The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:49 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:01 pm 
Offline
Concession Worker
Concession Worker
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:52 pm
Posts: 1302
Chinook is in her dark place now. I hope you're happy.

_________________
Rule of thumb is that if you need to use a squeegee, they're at least Laz-4.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:16 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 845
Can I just say that Howard is doing a great job of making Petey very hateable? Super-manipulative could be dealt with, because he was trying to get people to do the right thing. But starting with the whole "Okay other AIs trying to find solutions, stop working and just accept that Tagon's going to die" moment he's been a right asshole.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:06 pm 
Offline
Concession Worker
Concession Worker
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:52 pm
Posts: 1302
JohnSmith wrote:
Can I just say that Howard is doing a great job of making Petey very hateable? Super-manipulative could be dealt with, because he was trying to get people to do the right thing. But starting with the whole "Okay other AIs trying to find solutions, stop working and just accept that Tagon's going to die" moment he's been a right asshole.

hmm... What happens when the god at the centre of the galaxy grows sick of dealing with other people's messes?

_________________
Rule of thumb is that if you need to use a squeegee, they're at least Laz-4.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:20 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:53 pm
Posts: 642
JohnSmith wrote:
Can I just say that Howard is doing a great job of making Petey very hateable? Super-manipulative could be dealt with, because he was trying to get people to do the right thing. But starting with the whole "Okay other AIs trying to find solutions, stop working and just accept that Tagon's going to die" moment he's been a right asshole.


I mean that is the complete opposite of my read. He isn't telling Chinook to stop working on a solution, because she isn't actually doing any such thing. She was in shock and having trouble processing what happened. Petey is trying to comfort her and get her past her shock. They have in fact not said anything about what to do about the rest of the Toughs.

Admittedly the third panel was a bit heartless, but I've done similar things, in admittedly less horrific circumstances. So I know the mindset that when someone asks me question I will try to solve the technicalities even when they meant it rhetorically.

Also note that it got Chinook past her shock, probably better than more comforting words would have. Petey is a superintelligent manipulative AI. He probably did that intentionally. He does have people's best interests in mind, but he isn't always nice about it and he's used anger before.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:00 am 
Offline
Arctic Exhibit
Arctic Exhibit

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:10 pm
Posts: 51
Even though she is the farthest removed from an organic being in the AI tribunal, Chinook is perhaps the most ... (Shatner pause) human.


I think she's also the most unpredictable and dangerous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:56 am 
Offline
Monkey House Exhibit
Monkey House Exhibit

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 397
Chainlynx wrote:
Even though she is the farthest removed from an organic being in the AI tribunal, Chinook is perhaps the most ... (Shatner pause) human.


I think she's also the most unpredictable and dangerous.

More than Petey probably. Putzo might not be showing much "humanity" here but he's the most distant from the current situation. The toughs are barely acquaintances of his.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:06 am 
Offline
Aquarium Exhibit
Aquarium Exhibit

Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 4:54 am
Posts: 1
I do not think Petey has been heartless for a very long time. More likely, He is trying to have the inevitable "uncontrollable anger against whoever did this" phase of Chinook happen right now, where he can see/influence so he can somehow direct it to have less Galactic Warfare results. (Plus, even being AI, before Chinook had time to prepare for it).

She did have a tendency to react with Maxims 6 & 37, after all, and a soft answer would simply be a prelude to shooting in the back of the head... so to speak.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:33 am 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 845
Arcanestomper wrote:
JohnSmith wrote:
Can I just say that Howard is doing a great job of making Petey very hateable? Super-manipulative could be dealt with, because he was trying to get people to do the right thing. But starting with the whole "Okay other AIs trying to find solutions, stop working and just accept that Tagon's going to die" moment he's been a right asshole.


I mean that is the complete opposite of my read. He isn't telling Chinook to stop working on a solution, because she isn't actually doing any such thing. She was in shock and having trouble processing what happened. Petey is trying to comfort her and get her past her shock. They have in fact not said anything about what to do about the rest of the Toughs.

Admittedly the third panel was a bit heartless, but I've done similar things, in admittedly less horrific circumstances. So I know the mindset that when someone asks me question I will try to solve the technicalities even when they meant it rhetorically.

Also note that it got Chinook past her shock, probably better than more comforting words would have. Petey is a superintelligent manipulative AI. He probably did that intentionally. He does have people's best interests in mind, but he isn't always nice about it and he's used anger before.


No, he's telling a grieving person that the deaths don't matter because they can run off more copies. Given the large number of people who subscribe to the viewpoint that death is still death, that's at best tone deaf and and worst actively antagonistic.

It was in the past that Petey told people to stop working the problem and just accept death... because they could run off more copies later.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:10 pm 
Offline
Carnie
Carnie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:44 pm
Posts: 2588
JohnSmith wrote:
No, he's telling a grieving person that the deaths don't matter because they can run off more copies.

They aren't dead, just temporarily inconvenienced. And Chinook is overreacting in the wrong manner. She will start a galactic war if she doesn't calm her **** down.

Quote:
Given the large number of people who subscribe to the viewpoint that death is still death...

They are wrong and need to start getting over it. This is no different than "bag the head we'll build a new body later".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:35 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 845
You have your opinion, but simply asserting it again and again is not at all convincing.

For example: "Bag the head" is quite factually not the same as restoring from backup, in several ways. First, there is significant loss of memory in bagging that is not present in a backup restore. Second, there is no loss of continuity in bagging - or at least, there is the same continuity loss as sleep or sedation, which is an argument on its own. Despite this, you've asserted multiple times that it is the same.

Making claims that are so easily dismissed leads me to a movie quote. What was it... Ah!

"My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:37 pm 
Offline
Concession Worker
Concession Worker
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 3:55 pm
Posts: 1321
Location: City of Brotherly Love
evileeyore wrote:
JohnSmith wrote:
No, he's telling a grieving person that the deaths don't matter because they can run off more copies.

They aren't dead, just temporarily inconvenienced....

Quote:
Given the large number of people who subscribe to the viewpoint that death is still death...

They are wrong and need to start getting over it. This is no different than "bag the head we'll build a new body later".


As has been said before, the tech of immortality is still new and many of the Toughs, indeed even Chinook, is not fully ready to accept that with that tech, even death is for all intents and purposes a temporary inconvenience (unless all backups of destroyed of course). Many of them will come to accept that, in time, and probably after a few more death/restore cycles.

Still, Chinook really does need to calm herself, since a long gun war could imperil even the locations of Laz-5 remote backups. With a Long Gun, no remote site is remote enough.

_________________
The MacNut
Artist and writer of The Vanguard, a space opera superhero comic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:08 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:53 pm
Posts: 642
JohnSmith wrote:
Arcanestomper wrote:
JohnSmith wrote:
Can I just say that Howard is doing a great job of making Petey very hateable? Super-manipulative could be dealt with, because he was trying to get people to do the right thing. But starting with the whole "Okay other AIs trying to find solutions, stop working and just accept that Tagon's going to die" moment he's been a right asshole.


I mean that is the complete opposite of my read. He isn't telling Chinook to stop working on a solution, because she isn't actually doing any such thing. She was in shock and having trouble processing what happened. Petey is trying to comfort her and get her past her shock. They have in fact not said anything about what to do about the rest of the Toughs.

Admittedly the third panel was a bit heartless, but I've done similar things, in admittedly less horrific circumstances. So I know the mindset that when someone asks me question I will try to solve the technicalities even when they meant it rhetorically.

Also note that it got Chinook past her shock, probably better than more comforting words would have. Petey is a superintelligent manipulative AI. He probably did that intentionally. He does have people's best interests in mind, but he isn't always nice about it and he's used anger before.


No, he's telling a grieving person that the deaths don't matter because they can run off more copies. Given the large number of people who subscribe to the viewpoint that death is still death, that's at best tone deaf and and worst actively antagonistic.

It was in the past that Petey told people to stop working the problem and just accept death... because they could run off more copies later.


I can understand if you view it differently, but my take isn't that he is saying that their deaths don't matter. Simply that it is not as final as it used to be, and they made the backups for exactly this kind of situation. Nowhere does he dismiss what has happened. He is just reminding Chinook that this isn't the end.

That said I know from experience that that is not at all what people in mourning want to hear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:41 pm 
Offline
Carnie
Carnie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:44 pm
Posts: 2588
JohnSmith wrote:
For example: "Bag the head" is quite factually not the same as restoring from backup, in several ways.

Granted, and I don't actually consider them to be the same, for the very reasons you state, as restoring from back-up is superior.

It's just a shorthand argument for "recovery from 'death' has always been in canon so everyone should really get over it already".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:00 pm 
Offline
Monkey House Exhibit
Monkey House Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:35 pm
Posts: 372
Location: Nebulae beyond Gamma Draconis
JohnSmith wrote:
You have your opinion, but simply asserting it again and again is not at all convincing.

For example: "Bag the head" is quite factually not the same as restoring from backup, in several ways. First, there is significant loss of memory in bagging that is not present in a backup restore. Second, there is no loss of continuity in bagging - or at least, there is the same continuity loss as sleep or sedation, which is an argument on its own. Despite this, you've asserted multiple times that it is the same.

Making claims that are so easily dismissed leads me to a movie quote. What was it... Ah!

"My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."


Umm. No? The opposite in fact. But let me reiterate from other thread first: brain never stops. Neither in sleep, sedation or loss of consciousness there never is loss of continuity. Brain keeps working, all the patterns are still present. You are flat out wrong here.

By your own logic, both cryokit and nanybag are in fact a form of death. Since brain never stops, needs oxygen to keep going and is one of the few (only?) organs that can't operate anaerobically as soon as brain runs out of air, it starts killing itself. Usually that starts happening in about 4 minutes since loss of blood circulation or pulmonary action. Both cryokit and nanybags force brain to stop working in a way that does not lead to permanent damage and allows for later restart.

Since you emphasise continuity so much, entire main cast has already died multiple times for you. Every instance of nanybagging or cryokit use was a reversible death and in this regard is exactly like restoring from backup.










As for today's comic: Tagii is going crazy again. Anyone didn't see it coming?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:26 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:53 pm
Posts: 642
M[i]ech wrote:
As for today's comic: Tagii is going crazy again. Anyone didn't see it coming?


Well personally I hoped that she would stay sane, but this was foreshadowed way back when Kevyn asked what she would do if they all died. She had the exact same reaction then with the fiery head and all.

And given that it was Kevyn who just died. This is not terribly surprising.

She explicitly says, "I came from a dark place. If everyone I love gets killed, I'll go back there."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:15 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 845
M[i]ech wrote:
JohnSmith wrote:
You have your opinion, but simply asserting it again and again is not at all convincing.

For example: "Bag the head" is quite factually not the same as restoring from backup, in several ways. First, there is significant loss of memory in bagging that is not present in a backup restore. Second, there is no loss of continuity in bagging - or at least, there is the same continuity loss as sleep or sedation, which is an argument on its own. Despite this, you've asserted multiple times that it is the same.

Making claims that are so easily dismissed leads me to a movie quote. What was it... Ah!

"My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."


Umm. No? The opposite in fact. But let me reiterate from other thread first: brain never stops. Neither in sleep, sedation or loss of consciousness there never is loss of continuity. Brain keeps working, all the patterns are still present. You are flat out wrong here.

By your own logic, both cryokit and nanybag are in fact a form of death. Since brain never stops, needs oxygen to keep going and is one of the few (only?) organs that can't operate anaerobically as soon as brain runs out of air, it starts killing itself. Usually that starts happening in about 4 minutes since loss of blood circulation or pulmonary action. Both cryokit and nanybags force brain to stop working in a way that does not lead to permanent damage and allows for later restart.

Since you emphasise continuity so much, entire main cast has already died multiple times for you. Every instance of nanybagging or cryokit use was a reversible death and in this regard is exactly like restoring from backup.


I actually wrote that backwards for this argument (derp). What I meant to write was "there is significant loss of memory in a restore that is not present in bagging."

But I can argue with you anyway! How marvelous. So, you're saying the brain never stops. True-ish. However the pattern of activity is not where most of the information is stored - you can hit somebody with massive electroshock therapy, (or if they have a seizure) scramble all those patterns and they'll still be more-or-less the same, if very unhappy with you. Most of the long-term information is in structural changes, through neuron growth/pruning or in gene expression.

However, this really doesn't give us ANY answers about the continuity problem. If sleep is death, then yes bagging or cryokit is death. If it's not, they're not. In either case, the memory loss is basically eliminated. And there is guaranteed loss of continuity in a restore.

evileeyore wrote:
Granted, and I don't actually consider them to be the same, for the very reasons you state, as restoring from back-up is superior.

It's just a shorthand argument for "recovery from 'death' has always been in canon so everyone should really get over it already".

Restore is superior? In what twisted version of logic does THAT follow? And you seem to be going with sleep is death, then?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:10 am 
Offline
Carnie
Carnie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:44 pm
Posts: 2588
JohnSmith wrote:
Restore is superior? In what twisted version of logic does THAT follow?

Nany bag = Brain damage. Did you even read what you wrote which I was responding to?


If you wish to presume that a Nany bag never institutes brain damage, then and only then, can it be considered superior. But it's still death (complete cessation of brain function and all), one which is recovered from.

Quote:
And you seem to be going with sleep is death, then?

No, because that's just foolish.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:00 am 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:02 am
Posts: 778
evileeyore wrote:
JohnSmith wrote:
Restore is superior? In what twisted version of logic does THAT follow?

Nany bag = Brain damage. Did you even read what you wrote which I was responding to?


If you wish to presume that a Nany bag never institutes brain damage, then and only then, can it be considered superior. But it's still death (complete cessation of brain function and all), one which is recovered from.


Laz-5 backups involves a certain amount of memory loss. That's, for all intents and purposes, the same as brain damage, so it's reasonable to say that nanny-bagging is less damaging.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:22 am 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 845
evileeyore wrote:
JohnSmith wrote:
Restore is superior? In what twisted version of logic does THAT follow?

Nany bag = Brain damage. Did you even read what you wrote which I was responding to?


If you wish to presume that a Nany bag never institutes brain damage, then and only then, can it be considered superior. But it's still death (complete cessation of brain function and all), one which is recovered from.

Quote:
And you seem to be going with sleep is death, then?

No, because that's just foolish.


Nanny bags might result in some brain damage, depending on how fast you get them in the bag. Brain damage that can be repaired, and certainly doesn't equal death. So far, nobody in a bag has complained of lost memories, for example. By that metric alone, they're miles ahead of a backup restore. And as Motoriki points out, restores always seem to have loss, which is functionally brain damage.

Nanny bags also don't result in complete cessation of activity - remember the cook, with his brain in the box? It was described as sleep, more or less.

And of course, we kinda need to unpack your idea that cessation of activity is death (a reasonable thought, if controversial) but sleep is not. I'm not sure how many times or ways I can remind you that cellular activity is not consciousness. Your cardiac tissue has action potentials, you realize that? Your digestive tract has an insane amount of neural tissue surrounding it, forming what some people have called a "second brain?" Activity does not equal "conscious." Nothing about sleep leads me to believe that there is uninterrupted conscious activity, even though there is definitely uninterrupted cellular activity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:34 am 
Offline
Monkey House Exhibit
Monkey House Exhibit

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 10:10 pm
Posts: 455
JohnSmith wrote:
evileeyore wrote:
JohnSmith wrote:
Restore is superior? In what twisted version of logic does THAT follow?

Nany bag = Brain damage. Did you even read what you wrote which I was responding to?


If you wish to presume that a Nany bag never institutes brain damage, then and only then, can it be considered superior. But it's still death (complete cessation of brain function and all), one which is recovered from.

