Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:28:43 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc
wrote: On Feb 27, 10:51 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:48:53 -0500, "jamesgangnc" wrote: Skynet is total science fiction. We are as far from a self-aware electronic intelligence as an ape is from a computer. Yes - and in 1945 Arthur Clark published "Extra-Terrestrial Relays -- Can Rocket Stations Give Worldwide Radio Coverage?" which was the germ of the idea of today's communications via satellite. I might add that a lot of folks believed his idea to be fanciful at best and it wasn't until 1954 when Bell Lab's John Pierce proposed what was to become Echo and Telstar that expansion of communications into space was possible. Consider that up until the late '60s, anything above 700 Mhz was considered unusable for communications. How'd that work out? At the current rate of engineering and technical advancements in computing and processor size, is "Colossus" or Mike from "Moon is A Harsh Mistress" be far behind? It's only a matter of time. :) We don't even have the first clue about how our own self awareness works. "I think, therefore I am." - René Descartes :) All of today's computers are simply huge extensions of the first very basic logic circuits. They are completely predictable. Um...well, I guess that's why diagnostic software engineers aren't in high demand - completely predictable logic should produce complete predictable results. Right? And quantum computing isn't that far off - the mathematics is solid, it's just the engineering that's lagging behind. Wayne brought up Kasparov and Big Blue - Big Blue is relatively primitive by today's standards. Your examples are extensions of existing technology that could, and were predicted by some. Technically you could say that satellites were "predicted" during the 19th Century and even earlier, but that would be a stretch to consider what some thinkers were...well, no other way to put it, thinking. :) The technology to create self-awareness doesn't exist because we don't know what self-awareness is. Not true - self awareness is simple awareness of self - that self awareness is proof because one exists. Consciousness is another matter because it requires proof of identity. However, one has to be conscious if one is self-aware. Endless loop. The problem is not so much defining how one defines awareness or even conscioiusness, but how does one become aware or conscious. That may be a simple matter of critical mass in that the mere number of nodes may mimic neural connections. So it's entirely possible. Maybe not tomorrow or even in the next 50 years, but advances in computing, connectivity and "smart" nodes may just be the causitive effect. ~~ snip ~~ But mechanical self-awareness, that's so remote from now. Ah ha!! So you admit that it is possible. :) I agree with you mostly - in today's terms, it's not likely. Having said that, we are well on the road to Skynet whether we like it or not. As I said, it's just a matter of time. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Rules of the Road #26 | ASA | |||
Rules of the Road #24 | ASA | |||
Rules of the Road #23 | ASA | |||
Rules of the Road #25 | ASA | |||
Rules of the Road #15 | ASA |