> I don't believe humans aren't limited by the same issues that machines have. Halting problem comes to mind, nothing shows that humans aren't bound by it too.

Math has started, quite a while ago, to show that we are already probing some sort of inherent limits of knowledge for the human mind.

> theoretically machines can be as intelligent as human

Intelligence is the easy problem. It's just a function of complexity after all. It's consciousness / awareness that's harder, more important and more interesting.

What if natural evolution has become quick enough now (and it does seem to accelerate all by itself, if you put the evolution of species on a time scale) so that the "next step" (the superhuman beings) will emerge without any conscious and/or voluntary input from us?

I'm not saying this is certainly what's going to happen, it's just a (literal) what-if question.

Complexity is easy. Just wait long enough.

It's consciousness that's harder to contemplate.

Right — it's impossible to perfectly simulate something we don't even understand in physical terms (we can only simulate what we think it's doing). Though it's debatable whether artificial consciousness is needed for human-level artificial intelligence. Intelligence is just one aspect of the brain.

And here's to many more!

At some point you have to rely on "givens". You can't go turtles all the way down.

Sure you can. Ham operators bounce a wave off the moon. Time the round trip. Speed of light. Or send a blip thru a spool of fibre optic cable, measure the transit time. It CAN be directly measured.

So how did you figure out how far away the moon was?

I remember measuring g (standard gravitational acceleration) in the pantry at my parents' house when I was in high-school.

It involved a pretty hefty dumbbell, a long string and a watch. Basically, it was the pendulum method - you need to time several oscillations, then measure the length of the pendulum and the formula gives you g.

The pendulum was about 2 m long (6 ft) I guess, the dumbbell was maybe around 10 kg (20 lb) or so, and I managed to time perhaps 5 minutes worth of oscillations - being pretty heavy, it continued to sway back and forth for a long time without stopping.

I had to debate with myself the actual length of the pendulum, because I couldn't know for sure where the center of gravity of the whole thing was. In the end, I just postulated it was exactly on the axis of the dumbbell - probably pretty close to reality.

I think I got something like 9.7 m/s2 IIRC, which is pretty close to the average of 9.8 (which also depends on the latitude, altitude and a number of other factors).

Physics is fun.

> Physics is fun.

My wife still doesn't believe me when I say it, but yes physics is fun.

Which is poorly equipped, hungry and depressed.

But that's not the point. The point is the potentially very high civilian casualties.

These days, whenever I hear the word "socialism", I automatically stop listening and move across the room to start a different discussion. It's on the same list with "flat earth", "autism-causing vaccines" and so forth.

EDIT: I'm sorry to say, but it seems like the majority of people in the US use this word a lot without having any idea what it really means. It's become empty, a visceral cry, bypassing rational thought entirely. This too shall pass, I guess, but for now it's pretty sad.

It's actually worse. They equate socialism with dictatorships, completely ignoring right-wing dictatorships ans socialist democracies.

In a case like this, it's pretty hard to differentiate between the official propaganda and what people really think. Even when they confess utter sincerity, you should always ask yourself just how big of a percentage of official doublespeak is automatically infused into their discourse (hint: the bigger the distance between you and them on the social graph, the bigger the percentage).

Trust me, I know, I've been "there" (in a general sense, not the geographical location).

Maybe each country is different, but I would hesitate before making broad assumptions.

I grew up under a communist regime in Eastern Europe. I was 20 when the revolution took place. So I think I know pretty well what the situation was during the dictatorship.

There was a pretty big difference between the official propaganda and the way people were really thinking. But it would have been very difficult for someone "from outside" to get a glimpse of what was going on behind the layers upon layers of doublethink. The risks were simply too great for anyone to open up and give a piece of their mind to a total stranger. The true dimensions of this orwellian spirit are hard to fathom without having the unmediated experience of it.

I would say that people had a pretty good idea about "life in the West". Not a perfect image, many details were certainly lacking, but overall correct. However, they would not openly discuss about those things except with close relatives or very close friends. Beyond a certain point on the social graph, the official doctrine would automatically kick in and start getting mixed into the discourse.

So take everything you hear about NK with a grain of salt.

Again, maybe I should not extrapolate like this. Maybe NK is a special case. I guess we'll find out one day, after the insanity is over and that land becomes free again.

Sadly, I fear lots of people will have a fair chance to experience Orwell first-hand.