2497 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

KainD wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

False. Rules are based on personal experience and deduction - as is all logic. Is some cases making postulations.

Logic does not require emotion.

Different people make different descisions in the same circumstances, having similar experience.

Similar =/= the same.
The exact same experience is impossible.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

KainD wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

False. Rules are based on personal experience and deduction - as is all logic. Is some cases making postulations.

Logic does not require emotion.

Different people make different descisions in the same circumstances, having similar experience.

Similar =/= the same.
The exact same experience is impossible.

So correct me if I'm wrong:

Similar = likeness partially to mostly
The Same = 100% likeness

[EmperorSahlertz]

KainD wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

KainD are you claiming that your AI opponent in Starcraft makes all its decisions based on emotion? I'm sorry to break this to you, but it makes its decision purely based on a logic algorithm.
A computer is the perfect example of logic devoid of emotion.

AI doesn't make any descisions. 

Yes it does. It is given a selection of options, and decide on a single course of action. The conclusions it draws are generated by running its logic algorithms. If an AI didn't make decisions, then it would do the same every single game, yet it doesn't.

[Gwydden]

AIs do the same thing every single game, at least in Starcraft 2. I don't know what you're talking about.

[KainD]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Yes it does. It is given a selection of options, and decide on a single course of action. The conclusions it draws are generated by running its logic algorithms. If an AI didn't make decisions, then it would do the same every single game, yet it doesn't.

Descision is when you can make different choices for the same situation. With AI, it will make one and the same descision every time the situation is 100% the same. 

[Topsider]

KainD wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Yes it does. It is given a selection of options, and decide on a single course of action. The conclusions it draws are generated by running its logic algorithms. If an AI didn't make decisions, then it would do the same every single game, yet it doesn't.

Descision is when you can make different choices for the same situation. With AI, it will make one and the same descision every time the situation is 100% the same. 

That's because current AI isn't intelligent. It is only as good as the strategies programmed into it. Reaction time makes a strong AI difficult to beat though.

When true artificial intelligence is achieved it will leave humans in the dust. Decision making and millions of computations per second? 

Modifié par Topsider, 12 octobre 2013 - 03:04 .

[In Exile]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

KainD wrote...

Rationality is thinking/acting within a certain set of rules/bounds/logic/laws. For there to be rules, rules have to be made. Rules are also subjective and are made through emotion. 
Yes rational thoughts don't exist without emotions. To have any kind of opinion on any matter you have to care about it in the first place. 

False. Rules are based on personal experience and deduction - as is all logic. Is some cases making postulations.

Logic does not require emotion.

This is not even close to being true. Rules - in the sense of actual laws - are based on a complex set of factors, with logic being not an especially big factor that goes into it. 

As for rational thought and emotion, there's a lot of research that shows that (i) logic is complete garbage as a base for what we consider "rational" and (ii) the same mechanism that we use in emotions we use for higher level thought like intuition and problem solving. 

So while logic doesn't require emotion, being rational very much does. 

[Neon Rising Winter]

KainD wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Yes it does. It is given a selection of options, and decide on a single course of action. The conclusions it draws are generated by running its logic algorithms. If an AI didn't make decisions, then it would do the same every single game, yet it doesn't.

Descision is when you can make different choices for the same situation. With AI, it will make one and the same descision every time the situation is 100% the same. 

Not necessarily. I once spent two days driving myself nuts trying to stop someting from making the same decision every time from the same initial conditions. Not to mention stopping it from making the right decision every time. There's my brief interlude with AI research for you, helping computers make bad decisions using unsound logic. I'm so proud.

[EmperorSahlertz]

KainD wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Yes it does. It is given a selection of options, and decide on a single course of action. The conclusions it draws are generated by running its logic algorithms. If an AI didn't make decisions, then it would do the same every single game, yet it doesn't.

Descision is when you can make different choices for the same situation. With AI, it will make one and the same descision every time the situation is 100% the same. 

