Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

[White Elk]

It surely can't be that hard to program an AI not to build ships and drydocks in a city that is icebound?

In my ignorance I would say that it should be very easy to avoid this kind of error. It seems to me that it is as simple as "If this Then that. Just one more line of code at the end of a 'coastal cities, build decision criteria'. I would blame this level of AI error on the publishers rushing the game.. (if I only knew what I was talking about)

I have the view that AI can be programmed in a way that beats any human player with even odds (of course, AI discount levels like Emperor would be out of the question). [...] ...if you managed to create the "perfect playing machine", then you could easily redefine the difficulty levels as levels with different bonuses for the player, with the Deity level being an equal challenge.

Now that would be novel and interesting. Create an AI that plays the game better than most people do. Then give the player the handicap bonuses. Might be tough on peoples ego, but it would diminish the accusations of AI cheating.

Of course, even if you don't go that far, a good set of fixed rules will help much - such as "don't build a naval unit that can access less than X tiles", or "don't build a worker that has no tile to work on".

Yes! I would add... "Wait for nearby backup before attacking a city with more defenders than you have attackers." "Don't send off Galleys full of defenders to flank your enemy, when said enemy is at the gates of the city." "Don't leave units in naval transports when the enemy is attacking the city." etc etc.. This level of correction appears to me to be an easy fix to some of the AIs most idiotic and self-defeating decisions.

 

[Brighteye]

Have you noticed how these "abductions" happen almost exclusively to Americans ? Strange. Guess the ETs don't really care for the rest of us.

Excellent! Although watching Dr. Who might change that idea; ETs seem to care an awful lot about Cardiff.

The problem with creating a perfect AI and then giving the human bonuses is that for a human it doesn't feel quite the same. People like to be able to pounce on mistakes, exploit them and cover up their own. An AI that makes no mistakes and that you only beat because of your bonuses isn't fun. It may well be the same really, but it feels like rather than playing an opponent you're competing with yourself not to make enough mistakes to overcome your bonuses.

That's why people want AI, rather than a programme. When you play Lemmings you haven't beaten an opponent because it's all simple cause and effect; you've merely demonstrated your skill. People prefer something that simulates intelligence, with mistakes as well as careful calculation.
Perhaps the AI could be programmed so that if a calculation would take more than however many microseconds is reasonable it gives up, makes a random decision and moves on to the next one. In this way simple decisions that are obvious would always go well, but more complex ones would be more likely not be optimal; the AI might move a few units wrong in a war, allowing the player to feel good about mopping them up, but also feel challenged by having a reasonable fight in the first place.

 

[warpus]

The problem with creating a perfect AI and then giving the human bonuses is that for a human it doesn't feel quite the same. People like to be able to pounce on mistakes, exploit them and cover up their own. An AI that makes no mistakes and that you only beat because of your bonuses isn't fun. It may well be the same really, but it feels like rather than playing an opponent you're competing with yourself not to make enough mistakes to overcome your bonuses.

If Firaxis was able to create the perfect Civ AI - namely AI that plays better than 99.99% of humans and has the ability to adapt.. this would then become the hardest difficulty level.

It would then be fairly easy to dumb down the AI to accomodate the easier difficulty levels. No handicaps would be required.

 

[White Elk]

I think the Civ4 AI could be programmed to make use of DeepBlue, similar to the way DB prosicutes a Chess game. With all that storage and processing power, why couldn't it be programmed with sufficient data to allow it to predict the outcomes of many thousands of differant possibilities?

This has already been explained. Such a tree can't even be constructed for something like GO. Civ4 is many magnitudes more complex than GO or chess.

A Civ4 AI has to use a different mechanism for making decisions than chess, unless we are dealing with quantum computers, which we're not.

I understand there is a big differance in complexity between the two games (though what is GO?). But I don't see why, at least some of the game can't be broken down into components that would allow the AI to 'think' like DeepBlue does when playing Chess. Doesn't DB use the IF this/Then that approach? ie: If I move Knight to capture Pawn, then that would make Knight vulnerable to enemy Bishop. But if enemy Bishop should move to capture Knight, then my Queen can position to put enemy King in check. A Civ example would be.. If I attack with 2 Horse Archers, 3 Axemen and a Spearman; then I will most likely lose this battle. But if I should wait two turns for another Horse Archer, 2 more Axe, and another Spear to arrive, then I will most likely win this battle. Perhaps I should wait two turns and attack with 3 HA's, 5 Axe, and 2 Spear. This makes sense to me... So what am I missing??

