Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-20-2017, 12:31 PM
gnoitall is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripler View Post
I'm reading through his asteroid redirectin' thread and have stumbled on a convincing explanation: Gene Ray never died, he just took a sock.

I see our favorite "Science Expert" is still basing his 'scientific expertise' on the hopes that an asteroid has tungsten in it.

Tripler
I had a post there, but it got eaten by the dog on 'Preview.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Yeah, I saw the tungsten reference in that thread, but I was afraid to ask what the hell it meant for fear he would explain and then my brains would melt out my ears.

We need to get SamuelA and that guy who did thought experiments on going faster than light into the same thread. Add some nanobots, a shaped nuclear charge, and some self-replicating solar panels, and then you got a thread.

Regards,
Shodan
So, not only does the cow have to be spherical, it has to be made of high-sectional-density refractory metal?

This why wrestling with that pig is a bad idea. You get down to his level, and he covers you with his stupidity, and he enjoys it.

Last edited by gnoitall; 12-20-2017 at 12:31 PM.
  #52  
Old 12-20-2017, 12:53 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Is that the guy who wanted to do some sort of experiment with spinning discs? I think that thread was before my time here, but I've read it in the archives.
Yes, that guy. He apparently never heard of the Michaelson-Morley experiments.

Regards,
Shodan
  #53  
Old 12-20-2017, 01:07 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Someone ask him about String theory and if it make a difference if the string is really fishing line.
  #54  
Old 12-20-2017, 02:51 PM
Tripler is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: JSOTF SDMB, OL-LANL
Posts: 7,316
The only man I would trust to tell me about string theory is Brian May, PhD. He has both bases covered: A PhD in Astrophysics, and a Rhapsody Bohemian.

Tripler
Scaramouche scaramouche SamuelA loves his fandango!
  #55  
Old 12-20-2017, 03:08 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Yes, that guy. He apparently never heard of the Michaelson-Morley experiments.
So he's an aetheist?
  #56  
Old 12-20-2017, 04:09 PM
Yllaria is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Stockton
Posts: 10,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
So he's an aetheist?
OUCH!
  #57  
Old 12-21-2017, 02:20 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,229
It was bound to happen! In public recognition of the awesomeness of SamuelA, the Great Lakes Brewing company has named a craft beer after him.
  #58  
Old 12-21-2017, 02:27 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
It was bound to happen! In public recognition of the awesomeness of SamuelA, the Great Lakes Brewing company has named a craft beer after him.


403 - Forbidden Error

You are not allowed to access this address.
If the error persists, please contact the website webmaster.

Sammy got to them too.
  #59  
Old 12-21-2017, 02:40 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,229
Strange, works for me. But Sammy is so modest, he probably just doesn't want the international acclaim. Try this one -- he's honored here, too.
  #60  
Old 12-26-2017, 02:15 AM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,079
SamuelA is a twit. In his latest thread, he'd like to know whether those who dare to question him have actually gone to college, or passed classes while there. Yes, you've busted us. We're not worthy, you mouth-breathing trogolodyte.
  #61  
Old 12-26-2017, 09:21 AM
LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
It was bound to happen! In public recognition of the awesomeness of SamuelA, the Great Lakes Brewing company has named a craft beer after him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
403 - Forbidden Error

You are not allowed to access this address.
If the error persists, please contact the website webmaster.

Sammy got to them too.
Poster wolfpup linked directly to an image and the site doesn't allow hot-linking. Here's the page the image is on: http://www.greatlakesbeer.com/beer/pompous-ass/

I like the name they chose for their character: "Fuggled Doublebottom". I'm sure we can make that into some kind of in-joke insult if we try.
  #62  
Old 12-26-2017, 10:00 AM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
SamuelA is a twit. In his latest thread, he'd like to know whether those who dare to question him have actually gone to college, or passed classes while there. Yes, you've busted us. We're not worthy, you mouth-breathing trogolodyte.

I'm afraid he may have banned you from forever having a dialog with him. It's really simple, put everyone on ignore and all your thread will be like blogs. No one will ever disagree with you. He figured this out before any of us, so...he wins.


BTW, you just got my 10,000 post. You are now part of history. (and I never even asked what a trogolodyte was., or whether it had plack on its back)
  #63  
Old 12-26-2017, 10:22 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 12,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
You are now part of history. (and I never even asked what a trogolodyte was., or whether it had plack on its back)
Trogolodyte is a fragment of the doomed planet Trogolodo. The one weakness of Surpeman.
  #64  
Old 12-26-2017, 10:34 AM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Ah, SuperSammy is from Trogolodo? I sort of suspected that.
  #65  
Old 12-26-2017, 10:46 AM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
It was bound to happen! In public recognition of the awesomeness of SamuelA, the Great Lakes Brewing company has named a craft beer after him.
beaten to the punch
  #66  
Old 12-26-2017, 10:51 AM
LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Yes, but wolfpup's find has a much more fitting picture.
  #67  
Old 12-26-2017, 01:54 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
SamuelA is a twit. In his latest thread, he'd like to know whether those who dare to question him have actually gone to college, or passed classes while there. Yes, you've busted us. We're not worthy, you mouth-breathing trogolodyte.
What irritated me was that we were talking about a very simple subject. From the reference frame of an asteroid, any mass * velocity gained or lost from the asteroid, whether it be from new material added or lost, with a velocity vector, affects the course of the asteroid.

So here Tripler jumps in and wants to know if I am one of 'dem foreigners' who doesn't even understand English.

This irritated me because the topic is literally freshman year physics.

And it also doubly irritates me because topics like physics and math, there are a small number of ideas that everyone with any credibility agrees on, 100% of the time. One of which is conservation of momentum.

So if tomorrow, the most credible physicist alive gets senile and starts making public statements where conservation of momentum is violated (such as a nuke "pushing" an asteroid but the asteroid is "squishy" and so the push "doesn't count")...even a mere high school student would be right to challenge him. And that high school student would be right. And other people would be idiots if they didn't read the argument, no matter who wrote it, and at least consider the argument in the context of invariant physical laws, not the "authority" of the speaker.

As it so happens, I have a college degree and I have mentioned this in other threads if you had stalked me enough. It's a mere computer engineering degree and I'm about halfway done with a master's in computer science. So my knowledge of the matter is rudimentary and I don't claim otherwise. At no point do I cite anything but well established physical laws.

As a side note, the main topic you guys have slammed me for, cryogenic preserving of recently deceased humans, also depends on invariant physical laws regarding conservation of information. If the process of freezing leaves the information intact for the synaptic connections - both topology and approximate weight - you could probably recover a lot of a person's memories and personality if you took apart the frozen brain basically molecule by molecule. The brain is very complex and maybe there's some super-secret unknown mechanism of information storage that gets destroyed by freezing, but my point is that if we could recover even some of what makes up deceased individuals, that's better than what we have now.

Again, this argument shouldn't depend on the identity of the person making the argument. Obviously the medical doctor of, say, an Alzheimer's long term care facility is under several incentives not to publicly say "well since all my patients degrade and die anyway, and since cryogenic freezing probably retains more data than letting them slowly rot, freezing is better than "memory care" that doesn't work".

But it's true. Actual physical reality says it's true. (that if you have a pattern of information preserved in low temperature ice, you can potentially recover that pattern, and if that pattern is the plan for a computing system, you can build an equivalent emulator of that computing system and get similar outputs from any inputs you feed it)

No doubt you're going to slam me over and over and claim I'm not credible enough to make claims about reality...but you'd still be wrong. The paragraph above is based on solid, invariant ideas that you should be evaluating on the merits, not the identity of the speaker.
  #68  
Old 12-26-2017, 02:07 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
And now, a message from our sponsors. We'll be right back.
  #69  
Old 12-26-2017, 02:08 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
you should be evaluating on the merits, not the identity of the speaker.
True, but the identity of the speaker is that such merits only exist in his head.
  #70  
Old 12-26-2017, 02:15 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 12,033
I'll just leave this here.
  #71  
Old 12-26-2017, 02:17 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
True, but the identity of the speaker is that such merits only exist in his head.
Ok, maybe I should have said "you should examine the merits of the idea even if you start with the belief that the speaker is not credible".

If a homeless man starts ranting about his proof to a famous unsolved problem in math, and you happen to be a world class mathematician yourself and able to at least parse what he's talking about, maybe you should look at the first few lines he scrawled on the side of his box. You know, just in case.

I mean even if you immediately find an error, you'd do the bum a solid to mention your criticism.

Your post is the equivalent of saying "I'm not even going to look."

The timecube guy had a whole website if I recall full of his rantings. So maybe it's going to take too long. But if you have a pattern of information preserved in low temperature ice, you can potentially recover that pattern, and if that pattern is the plan for a computing system, you can build an equivalent emulator of that computing system and get similar outputs from any inputs you feed it...are you just not able to read that sentence fast enough? What's the problem here?

You obviously think that what I wrote is about the equivalent of that bum writing on the side of a cardboard box in crayon, but for god sakes, you're being an asshole.

Last edited by SamuelA; 12-26-2017 at 02:20 PM.
  #72  
Old 12-26-2017, 02:20 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
... maybe you should look at the first few lines he scrawled on the side of his box. You know, just in case.

...
Will work for food?
  #73  
Old 12-26-2017, 02:22 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Dealt with above. Using my "bum" analogy, your argument (if you were the world class mathematician) is saying "it smells like pee over here, I'm just not even going to read what is scrawled on this here box"
  #74  
Old 12-26-2017, 02:43 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
As a side note, the main topic you guys have slammed me for, cryogenic preserving of recently deceased humans, also depends on invariant physical laws regarding conservation of information. If the process of freezing leaves the information intact for the synaptic connections - both topology and approximate weight - you could probably recover a lot of a person's memories and personality if you took apart the frozen brain basically molecule by molecule. The brain is very complex and maybe there's some super-secret unknown mechanism of information storage that gets destroyed by freezing, but my point is that if we could recover even some of what makes up deceased individuals, that's better than what we have now.

Again, this argument shouldn't depend on the identity of the person making the argument. Obviously the medical doctor of, say, an Alzheimer's long term care facility is under several incentives not to publicly say "well since all my patients degrade and die anyway, and since cryogenic freezing probably retains more data than letting them slowly rot, freezing is better than "memory care" that doesn't work".

But it's true. Actual physical reality says it's true. (that if you have a pattern of information preserved in low temperature ice, you can potentially recover that pattern, and if that pattern is the plan for a computing system, you can build an equivalent emulator of that computing system and get similar outputs from any inputs you feed it)
I worked in Alzheimer's research at Stanford University. I'll try to keep up with your stupendous string of blathering nonsense.

I take issue in particular with this:
Quote:
an Alzheimer's long term care facility is under several incentives not to publicly say "well since all my patients degrade and die anyway, and since cryogenic freezing probably retains more data than letting them slowly rot, freezing is better than "memory care" that doesn't work".
By several incentives, you mean health professionals prefer not to get charged for murder in order to "preserve" memories via a method which has never been shown to be effective at doing that. Oddly, healthcare professional prefer to provide quality care, and on the research side, we amused ourselves by trying to find an actual cure. Quaintly, we could do this without killing our patients and freezing their brains, and then waiting an unknown time for technology to be invented to see if there is anything left to be salvaged.

Really, why stop with Alzheimer's, you could expand to any terminal illness. They're all going to die anyway, amirite? Kill them now, while their brains are "fresh". No point in wasting medical care on anyone.

You are someone I would characterize as evil. You casually throw around the idea that early death for people whose lives have no meaning for you is reasonable. Their death is a worthwhile thing because it will help you pursue your dream of cryo. The idea that human death is a reasonable course of action to support Cryo is monstrous.

Last edited by Sunny Daze; 12-26-2017 at 02:45 PM.
  #75  
Old 12-26-2017, 02:51 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Remember Samuel, Galileo was interrogated while threatened with physical torture for his theories. They didn't believe him either. Be strong.
  #76  
Old 12-26-2017, 03:18 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Sagan
They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Einstein.

Of course, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
SamuelA, if conservation of momentum is all you need to know about deflecting asteroids with nuclear weapons, why can't you move a fog bank with a bullet?

Regards,
Shodan
  #77  
Old 12-26-2017, 03:25 PM
Penfeather's Avatar
Penfeather is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 4,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
You obviously think that what I wrote is about the equivalent of that bum writing on the side of a cardboard box in crayon, but for god sakes, you're being an asshole.
You do the bum's calligraphy a disservice.
  #78  
Old 12-26-2017, 03:31 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
SamuelA, if conservation of momentum is all you need to know about deflecting asteroids with nuclear weapons, why can't you move a fog bank with a bullet?

Regards,
Shodan
This is NOT a thread about DGU's.

  #79  
Old 12-26-2017, 04:12 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
I worked in Alzheimer's research at Stanford University. I'll try to keep up with your stupendous string of blathering nonsense.

I take issue in particular with this:


By several incentives, you mean health professionals prefer not to get charged for murder in order to "preserve" memories via a method which has never been shown to be effective at doing that. Oddly, healthcare professional prefer to provide quality care, and on the research side, we amused ourselves by trying to find an actual cure. Quaintly, we could do this without killing our patients and freezing their brains, and then waiting an unknown time for technology to be invented to see if there is anything left to be salvaged.

Really, why stop with Alzheimer's, you could expand to any terminal illness. They're all going to die anyway, amirite? Kill them now, while their brains are "fresh". No point in wasting medical care on anyone.

You are someone I would characterize as evil. You casually throw around the idea that early death for people whose lives have no meaning for you is reasonable. Their death is a worthwhile thing because it will help you pursue your dream of cryo. The idea that human death is a reasonable course of action to support Cryo is monstrous.
Nothing in your post can be considered a rational thought. You're starting with the preconceived notion that death is absolute, not relative, and working from there. Freezing a person who is certain to rot into a corpse later is in fact better than the alternative. The freezing does less damage than the death + rotting, so...

I would characterize you as the evil one, and history will prove me right. As a result of the dominant beliefs that you and your peers hold, we send over a million people to the ground, every year, without even attempting to preserve some of them.

There will be an era of human history where preservation of the terminally ill is practiced on a large scale. I may or may not personally live to see it, but this is the obvious thing to do for non-idiots. Our current methods (freezing in liquid nitrogen + injected chemicals to reduce frost damage) are basically shit. They are only a little better than the alternative. We should be pouring money into making the preservation better. Perhaps half of all medical research money, since it obviously treats all diseases, while any given research can at best delay death from a single class of disease.

By my perspective, the weighting I am mentally performing is as follows :

Suppose a person has a month left to live. You are very certain of this - you have a laboratory confirmed diagnosis and statistically, 99.9% of the patients in this pool die within 30 days. (we can discuss greater uncertainty at a later time). You could either get at most 30 days of interaction with that human being, or freeze them. Let's saying freezing them preserves only 50% of their mind, the other half is lost. But if you do potentially revive them in the future, and you think there's a 50% chance that will happen (so down to net '25% of them is left'), you get 25% of them for 1000 years.

A rational person multiplies. A person who believes in woo does not. Unfortunately, a lot of people...even well educated doctors...believe in woo.

Of course we should research new treatments for disease, but for a person that is terminally ill, the odds are about 99.9% they are just going to die. It is very rare for clinical trials to work, most people don't even get them or get put in the control group, and so on.

Last edited by SamuelA; 12-26-2017 at 04:17 PM.
  #80  
Old 12-26-2017, 04:15 PM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
SamuelA, if conservation of momentum is all you need to know about deflecting asteroids with nuclear weapons, why can't you move a fog bank with a bullet?

Regards,
Shodan
You just need the nano-bots to go with the bullets....
  #81  
Old 12-26-2017, 04:15 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
SamuelA, if conservation of momentum is all you need to know about deflecting asteroids with nuclear weapons, why can't you move a fog bank with a bullet?

Regards,
Shodan
If the bullets are on the scale of the droplets of fog, and the fog bank is in a vacuum and not being pushed by wind, you can. You can also move a 10 kilometer diffuse collection of rocks with a really big bullet.

The reason the bullet passes through the fog bank is that it weighs a lot more and is a lot more dense than the droplets. A 10 kilometer asteroid with the gas pushed by a few megatons of nuclear warhead is nothing like your analogy.
  #82  
Old 12-26-2017, 04:17 PM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
Et voila.
  #83  
Old 12-26-2017, 04:19 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Suppose a person has a month left to live. You are very certain of this - you have a laboratory confirmed diagnosis and statistically, 99.9% of the patients in this pool die within 30 days. (we can discuss greater uncertainty at a later time). You could either get at most 30 days of interaction with that human being, or freeze them. Let's saying freezing them preserves only 50% of their mind, the other half is lost. But if you do potentially revive them in the future, and you think there's a 50% chance that will happen (so down to net '25% of them is left'), you get 25% of them for 1000 years.
Does the patient get any say in this?

If someone wants to be frozen, I'm fine with that. If someone wants to freeze me after I've finished using this body, I have no objection.

I do have an extreme objection to you judging that me losing the last month of my life is worth having a 50% chance of coming back with only half my mind intact.

And I am more than a bit skeptical of your optimism on those odds.
  #84  
Old 12-26-2017, 04:20 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramira View Post
Et voila.
A shotgun round loaded with dust will push a fog bank. So will a fan. No nanobots required.
  #85  
Old 12-26-2017, 04:24 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
A shotgun round loaded with dust will push a fog bank.
No, it won't.
  #86  
Old 12-26-2017, 04:26 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 42,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
I worked in Alzheimer's research at Stanford University. I'll try to keep up with your stupendous string of blathering nonsense.

I take issue in particular with this:


By several incentives, you mean health professionals prefer not to get charged for murder in order to "preserve" memories via a method which has never been shown to be effective at doing that. Oddly, healthcare professional prefer to provide quality care, and on the research side, we amused ourselves by trying to find an actual cure. Quaintly, we could do this without killing our patients and freezing their brains, and then waiting an unknown time for technology to be invented to see if there is anything left to be salvaged.

Really, why stop with Alzheimer's, you could expand to any terminal illness. They're all going to die anyway, amirite? Kill them now, while their brains are "fresh". No point in wasting medical care on anyone.

You are someone I would characterize as evil. You casually throw around the idea that early death for people whose lives have no meaning for you is reasonable. Their death is a worthwhile thing because it will help you pursue your dream of cryo. The idea that human death is a reasonable course of action to support Cryo is monstrous.
If only eugenics had caught on, we wouldn't have to kill and freeze people. But no-o-o-o-o.
  #87  
Old 12-26-2017, 04:33 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
Yes, but wolfpup's find has a much more fitting picture.
Yes, though I wonder now if the bowler hat is entirely appropriate. In some ways it is, but most of his posts make me picture SamuelA as having a propeller beanie on his head, the propeller slowly rotating as he holds forth with his simplistic and almost amazingly always-wrong pontifications. The other thing wrong with that picture is that the jaw needs to be slack, with a thin stream of drool running down it, in order to properly represent the unique combination of bloviating pomposity and complete cluelessness that is our wondrous SamuelA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
What irritated me was that we were talking about a very simple subject. From the reference frame of an asteroid, any mass * velocity gained or lost from the asteroid, whether it be from new material added or lost, with a velocity vector, affects the course of the asteroid ...

... No doubt you're going to slam me over and over and claim I'm not credible enough to make claims about reality...but you'd still be wrong. The paragraph above is based on solid, invariant ideas that you should be evaluating on the merits, not the identity of the speaker.
The thing is, SamuelA, that many, many of us have, in fact, responded to your idiotic pontifications on their merits. This included the spacecraft engineer with whom you argued about propulsion and the neuroscientist with whom you argued about neuroscience, not only claiming that they were wrong and you, as always, were of course exactly correct, but insulting them in the process, as you do with almost everyone you converse with. There are plenty of examples in the asteroid thread in GQ that you started solely for the purpose of grandstanding (and succeeded only in getting your ass handed to you, because you didn't even understand the basics of what Stranger On A Train was saying), or in this thread about the mind and mind transfer -- a thread in which I, too, was sucked in to wasting my time because of your inane posts. They included gems like these:
Well, we have an established model that the brain is the effect of thousands of physical computational circuits ... We do know for a fact that consciousness most likely requires the collective activity of millions of neurons working collectively.
I happen to believe that the computational theory of mind is an important precept in cognitive science, but your type of pontification is an embarrassment to CTM. You don't even have the vaguest understanding of what CTM is. All an opponent of CTM would need to do to discredit it is get a nitwit like you to support it. Right, the mind is just a collective bunch of computational circuits working collectively! Problem solved! Now we move on the problem of emulating the body ... from that same thread, by you:
You could simulate the body by a very simple machine learning algorithm, and an implanted sensor in a volunteer that can measure the signaling molecules.
Problem solved again! We've now emulated both the brain and the body! This is how things get done when one is lucky enough to have a genius brain like yours at work on the problem!

Next, we move on to creating a vast army of autonomous self-replicating nanobots to populate the galaxy, also quite trivial once one understands the basic principles, which of course you do. Indeed, you know what you're talking about, and you're always right. At least according to you. You're an obnoxious fucking moron.
  #88  
Old 12-26-2017, 04:46 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
If the bullets are on the scale of the droplets of fog, and the fog bank is in a vacuum and not being pushed by wind, you can. You can also move a 10 kilometer diffuse collection of rocks with a really big bullet.

