Hole to whole coppertop/energy theory

Everyone knows that the law of thermodynamics kills the practicality of using humans as energy sources.

My point to this thread is that the movie states it was the energy of humans, coupled with a form of FUSION that gave them all the energy they could need.

well, if you had the fusion going on, why would you really need the humans to create energy anymore? :)

This break in logic assumes that the AI only uses humans for the energy. If they get additional benefits like use of the creative pool of humans thinking for them, that may make the deal worth it to them.

What's your take?
-WC-

Good point Eric. The only reason I see to keep the humans
alive is to learn something from them. Other than that, I
don't see why the machines would keep them alive.

I was thinking about this a while back. What if someone
who lives in the Matrix invented AI? What would that do?

AI living inside another AI, pretty weird stuff, ehh?

Luc L.

lol AI within AI...that would be cool! But they'd probably restart the program if it got to that point...but anyway about the whole battery thing...
I think that if we got enough technology to create AIs, then we'd definetly have the capability to work out the fusion energy source. And, the law could be wrong, I mean years ago we believed everything was composed of only 4 elements (Fire, Water, Earth, Wind), so God knows how wrong our science could be now...
It always made sense to me, but I don't know that much about fusion technology so I can't really explain it...

Well, the law of thermodynamics says you can only get so much energy out of something that was put into it.

So, if AI is using our energy that we make in our pods - the law says that even at 100% efficiency that we would make only as much energy as whatever we were fed. But of course no reaction is 100% efficient.

Which is what led me to my other position. You know how they say we only use 7-10% of our brain? What if the matrix somehow uses that other 93% to help with the processing of Matrix duties? :)

Then, the AI is getting more out of us than just energy. then we are also a huge distributed super computer, donating our processing power to the powers that be.

-WC-

that's another thing I was thinking about Eric.

I'm sure that if you were to combine the processing power
of some 6 billion humans you could create quite a super
computer. Our brains work faster than any machine ever
created, so this would give the AI algorithm all the
processing power it would ever need.

hmm...

Luc, you think they wired human brains to use TCP/IP protocol? :)

Theoretically, if one only uses a max 15% of their brain, that leaves room for another 6 or so personalities/personas.

Who knows, this is all theoretical crazy talk. :)

-WC-

Since physics has been mentioned, here are some of my thoughts.

Given that we use a small portion of our brain, and given that physics itself is a science based on observation, then how can we presume that what we think we know to be true really is true? The Matrix demonstrates this concept. I'll elaborate...

When was the last time we observed a molecule without using a device that augments the environment for us to think we are perceiving it? Without going into technical mumbo-jumbo, one concept in physics describes that the mere action of observing actually alters what it is we are trying to observe. In quantum mechanics, there is a concept that dances around the idea that the intention of observing something may influence its presence or how it is perceived.

On the topic of energy. Here's an example that physics students usually see in first year college physics classes where Einstein's E=mc^2 is introduced: A paperclip contains an incredible amount of energy; more than enough energy to power a car (an understatement, but one that many people can relate to). In practice, every time we discover something new in science, we update physics concepts, laws, formulas, and in general adjust what we used to accept for fact in a new light. The world being flat -> the world being round. It's evolution. Where is this leading?

I think the writers of Matrix may have tapped into the realm that Einstein and other creative people tap into. Instead of translating the concepts they download into mathematical concepts for physicists to play with, the writers translate the concepts into something that the general population can understand and grow with. I doubt that modern day psychologists and physicists can define imagination in a way that everyone will be able to swallow. After all, they are only using a small percentage of their brains too. I believe that modern day entertainment, with the help of the technology that physics has helped design, has created a new channel through which these secrets of the universe can be delivered to us. Why? Why not. :) After all, why are we here? Or are we really here?

One last idea that relates to our perception. Imagine if you could travel back in time with your cell phone. How would you describe what it is and how it works to someone in 1903? The reason why cell phones exist today is because someone imagined it was possible. The way it came into existence was because of what we can do with our hands and minds - applying physics knowledge. Can we see the radio waves that the cell phone uses to transmit signal? How do we know the signal exists? We use intrumentation that we create and trust. Just as in the Matrix, the people who were trapped inside believed in and trusted what they were experiencing.

