<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_11_0114226</id>
	<title>Memristor Minds, the Future of Artificial Intelligence</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247303520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>godlessgambler writes <i>"Within the past couple of years, memristors have morphed from obscure jargon into one of the hottest properties in physics. They've not only been made, but their unique capabilities might revolutionize consumer electronics. More than that, though, along with completing the jigsaw of electronics, they might solve the puzzle of <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.600-memristor-minds-the-future-of-artificial-intelligence.html?full=true">how nature makes that most delicate and powerful of computers</a> &mdash; the brain."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>godlessgambler writes " Within the past couple of years , memristors have morphed from obscure jargon into one of the hottest properties in physics .
They 've not only been made , but their unique capabilities might revolutionize consumer electronics .
More than that , though , along with completing the jigsaw of electronics , they might solve the puzzle of how nature makes that most delicate and powerful of computers    the brain .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>godlessgambler writes "Within the past couple of years, memristors have morphed from obscure jargon into one of the hottest properties in physics.
They've not only been made, but their unique capabilities might revolutionize consumer electronics.
More than that, though, along with completing the jigsaw of electronics, they might solve the puzzle of how nature makes that most delicate and powerful of computers — the brain.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28666815</id>
	<title>Re:Artificial intelligence?</title>
	<author>neumayr</author>
	<datestamp>1247406240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because except for reproduction, we can easily survive our whole life alone.</p></div><p>Really? It's been tried, mostly in the 19th century - letting human children grow up in isolation, isolating grown people (can't find a link right now for either)... Anyway, as far as I can recollect, it didn't work. People go insane when isolated, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitalism" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">children die</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because except for reproduction , we can easily survive our whole life alone.Really ?
It 's been tried , mostly in the 19th century - letting human children grow up in isolation , isolating grown people ( ca n't find a link right now for either ) ... Anyway , as far as I can recollect , it did n't work .
People go insane when isolated , children die [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because except for reproduction, we can easily survive our whole life alone.Really?
It's been tried, mostly in the 19th century - letting human children grow up in isolation, isolating grown people (can't find a link right now for either)... Anyway, as far as I can recollect, it didn't work.
People go insane when isolated, children die [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659681</id>
	<title>It was 1960s, and they were quickly obsoleted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247325000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Esaki (tunnel) diode is a two terminal device which basically exists in two states (I am simplifying, I know) at two different currents. Its weakness is that (a) it requires a current source  to keep it in one or the other state and (b) both input (changing state) and output need amplifying devices. As soon as cmos become fast enough things like tunnel diodes were dead in the water because a cmos transistor does its own amplifying, and requires almost no power to keep in one state rather than the other.<p>Therefore, a device which requires effectively no power to keep in one of two states, and has much greater speed than either flash or magnetic domains would be a step forward compared to the current state of the art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Esaki ( tunnel ) diode is a two terminal device which basically exists in two states ( I am simplifying , I know ) at two different currents .
Its weakness is that ( a ) it requires a current source to keep it in one or the other state and ( b ) both input ( changing state ) and output need amplifying devices .
As soon as cmos become fast enough things like tunnel diodes were dead in the water because a cmos transistor does its own amplifying , and requires almost no power to keep in one state rather than the other.Therefore , a device which requires effectively no power to keep in one of two states , and has much greater speed than either flash or magnetic domains would be a step forward compared to the current state of the art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Esaki (tunnel) diode is a two terminal device which basically exists in two states (I am simplifying, I know) at two different currents.
Its weakness is that (a) it requires a current source  to keep it in one or the other state and (b) both input (changing state) and output need amplifying devices.
As soon as cmos become fast enough things like tunnel diodes were dead in the water because a cmos transistor does its own amplifying, and requires almost no power to keep in one state rather than the other.Therefore, a device which requires effectively no power to keep in one of two states, and has much greater speed than either flash or magnetic domains would be a step forward compared to the current state of the art.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659029</id>
	<title>Could this explain memory loss in old age?</title>
	<author>abhikhurana</author>
	<datestamp>1247316840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If brain were indeed made of memoristors and these had finite write cycles, could it be that once we have reached these write cycles, the memoristors stop of being any use. Ofcourse the brain would try to minimise dmage to memoristors by spreading the data around but you will eventually reach a limit and eventually the same memoristors would be overwritten again and again, until eventually you start reaching the write limit for some of these, which might explain why we start losing memory after reaching 30s or so.<br><br>I suppose the way to check it, potentially, would be to see if people who have impaired senses (e.g. someone who is deaf or dumb etc.) show better brain functions in older age, as they didn't have that much data to store as someone who was getting data from all the senses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If brain were indeed made of memoristors and these had finite write cycles , could it be that once we have reached these write cycles , the memoristors stop of being any use .
Ofcourse the brain would try to minimise dmage to memoristors by spreading the data around but you will eventually reach a limit and eventually the same memoristors would be overwritten again and again , until eventually you start reaching the write limit for some of these , which might explain why we start losing memory after reaching 30s or so.I suppose the way to check it , potentially , would be to see if people who have impaired senses ( e.g .
someone who is deaf or dumb etc .
) show better brain functions in older age , as they did n't have that much data to store as someone who was getting data from all the senses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If brain were indeed made of memoristors and these had finite write cycles, could it be that once we have reached these write cycles, the memoristors stop of being any use.
Ofcourse the brain would try to minimise dmage to memoristors by spreading the data around but you will eventually reach a limit and eventually the same memoristors would be overwritten again and again, until eventually you start reaching the write limit for some of these, which might explain why we start losing memory after reaching 30s or so.I suppose the way to check it, potentially, would be to see if people who have impaired senses (e.g.
someone who is deaf or dumb etc.
) show better brain functions in older age, as they didn't have that much data to store as someone who was getting data from all the senses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659173</id>
	<title>The first time --</title>
	<author>reiisi</author>
	<datestamp>1247319000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adam and Eve.</p><p>Or, if you don't get the reference, us.</p><p>Humans have been doing this as far back as there have been humans. It is one of the things which sets us apart from the other animals. Or, it might be argued that this is just another way of looking at the only thing that separates us from the other animals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adam and Eve.Or , if you do n't get the reference , us.Humans have been doing this as far back as there have been humans .
It is one of the things which sets us apart from the other animals .
Or , it might be argued that this is just another way of looking at the only thing that separates us from the other animals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adam and Eve.Or, if you don't get the reference, us.Humans have been doing this as far back as there have been humans.
It is one of the things which sets us apart from the other animals.
Or, it might be argued that this is just another way of looking at the only thing that separates us from the other animals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658665</id>
	<title>I'm always taken back by this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247308500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That we've developed a whole industry based on an incomplete model, I wonder how things would have developed if the memristor had existed 30 years ago.  Exciting times as a lot of things will be re-examined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That we 've developed a whole industry based on an incomplete model , I wonder how things would have developed if the memristor had existed 30 years ago .
Exciting times as a lot of things will be re-examined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That we've developed a whole industry based on an incomplete model, I wonder how things would have developed if the memristor had existed 30 years ago.
Exciting times as a lot of things will be re-examined.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660593</id>
	<title>Re:Artificial intelligence?</title>
	<author>Chryana</author>
	<datestamp>1247331180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If, by your definition, the Internet is an AI, then your definition of AI is meaningless (and useless for anyone working in that field). Your post reeks of ill-deserved elitism and the message it conveys is incredibly depressing: individually the human is nothing/we already have AI, so we have nothing to reach for. I'm not going to argue about the first part, since I do not think it deserves any answer, but I'll say about the second part that we would never get true AI if most people thought like you do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If , by your definition , the Internet is an AI , then your definition of AI is meaningless ( and useless for anyone working in that field ) .
Your post reeks of ill-deserved elitism and the message it conveys is incredibly depressing : individually the human is nothing/we already have AI , so we have nothing to reach for .
I 'm not going to argue about the first part , since I do not think it deserves any answer , but I 'll say about the second part that we would never get true AI if most people thought like you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If, by your definition, the Internet is an AI, then your definition of AI is meaningless (and useless for anyone working in that field).
Your post reeks of ill-deserved elitism and the message it conveys is incredibly depressing: individually the human is nothing/we already have AI, so we have nothing to reach for.
I'm not going to argue about the first part, since I do not think it deserves any answer, but I'll say about the second part that we would never get true AI if most people thought like you do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660639</id>
	<title>The brain is not a computer.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247331420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/03/why\_the\_brain\_is\_not\_like\_a\_co.php" title="scienceblogs.com">Citation</a> [scienceblogs.com].</p><p>See especially points<br>6 - No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind,<br>7 - Synapses are far more complex than electrical logic gates,<br>10 - Brains have bodies,<br>and the bonus - The brain is much, much bigger than any [current] computer.</p><p>It's past time for this idea to die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Citation [ scienceblogs.com ] .See especially points6 - No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind,7 - Synapses are far more complex than electrical logic gates,10 - Brains have bodies,and the bonus - The brain is much , much bigger than any [ current ] computer.It 's past time for this idea to die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citation [scienceblogs.com].See especially points6 - No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind,7 - Synapses are far more complex than electrical logic gates,10 - Brains have bodies,and the bonus - The brain is much, much bigger than any [current] computer.It's past time for this idea to die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658769</id>
	<title>Not nature...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247310180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no explanation for the creation of the human brain because God made man.</p><p>Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no explanation for the creation of the human brain because God made man.Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no explanation for the creation of the human brain because God made man.Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658845</id>
	<title>Re:I'm always taken back by this</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1247312160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. This is a lot of gross overexageration.<br>
Our computers are Turing-complete. Point me to something that is missing in this before I get excited. This new component may have great applications, but it will "only" replace some existing components and functions. It is great to have it but it is nothing essentially missing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
This is a lot of gross overexageration .
Our computers are Turing-complete .
Point me to something that is missing in this before I get excited .
This new component may have great applications , but it will " only " replace some existing components and functions .
It is great to have it but it is nothing essentially missing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
This is a lot of gross overexageration.
Our computers are Turing-complete.
Point me to something that is missing in this before I get excited.
This new component may have great applications, but it will "only" replace some existing components and functions.
It is great to have it but it is nothing essentially missing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659227</id>
	<title>Practically Turing complete.</title>
	<author>reiisi</author>
	<datestamp>1247319960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not until we have infinite tape and infinite time to process the tape are our computers truly Turing complete.</p><p>Moore boasted that technology would always be giving us just enough more tape. I'm not so sure we should worship technology, but so far the tech has stayed a little ahead of the average need.</p><p>Anyway, this new tech may provide a way to extend the curve just a little bit further, keep our machines effectively Turing complete for the average user for another decade or so.</p><p>Or not. If Microsoft goes down, the average user may soon realize he has been seriously duped about computational needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not until we have infinite tape and infinite time to process the tape are our computers truly Turing complete.Moore boasted that technology would always be giving us just enough more tape .
I 'm not so sure we should worship technology , but so far the tech has stayed a little ahead of the average need.Anyway , this new tech may provide a way to extend the curve just a little bit further , keep our machines effectively Turing complete for the average user for another decade or so.Or not .
If Microsoft goes down , the average user may soon realize he has been seriously duped about computational needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not until we have infinite tape and infinite time to process the tape are our computers truly Turing complete.Moore boasted that technology would always be giving us just enough more tape.
I'm not so sure we should worship technology, but so far the tech has stayed a little ahead of the average need.Anyway, this new tech may provide a way to extend the curve just a little bit further, keep our machines effectively Turing complete for the average user for another decade or so.Or not.
If Microsoft goes down, the average user may soon realize he has been seriously duped about computational needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659513</id>
	<title>Re:Electrical Memristors Don't Exist Yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247323560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>I think the memristor they've created is a great piece of technology and will certainly prove useful. However, it is like calling a rechargeable chemical battery a capacitor. While both are useful things, only one is fast enough for high speed electronics design for applications like the RAM they mentioned. </i></p></div> </blockquote><p>The memristor is an analog device.  Achieving a function providing some infinitesimal value between zero and one is a complex algorithm overlayed on binary.  That implies a time component.  Doing this in a relational-array is even more time.</p><p>In short, as far as encoding information state goes, the memristor is potentially an order of magnitude more powerful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the memristor they 've created is a great piece of technology and will certainly prove useful .
However , it is like calling a rechargeable chemical battery a capacitor .
While both are useful things , only one is fast enough for high speed electronics design for applications like the RAM they mentioned .
The memristor is an analog device .
Achieving a function providing some infinitesimal value between zero and one is a complex algorithm overlayed on binary .
That implies a time component .
Doing this in a relational-array is even more time.In short , as far as encoding information state goes , the memristor is potentially an order of magnitude more powerful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I think the memristor they've created is a great piece of technology and will certainly prove useful.
However, it is like calling a rechargeable chemical battery a capacitor.
While both are useful things, only one is fast enough for high speed electronics design for applications like the RAM they mentioned.
The memristor is an analog device.
Achieving a function providing some infinitesimal value between zero and one is a complex algorithm overlayed on binary.
That implies a time component.
Doing this in a relational-array is even more time.In short, as far as encoding information state goes, the memristor is potentially an order of magnitude more powerful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658937</id>
	<title>You're right of course</title>
	<author>msgmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1247314380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but on the other hand a neuron works with electrochemical signaling and the design seems to be quite good<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but on the other hand a neuron works with electrochemical signaling and the design seems to be quite good : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but on the other hand a neuron works with electrochemical signaling and the design seems to be quite good :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28662381</id>
	<title>Re:The brain is not a computer.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247343840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Difference # 1: Brains are analogue; computers are digital<br>Difference # 2: The brain uses content-addressable memory<br>Difference # 3: The brain is a massively parallel machine; computers are modular and serial<br>And so on and so forth.</p><p>What a load of horseshit.<br>A guy cannot understand the similarities (nor the differences) between the 2 operating paradigms, and so he goes on to claim these inane things.</p><p>Guess what: A computer is turing complete; a brain may, or may not be.<br>Anything turing complete may (with the appropriate algorithms) simulate something simpler.</p><p>For instance, content-addressable memory is simply a more complex, high-level interface (i.e semantic web) built over a byte-addressable memory system.<br>
&nbsp; All of his claims can be similarly debunked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Difference # 1 : Brains are analogue ; computers are digitalDifference # 2 : The brain uses content-addressable memoryDifference # 3 : The brain is a massively parallel machine ; computers are modular and serialAnd so on and so forth.What a load of horseshit.A guy can not understand the similarities ( nor the differences ) between the 2 operating paradigms , and so he goes on to claim these inane things.Guess what : A computer is turing complete ; a brain may , or may not be.Anything turing complete may ( with the appropriate algorithms ) simulate something simpler.For instance , content-addressable memory is simply a more complex , high-level interface ( i.e semantic web ) built over a byte-addressable memory system .
