Robotics? - or just animism?
John Jones
matter ("robots"), based on the fact that they physically mimic human
goal-orientated activities.
But why stop at the physical mimicry of "goals" as a criterion of
inanimate identity?
If robots have an identity based on physical mimicry, then why are we so
reluctant to ascribe identity to dolls? After all, robots physically
mimic human goal-activities and dolls physically mimic human
thought-activities.
Ghod Dhammit
news:h2abcv$kp2$1...@news.motzarella.org...
They do all this mimicing on their own, then? You really ought to stop
taking the drugs that're causing this weirdness.
Matt Silberstein
<jonesc...@aol.com> in <h2abcv$kp2$1...@news.motzarella.org> wrote:
>We casually ascribe identity and intentions to some forms of inanimate
>matter ("robots"), based on the fact that they physically mimic human
>goal-orientated activities.
>
>But why stop at the physical mimicry of "goals" as a criterion of
>inanimate identity?
>
>If robots have an identity based on physical mimicry, then why are we so
>reluctant to ascribe identity to dolls?
Because they don't operate.
> After all, robots physically
>mimic human goal-activities and dolls physically mimic human
>thought-activities.
In what way do dolls physically mimic human thought activities?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Sanity's Little Helper
Dude, he needs to START taking the RIGHT drugs.
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
Muslims, at least, are 66.67% right: There is no God.
Not authentic without this signature.
Stephen Wolstenholme
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> After all, robots physically
>>mimic human goal-activities and dolls physically mimic human
>>thought-activities.
>
>In what way do dolls physically mimic human thought activities?
Isn't that what "animism" is about? Spirits in inanimate objects.
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
Sanity's Little Helper
You casually ascribe your thoughts to sanity and clarity of thought. Which
is more fallacious, and which is more fruitless?
Sanity's Little Helper
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com>, and he posteth:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:18:06 +0100, in alt.atheism , John Jones
> <jonesc...@aol.com> in <h2abcv$kp2$1...@news.motzarella.org> wrote:
>
>>We casually ascribe identity and intentions to some forms of inanimate
>>matter ("robots"), based on the fact that they physically mimic human
>>goal-orientated activities.
>>
>>But why stop at the physical mimicry of "goals" as a criterion of
>>inanimate identity?
>>
>>If robots have an identity based on physical mimicry, then why are we so
>>reluctant to ascribe identity to dolls?
>
> Because they don't operate.
>
>> After all, robots physically
>>mimic human goal-activities and dolls physically mimic human
>>thought-activities.
>
> In what way do dolls physically mimic human thought activities?
Well, I'd love to be a fly on his shrink's wall when he answers that one!
John Jones
Both robots and dolls physically mimic human behaviour, as you pointed
out after me.
John Jones
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:18:06 +0100, in alt.atheism , John Jones
> <jonesc...@aol.com> in <h2abcv$kp2$1...@news.motzarella.org> wrote:
>
>> We casually ascribe identity and intentions to some forms of inanimate
>> matter ("robots"), based on the fact that they physically mimic human
>> goal-orientated activities.
>>
>> But why stop at the physical mimicry of "goals" as a criterion of
>> inanimate identity?
>>
>> If robots have an identity based on physical mimicry, then why are we so
>> reluctant to ascribe identity to dolls?
>
> Because they don't operate.
But I said that we need not be limited to "goals" to ascribe identity.
>
>> After all, robots physically
>> mimic human goal-activities and dolls physically mimic human
>> thought-activities.
>
> In what way do dolls physically mimic human thought activities?
They sit there, appearing absent.
John Jones
> It is an ancient Matt Silberstein
> <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com>, and he posteth:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:18:06 +0100, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>> <jonesc...@aol.com> in <h2abcv$kp2$1...@news.motzarella.org> wrote:
>>
>>> We casually ascribe identity and intentions to some forms of inanimate
>>> matter ("robots"), based on the fact that they physically mimic human
>>> goal-orientated activities.
>>>
>>> But why stop at the physical mimicry of "goals" as a criterion of
>>> inanimate identity?
>>>
>>> If robots have an identity based on physical mimicry, then why are we so
>>> reluctant to ascribe identity to dolls?
>> Because they don't operate.
>>
>>> After all, robots physically
>>> mimic human goal-activities and dolls physically mimic human
>>> thought-activities.
>> In what way do dolls physically mimic human thought activities?
>
> Well, I'd love to be a fly on his shrink's wall when he answers that one!
>
It's strange how people will never give up the language of animism
(Computers have goals, etc) yet decry the absurdity of their own position.
I'm not arguing for doll animism you fool. I am saying that YOU are
arguing for it.
John Jones
>
>> We casually ascribe identity and intentions to some forms of inanimate
>> matter ("robots"), based on the fact that they physically mimic human
>> goal-orientated activities.
>>
>> But why stop at the physical mimicry of "goals" as a criterion of
>> inanimate identity?
>>
>> If robots have an identity based on physical mimicry, then why are we so
>> reluctant to ascribe identity to dolls? After all, robots physically
>> mimic human goal-activities and dolls physically mimic human
>> thought-activities.
>
> You casually ascribe your thoughts to sanity and clarity of thought. Which
> is more fallacious, and which is more fruitless?
>
>
I am arguing against the absurdity of YOUR position by being devil's
advocate for it!
Lord Vetinari
news:h2dmhv$ik5$3...@news.motzarella.org...
Here's a nice song about you:
System of a Down
Johnny
Hello, my name is Johnny
Well hello my name is Johnny
I would like to explain myself
And I would like to complain in vain
Sweet little boy
JOHNNY!
Sweet Little Boy
JOHNNY!
Let me show you the way to my
Let me show you the way to my
Let me help you explain your mind
When I help you explain your mind
'ello my name is Roger
Well hello my name is roger
I would like to proclaim myself
A god
And likely ordain myself
Sweet little boy
ROGER!
Sweet little boy
ROGER!
Let me show you the way to my
Let me show you the way to my
Let me help you explain your mind
When I help you explain your mind
Let me show you the way to my
Let me show you the way to my
let me help you explain your mind
When I help you explain your mind
Sweet little boy
Johnny
Sweet little boy
Oh no! It's Roger!
Let me show you the way to my
Let me show you the way to my
Let me help you explain your mind
When I help you explain your mind
Let me show you the way to my
Let me show you the way to my
Let me help you explain your mind
When I help you explain your mind
Lord Vetinari
> Sanity's Little Helper wrote:
>> It is an ancient Matt Silberstein
>> <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com>, and he posteth:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:18:06 +0100, in alt.atheism , John Jones
>>> <jonesc...@aol.com> in <h2abcv$kp2$1...@news.motzarella.org> wrote:
>>>> After all, robots physically mimic human goal-activities and dolls
>>>> physically mimic human thought-activities.
>>> In what way do dolls physically mimic human thought activities?
>>
>> Well, I'd love to be a fly on his shrink's wall when he answers that one!
>
> It's strange how people will never give up the language of animism
> (Computers have goals, etc) yet decry the absurdity of their own position.
Dingleberry, what you're decribing, is anthropomorphism.
> I'm not arguing for doll animism you fool. I am saying that YOU are
> arguing for it.
Quoth the liar.
John Stafford
dead thread
move on
Matt Silberstein
If you are going to try for a reductio, you should try to understand
the opponents position. Your argument seems to be "dolls don't think,
therefore no non-animal thinks".
John Jones
Hypocrite. You've been caught out.
John Jones
I'm arguing that if physical mimicry is a criterion of behaviour then
dolls think.
Matt Silberstein
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
<h2gb5t$9ao$2...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
Only if doll sufficiently mimic human actions and I don't know of any
that do.
Lord Vetinari
news:ocOdnYG4Q4S9MtfX...@supernews.com...
>
>
> dead thread
Sez you.
> move on
"Move out, don't mess around
Move out, you bring me down
Move out, how you get about
Don't make a sound just move out"
Lord Vetinari
news:h2gaur$9ao$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Really? Show me.
John Jones
Like robots and cars, dolls sleep, they daydream, and ponder.
Matt Silberstein
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> in
<h2gn98$jb4$3...@news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
Like cars, dolls sleep, they daydream. On that we agree.
John Stafford
My girlfriend is blond. She dyes her hair brown. She calls the dye
Artificial Intelligence.
(Thought we needed a break here).
Tim McGaughy
> "John Stafford" <now...@nowhere.nl> wrote in message
> news:ocOdnYG4Q4S9MtfX...@supernews.com...
>>
>> dead thread
>
> Sez you.
Oh, let him make his little pronouncements. It's probably the only
pretense of power he has in his life.
ZerkonXXXX
> If robots have an identity based on physical mimicry, then why are we so
> reluctant to ascribe identity to dolls?
We aren't, robots are dolls.
John Jones
You argued that I believed in doll animism. But, I said that I didn't
believe in doll animism. So, your 'accusation' of liar is a description
of your own interpretation! You've been caught out! Hypocrite!
John Jones
>
>> We casually ascribe identity and intentions to some forms of inanimate
>> matter ("robots"), based on the fact that they physically mimic human
>> goal-orientated activities.
>>
>> But why stop at the physical mimicry of "goals" as a criterion of
>> inanimate identity?
>>
>> If robots have an identity based on physical mimicry, then why are we so
>> reluctant to ascribe identity to dolls? After all, robots physically
>> mimic human goal-activities and dolls physically mimic human
>> thought-activities.
>
> You casually ascribe your thoughts to sanity and clarity of thought. Which
> is more fallacious, and which is more fruitless?
>
>
dunno
please advise
send cash
John Jones
nO
robots are dolls.
yes
Lord Vetinari
False.
> But, I said that I didn't believe in doll animism.
Ah, just who is it, that gives a shit?
> So, your 'accusation' of liar is a description of your own interpretation!
Why do you surround "accusation" with apostrophes? It's really a shame that
you're merely a functional illiterate.
> You've been caught out! Hypocrite!
Poor, poor, confused little cretin.
John Jones
Disingenuous.
>> But, I said that I didn't believe in doll animism.
>
> Ah, just who is it, that gives a shit?
Hypocritical.
>> So, your 'accusation' of liar is a description of your own interpretation!
>
> Why do you surround "accusation" with apostrophes? It's really a shame that
> you're merely a functional illiterate.
Wriggling hypocrisy.
>> You've been caught out! Hypocrite!
>
> Poor, poor, confused little cretin.
>
Bankrupt.
Lord Vetinari
I suppose I _could_ have used that word, but I didn't, though it be true of
you.
>>> But, I said that I didn't believe in doll animism.
>>
>> Ah, just who is it, that gives a shit?
>
> Hypocritical.
Minnow, minnow, on the wall
Gibber, gibber, that is all
Spread your stories that are tall
Show us, show us, all your gall
>>> So, your 'accusation' of liar is a description of your own
>>> interpretation!
>>
>> Why do you surround "accusation" with apostrophes? It's really a shame
>> that you're merely a functional illiterate.
>
> Wriggling hypocrisy.
Used as bait?
>>> You've been caught out! Hypocrite!
>>
>> Poor, poor, confused little cretin.
>
> Bankrupt.
Bummer, cretin. Me, I can't recall the last time I was broke.