Quote:
And you seem to be going with sleep is death, then?

No, because that's just foolish.


Nanny bags might result in some brain damage, depending on how fast you get them in the bag. Brain damage that can be repaired, and certainly doesn't equal death. So far, nobody in a bag has complained of lost memories, for example. By that metric alone, they're miles ahead of a backup restore. And as Motoriki points out, restores always seem to have loss, which is functionally brain damage.

Nanny bags also don't result in complete cessation of activity - remember the cook, with his brain in the box? It was described as sleep, more or less.

And of course, we kinda need to unpack your idea that cessation of activity is death (a reasonable thought, if controversial) but sleep is not. I'm not sure how many times or ways I can remind you that cellular activity is not consciousness. Your cardiac tissue has action potentials, you realize that? Your digestive tract has an insane amount of neural tissue surrounding it, forming what some people have called a "second brain?" Activity does not equal "conscious." Nothing about sleep leads me to believe that there is uninterrupted conscious activity, even though there is definitely uninterrupted cellular activity.


Well...now I know where "gut feelings" come from...
That aside. Brain damage is damage to the structure of the brain. That's like saying removing a dozen shelves worth of books from a library and destroying them is equivalent to a structure fire as applied to that same library. The library is more than books, it's also the catalog system, the climate control, the storage system, etc. The brain is more than just the memories and experiences acquired, it's also the mediating mechanisms. Although it's not a sound proof, I'd like to remind you of this strip. https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2006-02-01
I still say that Laz-5 is a Different person, but it's also a clean, undamaged brain. Nannybagging, you might have to go in and correct some neurological damage that has nothing to do with memory. As someone who's about to wipe a Windows 10 computer, because it's grown unstable and the updates are eating the OS, I'd have to say that Laz-5 is probably easier, and, from a narrow utilitarian point of view, superior. But as someone who believes in the continuity model, I'd rather be restored from a nannybag, which is probably pretty close to a 20th century hypothermia and drowning resuscitation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:30 pm 
Offline
Monkey House Exhibit
Monkey House Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:35 pm
Posts: 372
Location: Nebulae beyond Gamma Draconis
JohnSmith wrote:
M[i]ech wrote:
JohnSmith wrote:
You have your opinion, but simply asserting it again and again is not at all convincing.

For example: "Bag the head" is quite factually not the same as restoring from backup, in several ways. First, there is significant loss of memory in bagging that is not present in a backup restore. Second, there is no loss of continuity in bagging - or at least, there is the same continuity loss as sleep or sedation, which is an argument on its own. Despite this, you've asserted multiple times that it is the same.

Making claims that are so easily dismissed leads me to a movie quote. What was it... Ah!

"My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."


Umm. No? The opposite in fact. But let me reiterate from other thread first: brain never stops. Neither in sleep, sedation or loss of consciousness there never is loss of continuity. Brain keeps working, all the patterns are still present. You are flat out wrong here.

By your own logic, both cryokit and nanybag are in fact a form of death. Since brain never stops, needs oxygen to keep going and is one of the few (only?) organs that can't operate anaerobically as soon as brain runs out of air, it starts killing itself. Usually that starts happening in about 4 minutes since loss of blood circulation or pulmonary action. Both cryokit and nanybags force brain to stop working in a way that does not lead to permanent damage and allows for later restart.

Since you emphasise continuity so much, entire main cast has already died multiple times for you. Every instance of nanybagging or cryokit use was a reversible death and in this regard is exactly like restoring from backup.


I actually wrote that backwards for this argument (derp). What I meant to write was "there is significant loss of memory in a restore that is not present in bagging."

But I can argue with you anyway! How marvelous. So, you're saying the brain never stops. True-ish. However the pattern of activity is not where most of the information is stored - you can hit somebody with massive electroshock therapy, (or if they have a seizure) scramble all those patterns and they'll still be more-or-less the same, if very unhappy with you. Most of the long-term information is in structural changes, through neuron growth/pruning or in gene expression.

However, this really doesn't give us ANY answers about the continuity problem. If sleep is death, then yes bagging or cryokit is death. If it's not, they're not. In either case, the memory loss is basically eliminated. And there is guaranteed loss of continuity in a restore.

evileeyore wrote:
Granted, and I don't actually consider them to be the same, for the very reasons you state, as restoring from back-up is superior.

It's just a shorthand argument for "recovery from 'death' has always been in canon so everyone should really get over it already".

Restore is superior? In what twisted version of logic does THAT follow? And you seem to be going with sleep is death, then?


I didn't mean solely activity patterns. I primarily meant neural pathway patterns and activity ones secondarily. I'm not in continuity camp. I was applying reductio ad absurdum to continuity argument: from continuity standpoint, cryokit and nannybag break continuity, they have to break continuity to work at all, which means death just as if person was restored from backup. I'm exposing inconsistency in continuist standpoint: real versions of good chunk of main cast never even appeared in comic, having likely been bagged or cryoed as soldiers before series begun.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:45 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 845
If you think it's continuity of structure the nanybag and cryokit are fine. If you think it's continuity of activity, nanybag is good and cryokit is bad. And if you think it's continuity of full consciousness, both are bad, but so is sleep.

So I don't think you're showing any reducto ad absurdum. The whole thing is just really confusing and weird to start with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:54 pm 
Offline
Monkey House Exhibit
Monkey House Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:35 pm
Posts: 372
Location: Nebulae beyond Gamma Draconis
JohnSmith wrote:
evileeyore wrote:
JohnSmith wrote:
Restore is superior? In what twisted version of logic does THAT follow?

Nany bag = Brain damage. Did you even read what you wrote which I was responding to?


If you wish to presume that a Nany bag never institutes brain damage, then and only then, can it be considered superior. But it's still death (complete cessation of brain function and all), one which is recovered from.

Quote:
And you seem to be going with sleep is death, then?

No, because that's just foolish.


Nanny bags might result in some brain damage, depending on how fast you get them in the bag. Brain damage that can be repaired, and certainly doesn't equal death. So far, nobody in a bag has complained of lost memories, for example. By that metric alone, they're miles ahead of a backup restore. And as Motoriki points out, restores always seem to have loss, which is functionally brain damage.

Nanny bags also don't result in complete cessation of activity - remember the cook, with his brain in the box? It was described as sleep, more or less.

And of course, we kinda need to unpack your idea that cessation of activity is death (a reasonable thought, if controversial) but sleep is not. I'm not sure how many times or ways I can remind you that cellular activity is not consciousness. Your cardiac tissue has action potentials, you realize that? Your digestive tract has an insane amount of neural tissue surrounding it, forming what some people have called a "second brain?" Activity does not equal "conscious." Nothing about sleep leads me to believe that there is uninterrupted conscious activity, even though there is definitely uninterrupted cellular activity.


You can't repair brain damage. That kind of loss of information is irreversible. The only way to fix that kind of damage to data set would be to look up missing chunks in external backup... which is exceedingly terrible idea due to the nature of multilayer neural nets, but that's different argument.

For bags to prevent brain damage they need to safely shut down brain before it damages itself by trying to keep working no matter what.
Idea that sleep is death is complete nonsense. You exist no matter if you are awake or not. During sleep subconsciousness does maintenance on day's experiences, it's another facet of same person. Disregarding all the subconscious and autonomous processes critical to existence on a whim is beyond ludicrous. You may as well claim that you don't have motor control because it's not conscious, or that you stop breathing when you don't think about breathing, that's same grade argument. Nonsense.

As long as your brain works, you live, when it stops, you die. In SM, nannybags, cryokits and Laz make death reversible, which means that in SM you may be dead for a while and then get better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:45 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 845
Ok-ay, I guess I get to dig into this again. Let's run it by the numbers.

M[i]ech wrote:
You can't repair brain damage. That kind of loss of information is irreversible. The only way to fix that kind of damage to data set would be to look up missing chunks in external backup... which is exceedingly terrible idea due to the nature of multilayer neural nets, but that's different argument.

Of course you can repair brain damage - the brain does it all the time. Grow new cells, induce plasticity, new regions compensate for damaged regions. Right now we can't control this process very well, but it's certainly a thing that can and does happen.

M[i]ech wrote:
For bags to prevent brain damage they need to safely shut down brain before it damages itself by trying to keep working no matter what.
Well no, what they have to do is prevent damage. HOW they do that is unspecified. One obvious way would be "give it food and remove waste." Presumably they also 'sedate' the brain to keep the person from going crazy.

Quote:
Idea that sleep is death is complete nonsense. You exist no matter if you are awake or not. During sleep subconsciousness does maintenance on day's experiences, it's another facet of same person. Disregarding all the subconscious and autonomous processes critical to existence on a whim is beyond ludicrous. You may as well claim that you don't have motor control because it's not conscious, or that you stop breathing when you don't think about breathing, that's same grade argument. Nonsense.

Not at all. Let's talk motor function: Do you control your digestive tract? I talked about the ENS earlier - you've got a huge chunk of nervous system dedicated to getting shit through you (pardon the pun). You have ZERO voluntary control of it. We can cut it out of you and you will never notice it is gone (actually, it'll run independently). Is this part of the "you" we talk about when we say you did something? Thought something?

No. "You" are your conscious mind. Mostly the prefrontal cortex, as it happens. Some limbic system too, sprinkled in there for taste. If you accept that premise, we can move on to the continuity problem.

The idea here is that "you" is the continuous conscious experience. If somebody made a complete copy of you so you could have a nice chat, cuppa tea, whatever - that person might "be you" insofar as you once were the same person, but he is not the current you. There are now two identities, two conscious experiences, and one will never be the other. They are eternally independent.

If THAT is true, it doesn't matter if one ends before the other begins. Restoring from backup is still a second "you," a separate conscious experience.

And then, sleep. People like to talk about "unconscious takes over" or "lower level of consciousness," but none of that makes a lot of sense. The stream of consciousness is interrupted. We lose higher function, awareness, memory. Our brain keeps working, but like the ENS - working is NOT equivalent to conscious.

And so. The continuity argument, plus loss of conscious experience during sleep gets you the sleep problem.

Quote:
Disregarding all the subconscious and autonomous processes critical to existence on a whim is beyond ludicrous.
Let's make sure there's no confusion. I am not disregarding. I am saying that it doesn't make a conscious experience. I mean, it's kinda in the name, no?

Quote:
As long as your brain works, you live, when it stops, you die.
You assert this, but don't really make any good arguments on why that would be the case. Where am I wrong? About the nature of conscious experience? Do you have an actual argument on why the conscious experience is not "you?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:13 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:02 am
Posts: 778
Sean wrote:
...Brain damage is damage to the structure of the brain. That's like saying removing a dozen shelves worth of books from a library and destroying them is equivalent to a structure fire as applied to that same library. The library is more than books, it's also the catalog system, the climate control, the storage system, etc. The brain is more than just the memories and experiences acquired, it's also the mediating mechanisms....

That only holds up if you consider memory to be completely separate from the structure. I see no evidence to support that assertion, so I will continue to assume that all brain activity, including memory, is a function of structure. And to change any brain activity involves a change to the structure.

To support my point, I'll extend your metaphor. Burn down a library, and it ceases to be a library. Remove all the books from a library, and it also ceases to be a library (computers count as books for this argument). So removing books, in a way that they cannot be replaced, is still damaging the library, because books are part of what makes a library a library. And memory loss, no matter how it happened, is still brain damage.

Thus, Laz-5 backups involve a certain amount of functional brain loss. Technically it's not damage, because a new structure is being built rather than altering an existing structure. But only in the most strict sense of how we define damage. The brain is not the same as it was before the Laz-5 incident, so the brain has for all intents and purposes undergone a form of trauma, one that resulted in losing a certain amount of memory.

Unless you don't consider the Laz-5 clone to be the same person, of course, but then there are bigger issues.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group