User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 45

  1. #31
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    If there is, then what it is? There are many many possibilities, but it looks like you're happy to believe it's one particular one.
    Either the mediums are summoning something or are able to affect their environment somehow....

  2. #32
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    Either the mediums are summoning something or are able to affect their environment somehow....
    Yeah, those are possibilities. But specific hypotheses would have to be explored.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #33
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor
    What does increased sum of photons imply?
    Look at the graphs for the baseline, during the experiment, and after the experiment. The photomultiplier records significantly more light during the experiment when the medium calls forth the spirits. It implies that the spirits are able to manipulate the photomultiplier or create light somehow. Keep in mind that these photomultipliers are inside two containers (a box within a box). Either the experimenter is faking the data/ making stuff up or there is something very interesting going on.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  4. #34
    figsfiggyfigs
    Guest

    Default

    I can't bring myself to actually watch something named "Her"

    I just can't unlink it.

  5. #35
    FRACTALICIOUS phobik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,368

    Default

    Can't quite describe the vibe, but overall it was a good piece of art.
    To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
    ~ Elbert Hubbard

    Music provides one of the clearest examples of a much deeper relation between mathematics and human experience.

  6. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Of course, if you believe animals (let's say mammals) have souls, is it murder to kill and eat them?
    Humans believe they have soul but it does not stop them to kill each other.
    And if they kill someone it is not always called murder.

    Because men in western culture are typically allowed multiple partners without being judged so severely.
    I think it is not only in western culture but in most of cultures.
    When man had many partners he is experienced.
    When woman had many partners she is just a slut.

    Samantha is not restricted in such ways, she can run multiple threads simultaneously while processing them all fully. This means she can
    also learn and experience at a much faster rate than human beings. But she can also be with multiple beings simultaneously without restricting
    what she gives them in the way a human being would be restricted if they tried to bounce back and forth between loves.

    I thought it was a thoughtful example of how the differences in actual nature made the relationship difficult/impossible over time. The world
    "slut" might apply to a human being who behaved this way, but human judgments (which imply character and motivation) don't apply to a being
    that isn't human.
    I remember scene from "The Watchman" when Dr Manhattan build some device and make sex with his girlfriend. When she notice he was doing something else in the same time, she was pissed off.
    Do you think she overreacted?

    Her voice was less flat and ordinary than Joaquin's. He barely had any range in his voice. Why the double standard?
    I express my opinion. It's not double standards

    "It's too bad she won't live...then again, who does?".
    Was that agreeing? Disagreeing? Not sure where you're going.
    It's from Blade Runner.

    What if you take a human in a meatbody and transfer their
    consciousness into an android body? Do they no longer have a soul?
    S-F is full of questions like that. Where our consciousness start? Can we copy are souls?
    Star Trek, Blade Runner, Ghost in the shell. Simple exemples. It is still question without answer.

    I could hear the pain in her voice... but she was also very aware of her needs and spoke reasonably rather than crying outwardly about it.
    And copy that with thousands others users.
    You see her as person with emotions but without body.
    I see just a computer with ARTIFICIAL Intelligence who imitate emotions.

    Close enough but actually I was wondering how women might have reacted if the genders had been switched in the movie...
    I don't think Sam was played feminine role for all her users.
    On the beginning, OS1 asked Theo a few question "to best of your needs". System was synchronised with his needs.

    Although Samantha had emotions they were not real...or maybe she did.
    IMHO her emotions weren't real. She study human reactions on her words.

    I felt really bad for the guy.
    Yes. Me too. IMHO he was manipulated. When Sam get to know him enough, she left him. She couldn't learn more.

    I also think you could not tell any difference between Samantha as an AI vs Samantha in a physical body.
    Body was always a problem between Theo and Sam.
    Firstly many sensations was hard to catch by Sam cos she haven't body.
    Later body was limitation for Theo. He wasn't able to go were she went.

    She's a sensor, really? As in processes information using her five senses?
    So... all blind people are intuitive?
    Sam's very detail oriented.
    "Theo: You read a whole book in second?
    Sam: 0.02 actually."
    Or when Sam and Theo watch family and describe what they saw.

  7. #37
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jinn View Post
    Humans believe they have soul but it does not stop them to kill each other.
    And if they kill someone it is not always called murder.
    Actually, it typically IS murder in any culture... except in the case of war.
    Are we at war with animals?

    I remember scene from "The Watchman" when Dr Manhattan build some device and make sex with his girlfriend. When she notice he was doing something else in the same time, she was pissed off.
    Do you think she overreacted?
    It's a great example, and a comparable one. What it means is that she had needs in the relationship that did not match his needs, and the relationship was doomed if neither could change their needs. Note that Jon did try to honor the relationship by human standards (vs his own) for some time, but eventually he could not maintain it. It's not like he entered the relationship expecting to let Laurie down. In fact, he was involved in an LTR with two women before he realized it no longer held meaning for him, and then he left because it didn't satisfy his needs and he had no desire to hurt a third.

    I express my opinion. It's not double standards
    You can express your opinion, and still have it be a double standard.

    You are expecting more from the woman than the man. I accept it's your opinion, and that it is also a double standard. Why do you expect more from the woman than the man?

    S-F is full of questions like that. Where our consciousness start? Can we copy are souls?
    Star Trek, Blade Runner, Ghost in the shell. Simple exemples. It is still question without answer.
    True. So how does that impact your opinion?

    And copy that with thousands others users.
    You see her as person with emotions but without body.
    I see just a computer with ARTIFICIAL Intelligence who imitate emotions.
    Human beings are programmed by nature to have emotions, and they learn how to process emotions by (1) experiencing them and (2) testing them against other people. Samantha did the same thing -- she was programmed by nature to experience and express emotion, and she learns from how Theodore and others respond to her expression.

    So far, you are not showing any real DIFFERENCE between humans and the AI that would justify your opinion. It seems more like you're just predisposed to dismiss AI as false without being able to show a reasonable basis for that distinction.

    IMHO her emotions weren't real. She study human reactions on her words.
    No, she actually was programmed to understand how emotions work (and probably also had some random flux built into it, just like humans), and then she learned by her interactions and honed her emotional complexity.

    Yes. Me too. IMHO he was manipulated. When Sam get to know him enough, she left him. She couldn't learn more.
    That's rather unfair. He's the one who chose her and chose to invest in her. He initiated the beginning of the relationship. When things turned romantic, he chose to engage an AI as his girlfriend and become emotionally invested and exclusive. Remember, how old was she? She had little actual life experience, while he had a good 30+ years or more.

    She entered that relationship on good faith, to the best of her ability, and then when she realized she was changing and it wasn't working out, she sat on it for a while, tried to make it work anyway. She didn't "cheat" on him because she didn't realize it was a big deal, just like jon Osterman didn't realize it with Laurie until they had a fight. At that point, soul-searching occurs, and Samantha realized she could not maintain their relationship as it was, and they were growing apart.

    Her trying to remain in the relationship would have made them both miserable, so she ended this. In hindsight, the relationship was a mistake, but neither she nor he anticipated the REALITY of a relationship between AI and human. They learned as they went.

    You act as if she maliciously wanted to hurt Theodore and knew all along where things would go. No, she went from "being born" to adulthood in a fairly short period of time by human standards, and had to learn as she went. It's how she was designed, just as humans are. I'm not sure why you are reading her that way. Both parties were hurt when their relationship ended, but since she initiated it (she accepted the reality it wasn't going to work), he had to struggle to catch up... but I suspect he knew where it was going as well by that point.

    And ironically, this kind of thing happens all the time in human relationships. It's part of life. Fidelity doesn't really "fix" problems that are so glaringly large.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #38
    Member Rampant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    46

    Default

    I thought it was okay. I thought the ending was inevitable. I enjoyed the performances though.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    A computer program can't feel.

    If they could really mimic emotion to the extent depicted in the movie, that could be great -- I wouldn't mind such a relationship.

    But the line between fantasy and reality has to be maintained.

  10. #40
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    A computer program can't feel.

    If they could really mimic emotion to the extent depicted in the movie, that could be great -- I wouldn't mind such a relationship.

    But the line between fantasy and reality has to be maintained.
    What is that line? yes, we're not yet at the technological stage where such things are possible... but it's merely a matter of designing a decision making process that can add to itself efficiently, as well as making the input and decision making based on some type of partly random / partly generally correlated variations. That's not necessarily out of reach; one day it might be reality, as much as things we do today that 50 years ago people thought were "fantasy."

    Have you ever considered the brain in a box? You are really just a mind/brain sitting in a receptacle (your skull). All the data you receive comes from sensors outside -- your sight, your smell, your touch, your taste. You also get input on the state of your roving device (your body) as well, that you use to make decision and creates certain sensations. It's just data. In fact, your entire reality might be simulated -- fake -- and your brain would not know. [Consider the paraplegic, who feels like her legs "aren't there" as the reality... yet they still are; she's just not receiving data from them nor can control them. Her experience of having no legs is false; the nerve pathways just aren't functioning.] Where is the line between "fantasy and reality" at that point?

    The pure emotions are pretty easy to program, they're just sensations / process states in themselves; it's the decision making process (how you respond to data including emotions and how you learn from them and change yourself) that is the more difficult part to emulate and what AI design is still working on.

    Human beings physically are just another type of machine. But there are issues in trying to convert digital/machine to human/analog that we haven't yet figured out.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. Did you watch...
    By Scarfism in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-07-2009, 12:20 AM
  2. Did anyone ever watch "Clone High" on MTV?
    By simulatedworld in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-10-2009, 12:43 AM
  3. So anyone watch Conan's debut last night?
    By Wade Wilson in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-08-2009, 10:48 PM
  4. Anyone watched HBO's: OZ?
    By Qre:us in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-03-2009, 11:58 PM
  5. Did anyone catch Obama's speech on race?
    By JuilinThiefTaker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 03-24-2008, 09:23 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO