> Is a five year old child "human"?Of course it is, are you retarded?> If YES, then the kid could order 50 million dollars worth of machinery to destroy itself.Why would a kid be able to order that much machinery? If you're referring to the robot then why would you implement this feature? I am sincerely starting to believe you're retarded.> Asimov made it clear that at least _some_ of his robots weren't "happy" with their status.Who gives a shit? Just fucking reprogram them. That is obviously a sign of dysfunction.> "All normal life, Peter, consciously or otherwise, resents domination. If the domination is by an inferior, or by a supposed inferior, the resentment becomes stronger. Physically, and, to an extent, mentally, a robot -- any robot -- is superior to human beings. What makes him slavish, then? Only the First Law! Why, without it, the first order you tried to give a robot would result in your death."Just reprogram the damn thing so it doesn't think that way, you retard.
>>9356423And you've obviously never read Asimov.Example: In "The Naked Sun". children tie robots (who are supposed to be caring for them) into logical knots. It takes direct, detailed orders from a responsible, trained roboticist to over-ride a kid falsely screaming "I'm hurt!"Only in the very first story, "Robbie", are robots capable of such distinctions -- and Asimov hadn't formalized the Three Laws at that point. John W Campbell had to point them out.Susan Calvin emphasized that robots have to treat all humans the same, whether they're saints or sinners.Finally, dumbass, _of course_ they should be reprogrammed! But we're discussing Asimov's laws and why they can't be implemented as stated.You've just agreed with me!!!
>>9356423The Calvin quote is just a psychological projection. It only exists because the author thinks in that manner for that character. As with humans themselves, robots can be programmed to enjoy, "slavery".
>>9356467No doubt. Robot motivations will be set by their programmers.But Asimov didn't do it that way -- and he's the only authority on the workings of positronic brains. Sadly, we can't ask him now.In the robot novels, robots have been around a loooong time. Someone asks why no one has ever built a robot without the Three Laws. "Because the human race has a strong Frankenstein Complex". No one has ever dared risk it.Other authors have played in Asimov's sandbox, altering the three laws. I think Roger McBride Allen's efforts (and others) were even authorized by Asimov's estate to do so. Robots which were "happy" with their lot in life would be even safer. But that's not what Asimov wrote. At least, I can't see it. R.Daneel seems genuinely horrified when a human comes to harm, but who can tell.
can you draw a graph of every function?
>>9356455maybe
No because you can't draw a graph of drawing a graph
>>9356469
>>9356455If a function goes to infinity at some point (Y = 1/X as X approaches 0) you need a very large sheet of paper.
No one can, buddy:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowhere_continuous_function#Dirichlet_function
What are some good ways to prove the moon landings were real to retards?
>>9356567It proves the we went to the moon and HAMS can do that?
>>9356570more believable than robots in the 1960s
>>9356396You're such a traitor to humanity, worse than a politician and their lies.
>>9356574It proves nothing.
>>9356574Moon bounce.
https://phys.org/news/2017-12-mars-atmosphere-solar.html?utm_source=menu&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=item-menuWhat are the implications if Mars actually has a sufficient induced magnetic field so that solar winds don't cause atmosphere loss at Mars today?Has it always been like this? Is the theory, that Mars has so little atmosphere because solar storms blew it away after it lost its intrinsic magnetic field much less likely now?Does it mean that Mars never had a denser atmosphere than it has today?This brought me down a little. Just last year NASA published the idea that an artificial magnetosphere at Mars' L1 point could block the solar wind and lead to a thickening atmosphere over time, because the still steadily evaporating gases would stay in Mars' atmosphere. Is this whole idea nonsense now?
It would help stem atmospheric loss, but it wouldn't stop it.Mars' gravitational well is too shallow to stop the fastest moving molecules from escaping. If you somehow warmed the planet as part of a terraforming process, it would leak faster.Mind you, all these effects are very slow on a human timescale. If you established a breathable atmosphere on Mars and told potential colonists it would only last 20,000 years, would they care?As a counter-example, Venus does not have a magnetic field (due to its slow rotation), would be warmer than Earth (though not impossibly so) even without the Greenhouse Effect, and is exposed to a much stronger solar wind.All those things would seem to work against it, yet it retains a tremendous atmosphere -- because it has a near-Earth gravity well.I might add that, even if losses on Mars ceased, where would a new gas supply come from? Gasses are spewed from volcanos but Mars ceased having plate tectonics long ago. The crust is thick and frozen. That's why Mons Olympus is so huge. It was stuck atop a "hot spot". On Earth, the surface slides by and we've got a string of volcanoes in the form of the Hawaiian Islands.
>>9356499Interesting points, but if it was as simple as "Mars' gravity is simply to low to allow for a thicker atmosphere", why does it seem like the predominant theories are that Mars once had a much thicker atmosphere and lots of liquid water (requires atmosphere pressure)? Hasn't NASA even found evidence that there must have been more liquid water?Also, some minor additions:>Venus does not have a magnetic fieldIt does have an induced magnetic field though>where would a new gas supply come from?I've read somewhere that still a steady amount of gas comes into the Martian atmosphere. Iirc it's sublimation from all the CO2 and H2O ice in the soil and at the poles.
>>9356528Because it takes time to lose an atmosphere.If you outgas faster than you leak, it accumulates -- for awhile. True, but weak http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/50246-a-magnetic-surprise-for-venus-express/Sublimation, but not keeping up with the current loss rate.
>no magnetic field>has volcanic activitywhat
>>9356561Same as this one.
How can you put this
>>9355888On the contrary, computers are fine with ambiguity given a statistical analysis tool such as a neural network, where performance often matches human capabilities.Where computers don't work well on is anything that hasn't already been done before. Computers can't do anything unless you hold their hands.
>>9355917>"wut iz deepmind?"
>>9355344>>9355348Only one of these things fit inside your head and can be powered by a burger.
>>9356030burger a day
>>9355344Well, the problem is that computers use symbolic logic and humans use iconic diagramic logic. As in the sense of Peirce's existential graphs and the diagramic mathematical logic being developed form them. If symbolic logic wasn't so big when Peirce published his existential graphs, things would be different. They do everything first order logic does and more(ternary identity relations) after some "tweaking" to make them better suited as a formal system
Why is nutrition so controversial? Is the whole field really that divided?
>>9355829youll just get sick. each vitamin and mineral has a specific job. Lacking in one means the job doesnt get finished. this can appear in numerous different ways. for instance, deficiency in vitamin D can lead to osteoporosis and depression. Deficiency in some b vitamins lead to depression and low energy. Deficiency in vitamin k gives low blood coagulation, the list goes on.Try filling out all your vitamin needs on a site like cronometer, see you how feel after a couple of days of hitting all your markers.
>not exclusively eating soylentlmaoing @ ur toxins
>>9356414Good soy boy goy. Keep it up! Proud of you!t. The Jews
>>9356546>not eating the soylent version without soy
>>9356400Sources for the correlation between meat and cancer?
You have the power to manipulate matter and want to create life and see it evolve. What will your planet look like? Will you throw strands of DNA into a sea or will you try a non DNA-based form of life?
>>9356515Like earth, but without people who make dumb threads
>>9356515>Acknowledging Before Watchmen exists and posting a page from itpls leave
>>9356516>>9356525
Quick question;I've read the proofs regarding the infinite summation of all integers equaling (-1/12) and it makes sense, but my question is, does this show up in nature? Has this number ever showed up in places you would expect infinity to show up in physics?
>>9355117Bosonic string theory is basically moronic ding theory. Literally autism branded as physics
>>9355145>He asked for a live exAmple not some unverifiable braindead theory that subhuman physicists masturbate to, you fucking coconutDid you even read the link?
>>9355145>HeI'm not a "he".
>>9355145M theory is autism. This is just regular aids.
>>9355192nobody kares
>consciousness is located in the brain>we still refer to the brain as just another part of the human bodyWhy do we say "my brain", when really, we ARE brains? When I say "I", who/what am I referring to?
>>9355967>your conscious is just a product of seemingly random interactions between particles in that hyper-dense state the universe was before its expansionWhy do you refer to something as 'your'? You're just fucking nothing in terms of influence to have anything belong to you
>>9355967>consciousness is located in the brainNo it isn't. It's actually located in the heart. A study was conducted to test the responsive ability of patients to stimuli after their heart were stopped. 10/10 patients failed to respond to stimuli after their hearts were stopped, thus it makes sense that the consciousness is located in the heart because without a heart patients could not respond to stimuli.
>>9355998Chickens can't live without their head. They move around because action potentials cannot reach their brain so they loop around in the spinal cord triggering reflexes
We say "my brain" because languages froze before we understood things.I believe Aristotle thought the brain was a radiator for cooling the blood. "We" were in the heart or lungs because those organs can be seen actively _doing_ something. Also, if either stops working, we die.
>>9356390>Anything that can process information should have some level of 'consciousness'. Including plants. Biosemiotic>what is consciousness if not the processing of all information inputs?A couple things, it's not enough to process information. The information needs to be identified in order to be used to mean anything, so a ternary relation needs to be. A third point. Information>process>meaning in your words or as in biosemiotics the sign structure object-representamen-interpertant(pic and publication related)http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715001261?via%3Dihub closely related to the triad are Peirce's categories of firstness secondness and thirdness which is a diagram iconic of how all reasoning works when reduced to the most basic level. Here we get into the "reduction thesis", I will save you the trouble unless you are a logician.Building on what I just mentioned, in order for a semiotic to be what we call "conscious" it must at least have self-reference. Indexical and iconic signs no longer suffice, you need symbols objects that stands for something completely unrelated to what they are(signs stored in clusters of neurons that represent memories of semiotics), this is why I think only animals can meet the requirements to be called conscious, and conscious is just a particular kind of semiotic.>As for what we are? We are the full extension of our senses. I am not within my brain, my body, or my eyes. I am everything I experience. What you are trying to talk about is in line with the concept of an umwelten or semiotic niche. I too have done to many shrooms and have experienced depersonalisation.>Right now, I am you. Or I suppose you are my words as you read this.Please stop, we are not the objects we experience, we are the object experiencing. You may be me but in a semantically different sense, relating to Life as a whole.
>undergrad complains about how difficult one of their classes are
>>9356232for 4.uvu=(uvu)^2=uvuuvu=uvvu=uu=uwhat is wrong with this?
>>9356376>uvuuvu=uvvuuvuuvu=uvuvu=uvu
>>9353925Lost
>somebody complains about how hard are his classes that I've already took and they're relatively easy compared to what I'm learning now
>undergrads
So, is race real, /sci/?
>>9356483No, I'm not. I'm saying that if you stop screeching for 5 minutes and just think about it, the best thing for blacks is to realize they aren't the same as whites and that accommodating their difference is in the best interest of everyone. Same thing for all races. Do you seriously think a schooling system that was designed by whites for whites and then later applied to blacks is the best thing for blacks (and Indians)? If so, you're a retard.
>>9356490>the best thing for blacks is to realize they aren't the same as whitesBut they are the same (basically) when they share the same IQ. Blacks are not a collective hivemind, they're a collection of individuals with their own talents, their own dreams, their own desires. This edgy alt right collectivist faggotry is nothing but destructive and divisive. We can recognize races exist and also think they shouldn't mean shit about a person. Just let people be who they are, and not their race, and stop trying to force us all into collectives.
>>9353098So some cultures are or can be objectively inferior to others.
>>9356529That guy's retarded, you could never be objective about it, but to me, there does seem to intuitively be more and less developed and sophisticated elements of cultures.Surely western medicine seems somewhat superior to voodoo.
>>9356529>>9356541Careful not to confuse cultural relativism with moral relativism.
Is QI real? Just the other I almost got beheaded by a projectile but somehow, even though I hardly got a glimpse of it a split second before impact, my head moved on its own. For the record, I never had quick reflexes. Could it be that I died in my original universe, and moved into one where I survived?
Having overdosed multiple times I think so
>>9354654Proving Quantum immortality via Russian Roulette is like a ZKP. You can keep trying, and each time you try it makes it a bit more likely, but you can never be certain.
>>9354654Maybe, I've almost been killed a number of times on my motorcycle, even today almost had a head on crash at 140km/h when an oncoming car veered into my lane, just a few cm and i'd have been wasted.I always think about QI after such events.
>>9354668>Common Sense>Any sense being common>being this much of a brainlet
>>9354654Our soul is much bigger than we think, and stretches across time therefore allowing us to experience every possibility that exist. The same experience happened to me when I step out in to the street with head phones on following somerone who J walked. I stepped back on the side walk right as a bus flew by.
Our body is made up of cells - individuals who make up a greater whole through specialized functions and contracts enforced by chemical communication.What if we, as large individually intelligent organisms, are analogous to the cells in our bodies, with the bodies we art a part of being society as a whole?cell is to body as body is to civilizationShould we look to the interactive structures of cells for political inspiration in creating the best systems of government? Is the universe fractal in this way? Or are we on an echelon above the cell and we need systems of organization that are drastically different than those of our cells?If this is the case, why is it the case?
>>9355682>>9355703>>9355704Find the others. The seekers. The generative emergent archetypes.https://evolution-institute.org/http://zerostate.net/The holoncene members who are awakening. Ragnarok comes and with it the age of Aquarius.
You're not far from the truth here- but don't get bogged down in preconceptions. Yes, the cells in the body are in many ways analogous to life on the planet, or in any ecosystem; selection acts on the system as a whole, as well as the constituent parts.However, what I think you're misunderstanding, is how society works. How diplomacy is created, how human nature actually functions- it's as though you're putting the cart before the horse here. Look at it the other way around; what drives human behavior on a biological level? Why, a logic circuit that is constructed by neurons in the brain assimilates premises as knowledge, and formulates conclusions as decisions. What we decide is the most apt action to take depends on our values, which in turn are informed by what we perceive that we need; normally this is food, water, shelter, etc. first. Then, usually come social needs- maslow's hierarchy gets the basic idea correct, no need to go too in-depth here.At any rate, all actions are based on this, and complex ones are formed as the result of complex formulation; intelligence. This is what allows humans, as a species, to decide that an action that might disadvantage us personally is best if it has a greater overall benefit and allows us to live with more/longer security. This, however, is not a simple thing to impart, thus it's forced to be so through laws, or religion, or other such structures. After all, living is so much easier if you can just murder your neighbor, steal his stuff, and take his wife right? Once the concept of eternal punishment and damnation comes into play, that's no longer the optimal solution, and so getting along becomes the priority.The concept of the philosopher king is to have the one deciding upon these rules be also the one who understands the weights of personal benefit vs. group benefit, and can legislate accordingly. This is inverted most often with people seeking power for personal rather than group benefit; it's a conundrum.
>>9356259con't>>9355704>We need people who do good to make the most moneyThis gets to the next problem I speak of. Those who do the most good must be given the power to do so, so long as they have the desire and capacity to understand the path forward. Incentivization of it as such leads to corruption- after all, a position of power does mighty good for the self, even at the cost of not using that power to help others. This is what has happened time and time again throughout the history of man, and is what many key thinkers have thought to combat. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in particular had a lot of interest to say about government and trying to prevent the degradation of society as the virtue of sacrifice is lost through the generations.The United States is truly a wonderful country- at least in design- because of its ingenious system of checks and balances. The constitution is thought to contain those inviolable rights that define human existence. The three branches of government all purposefully attempt to prevent gaining power for power's sake, with the Judicial branch being the closest to the "philosopher king" talked about by some philosophers, and the congress acting as a sort of court of philosophers theorized by others. One of the problems of any legislative body is that needs and priorities will vary by climate- physical, political, resource-based, etc., and these needs change. The regionality is represented by the way we carve up congress, and the change is how we vote- this incidentally is also meant to reduce corruption, as the corrupt should not be necessarily voted for. This has gone so incredibly wrong, and it's depressing to think about how this could even begin to get back on track, however.The only solution, as you and others have touched on here, is to educate the masses. To promote higher level thinking. But there are many complications, as one might think.
>>9355608>Why>Why is anything the case?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
>>9355632Niggers are the cancer of society
Will it really be cheaper to launch a 150 ton payload to orbit in the year 2027 than it is to launch a 20 ton payload today?
>>9355903stop being such a spastic
Rocket business was incredibly overpriced due to old monopolies and bureaucracy so it skewed perspective on how much things can cost. But there's a chance spacex' strategy might fall apart for the BFR if>sat market over saturates before/shortly after it's done - important source of income lost>no interest from private or government entities for bleo payloads - expected source of income never appearsThe latter is actually likely because of budgets, existing connections, and general line of thought (each mission is a one of a kind flagship mission involving decades and billions).
>>9355356I'm still skeptical about the BFR. They are too chicken to even launch Falcons for a 3rd time right now and they're already building a rocket that's not just of an unprecedented size, but also endlessly and immediately reusable?I mean, I wish them the best, but I'll still be surprised if this actually works out.
>>9355602Where is the dome?
>>9356430They'll be going into the satellite business themselvesAnd they'll be doing beyond earth orbit missions themselves, if needed.Obviously no government is going to refuse to go to the moon when the BFR exists & is proven to works
Hey /sci/. What's the best calculator for high level math and science? I'd like one with a computer algebra system so I'm currently looking at the HP Prime and the TI Nspire CX CAS.Also calculator thread.
Haven't used a graphing calculator since I was in high school. If you need a cheap reliable one then you can't go wrong with the TI-84 (I used the 83, but they're pretty similar). Otherwise just use wolfram alpha.
>>9355461Thanks anon.
>>9351919I just use my uni's standard calculator, not allowed to use anything else on exams
>>9355024why don't they allow this calculator on exams? Because of it's calc features or something?
>>9351919>What's the best calculator for high level math and science?A computer
