The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Someone much more established than you, conveniently.
And I know people far more established than him who would have failed it. I wouldn't have failed it, because I'm a nice guy. It would be a bare pass for me.
Originally posted by Agathon
No. But what makes you so sure that we couldn't simulate the human mind?
You cannot rule out multiple realizability by fiat.
You seriously haven't read Turing's papers? You have to be kidding me...
I thought that would be mandatory for undergrad philosophers, let alone graduate ones...
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
computational power, programming prowess, clever algorithms, and a true break from solid logic... and maybe we could build a system that passes the turing test.
can it be said to have acheived consciousness/sentience then? can it be said that it's simulating the human mind?
beats me. we have people here who apparently fail the turing test. for instance, i can't tell if ming is real or not.
You seriously haven't read Turing's papers? You have to be kidding me...
I thought that would be mandatory for undergrad philosophers, let alone graduate ones...
No. I didn't do much in the philosophy of mind and AI. It's the one thing I don't know that well. It's not mandatory, it's rather specialized. I work in the history of philosophy and I used to do phil of language and epistemology.
Originally posted by Agathon
No. I didn't do much in the philosophy of mind and AI. It's the one thing I don't know that well. It's not mandatory, it's rather specialized. I work in the history of philosophy and I used to do phil of language and epistemology.
Well, you should then.
He is extremely important, especially these days of computers.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Philosophers are just sour that they are loosing out to science. Human nature being a case in point. The Uber-Marxists can no longer say we are a blank slate, infinitely moldable; the Libertarians can no longer say that society does not exist. Research in primate behavior and human genetics has pwned them.
If you admit that people reach different conclusions depending on their starting point, and their starting point depends on their experiences, then how can you not admit that there is no one, absolute correct conclusion?
Ask the absolutists. I'm sure they will say something like there are certain starting experiences which are common to all humanity which lead all cultures to say murder is bad, etc.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.â€
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Originally posted by Agathon
It has no relevance to my specialization, which is early Greek philosophy.
But it's an interesting thing to know, especially since I'm using it as part of my argument.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
If you admit that people reach different conclusions depending on their starting point, and their starting point depends on their experiences, then how can you not admit that there is no one, absolute correct conclusion?
Ask the absolutists. I'm sure they will say something like there are certain starting experiences which are common to all humanity which lead all cultures to say murder is bad, etc.
Which is empirical claim about the moral beliefs of people, not a normative statement in itself.
Philosophers are just sour that they are loosing out to science. Human nature being a case in point. The Uber-Marxists can no longer say we are a blank slate, infinitely moldable; the Libertarians can no longer say that society does not exist. Research in primate behavior and human genetics has pwned them.
Maybe some old geezers feel that way. By I certainly don't feel that way, and the people I read don't feel that way. Maybe the fact that I specialize in philosophy of science as something to do with that.
The way I see it, scientists and philosophers are generally not trying to solve the same kinds of problems. For example, the scientist will try to find out what are the laws that govern nature. The philosopher will try to find out why nature obeys laws in the first place.
Of course, like you pointed out, sometimes they do enter in direct competition with science, and when this happens, they are frequently pwned. I'm not sour when this happens. I just means that I've learned something new about the world.
That said, your examples are not exactly fair ones. First, you forgot to mention that there was a marxist "science" trying to back up the marxist belief that there is no human nature. Remember Lysenko? I'll grant you it was bad science, but it was science anyway. So it wasn't just a case of philosophy vs. science and science won. Second, you forgot to mention that not all philosophers believed that there is no human nature. In fact, most of them believed that there is, in fact, a human nature.
Last edited by Nostromo; February 11, 2005, 17:21.
Let us be lazy in everything, except in loving and drinking, except in being lazy – Lessing
Someone much more established than you, conveniently.
And I know people far more established than him who would have failed it. I wouldn't have failed it, because I'm a nice guy. It would be a bare pass for me.
In my department, Asher's paper is a F. But I don't like them, they really take themselves too seriously.
Tweet
Comment