Diche Bach

Is it anything more than theoretical yet? I think the question of whether any animal other than human is "sentient" is still controversial, though I'd lean toward "Yes, many nonhuman animals are sentient" myself. I guess it ultimately depends on how you define "sentient" and "artificial intelligence." There are those experts in psychology who seem to insist that the minimum threshold for "sentience" is human psychology. That excludes lots of other animals that I suspect are smarter and more adaptable than the most adaptable computer programs ever dreamed of much less created. I don't count myself among them, but I also don't pretend that I can fully refute or rebutt their arguments. In sum, I didn't ask the question because I figure I got the answer to it. I asked it because it is a good question to discuss.

Andrewas post up above there is to an article that goes through how the video is inaccurate. No, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex†Main thing to me is that the tilt of the plane of the ecliptic (and thus roughly most of the planets in our solar systems motions around the sun) are at about 60-degrees off the galactic plane, not 0-degrees as both you and I posited nor 90-degrees as the animator depicts. The other big problem is conflating the terms helical and "vortex" which are not identical. I suspect the postions of the planets depict them too far behind the sun as well, even if it was in fact a 90-degree and not a 60 degree slant. Its a shame he didn't take the time to consult an astronomer on the details as it is otherwise a well-done and compelling piece. Agree that the 'mystical' parts might not agree with everyone but a bit of that cannot hurt.

Isn't "Sentient AI" an oxymoron?

A buddy on another forum posted a link to this in that forums "science and technology section." You can see my comment on it there on Youtube I figured if any of my "cyber contacts" could answer this question, the Kerbonauts could! Been a long time since I played any KSP. Might have to fire it up in the near future

Imagination. It is the spark of humanity and all else depends on it.

And a related one . . . Dude quotes me as saying By replying that To which I replied Somewhat more speculatively . . . So, working with todays prevailing technologies reserves are anywhere from 200 to 400 years worth. Exploration could double that according to this article. Moreover, there is supposedly the potential to yield effectively 'infinite' uranium These estimates and speculative projections can be contrasted with those for the three fossil fuels: coal Also found this site, which goes into 'excruciating' detail,for all three fossil fuels but doesn't really seem to offer any "years left" conclusions. I think with fossil fuels in particular it is very difficult to come up with sound estimates because changes in technology and economics has always led to a certain amount of "reserve growth" as deposits which were previously regarded as "unproducable" and unproven reserves become proven reserves. Here is a very interesting site that discusses the contrasting phenomenae of oil-doom prophesying versus the reality of reserve growth.

