English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

user19161

00:00

Yo @kit! What's up?

KitFox

Ohai!

I forgot what I was doing again.

user19161

1

Q: What does "implement to" mean?

On UEFI page we can read: Acknowledging that you understand a license is required to implement to the Specification does not now or in future commit you either to completing an Adopter's Agreement or to doing any implementation work. If you are planning to implement to the Specification, plea...

vocabulary

user19161

Never heard "implement to".

KitFox

Ugh. That's a new one.

user19161

Hmm, Chrome is quite slow at loading chat. Sometimes I don't see a message till a few minutes later.

user19161

00:03

I just got some spam asking me to subscribe to some Jewish mailing list. I wonder what I ever did to get that. I am not even on Jewish SE.

David Wallace

00:14

@JasperLoy Really? Common for programmers, I thought.

If there's a specification, you can implement to it, or you can implement to something else.

user19161

@DavidWallace Oh then please answer it. I am not a programmer.

David Wallace

@JasperLoy It already has an adequate answer. I see no need to repeat it.

user19161

@DavidWallace Ah, the answer just came in I see.

David Wallace

and "because I can" isn't really a good answer to "why should I post answers on SE".

Robusto

There is an implied subject. "... to implement [your software] to the Specification ..."

David Wallace

00:21

and I'm not sure of the legitimacy of a licence which tells me which specifications I may or may not implement to.

Robusto

Anyway, this is legalese, not English.

user19161

English legalese then?

Cerberus

Hi.

Robusto

It's a different dialect.

Hi, Kerberos.

Cerberus

Hi, Robur.

user19161

00:23

Is Kerberos the new Cerberus?

user19161

Also is Robur the new Robusto?

Cerberus

I don't know. Ask Jaspis.

user19161

You are very naughty today @cerberus!

Robusto

Jaspis Jazuli?

user19161

You are also very naughty today @robusto!

Cerberus

00:24

Why am I naughty?

Just following Robur in his search for roots.

Hardly roots anyway, but—you know.

David Wallace

@KitFox According to my sister, I named the toy rabbit that I got for Christmas (aged 18 months) Bum Bum.

Cerberus

Aww.

Robusto

@Cerberus What the Japanese call nemawashi: preparations, or, literally, "root turning."

Cerberus

Preparations—for what? And how are preparations root turning? confuzzled

Robusto

In this case, preparations for a dialogue. (I.e., beginnings.)

And root-turning is what you do prior to planting a crop.

Cerberus

00:29

So...calling me Kerberos was supposed to initiate a dialogue? Then you have succeeded!

Although it because more of a trilogue.

user19161

Yo @eugene I see you have come here!

David Wallace

@JasperLoy You have your very own stalker.

Robusto

@Cerberus Which presents us with something of a trilemma.

user19161

@DavidWallace Nah, nobody would stalk me, I am nobody.

Eugene

@JasperLoy did i? nuts. how did i arrive here??

user19161

00:33

Yo @faheem I see you are here too!

user19161

@Eugene You ask me?

Cerberus

@Robusto As always. And all the while the stone seems to have time to engage any stranger within sight. Hmm...

Robusto

Anyway, @Cerberus, in point of fact, nemawashi is really a social process, the cooperative first steps in establishing a working relationship, either on a grand scale or merely a project level.

Eugene

@JasperLoy i really don't know how i ended up here.

where is this again?

Cerberus

@Robusto Hmm a bit like focused networking?

user19161

00:35

@Eugene English Language chat room.

Robusto

Kind of. But it's really more social. It's about building relationships, going through formal and semi-formal steps to establish rapport.

For the Japanese, that kind of harmony is greatly to be desired.

Cerberus

Understandable.

KitFox

I want to wash roots!

Eugene

@JasperLoy huh...

Cerberus

Well, well.

user19161

00:38

@Eugene Silly!

Robusto

@KitFox Nobody is washing roots. The roots are being turned.

user19161

In Soviet Russia, roots wash you!

KitFox

Damn it.

Robusto

But you're still free to dye your roots brown.

Cerberus

Or stick them places.

user19161

00:40

The cookbook question got me 60 reps, yay!

David Wallace

I used to flat with one of the authors of the Perl Cookbook, which was mentioned in one of the comments.

Robusto

@JasperLoy How long till you pass me, Jasper?

user19161

@Robusto Never, I intend to retire after reaching 20k! You are safe this lifetime!

Mahnax

03:12

@Cerberus Are you here? I've tried out Duolingo if you'd like to hear about it.

Cerberus

Hi.

So you liked it?

Mahnax

Yes!

It's interesting.

Not quite what I expected, and the beginning is quite basic.

Fun anyways though.

Oh, darn it!

runs away to do forgotten dishes

I'll be back in a few minutes.

user19161

@Mahnax In Soviet Russia, dishes do you.

Cerberus

The beginning is quite basic: and then?

And how is it not what you expected?

user19161

Ah, I have 6 red badges now.

user19161

03:22

0

Q: Titles at the footer part of the spoken sentences

I want to improve my English listening skills. My query - Do you have any link of movie that describes the titles at the footer part of sentences spoken. I mean in some movies we can see the sentences at the footer part. Can you kindly share the link?

american-english

user19161

OT

David Wallace

It is the anti-T.

Mahnax

@Cerberus Well, I haven't gotten very far.

It's more of a "learn French" thing than it is a "translate the web" thing, at the moment.

Maybe that will change once French is out of Beta.

David Wallace

Opinions people please. Maybe this belongs on either christianity.se or judaism.se, but I'm not there, I'm here. So I'm having a conversation with my son that goes something like this.

So, did David kill Goliath? Yes. That's a bit mean, why did he do that? Well, if he hadn't have, Goliath would have killed him. Why?

I don't have a good answer.

Cerberus

@Mahnax Oh OK.

Mahnax

03:32

@DavidWallace Well, Goliath was a Philistine champion.

Cerberus

@DavidWallace Because they belonged to opposing groups of people who were at war, probably for some bad reason.

David Wallace

@Mahnax Yeah, I know that.

Cerberus

Because war is nearly always bad.

Mahnax

He was very dangerous, and likely would have killed not only David, but many of David's friends, as well.

David Wallace

@Cerberus Yes, that will probably do.

Mahnax

03:33

So David did it for his people.

David Wallace

@Mahnax but why would Goliath have killed all those people? That's what Emerik asked me; I'm not sure how to phrase a good answer.

user19161

@DavidWallace Just tell him it's just a story! Stories are stupid, and he will understand when he grows older.

Mahnax

@DavidWallace Ah, basically what Cerb said then.

They were at war.

Cerberus

The Philistines invaded the eastern Mediterranean by the end of the Bronze Age, and various other tribes invaded the region as well. So it is conceivable that the Philistines invaded territory that formerly belonged to the Israelites, although I believe we do not know what happened exactly.

David Wallace

@Cerberus OK, thanks. That's what I told him.

Cerberus

03:36

However, it is also conceivable that the Philistines had settled in certain coastal areas, and were attacked after having been there for a century by the Israelites.

user19161

The comments on the above question are getting quite funny!

David Wallace

I ought to just find it in the Bible for him, and let him read it for himself.

Except that it's bound to lead to more questions if I do.

Cerberus

I think it would be good to point out the passages in a Bible story, if your child reads or hears such 18+ stories, that do not conform to modern ethics.

user19161

@DavidWallace Then it must be simple enough to read. Get the children's version!

Cerberus

The cruelty, the intolerance, those sorts of things.

There are certain other issues in the Bible that I would personally not subject my child to, though they are not exactly immoral.

David Wallace

03:40

@Cerberus Yeah, but it's probably OK to give him just the David / Goliath story.

@JasperLoy Oh, hey, I might have something like that. I have a very religious aunt and uncle who might have given Emerik some kind of kiddies' book of bible stories many years ago. David and Goliath is sure to be in there.

Cerberus

What if he assumes that God exists, and that He possesses the kind of characteristics as described in that story?

