petrossa Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 A few centuries ago, laser was sci-fi. :) Question is, since its inherently impossible for a 2 dimensional person to capture the nature of the 3rd dimension other than by speculation won't it be impossible for a regulating neural network to capture the exact working of itself? Gets a bit Heisenberg here, the observer watches itself observing and in doing so enters in a M?bius strip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamminium Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 Question is, since its inherently impossible for a 2 dimensional person to capture the nature of the 3rd dimension other than by speculation won't it be impossible for a regulating neural network to capture the exact working of itself?Gets a bit Heisenberg here, the observer watches itself observing and in doing so enters in a M?bius strip. It is optimism that drives the field forward. No problem can be solved if the solver thinks it's impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrossa Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 It is optimism that drives the field forward. No problem can be solved if the solver thinks it's impossible. :laugh: ?Let me translate to layman's terms: In creating a problem we must look for a solution and keep ourselves in business. Because in the end, imagine you find the question that goes with the answer 42, what will that bring you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamminium Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 :laugh: ?Let me translate to layman's terms: In creating a problem we must look for a solution and keep ourselves in business. Because in the end, imagine you find the question that goes with the answer 42, what will that bring you? The answer. (If the problem desires a number, then 42 is a nice answer) You conveniently forgot how science was born: the search for knowledge. 50 years ago, no one thought of using recombinant viruses to treat diseases. Now it is a reality. No one hopes to solve all the riddles within a few generations' time but with each step, the picture becomes clearer. We have all the luxury today thanks to that sentiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrossa Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 The answer. (If the problem desires a number, then 42 is a nice answer)You conveniently forgot how science was born: the search for knowledge. 50 years ago, no one thought of using recombinant viruses to treat diseases. Now it is a reality. No one hopes to solve all the riddles within a few generations' time but with each step, the picture becomes clearer. We have all the luxury today thanks to that sentiment. Sure, i love my luxury. I'll fight to the death to keep my computer online. I'm inquisitive also and love to solve problems. It's a better pastime than watching tv imo. Still one?shouldn't exaggerate its importance. Because in the end it leads exactly nowhere, entropy rules. Looking at the true benefits then, as in does it help us as a species survive better, one can but doubt that. 100.000 years and ready to extinct ourselves. An amoeba does better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamminium Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 Sure, i love my luxury. I'll fight to the death to keep my computer online. I'm inquisitive also and love to solve problems. It's a better pastime than watching tv imo. Still one?shouldn't exaggerate its importance. Because in the end it leads exactly nowhere, entropy rules.Looking at the true benefits then, as in does it help us as a species survive better, one can but doubt that. 100.000 years and ready to extinct ourselves. An amoeba does better. You're confusing science with politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrossa Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 You're confusing science with politics. Not at all. Advances in medical science cause people to live longer, reduce infant mortality at a greater rate than it can advance the science for feeding them. The root cause of present day problems is science in all forms and shapes; Bad science, like climate blabla? Good science, like nukes Medical science, filling retirement homes with bewildered wrecks barely resembling anything human The list is long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamminium Posted December 9, 2009 Author Share Posted December 9, 2009 Not at all. Advances in medical science cause people to live longer, reduce infant mortality at a greater rate than it can advance the science for feeding them.The root cause of present day problems is science in all forms and shapes; Bad science, like climate blabla? Good science, like nukes Medical science, filling retirement homes with bewildered wrecks barely resembling anything human The list is long. Science is science. How science is used is politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts