|
4000 Dollar Suit posted:Star Trek and probably the Orville have always been able to replicate life, hello, transporters? it's probably unethical or illegal to create copies or new life via the replicator. There are actual physics reasons why a transporter could be able to move a living thing, while a replicator would struggle to create a copy of a living thing. Quantum teleportation allows moving information from place to place that isn't observable (due to Heisenberg uncertainty) in the first place. The downside is it absolutely must destroy the original. So a replicator has to work with information that's subject to Heisenberg uncertainty, or work by transporting bits of conventionally manufactured material. Both could reasonably struggle to create life. Thomas Riker is hard to fit into the "transporters use quantum teleportation" solution, though. Best I can think of is both are an imperfect copy of the original, and just got lucky those imperfections were harmless.
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:My question was, what does that do that for you? Why is that a role that needs to be fulfilled/that you enjoy seeing fulfilled? Same thing any good reviewer does? Expresses ideas and insights about a subject I might not think of or fully realize myself. I knew I didn't like the prequels going into the Plinkette reviews. But they did a good job clarifying why.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:My point is, from what I've gathered, people watch RLM after already having seen Star Wars 500 times. Then, the RLM people explain to them various details about the thing they've already seen 500 times. To the extent I've gotten that right, that's rather different from most reviews. Just because I've watched a movie or TV show doesn't mean I've picked up on everything a reviewer does. I can't always put my feelings into words as well as a reviewer can, or pinpoint root causes of various feelings, or imagine how it could have been better as well as they can. For example, I came out of Episode 1 disappointed. I probably felt like the characters weren't good in a general "blah" sense, but the first part of Plinkett's review does a much better job of explaining why they suck, and fall short of the OT characters. quote:There's also a post-movie review reading where your entire perspective shifts. But this does not seem to be the same thing either, as it doesn't depend on long lists of details and wookipedia. To me, this is a weird CineD thing, and I don't see it anywhere else. I find these "readings" overwrought BS, and why I got tired of trying to read those threads pretty quick. I've never read a review that actually changed how much I enjoyed a piece of entertainment. In much the same way that I doubt an explanation of a joke has ever made it funny for anyone who didn't get it initially. My interest in a review is either to set expectations for something I haven't seen yet (most mainstream movie reviews), or to help crystallize and understand how I've already reacted (e.g., Plinkett, and most TV reviews). And I read/view a lot more of the latter than the former; word-of-mouth is more what I rely on to decide whether to watch something (if it isn't an auto-watch like MCU or SW).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:In Starship Troopers, Ibanez plots a new course that the computer can recognize as better, but the computer can’t plot the course on its own. I don't know the scene, but in principle, this isn't unreasonable. Many problems are hard to solve but easy to verify. Pathing problems are often like this (NP-complete in CS jargon).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Kaylon should have been literal paperclip optimizers. They killed their builders because they wouldn't let them take the steps necessary to make the most paperclips, and Isaac's mission was to determine other organic's value in making more paperclips.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2022 01:01
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:-the whole "married briefly to my university prof but no really he actually was nice" thing felt a tad cringe for me even if it felt authentic to 80's/90's TV. I admit I was kind of waiting for the other shoe to drop and find out Admiral Professor was an abusive creep. But then wouldn't that suggest that such relationships are "OK" as long as the power-holder isn't an overtly abusive creep? Better for the relationship to be as unabusive as possible, aside from the intrinsics of the situation, but still turn out badly due to those intrinsics.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:I wonder if the writers had a different scene in mind for the conclusion of the "people stuck in a high school are suddenly confronted by a life or death situation" and went "Uhhhhhhhhhh ...... how about we throw in a random CGI fantasy ogre instead?????" I could defintely see Gordon running a DnD campaign. Imagine Bortus playing. And Captain Mercer joining at the end of the last episode...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2022 03:12
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:It's real clunky because there's too many edge cases and it just comes off as an unspoken, and priviliged, "Because We Have Replicators Now I didn't get the sense that the issue was him risking court martial by killing animals, rather that he was simply traumatized by killing beings that he's been culturally raised to view as essentially equivalent to human. I'd imagine even most modern-day vegans wouldn't be so traumatized in that situation, because personal choices are less impactful on our psyche than pervasive cultural norms. I'm an unabashed meat eater, and I had no issue with that bit. It was an interesting sci-fi moment, considering the psychological implications of a world where there's long been zero reason to kill animals for food or other personal benefit, and where the vastly greater diversity of known life has made the distinction between animals and people far more unclear than on Earth. Really, TNG's approach to the issue was more smug, where they just look down on "real" meat and idly tut-tut it, but don't feel strongly about it. The deep-seated revulsion Gordon has is more interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2022 03:22
|
|
" rather than anything enlightened.
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:That's not the bit I'm talking about. The way they have Gordon talk about it isn't just as his own personal experience (which is a totally valid thing), but the broader incidental dialogue inferes how it's systematically applied in Union culture with no edge cases or nuance that's at fault. The killing animals part was all about his personal experience. They didn't say or show otherwise. His personal experience is, of course, inherently informed by the cultural norms of his society, but that's it. We really have no idea what the strict specifics of those laws/norms are; what nuances or edge cases there are. And it doesn't matter. I am legally and culturally permitted to kill people in various situations. I think, and honestly hope, it would still traumatize me if I did.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2022 05:41
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Did you miss the line of "What I did would legally be murder if I did this in our time" when talking about shooting animals and eating them just to survive? I didn't. It's key to my understanding of the situation. "Would" is the key word. He's implying that while what he did in those three years was justified in that context, it didn't absolve his own personal guilt or mitigate his trauma. There's a big difference between intellectually knowing that something is OK, and actually feeling it. The broader argument is that if killing animals to survive is OK, then actually living a life should be too, since social contact is vital to human survival, just as food is. The counter argument is that since social contact has been deemed as too risky with respect to timeline contamination, the distinction is justified. Ultimately, military regs are what they are, and he took an oath to obey them. The only grounds to break them is if they would induce him to commit war crimes, and that's clearly not the case here.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2022 06:18
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Yeah, I'm still not actually talking about Gordon's subjective experience of having to kill animals to survive (That's okay, and completely legitimate), I'm only saying the whole "Killing an animal is murder in OUR era" legal tidbit about Planetary Union law and culture was just a little clunky and heavyhanded. "Killing people is murder" is a reasonable thing to say, even though we all know there are exceptions. I honestly don't see any issue with how it was presented, or what's implied about Union society and law.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2022 06:40
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Yeah, and again that's totally valid, it just came across as a little too universal for reasons as I and others stated upthread (managing overpopulation, extreme survival, etc) for what it was trying to carry across in the scene. It really only needed Gordon telling his own tale about being stuck having to kill animals to survive rather than try to expand it out. I don't think they did "expand it out". It's taking things too literally to believe that the only exception is time travel. I'm sure if Gordon was marooned on some planet with animal-like life that he hunted to survive, the situation would be essentially the same. And they certainly didn't say anything about non-food-related exceptions. It would certainly be a lot more clunky if Gordon gave a detailed legal lecture about all the specific exceptions. There's enough to understand what's relevant to his situation. And I feel they wrote it in a way that's clear to the audience, without feeling like Gordon is telling Ed things he obviously already knows. quote:The exceptions that should including eating them to survive in an extreme situation like Gordon was in? Are you referring to cannibalism? That's a whole level of wrong that goes beyond murder. Even in extreme survival situations, hunting humans is not OK. Would hunting and eating a non-same-species, but human-level sapient being be OK in survival situations in Union culture? I'm guessing no; that there's still some distinction there. But we're not given any indication in the episode, and I doubt they'd go that dark, since eating humanoid beings still feels like cannibalism to their audience, even if it technically isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2022 07:08
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:No? Where would you even get that from? I'm not sure what your response meant, then. I thought you were arguing that since our exceptions for killing people doesn't include hunting them as food, in any situation, the same would be true of the Union for animals. Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to best faith understand what you're saying.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2022 14:26
|
|
|
bltzn posted:The time laws don't really make any sense given how time travel could logically work. It's clear that time travel does not work that way in this setting. Kind of silly to just make up some time travel rules, then make judgements based on them. Sort of like "transporters are suicide booths" arguments. Yeah, that's one way they could work, but they clearly don't since what we're shown in Star Trek is not consistent with that. Characters that know how they work don't see them that way. We don't know how backwards time travel could potentially work, much like we don't know how Star Trek transporters, or a quantum drive works. Since modern physics says that FTL is actually time travel, we could just as easily claim that the Orville disappears and reappears in a new branched universe whenever it activates the drive. What matters is how the setting is presented, and if there's reasonable consistency. Avengers Endgame is an example of being flawed in a minor way here, since it does "time travel creates alternate universes" throughout, until it doesn't, with Cap traveling back to Peggy, then taking the long way back to the "present". What the show does say is that paradoxes should be avoided, since they create branching universes, implying it's possible to avoid paradoxes, and thus branching universes. The characters' choices are consistent with this understanding. The one area there might be a flaw is the second travel, 10 years back. The 2025 Gordon they interacted with couldn't exist once they rescued 2015 Gordon. That suggests a branching universe was created, but if 2025 Gordon is the only one "stuck" there, while the Orville was able to remain in the original universe, the problem is resolved. It could be that the show intentionally didn't address this explicitly, to set up a surprise return of 2025 Gordon's universe in a future episode.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2022 04:40
|
|
|
bltzn posted:Except... I'm not making up those rules. The show established them. They state in the episode that in the event a paradox would occur, an entirely new universe/timeline branches off, and as far as I can remember they never state that branching timelines should be avoided. Your argument was that time travel inherently branches the timeline, thus the Orville would necessarily disappear permanently from the original timeline, and would be incapable of changing anything. That's different. What's shown is the characters understand that they can travel back to fix Gordon's meddling, and return to their original universe. Either they can avoid paradoxes, or they can avoid being the ones stuck in branches. It's heavily implied that branching should be avoided, since it's given as a reason why they shouldn't keep both sandwiches at the beginning. If it wasn't a problem, it wouldn't be a justification. quote:And as an aside, the transporter is a suicide booth and what we're shown is consistent with that. The key point is that the transporter is also a resurrection booth, and so people have no qualms about dying only to be resurrected moments later. That's a fine perspective that I haven't heard before, but it's not the clone-and-kill argument that's much more common, that I was referring to. Edit: from your original post; was that last clause added in an edit? If not, I missed it. I didn't realize you were trying to cite the rules stated in the show. quote:In order for there not to be a paradox, travelling into the past would have to create an alternate timeline in parallel, which the show establishes. No, that's not quite what they say. What's said is that paradoxes cause alternative timelines. The rest of your argument treats paradoxes, and thus alternate timelines, as inevitable. eth0.n fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Jul 11, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2022 05:57
|
|
|
bltzn posted:It is logically impossible that the Orville returned to their original timeline. We don't know what constitutes a paradox. The "quantum superposition" angle clouds the usual interpretations. We also don't know how the branching universes work, i.e., maybe the paradox is resolved by shunting Gordon 2025 into an alternative universe, so the crew can remember him, but they still travel to their own universe. We don't know the rules; even the writers don't. But the characters do, and we can infer from their behavior that the way things work allows them to change their universe "back", and return to it. The world they return to is presumably altered in some ways, but it's the same world. They didn't disappear from their universe, and never reappear. quote:Yeah, I didn't get the sense that this was implied, at all. It wasn't justification, just an explanation. Then it doesn't answer the question, which was why not keep both sandwiches? If it's not an undesirable outcome in some way, then it's a non sequitor. quote:As far as I'm aware it is the same argument I'm referring to, my argument being that killing and cloning (by exactly reconstructing your atoms at the time of death, not growing a new body in a vat) is not problematic because it is the same thing as killing and resurrecting. The usual argument is that if transporters clone the original (atomically, not vat), then suppose the suicide booth part fails. Now, there's 2 bodies, and why would the original consciousness be anywhere but the original body? So, if the original is killed, then that consciousness is terminated, and a new clone with a new consciousness, but "fake" memories, continues on. The argument is that the original really, truly dies, forever. That's different from resurrecting the original. In the latter case, it's easy to justify why the consciousness of the original remains. The death is only technical, like how people can "die" by some definitions, but are resuscitated, so they don't really die. The crux of the argument is that "clone" and "kill" are separable operations. I thought you were giving an explanation for why they wouldn't be, since you aren't cloning, but resurrecting, which can only occur after killing. Personally, my preferred explanation is that actual, real physics quantum teleportation is intrinsically inseparable. Perfect cloning at an atomic level is literally impossible, but moving the information necessary to reproduce the original arbitrary distances while dispersing the original is possible. Since there's no separate clone step, there's no reason to doubt that continuity of consciousness is preserved. But it's just head canon to think that transporters rely on quantum teleportation; it just happens to be more consistent with what's on-screen, than the clone-and-kill explanation.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2022 07:57
|
|
|
bltzn posted:Is a causal paradox not well defined? The crew reading Gordon's obituary (event Z) is causally dependent on Gordon living out his life in the 21st century (event A). If you remove A, then you break that chain of causality. They explicitly say that Gordon's obituary is visible due to "quantum superposition". That's why they believe they can correct it in their universe, even though they've already seen it. The details of how that work are unknowable to us. If the writers had created a self consistent way of doing backwards time-travel preserving causality, without always creating branching timelines, that would be worthy of a significant theoretical physics paper. But we're told that these 25th century characters have figured it out. quote:If you have two equally desirable outcomes (keep both sandwiches or not), you still have to pick one outcome or the other. That doesn't imply the other outcome should be avoided. In this case, sending the sandwich back allows them to demonstrate a causal loop and is probably easier because you don't need to explain where the second sandwich came from. The question is "why can't we keep both", not "can we choose whether to keep both". Logically similar, but they carry different implications. Obviously, keeping both is the preferred outcome to Gordon. The implied question is what's wrong with that outcome. quote:This is assuming consciousness is a "thing" that inhabits the body rather than being a property of the body. In this situation I would say that both bodies "have" separate consciousnesses that forked off from a single one. Here's a very popular video that describes the "clone-and-kill" interpretation as I've seen it in many places in Star Trek discussion. Maybe I'm not doing a good job describing an argument that I don't even agree with... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHBAdShgYI Perhaps you say that ceasing to exist as a conscious being is OK as long as an identical clone gets to keep living. I don't think most people agree with that. I certainly don't.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
bltzn posted:Yes, the question "why can't we keep both" has a loaded assumption, but that doesn't mean the assumption is correct! Gordon sees the future sandwich appear, he sees LaMarr take it aside and send his sandwich back. Then he asks why they had to do that. His inflection makes it abundantly clear that he'd rather keep both. He's seen his friend evaporate a perfectly good sandwich. Naturally, he assumes it's for a reason, and asks about it. Are you arguing that's an unreasonable assumption? And if that assumption was incorrect, that LaMarr did it for no reason whatsoever, why wouldn't he say so? He and Isaac don't answer by correcting the implied assumption, they describe the outcome of keeping both. This suggests that his course of action was preferable to both LaMarr and Isaac. LaMarr's inflection also suggests that what he's saying about a branched universe isn't a good thing. quote:You're basically saying the way the question is phrased implies the answer which...is wrong??? Huh? How is the answer "if we didn't, it would create a paradox that results in a branched universes" implied by the phrasing of the question? There are loads of possible answers that could fit. Maybe the sandwich would explode. Maybe the universe would end. Gordon doesn't know. He just knows that he'd rather have 2 sandwiches, and phrases the question accordingly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:How is it ever not a thought experiment though? You can't really test that unless you can definitively measure a "soul" because that's what this comes down to. Does teleportation destroy your soul and for it to do that you have to accept you actually have one to begin with. A "soul" is not necessary for the argument. Consciousness is clearly something that exists, and it persists through certain events (like sleeping or getting knocked out), but not others. Can we absolutely prove that a new clone with implanted memories isn't killing and replacing us at every moment? No, but neither can we prove that any consciousnesses other than our own even exist. "Clone-and-kill" transporters are disturbing because they allow for a specific line of reasoning, as a thought experiment: 1. Suppose the "kill" fails. Obviously, the original person is the one that wasn't changed. Obviously, the clone is a new consciousness in some form. It's unreasonable to think that the same consciousness somehow actually sees out of both sets of eyes. 2. Suppose the "kill" happens a second after the clone. The original looks around, obviously aware, and then dies. Clearly, the original died, and a new consciousness is now active elsewhere. 3. Suppose we shorten that delay more and more. At what point is the original consciousness not killed? Even if it becomes instantaneous, or even if the clone happens after the kill, why would we expect anything different? Quantum teleportation is an easy out, if accepted. The "kill" step is intrinsically part of the "clone". In fact, the "clone" alone is impossible. So steps 1 and 2 of the thought experiment are impossible, thus the argument doesn't work. But the main point I wanted to make originally is that all these theories mean nothing w.r.t. understanding the setting of the show. Transporters work with science well beyond 21st century physics, let alone the pop-sci understandings we're displaying here. We can be confident that they don't kill 100% of their users, in any meaningful way, because characters that do know how they work don't treat them that way. It's an obvious question to raise when they were originally created, and it's obvious that question was answered in some convincing way. edit: Regarding Pria, for all we know, hereteleportation uses a micro wormhole or something, so there's no discontinuity of existence at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
2nd Amendment posted:Enlightenment philosophy is really just a post-Christian hangover. The teleporter discussion feeds directly into the neoliberal "end of history" narrative that TNG buys into wholeheartedly and Orville apes. What do teleporters have to do with neoliberalism?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
2nd Amendment posted:Conception of the enduring self and individualism as the locus of society. I think most of us would like to continue experiencing the world. I'm not convinced at all that's unique to any particular societies. If teleporters existed, anyone who wants that would probably want to know if that'll happen if we use it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2022 19:14
|
|
|
2nd Amendment posted:Who is experiencing the world? I know with absolute certainty that I am. I know with extreme confidence that 7 billion or so others are too. I suspect with reasonable confidence that countless others are elsewhere in the Universe.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:For all intents and purposes that aren't religious dogma or legalistic, a new consciousness that carries the same experiences and the same sense of 'self' IS the same self From the point of view of society, of course it doesn't matter, at least not directly (discounting the social effects of fear of teleporting). From an outside perspective, kill-and-clone is indistinguishable from true teleportation. But something happens when we die. We don't know what, and different cultures and individuals have different ideas. The most rational is that we simply cease to exist. But essentially universally, we don't want it to happen to us. Maybe different cultures are more willing to accept it if it benefits others, but it's still not desirable. It matters to us if we die. I don't see how knowing that a new person will exist with the same externally observable properties as me, and thinks it's me, negates that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
2nd Amendment posted:Who is the "we" here? You are reifying some continuous self in a way that doesn't make sense. Somehow, I continue to exist, and experience the world from the same body. Someday that will end. The question here is whether using a transporter inherently constitutes that day. And apparantly, whether that matters, but I have difficulty understanding how that can be questioned in good faith. Fear of dying is not unique to western neoliberal culture.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
2nd Amendment posted:How is your body the same body? I look totally different from how I did 10 years ago. Atoms recycle themselves completely in less time than that. Is the soul a Solara thing like sherry? I don't understand your final question. What's Solara? But the existence of an actual soul is only one possible explanation for the apparent continuity of consciousness. It's not especially relevant. Most neurons actually don't replace themselves over time, and consciousness is clearly connected to neural activity, so that's an easy answer. But even if every cell did replace itself over time, all those transformations are gradual and local. In contrast, teleportation (at least, in the Star Trek, non-wormhole style) is non-local, and affects the entire body all at once. We have no direct evidence that consciousness would have continuity through such an event, so that spawns discussion through other arguments. But these questions aren't even what we're talking about, which is whether a given consciousness literally ceasing to exist matters or not. I still don't see how that's even questionable.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2022 01:31
|
|
|
2nd Amendment posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solera I'm not a brandy, so I don't know if it experiences continuity of consciousness during that process. I have my doubts. But I do know that my consciousness persists through the aging process, and events like sleeping and being under general anesthesia, at least in all the ways that matter to me. Anything that deviates as dramatically from those processes as Star Trek transporters do is worthy of concern. There are obviously events that will end my consciousness (at least in the pattern it currently occupies), and I'd want to know if the transporter is more like those events, than the ones I know I persist through. Re: the pattern is sufficient, what would happen if my pattern were perfectly cloned somewhere else? If my consciousness follows my pattern, without any concern to continuity of substance or locality, what do I experience? I find it hard to believe that I'd somehow experience the world from my clone just as much as from my original body, as defined by the instance of my pattern that does have continuity of substance and locality consistent with our present existence. Do you believe otherwise? And if you do, how much must the pattern deviate for that to no longer happen? There is absolutely no evidence that consciousness persists through patterns that are non-local and aren't limited in changes in composition to at least some degree. The notion that consciousness solely follows the pattern is thus the more anti-scientific view.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2022 01:56
|
|
|
2nd Amendment posted:The you that was prior to the cloning would be the same and the yous that exist afterwards would diverge. Passing through time isn't murdering the me that was a second ago. To an external observer, yes, they are the same. But that's not what we're discussing. It's our subjective experience of self-awareness and consciousness. And yes, passing through time isn't murdering you. Because it would be silly to define the concept that way. But there are clear differences between aging, and rapidly deconstructing a person at the atomic level. I don't understand how your edit relates to anything I've argued. If anything, you're the one arguing like that; your argument seems to boil down to "I can't observe the continuity of consciousness of other people, therefore it doesn't exist".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2022 02:11
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:It depends on what you think consciousness is. I would argue that YOU are the state of your bits right now (relationships, movement, potentials, momentum, whatever) and there is ABSOLUTELY no difference between two identical instances of those bits other than relative position. A=A. Given that it's a perfect duplication it _IS_ you on the other end of the transporter. Your sense of continuity is a story your brain tells itself about the past/present entirely based on the state of your bits. But unless you believe that I'd subjectively experience both copies of my "bits" simultaneously, literally seeing out both sets of eyes, and that seems utterly absurd to me, then how can it be a given that I'd subjectively experience being a copy of my bits that happened to appear at the same time as my original copy was dispersed? Why should the fate of my original body affect where my consciousness "goes"? That being said, I want to be clear that I don't think Star Trek transporters are murder booths. They've clearly figured out a way to do it without dying every time, and proven it to their satisfaction. What I am saying is the naive interpretation of how a transportation works, that involves copying the person and destroying the original, as separable processes, is clearly disturbing. 2nd Amendment posted:What the gently caress does this stupid bullshit mean? It's a strictly unprovable hypothesis that other people possess consciousness and self-awareness. I can only assume they do with limited confidence. If it's such a foreign concept to you, perhaps you don't. In which case, it's fascinating to meet you. eth0.n fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Jul 14, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
2nd Amendment posted:So you've gone from "my position is so obviously true everyone agrees with me" to "idk"? The only positions I've expressed that I believe are so obviously true that (almost) everyone agrees with me, is that we (humans) experience consciousness, it has some form of continuity, and that we generally don't want our own to end too early. I still don't see how that can be controversial. And yes, I don't know how to meaningfully answer a hostile and useless question. Consciousness is famously something we all experience, and know exists, but that defies anything approaching a complete definition or explanation. And that's OK. We know some things about it, and those things are sufficient to have interesting discussions. quote:Feeding back to my earlier comments that Boop disliked, this is some real "impossible to imagine a world without capitalism" end of history bullshit. What possibility am I failing to imagine? I'm still not clear on this. Also, w.r.t. to that in regards to Star Trek, how does that describe a show that presents a nearly perfectly utopic society that is completely lacking capitalism?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
2nd Amendment posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia So when you asked what I meant by some "stupid BS", you knew exactly what I was referring to, and understood it completely? I don't think you are arguing in good faith. You clearly favor some particular philosophy of the mind, but you don't seem to care to express it with any clarity, and would rather make bizarre unrelated and loaded analogies to try to subvert efforts at clear discussion of alternatives. After all this, I still have no idea what you think neoliberalism has to do with teleportation.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2022 03:24
|
|
|
2nd Amendment posted:I've been arguing in extremely good faith the entire time. I'm not the person who said that literally everyone agreed with them. What specific assertion(s) did I make under that premise, that you believe a significant number of people disagree with? Also, what are you on about regarding "decorum"? It would be a fallacy to say you are wrong because you broke decorum, but I have not done that. I've criticized that particular post of yours due to its un-called-for tone, but I have not claimed that said tone invalidates your arguments. That particular post also happened to be useless and unhelpful regardless of tone, since you've shown it wasn't a good faith question. You clearly knew what I was talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2022 03:39
|
|
|
2nd Amendment posted:For someone insisting on the continuity of consciousness, you don't seem to know the positions you've been advocating. OK, that's the first part. The second part was explaining why they aren't reasonable assumptions. Every argument has assumptions. It's not wrong to state them and argue they are reasonable. It's not evidence of "neoliberalism" to have them. Conversely, because I've been so clear in my assumptions, it should be easy for you to present a clear argument that any of the following are unreasonable, and founded upon biases inherent to the neoliberal society I live in: 1. Almost all people believe that they and others are conscious. 2. Almost all people believe consciousness has some form of continuity as we live our lives. 3. Almost all people don't want their own consciousness to end, to at least some extent.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2022 04:14
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:The neoliberalism poo poo is a red herring at best but appeals to unsourced "most people believe" claims is not really a great argument either. We're having a discussion on a dumb comedy forum about sci-fi. Expectations of rigor and sourcing should be low. Nobody's sourced anything relevant. Given that I've hand-waved some assumptions that I think are eminently reasonable, I'd be content with a similarly hand-waved reasonable argument why they're unfounded. quote:Fwiw, im not going to claim that any of your premises are wrong per se, but they include a lot of undefined terms and assumptions I wouldn't claim that they believe in those specific terms, but the concept is basic: we are essentially the same person from moment to moment, day to day. We don't die when we go to sleep, and then get reborn with implanted memories. Our friends and families aren't being replaced by beings that just look and act the same. Outside of rare mental illnesses, I'm not aware of disagreement here. Certainly not to the point where belief in this is somehow a hallmark of neoliberalism. If anything, my impression is that neoliberal societies tend to be less inclined to believe in strong concepts of consciousness continuity, like souls, then non-neoliberal societies.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2022 04:39
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:I just don't think continuity (of consciousness at least) means what "most people" think it means I'm not claiming any particular mechanics or belief of mechanics of continuity in that assumption, just that we experience it, somehow, and "almost all" of us believe that others do to.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2022 05:01
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:Ok and then what of it That assumption wasn't used to argue otherwise, rather to dispute this: 2nd Amendment posted:Conception of the enduring self and individualism as the locus of society. Perhaps I've been misunderstanding the whole time, but I thought this was arguing that even caring about whether the "enduring self" exists with respect to transporters was a neoliberal concept. My counterargument is that you don't have to be a rugged individualist to care about dying in a transporter, based on assumptions that I believe are reasonable to ascribe to "nearly everyone".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2022 05:15
|
|
|
Dumb argument stuff, don't click: 2nd Amendment, I have no idea what you're trying to argue at this point. I don't see how any of that contradicts what I've said. It's not on me to read your mind. If you are the expert you appear to think you are, perhaps you are effective somewhere, but you are not an effective communicator in this lay-person's context. I'd say the same thing if someone came in here just spouting complex quantum physics equations without explanation to try to say something about transporters, and greeted attempts at understanding the way you have. Communication is a two-way street, and I feel I've done more than my part trying to understand your perspective. I'm out. Now back to the good part: Episode was good. Mark did a great job. The scene with kids torturing K-1 was enraging, but rung true. Even still, K-1 was "kind" enough to give them painless deaths. Hypothetical AIs have been known to do much worse. Seemed strange that the Kaylon could somehow secretly modify themselves to gain the head-guns. Did I miss something that they already had tools there that they just reprogrammed? If not, seemed unnecessary. They're physically strong enough to sneak attack their owners, and arm up after that. Wish the two main plots had intersected more, or at all. This is the second episode where the A/B plots seemed completely detached. It feels like they don't understand what makes that structure work well; that they're cargo culting TNG a bit here. Glad the humor has come back more. Bortus completely missing the obvious analog between Moclans and the species of the week was great. And it's low brow, but the sit-com bell boy routine was funnier that it probably should be.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2022 07:42
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Red Dwarf did the same thing, when Kryten got turned into a human they just used Robert Llewellyn without the costume Similarly for Legends of Tomorrow. The voice actress for the ship's computer, normally animated as a holographic CGI head, played her in person when she's come to life at various times, especially the last season. I imagine there'd need to be a strong reason not to keep the voice actor for shows to recast the human form, since they'd typically want to maintain voice continuity. I'm more curious how many shows didn't do it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2022 13:33
|
|
|
I like how the "evil" red eyes of most Kaylon were originally just how their builders' eyes looked, so there was no such connotation. Seems like the Kaylon recognized how they would look to most Union species, so Isaac changed his to blue for his mission.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
AlternateNu posted:That said, the real reason I'm posting is because I just finished episode six, and the fact that they completely biff the Relativistic description of the Twin Paradox has got me spazzing out over here. Show trying to be smart and instead makes itself stupider for it. What did they biff, aside from maybe the VFX not making sense? Did they even mention the twin paradox?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2022 15:13
|
|
