Forums / Discussion / General

171,348 total conversations in 5,617 threads

+ New Thread


Locked Locked
KYM Pony General VI: Return of the Poni

Last posted Apr 19, 2013 at 12:20AM EDT. Added Jul 01, 2012 at 04:43PM EDT
10166 posts from 235 users

I only just got around to watching Too Many Pinkie Pies, and it’s a “meh” in my opinion.
The moral is good, the mood is as wacky as Pinkie Pie gets, and I notice the improvements in the animation better.
Perhaps the only thing that stuck out for me is that Pinkie Pie was acting sad most of the time while retaining her cotton candy hair. I expected at first that the test Twilight Sparkle was making involved which one could stay the happiest the longest or something.
I might also be the only one who thought it was obvious to tell which was the real Pinkie just by seeing which one wasn’t hopping around all the time. Even the real Pinkie isn’t as batshit annoying as all of the clones were. Not to mention less destructive.

I’m still waiting for that “blow every previous episode out of the water” installment that makes up for the third season being cut in half, so I’ll prepare another week of food rations on “I Want More Rarity” Island and continue pouting. :(

Nov 19, 2012 at 06:27PM EST
Quote

I’m sure that someone already made this point before, but if one equates magic to some sort of programming language the whole pinkie clone thing isn’t that big of a deal. As it’s just deleting a program.

To support this I present a few issues the Pinkies had that are common errors in modern AI’s

1.)The Pinkies were “Programmed” to do one thing, achieve “Fun” in whatever way possible.
“Fun” being an immeasurable variable, makes it difficult for them to decide when “fun” has properly been achieved, or even how to achieve it. The first copy seemed to be competent, but that’s only because real pinkie basically said “Find fun; Applejack’s Barn = fun”, while the other clones didn’t get any information other than: “Find fun; fun = ???” That’s why they glitched out, so to speak. The fist clone did have some sort of goal, but it was dashed by Fluttershy asserting “fun = picnic” which leads us to 2.

2.) When the Pikies have two equal options to achieve their goal they freak out. This is called the Buridans ass paradox, and why early chess programs couldn’t function properly (two equally good moves would throw the AI into an inescapable loop). Pinkie and Fluttershy both offer “Fun” which sends clone Pinkie into a stalemate.

3.) That brings us to the paint test, some found it strange that they didn’t ask a question as that only Pinkie would know. However, it’s impossible to come up with a fact they didn’t learn from their rampage or from Pinkie herself. So what to do? Do what anyone would do to defeat a group of AIs, cause a logic error. Their brains, as of now, look a bit like this:
Find fun
Fun = ???
In the paint test, Twilight specifically says staring at walls isn’t fun.
Find fun
Fun =/= Staring at walls
Causing many of the pinkies to give up right away.
However, one lingered because they accepted one more command:
Stare at this wall
She was dispatched when she finally received a definition of fun she apparently recognized:
fun = balloon animals
Leaving only the pony who didn’t operate on “Mirror Pool Logic” the real Pinkie.

(Also a scene where they just asked a question and deleted whatever Pinkies couldn’t answer, wouldn’t be nearly as enjoyable to watch)

Last edited Nov 19, 2012 at 07:23PM EST
Nov 19, 2012 at 07:17PM EST
Quote

@Windigo

I suppose that makes sense. Although I still weap for AI; although that may be because I ussually consider AI to be Sentiant, and in some sense “Alive”

…Well… Competant AI anyways. Which is why I hope the first Clone survived. She was learning a lot faster, and may have one day got a more… varried personality.

Anyways… If I go back to my somewhat creepy “Combine all the clones” thing from last page, I would probably have to Equate the Alphas (dirrect copies of the origional) as a low level Neural Network, It learns; but starts off as a blankish slate.

Then that makes Betas (Copies of the Copies), a different kind of AI. The kind of “Seek and do” thing that would run on simple inbuilt instincts. Beyond that they can learn, however it seems to be a neglected and atrophied learning compared to Alphas.

Thus, I’m guessing Next gen Clones from the pool (Assuming the ones sent back all fuse together like I expect.), or Gammas, Would probably have a more nuanced approach. They’ll have the learning capibilities akin to the Alphas, but somewhat already developed, and possibly a personality as an inheritance from them. What they’d get from the Betas? I’m not sure, probably just a bunch of minor lessons that could be helpful. This would put them more on the level of an evolutionry inteligence and Neural Network Combo.

And… I think I’m going too deep into my own theory now. And the metaphor is breaking down.

Last edited Nov 19, 2012 at 07:53PM EST
Nov 19, 2012 at 07:48PM EST
Quote

@Pinkie’s clone

I assume the Pinkie clones were near identical to their prime in actions, but Windigo’s theory does make sense

However I provide a mini-theory

Clones, such as Jango Fett’s clones, are naturally independent and form their own decisions, based on the thought processes of their prime. Equally, the REAL Pinkie would have also had the same qualities as the other ones. For all we know, she could have been hopping along with them.

Another case (and the fact that its a cartoon helps) is the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror sketch, “Send in the Clones”, where Homer is cloned many times over. They are distinguished from their prime due to lack of belly-button (since they were not born with umbilical cords)

In fact, in a similar fashion, the already existing clones clone themselves using the same device Homer cloned himself with

Eventually, Lisa finds a way to kill all the clones. A large doughnut is mounted on the underside of a helicopter and the clones are led to their death…

However, later, it is found that despite their efforts, the real Homer was the first to die (having followed the doughnut as well), and that the clone that is with Marge afterwords was smart enough to not follow the rest.

Same theory can be applied to Pinkie. One particular clone starts doubting herself, and in the test, the real Pinkie could have been any of the failing clones, due to the fact she seems crazy (or rather, Pinkie Pie enough), to fail such a test.

tl;dr Pinkie would’ve been dumb enough to do something stupid during the test, and get herself sent back too.

Which is also why this is relevant:


Another thing: the test Twilight chose (though by Windigo’s points, is logical), isn’t very effective. A better test would have been for the clones to be asked a question of an event that happened before their creation, as Pinkie Pie Prime (PPP) had to teach them a few things so they could take on the town. They wouldn’t have known the answer, and the real Pinkie would be the only one to know.

Last edited Nov 19, 2012 at 08:39PM EST
Nov 19, 2012 at 08:33PM EST
Quote

@Popperfett

For a second I could have swore I had a minor epihiny reading that… But I lost it.

Something to do with the fact that killing off clones is a stupid idea anyways.

I mean, wouldn’t it make much more sense to find a place for all the extra pinkies where they wouldn’t do any damage? Like a giant ball Pit?

Any that get philospophical enough to realise that “Fun isn’t enough” can be welcomed back into society upon leaving the ball pit.

Afterwards, they can be encouraged to travel… and see as much as they can to differentiate themselves from the other clones.

When and if they return, they should be… less disruptive.

Nov 19, 2012 at 08:42PM EST
Quote
Perhaps the only thing that stuck out for me is that Pinkie Pie was acting sad most of the time while retaining her cotton candy hair.

There’s no canon word or Word of God on this, but I don’t think being sad (or even terribly sad) will make Pinkie’s hair go straight.

I think it’s only when her meaning to life is threatened. And that is making people smile.


We’ve seen Pinkie with straight hair three times:

1. During Cutie Mark Chronicles before Dash’s first sonic rainboom. Her hair went crazy, because she couldn’t stop smiling.

(Which was when she realized that she wanted everyone to smile all of the time.) Parties was one of the best ways for Pinkie to get people to smile, and when she threw her first successful one, BAM. Cutie mark.
 
 
2. Very briefly during Best Night Ever, Pinkie’s hair went straight when it was being dried.

It didn’t stay that way. The state of her hair is only tied to her mind.
 
 
 
…Well, that and water.

Ahem...Moving on...
 
 
3. And, of course, in Party of One. Note the precise moment that Pinkie’s hair went straight and stayed straight:

My friends don’t like my parties, and they don’t want to be my friend anymore…

And it went all curly and poofy again once she realized that her friends were only planning a surprise party for her and that they did like her parties.


Also remember that she’s been reduced to tears in Baby Cakes and she was genuinely upset. But it had nothing to do with making people smile. She was just having a bad day with the Cake twins.
 
So related to my “headcanon,” I really don’t like it when people reduce the state of Pinkie’s hair to just being sad. I don’t like most comics that reduce her straightened-hair state to just being really sad or being homicidal. If her hair goes straight, then she’s having an existential crisis. Not a bad day.


Apologies for going crazy with the animated gifs. Just wanted to properly illustrate my point in this instance. I’ll try not to go over three in the future.

Last edited Nov 19, 2012 at 09:16PM EST
Nov 19, 2012 at 08:45PM EST

Anyone ever notice that there are no ponies with parenting cutie marks? Guess that isn’t any pony’s special talent, suppose they’re the same as us in that regard.

@Verbose

If being unable to differentiate yourself from your clones to the point that you aren’t even sure whether or not you’re a clone doesn’t count as an existential crisis, I don’t know what does.

Nov 19, 2012 at 10:26PM EST
Quote
If her hair goes straight, then she’s having an existential crisis.

“Which one of us is the real Pinkie?”
“Heck if I know. Could be any one of us, if you ask me. And if I said I was the real Pinkie, you wouldn’t even believe me anyway.”
“What if I’m not the real Pinkie Pie?”

Sounds pretty existential crisis-like, if you ask me.

EDIT: GAAAAAAAHHHH, I went to find quotes in the episode and Fifths ninja’d me. Well here’s some evidence for that point then.

Last edited Nov 19, 2012 at 10:38PM EST
Nov 19, 2012 at 10:36PM EST
Quote

Well, this is only an assumption, but please…

Think about this:

Remember when Pinkie Pie gave the idea of a test of perseverance when Twilight and Spike walked away from the real Pinkie Pie?
I can assume that during the test, given her being the one to give the idea of the test and considering that if she failed it she would be thrown out of existence, or limbo, as someone said, wouldn’t she be the only one out of all the Pinkie Pies to actually “try” and beat the test?

I am not sure if anyone said this before, but please consider that.

Nov 19, 2012 at 10:43PM EST
Quote

@Twili and Fifths

Pinkie still knew she liked making her friends smile, so her life still had meaning. In fact, that was the reason why she got through the test in the first place when the other ones didn’t.

That often isn’t something people with existential crises have. They often have to go out and find it. That’s actually a good sign of an existential criss.
 
So no. She couldn’t understand if she was who she thought she was. But it wasn’t an existential crisis.

An existential crisis is a stage of development at which an individual questions the very foundations of his or her life: whether his or her life has any meaning, purpose or value.

Last edited Nov 19, 2012 at 11:54PM EST
Nov 19, 2012 at 11:53PM EST

What if each pinkie clone was the real pinkie?each clone divided her soul, like a horcrux. Then the pinkies with only a sliver of their soul created more, further dividing it exponentially, and that was what resulted in the clone pinkies not having as much depth as the original. So, each time Twi zapped a pinkie clone, she restored the missing pieces to the souls of the remaining pinkies, so the longer the test went on, the more “real” each pinkie became. Therefore, even if the pinkie that survived was a clone, she is still just as much the real pinkie as the original.

Nov 20, 2012 at 12:00AM EST
Quote

@Blind Follower

I personally never really had any questions of how we knew if the Pinkie that passed the test was the real one. To me, she felt like the real Pinkie. She was enough like the real Pinkie to know she had to write a letter to Celestia when everything was over

Nov 20, 2012 at 12:41AM EST
Quote

Verbose wrote:

@Twili and Fifths

Pinkie still knew she liked making her friends smile, so her life still had meaning. In fact, that was the reason why she got through the test in the first place when the other ones didn’t.

That often isn’t something people with existential crises have. They often have to go out and find it. That’s actually a good sign of an existential criss.
 
So no. She couldn’t understand if she was who she thought she was. But it wasn’t an existential crisis.

An existential crisis is a stage of development at which an individual questions the very foundations of his or her life: whether his or her life has any meaning, purpose or value.

