do I understand the definition of a woman?

[Gadianton]

Markk,

I didn't say take the scripts word for anything (the script doesn't load into it what you think, anyway; the script doesn't say Six "is a woman"; that would be uninteresting), I said:

Suppose technology reaches that point one day; the point where technology can make a robot that is indistinguishable from a person without active scanning or opening it up.

[Markk]

Markk,

I didn't say take the scripts word for anything (the script doesn't load into it what you think, anyway; the script doesn't say Six "is a woman"; that would be uninteresting), I said:

Suppose technology reaches that point one day; the point where technology can make a robot that is indistinguishable from a person without active scanning or opening it up.

You didn’t say that…you said…

” Did you watch Battlestar Galactica(2004)?


You can read a synopsis if not. In it, there is a Silon called Six who wears a red dress you’ve likely seen at some point in media. Suppose technology reaches that point one day. Is Six a woman? In the show, Six gets raped at one point. Can that really be called rape?”

But anyways with your newly framed question…

Rape is sexual assault against a man or a woman, by either a man or a woman… basically forcible sex again a unwilling person. The law would need to change to include robots as a recognized being I suppose before anything like that could happen…currently there are robots and if I destroyed a robot I didn’t own willfully, and not accidentally, it would not be murder but most likely destruction of personal property. Just as if I stole a car and wrecked it.

Just explain your point.

[Gadianton]

The law would need to change to include robots as a recognized being I suppose before anything like that could happen…currently there are robots and if I destroyed a robot I didn’t own willfully, and not accidentally, it would not be murder but most likely destruction of personal property. Just as if I stole a car and wrecked it.

You're absolutely right. The law wouldn't change without people's beliefs changing. It's really a question of whether people would come to believe, through any number of kinds of evidence, that these robots are sentient beings that should be treated like people. There are other kinds of grounds that could make certain things illegal without underwriting belief in sentiency. For instance, people could come to believe that crimes against such realistic productions encourage crimes against people and so it's illegal on these grounds, but that's not what I'm talking about.

In an advanced futuristic world, humans and such machines might exist side by side for ten thousand years, there might be a time when looking back, humans and robots have existed together for longer than humans had existed alone. And broadly, you know, acceptance of other cultures is a matter of time. On first contact, there's literal wars or cultural wars, but as time goes on, new generations see different kinds of people as normal and don't question it.

As an overview to "explaining my point", defining a woman is not a biological problem but a philosophical problem similar to asking what it means to be human. Some have already brought that up. But I think it's a problem very similar to the problem of A.I. -- can an A.I. ever be sentient? I do plan on pointing out the specific ways in which this is basically the same problem. The crux of it is that the problems of A.I. and sentience are similar to the problems of defining a man or a woman.

[doubtingthomas]

Markk vs Markk

For the third time either nether or both

I never said anything about a fake biological sex

So again Markk, are you saying that some people have no biological sex or two biological sexes?

Being that you are so confident that you are a biological man, how do you know that? 3rd or 4th request.

It depends on your definition of a biological man. If you define a biological man as someone who has a dick and "XY" chromosomes, then the answer is obvious.

[Markk]

The law would need to change to include robots as a recognized being I suppose before anything like that could happen…currently there are robots and if I destroyed a robot I didn’t own willfully, and not accidentally, it would not be murder but most likely destruction of personal property. Just as if I stole a car and wrecked it.

You're absolutely right. The law wouldn't change without people's beliefs changing. It's really a question of whether people would come to believe, through any number of kinds of evidence, that these robots are sentient beings that should be treated like people. There are other kinds of grounds that could make certain things illegal without underwriting belief in sentiency. For instance, people could come to believe that crimes against such realistic productions encourage crimes against people and so it's illegal on these grounds, but that's not what I'm talking about.

In an advanced futuristic world, humans and such machines might exist side by side for ten thousand years, there might be a time when looking back, humans and robots have existed together for longer than humans had existed alone. And broadly, you know, acceptance of other cultures is a matter of time. On first contact, there's literal wars or cultural wars, but as time goes on, new generations see different kinds of people as normal and don't question it.

As an overview to "explaining my point", defining a woman is not a biological problem but a philosophical problem similar to asking what it means to be human. Some have already brought that up. But I think it's a problem very similar to the problem of A.I. -- can an A.I. ever be sentient? I do plan on pointing out the specific ways in which this is basically the same problem. The crux of it is that the problems of A.I. and sentience are similar to the problems of defining a man or a woman.

The robot will never be a biological human man or woman…but just a man and woman fabricated devise, basically a computer that walks and talks, and maybe even displays human feelings programmed in its data banks.

The people believed the emperor had new clothes on, but only common sense revealed he didn’t and that he was actually naked.

A biological woman and a biological man make life possible. One without the other, would end human civilization. We make robots, but robots will never become one of us…and all the twisting of words and politics won’t change this fact. Humans can create a robot to look like a man,woman, cat, dog,……but by definition they are not one of them, but a robot in the image of them.

Treating something like something does not make it the something you are treating it as. You can treat a dog as a cat all day long, call it a cat, but it is still a dog.

[Jersey Girl]

The people believed the emperor had new clothes on, but only common sense revealed he didn’t and that he was actually naked.

[Gadianton]

The robot will never be a biological human man or woman…but just a man and woman fabricated devise, basically a computer that walks and talks, and maybe even displays human feelings programmed in its data banks.

The people believed the emperor had new clothes on, but only common sense revealed he didn’t and that he was actually naked.

A biological woman and a biological man make life possible. One without the other, would end human civilization. We make robots, but robots will never become one of us…and all the twisting of words and politics won’t change this fact. Humans can create a robot to look like a man,woman, cat, dog,……but by definition they are not one of them, but a robot in the image of them.

Treating something like something does not make it the something you are treating it as. You can treat a dog as a cat all day long, call it a cat, but it is still a dog.

That's easy to say, but there are times and places where culture X rejects culture Y as human and vice versa; something easy for you to see through because you simply reflect what you was done learned when you was a youngster, and that's not something you were brought up with. Right now you're just saying, "A woman is a woman dag bern it!"

I'm going to take a nightcap soon, but I'll provide the three criteria by which everyone -- Markk, DT, H, and even Binger grapple with when determining what it means to be Human, a sentient robot or A.I., or a woman. more about each later. And, I'm telling you, I don't have a definition of a woman either. It's not an easy problem to solve. I'm not telling you, Markk, that you have to accept any particular definition, as I don't have a definition I accept either. I'm just trying to get you to think about it, rather than justify what you already believe.

Here are the three great criteria:

1) The Turing Test.
2) Provenance
3) The Hard Problem (inner reality?)

Every argument is either about the verdict of one or more of these categories, or which category takes precedence over the others.

[Markk]

Markk vs Markk

For the third time either nether or both

I never said anything about a fake biological sex

So again Markk, are you saying that some people have no biological sex or two biological sexes?

Being that you are so confident that you are a biological man, how do you know that? 3rd or 4th request.

It depends on your definition of a biological man. If you define a biological man as someone who has a dick and "XY" chromosomes, then the answer is obvious.

You are pasting me out of context…paste what I wrote in full context. You can't address what intersex is, so you just try unsuccessfully to attack me. Try to do a little study on your own.

They are neither male or female and yet both at the same time…they feel both “feelings” and “traits” of biological men and women. One explained she liked things that girls liked, yet things like trains with her boy feelings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czbQRjdGvYQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kJRHE3U8Tk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tE-UCJyFRs


You claimed you knew you were a man, why do you know you are a man? Becuase you have a penis and YX Chromosomes, you weren’t real specific with why you know you are a man.

[Markk]

The robot will never be a biological human man or woman…but just a man and woman fabricated devise, basically a computer that walks and talks, and maybe even displays human feelings programmed in its data banks.

The people believed the emperor had new clothes on, but only common sense revealed he didn’t and that he was actually naked.

A biological woman and a biological man make life possible. One without the other, would end human civilization. We make robots, but robots will never become one of us…and all the twisting of words and politics won’t change this fact. Humans can create a robot to look like a man,woman, cat, dog,……but by definition they are not one of them, but a robot in the image of them.

