Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-15-2002, 07:44 AM

spin:
------------
Well, if you insist, please define what you mean by "all matter" and "consciousness",
------------

Koy:
------------
"All matter" is self explanatory.
------------

That's what I thought.

Koy:
------------
"Consciousness"=Self awareness.
------------

And that's what I thought. The epistemological problem of course is to show that rocks, water, and plants have "self-awareness"

spin:
------------------------------
then overcome the epistemological quagmire of trying to know what consciousness is outside the normal understanding of the term,
------------------------------

Koy:
---------------
Done.
---------------

Umm, no, you didn't.

spin:
------------------------------
then you I might reconsider your statements.
------------------------------

And I'm still waiting.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]

Baloo · 03-15-2002, 07:45 AM

The entity to which I refer is, of course, the computer program. Let me make this a little more concrete, for the abstraction-impaired. Let's say I build a robot. It will "shriek" and "plead for mercy" if its sensors detect any experiences that damage its body. If I tap it with a hammer, it will "yelp" in pain. If I pull its leg off, it will scream in agony. If I damage it enough, naturally, its power systems will be corrupted, and it will "die". I can "kill" it quickly with a sledgehamer, or slowly with needle-nose pliers.

Now, what are the CONCEPTUAL differences between my robot and an ant, which makes it wrong for me to pull the legs off an ant (which seem to have almost no response to the event other than an inability to walk as efficiently), but "ok" to do whatever I'd like to the shrieking robot begging for mercy?

MadKally · 03-15-2002, 07:48 AM

Quote:

originally posted by SallySmith:
And Mageth, I was just trying to say that I feel spin is being treated poorly and is actually showing restraint under the circumstances.

Are you blind?

spin · 03-15-2002, 07:50 AM

baloo:
-------------
The entity to which I refer is, of course, the computer program.
-------------

I gathered that. But I don't consider it an entity at all.

baloo:
-------------
Let me make this a little more concrete, for the abstraction-impaired. Let's say I build a robot. It will "shriek" and "plead for mercy" if its sensors detect any experiences that damage its body. If I tap it with a hammer, it will "yelp" in pain. If I pull its leg off, it will scream in agony. If I damage it enough, naturally, its power systems will be corrupted, and it will "die". I can "kill" it quickly with a sledgehamer, or slowly with needle-nose pliers.
Now, what are the CONCEPTUAL differences between my robot and an ant, which makes it wrong for me to pull the legs off an ant (which seem to have almost no response to the event other than an inability to walk as efficiently), but "ok" to do whatever I'd like to the shrieking robot begging for mercy?
-------------

The analogy between animals and computer programs is extremely weak -- at least given the state of the art at the moment and your description.

Do you think going to theoretical extremes such as this is reflective of the real world situation of animals being slaughtered for some human beings' taste buds?

Queen of Swords · 03-15-2002, 07:53 AM

Quote:

I feel spin is being treated poorly and is actually showing restraint under the circumstances.

That's "showing restraint"?

I wonder what "attempting to be insulting" is like?

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]

SallySmith · 03-15-2002, 07:58 AM

Please. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Go back and tally. I didn't say his or her behavior was perfect or even acceptable. I do think, with the quality of the insults hurled, that spin showed restraint.

Mageth · 03-15-2002, 08:04 AM

Quote:

There are two things that I object to here:

Hypocrisy (it is morally wrong to eat animals, but morally right to eat plants, just because it is)
Sanctimonious, holier-than-thou posturing.
I think I can speak for most in here that it is within these two areas that most invective was generated.

We don't tolerate moral posturing by sanctimonious cult members, so why the hell would anyone think that we'd tolerate it from sanctimonious fundaterians?

I agree with you totally, Koy. The intent of my post calling for a "cease-fire," if you will, was to hopefully get the participants to stop the "You've been ruder than me," "No, you've been ruder than me!" bullshit.

We of course should call attention to hypocrisy, arrogant attitudes, sanctimonious posturing, flawed arguments, propaganda, demonstrably false statements ("Think of all the various primates and monkey and what they eat. Do you notice that none of them can be classified as "omnivores"? They are all primarily plant eaters."), etc.

There are times when irony, satire, even a little vitriol are appropriate responses to such. But sometimes it may be better if we try to take the "high road" when responding (I've obviously done a little of both on this thread, as have you and most of the other posters).

Not that I'm saying you or anyone else has to follow my suggestions. Like my views on vegetarianism, I think posting style is a matter of personal choice.

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-15-2002, 08:04 AM

Bonduca,

Reasoning with him doesn't seem to work. Let's tie an immediate consequence to it. Let's tally the number of rude things he says to you from now on, and we'll eat a pork chop on a one-for-one basis.

Jeff

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Not Prince Hamlet ]

SallySmith · 03-15-2002, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
Sally--

Perhaps the reason is that you took a morally pious stance, condemning others either directly (like Spin and Punkerslut) or indirectly?

There are two things that I object to here:
<ol type="1">[*] Hypocrisy (it is morally wrong to eat animals, but morally right to eat plants, just because it is)[*] Sanctimonious, holier-than-thou posturing.[/list=a]

I think I can speak for most in here that it is within these two areas that most invective was generated.

We don't tolerate moral posturing by sanctimonious cult members, so why the hell would anyone think that we'd tolerate it from sanctimonious fundaterians?

Since I became a vegetarian for ethical reasons, I hardly think I can say that I don't indirectly "condemn" those who eat meat, though condemn is rather a strong term. I still don't think that is reason enough for people to be rude and insulting.

I think your problem with hypocrisy is ridiculous, considering that I don't think anyone outside of this argument would try to say plants are conscious. I think the holier-than-thou posturing thing is entirely subjective. Regardless, I don't think people - on either side - should resort to insults and rude behavior.

That said, I should probably apologize to voltaire (I think that was the name) for being a little snarky in one of my posts. Voltaire, I apologize.

SallySmith · 03-15-2002, 08:10 AM

Everyone, I don't care to keep arguing about who was ruder. I just made the original comment, somebody responded, and I was trying to explain why I said what I said. It's not a contest, and I didn't mean to imply that it was or should be.

03-15-2002, 07:44 AM	#421
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	spin: ------------ Well, if you insist, please define what you mean by "all matter" and "consciousness", ------------ Koy: ------------ "All matter" is self explanatory. ------------ That's what I thought. Koy: ------------ "Consciousness"=Self awareness. ------------ And that's what I thought. The epistemological problem of course is to show that rocks, water, and plants have "self-awareness" spin: ------------------------------ then overcome the epistemological quagmire of trying to know what consciousness is outside the normal understanding of the term, ------------------------------ Koy: --------------- Done. --------------- Umm, no, you didn't. spin: ------------------------------ then you I might reconsider your statements. ------------------------------ And I'm still waiting. [ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

03-15-2002, 08:04 AM	#428
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	Bonduca, Reasoning with him doesn't seem to work. Let's tie an immediate consequence to it. Let's tally the number of rude things he says to you from now on, and we'll eat a pork chop on a one-for-one basis. Jeff [ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Not Prince Hamlet ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-15-2002, 07:45 AM	#422
Baloo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 417	The entity to which I refer is, of course, the computer program. Let me make this a little more concrete, for the abstraction-impaired. Let's say I build a robot. It will "shriek" and "plead for mercy" if its sensors detect any experiences that damage its body. If I tap it with a hammer, it will "yelp" in pain. If I pull its leg off, it will scream in agony. If I damage it enough, naturally, its power systems will be corrupted, and it will "die". I can "kill" it quickly with a sledgehamer, or slowly with needle-nose pliers. Now, what are the CONCEPTUAL differences between my robot and an ant, which makes it wrong for me to pull the legs off an ant (which seem to have almost no response to the event other than an inability to walk as efficiently), but "ok" to do whatever I'd like to the shrieking robot begging for mercy?

03-15-2002, 07:50 AM	#424
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	baloo: ------------- The entity to which I refer is, of course, the computer program. ------------- I gathered that. But I don't consider it an entity at all. baloo: ------------- Let me make this a little more concrete, for the abstraction-impaired. Let's say I build a robot. It will "shriek" and "plead for mercy" if its sensors detect any experiences that damage its body. If I tap it with a hammer, it will "yelp" in pain. If I pull its leg off, it will scream in agony. If I damage it enough, naturally, its power systems will be corrupted, and it will "die". I can "kill" it quickly with a sledgehamer, or slowly with needle-nose pliers. Now, what are the CONCEPTUAL differences between my robot and an ant, which makes it wrong for me to pull the legs off an ant (which seem to have almost no response to the event other than an inability to walk as efficiently), but "ok" to do whatever I'd like to the shrieking robot begging for mercy? ------------- The analogy between animals and computer programs is extremely weak -- at least given the state of the art at the moment and your description. Do you think going to theoretical extremes such as this is reflective of the real world situation of animals being slaughtered for some human beings' taste buds?

03-15-2002, 07:58 AM	#426
SallySmith Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 263	Please. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Go back and tally. I didn't say his or her behavior was perfect or even acceptable. I do think, with the quality of the insults hurled, that spin showed restraint.

03-15-2002, 08:10 AM	#430
SallySmith Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 263	Everyone, I don't care to keep arguing about who was ruder. I just made the original comment, somebody responded, and I was trying to explain why I said what I said. It's not a contest, and I didn't mean to imply that it was or should be.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.