ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags artificial intelligence

Reply
Old 20th August 2019, 06:11 AM   #241
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,760
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Agreed. Did you notice this part of my post:



I tend to think that computers will be capable of thought because I think human brains are turing machines. But I agree with you that that's not yet clear: we need to learn more about brains before that is demonstrated. That doesn't mean that we won't be able to build systems that function in the same way as human brains though, but it may mean that thinking machines are further off than many of us think.

Do you disagree with that?
Yes, I still disagree. Whatever machines end up capable of doing it won't be thought.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2019, 06:12 AM   #242
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,806
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Yes, I still disagree. Whatever machines end up capable of doing it won't be thought.
Can you explain why?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2019, 06:21 AM   #243
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,465
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Yes, I still disagree. Whatever machines end up capable of doing it won't be thought.
I think it depends on your definition of the word "thought". If you define "thought" as something going on in a functioning organic brain, then the whole discussion is oxymoronic, because by definition machines are then incapable of thinking.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2019, 06:22 AM   #244
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,760
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Can you explain why?
Scroll up, it's what I've been arguing from the beginning!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2019, 06:46 AM   #245
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,806
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Scroll up, it's what I've been arguing from the beginning!
You argued that computers wouldn’t be capable of thought. I said I think that’s a valid viewpoint. You are now saying that you think that no machine could be capable of thought and if you think you’ve already made that case, well I’d appreciate it if you restated it, because I really don’t think you have.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2019, 07:15 AM   #246
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,806
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I think it depends on your definition of the word "thought". If you define "thought" as something going on in a functioning organic brain, then the whole discussion is oxymoronic, because by definition machines are then incapable of thinking.

Dave
That would be a weird definition though. If I define thought as something going on in my brain, then by definition you're not thinking. But I don't think that definition is what anyone means by thought. It's possible that TM has a good reason for thinking that no machine could ever be built that could be capable of thought. But I think if a machine were built that was having the same sort of conscious experience that he is having, he would consider it to be thinking, even if it didn't have a mother and father.

At least as far as I can tell he thinks that's impossible, not that we are defining thought differently from him.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2019, 07:54 AM   #247
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,465
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
That would be a weird definition though. If I define thought as something going on in my brain, then by definition you're not thinking. But I don't think that definition is what anyone means by thought. It's possible that TM has a good reason for thinking that no machine could ever be built that could be capable of thought. But I think if a machine were built that was having the same sort of conscious experience that he is having, he would consider it to be thinking, even if it didn't have a mother and father.

At least as far as I can tell he thinks that's impossible, not that we are defining thought differently from him.
To be honest, I'm not sure how anyone in this thread is defining "thought." What is its definition?

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2019, 07:02 AM   #248
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,205
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I disagree. A person is more than a sum of their parts.







I agree.







No, it wouldn't. A copy is not the original.







Nope. Still a copy.







The body, fine. The brain, nope. You don't have to believe in a soul to believe a person ceases to be when they lose their brain, or that a copy of a brain is not the same individual as the original.



You're basically arguing that if I had a clever enough Xerox machine you'd be okay with me murdering you, so long as another individual existed afterward who was sufficiently similar to you. The copy wouldn't be you. You'd be a separate person, who is dead.
This has come up before and I think it raises an interesting point. You are right any copy of me is not me, however if I was copied in my sleep and we both woke up in a room that was identical to the one we went to sleep in neither the copy nor me would be able to tell who was the original.

Where I think you are mistaken in your reasoning is that does not mean we would be happy with either of us being killed, after the point of copying we are two individuals that will start to diverge from the moment we are copies.

This usually comes up in regards to a thought experiment about teleportation and if it was destructive scan would you enter it, I wouldn't because the reconstructed person isn't me. But I do think that if we did ever invent such a thing we'd all as a society ignore that pretty quickly, it's amazing what we will overlook for the convenience.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2019, 08:25 AM   #249
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,806
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
This has come up before and I think it raises an interesting point. You are right any copy of me is not me, however if I was copied in my sleep and we both woke up in a room that was identical to the one we went to sleep in neither the copy nor me would be able to tell who was the original.

Where I think you are mistaken in your reasoning is that does not mean we would be happy with either of us being killed, after the point of copying we are two individuals that will start to diverge from the moment we are copies.

This usually comes up in regards to a thought experiment about teleportation and if it was destructive scan would you enter it, I wouldn't because the reconstructed person isn't me. But I do think that if we did ever invent such a thing we'd all as a society ignore that pretty quickly, it's amazing what we will overlook for the convenience.
If Everett was right, you are being copied countless times every second (I recently heard a simple estimate of a minimum of 25000 given the 5000 nuclear decays happening in your body every second). All of those future copies are you, but they aren't each other. They share an identity with each other in the past, but not in the future (or present, after the branching).

I will become multitudes.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2019, 08:39 AM   #250
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,760
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
If Everett was right, you are being copied countless times every second (I recently heard a simple estimate of a minimum of 25000 given the 5000 nuclear decays happening in your body every second). All of those future copies are you, but they aren't each other. They share an identity with each other in the past, but not in the future (or present, after the branching).

I will become multitudes.
Apocatastasis. That's the theory that the universe will end, then trigger a new universe starting, exactly like the old one. Constant apocatastasis is the theory that this happens all the time, not just after a universe's lifespan from big bang to heat death. Every nanosecond (or whatever teeny tiny bit of time) the entire cosmos and everything in it is destroyed then rebuilt, and we can't even perceive it. If true then not only is every individual multitudes but so is literally everything!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2019, 06:32 PM   #251
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,806
Well, I was talking about the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but that sounds cool too.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 05:24 AM   #252
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,760
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Well, I was talking about the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but that sounds cool too.
If there are many worlds maybe that's how it works: the universe is destroyed every instant and replaced by multiple universes each time, to reflect every possible outcome of every action.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 05:27 AM   #253
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,514
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Not yet, because we don't currently have the technology to emulate a brain.
Either that, or we don't that the brain to emulate the technology.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 05:33 AM   #254
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,760
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Either that, or we don't that the brain to emulate the technology.
Well said.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 06:05 AM   #255
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,028
Apparently identifying mushrooms is a thing. My nephew is a rock star AI developer. (He was even sought out by Musk to impart wisdom.) One of his early student projects was a program that identified mushrooms within a picture.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 06:08 AM   #256
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,760
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Apparently identifying mushrooms is a thing. My nephew is a rock star AI developer. (He was even sought out by Musk to impart wisdom.) One of his early student projects was a program that identified mushrooms within a picture.
Having read the news stories about Musk, I'm not the least surprised to find out he's heavily involved with mushrooms.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 07:02 PM   #257
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,122
A Breakthrough for A.I. Technology: Passing an 8th-Grade Science Test

Originally Posted by The New York Times
Four years ago, more than 700 computer scientists competed in a contest to build artificial intelligence that could pass an eighth-grade science test. There was $80,000 in prize money on the line.

They all flunked. Even the most sophisticated system couldn’t do better than 60 percent on the test. A.I. couldn’t match the language and logic skills that students are expected to have when they enter high school.

But on Wednesday, the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, a prominent lab in Seattle, unveiled a new system that passed the test with room to spare. It correctly answered more than 90 percent of the questions on an eighth-grade science test and more than 80 percent on a 12th-grade exam.

The system, called Aristo, is an indication that in just the past several months researchers have made significant progress in developing A.I. that can understand languages and mimic the logic and decision-making of humans.

The world’s top research labs are rapidly improving a machine’s ability to understand and respond to natural language. Machines are getting better at analyzing documents, finding information, answering questions and even generating language of their own.

Aristo was built solely for multiple-choice tests. It took standard exams written for students in New York, though the Allen Institute removed all questions that included pictures and diagrams. Answering questions like that would have required additional skills that combine language understanding and logic with so-called computer vision...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/t...ssed-test.html
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 07:09 PM   #258
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,468
Quote:
Aristo was built solely for multiple-choice tests.
In other words, when we build a machine to perform a specific task, it can perform that task.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 07:27 PM   #259
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,122
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
In other words, when we build a machine to perform a specific task, it can perform that task.
That is not some kind of universal truism from our own experience.

We have built machines to perform the specific task of providing "free energy". They did not perform the task.

We have also built flapping airplanes to perform the specific task of flying with us on board. They did not perform the task.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 07:56 PM   #260
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,468
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
That is not some kind of universal truism from our own experience.
True. Very few of the things I have built perform the task adequately. But that's just because I'm not very good at building things.

Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
We have built machines to perform the specific task of providing "free energy". They did not perform the task.
"Free energy" is not an achievable task by any means, so it's not surprising that the machines people build for it don't work.

Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
We have also built flapping airplanes to perform the specific task of flying with us on board. They did not perform the task.
This was also not an achievable task so again it's not that surprising that the machines people build for it don't work.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 08:58 PM   #261
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,806
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
This was also not an achievable task so again it's not that surprising that the machines people build for it don't work.
I don't agree that it's not achievable, but I do think it's difficult and it was never really the goal, so when other more effective and less difficult ways of achieving the actual goal were developed, it became not particularly interesting.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 09:11 PM   #262
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,468
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I don't agree that it's not achievable, but I do think it's difficult and it was never really the goal, so when other more effective and less difficult ways of achieving the actual goal were developed, it became not particularly interesting.
I had a feeling I'd have to justify this.

Powered flapping flight was absolutely not achievable at the time it was mostly being tried. They couldn't generate enough power, they didn't have the materials, they just didn't understand yet how flight worked in the animal kingdom. And then they discovered that non-flapping flight was much easier to achieve and stopped trying.

Today, with modern lightweight materials and modern power technology, and a solid understanding of the biodynamics behind animal winged flight, I'll grant that it might be achievable, if we had a reason to achieve it, which we don't.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2019, 11:01 PM   #263
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,806
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I had a feeling I'd have to justify this.

Powered flapping flight was absolutely not achievable at the time it was mostly being tried. They couldn't generate enough power, they didn't have the materials, they just didn't understand yet how flight worked in the animal kingdom. And then they discovered that non-flapping flight was much easier to achieve and stopped trying.

Today, with modern lightweight materials and modern power technology, and a solid understanding of the biodynamics behind animal winged flight, I'll grant that it might be achievable, if we had a reason to achieve it, which we don't.
Yeah, I can agree to that.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 09:34 AM   #264
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,122
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Today, with modern lightweight materials and modern power technology, and a solid understanding of the biodynamics behind animal winged flight, I'll grant that it might be achievable, if we had a reason to achieve it, which we don't.
One reason to go with flapping birdlike flight would be the nearly total elimination of crashes. Air stall and various forms of loss of control could maybe be eliminated because you no longer have fixed wings. "Issues" in flight are quickly corrected as it is done by a bird.

This is purely conceptual and I can already imagine concerns for passenger safety and comfort. At the minimum they may be subjected to nasty g-forces. Maybe the idea is all too ambitious.

Reasons to achieve: Great reduction of deaths. Avoidance of mid-air collisions becomes excellent because of the immediate maneuverability. Transformation of airport design and size because the planes takeoff and land like birds do - similar to the current situation with helicopters.

Problems: Oh the list is big, just abandon the whole idea right now.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 09:03 PM   #265
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,468
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
One reason to go with flapping birdlike flight would be the nearly total elimination of crashes.
Right.

__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:47 PM   #266
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,122
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Right.
That's funny. The Little auk (dovekie). It's a pelagic bird that only comes to land to breed. The rest of its life is spent at sea. Some of them seem to make their stop on land the same way they might do on the water. It doesn't work so well.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 03:50 PM   #267
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,019
The landing was a Little Aukward.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 04:17 PM   #268
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,745
Definitely didn't stick that landing.


Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
That's funny. The Little auk (dovekie). It's a pelagic bird...
It's also onomatopoeic! Who knew?!

Quote:
The little auk or dovekie (Alle alle) is a small auk, the only member of the genus Alle. Alle is the Sami name of the long-tailed duck; it is onomatopoeic...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_auk

Last edited by Elagabalus; 6th September 2019 at 04:24 PM.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 08:25 AM   #269
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,845
Big flapping airplanes don't work because making it twice as big results in the thing weighing 8 times as much with wings only 4 times the area. So you have to make the wings twice as big again. They now weigh 16 times more and have lots of inertia and become very difficult to flap fast enough. Or something like that.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 09:34 AM   #270
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,851
Not to mention that, even without flapping wings, things crashing into each other in mid air (outside intentional acts like air defense artillery) is pretty-much non-existent. Most crashes (outside intentional sabotage) are due to mechanical failures of some sort, which would be more likely in a flapping system due to increased complexity and the much higher number of moving parts. And added maneuverability might be there, but at the cost of a large degree of stability...much like helicopters.

No, there's really not much advantage to ornithopters for the foreseeable future.
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:54 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.