Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Testify wrote:
Realistically they'd lack the logical capacity to track me down.
Poor people who can't be arsed/too stupid to get a job go on benefits and get scorned by society.
Middle class people who can't be arsed/too stupid to get a job become philosophers and pretend that this somehow puts them on the same level as scientists/technicians.
Computers ! = people. The fact that you can use logic to explain them both is irrelevant, since you can use logic to describe more or less anything.

I just broke my nose.

In any case, mediocre scientists, and sometimes even good ones, like to artificially elevate themselves by presuming all other fields of inquiry are somehow beneath them. They tend to do this because their minds break at the thought they aren't the sole arbiters of truth, and that other people might have useful things to say.

The statement "computers != people" should be met with the questions "What are computers?" and "What are people?"

It takes 2 seconds to put Testify on ignore and end the madness.

Really.

This reminds me of an extremely long and contentious conversation I had with some people regarding the difference between Humans and AI's shortly after the second and third Matrix movies came out. What we finally agreed on was that the primary difference is that machines, unless they get an external software upgrade will always be exactly as they are, flaws creeping in due to age and damage notwithstanding, while Humans have the capability to be inspired and transcend their limitations. That is why the Merovingian was so fixated on cause and effect, because that's all a machine can understand, and why Agent Smith, even after assimilating some of Neo's essence is unable to understand the concept of free will. A toaster will always be a toaster, but a Human can be anything they put their mind to.

kronk wrote:It takes 2 seconds to put Testify on ignore and end the madness.

Really.

Hallelujah!

warpcrafter wrote: A toaster will always be a toaster, but a Human can be anything they put their mind to.

Clearly hasn't seen BSG.

kronk wrote:It takes 2 seconds to put Testify on ignore and end the madness.

Really.

I've never put anyone on ignore, nor do I plan to. Its sort of like why I still watch and read FOX and MSNBC.

Evacuate now? In the moment of our triumph.

I think you overestimate their chances.

dogma wrote:I've never put anyone on ignore, nor do I plan to. Its sort of like why I still watch and read FOX and MSNBC.

Masochism?

dogma wrote:

kronk wrote:It takes 2 seconds to put Testify on ignore and end the madness.

Really.

I've never put anyone on ignore, nor do I plan to. Its sort of like why I still watch and read FOX and MSNBC.

I hear you on actual news and such. But, on this gaming forum, there are a number of folks who's opinions don't really matter to me in the least after I've read enough of their posts.

Not enough hours in the day, and all.

AustonT wrote:

warpcrafter wrote: A toaster will always be a toaster, but a Human can be anything they put their mind to.

Clearly hasn't seen BSG.

dogma wrote:

Testify wrote:
Realistically they'd lack the logical capacity to track me down.
Poor people who can't be arsed/too stupid to get a job go on benefits and get scorned by society.
Middle class people who can't be arsed/too stupid to get a job become philosophers and pretend that this somehow puts them on the same level as scientists/technicians.
Computers ! = people. The fact that you can use logic to explain them both is irrelevant, since you can use logic to describe more or less anything.

I just broke my nose.

In any case, mediocre scientists, and sometimes even good ones, like to artificially elevate themselves by presuming all other fields of inquiry are somehow beneath them. They tend to do this because their minds break at the thought they aren't the sole arbiters of truth, and that other people might have useful things to say.

The statement "computers != people" should be met with the questions "What are computers?" and "What are people?"

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies".
Emperical method is sociologically helpful the way that holistic compassion is helpful in science. This is all well and good.
The problem is, a claim is being made about a technical object, i.e. a computer, more often than not (though not always) by people who don't know the first thing about computers. Frankly I've never found fictional dilemas involving artificial intelligence interesting anyway. It's a result of the film maker's imagination, nothing more. He (or she) simply creates a person without moral ethics...despite the fact that actual people have been like this since time immemorial. Putting a shiny face on them and calling them a robot does nothing for me, psychopaths are boring.

kronk wrote:Not enough hours in the day, and all.

IMO, putting people on ignore is the one instance in which the slippery slope argument has real significance.

Manchu wrote:

kronk wrote:Not enough hours in the day, and all.

IMO, putting people on ignore is the one instance in which the slippery slope argument has real significance.

Slippery Slope to what? Not having to put up with silliness?

Sign me up.

I know I'm not alone in actually LIKING arguments with people with different points of view to me. Sometimes I even learn something.

Testify wrote:It's a result of the film maker's imagination, nothing more. He (or she) simply creates a person without moral ethics...despite the fact that actual people have been like this since time immemorial.

The problem then becomes more complicated when you realize not all people have "moral ethics", and "morals" and "ethics" are not the same.

kronk wrote:
Slippery Slope to what? Not having to put up with silliness?

Sign me up.

There's a good argument to be made that the information age has spared us the difficulty of putting up with dissent, and that this has further inhibited our ability to tolerate the other.

Da Boss wrote:I know I'm not alone in actually LIKING arguments with people with different points of view to me. Sometimes I even learn something.

Pretty much.

Da Boss wrote:I know I'm not alone in actually LIKING arguments with people with different points of view to me. Sometimes I even learn something.

It's not a matter of putting people on ignore that have different opinions.

It's a matter of putting people on ignore that act like ass-hats.

Completely different.

kronk wrote:Slippery Slope to what? Not having to put up with silliness?

To putting every other user on ignore. For example, willful ignorance of conversational allusion -- IGNORE.

Manchu wrote:

kronk wrote:Slippery Slope to what? Not having to put up with silliness?

To putting every other user on ignore. For example, willful ignorance of conversational allusion -- IGNORE.

Use of the word ignore in all caps. -- IGNORE

Manchu wrote:

kronk wrote:Slippery Slope to what? Not having to put up with silliness?

To putting every other user on ignore. For example, willful ignorance of conversational allusion -- IGNORE.

Nah. Stick to the Slippery Slope is a poor arguement, I think.

dogma wrote:There's a good argument to be made that the information age has spared us the difficulty of putting up with dissent, and that this has further inhibited our ability to tolerate the other.

Yeah, but there are people with whom come to opinions in rational and reasonable ways with whom I disagree with, and there are people who intentionally stake out opinions not on their merits but on their ability to be provocative and\or not like things that are popular for internets cred and starting some drama. Obviously it's a subjective line to draw depending on your own taste for arguing with cretins on the internets, but I've recently decided that I've simply got better things to do then engage the latter; and I don't feel my life is lessened by that tack.

I think I've probably got a higher tolerance for obstinate behavior than most because, well, I work in politics.

For me, there's only been 5 people I've considered ignoring, and in all cases I've concluded it was frustration, and not their behavior, that was compelling me to do so.

kronk wrote:Stick to the Slippery Slope is a poor arguement, I think.

Dismissed my argument on superficial grounds -- IGNORE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:Use of the word ignore in all caps. -- IGNORE

Humor at expense of my own joke. -- IGNORE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:For me, there's only been 5 people I've considered ignoring, and in all cases I've concluded it was frustration, and not their behavior, that was compelling me to do so.

Tolerance of unnamed individuals that I probably don't like -- IGNORE.

Manchu wrote:

kronk wrote:Stick to the Slippery Slope is a poor arguement, I think.

Dismissed my argument on superficial grounds -- IGNORE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:Use of the word ignore in all caps. -- IGNORE

Humor at expense of my own joke. -- IGNORE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:For me, there's only been 5 people I've considered ignoring, and in all cases I've concluded it was frustration, and not their behavior, that was compelling me to do so.

Tolerance of unnamed individuals that I probably don't like -- IGNORE.

I wonder if you can put a Moderator on ignore...

You definitely can. It's risky, though.

Also, having to click an extra button to read your post is a pain in the ass.

/jk, didn't really put you on ignore

... because if I did it even once, it would never end.

Da Boss wrote:I know I'm not alone in actually LIKING arguments with people with different points of view to me. Sometimes I even learn something.

I ignored dogma for a least a month, sometimes he says ridiculous gak for no apparent reason.

I tried to ignore She Who Must Be Obeyed once. Thats why I walk with a limp now. :O

Frazzled wrote:I tried to ignore She Who Must Be Obeyed once. Thats why I walk with a limp now. :O

Frazzled, I fear one day one of your post will cause me to die of laughter.

Ouze wrote:

dogma wrote:There's a good argument to be made that the information age has spared us the difficulty of putting up with dissent, and that this has further inhibited our ability to tolerate the other.

Yeah, but there are people with whom come to opinions in rational and reasonable ways with whom I disagree with, and there are people who intentionally stake out opinions not on their merits but on their ability to be provocative and\or not like things that are popular for internets cred and starting some drama. Obviously it's a subjective line to draw depending on your own taste for arguing with cretins on the internets, but I've recently decided that I've simply got better things to do then engage the latter; and I don't feel my life is lessened by that tack.

Cheers for calling me a "cretin" btw.

Not every single post I make is a researched and thorough documentation of years of thought on the subject matter. I am not always entirely sober when I post, or awake.
However, if you would like to engage in a more comprehensive discussion you need only say so.

Also, commentating on the fact that you've ignored a user seems like you're trying to be "popular for internets cred and starting some drama". If someone says something you don't like, you can either state your reasons for disagreeing and initiate a conversation, or you can ignore the post and get on with your day. Saying you don't have time to deal with internet neckbeards, before loudly proclaiming the fact that you don't have time to deal with internet neckbeards, seems pretty ironic.
Anyway, have a nice day.

Castiel wrote:Frazzled, I fear one day one of your post will cause me to die of laughter.

My God man, put him on ignore right away then!

Castiel wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I tried to ignore She Who Must Be Obeyed once. Thats why I walk with a limp now. :O

Frazzled, I fear one day one of your post will cause me to die of laughter.

The honor, is to serve.