  All of his claims can be similarly debunked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Difference # 1: Brains are analogue; computers are digitalDifference # 2: The brain uses content-addressable memoryDifference # 3: The brain is a massively parallel machine; computers are modular and serialAnd so on and so forth.What a load of horseshit.A guy cannot understand the similarities (nor the differences) between the 2 operating paradigms, and so he goes on to claim these inane things.Guess what: A computer is turing complete; a brain may, or may not be.Anything turing complete may (with the appropriate algorithms) simulate something simpler.For instance, content-addressable memory is simply a more complex, high-level interface (i.e semantic web) built over a byte-addressable memory system.
  All of his claims can be similarly debunked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659203</id>
	<title>all thanks to Chua ! :-)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247319720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For 50 years, electronics engineers had been building networks of dozens of transistors - the building blocks of memory chips - to store single bits of information without knowing it was memristance they were attempting to simulate.</p></div></blockquote><ol>
<li> invent the new name for old things,</li>
<li> invest in advertisement until it sticks,</li>
<li> soon you can claim (tacitly at first) you invented it,</li>
<li> PROFIT !</li>
</ol><p>What a stupid engineers they were, designing ever improving memory chips for half a century and not knowing they should call them "memristors". Memristors, memristors, memristors... That's what's inside your RAM, HD, flash, all thanks to Chua !<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>K.L.M.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For 50 years , electronics engineers had been building networks of dozens of transistors - the building blocks of memory chips - to store single bits of information without knowing it was memristance they were attempting to simulate .
invent the new name for old things , invest in advertisement until it sticks , soon you can claim ( tacitly at first ) you invented it , PROFIT !
What a stupid engineers they were , designing ever improving memory chips for half a century and not knowing they should call them " memristors " .
Memristors , memristors , memristors... That 's what 's inside your RAM , HD , flash , all thanks to Chua !
: - ) K.L.M .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For 50 years, electronics engineers had been building networks of dozens of transistors - the building blocks of memory chips - to store single bits of information without knowing it was memristance they were attempting to simulate.
invent the new name for old things,
 invest in advertisement until it sticks,
 soon you can claim (tacitly at first) you invented it,
 PROFIT !
What a stupid engineers they were, designing ever improving memory chips for half a century and not knowing they should call them "memristors".
Memristors, memristors, memristors... That's what's inside your RAM, HD, flash, all thanks to Chua !
:-)K.L.M.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28662089</id>
	<title>A Change in Architecture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247341980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the more important points in the article on the memresistor is that the memresistor looks like a good candidate towards a change in architecture that has a greater density than silicone provides and I might add potentially greater speed due to the smaller component size. This new memresistor architecture offers the possibility of building a new artificial brain to study the interaction of the brain's neurons. An interesting application of current technology for provoking neuron interaction is Creator Studio creative thinking software http://www.compxpressinc.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the more important points in the article on the memresistor is that the memresistor looks like a good candidate towards a change in architecture that has a greater density than silicone provides and I might add potentially greater speed due to the smaller component size .
This new memresistor architecture offers the possibility of building a new artificial brain to study the interaction of the brain 's neurons .
An interesting application of current technology for provoking neuron interaction is Creator Studio creative thinking software http : //www.compxpressinc.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the more important points in the article on the memresistor is that the memresistor looks like a good candidate towards a change in architecture that has a greater density than silicone provides and I might add potentially greater speed due to the smaller component size.
This new memresistor architecture offers the possibility of building a new artificial brain to study the interaction of the brain's neurons.
An interesting application of current technology for provoking neuron interaction is Creator Studio creative thinking software http://www.compxpressinc.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659129</id>
	<title>Re:Tha's goint to be the NEXT BIG THING</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1247318520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>but the succes has stalled computer innovation</i> </p><p>No, reality got in the way. As much as you can want to have a HAL 9000 in your computer, it's not going to happen, because as far as we know it might just be theoretically impossible to create something like that.

</p><p> <i>Thirty years ago we expected to be able to talk to our machines, now those advances can make it finally possible.</i> </p><p>No it's not. What makes you think it's gonna help with anything you talk about? That's typical of throwing the word "neuron" into a technology story, just as soon you have a bunch of readers peeing their pants fantasising of HAL 9000/Skynet/whatever else you people think is a cool scifi example of strong AI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but the succes has stalled computer innovation No , reality got in the way .
As much as you can want to have a HAL 9000 in your computer , it 's not going to happen , because as far as we know it might just be theoretically impossible to create something like that .
Thirty years ago we expected to be able to talk to our machines , now those advances can make it finally possible .
No it 's not .
What makes you think it 's gon na help with anything you talk about ?
That 's typical of throwing the word " neuron " into a technology story , just as soon you have a bunch of readers peeing their pants fantasising of HAL 9000/Skynet/whatever else you people think is a cool scifi example of strong AI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> but the succes has stalled computer innovation No, reality got in the way.
As much as you can want to have a HAL 9000 in your computer, it's not going to happen, because as far as we know it might just be theoretically impossible to create something like that.
Thirty years ago we expected to be able to talk to our machines, now those advances can make it finally possible.
No it's not.
What makes you think it's gonna help with anything you talk about?
That's typical of throwing the word "neuron" into a technology story, just as soon you have a bunch of readers peeing their pants fantasising of HAL 9000/Skynet/whatever else you people think is a cool scifi example of strong AI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659165</id>
	<title>Re:Artificial intelligence?</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1247318880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The amazing thing is that we consider individual brains to be "intelligent" when it seems pretty clear we're only intelligent as part of a social network. None of us are able to live alone, work alone, think alone. The concept of "self" is largely a deceit designed to make us more competitive, but it does not reflect reality.</i> </p><p>No, you're completely wrong. It's sufficiently obvious why that I don't feel the need to elaborate.

</p><p> <i>Actually, the telegraph was already a global AI tool.</i> </p><p>No, it's called a network. You seem to fail to see the difference between a network and an intelligence. I don't think you know what intelligence means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amazing thing is that we consider individual brains to be " intelligent " when it seems pretty clear we 're only intelligent as part of a social network .
None of us are able to live alone , work alone , think alone .
The concept of " self " is largely a deceit designed to make us more competitive , but it does not reflect reality .
No , you 're completely wrong .
It 's sufficiently obvious why that I do n't feel the need to elaborate .
Actually , the telegraph was already a global AI tool .
No , it 's called a network .
You seem to fail to see the difference between a network and an intelligence .
I do n't think you know what intelligence means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The amazing thing is that we consider individual brains to be "intelligent" when it seems pretty clear we're only intelligent as part of a social network.
None of us are able to live alone, work alone, think alone.
The concept of "self" is largely a deceit designed to make us more competitive, but it does not reflect reality.
No, you're completely wrong.
It's sufficiently obvious why that I don't feel the need to elaborate.
Actually, the telegraph was already a global AI tool.
No, it's called a network.
