03-19-2024, 03:59 AM
I haven’t quite figured out how to properly quote yet, so I will just write the quotes in bold.
I appreciate the in-depth response.
These sound potentially interesting. Regarding 'Tacklers' - is there some specific reason why a security system would need to be sophont instead of using vots to run it? Vecs are sophont beings, not robots (bots) and vots are non-sophont software/systems of software that can basically do anything a sophont can without actually being self-aware/sophont. Or is this just a minor mistake in terms of word choice?
In terms of the vot vs vec terminology, I believe that the tacklers article would be more concerned with the physical form and tactics of such an immune/law enforcement entity. I have been familiar with the vot concept, however I believe tacklers could either be a vec or a vot depending on the polity. I imagine vots would be more common in the middle regions, and vecs more common on the periphery. I don’t think tacklers would really exist within the core due to being supplanted by angelnets and smart matter more generally.
I do concede however, I have some prejudice against the concept of vots as they imply a complete understanding of the mind body problem or body qualia problem. In my personal opinion, it is going too far to say that these problems have been solved without a deeper explanation. But without going further, I will not likely comment on this within the tacklers article, I will state that a tackler or tackler body could be inhabited by either(Vot or Vec). I do understand the importance of vots for solving the issue of enslaved or conditioned AI, and that they are established within the setting.
Regarding both of these ideas, I have doubts that an article - in the EG sense - is actually what you're going for here vs wanting to post ideas for our consideration, which may or may not lead to the creation of new articles or updating of existing ones. For both issues you would be best served by posting your ideas and promoting discussion of them in the General Setting Discussion sub-forum before doing anything else.
Regarding the CIT vs PIT issue. This honestly comes across more than a little as you having a certain belief in this area and expecting us to rewrite the setting to accommodate you. Let me be brutally blunt up front and tell you that that is a non-starter. If you want to present arguments in support of your position and are able to convince us of that position that is one thing. But if this is a case of 'OA's treatment of this issue makes me unhappy and therefore OA needs to change to accommodate my feelings' then that is going to be DOA. We are under no obligation to care in the slightest about anyone's feelings.
By all means feel free to post your thoughts and arguments on the matter in the General Setting Discussion section. But do so knowing that we've had these kinds of discussions many many many times before and we will expect you to present and defend your ideas with more than 'I believe X and you need to fold X into the setting because it's only fair' or some similar thing. That's not going to fly. 'Morality-based' pseudo-philosophical arguments about what is more or less harmful or the like are going to fly even less.
If you want to write articles about groups and cultures that follow CIT to increase the representation of that pov in the setting, that's perfectly fine.
Thank you for your comment, I will make sure to direct these proposed conversations to the general discussion forum.
I understand that in a community driven project people should only lend credence to my ideas; if my arguments are supported, respectful, and hold up to logical scrutiny. I apologize if previous remarks gave the impression that I was going to join the forums with the expectation of “I think X, I have no explanation, you should think X aswell” I understand that that is not acceptable. All that being said, I would perhaps be interested in seeing some of these previous conversations – if they were not deleted – so that I could see where they went awry.
As you stated I will likely start with writing polities in the setting. It will be a long time before I get to a large CIT vs PIT discussion.
Happy writing!
I appreciate the in-depth response.
These sound potentially interesting. Regarding 'Tacklers' - is there some specific reason why a security system would need to be sophont instead of using vots to run it? Vecs are sophont beings, not robots (bots) and vots are non-sophont software/systems of software that can basically do anything a sophont can without actually being self-aware/sophont. Or is this just a minor mistake in terms of word choice?
In terms of the vot vs vec terminology, I believe that the tacklers article would be more concerned with the physical form and tactics of such an immune/law enforcement entity. I have been familiar with the vot concept, however I believe tacklers could either be a vec or a vot depending on the polity. I imagine vots would be more common in the middle regions, and vecs more common on the periphery. I don’t think tacklers would really exist within the core due to being supplanted by angelnets and smart matter more generally.
I do concede however, I have some prejudice against the concept of vots as they imply a complete understanding of the mind body problem or body qualia problem. In my personal opinion, it is going too far to say that these problems have been solved without a deeper explanation. But without going further, I will not likely comment on this within the tacklers article, I will state that a tackler or tackler body could be inhabited by either(Vot or Vec). I do understand the importance of vots for solving the issue of enslaved or conditioned AI, and that they are established within the setting.
Regarding both of these ideas, I have doubts that an article - in the EG sense - is actually what you're going for here vs wanting to post ideas for our consideration, which may or may not lead to the creation of new articles or updating of existing ones. For both issues you would be best served by posting your ideas and promoting discussion of them in the General Setting Discussion sub-forum before doing anything else.
Regarding the CIT vs PIT issue. This honestly comes across more than a little as you having a certain belief in this area and expecting us to rewrite the setting to accommodate you. Let me be brutally blunt up front and tell you that that is a non-starter. If you want to present arguments in support of your position and are able to convince us of that position that is one thing. But if this is a case of 'OA's treatment of this issue makes me unhappy and therefore OA needs to change to accommodate my feelings' then that is going to be DOA. We are under no obligation to care in the slightest about anyone's feelings.
By all means feel free to post your thoughts and arguments on the matter in the General Setting Discussion section. But do so knowing that we've had these kinds of discussions many many many times before and we will expect you to present and defend your ideas with more than 'I believe X and you need to fold X into the setting because it's only fair' or some similar thing. That's not going to fly. 'Morality-based' pseudo-philosophical arguments about what is more or less harmful or the like are going to fly even less.
If you want to write articles about groups and cultures that follow CIT to increase the representation of that pov in the setting, that's perfectly fine.
Thank you for your comment, I will make sure to direct these proposed conversations to the general discussion forum.
I understand that in a community driven project people should only lend credence to my ideas; if my arguments are supported, respectful, and hold up to logical scrutiny. I apologize if previous remarks gave the impression that I was going to join the forums with the expectation of “I think X, I have no explanation, you should think X aswell” I understand that that is not acceptable. All that being said, I would perhaps be interested in seeing some of these previous conversations – if they were not deleted – so that I could see where they went awry.
As you stated I will likely start with writing polities in the setting. It will be a long time before I get to a large CIT vs PIT discussion.
Happy writing!