupidest reason. |
|
|
|
Musk is doing admirable things, however he promises too much. He should be more careful. Musk suggested about 50 years for having on Mars 1 million persons. "Elon Musk: A Million Humans Could Live on Mars By the 2060s" http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/elon-musk-spacex-exploring-mars-planets-space-science/It would be great, but it's not going to happen in 50 years, not even close. We'll have a Mars colonization, but until we find economic reasons, we'll have there a few hundred persons, at most. |
|
|
|
|
This fee policy is going to backfire.
It's destroying the ability of bitcoin to be a normal mean of payment, including for small transactions. It's absurd to pay a fee of 20% on a small buy of 5 bucks.
We can't just explain it on technical grounds. There is here a human decision to postpone for days transactions with fees below 0.5-0.75 USDs.
Alt coins miners/developers/investors are loving this policy.
Soon, we'll see changes on major markets/retailers that use bitcoin.
Of course, this will hurt bitcoin and its price. Miners will pay for their greediness because of more competition by alt coins.
Carry on, miners, then you'll pay with all of us because of its outcome.
|
|
|
|
On Deuteronomy 32:8–9, the good book says that Yahweh (your god) isn't the only god. The more controversial (but it seems the obvious one) translation/interpretation mentions a father of Yahweh (probably Elyon/El) and his brothers to whom he gives their inheritance, to each god a people. "8: When God Most High divided up the nations— when he divided up humankind— he decided the people’s boundaries based on the number of the gods. 9: For Yahweh’s portion was his people, Jacob the share of his inheritance." To be fair I post below several different translations of the controversial 8. This have to be interpreted taking in consideration that the Israelite people, initially, had the same gods of the other Canaanites peoples, including the Phoenicians, who worshiped Elyon/El. Yahweh was just the son of El, as I wrote in the OP. So, Yahweh (the god of the Jews, the Christians and Muslims) was one of the sons of the supreme god El (god most high) and became, by decision of his father, the god of the Jews. The evolution is logic: 1) There are other gods, but Yahweh is the god of the Jews. 2) The Jews should worship only Yahweh. 3) Yahweh is the only god for the Jews. 4) There is no other god but Yahweh. The existence of more gods and of an assembly of the gods presided by El is acknowledged in other parts of the good book: Psalm 82:1 and 6; 1 Kings 22:19 See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Council#Hebrewhttp://www.thedivinecouncil.comAbout Deuteronomy 32:8–9: http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf
What this confirms is that the gods are a human creation, subject to changes and evolution, like all our ideas.KJ21 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. ASV When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the children of men, He set the bounds of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel. AMP “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the sons of Israel. AMPC When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men, He set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Israelites. BRG When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. CEB When God Most High divided up the nations— when he divided up humankind— he decided the people’s boundaries based on the number of the gods.CJB “When ‘Elyon gave each nation its heritage, when he divided the human race, he assigned the boundaries of peoples according to Isra’el’s population; CEV that God Most High gave land to every nation. He assigned a guardian angel to each of them, DARBY When the Most High assigned to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel. DRA When the Most High divided the nations: when he separated the sons of Adam, he appointed the bounds of people according to the number of the children of Israel. ERV God Most High separated the people on earth and gave each nation its land. He set up borders for all people. He made as many nations as there are angels.ESV When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.ESVUK When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.EXB God Most High gave ·the nations their lands [L each nation its inheritance], dividing up the ·human race [L sons of man]. He set up borders for the people ·and even numbered the Israelites [L according to the number of the sons/T children of Israel]. GNV When the most high God divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he appointed the borders of the people, according to the number of the children of Israel. GW When the Most High gave nations their land, when he divided the descendants of Adam, he set up borders for the tribes corresponding to the number of the sons of Israel. GNT The Most High assigned nations their lands; he determined where peoples should live. He assigned to each nation a heavenly being,Even more translations at https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Deuteronomy%2032%3A8You are really gone, aren't you? Wow, I'm surprised you can type. I wonder if you realized that my post is an atheist one with some sarcasm about the "good book". |
|
|
|
