Yes, and my response to what Mickey said was that why would we think that we're in the cave looking at shadows? Why should I complicate my view of the world with the added baggage of metaphysical idealism when materialism works just fine to explain everything I see? Sure our perception of the world is limited to our senses and measurement techniques, but the scientific framework we've built onto that base appears very consistent and functional with its predictive power. It's definitely not omniscience, but it works.
I only brought up the Cogito argument to point out that Mickey is incorrect in saying that no certain knowledge exists.
An interesting take, but surely there would still have to be some substrate to facilitate the thinking (a thinker)? A brain in a jar might not be what you think of yourself, but whatever is thinking the thoughts which you consider your own, definitely has to exist.
Occam's razor defeats Plato's cave. There's no reason to think that the world we experience would be just metaphysical shadows on the wall. The burden of proof is on Mickey's shoulders.
Oh yeah and Cogito Ergo Sum. So there is one bit of definitely provable knowledge.
To be fair, the sloppier side of AI has a much more direct effect on society than niche scientific and engineering applications, but I get what you're after.
Data analysis and forecasting chaotic systems too complex for brute force numerical hijinks are great applications for neural networks. One dude I saw was doing his PhD on nowcasting (weather forecasts of the very short term (10 to 90 min. range) showers and thunderstorms with neural networks. Interesting stuff.
Nice clouds! Cumulus humilis, mediocris down low, some Stratocumulus stratiformis above that with (Sc or Ac, hard to tell from just this) lenticularis above it, and finally a layer of Altocumulus stratiformis up above.
The lander most probably made it down in one piece. It was designed to survive an atmospheric entry on Venus and from interplanetary speeds. It almost certainly survived a reentry into Earth from a low orbit. That being said, it probably shattered in the splashdown due to the parachute not deploying.
The longetivity of a contrail is determined by the atmospheric conditions. In sufficiently dry air no contrail is formed as the water introduced by the combustion isn't enough to raise the frost point to the ambient temperature. More humidity means that the contrail may form and even persist for a while without sublimating away (Cirrus homogenitus). If the air is even more humid, the contrail may even start to grow and change shape (turning into Cirrus homomutatus). This last case is what I suspect gets the foil hats most riled up about "chemtrails".
I will convolute this conversation further by stating that contrails (like all other clouds consisting of ice crystals) warm up the planet by letting shortwave radiation from the Sun through while being more reflective in longer infrared wavelenghts, thus trapping outgoing longwave radiation. Contrails themselves are also warming the planet up. It's a small contribution in the grand scheme, but far from a trivial one.
Yes, and my response to what Mickey said was that why would we think that we're in the cave looking at shadows? Why should I complicate my view of the world with the added baggage of metaphysical idealism when materialism works just fine to explain everything I see? Sure our perception of the world is limited to our senses and measurement techniques, but the scientific framework we've built onto that base appears very consistent and functional with its predictive power. It's definitely not omniscience, but it works.
I only brought up the Cogito argument to point out that Mickey is incorrect in saying that no certain knowledge exists.