David Wallace

He's already quite sure that God doesn't exist. More sure than I am.

user19161

@DavidWallace Yeah, they have lots of colourful pictures!

Cerberus

@DavidWallace Oh haha. How so?

David Wallace

And he's quite capable of seeing it as fiction. After all, he doesn't believe that Luke Skywalker exists.

user19161

03:42

@Cerberus That is not necessarily a bad idea, or a false idea.

Mahnax

Cerberus

@DavidWallace OK good, I don't remember how old he was.

Mahnax

That's a screenshot of a part of Duolingo, Cerb.

So you can either take lessons, translate stuff from the web and rate that, or you can take a test for that section.

user19161

@Mahnax What languages are you learning there?

David Wallace

Yeah, he's 11. And it disturbs me that he's so sure that there is no God. I wish he were more open-minded.

Mahnax

03:43

@JasperLoy Just French at the moment.

Cerberus

@JasperLoy A young child fearing that God will dismember his parents for eating scale fish or something would be undesirable. But I guess if he is old and educated enough, it isn't an issue.

user19161

@DavidWallace Exactly. Given how antireligious this chat room seems I have to balance the room with some opposing views!

Cerberus

@Mahnax Looks polished.

David Wallace

Oh, I think anti-religious sentiment is unacceptable in this room.

Mahnax

@Cerberus Yeah, it's quite polished. I like the layout.

Cerberus

03:45

@DavidWallace He is only 11. He will go through so many phases yet.

user19161

@Cerberus Hey, not all stories are real you know. Just tell the child it is a story and let him appreciate it in his own way.

Cerberus

@DavidWallace Wha...since when? And what counts as such?

David Wallace

@Cerberus You're probably right.

Cerberus

@JasperLoy A 3-y-o wouldn't know.

user19161

@Cerberus Well, most stories are pretty harmless.

David Wallace

03:46

@Cerberus Umm, I am an atheist. But I find anti-religious sentiment offensive. This is a public place, after all.

People of all religions come here, and have a right not to be attacked for their religions.

Cerberus

@JasperLoy I don't know, I have seen many OT stories that I might not consider harmless for very young children.

@DavidWallace So what do you consider anti-religious sentiment?

Claiming that God does not exist?

user19161

OK let's not get into another religious argument here!

David Wallace

@Cerberus No, I think that's fine. I claim it myself regularly.

Cerberus

It's never a good idea to attack people, of course.

user19161

I have experienced supernatural things, but I won't describe them.

Mahnax

03:48

For each topic there are lessons and actual web translations, as well as a test to determine mastery.

Once you complete a topic, you can move on.

Cerberus

@DavidWallace But I don't feel that religion should be treated with softer gloves than, say, someone's political opinions, education, nationality, or any professed serious opinions.

user19161

@Cerberus Sure, but then one should not make it sound like all religious people are stupid or something, which is the impression I get from reading some remarks in this room.

Cerberus

@Mahnax Looks a bit like a skill tree in an RPG game!

It's bed time for me now.

Mahnax

@Cerberus A little, yes!

That's why I love it so much!

It's addicting!

@Cerberus OK, good night.

Bonne nuit.

user19161

@Cerberus Night! I am going to sleep too.

David Wallace

03:50

@Cerberus Not sure about that.

Good night, anyway.

Cerberus

@JasperLoy Well, such remarks are perhaps a bit impolite. But surely you hear similarly impolite remarks about other topics?

David Wallace

(All fingers and thumbs, I almost wished you God night).

Cerberus

@DavidWallace Hmm I think we have discussed this before.

David Wallace

You mean the whole Muslim shop assistant thing. Yeah.

Cerberus

Bonne nuit à tous!

@DavidWallace Oh yes, that was it.

Au revoir!

Mahnax

03:52

Bye!

David Wallace

Hey, Mahnax, I was recently wondering - do Canadians write "Mom" (like Americans) or "Mum" (like everyone else)?

Mahnax

Usually it's Mom.

I use Mum sometimes though.

David Wallace

OK.

Ta.

Mahnax

And that "ta" was something I had never encountered in Canada.

David Wallace

Really?

Mahnax

03:54

Yeah.

David Wallace

Did I mention to you that my father was not understood when he used the word "fortnight" in Canada?

I know I mentioned it to someone here - I think it might have been you.

user19161

@DavidWallace What?

user19161

Is fortnight that localized?

Mahnax

@DavidWallace Odd!

I use fortnight quite regularly.

Most don't, though.

David Wallace

D'oh, I've remembered it was actually Alaska. And it was Cerberus; I searched.

Or maybe it was Canada. I can't keep his stories straight.

Mar 23 at 21:38, by Cerberus

Oh, and fortnight isn't exactly modern either.

Mahnax

03:57

Haha.

user19161

I was shocked to find people think that "thrice" is pretentious.

David Wallace

No, it's not that I'm too ignorant to know the difference. He went on holiday, visited both Canada and Alaska, and came back with the story about not being understood. I simply don't recall which place the story related to.

user19161

Once twice thrice. What's so weird about that?

David Wallace

Yeah, it's a little pretentious.

user19161

Then I must say three times?

user19161

03:59

I might as well say two times as well?

Mahnax

Nah, use thrice.

David Wallace

@JasperLoy There's no "must". But if you don't wish to be thought pretentious, it would be the safer option.

Mahnax

I don't think using thrice is pretentious.

David Wallace

And if you say "two times" you will be thought odd.

user19161

@DavidWallace That kind of thinking is real pretentious!

user19161

04:00

Trying overly hard to be unpretentious is a form of being pretentious. QED.

David Wallace

lyricsfreak.com/d/doors/love+me+two+times_20042654.html

user19161

The real unpretentiousness is that one should just follow his heart.

David Wallace

Fine. Say whatever you like. But don't come crying to me afterwards.

user19161

I did not wanna downvote the above question, but looking at the comments I had to.

David Wallace

Which above question? The "give me links to movies with subtitles one"?

user19161

04:03

@DavidWallace Yes.

David Wallace

It deserves multiple downvotes.

user19161

How do I open this? How do I open that? Geezis.

David Wallace

and the word "audiable".

user19161

And the "i".

user19161

And also "does it contains".

David Wallace

04:05

I'm tempted to give him a link to the "Ken Lee" video from Bulgarian Idol.

The version with subtitles, of course.

But that could possibly be seen as racist.

jcolebrand

04:18

@RegDwightΒВB I know, but who the hell am I?

Mahnax

According to the Global Peace Index 2012, Canada is the fourth most peaceful country in the world.

The USA is 88th out of 158 countries.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

hey @Mahnax, I hear you're writing an "opinion" piece about evolution

for science class

Mahnax

@MrShinyandNew安宇 I was, yep.

If it can be called that.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

what would you call it

Mahnax

I don't know.

An expository response to evolution.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

04:26

anyway I'm curious about what your opinion is. I know we've discussed this before in the past and I was wondering how your opinion has evolved, pardon the pun :)

Mahnax

Haha, good one.

I think I've decided that I'm an evolutionary creationist.

So evolution definitely happened.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

over a long period of time?

Mahnax

Yeah, most likely.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

excellent!

Mahnax

Quite!

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

04:29

I disagree of course. But I am glad that you've seen the light, so to speak. The science behind it is really quite robust. And yet (strict) creationism undermines just about every aspect of modern biology, not to mention some parts of chemistry, physics, and astronomy.

Mahnax

The brother of one of the teachers at my school, Denis Lamoureux, is a prof at the U of A.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Mahnax what is he a professor of?

Mahnax

@MrShinyandNew安宇 Well, he teaches a creationism vs. evolution course.

He has three doctorates.

Theology, dentistry, and one other.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Mahnax as in, he teaches how creationism is wrong and evolution is true? or does he just "teach the controversy" as they say?

Mahnax

@MrShinyandNew安宇 Well, he assumes a stance in the middle, like me.

Ah, his third doctorate is in Biology.

That makes sense.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

04:34

I used to take a stance in the middle too.

Mahnax

And then you dropped religion altogether?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

My position was something like "evolution is clearly true, but that doesn't mean that God didn't make the right things happen at the right time, etc"

David Wallace

And that's an entirely reasonable position.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

But over time I came to realize that while evolution (i.e. the evidence we see for the evolution of humans and all the other life forms) doesn't necessarily completely exclude the possibility of God directing things, there didn't seem to be anything for Him to do, really

Mahnax

Well, I do believe that our universe was created by God.

David Wallace

04:36

@MrShinyandNew安宇 But maybe God made the laws of physics in such as way as to make evolution possible.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Anyway, the more science I learned, the more I realized I was falling into the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

Mahnax

For now, I'm going to stick with this stance.

David Wallace

@MrShinyandNew安宇 That's an excellent name for it. I never heard it called that before.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace Perhaps. There's no real way to know, though. That hypothesis is untestable and it says nothing about "God" doing anything else later on.

The evidence of "God of the Gaps" is clear even in the Bible itself.

David Wallace

@MrShinyandNew安宇 I think that's kind of the point.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

04:40

In the Old Testament, when not much was written down, God does things like creating the whole world, flooding the whole world, moving hundreds of thousands of Israelis out of egypt, demolishing entire cities, etc. By the time the New Testament was written, you can't get away with making those claims. God (now known as Jesus) turns water into wine, walks on water, raises one dead guy back to life, casts out demons, etc.

David Wallace

Once we acknowledge that it's outside the scope of science to play referee between atheism and God, we can each have our own faith, without worrying about whether it's at odds with scientific evidence.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace I don't really think anything is outside the scope of science. science is a way of examining and thinking about the entire universe. if god has any effect on this universe at all it should be detectable.

David Wallace

I disagree completely.

Anything detectable that God does would be subject to your "God of the gaps" argument.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

So continuing the "God of the Gaps": Nowadays we have much better understanding about what "walking on water" is and what tricks might accomplish it, or how possible it might be, and we never believe anyone who claims to really be able to do it. But Jesus still appears on burnt toast, and in puddles, and on water stains.

Mahnax

I think that if there is a God, then he is outside the scope of science.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 He also appears in the Whirlpool galaxy and laminin :-)

Well, sort of.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

04:44

@DavidWallace So you claim that by doing something detectable it becomes part of the natural world and thus indistinguishable from it? despite its supernatural origins?

David Wallace

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that one day, God decided to send an unmistakable message to everyone on earth, proclaiming His existence. So he started painting huge multi-coloured semicircles in the sky. Some people saw these and said "God painted that". But immediately, scientists started looking for a non-supernatural explanation, and came up with something involving sunlight reflecting off the back of raindrops.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Mahnax admittedly every single Christian I've ever met discounts and ridicules such concepts as Jesus manifesting in a Cheeto. But there ARE people who believe it. And the Catholic Church in India has filed blasphemy charges against a man who demonstrated that a "miraculous" statue of Jesus that was "crying" was actually just dripping water wicked from a nearby sewer.

David Wallace

Whereas there are phenomena - evidence of God - that can't yet be explained by science, that's where your "God of gaps" argument comes in.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace well... huge multi-coloured semi-circles in the sky are either possible in nature, or they are not. If they are possible in nature, then that message could hardly be "unmistakable". If they are impossible, then their existence would suggest that something odd was going on.

David Wallace

Clearly they're possible, because they happen.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

04:48

Scientists might not be willing to conclude that it is a god doing that, though. That is a really big leap to conclude such a thing.

@DavidWallace oh you mean rainbows... I thought rainbows were actually circles, but one half is always below the horizon

David Wallace

So you take "the start of life", or "human consciousness" as examples. We don't have good scientific explanations for those. Does that make them "impossible in nature"?

@MrShinyandNew安宇 Sorry, I thought the bit about "[an explanation] involving sunlight reflecting off the back of raindrops" made it clear what I was talking about.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace well, we don't have good, complete scientific explanations. yet clearly they exist in nature. So they are not impossible. But based on everything we understand about physics and biology and chemistry, etc, there is no reason to believe that we will never be able to understand those.

@DavidWallace sorry it's late here and I was picturing discs

David Wallace

@MrShinyandNew安宇 So why wouldn't you apply the same argument to anything else that God does?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace well, if praying could restore amputated limbs, for example, and no other process could, that would be relatively good evidence for god.

David Wallace

No it wouldn't. Scientists would seek an explanation involving radiation from the brain, and how it can re-create damaged flesh.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

04:53

@DavidWallace actually there are some people who have concluded that there is no evidence they can imagine that would convince them of a god's existence. I am not sure if they are taking things too far.

@DavidWallace the point is that it is an example of something that is currently known to be impossible. I will adjust my hypothetical example until no scientific explanation could possible account for it.

David Wallace

I find the phrase "currently known to be impossible" to be a bit meaningless here.

If it happened, just once, then it would become "currently known to be possible".

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

what I mean is: humans do not spontaneously regenerate limbs.

they never have, not once, ever.

David Wallace

You know, I find the existence of human consciousness to be a whole lot more miraculous than the (purely hypothetical) regeneration of amputated limbs.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

But if it were the case that throughout humanity, severed limbs just simply did not regerenate, period, EXCEPT when a priest of a particular religion prays for that specific limb to regenerate, and in that case the limb just pops back into existence as if it were never gone, and it doesn't matter where the priest is in relation to the patient, and it doesn't matter if the priest even knows the patient, etc...

David Wallace

I mean, I can imagine humans evolving in such a way as to make regeneration of limbs possible, without any divine intervention required.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

04:58

@DavidWallace There is good evidence in neuroscience to suggest that consciousness is an illusion.

@DavidWallace Sure, but in my hypothetical example, humans are no different than now, except there is a group of believers who have this one magical power.

and anyone can become a member of that group and once they do, they too are granted this power.

David Wallace

@MrShinyandNew安宇 That sounds like a circular argument. Whose consciousness does it delude?

I must confess though, if your hypothetical example were to start occurring, it would be much easier to believe in God.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace I don't have enough details to explain it. But its you who are fooled by your own brain into thinking that you have "consciousness". or "free will".

David Wallace

Even though, it has been said that magic is indistinguishable from any sufficiently advanced technology.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace well, that's true. And that's why it is only evidence of a god, not proof of a god.

David Wallace

@MrShinyandNew安宇 OK, but given that the collection of atoms that make up my body and my brain are very similar in nature to the collection of atoms that make up your body and your brain, why are you always conscious of your own self, and never conscious of mine?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

05:04

after all, perhaps there are aliens who got bored and brought their incredibly advanced time and space-bending technology to Earth and they use that, along with their incredible capabilities of limb-regeneration to fake it.

David Wallace

I know, and any sufficiently advanced aliens are indistinguishable from deities.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace well, for one thing, it is posited that neither of us is actually conscious of ourselves let alone others. But the other reason is that my consciousness, whatever that is, exists in my brain, why would it be aware of what's inside other brains? it only responds to the stimuli it receives.

David Wallace

I don't think I understand you. But my point still stands - consciousness seems more miraculous to me than limb regeneration. Which makes it hard for me to understand why more people don't believe in God.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace I don't know why consciousness would seem miraculous. we have many examples of varying degrees of intelligence, emotions, empathy, altruism, self-awareness, etc, in nature. some critter must be top in the class, and that critter is us.

David Wallace

But intelligence, emotions, empathy and altruism are all explainable in terms of interactions of molecules. They really are illusory. Self-awareness (or consciousness) seems far less-so to me.

I think I'm slowly becoming a theist. But I'm wary of falling victim to the "God of gaps" fallacy.

