 |
|
| Computers Forum Index » Computer Artificial Intelligence - Philosophy » cybernetics... |
|
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| RichD... |
 Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
What happened to cybernetics?
--
Rich |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JeffM... |
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Heathfield... |
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RichD said:
Quote: What happened to cybernetics?
It's alive and well. The most obvious example of a currently
interesting practical outflow from cybernetics is that of Artificial
Neural Networks.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh at (no spam)
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
This line unintentionally left unblank |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jan Panteltje... |
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On a sunny day (Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:02:57 -0700 (PDT)) it happened RichD
<r_delaney2001 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in
<966c8d19-ddf3-44c8-93aa-1bef3f4dae3c at (no spam) u38g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
Quote: What happened to cybernetics?
They live on mars now. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard the Dreaded Libertarian... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:02:57 -0700, RichD wrote:
Quote: What happened to cybernetics?
It's been superseded by Obamanomics?
Thanks,
Rich |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bill Sloman... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 20, 7:05 am, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_... at (no spam) example.net> wrote:
Quote: On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:02:57 -0700, RichD wrote:
What happened to cybernetics?
It's been superseded by Obamanomics?
There's never been a lot of intelligence - real or artificial - in
economics, and most of the intelligence in that area seems to have
been devoted to working out what the people being advised wanted to
hear, rather than getting to grips with real markets and their actual
behaviour.
In fact Obama does seem to have had intelligent advice and acted on it
- but since the advice was mainly "don't do what Hoover did in 1929"
and only the Republicans are stupid enough to think that Hoover was
right, this might just reflect Democratic pro-Roosevelt partisan bias.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bill Sloman... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 20, 6:03 am, JeffM <jef... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:
Quote: RichD wrote:
What happened to cybernetics?
Things have taken a turn toward "squishy" rather than "mech".
"Gene Therapy Causes Blind Woman To Grow New Fovea"http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?lowbandwidth=1&mode=nocomment&...
There is an increasing appreciation that cell machinery is self-
programmed, and creationists will have to come to terms with the
proposition that their hypothetical creator-designer came up with some
remarkably crude and inelegant hacks.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David L. Jones... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RichD wrote:
Quote: What happened to cybernetics?
All rights to it were bought by the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
Dave.
--
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bill Sloman... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 20, 3:24 pm, Richard Heathfield <r... at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> wrote:
Quote: Bill Slomansaid:
On Aug 20, 6:03 am, JeffM <jef... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:
RichD wrote:
What happened to cybernetics?
Things have taken a turn toward "squishy" rather than "mech".
"Gene Therapy Causes Blind Woman To Grow New
Fovea"http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?lowbandwidth=1&mode=nocomment&...
There is an increasing appreciation that cell machinery is self-
programmed, and creationists will have to come to terms with the
proposition that their hypothetical creator-designer came up with
some remarkably crude and inelegant hacks.
Let's see *you* do better, starting from scratch and with a six-day
deadline.
I don't fancy my chances,but then I'm neither omniscient nor
omnipotent - which are other implausible components of the the
creationist hypothesis.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Heathfield... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bill Sloman said:
Quote: On Aug 20, 6:03 am, JeffM <jef... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:
RichD wrote:
What happened to cybernetics?
Things have taken a turn toward "squishy" rather than "mech".
"Gene Therapy Causes Blind Woman To Grow New
Fovea"http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?lowbandwidth=1&mode=nocomment&...
There is an increasing appreciation that cell machinery is self-
programmed, and creationists will have to come to terms with the
proposition that their hypothetical creator-designer came up with
some remarkably crude and inelegant hacks.
Let's see *you* do better, starting from scratch and with a six-day
deadline.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh at (no spam)
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
This line unintentionally left unblank |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Stockbauer... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 20, 6:29 am, Richard Heathfield <r... at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> wrote:
Quote: Bill Sloman said:
On Aug 20, 3:24 pm, Richard Heathfield <r... at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomansaid:
snip
There is an increasing appreciation that cell machinery is self-
programmed, and creationists will have to come to terms with the
proposition that their hypothetical creator-designer came up with
some remarkably crude and inelegant hacks.
Let's see *you* do better, starting from scratch and with a six-day
deadline.
I don't fancy my chances,but then I'm neither omniscient nor
omnipotent - which are other implausible components of the the
creationist hypothesis.
I agree that the creationist hypothesis contains several implausible
components. Unfortunately, so do all the various "scientific"
hypotheses.
An enquirer-after-truth asked a scientist friend how the universe was
created, and was told that it all stemmed from vacuum fluctuations.
