Go watch this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2397535/
Comment has been collapsed.
Unknown ? hmm, over 30k votes on imdb, and ghost in the shell 60k :)
i liked it very much, but the actions of the main character was chaotic and illogical, he was not a vulcan :)
and ive also read that there is a chronological version of this movie, maybe ill grab it from somewhere
Comment has been collapsed.
I know about this movie, because it was featured in the "newly released DVDs" section of a German TV guide.
Imho Timecrimes > Predestination
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, actually you would alter the future and would eradicate your own existence since your mother doesn't give birth to you anymore but to your own son, meaning that you would have never been born in the first place etc etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Watch Back to the Future, man! :D
This is no paradox, it's about time travel and the alteration of the time continuum in my opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not trying to piss you off or something but I still think that this paradox doesn't take alterations of the future and the past in consideration, although I heard of a theory where you creat two seperate time streams when you go back and change a big event.
Comment has been collapsed.
My own thoughts:
wiki:
"For why should God not be able to perform the task in question? To be sure, it is a task—the task of lifting a stone which He cannot lift—whose description is self-contradictory. But if God is supposed capable of performing one task whose description is self-contradictory—that of creating the problematic stone in the first place—why should He not be supposed capable of performing another—that of lifting the stone? After all, is there any greater trick in performing two logically impossible tasks than there is in performing one"
Comment has been collapsed.
"In standard written English, when two negatives are used in one sentence, the negatives are understood to cancel
one another and produce a weakened affirmative." DN
weakened affirmative ... :D kinda funny
Comment has been collapsed.
edited :D
"A paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true (or wrong at the same time)."
Its even listed as an philosophical paradox example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes#Philosophy
Comment has been collapsed.
If the balls touch, but you said no homo, is it gay?
Comment has been collapsed.
This one is great imo. and similar to your first one.
It's from the book Biological Psychology by James W. Kalat. The piece of text comes from J.R. Searle. slightly edited by me to make it shorter.
"Suppose someone suffers damage to part of the visual cortex of the brain and becomes blind to part of the visual field. Engineers design artificial brain circuits to replace the damaged cells. Impulses from the eyes are routed to this device, which processes the information and sends electrical impulses to healthy portions of the bran that ordinarily get input from the damaged brain area.
After the device is installed the person can see again. just like he could before. This piece of machine is able to do exactly the same as the original brain. Again, the person suffers damadge to the brain and another part is affected. The damadged part is replaced again and the person assures us that everything was the way it was before.
One by one, additional brain areas are damadged and replaced by machines. In each case the person reports that everything is exactly like it was before. Eventually every piece of the brain has been replaced by a machine and the person still reports no difference whatsoever."
-At this moment the brains of this person are 100% machine and the person didn't notice any change, nor did others.
The questions I'm asking:
Another question related to neurobiology:
Edit: I just realized that this might not be a paradox. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Q1.
I'd say no, how could it - since this is mere theory (doesn't exist) and not sound one on top.:
"just like before" "do exactly the same" "no difference whatsoever" < this is like the definition of something artificial and not human +
in accordance to what/whom: "standard" "human biometrics, another machine, a passer-by, your family/spouse?
^ While still he might be as ever (to some) but yet "better" "flawless" and possibly broken when the technology fails.
Q2.
Yes, but ultimately not human [= in terms of "free will" "purpose"](for whatever that counts right now) and it would have some boundaries set by human which could impossibly be undone by any kind of technology (else it would cease to function). And if that technology were to pass its information to another container (technology) > what would make its existence any different > some crazy random yet reasonable algorithm? Human are way to flawed and unpredictable while technology with a conscience < which would have some programmed corner-stones made by men would still not build a tower of whatnot and sell it as art while humans ...
Not even part of the questions i think ...
... even if all would be perfect (which it cannot be and anything made by human never was > making the creation of humans which might create something > still at root the flawed creation of human)
... a "robot" withers away after centuries > information gets "pasted" onto another container || human > kids ... but thats very different
Comment has been collapsed.
In accordance to what/whom = himself. He states himself that nothing changes.
I omitted the part of the story that said that the story is for the tought experiment and the science that would actually make this possible doesn't exist, or could exist.
To Q2.
You state there would be some boundaries set by humans. But what if those boundaries wouldn't be set, what if the machines would be freely allowed to do whatever they like. They get an algorithm that says 'try everything' and if it is similar to how evolution works then there are a few scenario's. The machines copy themselves alot and because they try everything they blow up the world or w/e and cease to exist.
Or maybe (and here evolution theory is showing) the machines multiply (build new versions of themselves) and their random behaviour makes them destroy human property. The humans don't like this so they destroy the machines, but there are some machines that will get rid of the humans (random not by choice) and they are still able to build new copies because humans didn't destroy them. New robot's have already built in that they should destroy humans for their basic functioning etc.
Or they get destroyed by humans and only 'stay alive' by NOT destroying human property and they have the possibilty to evolve. but this seems less likely to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
"In accordance to what/whom = himself. He states himself that nothing changes."
that part was the important part since anyone/anything can claim something, but unless
its confirmed/acknowledged by others, its not valid ... Q. was " Is this person still the person he was before?"
The question wouldn't even matter if it need not be acknowledged by "others".
