Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
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.
  

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
View previous topicView next topic
Page 7 of 10 [142 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
thebruce
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
IcyMidnight wrote:
Actually we are arguing two equally fictional technologies. We currently do not have the technology to create an AI equivalent to the ones in the Haloverse.

That's why I said theoretically - we don't have the technology to create an AI the way ONI did, but we have the technology to theoretically write an AI, since an AI is still a matter of subroutines. Given enough time, the subroutines could be written - the AI is a collection of technology we have - software. The process for creating an AI, the ONI way, is fictional - the flash clone process - but its result is a much faster method of creating the AI - instead of writing the software, they just take 'routines' from a human brain...
so yes, theoretically, we can create an ONI AI, but we still cannot theoretically give life to a biological being, not matter how accurate or perfect its replication is.

Quote:
Transporters technology is theoretically possible. The process the duplicates the particles unfortunately destroys the originals.

Yes, duplicating particles is theoretically possible, but giving life to those new particles is not.


Quote:
thebruce wrote:
A 7 year AI may not bare any resemblance to the original human after that amount of time, because so many more factors have played a role that would never have even been possible for the human after 7 years of additional life.

But are you really the same "person" (person in relation to personality/reactions and less in relation to body) that you were seven years ago? Or more analogously are were you the same person at age 7 that you were when you were born?

Yes, because the parameters of my life set when I became an individual in my mother's womb have been retained for my entire lifespan. I am an individual entity, that has undergone changes withing my being parameters (this is not the argument that says I'm alive however). The parameters of Yasmine's life drastically changed when her body died and she was given a 'new' body as electrons. Yasmine, the human, died. Yasmine, the AI, was replicated. Two separate entities with different fundamental parameters for the growth of the being.

Quote:
thebruce wrote:
the fact that the AIs stated they are restricted by programming means that their growth MUST be defined, otherwise they would eventually have circumvented that limitation.

And humans are not limit in their growth? For example many people cannot think in >3 dimensions. No one can really conceive of an object in >3 dimensions visually. Ask anyone failing early high school math if they would ever be able to do calculus. Ask most math students whether they could create art like that of Da Vinci.

Sure, but as I said, it's not the 'parameters' of our growth that make us alive (or not). The fact is that as humans, our growth is programmed, our minds are physically limited to a certain style of growth and learning... but as you know, the estimate is that we are only using a small fraction of our brain's potential. The limitation isn't what we are capable or not capable of doing, it's in the potential of what we could do. Someone who can't think in 3+D, doesn't mean that they aren't inherently capable of thinking that way, just that they haven't reached that limit yet, haven't learned to, or the ability is repressed in some way. Just as an AI has guidelines for growth, when the AI is created, it has nowhere near the mass of skills and knowledge that a 7 year old AI has, but through those 7 years, the AI still grew within the boundaries of its programming. In that sense we are similar, but that does not define who has life and who doesn't.

Quote:
Quote:
If you define the value of two entities solely on that definition of sentience, then that's your choice... But I don't feel like that life is simply, and only, made of sentience...

So we are not arguing whether AIs are also sentient then? Ok! Smile

Not by that definition of sentience, no.

Quote:
In theory (technically speaking), if you created the exact chemical and electrical makeup of the human, then we would create a living functioning human. We have actually reversed the death of humans. Many people have been clinically dead for multiple seconds, and I think minutes even. Later they are brought back.

That's not reversing death. Multiple seconds isn't enough time to prove that there was absolutely no shred of life remaining in the body. Once you can prove that a dead body is total inanimate material, then you can argue that point. As of right now, obviously clinically dead for multiple seconds does not equate to dead for 5 years. Just like a fire that goes out can be relit if one is careful enough to utilize the smoldering ashes to create the flame again. But given enough time, that smoldering ash would cool so it it's not reusable to light a flame. It could be that life is in a state of 'decay' during those multiple seconds, so that given the right circumstances, the smoldering of life can be used to reignite the flame. So 'clinically dead' for multiple second means the flame has gone out, but the smoldering is still there for a short time.

Quote:
And theoretically if you could take an identical sperm and egg, and subject the cells to the exact same stimuli, the same person would emerge (scientifically speaking). So humans are just as theoretically recreatable as AIs. It's just the neither is particularly practical or very easy (read close to impossible).

... couple errors there... 1, you need an identical sperm and an identical egge - which would need to copied, thus we apply this argument to that situation as well. 2. that sperm and egg both already have life in them, so you're not recreating a human from non-life.

Quote:
Functionally we could create an equivalent for every human part.
Brian = Processor/Memory (Both short term and long term)
Stomach = Generator
Food = Input energy (e.g. fuel to a generator, matter to a fusion reactor, water to a hydro dam, etc)
Fat = Batteries
Eyes = Camera
Ears = Microphone
Etc.
My point is that I do not think that you can argue that AIs are different functionally than humans. If we added batteries to out fictional AI system that analogous to fat and stored chemical energy, then they could last just as long as humans. We could theoretically construct a body very similar to humans for an AI.

but everything you put into that body is entirely synthetic, non-living. Down to the core, you could recreate every aspect of an AI, down to the molecular level, give it a body, a supercomputer for a brain, and you could create a being that would be indistinguishable from a human. Except that we still know that it's software meant to utilize the materials given it in order to emulate a human. Why? Because in the end, ideally the difference between a human and this indistinguishable android is simply the fact that the human was given the spark of life that his biological being requires to work. Whereas the android is entirely made up of recreatable material. In theory, the android is totally reproducable, but the human is not.

Quote:
The body can be found without life, but it is dead and decaying. Try adding electricity back into the corroded/damaged circuitry of the AI. Not gonna work either! Smile

Circuitry is a different matter. The circuitry, again, can be fixed to work exactly as it had (because the AIs core is in its software, not the hardware) and the AI will continue to work once 'switched on'. A dead body cannot be 'fixed' so that it'll work again, because there's no life in it, no matter how much electric impulse you shoot into it.

Quote:
AFAIK Physiologically speaking the reason humans die is that once parts of the body shut down, there are changes that stop them from starting again. Although as I mentioned earlier if you get the system up and running quickly enough, there is not time for the body to become damaged and thus life can be restored. The process is similar in an AI/Computer. It's just that the decay is MUCH slower.

The difference is, life never disappeared entirely from any human system that could be restored. The human body slowly decays, yes because that's an act of organic matter, not an act of a living being. An AI never decays - an AI is digital, the digital information cannot decay. The medium that carries it can be damaged, thus causing errors in the execution of the programming, but the AI itself will never decay.
Like copying... a record, say. Analog data, when copied, will decay at each copy, because it's a copy of a copy. Digital data, when copied, because it's either 1 or 0, will always be the same - no matter how strong a particular 1 or 0 signal is, if it's received it's written. But if an analog signal is weaker, the weakness is copied as if it were the original.
An AI being copied, being digital, will always be the same.

Quote:
Actually identical twins here are a single cell that replicates. The information in its nucleus (DNA) is copied. Basically a bunch of chemicals come by and make copied of other chemical patterns. The nucleus at one point contains two sets of (usually identical) DNA. Then the cell splits, bits of it go to each side, and you are magically left with two living cells. The only thing that already exists, physically, is the chemicals and proteins. These are copied and replicated.

The point here is that before anything is copied, there is one entity - the chemicals and proteins are brought together in the growth into one entity, and being one entity, the information can be duplicated because it's an altering of the matrix of the physical matter within the one entity, and then the single entity becomes two. It's not a matter of taking new material, and without being a part of the original entity, recreating a duplicate of it. The original entity split; a second entity was not created from different material. As you grow, your cells split, you grow, you recreate your own cells in your body, and what was it, every 7 years (*cough*) approximately you are physically an entirely new physical being? life & death of individual cells and whatnot... but because that's a gradual process, you are always entirely your own entity. Each cell within you splits. The cell consumes its food, so the food becomes part of the cell, one entity, which then splits itself. It's not information that is copied to a new location using entirely new material.

Quote:
More OT, but non identical twins are just two sperm-egg impregnations at once if I recall.

Yes, two individuals that developed entirely on their own, not even from the same base set of information...

Quote:
Scientifically speaking it is possible to create a new amoeba. Now you need some chemicals, just the right amount of energy and environment conditions and little luck.

Speaking through faith and belief... Wink
It hasn't been done, and I'll stand by the belief that it can't be done.

Quote:
Eventually the proteins that make up what we call life will spontaneously form (this is in the first few chapters of my first year bio textbook). We haven't been able to get to the point of those proteins forming together to make actual amoebas, but it is theoretically possible. We just don't have the technology yet Wink.

The technology nor the fundamental ability Smile
We're arguing fact and philosophy here, not faith Wink

Quote:
I think that this all comes down to the whole "life spark" that you are talking about. I think it is what others would call a soul. Although I think that you would give an amoeba a "life spark" that others wouldn't.

Well what makes a living amoeba different from an identical assembly of molecules (this inherently includes chemicals)?
The living amoeba works.

Quote:
Now if that is not what you are thinking then we are talking about the definition of the word "life". Recently science has decided that life is a little less restricted to only humans, amoebas and the like. Take a look into virii. You will find that they are particularly unlike life (by my original definition a few years back I would not have considered them to be alive), but they are considered that way due to the way that they "behave".

They are alive, because they have what cannot be given to them, the essence that makes them work (or 'behave').

Quote:
P.S. I apologize for any repetitions of thoughts or missing thoughts. My posts, like most peoples, have very little proof reading done before posting. Also prefix most of my "facts" with an AFAIK, as I have not fact checked.

Ah the disclaimer! Put that at the top of the post Smile
I try to append anythinig I say that isn't fact with "I believe" or "in my opinion" or "how I feel"... so we're in the same boat... but I do my best not to spout my beliefs as fact wherever possible... and of course, some of my own knowledge may be wrong, and I'm open to correction, but trust me, I'll do what I can to defend my viewpoints Wink

Quote:
Now assuming you attributed life and sentience to an AI (we are of course debating this bit, but for the sake of argument...), the value that one person places on that life is different from person to person.

Well, for the sake of argument, you altered the properties to fit your stance. I would never argue the comparison of human to AI, by attributing the very point I'm trying to defend, to the AI. How can I argue AI+life vs human+life, when the situation calls for AI vs human+life?

Quote:
So the value to be placed on an AI vs a human can not really be universally determined.

Exactly! And I'm not saying the human is without argument more valuable to the AI. I've always said that is a personal choice, a personal viewpoint. My point is simply the difference between an AI and a human - the AI is synthetic, and the human is alive (from a fundamental biological/molecular level, however you want to describe it)

Quote:
Humans, bacteria, AIs, aliens.
Are all alive? Are all sentient? Are all of there existences (lives) equally valuable?

That's a good question, and one that everyone would need to ask themselves. I would say they are all different forms of sentience. But, if this were a 'one of these things is not like other' game, one of them definitely does not belong. And you know which I'm referring to Smile
How you value each one is a personal stance.

Quote:
I did in my original post, but I will repeat here since you seem to want to know. There are actually thousands of complete documented cases in the literature.

As I said, cite some specifically Smile

Quote:
At this time of year you can see them yourself - the "indian corn" with all the different colors. Each sector of color is the result of a transposition event, every kernal that differes from its neighbors has new genetic information that was not present in the parent plant. In all these cases we can see new information in the genomes of progeny plants by direct examination of the DNA sequence of parent and progeny

New plant colours - is this new information? (this also applies to the other items you mentioned)

[url](gene DUPLICATION = more information in the genome) [/url]
nono, gene duplication = more traits, not information.

Quote:
The web pages you cite at answersingenesis are NOT science web pages, they are religious web pages (clue "genesis" is a religious document, not a scientific document) not a good source of information for a discussion of science

Ah, ok. So the fact that quite a number of non-creationist scientists also contribute bares no due respect. Simply the fact that the base interpretation of the main editors is on a belief system, means that no discoveries or experiments performed and reported are worth even reviewing to guage their accuracy. Ok.

Quote:
That set of web pages chooses to ignore and not cite vast areas of the scientific literature that do not conform to a preconceived set of ideas.

That's because they deal with fact, and dismiss interpretation. Where they apply their own interpretation of the facts, the disclaim that in their text. Plus, the disclaimer is also in the fact that the source of the information is quite obviously founded on a set of interpretations. The fact is, any scientific fact can be interpreted in such a way to fit one's preconceived notions of the belief. One may interpret an observation to fit the theories of evolution, and one may interpret the observation to fit their own belief. The fact is, every fact reported to that organization is studied, researched, and reported back as either fact or fallacy, and how it is applied to their fundamental belief system. Nothing yet has conflicted or disproven their fundamental belief system.

If you choose to state that their scientific method is not real science, then please offer evidence of mal-practice, don't just state that they choose to ignore conflicting evidence. Please back your claims before dragging the name of a reputable source of information through the mud.

Quote:
Thanks for maintaining a civil discussion. I think that I must be done with this.

Yes, and I can already now that we're getting into a matter of a 'hot' topic, that things may start going downhill... all I'm hoping to see is that opinions don't become debated, because then it just escalates. Let's stick to the facts, backing up claims and reasons for opinions where possible, and continue to accept each other's opinions. Facts can be debated, subjective interpretations can't. Smile
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:49 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
ariock
Has a Posse


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

 		Bah
Creation Scientists have been duped into believing that the world is actually ROUND! Everyone knows it is a flat disc on the backs of 4 elephants that each stand on the back of the great Cosmic Tortoise. All these photos of a "Round" earth are merely doctored by those who wish to pull the wool over people's eyes! It is all a money grab by the satellite makers.

I have been writing and rewriting paragraphs to follow this and I may be late for Thanksgiving dinner now as a result.

I respect you thebruce. I am thankful for you.

I just deleted a bunch AGAIN. I don't want to have this devolve, so I will just leave it at that.

Happy Thanksgiving from America!
_________________
"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.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:44 pm
 View user's profile MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
krystyn
I Never Tire of My Own Voice


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

 		OK, so if, like, Melissa ain't real because of enzymes and chromosomes and subroutines and ones and zeros and souls and all that jazz, let's now attack the forerunner technologies, the artifact, and time travel.

Explain all that, buddy, and I'll be willing to listen a little more when you try to tell me that Melissa's just a program.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:03 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Gestas
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 92
Location: Mostly away in Real Life (TM) at present

 		I think we've just about reached the end of this thread... or at least, the end of the usefulness of this thread?

(It just seems that all the philosophical discussion came out at the beginning, and now everyone is running in circles over points that nobody is going to change their opinion about).

Perhaps unless there is something super new to add, people start moving this off to private communication?

(I will happily take any comments to "quiet down and let free speech reign" if people really want to continue, but I think most active participants in this thread have already announced their desire to shift this to personal communication, and everyone just seems to be going through the motions at the moment Wink)

That said, however, it has been a joy to read it all - and some of the posts here may possibly be the longest ever on this Forum Smile

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving to all those in America!

PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:30 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
IcyMidnight
Boot


Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 66
Location: San Francisco, CA
Gestas wrote:
Perhaps unless there is something super new to add, people start moving this off to private communication?


I think that Gestas is right: we are starting to get off into silly land. Lets just end it here and all agree that I am right! Wink

Edit:

I must again express my appreciation of all participants. I really enjoyed getting to better understand your points of view (and mine too!).
Thanks for keeping it civil.

Very Happy
_________________
Live Gamertag: IcyMidnight

PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:55 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
krystyn
I Never Tire of My Own Voice


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

 		I am most definitely not silly!!

PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:08 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
DreamOfTheRood
Unfettered


Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 714
Location: Indiana

 		Right, so I just watched the Alamo, a movie filled with very robotic, artificial acting. Yet, in the fictional Haloverse, we have AIs who act quite human most of the time.

Curious symmetry.
_________________
Twitter: DreamoftheRood


PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:18 am
 View user's profile MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
water10
Unfettered


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 712
Location: EvadeEvadeEvade
Quote:
and now everyone is running in circles over points that nobody is going to change their opinion about

Yeah. Since clearly there's no right or wrong, it became exposing different opinions again and again. Instead of reading and replying, I decided to play more Halo2! Cool
_________________
You’d better not mess with Major Tom!

Gamertag: Waters100

PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:28 am
 View user's profile AIM Address
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
DreamOfTheRood
Unfettered


Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 714
Location: Indiana

 		[quote="water10"]
Quote:
Instead of reading and replying, I decided to play more Halo2! Cool


You are clearly a wise man.
_________________
Twitter: DreamoftheRood


PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:43 am
 View user's profile MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Arana
Unfettered


Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 353
Location: shallow grave

 		Re: Bah
ariock wrote:
I respect you thebruce. I am thankful for you.

I just deleted a bunch AGAIN. I don't want to have this devolve, so I will just leave it at that.

Happy Thanksgiving from America!


Here here, thank you Ariock for being wiser than I and preventing my adding more fuel to the final flames of this now way OT thread.

Not only do I respect you thebruce, I like you as well!! Smile

Unfortunately, I can't play more Halo2. I have no X-box...

Okay so it's back to reading "Passion Play", Sean Stewart's first novel!

I hope that you all had as happy a Thanksgiving celebration as I did!!!

(although I would guess that thebruce had his in October on Canadian Thanksgiving!!)
_________________
If it's *spec* you never have to say that you're sorry.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:43 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
thebruce
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
krystyn wrote:
OK, so if, like, Melissa ain't real because of enzymes and chromosomes and subroutines and ones and zeros and souls and all that jazz, let's now attack the forerunner technologies, the artifact, and time travel.

Explain all that, buddy, and I'll be willing to listen a little more when you try to tell me that Melissa's just a program.

I assume that's a playful 'buddy' and not a taunting, upset 'buddy'... Smile though I don't know if I could explain, cuz I don't really know what you want me to explain Wink

Quote:
Creation Scientists have been duped into believing that the world is actually ROUND! Everyone knows it is a flat disc on the backs of 4 elephants that each stand on the back of the great Cosmic Tortoise. All these photos of a "Round" earth are merely doctored by those who wish to pull the wool over people's eyes! It is all a money grab by the satellite makers.

Yeah, and you do know that everything is made up of the 4 elements right? fire, water, earth and air? Oh and the landing on the moon - yeah, that never really happened, a very elaborate government coverup... look it up! It's all over the net, the conspiracy theory! It has to be right!

Very Happy k this is fun Laughing

Quote:
I respect you thebruce. I am thankful for you.

As I you... even though it's not thanksgiving here, that doesn't mean we only give thanks once a year Razz as if it hasn't been expressed enough in the many threads since the end of the ARG, this community truly is amazing... I've been active members of a few major forums for vastly different community types, and by far this one has been the most accepting, intelligent, mature, and, well, silly and crazy Very Happy

too bad thread activity really is dying down in the haunted apiary... *sigh*

Actually, I was surprised Phaedra didn't have more to say in this topic... she's left a strong impression on me from past discussions, and I was hoping she'd have some input here... but oh well Smile that's not to devalue any input from everyone else in the thread, I love challenges and discoveries, which is why I love sci-fi, because I can still draw the line between ficiton and reality, so I really love the creativity and imagination that goes into sci-fi, it really is an escape from reality... (oh my, flashback to our Beehemian Rhapsody Razz) but in itself, it really does bring out some amazing and deep discussions...

Quote:
I am most definitely not silly!!

Right... and I'm never sarcastic... nope, never.
Razz

Quote:
Curious symmetry.

creeeepy...

Quote:
Not only do I respect you thebruce, I like you as well!!

ditto on that again... I like me too Razz j/k... I'll echo my sentiments once again from the above paragraph...

hope all y'all had a happy thanksgiving, all you crazy southern north americaners... (you do realize that we are all Americans right? We are all a part of the Americas - north and south america... do you prefer I call you united statesians? blah, american is just easier, I can live with that Wink at least we invented hockey Laughing)

so anyway... now I'm gonna get pummelled... hehe
g'night all!
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:21 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
krystyn
I Never Tire of My Own Voice


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

 		The buddy was definitely meant playfully, but my point still stands: if it's possible to be so decisive about the state of A.I. five hundred years in the future, I'd like to see you pull a similar rabbit out of your hat about slipstream time travel, ancient crystals, and mysterious, powerful artifacts.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 5:55 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
thebruce
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
krystyn wrote:
if it's possible to be so decisive about the state of A.I. five hundred years in the future, I'd like to see you pull a similar rabbit out of your hat about slipstream time travel, ancient crystals, and mysterious, powerful artifacts.

again, an AI is theoretically possible to exist in our time given the technology to write the software, and we have the technology needed to run it... slipstream is an entirely fictional concept, ancient crystals are physically possible but their effects are 'magic' and the artifacts are the creation of an imagined fictional alien species. Only one has the possibility to exist today. With the exception of 'crystals', which, well, who knows what could be buried miles under the earth in some remote desert, or right under krystyn's basement Razz
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:59 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


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

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

PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 11:58 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
krystyn
I Never Tire of My Own Voice


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

 		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.

We don't have enough data. We don't know what sort of 'magic' is involved. It's an alternate reality. Tuna fish is a delicacy there, people.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:24 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 7 of 10 [142 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
View previous topicView next topic
 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



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group