waechter418
Banned
for example: we still do - voluntarily or not – use software that was designed 3000 years ago by shepherds in the middle eastern deserts
-
OK, it's on.
Do we operate with obsolete software?
- Thread starter waechter418
- Start date
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
Moses was an educated royal magician schooled in the mysteries. But if you are talking about Abraham, he was a rebel. It was the norm that you could kill your offspring because they were your property. God said no so 1,200 years latter when Jesus was killed it was a shock. Human sacrifice is forbidden in Jewish law. Either way God's temple no longer was made of stone but flesh and blood. And God's spirit was on the lips of his church spreading across the entire earth. Be hard for God's word to pass away when his voice is in every breath we speak.
Maybe is the don't fix what isn't broken ?
3dit:
On a deep thought, maybe some process have a, let's say, limit level. And maybe some are just low level since we got it so early.
Some thing's are just simple I guess.. no need to improve it's process, we got the best of it.
3dit:
On a deep thought, maybe some process have a, let's say, limit level. And maybe some are just low level since we got it so early.
Some thing's are just simple I guess.. no need to improve it's process, we got the best of it.
scorpiomover
The little professor
- Local time
- Today 5:51 PM
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,383
If Middle Eastern shepherds were able to write software 3,000 years before the invention of the modern computer, their programming skills would have to be extremely far in advance of our own.
Mind you being a shepherd in a desert and looking after flocks of sheep successfully, when sheep need water and water-fed grass to survive, would be an extremely difficult task and an amazing skill. That too would require advanced knowledge, far in advance of our best scientists.
It is thus our modern software that is obsolete. But we have to advance far enough that we realise it.
Mind you being a shepherd in a desert and looking after flocks of sheep successfully, when sheep need water and water-fed grass to survive, would be an extremely difficult task and an amazing skill. That too would require advanced knowledge, far in advance of our best scientists.
It is thus our modern software that is obsolete. But we have to advance far enough that we realise it.
Brontosaurie
Banned
- Local time
- Today 6:51 PM
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2010
- Messages
- 5,646
This whole internet thing is obsolete
waechter418
Banned
Religion is just an obvious example, so are our antiquated morals and social rules - how about the capitalistic software - our relation to the mother "Gaia" who bore and feeds us - or the exploration of technologies that might either poison or pulverize us - or......??
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
My body is a living temple and I have never killed anyone.
bvanevery
Redshirt who doesn't die
I don't. I have a membership in the Western NC Humanists to publicly demonstrate that. I'm using software that was designed in the Enlightenment. What are you using?
waechter418
Banned
Sorry bvanevery, i didnt intent to push you to justify your limitations - as a matter of fact this post is to lure you to put them into question.
bvanevery
Redshirt who doesn't die
Drat, this thread was so long ago, I was hoping we were going to argue about Microsoft vs. Linux vs. Apple vs. Google and such.
That is easy, fuck Apple, the rest are fine, well at least if there not doing stupid things like trying to make Desktop OS to a tablet OS.
Due Apple is useful for killing old standards.
Also Linux is not a company.
Not all people have obsolete hardware(as you are talking about potential brain not matter how it was developed)
Well not that it is obsolete, as long as a creature is alive he can not be obsolete, but not advanced, not a race car if you will.
Anyway I think that in my lifetime I will get to see(or invent) a computer-brain interface, which will take our intelligence to the next level, think of having a built in calculator in the brain, just possible much better, having a google in your brain ,which will be so fast that it will seem you already "know" what you are searching for(because the brain will regard the computer just as other part of the brain)
God ,fuck with can connect the computer-brain interface to a monkey or a dog, madness, more intelligent monkey and communicating with animals.
bvanevery
Redshirt who doesn't die
Two responses to that, immediately occur to me:
- where was 'company' defined as a necessary basis of comparison for software, Mr. Pedant?
- Yeah, Linux is not a company. That's kinda the fucking point about what's wrong with it. And what's right with it, depending on application. But it's turned out to be shit nothing for a new consumer gaming platform ala SteamOS.
I don't think I need that. I'm a software guy and do have a computer to do that for me. Well, if I have a computer handy. Strand me on a deserted planet, instead of my present life, and I might be more interested in your cyberware for my survival. I don't see any present need for it though.
