Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS)
Pages
| Author | Topic: Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) |
|---|---|
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 7143
|
written Saturday, July 29 2006 14:27
Profile
I'm starting to skim the long ones. -------------------- "After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one." - Cato the Elder (234-149 BC) "The mind, if it exists, is nothing but an unfortunate after effect of the brain process." -Kripke "One should die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly." -Friedich Nietzche Posts: 333 | Registered: Saturday, May 20 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Saturday, July 29 2006 18:06
Profile
I think one of the arguements is that anything that can be destroyed and reproduced with no loss of information has less value than things like humans that can't be replaced exactly. Animals fall in between since they now can be cloned but do not carry their memories. Machines will always have the lowest value because they can be duplicated. I would argue that within any of these classes that there will be a wide range of value and overlap between the categories. A human whose brain is completely vegative has much lower value than a functional human and should be lower than the other classes since it can provide no value except as a source of replacement parts for other humans. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, July 29 2006 22:52
Profile
Homepage
quote:Personal feelings are not a sound basis for an ethical system. quote:What do you mean by "natural" and "artificial"? It seems impossible to draw any objective distinction between the two. If humans are natural creatures, doesn't that mean anything produced by humans must also be natural? [ Saturday, July 29, 2006 22:59: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Saturday, July 29 2006 23:23
Profile
quote:This might be a pretty good criterion, but it applies to very little, since practically no objects can be reproduced exactly, down to the atomic scale. Cloning is way far from that, because genetic code is only a relatively high-level design specification. So you're left trying to decide how close a reproduction is necessary, and suddenly you're hip deep in philosophy. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 00:24
Profile
quote:Ethical systems are based on avoiding doing unneccesary harm and performing those actions that leave us with a sense of guilt -- the feeling that we personally have done something wrong or immoral. Personal feelings are intertwined and bound to ethical systems. Otherwise no one would ever have the empathy to think about how their actions affect others and relate those emotions to themselves in the same situation. You can have an ethical system but if you don't have any personal feelings invested in it and you just don't care, what obligates you to live by that system rather than another one? quote:If drakons and golems aren't naturally occuring fauna in the Geneforge universe produced by evolution and natural selection, I think that's a pretty big tip off. We build assembly lines, plastics, and coal generators with smoke stacks to exhaust tremendous amounts of combustion byproducts into the atmosphere. I don't think anyone would consider them natural, for a) being the products of human ingenuity and engineering b)imbalancing nature in damaging ways by producing pollution. quote:It isn't neccesary to reproduce or replace something "down to the atom." It's more along the lines of crush an android's arm in a press, you can detach the remaining limb and replace it with another arm made for that model. Lop off a man's arm with an axe, and it's near impossible to repair the nerve and bone damage and it's better to simply leave it amputated. This also applies to animals, since even if you could synthesize the DNA in a lab, getting it to actually develop into a viable lifeform would be a tedious trial and error process with no guarantee of success. Breeding them naturally with living specimens will always be more fool proof and actually better since it wouldn't produce copies of the same genetic code. If one synthesized animal is susceptible to some disease than all the other specimens of that species would be wiped out as well. You could shape a battle alpha or drayk and reabsorb it indefinitely, there'd be subtle variations each time depending on fluctuating fatigue and concentration, but they wouldn't have any intelligence and personality beyond what you will into them as you're shaping them. [ Sunday, July 30, 2006 01:02: Message edited by: Savage Ed Walcott ] Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 05:21
Profile
Homepage
I've been trying very hard to avoid resorting to ad hominem arguments in this discussion, but it's difficult; the more I hear of your arguments, the less I like you. You appear to believe that anything produced by a human is necessarily inferior in some way to anything which is not produced by a human. It seems to me that this is a very narrow-minded and rather misanthropic attitude. If, as you say, human life has value because of the human capacity for originality, then to deny that we could create something as great as ourselves is to deny our own humanity. [ Sunday, July 30, 2006 05:45: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 12:08
Profile
If you don't like me because I don't sympathize with machines and artificial life forms, I think that's a pretty pathetic reason to write somebody off. Maybe you've been brainwashed by movies like I, Robot or for some reason think humans have a right to try to outdo nature, but my point is technological advancement without regard to the consequences is dangerous. Denying that we could create something "as great as ourselves" doesn't deny our humanity, it accepts it and recognizes the inherent flaws in our personalities and pyches that would inevitably influence and inspire our work. Progress in that work without humility and the acceptance that whatever we create isn't capable of comparison with the wonders of the universe is dangerous. Have you ever seen the clear night sky in an area far removed from civilization? Our lives are an imperceptible flicker in time on a remote world orbiting an average star near the outer fringes of our galaxy, seperated from the nearest galaxy by an infathomable stretch of cold emptiness. Maybe you missed the point of stories like Frankenstein, or The Matrix, Terminator, or Blade Runner, but the lesson is that to create out of hubris -- to believe that humans can create something greater than themselves or reshape creation to their whim -- is a dangerous and ultimately tragic line of reasoning. The question isn't if humans could create something better than themselves; it's if it would a wise or safe choice to attempt to do so. The end result would be a creation that dwarfs the ability of its maker and would lack any real obligation to remain under their control. If the Shapers had thought about this before recklessly creating drakons, they wouldn't be facing their own impending doom. In reality, it isn't the drakons that willlead to the Shapers destruction. It's their foolishness and short-sightedness in attempting to make something better than themselves. And don't worry about hurting my feelings over the internet. I didn't come specifically to be well liked, or make internet friends with strangers hundreds of miles away. I came to discuss the moral and plot of Geneforge and share my views and opinions on the story, and exchange ideas on what other people thought. How you personally feel about me and my ideas outside of an intelligent philosophical debate ins't going to cost me any sleep at night. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2759
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 12:19
Profile
Homepage
quote:I disagree. I think by sentient machine you mean something which is self-aware, yes? Then this machine has experiences, hopes, ideas and memories of its very own. The same goes for serviles and drakons. If you kill a sentient machine/servile/drakon, how will you replace THAT machine/servile/drakon? You could conceive and raise another machine/servile/drakon, but its life experiences and memories would make it inherently distinct from the original, even if it was a spitting image. quote:Spot on, Magma, I completely agree. And this situation was inevitable as soon as a slave race was created. View point one (Shaper). It is morally fine for Us to 'play god' with life, i.e. create it, change it, destroy it, etc. Then there's nothing to stop Us from creating Our very own slave race to perform menial tasks on Our behalf. Since We are so wise and gracious, We will ensure that the slaves are dumb, and have no desire other than to serve Us. If they rebel or show any independent thought, then they do not serve Our design and should be destroyed immediately.View point two (Outsider). So the shapers came along and learned to create life. Good for them. Creating useful lifeforms such as ornks and clawbugs is really impressive. Some of the creations, like the Vlish, are truly a work of art. Humanity has never before ascended so high. But there must be limits. When the shapers announced they were breeding a race of humanoid servants, we all felt uneasy, but we accepted the situation, provided they treated the serviles decently, took good care of them, etc. Basically the serviles are like children -- they can't fend for themselves, so you do need take control of their likes, but you also have a responsibility never to treat them cruelly. If and when a servile develops its own intelligence it ceases to be that child, it has grown up and you've got to stop bossing it around. The policy of annihilating any servile that questions orders is totally unacceptable, it's sheer murder. Creating life does not give you the right to end it.Obviously, there are other viewpoints. Oh yeah, and this is a role-playing game. Just thought I'd mention that. Edit: OK, so while I was writing, Savage Ed wrote another reply. He says that creating the drayks etc was a mistake, which might sound a bit like what I just wrote. It isn't. His belief -- expressed in rather religious terms -- is that humans should not try to create intelligent life. Because it's presumptuous, or something like that. If you like, call this viewpoint three. [ Sunday, July 30, 2006 12:36: Message edited by: Micawber ] -------------------- "I can't read this thread with that image. But then, that's not a complaint." -Scorpius Geneforge 4 stuff. Also, everything I know about Avernum | Avernum 2 | Avernum 3 | Avernum 4 Posts: 1104 | Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 5814
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 13:00
Profile
quote:Ah, but it's okay to declare yourselves above these creatures? It's okay to decide which of them die and which of them live? To play god in another way? quote:What exactly do you do? Also, it's always a bad idea to accuse someone of being brainwashed. It's always possible that the accuser is the one brainwashed but has been brainwashed to think that they're not, as well as being brainwashed to think that people who disagree have been brainwashed. [ Tuesday, August 01, 2006 09:58: Message edited by: Thi ] -------------------- quote: Posts: 1115 | Registered: Sunday, May 15 2005 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 7143
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 13:00
Profile
Umm, no effence Savage Ed, but one of your story examples if contrary to your arguement (not to say that you are wrong or right, just pointing this out). Have you actually read the book Frankenstien? Frankenstein's monster only became the way he was, because no one accepted him and all cried out that he was a monster. He actually started out innocent and nice, but it was because others treated him like, and expected him to act like, a monster, he became one. -------------------- "After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one." - Cato the Elder (234-149 BC) "The mind, if it exists, is nothing but an unfortunate after effect of the brain process." -Kripke "One should die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly." -Friedich Nietzche Posts: 333 | Registered: Saturday, May 20 2006 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 13:13
Profile
quote:I think this is the best way to argue. Argument isn't architecture. Buttressing generally adds weakness rather than strength, because it just gives people a chance to ignore your main point and take you to task on side issues. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 14:13
Profile
quote:The movie I, Robot was a pathetic excuse to get Will Smith to smash things. I, Robot's message was just the same as Frankenstein, and the others as far as I can tell. This is unfortunate, because the book reached a different conclusion. I suggest reading it along with Asimov's other Robot works. It gives a slightly different perspective than the typical techno-horror stories that sell movie tickets. The movies a priori assume that humans should not attempt to exceed themselves rather than analyze the complex issues surrounding it. This harkens back to the tired old theme of technology = bad. The real world is never this simple. Terminator was the most egregious of these: we make AI, it decides we are inferior, and then wipes us out. This makes a good movie premise, but hardly a lesson for society. Matrix does a better job in that the machines were not inherently evil, it was humanity's abuse of them that forced their hand -- as someone pointed out this is more true with Frankenstein. If we cut through all the glitz, what it comes down to, is this: Should we create technology without analyzing the consequences? Of course not. I don't think anyone would disagree with this. Unfortunately, it is impossible to foresee all the consequences good and bad of what we do despite our best efforts. Some have advocated the so called "precautionary principle". It basically says don't do anything until you are sure the negatives are minimal. A good idea in principle, but impossible in practicality where it amounts to "don't take any risks ever despite the great benefits". quote:Did you play GF2? It wasn't the Shapers as a whole that made this decision, it was Barzahl, a renegade Shaper. (As an aside, I have a hard time believing Barzahl, by himself, could have accomplished so much, but that's another isse) So I think you are wrong in making this argument as the Shapers would have never done this. Unfortunately, it is impossible to control the actions of individuals. Fortunately, how Drakons came about (see above) was a tad unrealistic. This is true for any large technology these days: genetically modified super organisms, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, etc. Developing these would require massive amounts of resources that a small group would be unable to develop. The fear is, of course, a government would actually see the need to develop these without proper controls. That is why, in the real world, diplomacy and alertness is needed. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 16:22
Profile