The reason the bullet passes through the fog bank is that it weighs a lot more and is a lot more dense than the droplets. A 10 kilometer asteroid with the gas pushed by a few megatons of nuclear warhead is nothing like your analogy.
This guy is brilliant, why are any of you even arguing with him? Not one of you thought about the fog bank being in a vacuum. Admit it, ya didn't, did ya?
  #89  
Old 12-26-2017, 05:07 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Yes, though I wonder now if the bowler hat is entirely appropriate. In some ways it is, but most of his posts make me picture SamuelA as having a propeller beanie on his head, the propeller slowly rotating as he holds forth with his simplistic and almost amazingly always-wrong pontifications. The other thing wrong with that picture is that the jaw needs to be slack, with a thin stream of drool running down it, in order to properly represent the unique combination of bloviating pomposity and complete cluelessness that is our wondrous SamuelA.

The thing is, SamuelA, that many, many of us have, in fact, responded to your idiotic pontifications on their merits. This included the spacecraft engineer with whom you argued about propulsion and the neuroscientist with whom you argued about neuroscience, not only claiming that they were wrong and you, as always, were of course exactly correct, but insulting them in the process, as you do with almost everyone you converse with. There are plenty of examples in the asteroid thread in GQ that you started solely for the purpose of grandstanding (and succeeded only in getting your ass handed to you, because you didn't even understand the basics of what Stranger On A Train was saying), or in this thread about the mind and mind transfer -- a thread in which I, too, was sucked in to wasting my time because of your inane posts. They included gems like these:
Well, we have an established model that the brain is the effect of thousands of physical computational circuits ... We do know for a fact that consciousness most likely requires the collective activity of millions of neurons working collectively.
I happen to believe that the computational theory of mind is an important precept in cognitive science, but your type of pontification is an embarrassment to CTM. You don't even have the vaguest understanding of what CTM is. All an opponent of CTM would need to do to discredit it is get a nitwit like you to support it. Right, the mind is just a collective bunch of computational circuits working collectively! Problem solved! Now we move on the problem of emulating the body ... from that same thread, by you:
You could simulate the body by a very simple machine learning algorithm, and an implanted sensor in a volunteer that can measure the signaling molecules.
Problem solved again! We've now emulated both the brain and the body! This is how things get done when one is lucky enough to have a genius brain like yours at work on the problem!

Next, we move on to creating a vast army of autonomous self-replicating nanobots to populate the galaxy, also quite trivial once one understands the basic principles, which of course you do. Indeed, you know what you're talking about, and you're always right. At least according to you. You're an obnoxious fucking moron.
Wolfpup, you say in your insult filled tirade that my computational thoery of the mind is too simple to work. Even though actual world class researchers have gotten superhuman performance from very simple models, simpler than mine. So I must ask : what do you know about it? Why should I assume that you are any more than a mouth breather yourself?
  #90  
Old 12-26-2017, 05:09 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
No, it won't.
Citation needed. I actually have seen shotguns fired in fog and it does move the part that is hit. It gets pushed back by wind, and there is no wind in space.
  #91  
Old 12-26-2017, 05:10 PM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
He has no self awareness it is clear. It is amusing in a way.
  #92  
Old 12-26-2017, 05:14 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Citation needed. I actually have seen shotguns fired in fog and it does move the part that is hit. It gets pushed back by wind, and there is no wind in space.
My citations are thus:
1. My I.Q. has three digits, not two.
2. Reality
3. "Fog in a vacuum"......riiiight
  #93  
Old 12-26-2017, 05:16 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Wolfpup, you say in your insult filled tirade that my computational thoery of the mind is too simple to work. Even though actual world class researchers have gotten superhuman performance from very simple models, simpler than mine. So I must ask : what do you know about it? Why should I assume that you are any more than a mouth breather yourself?
Please cite a researcher who has gotten mere human performance out of a computational model, much less superhuman.

BTW, your statement "thousands of physical computational circuits ... We do know for a fact that consciousness most likely requires the collective activity of millions of neurons working collectively." is off by at least 3 orders of magnitude.
  #94  
Old 12-26-2017, 06:47 PM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I would characterize you as the evil one, and history will prove me right. As a result of the dominant beliefs that you and your peers hold, we send over a million people to the ground, every year, without even attempting to preserve some of them.
So?

the point of life is to reproduce and then die. who is so damn important that they need to be "preserved?"

this world would be uninhabitable if living things didn't eventually die.

