Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #901  
Old 06-08-2019, 02:21 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarvingButStrong View Post
But....if you don't actually do the physical exertion of the climb, what's the point?
The "cableway to Everest" was to prevent climber deaths with proper infrastructure. That is, if supplies can be hauled, you can ensure every climber always has at least 2 oxygen bottles. There would be well secured safety lines all along the route. Large floodlights making sure there's enough light. Oxygenated and maybe pressurized heated shelters to sleep in at night. Climbers wouldn't have to haul anything but their protective clothing and oxygen, the food would be prepared and shipped up to each waypoint camp, the tents and ropes would be part of the climbing course. If someone has a medical emergency, there would be small aid stations with defibrillators and all the other lifesaving gear and they could be rushed back to better facilities through a cable car.

People would still die, but basically only from heart attacks from over-exertion and only rarely. You could even equip each climber with heart monitoring gear, similar to apple watches, and pull the ones who show the signs of failure. Also require an angiogram and stress tests before they are allowed to climb. Also expand the summit of Everest so that more climbers can take their selfies in parallel, and add safety nets.

If you can do daily battery or fuel cell changes, climbers could use heated suits (heating elements over the kidneys, in the gloves, in the boots), making the protective clothing lighter and also able to save them from hypothermia during blizzards.

Last edited by SamuelA; 06-08-2019 at 02:24 PM.
  #902  
Old 06-08-2019, 02:21 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
...the only difference with Everest is that it's cold and the pressure is lower...
Yeah, that's not correct.

I take it you've never worked on a drill rig, seen the terrain of Everest, or thought more than 2 minutes about any of this. Explain how you will get a drill rig up the mountain and drilling on 45 slopes. Or drill to bedrock by hand.

Please also show your calculations for the forces that will be applied to these structures by the moving glaciers, what kind of material is needed to resist these forces, and how deep the supports must be. No hand waving - you say it can be done, prove it.
  #903  
Old 06-08-2019, 02:32 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutMan View Post
Yeah, that's not correct.

I take it you've never worked on a drill rig, seen the terrain of Everest, or thought more than 2 minutes about any of this. Explain how you will get a drill rig up the mountain and drilling on 45 slopes. Or drill to bedrock by hand.

Please also show your calculations for the forces that will be applied to these structures by the moving glaciers, what kind of material is needed to resist these forces, and how deep the supports must be. No hand waving - you say it can be done, prove it.
Don't be absurd. Your argument is something akin to "yes, humans have built thousands of miles of railways in high, mountainous conditions, and they've visited the Moon, and they have massive facilities in Antarctica, and have oil rigs in the deep ocean, and the North sea, and nuclear submarines (under the arctic), and space stations..."

But this ONE really high mountain, one that thousands of people have hiked, with minimal climbing, to the peak of, now that's going to stymie every possible effort or method you might use. In order to prove otherwise, I want you to produce a detailed plan or I won't even concede it's possible...

Yeah, whatever. You're a moron. I had you on ignore, and even Tripler and wolfman I don't anymore.

Last edited by SamuelA; 06-08-2019 at 02:36 PM.
  #904  
Old 06-08-2019, 02:45 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Ok, I'm going to drop in here and ask what "TroutMan" knows about the matter. Precisely why wouldn't staging work?

You have one end of a process - the top of Mount Everest, or at least the last strong portion of the mountain. You know that humans in spacesuits with safety lines would be safe from all of the dangers. (low pressure, the extreme cold, the risk of falls, even the risk of hand abrasions)
Not to relitigate the Everest thread, but climbers falling from a part of Mt Everest is not a major cause of death on Everest. A part of Mt. Everest falling on climbers ( avalanches and serac falls ) is a much more frequent cause of death. That instability would make it difficult to construct and protect massive permanent infrastructure.


And oxygen tents and pressure chambers are not interchangeable.
  #905  
Old 06-08-2019, 02:48 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,804
Thank god, I can now feel no temptation to respond to his idiocy. I'd say take over for me, but you all know the futility. I think I'll drink a beer to celebrate my first ignore (or at least the first who admitted it).
  #906  
Old 06-08-2019, 02:51 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Not to relitigate the Everest thread, but climbers falling from a part of Mt Everest is not a major cause of death on Everest. A part of Mt. Everest falling on climbers ( avalanches and serac falls ) is a much more frequent cause of death. That instability would make it difficult to construct and protect massive permanent infrastructure.


And oxygen tents and pressure chambers are not interchangeable.
So...the logical thing is to suspend something, away from the mountain. Held in place by tension or with redundant supports. Maybe breakway components for when an avalanche takes out a support column.

I didn't pick a cableway out of a hat. I know in general it's doable.

As for the oxygen tent/pressure chamber : no shit. I'm frankly not sure what happens to human lungs with long exposure to low pressure pure oxygen, I've read it can lead to problems but it's much slower than the same exposure at full pressure.

So obviously you'd choose oxygen tents - separated from each other and with fire suppression integrated - if you could, but if that won't cut it, maybe pressure chambers. This 'infrastructure' concept has permanent staff on the mountain, so they might need to wear pressurized suits and live in pressure chambers. Not to sea level pressure, just an increase of a few bar, perhaps with a gas mix with less nitrogen and some other inert gas.
  #907  
Old 06-08-2019, 02:52 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutMan View Post
Thank god, I can now feel no temptation to respond to his idiocy. I'd say take over for me, but you all know the futility. I think I'll drink a beer to celebrate my first ignore (or at least the first who admitted it).
But this ONE really high mountain, one that thousands of people have hiked, with minimal climbing, to the peak of, now that's going to stymie every possible effort or method you might use

You're calling...me...the idiot? Shrug. I would think any sentient being who isn't a dementia patient would have some doubts over their own intelligence here. Trout, you draw any clocks recently? Can you smell peanut butter? I'm a little worried about you here.

Last edited by SamuelA; 06-08-2019 at 02:55 PM.
  #908  
Old 06-08-2019, 03:10 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,804
Oh well, so much for that. I'm still going to drink the beer.
  #909  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:08 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutMan View Post
Oh well, so much for that. I'm still going to drink the beer.
Not too much though--alcohol is hard on the brain cells and you've probably lost a lot just reading that moron's amazingly stupid "ideas" just regarding a disney ride to the top of Everest, let alone anything else that's dribbled out of his slack piehole. Pace yourself, homie, let things regenerate in there a bit.

I've witnessed first hand the amazing amount of work it takes to get construction equipment into a relatively accessible canyon in the Sierra Nevada to put in a geothermal power plant, I'm boggling that anyone would think it a trivial matter to construct something even more ambitious up the highest peak in the world. I mean, just filling in enough of a canyon to make a foundation spot for a modest power plant required YEARS of dozers winching and hauling each other up and down slopes that were nowhere near what's normal on Everest, and let's not even bother factoring in the weather and snow load and avalanche and landslide potential because it's already impossible--and for what, so a few idiots can take selfies up there without risking death? I mean, fuck all the people who'd likely die trying to construct the fucking thing, sheesh.
  #910  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:23 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,596
Yeah, but, what if we use self replicating robots?


CMC fnord!
  #911  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:07 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
I've witnessed first hand the amazing amount of work it takes to get construction equipment into a relatively accessible canyon in the Sierra Nevada to put in a geothermal power plant, I'm boggling that anyone would think it a trivial matter to construct something even more ambitious up the highest peak in the world. I mean, just filling in enough of a canyon to make a foundation spot for a modest power plant required YEARS of dozers winching and hauling each other up and down slopes that were nowhere near what's normal on Everest, and let's not even bother factoring in the weather and snow load and avalanche and landslide potential because it's already impossible--and for what, so a few idiots can take selfies up there without risking death? I mean, fuck all the people who'd likely die trying to construct the fucking thing, sheesh.
Did you actually plan this operation or just watch with a can of beer? Or maybe you were one of the guys hauling sandbags?

Please quote the post where I said it was trivial. I said it's possible. The other side of the argument said it's impossible and I was "digging" to even continue the discussion.

Are you saying it's impossible to build an accessway of some type (whether it be highway, roadway, railway, or cableway) to within a short distance of the peak of Mt Everest, using technology available in 2018? (since 2019 isn't over yet. Note that trivial modifications to present technology counts)

I also never said it was safe, just that the dangers are manageable. Doesn't mean that people wouldn't die, but with protective suits and careful planning it wouldn't be very many.

And if you believed I said it was trivial, but I didn't, doesn't that call into question your own mental faculties?

Last edited by SamuelA; 06-08-2019 at 06:10 PM.
  #912  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:07 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,273
Watch it, crow, you're flirting with becoming as much of a drooling idiot as SamA already is there!

ETA: Responding to the drooler himself--yes, numbnutz, for a combination of practical and financial reasons it is impossible. There, now prove me wrong.

Last edited by SmartAleq; 06-08-2019 at 06:10 PM.
  #913  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:15 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
Watch it, crow, you're flirting with becoming as much of a drooling idiot as SamA already is there!

ETA: Responding to the drooler himself--yes, numbnutz, for a combination of practical and financial reasons it is impossible. There, now prove me wrong.
I have 100 billion dollars. I'll give you 1 billion dollars if you successfully complete an access-way. Until then, you get minimum wage, and I will audit.

Will you take the deal?
  #914  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:40 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,804
It is impossible to build a fixed structure through the Khumbu Icefall and along the glaciated slopes of Everest. Not difficult, not expensive, impossible.

Go back to freezing your brain or whatever. Even that made more sense than this.
  #915  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:51 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutMan View Post
It is impossible to build a fixed structure through the Khumbu Icefall and along the glaciated slopes of Everest. Not difficult, not expensive, impossible.

Go back to freezing your brain or whatever. Even that made more sense than this.
You mean this?

http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2017...-so-dangerous/

Umm, you can't think of a feasible way to bypass this mess of ice?

Maybe that fucking granite mountain in the background might give you some sort of clue what you might be able to do?

Go back to watching daytime soaps and leave the engineering work to smarter people. And keep your stupid opinions to yourself.

I mean, god damn are you a moron.

Look, here's a goddamn article on building a cableway, high up in a mountain, dealing with most of the same challenges as everest but the low pressure.

https://www.matterhornchalets.com/20...-ride-zermatt/

And you can't even imagine a fucking way to possibly adapt the same idea to another domain.

Last edited by SamuelA; 06-08-2019 at 06:55 PM.
  #916  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:56 PM
tricoteuse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 54
No. I'd say take your $100 billion and do it yourself. If I am going to be stuck working for minimum wage with a crazy manager standing over me I'll go work at Burger King because I won't freeze to death and I'll at least get an employee discount on cheeseburgers. And I will be equally likely to produce a working cable car either way because I'm not an engineer.

I think the best argument for why a cable car or even a road up Mt. Everest is impossible is that it hasn't been done or even tried that I know of. I know Nepal is a very poor country but I would think that if there was any way of improving access they would have done something to make it easier to bring in more tourists to spend money there. I don't even mean climbing permits but people who want to climb to base camp spending money on lodgings and supplies.

Or to bring dead bodies off the mountain. If it's too difficult and dangerous to bring down a 150 pound body I can't even guess how someone could get heavy equipment and structures that would weigh tons and tons up there.
  #917  
Old 06-08-2019, 07:02 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by tricoteuse View Post
I think the best argument for why a cable car or even a road up Mt. Everest is impossible is that it hasn't been done or even tried that I know of. I know Nepal is a very poor country but I would think that if there was any way of improving access they would have done something to make it easier to bring in more tourists to spend money there. I don't even mean climbing permits but people who want to climb to base camp spending money on lodgings and supplies.
Sounds like a general argument against all progress. If we did things your way, we'd still be in the "round rocks" phase of weaponry since sharpening rocks has never been done.

As for the article on the Matterhorn cableway, There are three support towers, with the largest span between them a mighty 2732m.

Hmm...Hmm. If you can skip 2.7 kilometers with sufficiently strong and tough towers, maybe you could look at a map between Lukla and Everest, find good spots up to 3 kilometers apart, and then work out how you're going to get the hundreds of tons of construction equipment to them. Apparently you can just skip the glaciers.

Still tough because the high altitude makes helicopters not work very well. So I guess you just give up, there's just no possible way to get a crane up there no matter how much money or effort you were willing to go to...

Last edited by SamuelA; 06-08-2019 at 07:03 PM.
  #918  
Old 06-08-2019, 07:02 PM
tricoteuse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
You mean this?


Umm, you can't think of a feasible way to bypass this mess of ice?

Maybe that fucking granite mountain in the background might give you some sort of clue what you might be able to do?
You can't anchor anything to the mountain unless you can get it over the ice which is constantly moving and breaking up. You can't just teleport it across and even if you could you'd need a road on the other side which you can't build unless you can get heavy equipment across and we're back to square one here.
  #919  
Old 06-08-2019, 07:04 PM
tricoteuse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 54
Sorry everyone else. I'm feeding the troll. I'll stop now.
  #920  
Old 06-08-2019, 07:05 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by tricoteuse View Post
You can't anchor anything to the mountain unless you can get it over the ice which is constantly moving and breaking up. You can't just teleport it across and even if you could you'd need a road on the other side which you can't build unless you can get heavy equipment across and we're back to square one here.
There's just no way to do it. Nope. You're right, I give up. No vehicle in the world can travel across ice or fly in the air. Also, uh, glaciers are kinda slow, last I checked. Except when they fail. But, you know, you can make them fail or collapse by setting off explosives to start the avalanche ahead of time, discharging the potential of them collapsing on you later. Like they did in Matterhorn.

Last edited by SamuelA; 06-08-2019 at 07:07 PM.
  #921  
Old 06-08-2019, 07:35 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,363
Even you you could somehow design this thing, how are you going to build it? The challenge of climbing Everest isn’t a technical one, it’s surviving in a climate that’s incompatible with life. It’s about getting up and back as fast as possible, and a lot of people don’t make it. Most of the climbers that die on Everest die on the way down, they get so ill they just can’t keep going.

How are you going to keep anyone at the top long enough do any work? And how are you going to supply the construction force? You don’t have your real life version of Disney’s Matterhorn ride up and running yet. And a construction project of this scale would make Everest 10 times the ecological disaster that it is now.

Not to mention that Everest is located on a contentious international border. And the mountaineering industry is essential to the economy on both sides. The local political environment would add a level of trickiness to this already impossible dream.

I can’t believe that this is what I’m entertaining on Saturday night, but here we are.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 06-08-2019 at 07:36 PM.
  #922  
Old 06-08-2019, 07:42 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
You mean this?


Look, here's a goddamn article on building a cableway, high up in a mountain, dealing with most of the same challenges as everest but the low pressure.

https://www.matterhornchalets.com/20...-ride-zermatt/

And you can't even imagine a fucking way to possibly adapt the same idea to another domain.
This one is 3883m at its highest point. Workers can survive at that altitude. Everest is over 8000m
  #923  
Old 06-08-2019, 07:56 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
How are you going to keep anyone at the top long enough do any work? And how are you going to supply the construction force? You don’t have your real life version of Disney’s Matterhorn ride up and running yet. And a construction project of this scale would make Everest 10 times the ecological disaster that it is now.

I can’t believe that this is what I’m entertaining on Saturday night, but here we are.
In stages. Like I said in the OP. It wouldn't run as a continuous cable-way, at least at first. You build a cableway a few hundred meters from your source of supplies, probably Lakla. Then a few hundred meters more. Also, you might build a smaller, temporary cableway which you just anchor with tension. With the right planning and preparation, even melting a hole in an ice flow and anchoring to the rock underneath could be used. (temporarily, to transport in the heavy equipment for large, permanent towers like they use in matterhorn, anchored to permanent geological features that don't see ice flow

And the previous stages are where you get a supply of the filled oxygen, or filled air, or bunny suits - I'm not committed to any particular type of protective suit without a detailed study of the tradeoffs.

But you use climate controlled, protective suits, supplying the workers with pure oxygen or the appropriate gas mix for the pressure. You might use pressurization or constricting band pressure suits do exist - the pilots for the U-2 spy planes used to wear them until they switched to full space suits.

This is a straightforward problem. It's well within human capability to perform. Now, yes, your bolded objection is noted. There might not be a way to accomplish this you would consider "ecologically friendly", though I have to ask: what is your basis for it being an "ecological disaster"? How much life is even up in that frozen high altitude wasteland for human trash and activity to disturb?

Last edited by SamuelA; 06-08-2019 at 07:57 PM.
  #924  
Old 06-08-2019, 07:59 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
As for understanding consciousness - or all the "symbols aware of their own values" nonsense that wolfpup seems to be fixated on, to figure it out systematically will take a lot of stuff, like I said.
We can now add "severe reading comprehension deficit" to Sammy's other obvious talents. Not only did I not make any such inane statement in that GD thread about consciousness (or anywhere else), but Sammy's comprehension-impaired delusion of what I supposedly said isn't even coherent -- it's just a meaningless string of words. I challenge anyone to even try to guess at any kind of meaningful interpretation of that quote. It's gibberish, much like most of what seems to go on in Sammy's brain.

Some might recall that we had a similar discussion with Sammy right here in this thread about the computational theory of mind. At that time I was apparently more patient and certainly more naive, as I wasted a fair amount of time trying to explain things to Sammy, not realizing at the time how completely futile this always is. Anyone who even remotely grasps the principal idea here will understand that it has no relation to whatever Sammy is incoherently gibbering about, and that the main contention of the computational theory of cognition is that cognitive processes are syntactic operations on mental representations (generic symbols), and hence inherently computational and independent of the physical substrate that implements them. As I clearly explained when someone asked for a definition of just what a "symbol" is:
A "symbol" is a token -- an abstract unit of information -- that in itself bears no relationship to the thing it is supposed to represent, just exactly like the bits and bytes in a computer. The relationship to meaningful things -- the semantics -- is established by the logic of syntactical operations that are performed on it, just exactly like the operations of a computer program.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...7&postcount=88
I would love to understand the chain of logic that would lead anyone to read this as "symbols [are] aware of their own values".

And this is why, although sometimes I try to restrain myself from dumping on Sammy too badly, sometimes I think he just deserves it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
As for my thread about science, where Colibri claims I have "breathtaking" ignorance, not sure what I can say there. I cannot disprove his hypothesis that my ignorance is "breathtaking", and he's not going to engage further on the subject with such a base argument.
Gotta love the meta-questions to which Sammy is now turning his prodigious intelligence! We have hitherto been treated to seeing our hero solve most of the major problems of the world, generally with swarms of self-replicating nanobots -- and always with the word "just" inserted in there somewhere to show how marvelously simple it all is, if only everyone would listen to Sammy and do exactly what he says. I think my favorite so far is how the whole climate change problem can be easily solved with "just" a bit of geoengineering, and bam! All fixed! Probably overnight! If it turns out it's going to take a while, I suppose we can all cryogenically freeze ourselves for a hundred years or so while things sort themselves out. Sammy has the problem solved, too.

Now, this boundless intellect has turned its attention to the meta-problem of how to solve problems; that is, how to do science. It turns out -- and this will come as a surprise to most scientists -- that the way we have been doing science for hundreds of years is all wrong. Sammy has a better way. I don't claim that I really understand it -- but then, I lack the aforementioned prodigious intellect emanating out of that gigantic throbbing brain -- but the essence of it seems to be that if we did science Sammy's way, we could get rid of this nonsense of multiple competing theories and make scientific advances marvelously faster than we do today.

I don't think I can really improve on Colibri's comment to that: "the combination of ignorance and arrogance is truly breathtaking".

As for the cat, all I can say is I feel sorry for it. If I was a cat living with Sammy, I'd probably pee all over the place, too, just out of spite. The cat may not intellectually understand the odds of being dealt such a shitty hand, but it must have a kind of instinctive understanding of the basic facts: nearly 8 billion people in the world, and it ends up with Sammy. I suggest having the cat cryogenically preserved until medical science has a solution to its understandably traumatized emotional state, a technique that Sammy assures us is 100% reliable, and has no doubt already laid plans for having his own enormous brain preserved for posterity.
  #925  
Old 06-08-2019, 08:06 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
A "symbol" is a token -- an abstract unit of information -- that in itself bears no relationship to the thing it is supposed to represent, just exactly like the bits and bytes in a computer. The relationship to meaningful things -- the semantics -- is established by the logic of syntactical operations that are performed on it, just exactly like the operations of a computer program.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...7&postcount=88
I would love to understand the chain of logic that would lead anyone to read this as "symbols [are] aware of their own values".

We have hitherto been treated to seeing our hero solve most of the major problems of the world, generally with swarms of self-replicating nanobots -- and always with the word "just" inserted in there somewhere to show how marvelously simple it all is, if only everyone would listen to Sammy and do exactly what he says.
Two comments
a. I agree, I was butchering your nonsense you blather about.

"The relationship to meaningful things -- the semantics -- is established by the logic of syntactical operations that are performed on it, just exactly like the operations of a computer program."

I have no fucking idea what this is supposed to mean. I think you're trying to claim it's an unstoppable obstacle to a computer emulating a human brain, at all, in any situation, but I don't know why. If you don't know how a human brain works at a high level, and I don't know how it works at a high level, and all the world's neuroscientists do not yet have enough empirical evidence to know how it works at a high level, then how can you claim it can't be emulated by a Turing machine?

So you just spout nonsense. I apologize for parroting your nonsense badly. You have made this "a computer can't do what a brain does" argument probably 50+ posts in this thread, plus a bunch in the other threads on the subject, and I freely admit, I don't understand your argument. Other than that it's obviously nonsense.

And the reason I know that is I, many posts ago, established a model for the low level parts of the human brain, which is supported by all present evidence, and established that a Turing machine can emulate such a system. Everyone that argues with you on the subject keeps telling you the same thing.

b. Quote a single post where I talk about self-replicating nanobots as a solution to anything. I frankly don't recall ever suggesting it, even once. This is why I get irked by people bringing it up, as these are an example of something that won't work. (Eric Drexler's ideas are not nanobots as you think, nor are they self replicating in the way you think)

c. The other reason it pisses me off is when I talk about self replicating robots, I never, ever, ever mean "nanobots". I mean fucking machines with "Hitachi" and "Foxconn" stamped on them in vast factories, using more advanced forms of control than present methods (machine learning) so they are a ton smarter and more flexible. As in, our real world future that most of us here will still be alive to see.

Last edited by SamuelA; 06-08-2019 at 08:11 PM.
  #926  
Old 06-08-2019, 11:45 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Two comments
a. I agree, I was butchering your nonsense you blather about.

"The relationship to meaningful things -- the semantics -- is established by the logic of syntactical operations that are performed on it, just exactly like the operations of a computer program."

I have no fucking idea what this is supposed to mean. I think you're trying to claim it's an unstoppable obstacle to a computer emulating a human brain, at all, in any situation, but I don't know why.
Of course you don't know what it means, and nor does it have anything to do with your ridiculous inference, and nor could any rational person see how you could possibly make such a ridiculous inference from that statement. More comprehension impairment, apparently. It's been clear to me for some time now that despite all your bloviations, among the many things of which you have zero understanding are some important fundamental theories underlying computer science. What you appear to have knowledge of, if anything, is the vocation of "computer programming" rather than the science of computer science. It's like the difference between being a research hydrologist and being a plumber. I suppose that explains a lot about some of your idiotic pontifications about things you know nothing about. It's telling that earlier on in this thread you had to defend your interpretation of what "computational" meant by looking it up in Wikipedia, and then you got it wrong anyway.

You claim to have a Masters in compsci, and while some folks here might not believe you, I do. The reason I do is that I once had a guy working for me on a project whose "contribution" (and I intentionally put that word in scare quotes) was going to be the basis of his compsci M.Sc. project at a major university. This was decades ago and I still remember him as the most ineffable moron I have ever been stuck with, on that project or any other. His value was literally negative, because he took up my time and contributed nothing. And he did eventually get his degree. Whether or not you're brighter than him I can't say. I would say that you're definitely more dangerous if left unsupervised, and that could be even worse. He would have been afraid to try things he didn't understand. You'd be more likely to plow right ahead and in a single night of unsupervised mayhem somehow set the project back three years.
  #927  
Old 06-08-2019, 11:58 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,488
Raven self-replicating nano-bots. Gotta get the technology right.

I'm adding glacial behavior to the list of things that Sammy knows nothing about.
  #928  
Old 06-09-2019, 12:04 AM
cochrane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 21,767
Latest proof that SamuelA is a fucking idiot:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
This is not efficient, however. It's better to sell your old phone (unless it's so old that it's worthless) and in the event you need to purchase a replacement, most scenarios it will be years later and you could just buy your old phone back for less than you sold it for.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...6&postcount=13
  #929  
Old 06-09-2019, 12:30 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Of course you don't know what it means, and nor does it have anything to do with your ridiculous inference, and nor could any rational person see how you could possibly make such a ridiculous inference from that statement. More comprehension impairment, apparently. It's been clear to me for some time now that despite all your bloviations, among the many things of which you have zero understanding are some important fundamental theories underlying computer science. What you appear to have knowledge of, if anything, is the vocation of "computer programming" rather than the science of computer science. It's like the difference between being a research hydrologist and being a plumber. I suppose that explains a lot about some of your idiotic pontifications about things you know nothing about. It's telling that earlier on in this thread you had to defend your interpretation of what "computational" meant by looking it up in Wikipedia, and then you got it wrong anyway.

You claim to have a Masters in compsci,
Well I'm willing to listen. What is this theory I am missing? How is it relevant to your position? Why does it disprove my inference?

You're all hat and no cattle so far. I've given you some serious cattle. I have explained that individual nerve synapses are an analog system with noise and timing errors. I have explained how fundamental theorems of signal processing mean that finite resolution sampling can capture all of the information of a finite (real) analog system. I have explained how if you capture all the input information, and you capture all the meaningful (not simply noise) rules applied by an analog system, any Turing machine with sufficient memory can emulate the behavior of that analog system. With sufficient resolution that you can "drop in" such a replacement if you wished.

This is how audio reproduction works, noise canceling, radars, sonars, scanning electron microscopes, missile guidance systems, and so on. All of them using these processing theorems and they all work as expected.

Then, using a fundamental computer science theorem (known as divide and conquer), since the human brain is a system of trillions of synapses interconnected by finite resolution analog signals, therefore, if you can emulate each piece you can emulate the whole thing.

It does seem you would need at least a partially emulated body, so that all these input and output symbols you harp on about would have somewhere to go with meaning. Since quadriplegics remain sentient, it appears that you would not need a complete body.

Where's your cattle? All I ever see from you are rants and endless walls of text on how I'm too stupid to understand anything. Or how because I frankly don't understand your handwaving about cognitive science, that means I'm wrong about the low level theories I am familiar with.

Last edited by SamuelA; 06-09-2019 at 12:33 AM.
  #930  
Old 06-09-2019, 12:36 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by cochrane View Post
Latest proof that SamuelA is a fucking idiot:



https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...6&postcount=13
Quoting myself,

" Obviously, for futures where your new phone fails before the depreciation on your old phone would have exceeded the inefficiency of selling it (shipping and ebay fees), you do not come out ahead."

If you are unable to understand this statement (hint, you can write an equation based on it), you are not qualified to make such statements.
  #931  
Old 06-09-2019, 01:08 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Well I'm willing to listen. What is this theory I am missing? How is it relevant to your position? Why does it disprove my inference?
OK, then listen to this. The statement that left you so slack-jawed had absolutely nothing to do with "... trying to claim it's an unstoppable obstacle to a computer emulating a human brain, at all, in any situation", which is, moreover, a claim that I was totally arguing against in that entire GD thread. Your reading comprehension is truly atrocious, verging on illiteracy, and, judging by the irrelevant ranting in the rest of that post, so are your reasoning skills.

The meaning of the statement that left you so clueless is important but not at all complicated. It's astounding that it needs to be explained, especially to a self-declared genius like yourself. Most of us understand the distinction between syntax and semantics in common parlance. We understand the difference between the orthography of a sentence and its meaning. When you digitize an image, say, the result is a series of numbers, ultimately 1s and 0s. Those are symbols. They have no intrinsic relationship to anything visual, and are not intrinsically distinguishable from any other 1s and 0s in the computer's memory. Semantics in this aspect of computational theory is the property attributed to those symbols by an agent or process that makes them the useful building blocks of an image, such as interpreting them as a matrix of pixel values, or in a different context perhaps as a string of sampled audio values, or something else that has real-world meaning, and instantiating the appropriate semantics to produce useful results. In computers, and in the brain, at least for many cognitive processes, the semantics comes from the way we process symbolic representations, and crucially is not present in the symbols themselves. In cog-sci-speak, according to this theory, which is central to CTM, the pertinent memories are said to be representational (symbolic), not depictive.

Please try to get into your comprehension-impaired awareness the fact that I have zero interest in once again getting into a debate with you over these issues. Once was more than enough, believe me.
  #932  
Old 06-09-2019, 01:22 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
The meaning of the statement that left you so clueless is important but not at all complicated. It's astounding that it needs to be explained, especially to a self-declared genius like yourself. Most of us understand the distinction between syntax and semantics in common parlance. We understand the difference between the orthography of a sentence and its meaning. When you digitize an image, say, the result is a series of numbers, ultimately 1s and 0s. Those are symbols. They have no intrinsic relationship to anything visual, and are not intrinsically distinguishable from any other 1s and 0s in the computer's memory. Semantics in this aspect of computational theory is the property attributed to those symbols by an agent or process that makes them the useful building blocks of an image, such as interpreting them as a matrix of pixel values, or in a different context perhaps as a string of sampled audio values, or something else that has real-world meaning, and instantiating the appropriate semantics to produce useful results. In computers, and in the brain, at least for many cognitive processes, the semantics comes from the way we process symbolic representations, and crucially is not present in the symbols themselves. In cog-sci-speak, according to this theory, which is central to CTM, the pertinent memories are said to be representational (symbolic), not depictive.
Ok, so in our crude "neural nets", we end up with input images, where the bits meant pixel intensities for a color channel, become the intensity of a feature that layer was looking for.

And later on, the features may be processed into abstract "state" representations, for example a a neural network trained to solve a video game may use later layers to represent game state.