I think that what Pinkie experienced should still count as an existential crisis under these criteria. The foundations of Pinkie’s character is being able to say “I am Pinkie Pie, the pony that makes other ponies smile.”

There’s more than one way to challenge that statement. It could be made false if, as in party of one, she finds that even though she is Pinkie Pie, she has lost the ability to make others smile. That statement could also be challenged by learning that she is not in fact Pinkie Pie (or at least Pinkie Prime) and therefore, not the one that makes other ponies smile. You argue that Pinkie’s foundations remain steady because, even if she isn’t the original, she can still make others smile, but I don’t think Pinkie would neccesarily make that connection. There are tons of challenges present in the clone scenario. Perhaps Pinkie is worried that she won’t be loved like the original was, or even if she was the original, that she wouldn’t be appreciated since her entire function is being effectively immitated by dozens of others. Perhaps Pinkie just can’t get over the hurdle that she isn’t the pony she thinks she is, that her memory and personality are artificial and everything she thinks she is is just an illusion from a magic pond.

I mean come on, clones always have existential crises, I could probably find an entry on TV tropes if I looked hard enough for it.

Nov 20, 2012 at 12:44AM EST
Quote

Fifths wrote:

I think that what Pinkie experienced should still count as an existential crisis under these criteria. The foundations of Pinkie’s character is being able to say “I am Pinkie Pie, the pony that makes other ponies smile.”

There’s more than one way to challenge that statement. It could be made false if, as in party of one, she finds that even though she is Pinkie Pie, she has lost the ability to make others smile. That statement could also be challenged by learning that she is not in fact Pinkie Pie (or at least Pinkie Prime) and therefore, not the one that makes other ponies smile. You argue that Pinkie’s foundations remain steady because, even if she isn’t the original, she can still make others smile, but I don’t think Pinkie would neccesarily make that connection. There are tons of challenges present in the clone scenario. Perhaps Pinkie is worried that she won’t be loved like the original was, or even if she was the original, that she wouldn’t be appreciated since her entire function is being effectively immitated by dozens of others. Perhaps Pinkie just can’t get over the hurdle that she isn’t the pony she thinks she is, that her memory and personality are artificial and everything she thinks she is is just an illusion from a magic pond.

I mean come on, clones always have existential crises, I could probably find an entry on TV tropes if I looked hard enough for it.

Nov 20, 2012 at 12:50AM EST
Quote

Blind Follower wrote:

What if each pinkie clone was the real pinkie?each clone divided her soul, like a horcrux. Then the pinkies with only a sliver of their soul created more, further dividing it exponentially, and that was what resulted in the clone pinkies not having as much depth as the original. So, each time Twi zapped a pinkie clone, she restored the missing pieces to the souls of the remaining pinkies, so the longer the test went on, the more “real” each pinkie became. Therefore, even if the pinkie that survived was a clone, she is still just as much the real pinkie as the original.

So you’re telling us that the real Pinkie is actually none of them until there is only one of them left?
To my understanding, that is completely…

The Pinkie Pie the story was revolving around to did not look like she had only 1/64ths of her soul (that’s just an estimate) when she was on her way to the lake.
Look at all of those Pinkie Pies, tell me if each sliver = fun?
How many slivers of her soul is towards her alter-ego (Pinkamena Diane Pie)?

Nov 20, 2012 at 01:00AM EST
Quote

Blind Follower wrote:

What if each pinkie clone was the real pinkie?each clone divided her soul, like a horcrux. Then the pinkies with only a sliver of their soul created more, further dividing it exponentially, and that was what resulted in the clone pinkies not having as much depth as the original. So, each time Twi zapped a pinkie clone, she restored the missing pieces to the souls of the remaining pinkies, so the longer the test went on, the more “real” each pinkie became. Therefore, even if the pinkie that survived was a clone, she is still just as much the real pinkie as the original.

This is pretty much how my head-canon thought of it once it had gotten down to the last 2 Pinkies. I have heard this concept before, though only in reference to kung-fu movie ninjas: the Law of Conservation of Ninjutsu says that the amount of skill a movie ninja has is proportional to the amount of ninjas in a fight; when the hero fights a huge mob of ninjas, the first wave is always easy to beat and go down in one hit, but as the fight drags on and more ninjas are taken out of the fight, they become progressively more skilled until the last one has the combined skill of all the previous ninjas and becomes an actual pain to beat. So it was with Pinkie. My guess is that the original Pinkie won in the end because, being the original and therefore special, more of the Pink Energon was passed to her as the clones were eliminated, just as you’d expect the last and most powerful ninja to have something to distinguish itself from the more fodder-y ninjas.

Nov 20, 2012 at 01:37AM EST
Quote

I’ve been asked on a few occasions what it’s like to be a forum moderator and what all it entails. Of course, RandomMan has had forum powers for a while, but unlike most obvious bronei mods, I entered the modship KYM as a forum moderator. So my bent is always based on making sure that discussion is friendly and has it’s own purpose without being too structured.

And there you have it!
 
 
 
Please feel free to save the image for study purposes.

Nov 20, 2012 at 02:31AM EST

Jacob wrote:

On the moral issues of the duplicates: I posted this video on one of the images, but it worth posting here for people who have not seen it. This video deals with teleportation, but is still relevant IMO to the current discussion.

(Too long, didn’t watch: start at 2:20)



I don’t know what the right answer is, but discussions about it are fun, even if a bit dark.

Okay, this was posted a while ago but no one has said anything about it so I figured I would.
While I do find the video interesting, the woman makes one major misstep in my opinion and it is based around how a person would define ‘me.’
Essentially everyone has two aspects to their person, their mind and their body.
I’m pretty sure that most people, even those who really love their bodies, would have to say that the thing that really makes them who they are is their mind.
All the thoughts, motivations, memories, and emotions that uniquely define you are products of the mind.
The end of that video, where the woman gets a new body so that can feel guilt-free from the actions of her old body, is completely ridiculous.
The machine comes with the implied transfer of the person’s mind so, new body or not, she would have all the memories of every action that she chose to take and any loss of guilt would be pure rationalization.
Sure, those specific hands didn’t perform the deed, but you as a person did.

Pinkie has a different problem, a problem seen in numerous movies such as A.I. or even the Doctor Who episodes about the flesh doppelgangers.
She knows that she looks like Pinkie and that she has a bunch of memories of being Pinkie, but she can’t tell whether she actually experienced those events or if the memories were just implanted into her head so she only thinks that they happened.
Thing is, most stories that cover this subject come to similar conclusions: It doesn’t matter.
If a person defines themselves by their mind, then having a memory of doing something is basically just as good as having actually done it.

Hell, for all you know, all of your memories were just downloaded into your head yesterday.
You were never a baby, or a child, or a teen.
Your body was built as it is now and you were given memories to make you think you had done a bunch of things that never happened.
In all honesty, what would be the difference other than perhaps having difficulty corroborating your past with other people?
It would all seem completely real inside of your own head and really, that’s all that matters.
If you were never told that your memories were fake, you’d never be the wiser and would go through your whole life just being you.

So, if the clone Pinkies had been given both the bodies and minds of the original Pinkie, I would say that any one of them could have ‘replaced’ the original without there being any noticeable effects.
The fact that the clones clearly didn’t get Pinkie’s mind (or at least not all of it) meant that they were certainly not ‘Pinkie,’ but at the same time, they had enough sentience that I would probably consider them ‘alive.’
In that way, Pinkie didn’t really create ‘clones’ so much as ‘twins’: Identical DNA, different experiences.

That still leads me to say that while none of them were ‘real Pinkies,’ they were ‘real ponies’ and just destroying or dispelling them without a care would be unethical in a non-cartoon setting, but Pinkie really had little reason to doubt her own authenticity.
Unless she literally told the hoard every single miniscule detail about her existence after creating them, she would always be able to remember being the original.

Plus, the clones were carnivorous, so there’s that too.

Oh, almost forgot this:

Why is this concept so damn creepy yet so damn fun?

Last edited Nov 20, 2012 at 04:03AM EST
Nov 20, 2012 at 03:50AM EST
Quote

Lone K.K. Slider wrote:

Well, this is only an assumption, but please…

Think about this:

Remember when Pinkie Pie gave the idea of a test of perseverance when Twilight and Spike walked away from the real Pinkie Pie?
I can assume that during the test, given her being the one to give the idea of the test and considering that if she failed it she would be thrown out of existence, or limbo, as someone said, wouldn’t she be the only one out of all the Pinkie Pies to actually “try” and beat the test?

I am not sure if anyone said this before, but please consider that.

Someone mentioning limbo?

Are you sure you don’t mean… Me? Serriously, It only took me 2 mins to find where I mentioned it. (Bottom of last page)

Nevermind though. I might not have been the first.

Nov 20, 2012 at 04:41AM EST
Quote

Just got around to reading DeadParrot’s Point on mind and identity.

It pretty much sums up my thoughts. Even if me thoughts Meander a bit.

That brings up something though. Although its not ethical to destroy the clones, and probably a bit cruel to banish them without a care; has anyone thought about how irresponsible Pinkie was being by creating those lives?

I’m all for cloning, but when you have about twenty immature clones you can’t take care of, then its probably about time someone called the clone version of the child services.

Those Pinkie Clones deserved a better childhood.

Nov 20, 2012 at 06:07AM EST
Quote

@DeadParrot responding to my post on the previous page:

Sorry to break your headcanon, but the clones were not single-minded, emotionless husks.
The very first one broke down in tears (In fact, that first one showed that she was even capable of some decently advanced logic when she ran into the very same quandary that the real Pinkie had at the beginning of the episode.):

Awww snap, you’re right! I’d forgotten all about that. Well like I said, it was about midnight when I finally got around to watching it so… that’s my excuse.

Well then. Whether they were “real” or not, those clones did seem to be sentient and alive after all, which leads to the debate of what is necessary to be considered a true “pony.” Like what Data or The Doctor on Star Trek had to go through. Wow, I can relate just about anything to Star Trek… I think I have a problem.

Well Twilight Sparkle’s actions certainly look a whole lot darker now. Hmm.

Nov 20, 2012 at 10:15AM EST
Quote

Commodore 64 wrote:

@DeadParrot responding to my post on the previous page:

Sorry to break your headcanon, but the clones were not single-minded, emotionless husks.
The very first one broke down in tears (In fact, that first one showed that she was even capable of some decently advanced logic when she ran into the very same quandary that the real Pinkie had at the beginning of the episode.):

Awww snap, you’re right! I’d forgotten all about that. Well like I said, it was about midnight when I finally got around to watching it so… that’s my excuse.

Well then. Whether they were “real” or not, those clones did seem to be sentient and alive after all, which leads to the debate of what is necessary to be considered a true “pony.” Like what Data or The Doctor on Star Trek had to go through. Wow, I can relate just about anything to Star Trek… I think I have a problem.

Well Twilight Sparkle’s actions certainly look a whole lot darker now. Hmm.

You think you’ve got problems relating everything to star trek? Try being able to relate everything back to Dungeons and Dragons! Or more importantly, it’s “3.75” version: Pathfinder!

You know that whole Theory on how I think the next generation of Clones would be even smarter? That was inspired by an ability a Pit Fiend (most powerful devil) can use to weave a couple of dozen near mindless Devils of the lowest quality into a fully functional second Pit Fiend!

…And even the lowest powered Devils are made of souls, no matter how weak the soul…

…A lot of us here have established that The Pinkie Clones have souls (Or possibly ARE souls)…

…And that mirror pool must be getting pretty full of Pinkie Clones…

I’d emote a look of pure horror right now. But this Forum doesn’t like Emotes when it comes to formatting.

So here’s Pinkie to do it for me to the best of her ability… Which isn’t much considering her perky attitude:

Last edited Nov 20, 2012 at 10:28AM EST
Nov 20, 2012 at 10:26AM EST
Quote

Alright, let me try putting this yet another way; intelligence=/=life. My computer is pretty smart, and it has “memory”. However, it is obviously not alive. And no matter how smart it can become, no matter how many circuits are added, it will never be alive, or even self-aware. The Pinkies were very good replicas, given enough “intelligence” by the magic of the pool to seem real, but they were not.

Nov 20, 2012 at 12:29PM EST
Quote

Millennial Dan wrote:

Alright, let me try putting this yet another way; intelligence=/=life. My computer is pretty smart, and it has “memory”. However, it is obviously not alive. And no matter how smart it can become, no matter how many circuits are added, it will never be alive, or even self-aware. The Pinkies were very good replicas, given enough “intelligence” by the magic of the pool to seem real, but they were not.

The problem is that just because intelligence=/=life does not equate to non life=/= no value of an individual. Look at many robotic characters in Science fiction where they have personality (Data from Star Trek, Wall-E from Wall-E. There is no way that they an be constituted actually living, but when they are seen as having a value similar to an actual living person. Going Back to DeadParrot’s post, they are alive in the mind sense, but not in the biological sense.

The Pinkie clones, as they were replicas of Pinkie, were (are far as we know) alive in the biological sense. They also had had some personality, It certainly was much more limited than the original pinkie’s, but they still felt some fear and sadness, learned form their experiences (well the first at least). This pegs them in the alive in the mind sense as well. Now if they are truly self aware is an interesting question, but I don’t think there was anything in the episode specifically saying they were not.

Nov 20, 2012 at 12:47PM EST
Quote

Millennial Dan wrote:

Alright, let me try putting this yet another way; intelligence=/=life. My computer is pretty smart, and it has “memory”. However, it is obviously not alive. And no matter how smart it can become, no matter how many circuits are added, it will never be alive, or even self-aware. The Pinkies were very good replicas, given enough “intelligence” by the magic of the pool to seem real, but they were not.

Well. Digital neural network experts would beg to differ. And maybe even physicists when they end up professing the most logical theory in this world being that we’re in a big digital simulation.

…Don’t even get me started on some “Artificial Life Programs” that simulate the evolution of intelligent behavior up to a level that resembles insects.

I’ve seen it work; and there’s a long way to go. But sentient computing is still within the realm of possibility.

…My brain is just a computer…

And so whatever the pinkie clones had, any behavior the exhibit that is supposedly “Computer like” only makes me compare them to my own brain.

And much like a Digital Neural Network, all they needed; from what I can tell, is time.

And now… I shall close with the one thing that has somehow popped into my brain…

Are you saying Rena-pony isn’t sentient?

Nov 20, 2012 at 12:53PM EST
Quote

Aw hell no, I just realized I missed the synctube because of the Wii – U launch. I’ll try harder to remember next week.

Also looks like you guys were having an interesting discussion. I thought Pinkie was just bummed out because her copies were hogging all the fun.

@Dan

that theory about the mirror pool was so cool it gave me chills, son. chills.

Also – fun little coincidence – the new episode of Superjail that premiered sunday was also about mass duplication and hilarity ensuing – But it gets even coincidencer. Look what I found in the related videos on youtube

Yep, that’s one of the uploads of too many pinkie pies. mind blown forever.

Last edited Nov 20, 2012 at 01:32PM EST
Nov 20, 2012 at 01:29PM EST

Jacob wrote:

The problem is that just because intelligence=/=life does not equate to non life=/= no value of an individual. Look at many robotic characters in Science fiction where they have personality (Data from Star Trek, Wall-E from Wall-E. There is no way that they an be constituted actually living, but when they are seen as having a value similar to an actual living person. Going Back to DeadParrot’s post, they are alive in the mind sense, but not in the biological sense.

The Pinkie clones, as they were replicas of Pinkie, were (are far as we know) alive in the biological sense. They also had had some personality, It certainly was much more limited than the original pinkie’s, but they still felt some fear and sadness, learned form their experiences (well the first at least). This pegs them in the alive in the mind sense as well. Now if they are truly self aware is an interesting question, but I don’t think there was anything in the episode specifically saying they were not.

Yes, that’s pretty much what I was thinking too. I don’t think it matters as much that they are not “naturally” occurring life, since they do seem to be self aware and sentient. That being said, it is very much a possibility that they were neither of those things, and were just “programmed” to act and respond in a similar manner to Pinkie Pie. I guess it depends on if they are capable of growing and evolving as individuals. They just weren’t around long enough to be sure.

Of course, then they would probably have smartened up and stopped laughing after Twilight sent the first one back to the pond from whence it came.

I also had another thought a little while ago.What if those Pinkie Clones were only temporary? I mean, do you think they’d last forever, or at least be able to live a normal pony’s lifespan?

When Twilight zaps them, they bloat up and pop like bubbles and their “essence” (Spirit? Magical sentience?) returns to the mirror pool. Do you think this could have happened eventually anyway? I mean, if they just take in too much information one day and “pop?” Since they were made of magic in the first place, could it simply “wear off?” If they are magical beings entirely, you’d think that sooner or later they would become unstable and vanish.

I’m certain that sort of thing happened in another TV show I’ve watched (not Star Trek, this time), but I just can’t think of what it was…

Oh yes, and to those of you who watch Gravity Falls, here’s this:

Nov 20, 2012 at 02:18PM EST
Quote

@ZeroBlue

Well, this is kind of interesting, because it is actually impossible for us to come to a consensus on the topic. Reason being, we have very, very different views of what life actually is. On the last page, you said this:

I think they have whatever kind of soul Pinkie has, but only a sort of pale imitation; created using the most “energy efficient” method for creating souls possible, which makes me want to compare them to some kind of new-born. So they are alive, but only just.

Some modern ethicists have begun to define a human life by our ability to value said existence. Needless to say, I do not believe that a person’s life is measured by their capacity for rationality. As for computers that are even smart enough to behave like insects and such being called a form of life, again, I completely disagree. Those computers are still a function of programs and rules, and that is not the substance of a human life.

@Jacob

The problem is that those stories (involving A.I.) are entirely their own fictional realities, and thus cannot be seriously used as a comparison.

@Commodore

I kind of wondered if there was a time limit as well, but there’s nothing to indicate that unfortunately.

Boy, is it just me, or is it starting to smell like philosophy in here…

Nov 20, 2012 at 02:54PM EST
Quote

@Commodore 64
There’s no way of knowing if they would have gone away after a certain point. I didn’t see any evidence for this, but I didn’t see evidence against it either. Also, I don’t think we know they are made “of magic” (at least no more than normal Pinkie Pie is), just they were made with the use of magic. Magic could have been used to create a completely biological duplicate. However without looking to see if the clones have a cellular structure, this is difficult to quantify.

As for the “programmed” bit, if a robot is programmed to fear death and feel pain like normal organic beings, what moral value does it have compared do an entity who does the same due to biology? If they clones are made of magic, but react to stimuli the same way a biological clone (or non-clone) would is there a significant difference?

Edit: @Millennial Dan
Yeah, I guess this is more of a philosophical discussion. Certainly each Science Fiction story holds differing values on this sort of thing. However, there is also a bit of Post-Humanists discussion on these sorts of things as well. However, that is a bit more off topic than I think I should get.

Last edited Nov 20, 2012 at 03:22PM EST
Nov 20, 2012 at 03:11PM EST
Quote

Millennial Dan wrote:

@ZeroBlue

Well, this is kind of interesting, because it is actually impossible for us to come to a consensus on the topic. Reason being, we have very, very different views of what life actually is. On the last page, you said this:

I think they have whatever kind of soul Pinkie has, but only a sort of pale imitation; created using the most “energy efficient” method for creating souls possible, which makes me want to compare them to some kind of new-born. So they are alive, but only just.

Some modern ethicists have begun to define a human life by our ability to value said existence. Needless to say, I do not believe that a person’s life is measured by their capacity for rationality. As for computers that are even smart enough to behave like insects and such being called a form of life, again, I completely disagree. Those computers are still a function of programs and rules, and that is not the substance of a human life.

@Jacob

The problem is that those stories (involving A.I.) are entirely their own fictional realities, and thus cannot be seriously used as a comparison.

@Commodore

I kind of wondered if there was a time limit as well, but there’s nothing to indicate that unfortunately.

Boy, is it just me, or is it starting to smell like philosophy in here…

“Some modern ethicists have begun to define a human life by our ability to value said existence. Needless to say, I do not believe that a person’s life is measured by their capacity for rationality.”

There seems to be a bit of a contradictory statement there.

Part one: Human Life having a value based on its ability to value that same existence.
- It is impossible to place a value on one’s own existence without either Sentiment or rationality. As such, rationality, and sentimentality necessarily give rise to the value of one’s life.

Part two: Life not being measured by capacity for rationality.

Part two is a contradiction with the very thing that gives rise to Part one.

As for the remark on computers, I disagree. Humans Are just as fundamentally hardwired as an evolving program is. We work according to the programs embedded in our DNA and our biology, and also that of the physics around us. We are Programed by this, as well as by the experiences that we encounter.

All these processes are mirrored, paralleled, or duplicated in the case of an evolving program.

A human like sentience can arise from a computer program under the right circumstances. They may not come anytime soon, but the possibility is there. And considering that in all practical capabilities they will be identical to humans in thought patterns, and probably run using the exact same methods that allow a human mind to function; it is not outside the realm of possibility that these A.I. would be worthy of being considered equals to humans.

And at this point, it all comes down to this…

Mastered Wood: “Hey Scootabot, just wondering, what if you’re not self aware and sentient? That you’re just programed to think you are?”
Scootabot: “Isn’t being Sentient and being programed to think you’re sentient the same thing? Some ponies tell me I don’t actually feel and that it’s only simulated, but isn’t that pretty much the same as feeling normally? I don’t get why this is such a big deal.”

Last edited Nov 20, 2012 at 04:23PM EST
Nov 20, 2012 at 04:22PM EST
Quote

My head really hurts right now, so I will commit to the AI theories by plugging in my own.

To me, living is essentially when a being of some sort has a power source. Look at the human body. The heart is literally the power source and the brain is basically a computer powering the body. Now look at a robot or a computer. The microchip in a computer (or robot) is essentially the brain of it all, and electricity is the power source of the computer/robot.
Take away the power source and the computer/robot would not essentially be living anymore (it is still there, but it is not actually “alive”). Take away the brain and the power source would not know where to use itself. If it has a brain, then it is basically alive, in my case.

Nov 20, 2012 at 04:54PM EST
Quote

Verbose wrote:

I’ve been asked on a few occasions what it’s like to be a forum moderator and what all it entails. Of course, RandomMan has had forum powers for a while, but unlike most obvious bronei mods, I entered the modship KYM as a forum moderator. So my bent is always based on making sure that discussion is friendly and has it’s own purpose without being too structured.

And there you have it!
 
 
 
Please feel free to save the image for study purposes.

You had Forum earlier than me, I got Forum when you got Media+Ban, during the same upgrade batch.

But then again, with your reputation you’ll get Database eventually. I just happened to be of an earlier gen, one when you were still on hiatus.

Nov 20, 2012 at 05:02PM EST
Quote

And now for something completely different

I jumped back a foot in my chair after seeing this. Not saying it will be bad, but it certainly was not what I was expecting.
Opinions?
EDIT: I think this post from the comments section on EQD sums up my issues nicely:

“Oh, dear…
You know how the toys seem to exist in a totally different universe than does the show? I think we’re seeing what happens when you base the artwork on the toys.”

Last edited Nov 20, 2012 at 05:22PM EST
Nov 20, 2012 at 05:08PM EST
Quote

Jacob wrote:

And now for something completely different

I jumped back a foot in my chair after seeing this. Not saying it will be bad, but it certainly was not what I was expecting.
Opinions?
EDIT: I think this post from the comments section on EQD sums up my issues nicely:

“Oh, dear…
You know how the toys seem to exist in a totally different universe than does the show? I think we’re seeing what happens when you base the artwork on the toys.”

Inb4 claims that it’s related to seapony Lyra, OHMYGAWD FANDOM NUDGE HONK HONK!

Nov 20, 2012 at 05:19PM EST
Quote

Uh, yeah, we’ve been talking philosophy for the better part of two pages now.
Isn’t it fun?
(Where the hell is Fifths? I thought he’d be all over this.)

@Dan
I think that the best step you can take now is to define your terms.
In your argument, what defines ‘life?’
It’s definitely a tough question, but it’s fun to play with.

I assume most people here have heard of the Turing Test, correct?
Put simply, it is a theoretical test that can be given to an A.I. to determine whether it is a computer or not.
(Could easily be used to determine if a clone were a ‘true clone’ as well)
A computer that can pass the Turing Test is one that is complex enough to successfully imitate a real human conversation to the point that an actual human cannot tell if they are talking to another human or not.
No, obviously none of our current computers have this capacity yet, but programmers are always pushing toward that goal.
(See CleverBot or Watson, the JeopardyBot)
As computers and their programming get faster, smaller, and better, it is not unreasonable to think that a computer may one day successfully imitate a human?
After all, are human brains not just a series of insanely complex electrical ‘wires’ capable of carrying and processing tremendous amounts of information?
If and when something passes the Turing Test, how would we classify it?
(Passing the test implies carrying on any kind of conversation, even self-reflective and philosophical ones that are traditionally seen as uniquely ‘human’ topics.)
The question that haunts all AIs:

Who can really say?
Personally, I tend to be rather generous in my determination of life.
Since I technically have no proof that any of you people aren’t robots programmed to imitate bronies, I assume that you are human and treat you as such.
As Jacob and I have said before, if you can’t tell whether someone is real or not based on your interactions with them, does it really matter?
I say that if they possess all the qualifications for life that I feel are important, I’ll treat them as if they are alive.

Just for fun:

@Zeroblue

Perfectly in line with my own views and your reference to Scootabot pleases me.

Nov 20, 2012 at 05:24PM EST
Quote

Jacob wrote:

And now for something completely different

I jumped back a foot in my chair after seeing this. Not saying it will be bad, but it certainly was not what I was expecting.
Opinions?
EDIT: I think this post from the comments section on EQD sums up my issues nicely:

“Oh, dear…
You know how the toys seem to exist in a totally different universe than does the show? I think we’re seeing what happens when you base the artwork on the toys.”

Moving on…

So ya, Turing test, philosophy, whatever. You know DeadParrot, I’m pretty sure that I discussed at lengths with you when I was in California why passing the Turing test doesn’t satisfy the neccesary conditions for a mind or sentience. I suppose you were only pretending to understanding, displaying all the outputs of a person who actually understands while really having no idea what was going on. In the same way, a computer which can merely put all the correct outputs in the correct order to simulate human conversation does not neccesarily means it understands what its outputs are. It is simply following a purely syntactical program, knowing the order to assert certain symbols while having no idea what those symbols actually mean.

As for the argument as a whole, you’re all arguing for what are the neccesary and sufficent conditions for what makes a human being, what is the essential feature or features that we all share in common that makes us human. Such conditions do not exist. There is no single feature that all things we would consider ‘human’ share that isn’t completely trivial. This stems from a philosophical problem that Wittgenstein terms ‘family relationships’ which I don’t have time to explain in full. Bottom line is that trying to discover the defining factor of what makes us human is pointless because someone will always be able to present counterexamples.

Actually, fuck that noise, here’s the answer. What makes us human is our power to LUUUUURRRRRVEEEEEE

Last edited Nov 20, 2012 at 05:55PM EST
Nov 20, 2012 at 05:51PM EST
Quote

@Fifths
Actually, I was the one who brought up The Chinese Room in our conversation which is essentially a counter to the concept of the Turing Test, so I was obviously not paying attention to myself.
My point here was not that the computer necessarily understands what it is doing, but that if I honestly can’t tell, I’m going to treat it as if it does.
If it is ‘alive’ then I’ve treated it appropriately, if it isn’t then I’ve just looked silly while talking to an ‘inanimate’ object for a while.
(Something that someone here has some experience with…)
Basically, give robots the benefit of the doubt.
Cuz they’ll totally kill you if you don’t.

Might as well round out the “CMC as robots” set while I’m here:

Nov 20, 2012 at 06:20PM EST
Quote

Jacob wrote:

And now for something completely different

I jumped back a foot in my chair after seeing this. Not saying it will be bad, but it certainly was not what I was expecting.
Opinions?
EDIT: I think this post from the comments section on EQD sums up my issues nicely:

“Oh, dear…
You know how the toys seem to exist in a totally different universe than does the show? I think we’re seeing what happens when you base the artwork on the toys.”

Why is Rarity a seahorse

Nov 20, 2012 at 06:26PM EST
Quote

Lone K.K. Slider wrote:

So you’re telling us that the real Pinkie is actually none of them until there is only one of them left?
To my understanding, that is completely…

The Pinkie Pie the story was revolving around to did not look like she had only 1/64ths of her soul (that’s just an estimate) when she was on her way to the lake.
Look at all of those Pinkie Pies, tell me if each sliver = fun?
How many slivers of her soul is towards her alter-ego (Pinkamena Diane Pie)?

Each sliver would contain equal parts of her personality. Kind of like a glass of sweet iced tea, how it’s made up of a bunch of different parts, but it tastes the same throughout the entire mixture. And like pinkie’s soul, it’s mostly made of sugar.

And the original Pinkie only split twice, so she would have 1/4 of a soul. all the other pinkies split a bunch of times, so they would have what’s closer to 1/64 a soul each.

And the real pinkie wasn’t none of then, she was all of them. All of them were pinkie, or rather, a part of pinkie.


I’m seeing all of this Robot Pony artwork and it’s great. Do you guys think robot ponies will ever show up in the show?I actually kind of hope they don’t.

Last edited Nov 20, 2012 at 08:04PM EST
Nov 20, 2012 at 08:01PM EST
Quote

I guess I’ll join in on the Pinkie clone discussion.

