Bay 12 Games Forum

Finally... => Life Advice => Topic started by: Ignoro on February 25, 2009, 01:12:26 pm

Title: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Ignoro on February 25, 2009, 01:12:26 pm
Alright. Don't read this spoiler. It makes me sad. I did not make that thread for ID.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I've taken some aspirins and I think I can say exactly what I want you all to hear clearly now:

You are an animal. Your higher thought is partially restricted at times to this fact. Be self aware of how you think and why you think that. Your mind is not entirely your own. Instinct makes us crack things down into absolute blacks and whites and forces us to be narrow. It forces us to think things and be hostile.

How do I suggest you avoid this? Well, you can't. It's a sad impossibility that you will never completely break free of your limitations. What I do suggest is to approach ideas in the following manner:

1 ) What is your immediate reaction?
2 ) Override that. This is the hardest part.
3 ) Defend or attack whatever idea you normally wouldn't.
4 ) Do so until you can no longer, or until you can see the other side from the one you're on. TRY to see the other side. Force yourself to waver to the other side.
6 ) Keep respect for whatever side you forced yourself into. This is the other hard part.
7 ) Go until you no longer can, or until you can see the other side from the one you're on.  TRY to see the other side. Force yourself to waver to the other side.
8 ) Repeat back and forth. Find the fence.
9 ) Now you've done both. Don't pick one. Pick bits while sitting on the fence. What bits of truth did each have?
10 ) Compromise into the grey. Any shade. Go back and forth again if you have to.

YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO PROVE OR DISPROVE ANYTHING. YOU ARE TRYING TO SEE MORE.
You should begin to realize some things most people normally don't. Such as that not one of the sides is 100% correct in every aspect. There is no right or wrong answer. Some may be better than others at certain things, but you begin to see shades of grey as there is and how everything has some value. Do not fight from compromising, compromise if just because you can see where it is necessary.
If you use fighting words, things that even you could find irrelevant with intentions of fighting to the death, claim a traditional view as 100% correct in every aspect, or any sort of put down:
YOU LOSE.

You can never really win, as there is nothing to win. As soon as you feel an objective to WIN, you're slipping.
The objective is broader perspective and respect.

Who am I to tell you this? I have no right to. But nor do any of you I think.

Here's the fun idea I came across that brought this on:
I reject autonomous thought therefore I am of free mind.

It then occurred to me that the above is impossible to achieve, and the motives from which the need arises to do so is self defeating.

I'm going to have to refrain from posting before I've fully composed myself.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to retire somewhere that people don't eat my exhibits.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: chaoticag on February 25, 2009, 01:48:31 pm
The way I approach any idea is as follows:

1. How does this sound? Does it contradict anything that I know for undeniable truth? What about things that seems more likely?

2. Does it contradict itself? Anything that strikes me as increadibly odd about?

3. Is it valid? Where and how did it come about? What people believe about it, and where would you find its greatest supporters? A newspaper is not a valid source of scientific information, as reporters are not scientists.

After that, it should be worth putting an idea in your head. Knowing both sides of an arguments is something to know before jumping into something, and avoid sticking to one side of something if there is overwhelming evidence agains you. You will at one point or another be found wrong, which is fine but it is best to learn how to distinguish between scientific articles which are true or false.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: mainiac on February 25, 2009, 02:53:45 pm
tl;dr

...I spent last evening reading about gas cycles.  Not because I had to, because I found it stimulating.  But the OP is boring even to me.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Yanlin on February 25, 2009, 03:04:25 pm
Quote from: mainiac on February 25, 2009, 02:53:45 pm
tl;dr

...I spent last evening reading about gas cycles.  Not because I had to, because I found it stimulating.  But the OP is boring even to me.

You are no longer welcome in this awesome thread.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: inaluct on February 25, 2009, 06:50:17 pm
tl;dr

Ignoro needs to learn the fine art of expressing an idea concisely.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Gunner-Chan on February 25, 2009, 09:10:02 pm
Quote from: inaluct on February 25, 2009, 06:50:17 pm
Ignoro needs to learn the fine art of expressing an idea concisely.

Agreed, should you found a ministry to help people like him out?
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: inaluct on February 25, 2009, 09:14:31 pm
Hmm. Good idea.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Armok on February 25, 2009, 10:13:16 pm
I need to PM or email the OP, is he banned? If it sees this, I urge it to use the Email button in my profile so we can communicate that way. I only post here as his own topic seems a likely place for him to look and I do not participate in the discussion.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Toady One on February 26, 2009, 01:32:14 am
I didn't do anything.  It looks like he deleted himself.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Strife26 on February 26, 2009, 01:59:58 am
Pulled a Fenrir?
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: IndonesiaWarMinister on February 26, 2009, 03:41:44 am
... Is that a real word?

