|
Post by confuded on Jun 18, 2007 14:47:29 GMT -5
Psionic murder... Interesting...
So you are saying that his construct has its own signature?
|
|
innerfire
Author
Respected Member
--Unknown--
Posts: 399
|
Post by innerfire on Jun 18, 2007 16:09:36 GMT -5
I am not picking up any specially intellegent construct in the general area of you, Seraphy. ... 3) They have NEVER had their own signature. All the animals I have scanned have their own signatures. Less complicated than those of a human but there. ~The Devil's Advocate Confuded, I think that's a no in two different ways
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Jun 19, 2007 9:32:55 GMT -5
Please note the "IF you have pulled it off" prior to that entire section of the post. No I don't think anyone's pulled that off, I was just elaborating on the very real probable concequences IF someone had succeeded. Reasons that no one should WANT to succeed at something like this. Frankeinstein's Monster anyone?
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by Rippy-saur on Jun 19, 2007 16:42:26 GMT -5
I doubt that you were able to concive something like this. Not that you haven't, I don't even know you, it isn't really my place to judge. But I know a couple who have managed to create a life, and they spent an incredible amount of time and effort on it. It's not something that just happens. It's possible that you could have given it a personality and programmed it to act a certian way. ^^;
And sorry if that had already been said, I'm a bit distracted at the moment... heh..
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Jun 19, 2007 19:06:10 GMT -5
I will believe it when I see it. Life is not something that is so simple to create in this manner. Even with large amounts of effort life-like is the only thing I have ever seen achieved. And there is a world of difference.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
seraphy
New Member
Logic is born from the illogical
Posts: 25
|
Post by seraphy on Jun 19, 2007 21:20:47 GMT -5
I am not picking up any specially intellegent construct in the general area of you, Seraphy. Caveat: I only did a quick general scan since I don't like doing more without permission. (It is only a little more thorough than the one that typically happens automatically when I'm conversing with someone face to face or over IM.) Seraphy, if you want more detail, please contact me through PM. A few points of my own: 1) No construct I have scanned has ever been even remotely intellegent. 2) Complex programing can appear to be life like simply because the routines are not fully understood or are detailed enough. 3) They have NEVER had their own signature. All the animals I have scanned have their own signatures. Less complicated than those of a human but there. 4) There is a barrier between "Complex programing" even with imprinted personalities from their maker. (Seen one of those too!) And true life. There seems to be a barrier that can be approached but not broken. (I for one never wish to see that barrier broken. If you want to know why, pick up a few sci fi novels. They deal well with the implications of machine intellegences. A whole new form of slavery.) Basically I do not see why you should consider the creation of life in this manner to be such a fluffy novelty. If true it comes with a great deal of responsibility. Basically: If you pulled this off? Congradulations! You've got a little psiball kid you have to look after and be responsible for. If it is fully intellegent you have to deal with complicated questions like: do you have the right to control it? If it gets out of hand or you get bored with it do you have the RIGHT to destroy it... in effect killing it? Psionic murder. I think it highly unlikely that you've actually created life, more likely you have created a construct that acts more lifelike than others and your mind has filled in the gaps. It bears investigation. I would not be announcing any kind of success. If you're not skilled enough to do detailed scans of people, then you're probably not skilled enough to create this kind of construct. I've not met anyone who is. ~The Devil's Advocate I don't think that I've created life, I agree with you on the part about it being "life-like". The contruct doesn't have it's own signature and I do have control over it through some kind of psionic link, as they called it, someone showed me to make that, when cut off, causes the construct to be destroyed. They told me to use it as a precaution just in case something might happen. Of course I don't think all this matters anymore because not much more than a day after my last post on this the construct disappeared and I can't find it.
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Jun 19, 2007 22:50:24 GMT -5
In your case not as much, but it's good to have the arguments out in the open so that we have something to refer to if/when the topic comes up again.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by Stony1205 on Jun 28, 2007 8:46:30 GMT -5
DA: Though I agree that programs with static (and even dynamic) programming cannot attain the status of "alive" or "intelligent", I would like to bring up the idea of thoughtforms.
I have in my younger more experimental days, used thoughtforms for a number of various experiments and personal matters. I have found my thoughtforms to have their own "mind" at times. I never did signature checks (Reading for signatures wasn't "done" back then I guess), though by their modes of action I would assume them to be related to me, but different in their own way.
PS you have like, almost 1000 posts. You're crazy.
~ Stony
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Jun 28, 2007 9:31:31 GMT -5
Hazzard of the job? (on the post count)
As for the rest of it, I reitterate. I've seen some VERY life like constructs. (Frozen Flames was enamoured with them around the time I started and I scanned a couple of his more... flamboyant... experiements.) None of them panned out, even the ones that were "Imprinted" with variants on the maker's personality.
Could you elaborate on 'thought forms', how is this related to or different from concept program or personality imprintment?
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by wolfdancer on Jun 28, 2007 10:00:38 GMT -5
What type of construct is a 'thoughtform'? I'm not familiar with those. I remember them being mentioned but it has been a long time and I don't think I was entirely clear on it at the time. It's been a few years.
|
|
|
Post by confuded on Jul 2, 2007 2:43:05 GMT -5
I am not picking up any specially intellegent construct in the general area of you, Seraphy. Caveat: I only did a quick general scan since I don't like doing more without permission. (It is only a little more thorough than the one that typically happens automatically when I'm conversing with someone face to face or over IM.) Seraphy, if you want more detail, please contact me through PM. A few points of my own: 1) No construct I have scanned has ever been even remotely intellegent. 2) Complex programing can appear to be life like simply because the routines are not fully understood or are detailed enough. 3) They have NEVER had their own signature. All the animals I have scanned have their own signatures. Less complicated than those of a human but there. 4) There is a barrier between "Complex programing" even with imprinted personalities from their maker. (Seen one of those too!) And true life. There seems to be a barrier that can be approached but not broken. (I for one never wish to see that barrier broken. If you want to know why, pick up a few sci fi novels. They deal well with the implications of machine intellegences. A whole new form of slavery.) Basically I do not see why you should consider the creation of life in this manner to be such a fluffy novelty. If true it comes with a great deal of responsibility. Basically: If you pulled this off? Congradulations! You've got a little psiball kid you have to look after and be responsible for. If it is fully intellegent you have to deal with complicated questions like: do you have the right to control it? If it gets out of hand or you get bored with it do you have the RIGHT to destroy it... in effect killing it? Psionic murder. I think it highly unlikely that you've actually created life, more likely you have created a construct that acts more lifelike than others and your mind has filled in the gaps. It bears investigation. I would not be announcing any kind of success. If you're not skilled enough to do detailed scans of people, then you're probably not skilled enough to create this kind of construct. I've not met anyone who is. ~The Devil's Advocate So DA, basicly described what a person has Psionicly.... Is that it DA? EDIT: Does it make sense now?
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Jul 5, 2007 20:37:29 GMT -5
Confuded, that question doesn't seem to have anything to do with the discussion at hand, could you rephrase?
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|