I am not sure if this transformation of inputs is what you meant or not. Since ultimately the information from the input came down a specific programmed connect path. Though sensor fusion would involve multiple inputs mapping to a common state-space. The "labels" haven't been lost, however - if my computer stores the bits for an image, it knows it's an image because of where it is located in memory. If the brain stores a map of the environment, it knows it's a map by the physical region where it's stored.

Assuming this is what you meant, how is this relevant to a discussion as to whether or not it's possible at all to emulate a brain or "upload" one while it's still alive. My position has always been that emulation appears to be possible with currently available evidence, and uploading might be possible but whether it is possible or not primarily depends on whether a machine interface could ever be constructed that wouldn't be rejected by biology.

Theorem wise, as the brain is a distributed network, information can traverse from one part of the network to another. Therefore, if you could artificially extend the network, you could in principle trap in a digital system information from such a network. This does not necessarily mean you could upload someone's complete memories and personality, but at a minimum, a sniffer that can copy all visual input or motor outputs is theoretically possible. And this part isn't theory - it's been demonstrated in primates in thousands of separate experiments, albeit with obvious limits due to the crudeness of modern day equipment.

Last edited by SamuelA; 06-09-2019 at 01:25 AM.
  #933  
Old 06-09-2019, 03:26 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
Raven self-replicating nano-bots. Gotta get the technology right.

I'm adding glacial behavior to the list of things that Sammy knows nothing about.
It's taking longer than we thought.
  #934  
Old 06-09-2019, 03:35 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,092
You could say it's proceeding at a glacial pace.
  #935  
Old 06-09-2019, 04:55 AM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 203
I actually like SamuelA. I hope he doesn't block me, because I genuinely want to know what happens to his kitty.
  #936  
Old 06-09-2019, 05:09 AM
cochrane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 21,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Quoting myself,

" Obviously, for futures where your new phone fails before the depreciation on your old phone would have exceeded the inefficiency of selling it (shipping and ebay fees), you do not come out ahead."

If you are unable to understand this statement (hint, you can write an equation based on it), you are not qualified to make such statements.
If you buy your phone back for less than what you paid for it, then you are a clueless fucking idiot. But you go on fucking that chicken.
  #937  
Old 06-09-2019, 05:33 AM
cochrane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 21,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by cochrane View Post
If you buy your phone back for less than what you paid for it, then you are a clueless fucking idiot. But you go on fucking that chicken.
Aaargh! I meant to say, "if you buy your phone back for less than what you sold it for." My meaning still stands. You're still a fucking idiot.
  #938  
Old 06-09-2019, 05:45 AM
cochrane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 21,767
Sorry, man. If you buy your phone back for less money, you do come out ahead. I blame not being able to go to sleep for my fuzzy thinking. But why the hell would you do that, anyway? Anyway, I'm glad I'm not your cat.
  #939  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:30 AM
Tripler is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: JSOTF SDMB, OL-LANL
Posts: 7,302
Man alive, I can't swing a urinating cat in a thread without hitting a hornet's nest!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post

b. Quote a single post where I talk about self-replicating nanobots as a solution to anything. I frankly don't recall ever suggesting it, even once. This is why I get irked by people bringing it up, as these are an example of something that won't work. (Eric Drexler's ideas are not nanobots as you think, nor are they self replicating in the way you think).
Okay, I'll put the ten seconds into this that it derserves. . .

Here, in this very thread, you espouse the "actual world renowned experts" as offering a solution to anything.

Tripler
I'm glad I'm not your cat.
  #940  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:46 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripler View Post
Man alive, I can't swing a urinating cat in a thread without hitting a hornet's nest!



Okay, I'll put the ten seconds into this that it derserves. . .

Here, in this very thread, you espouse the "actual world renowned experts" as offering a solution to anything.

Tripler
I'm glad I'm not your cat.
Shrug. I think I was just arguing that a variant of the technology is possible, which it is. But it doesn't mean it would be the usual solution, we don't use a chip fab to make cardboard boxes.
  #941  
Old 06-09-2019, 10:13 AM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,195
Holee crap. Does this guy even believe the shit he types?

I'm glad I'm not your cat.
  #942  
Old 06-09-2019, 10:14 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by cochrane View Post
Sorry, man. If you buy your phone back for less money, you do come out ahead. I blame not being able to go to sleep for my fuzzy thinking. But why the hell would you do that, anyway? Anyway, I'm glad I'm not your cat.
Basically, you upgrade your phone. Say the old one is an iPhone still going for $150 on eBay. So you sell it. The new one breaks a year later and money is tight. So you buy back the same model on eBay, in similar condition, for $100.

Depending on the depreciation curve and the transaction cost and the rate you break phones determines how much you save doing this. But it's a generally optimal strategy.

Same argument for extra cars with more than scrap market value and other extra things.
  #943  
Old 06-09-2019, 11:04 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripler View Post
Man alive, I can't swing a urinating cat in a thread without hitting a hornet's nest!

Tripler
I'm glad I'm not your cat.
https://ibb.co/hy9k1GP

Yep, these cats are really suffering. I'm such an asshole, mistreating the animals.
  #944  
Old 06-09-2019, 02:14 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripler View Post
p=20752912&postcount=848"]Here[/URL], in this very thread, you espouse the "actual world renowned experts" as offering a solution to anything.
Oh, quick parting shot. "world renowned experts" are the ones who concluded, from the data, that nuclear fission was possible and achievable. And, through a long series of development steps, made it work, and then later made it work even better.

Whole armadas of these fellas are at Los Alamos and other laboratories and while they haven't been able to make much further progress, they are still employed by the government.

Anyways, individuals with similar pedigrees and demonstrated track records are the ones who say that AI is possible and nanotechnology is possible and so on. They occupy equivalent academic positions, if not higher, than nuclear physicists do, and while many of the engineering problems in the way have yet to be solved, they are generally thought to be solvable.

That's what I meant. So you aren't arguing with me, you're arguing with the position of the national nanotechnology initiative, the entire staff at Google Brain, the MIT media lab - those random riffraff and ragheads. What do they know? You're a bomb technician*! You can read circuit diagrams! You can maybe even build your own bomb, if it's not too complicated. What do those people know that you don't? They are just academics...

*and maybe a former military officer though I don't know if your technical knowledge goes to the ability to actually design anything.

Last edited by SamuelA; 06-09-2019 at 02:16 PM.
  #945  
Old 06-09-2019, 02:27 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Basically, you upgrade your phone. Say the old one is an iPhone still going for $150 on eBay. So you sell it. The new one breaks a year later and money is tight. So you buy back the same model on eBay, in similar condition, for $100.

Depending on the depreciation curve and the transaction cost and the rate you break phones determines how much you save doing this. But it's a generally optimal strategy.

Same argument for extra cars with more than scrap market value and other extra things.
Does, "Shut the fuck up, you tedious pedantic bastard!", come up often in your daily interactions with people?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #946  
Old 06-09-2019, 02:31 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Does, "Shut the fuck up, you tedious pedantic bastard!", come up often in your daily interactions with people?
Not generally, but I don't spend most days talking to morons. Just on the weekends, apparently, when I am bored.
  #947  
Old 06-09-2019, 02:35 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Not generally, but I don't spend most days talking to morons. Just on the weekends, apparently, when I am bored.
Talking to yourself is a sign of mental illness.







Especially if you disagree.
  #948  
Old 06-09-2019, 02:35 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Not generally, but I don't spend most days talking to morons. Just on the weekends, apparently, when I am bored.
Pretty sure everybody you know is thinking it, even during weekdays.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #949  
Old 06-09-2019, 02:50 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,636
So, on the phone thing, in a shocking development, he may actually be right. Of course he put it inelegantly, making it look like his usual “we as the human race could do this” obtuse belligerence.
To wit: when keeping an older phone as insurance for a newer phone breaking, it may well be advantageous to sell it and buying it (or similar) back only when needed.
This based on the concept that the value of older phones tends to continue to decline, meaning that when buying it back, if not too soon after selling it, the price may well be low enough to make up for transaction costs. Plus, of course, if the new phone never breaks, the sales price of the old phone is pure profit vs holding on to it. This of course pre-supposing the old phone brings enough to make the exercise worth it: this notion quite obviously doesn’t work with your old Startac.
  #950  
Old 06-09-2019, 04:15 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Anyways, individuals with similar pedigrees and demonstrated track records are the ones who say that AI is possible and nanotechnology is possible and so on. They occupy equivalent academic positions, if not higher, than nuclear physicists do, and while many of the engineering problems in the way have yet to be solved, they are generally thought to be solvable.
Yeah, but you're not one of them. You're on the opposite end of the spectrum, a kind of Dunning-Kruger specimen -- an arrogant immature blowhard with limited knowledge about technology, biology, or anything else in the world, who is in serious need of a major dose of humility. You might want to revisit the first page of this thread to remind yourself of that fact, posts #33 and #37 being perhaps especially pertinent, or this one from the Omnibus thread in which we find that you're also a racist douchebag with redneck views on social issues -- although I'm willing to be kind and just chalk that up to immaturity.

But on technology issues, you are misunderstanding the point again, as usual. No one has argued that these advanced technologies aren't possible. It's your tediously predictable, pretentious, and naive take on them that is so consistently entertaining. Your solution to climate change by geoengineering changes to the atmosphere is a great example of this because it rather beautifully exemplifies three recurring stupidities in your various pontifications: (1) the misapplication of technology (2) in a way that won't work and (3) would have worse side effects than the problem it's trying to solve. Your bloviations don't always combine all three elements, but you really hit the trifecta with this one!

And I have to say I always enjoy the threads where you declare "I know what I'm talking about" (an actual quote) when you clearly don't, and engage in arguments with professionals in their fields who clearly do. It's the same phenomenon as what might be called "laughably simplistic extrapolation" that pervades most of your bloviations: you have a vague understanding of how a neuron works, therefore, everything about how the mind works is just a matter of extrapolating some further details (entire fields of study like neuroscience and cognitive science can be dismissed as useless and unnecessary -- in fact I think you once explained to us that cognitive science was really just philosophy!); likewise, general artificial intelligence of any level is just a SMOP -- a Small Matter Of Programming! How simple the world is when one is a raving genius with a gigantic throbbing brain!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017