I can program a computer to be intelligent, emotional, empathetic and altruistic; and I could do a pretty good job of it if I had four billion years to do it in, and all the materials available on earth. But something about consciousness keeps making me think that it requires divine intervention. Hence my atheism wavers.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

05:14

@DavidWallace well, I suggest you read up on the topic a bit more. Neuroscience is closing that gap. As Scott Adams wrote, humans are just moist robots.

@DavidWallace I guess you will have to define what you mean by "consciousness".

I bet given 4B years you could program a machine that simulates a human so well nobody could tell the difference, not even the machine itself. Would it be conscious? Or just faking it?

David Wallace

@MrShinyandNew安宇 I've read a reasonable amount of the available literature; possibly not as much as your good self. But I continue to find it unsatisfying.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 I am not God, and therefore it would be faking it. And I would know exactly how it would be faking it.

Mahnax

Well, as much fun as it is to skim your conversations, I should go.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace Well, I wouldn't say I've read a lot about it. But "unsatisfying" is part of science. It's ok if things are unsatisfying now. There are limits to what science can know.

Mahnax

I've got two tests tomorrow and I need my sleep.

Bye!

David Wallace

Bye, Mahnax.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

05:17

@DavidWallace That assumes that your consciousness is materially different from the machine's, i.e. that you're not faking it. How can you tell?

@Mahnax good luck!

David Wallace

I guess that's what the whole discussion boils down to. Do I have any sort of "consciousness" that is different from what a machine could fake? And to know that, I need to define "consciousness" better. Thank you, you've given me much to think about.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace I hope you come to some satisfying conclusion. Or a satisfyingly unsatisfying conclusion.

David Wallace

:-) Thanks.

I still don't see why any explanation of consciousness would result in me being always me. Why should my consciousness always experience being David Wallace? Why can't it experience being someone different tomorrow?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace would you know the difference?

David Wallace

My consciousness would, but David Wallace wouldn't.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

05:23

how would it know the difference? isn't it simply a function of the electrochemical processes in your brain?

presumably a severe enough brain trauma could have you wake up as "someone else"

David Wallace

That would be interesting.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Did you ever see the movie "Regarding Henry"?

David Wallace

No.

Would death be "severe enough"? I mean, are you about to start persuading me to believe in re-incarnation?

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Harrison Ford is a ruthless ... i forget. businessman? lawyer? whatever. ruthless. He gets shot, his brain loses oxygen, he is revived but brain-damaged. the new him is suffering from amnesia but is also a fundamentally different person. ruthful, not ruthless.

David Wallace

I guess the short answer is that memory is stored in the brain.

@MrShinyandNew安宇 Oh, I see. I thought you meant something more like Freaky Friday.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

05:26

I am curious, does your notion of consciousness reside entirely within your brain? or is it distinct from your brain

David Wallace

It's distinct.

The only reason why it appears to reside in or around the brain is that it receives sensory input from the eyes, ears, taste buds and so on; so it places itself in their immediate vicinity for convenience.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

hm. my notion of consciousness is not distinct from the brain. it (if it exists at all) is an emergent property of the things the brain does. kinda like how personality is a property of the brain. If you add or remove certain chemicals in the brain, people's personality can change, for example.

David Wallace

I have to eat dinner now. Good talk though. I'll see you later.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@DavidWallace cya

well, I am heading off too. It's almost 2am here and I have to be up in 4 hours.

Faheem Mitha

08:59

@JasperLoy Hi. How do you mean, here too?

user19161

09:14

@FaheemMitha Oh I usually see you in the other room.

Meysam

10:02

proficient = professional + efficient ?

RegDwight ΒВB

No. Looks like a direct descendant from Latin profacere or some such.

Etymonline sez, proficere.

> 1580s, from L. proficientem (nom. proficiens), prp. of proficere "to make progress, be useful"

David Wallace

Or more directly, pro = forward, facere = to make.

RegDwight ΒВB

Yeah I have no idea what role pro plays there.

But facere is clear, which is why I picked the wrong vowel in the first place.

David Wallace

10:37

I think there was a vowel shift from facere to ficere at some point.

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…