quote:Why not? Destroying rogue or contaminated serviles and creating new ones to replace them is the only humane option with no long term consequences, since a freed servile would never be able to find its niche in society. You could try giving them their own island to live but that's only delaying the issue. And how a designer couldn't be above a mass producible, readily replaceable construct of their own design is still beyond me. You haven't given me a single convincing explanation to support the belief that serviles are inherently equal to humans, other than obvious things like they both bleed and they both die. quote:Or maybe the individuals they accuse of being brainwashed have misplaced sympathy for man made creations rather than natural living beings, and such a misplaced association to value the life of a machine as equivalent or greater than that of natural beings hints at a loose grip on reality. Of course, that's if someone wanted to make it a personal issue, which would be counter productive to the actual discussion at hand. quote:Maybe, maybe not. But it is still possible and relatively easy to shape a new one with a similar personality if you wanted to. Also, the fact that they were designed for a specific purpose supercedes any individual rights they may deserve were they not an artificially created life form. However, as far as serviles, they are an artificial life form designed for some specific purpose to fulfill some objective; an "intelligent" robot crafted magically into flesh and blood. As for drakons, they never should have been made in the first place and have serious issues with compassion and obedience. They're inherently a threat with every human they'll potentially come across. The only compromise they'd accept is to live at their mercy or die. quote:I've actually read the I Robot book but the key issue is that all androids, except for those with very specific, very extenuating purposes, have it ingrained in their programming to obey and protect humans, and preserve their own existence as long as it doesn't conflict with the other two objectives. As far as I can tell, drakons and eyebeasts don't have anything like that written into their minds, and that makes them inherently dangerous. This is also why I cite The Matrix as an example. The machines weren't programmed according to the three laws of robotics or a similar concept, so they felt no obligation to obey the "lesser" beings that created them. They were smarter. Stronger. Nearly immortal. Why listen to this short lived, fleshy, emotional, fragile being when it can make decisions it sees as more logical by leaps and bounds? Drakons are similar in that they lack both empathy (at least for "lesser" beings) and any kind of control that obligates them to obey humans. Combined, that makes a dangerous combination. And to be honest, in all my examples I'm referring to the popularized movie version but the point remains the same. Reckless pursuit of scientific advancement is inherently dangerous. Perhaps it's because Shapers have placed themselves above the law in regards to outsiders that they ignore the consequences of the bulk of their creations on society. To be honest, I only played the demo for Geneforge 1 and 2. I only really got into the series with Geneforge 3. But based on what I've heard, Barzahl is exemplary of what I'm talking about: a short sighted, mealomaniac mad scientist that invents without thinking about the consequences. I agree that technology isn't inherently evil, but its use or development without conscience can be and is potentially dangerous as well. And if you think I'm saying this based on any religious perspective, you have NO IDEA how far off base you are. Trust me. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 5814
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 17:30
Profile
quote:That was no implication that you are brainwashed or otherwise less intelligent. That was a statement that you shouldn't accuse people of being brainwashed, which gave slightly humorous reasons why. I'm getting tired of you arguing. Not for the reason you might expect: I fully understand that someone who disagrees is by no means automatically unintelligent and that their opinion might have merit as well. It's because you're being paranoid and assuming that since everyone is on the other side, they're slinging insults at you. -------------------- quote: Posts: 1115 | Registered: Sunday, May 15 2005 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 17:31
Profile
quote:Please don't accuse me of things I never said. Also, I would refrain from shouting at me. [ Sunday, July 30, 2006 17:33: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 20:01
Profile
Regarding serviles as replaceable creations like the others that players can create: Serviles are born and reproduce like humans. They have lower intelligence than humans but this maybe more because any intelligent serviles were killed by Shaper society. In GF1 the serviles on Sucia Island had been left alone for 200 odd years so the more intelligent ones had survived and started thinking for themselves without the "benefit" of the Shapers. The Awaken sect felt that they were equal to humans and wanted to be treated that way. The Obeyers wanted to stay as slaves but had their doubts. The Takers wanted revenge since their lands were poisoned from a sealed lab. Some serviles were intelligent enough to equal or exceed human norms. The crazed Taker cultist sacrificed their sanity in order to be able to use haman magic. In GF2 some of the serviles from Sucia Island were taken to Drypeak to help with the experiments. The Awaken had figured out a way of modifying serviles so they could do magic. The Takers were working with the Drakons to achieve their revenge except for some that just went bandit. In GF3 you have servile rebels that are trying to overthrow the Shaper Council. The origin of serviles has not really been given so they may be creations that can now reproduce and/or be grown in vats and programmed which is sort of implied in GF1. They may also be the product of modifying human enemies in order to create a slave race. There are some hints that something was done to the inhabitants of Sucia Island that opposed the original Shapers. Either way they are no longer simple creations that can be made and destroyed until you get what you want. Serviles are intelligent and have memories like humans. Trying to equate them with machines is an attempt to treat them as something lower than what they are. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 22:31
