Ambrosia Software Web Board: If you're willing to do it to yourself, - Ambrosia Software Web Board

I can practically hear undead shadow's brain cooking.

Quote

I like the way you think.

What I'm concerned with is whether or not you consent to having sex with yourself. As long as you aren't infringing your freedoms, I don't think there's a problem.

teh OMG gey secks.

Sniper Kitty, on Nov 14 2008, 09:32 PM, said:

This picture represents my current opinion of you.

Shlimazel, on Nov 15 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

It was simmering which I'd like to think is much quieter then cooking...

I have no problem with gay sex I just failed to see how that comic explained Pufer's topic.

As a parenthetical aside, I referred to the rule that states, "If there's a topic on the internet, there's a relevant xkcd." SA was linking you to the first segment of the relevant xkcd strip.

If you're still searching for some type of take-away from this topic, take the upside of part five of that strip. Next time you see an attractive, intelligent looking woman whom you normally would just walk by without so much as smiling at, just go up to her and launch into a shortened version of my above scenario (don't use the whole thing, it's boring). You really can get some interesting conversations going with this because there's so much in there that someone could grab ahold of to converse with you on. Even if she just seems confused, laugh it off and introduce yourself. You've broken the conversation barrier and that might work out really well for you.

In general, attractive women get hit on a lot. Studies have shown that completely random s### (especially when pulled off confidently) makes them take notice of you as opposed to the endless series of ######s out there asking them what they're drinking (of course, the studies don't quite state this conclusion quite as crudely as I have here). You're not going to find much out there more random than a sexual example of the linguistic problems inherent to the english language's conception of self.

Nothing to do with why I posted the topic, but interesting nevertheless. And it does work.

-Pufer

Pufer, on Nov 14 2008, 03:46 PM, said:

Your scenario has nothing to do with the actual world, so the words we use to deal with the world (eg masturbation and homosexuality) are useless there. What would it even mean to exist in a referenceless world? What would it mean to act?

The fundamental fact of human existence is that we all exist in the world. If the world is taken away, all bets are off.

dude3, on Nov 15 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

Language depends on reality as it is or reality as defined by human perception? If it's the former, what if we all are transfered to the referenceless world? Does meaning cease to exist simply because we have no external directional reference? You're placed in a round, blank room with no idea of which way is which, does the meaning of language cease to have a reference, or is it carried with you? If there is no north, south, wet, cold, dark, cows, or houses to look at, do we cease to know what these concepts are? Can we not still use language to refer to these concepts?

-Pufer

Pufer, on Nov 15 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

It's interesting to think about, but I don't know if it's a question that can be answered. I don't know that humans have ever created a word without definition. We've made up words, sure, but they've always been to describe a definite concept. If we were placed in a room with no points of reference, the words we have are still defining their concepts, we just can't use them constructively. With the proper descriptions, it would even be possible to teach someone who was raised without any reference points all of these words and concepts. The caveat, of course, is that it's one thing to be told what something is, it's another to actually experience it. As a specific example from my own life, before I had ever driven a stick shift vehicle, I knew what the concept was. It had been taught to me, without a specific point of reference. Then, when I needed to apply the knowledge, I was able to with little learning left to do.


The question I have real trouble getting my mind around is whether or not someone, with no points of reference at all, would be able to spontaneously come up with certain concepts without ever experiencing them at all.

Pufer, on Nov 15 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Language would be a very bizarre occurrence if there weren't a decent amount of overlap.

Quote

Assuming that such a referenceless world is a possible one (I'm not convinced of that; this whole discussion may be nonsense), we would have to spend a good deal of effort reworking language to make it conform to our new circumstances.

Quote

You would still understand how to use the words you know, but you wouldn't have anything about which you could use them to talk. (I'm talking about concrete and semi-concrete words here, not syntactic operators like "and" and "or".)

Quote

Why would we talk about something that doesn't have anything to do with the world or other thinkable worlds?


EDIT: Perhaps it goes without saying, but I'm unclear about the logistics of our travel to the referenceless world. Do we retain our memories from the current world?

This post has been edited by dude3: 15 November 2008 - 10:52 PM

I'm pretty much premising it on us keeping our memories. For future generations it might get a little interesting, but we can all just sit around and reminisce about back when there was stuff worth reminiscing about.

I really think that if you were to put a few of us in a total sensory deprivation chamber, we wouldn't lose our ability to discuss the situation and/or understand what the others were saying about us. We might all eventually go nuts, but I'm not sure if we'd instantly lose our ability to use language. It wouldn't much matter that you didn't have an elephant before you to speak about. I don't have an elephant before me right now and imagine that you don't either, yet we can still talk about it, and it still makes sense.

No ready point of reference doesn't mean that meaning in language goes away.

-Pufer

GutlessWonder, on Nov 16 2008, 04:02 AM, said:

There examples of people who are in this position; deafblind people can neither see nor hear what we're calling reference points. But ask one of them to suck themselves off and they will definitely find it freaky.

Pufer, on Nov 16 2008, 02:36 AM, said:

I agree that would be able to continue to talk about the previous world, but my point was that we wouldn't be able to use the language from that world to talk about what happens in the referenceless world (or at least that if we continued using the same words, they would mean significantly different things). However we delineate "masturbation" and "homosexuality" in this world, they certainly don't signify activities that happen in a referenceless void of nothingness.

There's nothing to converse about other than human behavior or reminiscence in a referenceless void. Insofar as humans would continue doing whatever it is that they do, the vocabulary that exists to categorize and describe it would still be valid. If people are able to still masturbate, presumably they will continue to call it masturbation (or another word meaning roughly the same thing) if they see fit to categorize it.

Just because you see nothing in every direction (with the exception of other humans, if any are present) it doesn't mean that you would no longer know what an elephant was. If someone is with you and asked what you were thinking about, you could say "Elephant." and they would still understand. Reality can change, but we still carry our own realities around with us.

-Pufer

I'm not saying that we would stop thinking and speaking abstractly. I'm saying that our existing vocabulary does not (which is not to say that it could not with modification) cover anything that happens in a void. Earlier you mentioned that because your clone scenario had never happened, the definitions of "masturbation" and "homosexuality" cannot be determined in the face of equally plausible hypotheses. Since nobody has ever experienced an otherwordly void, the same indeterminacy effect occurs. Maybe we could use those words to refer to whatever you and other-Pufer do to each other, maybe not.

Pufer, on Nov 15 2008, 11:16 PM, said:

This should be in "how to get a girlfriend" topic.

dude3, on Nov 16 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

What me and other-Pufer are doing is situational, not necessarily a function of the void. The void serves the function of providing that there's no background reference by which we can distinguish between ourselves. If we're meeting in my living room, we could presumably flip a coin and figure out who would bend over first (Pufer standing nearest the balcony is heads, Pufer standing nearest the kitchen is tails, chance actually determines it). If neither Pufer is nearer to anything, then there is no barrier to their being perfectly identical in every way.

Instead of a void, they could be both drugged and wake up together in a featureless round room on one or the other's native Earth (identical to the other for all intents and purposes).

-Pufer

Fair enough. My verdict: gay.