If a website wants to only publish about black on white crime, I'm fine with that, as long as they aren't saying they are publishing stories about crime in general. Specialization can be a good thing, allowing people to become an expert through time, repetition, and pattern recognition. Talking about all the other bad countries and dictators around the globe can be done by others, it's fine to focus your attention on one, which also happens to be the one we have the best ability to change(ie voting)

I wasn't talking about Tesla, but the technology in general. Google's self-driving cars have driven over 1.5 million miles in real-world traffic conditions. Right now, they're limited to inner city driving, but the tech is fundamentally usable.

There is no algorithm for driving. It's not
if (road.isClear)
keepDriving()
else if (child.runsInFront())
brakeLikeHell()

It's based on machine learning and pattern recognition.

This guy built one in his garage.

Is it perfect yet? Nope. But it's already better than humans and that's good enough. The technology is a lot closer than you think.

That wouldn't have worked had she written down the letters. Our brain's pattern recognition may be great but it still messes up a lot. See: Jesus on toast.

Far from conclusive, but the idea of a designer-god (demiurge) was at one time a thought provoking perspective on existence.

However, your statement is best expressed as a belief made through faith; NOT a conclusive argument made through PROOF, the definition of which you're incorrectly ascribing your statement to.

Which makes it less thought provoking now that we have more advanced ways of reasoning and pondering the universe. i.e. the scientific method.

Admirable, perhaps, to still cling to said belief, but not convincing in the least, considering it is something that is neither deniable nor undeniably a possibility. Concluding science to be "proof" of God is merely a logical trap to be avoided.

EDIT:
"...therefore the inference to the best explanation is that which points to a mind, and therefore a designer."

Also, just because our theories of abiogenesis are not as sophisticated as our theories of evolution, does not suddenly mean that a designer is the final, undeniable conclusion. If that were the case with science we'd drop all of our theories in conclusion that it must be a god. We can't connect our theory of gravity to abiogenesis, therefore it is God. Laughable conclusion based in logical fallacy.

The only thing that infers such an explanation is your mind saying it is so. Similar to my inference that trees being phallic and in abundance, necessitate a giant penis god. You fail to see that science isn't merely based upon human logic and pattern recognition, it is based in mathematical observation -- which your logical leaps and bounds are not able to compete with, no matter how hard your brain tries to find a hidden pattern in anything you can grasp for, like a man drowning in an ocean of possibilities.

Anyone can infer anything from something of similar value, ergo inference without a scientific basis is silly.

Basically intelligence all comes down to how quickly you recognize and understand patterns. Detecting motion is pattern recognition. Knowing the direction of motion is understanding that pattern. If you can do that in 2 frames in a split second, that means your brain is especially adept at this.

Iwould make the same sort of "assumptions" if you told me you had a new type of gasoline that could make cars fly. Its not that I'm some sort of car-genius, its just that I have some general knowledge about what cars are and where they come from.

The context is everything.

Just like modern cars are the result of an iterative process that stretches a hundred years, our brains are products of a purposeless biological evolution that has been churning away for hundreds of millions of years. Our consciousness is perhaps a bit like a driving computer in a modern car, its a byproduct of the ultimate purpose of the thing: in the case of a car, to make an optimal driving machine, in the case of the brain to make an optimal survival machine.

Our brain evolved for things like survival, parental care, tool-use, pattern recognition and language processing, probably roughly in that order.
EDIT: And consciousness emerges from a combination of these features.

It is in this context all claims about dualism ultimately must be seen: When and where in this process did the magical unicorns insert the secrets of the universe, or the eternal soul or whatever else into our brains?

Or are you just tripping?

My assumptions then , I make because its a whole lot less to assume than what I'd have to assume if the opposite was true.

Accents carry connotations. I'm Irish and when I want to emphasise that I mean something ironically (i.e. IMO the following is what someone uneducated would say), I will use a stronger rural Irish accent.

If I wish to be taken seriously, I speak in a more neutral tone.

This is because there is a prejudice against such accents. It's a stereotype, a cliché.

Why?

Because retards like this woman continually espouse idiotic views in that kind of accent. and if there's one thing humans are good at (and the FSM knows we seem to fuck just about everything else up), it's pattern recognition. It's why we see the "man in the moon" and why stupid people believe in homoeopathy.

Stereotypes exist for a reason. They're shorthand that allows us to make snap judgements and evolution has hard wired us to make snap judgements. Sometimes they reflect the general case, sometimes they're just out of date (for the record, the average person speaking in an Irish accent is probably smarter, better looking and more charming than you ).

So how do we get past this? If you belong to a demographic, for instance (to take an example completely at random), a citizen of southern states of the US, try to be less like this woman.


So to sum up,
stereotypes: usually have a backing in fact, but try to judge individuals on their character not their background.

also, this woman is a fucking retard.

Thank you, I had not seen that before. I met him just recently at a very cozy book signing here in Victoria, BC. He was promoting his new book of collected stories, magazine articles, and interviews; "Distrust That Particular Flavor". He is everything that you imagine him to be, shy, quirky, ironic, brilliant. Truly a rare individual.

>> ^aurens:

There's a badass interview with William Gibson over at The Paris Review, in case you haven't already seen it.>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
The first time that I ever heard of the term cool hunting or a cool hunter was in the William Gibson book Pattern Recognition written in 2001-2002. Regardless of any proof otherwise I am going to continue to believe that, just as he termed the phrase "cyberspace" and in essence predicted the prevalence of the internet in society, that he also invented the term cool hunting.
=) You go WG!
>> ^PHJF:
Obviously using "cool" in the hipster sense of the word.

There's a badass interview with William Gibson over at The Paris Review, in case you haven't already seen it.>> ^Deadrisenmortal:

The first time that I ever heard of the term cool hunting or a cool hunter was in the William Gibson book Pattern Recognition written in 2001-2002. Regardless of any proof otherwise I am going to continue to believe that, just as he termed the phrase "cyberspace" and in essence predicted the prevalence of the internet in society, that he also invented the term cool hunting.
=) You go WG!
>> ^PHJF:
Obviously using "cool" in the hipster sense of the word.

The first time that I ever heard of the term cool hunting or a cool hunter was in the William Gibson book Pattern Recognition written in 2001-2002. Regardless of any proof otherwise I am going to continue to believe that, just as he termed the phrase "cyberspace" and in essence predicted the prevalence of the internet in society, that he also invented the term cool hunting.

=) You go WG!

>> ^PHJF:

Obviously using "cool" in the hipster sense of the word.

>> ^entr0py:

If superstition is a pattern detection failure. Does that make it a learning disability?


What is being discussed here is indeed a pattern recognition / learning failure. You're overfitting to sparse data.

I think superstition in general is even less grounded in reality. Something like a black cat crossing your path -- people don't believe that is bad luck because one or two happenstance bad events. MAYBE the first guy who came up with that superstition had something like that happen to him, but I'm betting that's not the case.

^ Ah yes, closing a contaminated beach = oppressive dictatorial president. I really need to work on my pattern recognition.

The underlying mechanisms are probably the same. The definition of "insanity" is fairly arbitrary. It's quite plausible, although certainly not proven, that as Homo grew more intelligence, it also grew more unstable mentally. A lot of our intelligence is pattern recognition - the ability to deduce cause and effect, for example. When an intelligent being is hit by a flying stone, they quickly deduce that it wasn't the stone that hurt them, but whoever threw the stone. What if someone gets hit by lightning? Who threw the lightningbolt?

It's difficult to draw a line between rational thinking and overanalysis to the point of schizophrenia. We're just used to thinking of mental illnesses as something very separate from the normal functioning of our brains. In reality, we all exhibit "insane" traits to some extent. They can be quite useful when they don't become overpowering.

>> ^geo321:

I have to say I disagree with his thesis. While people had a failure of understanding the cause and effect to recreate and analylze the world of the past...and today. The flaw in his reasoning is that he's leaving out people's ideologies; their learned belief systems. He's lumping in irrationality with insanity.

Great, now video-hosting sites can embed code, sponsored by advertisers, that runs frame-by-frame pattern recognition, and blocks out competitors products, or products that haven't paid the proper tithes to the video-host.

Yay!

>> ^Psychologic:
One of Kurzweil's inventions was a computer program that taught itself how to distinguish between pictures of dogs and cats. No one programmed it with any description of either. This is built into a camera that he has demonstrated in public. You can take a picture of the page of a book and it will read it to you as well.

Both fine examples of pattern recognition, and featuring no automated reasoning whatsoever. The current state of AI was well predicted in the 70's and 80's, because most ideas used today were actually conceived back then (or even before). They just weren't implemented because the hardware wasn't fast enough.

My point is that current AI doesn't scale. One can't get the neural network used for image recognition and propose that human level AI is just a matter of using more nodes, because it isn't. And I have yet to see a proposal for useful (i.e., robust and expressive) knowledge representation that don't have exponential requirements (or worse).

There has always been a huge amount of handwaving in the AI scene. The bleeding edge of today's AI is basically an improvement of what began in the 70's (for example, regarding detailed specialist systems for medical diagnostics, or theorem provers for assisting professional mathematicians). The human-level part remains very unclear, and academic researchers are very conscious of how little is known. However, this doesn't stop "futurists" from making wild predictions about the singularity and what not.