If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
More likely the communist Chinese government is using genetic engineering and cloning to create a line of super-grandmasters.
edit: Not saying that's a bad thing. LOL
That opens up a very interesting possibility. Let's say China or Japan creates a robot that looks very human and that is claimed to be sentient and self-aware. It can sit at a chessboard and play chess, moving the pieces and writing down moves and pressing the clock. Let's say this robot has the hardware to run the AlphaZero chess engine.
This robot would then be eligible to join FIDE and enter human tournaments?
If yes, then this robot would very quickly obliterate all human opponents and ascend to the World Champion status. And that would likely mark the end of professional chess, unless there is a "Human World Chess Champion" title to play for.
The neuronal network of our brains, and AI, cannot 'visualize' the car windshield (only our consciousness can), but do know that hitting our head against it could actually kill us, given the 'information' they have access to, and that information currently likely includes both being particulate in nature. The reality though is that even though both the windshield and our head are configurations of electron and quark waves, banging one against the other will still change the configuration of the waves of the energies involved.... this is not something that cannot be understood by the neural networks or AI (to reach the conclusion of not wanting to bang our head against the windshield), but because of most current scientific literature calling it particles, they reach the correct conclusions even while relying on 'misinformation'. The point is that the distortion created by our consciousness is not necessary for us to survive better.
The neuronal network of our brains, and AI, cannot 'visualize' the car windshield (only our consciousness can), but do know that hitting our head against it could actually kill us, given the 'information' they have access to, and that information currently likely includes both being particulate in nature. The reality though is that even though both the windshield and our head are configurations of electron and quark waves, banging one against the other will still change the configuration of the waves of the energies involved.... this is not something that cannot be understood by the neural networks or AI (to reach the conclusion of not wanting to bang our head against the windshield), but because of most current scientific literature calling it particles, they reach the correct conclusions even while relying on 'misinformation'. The point is that the distortion created by our consciousness is not necessary for us to survive better.
I had to read this several times to get the gist of it....
You seem to be saying that our consciousness uses "misinformation" about particulate nature of objects in our physical universe to allow us to learn the proper behaviour to survive (don't hit your head against hard objects). But then you add that the "real" wave nature of physical objects (if our consciousness could only skip over and ignore the misinformation on particulate nature) would give our consciousness the same conclusions. And thus we would survive just as well.
Ok, you can believe that if you must. I consider it a far-fetched notion, maybe possible but massively unlikely.
I was trying to think of an analogy .... here's one:
The world is really grayscale only, and if our consciousness could only ignore the properties of color that it puts into our brains, we would survive just as well as we would by accepting the colors we seem to observe. Therefore you would believe there are no actual colors. And your reason for not believing in colors is because you don't want to believe that there could be a creator who would bless us with the ability to see the world in color, and instead there is no creator and the "pleasure" we get from color is not a gift from a creator, but is an illusion ("misinformation").
(In case it's not clear, the reason I have summarized your hypothetical "not believing in color" the way I did is because of your reactions to Brad's post # 32 "The astounding order of the universe leads me to conclude the existence of intelligent design rather than blind natural laws.").
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Friday, 2nd June, 2023, 02:13 AM.
I'm really not clear what point(s) you are trying to make. You say there are no particles, only energy, and that conclusions about particles (such as the hardness of a car windshield) are drawn by our brains' neuronal framework, implying that our brains are incorrect. Then what are we to conclude about the fact that hitting our head against a car windshield hard enough will actually kill us?
The neuronal network of our brains, and AI, cannot 'visualize' the car windshield (only our consciousness can), but do know that hitting our head against it could actually kill us, given the 'information' they have access to, and that information currently likely includes both being particulate in nature. The reality though is that even though both the windshield and our head are configurations of electron and quark waves, banging one against the other will still change the configuration of the waves of the energies involved.... this is not something that cannot be understood by the neural networks or AI (to reach the conclusion of not wanting to bang our head against the windshield), but because of most current scientific literature calling it particles, they reach the correct conclusions even while relying on 'misinformation'. The point is that the distortion created by our consciousness is not necessary for us to survive better.
AI, apparently devoid of consciousness, would also lead to exactly the same conclusions.
Yet all the predictions are that AI will NOT be devoid of consciousness!
I'm really not clear what point(s) you are trying to make. You say there are no particles, only energy, and that conclusions about particles (such as the hardness of a car windshield) are drawn by our brains' neuronal framework, implying that our brains are incorrect. Then what are we to conclude about the fact that hitting our head against a car windshield hard enough will actually kill us?
And you also believe that this One Mind is not loving and all-benevolent, but far from it, given all what happens in the Universe? (just curious, given what I think you have written in the past...)
Yes, Nature is brutal and savage, this is obvious. The Problem of Evil refutes the possibility of a loving, merciful God. But I do think that Nature will be erotic to us to the extent that we are loving to each other, to the animals and to Nature Her/Himself. We have the power to take Nature by the hand, to speak metaphorically, and teach/guide Her/Him to become a loving God. This is why we exist. There are no guarantees like religions mistakenly suggest. This is the terrible danger of religion, it makes people think God will save us if we follow certain rules. Therefore religious people do not think the onus is on us and do nothing. Religion is the worst thing that has ever happened to mankind, it can only lead to our destruction, never to salvation.
I do not believe that Time can theoretically be traced backwards forever, I believe that it had a beginning, and that it could come to an end. I believe that what 'big banged' into existence was One mind, and that this has happened once, inexplicably.
And you also believe that this One Mind is not loving and all-benevolent, but far from it, given all what happens in the Universe? (just curious, given what I think you have written in the past...)
If there is any evolution (which involves reproduction) in these, then it must involve non-genetic mutations, of course...
The physical world has been going through the cycles of big bangs and dark holes for ever; and if you postulate an Intelligent Designer for creating these cycles, the obvious question arises: who designed the Intelligent Designer?, and if you say that no one needs to have designed Intelligent Designer, then why not say that for the physical world itself?
I do not believe that Time can theoretically be traced backwards forever, I believe that it had a beginning, and that it could come to an end. I believe that what 'big banged' into existence was One mind, and that this has happened once, inexplicably.
Hey Bob A., What Brad says should relieve your anxiety: Climate change is a thought of Nature, and humans, just another thought, cannot change that thought...
(just kidding, but nevertheless, your anxiety is not justified...)
You remind me of Pargat, except a little less ... blatant.
I did take a stab at one of Chopra's books in the late 20th. The only useful thing I learned was that that first cup of coffee in the morning lubricates the bowels, so you better have a plan for the next half hour so, especially if you are a street person. Chopra recommends having your big meal in the early afternoon, so that you can take a dump before you go to bed, instead of in the morning.
p.s. Are we talking about #1 or #2? i can never remember which is which.
What genetic mutation lead to the sun, the moon, the earth and the entire order of the non-living cosmos?
If there is any evolution (which involves reproduction) in these, then it must involve non-genetic mutations, of course...
The physical world has been going through the cycles of big bangs and dark holes for ever; and if you postulate an Intelligent Designer for creating these cycles, the obvious question arises: who designed the Intelligent Designer?, and if you say that no one needs to have designed Intelligent Designer, then why not say that for the physical world itself?
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Tuesday, 30th May, 2023, 09:14 AM.
Is our consciousness only epiphenomenal, something that falls off of the end of the causal chain into nothing without the capacity to kick back into the chain?
Leave a comment: