Hee hee... Excellent. You win my chuckle for the day. That's almost as good as the Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 post a few months back: "The only Microsoft product that doesn't suck."
::So you propose that universal truths are derived from the laws and morals that we impose on the rest of the world?
:No. I propose that the killing of a child is murder, while the killing of a dog is not. It's a happy coincidence that our laws reflect this.
In your original post, you imply that since it is a crime to kill a fetus but not a dog that somehow we (humans) have some divine gift.
I do not believe it comes from being clever animals or massively parallel computers. If that were true, is a hydrocephalic baby less of a person than Lassie? Yet killing the baby is murder, and killing a dog is not.
While you assume that our laws are a manifestation of our God-imposed morality (which for all I know may be true), it is certainly not a sound foundation upon which to make a point, having little basis in fact. It's easy to assume this. You can say "Look! Almost all cultures on earth have proclaimed the taking of human life as unacceptable yet many of them kill animals with little, if any, remorse. The proves that we, as a race of humans inherantly know that human life is sacred and thus a gift from God." You mistakenly use this fact to "prove" divine intervention. Is it not possible that cutures that did not outlaw murder simply killed themselves off? That would result in a world in which murder is illegal, without the influence of God.
If I may interpret your next statement: why such anguish over the events in Columbine? If we are simply complex, parallel automata, there there's no need to be any more upset about what Harris and Klebold did than if they had walked into a Circuit City and trashed it, or about a router going bad and flooding the Internet with bad packets.
It appears that your point is that humans feeling pain over loss of human life proves that God has instilled within us a sense of what is sacred. This is simply mystification of something we do not yet fully comprehend. I do not have another explaination, but masking it with God simply keeps you from seeking the truth. Why would a complex system somehow not evince the behavior you describe? Can you tell me why? Do humans understand every interaction within our tiny twisted little heads?
As I write this it is becoming clearer to me that you may be projecting your understanding of complex systems (ie artifical life) onto your own erroneously. We make the rules in AI. We know the basic unit of change: the bit. Currently we do not know what that bit is in humans therefore, unless you posess this knowledge, you have no way of conclusively proving that it is not possible for a complex system to "feel".
Rumor has it that Oracle and other companies in Silicon Valley are planning group screenings.
Didn't the Lucusfilm Gestapo make private screenings verboten on this one? Of course I've had a hard time keeping track of all the rules they've handed down.
I do not believe it comes from being clever animals or massively parallel computers. If that were true, is a hydrocephalic baby less of a person than Lassie? Yet killing the baby is murder, and killing a dog is not.
So you propose that universal truths are derived from the laws and morals that we impose on the rest of the world?
Engineer Joe Michael believes the applications could include clearing landmines, manipulating chemical solutions and optimizing weapon systems -- a clear example of the dangers of emergent behavior.
What is this about? Look out! Studies show that explosives can be fabricated from fertilizer and fuel oil - a clear example of the dangers of gardening.
I don't think volunteering for a for-profit company is the problem so much as the compensation. The/. volunteers aren't getting something that the rest of us pay for as compensation for their services, therefore they truly are volunteering. In the AOL scenario, the folks were given access in exchange for their work that the mere peons must shell out bucks for. This is really not any different from AOL sending them a $21.95 widget as payment. Check out this thread.
Slashdot Mirror
Hee hee... Excellent. You win my chuckle for the day. That's almost as good as the Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 post a few months back: "The only Microsoft product that doesn't suck."
::So you propose that universal truths are derived from the laws and morals that we impose on the rest of the world?
:No. I propose that the killing of a child is murder, while the killing of a dog is not. It's a happy coincidence that our laws reflect this.
In your original post, you imply that since it is a crime to kill a fetus but not a dog that somehow we (humans) have some divine gift.
I do not believe it comes from being clever animals or massively parallel computers. If that were true, is a hydrocephalic baby less of a person than Lassie? Yet killing the baby is murder, and killing a dog is not.
While you assume that our laws are a manifestation of our God-imposed morality (which for all I know may be true), it is certainly not a sound foundation upon which to make a point, having little basis in fact. It's easy to assume this. You can say "Look! Almost all cultures on earth have proclaimed the taking of human life as unacceptable yet many of them kill animals with little, if any, remorse. The proves that we, as a race of humans inherantly know that human life is sacred and thus a gift from God." You mistakenly use this fact to "prove" divine intervention. Is it not possible that cutures that did not outlaw murder simply killed themselves off? That would result in a world in which murder is illegal, without the influence of God.
If I may interpret your next statement:
why such anguish over the events in Columbine? If we are simply complex, parallel automata, there there's no need to be any more upset about what Harris and Klebold did than if they had walked into a Circuit City and trashed it, or about a router going bad and flooding the Internet with bad packets.
It appears that your point is that humans feeling pain over loss of human life proves that God has instilled within us a sense of what is sacred. This is simply mystification of something we do not yet fully comprehend. I do not have another explaination, but masking it with God simply keeps you from seeking the truth. Why would a complex system somehow not evince the behavior you describe? Can you tell me why? Do humans understand every interaction within our tiny twisted little heads?
As I write this it is becoming clearer to me that you may be projecting your understanding of complex systems (ie artifical life) onto your own erroneously. We make the rules in AI. We know the basic unit of change: the bit. Currently we do not know what that bit is in humans therefore, unless you posess this knowledge, you have no way of conclusively proving that it is not possible for a complex system to "feel".
Rumor has it that Oracle and other companies in Silicon Valley are planning group screenings.
Didn't the Lucusfilm Gestapo make private screenings verboten on this one? Of course I've had a hard time keeping track of all the rules they've handed down.
I do not believe it comes from being clever animals or massively parallel computers. If that were true, is a hydrocephalic baby less of a person than Lassie? Yet killing the baby is murder, and killing a dog is not.
So you propose that universal truths are derived from the laws and morals that we impose on the rest of the world?
Engineer Joe Michael believes the applications could include clearing landmines, manipulating chemical solutions and optimizing weapon systems -- a clear example of the dangers of emergent behavior.
What is this about? Look out! Studies show that explosives can be fabricated from fertilizer and fuel oil - a clear example of the dangers of gardening.
I read something to that effect here. They're using TEC elements and anti-freeze ro run it @-57C or so.
I don't think volunteering for a for-profit company is the problem so much as the compensation. The /. volunteers aren't getting something that the rest of us pay for as compensation for their services, therefore they truly are volunteering. In the AOL scenario, the folks were given access in exchange for their work that the mere peons must shell out bucks for. This is really not any different from AOL sending them a $21.95 widget as payment. Check out this thread.