We've had this discussion on here not too long ago. And I've been involved in some similar discussions on other boards lately. I think the Fukushima ongoing story is probably prompting it. Here are some 'excerpts' of my own 'analyses' and conclusion. You should note: I'm a social scientist, but I did start this process of examining the available data with a bit of a bias that disasters like Fukushima and Chernobyl show that nuclear energy is just too risky. I spent a few hours a while back walking my self through the readily available data on Chernobyl and getting a bit familiar with the numbers and effects of radiation. I started out with a largely 'emotionally' based sense that the desolation/wilderness around Chernobyl is objectively WORSE than the ~2500 people killed by Bhopal. So I decided to work my way through it, mostly sticking to reality but in some cases allowing a few 'flights of fancy' like the "what if every nuclear power plant on Earth right now went ballistic" Certainly the highest environmental radiation levels tend to be closer to the Chernobyl plant, but the current effective area of the Exclusion zone is far larger than the 30km radius referenced above. 0.0010 rem = 1.0 mrem = 1 mrem = 0.000010 Sv = 0.010 mSv = 10 µSv So lets put these numbers into perspective (using 8760 hours per annum) "Black Zone" (over 20 mRem hr−1) = 0.2mSv/hr = 1752 mSv/annum "Red Zone" (5-20 mRem hr−1) = 0.05-0.2mSv/hr 438-1852 mSv/annum "Blue Zone" (3-5 mRem hr−1) = 0.03-0.05mSv/hr 262.8-438 mSv/annum So now lets put this into health terms: "(ICRP) recommends limiting artificial irradiation of the public to an average of 1 mSv (0.001 Sv) of effective dose per year" and "In 2012 the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation stated that for typical background radiation levels (1–13 mSv per year) it is not possible to account for any health effects, and for exposures under 100 mSv, it is only possible in specific conditions." So, they have set the recommended healthy dose (1 mSv/a) about 13 times lower than the dose that they think they can actually detect some health effects (13 mSv/a). Above 13 mSv/a and below 100 mSv/a the effects are ambiguous in general, but some specific linkages to certain diseases must be empirically established. What I gather from this is, above 100 mSv/a and risks for a wide variety of illnesses will be increased, along with increased risk for the specific diseases which are 'responsive' to lower doses. So 13 mSv/a is where it starts to get 'unhealthy' and at 100 mSv/a it is DEFINITELY unhealthy. These models are specifying "additional" exposure over and above what a 'normal' person will get from background and routine medical exposure People have been known to die of acute radiation exposure from doses as low as 4.5 to 6 Sv (4500 to 6000 mSv). But on the other hand, people have been known to live to substantial old age and die of causes seemingly unrelated to radiation exposure having been hit with a total lifetime exposure of as high as 64 Sv: nonfatal dose to Albert Stevens spread over ~21 years, due to 1945 human experiment So the average Joe or Sally is getting hit by anywhere from 2.4 to 40 or 50 mSv/a. 1mSv/a (above and beyond) is the recommended "safe" dose, and 13 mSv/a (over and above 'normal') is where some health effects are detected epidemiologically. An extra 100 mSv/a seems to be a sort of low-end, "You're gonna eventually suffer some health effects from this" type dose. Now lets go back to Chernobyl . . . lets just assume that the Blue Zone is representative of what people who resettled the area would experience (even though it might be lower farther toward the boundary and higher closer to the plant) = "Blue Zone" (3-5 mRem hr−1) = 0.03-0.05mSv/hr 262.8-438 mSv/annum. We know that an immediate dose of about 4500 mSv is likely to be lethal in short order. It seems that the Chernobyl exclusion zone (and to a lesser degree the Fukushima area) are in a "grey" area that is likely to increase long-term health risks, but some individuals may show little or no health effects at all. What this led me to conclude is: as long as we NEVER have any more Chernobyls, and very few and diminishing rates of Fukushimas, and eventually experience effectively ZERO serious nuclear power plant "disasters" then maybe nuclear power is just fine after all :shock: Amazing when you can use numbers and rational analysis to convince yourself that the world is in fact, probably NOT going to hell in a hand basket :mrgreen:

Not gonna type in the numbers and run the Chi square, but my gut sense based on having done hundreds of Chi square analyses is that these numbers are not relatively large enough to approach the 0.05 level of significance. Meaning, it is more likely that the observed differences are just random. Is Baskerville 'less disagreeable' than Comic San? It looks that way. The difference observed between Baskerville and Helvetica (the 2nd most disagreeable) may even be real. But the other differences in my gut intuition are inconsequential. Moreover the fact that the rank ordering for the Agreement and Disagreement measures are not the same (Georgia is most disagreeable but the 3rd least agreeable; whereas Comic sans is the least agreeable but the 3rd least disagreeable) raises questions about whether the experiment was valid in measuring the same construct with both instruments. Can't help but wonder if the differences observed have more to do with serif versus sans-serif.

Homeothermy.

You misspelled Squad.

Ah a fellow heretic. Good!