[Punch me. I know it's a word]
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Rooster on February 26, 2009, 05:13:47 am
Try thinking that "god" (I'm not talking to muslims or buddha followers right now) is the ultimate evil, and you'll just do what this topic told you to. Hitler is a merciful tactician compared to Moseh (I. Hate. Him. So. MUCH.). Also why only 5% of believers actually reads the bible? And why are people around me stupid enough to deny the fact that we ARE animals. Thinking like a slave or a peasant(on offense to actual peasants) is sad.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on February 26, 2009, 06:00:17 am
We're not animals. We're essentially the same as animals, but we're not animals per se, as it's a very definite distinction. We're all biochemical machines, yes, both us and animals.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on February 26, 2009, 07:33:26 am
Quote from: Sean Mirrsen on February 26, 2009, 06:00:17 am
We're not animals. We're essentially the same as animals, but we're not animals per se, as it's a very definite distinction. We're all biochemical machines, yes, both us and animals.

Noo, check out the word animal in a dictionary (http://"http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/animal"), you have it backwards. You can use the word animal and mean only animals other than humans, but that is a secondary, non-scientific usage of the word. Humans are scientifically classified as animals.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on February 26, 2009, 08:06:25 am
Well, scientifically we are all animals, we're also mammals, omnivores, and primate derivatives (some are more derived than others). But really, we are no more than biomachines, and from that perspective the definition of "animal" versus "human" is pretty distinct. Scientifically the raspberry and the watermelon have a lot more in common than one would think, but I only call watermelons "berries" when I want to amuse the listener. Think of us as the watermelons of berries - we stand out from the crowd, so we call ourselves humans and differentiate ourselves from primates regardless of who we scientifically are.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Yanlin on February 26, 2009, 09:26:59 am
Ugh. I've been preaching this forever. Humans ARE animals. Period. I SAID PERIOD!
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Jonathan S. Fox on February 26, 2009, 09:27:27 am
Quote from: Sean Mirrsen on February 26, 2009, 08:06:25 am
Well, scientifically we are all animals, we're also mammals, omnivores, and primate derivatives (some are more derived than others). But really, we are no more than biomachines, and from that perspective the definition of "animal" versus "human" is pretty distinct. Scientifically the raspberry and the watermelon have a lot more in common than one would think, but I only call watermelons "berries" when I want to amuse the listener. Think of us as the watermelons of berries - we stand out from the crowd, so we call ourselves humans and differentiate ourselves from primates regardless of who we scientifically are.

That'd be all well and good if you're guiding the discussion and you decided to talk about animals and mean non-human animals, but people talk about humans as animals (and as primates, and as mammals) quite frequently, and they mean it literally. You can't just butt into their conversations and tell them they're wrong for saying humans are animals. Well, really, you CAN, but you'll look really silly for doing so.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on February 26, 2009, 10:06:34 am
I don't like words with multiple meanings. The definition of "animal" is basically any complex biochemical mechanism of a certain composition, as opposed to, say, plants. In that sense, humans are animals. But with our society being what it is, there has to be a word for all animals that aren't in the Homo genus. Since we're all lazy bastards, we kept the term as is and invented a word for ourselves instead. On the scientific level, you can say humans are animals, but I avoid using this statement in everyday speech because of the difference between the non-scientific definitions of humans and animals in the society.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Jim Groovester on February 27, 2009, 02:13:28 am
Humans are rational animals. They have the same basic functions that all other animals do, with the exceptional characteristic of intelligence and self awareness, as well as the ability to curtail their animalistic tendencies.

As for the OP,
Quote from: Ignoro on February 25, 2009, 01:12:26 pm
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to retire somewhere that people don't eat my exhibits.
Me thinks you think far too highly of yourself and your opinions.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on February 27, 2009, 02:32:11 am
We can't say that no "animals" are capable of self-awareness or rational thought until we have a way to communicate with animals at their own level. And don't judge intelligence by brain size.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Jim Groovester on February 27, 2009, 03:11:01 am
Quote from: Sean Mirrsen on February 27, 2009, 02:32:11 am
We can't say that no "animals" are capable of self-awareness or rational thought until we have a way to communicate with animals at their own level. And don't judge intelligence by brain size.

So, you agree with me then that humans are indeed rational animals, with the condition that perhaps we aren't the only ones, or that other animals are self-aware and rational to some degree?

And I never made any comparison between brain size and intelligence.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on February 27, 2009, 03:25:29 am
We humans are just an evolved part of the Homo genus, and that's about the only thing special about us as far as "animals" go. That and we were the first ones to form a pack large enought to oppress all other animals. Yes, I think there are other animals that posess a degree of self-awareness and rationality, there is just no way to tell without a means of communication. I suppose other animals are happy enough as they are and don't have the ridiculous desire to "go beyond". I still stand by my classification of human versus animal, at least until there is another word for nonhuman animals.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Jude on February 28, 2009, 02:21:55 am
Quote from: Sean Mirrsen on February 27, 2009, 02:32:11 am
We can't say that no "animals" are capable of self-awareness or rational thought until we have a way to communicate with animals at their own level. And don't judge intelligence by brain size.

Just so you guys know, brain size has a whole lot to do with intelligence. Brains are greedy organs and suck up a huge amount of energy. They generally don't grow any bigger than they have to be in order to reach whatever cognitive capacities they generate. That's why physical anthropologists can draw inferences about the cognitive abilities of human ancestors based on brain size...it's how we figure that homo habilis was smarter than australopithecus afarensis.
Title: One of the few things that I actually feel "guilt" about
Post by: Bromor Neckbeard on February 28, 2009, 09:42:36 am
I'm of the opinion that octopi are rational beings.  Look at this behavior:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmDTtkZlMwM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juj5XyHiwDs&feature=related

Maybe that's conscious, maybe it's instinctual.  I don't know.  But, I've seen things that make me believe that it's conscious.

See, my dad used to have a saltwater aquarium on a table in his living room with various fish and crabs that he collected from work.  (He worked at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute)  One day when I was down visiting him, he brought home an octopus (which we named Octavio) that he'd found in a tide pool.  This little guy was fascinating to watch.  He managed to depopulate that entire tank, killing fish and crabs that were five times his size.

To keep a steady supply of food on hand for the little dude, my dad set up a freshwater aquarium with a population of guppies on a desk a few feet away from Octavio's home.  We figured that he could see them, but not get at them, until me or my dad put them in his tank.

But as it turned out, the guppies kept disappearing.  We figured that they were fighting or that one of the neighborhood cats or a raccoon was getting them.  However, after five days of the guppy population steadily declining, my dad saw this octopus squeeze out of his tank, down the table, across the floor, and up the desk to get at the guppy tank, and then return to his own tank.

Now, in my opinion, that would require rational thought.  From the floor or the side of the desk, a creature two inches long could not see either the guppy tank or his home tank.  He would have to plan in advance how to get to the other tank, and remember both where his home tank was and where the guppy tank was, in an environment that would slowly kill him and stop most of his senses from working.

Sadly, his intellect did not save him from my misjudgement.  Since he killed anything and everything that we put in his tank, I wanted something else in his tank that he wouldn't kill.  We got a sea anemone from one of the tide pools where my dad found Octavio and put it in the tank.  Surprisingly, Octavio almost immediately attacked it, but a wrestling match with something his size that was coated with a billion poisonous stingers proved fatal for that poor little octopus.  I still have Octavio in a jar of alcohol on my windowsill.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: codezero on March 09, 2009, 10:38:38 am
That's a cool story about the octopus, but are you sure your dad wasn't telling fibs to a kid? Pretty wacked, but then again, i suppose they don't have gills do they?

To the human debate, if you believe in global warming, water crisis and such you'll see we're up there with the dumbest of animals. Putting laziness before self preservation for as long as possible, like a fly that sees the opening in a window but continues to fly into the window.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Osmosis Jones on March 24, 2009, 09:46:32 am
Similar behaviour has been observed in lab experiments, so I doubt it was a made up story :p
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Jude on March 24, 2009, 10:02:01 am
I'm not at all surprised at accounts of "intelligent" behavior in animals; there's no doubt that many/most animals experience some kind of consciousness like what humans do - including in many cases some of the same emotions - and it calls into question what "intelligence" is.

While I don't think anyone would be ready to argue that octopi (or whatever) have "rationality" in the sense of manipulating abstract ideas and constructing syllogisms, animals absolutely have intelligence after their own kind, as needed to deal with the niche they evolved into. The human brain is a work of many, many millions of years of evolution, during which many other species have evolved which thus share some of the basic cognitive architecture of humans.

Intelligence is probably best defined as ability to adaptively interact with the environment anyway. Of course when the environment is manipulated or changes drastically, the gaps in intelligence can be revealed - such as in humans, demonstrated in many many psychology experiments. Intelligence is certainly not a monolithic trait; more a collection of numerous mental mechanisms, some of which in animals are probably the same or similar to some in humans.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Iituem on March 24, 2009, 03:14:52 pm
Quote from: Sean Mirrsen on February 26, 2009, 08:06:25 am
But really, we are no more than biomachines, and from that perspective the definition of "animal" versus "human" is pretty distinct.

This is a bit like saying that a clock is no more than a handy collection of bits of oddly shaped metal that move.  We know that a clock is more than just gears and motion, despite consisting only of gears and motion.  This is true in the same way that Dwarf Fortress is more than just an oodleplex of silicon bits flicking back and forth and an electron gun making a screen light up in pretty colours.  While a dog consists of nothing further than a varied selection of meat and bone, given the choice between a terrier and a smorgasboard of offal and bonemeal, which would you rather have lick your hand and bring you your slippers?

The human brain is a rather large mass of specialised meat.  The mind that arises from that is what makes it distinct from glorified sausage.

Steve Grand puts this viewpoint forward a lot more eloquently than I can in his book Creation: Life and How to Make It, an excellent guide for anyone planning to build an AI from scratch or just understand why it is we are distinct from sea anemonae.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Jude on March 24, 2009, 04:32:55 pm
We're distinct from animals in our own eyes because we're chauvinistic about human intelligence. Steven Pinker uses the excellent analogy of elephants' trunks in ridiculing SETI. He takes some quote from a proponent of searching for alien intelligence and replaces all references to the mind with references to elephant trunks, attributing it to the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Trunks on a planet populated by elephants. The point being, an elephant's trunk is an organ every bit as complex, fascinating and remarkable as the human mind, but because we are not chauvinistic about trunks, the notion that trunks would necessarily evolve on other worlds - or are qualitatively different from other traits evolved in the animal kingdom - seems laughable.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Idiom on March 24, 2009, 05:14:51 pm
Looks like I missed this while I was gone.

OP: In my own words, you want us to find merit in ideas we oppose? I'm not quite sure what he meant, but that's what I was just sarcastically said not too long ago, so it's kind of on my mind.

To the current discussion:
I agree completely that we are animals, very complex ones, but are inherently subjective to whatever subconscious motives being an animal involves. Freud? Seeing as the only difference between us and monkeys that affects intelligence is brain size and complexity, I'd assume that less complex and/or large brains can do slightly less complex and large cognitive behavior. So that Octopus was driven by instinct to cross to the other tank, but his consciousness is what allowed him to figure out a way?

Quote
the notion that trunks would necessarily evolve on other worlds - or are qualitatively different from other traits evolved in the animal kingdom - seems laughable.
That didn't make sense to me. The notion that minds like ours would develop on alien worlds laughable. Hell yes. Laughable that they would NOT have traits like our animals? What? It sounds like you just said that a specific trait would not develop (trunks), but the trunks would not be different from ours at all? The notion that minds like ours would not develop I immediately said "laughable" because they WOULD have different traits from ours.
Title: Re: Approaching foreign ideas
Post by: Jude on March 24, 2009, 07:17:37 pm
Quote from: Idiom on March 24, 2009, 05:14:51 pm

To the current discussion:
I agree completely that we are animals, very complex ones, but are inherently subjective to whatever subconscious motives being an animal involves. Freud? Seeing as the only difference between us and monkeys that affects intelligence is brain size and complexity, I'd assume that less complex and/or large brains can do slightly less complex and large cognitive behavior. So that Octopus was driven by instinct to cross to the other tank, but his consciousness is what allowed him to figure out a way?
Well, the distinction between "instinct" and "intelligence/consciousness" is an artificial one. They're both the product of mental machinery which evolved for certain reasons. Intelligence is basically a collection of interconnected, very sophisticated instincts which together make for very adaptable and novel behavior.

Quote
That didn't make sense to me. The notion that minds like ours would develop on alien worlds laughable. Hell yes. Laughable that they would NOT have traits like our animals? What? It sounds like you just said that a specific trait would not develop (trunks), but the trunks would not be different from ours at all? The notion that minds like ours would not develop I immediately said "laughable" because they WOULD have different traits from ours.

Huh?

Basically what I was saying is that on any given alien planet, the odds that an animal would evolve with a trunk like an elephant's are extremely miniscule. Same goes for the human mind. But because people have such an attitude about our own minds, we tend to see it as natural that life if it exists will ultimately result in intelligence that looks like ours. But our gut feeling doesn't foresee the same outcome when it comes to other animal traits - like an elephant trunk.

Similarly, our minds are no different than elephant trunks other than that one happens to grant its owner the power to develop culture and technology and ultimately dominate the planet, and the other is good for myriad other things which don't result in those developments. There's no qualitative difference between the organs in a human's head and on an elephant's face in terms of evolutionary development.