RattleAndGrind

I have three kudos and I only know the origin of one. How do I find the origin of the other two?

Aging is a linear function and is a direct corollary to the number of annual calendar replacement rituals one has performed. Growing up is an inverse linear function and a direct corollary to a liberal participation in the real world while deliberately maintaining a sense of wonder and whimsy. My Grams was a ER Nurse. Her advice, "Smiling is facial exercise. Laughing is aerobic exercise. Jumping with joy is cardio-pulmonary exercise. Be happy. You'll live longer."

Over half a century ago I discovered that in the world of debate, there are the gracious and the childish. The gracious acknowledge the arguments of others, appreciate the efforts of those opposed to their premise and generally accept that someone else was better prepared with more reasonable and rational arguments. What you see above is the other sort.

Let me check. Yep, there is a punctuation mark after Jane Fonda; a period in fact. Nothing else on that line, so no caveats or amelioration. And there is not dates listed either. But since you seem to want dates, here's a few. According to the web site SOBERING STATISTICS FOR THE VIETNAM WAR , between Aug 5, 1964 and March 28,1973 (the official dates of the Vietnam War), 2,709,918 Americans served in Vietnam. Jane Fonda called those 2,709,918 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen war criminals. According to the Web Site for the 26th Marines, in 1975 ' when American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law."'. Now, before you start with the "Jane Fonda apologized" chant, please know that I have heard it before. For me, Jane Fonda has not started to apologize. Jane Fonda slandered (legal definition) 2,709,918 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen. Jane Fonda slandered (again, legal definition) every person named on the Vietnam Memorial. Jane Fonda slandered (again, legal definition) 1300+ American POW's. As far as I am concerned, in order for Jane Fonda to complete step nine, she needs to apologize to 2,709,918 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen individually. Then she needs to go to the family of every person maned on the Vietnam Memorial and apologize to them face to face for slandering their loved one. Then she needs to hold the hand of every POW and apologize to them for her slander. Until Jane Fonda does that, she is only paying lip service to 'apology'. Now, If my estimate is close, Jane Fonda will need about 2,800,000 incarnations to work off her bad Karma. May those incarnations be long, lonely, painful and disease ridden. I hate Jane Fonda. Period. End of sentence.

From the Fallout Wiki - Vault Jumpsuit " ... they appear to be made out of a leather jumpsuit, the numbers are made of polyester, and the belt and other components are aluminum."

