|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 30 OF 31 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-26-05 | | acirce: They are antagonistic theories. Of course a discussion is not irrelevant. It's just that they have very little in common. And "a deep concern for the least advantaged"? Marxism is a scientific theory about society, history and class struggle. I don't exactly identify with philantropic sentimentality like that. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | WMD: I tried to warn you, <BishopBerkeley>, about this guy. To <acirce> you're just a bourgeois schmuck. |
|
Jun-26-05
 | | lostemperor: It's not for fun. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | csmath: <<Marxism is a scientific theory about society, history and class struggle.>> Marxism is deterministic simplification of history with disregard for human being, you are right about that. It is very attractive and very "scientific" and very dogmatic at the same time. It is a religion for the intelectuals when, instead of being convinced of going to heaven, they are convinced they "understand" the society and history. And as any other religion it is deterministic and phony. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | WMD: What is it for, then, scientific research? Computers don't think, they count beans, with extreme efficiency. As to what thinking itself is, that's another question. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | s4life: Ref: WMD on Quantum computers
Well, there are many serious researchers working on it. imho, it's too early to take sides on the matter... Let's stop it here.
BTW, Krabbe's argument on computer chess is interesting but the examples he provided are biased. There is a very simple explanation in all cases that would seriously weaken his position. I wouldn't be surprised if in years to come, chess becomes a solved game: that is, given any position on the board the computer would deterministically know which side would win. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | WMD: < Ref: WMD on Quantum computers Well, there are many serious researchers working on it.> Theoretically they're working on it. As I'm working on winning the lottery. And if someone is stupid enough to give them funding for it then so much the better. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | WMD: <I wouldn't be surprised if in years to come, chess becomes a solved game: that is, given any position on the board the computer would deterministically know which side would win.> See, we're back to your dreams about quantum computers again. Chess is never going to be fully fathomed by computers. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | s4life: WMD: Science begins and ends with theory, and then it starts all over again. Your analogy of science to winning lottery is not funny. |
|
Jun-26-05
 | | BishopBerkeley: <WMD> Thank you for the warning, but I'm pretty indifferent to other peoples' opinions of me. I'm with physicist Richard Feynman on this point: "What do you care what other people think?!" Even so, thanks for your thoughts. <acirce> I appreciate your thoughts, but it seems to me that if Marxism is a scientific theory, it is one that's been largely disconfirmed. (Except to the faithful, of course!) Just my opinion...
(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :) |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | WMD: I reckon I've got a better chance of winning the lottery (in the UK's version, 14 million to 1) than waiting upon a vaccine to cure AIDS. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/ |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | WMD: <<WMD> Thank you for the warning, but I'm pretty indifferent to other peoples' opinions of me.> Then why are your cheeks bright red? No need to feign indifference with me. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | s4life: I don't dream about them, it's not my field per se. I work in drug simulation/discovery and I know that even pharmaceuticals are investing in research in computers that could solve currently non-decidable problems in polynomial time. What is your major BTW? you seem to have a dislike for state-of-the art research |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | s4life: > WMD: I reckon I've got a better chance of winning the lottery (in the UK's version, 14 million to 1) than waiting upon a vaccine to cure AIDS.
>
Yeah,
I know about that website... many years ago. I also know that for everything that is stated overthere, there is a refutation that has been published in nature or science, but obviously you wouldn't know that.What you reckon as true about state-of the-art research is perhaps something that should only be stated in a chess board. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | WMD: <I work in drug simulation/discovery> Which sounds, if you don't mind my saying, very humdrum. Science publications know the majority of their readers have similarly boring jobs so they like to feed them cutting edge - science fiction stuff to make them feel better about themselves. And failing that, there are always some redneck creationists to beat up upon. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | square dance: as far as the hiv/aids stuff goes: does anybody else ever find it curious that magic johnson has remained in good health while having hiv for at least 13+ years? |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | WMD: <I know about that website... many years ago. I also know that for everything that is stated overthere, there is a refutation that has been published in nature or science, but obviously you wouldn't know that.> Yeah, but no vaccine and no cure for AIDS after 20 years and tens, if not hundreds of billions spent on research. Just medicines which make you ill. With a track record like that, a certain amount of humility wouldn't go amiss. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | WMD: <as far as the hiv/aids stuff goes: does anybody else ever find it curious that magic johnson has remained in good health while having hiv for at least 13+ years?> And Greg Louganis. But they'll tell you it's because of these new anti-retroviral cocktails they've developed. Much better than that AZT which they killed thousands of people with. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | euripides: Not necessarily antagonistic. One could interpret Rawls as an attempt to characterise the kind of society that 'orthodox' Marxists think (only) communism will achieve. Rawls is pretty much silent about historical process and Marx (of whom I have not read much) is said to be vague about the details of a communist society, so one could probably achieve a nice fit. The final position is a bit more interesting than it looks e.g. 41...Rxd5 42 Ra4 Rd8 43 a6 Ra8 44 a7 c4 !? (aiming for the h pawn) 45 g3 ?! g5 (45...Kg4 46 Kg2 and Black's king must retreat)46 hg fg and White must choose the right winning plan. A simple king's march to b7 would be met by Kg4-g3 and pushing the g pawn when things might come down to a K+P ending with 3 c pawns that could be tricky. Another plan would be to allow the black king to take on h4 and play Rxc4+ and Rxc7, then push the c pawn. But I think the black king gets back in time to make this plan problematic. However, White should win by pushing the Black king back using the opposition, with tempo moves by the rook on the a file. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | s4life: WMD: Your opinions about research, science and related, if you don't mind my saying, sound as superficial and cynic as anything I've heard from young adolescents; all cliches that one reads in websites of dubious reputation or acquire through small-talk in bars and pubs. That said, I'll let you have the final word on this, the discussion is just fruitless. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | WMD: Fair point <euripides>, and against Kasparov it might be worth playing on (Kasparov vs Short, 1993) but against the computer... |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | WMD: <That said, I'll let you have the final word on this, the discussion is just fruitless.> Touchy, ain't he? |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | tjshann: I had to leave the game just before a5 to go to brunch, but I remarked to my wife that the game was over. I feel badly for Adams; he seems psyched out. (Who wouldn't be?) I find the discussion about how some players are adept at playing against a computer interesting. Reminds me of the folks who develop a "system" to beat the roulette wheel. In the end, the house has the advantage; you play enough times and it will eke out its percentage. A computer ultimately has more "talent" for chess than a human, if by talent we mean ability to analyse a position deeply and never expend "nervous energy" which over the course of a game or match will take its toll. It also cannot be psyched out, which we have seen happen to Adams and Kasparov before him. We can accept this without shame; but we used to talk of chess as "art" and a particularly stunning game winning the "brilliancy" prize, and now chess looks more like science than art. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | Per: Communism, AIDS, science fiction, Marxism...
We are pretty far away from chess here guys! |
|
Jun-26-05
 | | tpstar: <Per> The Curse of Hydra = if you cut off one subject, then two topics sprout up instead. ;>D |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 30 OF 31 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