So he thought about that for a bit, and then replied: "well, okay,
but there are millions of Thermos flasks all round the world, very
useful for keeping your coffee hot - and every one of them has a
vacuum inside it. So how come we don't get loads of universes
springing up all over the place?" The scientist friend replied "well,
that's because there isn't enough vacuum". So you can get a universe
from nothing, provided you've got *enough* nothing! And they say an
omnipotent god is implausible...
Mo: What's the most fantastic invention ever invented?
Joe: Why, the common Thermos flask.
Mo: Why is that?
Joe: Well, it keeps hot things hot and cold things cold.
Mo: What's so great about that?????
Joe: How does it know?
***********************
Just go ahead and adopt pantheism. Then SCIENCE = RELIGION. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Heathfield... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bill Sloman said:
Quote: On Aug 20, 3:24 pm, Richard Heathfield <r... at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomansaid:
snip
Quote: There is an increasing appreciation that cell machinery is self-
programmed, and creationists will have to come to terms with the
proposition that their hypothetical creator-designer came up with
some remarkably crude and inelegant hacks.
Let's see *you* do better, starting from scratch and with a six-day
deadline.
I don't fancy my chances,but then I'm neither omniscient nor
omnipotent - which are other implausible components of the the
creationist hypothesis.
I agree that the creationist hypothesis contains several implausible
components. Unfortunately, so do all the various "scientific"
hypotheses.
An enquirer-after-truth asked a scientist friend how the universe was
created, and was told that it all stemmed from vacuum fluctuations.
So he thought about that for a bit, and then replied: "well, okay,
but there are millions of Thermos flasks all round the world, very
useful for keeping your coffee hot - and every one of them has a
vacuum inside it. So how come we don't get loads of universes
springing up all over the place?" The scientist friend replied "well,
that's because there isn't enough vacuum". So you can get a universe
from nothing, provided you've got *enough* nothing! And they say an
omnipotent god is implausible...
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh at (no spam)
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
This line unintentionally left unblank |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Heathfield... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Don Stockbauer said:
<snip>
Quote: Joe: Well, [a Thermos] keeps hot things hot and cold things cold.
Mo: What's so great about that?????
Joe: How does it know?
Vacuums are computron sinks, and thus highly intelligent.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh at (no spam)
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
This line unintentionally left unblank |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rich Grise... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 05:24:27 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Quote: Bill Sloman said:
On Aug 20, 6:03 am, JeffM <jef... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:
RichD wrote:
What happened to cybernetics?
Things have taken a turn toward "squishy" rather than "mech".
"Gene Therapy Causes Blind Woman To Grow New
Fovea"http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?lowbandwidth=1&mode=nocomment&...
There is an increasing appreciation that cell machinery is self-
programmed, and creationists will have to come to terms with the
proposition that their hypothetical creator-designer came up with
some remarkably crude and inelegant hacks.
Let's see *you* do better, starting from scratch and with a six-day
deadline.
Sloman, putting down "creationists"????
Evidently he, likd DfBC, believe that they created themselves and the
whole rest of the Universe.
But, hell, what can you expect from a warmingist? The evidence for
that is non-existent as well. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ed Prochak... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 20, 7:29 am, Richard Heathfield <r... at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> wrote:
Quote: Bill Sloman said:
On Aug 20, 3:24 pm, Richard Heathfield <r... at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomansaid:
snip
There is an increasing appreciation that cell machinery is self-
programmed, and creationists will have to come to terms with the
proposition that their hypothetical creator-designer came up with
some remarkably crude and inelegant hacks.
Let's see *you* do better, starting from scratch and with a six-day
deadline.
I don't fancy my chances,but then I'm neither omniscient nor
omnipotent - which are other implausible components of the the
creationist hypothesis.
I agree that the creationist hypothesis contains several implausible
components. Unfortunately, so do all the various "scientific"
hypotheses.
An enquirer-after-truth asked a scientist friend how the universe was
created, and was told that it all stemmed from vacuum fluctuations.
So he thought about that for a bit, and then replied: "well, okay,
but there are millions of Thermos flasks all round the world, very
useful for keeping your coffee hot - and every one of them has a
vacuum inside it. So how come we don't get loads of universes
springing up all over the place?" The scientist friend replied "well,
that's because there isn't enough vacuum". So you can get a universe
from nothing, provided you've got *enough* nothing! And they say an
omnipotent god is implausible...
I see it more as the statistical spread of the fluctuations. A big
bang that creates a universe is a large statistical outlier.
The fact is though, physics will likely never answer that question.
How do you describe, mathematically or otherwise, what exists before
existence?
Ed |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:54 am
|
|