Jibber Jabber - Q1 - 29

VICTORY!

Teacakes and patricide for everybody.

Fishcakes for me please! And I'll just settle for regular homicide.

*Nice Elinor shuffles the Gator hurriedly off stage.*

How about pseudocide, Gator? We have a special deal on that, today only!

I suppose abitontheside has been removed from the menu these days?

How about pseudocide, Gator? We have a special deal on that, today only!

Pseudocide? That doesn't sound nearly as tasty.
Abitontheside? Hmm.

Are you thinking of the Isle of Wyrms and all those great big dragons, Gator?

Meh. Maybe. Rather have big bucket of salmon though!

That figures.

Sometimes I wonder if I travel from place to place to view the rise of greatness or see greatness before its destruction. This place has been very quiet of late... especially quiet for awaiting results.

Ah, yes... It's that time again... Time for the submission system to close early and send people into panic...

Memories...

Ah, yes... It's that time again... Time for the submission system to close early and send people into panic...

Memories...

I deserved that for all the dithering I did....

Ah, yes... It's that time again... Time for the submission system to close early and send people into panic...

Memories...

I deserved that for all the dithering I did....

No... A writer, worrying over a story to get it just right? That never happens!

This thread was getting lonely.

I think we just need to set a new goal for this thread:

5,000 posts.

What say you all?

Dibs on the 5000th post.

Dibs? Dibs? What language is this sirrah?

Meanest thou 'Bags I'?

I'faith, the colonies contain much strange speech!

Dibs? Dibs? What language is this sirrah?

Meanest thou 'Bags I'?

I'faith, the colonies contain much strange speech!

At least we utilize the correct number of 'U's.

I think we just need to set a new goal for this thread:

5,000 posts.

What say you all?

I think this is more than feasible.

At least we utilize the correct number of 'U's.

Only according to Master Webster, who altered the true spelling deliberately, did he not?

So question for all you very talented SF writers:

Picture a human colony that starts from germ cells. Artificial wombs, A.I. computers to raise at least the first generation of people. (Saves a bundle on shipping costs.) Assume that you expect said colony will have no future contact with Earth.
Now your first generation of colonists are a multi-ethnic bunch, but what about names?
Do you set the A.I. with the instructions to match names to terrestrial ethnic heritage, or do you let the A.I. randomly assign names?

So question for all you very talented SF writers:

Picture a human colony that starts from germ cells. Artificial wombs, A.I. computers to raise at least the first generation of people. (Saves a bundle on shipping costs.) Assume that you expect said colony will have no future contact with Earth.
Now your first generation of colonists are a multi-ethnic bunch, but what about names?
Do you set the A.I. with the instructions to match names to terrestrial ethnic heritage, or do you let the A.I. randomly assign names?

I guess that would depend on the purpose of such a colony. Is it a vanity sort of thing, or based on some deep beliefs? Clearly there is no utility as there will be not contact. Anyway, if you answer that question, Why did they want to start such a colony? the answer to your question will stem from that.

Cthulu vs. Godzilla

Discuss.

So question for all you very talented SF writers:

Picture a human colony that starts from germ cells. Artificial wombs, A.I. computers to raise at least the first generation of people. (Saves a bundle on shipping costs.) Assume that you expect said colony will have no future contact with Earth.
Now your first generation of colonists are a multi-ethnic bunch, but what about names?
Do you set the A.I. with the instructions to match names to terrestrial ethnic heritage, or do you let the A.I. randomly assign names?

Just as long as the planet is not called EDEN and the first colonists are not called Adam and Eve and they don't have a big argument with the AI over what they're allowed to eat.

So question for all you very talented SF writers:

Picture a human colony that starts from germ cells. Artificial wombs, A.I. computers to raise at least the first generation of people. (Saves a bundle on shipping costs.) Assume that you expect said colony will have no future contact with Earth.
Now your first generation of colonists are a multi-ethnic bunch, but what about names?
Do you set the A.I. with the instructions to match names to terrestrial ethnic heritage, or do you let the A.I. randomly assign names?

Just as long as the planet is not called EDEN and the first colonists are not called Adam and Eve and they don't have a big argument with the AI over what they're allowed to eat.

You mean that's not original? [crumples paper discretely] I knew that.

Do you set the A.I. with the instructions

Since it is capable of thinking for itself shouldn't it make the decision to do whatever it wants?

Do you set the A.I. with the instructions

Since it is capable of thinking for itself shouldn't it make the decision to do whatever it wants?

Why should Intelligence mean free will? I see no contradiction in the idea that a machine may be intelligentt and still bound by programming.
(In fact that was the theme of one of my SF under K.D.)

Do you set the A.I. with the instructions

Since it is capable of thinking for itself shouldn't it make the decision to do whatever it wants?

Why should Intelligence mean free will? I see no contradiction in the idea that a machine may be intelligent and still bound by programming.
(In fact that was the theme of one of my SF under K.D.)

Aha! The red rag to a bullish philosopher!

Before we can answer this question we need to define both terms. There is, for example, a suggestion that on a basic level the term 'intelligence' may even be used of plants. Any number of animals are capable of intelligence in the sense of assimilating the details of a problem and working out a solution. Humans are further capable of abstract intelligence, which enables them to come up with concepts, amongst which is the concept of free will.

Now of course free will is also a concept capable of gradation. If we define it as, say, being able to act as you wish in a given situation, then it is easy to come up with situations in which human beings do not have free will. For example I am not free to jump over my house if I wish to. Even things that I may normally be able to do I shall not be able to do in particular circumstances, such as breathe in a vacuum. Human free will is therefore pretty circumscribed.

In principle you would expect an omnipotent deity to have uncircumscribed free will. But this is not so. Could such a deity bring it about that he / she did not exist? This would be self-contradictory. Therefore even omnipotence is limited to the logically possible.

Now the potential conflict between omnipotence and free will would fill whole volumes. You might for example argue that an omnipotent deity who conferred free will on one of his creatures would ipso facto cease to be omnipotent.

You might also argue that free will is an illusion, in that given his / her background, character etc., in a given situation a human being is only capable of acting the way he / she actually does act; the fact that he / she may envisage a different human being acting differently in similar circumstances does not mean that he / she could personally act in such a way.

You could argue that people like me should not be free to write the above, but I claim in my defence that V29/1 is incapable of being restrained by any known law.

One could also argue that humans, in that we are socialized (some more than others of course), are constrained by programming. But as Ishmael points out, no such constraints apply to this thread. It's Lord of the Flies here <img src="
...which is what Bob's premise could easily devolve to if the AI is incapable or unwilling to socialize its charges.

Ismael
Arguing against freewill by invoking an agent isn't free to choose an action that is physically impossible strikes me as specious.
Free will is a tricky concept, particularly for writers.
Say I have a script in which Cdr Will Riker comes onto the bridge. Kills Worf, beats the crap out Picard, and declares himself dictator of the ship.
A reader is very likely to complain that Riker is 'out of character.' That implies a set of actions that are physically permissible but outside of his range of choices. As writers we tend to bind ourselves to this concept of 'in character' and yet it flies against free-will that so many us also hold true.

Free will vs. predeterminism is relevant to minds that are self-aware because self awareness is only useful if that same mind believes in (or at least recognizes the possibility of) free will. If it does not, then it ceases to strive whereas the less sophisticated unself-aware mind will continue to perform up to its ability, blissfully ignorant of any other possibility.

We cannot conclude from this that free will exists, but we can conclude that as long as self awareness exists, free will will be believed in.

Arguing against freewill by invoking an agent isn't free to choose an action that is physically impossible strikes me as specious.

Physically impossible actions are only one example of the limitations of free will. Of more obvious relevance perhaps would be impracticability, unaffordability, lack of skill etc. For example, you and I cannot date Kim Basinger, play shortstop for the Padres, purchase a La Ferrari, recite In Memoriam from memory, become Governor of Maine, play piano solo with the Hollywood Symphony Orchestra, climb Kilimanjaro, speak Serbo-Croat ....

Of course, if you happen to have Kim Basinger's phone number ... ?

Arguing against freewill by invoking an agent isn't free to choose an action that is physically impossible strikes me as specious.

Of course, if you happen to have Kim Basinger's phone number ... ?

El Bimbo Grande? If I had her number i'd give it to you. I hear she's very high maintenance...

And your arguments borders on straw men...

it's like a conflation of free will and wish fulfillment.

Arguing against freewill by invoking an agent isn't free to choose an action that is physically impossible strikes me as specious.

Of course, if you happen to have Kim Basinger's phone number ... ?

El Bimbo Grande? If I had her number i'd give it to you. I hear she's very high maintenance...

And your arguments borders on straw men...

it's like a conflation of free will and wish fulfillment.

I have to agree. Free will supposes we have have more than one possible path we can take as we go through life and that choices we make will affect which path we will traverse, not that we can live any conceivable life. Therefore, listing outcomes that do not lie on potential life paths is irrelevant.
Yes Kim, I did say it, you are irrelevant.
So... you can take that restraining order off me now.

I seem to be blocked from replying.

This must be too sensitive even for 29/1