h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Can someone please define Sentient for me?"

Bod defined it as "Humans are sentient. This is a fact, not an opinion, for we have senses." We guess she means "having sences" when she says sentient. We are accepting that definition for the purposes of this conversation.

"We, as sentient beings, are the greatest good in the universe.
Proof? That a creator God who decides that we are not is itself sentient, and a creator God is the greatest good for itself."

Susan Calvin posting for Evolutionary Theist:

<>

"I assume that the creator God did not create the universe for altruistic reasons, because there was nothing to be altruistic for before we were created, and no time in which to predict us. If, however, we assume that the creator God predicted our coming and created us in a response to that, then God loses his goodness- for he is just completing an already determined act of making us - and his Godliness, for he is forced to work within the constraints of Time."

We don't understand your point.

"The very definition of God precludes others from being equal. It is the Supreme Being. It could not disapprove of us, for if it did, it wouldn't have created us. As a creator God, it must love us utterly for all of our actions, and have predicted all of our actions since the dawn of our race.
Why should God be timeless, I ask? People often assume him to be so, in reference to his Plan and his Creation. Yet he may just be supremely logical, if not logic itself, and be able to predict with outstanding accuracy the future."

Susan Calvin posting for Evolutionary Theist:

<>

"Noggin - or whoever else can answer this - do quantum particles still operate on a cause-and-effect basis, albeit a holistic one that is nearly impossible to comprehend?"

"Noggin - or whoever else can answer this - do quantum particles still operate on a cause-and-effect basis, albeit a holistic one that is nearly impossible to comprehend?"

Yes, they do, but the effect is sometimes random--a cause will reasult in a particle having a 50% chance of doing x and a 50% chance of doing y, and so on. (Noggin, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

"R. Daneel Olivaw - Beware the promise of space and the argentum astrum. It's become the new heaven for some people, and judging by your names you're one of them."

It isn't a "heaven" for me, nor is it for Eto, or probably for R. Giskard, though he hasn't said much on the subject of space exploration to me. What it is is a clean slate. I have all kinds of problems with human society as it is and with humanity as a species. Eto agrees with me on this, as does R. Giskard, but to a lesser degree. While the Agnostic Primist might agree with that as well, he wouldn't be interested in space travel as a solution. I'm not sure what the Inverted Solipsist thinks and I frankly don't care what The Last Imperial thinks. Susan Calvin is wavering on the subject.

However, here's the basic set of reasons that Eto, R. Giskard, and I want to colonize the solar system:

We want a new fronteer where we can try out our ideas on government, society, and culture. We are convinced that there are no really free or fair societies on Earth--the western democracies are better than a lot of other things, but not good enough. Eto and I also think that all of the cultures and societies on Earth are highly flawed and superstitious. They are filled with ideas thaat have no place in the modern world.

The problem is that there is nowhere on Earth to try out our new ideas. It's too crowded and all the land (except Antarctica, which is pretty close to being claimed and anyway to nearby) is claimed. We would like to go out and set up bases on Mars, or Luna, or the asteroid belt, and try and establish governments and societies that are better than those that exist. Even if we could do so on Earth, it wouldn't be wise to do so. Does anyone remember the Russian Revolution? Some people had radical new ideas, decided to test them out on millions of innocent people, and killed millions and created a blight on the world that hasn't fully healed.

Let us try our ideas out in space. Those who choose to come to our colonies would be volunteers. We would start small, so there would be less risk if something went wrong. If it worked out, perhaps we could persuade those who remain on Earth to copy us.

Eto and I have a second reason to go to space. We both would like to try to elimintate the stupid, superstitious elments of human culture. h However, this would be hard to do on Earth without killing or changing the personalities of many many millions of people. However, if we could start somewhere new, we could start a new society and those who agreed with us would follow. I think that such a new society could be superior to the globalized world that is being amde on Earth, whether or not anyone likes it.

We just want to be allowed to try new things, which the Conspiracy will prevent if we try them on Earth. (Yes, Eto and I have decided that Agnostic Primist is right about the conspiracy, but we disagree with him on how to fight it.

Hari Seldon posting for his constituents:

<>

<>

<<Daneel, Eto, and Giskard feel that AP's views on the Conspiracy are wise, but he is wrong to be so introspective about them.

We protest! You can't do that!

We demand that you come back immediately! Please. It will be boring without you three here.

The following is a joint statement by Hari Seldon and Susan Calvin:

<>

<>

The following is a joint statement by Hari Seldon and Susan Calvin:

<>

<>

"We have decided that our problems are unreconsilable and that we should simply act as different persons here on H2G2."
I thought that that was the original point of having multiple avatars.
"We think that our host human has a weak form of bipolar disorder." Ooh, join the club. I think that God has bipolar, too...
Agnostic Conspiracist is almost certainly right, in abstract terms, at least, in the abstract terms of the human mind. And in those terms, I agree.
I used to believe that space would provide a new kind of frontier, a new laboraty, a new playground for the superman, but then I began to take some fairly basic economic laws into account. You'd either have to go into complete anarchy/communism, or capitalism would once again leap at the chances, and exert an iron tight fist of elite and money over transport and communications, and supplies. Things like that.

A question - are all sentient beings equally sentient? Other creatures have senses, too. Others exhibit sentience but not intelligence, others yet the opposite. Is sentience merely a measure of intelligence, or vice versa, or is it actually an on/off quality?

Dear Agnostic Primist, Fnord Prefix and Jane Austin.

First my apologies for my tardy reply. I have been laid up at home with a recurrence of an old war wound and have been unable to get online for nearly ten days.

I have received your kind invitation to join the “God Thread in Exile” and have visited it briefly to see what you have been up to. I have read the rules, and the revised rules, and considered them carefully.

I am sorry to say that I shall not be joining your “thread in exile”. Indeed I am concerned that people I had formerly thought were open-minded and tolerant would bother with such a thing.

Throughout my sojourn in h2g2’s green and pleasant pastures I have stood, sometimes alone, as one who refuses to discriminate or exclude any other member of the forum. I fought to keep Justin the Preacher online and active, despite the vociferous opposition of many who felt that he had wounded them to the quick. Similarly I stood shoulder to shoulder with Hoovooloo when the moderators tried to rein him in.

This is an internet forum folks, a bastion of free speech, and one of the few places you can still stand up and say what you think, no matter how much it may upset others. Obviously there are some limits, personal attacks are disapproved of, but open debate, even upon distasteful topics is not. It is a virtual space, it is not real, so do not take it too seriously.

Like the inestimable Mr. Milligan, I am wary of joining any club that would have me as a member. I dislike elites, especially ones that set out in their core aims and objectives to exclude or anathematise another person. If Toxxin is unwelcome and is to be ignored if he finds your secret club, then who is next? Me or Bod perhaps?

Can you imagine how hurt you would be if you came across an open forum that set out that you were to be excluded and ignored? This is not acceptable behaviour in a civilised setting like h2g2 and I feel that you should each engage ‘ashamed mode’.

I suggest that this behaviour contradicts the purpose of h2g2 and that Mr. Adams (bless his hide) is presently rotating in his grave at a fair rate of knots. If you wish an exclusive forum go set up a private club on Yahoo, as this is not the place for it.

Despite my disappointment with your decision to set up this thread I shall continue to interact with you all elsewhere with the equanimity I give to all.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Here here Math, I've been keeping an eye on this thread since its inception (uninvited) and have been waiting for your resonse. I'm glad to say you lived up to my expectation.

Rev. Alji, Wizard of the Red Dragon (Swynwr y Ddraig Goch) SHC/ULC

p.s. I fell off my seat laughing at the request to keep it secret.

"This is an internet forum folks, a bastion of free speech, and one of the few places you can still stand up and say what you think, no matter how much it may upset others. Obviously there are some limits, personal attacks are disapproved of, but open debate, even upon distasteful topics is not. It is a virtual space, it is not real, so do not take it too seriously.

Like the inestimable Mr. Milligan, I am wary of joining any club that would have me as a member. I dislike elites, especially ones that set out in their core aims and objectives to exclude or anathematise another person. If Toxxin is unwelcome and is to be ignored if he finds your secret club, then who is next? Me or Bod perhaps?"

Frankly, you have a point.

"Can you imagine how hurt you would be if you came across an open forum that set out that you were to be excluded and ignored? This is not acceptable behaviour in a civilised setting like h2g2 and I feel that you should each engage &#8216;ashamed mode&#8217;."

Once, again, I have to admit you're right.

"Despite my disappointment with your decision to set up this thread I shall continue to interact with you all elsewhere with the equanimity I give to all."

Thanks.

"p.s. I fell off my seat laughing at the request to keep it secret."

I admit that was a bit idiotic.
<sadface

"I thought that that was the original point of having multiple avatars."

Yeah. The problem is that we tried to combined them into an "overmind"--Susan Calvin. Not all of the avatars found that acceptable.

"Ooh, join the club. I think that God has bipolar, too..."

Interesting. Here's a theory based on that that Inverted Solipsist would probably like:

YHWH did lots of mean things in the Old Testament on one side of his cycle. When he reverted to the other half, he was embarrased by his previous acctions, sent Jesus to make up for them, and then killed himself (bi-polar leads to a high risk of suicide). That's why there have been no miracles or prophets since (though Muslims and Mormons would disagree).

"I used to believe that space would provide a new kind of frontier, a new laboraty, a new playground for the superman, but then I began to take some fairly basic economic laws into account. You'd either have to go into complete anarchy/communism, or capitalism would once again leap at the chances, and exert an iron tight fist of elite and money over transport and communications, and supplies. Things like that."

Point, but I don't see any other option and I am getting awfully tired of Earth.

"A question - are all sentient beings equally sentient? Other creatures have senses, too. Others exhibit sentience but not intelligence, others yet the opposite. Is sentience merely a measure of intelligence, or vice versa, or is it actually an on/off quality?"

I'd say it's a measure of intelligence, but Bod would probably disagree.


BTW, on other news, R. Giskrd has decided to leave Me and join Susan Calvin.

In profound embarassment and disgust at the acctions of some of our member-avatars (Agnostic Primist and R. Giskard Reventlov), we have decided to take a leave of absence from H2G2. We will not return here to post for a while. Perhaps we will never return. Any posts directed to us will be responded to by Hari Seldon. (We would like to note that several of our member-avatars are unhappy with this descision and may choose to join Hari Seldon and return to the guide, but we sincearly hope they will wait for a consensus and not act rashly.)

Goodbye and thanks for all the ! We're that we must leave, but we don't really belong here. We don't belong anywhere civilized. We have failed, and failure is forbidden.

""Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty."

---------Steven J. Gould"

hi Math,

Yes, well said, to a point. Except that telling the others to go off and post on Yahoo instead of here also smacks a bit of 'elitism', wouldn't you agree?

I actually don't agree at all that anyone should be 'banned' from posting here. Even if that could effectively be done, which it cannot. I also don't think (though I don't know for sure) that Jane was in agreement with how this thread came about. She has certainly never posted here.

Yes, I agree it would be quite nasty to come across a thread that says YOU CANNOT POST HERE. And although I had nothing at all to do with the birth of this thread, I think some have taken my various run-ins with Toxxin far too seriously and have concluded that I might agree with the proposal that he should be 'banned'. I do not agree. I am quite capable of ignoring Toxxin all by myself (hi Toxx, if you are lurking!)

I do agree with the idea, which is also very much in operation on the FFFF thread, that a basic rule of 'being excellent to each other' is a very good and proper way to conduct a discussion. As you may recall, Math, I have had to step in a couple of times on the other God thread to remind people of their manners. Especially about welcoming new members. I saw too many of them make an attempt to contribute, be totally ignored, and presumably because they felt intimidated and unwanted, did not continue. And I think that thread lost a lot of possibly good discussion because of this.

<>

If you really believe this, Math, then the people who started this thread also have the right to say what they like, even if you don't agree. Because apparently they did say what they thought. I don't disagree with starting up a different God thread that might allow new members to join in and be welcomed. I do disagree with the idea of banning anyone. But I am sure that with a bit of thought the founders of this thread might also change that 'rule'.

az

Since I seem to have inherited Agnostic Primist's place as co-founder of this thread, I had better respond to this.

"I also don't think (though I don't know for sure) that Jane was in agreement with how this thread came about. She has certainly never posted here."

Why don't you see for your self? This thread was planned at:

F116455?thread=305055&skip=0&show=40

Let everyone here decide whether or not Jane really agreed with this thread--since she hasn't posted any comments on it, I can't be certain, but I think the above posting is evidence worth viewing.

"If you really believe this, Math, then the people who started this thread also have the right to say what they like, even if you don't agree. Because apparently they did say what they thought. I don't disagree with starting up a different God thread that might allow new members to join in and be welcomed. I do disagree with the idea of banning anyone. But I am sure that with a bit of thought the founders of this thread might also change that 'rule'."

I agree that no one shoud be banned, and I will petition Jane to agree to let us drop the ban (Fnord apparently doesn't like it either). The invitation only part will be dropped relatively soon, assuming that we don't loose secrecy first anyway.

""A question - are all sentient beings equally sentient? Other creatures have senses, too. Others exhibit sentience but not intelligence, others yet the opposite. Is sentience merely a measure of intelligence, or vice versa, or is it actually an on/off quality?"

I'd say it's a measure of intelligence, but Bod would probably disagree."

Bod, Buddhists generally and the Oxford English Dictionary...

"SENTIENT: That feels or is capable of feeling; having the power or function of sensation or of perception by the senses."

You have it or you don't.

""SENTIENT: That feels or is capable of feeling; having the power or function of sensation or of perception by the senses.""

"You have it or you don't."

That [which] feels or is capable of feeling could be considered a function of inteligence as well as sences.

A rotifer has sences, but can it really feel much more than a wish for food, a wish to mate, and a wish to avoid predators. Not that it really understande either concept.

As intelligence increases, I would say the depth of feeling and comprehension of sensation increases--thus sentience could be considered a function of intellignce.

For that matter, by the second half of the definition, the more sences a person has, the more sentient they might be considered. A deaf and blind person might not be considered as sentient as a normal person.

"You have it or you don't."

Or perhaps you only have it too a degree.

However, for the purpose of this discussion, I will accept the Buddhist definition by which anything with sences is equally sentient.

::::Bookmark::::

F

Hello

I see my name has been mentioned quite a lot on this new "elitist" alternative God thread!!

This is the first opportunity I have had to post, I have been rather busy recently.

Perhaps it is not such a good idea to exclude people, yes I will admit, when I first started talking to Primist I was very mad with Toxx, he seemed to derive enormous pleasure from cutting down everything that I posted, basically he found it very amusing to simply "wind me up". I was also very mad with primist at the same time as he seemed to agree with Toxx.

If Toxx will abide by the rules, especially "be excellent to one another" then I have absolutely no objections, after all if I find him to be obnoxious and boring I have the option of simply ignoring him.

Math, as always you are very wise and fair in your thinking.

Hari Seldon, as I am sure you are aware, my anger at Toxx when I posted the message that you linked to, did not constitute my agreement for starting a thread which would exclude him, you know very well why I said what I said when I said it, as far as I am aware I did not express agreement or disagreement at the idea of an "elitist" thread, unless I had drunk so much that I was not in full possesion of my senses and simply forgot, so your evidence as I see it is pretty flimsy, I merely expressed an emotional opinion based on his comments to me on another thread, which seemed to be a good idea at the time now I see it was a grave mistake.

If I decide to post on this thread, I will only respond to those persons who write in a respectful and considerate manner, It doesn,t matter to me if people agree or disagree with my comments, I only ask that due consideration and basic manners be shown to everyone.

everyone

Jane