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.
