/tech/ - Technology

Brought to you by archive.org

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


(88.21 KB 1003x898 1.jpg)
Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 02:17:29 [Preview] No. 11298
This machine before your eyes is extremely powerful, a machine that grants its user access to all of the information conceived by the human species. It is capable of performing highly complicated mathematical calculations thousands, possibly millions of times faster than your typical human, and can store massive amounts of information, perhaps a library filled with thousands of books stored on this little machine, too massive for a measly individual to read in their lifetime, is reality.

When these sophisticated and wondrous machines had begun to appear in the 80's and 90's, the savvy individuals saw them for what they were, highly capable machines that would greatly change the world. They had taken advantage of this, and they became the first hackers, people armed with these extremely powerful tools. Companies and marketers observed this new medium and knew they could gain great wealth using it, and the mainstream mediums with the purpose of entertaining were born.

If only people knew just how powerful that little "phone" in their hand truly was. What a great time to be alive, so many ignorant fellows bickering about the problems in the world and how the past was such a great era, with no knowledge of what is truly happening at this moment.


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 02:19:53 [Preview] No. 11299 del
>>11298
Also, becoming educated through reading books is highly inefficient and takes time and the reader often forgets details.

If only someone engineered a machine capable of fabricating memories..... The day will come


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 03:24:49 [Preview] No. 11303 del
(115.98 KB 736x754 newday.jpg)
>a machine that grants its user access to all of the information conceived by the human species.

Not really. There's many flaws on this current mainstream philosophy about technology.
First and obvious point is that machines access informations encoded to it, not our thoughts. The language we use to communicate our thoughts is not good enough at expressing it and has limitations on it's own. We should create in the future a constructed language, so we can some day, maybe, get into Caracteristica Universalis.

But, that's not the major point OP.
The philosophy of science is not a solved problem.
We should not treat computers as the same as our brains. It's not. Maybe some day in the future.
Computers are based on logic. But logic itself is based on what is called "laws of thought", that is: identity, non-contradiction and excluded-middle.
That is them based on Agrippa's trilemma and the whole philosophy of mind.
Many problems in philosophy questioned the idea of identity. For example: you have a toshiba libretto, but you use it so much, that you started to change pieces of it's hardware. At some point, you have change every single piece of this hardware. This computer has the same identity from the one on the beggining?
That's the Ship of Theseus problem.
Now, we observe the world through our senses. Can we trust these senses? Maybe not. Neurath said this problem was like building a ship from scratch while in the middle of the sea (neurathian bootstrap).

I see culture today degenerated to a postmodernist, deconstructionist, way of thinking. It seems like people got used to use computers as an analogy that they created a new mythology and supposed that this was the new truth, real, world. They forgot the real philosophical questions.
It morphed into something that once we had, but now forgot. It's like a false memory that we can't scape anymore.


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 03:28:46 [Preview] No. 11304 del
(17.01 KB 480x480 65watbulb.jpg)
>>11298

>80's and 90's
>first hackers
smh tbh

The rest of your post is quasi-Gibsonian pablum that, if printed on a soft material, would also be best used as toilet paper. But that glaring inaccuracy stood out.


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 05:42:49 [Preview] No. 11313 del
>>11303
Dammit, even after an hour of attempting to properly interpret what you have stated, I still cannot fully comprehend what you have written, but I will attempt my best in this following statement.

The medium known as the internet is a highly useful tool to aspiring scholars and polymaths with a yearning to learn and enrich their minds. Computers are a tool capable of accessing this medium and on their own, are capable of completing various actions including mathematical calculations. I find that learning various languages proves highly useful in expanding ones understanding of various peoples as they now have the capabilities to frequent and properly interpret foreign websites, they can now access a portion of the internet that is closed off to those unable to comprehend it.

I have pondered the possibility of developing a large-scale AI that craws on websites and complies collected data to (crudely) predict the future and notify the creator of current events and how an event occurring in one area influences another, a polymath will almost always have a deeper understanding of reality compared to an average individual.

You are quite the intelligent individual I must say, makes me quite jealous, how does one acquire such knowledge?


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 06:36:03 [Preview] No. 11314 del
>>11313
I don't think I'm that intelligent. Really.
Actually, if you haven't understood the statements above, then it's my fault, not yours.

What you have said is true, except that there is no distinction between "computers" and "internet", it's the same. The interpretation of the informations on this internet is that is distinct from the computers.

About the text above (>>11303), I probably haven't explained properly.
Let's come back and do an analysis of your OP. You said:
>access to all of the information conceived by the human species.
That is not true, because we can access on computers only the information we produced, not the information we thought. Inside our heads there's much more information, that we can't express because these informations are not capable of being expressed with normal language (scripted or phonetic). That's why we have art, but even with art, complex thoughts can't be expressed because they are more of an experience through senses.
>performing highly complicated mathematical calculations
It does, but we should not just assume that mathematics is the "truth language". This is silly. Mathematics is a language used to express classical logic. So we should question if this classical logic is correct. If you go down the "rabbit hole", you'll notice that the foundations of science is not as solid as people think.

So, on my first comment I was just criticising your argument about "access to all of the information", basically.


About your AI idea, it seems cool, but that will take a huge effort and our understanding about human thoughts is not entire predictable, since we have no predictable model of the mind yet, and without all the variables you can't calculate.
You can use behaviorism to predict behaviour, but not thoughts. You can evaluate all the basic information income to a subject, but you can't predict (for sure) the resulting thoughts. That's because humans think differently, since they have different stimuli while child and genetics...

>how does one acquire such knowledge?
As I said, I don't think I'm intelligent, really, but I would suggest you look at the problems in a "meta" vision.
It's not about how much you read, but how you correlate informations. As you've said, books are worthless in today's world. Most books are produced to fullfil a number of pages needed, not to pass the knowledge in a very efficient way.
I would suggest learning from many different online sources and just get the books as a reference when needed.
For philosophy, the plato.stanford.edu is very good.


>>11304
I think OP was refering to "hackers" in the sense of "invasion of computers through network", as we know today. He probably was not writing about Turing and Zuze, and the WW2 cryptoanalysis.


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 07:54:31 [Preview] No. 11315 del
All computers do past its true value as an efficiency chamber is create the illusion that an individual can achieve something when it's actually achieved by society as a whole. OP is wrong. Computers aren't helping us build cathedrals more magnificent or formulate philosophy more poignant, if anything it convinces us of the unworthiness of such attempts at beauty. What are hackers known for, the really good ones? Petty leeching off of society's existing structures, but in a very efficient way.


Anonymous 11/09/2017 (Thu) 17:14:42 [Preview] No. 11734 del
>>11315
Can you expound on this idea please? It's interesting.


Anonymous 11/12/2017 (Sun) 16:41:56 [Preview] No. 11745 del


Anonymous 11/12/2017 (Sun) 17:04:57 [Preview] No. 11746 del
>>11734
Basically, anything particularly useful that's done with computers is already done by massive superclusters that there can only be a few of in existence, or its tasks that have been done for ages by houses full of several people. It can be done by a single person with a PC, but giving them all a PC will not stack and only gets you repeated instances of those people doing the same thing over and over again. Ten million athletes will improve the world record only by milliseconds from the record of one million athletes. All it does is the athletes become less versed with anything else and become obtuse and preoccupied with their field, worse philosophers and worse voters.

Meanwhile, the only real innovation of personal computing is that once dumbed down enough we can now decrease the amount we actually have to commute to the same building to work.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply