flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > towards golden age

Goto page Previous  1, 2
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Post 15 Apr 2008, 17:09
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Madis731



Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 2141
Location: Estonia
Madis731
I need that - but in the future. I would like to make a translator not on Neural Networks (NN), but some dynamic (self-compilation) code generation with growing knowledge base. I need it to be controllable and this autoprogramming is my dream.

Thx, bookmarked Very Happy
Post 15 Apr 2008, 18:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
rugxulo wrote:
AlexP wrote:
It's simple really, "Without evil there can be no good, for what would good be compared to?"


Pure good defines itself, it doesn't need a comparison for that.
baloney

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 16 Apr 2008, 05:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Actually, good can be defined not only from evil, but also from neutral.

Here's a simple example: 1) You help someone else in need or care for them as you do for yourself

2) You ignore anyone else but also not harm them (even if you can do it)

3) You harm others as much as you can (or simply satisfy only your own greed)

1 is good, 2 is neutral, 3 is evil.

1 and 2 can still be defined without 3
Post 16 Apr 2008, 12:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
really true.

defining good in conjunction to bad is a way to justify the bad.

but just look in the universe or the nature.
the species who are devil exists like sharks of snakes, but i'm not sure they are devil as they are the guardian of the sea and the forest. and they are animals (assuming no conscience, then, no devil concsience.)

defining good as the absence of devil is a mistake because it try to JUSTIFY THE EXISTANCE OF DEVIL.
Post 16 Apr 2008, 12:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
Actually, good can be defined not only from evil, but also from neutral.

Here's a simple example: 1) You help someone else in need or care for them as you do for yourself

2) You ignore anyone else but also not harm them (even if you can do it)

3) You harm others as much as you can (or simply satisfy only your own greed)

1 is good, 2 is neutral, 3 is evil.

1 and 2 can still be defined without 3
If I kill and eat an animal (say a chicken) does that come under number 3?
Post 16 Apr 2008, 13:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
that is why the example was 'simple'.

depending on your views, you may consider it 'natural' or not -- but that is changing it into moral perspectives, which is a thing I would not like to get into right now.

but theoretically, by the definition of it, yes
Post 16 Apr 2008, 13:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
If I kill and eat a vegetable (say a carrot) does that come under number 3?
Post 16 Apr 2008, 13:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
IIRC vegetables don't feel, so I guess not
Post 16 Apr 2008, 13:46
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
You harm others as much as you can (or simply satisfy only your own greed)

That's how nature works. Only some plants can survive without any organic matter. All animals and many plants can only survive by "stealing" organic matter from others. The ones who can "steal" best survive, rest is already extinct.

Harming plants causes some reaction in them, just like harming animals do. In animals (humans included) the reaction is much more complicated, involves their neural network, mind, etc. If complexness is prequisite for "feeling", then plants don't "feel".
Post 16 Apr 2008, 13:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
IIRC vegetables don't feel, so I guess not
Who are you trusting for that knowledge? Have you tested it for yourself?
Post 16 Apr 2008, 13:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
That's how nature works. Only some plants can survive without any organic matter. All animals and many plants can only survive by "stealing" organic matter from others. The ones who can "steal" best survive, rest is already extinct.
Really? I never saw animals being amused by killing others, or for that matter, doing it more than they need to (ex: to become 'rich' or 'powerful').

oh, and the elephant paintings says it all.

revolution wrote:
Who are you trusting for that knowledge? Have you tested it for yourself?
Nope, but I am fine with some trusting -- at least as long as I admit that I do (because I admit science is 90% based on trust)
Post 16 Apr 2008, 13:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
A perspective exists for anything to be seen as evil, and another for it to be seen as good. Without specifying a perspective good, evil and anything inbetween have no meaning.

It is rather easy to find perspectives to attack any action to give it a negitive connotation. For example, if I helped the old lady down the street with her groceries. Seems like a generous act. Maybe it is better for her health to handle the matter herself. Maybe I am spying on her to see what she eats, or have a look in her house. Maybe I just want to feel like I've done my good deed for the day (pious).

It is no different with larger actions. Our ego pretends we can predict the future effects of our actions and justifies the righteousness of those actions. The truth is we cannot know the future, but only weigh our experiences against the choices presented to us. What can be right within one's experiences can be wrong in the larger immediate world.

The game of dualism is easy for anyone to play, but only creates turmoil in the world. In my opinion it is better to engage the situation of my concern and hence learn more about the dynamics of it. At any time in that process I can start dividing and calling one things good and another bad - mounting my reasons in each bin.

It is much more difficult to keep an open mind despite our experiences - some might say that is irrational, but not completely. I find it easy to forgive, but harder to forget. Sometimes I wish it was the other way around. Smile

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 16 Apr 2008, 14:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
Really? I never saw animals being amused by killing others, or for that matter, doing it more than they need to (ex: to become 'rich' or 'powerful').


I think I have read something like this about lions killing more than need, as an example. It is quite logical that killing gives your brain dose of hormones which makes it "fun" (ask some ex-punks who used to fight a lot about how it feeled). This makes it much probable for animal to "be bold", find food, guard territory, and survive. But when it gets kinda-addicted on these hormones, animal / human seeks it's dose of hormones even when there is no gain from it.

It is similar to sexuality, where both animals and humans overdo it, even when there is no gain, because of mechanism that makes it "feel good" applies even when it's not really good.

Unfortunately I can't remember the link where i was reading about this.
Post 16 Apr 2008, 14:39
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Quote:
...I never saw animals being amused by killing others, or for that matter, doing it more than they need to (ex: to become 'rich' or 'powerful').
About three decades ago, while living in Germany, I watched in horror, as a dog, a domestic dog, free from his owner's leash, chased rabbits around a park. Unfortunately, the dog not only chased the rabbits, he killed them. After twenty minutes, the park was littered with dead rabbits. The dog did not eat any of them. He just killed them, and then sauntered out of the park, with his owner. I don't know how the dog felt, but the owner had an M$ grin on his face....
Post 18 Apr 2008, 05:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Did you even think that the owner might have had an impact on the dog's attitude (like e.g: training him to be a killer)?
Post 18 Apr 2008, 11:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
In this case it is probable, but AFAIK same pattern is demonstrated by wild animals too.
Post 18 Apr 2008, 13:00
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
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
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.