|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)
On 20 Jun, 15:46, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote: : :We are looking at things like Google as a possible version of AI on :the Web. : Not if we're sane we're not. : :We know that television appearances in effect selects the President. : Nope. We don't know any such thing. Well every candidate seems to think otherwise. Google have assembled an impressive array of experts who have written what to me are marvellous papers. I have just given a critique. http://www.paperoftheweek.com/2007/0...-intelligence/ The key issue is linguistics. You can make jokes on the lines of "Quieres dormir con fosforo" but the tackling of language, and speech which is a branch of linuistic understanding is impressive. "I want a spring for the clock" = "Quiero una resorte por el reloj" reloj = resorte is the sort of thing that the diagrams in the speech paper is talking about. The evaluation of a complex Markov diagram is complicated but it can be done. Google is on its way. What it has already delivered is impressive too. Getting everything to work on a Web scale. : :We are replacing analogue :television at a rate of knots ... : 2012 for Brtain. BT Vision is doing exactly what I am saying. It is broadband powered. As soon as a reliable true 8MHz can be delivered Radio Reloj will be truly dead. - Ian Parker |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)
On 20 Jun, 15:57, BradGuth wrote:
We are looking at things like Google as a possible version of AI on the Web. We are looking at the consequences which are quite literally mind boggling. If I were to land on a planet going roung some distant star and there was an Internet, the first thing I would do would be put intelligence onto it and this intelligence would produce a synopsis of all life for me. To that I say again; Where is there not evidence? There is plenty of evidence as to what Google is doing. I see and/or experience ETs AI crapolla (mostly Zion based) just about everywhere within this internet/usenet. Why Zionist? I have never mentioned Isreal. The 2L I have posted has mostly been Spanish - not Hebrew. We know that television appearances in effect selects the President. If ET is embedded deeply into the Web he will be in a position to make or break presidents. This is going to become more and more true in the future when RSS feeds replace analogue television (Radio Reloj I called it in the SETI discussions). We are replacing analogue television at a rate of knots and if there is any truth in ET it means that we are not masters of our destiny. As I've said before; Why would any ET worth their salt need to bother screwing with us, nor should they dare. Because we're clearly the assholes, we're not supposed to do business with Cuba or a few other nations. Go figure what ETs must have on their embargo (aka NO FLY) list. Why then come at all? I KNOW that ET is not around on Earth. I don't know wheher or not there is intelligent life on some distant planet that has taken the conscious decision not to come. If we do a voyage at c/2 it will take a moderate investment in resources. ET would have to consider these resources worth while. If he did make the trip he would want to maximise his returns. As for a "no fly list". well I would have thought that if this were the case ET would take steps to make us less threatening. AI on the Web would be a very good way of doing this. I don't know either why someone with a pseudonym of "American" seems to think we have been visited regularly. This being the case all the military hardware built up by the US is just so much junk. What will be decisive for the world is the information we are presented with. This will come from ET. ET will select what is in and not in our RSS feeds. And obviously you think we're as screwed up as we are because of ourselves, with no off-world assistance whatsoever. When was the last time we left a given nation alone, especially if there was the likes of oil, yellowcake or some other spendy element to being had? Besides, why on Earth would ETs have only the best of intentions? Well now. If ET wished to destroy us there are quite simple ways of so doing. A biological weapon for example. ET clearly does not wish either to destroy us on the one hand, or to make us less threatening on the other. The disinformation on the Web clearly comes from military/CIA based sources. There is no evidence I can discern that the Web does contain AI, so the above is academic. At least I hope it is! There is no evidence of disinformation - at least not on the ET side. There is evidence of disinformation from people who do not want to know the truth. This does in fact make me cross. The people though are emphatically Terran. A true naysayer/rusemaster is in denial from the get go. (it's sort of MIB required) If MIB Men in Black or Machines in Black. The phrase I use "?Puerde leer en espagnol?" I think expresses this. What would you expect from a message from ET? Well perhaps not little green ET but a Web manifesation of AI. Well it would be multilingual. It would be expressed in a number of languages in a slightly different form. Why would ETs bother to let on that they have existed, as here on Earth or otherwise upon Venus or anywhere else we might possibly look? Wouldn't most religions or faith-based morons (especially those fence jumping Atheists) hunt them down and kill off such ETs without remorse? (if history counts, of course they would) Well no we could not track AI down. Dammit we find paedophilia difficult enough. AI would hide in crevices, you would think a real mperson had posted, but in fact no one would have done. Look at what happened to Jesus Christ, and by his own kind none the less. So, there is no limit as to what we'd do if knowing there was an ET among us. If I were an ET, there's no