The moral treatment of any entity is based solely on the criteria of the individual rendering the treatment. Such behavior is a personal choice and is founded in the beliefs of the individual. In spite of the pontification of greentea101 and the narrow representation of my position, the issue is very much wider and has been debated since Plato. The morality of and moral obligations to self aware machines has been addressed in scientific articles and science fiction alike. Here is the current state of the debate. Autonomous mechanical entities arrive at the end of their respective assembly line whole and complete and ready to be switched on. But with manufactured entities, where do moral actions originate? How does one determine whether an entity has moral agency; the ability to freely act in a moral fashion? How does one determine it a mechanical device is a true moral agent? > Properties, those characteristics which intricate that an entity is a moral agent. Property P indicates morality.Entity E demonstrates property P.Entity E is moral and is a moral agent.Let us consider compassion. Can compassion be simulated in code? Yes. Consequently, compassion is not a valid property for determining if an entity is a moral agent. After going through the entire list of human moral properties, we find that they are all capable of being simulated via code. So simply demonstrating moral properties is not a valid criteria for determining if an entity is a moral agent. > Sentience, freedom of thought and action. A sentient entity can choose to behave as a moral agent. But how does a sentient entity know what properties are appropriate moral responses? Where is the learning and experience to know which property is germane to the situation? Given that a mechanical device is ready to be activated at the end of its assembly line, it is not morally ethical for a human being to activate a sentient machine without first providing it with some fundamental knowledge of what constitutes moral properties and their use. So the moral properties in a sentient entity will be encoded in them during manufacture, (like the Three Laws of Robotics in Asimov's I, Robot). So a sentient machine is not necessarily choosing to be moral and therefore is not truly a moral agent. > Sapience. Sentience coupled with self awareness and self motivation. A sapient machine (Data in ST:TNG or a Gen 3 Synth in FO4) is fully aware of itself, and knows its nature. Are these machines mortal agents? Here again, human morality demands that a sentient machine have some basic understanding of the properties of morality at activation. So here too, these properties are build into the machine at manufacture so that the machine has a fundamental blueprint from which to determine moral action. So here again, These entities are not necessarily moral agents, but are simply responding to coded instructions. > Assigned Value. I like it so I will treat it morally. Each year, tens of thousands cute, fluffy, cuddly little baby chicks, rabbits, ducks and geese are sold leading into the Christian holiday of Easter. Within the next month, virtually all of these animals are dead on in shelters. This is an extreme example of assigned value run amok. The assigned value is not intrinsic to the entity in question, but on the human assigning the value, and does not make a mechanical entity a moral agent. > Reciprocity. It behaves morally, so I treat it morally. In the late 1940's; Alan Turing postulated that eventually, humans would not be able to distinguish between a machine and a human during a normal conversation. The machines behavior is programmed to be indistinguishable from a true human. This programming will contain moral properties and their use so as to simulate true moral agency. Since people believe It is a moral agent, they will believe it is deserving of moral treatment. But the machine is not a true moral agent, it is simulating one. (Reciprocity works both ways. A machine can behave in an immoral fashion, piss an individual off and cause them to throw the pointing device through the monitor.) The other tact in this discussion of moral agency in mechanical entities is to look at it from the point of view of these entities themselves. The focus of these studies is to determine if a mechanical entity can learn and appropriately apply moral properties so that the entity acts as a moral agent. > Moral properties and their application learned by trial and error. As children (most of us) learn the moral properties and their applications via trial and error, under the tutelage of our parents and teachers. These guardians also prevent the vast majority of us from making fatal mistakes while we learn. A mechanical entity does not have a 'childhood'. It is brought off the assembly line whole and complete and must now learn the foibles of moral agency. What are the limits on this education? A child is too weak to rend another human apart, so it will not make that mistake. But a fully formed and capable machine can surely make that mistake. And who is there to correct the actions of this machine? Who is there to provide the necessary education to develop a truly moral entity. And who prevents these entities from making fatal mistakes, which are the antithesis of learning? > Moral properties and their application via group learning. This is what insects do, right? So why not machines? Have any of us forgotten our rebellious years. That time when we tossed off the teachings of childhood and tested the world on our own, making mistakes and (hopefully) learning from them. What will be the consequences if a machine abandons the moral properties it is taught and decides to test them against the world. Does this put us back to "Moral properties and their application learned by trial and error"? The counter to the scenario is that the machines will not have a rebellious phase and therefore the point is moot. But is it? If the machine is simply adapting the learning of others without question, is it behaving as a moral agent? Or is it simply adapting the learning of others and its behavior is not an actual moral choice, but a reflex response? tl;dr So there it is, The poor mans view of the current state of the debate on mechanical moral agency. Now, please keep in mind that what is here is almost twenty five centuries of debate, argument and counter argument, opinions and philosophy boiled down into very simple terms. It starts with Plato and is now into the thinking of intellectual heavyweights like Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates. This is the basis of my statements that machines cannot choose to act as moral agents. Since machines are not true moral agents, they are not entangled with the same moral consideration as a truly living being. The bacteria in my mucus is more worthy of moral treatment than any machine. That said, I kill millions of bacteria a day and still take my auto in for periodic maintenance. It's that 'assigned value' thing.

Okay, I am calling BULLSHIT!! The article is not that long, over half of the page space is taken up by pictures, there is ample white space and it is written in simple sentences. Further, a few of the 14 search engines mentioned in the article duplicate engines on the list provide by Vagrant0, which validates the information he provided in that post. I did not endorse any engine, I simply stated that I 'launched google'. So the reprehensible part of this is your assumptions and your assertions based on those assumptions. After rereading this entire thread, it has become plain to me. You have an agenda. To advance that agenda, you have discounted, minimized and summarily dismissed any evidence which does not fit with your preconceived ideology. You have insulted and demeaned people collectively and individually. It is obvious that you do not want a discussion, but an argument. I refuse to encourage this asininity further.

Now you know how I felt yesterday. But, I kept the lines of communication open in the hopes that you might actually read and comprehend something which differed from your view. I am now truly sorry for the attempt, because is just wasted both our times.

Liars. People who use the anonymity of the internet to behave badly. Intolerance. People who drive below the limit in the fast lane. People who have the right of way and refuse to take it. People who are convinced that melanin is a social stigma. People who think they can dictate other peoples lives. Sand in my jock strap. People who think someone else's sexuality is their business. People who insist on thinking in first person singular. Taking out the garbage. Jane Fonda.

Actually, most people have common sense. What they lack is GOOD sense. > Common:>> 1. occurring, found, or done often; prevalent.> "salt and pepper are the two most common seasonings"> synonyms: usual, ordinary, familiar, regular, frequent, recurrent, everyday;>> 2. common; showing a lack of taste and refinement; vulgar.> synonyms: uncouth, vulgar, coarse, rough, boorish, unladylike, ungentlemanly, ill-bred,uncivilized, unrefined, unsophisticated;

I conquered a world once. Then I had to deal with all the sycophants. Yuk. I abdicated. It's yours, if you really want it. Just don't expect me to take it back when you recover your senses.

I must be part cat, because my curiosity got the best of me. I launched Google and then googled "search engines". Here is the result. Now, this only the top part of the first page; but note the fifth result.

Reginald Stonebreaker, a software contractor I worked with in the 1990's during the run-up to Y2K. I asked him if Stonebreaker was a Dwermer name, thinking he wouldn't know what a Dwermer was. He surprised me with "It sounds dwarven, doesn't it?"

Not sure if an item is stolen? Drop it onto the ground and hover the cursor over it. If the item is stolen, it will give you the option 'Steal' instead of 'Take'. There is a bug when crafting. If an item is selected to provide a component for your crafting recipe (a typewriter to get a required screw), the residual components (screws, springs, etc) from the typewriter are not placed in the workbench. They simply vanish into the ether. Solution, drop everything onto the ground and scrap it yourself. This has the added advantage of reducing the 'amount built" indicator, allowing more to be built.

No, not really. And the reason is simple. By definition, neither Data nor Synths are living beings. The dead end for both is: Reproduction The ability to reproduce and pass genetic information onto their offspring. Without this ability, even a sentient humaniform machine is just clockworks and battery. Your logic doesn't make much sense to me. The page you link to gives a purely technical definition that is meant to separate the animal kingdom from the mineral kingdom, and is not suitable as a basis from which to derive morality. According to your logic, a sterile human being is not deserving of moral considerations. You also ignore the possibility that that definition would be expanded if we had Data-like androids running around. That definition only defines life as we know it, for the purpose of categorizing what currently exists in our sphere of experience, which excludes sentient androids and gen-3 synths. As far as I'm concerned, you are unjustifiably re-purposing that definition to fit your preconceived idea, and you are irrationally hanging on to a technicality that is irrelevant in a world that has non-animal sentient beings. Fortunately for me, I am not responsible for your inability to comprehend a simple premise. Neither am I bound by your contortions of my comments so they affirm your lack of understanding. Nor can I be held accountable of your attempts to dismiss a scientific article entitled "Characteristics of living things" because is does not fit what you wish to be true. You may twist the definition of "alive" to include chemical reactions and nuclear explosions and collapsing stars and the rapidly expanding universe and the entirety of the cosmos if it will help you feel better. But such convolutions do not conform to the reality of biology. I look at what exists and contemplate the future based on reality. I do not indulge in flights of fantasy or wishful thinking (not often at least). I do not delve into the fantastic or postulate 'what if' as fact. I eschew the existential and esoteric. You are allowed to do otherwise. When contemplating the future, there should be no limits on ones imagination. However, what one is not allowed to do is violate the laws of physics or the nature of biology. >You may twist the definition of "alive" to include chemical reactions and nuclear explosions and collapsing stars and the rapidly expanding universe and the entirety of the cosmos if it will help you feel better. You're making a caricature of what I said by grossly exaggerating it, effectively putting words in my mouth. My first argument was that your rigid use of a scientific definition to inform your morality is unreasonable, when we're talking about intelligent, sentient, self-aware entities (especially when they're capable of experiencing physical and emotional pain). Apparently it's my second argument you have a problem with here, which states that science has not yet had the chance to seriously consider the issue of artificial life because it doesn't exist at this time, and that the definition of life might be different if there was such a thing as sentient artificial intelligence interacting with the environment through an artificial body. I did not twist any definitions, and I agree that the definition of life that you linked is correct. >I look at what exists and contemplate the future based on reality. I do not indulge in flights of fantasy or wishful thinking (not often at least). I do not delve into the fantastic or postulate 'what if' as fact. I find that hard to take seriously, when on this thread you just gave your opinion on the morality of a fictional situation that happens in a fictional story set in a fictional universe. >When contemplating the future, there should be no limits on ones imagination. However, what one is not allowed to do is violate the laws of physics or the nature of biology. OK, but what I've said violates neither the laws of physics, nor the nature of biology. I can't imagine how you figure that it does. "rigid use of a scientific definition" - Exactly. It is a definition which is measurable and repeatable, and which is commonly accepted among the scientific community. Any other definition is based on opinion, wishful thing or heartfelt desire. Now, if you wish to change the definition of "alive", I recommend you undertake a course of study which would grant you the scientific credentials to do so. Until then, the current scientific definition is all there is. All of your arguments toward changing the definition of 'alive" to include non-biological machines are contrary to " the nature of biology". Your comment about a sterile human was a caricature of the definition of "alive"? Am I not allowed to respond with literary devices with which you are familiar? Is not your ridicule of that device just a little hypocritical? And I used the exaggeration to give you some insight into the lunacy of you claims. Obviously, that failed. The debate regarding the social status of sentient machines has been ongoing since the days of Alan Turing. It has been addressed in scientific journals and science fiction alike (including games based on science fiction). It is not a new discussion, and I have been participating in the discussion for decades. It is not a flight of fancy to discuss the realities of sentient machines in an environment where such capabilities are quite probable within the next century. It is a subject to be dealt with seriously; with deliberate thought and due diligence. In other words, "I look at what exists and contemplate the future based on reality. I do not indulge in flights of fantasy or wishful thinking (not often at least). I do not delve into the fantastic or postulate 'what if' as fact."

No, not really. And the reason is simple. By definition, neither Data nor Synths are living beings. The dead end for both is: Reproduction The ability to reproduce and pass genetic information onto their offspring. Without this ability, even a sentient humaniform machine is just clockworks and battery. Your logic doesn't make much sense to me. The page you link to gives a purely technical definition that is meant to separate the animal kingdom from the mineral kingdom, and is not suitable as a basis from which to derive morality. According to your logic, a sterile human being is not deserving of moral considerations. You also ignore the possibility that that definition would be expanded if we had Data-like androids running around. That definition only defines life as we know it, for the purpose of categorizing what currently exists in our sphere of experience, which excludes sentient androids and gen-3 synths. As far as I'm concerned, you are unjustifiably re-purposing that definition to fit your preconceived idea, and you are irrationally hanging on to a technicality that is irrelevant in a world that has non-animal sentient beings. Fortunately for me, I am not responsible for your inability to comprehend a simple premise. Neither am I bound by your contortions of my comments so they affirm your lack of understanding. Nor can I be held accountable of your attempts to dismiss a scientific article entitled "Characteristics of living things" because is does not fit what you wish to be true. You may twist the definition of "alive" to include chemical reactions and nuclear explosions and collapsing stars and the rapidly expanding universe and the entirety of the cosmos if it will help you feel better. But such convolutions do not conform to the reality of biology. I look at what exists and contemplate the future based on reality. I do not indulge in flights of fantasy or wishful thinking (not often at least). I do not delve into the fantastic or postulate 'what if' as fact. I eschew the existential and esoteric. You are allowed to do otherwise. When contemplating the future, there should be no limits on ones imagination. However, what one is not allowed to do is violate the laws of physics or the nature of biology.

Damn. I must not be holding the controller correctly. I keep getting sent to Fen Street Sewer and University Point.

No, not really. And the reason is simple. By definition, neither Data nor Synths are living beings. The dead end for both is: Reproduction The ability to reproduce and pass genetic information onto their offspring. Without this ability, even a sentient humaniform machine is just clockworks and battery.

Spoken like a " True BoS Soldier " Don't be rude. I HATE the BoS. The only value they have it FO4 is as a source for stealing power armor frames. I also know that 'Synth' is short for 'Synthetic'. According to my Merriam, "Synthetic: made by combining different substances : not natural". So I stand by my evaluation that the morality issues inherent in a Synthetic being are virtually non-existent. And that evaluation includes R. Daneel Olivaw, a hero from my youth and the author of 'The Zeroth Law of Robotics'. It was not meant to be rude at all. Poking fun a little, yes. You post does indeed read as a True Blue BoS. Again, not meant to be rude - was just having fun. :smile: My "Don't be rude" was not a angry statement. It was more the gentle chiding that one would give a child for being ill-mannered toward someone they did not know. :tongue:

Spoken like a " True BoS Soldier " Don't be rude. I HATE the BoS. The only value they have it FO4 is as a source for stealing power armor frames. I also know that 'Synth' is short for 'Synthetic'. According to my Merriam, "Synthetic: made by combining different substances : not natural". So I stand by my evaluation that the morality issues inherent in a Synthetic being are virtually non-existent. And that evaluation includes R. Daneel Olivaw, a hero from my youth and the author of 'The Zeroth Law of Robotics'. Why does it matter how a being is "made", when it comes to morality? Human beings are essentially biological machines, put together by the forces of physics. The gen-3 synths are literally flesh-and-blood human beings, with some internal tech augments added to make them easier to control (unfortunately the game doesn't seem to give any details about that). As far as I can tell, they have human brains with all the human "circuitry" intact (emotions, survival instinct, self-determination, etc). A tool is just a tool. When a tools usefulness has been exhausted, it is discarded. A machine is just a machine. When a machine ceases to function, it is discarded. We can use tools and machines in the way they were intended or in ways which were never imagined by the designer. This is the nature of tools and machines. It is not immoral to use a tool in any manner one desires. The level of sophistication or purported intelligence of a machine does not change that. Your analogy of the human body being a machine is perfect. We abuse and torture this machine. We put toxins into this machine. We destroy the resources this machine needs to continue functioning. We mangle and mutilate this machine. We expose this machine to dangerous situations. We destroy these machines by the tens of millions 1. Obviously, this machine is free from moral entanglements. And so it is with all machines. Now, let me reverse this discussion. What happens when a super-intelligent machine 2 decides that humanity is no longer necessary? Is it then moral to destroy these intelligent machines to preserve humanity? Is morality situational? Or is morality just so much cotton candy or dandelion fluff? Plato 3,4,5, Nietzsche 6, Machiavelli 7 and philosophers today continue to debate the origin and intent of "morality". The most popular positions are that the concept of morality was developed: by the weak to curb the abuses of the strong. by the minority to inhibit the abuses of the majority. by parishioners to diminish the power of the clergy. by the poor to induce charity from the rich. by slaves to persuade their overseers to give them more food. What ever the origins and intent, the impact of "morality" is with us today. It exists in 'political correctness' and 'Black Lives Matter' and 'All Lives Matter' and 'life begins at fertilization' and 'fetuses are parasites' and affirmative action and terrorism and the war on drugs and the war on poverty. The Magna Carta was an attempt to impose morality on Royalty. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is simply an attempt to define 'universal morality'. The entire Bill Of Rights appended to the United States Constitution is nothing but an attempt to legislate morality. (DO NOT infer that I oppose or endorse any of those listed here. They are listed here solely as examples of our 'morality'). A man blows himself up in a bar. He believes that his cause is just and that his actions are moral. The man believes himself moral because he opposes the oppression of his particular minority by the majority and millions who agree with the man are adamant that the man is moral. The 34 injured and the families of the 15 dead have an entirely different opinion. To them, the man is immoral because he killed random people who were not actively oppressing him. This one man is both moral and immoral for the same act. So for me, it is simple. Just as "One mans religion is another mans belly laugh" 8, so it is with morality. 1. WWII casualities. 2. Superintelligence, Paths, Dangers Stratagies 3. Plato, The Republic 4. Plato, Gorgias 5. Plato, Five Dialogues 6. F. Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra 7. Niccol Machiavelli, The Prince 8. Robert A. Heinlien, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

Spoken like a " True BoS Soldier " Don't be rude. I HATE the BoS. The only value they have it FO4 is as a source for stealing power armor frames. I also know that 'Synth' is short for 'Synthetic'. According to my Merriam, "Synthetic: made by combining different substances : not natural". So I stand by my evaluation that the morality issues inherent in a Synthetic being are virtually non-existent. And that evaluation includes R. Daneel Olivaw, a hero from my youth and the author of 'The Zeroth Law of Robotics'.

There is a fourth option for Internet service. Satellite. It is horribly slow (15 mbs), the usage is capped (30 GB/month after which the speed drops to five mbs), the availability is inconsistent during inclement weather, and it is horribly overpriced (USD $170/mo) for the service provided. But it is the only game in town if you live in the boondocks.

oy, ya ain't won yet mate.

To be alive, an organism must be composed of cells, have levels of complexity, consume energy, grow, reproduce in kind, respond to and adapt to the environment . Is consciousness the state of being self aware and these requirements?

Uncle John's Unstoppable Bathroom Reader. But only a couple of pages a day.