IMO the current way the AI "thinks" could be complemented with an exception list. I think you're right - the AI is pre-programmed with moves that are usually good, but sometimes aren't. If each such action was complemented with a "don't do this in this rare case", the AI would get smarter.

I agree. And I assume that this would be a relatively easy fix that could be implemented via patch.

________________________________________

But the point is that in some cases we can say with absolute certainty that "this is impossible". For example, we know with absolute certainty that a homo sapien will never survive in deep space without a spacesuit. Sure, with genetic modifications you could perhaps pull this off - but then you could argue that the subject in question is no longer homo sapien.

I agree that saying "this is impossible" is usually shortsighted, but in some rare instances it is the correct thing to say.

As a child I learned that fire burns flesh and I took that as an undisputable fact. But as an adult I learned that this is not necessarily so. While tending fire at Lakota Sun Dance ceremonies, I work barefoot and just inches away from fires that dwarf me. Often 5' wide and 8-10' tall, under a hot sun and in 100+ degree weather. An extremely hot fire which causes grass and other nearby combustables to spontaneoulsy combust. I work well within the danger zone and when the winds shift I would literally be engulfed in flame. Yet the only injury besides singed hair that I ever received in all the years that I've tended fire; was when at the point of exhaustion, I leaned the pitchfork I used to retreive the red-hot lava stones from the fire, against my carharts. The heated metal burned right through those pants and scored my flesh deeply. I beleive I recieved that one injury due to my momentary lapse in focus. None of the coals that got wedged between my toes ever damaged my flesh.. though they hurt like hell. And I would re-postion burning logs with my bare hands as well as pick up hot coals to place in the smudge-pots.

Since this awarness first dawned on me, I have noticed that burns caused by domestic activities also don't damage me like they used to. I'll feel the heat, then sort of zone out, then I feel the sharp deep pain ebb away. It feels like my body is absorbing and dispersing the heat rather than letting it linger at the point of contact. All thats left is a tightness to the skin and I forget about it. Usually I escape injury. Though it is currently not possible for me to achieve a state of focus at home, like I can in ceremony. And I can only imagine that if I could still my noisy mind and enter that intensely focused state at will, then I would be capable of many more things that I've assumed to be not possible. Life is full of mystery and surprise.. right up to the moment that we think we know it all.

 

[5cats]

"busted" indeed.

A dictionary is not a science nor a philosophy reference. The fact that you thought a dictionary was a science reference proves my point.

Such assumptions you make! How logical!
A dictionary is a reference for language, duh! It defines the words we use when talking about things like science or philosophy. In that regard, it is indeed a science reference. The "fact" you speak of is, in fact, your "opinion". You seem to expect others to keep the two seperated, yet seem to be unable to do so yourself...

Looking up determinism in the on-line 'pedia gives one the following:

DETERMINISM [determinism] philosophical thesis that every event is the inevitable result of antecedent causes. Applied to ethics and psychology, determinism usually involves a denial of free will

See? Not religion, philosophy. (fyi - it goes on to say that only a few thinkers try to include free will with determinism, largely without success)

http://www.encyclopedia.com/SearchResults.aspx?Q=determinism

So yes, your illogic and stubborn denials are 'busted' well and truely.

Step by step, explain your thinking. Declaring something doesnt make it true. This seems to be a big problem in this thread

Its credible when it can be independently studied and confirmed

I have done so. Your nit-picking was not successful. It doesn't matter if you agree or not, that's your choice.
Funny how your own words can come back and haunt you, eh? Lmao!

 

[member66170]

So religion isn't a philosophy then?

Anyway moving on to quantum computers. I believe that they are fully deterministic but are far more powerfull than nuormal computers.
Basicaly, in a normal computer, information is send along a 'wire' as a bit, a 1 or a 0. Quantum computers however use qubits instead of bits. A qubit uses the quantum properties of an electron (like its spin) to determine its value. So a qubit is not limited to a value of 1 or 0. It can have a value of: 0, 1, 2, 4, 8 and so on (the more quatum properties the computer looks at, the bigger the list). However a qubit is not limited to a single value and can have several values, like 0, 4, 8 all at the same time. This makes them very powerful as they can work out more than one calculation on the same circuit.
Notics that they are completely deterministic as this has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle.
This might be completely wrong as i only read 1 article about it sometime ago but this is what i remember about it

 

[5cats]

Another famous one that really drove people crazy in its time is the "Heavy rock" paradox : if God is omnipotent, can he create a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it ? If he can't, then He is not omnipotent. But if he does and then he cannot lift that rock, then he is not omnipotent either...

It's still valid as a paradox. Meaning something that is false, but which has the appearance of truth. But it has long been proven that a sum of infinite numbers can give a finite number.

In my dream God explained the whole Heavy Rock thing. Some things are simply not possible. Being omnipotenet allows you to do whatever is possible. So the whole idea is based on a human misunderstanding of omnipotence. Lol! He also explained omnipresence and lots of other stuff.

The Arrow paradox is about time, really. Unlike Zeno's other paradoxes, which usually involved infinite sums & such.

Lord Olleus - So religion isn't a philosophy then?

I was refering to Dusty Monkey's arguement that Determinism was a religious belief, not a philosophical one. Of course religion is part of philosophy! Lol!

Determinism does not imply predestination. Predestination is a religious belief commonly found in Christianity, Judaism, and so on...

This is what I'm refering to.

 

[Dusty Monkey]

Looking up determinism in the on-line 'pedia gives one the following:

DETERMINISM [determinism] philosophical thesis that every event is the inevitable result of antecedent causes. Applied to ethics and psychology, determinism usually involves a denial of free will

Determinism != Predestination. Period. Why did you bother "busting" me if you knew? Sigh.

See? Not religion, philosophy. (fyi - it goes on to say that only a few thinkers try to include free will with determinism, largely without success)

http://www.encyclopedia.com/SearchResults.aspx?Q=determinism

So yes, your illogic and stubborn denials are 'busted' well and truely.

Thats funny because I never said any different than what can be found in that reference.

I have done so. Your nit-picking was not successful. It doesn't matter if you agree or not, that's your choice.
Funny how your own words can come back and haunt you, eh? Lmao!

Perhaps you should try to read my words? You would be better off reading your own first, however.

I never declared what determinism is or isn't. (you have assumed that I did?)

I never declared that free will exists or doesn't. (you have assumed that I did?)

I never even decared that predestination exists or doesn't (even though you "busted" me)

I did declare bad logic as bad, and pointed it out. (the one thing you seem incapable of understanding)

Froth away.

 

[5cats]

No need to froth
I'm just happy to be correct.

Let's examine a few things you did say Dusty:
>>Determinism does not imply predestination
If we're speaking English, it does.
>>Predestination is a religious belief
I've demostrated this is not the case.
>>The fact that you thought a dictionary was a science reference proves my point.
The fact you've avoided answering me on this proves my point...

 

[NapoléonPremier]

(@Dusty Monkey) I was going to ignore you altogether, but I couldn't resist setting the record straight on this basic point: I have a philosophy degree... and a religion degree, and a math degree, and a computer science degree... and I graduated the highest in my class in each of those respective majors. I sailed through my critical thinking class with an A+.

Gee, I wouldn't want to see the others in the class... Just kidding. But I would say though, David, that although I would tend to be more on "your line" of "everything not being reductible to matter" (although I think I'm much less dualistic than what you seem to be), your insufficiently rigorous grasping (or maybe exposition) of logic and the founding principles of modern science tends to weaken your stance and make you an easy target for the guys "on the other side". That's too bad. However, I salute the passion with which you defend your point of view. And we know that, in history, it's more about "who wants it the most" than about "who is the rightest"...

 

[NapoléonPremier]

how do you know that it is completely impossible to predict something. Unless you know exactly everything in the universe you can not say that nothing affects it. Maybe the spin of an electron on Earth is affected by a paritcular atom on Alpha Centuari. It is simply impossible to say that that atom does not affect that electron.

