Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] sentient pet rocks

[Jeremy Cook <athena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 07:12:19PM -0500, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> 
> On Dec 16, 2004, at 2.02 PM, Jeremy Cook wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 10:46:43AM -0800, Dan Schmidt wrote:
> >> Then again perhaps having a nonsensient player is a
> >> good thing.I think that this is the only nomic with a
> >> player that can't pass the turning test and isn't
> >> mentioned in the rules not to mention violating one of
> >> them.
> >
> > I have a bunch of sentient pet rocks who want to join the game.
> > They communicate telepathically through me. They can use my
> > working e-mail address and can pass the Turing test ( just ask me
> > the questions, and I'll pass on their responses.)
> 
> A turing test is designed to ascertain whether an entity is a 
> conscious, self-aware, thinking being or not. Giving them the test 
> through you proves nothing to us, and so they fail any turing test that 
> you have ample chance to edit the results of.

No, since you have no way of knowing whether or not I have edited
the results. In fact, it's possible that there exists a conscious
being not equal to me that I form a part of, and in any Turing
test you give to that being, I as well as the other parts would
"edit" the results.

Can you prove that I have edited the results? By your logic, none
of us count as conscious beings, since our computers have ample
chance to edit our emails.

> 
> > Using my e-mail, 100,001,000 of them join the game, under the names
> > "rock1" through "rock100001000". They each receive a welcome
> > point automatically under r14, and rock1 through rock100000000
> > give 1 point each to Zarpint's Tax Shelter.
> >
> > Currently, only players can win by getting more than 1,000
> > points, but entities can conduct research. Zarpint's Tax Shelter
> > conducts General Research 20 million times.
> >
> > rock100000001 through rock100001000 each give me one point. I
> > win, and all points are destroyed.
> 
> I'm going to ignore this until somebody looks up the CFIs and 
> precedents from Glotmorf's Imaginary Friends and the army of Bob's 
> Clones, and gives me a good reason why it would be any more valid to do
> *exactly* the same failed scam but replacing "clone" with "pet rock".

I figured you'd say that. They're CFI 251 and CFI 272, and in
those CFIs, the Bobs and Glotmorf's cadre were not Players,
unlike in this case.

Zarpint
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss