Gathering Storm

[Krill]

Bacteria are always busy, if the temperature is right

And yeah, I really want those private forums. We may have to push the start point back anyway, unless we get all of those polls done asap...

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Rhothaerill
At least now we know where the GS members got their high post counts. They SAY it's from discussion about the game, but now we know the truth.

It was from discussion about the game.

Originally posted by Daddy-O
GS = Gathering Spam

Originally posted by NicodaMax Btw, What is pwn?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwn

Originally posted by Krill
Bacteria are always busy, if the temperature is right

And yeah, I really want those private forums. We may have to push the start point back anyway, unless we get all of those polls done asap...

Huyana Capac / Early Warmongering / Bronze Working / On the Plains Hill / Northwest

[NicodaMax]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwn

Cool page, thanks!

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Aeson
You need to know your audience better it seems. Inconsistant arguments are not the best way to win over people who value consistancy of reasoning.

True, but you can't think of yourself as the only member in GS.

You stated that because the system is deterministic that your stance is moral, while another stance is immoral.

Quote for me saying that another stance is immoral, please.
A Deterministic system may be an excuse to consider any stance you have as moral, but I consider myself to be moral because I'm self-righteous, not because my environment is deterministic.
Determinism just gives me the excuse to have pity on those I disagree with, is all.

A deterministic system does not support that differentiation. In that sense, the sense you were using it, the system is amoral. (Or if you wish to view it in the opposite manner, omnimoral, encompassing all morals.)

Deterministic systems can be moral, you can look at the AI's reactions in Civ4 as an example of this.
Care to explain why not, or are you just going to say that the two are incompatible once again?

If you want to say that you think something is immoral, and another thing moral, that is fine with me. Just don't try to prove it with explainations about a deterministic system.

Quoted for future reference. Now I can claim stuff is moral, amoral or immoral without annoying you!

I do not assume you are a fatalist. Nor did I say that the morality, feelings, self-awareness, self-improvement, desires, change, emotions, logic, realizations, self-control, decisions, act[ions], learning, or growing that people experience are incompatible with a deterministic system.

If a deterministic system can encompass all that, what prevents it from having a set of morals as well?

I said the system is amoral. Morality (as the term was used by you) is relative. A deterministic system can allow for relative assessments, even relative assessments of itself, but it is still not a relative system if that occurs.

Define relative system.

When you say the system is moral, that is personification of the system, which is allowed (dictacted even) by the system, but is not an accurate description of the system.

No, when I say that the system is moral, that means the system can make judgement on right and wrong. Or, rather, the Macroscopic effects of {a group of the system's components agreeing on whether something is right or wrong} exist.

---

Originally posted by Daddy-O
If Logic was invented to seduce a mate and one is a logician; then one has a date on Saturday night.

If Microsoft creates products with the intent that they work, then one has a working product when that product is from Microsoft.
No. Logic isn't perfectly constructed (err, how could you tell if logic was perfect?), so it doesn't work quite so well.

... Oh god, did I put an apostrophe in the word want? >.<;;

Sexual desire and attraction, ie. who you want to have sex with, can be quantified with empirical data. Our bodies have been wired to produce emotions and drives based on these logical sets of rules. All beings from bacteria to humans mate reproduce according to quantifiable and logical sets of rules. Known beings are reproductively successful by definition. Therefore, logic-based beings are successful species.

Yes. And having proved that, do the chemical stimuli that drive you to screw things manifest themselves in Impulses, Emotions or Logic?
Mmm-hmm.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
True, but you can't think of yourself as the only member in GS.

I am not a member of GS. I was speaking about the general nature of the group as a whole.

Quote for me saying that another stance is immoral, please.

You used the term "cruel and unjustified" in regards to punishing someone based on "amorality", which is a moral (in the manner you used the term later to justify your own position) condemnation of the action in both cases. Your actions, and the actions of someone punishing someone else based on "amorality" are both the system at work using the same rules.

A Deterministic system may be an excuse to consider any stance you have as moral, but I consider myself to be moral because I'm self-righteous, not because my environment is deterministic.

Your admission to being self-righteous confirms my assessment that your moral position requires a "specialness" assumption. My point was the reasoning that the system is deterministic does not support that "specialness", which I am glad you agree with. The system determines whether you end up self-righteous or not, but in the system you (or any of us) are not special in any regard.

Deterministic systems can be moral, you can look at the AI's reactions in Civ4 as an example of this. Care to explain why not, or are you just going to say that the two are incompatible once again?

1's and 0's are not moral. You can interpret their form as moral, but they are not moral. Neither are gravity, thermodynamics, ect.

I say this because I have yet to see any evidence that gravity (or math) acts differently based on morality. A rock that falls off a mountain does so regardless of whether it will kill people, help people out, or any of the other "actions" that people can deem moral or immoral.

Quoted for future reference. Now I can claim stuff is moral, amoral or immoral without annoying you!

You could already do so. Now you are aware of the fact. (And no, nothing you have done that I am aware of so far annoys me.)

If a deterministic system can encompass all that, what prevents it from having a set of morals as well?

I do not know what prevents it (if anything) from having a set of morals. Perhaps nothing prevents it and it just doesn't have morals. Perhaps it does have morals but is prevented somehow from acting on them. Perhaps.

Parts of the system obviously do think they have morals, but the mechanics of the system which result in them thinking they have morals do not act off of moral principles. I would refer to this as the system and output. The output of the system can be morals. The system itself does not produce those morals based on those morals though. In this manner it does not "have" morals. It produces them, yes. It conforms to no morals though.

It may appear to conform to morals, as in when a person makes a "moral" decision, but in reality that decision was no more moral than any other. It was dictated by the same mechanics that dictate "immoral" decisions.

As such, the mechanics themselves are best described as amoral. They do not operate on a moral level, though they are the basis for our "moral" assessments.

Define relative system.

Where the absolute is interpreted. (An interpretation is not the original absolute, but a description of the absolute. An interpretation has it's own absolute form, but it is a form that is not the original absolute.)

One person may think apples are delicious. Another person may think apples are disgusting. Those are relative assessments.

Apples are neither delicious or disgusting in and of themselves. They have an absolute form that is not defined by the relative assessments. The relative assessments are defined by the absolute form and mechanics that rule interaction.

No, when I say that the system is moral, that means the system can make judgement on right and wrong. Or, rather, the Macroscopic effects of {a group of the system's components agreeing on whether something is right or wrong} exist.

You are still personifying the system. There is not right and wrong in regards to the system. There is only one way.

Portions of the system can come to conclusions that there is right and wrong. They are assessments of the nature of the system, by the system, not defining what the system is.

[Enigma_Nova]

I'd better post shorter replies, or else this thread is going to get Quotestormed.

You used the term "cruel and unjustified" in regards to punishing someone based on "amorality", which is a moral (in the manner you used the term later to justify your own position) condemnation of the action in both cases.

Right you are. I hereby change my opinion from "Cruel and Unjustified" to "Dubious".

The system determines whether you end up self-righteous or not, but in the system you (or any of us) are not special in any regard.

I counter your claim that I am not special by showing my special form of insanity in a
DRIVE-BY FRUITING

I would refer to this as the system and output. The output of the system can be morals. The system itself does not produce those morals based on those morals though. In this manner it does not "have" morals. It produces them, yes. It conforms to no morals though.

Yeah.
...
We were arguing over a point we both agreed with, weren't we?

(And no, nothing you have done that I am aware of so far annoys me.)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Right you are. I hereby change my opinion from "Cruel and Unjustified" to "Dubious".

Something about your post has short circuited my thought process. I can't figure whether this is a "dubious" distinction or not.

It's not annoying BTW. It would be if I had epilepsy though.

Yeah.
...
We were arguing over a point we both agreed with, weren't we?

Yes. Those tend to be the best discussions. Because you can argue about a point you actually agree on and perhaps see it from another angle.

(Our evaluations of how "best" to exist in the system are complete opposites though.)

[binTravkin]

Isn't this a thread hijack?

Or simply a smart way how Gathering Spam keeps all ends in water?

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Isn't this a thread hijack?

Well it is now!

[NicodaMax]

Any news on when will new memberships be approved, acces to private forum and civgroup approval will be granted? I'm a little anxious

[Aro]

They are discussing our case. It's called "Politics"...

[Dominae]

We just got our private forum, and not all our existing members have signed up yet - give us a chance! Rest assured that new membership is one of our main discussion topics right now.

[Hot Mustard]

nye said it would be Thursday before anything was decided, and I believe that's "at the earliest".

I'm curious to know what they're saying about us. I guess we'll be able to see if we get in, and won't if we don't.

[UnOrthOdOx]

All I know is someone on the team better pester Aro to make cartoons as public announcements!

[Aro]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
All I know is someone on the team better pester Aro to make cartoons as public announcements!

No need to pester me. Not much...