Scientists are not theologians. They're not saying : "nothing will ever come up to show a cause and effect relationship in the quantum field." What they're saying is : to the best of our knowledge - that is the measures and experiments conducted and the models that for now account best for these findings- some things seem to be truly RANDOM at the quantum level. The UNCERTAINTY seems not only to come from measurement (Heisenberg's principle) but to be ingrained in the very heart of matter itself. ("matter" here being no longer an operative word ; it's more like a fluctuating web of energy which sometimes manifest as matter, and sometimes not). As an aside, it's pretty funny to note that what we're painfully discovering today through quantum physics, was already intuitively known to the Hindus about 5000 years ago...

 

[warpus]

I understand there is a big differance in complexity between the two games (though what is GO?). But I don't see why, at least some of the game can't be broken down into components that would allow the AI to 'think' like DeepBlue does when playing Chess. Doesn't DB use the IF this/Then that approach? ie: If I move Knight to capture Pawn, then that would make Knight vulnerable to enemy Bishop. But if enemy Bishop should move to capture Knight, then my Queen can position to put enemy King in check. A Civ example would be..

Nah, that's not how Deep Blue plays chess. Deep Blue creates a huge decision tree that includes a large % of all possible moves (not all, because some branches are pruned - ie. let's discard this branch of the tree since it represents a very stupid move). It then goes down the tree a couple levels, branch by branch, and examines the resulting chess board had it made that sequence of decisions. It does this a couple million times and in the end picks the best branch.. meaning the branch which leads to the most favourable outcome.

That is the basis of it. Other ideas are incorporated.. For example, a ton of popular opening moves are pre-programmed into Deep Blue as well, and it keeps this in in mind while it traverses the decision tree. The basis of how it "thinks" is the decision tree, though.

Go, also known as Weiqi or Baduk1, is a strategic, two-player board game originating in ancient China between 2000 BC and 200 BC.

Go somewhat resembles chess. There is a board and a bunch of playing pieces.. It should be pretty easy to write AI that will defeat a human, right? Wrong! The decision-tree approach fails utterly due to the complexity (which isn't evident at first glance) of the game.. Now imagine how much more complex CIv4 is and how much more impossible it would be to use this approach to write AI for Civ4.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

I'm not quite sure how the old text shows that there are statements that are true but cannot be proven so, but I have no problem with the possibility.

It's not the old paradoxes. It's actually modern works to solve these paradoxes and establish reliable bases for logic. Chief among them is Godel's "incompleteness theorem", which proves that some statements are true but cannot proven so (from the axioms of the system, that is). In particular, propositions in a logical system concerning the system itself are undecidable (eg, "All Athenians are liars" says Socrates, but Socrates is an Athenian etc...)

Another note about Logic : in this thread a lot of the misunderstandings about logic (and sometimes animosity... ) seem to come from the fact that these statements are phrased in WORDS. And words have several meanings, explicit or implicit, which results in sentences having different meanings for different people, while they still have the same phrasing. This is especially true for "big" conceptual words like "freewill" and the like. But "pure" logic uses a special language and set of rules, very much like mathematics, to avoid these confusions. And this is where I find it frustrating : while juggling around concepts like we do here if fun, as soon as you get into real logic, it resembles a lot high level mathematics - actually, it's the "underlying science" to mathematics. And while it's an extremely powerful tool, allowing you to decide LOGICALLY about propositions, based on axioms and reasoning rules, I find you don't really get insight from it, like you do when you manipulate "common language logic", like we do here. It's more or less like solving an equation. Do you know what I mean ? Maybe it's because I'm not enough of a high level mathematician myself. I'd really be interested in feedback from people that are topnotch mathematicians or logicians. Do you manage to get insight from it ? Or is it "just" a very powerful (and beautiful, in a way) tool ?

 

[warpus]

And this is where I find it frustrating : while juggling around concepts like we do here if fun, as soon as you get into real logic, it resembles a lot high level mathematics - actually, it's the "underlying science" to mathematics. And while it's an extremely powerful tool, allowing you to decide LOGICALLY about propositions, based on axioms and reasoning rules, I find you don't really get insight from it, like you do when you manipulate "common language logic", like we do here. It's more or less like solving an equation. Do you know what I mean ? Maybe it's because I'm not enough of a high level mathematician myself. I'd really be interested in feedback from people that are topnotch mathematicians or logicians. Do you manage to get insight from it ? Or is it "just" a very powerful (and beautiful, in a way) tool ?

I don't presume to call myself a topnotch mathematician, but I DID stay at a holiday inn express last night, so I'll comment.

Ok, so I have a math/compsci degree.. but I'm in a rather good mood so I wanted to throw that in there

I do get insight from mathematics & logic. What usually happens when I'm presented with a problem or a thoughtexperiment is that my mind attempts to convert this to a mathematical/logical system first. I picture objects, with arrows between them, an X, Y, Z axis if we're dealing with linear algebra, etc. Since human language is NOT context free (ie. a statement might mean different things depending on context), the problem that is being described to me first has to be stripped of context - and converted to pure logic. Once I have a working logical framework in my mind (or on paper, if it's complex enough), I get many insights about the system in question. (ie. "ohhh so there is connection between B and C when x=5") This then gets inserted into the proper context, gets converted back to language, and I have something to say about the original problem or thoughtexperiment.

On the other hand, if I'm just looking at some random equation that ISN'T a part of a larger well-defined system that I already understand the basics of.. it might mean nothing to me.

 

[Zombie69]

Well, "absolute determinism" was a fad of the 19th century, when modern science was really beginning to explode. Since all that was known was the molecular level, French mathematician Laplace formulated it this way : if you considered a spirit (which he called Daimon), who could know exactly the position and movement of every single particle in the universe, then he would know the exact past, present and future of the whole universe. Of course, since then, science has complexified a lot more, and precisely quantum mechanics and the like have hinted (and have just begun to do so) that things are much more subtle than that - as some subdiscussions in that thread also illustrate. And just "not agreeing with" quantum mechanics is a bit insufficient. It's a body of scientific work. You have to give a more convincing body of interpretations of the facts it accounts for if you want to prove it wrong.

You think i don't know all this already? Or maybe you were not talking to me directly but explaining my position to others?

Think of it this way. Newtonian mechanics were not proven wrong by Einstein's theory of relativity. They were merely brought down from a set of equations that were meant to explain everything all the time, to a set of equations that are true only for a specific set of conditions (mainly macrospopic objects traveling far below the speed of light). They're still true, but their domain of application has been restricted.

In the same way, i believe that quantum mechanics, and particularly the parts that introduce an element of randomness, will be refined in this way. I'm not saying that they're wrong per se; what i'm saying is that they're only valid in a specific set of conditions, namely when we don't have access to certain bits of information. And in cases where we do have access to this information (not accessible today mind you), another set of equations will yeild more accurate results, and hopefully this set of equations will include no random elements (else it will need to be further refined).

 

[NapoléonPremier]

So religion isn't a philosophy then??

No it's not. Religion can borrow elememts to philosophy, but it's first and foremost a BELIEF system. You don't even need to understand (although most theologians are also brilliant philosophers, see Saint Augustine or Saint Thomas Aquinus), you just need to believe. In religion, the Truth comes from Revelation, not logical thinking (although logical thinking can be used afterwards to try and justify the Revelation, see the two above mentioned theologians for instance and even some posts in this threads (see what geniuses we are ?) ). Philosophy, in its westerm fom, is the quest for wisdom (philosophy means "love of wisdom" literally) through reason. Philosophy does not claim to have the answers for everything like most religions do.

My journey into quantum theory is based on a desire to understand how quantum computing will work - are you under the opinion that quantum computers will be non-deterministic?

Anyway moving on to quantum computers. I believe that they are fully deterministic but are far more powerfull than nuormal computers.?

No, quantum computers ARE, in essence, non deterministic. They're precisely based on that : since quantic states are undetermined, they potentially contain ALL of the possible states of a given system, which allows for such massive computing power, since it doesn't have to decide in advance between 0 and 1. Of course, all the difficulty lies in the fact to make the system momentarily deterministic when you want your result, but without destroying it altogether for future calculations. This ability to swing in a controlled manner between undetermined/determined states is what makes the practical setup of a "quantum computer" so hard. You have to realize that we are talking about things smaller than atoms, things that even "barely exist", so to speak... So we're still pretty far from a real quantum computer, but it does seem something feasible, at least theoretically. But only if you accept the nondeterministic nature of the system, which is the core concept.

It is ok to know that you do not know. A very famous and wise man once understood that.

Well, yeah, it's okay as a starting point. But then he set off to discover things he could know. Otherwise you can just say "oh well..." and go watch TV (which if Socrates had done might have saved his life, but that's another story... )

Oh brother... now I am a target to be "busted"... am I a heretic?

Yeah, that's weird how a conversation about logic can turn so personal... Guess now we can understand why people back then would burn each other up (litterally) over such arguments when they had the possibility to do so...

A dictionary is a very important reference for philosophy. How can you convey precise meanings without having precise definitions of the words that combine to convey your ideas?
The more in-depth and serious a debate becomes, the more important it is to define words carefully. I haven't done any competitive debating, but I believe that it is common to define the title of the debate before advancing any arguments. It's vital to know what you're arguing before you argue.

You're right. But sometimes even the definitions of a dictionary aren't precise enough to avoid ambiguities and misunderstandings. And it's also sometimes fruitful to let the argument run astray. It can allow to explore new territories you hadn't thought of. Or to just get completely berserk, which isn't very constructive but can be fun...

You've got a point. If the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory is correct, then the universe is most likely deterministic (emphasis: most likely) - and we have no free will.

However, most physicists prefer the Copenhagen interpretation. The many-worlds interpretation doesn't really have many followers.

Could you kindly remind me/us what the many-worlds and Copenhagen interpretations of quantum physics are ?

Yes, going from non-life to life IS a mystery, but let's look at the evolution of 1 single human. You start with a single cell - and end up with a sentient being. Somehow natural process are able to take one tiny cell, which can be easily chemically analyzed and quantified, and turn it into a sentient machine. However this process works, and however sentience is accomplished, the fact is that it's possible, since we can witness the creation of a sentient machine first-hand.

Actually, it's not a question of chemistry. At the basis of everything is a thought, which then manifests into matter. But it's metaphysics, I agree.

I'm not suggesting that we build a machine that emulates the human brain at all. I'm not suggesting how we build this machine at all. My only claim is this: since natural processes are able to construct a machine that is sentient (a human), ergo we can construct a sentient machine using natural processes as well.. since we know it's possible. I'm not saying how we'll do it, I'm just saying that it's possible.

That's because you presuppose that there isn't any "hidden ingredient" in the making of a human being (or any lifeform for that matter) other that the chemical transformations we can witness. And if this is the case, nothing says this "hidden ingredient" can be mastered other than through natural processes. Yes, Nature can and does manufacture living beings. That does not mean we can replicate it. However, in time, by developing and mastering some of the AI techniques described in this thread and by inventing others (which will inevitably imply some form of learning), I don't see why we wouldn't be able to manufacture a machine which perfectly emulates sentience (yes, emulate sentience, not being sentient, there IS a difference, but again it's metaphysics...)

But the point is that in some cases we can say with absolute certainty that "this is impossible". For example, we know with absolute certainty that a homo sapien will never survive in deep space without a spacesuit. Sure, with genetic modifications you could perhaps pull this off - but then you could argue that the subject in question is no longer homo sapien.
I agree that saying "this is impossible" is usually shortsighted, but in some rare instances it is the correct thing to say.

Then you're being sophistic... The question is not : "can it be done while still being a homo sapiens" (it takes a 's' even in the singular, it's latin meaning "wise"), because frankly who cares, this protoplasmic form known as "homo sapiens" derived from another form, and will (is) most certainly evolve (evolving) into yet another form, either by natural or artificial means. The question is : "can it be done ?", and if you give it enough time and motivation, the answer has a very good chance to be yes. See what we, collectively as mankind, have accomplished in only about 10000 years of history. And you probably can bet that what seems to be the intangible limitations of today will be broken tomorrow. Even lightspeed limit, for instance, might be "walked around" by using wormholes, or mastering the hidden dimensions postulated by the Superstring theory (just making wild guesses here...)

(Path of least resistance) One could argue that this is precisely why 95% of humans have an irrational belief in a God - it's much easier this way.

Or the other way round... Believing in God is reassuring and "solves" a lot of questions, but also gives you a lot of obligations you wouldn't have otherwise... But if you add social pressure, you're definitely right : it's much, much easier to believe in God or pretend to do so when everybody else does. However, in today's France for instance where most people don't believe in God (unlike America), it's the opposite : having religious beliefs and defending them requires much more effort than the reverse.

IAs a child I learned that fire burns flesh and I took that as an undisputable fact. But as an adult I learned that this is not necessarily so. While tending fire at Lakota Sun Dance ceremonies, I work barefoot and just inches away from fires that dwarf me. Often 5' wide and 8-10' tall, under a hot sun and in 100+ degree weather. An extremely hot fire which causes grass and other nearby combustables to spontaneoulsy combust. I work well within the danger zone and when the winds shift I would literally be engulfed in flame. Yet the only injury besides singed hair that I ever received in all the years that I've tended fire; was when at the point of exhaustion, I leaned the pitchfork I used to retreive the red-hot lava stones from the fire, against my carharts. The heated metal burned right through those pants and scored my flesh deeply. I beleive I recieved that one injury due to my momentary lapse in focus. None of the coals that got wedged between my toes ever damaged my flesh.. though they hurt like hell. And I would re-postion burning logs with my bare hands as well as pick up hot coals to place in the smudge-pots.

Since this awarness first dawned on me, I have noticed that burns caused by domestic activities also don't damage me like they used to. I'll feel the heat, then sort of zone out, then I feel the sharp deep pain ebb away. It feels like my body is absorbing and dispersing the heat rather than letting it linger at the point of contact. All thats left is a tightness to the skin and I forget about it. Usually I escape injury. Though it is currently not possible for me to achieve a state of focus at home, like I can in ceremony. And I can only imagine that if I could still my noisy mind and enter that intensely focused state at will, then I would be capable of many more things that I've assumed to be not possible. Life is full of mystery and surprise.. right up to the moment that we think we know it all.

That's very true. And the other Indians (from India) have been very far in exploring the almost endless possibilities of mind over matter. By the way, chief, want to trade some of your land ? I've got some nice whisky and shiny stuff for ya... (extremely bad taste humor, I apologize...)

 

[Zombie69]

The problem with creating a perfect AI and then giving the human bonuses is that for a human it doesn't feel quite the same. People like to be able to pounce on mistakes, exploit them and cover up their own. An AI that makes no mistakes and that you only beat because of your bonuses isn't fun. It may well be the same really, but it feels like rather than playing an opponent you're competing with yourself not to make enough mistakes to overcome your bonuses.

I don't know about other people, but personally that's exactly the kind of AI i'd like to face, and the kind of situation i'd love to have to deal with. For one thing, competing against myself is much more rewarding than competing against a computer. For another, a perfectionist like myself would love a game where the whole point was to make as few mistakes as possible.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

In my dream God explained the whole Heavy Rock thing. Some things are simply not possible. Being omnipotenet allows you to do whatever is possible. So the whole idea is based on a human misunderstanding of omnipotence. Lol! He also explained omnipresence and lots of other stuff

Good, good... Does He also talk to you when you don't forget to take your meds ?

The Arrow paradox is about time, really. Unlike Zeno's other paradoxes, which usually involved infinite sums & such.

If I remember correctly, the arrow paradox says that "to reach a target, an arrow first needs to cross half of the distance to the target, then half of the remaining distance, then half of the remaining distance, etc ad infinitum. So in effect the arrow can never reach the target." That sounds to me like a classic case of infinite sum giving finite result. In this version at least, I don't really see what time's got to do with it (unless you say it will take an infinite time for the arrow to reach the target, but that's the same thing).

 

[White Elk]

As an aside, it's pretty funny to note that what we're painfully discovering today through quantum physics, was already intuitively known to the Hindus about 5000 years ago...

I'm fascinated by the String Theory and other aspects of quantum physics. And I can't help but wonder if ancient societies were, by necessity, more in 'tune' with the world they lived in, and so were able to utilize aspects of nature that modern society would dismiss as pure fantasy. I wonder...

Atoms form to make molecules and molecules combine to make the elements which form the construct of all things. So everything has the same basic components.. they are just 'arranged' differantly. It's the electrical relationships of atoms that determine what is what and how things react to each other. So in a sense, everything in this world is governed by electricity. Which makes me wonder if the manipulation of electricity could lead to the manipulation of physical objects, among other 'magical' things. We can already excite electrons and cause predictable things to happen.. such as turning ice to vapor. And in a limited way we can cause atoms to lose and to gain electrons so that we can alter molecular structure.

What if the manipulation of electricity could effect even greater changes to the realtionship between atoms. Could we use a domino like effect to move objects without physically contacting them? Could we ignite combustables remotely? Could we turn lead into gold or garbage into protein? I think it is theoretically possible to manipulate matter by tweaking the electric bonds that govern atomic reactions. And if this is possible then I would wonder if the human brain could act as a catalyst for such things. We can mentally micromanage our bodies to regulate blood flow, blood pressure, heart rate, metabolism, etc..

So what if the human brain could also effect the electrical field within the body? Perhaps this would lead to telekinesis and pyrokinesis?? And maybee other 'myths of ancient magiks' can be explained in this way? Like invisibility.. perhaps the manipulation of atoms could cause light to refract around an object? ~ now before you totally laugh this off check out this amazing discovery regarding invisibility which was serendipitously posted on a Discovery Channels website just an hour ago. Heres an excerpt from the article...

The scientists accomplished their feat with materials used to make semiconductor chips. Normally, the electrons that make up the atoms in these materials interact with light beams in a benign way.

But Phillips and his team re-engineered the material to contain artificial atoms — specially patterned crystals a few billionths of a meter in length.

Because the atoms are artificial, the scientists were able to adjust the activity of the electrons, which have wavelike characteristics.

When the light beam was shined onto the material, it influenced the wavelike patterns of the electrons inside the artificial atoms so that they cancelled each other out and created a new, transparent material that was half matter and half light.

Incredible and unbelievable! Who'd have thought that possible based on our current understandings of the world we live in. Who knows what other mysteries await the open and seeking mind? I for one give some credence to the possibility that the human brain can effect changes in our bodies and to our enviroments. I have some limited personal experiance with matters of mind over matter which really makes me wonder what other abilites may be locked away in our prejudiced minds.

 

[tombeef]

Which makes me wonder if the manipulation of electricity could lead to the manipulation of physical objects, among other 'magical' things. We can already excite electrons and cause predictable things to happen.. such as turning ice to vapor. And in a limited way we can cause atoms to lose and to gain electrons so that we can alter molecular structure.

What if the manipulation of electricity could effect even greater changes to the realtionship between atoms. Could we use a domino like effect to move objects without physically contacting them? Could we ignite combustables remotely? Could we turn lead into gold or garbage into protein? I think it is theoretically possible to manipulate matter by tweaking the electric bonds that govern atomic reactions. And if this is possible then I would wonder if the human brain could act as a catalyst for such things. We can mentally micromanage our bodies to regulate blood flow, blood pressure, heart rate, metabolism, etc..

So what if the human brain could also effect the electrical field within the body? Perhaps this would lead to telekinesis and pyrokinesis?? And maybee other 'myths of ancient magiks' can be explained in this way? Like invisibility.. perhaps the manipulation of atoms could cause light to refract around an object? ~ now before you totally laugh this off check out this amazing discovery regarding invisibility which was serendipitously posted on a Discovery Channels website just an hour ago. Heres an excerpt from the article...Incredible and unbelievable! Who'd have thought that possible based on our current understandings of the world we live in. Who knows what other mysteries await the open and seeking mind? I for one give some credence to the possibility that the human brain can effect changes in our bodies and to our enviroments. I have some limited personal experiance with matters of mind over matter which really makes me wonder what other abilites may be locked away in our prejudiced minds.

Yes, scientists are looking into the possibility of manipulating atoms. Some scientists also claim that the same thing could possibly be done with the mysterious dark matter and dark energy; one scientist on the National Geographic channel went so far as to say he could invision a human society in the future in which objects are manipulated much like the "force" in Star Wars. We have already seen the brain being used to control a computer through impulses. Perhaps atoms are not as far away as we believe.

Unfortuantely, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night, and, as a high school student, as much as I find this stuff very interesting, it's probably over my head.