I think that kind of speed would give you problems of personal identity and identity boundary. Especially if your access tended to flood your mind with every conspiracy theory and cult wacko idea ever uttered on the web.
Ethically, perhaps it would be better to learn to speak dog. I already speak pretty good dog, but I'd like him to be able to tell me "where it hurts", for instance.
It still will do it for you, but in direct way, you wont have to type the numbers, the important part is connection to the unconscious mind, a brain with just that tool could do amazing things, billions of calculations on the fly, and oh boy a brain can utilise it.
This is just one of the most simple use/example, think about directly programming without a keyboard,just having your/others code in your mind, think about training deep neural network with your own brain, having an "hard drive" in your brain, imagining a dragon and than have it saved as a 2d image or a 3d model on a computer.
This is big, I think even more than the (AI only) singularity, as it will directly effect us and will not be an outside entitle like robots, just an extension of the brain, power of computer and the creativity of a brain.
It will probable happen before the singularity, it is probable more practical to make, even after the singularity it will take time for computer only AI to compete with a human with computer interface.
bvanevery
Redshirt who doesn't die
I don't type the numbers as it is. I am far more likely to be working with data generated from some source.
You're talking about a great deal more than a simple calculator, if you think a neural interface is going to do "all that" for you. As a computer guy I exert algorithmic understanding over what I'm doing. It takes more than just a calculator to speed that up.
I have an autistic friend who seems to be able to play C code in his mind. He has lots of other severe limitations as to what he can visualize though, so I don't envy him. Like, he has weird issues of not being able to usually see things in full color, or in full 3D. His mind works like a 2D cut-and-paste. It is odd to contemplate an imagination limited to these core operations.
I type 70 wpm accurately so I don't feel the keyboard itself is the bottleneck. I feel it is the textual understanding of the code. I have wondered if a visual programming language would help with this problem in any way, somehow increasing the bandwidth of what can be expressed. However I don't have a viable paradigm for programming that up. It is also not currently the simplest way to interact with an actual computer; text is. A 3D graphical programming system has to rely on a lot of stuff already being built, to have that kind of editing capability. There's a good chance that on a 2D screen this all ends up being fluff, so reasonably high resolution VR hardware might be required as well. Yes if your neural interface can do "all that" in one's mind, then it could be useful, but the paradigm still has to be worked out and an interface by itself isn't an answer to the problems.
Really this sounds a lot like MOAR BETTUR! and I'm not seeing why it has to be so. A number of computer science problems have that kind of difficulty to them, that more resources thrown at a problem doesn't necessarily resolve the problem.
I think that's called "your brain".
I suppose you're imagining that the I/O of your brain would be performed really really fast.My memory is good enough. And I wouldn't want governments to go looking for incriminating information IN MY BRAIN.
Direct art output would actually be useful to me.
waechter418
Banned
Religion is just an obvious example, so are our antiquated morals and social rules - how about the capitalistic software - our relation to the mother "Gaia" who bore and feeds us - or the exploration of technologies that might either poison or pulverize us - or......??
waechter418
Banned
With “software” I had the softness of our gray mass and minds in mind, and not the world of Microsoft & Co.
The intent of this post is to stimulate inquiries into the parameters we use to relate ourselves with, and not only those designed by Judaic/Christian priests – although they still seem to play important roles in western cultures – particularly to investigate the economical, political, social, scientific etc. programs that (at least partially) determine the ways collectives and individuals presently operate.
I do not expect a post like this to find much response in an age where it seems fashionable to subject oneself uncritical to media - consumer research – silicon valley – political - scientific - and whatever else - programs (probably because they eliminate personal responsibility) not to forget those which are to get people used to the idea to become robots.
(A recently published 5 years study by the Stanford University comes to the conclusion that 75% of the activities of US & 68% of EU citizens are all ready robot like)
Ready to give it another try?
The intent of this post is to stimulate inquiries into the parameters we use to relate ourselves with, and not only those designed by Judaic/Christian priests – although they still seem to play important roles in western cultures – particularly to investigate the economical, political, social, scientific etc. programs that (at least partially) determine the ways collectives and individuals presently operate.
I do not expect a post like this to find much response in an age where it seems fashionable to subject oneself uncritical to media - consumer research – silicon valley – political - scientific - and whatever else - programs (probably because they eliminate personal responsibility) not to forget those which are to get people used to the idea to become robots.
(A recently published 5 years study by the Stanford University comes to the conclusion that 75% of the activities of US & 68% of EU citizens are all ready robot like)
Ready to give it another try?
bvanevery
Redshirt who doesn't die
I can't really. I know that I don't operate with obsolete brain-software. I spend an exceptional amount of energy ensuring that's not the case, and I got a B.A. in Sociocultural Anthropology, so I'm pretty confident in my ability to stay self-reflexive and self-observant.
All I can do is judge whether others are using "obsolete" software. This imposes a lot of value judgments on what other people's cultures are like. Given my erstwhile anthropological training, I am averse to doing that. I'm willing to make pronouncements on really regressive behavior, or cult / mind control behaviors, but that's getting into extremes and doesn't represent the general population in my view. I think most people, in my daily experience, have a "certain level" that they think about stuff, which varies widely. It also varies as to what they think about.
For instance one homeless acquaintance of mine is a self-described "Christian Mystic" and he probably thinks far, far more about that sort of thing, than most people think about the wheres and whyfores of their everyday lives. Although he may have a Christian framework for his thinking, it's hard for me to paint him as working with "obsolete software". Rather, he started with some old religious codes and seems hell bent on synthesizing something of personal value to him. I likely don't agree with his conclusions, but I respect his process.
All I can do is judge whether others are using "obsolete" software. This imposes a lot of value judgments on what other people's cultures are like. Given my erstwhile anthropological training, I am averse to doing that. I'm willing to make pronouncements on really regressive behavior, or cult / mind control behaviors, but that's getting into extremes and doesn't represent the general population in my view. I think most people, in my daily experience, have a "certain level" that they think about stuff, which varies widely. It also varies as to what they think about.
For instance one homeless acquaintance of mine is a self-described "Christian Mystic" and he probably thinks far, far more about that sort of thing, than most people think about the wheres and whyfores of their everyday lives. Although he may have a Christian framework for his thinking, it's hard for me to paint him as working with "obsolete software". Rather, he started with some old religious codes and seems hell bent on synthesizing something of personal value to him. I likely don't agree with his conclusions, but I respect his process.
It is not just a calculator, it can be neural network, meaning everything your brain does.
It won't replace your brain but it will be an addition to it, you brain will decide how to use the computer.
Its takes time to plan the code and to type it, making that time shorter means you won't lose train of thought.This process is expensive, receiving "image" of code to the brain than recognize the text, than understanding what that part to code does, than scrolling to other part of code(and than after some time forgetting that mental image of the code base)
With computer-brain you have the direct data which the code-text is translated to, and you have all of the code-base s accessible to your brain, no need to read.
I don't think that this is the case, I think this a better algorithm not just raw power, as you are using the advantages of computer and the advantages of the human mind.It is comparable to adding a GPU to a computer which only has CPU.
They only could possible access the computer not your all brain or useful parts of the brain,I am talking about an communication interface not replacing your brain with a computer, also this is not brain reading machine, just more advance typing to the computer(and receiving data directly instead of from a computer screen).I think that's called "your brain".
My memory is good enough. And I wouldn't want governments to go looking for incriminating information IN MY BRAIN.
Direct art output would actually be useful to me.
The problem with computer-brain interface is that if you remove the computer that will have the same effect of removing a part of the brain.The solutions for that are not practical:
1)you will need to have a computer with a life-span of many decades, with almost no bugs.
2)Use it only for a short time, but how can you make the brain form a link that fast?
3)Slow remove of the interface, so the brain will have time to adjust(but you will still have amnesia)
4)uploading the data of the damaged computer to a replacement, than you can not change to a different or more advanced computer (which is fair is as you can not replace your brain), also you would need to keep producing every computer which has brain interface for a life-span of a human being.
But it could be used by people that don't have much time to live, like old people or people with fatal disease, also for people with brain damage as replacement.