You implied they didn't exist. I'd be offended by that.
And no, PCs are not like brains. And no, DF is not just a simulation of real-world stuff. (It also simulates fantasy stuff.)
Fantasy stuff is real-world stuff in disguise and operates under the same principles. The general framework of reality remains the same.
Regardless of if the claim is true or not (it varies by author), it doesn't really matter; the fantasy stuff is NOT, repeat NOT extant IRL. This makes your reasoning faulty and your conclusion invalid.
And PCs duplicate a human being's data processing abilities,
No, they exceed them.
while a simulation mimics a human being's imagination.
Nope. A simulation's creator creates it imaginitively, but the simulation itself just follows its rules.
The core ideas of these inventions aren't original, as they clearly are developed as duplications of a natural process or human capability.
Regardless of if this is true or not--and it isn't--the peripheral changes are often the most important.
Invention is not original creation, it is refinement and development.
It all depends on how you define it, but there are times that invention has come up with things no one had thought possible or sane, but which worked and revolutionized the world. Who in the 18th century would have thought setting a fire within a ship could make it run better than with good old sails? Yet it worked. Even if invention is just putting old parts together in new ways, the new ways are often innovative in and of themselves.
And I don't recall ever implying all those wonderful things don't exist.
When you denied the existence of people who invented radically different new inventions, you implied their nonexistence.
You can't wave a wand at something and have a computer program which copies it. Making a simulation is impressive and innovative, unless you're copying another's simulation.
But the idea of simulating something comes from the idea of playing out a situation in your head and the idea of observing the world, only the process (in this case playing out a situation) is realized through different, more precise means.
Sometimes? Maybe. Always? No. Usually? Probably not. Simulations are created to simulate things. They aren't doing the exact same thing in a different way.
What you're saying is essentially that if everyone measures water with their hands and you measure it with a bucket, you are being original. You are not. You are still measuring water, only using different means.
Even if that WAS an apt analogy--and it isn't--if people never thought to use vessels to measure water before, then someone did, that is (by definition) innovation. It would really revolutionize water-measurement, too.
That's missing the point. You might as well make dirt an American symbol--everyone has access to dirt!
Ah, but how much effort, imagination and skill has gone into the obtaining of a clod of dirt? How ingenious do you have to be to construct a razor-sharp sword from matchsticks and how ingenious is it to pick up some dirt? You are ignoring the important parameter here.
That particular argument I was countering was saying that since anyone could have a shiv, shivs are a good American symbol. Effort taken to get a shiv doesn't matter for that argument. I agree that my counterargument sucks when applied to an argument it wasn't countering.
Although true American soil might also make for a good symbol of America.
Alright, I'm not debating American symbols with you anymore. You seem to have no idea what makes a good national symbol. It should make the people of a nation
proud, not embarrassed by association!
I know, I've completely forgotten why we're debating if a shiv is a good national symbol.
Well, I'm mostly debating for the sheer hell of it, but also to see how far I can take the defense of this particular position. Good practice and good fun, I always say.
Whatever. I'm arguing with logic, you're arguing with insanity. I'm not going to try and argue more. It reminds me too much of debating theology in church.
Whose GM again?
Also what's a shiv?
TCM is the GM, and a shiv (also known as a shank) is an improvised (usually made of seemingly innocuous objects, such as a toothbrush) stabbing weapon. It is also the greatest symbol of ingenuity and innovation one could possibly think of.
Assuming that one is Harry Baldman.
Author
Topic: ROLL TO GM (Read 32572 times)