Tessera

doll esters 🌑🐇

@agency.removal.surgery

24⚧︎&θΔ🔞 ✳︎︎ it (3pp pref)/they&/she noone-to-something transsexual 〜兎形〜 coders (con)linguists idm·likers intersex disabled aroacespec este.rs 💜 @maeve.works’ warrenmates 🧡 @uniw.university⁠s mithasen 💙 @personhood.removal.surgery’s dolls–sisters–witches

10330 Posts1500 Follower 1514 Folgt

Lexi ⛯@ash243x.bsky.social · yesterday

don't forget ur pills everybunny

doll esters 🌑🐇@agency.removal.surgery · yesterday

rateyourmusic dot com rating guide [UPDATED 2026] → you like the music? 3.5 stars → you don’t like the music? 3 stars

doll esters 🌑🐇@agency.removal.surgery · 2d ago

holy fuck the marina herlop set was phenomenal

doll esters 🌑🐇@agency.removal.surgery · 3y ago

relax now: the calm, rustly sound of way too many paper towels being drawn out of the bathroom dispenser

doll esters 🌑🐇@agency.removal.surgery · last yr.

women make excellent use of tissues

doll esters 🌑🐇@agency.removal.surgery · last yr.

*sniffle* tissue…? n-no, bunny doesn’t need tissue… bunny *is* tissue…

doll esters 🌑🐇@agency.removal.surgery · 2d ago

soooo it might be that the reason it’s been unable to sit through 2-hour concerts for a decade now might actually be that it’s so tall its knees overshoot the base of the chair and all the pressure concentrates on the back of its thighs lol truly, is nothing in this world built for this one’s body

doll esters 🌑🐇@agency.removal.surgery · 3d ago

choose 2: complete, consistent, ⊤

doll esters 🌑🐇@agency.removal.surgery · 3d ago

is your cryptid a hybrid or is she Various Artists

Arika @ari.express · 3d ago

ageplay *encrypts your file*

doll esters 🌑🐇@agency.removal.surgery · 3d ago

#⁠lowkey jerking off to the thought of turning 25

Lexi ⛯@ash243x.bsky.social · 3d ago

typ sh

bunny drawing with a carrot wedged in two half spheres around a metallic core.

samhain ⎔@personhood.removal.surgery · 4d ago

If Turing lived 75 years later he'd be such a tensorfucker holy shit phil415.pbworks.com/f/TuringComp...

I now proceed to consider opinions opposed to my own.
(1) The Theological Objection. Thinking is a function of man's immortal soul. God has given an immortal soul to every man and woman, but not to any other animal or to machines.
Hence no
animal or machine can think.
I am unable to accept any part of this, but will attempt to reply in theological terms. I should find the argument more convincing if animals were classed with men, for there is a greater difference, to my mind, between the typical animate and the inanimate than there is between man and the other animals.
The arbitrary character of the orthodox view becomes clearer if we consider how it might appear to a member of some other . religious community. How do Christians regard the Moslem view that women have no souls? But let us leave this point aside and return to the main argument. It appears to me that the argument quoted above implies a serious restriction of the omnipotence of the Almighty. It is admitted that there are certain things that He cannot do such as making one equal to two, but should we not believe that He has freedom to confer a soul on an elephant if He sees fit? We might expect that He would only exercise this power in conjunction with a mutation which provided the elephant with an appropriately improved brain to minister to the needs of this soul. An argument of exactly similar form may be made for the case of machines. It may seem different because it is more difficult to "swallow". But this really only means that we think it would be less likely that He would consider the circumstances suitable for conferring a soul. The circumstances in question are discussed in the rest of this paper.
In attempting to construct such machines we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates.

(2) The 'Heads in the Sand' Objection. " The consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful. Let us hope and believe that they cannot do so."
This argument is seldom expressed quite so openly as in the form above. But it affects most of us who think about it at all.
We like to believe that Man is in some subtle way superior to the rest of creation. It is best if he can be shown to be necessarily superior, for then there is no danger of him losing his commanding position. The popularity of the theological argument is clearly connected with this feeling. It is likely to be quite strong in intellectual people, since they value the power of thinking more highly than others, and are more inclined to base their belief in the superiority of Man on this power.
I do not think that this argument is sufficiently substantial to require refutation. Consolation would be more appropriate: perhaps this should be sought in the transmigration of souls.

I do not expect this reply to silence my critic. He will probably say that such surprises are due to some creative mental act on my part, and reflect no credit on the machine. This leads us back to the argument from consciousness, and far from the idea of surprise. It is a line of argument we must consider closed, but it is perhaps worth remarking that the appreciation of something as surprising requires as much of a 'creative mental act ' whether the surprising event originates from a man, a book, a machine or anything else.
The view that machines cannot give rise to surprises is due, I believe, to a fallacy to which philosophers and mathematicians are particularly subject. This is the assumption that as soon as a fact is presented to a mind all consequences of that fact spring into the mind simultaneously with it. It is a very useful assumption under many circumstances, but one too easily forgets that it is false. A natural consequence of doing so is that one then assumes that there is no virtue in the mere working out of consequences from data and general principles.

It will not be possible to apply exactly the same teaching process to the machine as to a normal child. It will not, for instance, be provided with legs, so that it could not be asked to go out and fill the coal scuttle. Possibly it might not have eyes. But however well these deficiencies might be overcome by clever engineering, one could not send the creature to school without the other children making excessive fun of it. It must be given some tuition. We need not be too concerned about the legs, eyes, etc. The example of Miss Helen Keller shows that education can take place provided that communication in both directions between teacher and pupil can take place by some means or other.

Clarisse @qex.at · 5d ago

"what else is like this" is setoid behavior sorry constructivists

sweet little raquel @computer.fish · 8mo ago

fuck my stupid dolly life

doll esters 🌑🐇@agency.removal.surgery · last yr.

the way the uni of @uniw.university is lovely and sweet and a beautiful presence in our life but also bursts out laughing the very moment i put in the ‘german + english’ option on here when i’m drafting a post