Given how unfathomably large [1][2] our universe is, there is life out there.<p>We can't be so special, that in all of the universe, we're the only living organisms.<p>[1] <a href="http://content.ytmnd.com/content/c/1/4/c14120ab010cd708c758f95499a2a468.gif" rel="nofollow">http://content.ytmnd.com/content/c/1/4/c14120ab010cd708c758f...</a><p>[2] compare <a href="http://screenshots.markbao.com/660e999564918601acab7157bbac84cd.png" rel="nofollow">http://screenshots.markbao.com/660e999564918601acab7157bbac8...</a> and <a href="http://screenshots.markbao.com/f0698e51086874626454f576b3f992c1.png" rel="nofollow">http://screenshots.markbao.com/f0698e51086874626454f576b3f99...</a>
"It is by logic we prove, it is by intuition that we invent." - Henri Poincaré
<a href="http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Poincare.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Poincare.html</a>
That unwavering respect for individual liberty and personal sovereignty is superior to all other systems by which man can relate to man.<p>That no end can be moral if the means to that end require using violence and force against a peaceful individual who has not aggressed against his neighbor.<p>That a free society is a strong and secure society.<p>That only freedom can breed sustained innovation and growth.
<a href="http://www.simulation-argument.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.simulation-argument.com/</a><p>Though my understanding of the simulation I am living in is rather different than what Bostrom posits.
Human intelligence and free will is largely the result quantum interactions that are more complex than most anyone suspects. True artificial intelligence will never be possible on transistor-based computers regardless of Moore's law or software advances.
I was actually thinking about this question an hour or so ago, in the shower. I believe this is pure coincidence.<p>I also believe that, given a certain amount of liberty, motivation is the most important single factor in determining the success of an individual. This depends on the definition of success, but is reasonably robust. In particular, it covers wealth and happiness (commonly used to judge other people's success and our own, respectively).
Too many! But I like the second one's (STANISLAS DEHAENE) idea that <i>we can mobilize our old areas [of the brain] in novel ways.</i><p>I think so too. It reminds me of a study that showed that when we use tools (eg drive a car), we use the same brain areas as when we move are bodies. We literally use tools <i>as</i> an extension of the body. That's deep sensory and motor flexibility, that seemingly could exist without intelligence.
I don't really <i>believe</i> anything I can't prove (in the philosophical sense; I believe reasonable things that I haven't personally verified, like for example that the moon is not made of cheese.).<p>But there are things I'd like to believe but don't know how to "prove"/justify:<p>-That we have free will (in the sense that requires that the universe is nondeterministic).<p>-That some things are absolutely morally wrong.
That the universe consists of matter, albeit strangely behaving matter, and that everything we see in the universe, no matter how wonderful, can be ultimately reduced to the interactions of this matter.
Computational AI will never get anywhere close to true Intelligence, but Neural Networks might get close.<p>Even better would be a hardware _and_ software approach, not a brute forcing approach.
1. Living with a positive attitude attracts positive events and outcomes in your life.<p>2. I can do anything I put my mind to ; unproven till I have done everything :)