Question for warrel
- Thread starter guitarguru777
- Start date
Sentient 6 said:
Dude ... Now i totally get it ... ha ha ha .. you indeed are the fukin man
Da Fukn Guru
TwistedSister
Godless
"I think therefore I am". Descartes, okay.
This statement does create the question if mental autonomy is a precondition for scientific cognition or -the other way round- if an increasing scientific cognition leads to/creates mental autonomy.
I think it works perfectly in both ways.
Man already owns this mental autonomy (at least...some of us...
)It makes him explore and work and build new knowledge in science and technology.
So he creates machines. And he goes on exploring and it comes the time when he has gained enough knowledge to be able to teach the machines to think and to feel - which is not unlikely, I think, when you consider thoughts and emotions as "ordinary" chemical processes (like breathing or transferring food into energy)that just hasn´t been completely explained yet.
So -coming back on Descartes- the second assumption is working now. By been taught thinking and feeling the machines begin to develop their own mental autonomy.
And now we don´t have another choice than "considering machines a conscious entity" I suppose.
We cannot "linguistically differentiate a person from a computer" anymore.
Some might say, of course we can, from a material point of view.
Yes, indeed, a computer has a different physical, bodily form than a human being, but I don´t think that´s what counts in this case.
More important is, that humans and machines are equal on a mental level then.
I often feel that people haven´t made up their minds yet if that´s gonna be a reason to chant in happiness or to be scared. Maybe I haven´t, too. Time will tell.
I could think about things like that for hours (and I often do, when I find the time), and I love to discuss them, but unfortunately I hardly meet people in my life who think in a similar way, hehe...
so I just wrote some of my strange thoughts down. Don´t care.
I don´t want to bother you any longer. I was just somehow "thinking aloud", inspired by listening to "The Learning" on headphones (Very intense! Damn!!).
Maybe my point of view seemed confusing or illogical to you, I´m afraid things would´ve been easier for me to express in my mother tongue. But who cares, it´s ONE way of thinking, so nobody needs to feel offended (just in case...
)
But now I *cough* have to concentrate on work again *cough*, thoughts like the ones above are not useful when you´re sitting in an office trying to construct drilling machines...
This statement does create the question if mental autonomy is a precondition for scientific cognition or -the other way round- if an increasing scientific cognition leads to/creates mental autonomy.
I think it works perfectly in both ways.
Man already owns this mental autonomy (at least...some of us...
)It makes him explore and work and build new knowledge in science and technology.So he creates machines. And he goes on exploring and it comes the time when he has gained enough knowledge to be able to teach the machines to think and to feel - which is not unlikely, I think, when you consider thoughts and emotions as "ordinary" chemical processes (like breathing or transferring food into energy)that just hasn´t been completely explained yet.
So -coming back on Descartes- the second assumption is working now. By been taught thinking and feeling the machines begin to develop their own mental autonomy.
And now we don´t have another choice than "considering machines a conscious entity" I suppose.
We cannot "linguistically differentiate a person from a computer" anymore.
Some might say, of course we can, from a material point of view.
Yes, indeed, a computer has a different physical, bodily form than a human being, but I don´t think that´s what counts in this case.
More important is, that humans and machines are equal on a mental level then.
I often feel that people haven´t made up their minds yet if that´s gonna be a reason to chant in happiness or to be scared. Maybe I haven´t, too. Time will tell.
I could think about things like that for hours (and I often do, when I find the time), and I love to discuss them, but unfortunately I hardly meet people in my life who think in a similar way, hehe...
so I just wrote some of my strange thoughts down. Don´t care.
I don´t want to bother you any longer. I was just somehow "thinking aloud", inspired by listening to "The Learning" on headphones (Very intense! Damn!!).
Maybe my point of view seemed confusing or illogical to you, I´m afraid things would´ve been easier for me to express in my mother tongue. But who cares, it´s ONE way of thinking, so nobody needs to feel offended (just in case...
) But now I *cough* have to concentrate on work again *cough*, thoughts like the ones above are not useful when you´re sitting in an office trying to construct drilling machines...
TwistedSister
Godless
REBIRTHH said:circus maximus vox man, check him out ....he might be better than tate
That Reminds me!
I once mentioned Geoff Tate when we were discussing singers and WD replied: " Let me tell you something about Geoff Tate".........
Now that we're asking stuff here anyway:
What about Geoff Tate, Mr D? You never finished what you wanted to say.
azal
love is the answer
WD owes a lot to Tate as far as his singing style is concerned. Especially in the lower registers.
I think there is so beef though because I remember being at some Nevermore show and WD yelling "fuck queensryche."
Maybe Tate will get capped in a drive by shooting soon.
I think there is so beef though because I remember being at some Nevermore show and WD yelling "fuck queensryche."
Maybe Tate will get capped in a drive by shooting soon.
Anyone else notice how much Warrel used to sound like Harry Conklin (especially on the S/T and In Memory) ?
derek
Grey Eminence
I like this thread, there are some good points about sentient 6. I like the whole concept. It reminded me of AI before i thought of I, Robot.
It's all a kick-ass notion.
It's all a kick-ass notion.
Chromatose
Squid pro quo
When I first got into nevermore, my friends and I would sit around and play the game of "find all the similarities possible between nevermore and queensrÿche"
yes I'm cool
yes I'm cool
azal
love is the answer
Chromatose
Squid pro quo
from goodwill I once got this shirt for the
1999 NEBRASKA CORN FESTIVAL
full of corny lines like "CORNFIDENTIALLY" among other things
and I would explain the awesomeness of my corn shirt to people and they would say
"o really... Korn shirt hmmm.."
and I would say "no, it's corn"
and they would say "oh"
THE END ... ?
1999 NEBRASKA CORN FESTIVAL
full of corny lines like "CORNFIDENTIALLY" among other things
and I would explain the awesomeness of my corn shirt to people and they would say
"o really... Korn shirt hmmm.."
and I would say "no, it's corn"
and they would say "oh"
THE END ... ?
Karmic
speedy meatmonger
TwistedSister said:
yet still, based off its knowledge, wouldn't machines use logic much more? furthermore, would it make an assumption?
even though, lots of assumptions are based off feelings. which continues off to, also based off its knowledge, would it be able to judge?
Karmic said:
It reacts in the way it's been programmed to, in a linguistical way.
It follows the plan, it's designed to do so. However, that does not make it feel. It can be programmed to gain as much information as possible, more than an intelligent brain can think of. However, it needs to reflect on that information to come to a judgement.
How can it make a (logical) choice, when it lacks the ability to relativize?
It can give numbers, thousands of outcomes and possible statistics, but no judgement. It takes empath and emotions to make decisions.
It can not think by itself to make a logical choice, because it can not experience and therefore does not know the difference between wrong and right. It needs programming to do so and thinking to be so.
derek
Grey Eminence
Karmic
speedy meatmonger
Iris said:
meaning ability to be manipulated?
but then it wouldn't be an individual being!
:zombie:
Karmic
speedy meatmonger
Iris said:
Yes.
which shakes mani with the purty conclusion that nothing you could create would have its own mind.....
....would it?
Similar threads
