I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Gorilla Mask

Extreme Humor

Oddee

Free Samples

123 Games

Funny Games

Viva La Games

FreeGame Heaven

DailyFreeGames

Fresh Pics

Funny Stuff

Gig Posters

Funny Videos



Back to Listing

Six 60 Second Adventures in Thought

Hits: 14476 | Rating: (3.4) | Category: Science | Added by: kitteh9lives
Page: 1 2 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Vimto
Male, 40-49, Europe
 2678 Posts
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 2:35:59 AM
It can't be David Mitchell, he's too busy chasing his dog across Richmond Park.

DSDavis008
Male, 13-17, Eastern US
 70 Posts
Saturday, November 26, 2011 10:14:21 PM
simple solutions to most of Zeno paradoxes come from basic calculus

intrigid
Male, 18-29, Canada
 916 Posts
Saturday, November 26, 2011 9:13:27 PM
"And an infinite number of steps would of course take, infinity to complete"

No. Wrong. An infinite number of positive, finite nummbers can equal a positive, finite number. Example, 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 etc.

sariel
Male, 18-29, Australia
 78 Posts
Saturday, November 26, 2011 8:53:31 PM
@BlankTom I don't understand your point about achillies and the tortoise, i think you've misunderstood the problem. Achilles isn't stopping everytime he reaches the tortoise to allow it to advance, therefore his "intent" as in the point he's 'aiming' for, doesn't factor into the problem at all. All you need to know is that achilles and the tortoise are both travelling parrelel at constant speeds, where achilles is aiming for is irrelevent. The Paradox is just highlighting that an infinite number of steps must occur before achilles can overtake the tortoise. And an infinite number of steps would of course take, infinity to complete, therefore rendering all movement impossible. Of course movement IS possible, so what we're left with is a lovely befuddling paradox.

SoberGuy
Male, 18-29, S. America
 347 Posts
Saturday, November 26, 2011 5:37:34 PM
DAVE MITCHEL yay!

Link_Hiei
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 5190 Posts
Saturday, November 26, 2011 2:58:32 PM
My brain.

BlankTom
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 6560 Posts
Saturday, November 26, 2011 8:56:33 AM
The infinit hotel: The problem with this, is that infinity does not act as a regular number, it's more of a concept. Basically something that is infinitly large is not bounded. You can have a hotel with an infinit number of room, and you can have an infinit number of guest but you can never say this hotel is "full". That would require there be an upper bound to the amount of people who can be in the hotel. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be an infinit number of rooms.

BlankTom
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 6560 Posts
Saturday, November 26, 2011 8:43:58 AM
The Chinese Room: I'm not sure i understnad why people consider the man inside the room as the robot. I would consider the room itself the robot. The man is just a component of the entire system. The instruction, the chinese characters and even the door that allows the characters to pass in and out should all be considered as a whole when talking about this example.

In anycase, aren't we all just immitating intelligence? We have a preconcieved notiong of what "inetlligence" is and we follow instruction on how to achieve that. Our instructions come in the form or learning and experience and are stored in our own manual. I think the only reason we can't have intelligent machines is because we can't concieve of instructions complex enough to truely replicate our own minds.

BlankTom
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 6560 Posts
Saturday, November 26, 2011 8:29:46 AM
Here's my thought on a couple of the interesting ones:
The Achilies/Tortoise one: The issue with this paradox is that it's only considering two points - Achilies location and the Tortoise's location - as in the Tortoise is the End Point that Achilies is trying to acchive. However Achillies is not attempting to reach the tortoise, He's attempting to get to a point just past the finish line. So once Achilies passes the tortoise he is no longer trying to reach the tortoise, he is trying to get to a point beyond the tortoise.

Think of this another way: When you run a race, you're not trying to get "to the finiish line" you're trying to get to a point *past* the finish line. You never see a marathon runner run the race only to stop at the exact point his body touches the finish riboon. So on order to "pass" something, let it be a tortoise, the finish line a slow driver, etc, there needs to be point beyond the "thing" you want to pass.

cyborg
Male, 13-17, Midwest US
 2799 Posts
Saturday, November 26, 2011 8:05:01 AM
awesome stuff

intrigid
Male, 18-29, Canada
 916 Posts
Saturday, November 26, 2011 7:55:20 AM
"I'm wondering what the difference is between the human brain and a sufficiently intelligent robot."

Who says there needs to be a difference? There isn't one.

"Granted, it has been stated that an entity can never create another entity of equal intelligence, only one of less intelligence,"

Said by whom? What's makes them the authority? This is easily debunked. Let's say humans are able to invent a machine that makes an exact clone of a human being. Then suppose that someone invents a way to "edit" the clone on a computer before creating it. They could experiment, screw around, clear neural pathways, etc, and create hundreds of different clones, killing the ones that turn out dumb. That would be a very simple way for humans to create beings of superior intelligence.

Because humans are able to identify their own weaknesses, it IS possible for humans to create superior beings.

intrigid
Male, 18-29, Canada
 916 Posts
Saturday, November 26, 2011 7:47:45 AM
The video was way too rushed. This video requires an hour. This one just doesn't cut it.

TKD_Master
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 4827 Posts
Saturday, November 26, 2011 4:48:52 AM
"I find David Mitchell's voice annoying. "

Weird... I happen to find your voice annoying.

LazyMe484
Male, 18-29, Canada
 10503 Posts
Friday, November 25, 2011 9:48:38 PM
I like the video. It shows these paradoxes/ideas cleverly and it's very entertaining. I'd like to see more. Please post!

Don't make me browse their YT channel.

thelonious
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 3246 Posts
Friday, November 25, 2011 9:25:09 PM
Everyone's "now" is subjective and relative, as our great thinkers have surmised. So now is not regulated by some quantitative position, but "flowers" in it's many points of observation. I really dislike using the verb flowers. Or blossoms. But that is how reality works. Naturally an "observation" that collapses state need not be a human observation.

sutra46
Female, 40-49, Asia
 2482 Posts
Friday, November 25, 2011 9:19:55 PM
I find David Mitchell's voice annoying.

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 15078 Posts
Friday, November 25, 2011 8:51:53 PM
All infinities are infinitely large, but some are larger than others. For instance, the set of all real numbers is larger than the set of all integers.

thatjimguy
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 448 Posts
Friday, November 25, 2011 8:01:36 PM
Very postworthy! Good one!

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 26626 Posts
Friday, November 25, 2011 7:52:21 PM
Nicely said @janus_games! Too bad the cahr limit cut you off a bit.
@Gerry1 - Nice Doxies!
@Draculya: Well Zeno (With a Zed eh?) Of Elea was a philosopher, he worked within what math was known at the time. THAT is why his Turtle Paradox worked back then - not enough math to disprove it.
The Arrow is way neater!

Linky #1 This Is Pretty Good
Linky #2 This one is kinda math-y

The Arrow is not really ABOUT motion, it's about time.

Jesus_Wey
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 238 Posts
Friday, November 25, 2011 7:13:34 PM
Awesome! :)

Draculya
Male, 40-49, Asia
 12740 Posts
Friday, November 25, 2011 7:12:20 PM
Xeno: doesn't know much about math

Barjavel: A time traveller can move at any relative 'speed' relative to another from zero to infinity, but not negative. There is no such thing as the grandfather paradox, except in philosophy.

Searle/Turing: Searle simply disproves Turing's point about a computer possessing intelligence. Intelligence is a matter of definition and lies on a continuum between a single neuron and somewhere way past human potential.

Hilbert:

Inf+Inf=Inf
2.Inf=Inf

It's not that hard but it shows how the concept of infinity does not behave in a conventional way.

Einstein: Yes, time dilation. That's no paradox.

Schrödinger: The cat exists in only one state, alive or dead, you just can't determine which. Quantum particles simultaneously exist in multiple states. You just have to deal with that.

janus_games
Male, 18-29, Western US
 296 Posts
Friday, November 25, 2011 7:08:58 PM
As far as schroedinger's cat, this little movie actually doesn't represent the actual story. Schroedinger presented the paradox to demonstrate the absurdity of the superstate idea. He wasn't a clever advocate, he was mocking it.

The truth though, is that the math works out when you do it that way, so rather than try to understand the why, they put it on the shelf and said, "We'll come back to that later when we have time and more info." Unfortunately, it's so convenient that we've only really just started coming back to why the superposition idea actually works.

Still so much to learn.

Time travel may be easy, but one way. While they're still not sure it's even possible, we're pretty sure that if it is possible, it's already part of the past, and that somehow you'd be obstructed from killing your grandfather. The current idea is that the past is immutable, because it's already happened, even your trip, which you must then take, because you we

janus_games
Male, 18-29, Western US
 296 Posts
Friday, November 25, 2011 7:02:26 PM
@5cats and Sarah:

Actually both are important factors in hard AI. The Chinese Room (CR) means that all the rules are prescripted. Look at something like iGod or even Siri and you can see how the argument actually falls apart. What's more important though is whether semantic meaning is applied.

What's semantic meaning and why's it important?

Well it's the difference between seeing "Hi" and looking up the response in a table or applying a set of rules to parse the statement and look it up in a preset list of rules, and assigning meaning to the words, formulating the solution, and creating a unique response. In order for the CR to work, there must be an large set of rules for EVERY situation, which just can't be done, which is why anything modeled on the CR falls apart.

It's not just storage that makes something intelligent. Because unless you can apply meaning before, then at best you're just searching a solution space.

That

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 26626 Posts
Friday, November 25, 2011 6:30:31 PM
@iamaguitargod: Thank you for getting it! It's nice to know someone out there is as big a geek as me!
(it's supposed to say "noW that's spooky" not "not" eh?)
@SarahofBorg: But the guy in the Room cannot actually speak or understand Chinese, he's just sending notes, a limited form of communication. He's immitating fluency just the way a computer immitates "thinking".

SarahofBorg
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
 3573 Posts
Friday, November 25, 2011 6:19:48 PM
The chinese room one is interesting. If you look something up in a book, you don't actually know it already. If you look something up in your memory, you know it. The only difference between using a book and using your memory is that your memory is hard-wired into your brain. For a computer, it would be like the difference between a CD (book) and the hard drive (memory.) If something is on the hard drive, the computer knows it. If it's on a CD and not actually copied onto the hard drive, the computer doesn't know it. Therefore, a hard drive functions exactly like a human memory in terms of knowledge storage, and therefore can be a part of what defines intelligence. Yet, memory doesn't define intelligence, or we'd all be walking books with no function beyond storing information. We act upon that information to make a decision. Computers also do that. Therefore, that alone can define intelligence.

Page: 1 2 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.