AI is outperforming humans in both IQ and creativity in 2021

[CrazyKB]

True, and I think the same applies to agencies such as NASA. Create public awareness and interest, and you'll also attract the support of those who fund you, especially if it helps increase their popularity.

I doubt NASA has to 'create public awareness or interest' for funding purposes, since they're an indispensable component of the 20/21 centuries regarding science (Hubble Deep Field image, to give one example, revolutionized Cosmology) or the launching of satellites (telecommunication satellites for example).

 

[CrazyKB]

They've got jobs to do and families to feed. Saying anything outside what is accepted fact jeopardises both. Questioning known 'facts' - part of many scientist's day to day job, can - in the wrong hands - be turned into sensationalism. Which is great if you want to get your name in the news or promote a book, but not what most people want to do when they are just trying to earn a living.

The program was commenting on how the media distorts science. For example, researchers will publish a paper on how (to give an example) coffee can be beneficial to health, the media will publish the story stating that science has shown that to be true, when in fact the researchers never said that. The average public doesn't understand the peer review process, which is why new ideas take a long time before they enter the scientific literature (found in text books for example). If later research shows that coffee doesn't do what the initial research 'suggested' it did, the public gets a distorted understanding of not only the research, but of the scientific method in general.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I doubt NASA has to 'create public awareness or interest' for funding purposes, since they're an indispensable component of the 20/21 centuries regarding science (Hubble Deep Field image, to give one example, revolutionized Cosmology) or the launching of satellites (telecommunication satellites for example).

I understand what you say, but I think that by creating public interest in going to Mars, back to the Moon etc can't do any harm when it comes to asking for the vast sums of money needed to make these projects reality. For instance, part of the reason for NASA getting a man on the Moon so quickly was in a public desire to do so, and part of the reason for stopping going to the Moon was public disinterest. I'm not saying that it was the main reason, but it was a factor. If there had been widespread public outcry when NASA stopped Moon landings there may have been a different outcome.

 

[Swank]

It depends on your definition of consciousness. If we use the definition on Wiki (which I think is a good one), I'd argue that 'processing power' (of the brain) plays a role in our consciousness experience.

From Wiki: "Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience and awareness of internal and external existence"

'Awareness of internal existence', depends on how the brain processes data. Our thoughts (awareness of internal existence) are dependant upon how smart/intellectual we are, which is directedly related to processing power. To quote Socrates: “Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.” I'd assume that most, if not all of those who frequent these types of forums belong in the first category. A 'strong mind' is one that has more processing power than those with 'weak minds', and it's the processing power that determines how deeply we can understand a subject, which is no doubt related to our interest in it (intellect). It's also why other organisms, such as dolphins can only reach the intelligence of an average 5 year old, since they don't have the 'processing power' to go beyond that level of intelligence.

Obviously, processing power isn't the totality of one's conscious experience, however it's definitely related to it.

Which "wiki" are you talking about? That doesn't appear to be from wikipedia.

 

[Swank]

I doubt NASA has to 'create public awareness or interest' for funding purposes, since they're an indispensable component of the 20/21 centuries regarding science (Hubble Deep Field image, to give one example, revolutionized Cosmology) or the launching of satellites (telecommunication satellites for example).

And the people that fund science aren't rich scientists. Yes, NASA is always struggling to get public support for its budget.

 

[CrazyKB]

Which "wiki" are you talking about? That doesn't appear to be from wikipedia.

Consciousness - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CrazyKB]

And the people that fund science aren't rich scientists. Yes, NASA is always struggling to get public support for its budget.

Most industry has to lobby for funding, which is a good thing (don't want to throw money around needlessly). With that being said, if anyone here would like to throw money at me ... I assure you all that I'd take great care in using your financial donations for my immediate pleasure.

 

[CrazyKB]

I understand what you say, but I think that by creating public interest in going to Mars, back to the Moon etc can't do any harm when it comes to asking for the vast sums of money needed to make these projects reality. For instance, part of the reason for NASA getting a man on the Moon so quickly was in a public desire to do so, and part of the reason for stopping going to the Moon was public disinterest. I'm not saying that it was the main reason, but it was a factor. If there had been widespread public outcry when NASA stopped Moon landings there may have been a different outcome.

I thought I posted a reply to you, however I can't find it ...


If I remember my history correctly, the main reason for why the Americans went to the moon was because of American pride and the Cold War between the former USSR and the US. The Russians had already beat the US in getting the first satellite in Earth Orbit (Sputnik) as well as the first human (Yuri Gagarin), the last place was the moon. It also illustrated the strength of America's rocket program that would play a huge role during the Cold War (ICBMs).

We won't discuss those whole claim the Moon landings were a hoax ...

 

[paranoid marvin]

I thought I posted a reply to you, however I can't find it ...


If I remember my history correctly, the main reason for why the Americans went to the moon was because of American pride and the Cold War between the former USSR and the US. The Russians had already beat the US in getting the first satellite in Earth Orbit (Sputnik) as well as the first human (Yuri Gagarin), the last place was the moon. It also illustrated the strength of America's rocket program that would play a huge role during the Cold War (ICBMs).