Some of us are comfortable with just believing what others tell us to believe. Others, who are freed from the Matrix of the real world, realize that what we experience is only a small percentage of reality, just as we believe we use a small percentage of our brain. What if we actually use all of our brain, but the other parts we use are used in ways that we are unable to understand, measure, test, or observe? What if the other areas of our brains are what allow us to access the imagination or thought realm, and enable us to download ideas and concepts, like Kung Fu? Thought precedes action, so taking this to heart one can realize that we are capable of anything since we can imagine anything.

You be the judge of what is real. It is, after all, your reality.

Well said DharmaJay.

I'm a computer geek, not a scientist but I have my doubts
as to the ~6% brain power theory.

I feel that we use considerably more than ~6% of our
brain power. We may very well use ~6% to think and
reason but the other 94% is in use non stop.

Our brain controls so many things on our body, from
breathing, to blinking to heart rate to blood pressure
to hair growing to cell creation to virus protection.

All these tasks are done "in the background", almost
like a computer that is expected to project and image
onto a screen and account for every little pixel, displaying
it non stop while at the same time accepting input,
analyzing user information and processing the "visible"
tasks.

I think that if we were to use 90% of our brain power, to say,
computer a complex math equation, we might actually
kill ourselves. And I do think it's possible to divert all of the available
processing power of our brain to a certain "job". Certain
brain functions such as pain processing can actually
be disabled by tapping into our brain using hypnosis.

I think we use a large portion of our brain power, despite
what the experts say. There are billions of tasks which are
carried out non-stop, and which we are never aware of.

Luc L.

The thing about us only using part of our brain is untrue. I've heard from 6 to 15 percent, but its not exactly right.

Just as we only move a portion of our muscles at any given time, we only use a portion of our brain. We use the majority of the brian (if not all, I think there may be some sections which go unused) but for the most part we use everything, just not at once.

It is probably ignorant to say, but I think you guys might be wrong. Brain activity is easily quantified by using CT / MR / PET scans among others I am sure. They can easily tell the difference between a psychotic brain vs a normal brain vs a brain dead brain.

Operations have been successful where someone impaled through the brain lived to tell about it because the impalement went through the little used parts.

I think they are right on that 10% or less is used, given they can see it being used as it's being used.

-WC-

Multiple levels of pattern recursion - symbiotic system evolution


Originally posted by Dawn
lol AI within AI...that would be cool! But they'd probably restart the program if it got to that point...but anyway about the whole battery thing...
I think that if we got enough technology to create AIs, then we'd definetly have the capability to work out the fusion energy source. And, the law could be wrong, I mean years ago we believed everything was composed of only 4 elements (Fire, Water, Earth, Wind), so God knows how wrong our science could be now...
It always made sense to me, but I don't know that much about fusion technology so I can't really explain it...

Originally posted by WildCard
Everyone knows that the law of thermodynamics kills the practicality of using humans as energy sources.

My point to this thread is that the movie states it was the energy of humans, coupled with a form of FUSION that gave them all the energy they could need.

well, if you had the fusion going on, why would you really need the humans to create energy anymore? :)

This break in logic assumes that the AI only uses humans for the energy. If they get additional benefits like use of the creative pool of humans thinking for them, that may make the deal worth it to them.

What's your take?
-WC-

I agree completely - for the sake of common sense I like to think that it's all a lie to confuse the humans. The only plausible explanation is that AI is in need of a little natural intelligence and the battery thing is a very secondary thing, they need humans for intelligence and they figure they might as well get a little energy from them while they're at it:cool:

Coppertop battery?.

Its a metaphor in the film. (a pretty inefficient way to generate electricity so what else could it be?) I think Luc was closest

[[I'm sure that if you were to combine the processing power
of some 6 billion humans you could create quite a super
computer. Our brains work faster than any machine ever
created, so this would give the AI algorithm all the
processing power it would ever need. ]]

Close but...

Q. What lives on whole groups of humans - devours them and their lives, reproduces with them, and to some extent could be said to live vicariously through them?.

Answers on a postcard to ^C

Originally posted by Luc
that's another thing I was thinking about Eric.

I'm sure that if you were to combine the processing power
of some 6 billion humans you could create quite a super
computer. Our brains work faster than any machine ever
created, so this would give the AI algorithm all the
processing power it would ever need.

hmm...

Actually human beings have extremely slow brains - blame it on the non-electrical synaptic component. The electrical signals fly until they hit the synapse and a spray of chemical is released. What we do have is the power of abstraction and abstract analysis, we are patterns that learn and analyze other patterns. Now in a movie things may be different but in the real world AI is nothing but a dismal joke. Modern computers are all about quantity and not really about "quality". Not to say these machines aren't magnificent but they are the same machines from decades ago with the exception of scale. 160k floppies have been traded in for 1,000,000k (1 gig) memory stick USB devices. A 5000 byte Vic -20 is now a 512 meg inspiron - a 1 mhz 6502 is now a 1 ghz p4. Wireframe novelty graphics has become full fledged 3D. But LISP is still cutting edge AI - a powerful programming language but not a self aware abstraction.

We are not about speed but about layout.

Nice point Carpe Diem. But in a non linear device (massively parallel) the slow speed of the individual components isn't too relevant. The human brain does some pretty impressive things, including doing a good job of simulating your entire reality in real time.

A lot of the comparisons aren't all that valid. The brain wasn't designed for number-crunching or data processing of the type that we're used to asking from mainframes. Its quite good at what it does but could do with some improvements I guess.

I'd agree with AI being dismal. I remember hating the module from my undergraduate studies. The problem with the guys from AI is that they're pathologically vague about defining what it is they're trying to do. Before you can develop A-intelligence you need to be really clear about what intelligence actually is. Try asking that from an AI buff at the next party you're at!.

Thinking of the Turing test and AI simulators, you can get a better quality of conversation from a a simulator than in most chat rooms. How do *you* know thats a real person on the other end eh?? :D

(Artificial Stupidity would probably be quite easy to develop!).

Even though it seems inefficient, my best guess is that the electrolytes in humans are used as a sort of natural 'battery.' The small amounts of energy acheived from this 'coppertop' is used to reach the intense heat needed to initiate a fusion reaction. The humans are not only kept under control, but also have a use.

Just to go back to what was said ealier, if they came to have AI inside the Matrix, the original AI's could just leave the new ones and watch them. They might be able to learn from it. They could even better the Matrix itself by learning from the new ones.

To get even more confused, think about what would happen if the new AI's created their own Matrix, that would be a Matrix in a Matrix, and then what if, in the new Matrix, they created AI's who created a third Matrix, its a never-ending cycles, it just keeps going.

Originally posted by Helix
Just to go back to what was said ealier, if they came to have AI inside the Matrix, the original AI's could just leave the new ones and watch them. They might be able to learn from it. They could even better the Matrix itself by learning from the new ones.

To get even more confused, think about what would happen if the new AI's created their own Matrix, that would be a Matrix in a Matrix, and then what if, in the new Matrix, they created AI's who created a third Matrix, its a never-ending cycles, it just keeps going.

Like Deep Thought who (in the story) created the Earth as a living computer for the mice to find the answer to the big question, I'm convinced that we're flogging a dead horse trying to develop AI ourselves - until there's more exploration of "living" computers/code. Check out any GA/GP programming website (there are lots!!).

Yeah, I personally agree with those that say that the AI's could be using humans brains as part of the greatest computer ever. They would have almost unlimited capacity.

P.S., that was really a funny book, I read the whole seriers!

Like I've said in another thread,

"Double Dreaming" Or dreaming inside of a dream creates so much eletric empulses in the brain, maybe that's what happens when one uses 100% of their brain. But is certainly creates enough electric power to power a small motor. And the law is wrong, and has been proven so before.


(\~Archilus~/)

Wait, I must have missed something here. What law has been proven wrong??