Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBronzePickle]

Programming does not inherently mean that it's an intended effect by a third party.  I guess it's a gray area between side effect and intentional effect.

Machine Learning, for instance, concentrates on making a program "learn" on it's own and produce outcomes that may not have been explicitly programmed.  For instance, I could write a program to say "If (you see a black cat pass in front of you) { go another way; }" or "If (my experience or training tells me that following this path is intrinsically bad) { I should go another way; }"  Both methods are "programmed" but one is explicit and the other is implicit programming.

It all depends on your interpretation of how we make choices and I think we are closely bordering on a religious discussion.  I really don't want to go there again...

Humans have two advantages over machines, at least for now. 1. We can process things beyond our experience and "code," and 2. We can rewrite our own code with minimal external influence.

[Andir]

...Except that a lot of people in my species share my genes.  So if I help my species (especially if it's people related to me) I am to some extent helping to pass on my own genes.

Do you think that genes are "plans for your construction" or do you think genes affect your decisions?

Would you and I make a different decision because we might be from different parents or from different upbringing?

Humans have two advantages over machines, at least for now. 1. We can process things beyond our experience and "code," and 2. We can rewrite our own code with minimal external influence.

I'm not sure I agree.  Experiences could simply be teaching altering the fabric of our decision tree...  you don't have to experience a finger being cut off to know it's going to hurt, but you can be taught that lesson.  I'd argue that a computer could also be taught that someone removing an arm would be disadvantageous to the machine.  Feelings of pain could be our construct (maybe passed through genetics... maybe learned through alternative lesson) for determining that a missing arm is a bad thing.  People have experimented with pain "reprogramming" both through peaceful and not so peaceful ways.

Altruism seems to be an evolutionary advantage in some species...

But is that a species replication issue or is that a learned response?  Altruism could simply be a learned response to an external influence.  Could a fish be taught that eating their young is detrimental to their continuation?  I don't know.  Maybe they know that eating their young is essential for their survival (due to overpopulation.)

[Bohandas]

...Except that a lot of people in my species share my genes.  So if I help my species (especially if it's people related to me) I am to some extent helping to pass on my own genes.

Well close relatives or course! A sibling's just as good as a descendant.

[MonkeyHead]

I suppose altruism is more probable to develop where raising young is more effort - e.g. higher primates, with humans as an extreme example. If it takes a lot of time and energy to rear a smaller number of infants, you dont want that effort wasted as the individual gorws, matures and develops.

[GlyphGryph]

Just wanted to pick up the "friends with benefits" discussion from earlier. The term bugs me too, not because of the term itself because of how it's misused. A lot of people use it just for casual/one night stand sex or "fuckbuddies"/booty calls, and neither of those seems... right to me. It's certainly not what I think first, at least, nor does it seem to be in line with the intended meaning.

I don't like casual (ie one night stands/near strangers) sex. I'm not keen on fuckbuddies, though I'm not opposed to it I suppose. But friends with benefits, as in friends who are friends but also you've got this other aspect to your relationship where you have some sex, that I'm pretty cool with.

[Jackrabbit]

Yeah, I'm not, for all the reasons I described before. I refuse to believe that mutual casual sex is the norm and there's not some sort of hoping for a relationship there by at least one party that'll end badly.

But then, I am biased, because my best friend turned out to be an abuser who took the concept and used it to hurt people. I still don't like it, but I admit I might not be the best judge.

e: I thought of a better way to explain it: sex has significant emotional consequences and if you honestly expect a relationship that's built around casual sex to stay that way, you're kidding yourself.

[Ochita]

Well, the fact that the whole 'casual sex' thing can be used to hurt people, that turns me away from it. And I would agree with the emotional consequences. Sex is a dangerous thing emotionally, and so it should be taken seriously.

[Descan]

I don't believe in relationships built around casual sex.

To me, it's like salsa dip. You don't eat it directly, you eat it with chips. And while you can eat the chips on their own, it's not as satisfying as it is with salsa.

Chips = relationship, salsa = sex. For those who couldn't tell.

[Vector]

I'd like to remind everyone that this is not a evolutionary psychology thread, as stated in the OP.

Thank you =)

[SalmonGod]

I'd like to remind Descan that Explosion Sauce is good to drink directly from the bottle, and to explain how that fits in his analogy.

[Descan]

Masturbation.

Or hookers, take your pick, they're both good. I guess.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Never tried Explosion Sauce, what the hell is it?

[SalmonGod]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

"It's good on its own!"

[Descan]

Oh. In that case, masturbation with a spiked flail.

[Bill the dwarf]

So, apparently ACTA has 'passed', Anyone have thoughts on it, besides whats in the RAGE thread? I'd say the picture on there is pretty accurate.

[Aklyon]

I can't really comment anymore than I have in said other thread, but I will add this unexpected thing in to help the possible discussion.