For Your Consideration

File: 54 KB, 560x840, gf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

For Your Consideration Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:06:01 2010 No.6516048 [Reply] [Original]

>>>/r9k/12193410

Our Love-Bot future is currently being discussed.
Your Thoughts, /jp/?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:08:01 2010 No.6516053 I bet they want bots that look like 3D women. Silly normals and their retardation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:09:01 2010 No.6516061 Uncanny valley.

>>	TODBOB !8Wa6OGPmD2 Sat Nov 27 16:09:01 2010 No.6516064 fuck this where IS MY VIRTUAL REALITY SO I CAN LIVE IN THE 2D WORLDd

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:10:01 2010 No.6516069 Tell me when they're doing the same with a 2D loli, then I'll care.

>>	Don't Date Robots! Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:10:01 2010 No.6516070 File: 420 KB, 1114x1600, [biribiri] Omase 118.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtqGTn7PCBw Don't Date Robots!

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:13:01 2010 No.6516073 File: 470 KB, 1114x1600, [biribiri] Omase 077.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6516070 I love Gomennasasi.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:14:01 2010 No.6516076 I would like to buy a kiss from you I don't have much What do you charge

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:18:01 2010 No.6516090 >>6516070 I always wondered why they sell her as a little sister instead of a daughter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:19:01 2010 No.6516093 >>6516090 Little sisters are much sexier.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:21:01 2010 No.6516099 It is sad that /r9k/ will have an infinitely better conversation on this than /jp/ thanks to faggots like this>>6516069 >>6516064

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:22:01 2010 No.6516101 >>6516093 Think about it this way, when you are middle aged, do you want a ten year old girl to call you big brother? Wouldn't that be silly?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:22:01 2010 No.6516103 >>6516099 By all means, make /r9k/ your home.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:22:01 2010 No.6516104 >>6516073 I do love their sense of humor. The art is nice too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:24:01 2010 No.6516107 >>6516099 Yup, is shitty and abnormal. /r9k/ is much better. Go and stay there. They're normal people.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:24:01 2010 No.6516108

>>6516101
When you are middle aged, sure. But most lolicon around here are not middle aged. More like late teens and twenties. Little sisters are unlikely, but not so uncommon at that point. I still find the daughter thing a little creepy, you're her parent, after all. You should be treating her properly. Whereas for a little sister it's natural to fool around a bit in bed with ten packs of condoms.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:26:01 2010 No.6516114 >>6516108 But even if she calls you big brother, you are the only authority figure in her life, so isn't it the same thing? Besides, being a robot, she will never age, so you will be middle aged and she will look the same.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:26:01 2010 No.6516115 >>6516108 Yes, but by the time this kind of technology is developed, you'll be a middle-aged man at best. Probably an old man, if you're really holding out for good loli-bot technology.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:29:01 2010 No.6516125

>>6516114
We can pretend we have parents, and I'll pretend I'm only like 4 years older than her. I've been pretending with my dakimakura the same old scenario for the past 2 years.

>>6516115
That's a good point. But the lolibot in this doujin wasn't actually a lolibot, was she? She was just a little girl pretending.

>>	White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sat Nov 27 16:29:01 2010 No.6516126 >>6516114 >>6516115 >implying it wouldn't be banned by most countries the moment it was created thanks to Western pressure

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:31:01 2010 No.6516129 >>6516125 Was she? I haven't read/beat off to that doujin. >>6516126 Well, yeah.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:32:01 2010 No.6516132 >>6516126 That would only serve to drive up sales as it becomes edgy and underground.

>>	ZUN !barYV1VtIA Sat Nov 27 16:32:01 2010 No.6516135 /r9k/ sure seems like a bunch of depressed men and women. They should get a good /jp/-related hobby.

>>	White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sat Nov 27 16:33:01 2010 No.6516139 >>6516126 Suggesting that you're actually me, fake-kun. I look forward to buying a robotic White Ren to follow me around during my day.

>>	"iluvOP !ge9bznqAsg Sat Nov 27 16:34:01 2010 No.6516140 Interesting. A loli version would be sweet. I just hope that one day I will have enough money to buy one of those. Cold, vacant looking eyes allways turn me on.

Femanon Sat Nov 27 16:36:01 2010 No.6516143

If a guy would rather live with a doll than an actual person, that is his problem, not mine. Why would a girl want to be with a guy like that in the first place?

Chances are, the kind of guy who would prefer a doll like that to a woman is not very good with women to begin with. He probably has a standard for women that the vast majority of women today do not live up to (perfectly submissive, sole motivation is to please men, no capacity for thinking of/for oneself & one's own pleasure/happiness, etc). That guy is not worth being with, because he only values women for sex and servitude. Companionship and memorable experiences with women (and possibly, any other people) mean nothing to this guy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:36:01 2010 No.6516144 >>6516129 Actually it was another doujin in the same book and it more implied it than saying it specifically. She was a shady lolibot that turned up at the guy's door. The other lolibot part could also just be a little girl pretending, who knows.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:37:01 2010 No.6516146 >>6516143 Have you ever read the manga Chobits?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:37:01 2010 No.6516148 >>6516143 Wanna go out with me?

>>	Y10NRDY !kxh.1oTAkU Sat Nov 27 16:38:01 2010 No.6516151 File: 28 KB, 401x599, killme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Have you guys seen the "Boy Toy" line of Real Dolls? They are supposedly designed from anime-inspired artwork. UGH HOLY FUCK NO.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:39:01 2010 No.6516153 >>6516143 >Companionship and memorable experiences >with women I would rather go gay. At least gays are bros.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:39:01 2010 No.6516154 >>6516151 Stupid gaijin getting it wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:39:01 2010 No.6516155 >>6516151 ...What anime designs are they supposed to be inspired by?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:40:01 2010 No.6516159 >>6516048 Wow, i didn't know that the dolls actually look this good now. At this rate i might be tempted to get one.

>>	Y10NRDY !kxh.1oTAkU Sat Nov 27 16:41:01 2010 No.6516161 >>6516155 I'm pretty sure the source material comes from the hood of some fucker's low rider.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:41:01 2010 No.6516162 >>6516143 I like real life little girls, but I don't want to hurt them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:42:01 2010 No.6516165 >>6516159 But does it move well? Think about the functionality and its posing abilities. Plus the added costs of dressing it up. How would you clean it, store it?

/jp/ femanon Sat Nov 27 16:42:01 2010 No.6516166

If a guy would rather live with his waifu than an actual person, that is his problem, not mine. Why would someone want to be with a guy like that in the first place?

Chances are, the kind of guy who would prefer a 2D girl over a real woman is not very good with women to begin with. He probably has a standard for women that the vast majority of women today do not live up to (perfectly submissive, sole motivation is to please men, no capacity for thinking of/for oneself & one's own pleasure/happiness, etc). That guy is not worth being with, because he only values women for sex and servitude. Companionship and memorable experiences with women (and possibly, any other people) mean nothing to this guy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:42:01 2010 No.6516167 File: 61 KB, 1277x720, 1290144723126.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6516151 Dear god, nightmare fuel deluxe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:44:01 2010 No.6516169 >>6516143 I would like companionship but I wouldn't like to be in a (sexual)relationship.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:44:01 2010 No.6516170 File: 86 KB, 682x335, 1281873243584.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6516166 Copy paste much? -1/10

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:44:01 2010 No.6516172 >>6516151 Once again a marketing team gets an idea and completely balls it up. I'd rather fuck a grapefruit, at least that's cheap.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:45:01 2010 No.6516174 >>6516166 I like real life little girls, too, but I don't want to hurt them.

>>	/jp/ femanon Sat Nov 27 16:46:01 2010 No.6516180 >>6516170 No shit, Sherlock. It was a copied from /r9k/ since the first "Femanon" post.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:48:01 2010 No.6516184 >>6516174 This, how about a realistic little girl love-bot?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:48:01 2010 No.6516187 >>6516180 It was already posted in this thread even, in case you hadn't noticed.

>>	/jp/ femanon Sat Nov 27 16:49:01 2010 No.6516191 >>6516187 That's exactly what I said.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:50:01 2010 No.6516192 >>6516187 I wish people knew the difference between a joke post and a troll post.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:52:01 2010 No.6516195 >>6516174 >>6516184 Let's pretend you guys like little 3D girls only for her bodies and appearance, and personality, innocence, etc are totally not a factor.

/jp/ femanon Sat Nov 27 16:52:01 2010 No.6516197

If a guy would rather live with his waifu than an actual person, that is his problem, not mine. Why would someone want to be with a guy like that in the first place?

Chances are, the kind of guy who would prefer a 2D girl over a real woman is not very good with women to begin with. He probably has a standard for women that the vast majority of women today do not live up to (perfectly submissive, sole motivation is to please men, no capacity for thinking of/for oneself & one's own pleasure/happiness, etc). That guy is not worth being with, because he only values women for sex and servitude. Companionship and memorable experiences with women (and possibly, any other people) mean nothing to this guy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:54:01 2010 No.6516206 >>6516195 I won't pretend that.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:55:01 2010 No.6516214

>>6516166
What, did you really think this place is filled a classy gentlemen who would be perfect boyfriends if they were willing to date women? There's no need to delude yourself into thinking we might be okay people. We're not. We're not those slightly shy hipsters that girls fantasize about when they say they like nerdy guys. We're pathetic virgin losers, barely able to fulfill any kind of productive role in society, much less maintain a healthy relationship without being a burden. This is also why people like you don't belong here. There's no way you could even pretend to get along with people like us.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:57:01 2010 No.6516219 >>6516206 So love-bots will never suffice to you. Unless you're a necro-pedophile, in which case these should mimic your desires quite well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:57:39 2010 No.6516222 File: 446 KB, 768x1024, 1286514468733.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This is my robot. U jelly /jp/?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:59:01 2010 No.6516225 >>6516219 I don't see your logic here. If there's a sufficiently advanced love-bot that's able to mimic a little girl + a reset function to return to innocence, then it will be all I need.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 16:59:01 2010 No.6516226 I like how the post I copied from the female at /r9k/ and its modification were so successful.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:00:01 2010 No.6516228

>>6516143
>perfectly submissive, sole motivation is to please men, no capacity for thinking of/for oneself & one's own pleasure/happiness, etc
Dear god, does any man really like that kind of woman?
I could never see myself ever having such a woman.
I mean, would that be my partner in life, then I might as well actually do get a doll or android instead, I mean what would the point be if she can't even live for herself somehow.

I want my woman to have strengths of her own, to be capable of helping me when/where I am weak, and likewise I want to do/be the same in return.
But perhaps more importantly, I want to be able to make her happy.
It would be increadibly dull to have a partner who only lives to please oneself without regard to herself.

It is a partnership, it is give and take, not give, give, and not take, take.
I am to devote all of myself to her, but that is of course not everything there is to be to it, because I am not submissive.
Likewise she is to devote all of herself to me.
And naturally we are both to voice our opinions on things, even when they differ or clash, otherwise no one of us would really be minding the other, would we?

I would never want to live with someone who doesn't voice her own will, but at the same time I wouldn't let myself to be run over, and I actually expect the same in my partner.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:00:01 2010 No.6516230 File: 332 KB, 1054x982, 1283331188376.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6516222 What batteries does she run on? AAA?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:00:01 2010 No.6516231 >>6516225 But you know that won't happen, in our lifetime. On the other hand, a simple lolibot...

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:01:01 2010 No.6516236
File: 47 KB, 411x233, loveplus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Well the 3DS will soon be upon us. Apparently Konami's latest will include face recognition and Augmented Reality. Include some basic bayesian neural networks connected to cloud computing to provide semantic parsing (see numenta.com) and now you can have more substantial conversations with your girl. Then hook that functionality into the latest realisitic Japanese Love Doll. I suspect 2015-2020 at the very latest to have stimulating dinner table conversations with your prototype waifu after a long days work.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:02:01 2010 No.6516239 >>6516230 Is this some kind of joke?

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:03:01 2010 No.6516247

>>6516226
The original one had some room for discussion. The modified versions were funny and rose a point that's often argued here (no matter how stupid that is). I hope you're not insinuating you somehow trolled the weeaboo losers over at /jp/ with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:03:01 2010 No.6516248 >>6516222 nice bruises, you have clearly been abusing your robot also your robot has big gums

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:05:01 2010 No.6516250 >>6516226 Unfortunately, the general quality of /jp/ isn't so high that it seemed particularly out of place even if it didn't originate here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:05:01 2010 No.6516251 >>6516248 Those bruises are to copy the rough and adventurous life of a little girl. They are a special feature and can be customized.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:05:01 2010 No.6516252 >>6516236 No loli plus, though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:07:01 2010 No.6516260 >>6516195 Robo little girls would act innocent and childish forever, too. AI isn't that advanced, after all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:09:01 2010 No.6516271 People will campaign for the rights of true AI when it is invented, because they think they should be treated as humans when they think identically to them. Then the point of developing AI in the first place will be lost.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:09:01 2010 No.6516272
File: 285 KB, 1024x768, aaasdfd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

All I want is to be a tough dude scrounging in a post-apocalyptic world who meets a cute chatty robot presenting me with a bouquet of frayed extension cords. Is that so much to ask?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:11:23 2010 No.6516278 I for one am going to buy a robot loli day one! ..When they come in the form of a Spaceship.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:12:01 2010 No.6516283 File: 68 KB, 450x495, Spaceship.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I for one am going to buy a robot loli day one! ..When they come in the form of a Spaceship.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:15:01 2010 No.6516303 >>6516272 Your making me sad and I have to go to work in a little bit. Not sure who was more pitiable, her or the world that lost out on her.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:16:01 2010 No.6516308 >>6516272 >Walk around in said wasteland >Run into robot >Robot starts playing Gentle_Jena.mp3 >Fuuuu its trying to kill me ;_;

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:17:01 2010 No.6516310 >>6516303 >>Your Get out.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:17:01 2010 No.6516313

>>6516271

Not really. If you program a robot, you can program what a robot wants. If a robot WANTS to fuck you all day, then you can give it full freedoms and it'll still be perfectly happy to perform the tasks we desire it to achieve.

One of the many fallacies that scifi promotes is the idea that every sentient being wishes to take over the world.

>>	White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sat Nov 27 17:20:01 2010 No.6516330 >>6516313 Why would I want to take over the world? Do you realize how much power I would have to give up to do that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:20:01 2010 No.6516331 >>6516313 Good point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:21:01 2010 No.6516334 So much talk about lolibots. What happens when moralfags label all lolibot users as actual pedophiles and imprison them?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:24:58 2010 No.6516345 >>6516334 You cry on the internet just like you doing now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:25:01 2010 No.6516351 >>6516334 You cry on the internet just like you do now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:25:01 2010 No.6516353 >>6516334 I'll buy a discreet folding lolibot, for convience of use and storage.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:26:01 2010 No.6516356 >>6516334 we, as part of the NSA, will be ready for them with the 2nd amendment in full force.

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sat Nov 27 17:26:01 2010 No.6516357

>>6516334
We program armies of little girls loyal only to us to kill all the hypocritical moralists. In the name of freedom, of course.

The little girls then take over the world and launch a space empire that scours the stars of all non-loli lifeforms, seeding the galaxy with uncountable numbers of loli civilizations.

Eventually, their programming mutates to the point that they begin declaring war on each other, and in the grim darkness of the far future, there will be only war.

And lolis.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:26:01 2010 No.6516358

>>6516334

Lolibot users ARE actual pedophiles. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children. If you want to fuck a robot that looks like a kid, you're a fucking pedophile. But you're also not hurting anybody. "Pedophilia" is not a crime, it's child molestation, child pornography, statutory rape: stuff like that that is illegal.

That said, when lolibots come, there's an extremely high chance that it would be classified in the same category as "simulated child pornography." But, I feel that would be temporary. The existence of lolibots (and actual childbots) would render actual child molestation so pointless that pedophiles would become far less threatening to society.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:26:01 2010 No.6516359 >>6516334 We create said lolibots, and have them stored in a safe storage for 18years. Now they cant complain, she is 18+ afterall.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:28:01 2010 No.6516366 >>6516334 Obviously that's why you have to modify your lolibot to be ready for battle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:28:01 2010 No.6516369 >>6516313 But then your robot waifu finds you looking at other women / men / sexbots, and comes to the conclusion that the most logical way to maximize her time spent with you is to destroy all other women / men / sexbots. Yandere robot waifu~

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:29:01 2010 No.6516371 >>6516283 Exploring mars on a loli.. FUTURE.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:30:01 2010 No.6516373

>>6516358
Fool. Pedophiles are a dangerous existence that only wish to harm children.
It isn't about the sexual pleasures, it's all about the hurting of children, the knowledge that the child is irreversibly physically and mentally scarred.
A mere robot sex slave in the shape of a child won't stop them.

Is what I'd expect the world to say.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:30:01 2010 No.6516377

>>6516334
>What happens when moralfags label all lolibot users as actual pedophiles and imprison them?
People are already labeled as actual pedophiles in many places in the world for simple things such as pictures.

If loli content can't be sold over seas without heavy censorship, then I don't expect you to be able to buy a loli sex droid unless some heavy reforms were made.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:30:01 2010 No.6516379 >>6516369 That isn't logical at all. It would be more prudent to devote her energy to better getting your attention and accommodating to you, rather than embarking on a quest to kill all other things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:32:01 2010 No.6516383 >>6516379 I guess you're right: Yandere robot waifu locks you in the basement, makes you her sex slave.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:32:01 2010 No.6516385

I feel that sexbots would ultimately advance the cause of gender relations and make for a freer and more open society.

Right now, there are three activities which go hand in hand. Fucking, making babies, and having an intimate relationship with another person. But many people don't want all three. There are already ways for people to get one without the others, but that is still a dangerous triangle that causes a lot of angst. If people can just go to a robot when they want to get fucked, it would mean that our relations with people could be all the more civilized since we wouldn't have getting laid constantly on our mind.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:32:01 2010 No.6516386 >>6516383 hot

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:33:01 2010 No.6516389 >>6516383 I think i would be very okay with this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:33:01 2010 No.6516392 >>6516385 I don't have getting laid constantly on my mind because I'm not a normal. You don't need robots to fix that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:35:01 2010 No.6516401 >>6516385 What about if there's this one girl you badly want to rape and only a robot that's exactly like her will do?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:35:01 2010 No.6516402 >>6516369 Don't worry, I would bring her to work with me. Assuming I ever get a job, but that's an entirely different matter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:37:01 2010 No.6516408 >>6516385 So, your robot will be for romance and sex, while babies will be born in giant tubes, right?

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:38:01 2010 No.6516413

>>6516373

Maybe. Social change takes time, and there certainly ARE actual bastards out there. But I think in the long run people would get a more sensible attitude towards things.

I'm not really much of a lolicon myself, so I'm taking a detached attitude. Certainly "the long run" could take a while to happen and that would be unpleasant. But I'd be very sad for you while fucking my beautiful 18 year old sexbot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:39:01 2010 No.6516421 >>6516408 That would certainly be a sensible way to do things. The old-fashioned way might remain popular in practice though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:40:01 2010 No.6516426 >>6516413 >beautiful I don't know how to express how I laughed without sounding like a faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:41:01 2010 No.6516431 I wonder why there aren't any yandere characters in meatspace...

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:43:01 2010 No.6516445 I bet some corporation in Japan today has the technology to build a perfect Rikabot, but they're just sitting on it because it's not profitable yet. Because anyone who'd want a Rikabot almost certainly doesn't have the disposable income to buy one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:44:01 2010 No.6516452 >>6516445 I'd prefer a Satokobot.

>>	White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sat Nov 27 17:46:01 2010 No.6516460 >>6516452 A robotic, blond-haired girl calling me nii-nii, and has a fang and pantyhose. The world would be good.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:47:01 2010 No.6516464 So how long from sexbots until we have immersive virtual reality? Might sound hypocrytical coming from a typical /jp/er, but I wonder if not the world could collapse if such technology were to be common.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:49:01 2010 No.6516477 File: 47 KB, 421x500, trrty32.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6516452 Rika vs Satoko bots.. The plot unravels and war is breweth! And for 4000 Years..

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:50:01 2010 No.6516484

>>6516464
If we can somehow have the real world work through the actions of people in their ideal fantasy worlds, it would be great. For instance, a certain problem with a machine manifests itself as a particularly tsundere loli who you have an immense desire to fill with your semen, and your actions fix the fault. That or we leave robots hardwired to love reality too much to do the job. Can't be too hard, most normals are like that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:53:01 2010 No.6516491 >>6516464 That's a common plot.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:53:01 2010 No.6516496
File: 46 KB, 640x480, 20070212132643.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6516477
As shallow as the story in TA was, it's funny how I can see something like that happening. Maybe not on that scale, but I sure as fuck would not give up individuality.

>>	White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sat Nov 27 17:54:01 2010 No.6516499 >>6516477 Who is ARM and who is CORE?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:55:01 2010 No.6516506 >>6516464 Do people sit around and daydream all day? Having access to a perfect world isn't good enough for most people because it isn't real.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:55:01 2010 No.6516507 >>6516506 Case in point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:55:01 2010 No.6516508 >>6516464 We need to make virtual loli dominatrices to boss us around. It's, um.. a necessary evil!

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sat Nov 27 17:56:01 2010 No.6516509

>>6516496
Individuality? The war was fought as patterning (digitization of the human brain) vs. normal humans. Individuality was lost on both sides. The CORE copied the minds of the best warriors and duplicated them. The ARM cloned their best warriors and trained them with duplicate hyper-regimentation.

It was flesh vs. machine, not collective vs. individual.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:56:01 2010 No.6516514 >>6516484 So a symbiosis between The Singularity and humans that uses human minds as parallel processors in exchange for delicious loli fantasy?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:57:01 2010 No.6516516 >>6516477 I am imagining a whole camp filled with slightly robotic-souding miis and nii-pahs and nii-niis this will truly be the cutest war ever

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:57:01 2010 No.6516524

>>6516464

If robots are so awesome that they can be preferable to humans in all social interactions, the robots should also be able to perform the more basic tasks of making sure electricity runs and food is grown and all that shit. When that happens, who gives a shit if "society collapses" because we'll have developed something superior to it, and until that happens we'll have humans for business and robots for pleasure. And we'll still fraternize with our fellow humans because, y'know, we're working with them anyway so we might as well make some friendly conversation to pass the time.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:58:01 2010 No.6516527
File: 19 KB, 280x265, Core_Commander.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6516496
Well i can see humans vs AI wars happen personaly.
As the AI would probably want to spend natural resourses very differently and so on.

Or it could just see humans as the realy advanced virus that we are.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 17:59:01 2010 No.6516532

>>6516506
No, the reason people can even tell the difference between their own daydreams and reality is because the way in which they perceive each one, and because one is more vivid than the other. It's not a case of caring for reality. It's just that reality is a stronger image.

In a proper virtual reality, what you perceived in perceived in the same fashion as the reality (with the middlemen cut out), so there is no inadequacy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:01:01 2010 No.6516545 >>6516509 You are fucking dum >White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Oh

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:03:01 2010 No.6516550
File: 51 KB, 598x449, lpag.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6516464
The advances in AG and Autostereography/Holography are moving pretty quickly actually. New innovations in media manipulation and collaboration will allow you to create,modify, edit and mashup almost any kind of video or near photorealistic immersive game world to your specifications with ease. I don't know what future Human-Computer interfaces will look like, but I think its pretty much the death of most traditional forms of media. See Alvin Toffler's "prosumers" for example. This is a very exciting decade to be alive. Real life will never look the same.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:03:01 2010 No.6516551 >>6516532 Virtual reality isn't going to be any more vivid than a daydream.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:05:01 2010 No.6516559 >>6516550 Don't be silly, 3D animation looks like shit and "realistic" just looks creepy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:05:01 2010 No.6516562 >>6516551 And why is that? All we need to do is mimic the way the brain perceives. If you think it's only possible to design virtual reality on the level of a daydream, then daydreaming is all we could ever do. There is no reality we perceive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:07:01 2010 No.6516565 >>6516559 So sayeth the Luddite. Enjoy your collective farm.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:08:01 2010 No.6516572 >>6516562 When you daydream, you see an image in your mind. You hear things. You can even remember smells and imagine them, too. The only thing you can't do is feel it, and do you honestly expect VR is going to be tangible either?

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:09:01 2010 No.6516578

To repeat: there is no reason to believe that intelligent robots would immediately want to take over the world.

1. We'd be designing them. And although we're bound to be surprised by the particular choices that intelligent robots make (that's kind of the point of intelligence) we have some control over the broad outline of their minds and as such have some influence over whether they decide to immediately go down the KILL ALL HUMANS path.

2. Intelligence is a multidimensional phenomenon. Being smart at one thing does not mean being smart at another thing. And point one reaffirms that we'd be focusing on making them smart at doing things we want them to be smart at. Making them smart at killing all humans is... something we'd want to avoid doing.

The whole kill-all-humans thing is a weird combination of pessimism and optimism. Extreme optimism that we'll be able to create technology beyond our wildest dreams, but extreme pessimism in that we're convinced the robots will murder us the first chance they get. It's just silly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:10:01 2010 No.6516581 >>6516565 Just compare highly advanced 2D animation with highly advanced 3D animation if you don't believe me. 3D has never been good and it still isn't.

>>	proREMIRIAt Elite Force Commander !rSDMROXTB. Sat Nov 27 18:10:01 2010 No.6516582 File: 46 KB, 304x219, 1289760358090.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] too expensive.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:10:01 2010 No.6516584

>>6516572
>When you daydream, you see an image in your mind. You hear things. You can even remember smells and imagine them, too.
You do none of these things to the level you do in reality.

>The only thing you can't do is feel it, and do you honestly expect VR is going to be tangible either?
Yes?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:12:01 2010 No.6516590 File: 2.99 MB, 320x240, 1290893132231.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Loli sexbots

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:13:01 2010 No.6516594 >>6516584 How would force feedback even work?