No. A logcal conclusion is the exact same, every single time you are ask the same question, with the same amount of data. However, the computer still has the option, yet it opts against it, because it would be illogical. A computer makes decisions based purely on logic. 
AI in this current age, are primitive. But within a few generations we will be able to create almost human like AI. However, these AI will still be ruled by logic, with no influence from emotion. We as human beings are limited by our emotions, but we can still make pure rational decisions, it is simply just harder for us.

[Sir JK]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm not inclined to give up anything at all. This is really about as far as I'm willing to stretch, and the Chantry has to change in a fairly substantial manner, otherwise this'll all be for nothing.

I think Xil, that if you're in the fight for "all or nothing" then you better also prepare to fight for eternity. All the demands are important, but eventually you may face the question whether they're more important indvidually than peace.

The Chantry has to change in a substantial manner, yes. That's their end. But there are things the mages will have to accept as well... to gain anything at all. They won't get everything... but they may get what's important.

Tranquility's sense of reassurance is wholly false, as it's barely better than death, at least if permanent.

But do you want the Templars to look towards death as the only alternative to life as a accomplished mage? Because death is real easy to achieve... also irreversible. It's not really for the mages sake that I think the method has value, it suchs for mages either way. It's to make the templars stop for alternatives... that they won't kill the mage at their hands outright because deep down they know there's an alternative.

I'd rather use a better method if I had one... but alas... far as I know there's no other options.

Well, dumping waste directly into water is a time-honored human pastime. I don't think they'd do quite the same with settlements.

Perhaps... I'm still concerned about the risk of abominations if mages are in close contact with their families, but I suppose it could be worth a try.

[TEWR]

Crazy Eyed One wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

If the Circles became autonomous sections in their own right, this wouldn't be an issue. It would be a little dot of land in the countries that would be bound under its own laws. A state within a state, if you will.

So were a Mage to practice blood magic inside the Circle, he'd be legally allowed to do so. If he stepped foot onto the borders of Fereldan soil and slit his wrists while dancing naked under the moonlight, then he'd be subject to Ferelden's laws about the illegality of it all.

Isn't that essentially what the Tevinter Imperium is; except on a smaller scale?

Not really. The Circles there were still under the control of the Chantry, but Mages were allowed to be a part of the clergy. Then they ascended to the Divine seat there after the schism, whereupon they took control.

The Circles are still very much Chantry-controlled there. But the Chantry is controlled by the Mages.

[Lotion Soronarr]

KainD wrote...

Descision is when you can make different choices for the same situation. With AI, it will make one and the same descision every time the situation is 100% the same.

Ever heard of the rand() fuction in programing?
Yeah, the AI can make a different deicison with the exact same situation - of course, you can argue that due to the presence of a random variable, the situation is NOT the same, but the same applies to everything then, because there is a certial level of randomness everywhere.

[Xilizhra]

I think Xil, that if you're in the fight for "all or nothing" then you better also prepare to fight for eternity. All the demands are important, but eventually you may face the question whether they're more important indvidually than peace.

Because the reason I'm fighting this war is to do everything in my power to ensure that this never happens again. Compromise is what got us into this mess to begin with, compromise and letting other powers take too much. We have to stand firm here. If we give too much ground, then the whole war's been for nothing.

The Chantry has to change in a substantial manner, yes. That's their end. But there are things the mages will have to accept as well... to gain anything at all. They won't get everything... but they may get what's important.

Simply having the Circles exist for the time being is a huge concession. Don't lose sight of what might be sacrificed here.

But do you want the Templars to look towards death as the only alternative to life as a accomplished mage? Because death is real easy to achieve... also irreversible. It's not really for the mages sake that I think the method has value, it suchs for mages either way. It's to make the templars stop for alternatives... that they won't kill the mage at their hands outright because deep down they know there's an alternative.

I'd rather use a better method if I had one... but alas... far as I know there's no other options.

Then remove both options. Only kill if necessary, in battle.

Perhaps... I'm still concerned about the risk of abominations if mages are in close contact with their families, but I suppose it could be worth a try.

It's up to the families in question.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

I think Xil, that if you're in the fight for "all or nothing" then you better also prepare to fight for eternity. All the demands are important, but eventually you may face the question whether they're more important indvidually than peace.

Because the reason I'm fighting this war is to do everything in my power to ensure that this never happens again. Compromise is what got us into this mess to begin with, compromise and letting other powers take too much. We have to stand firm here. If we give too much ground, then the whole war's been for nothing.

And what will a lack of compromise lead to? Blood. Many, most, possibly all of the Templars will have to die. At any rate, it'll be far more than would die under any reasonable compromise. Mages will die too, especially if they lose. And complete and unqualified mage freedom can lead to yet worse blood. Even the Magisters understand that.

The Chantry has to change in a substantial manner, yes. That's their end. But there are things the mages will have to accept as well... to gain anything at all. They won't get everything... but they may get what's important.

Simply having the Circles exist for the time being is a huge concession. Don't lose sight of what might be sacrificed here.

I'm not. But the mages are a minority. If there's any sacrifice they can make that legitimately makes life better for more people than suffer for it, it's a net gain for Thedas.

But do you want the Templars to look towards death as the only alternative to life as a accomplished mage? Because death is real easy to achieve... also irreversible. It's not really for the mages sake that I think the method has value, it suchs for mages either way. It's to make the templars stop for alternatives... that they won't kill the mage at their hands outright because deep down they know there's an alternative.

I'd rather use a better method if I had one... but alas... far as I know there's no other options.

Then remove both options. Only kill if necessary, in battle.

By the time it becomes obvious that it is necessary, it might be too late for someone who was right next to the abomination, or even for an entire castle full of people. That's the logic of Tranquility and the Harrowing; that fewer people suffer from prevention. In Tranquility, the mage doesn't even die.

Perhaps... I'm still concerned about the risk of abominations if mages are in close contact with their families, but I suppose it could be worth a try.

It's up to the families in question.

Were it me, I'd make them sign waivers.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 13 octobre 2013 - 03:17 .

[Xilizhra]

And what will a lack of compromise lead to? Blood. Many, most, possibly all of the Templars will have to die. At any rate, it'll be far more than would die under any reasonable compromise. Mages will die too, especially if they lose. And complete and unqualified mage freedom can lead to yet worse blood. Even the Magisters understand that.

You know that I'm prepared to drown the Order in its own blood if that's what it takes. And the idea isn't necessarily to bring about complete/unqualified mage freedom, but to weaken the opposing sides enough that they won't be able to yank back the Chantry's/templars' unquestionable power over the mages.

I'm not. But the mages are a minority. If there's any sacrifice they can make that legitimately makes life better for more people than suffer for it, it's a net gain for Thedas.

If it does more good for nonmages than it harms mages, then possibly. Otherwise, it's just tyranny of the majority.

By the time it becomes obvious that it is necessary, it might be too late for someone who was right next to the abomination, or even for an entire castle full of people. That's the logic of Tranquility and the Harrowing; that fewer people suffer from prevention. In Tranquility, the mage doesn't even die.

Tranquility is barely any better than death, arguably worse. You can imprison mages in rooms with antimagic wards, you know.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

And what will a lack of compromise lead to? Blood. Many, most, possibly all of the Templars will have to die. At any rate, it'll be far more than would die under any reasonable compromise. Mages will die too, especially if they lose. And complete and unqualified mage freedom can lead to yet worse blood. Even the Magisters understand that.

You know that I'm prepared to drown the Order in its own blood if that's what it takes. And the idea isn't necessarily to bring about complete/unqualified mage freedom, but to weaken the opposing sides enough that they won't be able to yank back the Chantry's/templars' unquestionable power over the mages.

Yes, I know. But the Templars weren't the real thrust of my argument. (Though as human beings, I adknowledge that their lives have value.)

I'm not. But the mages are a minority. If there's any sacrifice they can make that legitimately makes life better for more people than suffer for it, it's a net gain for Thedas.

If it does more good for nonmages than it harms mages, then possibly. Otherwise, it's just tyranny of the majority.

It should be made to be as little of a raw deal as possible, of course. But if the mages have to be given a raw deal, that's as much as I need to know.

By the time it becomes obvious that it is necessary, it might be too late for someone who was right next to the abomination, or even for an entire castle full of people. That's the logic of Tranquility and the Harrowing; that fewer people suffer from prevention. In Tranquility, the mage doesn't even die.

Tranquility is barely any better than death, arguably worse. You can imprison mages in rooms with antimagic wards, you know.

Even abominations?

[Xilizhra]

It should be made to be as little of a raw deal as possible, of course. But if the mages have to be given a raw deal, that's as much as I need to know.

Wait, what's as much as you need to know?

Even abominations?

Well, "battle" will be inevitable for them, so killing them will likely not be a moral problem. If you're referring to stopping mages from becoming abominations, just not allowing demonology and trying to prevent fostering situations where people would be tempted to practice it anyway would take care of 99% of it from the beginning.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

It should be made to be as little of a raw deal as possible, of course. But if the mages have to be given a raw deal, that's as much as I need to know.

Wait, what's as much as you need to know?

If more people gain than lose from mages being forcibly sequestered (and the quote at the start of this thread suggests that to be the case,) that's what I'd argue for. I'd adjust for the severity of the suffering vs. the severity of the gain, but the severity of the suffering is constant fear of a mage going abomination.

Even abominations?

Well, "battle" will be inevitable for them, so killing them will likely not be a moral problem. If you're referring to stopping mages from becoming abominations, just not allowing demonology and trying to prevent fostering situations where people would be tempted to practice it anyway would take care of 99% of it from the beginning.

Except that the quote at the beginning of the thread heavily implies that that's not the case. You're basing this argument on the fact that the player never has the trouble the Chantry claims you should? I'm aware that PCs never get possessed or lose control or anything, but there's a reason for this that has little or nothing to do with the Chantry being unambigously wrong.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 13 octobre 2013 - 03:47 .

[Xilizhra]

If more people gain than lose from mages being forcibly sequestered (and the quote at the start of this thread suggests that to be the case,) that's what I'd argue for. I'd adjust for the severity of the suffering vs. the severity of the gain, but the severity of the suffering is constant fear of a mage going abomination.

Wrong way around. It's "if nonmages gain more than mages lose." It's not about numbers, it's about magnitude of suffering.

Except that the quote at the beginning of the thread heavily implies that that's not the case. You're basing this on the fact that the player never has the trouble the Chantry claims you should? I'm aware that PCs never get possessed or lose control or anything, but there's a reason for this that has little or nothing to do with the Chantry being unambigously wrong.

I'm basing this on the fact that being possessed by a demon that neither you nor anyone summoned, in a safe environment, simply does not happen from what we've been shown in-game. If Inquisition wants to change that, fine, I'll look at that when it comes. Keeping the environment safe and emotionally troubled mages close to those who can soothe them should take care of nearly everything.

[dragonflight288]

Xilizhra wrote...

If more people gain than lose from mages being forcibly sequestered (and the quote at the start of this thread suggests that to be the case,) that's what I'd argue for. I'd adjust for the severity of the suffering vs. the severity of the gain, but the severity of the suffering is constant fear of a mage going abomination.

Wrong way around. It's "if nonmages gain more than mages lose." It's not about numbers, it's about magnitude of suffering.

Except that the quote at the beginning of the thread heavily implies that that's not the case. You're basing this on the fact that the player never has the trouble the Chantry claims you should? I'm aware that PCs never get possessed or lose control or anything, but there's a reason for this that has little or nothing to do with the Chantry being unambigously wrong.

I'm basing this on the fact that being possessed by a demon that neither you nor anyone summoned, in a safe environment, simply does not happen from what we've been shown in-game. If Inquisition wants to change that, fine, I'll look at that when it comes. Keeping the environment safe and emotionally troubled mages close to those who can soothe them should take care of nearly everything.

If you also add in a system of justice for dealing with the mages who choose to turn criminal of their own volition.

[Volus Warlord]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm basing this on the fact that being possessed by a demon that neither you nor anyone summoned, in a safe environment, simply does not happen from what we've been shown in-game. If Inquisition wants to change that, fine, I'll look at that when it comes. Keeping the environment safe and emotionally troubled mages close to those who can soothe them should take care of nearly everything.

So, you want the Circle Tower to be full of shrinks instead of Templars?

Modifié par Volus Warlord, 13 octobre 2013 - 03:54 .

[Xilizhra]

If you also add in a system of justice for dealing with the mages who choose to turn criminal of their own volition.

Well, yes.

[Angrywolves]

The mage templar conflict reminds me of an old Star Trek episode .
Btw, did anyone go to the NY comicon ?
Shatner was there giving a " conversation ".
So was Felicia Day with Geeks and Sundry.
No Bioware folks it seems.
But I digress.
In this old ST episode there were folks who were white on one side,black on the other while their enemies were the opposite.
Of course they ended up annihilating each other.
That's what will happen.
The Inquisitor can pick a side, or I hope stay neutral, or I hope kick both sides asses.
smiles.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

Except that the quote at the beginning of the thread heavily implies that that's not the case. You're basing this on the fact that the player never has the trouble the Chantry claims you should? I'm aware that PCs never get possessed or lose control or anything, but there's a reason for this that has little or nothing to do with the Chantry being unambigously wrong.

I'm basing this on the fact that being possessed by a demon that neither you nor anyone summoned, in a safe environment, simply does not happen from what we've been shown in-game. If Inquisition wants to change that, fine, I'll look at that when it comes. Keeping the environment safe and emotionally troubled mages close to those who can soothe them should take care of nearly everything.

To whatever extent possible, that's what should be done. But the games understate the danger, according to the quote at the start of the thread. So, ultimately, abominations will form. It'll be rare, I think, but it'll happen. And it's best that the target be a hardened facility with as few innocents in harm's way as possible. It's easier to put as few innocents as possible in harm's way by placing the innocents who are directly effected in quarantine. It's easier to harden one or two targets per country than giving each village. So, apart from the bigotry, the rape, the lack of effective therapy, and the religious claptrap, this isn't too far off the system I'd probably have made. (Edit: Though on the other hand, more constructive religous claptrap is probably the closest thing the setting has to therapy. And it seems to have helped Wynne.)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 13 octobre 2013 - 04:04 .

[Xilizhra]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Except that the quote at the beginning of the thread heavily implies that that's not the case. You're basing this on the fact that the player never has the trouble the Chantry claims you should? I'm aware that PCs never get possessed or lose control or anything, but there's a reason for this that has little or nothing to do with the Chantry being unambigously wrong.

I'm basing this on the fact that being possessed by a demon that neither you nor anyone summoned, in a safe environment, simply does not happen from what we've been shown in-game. If Inquisition wants to change that, fine, I'll look at that when it comes. Keeping the environment safe and emotionally troubled mages close to those who can soothe them should take care of nearly everything.

To whatever extent possible, that's what should be done. But the games understate the danger, according to the quote at the start of the thread. So, ultimately, abominations will form. It'll be rare, I think, but it'll happen. And it's best that the target be a hardened facility with as few innocents in harm's way as possible. It's easier to put as few innocents as possible in harm's way by placing the innocents who are directly effected in quarantine. It's easier to harden one or two targets per country than giving each village. So, apart from the bigotry, the rape, and the religious claptrap, this isn't too far off the system I'd probably have made.

Then I'll need to see those alleged abominations before making a system off of them.