Recent posts by vikaTae on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Bad times versus bad memories

Originally posted by Cocklecarrot:

It’s an appealing answer. A lot of people seem to think that deathbed satisfaction is paramount (cf. bucket lists) when on the contrary, one’s status on one’s deathbed is perhaps irrelevant.

That makes me wonder if there is not a market there, when the tech has matured. Giving those with poor lifelong memories an alternative. Disconnect and re-route their entire long-term memory to an artificial source so on their deathbed, they don’t remember their own life, but one manufactured to make them feel satisfied about their life.

Have you ever seen the serious Robin Williams film, The Final Cut? That uses a neuroprosthetic implanted in the patient’s brain to record their sensory information over their entire life, used to make a video record autobiography of their life’s highlights once it is cut down by a specialist, into a 90 minute film to play at their funeral.

This would use the same idea, but instead of playing their own life at the funeral, it would play someone else’s life into their own head in the days before they die, simply so they can die satisfied, if their own life left them with nothing but regrets.

It would be very interesting to see how many people out of the ‘bucket list’ crowd would be willing to try that.

But is “living for the moment” animistic and sub-intellectual? And if so, is that shameful for Homo sapiens?

I don’t think so. Remember whilst we are all one species, we are not all the same. Not everyone values intellectualism, and a good majority don’t. If anything, we are the outliers; the ones with significant intellect well above the norm.

On top of that, and less elitist-sounding, for many, the moment is all they have. They haven’t the resources to build empires, and direct long-term efforts. They’re living hand-to-mouth, on the lower end of financial means and the brain is plastic; it adapts to adopt the mindset necessary for survival if it can. Grand dreams are forgotten or pushed aside, and living in the moment is what dominates. Just enjoying life as it comes.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Way To End All Crime

Originally posted by jim_vierling:

@ vikaTae

“All the above were created through our genetics. They could be prevented from forming yes, but the consequences for the lives of anyone who never developed them then trying to lead what most consider a ‘normal’ life would be extremely severe and debilitating.”

All of those things are part of what you are not who you are. They are a part of making you a human being. They may or may not be part of other animals as well. If you do not or could not use any of those parts you would still be human.

A body in a persistent vegetative state is still a human. That is what it is. There is no who it is left. A person dies and the body is still there. It is a human, albeit a dead one, that is what it is. There is no who it is anymore.

To be able to form who you are through nurture, nature would have to provide what you are from genetics in that it needs to function. Without the genetics that make you a human you would not be a human. That does not mean that those genetics make you who you are.

Then you are happy to conclude that there is no functional difference between a living human and a dead human? It’s what you’ve basically said up there.

I’m assuming then, that you do not feel murder or manslaughter should be crimes, since they do no harm whatsoever?

There is no ‘innate’ behavior.

Plenty of innate behavior, at least if you look at living humans, whose brains are still functioning.

A very, VERY good case to study is the one that forms the name of this book:

The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.

There are two dozen recorded tales in that book, all of them actual patients, with full study of the nature-based or nature combined with damage based structures in the brain which radically altered or shaped unusual deficiencies, capabilities or complete changes in one or more aspects of personality and/or basic cognition as a result of structural differences in the brain.

Then there are the cases with implanted neuroprosthetics where if the implanted rig slips, the patient’s whole personality and outlook changes because new connections are made in the circuitry. (sorry about the link, Nature uses a paywall, I have the original paper in dead tree, but that’s no use to you, and the paywall is $90)

I have plenty of other examples if needed, showing how a person’s personality, who they are at the most fundamental level, is defined, defined by their brain’s circuitry. Any changes to that circuitry, literally change the person, permanently, regardless of their will otherwise.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Way To End All Crime

If it is genetic then it would/could be considered a defect and there would/could be a cure developed.

The development of the hippocampus is genetic. As it is genetic, the hippocampus could/would be considered a defect and there could/would be a cure developed. No more long-term memory.

The development of the sensorimotor cortex is genetic. As it is genetic, the sensorimotor cortex could/would be considered a defect and there could/would be a cure developed. Severe damage and large-scale loss to voluntary muscle control.

The development of Ruffini’s corpuscles is genetic. As it is genetic, Ruffini’s corpuscles could/would be considered a defect and there could/would be a cure developed. We don’t need a major component of our ability to touch and feel, after all.

All the above were created through our genetics. They could be prevented from forming yes, but the consequences for the lives of anyone who never developed them then trying to lead what most consider a ‘normal’ life would be extremely severe and debilitating.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

Originally posted by Kasic:

Sources other than conservative pundits would be nice. Actual statistics, research, and bills would be nice. Without supporting evidence you simply sound paranoid.

Kasic sums it up best. Almost every single time you have given sources down the years Jhco, they have turned out to be a heavily biased CNN news video, a heavily biased Fox News story, or a far-right blog.

On those occasions when you have given sources that tried to eliminate all bias – no left bias, no right bias – and report on what happened impartially, giving the facts, they have always, without a single exception I can honestly think of, heavily disagreed with you.

Your most common source has always been “I heard on the radio, I forget which station”, or “I heard the guys talking, several of whom are qualified X”.

So why should anyone here take any of your rants seriously when they have not one shred of checkable factual evidence backing them up?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

Whatever happened to that huge majority of Americans that he told us agreed w/ him? Why have they been voting in this scum?

The majority of true Americans are behind Jhco, at least as how he seems to define the term. The problem is, that as it stands, Americans who aren’t true Americans are allowed to vote.

You know; the blacks, the gays, the poor, the liberals, the females, the disabled. Cut all those nasty people out, and let only true conservative, red-bloodied, able-bodied American males vote and you’ll soon see true America as it is meant to be!

Yeah, for a guy who is so well aware of how shitty America has been since Bush 1, he certainly is a little remiss about security. AND, all of those guns of his obviously did diddly squat to prevent it.

Oh come on Karma, his guns were doing something more important that preventing the robbery; they were most likely taking part in it. Being nicked to use in other crimes,more likely than not. He’s so obsessive about guns that well, like a cat-lady, would he really notice if a few disappeared in the inordinate number he obviously has?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Religion - subproblem.

Fortunately if I follow his philosophy I can type however much I like, then if he says it is more than eight lines, I can counterclaim it is no more than five lines, and he has to provide evidence that is is not less than five lines, and then has to show evidence why that evidence is right, and then provide more than evidence in evidence of his claim that it’s the wrong length.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Religion - subproblem.

Originally posted by Kasic:

that we can’t know anything past, present, or future because of philosophical ideals.

I think he’s an anti-realist who also claims there is no objective reality. My best guess is he’s halfway to being a solopsist, and holds the view that scientific truth is always invalid as science is founded on the axiom that observable reality is a construct that exists. In other words, no physical laws truly exist and science is thus a bunch of meaningless mumbo-jumbo that can never prove or demonstrate anything.

It reads like he’s taken half the principles of anti-realism and none of the foundation concepts that make it work, then run with it as a new philosophical system, cobbling in half-understood or incomplete ideas along the way.

Normal, sane anti-realism holds that empirical data is valid. His version doesn’t count empirical data as valid, as seen in the other thread when he dismissed fMRI readings of brain activity in defined, measurable areas when the subjects were exercising their belief (in pretty much anything). Normal anti-realism accepts that empirical data exists. Yeasy quite specifically did not, stating that the raw data was only ‘opinion’ and it was equally possible that the brain was not involved in belief in any way, and instead belief was wholly a construct of the soul.

This is a good example of what I mean by his half-understood use of the philosophy train of thought he seems to be using. He’s taken some tenets but not all; disregarded the foundations the philosophy is built upon, and I think, applied the partially understood philosophy to the tenets of the philosophy itself to try and complete his understanding, not realising he’s fundamentally broken the resultant philosophy. Since no universal laws exist, the only constant could ever be his own reference point. Hence halfway to solopsism – everything exists independent of him, but nothing has a defined form.

Kinda unnerving that I can even visualise what he’s seeing, to be honest.


(That might have been more than five lines, sorry Yeasy)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Religion - subproblem.

Originally posted by Labayka:
Am I the only one who appreciates the humor of this situation?

Nope. I think it be hilarious how given that logic, reason, and both solid scientific and solid historical evidence repeatedly trounced his position, he felt there was no choice but to start again, with a set of logic-contorting and discussion-denying axioms (in a non-AX thread no less!) to try and force out all views he cannot challenge.

It’s like a really, really acid-laiden bad trip whilst attempting to use Occam’s Razor (or Occam’s Scizzors as he’ll probably call it).

At some point he’ll realise (doubtfully) that his ‘rule’ that he gets to insult you if you make an argument he disagrees with, violates Kong’s terms and conditions, and is likely going to end in his posts being removed and his account silenced. All because of a fanatical, borderline religious belief that religion can be permanently removed damn what the evidence says to the contrary.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Religion - subproblem.

He did, but all the answers given with evidence were too detailed with attention to nuance and interaction. By forcing the posts to be shorter he forces much of the explanation, reason, and science out. By constraining the logic styles to a single limited type, he eliminates the logical arguments which were defeating him. Basically, this thread is to ensure he is right, and no arguments based in reality can be used against his argument.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Religion Outdated?

You know what? Tell me which behaviour is most justified, I’m curious:

None of the above, since that train of thought leads to solipsism.

I tend to follow the philosophy of science, philosophical realism and empirical science when making judgement claims of what is and is not possible in this world we are sensorilly surrounded by. It tends to produce, yanno, actual results. Reality-independent thinking has no place in scientific discourse.

Sure there are some things science cannot touch and will never be able to touch, but a discussion of something which has emerged as a cross polination of the neurology of the human brain and the social nature of the human animal, is not one of them.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Bad times versus bad memories

Cockle, one thing comes to mind that would be very interesting in such a study.

You’re implanting memories artificially, en-masse. I was assuming you were simply co-opting the brain’s own memory recording methods. But if you’re doing a mass recording like that, I’m not so sure you are. It’s a little like the optogenetic method I linked to with the mice. Rather than chemically signalling that a memory is to be written, and directing the pattern to be laid down, you are actually creating the engram circuits in-situ.

The optogenetic neuroprosthetic in that paper did that; implanted in the brain of the first generation of mice, it recorded the engram circuits in a brain made responsive to light as a light pattern. In the brains of the second generation after being removed from the first, it played that patttern back also in a brain made responsive to light, setting up new memories without engaging the brain’s own memory management systems.

Bearing all that in mind, is there not a good chance that you’ve also bypassed the brain’s memory association system? Creating in other words a set of memories that cannot be accessed in any way other than directly? Or at least by no method other than association by memories you recall after the implantation procedure? They don’t map logically by the right associations, because they’re not truly integrated into the relationship database.

It’s something that’ll have to be done experimentally, but it’s a really interesting thought. Disassociative memories by implantation could if the data supports the concept, be a way to test objectively whether a memory was implanted or not.

Not meaning to derail your thread; the idea came to me whilst rereading your posts. Just thinking out loud.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Religion Outdated?

My money’s on both, Kasic. He doesn’t understand the topic, doesn’t really understand English, and has already admitted he finds basic science hard (having to redo physics, having to redo math) so he’s trolling based on a partial understanding of philosophical skepticism he’s picked up in a basic philosophy class but doesn’t really understand the concepts he’s trying to use.

Trying to use a branch of philosophy you don’t fully understand via a language you have a doubtful grasp of, with a superiority complex the size of a small planet. Sounds fun.

(I’m assuming it’s philosophical skepticism, as it’s the only one I can think of that loosely matches his ‘argument’ style, when I go back over his previous posts. It could well be anti realism, but if so, the level of understanding is even sketchier. It could be something else entirely, as my own understanding of philosophical modes of thought beyond the mainstream is sketchy at best.

Difference is I won’t use something I’m sketchy on, in an argument or in physical creation. Neither turns out well if you don’t know what you’re doing. Yeasy seems to thrive on doing exactly that.)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Religion Outdated?

Originally posted by yeasy:

My claim? I don’t claim anything special.

Your claim, since you’ve apparently forgotten it despite it having been pointed out to you five times already:

Originally posted by yeasy:
Let’s kill the rest of people. What is left? Group who doesn’t believe in anything supernatural.
Religion removed permamently.
I just say there’s such alternative.

You claim we’re all wrong despite the evidence because your claim invalidates ours. Yet you point-blank refuse to provide any evidence, and even started insulting Karma when he started pressing you for evidence to back up your counterclaim. Not even insulting his argument, insulting him personally.

Simple as that, If you can’t understand ’Russel’s Kettle’ thing.

’Russel’s Kettle’ doesn’t exist, even as a philosophical argument. It never has. ’Russell’s Teapot’ exists as a philosophical argument, and is the one you should be using, but you were first told this three pages ago, and still you claim the kettle as your argument. You are quite probably literally the first person ever to use “Russel’s Kettle” as a philosophy as opposed to a brand of physical kettle (you can buy Russell’s Kettles in most home appliance stores) and it is literally just a catchphrase at this point with no meaning behind it.


Originally posted by yeasy:

Mathapors, hard things.

Oh, and just to add to the hilarity, Mathapor is apparently vampire knight fanfiction. So, how exactly is vampire fanfic ‘hard’? Writer’s block? Why are you discussing your fanfic here?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Religion Outdated?

Originally posted by yeasy:
Well, see you next year, in the same class.

I doubt it. I haven’t yet failed a class I’ve taken. Scraped through one by the skin of my teeth admittedly, but never failed.

Good luck with the module retake yeasy!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Religion Outdated?

I won’t stop using logic, because fools laugh at it.

This is true, you’ll never stop using logic. To stop using something you have to start using it first :)

(Cue yeasy’s counterclaim that it is possible to stop using something without first using it, because of ::sounds of a theasarus in a blender::)

That’s because I’m aware that those both claims are hard to prove, therefore they shouldn’t be treated as absolute facts, but more like opinions.

Hard, but not impossible. We’ve given more than enough evidence to overcome that hurdle. You haven’t, and still you claim that all our claims are wrong, because somehow, the gods themselves don’t know how, ‘hard’ is a synonym for ‘impossible’. ::more sounds from yeasy’s blender::.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Way To End All Crime

Not to mention impossible in some cases. Many crimes are crimes of inattention; a momentary distraction at the wrong moment, and you are guilty of Driving without Due Care and Attention.

We will of course do what we can to minimise the chances of someone turning to crime, and to reeducate then when they do offend, but trying to eliminate all crime is a hopeless cause without resorting to extreme methods that eliminate the human race, eliminate independent thought for the entire species, or completely destroy civilisation.

A case of the cure being worse than the disease itself.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Religion Outdated?

Misplaced hope, it seems Kasic. Last ditch try. He said earlier in the thread today that he considers realistic thoughts to be a mental disorder, and that was pretty much the point I decided for one last ditch effort.

Still, thanks for actually making me laugh aloud at your extremely apt description of him :)
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Way To End All Crime

Yes, my apologies Luette. Badly phrased choice of words on my part. “Sentient and self-aware” would be a much better way of putting it. A bear is (debatably) sentient but has no self-awareness.

I tend to be leery of just putting ‘human’ though, because we’re nearing an age in which humans are unlikely to be the only sentient and self-aware beings around. I try not to drag that sort of high-tech around into threads with me; just bringing it up here to explain how my thought processes color my word choices.

Still, you’re right in that I was too quick to pounce on the unworkable OP, and didn’t put enough thought into my exact choice of words. We’ve got enough people round here lately who don’t quite grasp how to wield English, without adding to the troubles.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Religion Outdated?

You claim your case is always true, despite alternatives.

There really aren’t any other alternatives if you understand the neurology. I’ve made every effort I can to explain the neurology to you. Human history likewise is repleat with examples of codified beliefs emerging pretty much from nothing. I’ve supplied a few contemporary literary examples, and others have supplied many historical ones. Others have offered other biology based examples, including from different species.

There literally are no alternatives so long as the human race is still in the picture. If you wish alternatives to be true, you need to remove the humans from the picture as our brains are hardwired to continually create belief. You have literally been deluged with links explaining what is going on from all sides.

Yet you continue to make an unfounded claim that this is not true, and point blank refuse to supply evidence for your claim when repeatedly asked.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Parallel Universes

Rule of thumb for SD, Yeasy: Attack the argument, not the person. Attack the thought process around the argument and question what the person is doing that leads to that line of thinking. But don’t hurl abuse or direct unrelated insults at the person themselves.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Bad times versus bad memories

Originally posted by Cocklecarrot:

@ vikaTae (fellow Singularitarian)

Yay! (of course, that’ll piss some regulars off; one of me was enough for them – welcome aboard :) )

You’ve loaded a lot into the objective ramifications of the year’s work, but I’m really interested in the subjective side. What if the work was different from your day job and essentially irrelevant?

Then it would effectively be the year from hell for me. I tend to get depressed if I don’t feel I’m doing anything. So the good year would need to be for me, stimulating and rewarding towards my goals (elimination of physical disability as something that matters, flexibility in personal embodiment) or it would not be remotely a good year for me.

I wouldn’t mind working on a different tangent. For example, my professional work revolves around arms and hands at the moment, since a company specialising in smart prosthetics for them pays my salary. Howver, for the MSc I fancied something different and tackled an intelligent, biometric-responsive network-coupled sexual aid for couples who find the normal physical act to be impossible for them.

It feeds the same goals, but is a clean break from my normal speciality field. Such a clean break I would consider rewarding, but if the work isn’t challenging, and doesn’t make me feel like I’m making progress improving lives, it won’t be good for me. (Subjective viewpoint.)

In relation to tampering with memories, as per many other avenues (e.g. full brain emulation), I shall keenly observe the progress that’s made.

I presume then, that you’re tracking progress made at EPFL? Fun stuff going on there.

It occurs to me, going back to the OP, that an important detail is whether the memory of making the choice is wiped before or after the year of activity. Hmm…

It would have to be before, as otherwise choosing a year of hell, would lead some to a cycle of self-doubt and depression. I have my doubts whether the related chemical changes would abate with the removal of the memories. It was a long-term adjustment into a spiral of depression, and logically would take a long time to recover even with better memories implanted.

Ethically for that reason, I would suggest removing the memory of the choice almost immediately after the choice is made, with the added bonus that the brain won’t have time to form associative memories that could persist after the removal if you wait a year.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Parallel Universes

Originally posted by yeasy:

Then go on, prove my theory stupid (false).

1. You didn’t pose a theory. Not even a hypothesis. How can anyone disprove one when you haven’t made it?

2. A theory is not stupid just because it has been disproven. With that attitude you’ll never get very far in any scientific or engineering discipline. It became a theory because it had boatloads of evidence backing it up. It was sound and solid, and most likely one of the most sensible ways of explaining a phenomenon we had at the time. It was only when new data that disagreed with it was found, that the theory had to be tossed.

Saying that, using the many worlds theories as proof of alternate universes is stupid, yes, because you’re trying to use the theories in ways they were not intended, and applying them where there is no data to support them. They are postulates, nothing more.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Religion Outdated?

Believing is inherent to the human mind. Religion is just belief given structure.

I won’t even start to argument that beliving isn’t congenital/necessary for human

Good, because you’d lose that argument. It’s “not necessary” in the same way all higher thought “isn’t necessary”. Especially as it’s a beneficial byproduct of several types of that higher thought interacting with our emotions, as you have been given countless sources for by a half dozen different posters.

I could even make the argument that you are presenting a religious belief here. Fanatically believing your cause is true even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Somewhat ironic really, that you have become a living example of the very thng you are trying to argue against. In the course of this thread, we have seen your beliefs codified into a religious fervor.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Religion Outdated?

Originally posted by yeasy:
You’re thinking like ‘people were using horses for 10000 years for transport, so they’ll keep doing it!’
No. Sorry. That kind of pseudo-thinking doesn’t apply to me.

A more reasonable example would be:

“For all of recorded history, vertebrates have been using ionic control signals transmitted down the backbone from a central control center to their extremities in order to control their movement. Thus we can project that for the foreseeable future this type of creature will continue doing this, passing the ability onto their young in generation after generation.”
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Way To End All Crime

If it was going to work, the US’ “stand your ground” or Castle laws allowing homeowners to shoot burglars would have meant the total end of attempts to break into and steal from private property.

That hasn’t exactly been the case.

It’s human nature again. You’re fighting human nature when you are trying to dissuade people from these sorts of activities. It’s about as successful as completely dissuading resistance during an occupation and for pretty much the same reasons.