The demographers project that the total number of humans will plateau at 9 to 11 billion in about 2050. After 2070 projections are for it to drop back to around 8.5 billion and stay there. I agree that too many people is the upstream cause of many real and hypothesized global problems. Who knows if we can coexist with the natural ecology of Earth at even our current numbers, much less the increased number of us over the next 35 years and beyond. Certainly it would seem that fewer humans would be better for those who were alive = less competition and for the natural ecologies. However, the only ethical way for this to occur is for more and more people to choose to live their lives without reproducing. Many people globally now live this way, and they are I think to be applauded when it is done out of choice. Moreover, many people do not make particularly good parents. Unhealthy relationships between parents and offspring account for a huge proportion of the problems in the world. With those points laid out, at least superficially, I would say that, the most pressing problem on Earth today is the complete lack of seriousness when it comes to childrearing. "Serious" is not the right word, but it is about the best I can think of. We simply do not take childrearing seriously. Way too many people do it by accident, or on a whim, people do it to manipulate other people, people do it because they cannot think of anything better to do with their lives. People who just simply do not have the maturity, resilience, compassion, patience, etc., to excel at parenting do it. Reproducing is the single most important thing one will do or not do, and if you do reproduce, parenting is by far and away the most important thing in your life from that point onwards. These two points should be axiomatic but they are not. So I would say that, that is the most serious problem: virtually no cultures on Earth as yet, "take reproduction and parenting seriously" from an ecological standpoint. Please note: I am not suggesting that anyone's opportunity to have children much less their biological capacity to have children should ever be infringed. What I'm saying is that, our cultures should do a better job of socializing us (via our parents, peers and communities) to regard parenting not as an 'automatic' or 'no big deal' but as a very important thing. By the time we reach puberty we should all have a sense that either (a) I am not sure I have the skill and devotion to be an exceptional parent, and as such I will be waiting, and perhaps never reproducing, or ( I am sure I have the skill and devotion to be an exceptional parent, and I am on my way toward devoting my life to that calling.

China has a long way to go to get near Western standards of justice, due process, equal opportunity, and freedom; and I certainly am not here to say "yah China." Don't see how them or anyone else putting more LEO space stations into orbit does anyone any real good, but especially a police state still operating on questionable ethical grounding . . . but that is for a different thread (in another forum I think). I think you've missed my point: what I'm asking is --> Space stations? Who cares? What exactly have the space station(s) done for me? (or any of us)? So China puts up a space station and invites other people to come visit it; so what? Apart from a PR stunt what does this really accomplish? Apart from taking the next step and starting to build some sort of true permanent high orbit industrial or science facility (which would necessarily be multi-national both for ethical and fiduciary reasons) I don't see the point of more 'shanty towns' in low Earth orbit. If the Chinese or Russian oligarchs manage to squeeze a few drops of public approval out of a nationalist euphoria about a space station, whatever, but in the grand scheme of things, and at this stage in human history more of what has already been done seems pretty pointless, if not wasteful. Until we can do some real stuff in space (build a factory that can actually produce widgets more cost effectively than they can be produced on Earth; else build a lab that can achieve scientific goal X, Y or Z which either cannot be achieved on Earth or can be achieved in space far more efficiently) then all this current manned space stuff just strikes me as shuffling our feet and keeping the bureaucracies and their engineers and scientists in work.

Why do we need a space station? Why does it matter if China/Russia have space stations and U.S. doesn't? Not trying to be difficult, just asking seriously: so what? One can acknowledge that space work has contributed immensely to the human condition without assuming that (at this stage) we should or must continue on the same trajectory. Point to me a list of 5 things that LEO space stations have accomplished that are truly irreplaceable? Show me how a failure to continue to pursue those same trajectories will likely be harmful. Maybe such things exist and NASA is just really crap at the public relations side of pointing out how essential their mission is to the betterment of American, and Western and human life? I'll speculate a bit. We're all space geeks (naturally given we are members of a space game forum!) so we are generally going to be pro-space. We are a pretty "pro-Western" bunch on here too, so it is also natural that we'd lament the 'fall' of the U.S. / West from the "leading role" in space stuff. But what if we are not being objective? What if the end of current Western LEO work is really rather inconsequential at this stage? Seems to me, the technology to put stuff into orbit and beyond more cheaply is the singlemost important thing, in terms of space work, and assuming of course that space work should take precedence over other stuff.

