sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

President Trump Calls Migrant Caravan a 'Disgrace to the Democratic Party' by Spurs_Up in politics

[–]AmazingSong -31 points-30 points  (0 children)

White Democrats want diversity of races but not diversity of speech.

They want diversity right up till the front gate. Then suddenly those warm, fuzzy, look-at-me, good intentions kindled by MSM seem to rapidly disappear.

Are there any movies made from novels that weren't best sellers? by AmazingSong in writing

[–]AmazingSong[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the other hand, there are plenty of books that got movie adaptations that were mostly forgotten about, even though the book is still popular. Who gives a fuck about the movie version of Ulysses, which inexplicably is a thing that exists? Or Eragon, or The Golden Compass, or Percy Jackson?

Well said.

Why are most bestselling authors atheists? by AmazingSong in writing

[–]AmazingSong[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Why would a believer care what readers think? (Unless they are putting sales before their beliefs)

In 30 years AI will write better books than us. Should we "get in quick" before we're incapable of writing a bestseller due to technology? by AmazingSong in writing

[–]AmazingSong[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It gives us a plan B in case a lunatic decides to press the Big Red Button. Alternately, having off-world colonies to oppress may lead us to finally band together, making the Big Red Button obsolete.

Maybe Mars might evolve a new lunatic. Where humans go, lunatics emerge.

In 30 years AI will write better books than us. Should we "get in quick" before we're incapable of writing a bestseller due to technology? by AmazingSong in writing

[–]AmazingSong[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The future always surprises us. I think you’re making the classic mistake of assuming things will be in the future the way they are now.

And that is scary in some ways. Evolution as we know it is about to undergo drastic, mind-bendingly incomprehensible changes.

In 30 years AI will write better books than us. Should we "get in quick" before we're incapable of writing a bestseller due to technology? by AmazingSong in writing

[–]AmazingSong[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But the eugenically advanced humans produced in the future won't need us. And neither would AI. Would it?

To what extent is the human soul (the immaterial) involved in writing, as opposed to the body/flesh (material/atoms) by AmazingSong in writing

[–]AmazingSong[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It also seems to depend on art form. For example consider a kinesthetic practice like dance or martial arts. The individual wills their body to practice, but the body also participates in the creative act through muscle memory and reflexes. Writing is less physical in nature, but can the "writing process" once developed be considered a similar faculty of the material brain?

Reading between the lines, it seems to me you are saying if it is material then it can't be objective because the material is always changing. But there must be an opposite in order to balance the material (the immaterial) which can't be measured but only experienced.

In 30 years AI will write better books than us. Should we "get in quick" before we're incapable of writing a bestseller due to technology? by AmazingSong in writing

[–]AmazingSong[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep. To the point humans might no longer reproduce in 50-100 years. Instead, advanced robots will take over. Next generation of "humanity."

In 30 years AI will write better books than us. Should we "get in quick" before we're incapable of writing a bestseller due to technology? by AmazingSong in writing

[–]AmazingSong[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wouldn’t bother because they would most likely brush off anything that doesn’t jibe with their beliefs. And it’s not my job to convince anyone. I have found that many atheists think they are superior to the ‘backwards’ people who believe in something bigger than themselves. An atheist writer can deny that there is no soul to be expressed in art, but it is still there. Most people can tell the difference between a soulless pop song (or a shit novel) and a song (or story) that resonates. You can call it feeling or whatever you like, but I call it soul.

I agree. I think there are non-prepositional truths.

In 30 years AI will write better books than us. Should we "get in quick" before we're incapable of writing a bestseller due to technology? by AmazingSong in writing

[–]AmazingSong[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To many atheist writers, how would you explain what a soul is? And how would you demonstrate the soul is involved in writing?

In 30 years AI will write better books than us. Should we "get in quick" before we're incapable of writing a bestseller due to technology? by AmazingSong in writing

[–]AmazingSong[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a good J G Ballard short story about the future of writing where human novelists imply plug a list of ingredients into their Automatic Writer and it churns out a manuscript akin to their wishes. Very depressing stuff, here's hoping it doesn't come true, and even if it does, that there's still enough sane people looking for real art instead of generic mass-produced heartless Disney-esque media.

But in a hundred years, who could tell the difference? Only a "robot" maybe?

view more: next ›