Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KittyTac]

I just do not care. I can torture VG characters all I want and you can't stop me.

[GoblinCookie]

But that's the kind of arrogance that annoys me, just take a look at Koko the gorilla, Kanzi the bonobo, Pebbles the cockatoo or Wojtek the bear... The evidence is overwhelming for animals.

Now as to radical constructivism: it's a perspective, a frame of mind and something to never forget. But the scientific method rejects every aspect that isn't necessary to a model (->"electron fly around protons, because god said so"). So from our 21st century point of vue there is next to no interest to color our explanations of the world with that additional layer. It might change tough, who knows.

Then science rejects consciousness, *especially* animal consciousness.  If you can come up with a model that explains something with the fewest entities (Occam's razor), then it follows that if I can ever come up with a complete scientific model to explain the whole behavior of something conscious then consciousness is hence eliminated.  For many centuries we have of course been developing a more or less complete model to explain away all animal behavior, so animal consciousness is hence eliminated; which of course was the whole point of the exercise .  Science has a rather large vested interest in eliminating as much consciousness as possible because the less consciousness, the more lab rats to freely experiment on.  It does not matter how many gorillas you can train to talk, that we can explain how you trained them means we have no need to regard their speech as proof of anything. 

The ultimate irony comes in the end when the last scientist manages to explain away his own existence and so is forced to conclude that he does not exist using Occam's razor.  Of course this all based upon how the scientific mystique is built on a lie, as the actual material world beyond appearances is *unknowable*.  That means there is absolutely no means at all whatsoever by which anyone can ever produce anything except a catalogue of the various appearances that they perceive and there is no way to get a complete picture of anything at all, since there may always be more than is unseen.  That of course matters not, for the real purpose of the scientific exercise to the assert your own power over others, to assert the 'one true science' in the place of the 'one true god'.  The greatest power is to get people to deny their own appearances in favour of yours by convincing them that they see only appearances but you perceive *something more*. 

As St. Ignatius said once, "must be prepared to hold that white I see with my eyes is black if that were the decision of the magisterium of the catholic church".  Then came the Reformation and the whole situation fell apart, the Church lost it's authority to properly dominate the human mind.  The problem with religion is that while the clergy may claim to speak for god, the ability to speak for god is claimable by anyone, which allows for reformations to happen.  Science is far better in this role because it is utterly immune to such disruptions since it is really just the best truth that money can buy, while the lowly minions in the olden days could feasibly claim to speak for god, the lowly minions of the modern world can in no way challenge the scientific elite on the old basis since it is now money and power itself that produces scientific evidence. 

While priests and theocratic rulers of old may have had money and power on account of their divine authority, their divine authority did not simply sprout from their wealth/power; so a ragged prophet could rise to overthrow them.  Not so with scientists, they cannot but be the wealthy or powerful since it is only those things that allow them to produce evidence to begin with. 

[dragdeler]

In my point of vue consciousness (look I really don't care for that weak distinction, it's like I speak 3 languages and none of them well, so for many things I favor the words of one particular language, in this case I mean "Bewusstsein", but anyway you got me to look it up and well that... that helped duh)

let me start over

In my point of vue consciousness is a prerequesite for many things, such as intent, memory, planning and well even fucking conscience, since you couldn't have morality without emphaty, which you would not have either, because it's way higher in the evolution tree than consciousness. So I don't see how Occam's razor takes anything off that (thanks for teaching me the short way to reference this). As to insisting that only the awareness of consciousness defines  true consciousness (or the ability to define said awareness). I find that very silly, and by the way it brings me back to my original point which is that by that measure most humans don't pass, and every mimickry argument can be applied to them.

I wonder tough, did I miss your point? Because I still feel like I kind of have to explain myself.

edit: it's point of VIEW right?

[Kat]

[ETHIC:PLAY_DWARF_FORTRESS:PERSONAL_MATTER]

[KittyTac]

Oh, and: [KILL_VIRTUAL_ELF:REQUIRED_IF_NOT_QUEST], [TORTURE_VIRTUAL_ELF:REQUIRED_IF_NOT_QUEST].

[GoblinCookie]

In my point of vue consciousness (look I really don't care for that weak distinction, it's like I speak 3 languages and none of them well, so for many things I favor the words of one particular language, in this case I mean "Bewusstsein", but anyway you got me to look it up and well that... that helped duh)

let me start over

In my point of vue consciousness is a prerequesite for many things, such as intent, memory, planning and well even fucking conscience, since you couldn't have morality without emphaty, which you would not have either, because it's way higher in the evolution tree than consciousness. So I don't see how Occam's razor takes anything off that (thanks for teaching me the short way to reference this). As to insisting that only the awareness of consciousness defines  true consciousness (or the ability to define said awareness). I find that very silly, and by the way it brings me back to my original point which is that by that measure most humans don't pass, and every mimickry argument can be applied to them.

I wonder tough, did I miss your point? Because I still feel like I kind of have to explain myself.

edit: it's point of VIEW right?

My first point is that the world we see *is* not the real/material world, yet about the real/material world the only things that can known are it's existence, that it produces appearances and the fact that nothing further can be known.  This means the only facts are appearances, so all facts are unreal, since any claim about the world as it really is beyond our appearances must always be uncertain.

The reason we know that there is a real world is that we lack power over our own appearances, if the appearances we see are entirely the work of our mind then this would not be the case.  This entails that reality exists as a factor of our lack of power, if we had godlike powers to shape out whole world of appearances in accord to our will this would lead us to conclude that there *is* no external reality that is beyond our mind; but since we lack that ability we know there is something beyond our consciousness. 

My second point is that we understand scientifically the apparent behaviour of ordinary particles according to physical laws without reference to consciousness, or as you put it earlier we don't claim that (->"electrons fly around protons, because god said so"). Supposedly conscious beings are themselves made of particles that operate according to the ordinary material principles.  Unless those beings exhibit some behaviour that cannot be explained as the result of the combined functioning of all the particles then consciousness is in trouble.

An actual conscious being on top of all the particles, whether arising from their union or existing in parallel violated Occam's Razor at the point I have a scientific model that adequately explains the entire observable behaviour without reference to such a thing.  This is why I said that consciousness and science are opposed, it is only the failure of present science to 'explain away' the behaviours attributed to consciousness that allows the concept to survive.   

By third point is that science, or rather the scientific ideology is built on a lie.  The lie is because of point one nobody can claim to have factual knowledge of the world beyond subjective experiences, yet scientific ideologues claim that science can actually allow them to understand the material world through the application of the 'scientific method'.  I am not claiming that actual science is worthless, only that what scientists are actually doing is not revealing the objective material world but instead simply making an extensive catalogue of their own appearances.

This solves the problem with consciousness caused by the second point because if all our scientists are doing is cataloguing appearances, then the appearance of a world of mindless particles no longer inherently competes with consciousness since the same thing (in the unknowable material world) can appear as two separate appearances.  You can perceive the world as a conscious being and the scientists can perceive a world of mindless particles and both can be right; since neither are the real world. 

My fourth point is that scientific ideology serves the purpose of elevating certain appearances (those of the powerful) over those of others, allowing the powerless to be trained into obedient minions incapable of questioning their masters since they do not regard their own appearances of anything but regard only the appearances they are told are so.  In the olden days organised religion (Catholic Church in western Europe) carried out this function but the flaw in using religion for this end was revealed in the Reformation, the moment folks start to believe that they can have a personal connection to divinity the powerful (official clergy) lose much of their grip. 

For this end religion's earlier function was replaced with scientific ideology.  This happened because religion was no longer 'working', but science has an inherent advantage over religion in this function.  Science itself is inherently dependant upon power because the power of science depends upon the means at the scientists disposal.  There is no way a reformation can happen to science, because scientists have only the resources the powerful give them and the more resources a scientist has, the more scientific evidence he can produce.  Scientific ideology regards scientific evidence above everything else, so we have the perfect system of control in that unlike with religion no rogue scientist can ever function since you only have to 'turn off the tap'.

[Funk]

Yes and ou need to get out more(or play more DF)

[Loud Whispers]

play more DF

Eventually DF shall become such an intricate simulation of reality, that by understanding DF, one can understand the world

[KittyTac]

I'll revise my ethics a bit. [KILL_VIRTUAL:ETHICS_NOT_APPLICABLE] and [TORTURE_VIRTUAL:ETHICS_NOT_APPLICABLE].

[Egan_BW]

Reading violent books is unethical. You're creating thinking beings that run on the hardware of your brain just so they can suffer and die.

[dragdeler]

Consciousness remains inexplicable to this day if you get really gritty that's true. But I do believe that our models have some inherent value, even if they will always be incomplete. But I get what you say concerning scientific ideologues tough in my mind that is a direct consequence of our education system and not ill intented scientists or flawed methods. There are a fair amount of people in the field who know that all progress they make are but temporary truths.

If a model is able to make predictions it is a good partial description of reality. Ultimately we can not know reality but does that matter when we share this same perception?

[KittyTac]

With my new, revised ethics, everything I do to the simulated characters is completely justified. They're weaker and much less intelligent, they're inferior.

[quekwoambojish]

When a human beats up other humans he’s a bad human.
When a goblin beats up goblins he’s a good goblin.

When Kyle the fighter beats up a fighter he might be a good fighter.
When Dale the priest beats up a person he’s a bad priest.
(Just examples don’t nit pick me please!)

Everything depends on the perceived perspective of the individual interpreting. It’s like watching a movie, we can say a bad character was acted out very well. Everyone has a dance, dance it the best you can.

Eventually AI in video games will reach a level of sentience, so the question of whether it exists in DF, even if it doesn’t, will soon be a major question in the future. But as far as DF is concerned you are a deity that exists outside of their perceivable world, you can be judged by other players whether you are good or bad, but they are judging you rightfully according to their dance.

So are you playing ethically, idk, ask someone and they’l tell you.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

Reading violent books is unethical. You're creating thinking beings that run on the hardware of your brain just so they can suffer and die.

This is actually something that the Rationalists are worrying about - a sufficiently intelligent and knowledgeable AI might actually, in the process of predicting others' behaviors, produce thinking beings that are quickly deleted. This is usually seen as a bad thing.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

As for GoblinCookie's "everything could be conscious or non-conscious, we can't really tell" - evidence is weaker than surety, but it can exist in the absence of absolute knowledge. It is more likely that a conscious mind is behind something that passes the Turing Test than something that doesn't, for instance. And we all have to work with the evidence available. Sure, there's a minimal chance that I am in an evil god's Matrix and pressing the "z" button is magically linked to killing a random person, but that doesn't keep me from typing "zymurgy."