Who is smarter?

Maybe you've read one Sci-fi book too many. Honestly you have a lot of truth here with the power and possession of oil but...can we just back track to the days when we didn't have it or need it? We need water to survive and, although I don't think NASA was even considering this when they shot the moon...maybe we really need to look at a water source rather than an oil one?

we could actually survive without oil you know...

Only my physical body resides in the present. Mentally, I am constantly, building future worlds in my mind. The probability of multiple alien languages, telepathic communication. Warp speed. Different sort of weapons. Powered armour suits. Shape shifting. Environmental adaptations, ex- one falls into the water, his body would adapt, rearrange its molecular structure and produce gills. Produce wings when falling from a great height. One shall possess night vision in the dark. Genetic mutations of all sorts.

There are many benefits of such an exercise. It helps me practice mind-image mapping, thus helps me improve memory. Imagination is a superior tool. My IQ has dramatically increased.

an we just back track to the days when we didn't have it or need it?

^ There were still small battles. Weapons were not advanced to influence wars on the global scale. So kingdoms fought, tribes fought. Where do ancient weapons come from?. .The weapons created for torture, in case of treachery. Prisoners fought in the middle of the stadium and people watched. It was a form of entertainment. Gun powder is said to have originated in mid 9th century AD in China, as mentioned in the Taoist texts. Of course a form of it.

We need water to survive

^ Why be dependent on multiple sources?..We need edible food, water, correct temperature, atmospheric pressure, a minimum duration of rest, oxygen, we cannot sustain a long exposure to high mounts of radiation, the bodily drawbacks that make us fall ill, etc. Why not eliminate most conditions to thrive?. .and depend on one or two only? .. Single celled organisms can thrive in the most bizarre of conditions. But multi-celled organisms cannot.

Breed bodies that can adapt to its environments or make cybernetic bodies, the only source we will need is the battery/fuel. A hydrogen fuel cell?. .or perhaps a plasma reactor?.

Edit - We wont find fossil fuels on any other body floating in the cosmos, except Earth. But different materials that can be used for combustion, building constructs. We could encounter exotic elements not yet known about.

All the planetary bodies closer to the galactic center are more rich in carbon. You could have diamonds the size of ones face. Perhaps the size of Pumpkin, or even a school bag. Who knows, the size of a car?.

The skies will not be blue, rather Gambouge, thick blackish clouds. There could be lakes of compounds like methane. There would be very little oxygen. Instead the air would contain methane, butane, pentane, benzine and other compounds.

George...come on...this is way beyond me but...I'm a glutton for punishment so...I'll try to answer as best I can....seen as how no one else has come forth....looking around for another but...yeah...here I am...alone!

Only my physical body resides in the present. Mentally, I am constantly, building future worlds in my mind. The probability of multiple alien languages, telepathic communication. Warp speed. Different sort of weapons. Powered armour suits. Shape shifting. Environmental adaptations, ex- one falls into the water, his body would adapt, rearrange its molecular structure and produce gills. Produce wings when falling from a great height. One shall possess night vision in the dark. Genetic mutations of all sorts.

There are many benefits of such an exercise. It helps me practice mind-image mapping, thus helps me improve memory. Imagination is a superior tool. My IQ has dramatically increased
^^
Mind image-mapping? well....I have been doing this since I was around 14...still working on it..(strokes beard) :)

Why be dependent on multiple sources?..

^^
I'm just taking about one source..we can live a lot longer without food than we can without water..

We still need water over oil...we can'tdrink oil...

Mind image-mapping? well....I have been doing this since I was around 14...still working on it..(strokes beard) :)

^ How much progress have you made?. .

I'm just taking about one source..we can live a lot longer without food than we can without water..

We still need water over oil...we can'tdrink oil...

^ Think beyond what most people would. Why be dependent on water or oil or anything at all? ..Rather manipulate your genes such that you would never need to drink water, sleep or eat. Withstand extremely high amount of radiation. Eliminate every obstacle that hinders immortality. At the least, conscious immortality.

Here is a good example. A cybernetic body made with the help of nanotechnology. Imagine you cut your hand in a machinery. Then to re attach your arm, you need only bring your amputated arm next to the amputated portion, and the arm will bond/fuse together. If you meet an accident, your body could repair itself. The wonders of nanotechnology.

And to still be dazzled, you can take fiction further. What if your cybernetic body could manipulate molecular bonds of any material?. .in such a case, if your arm is cut off, you could touch the wall, grab its molecules and form the rest of your hand. You could produce your duplicates.

And if we can carry out these feats, we can communicate telepathically. Objects that vibrate in phase, when you separate them, still vibrate in phase, in unison due to quantum entanglement. But we are made up of trillions upon trillions of atoms. To get two brains to vibrate in the same phase, in unison is impossible. Unless, one can control himself at cellular level.

^ How much progress have you made?. .
^^^^

OMG...Answer of the year George...cracked me up! That was classic!!!

Ok...Ok...Thinking beyond now and wondering.. if we could get by our dependancy on water and oil was just something we didn't really care about...what would the next war be about....like WW 10 for example because I'm pretty sure we would find something else to fight about...

^You won't crack up with this...this is real, not science fiction:

Original Qn (Max): who is smarter a man or a calculator and why?

My answer: Man is currently, in most areas requiring innovation and creativity, learning from experience or inferential learning, epistemology, planning, and most areas requiring logic (minus chess, and some others), in addition to emotions (love, compassion, fear, sadness, anxiety, malice, jealousy, hostility, and 60 more!). But, AI (Artifical Intelligence) is fast catching up in many areas and is predicted on track to match and better human abilities in most areas not requiring emotional input (e.g. poetry, love/lust). Though the computer (AI) may outstrip the human ability in mundane and even many complex tasks, I doubt if it will ever come close to matching human emotions in this generations lifetime.

Computer (or its first generation predecessor the calculator), will ultimately be more powerful in tasks requiring using logic, facts, search (Google already is), pattern recognition, planning, and more. It is already smarter in chess logic/planning, Futurists believe that artificial intelligence will enable desktop computers to have the same processing power as human brains by the year 2029 (I think this may be a bit too early). Inventor, Ray Kuzweil predicts that by 2045 artificial intelligence will reach a point where it is able to improve itself at a rate that far exceeds anything conceivable in the past, a scenario that science fiction writer Vernor Vinge named the "singularity". Robot designer Hans Moravec, cyberneticist Kevin Warwick and inventor Ray Kurzweil have predicted that humans and machines will merge in the future into cyborgs that are more capable and powerful than either.

Examples where computers are already superior: On 11 May 1997, Deep Blue became the first computer chess-playing system to beat a reigning world chess champion, Garry Kasparov. In 2005, a Stanford robot won the DARPA Grand Challenge by driving autonomously for 131 miles along an unrehearsed desert trail. Two years later, a team from CMU won the DARPA Urban Challenge when their vehicle autonomously navigated 55 miles in an Urban environment while adhering to traffic hazards and all traffic laws. In February 2011, in a Jeopardy! quiz show exhibition match, IBM's question answering system, Watson, defeated the two greatest Jeopardy champions, Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings, by a significant margin! Multiple computer algorithms in medicine, physics, most scientific and engineering fields today help power analysis and logical reasoning much better. It won't be therefore illogical to predict that that AI will do many other things much better than humans could ever do.
(Info quoted/derived from various sources, including Wikepedia)

"Computers make excellent and efficient servants, but I have no wish to serve under them."

Mr. Spock...

Dr. McCoy: Compassion. That's the one thing no machine ever had. Maybe it's the one thing that keeps men ahead of them. Care to debate that, Spock?
Mr. Spock: No, Doctor. I simply maintain that computers are more efficient than human beings, not better.
Dr. McCoy: But, tell me, which do you prefer to have around?
Mr. Spock: I presume you question is meant to offer me a choice between machines and human beings. And I believe I have already answered that question.
Dr. McCoy: I was just trying to make conversation, Spock.
Mr. Spock: It would be most interesting to impress your memory engrams on a computer, Doctor. The resulting torrential flood of illogic would be most entertaining.

^Note: "....computers are more efficient than human beings, not better. " So at best we are looking to develop AI to compliment the human brain, not take over. :) If at any point they become autonomous to try to reign us humans, they need to go to the "doctor" or go in the "recycler."

Have you watched The Day of the Triffids??

I can not imagine anyone smarter than me than me, like two mirrors facing each other, or a cat chasing his tail:: the result :: perpetuity!!

True...but..what if one of the mirrors had a crack...what if the cat was a manx???

Eternity happens only when the cat is normal and the mirrors are not made of glass .

Have you ever looked at your own image in a shattered mirror? OMG...if you haven't you should....quite weird!

Manx cats have no tails....I know you know this already but...in their mind don't you think..they think it's normal and...any cat with a tail...is abnormal to them...

It is quite normal for any abnormality to consider normals abnormal. And what is normal anyway.... majority??
Most of the time normals are the biggest abnormality, searching for the figure of perfection!!

Well...then..I'm pretty normal in your field of....what ever you want to call it....thank you for that now....where the hell did I leave my tail. :)

Doesn't it bring bad luck ....looking in the shattered mirrors??

your tail is what you really desire, looking for, the assumed missing part!!

And you are not tailless, manx, if you are already looking for it

Every cat's tail is different from that of another, a manx' absent tail is simply another form tails take.

The person who discerns his own differences from the masses around him arrives at a level of choice. He may either accept the differences and make use of them, or he can become judgmental about one or the other being better. If it is the latter choice he makes, then he spends his life either in conceited aloofness or miserable envy.

That sounds harsh.

And when such a person is a scientist and happens to disagree with the establishment (existing theory), he has put himself on to a road of great discovery, by shelling beliefs and half truths, that prevail with the ignorant. He may be aloof, miserable, but would earn envy of the conceited, if successful. He is by definition a true scientist, who rejects philosophy and common belief.

Science is what we know, and philosophy is what we don't know. - Bertrand Russell

Not harsh. You're describing the results of his obsession with his own genius. I merely describe his stunted personal growth. There is no doctrine which requires a talented person to be consumed with their own abilities. Pragmatism itself is based on "what works" rather than who is doing it. Also do not mistake the person who enjoys his or her success with the one who is conceited. Knowing there is a difference is good. What you do about it is what counts.

I can see the influence of the "Buddha" from the Taiwan trip.
No, I am just describing a scientist, who does not believe in conventional wisdom, but has to see the truth (scientific) for himself, just like the Buddha.

Actually, the pic is from Lantau Island near Hong Kong.

Re the other, we have no real disagreement.