ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:42 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:37 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:11 am
Posts: 304
Location: The South...
I disagree.

The first outfit had a button at the collar, as evidenced here:

http://errantstory.com/archive.php?date=2003-05-02

and here (better view in the last two panels, seems to button at the collar):

http://errantstory.com/archive.php?date=2003-05-05

The priests outfit looks to have been all buttons, even on the shoulders:

http://errantstory.com/archive.php?date=2003-06-02

_________________
***Kitty says, "Rawr".***


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:06 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:22 pm
Posts: 362
Location: MA, USA
bellofthedamned wrote:
I disagree.

The first outfit had a button at the collar, as evidenced here:

http://errantstory.com/archive.php?date=2003-05-02

and here (better view in the last two panels, seems to button at the collar):

http://errantstory.com/archive.php?date=2003-05-05


Nope.
bellofthedamned wrote:
The priests outfit looks to have been all buttons, even on the shoulders:

http://errantstory.com/archive.php?date=2003-06-02


Until you see them undone. Clasps.

http://www.errantstory.com/archive.php?date=2003-09-17

_________________
Initiated by, adopted evil minion of: Insane_Megalamanic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:17 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:40 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Nyon, CH, near Geneve, on the shores of the Lac Leman. The heart of Suisse Romande.
normalphil wrote:
bellofthedamned wrote:
I disagree.

The first outfit had a button at the collar, as evidenced here:

http://errantstory.com/archive.php?date=2003-05-02

and here (better view in the last two panels, seems to button at the collar):

http://errantstory.com/archive.php?date=2003-05-05


Nope.
bellofthedamned wrote:
The priests outfit looks to have been all buttons, even on the shoulders:

http://errantstory.com/archive.php?date=2003-06-02


Until you see them undone. Clasps.

http://www.errantstory.com/archive.php?date=2003-09-17


Those look like epulets and epulets are buttoned or at least faked to look like they're buttoned. Mostly, they're buttoned. Even to fake it, you have to know about buttons.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:26 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:11 am
Posts: 304
Location: The South...
Thanks, I know a bit about it. Mum's a seamstress after all. Couldn't think of that word, but that's what they are, and they are very usually buttoned.

And Ian's collar of his very first outfit shows a button at the neck when he get a close-up. If you look on the opposite side, there's a tiny slot for the button to pass through.

_________________
***Kitty says, "Rawr".***


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:20 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:23 am
Posts: 490
Location: none
Slamlander wrote:
BloodHenge wrote:
Slamlander wrote:
The definition of 'construct' is simple; something that is made, period. Take a cat and add a pair of bat-wings, as well as enough IQ to make him a real pain-in-the-ass smart-mouth, and you have Ellis, a construct.

So, if I take a guy who lost one leg and one hand, stick a pet on one stump and a hook on the other, does that make him a "construct" as well? If I take one species of apple tree known for a strong root structure, and graft on branches from another species that's known for high fruit productivity (a real-world agricultural practice), is that a "construct"? There are lab rats with human ears growing out of their backs and bacteria that produce human insulin. Are they "constructs"? Personally, I'd say "no" to each of the above questions.

As for Ellis, the reason I'm reluctant to call him a construct is that he clearly has a metabolism-- he eats, sleeps, breathes, and bleeds. To me, that says "life form". Whether he's been bred, gengineered, or grafted, he's still a critter (or varmint, depending on your perspective).


Clearly, your definition differs from mine. But, I would argue that a cyborg might indeed be a construct, although it has biological components. A life-form is not exempt from being a construct, by the definition that I gave. However, there is disagreement over that definition and you seem to be operating on yet a third definition. I'd be interested to see you say what it is.


I think I've identified the fundamental difference in our respective definitions. You feel that a "construct" is any object or creature that experienced some assembly in the past, while I feel that assembly should be the defining characteristic of a "construct", and that merely grafting something onto a complete entity does not transform it into a "construct".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:23 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 pm
Posts: 109
Makes sense to me and I agree that adding something to a base creature doesn't make it a construct.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:19 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:40 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Nyon, CH, near Geneve, on the shores of the Lac Leman. The heart of Suisse Romande.
Senko wrote:
Makes sense to me and I agree that adding something to a base creature doesn't make it a construct.


If I take a bit of neural tissue from a mouse and implant it in a silicon chip to make a smell sensor, you are saying that it's not a construct?


BTW, such a chip exists for real and it is a construct. The mouse neurons were born. Are you a member of PETA?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:19 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 pm
Posts: 109
Nope and nope because the silicon chip isn't a base creature you have constructed a smell sensor. Now if it was the other way around and you inserted a silicon chip into the brain of a mouse it wouldn't be a construct.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:00 am 
Offline
Green Text

Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4126
Location: Clouds, rain, and green fields...
It would be a cyborg.

Half construct, half mouse - with the power to raze buildings to the ground.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:24 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:22 pm
Posts: 362
Location: MA, USA
bellofthedamned wrote:
Thanks, I know a bit about it. Mum's a seamstress after all. Couldn't think of that word, but that's what they are, and they are very usually buttoned.

And Ian's collar of his very first outfit shows a button at the neck when he get a close-up. If you look on the opposite side, there's a tiny slot for the button to pass through.


I don't see the button to go with the dimple.

As for the Priest outfit, again look at it when it's swinging open; the 'studs' swing free. The only way those are buttons is if it's a 'snap-fit' button, and that's just bloody unlikely.

_________________
Initiated by, adopted evil minion of: Insane_Megalamanic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:28 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:11 am
Posts: 304
Location: The South...
Why is that unlikely? Those are actually pretty common, dating back to when leatherworks began and copper was available. Looking at this world, I'd say there is no shortage of either.

The epulets would like snap in place if they aren't faux buttons.

_________________
***Kitty says, "Rawr".***


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:55 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 3:59 am
Posts: 83
Rakshasa wrote:
Mestro wrote:
So.. a golem with the ability to create another golem like itself isn't a construct? If it isn't a construct, what is it?

If you make something out of other thing, isn't it a construct? Does it matter if the things it is made up of are ideas or rock or metal or flesh?

No... You are failing to differentiate between a specific kind of reproduction and replication.

[break]

No, that reply was specifically on why under the proposed definition of a 'construct' vs. 'reproduction', a golem whom constructs another golem does not reproduce in that sense, but rather 'constructs' it's 'offspring'.

The difference here is that the golem performs the act as an 'actor', rather than the host, performing macroscopic acts which we would describe as construction. Reproduction on the other hand, would require internal (or sometimes external) processes that would be mostly automatic, though would be initiated by macroscopic acts in most cases.

There would of course be some corner cases, like if a golem could split in two like a cell... But that's outside of this scope.


Rakshasa, I didn't say the golem built the other golem from the outside, it could just as well have a construction chamber on its inside that builds the new golem, expanding till the new golem is ready to be ejected. Or maybe it extrudes the new golem from its mouth. Whatever way it does it, a new golem, identical to the first, is created. So you have a construct creating a new construct.

The distinction I was trying to point out there is that it the act of reproduction does not necessarily make something 'not a construct'. So if the flying cat was a construct that can produce new constructs, it is still a construct. Similarly a von neuman universal replicator is a construct even though it can replicate itself and it's 'off-spring' are still constructs.

Rakshasa wrote:
Slamlander wrote:
We are skirting the absurd here. A Golem can construct another Golem, as a robot can construct another robot. That doesn't alter the basic nature of either of them and in either case, the new construct is not an offspring, rather simply another robot or Golem.


Exactly the point I was making. Someone else was suggesting that a Golem that constructs another Golem was equivalent to biological reproduction and therefor reproduction would not be much different from construction. I was attempting to debunk that argument by showing the above.


I gather you feel that there is a qualitative difference between manufacturing (even by say nanobots) and biological reproduction?

Slamlander wrote:
Senko wrote:
Makes sense to me and I agree that adding something to a base creature doesn't make it a construct.


If I take a bit of neural tissue from a mouse and implant it in a silicon chip to make a smell sensor, you are saying that it's not a construct?


A smell chip is a construct since the neurons and the 'chip sans neuron' were combined to create it. Pretty much anything manufactured is a construct. Humans live in a world we have constructed, socially and physically.

The term construct is usually used to denote the mode by which a thing is created. Thus a thing that was created by magic is labeled a magical construct and Kotler's 4+2 model of national competitiveness is a mental construct.

What do you guys think about my distinction between construct and non-construct? See, a the essence of a construct is that it must be made out of parts and that it must be created by something.

I note that a model of what is and is not a construct is itself a mental construct. :)

To test my model, is a mineral aggregate, a rock in common language, a construct? It was created out of parts by pressure. That doesn't seem satisfactory. I'll modify it a bit. A construct is anything that is created out of parts according to a conscious intent. So rocks are not a construct. What about Hybrid Maize? It was made up of parts by conscious Human intent, but it grows and so it is actually creating a new self by growth. It has continuity as it arises from it's old self, but it is a new thing as it is different from it's previous self. Since a construct is created by something else, if it creates itself, it is not a construct. So we can add to the model the notions that if the thing creates itself or modifies itself, then it is not a construct.

A construct is anything that it created out of parts according to a conscious intent that did not create or modify itself, then it is not a construct.

So a birds nest is a construct, it was created by the birds conscious intent out of various parts and it is not capable of modifying itself and neither did it create itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:02 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:28 pm
Posts: 225
Location: Far, far away
Mestro wrote:
So a birds nest is a construct, it was created by the birds conscious intent out of various parts and it is not capable of modifying itself and neither did it create itself.


Not sure about this, even following your definition. A bird doesn't have what you could call a concious intent. It builds a nest because its instinct tells it to. Shape, materials, everything about the nest is dictated by instinct, not a choice of the bird. So no intent there.

_________________
I got nuthin'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:55 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:11 am
Posts: 304
Location: The South...
Shape, materials -- instinct?

I think not. Birds make conscious decisions about the materials of their nest, using more than just sticks and twigs. They'll use human hair, plastic strands, microfilaments, even strips of paper towels if they can find them. They choose what will make a hearty nest.

As for shape, birds shape the nest to conceal the eggs from sight, but that shape is a choice depending on the size of the mother doing most of the sitting. Some birds are more rotund, some are small. Nest size and shape are dictated by the mother's proportions.

The only instinct in it is the instinct to create a nest. That's no different from humans. We have an instinct to put our babies in their own version of a "nest".

_________________
***Kitty says, "Rawr".***


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:14 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 3:59 am
Posts: 83
Kian wrote:
A bird doesn't have what you could call a concious intent.


Methink you might be conflating self-awareness with the mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group