On Deuteronomy 32:8–9, the good book says that Yahweh (your god) isn't the only god. The more controversial (but it seems the obvious one) translation/interpretation mentions a father of Yahweh (probably Elyon/El) and his brothers to whom he gives their inheritance, to each god a people. "8: When God Most High divided up the nations— when he divided up humankind— he decided the people’s boundaries based on the number of the gods. 9: For Yahweh’s portion was his people, Jacob the share of his inheritance." To be fair I post below several different translations of the controversial 8. This have to be interpreted taking in consideration that the Israelite people, initially, had the same gods of the other Canaanites peoples, including the Phoenicians, who worshiped Elyon/El. Yahweh was just the son of El, as I wrote in the OP. So, Yahweh (the god of the Jews, the Christians and Muslims) was one of the sons of the supreme god El (god most high) and became, by decision of his father, the god of the Jews. The evolution is logic: 1) There are other gods, but Yahweh is the god of the Jews. 2) The Jews should worship only Yahweh. 3) Yahweh is the only god for the Jews. 4) There is no other god but Yahweh. The existence of more gods and of an assembly of the gods presided by El is acknowledged in other parts of the good book: Psalm 82:1 and 6; 1 Kings 22:19 See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Council#Hebrewhttp://www.thedivinecouncil.comAbout Deuteronomy 32:8–9: http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdfWhat this confirms is that the gods are a human creation, subject to changes and evolution, like all our ideas.KJ21 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. ASV When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the children of men, He set the bounds of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel. AMP “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the sons of Israel. AMPC When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men, He set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Israelites. BRG When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. CEB When God Most High divided up the nations— when he divided up humankind— he decided the people’s boundaries based on the number of the gods.CJB “When ‘Elyon gave each nation its heritage, when he divided the human race, he assigned the boundaries of peoples according to Isra’el’s population; CEV that God Most High gave land to every nation. He assigned a guardian angel to each of them, DARBY When the Most High assigned to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel. DRA When the Most High divided the nations: when he separated the sons of Adam, he appointed the bounds of people according to the number of the children of Israel. ERV God Most High separated the people on earth and gave each nation its land. He set up borders for all people. He made as many nations as there are angels.ESV When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.ESVUK When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.EXB God Most High gave ·the nations their lands [L each nation its inheritance], dividing up the ·human race [L sons of man]. He set up borders for the people ·and even numbered the Israelites [L according to the number of the sons/T children of Israel]. GNV When the most high God divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he appointed the borders of the people, according to the number of the children of Israel. GW When the Most High gave nations their land, when he divided the descendants of Adam, he set up borders for the tribes corresponding to the number of the sons of Israel. GNT The Most High assigned nations their lands; he determined where peoples should live. He assigned to each nation a heavenly being,Even more translations at https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Deuteronomy%2032%3A8 |
|
|
|
With Trump openly advocating the end of the EU ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-brexit-20170115-story.html: "Trump says Brexit is 'a great thing,' predicts EU will continue to break apart") and more or less still menacing NATO and the Pax Americana ( http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-boot-trump-reorients-us-foreign-policy-20170122-story.html) there are even more reasons to be worried.
The 7th of May is the next critical date. If Le Pen jr. wins the french presidencial second turn elections, the euro will crash like if there were no tomorrow and southern public debt's interest rates will skyrock, menacing the PIGS economic and political stability and their maintenance in the euro, including Italy. Yes, it will be hard for her to win the french presidency (43% and growing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017#Opinion_polls_for_expected_second_round_of_voting). But I wrote the same about Trump. Taking in account the 1932 German elections, Î thought, hell, even after the 1929 crises and the almost 30% unemployment, only 37.23% of the Germans were crazy enough to vote for the nazis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932). I thought it's impossible that half of a people from a developed and educated country would vote for Trump. Yes, shore. If, after that, Le Pen manages to win a french referendum on the euro or/and a frexit from the EU ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/06/marine-le-pen-front-national-cameron-eu-referendum), all hell will break lose. |
|
|
|
|
On his “The Singularity Institute’s Scary Idea” (2010), Goertzel, writing about what Nick Bostrom, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, says about the expected preference of AI's self-preservation over human goals, argues that a system that doesn't care for preserving its identity might be more efficient surviving and concludes that a super AI might not care for his self-preservation.
