Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (59920)	9/25/2002 10:13:21 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

You can judge people on things, even if those things are not their fault- and I'm not sure that is "wrong". Let's take murderers. Even if murderers murder because they have to, even if they have no other choice, I can judge them as murderers; I can not like them, and I can choose to segregate them from people who are not murderers. I don't think "fault" and "judging" are inextricably intertwined. Which seemed to be what you were suggesting. Were you suggesting that? Or did I misunderstand? Of course if I don't have free will I don't have any choice about any of that.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (59920)	9/25/2002 10:25:01 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Here is a question for you, would you find it troubling to talk to machines? I have played chess for a very long time against machines, and watched them get better and better at it. I enjoyed those games, as much as games with people. I think if a machine could move around ideas with dexterity I would enjoy that very much. I also think that the evolution of machines intelligence is a fascinating area. It poses some problems for humans, of course, as science fiction stories so often detail for us, but still, I would enjoy talking to a machine, and wouldn't care if I could not tell a machine from a human. What about you?