So you also disagree with the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission? You should send a note to the Chairman of the Commission, Kiyoshi Kurokawa Medical Doctor; Academic Fellow, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies; Former President of the Science Council of Japan, and let him know that he was wrong to say I mean heck! The commission only has 10 experts on it (lawyers, MDs, Ph.D.s, former ambassadors, University Directors and Commercial Chairmen) and they only spent about 900 hours interviewing nearly 1200 people and visiting sites all around the area. Maybe they just didn't realize it was so simple as being a "one in a billion" stroke of bad luck. A note from you might help them to see the truth of the matter and retract their report to the Japanese Diet. As far as the plant at Onagawa being 'identical' to the one at Fukushima . . . Japanese nuclear power plant survived tsunami, offers clues "nearly identical backup and protection plans," maybe so. The Reuters article doesn't really discuss that. But it does make it pretty clear that the design of the plant anticipated the possible Tsunami, thus avoiding the problem which led to the Fukushima disaster. This is probably one of the things the Commission was talking about when they said that the Fukushima disaster was a "profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and prevented."

Glad to hear it was of interest. I am not expert on nuclear technology; I'm sure that a lot of these guys know the technicalities of it much better. But I have for a few years had a bit of a hobbyists interest in it from a more broad historical perspective; and I'm certainly not some extremist 'anti-nuclear.' Seems to me if it is exceptionally well funded and regulated it offers tremendous benefits to society. It is only when it is poorly funded and/or badly managed (as in Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Kyshtym, Fukushima, etc.) that it poses a serious problem. Anyway, what I have gathered is that there have been a LOT of accidents and incidents involving either nuclear weapons (e.g., bombs lost check out the Thule Incident), mishaps during nuclear weapons tests (then Castle Bravo test detonation in the Pacific irradiated a huge area of the Pacific and residents of several islands still believe they were exposed to harmful doses and that their public health demonstrates it), and relatively minor nuclear power incidents. There are several different pages on wiki that provide compiled lists of all of these incidents. Nuclear accidents and incidents This page that summarizes nuclear incidents in the U.S. offers interesting reflections on the discussion so far. ADDIT: and oh yeah, its not just significant patches of the Earth's surface, ocean, and underground that have been more or less permanently irradiated by some nuclear detonations. There are also number of Artificial radiation belts in orbit around Earth as a result of various high altitude or orbital test detonations. Several satellites have been destroyed or damaged from these radiated zones. I suppose they are a kind of navigational hazard for all future space travel.

Seret, You are clearly sympathetic to the nuclear power industry, and feel that Fukushima was an unavoidable accident, not the fault of TEPCO. On this you are in disagreement with the "Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC)." In their report to the Japanese Diet, the NAIC concluded that the disaster was "manmade," that the direct causes of the accident were all foreseeable and avoidable prior to the accident but had not been addressed because of a bureaucratic culture within Japan fraught with greed, cronyism, deceit and resistance to regulatory pressure; in sum, malfeasance of the worst order, though granted facilitated by a culture that gave tacit approval to such malfeasance. I quote from the Chairman's Message at the beginning of the report: While you are correct to point out that many industries pose risks to human and natural welfare, nothing except nuclear power can cause large tracts of land to become inhospitable for human life effectively forever. Beyond pointing that out to you I don't see you and I agreeing so we are probably best to just agree to disagree. "Perfect" is of course impossible. But as OdinYggd pointed out on the first page of this thread, other plants in the area, and even ones that were nearer to the epicenter of the earthquake fared much better. Based on that he concluded that good design, good engineering and devoted stewarding of the industry can correct most shortcomings that exist and bring all plants up to a very high and acceptable standard. Had the most prominent examples of nuclear disasters thus far in history (Chernobyl, the Kyshtym disaster, Fukushima not _all_ been the result of gross negligence (as indeed it seems the vast majority of all accidents involving nuclear weapons and radioactive substances have been over the years) then there wouldn't be anything to talk about. We could conclude that there was little or no room for the industry to improve (speaking globally and in general). Instead, it is quite clear that the vast majority of accidents that have occurred where radiation was involved, whether large or small, catastrophic or minor, devastating or inconsequential, tend to relate back to either human malfeasance or human error. Cost savings and/or poor design and management decisions arise as the most prominent form of malfeasance in both Chernobyl, Kyshtym and Fukushima.