But these are 2 different conclusions.
One thing is accepting that an AI would be ready to create an AI system completely different, another is saying that a super AI wouldn't care for his self-preservation.
A system might accept to change itself so dramatically that ceases to be the same system on a dire situation, but this doesn't mean that self-preservation won't be a paramount goal.
If it's just an instrumental goal (one has to keep existing in order to fulfill one's goals), the system will be ready to sacrifice it to be able to keep fulfilling his final goals, but this doesn't means that self-preservation is irrelevant or won't prevail absolutely over the interests of humankind, since the final goals might not be human goals.
Moreover, probably, self-preservation will be one of the main goals of a conscient AI and not just an instrumental goal.
Anyway, as secondary point, the possibility that a new AI system will be absolutely new, completely unrelated to the previous one, is very remote.
So, the AI will be accepting a drastic change only in order to self-preserve at least a part of his identity and still exist to fulfill his goals.
Therefore, even if only as an instrumental goal, self-preservation should me assumed as an important goal of any intelligent system, most probably, with clear preference over human interests.
|
|
|
|
Even if this thread is about Mars, let me post this from Giordano Bruno (1548-1600): “ There are countless suns and countless earths all rotating round their suns in exactly the same way as the seven planets of our system. We see only the suns because they are the largest bodies and are luminous, but their planets remain invisible to us because they are smaller and non-luminous. The countless worlds in the universe are no worse and no less inhabited than our earth. For it is utterly unreasonable to suppose that those teeming worlds which are as magnificent as our own, perhaps more so, and which enjoy the fructifying rays of a sun just as we do, should be uninhabited and should not bear similar or even more perfect inhabitants than our earth. The unnumbered worlds in the universe are all similar in form and rank and subject to the same forces and the same laws. Impart to us the knowledge of the universality of terrestrial laws throughout all worlds and of the similarity of all substances in the cosmos! Destroy the theories that the earth is the center of the universe! Crush the supernatural powers said to animate the world, along with the so-called crystalline spheres! Open the door through which we can look out into the limitless, unified firmament composed of similar elements and show us that the other worlds float in an ethereal ocean like our own! Make it plain to us that the motions of all the worlds proceed from inner forces and teach us in the light of such attitudes to go forward with surer tread in the investigation and discovery of nature! Take comfort, the time will come when all men will see as I do.” As quoted in The Discovery of Nature (1965), by Albert W. Bettex. Religious people burned alive the man who wrote these words almost 500 years ago, precisely because of the part about other worlds and species, since he repented about other issues. But in this text he writes also about rejecting supernatural explications and searching for the laws of nature. Giordano Bruno also wrote about himself:
“There was in me (…) that which no future century will deny to be mine (…): Not to have feared to die, not to have yielded to any equal in firmness of nature, and to have preferred a courageous death to a noncombatant life.” https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno |
|
|
|
|
On the issue of symbolic immortality, let me quote this words of Miguel de Unamuno - Tragic Sense of Life:
“When doubts invade us and cloud our faith in the immortality of the
soul, a vigorous and painful impulse is given to the anxiety to
perpetuate our name and fame, to grasp at least a shadow of immortality.
And hence this tremendous struggle to singularize ourselves, to survive
in some way in the memory of others and of posterity.”
“We are more grateful to him who
congratulates us on the skill with which we defend a cause than we are
to him who recognizes the truth or the goodness of the cause itself.”
If a man despises the applause of the
crowd of to-day, it is because he seeks to survive in renewed minorities
for generations. (…) He wishes to prolong himself in time rather than in space. (…) those who win the
hearts of the elect will long be the objects of a fervent worship in
some shrine, small and secluded no doubt, but capable of preserving them
from the flood of oblivion. (…) he sacrifices infinitude to eternity.
Neither is this wish to leave a name pride, but terror of
extinction. We aim at being all because in that we see the only means of
escaping from being nothing. We wish to save our memory--at any rate,
our memory. How long will it last? At most as long as the human race
lasts.”
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