You seem to fail to see the difference between a network and an intelligence.
I don't think you know what intelligence means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658591</id>
	<title>Oblig. wiki-link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247307300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">What the hell is a memristor, you ask?</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is a memristor , you ask ?
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is a memristor, you ask?
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28663497</id>
	<title>Re:Practically Turing complete.</title>
	<author>technofix</author>
	<datestamp>1247308980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Human brains are finite and we have finite intelligence. Small computer based intelligences should be capable of a few Hunekers worth - something clearly detectable. But Turing completeness is a red herring. I believe intelligence is possible without Turing completeness. Our brains can't even do arithmetic; in fact, we don't have numbers in the brain and no low-level encoding mechanisms that would allow for them to be represented. Lowest levels of the brain don't use logic, arithmetic, or models. Minsky's criticism of Perceptrons fails or is irrelevant on multiple levels. 1. Slightly more advanced connectionist systems are easily Turing complete. 2. Brains are not perceptron like systems. 3. Turing completeness is not required for intelligence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Human brains are finite and we have finite intelligence .
Small computer based intelligences should be capable of a few Hunekers worth - something clearly detectable .
But Turing completeness is a red herring .
I believe intelligence is possible without Turing completeness .
Our brains ca n't even do arithmetic ; in fact , we do n't have numbers in the brain and no low-level encoding mechanisms that would allow for them to be represented .
Lowest levels of the brain do n't use logic , arithmetic , or models .
Minsky 's criticism of Perceptrons fails or is irrelevant on multiple levels .
1. Slightly more advanced connectionist systems are easily Turing complete .
2. Brains are not perceptron like systems .
3. Turing completeness is not required for intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human brains are finite and we have finite intelligence.
Small computer based intelligences should be capable of a few Hunekers worth - something clearly detectable.
But Turing completeness is a red herring.
I believe intelligence is possible without Turing completeness.
Our brains can't even do arithmetic; in fact, we don't have numbers in the brain and no low-level encoding mechanisms that would allow for them to be represented.
Lowest levels of the brain don't use logic, arithmetic, or models.
Minsky's criticism of Perceptrons fails or is irrelevant on multiple levels.
1. Slightly more advanced connectionist systems are easily Turing complete.
2. Brains are not perceptron like systems.
3. Turing completeness is not required for intelligence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660711</id>
	<title>The Future of AI?</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1247331960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>First we'd have to go back to the drawing board with Silicon Chips, to create
titanium oxide memristor chips of a similar density to current chips. Then we
could start designing these memristor AI circuit. Why are these like the brain?
A Memristor decreases its resistance as more current flows through it, like
a synpases in the brain strengthen as the stimulated more often. But memristor
aren't enough, we still need something to act like a  neuron to sum over the inhibitory and stimulatory
input synapses and to then fire when a great enough signal is achieved (is this a real neuron?, its the
Neuron scientist simulate in Neural Networks, the actual brain could be much cleverer).
This still hasn't made something like a brain though. Brain cells grow new synapses attaching to others
in its learning process, a chip acting like a brain, would need to do this to, and it isn't at all obvious how
to do it. So all in all, where a long way from brain like chips, even if memristor might help.
<p>
--
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/AI/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">AI Feed</a> [feeddistiller.com] @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First we 'd have to go back to the drawing board with Silicon Chips , to create titanium oxide memristor chips of a similar density to current chips .
Then we could start designing these memristor AI circuit .
Why are these like the brain ?
A Memristor decreases its resistance as more current flows through it , like a synpases in the brain strengthen as the stimulated more often .
But memristor are n't enough , we still need something to act like a neuron to sum over the inhibitory and stimulatory input synapses and to then fire when a great enough signal is achieved ( is this a real neuron ? , its the Neuron scientist simulate in Neural Networks , the actual brain could be much cleverer ) .
This still has n't made something like a brain though .
Brain cells grow new synapses attaching to others in its learning process , a chip acting like a brain , would need to do this to , and it is n't at all obvious how to do it .
So all in all , where a long way from brain like chips , even if memristor might help .
-- AI Feed [ feeddistiller.com ] @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First we'd have to go back to the drawing board with Silicon Chips, to create
titanium oxide memristor chips of a similar density to current chips.
Then we
could start designing these memristor AI circuit.
Why are these like the brain?
A Memristor decreases its resistance as more current flows through it, like
a synpases in the brain strengthen as the stimulated more often.
But memristor
aren't enough, we still need something to act like a  neuron to sum over the inhibitory and stimulatory
input synapses and to then fire when a great enough signal is achieved (is this a real neuron?, its the
Neuron scientist simulate in Neural Networks, the actual brain could be much cleverer).
This still hasn't made something like a brain though.
Brain cells grow new synapses attaching to others
in its learning process, a chip acting like a brain, would need to do this to, and it isn't at all obvious how
to do it.
So all in all, where a long way from brain like chips, even if memristor might help.
--

AI Feed [feeddistiller.com] @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658879</id>
	<title>Not Nature...REVISITED...perfect sense...</title>
	<author>griffinfinity</author>
	<datestamp>1247312880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting information...</p><p>
&nbsp; The only bones I have over this is what is 'artificial' in regards to intelligence?  It being that mankind has been on a mission to recreate 'itself' since day 1, and everything we do is support in that respect, there is nothing artificial at all about what we seek to fashion.  We are not replicators on Kirk's tugboat, we are those who seek to become that which we cannot find, the Creator.  I dunno, wasn't it Water's who mumbled something about it all making perfect sense?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting information.. .   The only bones I have over this is what is 'artificial ' in regards to intelligence ?
It being that mankind has been on a mission to recreate 'itself ' since day 1 , and everything we do is support in that respect , there is nothing artificial at all about what we seek to fashion .
We are not replicators on Kirk 's tugboat , we are those who seek to become that which we can not find , the Creator .
I dunno , was n't it Water 's who mumbled something about it all making perfect sense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting information...
  The only bones I have over this is what is 'artificial' in regards to intelligence?
It being that mankind has been on a mission to recreate 'itself' since day 1, and everything we do is support in that respect, there is nothing artificial at all about what we seek to fashion.
We are not replicators on Kirk's tugboat, we are those who seek to become that which we cannot find, the Creator.
I dunno, wasn't it Water's who mumbled something about it all making perfect sense?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28667001</id>
	<title>Just make each CPU a usb stick for $5.</title>
	<author>cheekyboy</author>
	<datestamp>1247409840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if each core2 or atom cpu could be placed in a small USB stick for $5, then one can build the biggest usb chain with 1000s of $5 usb cpu sticks.</p><p>What we need is any easy was as easy as usb sticks to increase cpu horse power of desktops, without the need for cumversome sockets+fans+sinks. Maybe if each USb stick contained 256 x Z80 cpus, each running at 500mhz, at 500ma, then we could easily allow the freedom to grow. And if we could make multi layer cpus, ie say 100 layers of 256 cpus, that would be some advance. Perhaps we should strive for more quantity of simpler CPUs at optimum mhz speeds. The old 68k cpu was powerful even at 7mhz. Now that same design cpu can be made to run easily at low voltage and at 500mhz easily, but rather than 1, we could have 256 of them, which would be no more complex at 45nm than an atom cpu. GPU style.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if each core2 or atom cpu could be placed in a small USB stick for $ 5 , then one can build the biggest usb chain with 1000s of $ 5 usb cpu sticks.What we need is any easy was as easy as usb sticks to increase cpu horse power of desktops , without the need for cumversome sockets + fans + sinks .
