Conversation
Notices
-
The Cabal has arrived.
Monday, 04-Apr-11 23:23:56 UTC from web-
@snowcone Here, I just made this. This should give a better representation of the epistemology being illustrated. http://rainbowdash.net/attachment/762159
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:42:53 UTC from web-
@northernnarwhal Oh, see that's cool because it ties in with my theory http://pny.lv/2mje
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:44:36 UTC from web-
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:47:46 UTC from web
-
@northernnarwhal case in point
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:48:07 UTC from web-
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:51:10 UTC from web
-
@northernnarwhal conclusion: rdn is nerds
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:51:34 UTC from web-
@mastertdi Ergo: Nerds are correlated with Rainbow Horses but Rainbow Horses are only suggested to be correlated with nerds.
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:55:37 UTC from web-
@northernnarwhal Interesting
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:56:40 UTC from web-
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:57:04 UTC from web
-
@northernnarwhal Stroke my chin. Feel the beard of a champion.
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:57:44 UTC from web-
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:58:06 UTC from web
-
@northernnarwhal You won't like my beard when it's angry
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:58:56 UTC from web-
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:59:28 UTC from web
-
@northernnarwhal You just made me so angry I smacked my head against my wardrobe
Friday, 30-May-14 00:00:09 UTC from web-
Friday, 30-May-14 00:01:05 UTC from web
-
@northernnarwhal It was a terrible experience for all those involved
Friday, 30-May-14 00:03:17 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@snowcone Well, you certainly grasp it, which is more than I could've hoped for. Also, late welcome back to RDN.
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:44:39 UTC from web -
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:48:22 UTC from web
-
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:48:29 UTC from web
-
@snowcone It's more than that though, it's a thought experiment on the nature of communication and language and the cognition involved in doing so.
Thursday, 29-May-14 23:53:53 UTC from web -
@snowcone It's not trying to solve a problem, it's a making a proposition. It's the idea that communication is not inherently human but consciousness is. Humans have intelligent discussions as we are now because we are able to consider the ramifications of said discussion, while a computer would only do so because it's been designed to do so. Ergo, while both have input and output as a source or knowledge transfer, only humans can give that knowledge purpose.
Friday, 30-May-14 00:15:16 UTC from web -
@snowcone No, it is understanding because it's regarding awareness. Does the computer know why it is holding the ball on the stick or is it only doing it because it's the only thing it knows how to do? Also, even if it can be programmed to "choose" to hold the ball, without a concept of punishment it has no real reason to hold the ball other than that it's supposed to. Humans have a broader cognizance of cause and effect, which is how their decision making process is different from computers.
Also, no problem in regards to solving your boredom. You're a really, really intelligent guy and it's nice to have such a stimulating but civil conversation. On that note, everything I'm saying here is my opinion, I could be wrong but it's nice to discuss both sides of these things.Friday, 30-May-14 00:32:45 UTC from web -
@snowcone Humans are able to provide justifications for simpler tasks though. For example, a human could throw a ball against a wall because as a human, he/she would experience boredom. Computers do not know boredom because they don't require stimulus to remain capable. They serve a specific function, the same way a fork would serve a purpose to make eating food easier. Moreover, expanding on my previous point, is the computer aware of its programmer, or even ponder it for that matter, in the ways that humans ponder a god? The idea is that humans have rationalization while computers don't. For example, if you showed a small child a red ball and a blue ball and asked them to pick one, the child could pick randomly but may also choose one of the balls based on what it associates with the ball's respective colour. Maybe it's crib was blue and correlates happy memories with that colour? A computer would only be able to make either a predetermined selection or a randomized one.
Friday, 30-May-14 00:48:04 UTC from web -
@snowcone The problem though is that computers don't need stimulation, humans do. You could program a computer to consume food but that doesn't mean it's digesting it and breaking down the nutrients to give it energy. Moreover, humans experience boredom, but a computer would just view boredom as another task. Computers don't have dopamine that is released to reward them upon being stimulated, they just do it because they're supposed to without even knowing why.
And how can it ponder it's programmer if it's never been programmed to do so? Humans ponder a god not just to explain the unknown, but because they have the impulse to ask such a question, whereas it can't even be proven a computer is aware of its own existence.
As for random, seeing blue during that day is still subconsciously influencing the choice. The computer would simply run a program that's the equivalent of a coin toss to make its truly random choice.Friday, 30-May-14 01:05:58 UTC from web-
@northernnarwhal @snowcone Yous twos should consider reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach Admittedly, I've only read two dozen out of seven-hundred pages, but I think from the synopses that it handles the subject at hand.
Friday, 30-May-14 01:08:24 UTC from web-
@scribus Ooooh, I love M. C. Escher's work! Metamorphosis is one of the most brilliant pieces of art I've ever seen. Definitely going to check this out, thanks!
Friday, 30-May-14 01:09:53 UTC from web
-
-
-
@snowcone The problem is that "positive" isn't a binary value like you make it out to be, as morals are often self imposed. As humans, what I see as positive might be something you see as "negative". And the other problem is the computer would view joy and facts as one and the same. It can't formulate opinions, it can only be given them. Which is why it would see infinite energy as a solution, because it has no grasp of rationalism and only works towards what it has now been told to (in this case, the programmer's idea of joy). That in itself is also an interesting point, the computer itself cannot actually experience joy unless it's programmed to do so, and even then joy, like boredom, is a task and not an experience. As for the copper wiring thing, it depends on your view of transhumanism.
Friday, 30-May-14 01:26:50 UTC from web
-
