Newsgroups: rec.games.computer.quake.editing,rec.games.computer.quake.playing,rec.games.computer.quake.misc,rec.games.computer.quake.servers
Path: clanworld.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!dbongard
From: dbongard@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
Subject: Re: Quake, Violence, Guns, Constitution, et al
Message-ID: <dbongardEHE23G.9Co@netcom.com>
Followup-To: rec.games.computer.quake.editing,rec.games.computer.quake.playing,rec.games.computer.quake.misc,rec.games.computer.quake.servers
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <5vf0bs$3n0$3@darla.visi.com> <01bcc0c6$a718a8c0$aa711fcc@default> <5vhaeg$6n5@news.enter.net> <01bcbd04$15545b20$e32d63c3@default> <5vhktn$9f7@news.enter.net> <341C5B22.9D579452@geocities.com> <MPG.e875093baedf9aa9896e7@news.inet.tele.dk> <34250624.B946EA9B@sover.net> <3425C542.E8BF1FE3@bscc.bls.com> <loop-ya023180002209971541460001@news.algonet.se> <3426EBB0.7C4FB9CE@sover.net> <342838E0.408D06E8@tip.nl> <loop-ya023180002409970243040001@news.algonet.se> <01bcc8bf$fac5b160$646464b5@JRS486.microtronics.com> <60bpum$f7v@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <34296E54.F66B3F3F@geocities.com> <342bb2e2.2086138@news.iastate.edu> <342C2430.31F@valhalla.fc.hp.com> <342e6381.48844842@news.iastate.edu> <dbongardEH91Fx.Fn2@netcom.com> <342f2841.9310438@news.iastate.edu> <dbongardEHABHq.Iv7@netcom.com> <loop-ya023180003009970005100001@news.algonet.se> <dbongardEHArJ4.GC8@netcom.com> <loop-ya023180003009972323230001@news.algonet.se>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:57:16 GMT
Lines: 159
Sender: dbongard@netcom13.netcom.com
Xref: clanworld.com rec.games.computer.quake.editing:8779 rec.games.computer.quake.playing:21104 rec.games.computer.quake.misc:14934 rec.games.computer.quake.servers:4880

Thomas Weigle (loop@127.0.0.1) wrote:
: Dan Bongard wrote:

: <Douglas Adams snipped>

:> Very funny books, but the fact that you consider them "philosophy"
:> really explains quite a bit.

: Rather not. Does a book have to have "PHILOSOPHY" plastered all over
: it in order for it to be somewhat philosophical?

No. It has to contain some form of reasoning, rather than a simple 
statement of belief or value in a humorous manner. Douglas Adams
makes fun of a lot of stuff in a humorous manner, but he never
gives any reasons for doing so -- he never ties his book to the
real world in any way, shape, or form. Ergo only an idiot would
take his jokes as "philosophy", or think they were rules to live by.

: It's not just humour and a witty story, there's a great deal of 
: interesting points and tidbits, as well as thought provoking ideas
: in those books.

The opinions of a fictional race of sentient dolphins are not
relevant to the real world. Fine, they thought they were intellgent
because they didn't have cars, radios, etc -- how is that thought
provoking? Fictional dolphins express a baseless anti-intellectual
opinion and this is somehow "thought-provking"? Not to rational
people. It is only "thought provoking" to you because it mimics
and opinion you already hold, and you use the term "thought-provoking"
to mean "saying things you agree with".

: On the other hand, what defines intelligence?

Human scientists and dictionary authors. The term has no objective meaning.

: We think we are more intelligent than mice [snip]

... because we define what intelligence is. Classify it how you like.

: What if they are studying us to see how we react to their different
: "reactions" in that maze? 

What if life is an illusion and nothing exists? What if the world is
being secretly manipulated by Evil Space Pixes I'll never see? What
if I'm just an AI in a box programmed to believe I'm a software
engineer engaging in an inane conversation with an under-educated moron?
There is no evidence to prove or disprove any of those things, nor do
I see the point in caring whether they're true. It is pointless to
worry about the answers to questions you will never find answers to.
Feel free to amuse yourself by thinking about pointless nonsense like
"mice secretly experimenting on scientists", or Santa Claus, or
whatever else suits your irrational nature. 

[Intelligence as a tool for survival]

:> A straw man argument. Humans are more intelligent not because we
:> have built bombs, but because we are more capable of abstract
:> reasoning and innovation than any other species in existance. Our
:> intelligence is our main survival tool. A dolphin's intelligence
:> isn't even sufficient to keep it out of tuna nets. When faced
:> with a new threat, humans develop the tools and techniques necessary
:> to avoid, neutralize, or eliminate the threat. We pool our resources
:> to solve the problem. When dolphins are confronted with a new threat,
:> they die. That's what makes us smarter. 

: Dolphins are known to mentally heal depressed people who swim with them.

In some people. Having pet goldfish, cats, mice, guinea pigs, etc, also
helps to cure depression in some people. The empathic relationship
involved helps offset the feeling of loneliness they feel. Most
people just enjoy being friendly and loving with other things. Animals
can fit that category, just like humans can.

: It's not something I just invented.

Just something you misunderstood. The explanation is quite simple.

: There's a serious debate going on whether dolphins and other whales
: can actually communicate telepathically.

No, there isn't. Sure, there's a debate -- between scientists on the
"no they can't" side, and loonies with no understanding of research
on the other side. The same "serious debate" is occuring over whether
human telepathy exists, whether crop circles are made by UFOs, whether
the Loch Ness Monster exists, etc.

: Neither did I invent that.

No, you just misunderstood it again. You assume that a disagreement
between people like yourself and people who actually know what they're
talking about constitutes a "serious debate". To date there has been
absolutely no evidence of dolphin telepathy (or any other kind),
so no serious researcher is claim dolphin TP exists.

: The only new "threat" that we humans have encountered in the last 
: 1000 or so years are ourselves.

Wrong on several counts. First, we are constantly meeting new animals
and diseases -- the former were sometimes threats until the last
century or so, the latter can still represent a threat today. Secondly,
humanity is not a unified whole. If one group of humans meet another
who represents a threat, they use their brains to figure out what to
do. This is a legitimate use of intelligence, since we are social animals.
Thirdly, a threat does not have to be "new" in a worldy sense in
order to represent a "new" threat to a particular human or group of
humans.

: It's taken us very long time to adapt to every new threat,

Anywhere from a few seconds to several decades, depending on the threat.
And again, it doesn't matter whether the threat is "new". The nets
dolphins tangle themselves in aren't "new" either; they've been around
for years. Humans would have solved this problem in a few minutes.

: The dolphins have only encountered the tuna nets for about forty
: years, and massively for less than twenty years.

Gee, _only_ forty years to figure out how not to swim into a net? 
That's only about a million times longer than it would take a human,
and they still haven't figured it out. Heck, they could just use their
'telepathy' on a human to figure out how to do it, if it came to that. :)

: I'm pretty certain that they will adapt in no time. 

There is no evidence that they've made any steps towards adapting thus far.

: Back to the way dolphins communicate. Since Homo locus (the speaking human)
: is probably a better term for human beings than homo sapiens, since it is
: what has made us what we are, 

Your utter ignorance of linguistics, psychology, and evolution is both
pathetic and disturbing. Speech is not what makes us what we are;
intelligence is. It has been demonstrated empirically that people
incapable of using or understanding language are still capable of human-
level feats of intelligence such as complicated reasoning and abstraction.
The theory that speech makes us what we are was quaint when it was 
introduced, but the burden of proof against it and utter lack of proof
supporting it has led to most intelligent and educated people dismissing
it as a possibility.

: if dolphins truly are telepathic in their communication, they are
: definitely one step ahead of us.

Since (a) they aren't telepathic, (b) they would be intellectually
inferior even if they WERE telepathic, and (c) they are doing a
shitty job of surviving on their own, dolphins are clearly anything
but "one step ahead of us". Whatever "one step ahead" means -- the
only interspecies competition on this planet is that of survival,
wherein we are whipping the pants off the rest of the mammalian
population of this world.

: Everybody should at least take a look at what Asimov, Heinlein, Adams,
: Orwell et al have to say, beyond the robots, laser guns and space ships.

Everybody should bear in mind that all of these men wrote extremely
simple stories for extremely simple universes, and it would be a 
dreadful mistake to apply their ideas to our world as is.

-- Dan
