i stand on what i posted.
K. P. Collins
Jure Sah wrote:
> kenneth Collins wrote:
>> I see that Bloxy has got may clones just whit different names.
>> > Jure Sah wrote:
> > > Completely agree with you!
> > > However, that zillions of operations seems just a little too much for a normal
> > > human...
> > > Let me tell you how many operations does a computer make while he thinks of let's
> > > say a number.
> > > And I think that DATA problem is already solved just nobody "want's" to use it.
> > > Let's say you got a picture (bitmap) can you change that picture in to a sound
> > > directly? Well can you?
> > not unless i've a sound card, with it's associated firmware and software programs. and i
> > don't on this machine. then there's the problem of discordant 'header' info, even among
> > files that bear the same 'extension'.
>> You can't hear unless you have an "associated" ear! Ha ha your just so pathetic!
> (Please don't try to make me mad... I don't treat my enemies too well)
>> > no shared 'program', no 'communication'.
> > what's necessary is an architecture that, given data, write its own program to discover,
> > and use, any data.
>> That "superior" brain of yours couldn't do shit without those million years of evolution!
>> > that's the brain.
>> Yes that's the brain!
>> > > Well a computer can turn it immediately! He just need's an order:
> > > Rename Pic.BMP to Pic.Wav (this tactics uses raw data that is used with brains).
> > nope.
>> I see your brain has enormous knowledge about DOS!
> Ok, ok it's: Rename Pic.BMP Pic.Wav
>> > > You (A human) would say that that noise has no conection to the picture,
> > nope. we say that we can imbue a machine to function, this way or that, in accord with
> > data.
>> (This clone is obviously brainless)
> Let me put there some feedback:
> In this case your "brain" responses the same way.
> Your response right now would be in accord with data. That I know!
>> > > but another computer would wave no problem with changing it to a picture again...
> > not without special programming, done by humans, or by a meta-program, done by humans.
>> What would you do without your DNA?
>> > > Well in this case (if you understand it) the human's way of thinking has been used
> > > against him.
> > :-)
>> In this case the subject did not understand it.
>> > > I have tried this type of DATA procession but I use a too weak
> > > programing language to complete it (lack of raw info), However (!) when you surf the
> > > net and use a search engine did you ever think about the fact that the a man could
> > > know so many things as the net contains wouldn't he give the same answers? No? he
> > > would think a little and sort the mumble-jumble... is that a problem to a computer
> > > nowadays? Oh, no as well, eh?
> > the differences between what 'computers' do and what Humans do are still profound...
> > even though folks're stumbling over themselves to 'borrow' and emulate TD
> > E/I-minimization these days.
>> This response shows up the "fatal" exceptions on your "program".
> Yes you have much in common with Windows...
> Not to mention that no useful feedback can be returned with lack of input!
> Did you see "my" program with help of ranged-bio-portscan???
>> > > As you said: all you need is a bunch of computers working together and exchanging
> > > raw data... this is the way your brains do it isn't it?
> > nope.
> > our brains exchange enormously-processed data, in which resides both the Wonder, and the
> > Tragedy.
>> Please don't add the defective sense of art that humans usually poses!
> Our brain exchanges both raw an processed data, mostly because in the brain "OS" there is no
>> > the Tragedy, however, is, even now, being 'whittled'-away (AoK, Ap5).
> > will machines, one day, do the same?
>> Ok, that's it!
> If you want my "raw data" procession program then e-mail me!
>> > it's possible, but, Sadly, it's apparent that the Tragedy will augment-further, in a
> > Greed-driven way, as has been the case for the last ~20 years. so it's not yet probable.
> > the problem is that 'profits' are still 'valued' more than Truth.
>> That's why I hate average humans!
>> > K. P. Collins