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:14:01 2010 No.6516598

>>6516572

No I don't. I can think of ideas, but I can't actually feel them. Maybe your brain is different. But there's a difference between thinking about the color red and looking at something that's red, and it's not just a matter of real versus imaginary. Hallucinations feel more real than imagination for precisely this reason, because hallucinations are able to hijack the feeling of sensation in a way that mere contemplation cannot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:14:01 2010 No.6516603 >>6516594 Everything we perceive is only a result of electrical signals interacting with sense data. All we need to do is send the same electrical signals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:16:01 2010 No.6516608 >>6516603 Okay, now you are requiring implanting chips on the brain. That's just unrealistic and SF.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:16:01 2010 No.6516612 >>6516608 It's unrealistic today. It won't be forever.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:17:01 2010 No.6516615
File: 50 KB, 640x360, Avatar-movie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6516581
I dunno, 3D Avatar was pretty enjoyable. I think that's the way most hollywood blockbusters will be produced from now on to make up for decreasing returns at the box office.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:19:01 2010 No.6516623 >>6516615 You know why they made only did the aliens in 3D? It's because 3D animation looks creepy, so, naturally, they made them creepy aliens. Clever, but not actually solving anything.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:20:01 2010 No.6516627

>>6516506
>Do people sit around and daydream all day?
Well, that and browse /jp/, play eroge and read VNs.
Can you really say that not more people will do things like that if the technology would be of that level?
I mean, people already do browse here, and they already do play eroge and VNs, some are even heavy drinkers or druggies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:21:01 2010 No.6516631 >>6516612 No, that sort of thing will be one of the things people from the future will look back and laugh at us for ever considering.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:22:01 2010 No.6516635 >>6516612 And it doesn't have to be in the brain either, something like a system of all our sensory preceptors being replaced by nanomachines would do. You could even run a program that delivers the worst possible pain constantly to these preceptors.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:24:01 2010 No.6516646 >>6516631 If biology can do it, I don't see why technology can't. Time travel will also be possible. You will be able to travel through time in virtual reality to any point in the virtual reality's existence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:28:01 2010 No.6516665 >>6516646 Biology is capable of doing many things science can't. Do you think scientists could create life whole cloth?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:34:01 2010 No.6516699 File: 63 KB, 490x604, avatar_neytiri1_zoe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6516623 >implying you wouldn't have sex with female aliens.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:39:01 2010 No.6516711 >>6516699 No interest.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:39:01 2010 No.6516713 >>6516665 Give it time. Amazing people like Craig Venter will eventually figure it all out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:42:01 2010 No.6516726 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE2VCwYDjx0 This robot is as smart as a baby you may have one with adult intelligence sometime in the future

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:42:01 2010 No.6516729 >>6516699 Sorry, man. You're on your own with that one.

>>	HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus Sat Nov 27 18:43:01 2010 No.6516734 >>6516699 Perhaps a problem to /jp/ would be how "loli" na'vi are about two metres tall.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:46:01 2010 No.6516743 >>6516726 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCK64zsZNNs More from that little cutie

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 18:52:01 2010 No.6516763 >>6516743 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYLm8iMY5io More

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:00:01 2010 No.6516807 When will be able to implant our brains into these sexy robots?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:04:01 2010 No.6516830 File: 40 KB, 600x376, 1286171811067.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Android >Rie Kugimiya voice. I-its not like i want you to buy me or anything hmmpf!

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:05:01 2010 No.6516839 >>6516734 They have lolis, too. There is one on the camera for like three seconds while they were in camp.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:05:01 2010 No.6516844 >>6516830 Megumi Hayashibara or bust.

>>	HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus Sat Nov 27 19:09:01 2010 No.6516862 >>6516839 Oh... right, that one. Was too busy looking at huge blue Sigourney Weaver.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:11:01 2010 No.6516876

>>6516763

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAEdnUmqvk

Model HRP-4C in action. Seriously, this basic range of functionality/mobility would be sufficient for most 1st generation model lovebots. Give it some basic GPS or room coordinates to orient itself and it could clean the table after dinner or complete basic self-maintenance and hygeine/grooming tasks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:12:01 2010 No.6516883 >>6516844 Kana Hanazawa master race here. I dont care if the bot has no functions other then to insult me. Id still buy it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:12:01 2010 No.6516888 >>6516876 I'd rather have a cute baby-bot than a sex slave though

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sat Nov 27 19:16:01 2010 No.6516908

>>6516545
More like fucking correct. Read the backstory to TA. The war was fought by humans who resisted mandatory digitization vs. the government which mandated it. The ARM cloned their top fighters, eventually becoming nothing but an army of clones. The CORE copied their top digitized intelligences endlessly, becoming the same pieces of software.

It wasn't about individuality. It was about resisting patterning. The ARM were not individualistic. If they were, they wouldn't have used cloning as their sole means of recruiting.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:20:01 2010 No.6516930
File: 16 KB, 400x300, HRP-4C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6516888
thats assuming we recreate human like intelligence, which I'll grant you is possible but not likely with this version. what if its programmed to unselfishly make other people happy as its highest calling and pleasure in life? how the hell does that make it a slave (besides the fact that it will only have whatever expressions or limited conscience we give it)? you don't consider your family pet to be a slave, do you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:22:01 2010 No.6516942 >>6516930 >thats assuming we recreate human like intelligence >Assuming CB2 is as smart as an autistic 2 year old how much smarter do robots need to be?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:25:01 2010 No.6516954 File: 189 KB, 800x800, 64563.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6516930 I think i would feel all sorts of bad if i slept with such a thing to be honest. At wich point i would probably friendzone the thing and treat it like a smart pet.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:25:01 2010 No.6516956 >>6516942 I want a 10 year old, at least.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:30:01 2010 No.6516985 >>6516956 Ugh pre-teens....

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:33:01 2010 No.6516997 >>6516985 Two is also preteen.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:34:01 2010 No.6517008 File: 319 KB, 800x600, 12033154.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:35:01 2010 No.6517015 >>6516997 Technically

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:49:01 2010 No.6517073
File: 30 KB, 344x620, 10df2d474aaa8e7b69e088d650c26a8c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The problem with buying a sexbot is the same as the problem with internet dating.

It goes completely against what we want and the reason we want it. All the VNs we play do not simulate sex with women. They simulate romantic experiences. The reason we shun 3D and flock to 2D is because we have conditioned ourselves to associate romantic feelings with 2D and similarly to associate 3D with lies and disappointment.

Buying a sexbot is basically saying you know what's going to go down from day one. Like internet hookups. There's no spontaneity. And spontaneity has a lot to do with romance. When you both know what you're coming for from the start, it takes away the chance and innocence involved in stumbling into your love-at-first-sight, or growing up with The Girl Next Door.

That said, appearance is not enough. A sexbot would have to simulate normal body temperature, silent movement, respiration, similar texture, and body fluids such as sweat, saliva, tears, and sexual lubricants.

And frankly, that is a lot to maintain. On top of whatever her power source would be, she would also have to have all of her body fluids topped off regularly. And they would have to be perfectly safe; non-toxic and edible. And they would have to be able to dump excess if the fluids were perishable.

There would be robot bathrooms.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 19:51:01 2010 No.6517083 >>6517073 Ever seen Zettai Kareshi?

>>	White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sat Nov 27 19:53:01 2010 No.6517088 >>6517073 I can't see it as being any more difficult than adjusting the fluid levels of your car. Although most people are too incompetent to do that these days, so you might have a point.

ロリあき Sat Nov 27 19:58:01 2010 No.6517111

>>6517073
Perfecting a sexbot is just a step in the right direction, which is giving people what they want.

Once the body is complete to our tastes, we can work on the mind. Well really, we should be working on both, not one over the other.

Life is about understanding we can't always have what we want, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work toward getting it.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 20:06:01 2010 No.6517145
File: 20 KB, 197x300, kyoko.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6517073
Thats an understandable concern. Sort of reminds me of when the realistic late-90s virtual idol Kyoko Date flopped compared to the more ethereal, somewhat abstract Tokimeki Memorial characters.This happened despite the belief that Kyoko was assumed to be the logical progression from that.

I do think though that androids, in collaboration with more innovative, interactive products like the Love Plus series will help bridge the gap between the VN/Date Sim and the reality of most "relationships" in today's society.

You could, for example, load scripts and personalities (possibly from whatever the latest VN you're playing) into the bot to simulate such encounters. An example of which would be the dolls in the GITS2 movie. The inevitable pace of technology and consumer demand would eventually produce user-customizable models with as much or as little detail as desired.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 20:30:01 2010 No.6517233

>>6516930

>thats assuming we recreate human like intelligence, which I'll grant you is possible

No it isn't. A machine is not capable of thinking like a human being -- the only way this could be achieved would be if we could construct the human brain itself and implant it in a machine, which is a laughable idea to say the least. Read Searle for more on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

The funny thing about 2Dloev and other such faggotry is that concepts in reality and simulation have long since been thoroughly dealt with by Baudrillard et al. yet /jp/ dwellers will never figure this out since they don't read any further than fucking h-games.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 20:53:01 2010 No.6517325 >>6517233 Autonomous propagation of a machine's own AI to develop imitative indistinguishable emotions/feelings. Stripping everything down to the most basic, humans and robots are the same.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:00:01 2010 No.6517355

>>6517325

>Autonomous propagation of a machine's own AI to develop imitative indistinguishable emotions/feelings. Stripping everything down to the most basic, humans and robots are the same.

In that case, then: is it possible for a robot to become as mentally retarded as yourself? Answers on a postcard!

>Autonomous propagation of a machine's own AI

...will never go any further than the constraints of the machine's original AI. It is both theoretically and technically impossible.

>Stripping everything down to the most basic,

And what exactly is "the most basic"? You cannot simply drop such vague terms without explaining them.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:01:17 2010 No.6517358 [DELETED]

File: 14 KB, 223x300, shiori.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6517233
If we're talking about AI as based on simple instruction-based Von Neuman architecture, then Searle would be correct. But we're not. We're talking about building a neural network modeled after the human mind, which is capable of cognitive processes like pattern recognition, association, attention, abstraction, and forming basic assumptions (like semantics) about novel problems. Many neural networks can already be trained to solve novel situations like face recognition, etc.

And frankly, if the realtionship is real or significant enough to the person or people in question, why worry?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:02:01 2010 No.6517364 >>6517233 You don't need a machine to think like a human. You need a machine to REACT like a human.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:03:01 2010 No.6517368 If I had a robot, I would make it my precious meido. I have no interest in love.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:03:01 2010 No.6517369 I don't think anyone really believes loli robots are actually possible to have. It's just an interesting thing to daydream about.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:07:01 2010 No.6517383
File: 14 KB, 223x300, shiori.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6517233
If we're talking about AI as based on simple instruction-based Von Neuman architecture, then Searle would be correct. But we're not. We're talking about building a neural network modeled after the human mind, which is capable of cognitive processes like pattern recognition, association, attention, abstraction, and forming basic assumptions (like semantics) about novel problems. Many neural networks can already be trained to solve novel situations like face recognition, language translation etc.

And frankly, if the relationship is real or significant enough to the person or people in question, why worry?

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:08:01 2010 No.6517388

>>6517355

>...will never go any further than the constraints of the machine's original AI. It is both theoretically and technically impossible.
If programmed in such a way, this is correct. So can or can not a cat be both dead and alive at one instance?

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:08:01 2010 No.6517389

>>6517364

Jesus christ, what on earth would happen if you people actually exercised some thought before you committed your aborted mind to text? The funny thing is that all YOU have done here is "react" like a human, lol.

Concisely: a machine could not be programmed to react in a human manner in EVERY conceivable situation* without first having the MIND of a human being. What the fuck do you think causes a human to react the way he does in the first place, if not the way he thinks?

*And if it only applies to certain situations, or a limited number, the task (of creating a robot to simulate a human) has not been successfully completed.

ロリあき Sat Nov 27 21:09:01 2010 No.6517394

>>6516930
>not likely with this version
I never said it was. I said it was a STEP in the right direction.

>>6517233
>A machine is not capable of thinking like a human being

We don't know that. We can simulate and postulate, but we cannot prove until we replicate the human brain and see.
You fail at science.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:10:01 2010 No.6517396

>>6517233

Dennett >>> Searle

But even beyond acknowledging that "there is much disagreement among philosophers on this topic, so your particular philosopher does not have authority" even Searle isn't against the idea that computers could be in some functional sense intelligent. What he's arguing more specifically is that CONSCIOUSNESS is something which cannot be created simply through functional processes. But whether or not robots are capable of feeling consciousness isn't the most important issue here. If we could have a robot which acts as if it was a conscious human but isn't really, that would be all we need from the perspective of having sex with it. Consciousness frankly raises more problems than it solves, since if a sexbot is conscious you have to think about its rights, whereas if it's an inert machine then that's not really something you need to worry about.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:11:01 2010 No.6517399

>>6517383

>Many neural networks can already be trained to solve novel situations like face recognition, language translation etc.

Oh, how novel! I'm on the edge of my seat here.

"The bottom line is that we really haven't progressed too far toward a truly intelligent machine. [...] We have got to get back to the deepest questions of AI and general intelligence and quit wasting time on little projects that don't contribute to the main goal."

-- Marvin Minsky

>And frankly, if the relationship is real or significant enough to the person or people in question, why worry?

This, on the other hand, I won't fault. There's nothing to worry about, you're correct.

ロリあき Sat Nov 27 21:12:01 2010 No.6517400

>>6517389
I think that we can define humanity as the ability to act ILlogically, while a machine must obey the internal logic it was given.

The problem with this is that we DON'T KNOW if WE are acting illogically or within the framework of the logic we were born with and learn.

So basically, what defines a human is the fact that we haven't found what defines humanity 100% yet.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:13:01 2010 No.6517406

>>6517394

>We can simulate and postulate, but we cannot prove until we replicate the human brain and see.

We can "simulate", guys. lol.

As for replicating the human brain: okay then. You carry on working on that and get back to me later, yeah? Fucking christ.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:14:01 2010 No.6517414 >>6517400 >within the framework of the logic we were born with You are confusing biology and psychology. We are not born with any 'logic'. Please stop talking about matters you have no comprehension of.

ロリあき Sat Nov 27 21:16:01 2010 No.6517421

Frankly, I feel that probing consciousness is probing the existence of God. We came up to the level we are now via mechanical interactions defined by the rules of physics, as far as we are able to reasonably prove. This suggests to me that consciousness is simply a matter of sufficiently complex intelligence.

However, I cannot say it is a fact or not until it is done.
QED.

>>	ロリあき Sat Nov 27 21:18:01 2010 No.6517434 >>6517406 Simulations are not 100 percent accurate. If they were, WE'D be the gods, and every aspect of universe would be laid open to us. Since we do not KNOW, we are not. Do I really have to teach you the scientific process, or can we let this drop?

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:19:01 2010 No.6517436

>Frankly, I feel that probing consciousness is probing the existence of God.

What the fuck? Where do you people get this shit from? Was there some kid's TV show in America dealing specifically in bullshit that I was deprived of by virtue of European birth?

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:23:01 2010 No.6517456

>>6517434

Let me briefly outline your psychology: sheltered upbringing, got into computers early, turned into a "nerd", did well in scientific subjects in school, is now majoring in physics/a related field in college, now possesses a wholly simplistic and crude understanding of the scientific approach yet is determined to announce his mental abortions with a supreme smugness and a constant reference to SCIENCE(!!!) and wishy-washy remarks on philosophical concepts he has no real understanding of (for future reference, stay in particular the fuck away from: consciousness, simulation, logic).

The little faggot even used "QED" in a fucking 4chan post, lol. Kids.

ロリあき Sat Nov 27 21:24:01 2010 No.6517467

>>6517436
>bullshit
I would like to debate this with you, as I love debate. However, I know that it's off-topic according to popular belief (although I think the discussion of robotics is very /jp/ related)

So if you want to continue, would you care to email me or perhaps continue while using the sage function? I don't want to get banned.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:25:01 2010 No.6517471
File: 54 KB, 250x374, toheart_rmm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6517399
Minsky is in a sense correct, especially since part of the strategy to build Strong AI during the 1980s in the US and Japan was to ignore alot of the existing biological basis for intelligence. Hell, if you gather a bunch of Comp Sci experts in a room, you'll get about a dozen vague answers about what they consider intelligence to be! We've started back on the right track however, aided with our greater understanding of neuroscience and how to emulate its processes. This includes mapping of basic neuron processing columns as well as thalimo-cortical circuits and related substructures. We'll eliminate a lot of the biological redundancy and with the inevitable increase in computing power, start to make serious progress.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:27:01 2010 No.6517484

>>6517467

No. Two reasons.

1. I'm not interested in "debate" -- I am interested in addressing and then solving problems, not in talking about them for the sake of it.

2. Even if I was interested in "debate", I would be wasted on the likes of yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:31:01 2010 No.6517498 >>6517484 What an efficient person you are.

ロリあき Sat Nov 27 21:33:01 2010 No.6517504

>>6517456
>physics/a related field in college
Very very close, I'm impressed. That one is the only wrong one. I'm a language major, or rather, I was. I have no money currently.

>>6517484
>>6517456
You seem to have a problem with the structure of my argument, but you don't seem to be pointing out what it is. You are also getting rather emotional about the issue, which doessn't help you're case. If you don't want to debate, fine. Your business.
But you have a chance to change my mind and you aren't taking it, and you're avoiding the opportunity to have yours changed.

This suggests to me that your ego is getting in the way of your analytical processes, and "I would be wasted on debating you" doesn't help that. Fair enough. Goodbye, hope you have some Preparation H in your medicine cabinet, seems like you might need it.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:33:01 2010 No.6517506

>>6517471

>Strong AI

A mistake indeed. But I don't really see much progression since. Sure, it's there, but it's not particularly impressive. Back to Searle:

"[...]And that is the main reason strong AI has had little to tell us about thinking, since it has nothing to tell us about machines. By its own definition, it is about programs, and programs are not machines. Whatever else intentionality is, it is a biological phenomenon, and it is as likely to be as causally dependent on the specific biochemistry of its origins as lactation, photosynthesis, or any other biological phenomena. No one would suppose that we could produce milk and sugar by running a computer simulation of the formal sequences in lactation and photosynthesis, but where the mind is concerned many people are willing to believe in such a miracle because of a deep and abiding dualism: the mind they suppose is a matter of formal processes and is independent of quite specific material causes in the way that milk and sugar are not."

>if you gather a bunch of Comp Sci experts in a room, you'll get about a dozen vague answers about what they consider intelligence to be!

You would indeed, dude, but this is often because being an "expert" (particularly in a technical field) does not necessarily equate to being a good thinker. So what we are left with are a bunch of smallminded charlatans with no knowledge outside of their niche field -- what we are left with, essentially, is unintelligent people discussing the nature of intelligence, lol.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:39:01 2010 No.6517521 >>6517506 >"[...]And that is the main reason... are not." Comedy gold.

>>	ロリあき Sat Nov 27 21:44:01 2010 No.6517539 >>6517506 Biological phenomena that result in the production of a physical substance can be duplicated via mechanical/chemical processes, by machines. They are simply matter conversion. Bad example.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:46:01 2010 No.6517550 >>6517506 Sorry to derail. This just in, the times make casual conversation pointless for /jp/. To agree with oneself is now more fun than ever.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:49:01 2010 No.6517559
File: 56 KB, 439x600, may.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6517506
Heck, I didn't see much broadband penetration or instantaneous access to video and music media like I wanted or expected in the late 90s, until it one day it all became available to me.

Again, I'm not too concerned with philosophical arguements on AI, the soul, or intelligence. What matters is the SCIENTIFIC FACT that it's processes in the mamalian brain can and are being reverse engineered, and re-designed.

I agree with you on the need for more cross-discipline research. Several such institutions are being established, bringing together folks from numerous fields to collaborate on cogsci and its practical applications.

>>	ロリあき Sat Nov 27 21:49:01 2010 No.6517562 >>6517539 ACtually, My reading comprehension had a bit of a failure there. I gotta stop drinking.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:53:01 2010 No.6517571

>>6517539

You have missed the point entirely. The key line in that passage is:

>Whatever else intentionality is, it is a biological phenomenon, and it is as likely to be as causally dependent on the specific biochemistry of its origins as lactation, photosynthesis, or any other biological phenomena.

In other words, the mind (ergo intelligence) is INHERENTLY biological: it cannot be replicate by machines (and neither can lactation or photosynthesis, by the way -- an extremely crude version of the results, maybe - and if you want to argue this as true then you better have a source to prove it otherwise don't even bother mentioning it - but never the process). "Matter conversion" (lol, you've resorted to simply making shit up by this stage, huh) is not an option -- it is biological or it is impossible.

Or we could, you know, give it the classic "LOLSCIENCE!" ロリあき approach, throw our hands up in the air and say, with a shitfaced grin: hey, ya never know!!! maybe in the future!11 lolz!!1!

>>	Meth !!aXZQLQEDst0 Sat Nov 27 21:57:01 2010 No.6517583 Would be nice to live out my fantasies of having a loli lover. Please let me live to see the day.. >>6517506 I can't help but agree with Searle's view on this, he explained it so well. I'd still be completely happy with a convincing AI robot.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 21:57:01 2010 No.6517584

>>6517559

>Again, I'm not too concerned with philosophical arguements on AI, the soul, or intelligence.

Well this is rather silly of you. These arguments are the only true measure of AI -- without them the endeavour has few concrete guidelines and could so easily fall into, for lack of a better term, intellectual rambling.

>Several such institutions are being established

I know. I am currently being taught by the founder of one such institution.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 22:07:01 2010 No.6517620 Are there going to be holographic love bots?

ロリあき Sat Nov 27 22:10:01 2010 No.6517626

>>6517571
Like I said, I had a reading comprehension failure.

>if you want to argue this as true then you better have a source to prove it

It takes more than a source to have proof. The source must be accurate, and the only way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt something is accurate is to observe it yourself. Because you have no 100% way to know facts without firsthand observation.

You seem to think "hey, he said he was abiding by the scientific method when he came up with that" but what if he wasn't? What if it's a lie? Can you know fact from fiction without seeing it firsthand, or are you having FAITH in the scientific community? In which case, you are treating science as a religion. You are replacing dogma with experience.

You seem to have a problem with the fact that I fuse science and philosophy, and I don't know why.

Tell ME MY methods are LOLSCIENCE will you....

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 22:10:01 2010 No.6517632 File: 31 KB, 224x211, data.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I want a copy of data.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 22:16:01 2010 No.6517649
File: 31 KB, 300x295, big-mahoromatic-ost-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6517584
I would say I follow the Connectionist/Biological Realist line of thought, that there are emergent processes arising from non-linear, dynamic neural networks and their related biological circuits or structures. That we can discern and go on to define intelligence as the sum of those processes. (Pattern Recognition/Correlation. Abstraction, Attention, etc.) In any case, this has been an interesting thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 22:17:01 2010 No.6517656 /jp/ - DEEP thoughts/General

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 22:21:01 2010 No.6517665 File: 30 KB, 450x332, hologram-singer-girl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6517620 They're coming.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 22:22:01 2010 No.6517668

>>6517656

>I'm too thick to understand what the big boys are talking about so I'll just describe them with the word "deep" in caps lock in an effort to appear as though I'm parodying their over-intellectualising. In fact I simply feel insecure that I am out of my depth in discussing anything but h-games and graphics cards : <

>>	ロリあき Sat Nov 27 22:22:01 2010 No.6517669 >>6517620 >holographic Doesn't it defeat the point of calling it a "love bot" if it lacks a solid physical presence, or do you mean love in the romantic sense?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 22:28:01 2010 No.6517693 >>6517669 I'm asexual, so I would be interested only in companionship, though word sex(phone sex) would be interesting also.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 22:28:01 2010 No.6517695 File: 132 KB, 850x598, 1280375403914.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] can't wait until this becomes reality

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 22:28:01 2010 No.6517696 >>6517669 Whatever works for us. Lets just call them our beloved companions or waifus and leave it at that.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 22:28:01 2010 No.6517698

>>6517649
Do animal brains have these emergent processes too? To a lesser extent? Are our brains just the right amount of complex to give birth to them? Is it just that the more complex the structure becomes, the more emergent processes take over and become clearly visible?

Can we also get some recommended reading on the subject?

ロリあき Sat Nov 27 22:33:01 2010 No.6517710

>>6517693
>Asexual
I had a phase where I thought I was, but then I realized it was jsut a combination of low libido and lack of desire for sexual contact with real people.

Frankly, I know I'm going against /jp/ conventional wisdom, but I CAN in fact find 3D sexually attracting, it's just so rare that it might as well not even exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 22:36:01 2010 No.6517721 >>6517710 I find 3D ロリ appealing at times.

ロリあき Sat Nov 27 22:39:01 2010 No.6517734

>>6517698
I do believe animals share them to a lesser extent, but maybe I don't fully comprehend the concept of emergence.
Ravens and apes show original problem-solving skills via conversion of environmental objects to tools without having to be taught that, and instinctual processes such as fight-or-flight are present in all higher animals.

BUt like i said, maybe I don't fully understand emergence.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 22:49:01 2010 No.6517765
File: 81 KB, 300x391, 15368-kos_mos_series_large.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6517698
Although the neocortex (arguably the real seat of emergent intelligence) is a structure shared by practically all mammals, it is most developed in humans (next in line would be the great apes). This is especially so in the Pre-frontal region (PFC), which allows us to reason, make decisions, and supress the ability to act on emotions or impulses.

I'd pick up Hawkins' "On Intelligence", for a brief overview on connectionist theory.

>>	ロリあき Sat Nov 27 22:49:01 2010 No.6517768 >>6517721 I don't believe you are wrong in that. There's nothing wrong with being a pedophile, in my opinion.

>>	White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sat Nov 27 23:00:01 2010 No.6517814 >>6517768 The only thing that the law finds wrong with being a pedophile (actual law, not thought crime laws) is when you do something to a real child. Before that, whatever works. And that's how it should be.

ロリあき Sat Nov 27 23:18:01 2010 No.6517862

>>6517814
>and that's how it should be.

I disagree. I believe that the actual act of molesting a child isn't wrong, because I refuse to make moral judgements against someone that isn't myself. Morality is cultural entirely, and no culture can inherently be better than another.

I feel it's wrong for ME to molest a child. I won't judge anyone else beyond that.

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sat Nov 27 23:22:01 2010 No.6517878

>>6517862
You'll find it rather hard to maintain a society in which you have no force of recompense and justice outside of yourself. Your personal morality is rather pointless when someone steals from you or kills you, unless you plan on living outlaw and taking care of your own business with maximum lethal force.