Q2: You can't create a machine and not set its "cornerstones" > else you might as well pop in a hard drive
and expect data to be written on it itself. Resulting whatever cornerstone, basement was laid as the very fundament
for the heap of tech to even "function" and beyond imagination "programm itself > its evolution" - that would still be
the basis which needs boundaries else it simply could've not ever work.
Resulting it can't be "everything", nor "do what you will", even in a mind experiment ... > ... data trash
Which again would equal to a task and not conscience > No or Yes depending what counts as conscience
Comment has been collapsed.
Is it possible that machines (robots) are conscious?
I suppose it really depends on what you consider the term "consciousness". If you believe that the very fact that being conscious about your surroundings counts towards consciousness, then it's possible. For example, a robot with thermal vision will detect if a human is present or not.
True artificial consciousness on the other hand is impossible to achieve in my opinion.
But don't take my word for it, I don't have much knowledge about artificial intelligence and robotics engineering. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I edited the post a bit.
The person's brain are 100% machine at the end of the story, yet he functions exactly like he did when he had all of his own brains.
That would suggest a machine can be a human being.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not really. Since the human brain is much to complex to reproduce artificially, it would be impossible to do so, thus impossible to create an artificially conscious "brain".
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a paradox to go back in time for any reason, even if it doesn't directly affect your family line. Whatever mission you went back for, when you complete it you'd remove your reason for going back in time in the first place. Then you never went back in time, and never changed the event that your mission was for.
Here's a couple more:
The distance paradox: If you're standing 10 feet away from your bed and every second you cross half the remaining distance, how long does it take, or do you ever reach your bed at all?
The barber paradox: A barber is a man in town who shaves those, and only those, men in town who do not shave themselves. Who shaves the barber?
Comment has been collapsed.
But if someone else shaves him, then he falls into the group of men who don't shave themselves. Thus according to the statement above, he must shave himself because he's in that group. Yet he can't shave himself because if he did he wouldn't fall into the group of those that don't shave themselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, let's get this straight then...
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol RowdyOne and me gets it.
You need 2 more rules to make this paradox valid.
"There is only one barber in town". Without this rule, all barbers in town can shave for each other.
"Only a barber can shave for men who do not shave themselves". Without this rule, men who do not shave themselves can find anyone to shave for them, not necessarily must be a barber. They can be their wife or other people's wife.
Comment has been collapsed.
When it comes to time travel, there IS no paradox created due to you removing whatever reason you had for traveling back in the first place...all you do is create alternate time streams...much like in BTTF...when Marty travels back and creates the timeline where his dad isn't a poor wuss and is in fact "comfortable" and has stood up to Biff, he simply splits the timeline, he doesn't actually erase his original childhood...then in #2, when he creates the timeline where Biff owns everything and his dad is dead, that's simply a new fork in the timeline...which he then goes back and finds his way back to the "correct" timeline...there are infinite realities where your infinite choices at each step in your life have lead to infinitely more varied existences...including realities where you were never even born, and realities where your parents were never born...
Comment has been collapsed.
I like this one. It can be mind boggling, and the correct "answer" is not very satisfying for most people...
A professor is about to give a 30-day logic course, every day from 2pm to 3pm. He never lies. The day before classes start, he says to the students:
"There will be only one exam during the whole course. It will be in a day such that, in the morning before the class, it will be impossible to be certain the test is in that same day."
Suppose the professor is indeed telling the truth. Obviously, that means the exam cannot be in day 30, since that would be the last day and then the exam would have to be then.
But that also means the exam cannot be in day 29. After all, in the 29th morning, you would know the exam is on the 29th or 30th day. But you also know that it cannot be on the 30th (see above), so you would be certain it is on the 29th day.
Similarly, the test cannot be in day 28, nor 27, nor... Well, so there is no possible day for the test! So the professor MUST be lying.
All of that said, the test was in the 21st day, and no one knew that beforehand. So the professor was NOT lying after all!
So, where is the "problem"?
Comment has been collapsed.
305 Comments - Last post 48 minutes ago by Atombomb2097
24 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by damianea103
2,676 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by yomisma
22 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by M0J
27 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by OwieczkaDollyv21
9 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Formidolosus
23 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by kimjongha
7 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by wigglenose
37 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by Ellendyl
679 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by eeev
30,118 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Goodluck
49 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by PapaSmok
283 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by pivotalHarry
1,002 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by SubhoX
I love a good paradox, has anyone got any mind bending paradoxes to share with me? Even more interested in potential answers to said paradoxes. I'll probably throw a GA up eventually when I can be bothered to create one. A couple to get the ball rolling...
If a ship has a hundred pieces of wood, you replace the old wood with a new piece of wood every day for 100 days and keep the old wood in storage. On the 100th day you build a new ship out of the old ships pieces of wood. Which ship is now the original ship?
The grandfather paradox, if you travel back in time and kill your grandfather, would you cease to exist? If you do how could you travel back in time to kill you Grandfather in the first place. I believe many scientists have attempted to answer this one and I believe(without researching) that string theory goes a little way to answering this with the 10 dimensions and infinite worlds. So in one world you WOULD be able to achieve this but the other branching worlds would remain the same as you would only have killed one version of your Grandfather in an infinite number of possibilities. I also believe someone argued that it would be impossible to do so as every attempt you made at killing him something would stop this from happening eg, gun jamming, watch stopping missing the time, shoelace tying at the exact moment to dodge the shot.
Comment has been collapsed.