> I don't believe humans aren't limited by the same issues that machines have. Halting problem comes to mind, nothing shows that humans aren't bound by it too.
Math has started, quite a while ago, to show that we are already probing some sort of inherent limits of knowledge for the human mind.
> theoretically machines can be as intelligent as human
Intelligence is the easy problem. It's just a function of complexity after all. It's consciousness / awareness that's harder, more important and more interesting.
What if natural evolution has become quick enough now (and it does seem to accelerate all by itself, if you put the evolution of species on a time scale) so that the "next step" (the superhuman beings) will emerge without any conscious and/or voluntary input from us?
I'm not saying this is certainly what's going to happen, it's just a (literal) what-if question.
I remember measuring g (standard gravitational acceleration) in the pantry at my parents' house when I was in high-school.
It involved a pretty hefty dumbbell, a long string and a watch. Basically, it was the pendulum method - you need to time several oscillations, then measure the length of the pendulum and the formula gives you g.
The pendulum was about 2 m long (6 ft) I guess, the dumbbell was maybe around 10 kg (20 lb) or so, and I managed to time perhaps 5 minutes worth of oscillations - being pretty heavy, it continued to sway back and forth for a long time without stopping.
I had to debate with myself the actual length of the pendulum, because I couldn't know for sure where the center of gravity of the whole thing was. In the end, I just postulated it was exactly on the axis of the dumbbell - probably pretty close to reality.
I think I got something like 9.7 m/s2 IIRC, which is pretty close to the average of 9.8 (which also depends on the latitude, altitude and a number of other factors).
These days, whenever I hear the word "socialism", I automatically stop listening and move across the room to start a different discussion. It's on the same list with "flat earth", "autism-causing vaccines" and so forth.
EDIT: I'm sorry to say, but it seems like the majority of people in the US use this word a lot without having any idea what it really means. It's become empty, a visceral cry, bypassing rational thought entirely. This too shall pass, I guess, but for now it's pretty sad.
In a case like this, it's pretty hard to differentiate between the official propaganda and what people really think. Even when they confess utter sincerity, you should always ask yourself just how big of a percentage of official doublespeak is automatically infused into their discourse (hint: the bigger the distance between you and them on the social graph, the bigger the percentage).
Trust me, I know, I've been "there" (in a general sense, not the geographical location).
Maybe each country is different, but I would hesitate before making broad assumptions.
I grew up under a communist regime in Eastern Europe. I was 20 when the revolution took place. So I think I know pretty well what the situation was during the dictatorship.
There was a pretty big difference between the official propaganda and the way people were really thinking. But it would have been very difficult for someone "from outside" to get a glimpse of what was going on behind the layers upon layers of doublethink. The risks were simply too great for anyone to open up and give a piece of their mind to a total stranger. The true dimensions of this orwellian spirit are hard to fathom without having the unmediated experience of it.
I would say that people had a pretty good idea about "life in the West". Not a perfect image, many details were certainly lacking, but overall correct. However, they would not openly discuss about those things except with close relatives or very close friends. Beyond a certain point on the social graph, the official doctrine would automatically kick in and start getting mixed into the discourse.
So take everything you hear about NK with a grain of salt.
Again, maybe I should not extrapolate like this. Maybe NK is a special case. I guess we'll find out one day, after the insanity is over and that land becomes free again.
Having grown in Eastern Europe (I was a freshman in college when the wave of revolutions swept over that part of the world), I'm not quite comfortable with that approach. Sure, you can topple the regime, Iraq-style. But there will be many civilian casualties. Make no mistake, there will be casualties no matter what, but a brute force intervention can potentially be much more disastrous than a change coming from inside (revolution).
I'm not sure just how deeply indoctrinated those people are. Is an uprising still possible? (my guess is yes) If so, a surgical-precision hit targeting "Dear Leader" might be enough to provide the initial spark. I'm sure this option is being considered somewhere, somehow. Whether it's deemed worth giving it a try, and whether it's successful remains to be seen.
Sure, phyto- and xeno-estrogens are strong suspects in this case. But here's another data point:
Measure the testosterone level in your bloodstream.
Then for a few weeks start doing heavy squats (weight lifting) every other day, go car racing, skydiving, etc.
Now measure T again. See the difference?
There are all sorts of things like that. The bottom line is, the more secure the environment, the less the need for men to be "men".
Also, I was not implying that the new evolutionary pressures have already made changes, I was just saying the changes are being made now - but how long before they will become visible, I have no idea. Probably not tomorrow.
Well, the modern society is less like the savanna, which was the environment that shaped men throughout the evolutionary history of our species, and more like the cave, which was the environment that shaped women. Less physical confrontation, more squabbling. Less concrete, immediate dangers, more abstract worries. Less ass-kicking, more cooperation.
Heck, even spatial abilities are so last-century, now that everyone has a GPS.
So then you get things like men's constantly decreasing fertility, for decades now. Decreasing testosterone levels, again trending downwards for many years now.
I'm not saying this is either good or bad, I'm just saying this is an environment which creates different evolutionary pressures, and our species is responding to it.
I'm not sure I can imagine the destination, though.
> I think it's fair to restrict the definition of "research" to methods which are likely to lead you towards the right answer rather than the much older method of "just making shit up".
It depends on how strict you are with the meaning of the word "research".
Stone Age people, by that token, were just "making shit up", but that didn't prevent them from discovering fire, etc.
The alchemists were simply using the best tools available to them. Primitive, from our perspective? Yes. That doesn't mean there wasn't genuine effort involved.
"That highly depends on what the 200lb is made of."
Well, he did say "jacked", so it's safe to assume it's not 200 lb of fat.
BTW, I went pretty close to that, while staying at a relatively low 12% BFP (body fat percentage). It's pretty awesome, but I can definitely see why some people would rather not go through the trouble - it's not something easy to accomplish, not if you're a cubicle slave like almost everybody these days.
Math has started, quite a while ago, to show that we are already probing some sort of inherent limits of knowledge for the human mind.
> theoretically machines can be as intelligent as human
Intelligence is the easy problem. It's just a function of complexity after all. It's consciousness / awareness that's harder, more important and more interesting.