Omniscient1
-
Posts
7,233 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Omniscient1
-
-
ouch, I'm hurt.
-
i don't want to be a dick but this is a pretty naive piece and probably not enough to be able to go ahead and call someone's ideas wrong
you're essentially talking in absolutes about fields that you don't seem to know much about. methrage's post doesn't really make sense though, to be fair.
I'm certainly interested in hearing why you believe I'm wrong if you have a reason.
Also, I'll check it out Rush.
-
I like how you used the term "rerolled" XD
-
Also for anyone interested I chose:
The Secret History of the World by Mak Booth
The Emperor's new Mind by Roger Penrose
SAS survival guide by John "Lofty" Wiseman
A Theory of Justice by by John Rawls
Healing by Design by Scott Hannen
I'm surprised at how many "Bibles" I've gotten here, and I'm shocked at the lack of Nietzsche. When I posted the same question on a philosophy forum nearly every post had Nietzsche in it.
-
The question tells us something about the people that reply, though. I'll think about my list.
Exactly. Some of the replies have been interesting.
I do disagree though that children "wouldn't survive" or that people "wouldn't set up another society". There's several cases of feral children scavaging from animals to survive.In my own mind the first thing I would do if I found that civilization was gone is look for other survivors. (just like Will Smith in I am Ledgend) I couldn't guarentee that the books wouldn't be completely disreguarded though. However, for the thought experiment I'm going to say they would be kept, and at least somewhat followed.
-
How old are the kids? Can they read?
Yes, the point is though that they have next to no knowledge about the world except for the very basics. A basic comprehension of words, and grammar and how to figure out big words from context clues. But next to know knowledge of science, languages, ethics, or history.
Also interesting replies from all of you.
I probably should have thought to include a dictionary, but I was very hesitant to include novels in my list, because I was afraid of someone taking it for "absolute truth" and disreguarding the message.
-
"I find this article to vague to be useful"
Considering he is preaching against being a "practical man" that's fitting.
-
People support wars because it's good for them that's true. A problem arises though when we ask "what makes a lapdog?".
If we take the idea of lapdog from it's etymology; it would suggest that we are referring to an alliance who derives its resources from a greater power. Using that definition of course you would hate Polar and Superfriends and seek to destroy them. If not they would have removed your position and that wouldn't have been good for you. Are TLR lap dogs? Or in other words: Does TLR recieve their status and resources only from their relationship with the current power structure?
I honestly can't say. However, when the reader visits your last paragraph things become hilarious. You first of all assume that people are rallying behind AI to lead the charge on MK. Considering MK has threatened AI, of course MK's enemies would rally behind AI. It's common sense. If you replaced AI with any other alliance that MK threatened then they'd rally behind that alliance too. So they aren't deriving their status and resources from AI. So arguing that anyone that would support an Anarchy Inc destruction of the Kingdom automatically makes those people lapdogs is incorrect. You are not using the term lapdog correctly.
-
I think the problem with Vox's silence as of now is that their conflicting opinions have lead them to different areas. I beileve there was a post done by nintenderk himself explaining how Vox had several conflicting opinons, but they all agreed on one thing: taking down the oppressive forces of the day.
People like Schatt, Nintenderk, Starfox, and Doitzel(?) have spoken out against the current power structure.
Then those like Rebel Virinia, Kingzog, CSM, and Cheyenne have mocked people speaking out against the power structure.
-
The Chinese room arguments just show that the turing test can't accurately predict, so I don't think it really needs an answer if I don't think consciousness is required to beat it. Whether AI can achieve consciousness depends on what we consider it to mean, is it possible for humans to create artificial humans, machines capable of make their own decisions, as well as a combination of both organic and artificial intelligence? Then as long as technology keeps moving forward it is only a matter of time for technology to reach that point.
That's assuming #1 is right, and your explanation is assuming they even dream anyway. I'll have to air on the side of no for now. Although I'll have to say I'm biased against such things, but would change my mind with a strong enough argument. Do you believe AI's can achieve consciousness? If so how do you answer arguments like the Chinese room and Godel's Theorems? I believe ultimately there is no way for us at the present time to reproduce consciousness on purpose. You can simulate it, but still the machine will not be conscious and therefore not truly self aware.