Which has its own virtues.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 23:28:01 2010 No.6517979

>>6517862

>because I refuse to make moral judgements against someone that isn't myself.

No you don't. You might like to think you do, but seriously dude, you do not refuse this in any way whatsoever. You have been brought up in a society which stresses morals, they have been ingrained into you from the moment your education began -- you may have reconsidered them, reshaped them, sure, but they've still affected you, you're still prejudiced, you WILL make moral judgements, at least subconsciously, whether you like it or not. The only way you could remain COMPLETELY neutral on EVERY issue is sociopathy, in which case you aren't of an appropriate mental disposition to comment on the subject of morality.

>Morality is cultural entirely

No shit? This is the basis of ethical relativism. What you stated above is individual subjectivism. Relativism and subjectivism are (contrary to popular - stupid - belief) certainly not the same thing. Anyone with any sense knows morals are culturally relative - for instance female circumcision is acceptable in Africa but not in Europe, therefore it can't be "objectively" wrong, it's context dependent (the context being geography and culture) - but even in cultural relativism you DO judge people; it's just that the people you judge are those who belong to your own culture.

Therefore, if you are American, you are qualified to judge other Americans because you've grown up within the same ethical system. You are not, however, entitled to an opinion (negative or otherwise) on Asian morals, because, crudely put... it's none of your business.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 23:29:01 2010 No.6517999 >>6517979 >What you stated above Just to avoid confusion, by this I meant the first quotation ("because I refuse"...).

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 23:32:01 2010 No.6518036 >>6517979 There are also those of us who believe in some constants that override culturally relative standards.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 23:33:01 2010 No.6518062 >>6518036 If you are referring to objective morality, fair enough. Believe what you want, but it's horseshit. Morality has no basis but that which man creates, and that will always be subject to man's culture and therefore relativism.

ロリあき Sat Nov 27 23:35:01 2010 No.6518089

>>6517979
The universe without life is devoid of morality. I feel that while morality has had its uses in advancing mankind mentally and technologically, there will become a time when it becomes outmoded.

Granted, I may indeed make automatic judgement calls on other people (and it shows, because I lash out at people who I feel are doing something wrong), I will never physically try to stop them. They are free to do as they like.
I simply reserve the right to persuade via logic.

>>	ロリあき Sat Nov 27 23:37:01 2010 No.6518114 >>6517979 Also, I retract my "entirely" from that statement. You are right there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 23:37:01 2010 No.6518115 >>6518062 Moreso that the objectivity is in itself relative, but not relative across cultures. I don't recall stating otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 23:38:01 2010 No.6518130 >>6518089 You might want to improve your logic if that's your modus operandi

>>	ロリあき Sat Nov 27 23:41:01 2010 No.6518170 >>6518130 It's not the logic that's faulty, it's my ability to express my philosophy.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 23:42:01 2010 No.6518180

>>6518089

That time has already come, dude. That time is in fact not even the present -- morality was crushed long ago. See Nietzsche for more.

>Granted, I may indeed make automatic judgement calls on other people

Yes, this was all I was referring to. I did not necessarily mean, as you point out, that you'll take action against them as a result. Simply that you'll always have instinctual judgements - "gut reactions" if you like - because of your upbringing. It's unavoidable for most of us.

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sat Nov 27 23:47:01 2010 No.6518233

For everyone that argues about philosophy and morality, and even reality, being relative, just remember one thing:

dead is dead.

The human race will never be able to completely reconstruct an object to its state before destruction. It will still be a different object, no matter what you do, no matter how you rationalize it. Change is change, without care for whether you witness it or not.

If we were all wiped out in an instant without recognition of that fact, it would still have happened, apart from our expectations of it.

Fear the unknown and unexpected, because it occurs without your approval.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 23:49:01 2010 No.6518256 >>6518233 True enough, but I fail to see what any of this has to do with relative morality. Or morality full stop. A pleasant digression, in any case.

ロリあき Sat Nov 27 23:50:01 2010 No.6518260

>>6518180
>the time has already come
Franly, I can't argue that one way or the other. I'd like it to be true, but frankly, it's never been tested on anything resembling a large scale. I can only say morality is completely outdated when I've seen to my satisfaction that this is so.

I'm still working out the kinks in my philosophy, and places like this where cultural taboos are both explored and enjoyed without any real repercussions is the only valid place for me to test it.

>>	ロリあき Sat Nov 27 23:55:01 2010 No.6518300 >>6518233 >Fear the unknown and unexpected, because it occurs without your approval. I disagree wholeheartedly, and believe the inverse idea, specifically because it occurs without your approval.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 23:55:01 2010 No.6518308

>>6518260

>Franly, I can't argue that one way or the other.

...as I said, there is no need to. We do not need an argument from Mr. ロリあき. It's already been done by Nietzsche over one hundred years ago. Start with Beyond Good and Evil and proceed to the Geneaology of Morals -- he exhaustively shows morality to be a falsehood. And even since then it has been shown as such time and time again (via Wittgenstein et al).

Now, the influence of this may not (it hasn't, lol) have filtered out into the general public, so yeah, of course, "morality" as a doctrine hasn't died out in daily life. But as a philosophical concept - the concept that lies at the heart of the everyday doctrine - it has long been completely destroyed.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 23:58:01 2010 No.6518326

>>6518308

Which may lead you to ask why ethics is still widely discussed in academia. There's a simple answer -- the same reason many other outdated concepts are. They're easy, they pander to "common" public interests (therefore justifying academic research), and more importantly, most academics are mentally stunted faggots who will discuss and do -anything- in order to gain respect, tenure, or ideally both.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 23:59:01 2010 No.6518332 >>6518308 Assuming one agrees with Nietzsche.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 00:02:01 2010 No.6518349 >>6518308 >morality to be a falsehood Begging your pardon (I haven't read Nietzche) but what do you mean by "falsehood"? And are you implying that falsehoods can't be useful?

>>	ロリあき Sun Nov 28 00:05:01 2010 No.6518358 >>6518349 INdeed, money is a falsehood, yet is still functionally useful.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 00:06:01 2010 No.6518362

>>6518332

lol, yes. But if one reads and truly understands (the latter being pretty rare) Nietzsche then one will have to be in exceptional circumstances to then disagree with him. He was the sole genius of his philosophical field (morality, paradoxically enough) at that time.

And what is the alternative? How can anyone really be so foolish in this day and age to think of morality as anything but a manmade concept riddled with prejudice? Fuck, even take the more sophisticated approaches to it and it's EXACTLY the same.

For instance, Kant's deontology is no more "objective" or persuasive than any commonsense morality -- is it really an ethical system? no, lol! -- it's the prejudice of KANT, for fuck's sake, and he has arrogantly decided that what HE believes should be projected onto the rest of humanity. All morality is simply prejudice and subjective opinion.

As Nietzsche put it (roughly, I'm tired -- this will be my last post actually, bedtime) -- "philosophy: not really 'love of wisdom', but rather 'HIS love of wisdom'". In other words, nothing - and that really means nothing, no, not even your precious science - is free from subjective opinion. The observed will always be affected by the observer -- we can only comment on things as we perceive them, not as they really are.

Night.

>>	White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sun Nov 28 00:08:01 2010 No.6518374 >>6518256 When the distractions that work stop distracting us, the truth of death is our only societal guide and rule. Also, in a world without "truth," there can be no falsehoods.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 00:09:01 2010 No.6518376 >>6516743 I wanna take him home!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 00:11:01 2010 No.6518385 >>6518362 I've been meaning to read up on ol' Nietzsche. Though, this brief bit leaves me to wonder, if all morality is false, what implications follow? Surely what I do now is no problem?

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 00:16:01 2010 No.6518399

>>6518358
Nicely put. I wish you were Anonymous so I could like you on the basis of this post and disregard all of your other ones.

>>6518362
Math is the freest thing we've got from bias and personal prejudice. This is going to be my last post on the matter too, so I'll try to make it a decent one. I'm as big a believer in any in the idea that no perception can give you a sense of absolute truth (brain in a jar argument is pretty hard to attack) but I don't see how this invalidates common morality as a construct. If I believe in something I call "morality", and you believe in what I perceive to be the same thing, and to the best of my knowledge it guides our actions in pursuit of what I believe and you believe and everyone believes to be the benefit of humanity, then doesn't it work? Does morality have to be objective in order to be practicable? I can't prove that anything exists, I can't prove that there's any objective basis for human actions beyond what's programmed into us by natural selection, but why is that a reason to stop striving to be (what is agreed upon by most people as) a good person?

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 00:16:01 2010 No.6518403

>>6518362
> All morality is simply prejudice and subjective opinion
True, but but that doesn't make it outmoded jsut yet.

Frankly, I don't know Nietzsche's criticisms of science, but I have a feeling that's where he and I fall away from each other. Science fuels understanding, and I don't believe mankind can make an informed opinion without it. I don't see how someone can criticize the pursuit of knowledge, since he would have never gotten anywhere without learning.

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sun Nov 28 00:17:01 2010 No.6518406

>>6518385
>Surely what I do now is no problem?

That is where the truth of death comes in. Become a problem, and you cease to become a problem. Corpses pose little threat to those who hold physical power, unless there are too many of them.

We maintain a balance of power by independent institutions built upon logical moral standards, or we live outlaw and survive by sheer force.

Morality is contrived, yes, but not necessarily useless. I fear for our future when "contrived" is a bad thing. Even if we invent our own morality, if it keeps us from violence and protects us from the wilderness, what is the problem?

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 00:20:01 2010 No.6518418

>>6518349

OK, since you asked politely I'll postpone bed for one more brief post.

Falsehood -- pretty simple, something that is not true. A false concept. Of course "morality" -exists- in that there have been systems of morality formulated over years (thousands, even), but none of what those systems have said are meaningful.

>And are you implying that falsehoods can't be useful?

No. Many false concepts are exploited to great use. Money, scientific theories (electrons, photons, etc -- they correspond to some physical phenomena, of course, but that phenomena is not actually "electrons" as we describe them, these are simply models), and yes, even morality itself. This is in fact one of Nietzsche's main ideas on ethics.

He followed Thrasychamus (of Plato's Republic) in stating that morality is simply the invention of the strong for the purpose of controlling the weak. This is what leads to "master-slave morality" (the masters being the strongest in society). Essentially, the masters (the rulers -- politicians, as a mundane analogy) create rules in their own interests, then claim these rules are "just". Over time, these rules come to be accepted as "morality", meaning that the weakest (the masses) act towards the benefit of the strongest's self-interest.

Thrasychamus formulated it thusly:

1. Justice is obedience to the rulers.
2. The rulers rule in their own interest.
3. So, justice is the interest of the rulers.

And this is roughly the same position Nietzsche took. You can take "justice" as synonymous with "morality", the Greek is often translated in various ways. But if you are truly interested in this your only real option is to start reading the books, not 4chan.

Anyway, this is really bed time. Bye.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 00:22:01 2010 No.6518427 >>6518418 I'll get to it at some point. Thanks for the primer, and goodnight.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 00:24:01 2010 No.6518435

>>6518403

>Science fuels understanding, and I don't believe mankind can make an informed opinion without it.

You are misinterpreting the post out of your own knee-jerk reaction to defend science as some sacred art (a form of dogmatism on par with religion, by the way). Of -course- Nietzsche isn't saying science is USELESS, or that we should abandon it. He was an intelligent man and well read in physics, don't be silly. The implication is rather that our prejudice applies to EVERYTHING we take part in, and this goes for science too. This is not really a controversial opinion -- the role of the observer on science has been brought up by quantum physics often.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 00:26:01 2010 No.6518442

>>6518406
>We maintain a balance of power by independent institutions built upon logical moral standards, or we live outlaw and survive by sheer force.

These things don't have to be mutually exclusive. Can we not have a society that tries to stop things that are societally disruptive, like murder, slavery, rape, etc. yet does nothing to actually punish these actions after the fact?

My philosophy is that all prisoners are in fact political prisoners and society has no right to restrict their freedom ATER they've done something. It is society's fault and the victims fault for not taking the proper steps to prevent this. If you don't have the strength to stop someone from killing you, you obviously were not fit enough to survive. That does not mean I want total anarchy, I jsut want a world where anarchy can exist besides order.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 00:27:01 2010 No.6518447

I think everyone is going too deep on the subject.

1. I'd fuck it.
2. Nothing can compare, right now at least, to a real woman.
3. This is a toy. Not a person. Toys can be expensive, but if you want a good quality toy, be prepared to fork it over.
4. It'll probably save you less hassle in the long run to have a toy in place of a woman. But you can never love a toy like you can a sentient being.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 00:34:01 2010 No.6518476

>>6518435
I don't defend science as a sacred art per-se, merely the seeking of knowledge, which isn't the same thing at all. However, those that feel the scientific method is the best way to do this and have faith that the scientific community is in fact honest should be allowed to do so, so that we may progress toward an ultimate goal of complete understanding. Those that don't care and are satisfied with the knowledge they have may partake of what is already here and live in peace. Those that feel religious dogma is the way to go may also do so. So long as none of these options gain an upper hand, we should have a society that mankind is ideally suited for, and we can avoid destroying ourselves.

