Aaron "Castironpi" Brady wrote: > On Sep 12, 7:23 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> castironpi wrote: >> >> If you are flattered to be compared to an AI you must come from the same >> race as Mr. Spock in Star Trek. > > No, I said 'for my logic to compared'. Speaking of which, I think you > excluded the possibility of diligent and ethical human, which meets > the criteria (of being flattered to be compared to an AI)... unless > Vulcan is just a synonym for it. If you want a discussion of why a > diligent and ethical human takes pride in / devotes effort to logic, > that's another topic that I'm happy to engage on. > >> You aren't entitled to require discussion of your ideas and proposals. > > No, but you are entitled to human interaction. If your case is that I > should seek mine face-to-face instead of keyboard-to-screen, you > probably have a point. > > ... > >> [...] >> >>> For example, I sometimes hear people talk about salary as though it >>> were social approval, and vice versa. Even though the analogy doesn't >>> hold in every case generally, it is still a good way to express >>> yourself in many contexts, and especially when the more precise word >>> isn't on the tip of your tongue. >> Perhaps under those circumstances the better choice is to hold off >> posting and do some research until you come up with the proper word. > > Yes I know. Good thing everyone at Mozilla agrees with you, and > Thesaurus.Com is included in Firefox's quicksearch engines. > >> Precision in the expression of ideas encourages debate, whereas sloppy >> "just write what you feel" is likely to result in hostile responses, as >> it causes the perception that you value your own time more than that of >> the people you attempt to engage. > > But the value of expression and self-expression can outweigh the value > of debate, even in so stuffy a setting as a Usenet group. Make time > for both or stifle your emotions. Do you hold I should be speaking > from the heart more or less? > > Regardless, you've contradicted yourself: > > 1) "just write what you feel" is likely to result in hostile responses > 2) If you are flattered to be compared to an AI you must [not be > human] > > Assume you, Steve, do as you say (practice what you preach). You do > not write either "just what you feel", nor anything that can be > compared to an A.I. Define the goal of A.I. to be logic and reasoned > "post-impulsive" deliberation (my title to define as I voiced the > flattery). Then conclude you don't post to the newsgroup. Observe > you do, and reach an absurdity. What premise do you retract? > > Knowing nothing of your background in philosophy or otherwise, it may > be a little unfair to put words in your mouth like that. It's a deep > problem (that yes, does have implications on the "diligent and > ethical" issue above) of human nature and the human condition: If > you're not rational, then you're a man. > > Besides, it is better to complain to the group that it is dropping my > posts than to anyone else. > The defence rests.
regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