freaking way in this bigotry of hell on Earth that I'd share that knowledge. Besides, to an interplanetary/interstellar trekking ET, what's so great about our energy poor and otherwise 98.5% fluid Earth that's getting itself global warmed and otherwise a little extra radiated by our salty old anticathode moon anyway? (Earth is a wussy planet with more than it's fair share of local problems) BTW, c/2 seems iffy, although c/10 seems rather ET doable, as fast enough. - c/10 would be fast enough for AI that would simply go into hibernation.. The real question I think is simply this. ET is supposed to take part in things like alien abduction and to fly around in flying saucers. In fact you can get all the DNA evidence you want by just taking a few skin samples. Most of your information is on the Web. The other thing is the size of ET spacecraft. They have always been posulated as man carrying. In fact ET will have developed molecular information storage. Spacecraft will be the size of dragonflies. - Ian Parker |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)
On Jun 20, 11:47 am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 20 Jun, 15:57, BradGuth wrote: We are looking at things like Google as a possible version of AI on the Web. We are looking at the consequences which are quite literally mind boggling. If I were to land on a planet going roung some distant star and there was an Internet, the first thing I would do would be put intelligence onto it and this intelligence would produce a synopsis of all life for me. To that I say again; Where is there not evidence? There is plenty of evidence as to what Google is doing. I see and/or experience ETs AI crapolla (mostly Zion based) just about everywhere within this internet/usenet. Why Zionist? I have never mentioned Isreal. The 2L I have posted has mostly been Spanish - not Hebrew. Don't try telling the rest of us village idiots that Zionist/Jews as of before and during WWII were merely dumb and dumber fools, as well as poor little insignificant heathens, then suddenly became ultra wealthy, powerful and otherwise smart as all get out once connecting up with us. The only significant faith-based group on Earth that has essentially everything to lose and thereby nothing to gain from the discovery of ETs, are those pesky Zionist/Jews of mostly Old Testament thumpers, and they clearly have no intentions of going down without causing a good fight, including an all out WWIII or putting the likes of Christ back on a stick if need be. The vast bulk of physics and subsequent science is so freaking Zionist and thus all controlling, in that other interpretations of anything doesn't really matter, because whatever's of alternative news, science of deductive discoveries are simply going to get stalked, bashed and other wise mainstream media banish in every possible Dirty Harry "which way but lose". Not that a few other faith-based cults haven't contributed their fair share of disinformation, and/or having enforced as much evidence exclusion as possible. We know that television appearances in effect selects the President. If ET is embedded deeply into the Web he will be in a position to make or break presidents. This is going to become more and more true in the future when RSS feeds replace analogue television (Radio Reloj I called it in the SETI discussions). We are replacing analogue television at a rate of knots and if there is any truth in ET it means that we are not masters of our destiny. As I've said before; Why would any ET worth their salt need to bother screwing with us, nor should they dare. Because we're clearly the assholes, we're not supposed to do business with Cuba or a few other nations. Go figure what ETs must have on their embargo (aka NO FLY) list. Why then come at all? I KNOW that ET is not around on Earth. I don't know wheher or not there is intelligent life on some distant planet that has taken the conscious decision not to come. If we do a voyage at c/2 it will take a moderate investment in resources. ET would have to consider these resources worth while. ETs might stop by Earth for their R&R entertainment, as otherwise Earth hasn't all that much to offer unless you had a death wish. If he did make the trip he would want to maximise his returns. As for a "no fly list". well I would have thought that if this were the case ET would take steps to make us less threatening. AI on the Web would be a very good way of doing this. We're not all that much of a threat, as we can't even honestly walk on our moon, much less upon another planet or of its moons. It would be most important for keeping those other somewhat iffy ETs from sharing too much of a good thing, much like us trying to keep nuclear energy away from folks that could put such technology to good use, also similar to keeping h2o2 as hocus-pocus rated as possible. I don't know either why someone with a pseudonym of "American" seems to think we have been visited regularly. This being the case all the military hardware built up by the US is just so much junk. What will be decisive for the world is the information we are presented with. This will come from ET. ET will select what is in and not in our RSS feeds. And obviously you think we're as screwed up as we are because of ourselves, with no off-world assistance whatsoever. When was the last time we left a given nation alone, especially if there was the likes of oil, yellowcake or some other spendy element to being had? Besides, why on Earth would ETs have only the best of intentions? Well now. If ET wished to destroy us there are quite simple ways of so doing. A biological weapon for example. ET clearly does not wish either to destroy us on the one hand, or to make us less threatening on the other. The disinformation on the Web clearly comes from military/CIA based sources. Why should ETs destroy the best entertainment in town (sort of speak), and besides, we're not all as freaking dumb and dumber, or as nearly mindset spastic as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush). There is no evidence I can discern that the Web does contain AI, so the above is academic. At least I hope it is! There is no evidence of disinformation - at least not on the ET side. There is evidence of disinformation from people who do not want to know the truth. This does in fact make me cross. The people though are emphatically Terran. A true naysayer/rusemaster is in denial from the get go. (it's sort of MIB required) If MIB Men in Black or Machines in Black. The phrase I use "?Puerde leer en espagnol?" I think expresses this. What would you expect from a message from ET? Well perhaps not little green ET but a Web manifesation of AI. Well it would be multilingual. It would be expressed in a number of languages in a slightly different form. Why would ETs bother to let on that they have existed, as here on Earth or otherwise upon Venus or anywhere else we might possibly look? Wouldn't most religions or faith-based morons (especially those fence jumping Atheists) hunt them down and kill off such ETs without remorse? (if history counts, of course they would) Well no we could not track AI down. Dammit we find paedophilia difficult enough. AI would hide in crevices, you would think a real mperson had posted, but in fact no one would have done. Look at what happened to Jesus Christ, and by his own kind none the less. So, there is no limit as to what we'd do if knowing there was an ET among us. If I were an ET, there's no freaking way in this bigotry of hell on Earth that I'd share that knowledge. Besides, to an interplanetary/interstellar trekking ET, what's so great about our energy poor and otherwise 98.5% fluid Earth that's getting itself global warmed and otherwise a little extra radiated by our salty old anticathode moon anyway? (Earth is a wussy planet with more than it's fair share of local problems) BTW, c/2 seems iffy, although c/10 seems rather ET doable, as fast enough. - c/10 would be fast enough for AI that would simply go into hibernation.. The real question I think is simply this. ET is supposed to take part in things like alien abduction and to fly around in flying saucers. In fact you can get all the DNA evidence you want by just taking a few skin samples. Most of your information is on the Web. The likes of Sirius isn't all that far away, and it's not always as far off as it is right now. Venus is certainly close by, as in 100 fold the distance of our moon every 19 months, and upon Venus there's no local shortage of renewable energy to burn (sort of speak). Therefore, space travel need not always be demanding of hibernation or multi-generation habitats. The other thing is the size of ET spacecraft. They have always been posulated as man carrying. In fact ET will have developed molecular information storage. Spacecraft will be the size of dragonflies. I tend to agree, that micro spacecrafts plus whatever of "molecular information storage" is quite doable, especially if such having arrived via mother craft that's using anti-matter as fusion or simply driven along by those nifty Ra--LRn--Rn--ion laser cannon thrusters at c/2, whereas their mother craft could also be fully AI configured, but also capable of accommodating a few live souls. Those intelligent ETs capable of terraforming a given planet or moon, as such may have moved on to wherever the grass is greener, although mining the likes of Venus for a good many raw elements seems entirely worth doing, especially if Venus were a billion years less old than Earth. Unlike our physically dark and rather anticathode naked moon of gamma and hard-Xrays, at least sustaining the likes of human DNA on Venus is technically doable. - Brad Guth |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)
On Jun 20, 11:23 am, "Bill Habr" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message ups.com... Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life? None That's exactly what I'd thought, yet our usenet Zions and of their Athiests friends seem to believe that most all that's off-world is entirerly inert, and otherwise for the most part of no great value to our terrestrial way of life. Of course they typically also believe there's no such global warming going on, and that there's none better than our resident warlord(GW Bush) for the job. What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited? Terrestrial evolution I'd meant terrestrial like evolution. In other usenet friendly words, you'd have to agree that weird or possibly similar life to that of ours could exist/coexist where it might otherwise be somewhat humanly lethal to our DNA in the buff. Technically altered and/or via applied physics or perhaps even evolution assisted if there's sufficient time (using our best intelligent design if there's insufficient time for the random happenstance of nature to grasp the idea), whereas it seems all sorts of viable intelligent other life could have and may yet exist/coexist on Venus. The interpreted observation of what looks perfectly ETI worthy about Venus seems to suggest that for at least the past decade we've either been kidding ourselves or getting snookered by our own kind. Of course, those in charge of officially presenting the best available science haven't been exactly helping, in fact if anything they've been doing all they can in order to moderate or if at all possible banish any such notions. What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for having accommodated intelligent life? Unknown Once again, I totally agree, especially since we haven't an honest clue as to what's on our moon, much less of some other nearby planet. However, it seems there are certain technological limitations that we'd need at our disoposal A final thought: If they are intelligent they are smart enough to avoid humans. That's actually a very important and believable final thought, whereas most any human contact could seriously erode whatever essential advantage ETs currently have over us, such as I'd insist upon learning how the heck they manage to get safely between various planets. - Brad Guth |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)
On Jun 20, 7:55 am, (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption. I suspect thst most scientest are more than a bit wussy about sharing their honest thoughts pertaining to ETs, if not scared to death of their own shadow. What's lacking is convincing evidence that any are _here_. ETs do not have to exist _here_ on Earth, for there to be ETs smart enough to exist/coexist where we can't manage without taking great risk within our applied physics of a craft that'll survive the mission, and then some. - Brad Guth |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)
Ian Parker wrote:
:On 20 Jun, 15:46, Fred J. McCall wrote: : Ian Parker wrote: : : : : :We are looking at things like Google as a possible version of AI on : :the Web. : : : : Not if we're sane we're not. : : : : :We know that television appearances in effect selects the President. : : : : Nope. We don't know any such thing. : :Well every candidate seems to think otherwise. : Well, every candidate does NOT seem to think otherwise. If they thought otherwise they would spend ALL their money on television appearances. They don't. You're wrong. : : :Google have assembled an impressive array of experts who have written :what to me are marvellous papers. I have just given a critique. : :http://www.paperoftheweek.com/2007/0...-intelligence/ : :The key issue is linguistics. You can make jokes on the lines of :"Quieres dormir con fosforo" but the tackling of language, and speech :which is a branch of linuistic understanding is impressive. "I want a :spring for the clock" = "Quiero una resorte por el reloj" reloj = :resorte is the sort of thing that the diagrams in the speech paper is :talking about. The evaluation of a complex Markov diagram is :complicated but it can be done. Google is on its way. What it has :already delivered is impressive too. Getting everything to work on a :Web scale. : Which has bugger all to do with Google as AI. You bleat about it so frequently, surely you must know what AI is. : : : : : :We are replacing analogue : :television at a rate of knots ... : : : : :2012 for Brtain. BT Vision is doing exactly what I am saying. It is :broadband powered. As soon as a reliable true 8MHz can be delivered :Radio Reloj will be truly dead. : What the hell is "a rate of knots"? Is English not one of your first three languages? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)
On 20 Jun, 20:49, BradGuth wrote:
Don't try telling the rest of us village idiots that Zionist/Jews as of before and during WWII were merely dumb and dumber fools, as well as poor little insignificant heathens, then suddenly became ultra wealthy, powerful and otherwise smart as all get out once connecting up with us. The only significant faith-based group on Earth that has essentially everything to lose and thereby nothing to gain from the discovery of ETs, are those pesky Zionist/Jews of mostly Old Testament thumpers, and they clearly have no intentions of going down without causing a good fight, including an all out WWIII or putting the likes of Christ back on a stick if need be. The vast bulk of physics and subsequent science is so freaking Zionist and thus all controlling, in that other interpretations of anything doesn't really matter, because whatever's of alternative news, science of deductive discoveries are simply going to get stalked, bashed and other wise mainstream media banish in every possible Dirty Harry "which way but lose". Not that a few other faith-based cults haven't contributed their fair share of disinformation, and/or having enforced as much evidence exclusion as possible. Look science is independently checked by lots of people. No scientific theory is EVER accepted just like that. science is accepted because it adds up, makes sense. In Jewish culture there is a great tradition of learring. If gentiles want to be as well represented the remedy is obvious. They should discipline themselves. Spend time studying, try to get to their potential. The Palestinians should do this too. Thir greatest enemy is their leaders. Why then come at all? I KNOW that ET is not around on Earth. I don't know wheher or not there is intelligent life on some distant planet that has taken the conscious decision not to come. If we do a voyage at c/2 it will take a moderate investment in resources. ET would have to consider these resources worth while. ETs might stop by Earth for their R&R entertainment, as otherwise Earth hasn't all that much to offer unless you had a death wish. Earth offers knowledge. This is what they would be after. Well now. If ET wished to destroy us there are quite simple ways of so doing. A biological weapon for example. ET clearly does not wish either to destroy us on the one hand, or to make us less threatening on the other. The disinformation on the Web clearly comes from military/CIA based sources. Why should ETs destroy the best entertainment in town (sort of speak), and besides, we're not all as freaking dumb and dumber, or as nearly mindset spastic as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush). Ave Caesar - Nos qui morituri te salutamus. That is an interesting one! Earth being a gladitorial show. c/10 would be fast enough for AI that would simply go into hibernation.. The real question I think is simply this. ET is supposed to take part in things like alien abduction and to fly around in flying saucers. In fact you can get all the DNA evidence you want by just taking a few skin samples. Most of your information is on the Web. The likes of Sirius isn't all that far away, and it's not always as far off as it is right now. Venus is certainly close by, as in 100 fold the distance of our moon every 19 months, and upon Venus there's no local shortage of renewable energy to burn (sort of speak). Therefore, space travel need not always be demanding of hibernation or multi-generation habitats. The other thing is the size of ET spacecraft. They have always been posulated as man carrying. In fact ET will have developed molecular information storage. Spacecraft will be the size of dragonflies. I tend to agree, that micro spacecrafts plus whatever of "molecular information storage" is quite doable, especially if such having arrived via mother craft that's using anti-matter as fusion or simply driven along by those nifty Ra--LRn--Rn--ion laser cannon thrusters at c/2, whereas their mother craft could also be fully AI configured, but also capable of accommodating a few live souls. Those intelligent ETs capable of terraforming a given planet or moon, as such may have moved on to wherever the grass is greener, although mining the likes of Venus for a good many raw elements seems entirely worth doing, especially if Venus were a billion years less old than Earth. Unlike our physically dark and rather anticathode naked moon of gamma and hard-Xrays, at least sustaining the likes of human DNA on Venus is technically doable. - Quite, buy you seem to be shifting your ground somewhat. If what you are saying is that ET is aroung but has an independent existence, does not interfere with what we are doing, it ceases to be a scientific statement. It is not a scientific statement because it cannot be verified. This is the problem I have with the whole idea, Independent evolution of intelligent life - OK I believe it. Possibility of interstellar travel - I believe it. Actual visit - I have great difficulty with. My problem with UFOs is compounded by the fact that the technology possessed by aliens appears to mirror the preconceptions of the time. If large spacecraft are impossible, if an obvious presence on the Web has not been observed, where are we? It seems that there are faries at the bottom of our garden but they run away whenever we approach them. If ET travels in micro spacecrft and does not interact with us, this is how it seems. As far as sadistic elements are concerned, why does ET not simply produce a virtual Colosseum, pit Rectarius against Sequtor and have a few floggings and cruxifictions thrown in? Is there an ulterior motive? I remember watching a television program on a UFO over Phoenix. It was clearly a Stealth aircraft at a time when these did not exist. The Pentagon provided a lifesize dummy of a little green man to discredit the eyewitnesses. There have been professional debunkers employed by the military. Nobody before now has taken alien technology and thought about what it might actually look like. This to be is the basis of the true debunk. - Ian Parker |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)
In article . com,
BradGuth writes: On Jun 20, 7:55 am, (Bobby Bryant) wrote: I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption. I suspect thst most scientest are more than a bit wussy about sharing their honest thoughts pertaining to ETs, if not scared to death of their own shadow. What is your reason for supposing that? What's lacking is convincing evidence that any are _here_. ETs do not have to exist _here_ on Earth, for there to be ETs smart enough to exist/coexist where we can't manage without taking great risk within our applied physics of a craft that'll survive the mission, and then some. Huh? -- Bobby Bryant Reno, Nevada Remove your hat to reply by e-mail. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:12:45 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Bobby Bryant) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: In article . com, BradGuth writes: On Jun 20, 7:55 am, (Bobby Bryant) wrote: I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption. I suspect thst most scientest are more than a bit wussy about sharing their honest thoughts pertaining to ETs, if not scared to death of their own shadow. What is your reason for supposing that? Because he's insane. Just killfile him, as the rest of us have. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)
On Jun 21, 6:12 am, (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
In article . com, BradGuth writes: On Jun 20, 7:55 am, (Bobby Bryant) wrote: I suspect you'll find that most scientists take the existence of aliens -- elsewhere -- as the default assumption. I suspect thst most scientest are more than a bit wussy about sharing their honest thoughts pertaining to ETs, if not scared to death of their own shadow. What is your reason for supposing that? Their dead silence or profound naysayism on many viable topics seems to be a dead give away. Most research funding as to do with terrestrial matters, and ETs simply do not count in Zion dollars. How about; ETs are not likely Jewish. If any part of science was honestly pro-ET, there'd be progress associated with what's existing on Venus. - Brad Guth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) | BradGuth | Policy | 360 | September 21st 07 11:01 PM |
What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) | BradGuth | History | 366 | September 21st 07 11:01 PM |
What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) | BradGuth | Astronomy Misc | 367 | September 21st 07 11:01 PM |
How SMART-1 has made European space exploration smarter (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | February 1st 07 12:01 AM |
ARL Leads NASA Effort to Develop Smarter Machines for Space Missions | [email protected] | News | 0 | May 19th 05 06:41 PM |