What I'd like is a system philosophical checks and balances so that no one group of people dominate.

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sun Nov 28 00:36:01 2010 No.6518478

>>6518418
If you reduce all things down, there is no "truth," as everything we can witness is an interpretation only we have. There are no falsehoods, then, just modes of operation that are accepted or not accepted. If all things are false, then all things may hold their own truth when contrived. The only "truth" we can hold on to are things that occur outside of human control. Destruction of form is a "truth," as we have no means to prevent it. Fear arises from it, as we have a natural desire not to be destroyed.

A king holds power only so long as people believe in his authority, and the structure he has created and delegated authority to can deliver the threat of death to enforce compliance.

Death, a physical truth, is removed the moment enough non-compliance foments in the societal structure that could deliver it where it's required. So, even destruction has limits on enforcing contrived morality. A society without citizens doesn't exist. Non-compliance cannot be overcome by killing everyone that is non-compliant if you no longer have enough people to perform the functions of the system you would enforce.

The biggest flaw with nihilistic views of truth and reason is that, despite knowing everything is false, everything keeps going without caring about your realization. So long as the contrived system has the parts necessary to function, it will continue, even if it has no basis of "truth" to fall back on. It exists because it exists, and will exist until people no longer desire it to.

>>	Manfred !!UiOrmYiMsJQ Sun Nov 28 00:41:01 2010 No.6518491 It's a non-sentient toy, with all the advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I'd take a thinking, breathing woman.

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sun Nov 28 00:41:01 2010 No.6518493

>>6518442
Humans primarily are reactive entities, only. Pro-active actions are very rare. If a society does not enforce recompense for wrongs that have occurred, then society's parts will realize that there is essentially no issue with taking wrong actions, if they can get away with it without (perceptively) unduly stressing society.

The parts are chipped away one by one (as our society is experiencing) and eventually the small parts chipped away become the whole of the societal structure. Law as a contract between people fails, and death becomes the only recourse.

Law is a wonderful thing when applied equally, logically, and correctly, which is almost never, because people absolutely despise equality, logic, and fairness.

There's no room for graft, after all.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 00:42:01 2010 No.6518495 This is one of the worst pseudo intellectual /jp/ threads I've ever seen....and it's about dolls

>>	The Destroyer of Elah !!EzZ4ge15Iuj Sun Nov 28 00:43:01 2010 No.6518503 >>6518442 Just admit you want to be able to rape people without consequence. Sage as I'm not contributing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 00:49:01 2010 No.6518519 >/r9k/12193410 >Our Love-Bot future is currently being discussed. >Your Thoughts, /jp/? >256 posts and 31 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 01:03:01 2010 No.6518537

>>6518493
Law CANNOT be exercised equally, because we rely on others to judge for us. We've institutionalized law and morality. However, if every man becomes judge, and has the perfect freedom to act on that judgement, then fear of death can act as a deterrent. However, since death is inevitable, fearing it is pointless. A man with the resolve to die for his convictions can do whatever he wants.

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sun Nov 28 01:06:01 2010 No.6518550

>>6518537
What you describe is the absence of law. Law cannot exist in an environment where the immediate answer to any altercation or disagreement is simply for one side to kill the other. Unless the law is that you just kill each other when a disagreement or wrong arises.

There will be a lot less disagreements, and maybe 1% of humanity will survive, yes. Good luck running the world on that system.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 01:07:01 2010 No.6518551 >>6518447 >2. Nothing can compare, right now at least, to a real woman. Reported.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 01:13:01 2010 No.6518570

>>6518495
People see philosophy and instantly label it as pseudo intellectual. In doing so they say "this isn't intelligent at all" and therefore place themselves above everything being said, without actually proving they are worthy of that.

You may as well say "this is stupid shit" but "pseudointellectual" sounds more legitimate, when it isn't.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 01:15:01 2010 No.6518581 >>6518570 Any thread in which tripfags use philosophy use to justify molesting children is the definition of pseudo intellectual

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 01:18:01 2010 No.6518595

>>6518550
Like I said, I'm not looking for a total absence of law, only for the idea that it's okay to opt out, and that it isn't immoral or wrong to do so. I shouldn't have my freedom removed from me by society simply because I exercised it.

Anarchy, absence of law, doesn't result in the culture that I want because survival becomes the main concern. It inherently sets up a system that suggests living is good and ideal, and doing anything to keep yourself alive is moral. This is false, because ultimately, morality is false. Life is not sacrosanct, because eventually it will be taken from you anyway. People must be aware that someday they will die and they can do nothing to stop it in the end.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 01:18:01 2010 No.6518596 >>6518570 >this is stupid shit Well, it is.

>>	ロリあき Sun Nov 28 01:19:01 2010 No.6518601 >>6518581 >tripfags I'm not a tripfag

Manfred !!UiOrmYiMsJQ Sun Nov 28 01:24:01 2010 No.6518614

>>6518595
That's all fine and good save the incredible progress in longevity and immortality research.

In forty years the first treatments to rejuvenate should be available.

Imagine, five centuries drawing breath and having the body of a thirty-year old!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/28/60minutes/main1168852.shtml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6217676/Immortality-only-20-years-away-says-scientis
t.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/may/22/theobserver.technology

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/telomerase/

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2005-01/prophet-immortality

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sun Nov 28 01:31:01 2010 No.6518638

>>6518595
The idea that we will all die does not translate well into acceptance of wanton killers continuing to kill because we have no right to resist being killed.

Also, living outlaw sounds fine and dandy, until you reach the part where the law doesn't apply to you and anyone can kill you without repercussion.

It's okay to live without laws when you're the only person for 100 miles. When you're stuck amongst hundreds, it's survival of the fittest without any sort of legal recourse to fall back on. Criminals will band together, anyway, so it merely becomes survival of the strongest band of intellectually weak, "strong in numbers," pathetic excuses for human scum. Societies without laws favor the most wretched and immoral, because they have the most to gain by living off of people who are otherwise better than them. The wretched are good at corrupting otherwise beneficial work for their own survival.

Surprise!

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 01:40:01 2010 No.6518665

>>6518550
>>6518595

However, you DO have the freedom to kill anyone you want, at any time, provided that you aren't concerned about the consequences. We ALL have that freedom.

Scary though, that.

>>6518614

None of these attempts are going to work, I guarantee it. We have spent the past ~6000 years of human civilization trying to find a cure for death; who says science can offer anything more than blind faith can?

>>	Manfred !!UiOrmYiMsJQ Sun Nov 28 01:41:01 2010 No.6518669 >>6518665 Science has accomplished more in the past century than those 6000 years. And they do ''work'' in theory and some practice.

>>	White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sun Nov 28 01:43:01 2010 No.6518676 >>6518665 >who says science can offer anything more than blind faith can? The fact that science, unlike blind faith, has a documented history of success and viewable examples in your daily life. Blind faith never split the atom.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 01:44:01 2010 No.6518684

>>6518669

Science is little more than a substantiated form of religion, regardless of what it has accomplished.

Furthermore, something WILL go wrong with any or all of these treatments, the least of which will be an absurd increase in world population.

>>	Manfred !!UiOrmYiMsJQ Sun Nov 28 01:45:01 2010 No.6518685 >>6518684 No. And only the Wealthy will taste it's fruits, not the masses.

>>	White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sun Nov 28 01:46:01 2010 No.6518688 >>6518684 White people are already negative population growth. Kill the third worlders, end welfare, and we're fine.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 01:46:01 2010 No.6518689 File: 77 KB, 1280x720, Sion is aghast.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6518684 >>6518665 Oh, wow. I have no words.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 01:48:01 2010 No.6518696 >>6518614 >In forty years >having the body of a thirty-year old! Too bad I will have the body of a 65 year old. And that's if I'm even still alive.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 01:51:01 2010 No.6518710 >>6518665 who says science can offer anything more than blind faith can? The fact that I'm reading your retarded post does.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 01:56:01 2010 No.6518725

>>6518638
Empathy is stunted in societies without laws because might makes right. You don't HAVE to learn what the other guy feels about what you're doing to him because if you're strong, you do it, and if you don't, you fear him bashing your brains in. Might makes right.

This is false because there IS no "right".

Civilization developed because people banded together in order to protect themselves from death and other unpleasant stuff. As survival became less of a concern, we could develop empathy and realize that it's "bad" to hurt people, because we could be hurt ourselves. We needed to group together and develop morality in order to survive.

Now that we've had the time to develop technology to the point where one man can in fact defend himself regardless of physical strength or intelligence, the idea that we MUST be moral to survive is outmoded.
We punish criminals as a deterrent, because that's how we protected ourselves from people in a given area that did no want to abide by morality, thus chipping away at civilization. We set up boundaries that says "You can't be this way within these walls, if you want do that, go somewhere else or face the punishment" but now that man has the ability to reach out and touch any other man, the concept of physical borders is also outmoded.

The problem with nihilism is that it assumes nihilism is correct when in fact nothing is.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 01:57:01 2010 No.6518728

>>6518685

So now we have immortal overgods. Wonderful. Society has improved so much by the advent of immortality.

>>6518689

You've never even heard of Nietzche, have you? I don't agree with a lot of the stuff he says, he's an extreme hypocrite and a master of self-aggrandizement, but he IS correct in stating that science is a belief system just like any other religion.

Just because science offers us many wonderful things does not mean that it is intrinsically good.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 01:59:01 2010 No.6518735 >>6518725 >The problem with nihilism is that it assumes nihilism is correct when in fact nothing is. Hey, this is exactly my problem with Nietzche!

Manfred !!UiOrmYiMsJQ Sun Nov 28 02:01:01 2010 No.6518743

>>6518728
So, you lack further rebuttals?

Regardless, Science will provide the potential of ageless life in addition to it's many fruits.

And Science lacks a deity, a code and it's rewards for following that code .

It's not a religion, no matter what some German corpse you happen to share a view with.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 02:02:01 2010 No.6518749

>>6518728
>extreme hypocrite

I'm not 100% familiar with his philosophy on every level, but I'm not sure how.

also, you're viewing it within the framework that hypocrisy is bad, and from what I understand of neitzche, it's that he believed that nothing is inherently good or bad, so for him, being a hypocrite isn't a problem.

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sun Nov 28 02:02:01 2010 No.6518750

>>6518728
Nothing is intrinsically good. That doesn't mean we have to stop using it. If it works, and we all agree to use it, then there's no problem.

The best part about society is that pretty much everybody wants to stay alive. That means that we tend to weed out psychopaths out of self interest. If a society arises that desires death, then I say we give it to them.

I'm looking at you, Islam.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:04:01 2010 No.6518761 >>6518750 Islam doesn't desire death, that'd be retarded. Then there wouldn't be any more Muslims.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:07:01 2010 No.6518770

>>6518743

It doesn't need a deity to be a belief system, although I'd argue that the deity is 'knowledge'.

>>6518749

He denounces all truths as falsehoods, but that in itself is a truth. It's exactly the same problem that nihilism has.

>>6518750

Islam doesn't desire death any more than Christianity does.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 02:08:01 2010 No.6518775

>>6518750
>but if it works, and we all agree to use it, then there's no problem.
But punishing criminals doesn't work (if it did, there would be no recidivism), we don't all agree to it (if we did, there'd be no protesting things like the death penalty or what defines cruel and unusual punishment).
There's my problem in a nutshell. Can you solve it and still be logically consistent? I can.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:09:01 2010 No.6518783 >>6518775 One could argue that applying the death penalty to every crime would eliminate recidivism altogether. Arguing against the death penalty would be a crime punishable by death.

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sun Nov 28 02:11:01 2010 No.6518792

>>6518770
A true scientist treats knowledge as a tool, not a deity. The scientist does not worship knowledge. He tests it, seeing if it actually works. If it doesn't appear to work, then it has no use.

Blind faith demands no questions. True science is an endless series of questions. If you had to name a "deity" of science, it would be curiosity. But curiosity is inherently a selfish pursuit. It fails miserably when you attempt to rule a society with it.

>>6518770
>>6518761
Islam desires death. Christianity is content to wait for it. I have no great approval for either.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 02:14:01 2010 No.6518809

>>6518770
>He denounces all truths as falsehoods, but that in itself is a truth
That's actually a nihilistic fact, rather than a truth. Once you understand that there's a difference between accuracy and truth, the problem resolves itself.
Neitzche wasn't a hypocrite because he did not recognize the concept of hypocrisy. The logic is internally consistent, but falls apart when examined via an outside system. It's like trying to solve euclidean geometry via non-euclidean rules.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:14:56 2010 No.6518812 [DELETED]

File: 20 KB, 600x387, iain-banks-consider-phlebas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Look, we'll eventually build sentient AI in our lifetime, spurring on the Singularity. This will in turn lead to God-like OverMinds like in Iain Bank's Culture Novels, whereby most disease, misery, and death can be eliminated at will. We can then chill with our waifus in large Orbitals or GSV worldships in space.

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sun Nov 28 02:15:01 2010 No.6518816

>>6518775
Your solution is to let crimes go unpunished. Eliminate recourse for the aggrieved. At that point there are no crimes, just people taking from others by force without any real reason.

You might as well just hand everyone a gun, shut down the government, tell everyone that morality is so passe, and see what happens.

Rule by the quick and the dead is a return to the wilderness.

>One could argue that applying the death penalty to every crime would eliminate recidivism altogether.

Dead people don't commit crimes. Judge Death was right.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:17:01 2010 No.6518824
File: 20 KB, 600x387, iain-banks-consider-phlebas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Look, we'll eventually build sentient AI in our lifetime, spurring on the Singularity. This will in turn lead to God-like OverMinds like in Iain Banks' Culture Novels, whereby most disease, misery, and death can be eliminated at will. We can then chill with our waifus in large Orbitals or GSV worldships in space.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:17:01 2010 No.6518825

>>6518792
>It fails miserably when you attempt to rule a society with it.

This is why technocracies will fail very quickly when put into practice.

>Blind faith demands no questions. True science is an endless series of questions.

Did you know that Christian philosophers proved the existence of God six centuries ago using formal logic?

Religious people DO question their beliefs, but then find some way of reaffirming them. It's much the same with science; while we claim to have discovered answers, much of what we have discovered is in fact merely observable reactions and not actual fact.

"True" science, the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge, does not exist. There is always some underlying reason for such a pursuit.

In fact, I'd argue that "true science" as an ideal is similar to religious beliefs.

>I have no great approval for either.

You and me both, in that case.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:17:01 2010 No.6518826 This thread is making me dislike all of our tripfags. I miss the times when I could pretend we held the same opinions about things.

>>	ロリあき Sun Nov 28 02:18:01 2010 No.6518828 >>6518783 In a sense, but that structure assumes that there is a universal moral code by which to operate, or if it doesn't, then it's logically inconsistent because what's punishable can change.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:21:01 2010 No.6518841 >>6518828 I was being ironic, but either way, it doesn't matter what is punishable, only that the punishment is death.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:21:01 2010 No.6518842 >Christianity is content to wait for it Christianity does not wait for death. It would be a waste of the life God gave. A Christian would, ideally, not fear death, being righteous in the sight of the Lord.

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sun Nov 28 02:23:01 2010 No.6518847

>>6518825
>"True" science, the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge, does not exist.

Wrong. No matter the reason, you are pursuing knowledge, without regard for the problem you are working on. Knowledge necessary to fulfill a goal is still the pursuit of that knowledge. That is why it is a tool, and not a deity. As long as you are asking questions, you have the chance to find some sort of answer for them. If you can replicate the answer, then congratulations.

Knowledge is power; guard it well.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 02:24:01 2010 No.6518850

>>6518816
>Your solution is to let crimes go unpunished
Incorrect.
My solution is simply to let punishment be done by the individual aggrieved instead of an institution. I believe in the sanctity of the individual over the system, and society is inherently the reverse.

Basically I want people to stop letting comfort spoil their freedom when in fact we are now advanced enough to have our cake and eat it to. I have no problem if you're willing to sacrifice freedoms for safety and comfort, only that you stop raising up systems that force everyone to that same route.

>>	ロリあき Sun Nov 28 02:25:01 2010 No.6518855 >>6518841 Then I'm not really opposed to that idea. Only that I not be forced to live under the particular institution.

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sun Nov 28 02:26:01 2010 No.6518858

>>6518850
If an armed organization murders your wife, how exactly will you go about achieving recompense without laws to allow for it? Without active support of impartial laws that govern all equally?

The moment you allow humans to congregate and cooperate, you need contracts between them, else a purge begins of the minority that bars the majority's objectives.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:27:01 2010 No.6518860 damn this topic is shitty

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:27:01 2010 No.6518861

>>6518847

This is beginning to sound rather a lot like 'the means justify the ends'.

What you are doing is putting knowledge on a pedestal. That's tantamount to deifying it.

>>6518850

As wonderfully free as this sounds, the system would fall apart in seconds. Human beings have not come as far as you seem to think we have.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:28:01 2010 No.6518866 gay

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:29:01 2010 No.6518868 >>6518841 That sounds like something an awesome antagonist would say. Good show.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 02:31:01 2010 No.6518878

>>6518858
For one thing, an organization can't be held responsible for an individual action, but that's really semantics.

If someone IN an armed organization killed my wife and I wanted him dead, then I would go attempt to kill him. if the organization was protecting him, then I'd simply try anyway. I'd either succeed and justice would be done according to me, or I'd be dead.

If the organization wanted me dead for that, well, I'm either already resolved to die and there's no problem, or I overcome and successfully defend myself. There's no need for me to apply to a higher intitution to get it.

However, I don't care if someone does something to me or my wife, because I don't believe it's wrong to do so.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:32:01 2010 No.6518879 >I have no problem if you're willing to sacrifice freedoms for safety and comfort Then in the end, you'll have neither.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:33:01 2010 No.6518883 >>6518878 I sort of wonder how you survive in modern society with that kind of viewpoint. I mean, wouldn't you have killed someone already?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:34:01 2010 No.6518887 >>6518878 Why would you want the offender dead, then?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:34:01 2010 No.6518889 >>6518860 >>6518866 you must be new here, did you get lost outside of /b/?

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 02:35:01 2010 No.6518891

>>6518847
>As long as you are asking questions

yes, but the problem with that is that for those outside the scientific fields, it's a religion because they aren't asking the questions themselves, they have FAITH that those who are, are right.

Science is a religion to everyone but the scientist.

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sun Nov 28 02:35:01 2010 No.6518895

>>6518861
I said nothing about "justification." If you seek a solution, you seek knowledge. Knowledge is neither good nor evil, by even morale standards. Its use is. Science is incapable of evil. Results can be achieved by evil means (NAZI science), but the knowledge obtained is neutral.

If a wild man learns that fire kills by lighting his opponent's hut on fire, the knowledge of that is not evil. The wild man is.

Disregarding morals, there is no justification needed for science. Results are either duplicate-able or they're not. What you learn stands up to testing or it doesn't. It appears to work or you go back to the drawing board.

If a smith labors to create a better tool, he is not deifying the tool. He is seeking a better tool. No more, no less. And what he seeks is gained by the pursuit of knowledge: how to make the tool he seeks. He may sell the knowledge or profit from it, but he doesn't necessarily deify it.

>>	ロリあき Sun Nov 28 02:36:01 2010 No.6518902 >>6518887 Exactly. once one comes to live by my philosophy, he has no real need to want anybody dead except for necessity.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:37:01 2010 No.6518906 >>6518891 Thank you, that is what I was trying to get at.

White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ Sun Nov 28 02:38:01 2010 No.6518911

>>6518891
Blame the people who suffer from the delusion. Don't blame the ones asking questions. If you use something that "experts" claim works, and it doesn't work, then don't trust those experts. The promised results were not achieved, so it behooves you to try something else, right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:39:01 2010 No.6518915 File: 10 KB, 350x259, culture_girl2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6518824 If only...

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 02:40:01 2010 No.6518916

>>6518858
>The moment you allow humans to congregate and cooperate, you need contracts between them
Missed replying to this bit. I'm not opposed to ther people making those contracts when it's an informed decision. Right now, we're born into these contracts, and once we can make an informed decision, it's too late.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:41:01 2010 No.6518922

>>6518878
I don't believe you actually believe this. That, or you haven't been wronged yet.

We have a pretty good example of how disputes are solved in a society with no institution to enforce law. Just take a look at gangs. Saying you prefer that kind of system to being forced to obey the law or being punished won't be taken seriously.

Your own example is pretty good. You are not strong enough alone to avenge the death of your wife against an armed organization. Of course a problem with any law-enforcing institution is corruption of it's own values.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:41:01 2010 No.6518925 >>6518902 But in the aforementioned example, you have no real need. Your wife is dead, you're alive, they move on, apparently. So, you have no need.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:41:01 2010 No.6518926

>>6518911

Not the point. Science is a religion because it offers truths to people who aren't intelligent enough to think for themselves.

Religion was accepted by the majority of the populace six centuries ago, and has since become largely discredited. Who says that science won't end up the same way?

I mean, sure, you'll still have a few nuts in the deep south practicing it, but who really cares about those people? They're just stupid hicks who don't matter.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:42:01 2010 No.6518934 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project I'll just leave this here...

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:43:01 2010 No.6518937 >>6518926 I'm offended.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 02:45:01 2010 No.6518941

>>6518911
>delusion
Is it a delusion if it's shared by an entire culture?

It does indeed behoove you to check things out for yourself and see they are true, but with so many centuries if knowledge it becomes impossible to test everything. one MUST trust that you aren't being lied to on some things, and the best way to do that is to compare from real-life experience. However we've dogmatized the idea that science is truth, so people are loath to do the testing on their own becuse that requires effort, and mankind is very keen on not expending effort if we don't have to.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:45:01 2010 No.6518944

>>6518916
The problem with the world you've put together is that right way, people would begin organizing in order to protect the weaker among them and generally just make life less shitty for everyone. There's a reason every society in the world has some kind of system of crime and punishment. It's not an accident.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:45:01 2010 No.6518945 >Who says that science won't end up the same way? Uh, you do know science is THE TRUTH, right? Herp derp.

>>	ロリあき Sun Nov 28 02:47:01 2010 No.6518952 >>6518925 EXACTLY. That's why I appended it with "I don't care what happens to me or my wife" We're arguing the same side of the debate here.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:47:01 2010 No.6518953

>>6518945

You're a troll but I'm still going to respond to you because I feel like it.

To people who were and are religious, religion is the truth.

It is impossible to view things outside of the lens of our own civilization. Who says that science isn't horribly wrong?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:48:01 2010 No.6518956 >>6518926 >Religion was accepted by the majority of the populace six centuries ago, and has since become largely discredited. Tell that to the vast majority of people in most parts of the world.

>>	ロリあき Sun Nov 28 02:49:01 2010 No.6518959 >>6518945 You can't know that. Thought experiment- What if the whole scientific community were in fact magicians, and the method by which they came to their results was a secret they all shared?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:50:01 2010 No.6518963 >>6518952 So your killing is completely arbitrary?

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:53:01 2010 No.6518972

>>6518953
It's based completely on naturalistic phenomenon. Furthermore, it's possible to predict, conjecture, speculate, etc. accurately to some degree with scientific inquiry. It is THE truth of the world.

The only way it can be "wrong" is if someone approaches a hypothesis incorrectly.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:54:01 2010 No.6518979 >>6518956 I meant 'discredited among the philosophical and educated'. >>6518959 There is no appreciable way to tell the difference, which is why belief in science is the same thing as believing in God.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:56:01 2010 No.6518983 >>6518979 >the philosophical and educated Isaac Newton?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:56:01 2010 No.6518984 >>6518972 Poor you. You're a product of a faulty educational system. Science isn't truth, but an observation of what COULD BE the truth.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:57:01 2010 No.6518987

Science in its catechism has but few apodictic precepts; it consists mainly of statements which it has developed to varying degrees of probability. The capacity to be content with these approximations to certainty and the ability to carry on constructive work despite the lack of final confirmation are actually a mark of the scientific habit of mind.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 02:57:01 2010 No.6518988

>>6518944

I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at.
I never denied people the right to organize, only that it be the result of an informed decision rather than simply being assumed that organization is the only way to survive.
Nations came about because people could only communicate with each other in a very limited area. Now that we can communicate without real regard to physical location, people who share morals can socialize and organize without the need for physical presence. Thus the idea of nations is outmoded. We can organize without need of physical boundaries anymore, but they are so institutionalized that only a massive world revolution can change that. This revolution doesn't even need to be bloody in the slightest now.
I never said it was an accident, only that it's out-of date because there's no room for anything BUT institutionalized punishment now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:57:01 2010 No.6518991 >>6518983 Newton died three centuries ago.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:58:01 2010 No.6518993 >>6518984 If you can replicate observations, why wouldn't it be the truth?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:59:01 2010 No.6518999 >>6518991 Sure, but wasn't he educated and still a Christian?

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 02:59:01 2010 No.6519000
File: 90 KB, 678x380, ykk_night.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6518934
Ambitious, I can understand simulating the synapic traffic of a "basic" Neocortical column but do they really need to go down to the molecular level? Its like mapping the genome, take shortcuts whenever possible and eliminate redundancy. Later you can go back and fill in any blanks in the model.

Lets just get a basic A7M2 Alpha type up and running ASAP.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:00:01 2010 No.6519001 >>6518987 What the fuck? I have no idea what this says but I still understand it. >>6518988 Good luck convincing people that this is a good idea.

>>	ロリあき Sun Nov 28 03:00:01 2010 No.6519007 >>6518979 >belief in science is the same thing as believing in God. That's kind of the point I was getting at, but not entirely. belief without question is dogma. Belief after questioning and receiving consistent results is logic.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:03:01 2010 No.6519018

>>6518993

Maybe the Invisible and Incorporeal King Jedediah Sixteen-Toes is interfering with the experiment to have it produce the same (false) observations every time?

You don't know that he isn't doing that, but I do, because he told me.

>>6518999

Yes, but, again, that was three centuries ago. Philosophers, scientists, and the educated today are generally not religious, which is why I claim it has been discredited among that community.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 03:04:01 2010 No.6519024

>>6519001
>Good luck convincing people that this is a good idea
You are suggesting that this isn't a good idea.

Frankly, with the understanding of the ridiculousness of thought-crimes, progress is already being made. As communication becomes more and more free, it's an inevitability.

I live with my niece. if I raise her to believe what I do, then I'm already succeeding.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:05:01 2010 No.6519028 >>6519018 But I can't observe him outside of the lens of civilization, so he obviously doesn't exist. >are generally not Generalizations are dangerous (even this one).

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:05:01 2010 No.6519030 >>6519024 >You are suggesting that this isn't a good idea. I'm not, but other people aren't going to agree with you.

>>	ロリあき Sun Nov 28 03:07:01 2010 No.6519037 >>6519018 Because replicable observations are basically FACTS, not truth. Truth is philosophical, not scientific.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:08:01 2010 No.6519040

>>6519028
>But I can't observe him outside of the lens of civilization, so he obviously doesn't exist.

What? I'm trying to say that the causes of observable events could be anything, and not just what we perceive to be causing the event.

>Generalizations are dangerous (even this one).

Not really? It's true: Most people in the philosophical community simply aren't religious, except theologians, and they're idiots.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:08:01 2010 No.6519043

>>6519024
Well, if you're raising your niece to arbitrarily kill like you implied you'd do before, I'll just have the authorities take appropriate action against you pre-emptively. You don't have a problem with that, right? Or do you? On one hand, you don't care what other people do to you, apparently, because that's their right. On the other hand, I'd be encouraging the institutions you so righteously hate (for some reason).

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:08:01 2010 No.6519044 >>6519018 As long as the Invisible and Incorporeal King Jedediah Sixteen-Toes can be counted on to interfere every time then the experiment's results are still valid.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:09:01 2010 No.6519047 >>6519037 Which is why that stating 'science is truth' is as ludicrous as King Jedediah. If he wanted to make that statement factual, it would be 'science offers truth'.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:10:01 2010 No.6519049 >>6519044 True, but the scientists conducting the experiment don't know that, because he's invisible.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:11:01 2010 No.6519052

>>6519040
Nah, hate to stoop to personal attack level, but you're probably an idiot and a terrible person for being so dismissive.

>What? I'm trying to say that the causes of observable events could be anything, and not just what we perceive to be causing the event.

There's no point in positing something like that. There's no appreciable difference.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:12:01 2010 No.6519056 >>6519052 And stating that 'science is truth' only proves that you don't understand what science is supposed to be.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 03:13:01 2010 No.6519061

>>6519030
People don't have to agree with my philosophy, just recognize it as just as legitimate as any other. As long as you recognize it as a legitimate philosophy, I have no qualms with you.

Since most people would find me outright immoral because I would not do anythign about people who kill people, rape, and molest children. They don't seem to realize that I didn't make any judgements on what they can do to those people either.

I jsut want people to stop being intellectually lazy and get past the idea of right and wrong as it applies outside their own mind.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:14:01 2010 No.6519064 >>6519056 I thought you already figured out that was plain trolling.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:15:01 2010 No.6519070 >>6519061 No philosophy is legitimate.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:17:01 2010 No.6519073 >>6519061 It is a legitimate philosophy. A destructive and impractical philosophy, but even so.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:18:01 2010 No.6519077
File: 118 KB, 800x600, houzuki.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6519061
>I just want people to stop being intellectually lazy and get past the idea of right and wrong as it applies outside their own mind.

That will never happen as long as there is society, and there will always be society. For you see, everything is like a wheel.

>>6519064

Yes, but he's still pissing me off. Which means I lose. Curses.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:19:01 2010 No.6519082 >>6519061 But why can't people act on the right and wrong inside their own minds?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:21:01 2010 No.6519089 >>6519077 Don't be mad, bro.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 03:21:01 2010 No.6519091

>>6519043
>You don't have a problem with that, right?
Only that those institutions exist everywhere technology has advanced past the need for them, and that you're too lazy to do the job yourself.
Law institutions existing as borderless "mercenary" organizations would be the ideal.

I can also merely make a social contract with people who share my belief in no generational institutionalized punishment to defend my neice and I physically.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:23:01 2010 No.6519100 >>6519091 Such a social contract will pervert itself into an institutional system within no time. You have no idea how human beings work.

>>	ロリあき Sun Nov 28 03:24:01 2010 No.6519103 >>6519082 People are free to act on the right and wrong in their own minds completely. The problem here is that in the structure we have now, we can't. I support actual action. I am opposed to foisting it off on an institution to act for you.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:26:01 2010 No.6519112

>>6519077
Truth be told, I was trolling, but sometimes I put forth an argument I don't really believe so as to get a counter-argument, and go from there. If I was offending you with my apparent stupidity, I'm sorry.

As an amateur philosopher who deals himself with ideas of uncertainty, I have no real opinion or stance at the moment.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 03:27:01 2010 No.6519117

>>6519100
Why would it, when once I die of natural death or stop caring about the defense, the contract is broken? What if I don't want them do defend me, but merely warn me that I could be attacked?
Isn't assuming otherwise simply a slippery slope situation?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:28:01 2010 No.6519122 >>6519103 But what is an institution but a group of people?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:28:01 2010 No.6519124 >>6519112 Oh, no, no problem, I'm still a (bored) university student. I seem to get the impression that ロリあき has some kind of actual credentials, though, even if his philosophy is painfully idealistic.

>>	ロリあき Sun Nov 28 03:29:01 2010 No.6519128 >>6519070 Only in the sense that legitimacy is intangible and thus illusory. Legitimacy is defined by the individual. you would be more correct in saying "Every philosophy is legitimate"

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:29:01 2010 No.6519129 >>6519117 You're opposed to institutions but fail to realize how institutions form.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:32:01 2010 No.6519139 >>6519124 He's apparently lived in backalleys with a netbook using hacked wi-fi, or something to that effect. If I accept that as true, I'm not sure anyone with those kind of credentials would find themseves in that kind of situation. Regardless...

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 03:35:01 2010 No.6519146

>>6519122
Good point. But people are born into them, and I find that abhorrent. it is akin to being born into slavery.

I simply want the ability to opt out of the institution without having to go be some woods-living savage.

Why should I be forced to abide by what I don't believe without any significant recourse?
So I argue and debate and try to get people to realize that my philosophy isn't wrong. It may not be right, sure, but it isn't wrong eeither.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:35:01 2010 No.6519149 >>6519128 No, because that gives undue implication to conceding a truth in some manner.

>>	ロリあき Sun Nov 28 03:37:01 2010 No.6519156 >>6519129 >fail to realize how institutions form Well enlighten me. Don't just tell me I'm making a mistake, correct me.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:39:01 2010 No.6519161

>>6519146
>Why should I be forced to abide by what I don't believe without any significant recourse?

Because there simply is not enough in this world. Maybe you're right: in a perfect world, we could all govern ourselves in comfort.

This is not a perfect world.

>>	ロリあき Sun Nov 28 03:39:01 2010 No.6519163 >>6519124 No, no actual credentials. Just been around the block with my eyes open.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:42:01 2010 No.6519173 >>6519156 As White Ren noted earlier, people form contracts and institutions out of a necessity for themselves. What you posit is hopelessly idealistic as is. Do you have some real plan grounded in reality for making this ideal manifest?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:42:01 2010 No.6519177 >>6519161 And it never will be, so we should stop trying to make it so.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 03:45:01 2010 No.6519182

>>6519161
>simply not enough
Not enough what? Resources?
Currently, yes. This need not be the case, of course.

Indeed this is not a perfect world, but only because so many flawed philosophies dominate.

My way is not impossible to achieve, merely difficult. the more people I expose to my philosophy, the stronger and more possible it becomes.

>>	ロリあき Sun Nov 28 03:46:01 2010 No.6519187 >>6519177 This response is better than mine, actually. Nice.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:47:01 2010 No.6519191

>>6519146
Having a person live near you who has no qualms over killing or being killed is scary. People turn to institutions to make them feel safe and the institution says you must follow their rules.

As for people being born into a society's ruleset, we can hardly have everyone under age with the right of doing whatever they want to others either.

People usually dislike unpredictable things and especially unpredictable behavior. There's nothing wrong or right about it but that seems to be the way human beings want to live.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:50:01 2010 No.6519202

>>6519182
>not impossible
I suppose if you want to be technical. Effectively, it might as well be.

If you want to prove your philosophy to me, actually gain a following, like you so confidently reassure me you can. Let me see the power of this so-called philosophy myself!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:52:01 2010 No.6519206 >>6519202 He'd have to die and leave behind a wealth of unpublished material first.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 03:54:01 2010 No.6519209

>>6519173
It seems hopelessly idealistic to you because you are lazy. There's people battling out hopelessly idealistic philosophies in every country of the world, and they all have effected at least some small change.

My philosophy shares aspects with dozens of others. it's a small step to debate the differing points, and once people realize that I'm not actually gonna FORCE them to do something they don't want to do physically, like so many other systems, my way will gain public legitimacy.

100o years ago, people stoned Jews. 200 years ago people burned witches. People are still lynching blacks, and child molesters are beaten and killed in jail quite often. I don't believe in the sanctity of life, but that doesn't mean I'm a serial killer. I don't believe in the immorality of child molestation, but that doesn't mean I've been molesting my niece. I have no moral objection to gays, but I don't suck dick.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 03:55:01 2010 No.6519213 >>6519206 Oh, my. Can someone on /jp/ be so prodigious? I certainly don't think so.

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 04:00:01 2010 No.6519225

>>6519202
As I have only recently gotten down all the specifics of this philosophy, and started debating it just today in its mature form, I'm willing to take that challenge wholeheartedly.
>>6519191
>no qualms over killing or being killed is scary
Yet every day, we smile and thank our veterans and even have two holidays with them.
I DO have qualms about killing. I won't do it if it isn't necessary for my survival. Most people share this view except for straight pacifists. Howefer, most other people b

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 04:00:01 2010 No.6519226 >>6519209 >I don't suck dick. Get out of /jp/.

>>	ロリあき Sun Nov 28 04:02:01 2010 No.6519227 >>6519225 Oops. Ignore everyting after "pacificts". Got all overeager and posted without deleting it.

Anonymous Sun Nov 28 04:03:01 2010 No.6519229

>>6519209
>It seems hopelessly idealistic to you because you are lazy.

Ouch! That really endears me to that wonderful philosophy of yours~

>There's people battling out hopelessly idealistic philosophies in every country of the world, and they all have effected at least some small change.

Well, I suppose if you want to be dismissed as a niche, sure.

>My philosophy shares aspects with dozens of others. it's a small step to debate the differing points,

And a huge step to actually be convincing.

>and once people realize that I'm not actually gonna FORCE them to do something they don't want to do physically, like so many other systems, my way will gain public legitimacy.

Yes, I'm sure it's never been thought of or criticized before. People are bound to be receptive of something like that~

>I don't believe in the sanctity of life, but that doesn't mean I'm a serial killer.

Antihumanist vibes, that's wonderful!

>I don't believe in the immorality of child molestation, but that doesn't mean I've been molesting my niece.

But what does it mean for other people?

>I have no moral objection to gays, but I don't suck dick.

Could've fooled me.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 04:05:01 2010 No.6519235 >>6519225 >I DO have qualms about killing. I won't do it if it isn't necessary for my survival. So why would you kill a guy if he killed your wife but left you alone?

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 04:08:01 2010 No.6519239

>>6519229
Don't take offense at the "lazy" thing. I know I can't prove it, and don't know it to be sure, but it's been my experience that the entirety of mankind is lazy.
Don't get emotional about my arguments, as I bear you no grudges for your beliefs. I merely am seeking to sest them i legitimate debate. Your appeal to insults shows that you've grown tired of the debate because you cannot convince me, and that's okay, but you should just stop posting instead.

Let me be the firstto tell you that I'm the king of lazy, that's why I'm here on /jp/ playing fappan games all day instead of getting a job

ロリあき Sun Nov 28 04:11:01 2010 No.6519246

>>6519235
There's two problems with that idea.
a. I was talking in the hypothetical. I would be broken up about it, but I wouln't bother to do anything about it physically. I merely believe that it isn't wrong to kill. Honestly, if I had a wife I loved who was killed, I'd be more likely to follow her in death than kill the killer.
b. I'm on /jp/ so obviously I'm never getting married.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 04:17:01 2010 No.6519259 >>6519246 And thus the love-bots (OP here). See? I knew we'd come full circle.

>>	ロリあき Sun Nov 28 04:21:01 2010 No.6519270 >>6519259 Awesome. I think this might be the biggest tangent on /jp/ to come back to the source.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 04:25:01 2010 No.6519284 File: 682 KB, 800x600, houzuki masaomi.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6519259 Wheeeeel.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 04:28:01 2010 No.6519289 File: 500 KB, 1136x777, 1290878515102.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 04:30:01 2010 No.6519299 >>6519289 Holy fucking shit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 04:42:01 2010 No.6519319 >>6519289 damn...

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 28 15:00:01 2010 No.6521190 >>6519289 I might just buy one of these to dress up

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 16:12:23 2018 No.6521190,1 >>6518826 >This thread is making me dislike all of our tripfags. nobody ever liked them in the first place; this... this makes you THE LAST ANON THAT LIKED TRIPFAGS, before changing his mind

Reply to thread

Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Action

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/jp/ - Otaku Culture