Physical_Graffiti wrote:I've never really understood why looking through a powerful telescope shows you something that happened in the past on the viewed planet.
If a star is 1000 light years away, it would take the light 1000 years to reach Earth. So what we are actually seeing of the planet would be 1000 years old.
So to take it to an extreme, say said star imploded 500 years ago. We would still see the light from the star for 500 years, at which point we would finally see the implosion, which would have taken place 1000 years prior.
Physical_Graffiti wrote:I've never really understood why looking through a powerful telescope shows you something that happened in the past on the viewed planet.
If a star is 1000 light years away, it would take the light 1000 years to reach Earth. So what we are actually seeing of the planet would be 1000 years old.
So to take it to an extreme, say said star imploded 500 years ago. We would still see the light from the star for 500 years, at which point we would finally see the implosion, which would have taken place 1000 years prior.
One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
Very interesting
Yeah, I've been reading about the singularity a lot lately and I still think we are a long way off from creating a "thinking" machine that matches the human brain.
Yeah, I've been reading about the singularity a lot lately and I still think we are a long way off from creating a "thinking" machine that matches the human brain.[/quote]
Yeah, I've been reading about the singularity a lot lately and I still think we are a long way off from creating a "thinking" machine that matches the human brain.
Well a lot of people seem to believe that around 2040ish that humans will create computers that will basically surpass the human brain in intelligence. After that since it is a machine and not biological the skys the limit. Since they will be smarter than any human, we will not be able to predict anything anymore. Their intelligence will incease at an exponetnial rate and evolve into nothing we can imagine. At least that's part of the theory anyways.
Well a lot of people seem to believe that around 2040ish that humans will create computers that will basically surpass the human brain in intelligence. After that since it is a machine and not biological the skys the limit. Since they will be smarter than any human, we will not be able to predict anything anymore. Their intelligence will incease at an exponetnial rate and evolve into nothing we can imagine. At least that's part of the theory anyways.
Smarter in what way?
That implies the ability to reason and create; I suppose that's possible.
Well a lot of people seem to believe that around 2040ish that humans will create computers that will basically surpass the human brain in intelligence. After that since it is a machine and not biological the skys the limit. Since they will be smarter than any human, we will not be able to predict anything anymore. Their intelligence will incease at an exponetnial rate and evolve into nothing we can imagine. At least that's part of the theory anyways.
ok. so like Tron. IMO, I think it like take more than 30 years. We still don't understand a lot about our own brains.
I think the Artificial Intelligence debate is going to be a key-point in the ongoing battle between science and religion. No matter what happens, we'll learn something about consciousness, and that there is indeed "something special" about the human condition.
Well a lot of people seem to believe that around 2040ish that humans will create computers that will basically surpass the human brain in intelligence. After that since it is a machine and not biological the skys the limit. Since they will be smarter than any human, we will not be able to predict anything anymore. Their intelligence will incease at an exponetnial rate and evolve into nothing we can imagine. At least that's part of the theory anyways.
Smarter in what way?
That implies the ability to reason and create; I suppose that's possible.
The Singularity occurs as artificial intelligences surpass human beings as the smartest and most capable life forms on the Earth. Technological development is taken over by the machines, who can think, act and communicate so quickly that normal humans cannot even comprehend what is going on; thus the machines, acting in concert with those humans who have evolved into postbiological cyborgs, achieve effective world domination. The machines enter into a "runaway reaction" of self-improvement cycles, with each new generation of A.I.s appearing faster and faster. From this point onwards, technological advancement is explosive, under the control of the machines, and thus cannot be accurately predicted.
Well a lot of people seem to believe that around 2040ish that humans will create computers that will basically surpass the human brain in intelligence. After that since it is a machine and not biological the skys the limit. Since they will be smarter than any human, we will not be able to predict anything anymore. Their intelligence will incease at an exponetnial rate and evolve into nothing we can imagine. At least that's part of the theory anyways.
ok. so like Tron. IMO, I think it like take more than 30 years. We still don't understand a lot about our own brains.
bh wrote:
Well a lot of people seem to believe that around 2040ish that humans will create computers that will basically surpass the human brain in intelligence. After that since it is a machine and not biological the skys the limit. Since they will be smarter than any human, we will not be able to predict anything anymore. Their intelligence will incease at an exponetnial rate and evolve into nothing we can imagine. At least that's part of the theory anyways.
ok. so like Tron. IMO, I think it like take more than 30 years. We still don't understand a lot about our own brains.
And although we don't inderstand our own brains, that might not preclude us from developing synthetic brains.
I agree with this. Hard to know how much of our brain capacity is devoted to functions and operations that would be non-essential to a machine whose ( ) purpose is not procreation. It may certainly be possible to craete computers that are "smarter" than us. Could lack the level of consciousness which we possess, but they are two different things.
Well a lot of people seem to believe that around 2040ish that humans will create computers that will basically surpass the human brain in intelligence. After that since it is a machine and not biological the skys the limit. Since they will be smarter than any human, we will not be able to predict anything anymore. Their intelligence will incease at an exponetnial rate and evolve into nothing we can imagine. At least that's part of the theory anyways.
i thought we were simply going to tap our bodies into technology like the dude walking around with a chip in his arm so that his doors auto-open like in star trek. but far more than that we'll hook our brains up to technology and become super human computers. our brains will be hooked to the internet and we'll just access calculator apps for example to do ultra-fast calculations by just thinking/accessing. i'd rather merge with technology since it gives us that chance at exponential evolution as opposed to building technology and losing control of it. but it may be such a political issue that we lose control of it before we merge with it.
shafnutz05 wrote:I would LOVE to see a supernova in my lifetime....preferably not close enough that we get blasted with deadly radiation, but meh.
Speaking of deadly astronomical radiation, I’ve recently been reading Death from the Skies! by Philip Plait. It’s a “what if” book about all of the cosmological phenomena that—if they happen close enough, or end up pointed at us, or the like—will fry us all, destroy the Earth, etc. Plait, an astronomer, describes all the methods in what I would say is “loving detail.” For example, each chapter opens with a little teaser story to indicate the real-life effects on Earth that would result from a wandering black hole, a too-close supernova, an unfortunately aimed gamma-ray burst, etc. It’s obvious that he thinks the subject is just totally neato, and it really comes across. I don’t think many books on humanity’s annihilation could be described as page turners, but this is a really entertaining read.
It's interesting to speculate, because there are so many dangers out there we know about; but think about the one's we don't know about. Whether that's a
- Rogue extra-solar body
- Rogue brown dwarf
- Twin sun brown dwarf
- Cosmic rays
and in the subcategory of that, cosmic rays we haven't detected yet. Bodies that cause space "clouds," or collapsed sub-systems, young and undetected stars and the like. Space is big and that makes the dangers even bigger.
