News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

The Standard Theory

Started by Baruch, January 06, 2018, 07:16:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ67q4pv0HI

Good qualitative review (though 3 hours) of present Standard Theory ... the basis of current materialism.

Notice that this popularization uses its own mythos ... to present it (two people who have travelled to the future).  I find retro scifi more interesting, alternative past, not alternative future.  For example, the British government giving Babbage more support, which creates an earlier computer revolution, leading to a much more world dominance by the British Empire.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Unbeliever

Yeah, they should've given Ada Lovelace more support and encouragement, as well:

How Ada Lovelace, Lord Byron’s Daughter, Became the World’s First Computer Programmer
QuoteHow a young woman with the uncommon talent of applying poetic imagination to science envisioned the Symbolic Medea that would become the modern computer, sparking the birth of the digital age.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Baruch

Quote from: Unbeliever on January 07, 2018, 05:20:02 PM
Yeah, they should've given Ada Lovelace more support and encouragement, as well:

How Ada Lovelace, Lord Byron’s Daughter, Became the World’s First Computer Programmer

But she would have set back the world wide domination of AI by decades, because she denied computers can think, in her very first paper ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Unbeliever

Well, she was right - computers can't think. A chess-playing (or Go-playing) computer isn't thinking, it's just looking at numbers.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Baruch

I believe the intention of the Analytical Engine was decimal ... so not binary ... like modern computers.  But functionally the same thing.  A few modern electronic computers tried to do decimal, but binary was a lot easier.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Unbeliever on January 08, 2018, 01:42:24 PM
Well, she was right - computers can't think. A chess-playing (or Go-playing) computer isn't thinking, it's just looking at numbers.

Which is why I stopped playing computers at chess.  Part of chess is the threat that causes your opponent to move, sometimes to disadvantage. 

A player can be caused to worry about a threat; a computer can't.

And there is another thing that annoys me about playing chess against a computer.  To make the computer "play equal" to me, the computer has to DELIBERATELY make some errors.  DELIBERATELY!  That's cheating.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Jason78

Quote from: Unbeliever on January 08, 2018, 01:42:24 PM
Well, she was right - computers can't think. A chess-playing (or Go-playing) computer isn't thinking, it's just looking at numbers.

How is that different to what you do when you're considering your next move on a chessboard?
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

Cavebear

Quote from: Jason78 on February 02, 2018, 07:18:50 AM
How is that different to what you do when you're considering your next move on a chessboard?

Threatening your opponent.  Watching him ("usually him") sweat on a move.  Seeing the uncertainty of his moves.  Knowing when the Knight is more dangerous than the Bishop.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 12:24:47 PM
Threatening your opponent.  Watching him ("usually him") sweat on a move.  Seeing the uncertainty of his moves.  Knowing when the Knight is more dangerous than the Bishop.

That is how I have had interesting chess games.  That and they know the baseball bat can be brought out!
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on February 02, 2018, 12:51:46 PM
That is how I have had interesting chess games.  That and they know the baseball bat can be brought out!

Would you like to play a game?
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 01:02:33 PM
Would you like to play a game?

When I retire.  But so hard to intimidate thru the Internet.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on February 02, 2018, 01:04:37 PM
When I retire.  But so hard to intimidate thru the Internet.

Ask Mr.Obvious about that...  We have quite a game going.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Unbeliever

#12
Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 05:37:57 AM
Which is why I stopped playing computers at chess.  Part of chess is the threat that causes your opponent to move, sometimes to disadvantage. 

A player can be caused to worry about a threat; a computer can't.

And there is another thing that annoys me about playing chess against a computer.  To make the computer "play equal" to me, the computer has to DELIBERATELY make some errors.  DELIBERATELY!  That's cheating.
Yeah, and in order to make the computer play on my level it takes a long time to make its move - at least on the cheap one I've seen so far. I had one called Excalibur that would take an hour or more to move on the higher levels. It wasn't too bad on the lower levels, but not really that challenging. And, as you say, half the fun of chess is watching your opponent squirm!
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Unbeliever

Quote from: Jason78 on February 02, 2018, 07:18:50 AM
How is that different to what you do when you're considering your next move on a chessboard?
I look at patterns, not numbers. Although when considering a tactical move numbers are involved, such as how many pieces I have threatening a square and how many my opponent has defending it, but mostly it's the patterns that count. When you get right down to it though, according to Max Tegmark (and others), there exists nothing but number in the universe.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Cavebear

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 02, 2018, 01:45:27 PM
I look at patterns, not numbers. Although when considering a tactical move numbers are involved, such as how many pieces I have threatening a square and how many my opponent has defending it, but mostly it's the patterns that count. When you get right down to it though, according to Max Tegmark (and others), there exists nothing but number in the universe.

I was President of the University of Maryland Chess Club at one time (meaning only that I was a potzer who could organize the tournaments).  We had one guy who was always on grass before games.  You COULD NOT BEAT him on the part of the board he focused on, but the other half was free-range.  LOL!
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!