Dreams are sort of a reorganization of past memories and thoughts, so if an AI were advanced enough they could probably reorganize their data more efficiently in a sleep mode state much like when you defragment your desktop computer. When in sleep mode and not focused on the reality around you, your mind is free to wander into creating whatever reality it forms without additional input from new experiences from the outside world.I'm also not even sure if an AI could "dream". Since the leading idea concerning dreams is that they help us commit things to memory would an AI need to dream? If not then why would it dream? If the other common viewpoint about dreams is true (that they evolved to help inform us of our own unconscious fears and desires) would an AI even have an unconscious? I guess it'd need an actual consciousness first before we could even ask if an AI unconsciousness was even a real thing. Another dream theory I've heard bounced around out there is that they were simulated threats. So that when faced with a threat you'd already know the feeling and immediately know who to react. What "threats" would an AI face? Would AI's start dreaming about Humans switching them off? That's a pretty scary scenario. Then of course you have the mystical interpretation of dreams as connection with the divine.Yea I do agree we need to actually pin down what consciousness is. It's a mistake to confuse consciousness with fast processing though. If you want to make a computer that simulates consciousness then that's exactly what it is...A Simulation. I'd agree that "one day" we probably will be able to and be able to reproduce consciousness. That's a scary and interesting idea. Anyway, good discussion Methrage.
-
what makes you think we're anything but organic robots?
If that question was to me, it's because our consciousness is almost certainly not algorithmic (at least that's what all the philosophers I've read have said). Of course maybe all the philosophers I've read are part of the robot conspiracy trying to trick me into believing I'm not a robot. There is a very real possibility that we could all be a computer simulation too. Then there's the fact that I can't be sure anyone I see, meet, or talk to in my life are actually real. I could be a real person surrounded by robots. o.O
-
Dreams are sort of a reorganization of past memories and thoughts, so if an AI were advanced enough they could probably reorganize their data more efficiently in a sleep mode state much like when you defragment your desktop computer. When in sleep mode and not focused on the reality around you, your mind is free to wander into creating whatever reality it forms without additional input from new experiences from the outside world.I'm also not even sure if an AI could "dream". Since the leading idea concerning dreams is that they help us commit things to memory would an AI need to dream? If not then why would it dream? If the other common viewpoint about dreams is true (that they evolved to help inform us of our own unconscious fears and desires) would an AI even have an unconscious? I guess it'd need an actual consciousness first before we could even ask if an AI unconsciousness was even a real thing. Another dream theory I've heard bounced around out there is that they were simulated threats. So that when faced with a threat you'd already know the feeling and immediately know who to react. What "threats" would an AI face? Would AI's start dreaming about Humans switching them off? That's a pretty scary scenario. Then of course you have the mystical interpretation of dreams as connection with the divine.That's assuming #1 is right, and your explanation is assuming they even dream anyway. I'll have to air on the side of no for now. Although I'll have to say I'm biased against such things, but would change my mind with a strong enough argument.
Do you believe AI's can achieve consciousness? If so how do you answer arguments like the Chinese room and Godel's Theorems? I believe ultimately there is no way for us at the present time to reproduce consciousness on purpose. You can simulate it, but still the machine will not be conscious and therefore not truly self aware.
-
Meh I don't think that necessarily creates "self awareness". I'll have to respectfully disagree. I'm honestly not informed enough on the subject to engage you in debate, I don't think. However, I've read a lot of books on consciousness, from a lot of different viewpoints, (Penrose, Chalmers, Dennet, Searle) and I don't think that faster thinking would be the key to creating "self aware" AI. We can really only create artificial intelligence to about the speed of a human thought (using the methods we do now), because Moore's law eventually has to be broken. Once you start operating on less than like 5 atoms (I think it is), then you have all these weird micro physics laws coming into play which physicist believe it would be impossible to operate with.
