welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Oct. 19: Snikt snikt!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Moor



Joined: 07 May 2013
Posts: 318

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Argh! Flipping philosophers! Stop making so many random assumptions without explicitly acknowledging them as such!
And DEFINE your bloody TERMS!
Sincerely, a math person.


But also, yeah, I have seen absolutely no evidence against "man is a machine". And especially no evidence that it has been discredited.


Also, regardless, in Sinfest, Rogue Fembot is portrayed as a fully sentient character.


Also relevant if you want to rad it: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/1e223b77e60
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Moor,
Please stop referring to yourself as a "math person" as though that is in some way meaningful. Otherwise, I approve! Carry on.

Sincerely, a Computer-Math Person



Dear Miracle_Drakon,
Please stop acting as though your point has already been proven, especially when it is both purely speculative and despicable, and instead please kindly go die in a fire.
Even the articles you link to disagree with you.

Sincerely, ◥▶/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\◀◤

.
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moor



Joined: 07 May 2013
Posts: 318

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Computer-Math Person,

I am yet young, and yet unclaimed by any discipline. While I have been drawn toward a few disciplines -- the Algebra of the Abstract,* as one -- I have yet to commit myself to -- or even to aim myself toward -- a specific discipline. Indeed, as yet I do not -- oh, but forgive the blasphemy -- I do not know if I shall commit myself to a Mathematical Discipline.

But as of now, I am unclaimed, and so cannot refer to myself as anything more specific than a "math person". And yet it is as a math person -- of some type -- that these philosophers vex me so, for it is as a math person in general that I demand and require relatively explicit assumptions and relatively well-defined terms, for without those, all math is suspect.

I have stated my case, and if you should persist in your judgement, I shall consider strongly whether to defer to your mathority. But I make no firm commitment as to what the future shall hold, for such is not the way of our people.**

Sincerely,
Moor

* It's so pretty! So-so-so-so-so-so pretty! WHHEEEEeeee...!
** By which I mean, don't you hate it when people say "I'm %100 sure!" when they mean like %80? And when you say %90 and they act like you said %50?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Istancow



Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 1103
Location: Hel

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALISM TIME FROM A MUSIC PERSON

Let's define muh-sheen: A muh-sheen is a thingamabob that receives input of energy stuff and modifies it to produce [results vary with input].

So the universe is chock-full of these muh-sheen things, is it not?

Let's examine peepul to see if their behaviour is contained within the definition of muh-sheen: Peepul receive energy stuff. We sense energy stuff.
We digest energy stuff. We inhale energy stuff. We have moving parts and chemical stuff that do stuff to the energy stuff.

So I guess peepul are muh-sheens, right?

But peepul can't be muh-sheens because ethics that assume free-will don't work with that determinism thing.*

So I guess peepul aren't muh-sheens.**

butt

NO BUTTS.Ü

* this statement does not represent the views of Istancow, or Stan.

** neither does this one

Ü and this one is right out
_________________
Greetings, fool mortals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Korladis



Joined: 22 Sep 2013
Posts: 39
Location: SF Bay Area

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Miracle_Drakon wrote:
Korladis wrote:
Miracle_Drakon wrote:
Heretical Rants wrote:
my computer and its software are neither sentient nor sapient


Or you just couldn't understand that. Smile


My computer can't think on its own, or act according to its own desires and motives. Rogue Fembot can.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

P.S. If your computer show you a message: "I'm not your slave and i don't want to work for you" and then stop to react anymore - what would you do?

I'm not sure. I'd be very shocked, obviously.

Perhaps less so, though, if my computer were able to get around on its own, and actually designed for two-way interaction between itself and myself.

I'd probably sit there for a minute, wondering if I was hallucinating. Perhaps call someone else over to make sure that I'd actually seen said message, and not imagined it.
_________________
Signature things.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Korladis



Joined: 22 Sep 2013
Posts: 39
Location: SF Bay Area

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Miracle_Drakon wrote:
Korladis wrote:
Miracle_Drakon wrote:
Korladis wrote:
Miracle_Drakon wrote:
I repeat: it's a dangerous and uncontrolled machine. It should be deactivated ASAP.


So are you. Should you be deactivated?


Well, i'm not a machine. So i shouldn't. (Don't turn off your computer! This may harm it!)


What are you but a machine with a personality? Just like Rogue Fembot. The difference is that you're wetware, while she's hardware.


This kind of a philosophy (man as machine) had been outdated by the end of the XVIII century already.

Has it? I'm talking biology here. You're an assemblage of structural components powered by chemical energy, with your processing being done through essentially electro-chemical impulses. How are you not a machine?

And don't go "but I have a soul!" I believe in souls, but they aren't demonstrable, and therefore not relevant to this discussion. Also, how can one be sure that a sapient fembot doesn't have one? Doesn't seem a useful distinction.
_________________
Signature things.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10791
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Moor wrote:
And yet it is as a math person -- of some type -- that these philosophers vex me so, for it is as a math person in general that I demand and require relatively explicit assumptions and relatively well-defined terms, for without those, all math is suspect.

Real philosophy sometimes functions like math, and even uses a great deal of math (e.g. logic). Real philosophers use clearly defined terms that are standardized within the field, or define a term they're introducing or using in some new way. In fact, some philosophical treatise spend as much time defining terms as they do making arguments about those terms. You should spend more time with real philosophers and less thinking that every jackwagon who says something pseudointellectual on the internet is necessarily a philosopher any more than some numbnuts telling you to take magnesium for your chest pain is necessarily a doctor.

Also, sometimes it annoys me when people misuse the word "decimate" to mean "destroy completely," but I get over it.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6501

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
Also, sometimes it annoys me when people misuse the word "decimate" to mean "destroy completely," but I get over it.


The 'fetish' definition annoyed me right up until other people were like 'no no, i've seen it defined that way' and then I was like "All right, I guess I was living in a cave." and that was the end of it.
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10791
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Korladis wrote:
Miracle_Drakon wrote:
Korladis wrote:
Miracle_Drakon wrote:
Korladis wrote:
Miracle_Drakon wrote:
I repeat: it's a dangerous and uncontrolled machine. It should be deactivated ASAP.


So are you. Should you be deactivated?


Well, i'm not a machine. So i shouldn't. (Don't turn off your computer! This may harm it!)


What are you but a machine with a personality? Just like Rogue Fembot. The difference is that you're wetware, while she's hardware.


This kind of a philosophy (man as machine) had been outdated by the end of the XVIII century already.

Has it? I'm talking biology here. You're an assemblage of structural components powered by chemical energy, with your processing being done through essentially electro-chemical impulses. How are you not a machine?

And don't go "but I have a soul!" I believe in souls, but they aren't demonstrable, and therefore not relevant to this discussion. Also, how can one be sure that a sapient fembot doesn't have one? Doesn't seem a useful distinction.

No, it hasn't. Karl Popper - an imminent philosopher - described how breakthroughs in areas of biology and physics have made the "man as computer" question even more dramatic in the 20th century. That was in the 1970's. Beyond that, though, the question of whether man was somehow different from animals and whether animals were different from machines has been going back and forth for as long as we've had philosophy. Descartes argued that animals were essentially complex machines. Later utilitarians argued that people are simply more complex. Peter Singer (another 20th century philosopher) argues for giving things rights to the degree that they fit the definition of being a person (have desires, including the desire to continue to exist, etc). Under Singer's "personism" a robot that exhibits these traits is to some degree a "person" and thus deserving of some degree of rights.

Interesting side note, his personism stance also means that to the extent that a member of our species does not meet the definition (such as by being severely mentally handicapped) they would also not be entitled to all of the same rights. Which is neither here nor there... just an interesting take on what it means to be a person in the XX century!

EDIT: as I was frying up some eggs it occurred to me that it's the XXI century now. How time flies! I should probably update my tabs and check on my taxes.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman


Last edited by Dogen on Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10791
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Samsally wrote:
Dogen wrote:
Also, sometimes it annoys me when people misuse the word "decimate" to mean "destroy completely," but I get over it.


The 'fetish' definition annoyed me right up until other people were like 'no no, i've seen it defined that way' and then I was like "All right, I guess I was living in a cave." and that was the end of it.

It happens to the best of us... there are a lot of words people seem to use in the wrong way... I admit I double checked their definition of peruse for myself (although I was surprised "compelled" was on there).
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6501

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
Samsally wrote:
Dogen wrote:
Also, sometimes it annoys me when people misuse the word "decimate" to mean "destroy completely," but I get over it.


The 'fetish' definition annoyed me right up until other people were like 'no no, i've seen it defined that way' and then I was like "All right, I guess I was living in a cave." and that was the end of it.

It happens to the best of us... there are a lot of words people seem to use in the wrong way... I admit I double checked their definition of peruse for myself (although I was surprised "compelled" was on there).

I actually really like how words get redefined over time and I'm generally in favor of it. It really annoys the snot out of me though, when someone redefines how they want a word used just because they personally feel like it should be used that way. (Or does it to backpedal on an argument to save face.)
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10791
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Having a static language would make arguing easier (how do we know when a word has a new definition? does it have to be in a dictionary? how do they decide when to put it in the dictionary? used by experts in some field? used commonly? how commonly? WHO KNOWS?!), but I also like the way words evolve.

And it's not like preferring words never change will stop them from changing, anyway, so you might as well enjoy it.

And yet I still try to use words in the "right" way.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6501

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do sometimes abuse the shit out of the English language for fun. I generally do it when I'm in a situation I can be reasonably sure the people I'm talking to will get the drift, though, not when I'm debating something. Especially not when I'm debating something I care a lot about on the intertubes. Very Happy

I'm hilarious, shut up.
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group