Theres a big a big problem with star trek - The Something Awful Forums

Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Theres a big a big problem with star trek

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

that episode where the transporter made captain picard young again :psyduck:

:psyduck:

and then instead of figuring out how to make the transporter do that whenever they treated it as a problem to be solved. because if there is anything everyone wants it is the honor of dying as soon as possible

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 05:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:00

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

data only ever says he is fully functional in reference to sexuality. he is for deep dicking not for scat. for scenes referring to datas sex capabilities you can refer to "the naked now", "the measure of a man", and "first contact"

what i want to know are the multiple techniques he was programmed with specifically by noonien soong. like soong couldnt just wait and hope that data would figure out some certain techniques. it was imperative that data do some loving like: ________________________
on some planet doctor soong would toss and turn at night wondering if his androids have performed his techniques yet

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 05:31

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

let it mellow posted:

do what now

gary oldmans diary posted:

deep dicking

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 05:34

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Peanut Butler posted:

the biggest problem is that nobody ever fucks

but we have star trek to fill that void

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 06:29

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

whether or not every transporter incident technically kills you doesnt really matter if you dont believe in a soul or afterlife
the new you isnt just some knockoff genetic clone. it has the exact biochemical pattern that you define as your consciousness. its you. it just seems like its not you when youre still keeping an open mind to their being an afterlife

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 18:31

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Moridin920 posted:

if that's true then explain Riker's duplication

1 riker + 1 riker = 2 rikers. its not existentialisms fault that society doesnt have a means to account for a circumstance of 2 people having the same past. big deal

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 18:42

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Psycho Society posted:

From other people's perspective it is identical to you, from your perspective it makes no difference whether a copy is made or they just recycle your molecules into strawberry pocky

youre assuming you experience death
if the process is instantaneous or otherwise not experienced then there is functionally no death. one moment your consciousness is here the next instant it is over there. if youre still hanging on to the idea that its different than that then youre still hanging on to the idea of a soul

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 18:46

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Moridin920 posted:

which one is the "real" one?

both. if that isnt outright simple then youre really asking which one has the soul

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 18:48

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

we know everything about the hypothetical. youre just trying to hold onto a physical concept and a metaphysical concept at the same time when they dont work together. i recommend you disregard all metaphysical and see how plain and simple the physical scenario is
it really isnt the least bit complex

how consciousness is transferred? consciousness in a given instant is defined physically as a electrical and chemical pattern. please dont substitute the word "consciousness" for the word "soul" as you are really using/understanding it

gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Feb 20, 2017

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 18:53

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Moridin920 posted:

Please provide proof for your assertion.

if you want me to prove consciousness isnt really your ghost floating around in the ether just above your head then thats really your problem to deal with

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 18:57

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Psycho Society posted:

Except it's not your consciousness, it's a copy of it. You won't experience anything after transporting. A clone with all your memories isn't you, it's just indistinguishable from you from an outside perspective.

if time was frozen to a stand still and you were moved to the other side of town, would that not be you? if it is you, why? because theyre "your" particles comprising that matter? what if 1 electron is literally identical to every other electron in existence and there's no "Psycho Society" signature on the ones currently comprising your body? then all that is unique to define you and your experience and your existence is the pattern of your parts.
"you won't experience"? consider the transportation as instantaneous. there is no experience of death. the precise definition of what your consciousness is was in one location and the next instant it is in another. the sum total of not only all your parts but also the essence of what defines "you"

without the romantic notion of a soul, there is no longer any romantic notion of "you". if there is not an aspect of you that can not be truly duplicated (soul), then it follows that "you" in every aspect can be duplicated. your copy is you. not just "like" you, "is" you

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 19:10

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

now if there is a soul then at the moment of transportation you get to experience the afterlife i guess and there is a soulless copy of you going through the motions. an abomination. and if you werent deconstructed then obviously youre the one with soul and you get to go to heaven later if youre good

if you arent sure that consciousness is not a function of the physical brain then youre not willing to rule out metaphysical nonsense. enjoy your healing crystals

gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Feb 20, 2017

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 19:14

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

some of you guys really need to come to an understanding that everything you are experiencing is literally stuff physically happening in your brain. an extremely complex pattern of matter and energy
and the entire premise of the transporter is that it can read that entire pattern all in one go and exactly reproduce it elsewhere

if your brain stops working, your experiences stop and youre dead. *croak*. another hard reality is that the universe wont end for everyone when you die. everything else will just keep carrying on

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 19:21

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

do me a favor and outright suggest that maybe there is something beyond the physical that makes up our consciousness. simply insinuating it in the "just asking questions" way is so disappointing

it is a simple thing to answer. do you really think consciousness is metaphysical? yes or no (circle one)
fun fact: if you can't let go of your metaphysical notions, you are literally considering things outside the definition of what is science. thats the matter here. not what is known scientific information but what is outright not science by definition

gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Feb 20, 2017

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 19:26

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Moridin920 posted:

Why do you think that just because I'm asking you how the biochemical process of consciousness works in terms of what happens when it is just transferred as you suggest that I'm saying "there must be a soul or something outside the physical?"

It's getting to the point that I think you're just trolling because you're not even attempting to understand the arguments made against you in favor of just repeating the same thing over and over again.

yeah it must be me trolling. you are pretending this is a conversation while you press it only in one direction and outright refuse to offer up anything from your side. all i want is a simple "i believe consciousness is beyond|within the realm of the physical" from you and you refuse and just keep posting the same thing as you say i am doing. the conversation cannot continue on one end while you hold your end on a standstill

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 19:31

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Moridin920 posted:

That doesn't mean there aren't still issues with transportation as presented by Star Trek.

if you want to take an outright ancient thought experiment and hold it to what is canon to star trek technical specifications just to have a bag of unknown confounding variables then that is some pretty weak sauce and i have to suspect that in the back of your mind part of you is ok with hedging your bets that maybe there is an afterlife. there is nothing wrong with that, but if you aren't aware that you're doing it then it will influence how you view the thought experiment. i suspect i am also hedging my bets and have no problem striking the confounding variables and can then view it with the aforementioned specifics of the event being precise and instantaneous. from there if it is assumed that everything that is "uniquely" you is physical then it seems to me that you can be duplicated such that your duplicate in fact is you as much as you are

and if you are intent on viewing this through the specifics of canon star trek transporter specifications, i recommend you play video games instead

gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Feb 20, 2017

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 19:42

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Moridin920 posted:

I literally just answered that question.

yeah... after the hour and half of dodging it and blaming me for covering the same ground over and over.

Moridin920 posted:

I'm open to other specifics though. ... Define your terms if you want to talk about something else I can't read your mind.

literally defined all of my proposed parameters from the absolute beginning

Moridin920 posted:

Also answer the poster who actually seems to know what they are talking about wrt neurobiology. I notice you just ignored that completely.

i need to explain all of neurobiology, of course. it. falls. within. the. realm. of. the. physical. which is precisely the point. there are only so many ways to say that so i hope you understand it. how neurons fire or dopamine receptors work is as arbitrary as how much a brain weighs when the Given of what is proposed accounts for all of those details

Moridin920 posted:

Stop being such a douche lol

a troll, a douche, going over the same things over and over again.
the fact is you have insisted this be a one-sided conversation at every step and offered nothing while complaining and being acting so thick skulled that i cant tell if its an act

you could at this point step from the point of all that is given in the conversation and chime in with "why yes in that case it does seem quite clear that the duplicated and/or transported person is/is not identical to the pre-transport person" but youre a conversational brick wall. its a relief to have errands to run

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 20:11

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

thathonkey posted:

the biggest problem with star trek is that any time spent watching or thinking about it would be better served watching or thinking about star wars

new abrahms star trek is just star wars without the force now
did they even trek through the stars yet in the last movie?

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 20:13

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Moridin920 posted:

You realize you're not actually saying anything here right?

I answered your question once you presented it as a straight question and now you've switched from whining about how I'm not answering you to whining about how I didn't do it soon enough and using that as a way to once again side step actually answering any criticism.

Like the neurobiology dude straight told you that you're getting a lot of concepts wrong and you're just acting like what was said totally supports your argument instead of addressing the points made. That's why I'm saying you're trolling.

I called you a douche because you insist I'm stupid for asking you a basic question that befuddles real scientists and saying I should go back to video games because I'm assuming that we're talking about Star Trek style rules in a thread about... Star Trek.

oh boy after i asked something a half dozen times all the while you complaining about the conversation not moving you answer and are supposed to get a contribution medal
the "neurobiology dude" said i did not put forth any expert description of neurobiological process where i was not trying to because that would be pointless with what is given. where he talked about peoples subjective experience is something i have actually addressed

Moridin920 posted:

You realize you're not actually saying anything here right?

talking about Star Trek style rules in a thread about... Star Trek.

youre meandering about star trek unknowns
[fictional science | and fictional technology | that you dont know the fictional details of]
that is 3 layers of things between you and actually saying anything. you couldnt be further from actually saying anything if you tried. its actually impressive. i wish there were 2 identical yous so i could see what would happen if you were locked in conversation with yourself

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 20:28

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

i laid a clutch of eggs on page 4 to no avail

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 20:36

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Moridin920 posted:

Can't you just admit that based on our current understand of how poo poo works we can't definitely state how transporter tech would work from the perspective of the person being transported?

Is that really so goddamn hard? It's not anything to do with metaphysics. You can't sit there and tell me you somehow have figured out a problem that has been baffling scientists for years.

You haven't addressed any one point or argument made against you other than to just keep insisting that we must be somehow caught up on metaphysics because if we weren't then we'd agree with you.

Spurious and illogical.

"You don't know how the theoretical tech will work! (that's why you use givens to define the scenario in a way that provides a meaning thought experiment. can you follow the conversation at all or not? what moron besides you would insist that the conversation should be about how realistic the fictional technology in star trek would really turn out to be? Keep that dead end conversation in your dead mind)"
"[thing that doesn't exist] is baffling scientists! (uh, no. you are just pulling poo poo out of your rear end. amateur philosophers like you are baffled if you like)"
"You haven't addressed [thing] (actually I've addressed every relevant point)"

I really don't remember you being this dumb before.

thathonkey posted:

star wars without the force is just kinda boring though see: rogue one, the entirety of the star trek IP

nah meeting alien races and doing diplomacies sometimes is pretty cool. the new trek movies i saw were The New Space Adventures of Young Captain Kirk!