I'm also not even sure if an AI could "dream". Since the leading idea concerning dreams is that they help us commit things to memory would an AI need to dream? If not then why would it dream? If the other common viewpoint about dreams is true (that they evolved to help inform us of our own unconscious fears and desires) would an AI even have an unconscious? I guess it'd need an actual consciousness first before we could even ask if an AI unconsciousness was even a real thing. Another dream theory I've heard bounced around out there is that they were simulated threats. So that when faced with a threat you'd already know the feeling and immediately know who to react. What "threats" would an AI face? Would AI's start dreaming about Humans switching them off? That's a pretty scary scenario. Then of course you have the mystical interpretation of dreams as connection with the divine. If you accept the diving exits, would robots be able to connect with the divine? Would God let a robot's consciousness into the afterlife?
Ultimately I'm not sure. It's an interesting question that one day when I'm bored I'll try to catch you on irc and talk about it if you want.
-
My point is not about people playing IC. I could care less. My point is the arbitrary use of "classy" and "honorable" because they represent a clear permeation of OOC morality over in-game realities. There is no "classy" and "honorable" in war, especially within the game. Senseless slaughter is (as it should be because its a game), a part of the IC reality of Bob. The very way war is fought is indicative of that. Wars are not fought to defend. The game offers no strategy mechanisms for a defensive war. Wars are fought to damage your enemy as much as possible even when you are the "defender" There is NEVER... in any situation, honor and class in simple destruction.Rush, if we play IC, why can't we imagine that IC mentality/values are just different from the RL ones? CN isn't much realistic, after all.For some maybe, but for a lot of us not in the "everything must be destroyed" don't play the game like that.
-
So are you arguing that killing people is never "honorable"? Or what?
-
I don't really know and don't really care about the MK thing. My only concern is the alliance I belong to.
Not really defending INT, but you're calling out an alliance for accepting people unfriendly with another alliance at war while being allied to MK! LMFAO! That's great.1. Did The International discuss this application with Nordreich in order to avoid accepting a nation belonging to an alliance at war?
Working a little bit, but not much else. (By 'a little bit' I mean twice and for much less than a day on each occasion. I try to take RL retirement seriously, as opposed to my multiple CN retirements....)Was supposed to go on a government-paid trip to east Asia, but the death of a certain diminutive dictator threw a spanner in the works. I might try to bring it up again next year, but I gotta be honest and say that every time I deal with the government I feel like there's a layer of slime left on me afterwards.As of this month, 3/5 of my kids are finished high school. To my complete frustration, none will be in university or college come September. My older daughter has it narrowed down to a couple of choices and is working in one of those fields right now, but she wants to be sure. I've no problem with that. The boys just have no clue....but I can't say much since I waited four years after high school before starting my BA. (And then I got a degree in a field where I've yet to earn one cent. Go figure.)The missus is running a bar these days, so I often go in to help her close (I'll be doing that this evening) since it helps to get her home an hour or more earlier if I pitch in with the clean-up. Sadly, she won't give me free booze. I'm thinking of calling a lawyer.Off topic: Welcome back man. Glad to see you again. Where you been?That all sounds pretty fun. (except having a cool trip delaying) It'd be cool to run your own bar, but I bet it's a lot of work
-
1. Did The International discuss this application with Nordreich in order to avoid accepting a nation belonging to an alliance at war?
Not really defending INT, but you're calling out an alliance for accepting people unfriendly with another alliance at war while being allied to MK! LMFAO! That's great.
Off topic: Welcome back man. Glad to see you again. Where you been?
-
You called me a "stupid donkey" once. Sorry I made you mad.
-
I see a big difference between Facebook and CN. Here people rarely deal with their real lives and (generally speaking) most people keep criticisms "in character" and game related.
I was just referring to legal action over slander from internet sources. I understand the two episodes are widely different. Just thought it was interesting to get everyone's ideas on where trolling becomes excessively malicious.
-
I'm sure they do or they wouldn't have joined.
-
Wow Rush is sexy.
-
Alabama will win the championship, for sure.
$%&@ you Wu.
-
Great. I had Duke in the finals. Only put them there since they beat Mich St. earlier this year. Knew I should've gone with them.. I'll revert back to my usual $%&@ DUKEness, and this exactly why.Also, wtf Michigan?Poor Mizzou.. :PGO BADGERS!
You're kicking ass right now though. Wu is destroying all of us somehow though.
-
Wow good call, Fyfe.
Rey Ban Vision
in Rager's Rap Roundup
A blog by Neo Uruk in General
Posted
I'm vouching for this man's taste in music.