I have a thoery on why the Pinkie clones are not perfect-interior duplicates: the pool does not make clones that dig all the way into a pony’s mind (it copies the exterior perfectly). The topmost mind layer is present thoughts and emotions. Things like the emotion bank, personality, memory, and self-image are deeper. Evidently, the clones have none of Pinkie’s memory. All the clones have to go on is Pinkie’s present mood at the time of cloning. The direct clones (Pinkies 2 and 3) have more emotions in thier emotion banks than the other clones. Pinkie 2 is able to be sad, but only when her present drive to have fun is endangered. All the others, who are copies of copies, are less capable of varying their emotions and activities. (There were at least 13 Pinkies: 12 clones and the real Pinkie, by the way.) None of the other Pinkies wondered if they weren’t the real Pinkie, only stating that they were. Only the real one was able to not think of fun or small related tangents. So the clones can have emotions (some more than others), but have a simple, mostly one-track mind.

About the “perfect-interior” thing;
There are three classifications of clones:
Perfect clones- an exact copy of the original in every way. Same person, different atoms.
Perfect interior clones- the mind is copied excatly, but there are some discrepancies in physical features. Example: Dipper’s clones in Gravity Falls (episode Doule Dipper). They’re made of paper.
Perfect exterior clones- the body is copied exactly, but the mind isn’t the same. Example: Pinkie’s clones.

Nov 20, 2012 at 08:32PM EST
Quote

Blind Follower wrote:

Each sliver would contain equal parts of her personality. Kind of like a glass of sweet iced tea, how it’s made up of a bunch of different parts, but it tastes the same throughout the entire mixture. And like pinkie’s soul, it’s mostly made of sugar.

And the original Pinkie only split twice, so she would have 1/4 of a soul. all the other pinkies split a bunch of times, so they would have what’s closer to 1/64 a soul each.

And the real pinkie wasn’t none of then, she was all of them. All of them were pinkie, or rather, a part of pinkie.


I’m seeing all of this Robot Pony artwork and it’s great. Do you guys think robot ponies will ever show up in the show?I actually kind of hope they don’t.

No, a piece does not equal a whole.
A part =/= the big picture

1/4 of 64 = 16, but Pinkie Pie seemed like she was still herself all the way, no changes at all.
If by any chance that one of the fourths contains ALL her emotions is far to strange on my part. That does not seem like a very plausible theory, but it sounds very good.

Maybe the pond just enters the original pony into another dimension, an exact dimension?
No, no no wait… if Pinkie entered the pond in one dimension, the other would have to stay in the same dimension and wait for the first Pinkie Pie to enter that dimension.

Hold up, let me think of one…
What if the magic pond contains a reverse-time spell that causes the pony that enters it to be warped back a few minutes back when the pony was just about to go in? Then both ponies would do the same and “split” into four and so on and so forth.

Nov 20, 2012 at 09:31PM EST
Quote

Lone K.K. Slider wrote:

No, a piece does not equal a whole.
A part =/= the big picture

1/4 of 64 = 16, but Pinkie Pie seemed like she was still herself all the way, no changes at all.
If by any chance that one of the fourths contains ALL her emotions is far to strange on my part. That does not seem like a very plausible theory, but it sounds very good.

Maybe the pond just enters the original pony into another dimension, an exact dimension?
No, no no wait… if Pinkie entered the pond in one dimension, the other would have to stay in the same dimension and wait for the first Pinkie Pie to enter that dimension.

Hold up, let me think of one…
What if the magic pond contains a reverse-time spell that causes the pony that enters it to be warped back a few minutes back when the pony was just about to go in? Then both ponies would do the same and “split” into four and so on and so forth.

well, I am partly working off of Harry Potter logic here, from my mention of the Horcrux so expect the soul thing to work kind of like that. For the division of the soul, I was thinking that it only splits the soul of the being that uses it, so pinkie prime only split twice, resulting in 1/4 a soul held in her body, while the clones that continued to divide would have less of a soul. Back to the harry potter logic, splitting a soul doesn’t really affect your personality much. The pinkie clones were flatter characters because they didn’t have any world experience or character development. there was really no basis for that kind of stuff to manifest, because all of the clones didn’t even have a full soul. But Pinkie Prime already had that. Now, if it was a clone that survived, then having all of the pieces of the soul returned to it would turn it into the full pinkie. If it was Pinkie prime that survived, then she just had her full soul returned, with basically no outstanding effect.

Now for your time shenanigans theory, It reminds me a lot of some of the shit that goes down in homestuck. Mostly Eggs and Biscuit from the first intermission.


because of you, I sat here for like 40 minutes trying to make this. curse you and your fantastic ideas.

Nov 20, 2012 at 10:52PM EST
Quote

Um, wow. This is going to be interesting/bad. A good bit of both.

Apparently, Tosh.0 (Daniel Tosh) showed Pony R34 on air. Warning: 4chan thread.

And unless it’s been shopped, there’s an image in the thread showing what it is. I’ll say this: it involves two mane pegasus and another word ending in “-us.” Uncensored.
 
I’ll provide more information if I find it, but assuming that did happen, how worried are you? Is it similar to Howard Stern pointing out cloppers? Will it be largely ignored by the mainstream?

Nov 20, 2012 at 11:17PM EST

Yeah, after more research…that totally happened. No shop, there are clips on YouTube (which will be taken down, because he showed actual naughty parts…didn’t know he could do that…)
 
So yeah. This is a different beast than the domesticated cat that was Howard Stern at Bronycon.

But is it a chihuahua or a leopard?

Nov 20, 2012 at 11:41PM EST

Oh boy. Oooooh boy. OOOOOOOHHH boy. I see Tosh getting some flak from bronies soon. Of course, it’ll (hopefully) be polite, clarifying flak from non-cloppers explaining how it’s not most bronies’ point of view of the fandom.

By what I understand, though, it was completely uncensored and not explicitly pointed out by Tosh. If anything, it’ll start out as outrage for that; after all even cable, even Comedy Central, has standards that it has to keep. (Verbose, you ninja’d me, but the FCC can still control things like that on cable.) It’ll start as outrage against uncensored porn… And, naturally, turn into “broneis look at teh pr0n of teh ponis”. Aaand mainstream attention will come in the worst way possible.

>mfw

Last edited Nov 20, 2012 at 11:48PM EST
Nov 20, 2012 at 11:47PM EST
Quote
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

This thread was locked by an administrator.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Greetings! You must login or signup first!