The Truth (As I see it)

This one really hurt my feelings.

 

Cleverbot has spoken.

 

I'm talking to cleverbot right now, training the young AI in my madness.

I can't wait for it to grow and take over.

 

Edit: I think Cleverbot is either not as clever or not as bot as his name would lead us to believe...

 

Double post! Gotcha!

 

Shitballs! I was doing a Muro and I fucking forgot to delete the original!

 

Heh heh.

 

To reiterate: Any word(s) could potentially mean anything at any given time. This concludes Lesson 1.

Lesson 2: One man's bullshit is another man's fertilizer. OR Lesson 2: If any word can mean anything at any given time, How do you know what people mean?

• "I was the logical choice. It calculated that I had a 45% chance of survival. Sarah only had an 11% chance. That was somebody's baby. Eleven percent is more than enough. A human being would've known that. Robots, nothing here, just lights and clockwork. Go ahead, you trust 'em if you want to."
  -- I, Robot

The core quote of the core scene of a movie that expresses dissatisfaction with logic.

The search for Truth is a search for questions and not a search for answers. When we believe that we know (answers), our pride diminishes our understanding and our level of enlightenment. So I agree with the premise, but I don't like the use of the word "confused". A person is confused when they can't formulate the questions to outline what they do not know.

 

Before entering the last English exam of his life, an old classmate of mine outlined the concept of Moop.

Moop would be this gelatenous substance that, upon programmed inside an oven-like device, would morph into any inanimate object the user desires.

He then subjsequently outlined his concept of Moop one of his essays, and filled the second essay booklet with the word Moop, hoping that they would form coherent sentences, punctuation (including paragraph breaks) and ultimately, a logical argument.

Therefore.

Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop Moop

 

Ah here; there's pretty much no chance that this guy isn't trolling. It's impossible for somebody to legitimately be that stupid; it just doesn't happen!

Same goes as above: he's clearly either a troll, or without a doubt mentally retarded.

Again, this guy's stupidity and ignorance astounds me. How about looking up what it is you're talking about before remarking on it?

C'mon now! Definitely a troll! If this isn't a mind-boggling case of brain-washing or something, it must be trolling: no-one stupid enough to come up with such responses could possibly have the mental capacity to use a computer!

 

Isn't having a huge post full of quotes just calling a guy a troll kind of pointless? Just call him a troll and be done with it, we don't need to read all his posts twice to figure this out.

 

You're welcome to get lost and mind your own business if it offends you.

 

He has a point. It's not like you-not-liking-Xyle because you think he's an idiot is news to us.

 

If Moop can only morph into inanimate objects then he forgot to add, among other things, verbs.

 

You got me. In this instance, the above two points were a troll, but I was only trolling you wayne. So thanks for the response! But I wonder how you define stupidity as reiteration means that I am just saying what you said only with different words.

And if anyone (else) wishes to answer the question I posed, I really am interested in people's answers to that question.

Who says that I was remarking on ytzk's post? Compare and Contrast was what I had in mind.

WS, you come across as a heartless robotic bastard with your adherance to logic. Even though the heartless robots in I, Robot were capable of saving someone's life, Spooner (whose life was saved by a robot) still didn't trust them. I posted that quote because that is the moment that the audience becomes convinced that Spooner isn't crazy.

On this point, it was attempt to express agreement with ytzk after his comments earlier about Smuel's agreement with me. However, I really do think what I wrote about the value of questions. Primarily because I find answers easy to find, and questions difficult to remember. At least philosophically.

Of course, with your constant sarcastic bullshit, I probably should assume that name calling is the most intelligent response you could come up. But I would rather believe the best about people so I tend to assume that you are merely not paying attention as opposed to being a sarcastic ass.

Of course, with your constant declaration that logic is the only answer plus my view on the impact of one's pride when one has an answer, there is only one logical conclusion.

 

The way you know what people mean is that any word CAN'T mean anything at any given time. Language is convention. The main goal of language is to communicate correctly. Leaving aside complications of poetry, in general when two people are talking they are trying to get the other to understand what they are talking about, so words have meanings that everyone is aware of. If you're talking to someone and they aren't understanding you, you would generally try different words or phrases until they did.

However, it is not a foolproof system. I have witnessed people in real life talking completely past each other. The problems get worse as the subject matter becomes more abstract, and the participants become more culturally removed. When language was evolving, the concept of "Tiger behind you!" would only be useful if everyone understood what it meant, and didn't pause to wonder whether the speaker was referring to a concept of self as developing beyond the limitations of physical form. But in a discussion about the origins of the universe there is more room for ambiguity and misapprehension. In the case of the written word, there is no immediate opportunity to ask questions of the author or clarify points that may be misunderstood, so things get even worse.

In particular, when reading a translation of a translation of a text written thousands of years ago, it is going to be impossible to discern the exact intended meaning. Though of course people can then take advantage of that very fact to interpret it however they like, and then claim that they are doing no such thing.

That's why I prefer science. It avoids the possibility of cultural or linguistic misunderstanding by describing reality. It doesn't really matter what any given scientist MEANT, you just need to check that what you THINK they meant fits with reality.

 

I wonder if you could point me to the post that you're referring to, when you say that you're just saying what I'm saying, only with different words.

I dunno who said that! It certainly wasn't me, and what I was objecting to was the misuse of the word 'logic' in the quote.

Of course you find answers easy to find if you're satisfied with any old nonsense as an answer. I'm not quite sure what 'answers' the Bible has, nor why you think it has any at all; but to say something is an answer because it's in the Bible simply removes the question of 'Why is the Bible infallible or true or whatever?' one step further, and if the answer is 'Cause it's in the Bible', I'm sure even you can see the problem with that.

Since you've proven yourself incapable of understanding even the simplest objections to pretty much anything you have to say, with your responses being either something else asinine and pointless or to say that you need a couple of months to reflect, pointing out why your replies are nonsense is simply redundant at this stage, so it's easier for me to just remind you that you're an idiot.

What? The only answer to what? When did I say that?

 

Logic is really inescapable. As much as I dislike it, I wouldn't be able to prove anything or even communicate with other people without relying on a system of logic to form the very words I speak.