# ¿ Feb 21, 2017 02:31

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

scotty backed himself up in a transporter pattern buffer for decades when his ship crashed into the dyson sphere

# ¿ Feb 21, 2017 10:58

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

in laymans terms, transporters have the wrong kind of ram

# ¿ Feb 21, 2017 11:05

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Moridin920 posted:

If I'm pulling poo poo out of my rear end why can't you reference or cite one actual thing to shut me up instead of just calling me an idiot repeatedly?

you havent had anything to say or contribute for 2 days but "you cant prove that!" and yet you are still posting as though that means you are an integral part of a conversation. if there is any way someone could shut you up it would be a loving miracle

# ¿ Feb 21, 2017 19:35

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Moridin920 posted:

Sorry you're salty that your fantasy wank isn't real I guess.

the gently caress are you even talking about? i enter conversation and demonstrate that with elimination of unknowns a deterministic solution to thought experiment exists. you are incapable of understanding and make an idiot of yourself trying to win a conversation instead of take part in one. go do like i suggested earlier and play a video game

# ¿ Feb 21, 2017 19:44

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

youve been attempting to come up with something that would qualify as a burn for a while and if you keep trying im sure youll eventually succeed. dont wait for a response just keep trying

Moridin920 posted:

Answer this post which you totally ignored:

i addressed the content therein without needing to quote it. i suppose this is confusing to you. and the big quote youre gonna win the conversation by saying i ignored has only 2 main paragraphs to me that both start with "I think you are probably right". is your handler typing out your posts for you? give them a break please

gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Feb 21, 2017

# ¿ Feb 21, 2017 19:52

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Moridin920 posted:

Are you ever gonna answer that post or just keep flailing around having a salty meltdown?

already have addressed everything in that post. you are retarded

# ¿ Feb 21, 2017 19:58

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

what part of that was not addressed? ill go line by line later just to demonstrate that you are a loving moron

# ¿ Feb 21, 2017 20:01

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

"youre having a meltdown!" "youre doing a donald impersonation!"

youre trying to win a conversation with generic burns, bro. pro hint for you there :ssh:

:ssh:

quote:

Particularly as your fatuous description of the phenomenon of consciousness as "a electrical and chemical pattern" suggests that you are no expert on neurobiology.

the entire premise of the transporter is that is copies every aspect of the physical thing it scans. i dont need to explain how neurobiology works any more than i need to explain what the uniforms are made of. if you are suggesting that there is something that cant be scanned that is outside the premise of the transporter then you are very clearly saying there is something metaphysical there that makes up consciousness

only a dullard wouldnt understand this so of course look for another moridin920 post below

Moridin920 posted:

Of course if you later move the goal posts and say "this is just a thought experiment that only works if you assume we can eliminate these unknowns!" which is radically different from your original position of "if you think I'm wrong, you believe in souls like a moron" well.......... get hosed lmao.

Why are you so salty about this?

moving goal posts now... as in my 2nd post about transporters in this thread. im sorry you cant follow a conversation. i really am

gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Feb 21, 2017

# ¿ Feb 21, 2017 20:13

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Moridin920 posted:

Yeah lol you've made just two posts about it. Nobody click on the little ? in the bottom left corner!

"about" it? ive restated the required premises whenever relevant. im sorry you cant read posts not addressed to you

Moridin920 posted:

People told you that's dumb and wrong

"you" are now "people". ok bro. keep trying to find a shortcut to winning a conversation without being able to participate in it

Moridin920 posted:

now you're turning it into some "thought experiment" where you can just pick and choose which "unknowns" to "eliminate" because they contradict what you're saying.

the unknowns to eliminate are the ones only you bring up so you can argue "you dont know how the technology works" when you are backed into a corner in the conversation. and how exactly does star trek contradict what i am saying? oddly enough you insinuate that it does and yet you never say how because you never contribute anything to the conversation

Moridin920 posted:

K so again, that's not what I'm suggesting.

yes ive heard over and over everything you are not suggesting. its very easy when someone points out where youre wrong to just say "thats not what i was saying" but it is very conventional at that point to explain what you are saying. which of course you would never do because there would be no way for you to not contradict yourself.

but take an opportunity. please tell us what you are saying

Moridin920 posted:

Fuckin monster melt down lmao

yeah, i see youre upset

# ¿ Feb 21, 2017 20:40

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

Professor SJW posted:

thnks! its working great now

replicated dildos taste... synthetic

# ¿ Feb 22, 2017 06:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:00

gary oldmans diary: Sep 26, 2005

there should be jizz stains all over the holodeck grid

# ¿ Feb 22, 2017 17:04

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Theres a big a big problem with star trek

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.9 (SABB-v2.24.04)
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright ©2024, Jeffrey of YOSPOS