Scifi TV Discussion Thread

[Tarsonis]

Except, that’s not taken as a given. Whether Artificial Intelegences are truly sentient or just a facimele of sentience is still hotly contested. (This is actually part of my professional field fyi) Like I said, Picard’s argument is still a topic of debate in modern philosophy. It’s not “outdated” at all. Here at Yale, I’ve seen his speech debated in several classes, and participated in said debate. You’re talking out of your ass here.

Are we truly sentient or just a facimele of sentience then?

ugh you’re clearly unfamiliar with the debate if you’re just gonna espouse sophist nonsense like that. Intelligence is conceived of and defined by human characteristics. You’re literally asking if a thing can be a facimile of itself which is ontologically impossible.

How do we exit huh? Simple. Something always and forever will exist and that thing is the space-time continuum.

Literally everyword of this is wrong.

Is space time conscious? Are you going to fry your brain while trying to figure this out?

this is literally what I do for a living.

They are giving you a well known debate to draw your interest into an educative debate. (This is my opinion that came out of my ass btw lol)

And it shows.

[Equality of Nations]

It appears that this Turkish man can understand more English than you do. Read more carefully and you'll understand. Keyword is progress...

But that doesn't change the point, you said acting in the older ST series was shit and that Patrick Stewart wasn't good in TNG.

Yes, you did say he progressed, after TNG. You admit to being unable to watch the older series due to shit acting, TNG is included in the older series, hence you think Patrick Stewarts acting was shit but progressed after TNG. (I suggest looking the indented word up, you seem to not understand it)

I ask again, would you like the quotes to where you admit to this line of thinking?

Read prior comments please. I stated that compared to today, even though their performances may be excellent, they wouldn't be on par with today's standards. Their performances fell victim to their own success.

[Equality of Nations]

Are we truly sentient or just a facimele of sentience then?

ugh you’re clearly unfamiliar with the debate if you’re just gonna espouse sophist nonsense like that. Intelligence is conceived of and defined by human characteristics. You’re literally asking if a thing can be a facimile of itself which is ontologically impossible.
1-

How do we exit huh? Simple. Something always and forever will exist and that thing is the space-time continuum.

Literally everyword of this is wrong.
2-

Is space time conscious? Are you going to fry your brain while trying to figure this out?

this is literally what I do for a living.
3-

They are giving you a well known debate to draw your interest into an educative debate. (This is my opinion that came out of my ass btw lol)

And it shows.
4-

1- I admit, i couldn't find what fecimile meant. But, "Intelligence is conceived of and defined by human characteristics" You don't need to be human to have intelligence you just need to have a brain.
2- What is wrong? You trying to understand something with a biased mind? Or the truth that's staring at your face if you managed to ask a question "Who created god?" Let me tell you; God = space-time
3- Nicely evaded
4- Fell into the trap

[New haven america]

But that doesn't change the point, you said acting in the older ST series was shit and that Patrick Stewart wasn't good in TNG.

Yes, you did say he progressed, after TNG. You admit to being unable to watch the older series due to shit acting, TNG is included in the older series, hence you think Patrick Stewarts acting was shit but progressed after TNG. (I suggest looking the indented word up, you seem to not understand it)

I ask again, would you like the quotes to where you admit to this line of thinking?

1. Read prior comments please. 2.I stated that compared to today, even though their performances may be excellent, 3. they wouldn't be on par with today's standards.

1. I did, you said acting in older ST series was shit.
2. No, you said that their performances were shit.
3. Oh hey, look, more nonsense.

[Equality of Nations]

1. Read prior comments please. 2.I stated that compared to today, even though their performances may be excellent, 3. they wouldn't be on par with today's standards.

1. I did, you said acting in older ST series was shit.
2. No, you said that their performances were shit.
3. Oh hey, look, more nonsense.

Hmm, if that's the only comment that you care about there's nothing else that i can do for you. When you piss someone of by making him repeat the thing he said by about 10 times such things happen...

[New haven america]

1. I did, you said acting in older ST series was shit.
2. No, you said that their performances were shit.
3. Oh hey, look, more nonsense.

Hmm, if that's the only comment that you care about there's nothing else that i can do for you. When you piss someone of by making him repeat the thing he said by about 10 times such things happen...

It's not my fault you're incapable of remembering what you wrote:

Yeah, I’m not sure what the issue is. Like it seriously reads as a long winded “not shiney enough” argument.

Want me to say it out loud? Fine. Their acting, compared to today is shit...

The acting in older ST series is shit.

This is not going to help us take you seriously. You do realize that both Patrick Stewart is a Shakesperean actor who has been in several movies after TNG, and Avery Brooks i=has been in several Academy nominated/winning movies, right, and they're only a drop in the ST bucket.

No matter how good they were, compared to today, they couldn't have performed as well as actors can today.

Actors and performances back then are unable to match those of today (Which is complete and utter bullshit).

You said it plain as day, you think their acting back then was shit. It doesn't matter if you say "But they got better when they stopped doing those roles", the fact of the matter still remains, you believe their performances back then were terrible.

The best part is is that you're the only one here who doesn't see this.

[Equality of Nations]

Hmm, if that's the only comment that you care about there's nothing else that i can do for you. When you piss someone of by making him repeat the thing he said by about 10 times such things happen...

It's not my fault you're incapable of remembering what you wrote:

Want me to say it out loud? Fine. Their acting, compared to today is shit...

The acting in older ST series is shit.

No matter how good they were, compared to today, they couldn't have performed as well as actors can today.

Actors and performances back then are unable to match those of today (Which is complete and utter bullshit).

You said it plain as day, you think their acting back then was shit. It doesn't matter if you say "But they got better when they stopped doing those roles", the fact of the matter still remains, you believe their performances back then were terrible.

The best part is is that you're the only one here who doesn't see this.

You still don't get it. I don't wanna insult you. Just know this. Try using your brain once in a while before engaging in an argument. Otherwise people will stop responding and trying to reason with you. Bye. And stop trying to comprehend the intelligence that's simply out of your reach, you were not meant to understand what progress is.

[New haven america]

It's not my fault you're incapable of remembering what you wrote:


The acting in older ST series is shit.


Actors and performances back then are unable to match those of today (Which is complete and utter bullshit).

You said it plain as day, you think their acting back then was shit. It doesn't matter if you say "But they got better when they stopped doing those roles", the fact of the matter still remains, you believe their performances back then were terrible.

The best part is is that you're the only one here who doesn't see this.

You still don't get it. I don't wanna insult you. Just know this. Try using your brain once in a while before engaging in an argument. Otherwise people will stop responding and trying to reason with you. Bye. And stop trying to comprehend the intelligence that's simply out of your reach, you were not meant to understand what progress is.

Your density in this subject would make a block of Osmium jealous...

[The Huskar Social Union]

Alright alright, dont be flinging insults about.

[Minoa]

Having a heady message doesn’t make them ahead of their times, if anything the opposite was true. They’re all derivatives of Star Trek. Star Trek is the OG. If you want some really ahead of its time stuff, go watch Picard debate the ethics of Artifical Intelegence back when computers still ran on MS-Dos.

Watch Kirk explore strange new worlds before Armstrong walked on the moon.

I find this a bit confusing, but by the time Picard debuted, Quantel Paintbox was the go-to for digital graphic designers: I think TNG had some use of Quantel Paintbox.

Source: http://www.digitalanimators.com/2002/01 ... sblast.htm

[Ameriganastan]

...Damn, what did I miss?

[Ameriganastan]

I was watching "The Drumhead" earlier, and I finally noticed how low 11,000 sounds for how many ships were destroyed at Wolf 359. I mean, 39 ships destroyed but only 11,000 dead?

[Tarsonis]

ugh you’re clearly unfamiliar with the debate if you’re just gonna espouse sophist nonsense like that. Intelligence is conceived of and defined by human characteristics. You’re literally asking if a thing can be a facimile of itself which is ontologically impossible.
1-

Literally everyword of this is wrong.
2-

this is literally what I do for a living.
3-



And it shows.
4-

1- I admit, i couldn't find what fecimile meant. But, "Intelligence is conceived of and defined by human characteristics" You don't need to be human to have intelligence you just need to have a brain.
2- What is wrong? You trying to understand something with a biased mind? Or the truth that's staring at your face if you managed to ask a question "Who created god?" Let me tell you; God = space-time
3- Nicely evaded
4- Fell into the trap

1. Intelligence is a conceived of through human understanding, using human conceptions of intelligence to identify and measure intelligence in other species.
2. There is no requirement for anything to exist, nor any requirement that the STC willl always exist. In fact linear progression of time suggests that it hasn’t always existed, that there’s a T-0.
3. I evaded nothing. You asked if I would fry my brain over this, an I responded thar frying my Brain over the subject is literally my profession.
4. What trap? Your trap was to say stupid things and see if people called you out on saying stupid things?

[Tarsonis]

I was watching "The Drumhead" earlier, and I finally noticed how low 11,000 sounds for how many ships were destroyed at Wolf 359. I mean, 39 ships destroyed but only 11,000 dead?

The Galaxy class only carries around a thousand and that’s far above norm.

[Tarsonis]

Having a heady message doesn’t make them ahead of their times, if anything the opposite was true. They’re all derivatives of Star Trek. Star Trek is the OG. If you want some really ahead of its time stuff, go watch Picard debate the ethics of Artifical Intelegence back when computers still ran on MS-Dos.

Watch Kirk explore strange new worlds before Armstrong walked on the moon.

I find this a bit confusing, but by the time Picard debuted, Quantel Paintbox was the go-to for digital graphic designers: I think TNG had some use of Quantel Paintbox.

Source: http://www.digitalanimators.com/2002/01 ... sblast.htm

I’m talking about concepts not graphic design.

[Tarsonis]

It's not my fault you're incapable of remembering what you wrote:


The acting in older ST series is shit.


Actors and performances back then are unable to match those of today (Which is complete and utter bullshit).

You said it plain as day, you think their acting back then was shit. It doesn't matter if you say "But they got better when they stopped doing those roles", the fact of the matter still remains, you believe their performances back then were terrible.

The best part is is that you're the only one here who doesn't see this.

You still don't get it. I don't wanna insult you. Just know this. Try using your brain once in a while before engaging in an argument. Otherwise people will stop responding and trying to reason with you. Bye. And stop trying to comprehend the intelligence that's simply out of your reach, you were not meant to understand what progress is.

Nobody gets what you’re saying, because it’s nonsense. You seem to be operating under an assumed position that “newer” is tautologically equivalent to “better” which is hilariously not true.

[Ameriganastan]

I was watching "The Drumhead" earlier, and I finally noticed how low 11,000 sounds for how many ships were destroyed at Wolf 359. I mean, 39 ships destroyed but only 11,000 dead?

The Galaxy class only carries around a thousand and that’s far above norm.

Really? I always thought all starships had like over 1000. Weird.

[Equality of Nations]

1- I admit, i couldn't find what fecimile meant. But, "Intelligence is conceived of and defined by human characteristics" You don't need to be human to have intelligence you just need to have a brain.
2- What is wrong? You trying to understand something with a biased mind? Or the truth that's staring at your face if you managed to ask a question "Who created god?" Let me tell you; God = space-time
3- Nicely evaded
4- Fell into the trap

1. Intelligence is a conceived of through human understanding, using human conceptions of intelligence to identify and measure intelligence in other species.
2. There is no requirement for anything to exist, nor any requirement that the STC willl always exist. In fact linear progression of time suggests that it hasn’t always existed, that there’s a T-0.
3. I evaded nothing. You asked if I would fry my brain over this, an I responded thar frying my Brain over the subject is literally my profession.
4. What trap? Your trap was to say stupid things and see if people called you out on saying stupid things?

1- Have Star Trek thought you nothing?
2- Something must always exist if we ever want to figure out what God means. Otherwise, we'll keep trying to patch existing theories by assuming things and hope those assumptions will be proven as time goes on. Time slows down, speeds up, space cools down (not in order of any manner). Then something happens and the cohesion falls apart and the universe as we know it is born. Will it last forever? Unknown. Will it happen again? Unknown. Will it keep repeating itself? Unknown. Will the cycles be identical? Unknown. Is there a universe in which time flows backwards? Unknown.
4-Some statements are not meant to be responded hence the missing 3rd response. Cheers. That was the trap.

[Equality of Nations]

You still don't get it. I don't wanna insult you. Just know this. Try using your brain once in a while before engaging in an argument. Otherwise people will stop responding and trying to reason with you. Bye. And stop trying to comprehend the intelligence that's simply out of your reach, you were not meant to understand what progress is.

Nobody gets what you’re saying, because it’s nonsense. You seem to be operating under an assumed position that “newer” is tautologically equivalent to “better” which is hilariously not true.

All i'm saying is yesterdays best acting performance is today's average performance. Didn't watch older shows, can't comment on their science fiction efforts.

[Tarsonis]

1. Intelligence is a conceived of through human understanding, using human conceptions of intelligence to identify and measure intelligence in other species.
2. There is no requirement for anything to exist, nor any requirement that the STC willl always exist. In fact linear progression of time suggests that it hasn’t always existed, that there’s a T-0.
3. I evaded nothing. You asked if I would fry my brain over this, an I responded thar frying my Brain over the subject is literally my profession.
4. What trap? Your trap was to say stupid things and see if people called you out on saying stupid things?

1- Have Star Trek thought you nothing?

Star Trek is a human construct. But how would you know? As you’ve said, you’ve never watched it.

2- Something must always exist if we ever want to figure out what God means. Otherwise, we'll keep trying to patch existing theories by assuming things and hope those assumptions will be proven as time goes on. Time slows down, speeds up, space cools down (not in order of any manner). Then something happens and the cohesion falls apart and the universe as we know it is born. Will it last forever? Unknown. Will it happen again? Unknown. Will it keep repeating itself? Unknown. Will the cycles be identical? Unknown. Is there a universe in which time flows backwards? Unknown.

Your paradigm here depends on something always existing, but that is not an objective requirement. There is no objective requirement for something to exist. All existence could dissolve in the next ten seconds and there’d be no objective requirement to deter it from happening.

4-Some statements are not meant to be responded hence the missing 3rd response. Cheers. That was the trap.

You can ask rhetorical questions all you want, but it doesn’t mean I can’t answer them. Traps generally have a negative result for those who fall into them. If anything you’ve only weakened your own position.

[Tarsonis]

Nobody gets what you’re saying, because it’s nonsense. You seem to be operating under an assumed position that “newer” is tautologically equivalent to “better” which is hilariously not true.

All i'm saying is yesterdays best acting performance is today's average performance. Didn't watch older shows, can't comment on their science fiction efforts.

Yes but that is just an assertion of your opinion. It’s not even a remotely supported statement of fact.

Since you openly admit that you didn’t watch the older shows, you have no actual frame of reference to make that judgment call, making your opinion worthless. You’re assuming that progress is constant, and assured, and it is neither. If anything, with the way the industry has gone, valuing mega block busters over drama pieces, it’s a more apt assessment to say the general quality of acting has in fact gone down, or at least floundered.

Now true, production value in the small screen has gone up, leading to some very ambitious projects that wouldn’t have been remotely possible 20 years ago, but that doesn’t make the shows from 20 years ago worse it only makes them dated.

Your premise here is that you can’t get over the datedness of the shows, you can’t appreciate them for what they are, you can only judge them based on how different they are from what you like, and therefor you claim they are inferior. And we’re telling you, thats utter non-sense. And your inability here is a hallmark of inferior intellect.

[Equality of Nations]

1- Have Star Trek thought you nothing?

Star Trek is a human construct. But how would you know? As you’ve said, you’ve never watched it.

2- Something must always exist if we ever want to figure out what God means. Otherwise, we'll keep trying to patch existing theories by assuming things and hope those assumptions will be proven as time goes on. Time slows down, speeds up, space cools down (not in order of any manner). Then something happens and the cohesion falls apart and the universe as we know it is born. Will it last forever? Unknown. Will it happen again? Unknown. Will it keep repeating itself? Unknown. Will the cycles be identical? Unknown. Is there a universe in which time flows backwards? Unknown.

Your paradigm here depends on something always existing, but that is not an objective requirement. There is no objective requirement for something to exist. All existence could dissolve in the next ten seconds and there’d be no objective requirement to deter it from happening.

4-Some statements are not meant to be responded hence the missing 3rd response. Cheers. That was the trap.

You can ask rhetorical questions all you want, but it doesn’t mean I can’t answer them. Traps generally have a negative result for those who fall into them. If anything you’ve only weakened your own position.

You are saying that for example; vulcans wouldn't be considered intelligent if there was no such race called humans. Being human doesn't make us intelligent, having a brain and using it to replicate the nature does. Hence, fire, tools, technology.

There's nothing objective about existence. We simply do. And we won't be able to explain why we do. Focus your efforts on how we are able to exist, not whether we exist or not.

Weakened my position huh. Interesting response. You, missing an opportunity to outsmart me doesn't weaken my position. It makes this chain of discussion a pointless waste of time.

[Tarsonis]

Star Trek is a human construct. But how would you know? As you’ve said, you’ve never watched it.



Your paradigm here depends on something always existing, but that is not an objective requirement. There is no objective requirement for something to exist. All existence could dissolve in the next ten seconds and there’d be no objective requirement to deter it from happening.




You can ask rhetorical questions all you want, but it doesn’t mean I can’t answer them. Traps generally have a negative result for those who fall into them. If anything you’ve only weakened your own position.

You are saying that for example; vulcans wouldn't be considered intelligent if there was no such race called humans. Being human doesn't make us intelligent, having a brain and using it to replicate the nature does. Hence, fire, tools, technology.

Hah, no. I’m saying what we define as intelligence is inherently based in our own cognitive perspective. We recognize Vulcans as being highly intelligent the same we recognize dogs as being of lower intelligence, it’s based on criteria we’ve defined from our own experiences.

In regards to Artificial Intelligence however, there is extensive debate on weather or not AI, or really Artificial Sentience is something truly sentient or something that only appears sentient. It comes down to method. A human being is intelligent because it can think creatively. Can a machine think creatively? Or does it analyze every possible outcome in a fraction of a second and select the course most likely to succeed. Does that constitute inteligence?

There's nothing objective about existence. We simply do. And we won't be able to explain why we do. Focus your efforts on how we are able to exist, not whether we exist or not.

Except you’re moving goalposts now. You postilized that “something must always exist” which is not true. How we’re able to exist or why, is another question entirely.

Weakened my position huh. Interesting response. You, missing an opportunity to outsmart me doesn't weaken my position. It makes this chain of discussion a pointless waste of time.

You were outsmarted before you even posted here. You’re attempting to appear coy, when really you’re just grasping at anything you can consider a highgroumd. And if this chain of discussion is a pointless waste of time, why are you still here?

[Ameriganastan]

Both of you, put a freaking sock in it. You've carried this argument on for like 6 pages. Drop it and move on. Neither of you are gonna convince the other of your point, so quit wasting time.

[Equality of Nations]

All i'm saying is yesterdays best acting performance is today's average performance. Didn't watch older shows, can't comment on their science fiction efforts.

Yes but that is just an assertion of your opinion. It’s not even a remotely supported statement of fact.

Since you openly admit that you didn’t watch the older shows, you have no actual frame of reference to make that judgment call, making your opinion worthless. You’re assuming that progress is constant, and assured, and it is neither. If anything, with the way the industry has gone, valuing mega block busters over drama pieces, it’s a more apt assessment to say the general quality of acting has in fact gone down, or at least floundered.

Now true, production value in the small screen has gone up, leading to some very ambitious projects that wouldn’t have been remotely possible 20 years ago, but that doesn’t make the shows from 20 years ago worse it only makes them dated.

Your premise here is that you can’t get over the datedness of the shows, you can’t appreciate them for what they are, you can only judge them based on how different they are from what you like, and therefor you claim they are inferior. And we’re telling you, thats utter non-sense. And your inability here is a hallmark of inferior intellect.

I didn't say they were worse, you can't compare yesterdays masterpiece and label it worse than today's. It's only sub-par for today's television, but may be a masterpiece of it's time. And i couldn't bring myself to watch even their pilot episodes. Yes, i started watching it and got bored of it after 5 minutes. What they were spelling out was already known to me. Also, can't skip past all those parts, because there were a lot of those.

Progress is constant. I don't see people smoking and claiming "world peace dude" anymore. No one cares about those clueless kids. We are culturally improved so, no matter how much you claim that yesterdays acting was better, cultural improvement elevates today's acting performances and makes yesterdays acting seem sub-par.

They are not different from what i like. Only problem is this; I already know what they are trying to contribute to the society. It doesn't add anything else to me. They aren't inferior, their stories aren't designed to educate people that have already been educated. If they decide to put out a tv show about how physics works in an academical level very few people would watch them. That's why they may have made their show appeal to the masses that had little to no clue about it. And they succeeded. Now, they need to build up from that base. But they have become too expensive to produce because of all the CGI. Discovery started out messy, but they are learning from their mistakes. Season 1 ended somewhat decently.