Originally posted by Astner
Methods and results can't be patented, only ideas can.
Methods can be patented.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Your point was that no one has a patent on memristors?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Methods can be patented.
I'm not even sure if that is true, anyways.
Sure, the "scientific method" probably couldn't be patented, but a lot of the software and equipment that were part of the methods of the research I was most recently doing were proprietary and under copyright. I suppose "methods" could be defined in a lot of ways though. Certainly the experiment itself wasn't patented, though, to reproduce it one would need copyrighted software and cameras, etc.
Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm not even sure if that is true, anyways.Sure, the "scientific method" probably couldn't be patented, but a lot of the software and equipment that were part of the methods of the research I was most recently doing were proprietary and under copyright. I suppose "methods" could be defined in a lot of ways though. Certainly the experiment itself wasn't patented, though, to reproduce it one would need copyrighted software and cameras, etc.
You probably could patent an experiment, but I guess it kinda defeats the purpose of what you are trying to accomplish with it.
Originally posted by Oliver North
not necessarily if I'm a massive pharmaceutical corporation.
True, like if your finding do not support what you want them to support or something, you may not want anyone to repeat your experiment. Like if it turned out that your medicine actually kills 100% of people who take it, or that the earth happens to be older than 6000 years...that's dangerous stuff.
Originally posted by Astner
No, my point was that the only reason the development of them are on such a small scale was due to legal issues. As soon a new material for a new model is discovered it's patented, limiting the development of research of that particular model.
Oh, it is like those old arguments with dadude.
Please go on. pizza
Originally posted by Astner
No, I'm just ignoring straw men. I could point them out and make a fool of him, but why bother?
Sure, be my guest. It would take some massive stretching to pull it off, though. And by stretching, I mean backpeddling on your part (which is what you've been doing) and pretty much changing your position.
Originally posted by Astner
No, I'm just ignoring straw men. I could point them out and make a fool of him, but why bother?
So you've just completely lost the thread of the conversation, then?
Anyway, to Dolos: It seems like you've been "talked out" of these specific Kurzweilian notions of the future but I don't think that was the intention of any of the people you spoke with. I, at least, was trying to get you to think differently. Whether you believe in techno-utopia or not isn't that important to me it's the uncritical view of technology. Saying "I don't know if this is possible but I believe it is" is fake intellectual honesty. Real intellectual honesty is "I don't know." full stop, and then you try to find out the truth.
Read critics, not supporters. This is more than a pithy bit of advice, there are practical reasons to look at "critics" and "skeptics". If you can't answer a critic's challenges to a belief don't take a position on it because that means your understanding is poor. If you don't understand something well enough to defend it then you're vulnerable to rhetoric and specious arguments, from either side.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos👆
Read critics, not supporters. This is more than a pithy bit of advice, there are practical reasons to look at "critics" and "skeptics". If you can't answer a critic's challenges to a belief don't take a position on it because that means your understanding is poor. If you don't understand something well enough to defend it then you're vulnerable to rhetoric and specious arguments, from either side.
It's why I also watch Fox news. 😎
Re: Re: I know longer believe in Techno-utopia or Accelerating Returns
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wrong: it has accelerated. Moore's law and an extension of it (the one that says FLOPS is doubling every two years) have done nothing but accelerate meaning it no longer takes 18 months or 2 years.Additionally, there are emerging technologies that will force a massive jump (memristors hit commercial production from HP, early next year) to the processing power.
Processing power is not everything. In actuality, we have all the processing power we need, right now, to duplicate the brain power of a human. The problem is the software, not the hardware.
I have a very...interesting future ahead of me. I'm more ambitious than Astner and with all his schooling. He'll settle for one PhD, I won't.
The human brain does so much more than IT with so much less that it makes any software look like a joke. A complete layout of synaptic activity, aka "Mind Uploading", would allow for a simulated sentient system that would still deviate from the human thought process eventually, wouldn't it? Or maybe not, such a sustained method might take away why computers are so good at computing. I'm picturing The Oracle from the Matrix, a super artificially intelligent computer system unlike the Architect, in that instead of being very good with equations, she somehow "knew the future".
I have this theory that humans, unlike animals and any future Super Intelligence from nanoelectronic circuity, runs on a kind of predestined mindset. Hence; religion, why people see things and put a meaning to it, providence. Why we experience and interpret such as "purpose". In Dune that's how the Kwisatz Haderach was able to utilize probability manipulation, by seeing glimpses of the future. But obviously they weren't of the future, this prescience to me was a very advanced mind predicting very accurately. Hence, probability manipulation.
The best intelligence utilizes AI for its strengths and human intelligence for its strengths.