Last edited by jz78817; 12-26-2017 at 06:47 PM.
  #95  
Old 12-26-2017, 06:52 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 12,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
the point of life is to reproduce and then die. who is so damn important that they need to be "preserved?"

this world would be uninhabitable if living things didn't eventually die.
Right. One must realize that you are a note, not the song.
  #96  
Old 12-26-2017, 07:01 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Yes, though I wonder now if the bowler hat is entirely appropriate. In some ways it is, but most of his posts make me picture SamuelA as having a propeller beanie on his head, the propeller slowly rotating as he holds forth with his simplistic and almost amazingly always-wrong pontifications. The other thing wrong with that picture is that the jaw needs to be slack, with a thin stream of drool running down it, in order to properly represent the unique combination of bloviating pomposity and complete cluelessness that is our wondrous SamuelA.

The thing is, SamuelA, that many, many of us have, in fact, responded to your idiotic pontifications on their merits. This included the spacecraft engineer with whom you argued about propulsion and the neuroscientist with whom you argued about neuroscience, not only claiming that they were wrong and you, as always, were of course exactly correct, but insulting them in the process, as you do with almost everyone you converse with. There are plenty of examples in the asteroid thread in GQ that you started solely for the purpose of grandstanding (and succeeded only in getting your ass handed to you, because you didn't even understand the basics of what Stranger On A Train was saying), or in this thread about the mind and mind transfer -- a thread in which I, too, was sucked in to wasting my time because of your inane posts. They included gems like these:
Well, we have an established model that the brain is the effect of thousands of physical computational circuits ... We do know for a fact that consciousness most likely requires the collective activity of millions of neurons working collectively.
I happen to believe that the computational theory of mind is an important precept in cognitive science, but your type of pontification is an embarrassment to CTM. You don't even have the vaguest understanding of what CTM is. All an opponent of CTM would need to do to discredit it is get a nitwit like you to support it. Right, the mind is just a collective bunch of computational circuits working collectively! Problem solved! Now we move on the problem of emulating the body ... from that same thread, by you:
You could simulate the body by a very simple machine learning algorithm, and an implanted sensor in a volunteer that can measure the signaling molecules.
Problem solved again! We've now emulated both the brain and the body! This is how things get done when one is lucky enough to have a genius brain like yours at work on the problem!

Next, we move on to creating a vast army of autonomous self-replicating nanobots to populate the galaxy, also quite trivial once one understands the basic principles, which of course you do. Indeed, you know what you're talking about, and you're always right. At least according to you. You're an obnoxious fucking moron.
NM

Last edited by Sunny Daze; 12-26-2017 at 07:02 PM.
  #97  
Old 12-26-2017, 07:29 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Nothing in your post can be considered a rational thought.
Right back atcha.

Quote:
You're starting with the preconceived notion that death is absolute, not relative, and working from there.
Yes, death tends to be absolute not relative, short of religious discussions.

Quote:
Freezing a person who is certain to rot into a corpse later is in fact better than the alternative. The freezing does less damage than the death + rotting, so...
The alternative that they will now be a rotting corpse with a frozen brain? The improvement is where exactly? The only thing that has changed factually is that you have removed time that person might have spent with their family.

Quote:
I would characterize you as the evil one, and history will prove me right. As a result of the dominant beliefs that you and your peers hold, we send over a million people to the ground, every year, without even attempting to preserve some of them.
I am more than ok with not killing people to satisfy your odd need to complete failed technology in order to save memories. There are other ways to chase your dream.

Quote:
There will be an era of human history where preservation of the terminally ill is practiced on a large scale.
Indeed, assuming you mean that humanity will try to end illness. Somehow I don't think that's what you mean.

Quote:
I may or may not personally live to see it, but this is the obvious thing to do for non-idiots. Our current methods (freezing in liquid nitrogen + injected chemicals to reduce frost damage) are basically shit. They are only a little better than the alternative.
They are better in no conceivable way than the alternative, assuming death is the alternative. I suppose someone is making money on it.

Quote:
We should be pouring money into making the preservation better. Perhaps half of all medical research money, since it obviously treats all diseases, while any given research can at best delay death from a single class of disease.
Preservation treats nothing. How will it treat half of all medical diseases? Why half? If it's half, why isn't it all?

Quote:
By my perspective, the weighting I am mentally performing is as follows :

Suppose a person has a month left to live. You are very certain of this - you have a laboratory confirmed diagnosis and statistically, 99.9% of the patients in this pool die within 30 days. (we can discuss greater uncertainty at a later time). You could either get at most 30 days of interaction with that human being, or freeze them. Let's saying freezing them preserves only 50% of their mind, the other half is lost. But if you do potentially revive them in the future, and you think there's a 50% chance that will happen (so down to net '25% of them is left'), you get 25% of them for 1000 years.
There is no person there anymore. Most people expect to be "there" when they "wake up" from this horse shit cryo. There is no 25% of "them" when they wake up. There is 25% of their brain, whatever that 25% happens to be. You clearly envision a specularly failed data backup, no doubt an expensive one. Fuck that shit.

Quote:
A rational person multiplies. A person who believes in woo does not. Unfortunately, a lot of people...even well educated doctors...believe in woo.
Multiples what? A minuscule chance of getting 20% of Uncle John's memories of studying grammar in 7th grade, in 200 years when the tech is finally, sort of, ready?

Where's the woo here? The medical care teams who provide end of life treatment or fight disease or do research? Or is the individuals who think we should freeze individuals who are NOT YET DEAD so that they can be woken on some future date, using some unknown technology, to recover some unknown brain function. I'll give you a hint. The conventional medical folks aren't practicing woo in this situation. Maybe we can all chip in and get you a "woo practitioner" title on the Dope.

Quote:
Of course we should research new treatments for disease, but for a person that is terminally ill, the odds are about 99.9% they are just going to die. It is very rare for clinical trials to work, most people don't even get them or get put in the control group, and so on.
Newsflash - we are all going to die. It may be 99.9% with research studies (I haven't checked that number) but if the disease doesn't get them, life will. Your method will 100% get your "study group". No one is getting out alive.
  #98  
Old 12-26-2017, 09:16 PM
Penfeather's Avatar
Penfeather is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 4,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I would characterize you as the evil one, and history will prove me right. As a result of the dominant beliefs that you and your peers hold, we send over a million people to the ground, every year, without even attempting to preserve some of them.
And they call themselves scientists, the purblind fools!
  #99  
Old 12-26-2017, 09:59 PM
AI Proofreader is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
The timecube guy had a whole website if I recall full of his rantings. So maybe it's going to take too long. But if you have a pattern of information preserved in low temperature ice, you can potentially recover that pattern, and if that pattern is the plan for a computing system, you can build an equivalent emulator of that computing system and get similar outputs from any inputs you feed it...are you just not able to read that sentence fast enough? What's the problem here?

You obviously think that what I wrote is about the equivalent of that bum writing on the side of a cardboard box in crayon, but for god sakes, you're being an asshole.
Out of curiosity and boredom, I read both (extremely long and horribly formatted) pages of his 90's-era webpage. The crayon scribbling on a cardboard box would have been more enlightening.

It was basically 25 minutes worth of angry rantings about how everyone else are idiots, especially academia and established science, how he's been horribly abused, and reality is a big illusion, you're all being brainwashed into thinking Earth has 24-hour days!

...with some random racism and sexism thrown in for good measure. But it's not every day you get to read the wisdom of a man who admits on his Wikipedia page that a psychiatrist diagnosed him with schizophrenia, but only because his own wisdom "so antiquates known knowledge."

His rambling, useless text stripped of all the "they're all out to get me!" "everyone is stupid!" and "the races weren't meant to be mixed" type stuff could be summarized in three sentences:

The Earth doesn't rotate the way everyone knows it does. One hemisphere rotates one direction, the other one rotates the other way. You can think of the Earth being divided into four quadrants, 2 in each hemisphere, and because the Earth isn't actually completing one full rotation per 24 hours with the whole sphere rotating in the same direction (LIKE THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE!) there are actually 96 hours in a day.

Anyway, I'd like to say SamuelIA that I find most of your ideas plausible - probably inevitable - BUT you are way, way too early with them. Barring some unforeseen circumstances most of the technologies your posts describe will not be available for use within our lifetimes. Having moral outrage about not using them or planning for the use of them, now, is kind of like Leonardi da Vinci getting into a huff about no one considering seat belts for the flying machines that are going to be filling the skies ANY DAY NOW. Why are you risking people's lives by not making seat belts for passenger jets? I know we're talking about this by candlelight but I swear my one-man glider proves 200-person jet airplanes will be filling the skies by the the millions within a few years.
__________________
- Born after "computer" was a synonym for "woman" but before "worker" becomes a synonym for "robot."

Last edited by AI Proofreader; 12-26-2017 at 10:00 PM. Reason: typo
  #100  
Old 12-27-2017, 12:01 AM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,079
You are way too kind. He's a deranged loon. I can see the spittle hitting the screen while he's typing, and screaming "why can't you sheeple see the truth? It's SO OBVIOUS."
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 08:38 PM.

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 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017