Maybe if each USb stick contained 256 x Z80 cpus , each running at 500mhz , at 500ma , then we could easily allow the freedom to grow .
And if we could make multi layer cpus , ie say 100 layers of 256 cpus , that would be some advance .
Perhaps we should strive for more quantity of simpler CPUs at optimum mhz speeds .
The old 68k cpu was powerful even at 7mhz .
Now that same design cpu can be made to run easily at low voltage and at 500mhz easily , but rather than 1 , we could have 256 of them , which would be no more complex at 45nm than an atom cpu .
GPU style .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if each core2 or atom cpu could be placed in a small USB stick for $5, then one can build the biggest usb chain with 1000s of $5 usb cpu sticks.What we need is any easy was as easy as usb sticks to increase cpu horse power of desktops, without the need for cumversome sockets+fans+sinks.
Maybe if each USb stick contained 256 x Z80 cpus, each running at 500mhz, at 500ma, then we could easily allow the freedom to grow.
And if we could make multi layer cpus, ie say 100 layers of 256 cpus, that would be some advance.
Perhaps we should strive for more quantity of simpler CPUs at optimum mhz speeds.
The old 68k cpu was powerful even at 7mhz.
Now that same design cpu can be made to run easily at low voltage and at 500mhz easily, but rather than 1, we could have 256 of them, which would be no more complex at 45nm than an atom cpu.
GPU style.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659001</id>
	<title>Re:Artificial intelligence?</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1247316420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and here i keep observing that the overall intelligence in a room drops by the square of the number of people in said room...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and here i keep observing that the overall intelligence in a room drops by the square of the number of people in said room.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and here i keep observing that the overall intelligence in a room drops by the square of the number of people in said room...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659239</id>
	<title>Re:Artificial intelligence?</title>
	<author>mugurel</author>
	<datestamp>1247320080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that what original poster wanted to express is that it makes no sense to talk of intelligent behavior without a context, and in the limit, a social framework. An action of an individual can be called intelligent in such a social framework, but if you take away that context, what criteria are left to judge the action as an intelligent action? </p><p>The point is that the meaning of the predicate "intelligent" is very complex. Unlike "rational", which depends only on (roughly) your definition of goals and actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that what original poster wanted to express is that it makes no sense to talk of intelligent behavior without a context , and in the limit , a social framework .
An action of an individual can be called intelligent in such a social framework , but if you take away that context , what criteria are left to judge the action as an intelligent action ?
The point is that the meaning of the predicate " intelligent " is very complex .
Unlike " rational " , which depends only on ( roughly ) your definition of goals and actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that what original poster wanted to express is that it makes no sense to talk of intelligent behavior without a context, and in the limit, a social framework.
An action of an individual can be called intelligent in such a social framework, but if you take away that context, what criteria are left to judge the action as an intelligent action?
The point is that the meaning of the predicate "intelligent" is very complex.
Unlike "rational", which depends only on (roughly) your definition of goals and actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659137</id>
	<title>Like we need more Artificial Intelligence...</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1247318580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... don't we have enough people producing this already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... do n't we have enough people producing this already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... don't we have enough people producing this already?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659823</id>
	<title>Re:Electrical Memristors Don't Exist Yet</title>
	<author>tennin</author>
	<datestamp>1247326200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The charge carriers are still electrons. Oxygen vacancy migration tunes the distance the electrons must tunnel. At the extremely small scale where memristance becomes dominant, the speed of ion diffusion seems negligible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The charge carriers are still electrons .
Oxygen vacancy migration tunes the distance the electrons must tunnel .
At the extremely small scale where memristance becomes dominant , the speed of ion diffusion seems negligible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The charge carriers are still electrons.
Oxygen vacancy migration tunes the distance the electrons must tunnel.
At the extremely small scale where memristance becomes dominant, the speed of ion diffusion seems negligible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28664773</id>
	<title>asimo+wolfram</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247323080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>put them toger, and there u have real AI</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>put them toger , and there u have real AI</tokentext>
<sentencetext>put them toger, and there u have real AI</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28661979</id>
	<title>Re:I'm always taken back by this</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1247341200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That we've developed a whole industry based on an incomplete model</p></div><p>In hindsight, every industry ever is an incomplete model.<br>We will always have much to look forward to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That we 've developed a whole industry based on an incomplete modelIn hindsight , every industry ever is an incomplete model.We will always have much to look forward to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That we've developed a whole industry based on an incomplete modelIn hindsight, every industry ever is an incomplete model.We will always have much to look forward to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28666311</id>
	<title>Re:The brain is not a computer.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247397360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a massive difference between "Don't try to understand your human experimental subjects as if they were desktop PCs" and "The brain is not a computer".</p><p>IF the brain is not a computer, it should be able to do something we know a computer can't do. No-one has demonstrated this. Worse, most people who claim they<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/have/ demonstrated this show no clue whatsoever about what is or isn't possible with a computer, meaning they're engaged in crackpot science rather than being merely mistaken on some minor technical detail.</p><p>I have found that a demonstration of the Busy Beaver (with a take away of one of the not yet eliminated 5 state "possible beaver" programs for further study) is very effective for getting people with some mathematics knowledge to see why we're so convinced that the brain is a computer. Such a trivial looking problem, is this an algorithm? and yet so quickly it grows beyond our comprehension, asks questions so tricky we don't even know how to figure out if we can answer them. When you look at something like that and see yourself reflected back, can you argue with our assumption that it's a mirror you're looking into and not some unasked for entirely new class of thing?</p><p>Most of the affirmative comments to that blog post are disappointingly triumphalist. "No computer will ever write a novel" and so on. Triumphalist assertions about human uniqueness have been discredited time, after time, after time. Doesn't being wrong get old? Apparently not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a massive difference between " Do n't try to understand your human experimental subjects as if they were desktop PCs " and " The brain is not a computer " .IF the brain is not a computer , it should be able to do something we know a computer ca n't do .
No-one has demonstrated this .
Worse , most people who claim they /have/ demonstrated this show no clue whatsoever about what is or is n't possible with a computer , meaning they 're engaged in crackpot science rather than being merely mistaken on some minor technical detail.I have found that a demonstration of the Busy Beaver ( with a take away of one of the not yet eliminated 5 state " possible beaver " programs for further study ) is very effective for getting people with some mathematics knowledge to see why we 're so convinced that the brain is a computer .
Such a trivial looking problem , is this an algorithm ?
and yet so quickly it grows beyond our comprehension , asks questions so tricky we do n't even know how to figure out if we can answer them .
When you look at something like that and see yourself reflected back , can you argue with our assumption that it 's a mirror you 're looking into and not some unasked for entirely new class of thing ? Most of the affirmative comments to that blog post are disappointingly triumphalist .
" No computer will ever write a novel " and so on .
Triumphalist assertions about human uniqueness have been discredited time , after time , after time .
Does n't being wrong get old ?
Apparently not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a massive difference between "Don't try to understand your human experimental subjects as if they were desktop PCs" and "The brain is not a computer".IF the brain is not a computer, it should be able to do something we know a computer can't do.
No-one has demonstrated this.
Worse, most people who claim they /have/ demonstrated this show no clue whatsoever about what is or isn't possible with a computer, meaning they're engaged in crackpot science rather than being merely mistaken on some minor technical detail.I have found that a demonstration of the Busy Beaver (with a take away of one of the not yet eliminated 5 state "possible beaver" programs for further study) is very effective for getting people with some mathematics knowledge to see why we're so convinced that the brain is a computer.
Such a trivial looking problem, is this an algorithm?
and yet so quickly it grows beyond our comprehension, asks questions so tricky we don't even know how to figure out if we can answer them.
When you look at something like that and see yourself reflected back, can you argue with our assumption that it's a mirror you're looking into and not some unasked for entirely new class of thing?Most of the affirmative comments to that blog post are disappointingly triumphalist.
"No computer will ever write a novel" and so on.
Triumphalist assertions about human uniqueness have been discredited time, after time, after time.
Doesn't being wrong get old?
Apparently not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658767</id>
	<title>Re:I'm always taken back by this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247310180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we've developed a whole industry based on an incomplete model</p></div><p>Wait you mean this is the first time this happens? I thought schools were the first to do that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we 've developed a whole industry based on an incomplete modelWait you mean this is the first time this happens ?
I thought schools were the first to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we've developed a whole industry based on an incomplete modelWait you mean this is the first time this happens?
I thought schools were the first to do that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659897</id>
	<title>Re:Artificial intelligence?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247326620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until the tubes can pass the turing test, calling them AI is incorrect in my book, literally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until the tubes can pass the turing test , calling them AI is incorrect in my book , literally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until the tubes can pass the turing test, calling them AI is incorrect in my book, literally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658921</id>
	<title>Re:Oblig. wiki-link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247314080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A memristor<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/memrst/ ("memory resistor") is any of various kinds of passive two-terminal circuit elements that maintain a functional relationship between the time integrals of current and voltage.</p></div><p>That explains it. Thanks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A memristor /memrst/ ( " memory resistor " ) is any of various kinds of passive two-terminal circuit elements that maintain a functional relationship between the time integrals of current and voltage.That explains it .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A memristor /memrst/ ("memory resistor") is any of various kinds of passive two-terminal circuit elements that maintain a functional relationship between the time integrals of current and voltage.That explains it.
Thanks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659009</id>
	<title>whatever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247316540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the 1970's, the big breakthrough was supposedly tunnel diodes, a simpler and smaller circuit element than the transistor.  Do our gadgets now run on tunnel diodes?  Doesn't look like it to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the 1970 's , the big breakthrough was supposedly tunnel diodes , a simpler and smaller circuit element than the transistor .
Do our gadgets now run on tunnel diodes ?
Does n't look like it to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the 1970's, the big breakthrough was supposedly tunnel diodes, a simpler and smaller circuit element than the transistor.
Do our gadgets now run on tunnel diodes?
Doesn't look like it to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659077</id>
	<title>Re:Artificial intelligence?</title>
	<author>Paradigma11</author>
	<datestamp>1247317740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually we usually don't consider brains intelligent, we consider humans intelligent. As for needing a society to be intelligent, well you need all kinds of stuff to be able to show intelligent behaviour (air is a biggie). I do not think that considering ourselfs as distinct parts of reality as false. This problems only originate because of western philosophies use of language and set theory in this regard. An indian philosopher once said: All problems of western philosophy exists because you are able to say that "something is" without adding an attribute like blue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually we usually do n't consider brains intelligent , we consider humans intelligent .
As for needing a society to be intelligent , well you need all kinds of stuff to be able to show intelligent behaviour ( air is a biggie ) .
I do not think that considering ourselfs as distinct parts of reality as false .
This problems only originate because of western philosophies use of language and set theory in this regard .
An indian philosopher once said : All problems of western philosophy exists because you are able to say that " something is " without adding an attribute like blue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually we usually don't consider brains intelligent, we consider humans intelligent.
As for needing a society to be intelligent, well you need all kinds of stuff to be able to show intelligent behaviour (air is a biggie).
I do not think that considering ourselfs as distinct parts of reality as false.
This problems only originate because of western philosophies use of language and set theory in this regard.
An indian philosopher once said: All problems of western philosophy exists because you are able to say that "something is" without adding an attribute like blue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28665095</id>
	<title>Re:Artificial intelligence?</title>
	<author>gronofer</author>
	<datestamp>1247328960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't agree. Real progress can be made with one person obsessing over an idea. A committee would only serve to retard progress. The memresistor story is a perfect example.

The concept of "self" is probably just a consequence of holding a sufficiently detailed model of reality - one that must include the self.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't agree .
Real progress can be made with one person obsessing over an idea .
A committee would only serve to retard progress .
The memresistor story is a perfect example .
The concept of " self " is probably just a consequence of holding a sufficiently detailed model of reality - one that must include the self .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't agree.
Real progress can be made with one person obsessing over an idea.
A committee would only serve to retard progress.
The memresistor story is a perfect example.
The concept of "self" is probably just a consequence of holding a sufficiently detailed model of reality - one that must include the self.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28665655</id>
	<title>Re:The brain is not a computer.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247338680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>6 - No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind,</i> </p><p>Are you sure?  If knockout gas puts you down while you were working on a math problem in your head, could your process of waking up be a reboot?  I would suggest we have a small amount of RAM, lots and lots of unreliable flash memory, and soft-to-flexible-to-hardwired programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>6 - No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind , Are you sure ?
If knockout gas puts you down while you were working on a math problem in your head , could your process of waking up be a reboot ?
I would suggest we have a small amount of RAM , lots and lots of unreliable flash memory , and soft-to-flexible-to-hardwired programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>6 - No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind, Are you sure?
If knockout gas puts you down while you were working on a math problem in your head, could your process of waking up be a reboot?
I would suggest we have a small amount of RAM, lots and lots of unreliable flash memory, and soft-to-flexible-to-hardwired programs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659011</id>
	<title>Re:Artificial intelligence?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247316540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>None of us are able to live alone, work alone, think alone.</p></div><p>Did you come up with this because of your own ability to do so?<br>Because except for reproduction, we can easily survive our whole life alone.<br>Sure it will be boring. But it works.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The idea that computers can become intelligent independently and in parallel with this real global AI is insane, and it has always been.</p></div><p>Says who? You, because you need it to base your arguments on it? ^^<br>You will see it happening in your lifetime. Wait for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>None of us are able to live alone , work alone , think alone.Did you come up with this because of your own ability to do so ? Because except for reproduction , we can easily survive our whole life alone.Sure it will be boring .
But it works.The idea that computers can become intelligent independently and in parallel with this real global AI is insane , and it has always been.Says who ?
You , because you need it to base your arguments on it ?
^ ^ You will see it happening in your lifetime .
Wait for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of us are able to live alone, work alone, think alone.Did you come up with this because of your own ability to do so?Because except for reproduction, we can easily survive our whole life alone.Sure it will be boring.
But it works.The idea that computers can become intelligent independently and in parallel with this real global AI is insane, and it has always been.Says who?
You, because you need it to base your arguments on it?
^^You will see it happening in your lifetime.
Wait for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28665953</id>
	<title>Re:The brain is not a computer.</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1247431740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Difference #1: brains are analogue; <em>digital</em> computers are digital; analogue computers are analogue<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... um, what was his point again? Computers are no more digital than human beings are males. That is, some are and some aren't.</p><p>Difference # 10 "brain have bodies" - um, my body has a brain. My brain is a body <em>part</em>.</p><p>Could not be bothered reading the rest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Difference # 1 : brains are analogue ; digital computers are digital ; analogue computers are analogue ... um , what was his point again ?
Computers are no more digital than human beings are males .
That is , some are and some are n't.Difference # 10 " brain have bodies " - um , my body has a brain .
My brain is a body part.Could not be bothered reading the rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Difference #1: brains are analogue; digital computers are digital; analogue computers are analogue ... um, what was his point again?
Computers are no more digital than human beings are males.
That is, some are and some aren't.Difference # 10 "brain have bodies" - um, my body has a brain.
My brain is a body part.Could not be bothered reading the rest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658975</id>
	<title>Free transistors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247315760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Transistors are naturally analog, it's only that we force them to be digital. If we are prepared to accept more probabilistic outputs then there are massive gains to be had <a href="http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/02/08/rice.university.pcmos/" title="electronista.com">http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/02/08/rice.university.pcmos/</a> [electronista.com]. Work is being done with analog computing too.
<br> <br>
I think memristors will be complimentary to existing rather than a revolution on their own yet analog transistors would have George Boole flip-flopping between orientations in his grave.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Transistors are naturally analog , it 's only that we force them to be digital .
If we are prepared to accept more probabilistic outputs then there are massive gains to be had http : //www.electronista.com/articles/09/02/08/rice.university.pcmos/ [ electronista.com ] .
Work is being done with analog computing too .
I think memristors will be complimentary to existing rather than a revolution on their own yet analog transistors would have George Boole flip-flopping between orientations in his grave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Transistors are naturally analog, it's only that we force them to be digital.
If we are prepared to accept more probabilistic outputs then there are massive gains to be had http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/02/08/rice.university.pcmos/ [electronista.com].
Work is being done with analog computing too.
I think memristors will be complimentary to existing rather than a revolution on their own yet analog transistors would have George Boole flip-flopping between orientations in his grave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658731</id>
	<title>Electrical Memristors Don't Exist Yet</title>
	<author>indigest</author>
	<datestamp>1247309520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article:<p><div class="quote"><p>What was happening was this: in its pure state of repeating units of one titanium and two oxygen atoms, titanium dioxide is a semiconductor. Heat the material, though, and some of the oxygen is driven out of the structure, leaving electrically charged bubbles that make the material behave like a metal.</p></div><p>
The memristor they've created depends on the movement of oxygen atoms to produce the memristor-like electrical behavior.  Purely electrical components such as resistors, capacitors, inductors, and transistors only rely on the movement of electrons and holes to produce their electrical behavior.  Why is this important?  The chemical memristor is an order of magnitude slower than the theoretical electrical equivalent, which no one has been able to invent yet.
<br> <br>
I think the memristor they've created is a great piece of technology and will certainly prove useful.  However, it is like calling a rechargeable chemical battery a capacitor.  While both are useful things, only one is fast enough for high speed electronics design for applications like the RAM they mentioned.  On the other hand, a chemical memristor could be a flash memory killer if they can get the cost down (which I doubt to happen any time soon).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : What was happening was this : in its pure state of repeating units of one titanium and two oxygen atoms , titanium dioxide is a semiconductor .
Heat the material , though , and some of the oxygen is driven out of the structure , leaving electrically charged bubbles that make the material behave like a metal .
The memristor they 've created depends on the movement of oxygen atoms to produce the memristor-like electrical behavior .
Purely electrical components such as resistors , capacitors , inductors , and transistors only rely on the movement of electrons and holes to produce their electrical behavior .
Why is this important ?
The chemical memristor is an order of magnitude slower than the theoretical electrical equivalent , which no one has been able to invent yet .
I think the memristor they 've created is a great piece of technology and will certainly prove useful .
However , it is like calling a rechargeable chemical battery a capacitor .
While both are useful things , only one is fast enough for high speed electronics design for applications like the RAM they mentioned .
On the other hand , a chemical memristor could be a flash memory killer if they can get the cost down ( which I doubt to happen any time soon ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:What was happening was this: in its pure state of repeating units of one titanium and two oxygen atoms, titanium dioxide is a semiconductor.
Heat the material, though, and some of the oxygen is driven out of the structure, leaving electrically charged bubbles that make the material behave like a metal.
The memristor they've created depends on the movement of oxygen atoms to produce the memristor-like electrical behavior.
Purely electrical components such as resistors, capacitors, inductors, and transistors only rely on the movement of electrons and holes to produce their electrical behavior.
Why is this important?
The chemical memristor is an order of magnitude slower than the theoretical electrical equivalent, which no one has been able to invent yet.
I think the memristor they've created is a great piece of technology and will certainly prove useful.
However, it is like calling a rechargeable chemical battery a capacitor.
While both are useful things, only one is fast enough for high speed electronics design for applications like the RAM they mentioned.
On the other hand, a chemical memristor could be a flash memory killer if they can get the cost down (which I doubt to happen any time soon).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903</id>
	<title>Artificial intelligence?</title>
	<author>pieterh</author>
	<datestamp>1247313600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The amazing thing is that we consider individual brains to be "intelligent" when it seems pretty clear we're only intelligent as part of a social network.  None of us are able to live alone, work alone, think alone.  The concept of "self" is largely a deceit designed to make us more competitive, but it does not reflect reality.</p><p>So how on earth can a computer be "intelligent" until it can take part in human society, with the same motivations and incentives: collect power, knowledge, information, friends, armies, territories, children...</p><p>Artificial intelligence already exists and it's called the Internet: it's a technology that amplifies our existing collective intelligence, by letting us connect to more people, faster, cheaper, than ever before.</p><p>The idea that computers can become intelligent independently and in parallel with this real global AI is insane, and it has always been.  Computers are already part of our AI.</p><p>Actually, the telegraph was already a global AI tool.</p><p>But, whatever, boys with toys...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amazing thing is that we consider individual brains to be " intelligent " when it seems pretty clear we 're only intelligent as part of a social network .
None of us are able to live alone , work alone , think alone .
The concept of " self " is largely a deceit designed to make us more competitive , but it does not reflect reality.So how on earth can a computer be " intelligent " until it can take part in human society , with the same motivations and incentives : collect power , knowledge , information , friends , armies , territories , children...Artificial intelligence already exists and it 's called the Internet : it 's a technology that amplifies our existing collective intelligence , by letting us connect to more people , faster , cheaper , than ever before.The idea that computers can become intelligent independently and in parallel with this real global AI is insane , and it has always been .
Computers are already part of our AI.Actually , the telegraph was already a global AI tool.But , whatever , boys with toys.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amazing thing is that we consider individual brains to be "intelligent" when it seems pretty clear we're only intelligent as part of a social network.
None of us are able to live alone, work alone, think alone.
The concept of "self" is largely a deceit designed to make us more competitive, but it does not reflect reality.So how on earth can a computer be "intelligent" until it can take part in human society, with the same motivations and incentives: collect power, knowledge, information, friends, armies, territories, children...Artificial intelligence already exists and it's called the Internet: it's a technology that amplifies our existing collective intelligence, by letting us connect to more people, faster, cheaper, than ever before.The idea that computers can become intelligent independently and in parallel with this real global AI is insane, and it has always been.
Computers are already part of our AI.Actually, the telegraph was already a global AI tool.But, whatever, boys with toys...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658787</id>
	<title>Tha's goint to be the NEXT BIG THING</title>
	<author>12357bd</author>
	<datestamp>1247310660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in the computer world.</p><p>The question is: will be see the result in our lives?</p><p>I really wish so, but the succes has stalled computer innovation. Thirty years ago we expected to be able to talk to our machines, now those advances can make it finally possible. Will the industry and economics be able to adapt to make it possible in our life time frames?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in the computer world.The question is : will be see the result in our lives ? I really wish so , but the succes has stalled computer innovation .
Thirty years ago we expected to be able to talk to our machines , now those advances can make it finally possible .
Will the industry and economics be able to adapt to make it possible in our life time frames ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the computer world.The question is: will be see the result in our lives?I really wish so, but the succes has stalled computer innovation.
Thirty years ago we expected to be able to talk to our machines, now those advances can make it finally possible.
Will the industry and economics be able to adapt to make it possible in our life time frames?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658983</id>
	<title>Re:Why not renaming it to memistor?</title>
	<author>svunt</author>
	<datestamp>1247315880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Putting "mr" in a word can lead to pronunciation difficulties, just google for words containing "mr" then exclude all abbreviations of mister to find how rarely the sequence it's used. Renaming it to "memistor" would help greatly. Also, the wikipedia page for memristor already contains a reference to memistor.</p></div><p>The 'm' and 'r' are in different syllables, so it's really not an issue.  I assume you can handle 'Tim Robbins' so you can handle 'memristor'</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting " mr " in a word can lead to pronunciation difficulties , just google for words containing " mr " then exclude all abbreviations of mister to find how rarely the sequence it 's used .
Renaming it to " memistor " would help greatly .
Also , the wikipedia page for memristor already contains a reference to memistor.The 'm ' and 'r ' are in different syllables , so it 's really not an issue .
I assume you can handle 'Tim Robbins ' so you can handle 'memristor '</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting "mr" in a word can lead to pronunciation difficulties, just google for words containing "mr" then exclude all abbreviations of mister to find how rarely the sequence it's used.
Renaming it to "memistor" would help greatly.
Also, the wikipedia page for memristor already contains a reference to memistor.The 'm' and 'r' are in different syllables, so it's really not an issue.
I assume you can handle 'Tim Robbins' so you can handle 'memristor'
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659155</id>
	<title>Re:Artificial intelligence?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247318760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your mom called.  She wants her bong back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your mom called .
She wants her bong back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your mom called.
She wants her bong back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658763</id>
	<title>Why not renaming it to memistor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247310180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Putting "mr" in a word can lead to pronunciation difficulties, just google for words containing "mr" then exclude all abbreviations of mister to find how rarely the sequence it's used. Renaming it to "memistor" would help greatly. Also, the wikipedia page for memristor already contains a reference to memistor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting " mr " in a word can lead to pronunciation difficulties , just google for words containing " mr " then exclude all abbreviations of mister to find how rarely the sequence it 's used .
Renaming it to " memistor " would help greatly .
Also , the wikipedia page for memristor already contains a reference to memistor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting "mr" in a word can lead to pronunciation difficulties, just google for words containing "mr" then exclude all abbreviations of mister to find how rarely the sequence it's used.
Renaming it to "memistor" would help greatly.
Also, the wikipedia page for memristor already contains a reference to memistor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659033</id>
	<title>Re:Artificial intelligence?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247316960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The amazing thing is that we consider individual brains to be "intelligent"</p></div><p>No it's not.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...when it seems pretty clear we're only intelligent as part of a social network.</p></div><p>If you take someone's social network away and they're dumb, then I'd suggest they were dumb in the first place.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The concept of "self" is largely a deceit designed to make us more competitive, but it does not reflect reality.</p></div><p> <em>I'm</em> actually making this post. Really.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Artificial intelligence already exists and it's called the Internet</p></div><p>No it's not. The internet is called the Internet.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>it's a technology that amplifies our existing collective intelligence</p></div><p>Er... what? You copy that from a magazine cover?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The idea that computers can become intelligent independently and in parallel with this real global AI is insane, and it has always been.</p></div><p>What if they were attached to another identitical internet? That would imply that "your" idea is insane too.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But, whatever, boys with toys...</p></div><p>I'm not sure what you mean. Your vagina got in the way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The amazing thing is that we consider individual brains to be " intelligent " No it 's not .
...when it seems pretty clear we 're only intelligent as part of a social network.If you take someone 's social network away and they 're dumb , then I 'd suggest they were dumb in the first place.The concept of " self " is largely a deceit designed to make us more competitive , but it does not reflect reality .
I 'm actually making this post .
Really.Artificial intelligence already exists and it 's called the InternetNo it 's not .
The internet is called the Internet.it 's a technology that amplifies our existing collective intelligenceEr... what ? You copy that from a magazine cover ? The idea that computers can become intelligent independently and in parallel with this real global AI is insane , and it has always been.What if they were attached to another identitical internet ?
That would imply that " your " idea is insane too.But , whatever , boys with toys...I 'm not sure what you mean .
Your vagina got in the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amazing thing is that we consider individual brains to be "intelligent"No it's not.
...when it seems pretty clear we're only intelligent as part of a social network.If you take someone's social network away and they're dumb, then I'd suggest they were dumb in the first place.The concept of "self" is largely a deceit designed to make us more competitive, but it does not reflect reality.
I'm actually making this post.
Really.Artificial intelligence already exists and it's called the InternetNo it's not.
The internet is called the Internet.it's a technology that amplifies our existing collective intelligenceEr... what? You copy that from a magazine cover?The idea that computers can become intelligent independently and in parallel with this real global AI is insane, and it has always been.What if they were attached to another identitical internet?
That would imply that "your" idea is insane too.But, whatever, boys with toys...I'm not sure what you mean.
Your vagina got in the way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658997</id>
	<title>Re:Electrical Memristors Don't Exist Yet</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247316360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about an optical memristor?</p><p>Why focus on hopefully soon outdated technology.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about an optical memristor ? Why focus on hopefully soon outdated technology .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about an optical memristor?Why focus on hopefully soon outdated technology.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660705</id>
	<title>Re:Oblig</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247331960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Soviet Russia, intelligence fakes YOU!</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia , intelligence fakes YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia, intelligence fakes YOU!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658641</id>
	<title>Oblig</title>
	<author>Smivs</author>
	<datestamp>1247308080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, welcome our artificially intelligent overlords!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome our artificially intelligent overlords !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome our artificially intelligent overlords!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28662381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28665655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28663497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28665095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28666311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28661979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28665953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28667001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28666815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_0114226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_0114226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660705
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_0114226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658921
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_0114226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_0114226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659129
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28667001
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_0114226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659029
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_0114226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659227
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28663497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_0114226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_0114226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_0114226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28666311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28665655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28665953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28662381
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_0114226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658767
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28661979
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_0114226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28660593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28666815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28665095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28659897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_0114226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_0114226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_0114226.28658879
</commentlist>
</conversation>
