Battleship to regain dominance in sea warfare ?

Good points. I will ponder them...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Electric Fetus:

Human minds and computers are both turing machines in some regard. Turing machines are computationally equivalent. Computers won't be able to do shit to help us, in other words, as they can only do things more powerfully, not innovatively. Furthermore, innovation and computers do not go hand in ahnd whatsoever. Computers are not creative intelligences, or intelligences at all. They are computational. This is where we are actually different and superior.

They will certainly have money (exchange), religion (belief if they are alive), and hate (it is useful), and they will need energy, and they will not be "immortal" and time will be relevant. Moreover, manufacturing needs resources.

Also, you seem to think that AI is a possibility. The hard problem of consciousness refutes this.

Transhumanism is, quite bluntly, a joke. AI., "technological singularity" (an absurd and meaningless term), transhumanism, et cetera, are not honest projections. And science fiction did not predict most of thet hings you referenced.

Also, I am an Orange Catholic. "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of man's mind". Rather Mentats than computers.

Biological life is infinitely superior to "technological intelligences" (a contradiction of terms).

WE always will.

Your three scenarios are flawed. We will not upgrade. We will not coexist. And we won't go extinct. We will make glorious war on eachother forever and ever, driving us to new greatness through struggle and combat.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Countezero:

Tell me what you think.

I made somewhat of a joke posting an image of a Super Star Destroyer. But the idea of a battleship/carrier hybrid, especially with modern technology that addresses the reasons why the battlehsip was decommissioned, makes perfect sense in the next big war. But right now, war is for the ground forces. The Navy is basically the taxi cab for the Marines so long as Islamic terrorism is the main threat.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You assume the we can't improve the are amplitude in innovation. For example evolutionary programs have already designed technology superior to that that humans could come up with. By the way I never said computer we intelligence, we may require analog neural nets rather then digital number crunchers to bet human thought. Superiority depends on the criteria, think about that the next time you need a calculator, relies that that tiny chunk of silicon can do something you can thousands of time faster, sure there are many things the calculator can't do, but as technology advances those things get less and less.

Nope, when they exchange they demand nothing, they will have not wants or desires that they can't simply reprogram out if they can't achieve them or if they cause conflicts. Their beliefs will be agnostics at best. Hate has no use for non-animals, if they need too they will wipe out the the old homo sapiens, but they will feel no hate in doing it, it will simply be a calculated decision based purely on logic. Their needs in energy and manufacturing will be a millionth ours, they will think as one and as many, any conflicting goals will lead to a singular and universally agreed compromise in milliseconds. They will live as long as the universe does, that pretty close to immortal.

If AI is not possible then the human conscience is not either. Assuming "computers" will forever be unintelligent is as foolish as assuming man will never achieve powered flight! The human brain functions and is a function of physical laws, therefor all of its components and the whole can be understood within this universe (unless you want to argue for a supernatural soul) even if we can't emulate it en silico we could just grow a human brain (can't beat'em join'em solution) and then improve its design or augment it.

Nope Sci-Spec predicted all of those things, Sci-fi didn't (well actually most sci-spec ends up in sci-fi). Also blatantly disregarding things is not a valid argument.

then that your prerogative, mine is to do exactly the opposite.

Infinite, how so?

And your reasoning is?

I think this is all a subject for a different thread.

 

Electricfetus:

They have not created anything "better than a human could come up with". Again: Turing Machine equivalence. Furthermore, I'd haev you reference what they have "achieved so well". That and human creative intelligence trumps that.

Analog neural nets? Unlikely to work. As again, it assumes the hard problem of consciousness is solvable, where all indications show that it is not.

Calculation is easier with computers, but it isn't needed as we have mathematical skills of our own. In fact, as Idiot Savants and "human calculators" prove, we match digital computing skills in calculation given appropriate time. We will thus have Mentat-equivalents one day that can match our computers pound for pound.

They exchange and demand nothing? Then the system will collapse.

Without desire there is no action and "reprogramming" will not stop the need for desires.

Their beliefs are very likely to be "Cylonesque" if they do develop religion.

Hate is indeed useful even for "machines" or other lifeforms. To hate what is bad induces doing what is good.

Machines use far more energy than us to begin with. Therefore, your position that they'll have a "millionth less needs" is ridiculous. They'll have a million more!

Compromise will be not be attained and they will not have a "hive mind". Individuality has dramatic reasons to continue and disagreements will force the hand of these beings.

They would fail far sooner than the universe and far sooner than life.

We know we are conscious and our consciousness depends upon a non-physical resolution of the hard problem of consciousness. As such, computers will never attain consciousness so long as this is the right answer. Your position that the human brain works under "physical laws" is unfounded as of yet, whereas the dualist option recognizes the fact that there are features of consciousness that have no place whatsoever in a physicalist paradigm.

Not really, no. Speculative fiction had some notable guesses (Vernes was notable) but often missed things completely. In fact, the exception is that it gets something right.

The ability to evolve and to be conscious.

Upgrading = extinction.
Coexistence = decadence.
Extinction = irrational and anti-productive (MAD prevents it and technology prevents pretty much everything else).

Struggle and striving will sustain any species by constantly reintroducing pressures to innovate, to become better, to become more. War is a great struggle and serves as one of the best means of instituting innovation.

Agreed.

 

Torpedos encased in an air bubble may have the capability of 200-300 miles per hour under water. Still in the research phase. The US Navy have a number of new ships coming out with stealth capability. Yes, this includes new battleships with advace weaponary that will include lasers. But with their capability of throwing out a wall of lead, lasers may not make much sense. Their new Metal Rain fires a million rounds per minute, hard to get through. Even the new miniguns placed on helicopters fire around 3 thousand rounds per minute, imagine 20 of those guns firing outbound on a ship towards a missle or plane.

 

Sorry to disagree with you, it hasn't happened yet, and the time frame that you propose will never come to be.

In war, innovation, and technology advances go into hyperdrive.
War is where the innovation is given free reign.

Look at WWII, we started with piston powered aircraft in the 250 mph. and ended up with Jets, 500mph+ aircraft, and the capability to develope supersonic aircraft, it was thought at the begining of the war that nothing cound go faster than the speed of sound.

World War II. Hans Guido Mutke

9 April 1945 in a Messerschmitt Me 262.

Confermed after the war by flight testing by the U.S. Military.

 

Buffalo Roam:

I agree there will be refinement. Bigger and better. But we're fast approaching the time where quantum leaps in innovation are going to return back to a century timespan. We're reaching the theoretical limit for an expansive point of technological innovation.

 

Not even, it was once said that,

 

Buffalo Roam:

Progress is not eternal and human history repudiates infinitely long periods of technological growth.

 

Human history is replete with technological advances, from the time we first walked the planet, till today.

 

Reduced cost and the ability to sustain bombardment are the main reasons I've seen cited for why the USN/USMC is pushing for the Zumwalt to carry the vertical gun system.

I think the emphasis for how important those two attributes are has been lost on the majority, as it is easy to get myopic and think the only enemies we'll ever fight until the zombie apocalypse will be ragtag terrorists, where such attributes are all but worthless. But when the next symmetrical enemy shows itself we'll be glad to have a cheap, sustainable, deep-strike NSFS platform in the arsenal.

 

Buffalo Roam:

SEparated by long lulls in human innovation. A situation which bears repeating soon.

 

Echo3Romeo:

Precisely.

In a war with CHina, or the Russian federation, or any other true roughly parity-level enemy, we will need battleships of a modern standard to force the campaign in our favour.

 

Only in retaliative terms.

Humans have been on a steady advancement since the beginning of time, there have been spurts of technological advancement, but those technological advancements have never stopped, and the rate of advancement has never slowed down, the more we know the faster we advance, knowledge doesn't slow down, it never has, and never will, it is self propagating, and at exponential rates,

The more we know, the faster we advance, the faster we advance, the more we know.

 

Buffalo Roam:

Incorrect. There have been many times when knowledge and innovation have slowed or even regressed. Moreover, there is only a limited amount of things we can do. After a certain point, we'll have "done what can be done" and thereafter progress on a century timebase.

 

Mmm, meat . . .

But we don't have a copy of the mentat handbook.

The latest chess computers are unbeatable even by human grandmasters.

 

Zephyr:

We'll write one.

Only in time restraints.

As chess is a formal system, a Turing Machine can emulate it. The human mind can function as a turing machine and all computers are turing machines. All turing machines are equally powerful given time. Ergo, a chess computer can never get more than 50 percent certainty over two games of alternating black and white with a human being.

 

Yes, but time is important. Your PC may have the same theoretical capabilities as ENIAC, but I'm fairly sure you prefer your PC.

A problem that you can't solve before the heat death of the universe is intractable - practically unsolvable. Many NP Complete problems seem to fall in that category for reasonably sized inputs.

Even a few decades, much shorter than the lifespan of the universe, may be too long for a human to wait.

 

Zephyr:

Of course.

That being said, humans show remarkably high rates of calculation in certain situations. Idiot Savants reach absurdly high levels of calculation speed.

One also has to consider that human beings are constantly processing more information than an average computer could hope to do so currently, with less heat, less problems, et cetera, constantly. Trillions of nerve endings being processed every millisecond. Outstanding power.