We won't discuss those whole claim the Moon landings were a hoax ...

As soon as JFK announced his decision to goo to the Moon in 1961 , it was virtually a done deal. Yes, there definitely was a rivalry with the USSR, but I also think that it was something that humans needed to do. We have been staring up at that planetary body since the dawn of mankind, and (in space terms) it's virtually on our doorstep. It's just something that we had to do, and I think that the whole world must have been united in their admiration for the moment that those brave astronauts set foot on another world for the first time in our history.

I understand that by the time of the later Moon landings, the interest from the general public was pretty low, as where the viewing ratings. We'd gone there and done that, and it was now time to move on. I think that when we have the first manned mission to Mars then interest in space exploration will pick up again.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

If the US isn't the first to get a lunar base going with regular human activity that will become a very big story with all kinds of legs because of the perceived security issues. The cost will be a secondary issue.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

The question is not how many terra flops it takes to mimic a human mind, but how many terra flops does it take to mimic the brain of a crow. The goal of the thinking might be more important than what is being thought, such as self preservation with a future existence.

 

[psikeyhackr]

What percentage of humans would you totally ignore but for the fact that it would cause more interpersonal social problems than the savings in time and effort would be worth?

Being able to bring up an AI to talk to a couple of nieces and nephews so I wouldn't have to would be great.

Yeah, I know. I am a horrible person. It's really hard for under cover Vulcans pretending to be human.

 

[Swank]

Consciousness - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The term "processing power" appears nowhere on that page.

 

[Swank]

I thought I posted a reply to you, however I can't find it ...


If I remember my history correctly, the main reason for why the Americans went to the moon was because of American pride and the Cold War between the former USSR and the US. The Russians had already beat the US in getting the first satellite in Earth Orbit (Sputnik) as well as the first human (Yuri Gagarin), the last place was the moon. It also illustrated the strength of America's rocket program that would play a huge role during the Cold War (ICBMs).

We won't discuss those whole claim the Moon landings were a hoax ...

The moon landings had no impact on ICBM design.

 

[CrazyKB]

The term "processing power" appears nowhere on that page.

I quoted from that page to provide a good definition of Consciousness. The 'processing power' theme had to do with Stephen Palmer's post (which I was responding to).

 

[CrazyKB]

The moon landings had no impact on ICBM design.

I never said they did. I said that it had to do with 'displaying the strength of America's rocket programs', which was of paramount importance at that time since they'd (rockets) be responsible for delivering nuclear payloads to the USSR (if they could get a man to the moon they could deliver a nuclear strike anywhere on the planet, something the Russians couldn't do at that time). And the rocket technology at that time was (and still is) connected to the V2 (including ICBMs).

 

[CrazyKB]

As soon as JFK announced his decision to goo to the Moon in 1961 , it was virtually a done deal. Yes, there definitely was a rivalry with the USSR, but I also think that it was something that humans needed to do. We have been staring up at that planetary body since the dawn of mankind, and (in space terms) it's virtually on our doorstep. It's just something that we had to do, and I think that the whole world must have been united in their admiration for the moment that those brave astronauts set foot on another world for the first time in our history.

I understand that by the time of the later Moon landings, the interest from the general public was pretty low, as where the viewing ratings. We'd gone there and done that, and it was now time to move on. I think that when we have the first manned mission to Mars then interest in space exploration will pick up again.

Again, I believe JFK spun the moon landings in such a way as to make it about furthering humankind, however I'd argue it had more to do with American pride (after losing to the Russians on the first satellite and human in Earth orbit) and the Cold War (see my response to Swank). I agree it was a monumental moment in human history, however how much actual science was done? I know they placed mirrors on the moon (leading to measurements of its movement away from Earth) and some rock samples. However, what everyone remembers are the rover rides and other human antics. When the space race died down so did the space program.

As far as Mars is concerned, in my opinion we can do great science at a fraction of the cost using are mechanical/computer proxies. The enormous amount of money that would be needed to get to the Red Planet could be better utilized here on Earth.

 

[Swank]

I quoted from that page to provide a good definition of Consciousness. The 'processing power' theme had to do with Stephen Palmer's post (which I was responding to).

I thought you were quoting something that supported your assertion of processing power. But that Wiki quote has nothing to do with that.

 

[Swank]

I never said they did. I said that it had to do with 'displaying the strength of America's rocket programs', which was of paramount importance at that time since they'd (rockets) be responsible for delivering nuclear payloads to the USSR (if they could get a man to the moon they could deliver a nuclear strike anywhere on the planet, something the Russians couldn't do at that time). And the rocket technology at that time was (and still is) connected to the V2 (including ICBMs).

We already had ICBMs well before the moon program. The first American's in space used modified ICBMs. So I don't follow what the Atlas program had to demonstrate about ballistic missiles. It wasn't a ballistic missile and wasn't used as the basis for one.

 

[CrazyKB]

I thought you were quoting something that supported your assertion of processing power. But that Wiki quote has nothing to do with that.

I thought I was clear in my original post that the quote had to do with defining consciousness only. I apologize for any misconception I may have caused.