- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Yes, that and it assumes that there is some reward for belief or faith given by any particular god you go for; If Great Cthulhu were real, then by being a worshipper you'd get the amazing treat of being eaten first. I'm not actually a proponent of Pascal's wager, I'm just trying to stop this being so hopelessly one-sided. It's no fun if everything runs smoothly, so a spanner in the debate may liven things up.
As an atheist myself, of course I find my position logical; I'd be an incredible and rather special idiot if I couild continue to believe something that I found illogical.
However, there's one thing that could make deism seem more logical: Pascal's Wager.
It goes like this: "We cannot determine whether God exists by human means, but if there is a God, you gain a lot by believing, while if there is not, you lose nothing."
Certainly a rather logical position, from the position of game theory. I can't say that atheism is the only position with any logial grounds, but it's where I stand.
I had a politics and history teacher who was, and I use these words carefully, a born-again communist. My school had an outside speaker every week to give a lecture, followed by questions, to the sixth form. This teacher often leapt on any political comment made by these speakers to interrogate them, in front of the entire sixth form, about why they didn't accept communism as the be-all and end-all of politics.
We had a Tory MP come to speak to us once. He was asked his views on Utopia by this teacher, and what he said reminded me of Andrew Ryan. Poor man got quite the earful because of that.
The Marquis de Sade was way ahead of his time in perversion, and if many moral watchdogs are to be believed, we (especially those who use the internet) are neck-deep in it, except the ones who leapt in head-first and are thus covered from head to ankles.
So, in an era where the greatest technological tool mankind has ever envisioned is also the largest distributor of pornography, which thinker-outside-boxes lead the crowd?
Robots are machines, their IQ should be the same across the board.
Not so! An expert system is a primitive AI; it has a text natural-language interface and can thus work out what you're asking, find key terms or synonyms thereof and present the likely answer within its area of expertise. An expert system, for example, is the online helpdesk for various things. I shall not mention a certain "sentient piece of stationary", as that'd be like dancing naked in a thunderstorm singing "Hastur Hastur Candlejack Hastur!".
What I'm getting at is that while a Strong AI can learn beyond its initial programming and database of knowledge, it has to learn or be taught. With no idea what the TV dinner is for, what it does or how the end result should be, a learning robot would encounter failure before succeeding. Observe Lal in the Star Trek episode "The Offspring"; despite being a Soong-type android capable of near infinite growth, she requires much tuition.
The K1 was the designation of your chosen avatar in this forum, when it was shown in the British television show, Doctor Who. I'm not sure whether it counts as a Movie, as the episodes were serials of several episodes and therefore of greater length (and plot) than most TV shows. I believe that it straddles some kind of fence, with traits of both; the full serial could be shown as a single unit and called a "movie".
Perhaps we'd better begin Schrodinger's Broadcast experiments.
I believe I can either placate or disable Robot with this statement:
Johnny-5 cannot be the best robot because you, Robot K1, are the best robot; you are capable of discussing the merits of various robots and thus demonstrating superior logic and reasoning.
Either this will make it happy, or it will begin to see the paradox included within the statement. If he is the best robot, his conjecture that Johnny-5 is the best robot must either be true, making him inferior, or it will be false, making him incorrect and thus inferior. If he is inferior, he is fallible and thus can make mistakes, therefore he is not culpable for his earlier incorrect statement, making him once again the superior machine.
Let's see how it goes. If he ends up sayings "Does not compute" and spraying sparks, I'll pay for his funeral.