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 (67483)	11/22/2002 7:03:33 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"Are you telling the truth? Are you who you say you are? We have been over this before. I have no way of knowing." As you say, we have been over this before. One of the things I have repeatedly pointed out is that all of the questions you raise about the reality of who we are can be raised about non-SI interactions and you are just as capable of being fooled or fooling me in 3D as you are here. In some ways more capable. The point is valid but the conclusion has no basis(one is real, the other is not). In your final point you say that, "I see SI very much as a non-physical improv theater." That is not the basis for this thread, yet as you say you can treat it as such. Well there is always, the whole world as a stage point of view as well. We play different roles in different settings, Daddy, lawyer, husband, son, tourist, etc. Each involves a particular approach that is appropriate for the role and a particular honing of character for proper deportment. When I go for my flu shot I don't have the same discussions with my family doctor as I have with you. I am sure he would describe me, his patient, using totally different charactertics than Neocon would. Both qualify as reality. "I can distinguish the two." No, you have not demonstrated that you can. Often times we get caught up in our topical engagements and or personal sharings. I have no problem understanding when jla or Neocon etc is acting silly, pulling my leg, being sincere or frustrated with me. You are equally transparent. Whether it is me the jewel or me the 3D person behind the alias I can recognize the funtion of silly behavior, expressions of emotion, sincerity, disingenousness, lashing out in frustration, etc. You may not be certain of my height or skin color but do you really think that is what makes the difference. It is possible to fake an emotion such as hurt feelings or being victim of a tragic event on this thread just as it is in 3D. We all recognize that or should. The fact that it could be faked does not mean that nothing is real, either here or in 3D. There are differences. People here may be more open in their comments, since we are not within striking distance of one another. That also means they are more likely to say what they are really thinking than in 3D. Including when they find something offensive. It should be obvious that people withhold their feelings when there are risks and express them more honestly when the risks are minimized. There is actually less reason to pretend a point of view or emotion on SI than in 3D. We can distinguish the similarities and differences of any setting until the cows come home. Lets move on. X is the only persona on the thread that I am certain does not present an authentic personality. I suspect at times her authentic self leaks through but I am never real confident in that. I am not sure it works but I consider her a unique project or experiment or something. I know when I have written something that could offend another person. If I do, I am almost always called on it by someone who feels offended. I consider that about as real as it gets. If I go after E and she lamblasts me to smithereens, I believe that I have gotten to her and that she is genuinely angry over it (she the alias and she the person behind the alias). I have seen her get angry and later respond with apologies. There are many other examples. The point is that in general, I see attitudes and responses to be fairly predictable according to what one can expect of human beings. To dismiss it all as unreal demonstrates that.... You don't know the difference, or at least that you refuse to recognize the difference. Everyone else does Chris. The fact that you have no way of knowing anything for certain in the universe, on SI or off, does not justify irresponsible behavior where there is evidence of harm being done...whether you can know for certain or not. Reducing other humans to the inanimate has been used throughout history to commit injustice and to justify heinous acts against slaves and in war times. Why do you think we insist on labeling people as gooks, nips, spooks, a series of blips, or whatever. It is very dangerous behavior. Once again I am encouraging you to make it right. For the good of your own soul and not for any other reason. But as always it is up to you and there are no terms available. As within so with out, on earth as it is in heaven. The posters here are "rational agents" of real humman beings as real as any anywhere.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (67483)	11/23/2002 3:40:38 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

"We were told that no scenarios were ever recycled, and from the actors' reactions it appeared as though indeed this was a totally new scenario to them. And of course the audience participants had no iadvance dea at all that they would even be selected." Were you told the truth? Were their blippy compressions of sound waves the truth? Why is a sound wave more credible to you than a quill and a blotter? Were the actors pretending it was a new scenario? They WERE actors after all. How do you know that "of course" the audience participants had no advance idea they were selected? Did you know all of them? If you did...how do you know they don't consider you a dunce whom it is fun to fool and deceive? What makes an electronic blip on a screen ( a consciously chosen expression of idea and feeling) different than a blip in the air waves caused by the compression of air? Is a wave from the throat more credible than a wave from the finger? Is your throat honest, but your fingers are liars? You are so phoney, Christopher. (What a surprise)! I suggest that a liar and a fool are both--regardless of what part of their body they express their ideas and feelings from. The ideas originate in the mind in both instances. In "face-to-face" most conversations are not recorded; and, of course...memories are notoriously faulty. But here on SI one is much more capable of assessing a person by comparing hundreds of posts for consistency and integrity. It is for this very reason that people here know you for what you are, whereas some "face-to-face" people might be simply confused over your lack of true emotion, or your emotional distance... People are not sound waves, and they are not "blips on a screen". The "sound waves" (of "face-to face") and the typed thoughts and feelings (of SI) are not the people--they are the sounds or the words or the expressions of the people. They are simply different "representations" of the ideas and the feelings of the people. What name they use to protect their address is irrelevent. It is common for people not to divulge any name at all in "face-to-face" for the same purpose. It does not mean they are not "real"; and it does not mean that insulting their daughters is a good idea...<gg>

To: The Philosopher who wrote (67483)	11/23/2002 5:39:29 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Nonsense. The Internet may offer its own challenges of verification, but we mainly rely on other people's words about themselves everywhere we go. As I said, apart from close friendship or family connection, we are pretty much in the same boat with all of our casual acquaintances as we are on the threads. In any event, no one in his right mind calls someone a liar without particular grounds of suspicion. Noting that they could lie is not sufficient, and I take umbrage whenever someone suggests that because he or she is not in a position to verify my story, that means it is reasonable to entertain the notion that I am lying. Society cannot function on the basis of that sort of distrust, and it is a perfect example of demeaning others in order to shield yourself from responsibility in this medium.....