|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"AI's Will Save Us All": Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Response to Edge.org's 2015 Annual Question
In , on 04/11/2015
at 06:06 AM, Jan Panteltje said: On a sunny day (Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:54:28 -0400) it happened Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote in : In , on 04/10/2015 at 12:52 PM, Jan Panteltje said: Just remember that mathematics or math is just a small subset, executed in a few neurons, of the human neural net. Nonsense. It is the truth as is. No, the truth is that the brain has a large number of neurons, and that nobody has yet found a small subset capable of handling Mathematics. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT http://patriot.net/~shmuel Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"AI's Will Save Us All": Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Response to Edge.org's 2015 Annual Question
In , on 04/11/2015
at 07:46 AM, Jan Panteltje said: Problem is with theoretical physicists that they claim truth of their brain childs by (because of) mathematical proof. Nonsense. Feel free to quote (*not* paraphrase) a theoretical physicist doing that. I use math every day. On the order of paint by numbers. Ask a mathemagician to do it he will make equations Here you're assuming that he has done nothing ahead of time. Now use a neural net And here you're assuming that you have a neural net lying around already trained for the job. To be a fair comparison, you'd have to design, build and train the neural net while the ball is still in the air. 'normalisation' in QM etc, and always always wrong. You've got to be joking. While renormalization has nothing to do with Mathematics, and is on shaky grounds from a mathematical perspectives, its prediction have been experimentally verigied to a high degree of precision. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT http://patriot.net/~shmuel Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"AI's Will Save Us All": Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Response to Edge.org's 2015 Annual Question
On a sunny day (Sun, 12 Apr 2015 11:40:24 -0400) it happened Shmuel (Seymour
J.) Metz wrote in : In , on 04/11/2015 at 06:06 AM, Jan Panteltje said: On a sunny day (Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:54:28 -0400) it happened Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote in : In , on 04/10/2015 at 12:52 PM, Jan Panteltje said: Just remember that mathematics or math is just a small subset, executed in a few neurons, of the human neural net. Nonsense. It is the truth as is. No, the truth is that the brain has a large number of neurons, and that nobody has yet found a small subset capable of handling Mathematics. CT scans have shown what areas are involved. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"AI's Will Save Us All": Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Response to Edge.org's 2015 Annual Question
On a sunny day (Sun, 12 Apr 2015 11:50:12 -0400) it happened Shmuel (Seymour
J.) Metz wrote in : In , on 04/11/2015 at 07:46 AM, Jan Panteltje said: Problem is with theoretical physicists that they claim truth of their brain childs by (because of) mathematical proof. Nonsense. Feel free to quote (*not* paraphrase) a theoretical physicist doing that. Holographic universe, look it up. I use math every day. On the order of paint by numbers. Ask a mathemagician to do it he will make equations Here you're assuming that he has done nothing ahead of time. Now use a neural net And here you're assuming that you have a neural net lying around already trained for the job. To be a fair comparison, you'd have to design, build and train the neural net while the ball is still in the air. Of course it needs training, but not over and over again, but learns or can learn more improving, not fixed like an equation. 'normalisation' in QM etc, and always always wrong. You've got to be joking. While renormalization has nothing to do with Mathematics, and is on shaky grounds from a mathematical perspectives, its prediction have been experimentally verigied to a high degree of precision. That is exactly the problem, and, these days, anything that does NOT agree with Albert and his dreams is simply ignored. No gravity waves detected yet now we are several orders of magnitude below what Albert predicted. They don't give up, oh no, he MUST be right, else your peers will kill your career. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"AI's Will Save Us All": Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Response to Edge.org's 2015 Annual Question
In , on 04/12/2015
at 05:13 PM, Jan Panteltje said: On a sunny day (Sun, 12 Apr 2015 11:40:24 -0400) it happened Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote in : In , on 04/11/2015 at 06:06 AM, Jan Panteltje said: On a sunny day (Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:54:28 -0400) it happened Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote in : In , on 04/10/2015 at 12:52 PM, Jan Panteltje said: Just remember that mathematics or math is just a small subset, executed in a few neurons, of the human neural net. Nonsense. It is the truth as is. No, the truth is that the brain has a large number of neurons, and that nobody has yet found a small subset capable of handling Mathematics. CT scans have shown what areas are involved. And how many neurons are in those areas? Or perhaps I should ask what "small" means to you. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT http://patriot.net/~shmuel Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"AI's Will Save Us All": Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Response to Edge.org's 2015 Annual Question
In , on 04/12/2015
at 05:18 PM, Jan Panteltje said: On a sunny day (Sun, 12 Apr 2015 11:50:12 -0400) it happened Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote in : In , on 04/11/2015 at 07:46 AM, Jan Panteltje said: Problem is with theoretical physicists that they claim truth of their brain childs by (because of) mathematical proof. Nonsense. Feel free to quote (*not* paraphrase) a theoretical physicist doing that. Holographic universe, How is that relevant to your claim? Of course it needs training, but not over and over again, A Mathematician does not repeat his work over and over again. More to the point, it is an unfair comparison because you asked him to start when the ball is still in the air. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT http://patriot.net/~shmuel Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Prof. Frank J. Tipler's "A Liberal Utopia" | James Redford | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 22nd 13 04:07 PM |
Forum on GMU prof Robert Hazen's Teaching Company course "Origins of Life." | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | October 14th 07 09:16 PM |
Response to comments on "Electron Charge from Cosmological Parameters" | Ranjit | Astronomy Misc | 5 | September 28th 07 05:20 AM |