From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 11 23:10:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA21604 for chat-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 23:10:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat) Received: from usr01.primenet.com (tlambert@usr01.primenet.com [206.165.6.201]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA21594 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 23:10:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr01.primenet.com) Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA29725; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:10:47 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199711120710.AAA29725@usr01.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:10:45 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, nate@mt.sri.com, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199711120532.WAA01955@rocky.mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Nov 11, 97 10:32:25 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > "Perfectly Random" doesn't exist. > > Prove it. I say it does. :) :) :) It's the simpler explanation. Prove that it does, or provide some empirical evidence which contradicts the hypothesis... 8-). > > Mostly because not only time and > > energy is quantized, but because space is quantized, as well. > > Actually, space is not as far as we can tell. Space is infinite, and > therefore cannot be quantized completely. (Something that is infinite > cannot be modeled except by an infinite model.) A grid etched on a plain can have a defined grid unit size without the plane having to be finite. Although the best evidence we have suggests that space is finite (and that we live in a closed universe). > With the same token energy maybe infinite as well.... Again, the best evidence is that we live in a closed universe. > All of the emperical evidence you've seen doesn't take into account > things that can't be described emperically. :) That's why it's called "empirical" evidence. 8-). > I argue that it's impossible to build 'true' artificial intelligence. Don't parents do this every day? 8-) 8-). > And, there are alot of *really* smart people who agree with me. And a lot of them who disagree with you. Appeal to authority isn't a valid form of proof. 8-). > However, it depends on your definition of intelligence, mine being > 'conscious', which is hard to quantify, especially in email. > > > I have a hard time accepting that without evidence. I hypothesize > > that the only thing that makes a human being unique is locality > > of self. > > Are 'conscious' and 'locality of self' the same? Locality of consciousness, perhaps. I can certainly localize "self" for anyone to inside one cubic foot: their head. If I had a "magic" technology that could duplicate you down to the spin on your electrons, the original and duplicate would still differ in their locality of self. And if the "soul theory" -- which is not the simplest explanation, given observable data -- is correct, then I guess the duplicate would be brain-dead. Which means we could use the technology with impunity on politicians. 8-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.