Comments for ideas http://karlnordstrom.ca/ideas in progress Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:58:10 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on Lucy Nordstrom 1921–2009 by Mom http://karlnordstrom.ca/ideas/?p=57&cpage=1#comment-123 Mom Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:58:10 +0000 http://karlnordstrom.ca/ideas/?p=57#comment-123 I too have the loving memories of the times she said thank you and that she loved us very much. Thanks you Karl for your loving memories. She died with many loving friends and family who do continue to miss her. She is with the Lord of Glory who will say to her "Well done thou faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your Lord". She will be blessed for eternity in His presence. Once she knew Him, she lived for Him here and continues to live with Him in heaven. I like the fact I will see her again. I too have the loving memories of the times she said thank you and that she loved us very much.

Thanks you Karl for your loving memories. She died with many loving friends and family who do continue to miss her. She is with the Lord of Glory who will say to her “Well done thou faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your Lord”. She will be blessed for eternity in His presence. Once she knew Him, she lived for Him here and continues to live with Him in heaven. I like the fact I will see her again.

]]> Comment on Computer intelligence surpassing humans in 30 years? by RooK http://karlnordstrom.ca/ideas/?p=6&cpage=1#comment-2 RooK Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:52:41 +0000 http://skycastle.wordpress.com/?p=12#comment-2 The main problem with defining intelligence on a linear scale, by which people consider the possibility of machines surpassing humans, is that it misses almost all of the interesting nuances. The most common measure of human intelligence is IQ, and large portions of that are memory function and timed ability measures, both of which computers already surpass humans massively. No, I think the way many people conceptualize a possible singularity is assuming a priori, and incorrectly, that intelligence necessarily equates to conceptions of self. And, well, I doubt it does. That means that computer conceptions of self would have to be intentionally developed by humans - but why would they? I'm not saying that it's impossible - quite the contrary. It's just that I don't see much immediate value in computers with fledgling understandings of self, and thence have doubts about such self-awareness progressing to anything like a singularity in the manner that anyone seems to prognosticate. The main problem with defining intelligence on a linear scale, by which people consider the possibility of machines surpassing humans, is that it misses almost all of the interesting nuances. The most common measure of human intelligence is IQ, and large portions of that are memory function and timed ability measures, both of which computers already surpass humans massively.

No, I think the way many people conceptualize a possible singularity is assuming a priori, and incorrectly, that intelligence necessarily equates to conceptions of self. And, well, I doubt it does. That means that computer conceptions of self would have to be intentionally developed by humans – but why would they?

I’m not saying that it’s impossible – quite the contrary. It’s just that I don’t see much immediate value in computers with fledgling understandings of self, and thence have doubts about such self-awareness progressing to anything like a singularity in the manner that anyone seems to prognosticate.

]]>