Treating something like something does not make it the something you are treating it as. You can treat a dog as a cat all day long, call it a cat, but it is still a dog.

That's easy to say, but there are times and places where culture X rejects culture Y as human and vice versa; something easy for you to see through because you simply reflect what you was done learned when you was a youngster, and that's not something you were brought up with. Right now you're just saying, "A woman is a woman dag bern it!"

I'm going to take a nightcap soon, but I'll provide the three criteria by which everyone -- Markk, DT, H, and even Binger grapple with when determining what it means to be Human, a sentient robot or A.I., or a woman. more about each later. And, I'm telling you, I don't have a definition of a woman either. It's not an easy problem to solve. I'm not telling you, Markk, that you have to accept any particular definition, as I don't have a definition I accept either. I'm just trying to get you to think about it, rather than justify what you already believe.

Here are the three great criteria:

1) The Turing Test.
2) Provenance
3) The Hard Problem (inner reality?)

Every argument is either about the verdict of one or more of these categories, or which category takes precedence over the others.

No, specifically I am saying a robot is not a human…let alone a man or woman, which are adult human beings.

Enjoy your night cap.

[Gadianton]

No, specifically I am saying a robot is not a human…let along a man or woman, which are adult human beings.

I think you mean, "yes, I agree with your criteria, and per the criteria , a robot is not a human."

Turing Test -- how immersive is the simulation? A.I. is terrible so far. Likewise, trans surgeries aren't very persuasive in general. A very large number of people out there see physical trans as freakish. Even folks who are sympathetic have to ask themselves if they would have the same relations with trans as they would non-trans by this criteria. But there are two other criteria, and this criteria might take a back seat to those, for many people.

Provenance -- this is a vast category. For starters, a brilliant art critic can easily be fooled by a fake Van Gogh. In art, provenance is everything. Markk is all-in on provenance arguments. It doesn't matter how physically convincing trans ever becomes, where is the paperwork that shows the genetics, and everything about the history of the specimen? It's by provenance (brains being similar) that we consider that other people have internal worlds like our own. There is no way to prove somebody else has an inner life. There will never be a way to prove a robot or A.I. has (or doesn't have) an inner life. There are very good arguments against the Turing test as necessary and sufficient-- the Turing test is a behaviorist theory. It assumes there is no such thing as "inner life". Most people think it must walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and feel and think like a duck also. Computer hardware no matter how advanced for many if not most people is sufficiently different from a brain that we can't seriously entertain the thought of a robot being sentient. However, Markk probably doesn't object to a person's humanness on grounds of an artificial heart. What if, one day, parts of the brain can be replaced with prosthetics that have the same functional role? Or, what if neurons can be replaced with man made fabrications of different materials but holding the same functional role? Replace one neuron at a time with synthetic neurons until they are all replaced and is it still 100% obvious that the result isn't a human?

Changing sex at the genetic level goes way back. More recently:

"Expression of the Y chromosomal gene Sry is required for male development in mammals and since its discovery in 1990 has been considered a one-piece gene," he said.

"Sry turns out to have a cryptic second part, which nobody suspected was there, that is essential for determining the sex of male mice. We have called the two-piece gene Sry-T."

The scientists tested their theory and found that male mice (XY) lacking in Sry-T developed as female, while female mice (XX) carrying a Sry-T transgene developed as male.

The success rate for the experiments was almost 100 per cent

an xx that is a male phenotype and with the gender traits such as those are, follow suit.

Inner life -- There is no way to prove or disprove the contents of a person's reported inner life. If a person reports being female while having a body type that doesn't match, for some people that's enough to Trump the other two categories and say the person is female or even a woman. Others will just deny that the person is truthful or even if truthful that it has any bearing. If an A.I. reports having an inner life with feelings, that wouldn't be enough to convince most people that it's sentient. I can write a bash script that says it's sentient.

Does Markk believe God is male? Does God have a body? How about Jesus casting demons into the swine? Did Jesus take care to cast only male demons into male swine? Do demons have gender? Do souls separate from the body at death, and do they have gender? Markk is extracting a lot from biological determinism; something really at odds with Christianity for the most part.