Apart from nuclear materials, what other industry handle substances or processes that are "just as dangerous?" I'm not aware of any other substances or processes that can, not only kill or harm thousands of living things and cause massive property damage but also make thousands of square kilometers of land permanently uninhabitable. Thought experiment: assume that every single nuclear power plant on Earth today suffered a disaster somewhere between a Chernobyl and a Fukushima, how much land would be permanently contaminated? I can't think of any other industry where that thought experiment works. Obviously I'm not proposing that 'every single nuclear power plant' or processing facility will experience such a major accident; that is not the point. The point is that even ONE additional accident that releases radiation in sufficient quantities to cause geographic desolation on any scale is one too many. This is actually a very important issue because we face decline availability of fossil fuels, and nuclear energy offers one quite viable alternative that offers more-or-less infinite energy. However, the point that I'm making is, not that the risks of nuclear make it unviable, but that the risks mean that it must be treated special. If "hundreds of times stricter than any other industry" is not enough to prevent all such accidents then perhaps the regulations need to be ramped up to thousands or tens of thousands of times more strict. Given the cumulative impact that these accidents can have over thousands of years in the future, we need to have a zero tolerance attitude, and by that I do not mean the irrational Greenpeace "No nukes" mantra. I mean that the industry needs to be _perfect_ in terms of safety and risk management. Anything less than perfection is simply not good enough in my opinion. If perfection cannot be mustered, then we ought to seriously consider that we are 'playing with fire,' and meddling with something we cannot fully control.

I think you are white washing things Seret. The fact that the plant was not actually much impacted by the Tsunami in the first place demonstrates that. It was flooding in the basement that led to the disaster as I understand it. I'm sure there are a lot more details to be dug up out there, but a quick, glimpse at what is considered the current consensus on the Wiki page for the disaster reveals that this was not likely an unavoidable result of the tsunami. Perhaps some have claimed "only 100 extra deaths" but others are not so optimistic. Given that the disaster has been concluded by the investigatory body to have been "manmade" it should not be surprising if some 'experts' have found that "there is nothing to worry about," whereas others who are independent of TEPCO and the govt have predicted "25 times as many people in Fukushima area will develop thyroid cancer." It is a controversial projection, and naturally those whose malfeasance in the disaster are brought into question are likely to minimize the risks going forward. I would assert that their malfeasance which caused the disaster in the first place is a reasonable prima facie evidence to discount their claims, including claims that "the area is perfectly safe now." Unless the wiki page has been vandalized, I think you are rather incorrect. Just based on these facts, it seems pretty obvious that the blame for the harm done lies with TEPCO and/or the Japanese government to the extent that they were not imposing sufficient oversight on TEPCO. Whether the area is now perfectly safe and the net effect of the disaster on human health will be negligible or great is of course debatable as such inferences are inherently limited by being projective. The reality remains to be seen, but in 100, or 1000 years when we have suffered an additional half-dozen or more of these disasters, and have still more Chernobyl or Fukushima areas of 'desolation' dotting our fair planets face, will we have learned anything? The sad part to me is that, as I understand it, with enough foresight, planning and expenditure, nuclear power CAN be made to be truly 99.99% safe. These disasters are ultimately a result of cutting corners on the part of institutions that plan, design, build and run them. Like OdinYggd said in the first page of the thread . . . The 'solution' seems pretty obvious. The nuclear industries around the world just need to acknowledge that they may have (in some instances) been lax in the past. They need to identify the plants that are questionable, and develop responsible plans to either decommission and replace them or refurbish them to address their shortcomings. Yes, that will likely involve hundreds of millions perhaps billions in up front costs. But given the cost of remediating the Fukushima disaster has already been multiple billions (and I bet there are at least some lawsuits pending) the cost to make every plant on the planet 99.99% safe seems pretty sensible from a business standpoint, not to mention conscientious, ethical and compassionate.

I think you are missing my point gentlemen. The plant should never have broke and led to irradiation of the area in the first place. If the nuclear power industry adhered assiduously in every case to whatever standards they need to adhere to make such accidents exceedingly rare, then the public wouldn't need to worry about it. Blaming the failure of the area to rejuvenate on the public for not understanding the numbers is honestly a bit insensitive and arrogant. I do honestly find it interesting to hear you arguing that "there is nothing to worry" about and I am incredulous about that; but that is a bit of a side issue really. Whether the area really is perfectly safe for human inhabitation or not is largely irrelevant at this point. In the first place, life there was disrupted by the disaster at the plant. At least temporarily it was unsafe to live there. Moreover, even if it is objectively 100% as safe as it was previously, the vacancy alone has caused permanent damage to the local economy and social fabric and it will likely never recover. Add to that that there will likely always be a reluctance on the part of families, or businesses to relocate there; even if it is not the least bit 'dangerous' to human health from a radiation standpoint, the surrounding land has been blighted nonetheless. The blame for that harm to Japan and the world lies not with the public but with TEPCO and perhaps more broadly with the Japanese nuclear power industry and government. Lets not detract from that important truth by pointing out that silly lay people don't know the difference between ionizing radiation and magic.

I would say the problem is with a nuclear industry that tried to cut corners. You cannot blame lay people for being concerned. Not everyone is a physicist.

Yes I read the article and what I gather is that it is not entirely clear that the area is truly 'clean' of radiation. For example After three years, I would imagine that virtually all of the plant life in that area has integrated cesium into it in some degree. Scraping off the top layer of soil and hosing down houses is hardly going to 'clean' all of the plant life, not to mention If people, particularly young people who might want to have children, are reluctant to go back to an area that was contaminated by radioactive fallout and has been putatively 'decontaminated' I cannot blame them; can you? It seems pretty obvious based on the article that there are still questions about whether the decon efforts really are 'good enough' to place living in the area well below an acceptable threshold, much less TRULY safe and 'back to normal.' Obviously the latter is not the case. The area will never, even with the most herculean efforts possible be completely 'clean.' You'd literally have to kill all the plants and animals and strip the top layer of everything down to a half a meter or so!

So very sad. I thought this respondent to that article captured the main issue.

Big difference between terrestrial bacteria in hailstones and life evolving in an atmosphere. As far a I know, all live evolved either in water or on land. I am not aware of any life that ever evolved in situ in Earth's atmosphere.

Obviously, if enough money is spent, nuclear power can be done 'safely,' meaning a very, very low rate of accidents. As I understand it, Fukushima is an example of the exact opposite: the very real risks when a nuclear power plant is poorly/cheaply designed, and/or not properly(expensively) maintained and operated. Having said that, I have to admit that it makes me wonder: how many other potential Fukushima's and Chernobyl's are there out there right now, which pose a real risk of similar disasters sometime in the future? Fukushima may be 'minute' relative to Chernobyl, but it is still a catastrophe of epic proportions. I was under the impression that a large area around the plant is now an exclusion zone? Perhaps not as much land as that which received high doses in and around Chernobyl, but a significant chunk of Earth that is now dangerous to human life So . . . I'm not exactly sure if the zero to 20km zone has been 'permanently' evacuated or not; but it sounds that way. I consider that to be very, VERY serious.