Posted on 05/08/2003 10:11:06 AM PDT by Nebullis
It does my conservative heart good to see someone still using the ab urbe condita Roman calendar.
Interesting prediction considering we don't know everything about what neurons do. There are folks who argue that it is the interconnections rather than the neurons that are key. The interconnections change with learning, and we don't have a good model for this process.
Is this part of the argument really important to you? What will become of your argument if, in a dozen years, there are many such patents? Are you staking your position on the bet that this won't happen?
If so can we come back at a later time and and ask you to retract your arguments? And if you aren't willing to stake your position on the lack of patents, why are you making such a big deal out of the fact that no one at FR can point to the patent?
If a frog had a glass ass, it would bust it a hoppin'.
Frankly, arguing against an assertion made in the present with present facts, is not weakened by a hypothetical future. The assertion was essentially, there are lots of "A". I demonstrated that there are apparently no "A"(at least in the U.S.). If one can patent a swinging technique, then I suppose one should be able to patent a kludge no matter how well it functions.
When the per-compononent cost of a circuit approaches zero, any improvement in performance is an improvement.
I think if you look around at the world you will see such things a digital voltmeters at Radio Shack. They replace much simpler analog designs without providing much usable improvement in accuracy or reliability (at least not for the typical Radio Shack customer). This observation could be repeated thousands of times among the everyday objects we live with. Labeling an object with a pejorative name is no more usefull that labeling a person with a pejorative name.
In alle this discussion, you have failed to address the only important point being argued -- that is the the circuits designed by the computer program have features that could that could not be designed by the people who wrote the program.
Are green cats dead or alive?
All cats have the potential of being green, if they are dead long enough...
I want my copy a little less depressed, and a little more employed...
Vacuously true.
Total color blindness is quite rare. Most "color blind" people see a different pallet of colors, where red and green look the same.
the dead know nothing !
Applies to lots of living people I know...
If 10 different people see a car accident there ARE 10 different accounts.
Which has NOTHING whatever to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The ten different accounts of the car accident are NOT the result of not knowing the precise similtaneous momenta and locations of the cars.
Dude, you really need to get out more...
What on Earth are you talking about?
The only thing I have said is that you are incorrect about your use of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and that you mis-spelled his name.
If that somehow impinges upon your spiritual beliefs, you must have an extraordinarily odd set of beliefs.
Oh come on, you know better. They've got a million nits to pick.
I think we can leave off the conditional portion of that statement.
Kurtzweil does a lot of handwaving on the biology side, but he claims that computers at least should have the capability to exactly simulate the brain.
By the year 2100, everyone will have ported out of their carbon based forms. We will all be converted to software. The creationists will love it.
Certainly! Just adjust a few settings on the Penfield Mood Organ....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.