Profile
quote:I have a right to express and defend my opinion and give supporting arguments for how I came to that conclusion. Other than someone saying they were starting to personally dislike me because they didn't agree with me (like I care), I haven't accused anyone of slinging insults nor am I "paranoid." I fail to see how you came to that conclusion, or what it even has to do with the issue at hand. quote:That wasn't directed at you. And the concept of shouting doesn't apply, since they're words typed on a keyboard, not words spoken verbally. I wouldn't call it shouting; I was only trying to emphasize how much of a mistaken the individual that would misconstrue that from my stance. quote:They may or may not have been made by altering humans who opposed the Shapers to silence them. However, if this is not the case, they ARE the equivalent of machines as far as the technology of our world and Geneforge allows the analogy to be applied. Most devices in Geneforge are made by growing or breeding them for a specific purpose, such as the acid pods, control panels, living tools, etc. Machines aren't built in factories with blueprints and prototypes the way they are in our world, they're made in shaping halls with notes written onto scrolls containing magic information. Prototypes are usually deformed or deranged monstrosities where the only humane option is to put them out of their misery. Comparing them to machines as we know them requires you to think about this dilemma: If human beings one day built machines with limited but functional intelligence to perform tasks under dangerous situations with little to no input and supervision, would we give one of them freedom because it decided it no longer wanted to perform its given tasks? What if it was made to be smarter to handle a more important task that required a mind that could handle information faster than a human but maintain or emulate a human's ability to create unique and spontaneous solutions? If serviles were the product into pure research to create an intelligent beings to serve as companions to humans, their right to be fully independent would be a different issue. But they were built to perform the dangerous dirty work that humans don't want to do. As a result, the need to fulfill that function supercedes any considerations on what they deserve based on the merits of their intelligence. In fact, they're designed to enjoy their work and not question the tasks they perform, and the vast majority fit that criteria. The small exceptions have to be destroyed because they are defective. They don't match their design specification and there's always a chance they could damage the minds of the obedient serviles. If a domestic android began showing the same symptoms in our world, would people honor their androids desire to be respected as a genuine being with their own personality, or would factories issue recalls seeing the potential danger that could arise from the situtaion? The problem is compounded by the fact that all of the intelligent serviles encountered in-game are rebllious, which means they're at least distantly in league with the drakons, which leads to even more problems. In the end, you can't please all of the people all of the time. If serviles didn't do their job or exist it'd only mean there'd be more menial and dangerous labor for humans to do and you'd replace an underclass of artifical beings with an underclass of downtrodden humans. happiness is worth more? Also, why reserve sympathy for serviles? Why not extend the same right to freedom to thaads and battle alphas? Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
|
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 22:57
Profile
Homepage
It's really easy to replace humans - the method is simple and has been known for a very long time. If you smash up a robot, hardly anyone would know how to build a new one, and it would take the effort of thousands of people to do it. Look to me that it's the humans who are disposable. -------------------- Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. New Mac BoE Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, July 31 2006 01:21
Profile
Emphasis is available in the form of italics. All caps is the accepted internet equivalent of shouting. It's considered rude in practically all electronic communications. If you think you've never had a problem with it before, I wouldn't be so sure. quote:You've repeated this same point several times now, as if it were unanswerable. I answered it directly a while ago: Yes. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Monday, July 31 2006 03:45
Profile
quote:1) If it wasn't directed at me, then don't put it immediately following a reply to my post or put a "too all" before that last paragraph. 2) As far as shouting, ALL CAPS, is an equivalent in computer speak, so using it is shouting as far as I'm concened which is very impolite. [ Monday, July 31, 2006 03:54: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Monday, July 31 2006 08:56
Profile
quote:I don't think that's a realistic perspective depending on the application. The neccesity of its construction supercedes any unintentional individualism that may arise. Unless a fully independent entity was the point of the research, it's more of a bug or glitch than an emerging personality with its own right to existence. It had been properly designe dto begin with, it would enjoy performing its task without question. If not, it's a failed model. The same applies to serviles that don't enjoy performing their tasks. If they remained hidden in isolated communities away from populated areas, that'd be one thing and the Shapers wouldn't neccesarily have to hunt them down. But the small minority who want to be free and the even smaller minority that actually have full intelligence always try to recruit or persuade the obedient serviles, which is disruptive to the function of the rest of society. That and they do tend to violently oppose the Shapers as well as outsiders that are anything less than abhorred by them. Humans who are neutral or borderline tend to get coerced into seeing things from their point of view, and those who were supportive are left to live in fear, if they get to live at all. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, July 31 2006 09:28
Profile
quote:Of course it's a bug, a glitch, and a failed model. It is also an emerging personality with its own right to exist. Insisting that these conditions are mutually exclusive is not an argument, just a repetition of your premise. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 5814
|
written Monday, July 31 2006 09:53
Profile
quote:Of course you have a right to argue. What you don't have a right to do is insult people. You may feel that they started it, and that you then have the right to answer in turn. That's where your paranoia comes into play. You're seeing insults where there are none (or occasionally where there are, but not so often). And what do debating tactics have to do with this specific issue? Pretty much nothing. But if you would quit your smear campaign this whole thing would be much cleaner. It's not like they're helping you convince others or win the argument. And I assume that you'll deny that you ever insulted anyone during the course of this debate. Well, here's some evidence; if you feel that this isn't enough, I can find more. quote:You interpreted my post as an insult and responded in what you percieved to be the same matter. Though you said, "Or maybe...", your intent is clear. Also, aside, you cannot say that my sympathy is misplaced until you have proven so, because that is part of the key issue. quote:Calling someone pathetic is not the best way to do things in most cases because in most cases you want to avoid using tactics commonly seen on the primary school playground. quote:Disdain, especially when you go out of your way to point out your disdain, is not a proper attitude; he is, after all, a human being with rights and emotions. -------------------- quote: Posts: 1115 | Registered: Sunday, May 15 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2759
|
written Monday, July 31 2006 13:06
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well you completely ignored my point with "maybe, maybe not", and then carried on and illogically side-stepped your own argument, which I was quoting back at you. You said a child could never be replaced with one exactly the same, because its memories and experiences would be unique. I said the same would be equally true of a self-aware machine. You then said it would be possible to shape one with a 'similar' personality. This is right after you were ranting about the unique value of "THAT child", etc, etc. Do you see the inconsistency? quote:That was me; following your statement "progress in that work without humility and the acceptance that whatever we create isn't capable of comparison with the wonders of the universe is dangerous," I said that your argument was expressed in religious terms. I stand by what I said. -------------------- "I can't read this thread with that image. But then, that's not a complaint." -Scorpius Geneforge 4 stuff. Also, everything I know about Avernum | Avernum 2 | Avernum 3 | Avernum 4 Posts: 1104 | Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Monday, July 31 2006 15:23
Profile
Homepage
Originally by ginger8445: quote:Forgive me if someone already answered this and I missed it. You're talking about Thossila (the woman) and Sencia (the intelligent servile) in Drypeak. There are too options. Tell Thossila about Sencia, or lie to Thossila about Sencia. Either way, you get experience. If you tell the truth (which is sounds like you did), Sencia is killed. Telling the truth is pro-Shaper and lying is pro-servile. The correct choice to make depends on which sect you want to join, but there are so many other ways to increase your favor with one side or the other that it hardly matters what you choose. Dikiyoba. Edit: Fixed quote. [ Monday, July 31, 2006 15:26: Message edited by: Dikiyoba ] Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |