View topic - Worth a second listen

unforum
a.r.g.b.b

Welcome!

New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.

Website Restoration Project

This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.

Announcements

This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.

This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.

Our Esteemed Contributors

The time now is Sun Nov 17, 2024 4:23 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)

View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum

Calendar

Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): General/Updates

Worth a second listen

Page 8 of 10 [142 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Author

Message

Eclipse
Decorated

Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 166
Location: Dark Side of the Moon

gkrohne wrote:

Wait, you mean this isn't the circular argument thread? What a fool I've been! I am so outta here.

Me too..and I want my money back... Razz

[/quote]

_________________
Everything under the sun is in tune
but the sun is eclipsed by the moon

Gamertag: SurplusShihtzu

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:49 pm

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

Quote:

thebruce, I am taking that universe as a cohesive whole, though. The whole story matters, especially when you start talking ethics. If you can't even touch time-travel because we have no knowledge of it now, then I posit to you that Artificial Intelligence may also be a horse of an entirely different color in 2552, and similarly untouchable.

although you see, we're not discussing the moralistic choices that include all the fictional, creative elements that make up the Halo universe... we're simply discussing the value of a software AI (life, or social contribution) compared to the value of a human being (life, or social contribution).
IMO, the value of a human life has more weight than the value of an AI by default because of everything we talked about previously. But, the value of an AI's contribution to society can far outweigh the value of any human being... but in the end, with an AI being theoretically recreatable and a human not, the human holds more value in a matter of life or death, given there are no additional negative effects of the choice being made (eg, where one or the other will end up saving or killing more lives - which would need to be taken into account in the 'equation')
see what I'm getting at?

it's not just a matter if intrinsic value, it's a matter of the result of the choice, and your personal belief on what is more valuable. I personally hold the value of a human life greater than the existance of a software AI. But if the software AI also comes with it the lives of other human beings (which have greater value as well), then the AI may very well get my vote against one human life. It all depends on the factors that are involved with the choice...

And you'll never really know what choice you'll make until you come to that event.
Does that pretty much sum up this entire thread? *sigh*
Very Happy

_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:57 pm

Clayfoot
Entrenched

Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA

krystyn wrote:

If you can't even touch time-travel because we have no knowledge of it now...

*ahem* We do have some knowledge of time travel.

From Wrinkles in Time
p. 114-115: "In 1949, the famed mathematician Kurt G�del had found a solution to Einstein's general relativity equations in which the entire universe is rotating, an audacious hypothesis that also implied that time travel is possible."
p. 135: "From our results, we calculated that if the universe does rotate, it had done so at less than one hundredth of a rotation in the last billion years. ... But lack of rotation by the universe meant time travel was going to be difficult."

BTW, that book gets into all sorts of funny misconceptions. For example, the moon isn't held in orbit by gravity: the moon travels in a straight line (from the moon's perspective), and the earth curves space around itself.

A little more on time travel physics

_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:06 pm

krystyn
I Never Tire of My Own Voice

Joined: 26 Sep 2002
Posts: 3651
Location: Is not Chicago

thebruce wrote:

But I am saying you cannot ignore the universe these issues fall into.

I have been saying that all along. You can't just apply 2004-this-world stuff willy-nilly to other realities, and expect it to work.

I mean, honestly, how many wacky comedies have been created because of time travel or rip van winkle situations? Sleeper, that movie with Brendan Frasier where he and his family are stuck in that bomb shelter for decades, the Back the Future series, etc. etc. etc. -- I am sure you can think of many more.

Now, far be it from me to take Life Lessons from Marty McFly, but when you try to apply rules from one time period to another, even when there's a lot of information available to you, it is generally true that wacky hijinx ensue.

That, my friends, is a tenuous situation to find oneself in when those wacky hijinx include an artifact capable of providing the denouement of the entire human race.

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:19 pm

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

krystyn wrote:

Ok, then forget everything about Halo... now let's just discuss the moralistic value of a sentient software AI that the most intelligent hacker/programmer for the past 20 years has sat down and programmed with the best possible systems available and that they've created an AI as complex, intelligent, powerful, and existent as say, an AI like Cortana - vs a human. Bingo, that's what I've been talking about all along Smile

if you were talking about the value of Melissa vs Dana, well, then, *shrug*. I've always (well, for all but the very beginning) been comparing the value of a human life vs a software AI.

Given that a software such as Melissa is theoretically possible to be created and exist with our own technology and in our era, there's no need to involve the Halo universe at all in the discussion... it's simply a discussion about the value of a software AI vs a human being in varying situations.

tis all... Smile

_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:54 pm

ariock
Has a Posse

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 762
Location: SF East Bay

gkrohne wrote:

BTW, that book gets into all sorts of funny misconceptions. For example, the moon isn't held in orbit by gravity: the moon travels in a straight line (from the moon's perspective), and the earth curves space around itself.

Sorry, and I realize we are way off topic here, but this is actually how gravity works. Space is curved. This result comes from Einsteins realization that Newton's so called "Law of Gravitational Attraction" was wrong. Newton's "Law":

F=G*(m1*m2)/r^2

F=Force of Gravity
G=Gravitational Constant
m1=mass of object 1
m2=mass of object 2
r=distance between the center of mass of each object

The error arises from the fact that Light has no mass (m1=0, so F=0), and yet it is 100% affected by gravity. This bending of space, when applied to light, is sometimes called "gravitational lensing." Note that this has been verified by observations of stars behind the sun during total eclipses. So, anyone who says that the "Law" of gravity is constant and "Theories" like oh say evolution, are not, doesn't really know what they are talking about.

_________________
"It says, 'Let's BEE friends'...and there's a picture of a bee!" -Ralph Wiggum
When the Apocalypse comes, it'll be in base64.

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 4:57 pm

vector
Unfettered

Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 721
Location: Portland OR

thebruce wrote:

krystyn wrote:

Now I would have to say that is a very different concept of an AI than we have been talking about. If the AI was just something that was coded in by hand then I would place that firmly in the software side of things, that is true 1s and 0s, basically a compilation of scripting. An AI such as Durga is defiantly not the same thing. I am going to flatly say that an AI like Cortana or Durga are more than simple subroutines. when building the AI you can not simply recode the workings of the brain into a set of computer instructions. From the beginning of the discussion I have had troubles seeing the AIs described in Halo as being at all made up of 10101's and subroutines. You have to think beyond current technological concepts of what we call an AI.

In the creation of Melissa, Yasmine was destroyed. not copied. not recoded. Her working consciousness was taken to become the new AI. For this I refuse to discuss software vs. human life debate because that is not what our choice is. It is an AI vs. Human debate where an AI consciousness is on equal levels to that of a human. The reason why I say they must be on equal levels is that without that there IS no discussion. This is the question that any sci-fi writer has ever put to readers/viewers/gamers. It is not ever a question of "is the existence of this program we typed up for the last 20 years worth the same as a human?" The answer, no. But the question of "is the AI that was built from the brain of a human still considered human?" that is a very different question. That is what we should be discussing. or at what point are they so different that they can no longer be compared on the same levels because both are living minds that work and grow and create original ideas. The whole point of a human /AI discussion is to question the human arrogance that makes us believe that we are the only sentient life that is deserving of the status that we place ourselves in.

_________________
The bookworm is just the larval form of the barfly

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:18 pm

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

ariock wrote:

Sorry, and I realize we are way off topic here, but this is actually how gravity works. Space is curved. This result comes from Einsteins realization that Newton's so called "Law of Gravitational Attraction" was wrong. Newton's "Law":...

The error arises from the fact that Light has no mass (m1=0, so F=0), and yet it is 100% affected by gravity. This bending of space, when applied to light, is sometimes called "gravitational lensing." Note that this has been verified by observations of stars behind the sun during total eclipses.

Totally agreed... and beyond that, galaxy clusters are also visibly known to bend light from further galaxies, as with other massive objects, bending light of stars beyond them...

Quote:

So, anyone who says that the "Law" of gravity is constant and "Theories" like oh say evolution, are not, doesn't really know what they are talking about.

*cough*

Not sure what you're getting at... if you're referring to me, here's the different from my perspective:
The force of gravity is a fact, the fact things fall towards more massive objects. The theory of gravity relates to how gravity works, and this is constantly changing (well, being revised).

The fact of 'evolution' is its definition - a change over time - these observed, reproducable changes are fact. The theory (not the scientific definition of 'theory' as in the most accepted currently therefore true) is the interpretation of the facts that form a believed process of the addition of genetic information, by chance, over periods of millions, or billions of years.

But, weren't we done with the faith-based discussions? Razz

_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:28 pm

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

vector wrote:

But you're referring to an entirely different kind of entity. The Halo AI's ARE electronic reproductions of neural pathways that are intended to be able to run on electronic systems, no more than hardware that runs software. The AIs ARE software. Whether you considered this discussion to be referring to them, or some other entity that isn't bound by the computer systems it's running on, doesn't matter. That's what the discussion is about. The ONI AI process specifically recreates the human neural brain network in electronic - software - form. In other words, if it's a program, no matter how complex it is, it can theoretically run on the systems of today, which means the discussion can still be maintained without any reference to the Haloverse.

Quote:

In the creation of Melissa, Yasmine was destroyed. not copied. not recoded. Her working consciousness was taken to become the new AI. For this I refuse to discuss software vs. human life debate because that is not what our choice is.

No, the process didn't take, or move, the physical neurons from Yasmine's mind into their computer systems. The process they use maps out the neural network and creates the routines necessary to accomplish the same 'network' that previously existed. In doing this though, quite feasibly, the flooding of the brain with the material/electricity required to retrieve the neural layout would understandable damage the human brain beyond repair. The AI is not physical matter taken from the human brain - the AI is a remapped neural network in electronic form.

Quote:

It is an AI vs. Human debate where an AI consciousness is on equal levels to that of a human. The reason why I say they must be on equal levels is that without that there IS no discussion.

Sorry, that's like asking, which is more wet - a wet towel or a dry towel?
You're saying the argument can only exist if the AI is just as alive as the human. So there is no argument if the question is, is the AI alive? There's no comparison.

The point sci-fi writers usually try to get across when dealing with artificial intelligence (therein lies strong evidence for my argument), is a futuristic form of the same old 'racism' controversy. For example, given two skin colours, is a black person as much of a human as a white person? The best sci-fi takes modern day controversies and seeks to explore them, and answer them, in an alternative reality setting. Star Trek TOS was filled with that kind of sci-fi. When dealing with AI sci-fi, the typical moral question put forth is - if an artificial being is virtually indistinguishable from a living human being, which holds more value? That is precisely the issue we are exploring right now...

Call me 'life-ist' then... I'm biased towards valuing a living being over an artificial being. *shrug* I have valid reasons to continue in that moralistic viewpoint...

Quote:

But the question of "is the AI that was built from the brain of a human still considered human?" that is a very different question. That is what we should be discussing.

That is precisely what we are discussing.

Quote:

The whole point of a human /AI discussion is to question the human arrogance that makes us believe that we are the only sentient life that is deserving of the status that we place ourselves in.

I wouldn't call that arrogance, I would call that living by what we know. And anyway, I never said we could ever be the only sentient 'life' by the definition of a self-aware, self-sustaining, growing individual entity. Melissa and Cortana are that. By that definition they are sentient. But there is still a difference between that sentient being and a sentient human being. One is artificial, one is not. The question lies in the value that you yourself place on that one fundamental difference. And I have clearly (and repeatedly *sigh*) stated why I value non-artificial life over artificial.

_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:45 pm

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

ariock wrote:

So, anyone who says that the "Law" of gravity is constant and "Theories" like oh say evolution, are not, doesn't really know what they are talking about.

<cough>

Well, a law is a constant (or at least something that has always been constant, to the best of our knowledge), where a theory is not.

Disclaimer: This should not be taken as a subtle jab at evolution, because I am a religious person who devoutly believes in evolution -- I'm with Rashi on this one, folks, I don't think Genesis can be read as a literal account of creation, sorry -- simply a clarification as to the difference between a law and a theory.

A law simply describes what always happens (or at least has always happened) in a particular circumstance. A law is a generalized description which describes the empirical behavior of matter. A law is constant. It doesn't describe why something happens, just that it happens.

A theory is an explanation of why something happens. Generally, the most that can be said about a theory is that the evidence agrees with it.

So, the question of whether a law is more "constant" than a theory is the wrong question entirely. Laws are descriptions, theories are explanations.

_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:59 pm

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

thebruce wrote:

Out of curiousity, thebruce...

Your position of valuing non-artificial life over artificial has been made clear, and your reasons are valid.

But what if it's not a question of artificial vs. non-artificial sentient life? What if it's a question of human vs. non-human sentient life?

_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:11 pm

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

Phaedra wrote:

But what if it's not a question of artificial vs. non-artificial sentient life? What if it's a question of human vs. non-human sentient life?

That, as I pointed out before, was an entirely different argument Smile

The difference being that non-artificial, non-human life is still a thing of mystery or fiction, whereas artificial non-human life is a technical possibility... the former would become a philosophical/theological discussion, which this place really isn't the best for Smile

at least, I don't feel like getting that far off topic Smile

... but the latter is the question that's related to ilovebees ...

_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:23 pm

vector
Unfettered

Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 721
Location: Portland OR

thebruce wrote:

Phaedra wrote:

But what if it's not a question of artificial vs. non-artificial sentient life? What if it's a question of human vs. non-human sentient life?

That, as I pointed out before, was an entirely different argument Smile

at least, I don't feel like getting that far off topic Smile

... but the latter is the question that's related to ilovebees ...

Then maybe the question is what is artifical life? or what does non-artifical life mean? is it artifical life because it is created by humans and not nature? Is a life artifical simply because we have grown to the point that we are able to understand certing sciences and technologies to a point that we are able to create a being that is a sentient living and growing being? It will absolutly be within our reach (given a hundered years or so) to compleatly rewrite the genetic code of a living being. not just alter it but build it up bit by bit. If that being, whose genetic code we wrote, was to be human looking, thinking and feeling, but have no naturaly occuring DNA. Is that an artifical life just because it was created by our hands? I see no difference in rewriting genetic code and creating a sentient AI.

_________________
The bookworm is just the larval form of the barfly

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:49 pm

ariock
Has a Posse

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 762
Location: SF East Bay

Phaedra wrote:

ariock wrote:

So, anyone who says that the "Law" of gravity is constant and "Theories" like oh say evolution, are not, doesn't really know what they are talking about.

The "Law of Gravitational Attraction" is in quotes because that is how Newton himself described it. He didn't say "Things Fall". That is not the "Law" of gravity. In addition, some things don't fall that are in the hold of gravity and other things appear to fall that are not in a gravitational field. So the "Law" is wrong.

Light has no mass. It is affected by gravity. Therefore the empirical description is incorrect.

I understand the definition of the word "Law." The problem is, it has no basis in science. It has to do with the hubris of one man believing that he had figured out all the answers and put them into a book and everyone who followed after said, You Must Not Question the Book.

thebruce, if you have never heard the phrase "Evolution is just a Theory, not a LAW like Gravity" in defense of your postion, I certainly have.

thebruce wrote:

The theory (not the scientific definition of 'theory' as in the most accepted currently therefore true) is the interpretation of the facts that form a believed process of the addition of genetic information, by chance, over periods of millions, or billions of years.

But, weren't we done with the faith-based discussions? Smile

A believed process of gradual change over millions or billions of years? Yeah, that is a stretch. Much moreso than having to believe the literal truth of Genesis. Having to believe: the light from distant stars that should take millions of years to arrive showed up on earth within 2 days, talking snakes, tower of babel, sedimentary rock forming in 40 days, Grand canyon carved in 7 days, no rainbows ever until AFTER the flood. I mean, no chance that could all just be a parable. I mean, how would people ever be saved then? Wait a tic, you mean NONE of that must be interpreted as literal fact for a person to be saved? None of the Judeo-Christian offshoots requires that you believe in the literal truth of Genesis to be saved? Not even the creationists would be so heretical to put that forward.

You think that to say that people evolved from ape-like ancestors is a stretch? If you want a stretch, HERE. 20 different creation stories. Stretch your mind and tell me why the creationist story put forth by the website you linked to is better than any one of those. The explanation of evolution is the best non-magical explanation we have for the facts we have found (DNA, Fossils, Selective Breeding, Adaptation of Species, etc.). If you think it is all based on belief, fine. Give me a better non-magical explanation. If you can't, then you have to prove why your magical explanation is better than all of the other ones. Otherwise, you might as well say there is no gravity, we are all just being pushed down on the tops of our heads by faeries.

Honestly, I never understand why it is SO important to argue against evolution. I find the idea of a creator setting the universe into motion 15 billion years ago with the knowledge that we would result to be infinitely more wondrous than him playing with modeling clay and breathing on it. Must god run the cosmic pool table like Minnesota Fats, or can't he tap the cue ball on the break and walk away with the full knowledge that it will send each and every ball into a pocket in order? Not to mention that the whole clay thing would make a lot more sense if our DNA contained silicon instead of carbon. But it doesn't.

And now back to the question of AIs. So, let me get this straight. We take a person and an AI. Assume for the moment they have identical minds. They have the capacity to provide identical contributions to society. You believe that the living person has more intrinsic worth than the AI? So you are essentially basing the relative worth of two sentient beings on whether one eats or not? See, I think BOTH the Olsen Twins are equally valuable. Wink

_________________
"It says, 'Let's BEE friends'...and there's a picture of a bee!" -Ralph Wiggum
When the Apocalypse comes, it'll be in base64.

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:54 pm

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

vector wrote:

Then maybe the question is what is artifical life?

Melissa, Cortana, at al., the types of AI's (remember - Artificial Intelligence) that we are discussing.

Quote:

is it artifical life because it is created by humans and not nature?

Or better, is it artificial because it is able to be created? On the flipside, is it artificial because genuine cannot be created?

Quote:

Is a life artifical simply because we have grown to the point that we are able to understand certing sciences and technologies to a point that we are able to create a being that is a sentient living and growing being?

Is an artificial life actually genuine and equal to non-artificial life, even though the non-artificial life can't be recreated and the artificial can?

Quote:

It will absolutly be within our reach (given a hundered years or so) to compleatly rewrite the genetic code of a living being.

Back up your claim Wink

Quote:

not just alter it but build it up bit by bit. If that being, whose genetic code we wrote, was to be human looking, thinking and feeling, but have no naturaly occuring DNA. Is that an artifical life just because it was created by our hands? I see no difference in rewriting genetic code and creating a sentient AI.

Just for arguments' sake, assume you are able, in 100 hundred years, to completely alter the DNA of a person and create an entirely new individual.

Did you create that life, or did you alter it?

An A.I. is entirely written software from scratch - whether a human wrote the code, or whether a process wrote the code that was written by a human - it was ultimately created from nothing.

What we cannot do, is recreate a human from scratch, that is, from non-life, and create an individual. THAT, my friend, is the difference, and where for me - the ultimate value lies. Maybe not for you, but for me, yes.

Quote:

thebruce, if you have never heard the phrase "Evolution is just a Theory, not a LAW like Gravity" in defense of your postion, I certainly have

Yes, I've heard it, and I know that argument has no leg to stand on. Because by definition, gravity is as unproved as evolution, and yet gravity is accepted as fact, therefore by standard scientific definition, evolution is as much a 'fact' as gravity is. In short... that's the rebuttle.

That does not change the ultimate truth, that evolution is an interpretation of evidence, but is not, and never be, as provable as the fact that a rock is hard, that if I look at the sun too long I can blind myself, that water will eventually soak through and damage a standard untreated piece of white paper... evolution is a theory - in the strictest sense of the word - that is currently being researched and altered as necessary, just as any other explanation for an observable event may be altered as the most accepted explanation undergoes scrutiny for refinement. Just as gravity, the explanation for what causes objects to be attracted to each other - is consistently undergoing revision and exploration. That doesn't change the fact that I will fall to my death if I jump from a 20 story building to the street below. I care about the fact, and I'm interested in the explanation. The fact of evolution is what has been observed, what is possible, but the interpretation of those events are what I'm interested in. I know the facts, and as more facts are found (NOT interpretation and extension of observations to explain unobservable events) my beliefs about the explanation will alter with them. Evolution is one interpretation of observable facts. In the general community, it is regarded as truth because evidence is supposedly overwhelming. Depending on what foundation your interpretations are derived from, what you believe to be true will alter as necessary.

You believe evolution to be true. That's your choice. Many have different interpretations of the facts that shape other beliefs. And I'm not talking about creationists here - there are plenty of non-evolutionist non-creationist believing scientists, who very well may be out to not believe anything except what they see with their eyes. Who knows. The point is - absolute truth, evolution is not; it is one interpretation of what we currently know as absolute truth, and the most widely accepted. But popularity does not define absolute truth.

Quote:

I would be glad to discuss this with you outside of this thread... this thread is not intended to be a theological discussion. I was actually happy to have read the posts recently that sounded like the discussion had ended here... *sigh*

My last word on the theological aspect of all this:
Everything you just mentioned, all of that, is explained with one simple point of belief, which I know to be true, but which I cannot prove to anyone. So, I'm doomed to be disbelieved and mocked, and it's a position I've accepted. But just like you can't prove to someone that you love your wife (or whoever you would die for, if there is anyone you would die for), I cannot deny what I know to be true myself.
Having an open mind, if ANY of my beliefs can be disproven, it goes the other way - only thing fundamental thing about my beliefs need to be disproven for my entire belief system to shut down. We have facts, and we have interpretations of those facts. Evolution interprets those facts to fit one explanation. My beliefs interpret those facts to fit my explanation. My explanation, just as Evolution, is continuously undergoing scrutiny and alteration as new discoveries and facts are added to the equation. So... in the end, each person has their own choice to make - which explanation makes more sense to you. Weigh the facts, challenge the facts, then look at the interpretations. Which seems more reasonable? For those without the same foundational belief as I, the other interpretation will be faaaar more believable. But not one thing about my fundamental belief has been disproven, or can ever be disproven. Just as any historical event that cannot be recreated cannot be proven or disproven. So, Evolution, Creation, and whatever other historic viewpoints are all in the same boat - as facts are uncovered, the interpretations will change to best describe the foundational belief. Either the universe is 13 billion years old, or it's 6000 years old, or it's 100 googleplex years old, or it's 1 day old... who knows. All we know is what we see, what we do, what we experience, with the limited resources we have at our disposal - our own 5 senses. All we know to be true is what we know for ourselves.

So, we can't argue interpretations. At least until there's a fact that disproves an interpretation. If you present me with what you believe to be facts that disprove any part of my belief, I will take it, research it, and find evidence for or against that claim. If it disproves a belief of mine, I'll reevaluate the belief and see how far 'the rabbithole' goes - does it require a change in my fundamental belief system? Or is simply an error in a surface belief that can be explained another way?

That's precisely what Evolution is doing within science, as well as what any other good, reliable, respectable scientist will do.

Quote:

If you want a stretch, HERE. 20 different creation stories. Stretch your mind and tell me why the creationist story put forth by the website you linked to is better than any one of those

Here's a stretch - how much work would it take to find facts that alter incorrect beliefs that shoot right down to the core of each belief system? Before claiming ultimately that all are incorrect, back up the claim by offering facts (that is, ultimate truth) that disprove them. I, of course, would have to do the same. If any of those belief systems can stand on their own, offering a valid interpretation of ALL the known facts, then it's a valid belief system, and if someone chooses to believe it, that's their own choice. Calling someone ludicrous for believing something they believe in is counter-productive. Prove it's ludicrous. Simply stating it is proves nothing. If it is ludicrous, it should be fairly easy to find facts that disprove it, no?

Quote:

The explanation of evolution is the best non-magical explanation we have for the facts we have found

But immediately you dismiss one element of the equation. In a sense, ANYthing we believe in life must include the value of the unknown. A good programmer will account for unknown possible errors. I've learned that in all my work. There are always unknowns. If you ignore them, you are setting yourself for a possible disaster. But there you go. We have the facts, now the interpretation of those facts is either to believe there was no extra-physical force that had a role, or to believe there was. That's your choice. Either way, it's still a belief in one interpretation of the events, because that's most feasible answer for you.

If I experience a magical event, but I can't cause that magical event, how can I prove that magical event?
If I experience love, but I have no way to proving to you that I love, and that I'm not just a really really good actor, then how I can I prove that I actually love?

Quote:

you think it is all based on belief, fine. Give me a better non-magical explanation.

I can't, because your fundamental belief is that there is no such thing as "magic". But my fundamental belief is that there is much more to this existence that just what I can touch, see, hear, taste and smell. Your interpretation of these facts leads you believe one thing, my interpretation leads me to believe another. And as I said, as facts come in, both of our beliefs alter to fit the fundamental beliefs we have.

Quote:

If you can't, then you have to prove why your magical explanation is better than all of the other ones.

And I can't. And I'm not trying to. But neither can you disprove why your non-'magical' (I hate that term) explanation is worse than all of the other ones.

Quote:

Otherwise, you might as well say there is no gravity, we are all just being pushed down on the tops of our heads by faeries.

Hey, if someone wants to believe that, that's fine by me... how can I prove it wrong? All I know are the facts we have before us. To me, that explanation is all wrong, because I simply believe another interpretation to be more accurate. Just as if you choose to believe Evolution, then that's your choice. So now, my goal is simply to find the facts. Whatever that proves or disproves does not matter. The ultimate truth is a mystery that needs to be uncovered. Right now, there are many possible interpretations of the clues we've discovered to date. Choose your path.

Quote:

Honestly, I never understand why it is SO important to argue against evolution. I find the idea of a creator setting the universe into motion 15 billion years ago with the knowledge that we would result to be infinitely more wondrous than him playing with modeling clay and breathing on it

If you choose to believe that, then go ahead. I can't prove to you why I believe what I do, and the fact that I know for myself. All I know is that until my belief is ultimately disproven (and thus what I know to be true but can't prove is also shown to be false - that I was somehow duped), then nothing will alter what I know to be true. It's also not SO important to argue against evolution. It IS so important to find fact. If I find that evolution, or another belief, or even my own, is found in disagreement with the facts, then that should be voiced, for the good of everyone! Do you disagree?

Quote:

And now back to the question of AIs. So, let me get this straight. We take a person and an AI. Assume for the moment they have identical minds. They have the capacity to provide identical contributions to society. You believe that the living person has more intrinsic worth than the AI? So you are essentially basing the relative worth of two sentient beings on whether one eats or not?

Once again... *sigh*
Were it not a matter of life and death, then for me, the AI would hold much more value - I would take the word over a trusted, and far more intelligent AI (all things being equal), than a human. Now, given that an AI is fundamentally recreatable, and a human is not (see the past 10 pages for why I believe that to be so), if it were simply a matter of the life of the human or the AI, I would value the human life more. This does not include future contributions of either the AI or the human, because either may still have an enormous contribution to society, such as possibly saving lives or even losing them.

How about this:
1) AI or Human. If the AI survives over the human, it will save the existence of 1,000 other AIs. If the human survives, it will save the existence of 1,000 other AIs. Who do you choose to survive? Me - the human. Why? Because the human holds more intrinsic value than an artificial being.
2) What if - the AI survives, it will save the existence of 1,000 other humans. If the human survives, it will save its own life. Who do you choose? (classic 'needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one')
3) A doozie - the AI survives, it will save the life of one human being. If the human survives, it will save its own life. Who do you choose? Why?

Quote:

See, I think BOTH the Olsen Twins are equally valuable

really? equally valuable, or equally invaluable? At what price would you value their lives? Confused

Anyway, I won't comment any more on theological debates here, but if you want to debate, let's move it somewhere else... it seems we're coming right back to the value of artifical life vs genuine life... are we going to go around in circles again?
I'm leaving the door open here - it can end. I'm not saying the human IS more valuable than the AI. I'm saying *I* value genuine life over artificial life, and I explained why. Just as everyone else explained what they consider to be 'life', thus why they value the AI equally to a human being.

So, are we done yet? ... I feel like I'm just continuously going "are we there yet? are we there yet? are we there yet?" *sigh*

I'm hungry. I'm going to go and make another pizza. Anyone want to join me? Wink

_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:39 am

Display posts from previous: Sort by:

Page 8 of 10 [142 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): General/Updates

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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum