Total posts: 14,582
-->
@RoderickSpode
...it wouldn't take long for the "something is missing" complaints about human/human romantic relations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If it doesn't exist, it isn't God.
P1 - GOD MUST EXIST
It must exist in order to be God.
P2 - GOD MUST EXIST
That is why it isn't just wrong to say God doesn't exist, it is stupid and indefensible.
(IFF) god = exist (THEN) exist = god (THEREFORE) god = everything and everything = god.
You could have just said THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Did you assist them in the breeding process to obtain feelings and emotion?
Yes.
Wild dogs and wolves (dog ancestors) are incapable of reading and imitating human emotions (empathy).
Humans have selectively bred dogs to increase bi-directional empathy (emotional expressiveness).
Is a dog more sentient or conscious than a wolf?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How is monism de facto?Monism is all is one. De facto means it is wrong.Care to explain what I am getting wrong?
DE FACTO adjective
Definition of de facto
1 : ACTUAL
especially : being such in effect though not formally recognized
a de facto state of war [LINK]
Monism is functionally identical to non-monism (substance dualism).
Counterfactual:
(IFF) non-monism is true (THEN) the fundamentally dissimilar hypothetical "substance" (ghosts gods and hobgoblins) can have ZERO effect and ZERO interaction with what we can observe (THEREFORE) they (ghosts gods and hobgoblins) are de facto non-existent and there is no conceivable reason to imagine they can or will have any effect whatsoever on anything REAL.
IN SUMMARY: Whether or not Monism is "really really really true" is a moot point.
Based on very simple logic we can deduce that even a non-monism cosmos would (does) act EXACTLY like a Monistic cosmos.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I wonder why they would need to be dismantled and rebuilt
I believe the hypothesis is that in order to retrieve maximal information about the subject, you must destroy it.
Maximal information insures the copy will have the fewest possible errors.
The only plot-hole with this teleporter hypothesis is that the "transporter buffer" can create multiple perfect duplicates which have very obvious utility.
Why wouldn't you just make 100 Picards? Or even better 1000 Datas? Duplicating Data makes way more sense than duplicating Riker.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Well if we agree that StarTrek style teleportation involves creating a copy and destroying the original, I'd be a lot more comfortable with just making duplicates and KEEPING the original.Interesting, but I put this thread in the philosophy thread to avoid discussing practicalities!
I'd be somewhat averse to submitting to the process myself, but if it was commonplace and malfunctions were extremely rare, I guess it would probably seem like no big deal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Whatever it was and where ever it is , it was a powerful piece of technology.
Whatever it was and wherever it is , it was a powerful piece of mythology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Some people object to teleporting because it is less a mode of transport than a suicide machine.I, however, am a totally pro-teleport! I'll discuss is with anyone who cares to. It's a given that its an impractical fantasy...
The most practical "teleportation" I've heard of involves sending a probe to a distant planet and then conducting a detailed brain-scan of the subject and then transmitting that brain-scan to the distant probe that assembles a robotic proxy (simulacrum) with a copy of the subject's mind. After the encounter/exploration the memories of the proxy robot (simulacrum) could be transmitted back and either viewed on a terminal, or directly uploaded to the subject's mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
We rely on axioms to do anything.
Axioms are usually reverse-engineered (deduced) from our intuition using logic. Very few systems are built explicitly from the ground up.
We presuppose we are rational.
Rational is a synonym of Logical. (IFF) you believe in cause and effect (THEN) all thoughts and actions are logical consequences of initial conditions.
We presuppose our senses are not deceiving us.
Our senses are not intentionally lying to us, they are merely imprecise and incomplete. A good example is the blind men who examine an elephant. [LINK]
We presuppose we can view the external world.
Anything fundamentally separate (external) is undetectable. In order to interact with something, we must have a fundamental similarity to it, that is to say we must be part of the same system. De facto Monism is necessarily true.
Under these presuppositions we can lets say speculate on the world but that doesn't mean we know things.
Knowledge is merely data. We do collect data. Whether or not this data is "True" is more of an ontological question.
It just means under specific axioms we can speculate on the external world.
There is nothing to stop individuals from speculating, whether they identify their axioms or not.
If we did know something we wouldn't be using axioms instead we use it because it is the only way to observe what is around but that doesn't mean we know.
What is the "it" you are referring to? Are you talking about direct experience versus logical induction/deduction?
This is mainly used for people to counter what I said or give examples of when we have known something.
I now know that you wrote this and that I have replied to it. This is an example of something that I know.
Hopefully you understand what I am trying to say.
I trust you will attempt to clarify any misunderstandings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yeah. Mopac and Descartes both rely on the principle even the appeance of reality requires there must be something rather than nothing.But is that principle justified?
Yes. Since "nothingness" is logically impossible, the only possible conclusion is that there is "something".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You're right. Filing a false police report is a crime.AFAIK, false accusation is an offence and anyone falsely accused can sue. I don't see what else can be done.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Very good, but how did Alpha Go feel after beating Lee Sedol?
That's the funny thing. When you watch the movie, the sports commentators all say things like, "AlphaGo is confused" and "AlphaGo appears to be toying with Le" and "AlphaGo is acting irrationally".
We project emotion and intention on everything. That's why a storm seems angry.
A human go player, much like a poker player, attempts to be as inscrutable as possible.
If a human player does not express any detectable emotions, does that mean they are NOT sentient?
If a human player does not express any detectable emotions, does that mean they are NOT conscious?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
To be perfectly clear, I'm saying, the MOST GENEROUS argument is, (IFF) all terrorist attacks were carried out by professed Muslims (which is definitely not the case) (THEN) terrorists would still only represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims.Essentially, you're saying in that scenario, [TERROR ATTACKS = MUSLIM PERPETRATED] which is definitely different than [ALL MUSLIMS = PERPETRATORS OF TERROR TO FEAR]? If so that makes sense to me.
And I'd also like to drive home the point that the average American is more likely to be crushed to death by their couch or television than they are to be killed by a Muslim. As a matter of fact, Americans were more likely to be killed by a toddler in 2013 than they were by a so-called “Muslim terrorist”.
There are plenty of things in this world that are way more likely to kill you.
#1 killer HEART DISEASE - where's the daily outrage?
#2 killer CANCER - why is cable news brushing this deadly epidemic under the rug?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Trouble is we've been using that excuse for a bloody long time! I think people were more optimistic about artificial consciousness in the 1950s and 60s than they are today.
In Korea, go is considered an art form. The top player, Le Sedol is revered as a living legend and compared to Michelangelo and Mozart.
Go was considered impossible for a computer to "comprehend" because it is such an "intuitive" game and its masters rely on creativity and improvisation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Considering this is 8% of 1.6 Billion muslims "WORLDWIDE" which sound very tiny until it is converted into figures and words, this then amounts to 128000000 or One Hundred & Twenty Eight Million muslims who support Islamic State which is by no means a "tiny minority".
Even if all terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims, you still could not associate terrorism with Islam: There have been 140,000 terror attacks committed worldwide since 1970. Even if Muslims carried out all of these attacks (which is an absurd assumption), those terrorists would represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
NDEs are mostly granted to people who are good enough to deserve a second chance at life.Your religion teaches that the vast majority of souls are bound for hell, it stands to reason then that the vast majority of NDE's would involve a trip to hell and not paradise.
Most of the bad people just go straight to the bad place and that's why they don't report NDEs.
That's the problem with an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Good point.According to this Gallup poll OIC countries (Muslim majority countries) are much less likely to see targeting civilians as justifiable than non-OIC countries. In particular, 13% in the MENA region (Middle East North Africa) believe attacking civilians is sometimes justifiable while 79% believe it's never justifiable, in contrast to 47% in North America believe attacking civilians is sometimes justifiable. This trend is similarly observed within the US itself, 78% American Muslims believe military attacking civilians is never justifiable, whereas most (58%) Christians believe it is sometimes justifiable. Further, American Muslims are also the least likely with 11% to think targeting civilians is sometimes justifiable & 89% believe it's never justifiable, whereas American Christians are the most likely to think so: 27% believe it's sometimes justifiable & only 71% believe it's never justifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
ONLY A TINY MINORITY OF MUSLIMS ARE DANGEROUS TO THE AVERAGE WESTERN CITIZEN.
I will gladly answer your question when you have produced the evidence for your claim above.
16% of the population in the Muslim world, according to the PEW data processed by us, continue to openly support Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, 17% the Taliban, 21% Hezbollah, and 22% Hamas. 27% of Muslims worldwide do not oppose suicide bombing. [LINK]
Even if all terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims, you still could not associate terrorism with Islam: There have been 140,000 terror attacks committed worldwide since 1970. Even if Muslims carried out all of these attacks (which is an absurd assumption given the fact mentioned in my first point), those terrorists would represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims. To put things into perspective, this means that you are more likely to be struck by lightening in your lifetime than a Muslim is likely to commit a terrorist attack during that same timespan.
If you are scared of Muslims then you should also be scared of household furniture and toddlers: A study carried out by the University of North Carolina showed that less than 0.0002% of Americans killed since 9/11 were killed by Muslims. (Ironically, this study was done in Chapel Hill: the same place where a Caucasian non-Muslim killed three innocent Muslims as the mainstream media brushed this terrorist attack off as a parking dispute). Based on these numbers, and those of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the average American is more likely to be crushed to death by their couch or television than they are to be killed by a Muslim. As a matter of fact, Americans were more likely to be killed by a toddler in 2013 than they were by a so-called “Muslim terrorist”. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
As I understand it, the myth Stephen refers to is that the majority of Muslims have 'western values', ie the majority is pro democracy, secular and in favour of women's and gay rights. The myth hold that it is only a tiny minority of Muslims who are misogynistic, homophobic and sympathetic to religious rule.Closer to the truth is that few Muslims are terrorists or support terrorism or the most extreme forms of Islamism, but Muslims are moving way from liberal values, not towards them. It is a mistake to think the Muslim community is overwhemingly liberal but being held hostage by a fanatical few.Truly liberal Muslims are, or are becoming, the minority. Moderate does not mean liberal - at least not any more. .
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
False accusers are commiting a crime and should be punished or it.
Are you proposing dragging them into court and charging them with libel, or did you have some other crime in mind?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
They certainly SEEM to be sentient (Qualitatively), we know they have a mammalian limbic system just like humans, and we have some evidence that human emotions are induced via the limbic system.This seems to imply that dogs or cats are not truly sentient, no? It's fair to say even if we are misreading or mistranslating a dog's emotions, dogs HAVE emotions. They can get what appears to us to be angry, for example, and happy, and scared.
I'm not sure why a virtual limbic system might be considered "impossible" or "fake". If we can effectively model the input and output of the limbic system, it stands to reason that such a system could generate "real" emotions.
The funny thing is that people who have less emotional self-control are considered more "genuine".
Does our adult ability to control the expression of our emotions make us less sentient?
Would we even want to develop an AI that couldn't control its emotional outbursts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Would you agree that people should be treated as de-facto innocent (not incarcerated or slandered in the press or inconvenienced in any way) until they are proven guilty in a court of law?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
There's a Black Mirror episode called "Be Right Back" that I think got me to consider this question.
Yep, seen it. We tend to project "sentience" or "consciousness" onto others as long as they seem "mostly human" even if it's a dog or a cat.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
But...as you know. It's just a movie.
Maybe, but probably not for long. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Please explain what you consider a "Muslim extremist" or "radicalized" and why anyone should "be afraid of them".
Or get super defensive and try to bully others out of the conversation.
Ok, try this one, ONLY A TINY MINORITY OF MUSLIMS ARE DANGEROUS TO THE AVERAGE WESTERN CITIZEN.
Please either agree or disagree.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
You mean like this? [LINK]What would make a robot sentient? An obvious one might be, can you hurt a robot's feelings?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
THIS DOES NOT MAKE THEM TERRORISTS.No it doesn't and I nor Shapiro is saying any such thing.You only wish he and I were suggesting that. Listen carefully you clown he makes his point extremely clear.
Please explain what you consider a "Muslim extremist" or "radicalized" and why anyone should "be afraid of them".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
False Accusations RUIN lives, and you should maybe not be jailed for it!!!
Can you imagine living in a world where you were presumed innocent until proven guilty?
False allegations are far from victimless crimes. With a few high-profile exceptions, false allegations usually do not lead to wrongful conviction of the accused. However, they may lead to other serious consequences, such as pre-trial detention, loss of employment, intervention by social services, or death threats and other social stigma. False allegations often have a racial dimension and may disproportionately target black people. Worse still, false accusers collectively victimize all genuine victims of sexual assault by eroding their credibility. [LINK]
The problem is that you can't just make a special-pleading case for just one type of crime without making it apply to all accusations for all crimes.
Such a policy would effectively make it impossible for any poor person to accuse a wealthy person or corporation of any crime.
Instead of trying to punish people for seeking justice, why don't we better serve the accused in order to prevent their lives being destroyed.
Would you agree that people should be treated as de-facto innocent (not incarcerated or slandered in the press or inconvenienced in any way) until they are proven guilty in a court of law?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The video you posted only talks about Muslims.Yes that is what apologists like yourself and prosser do all of the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Starting at 114s
Countries and 70% blame the United States or Israel or somebody else for 911. - THIS DOES NOT MAKE THEM TERRORISTS.
Define "radicalized" because (based on your chosen examples) it definitely doesn't mean "terrorist".
ARE YOU SCARED YET? HE ACTUALLY SAYS THIS. BLATANT FEAR MONGERING.
65% believe Sharia Law is good. - THIS DOES NOT MAKE THEM TERRORISTS.
70% of Egyptian Muslims had positive OR MIXED FEELINGS. You can't conflate positive and mixed. THIS IS BLATANTLY DECEPTIVE. I have mixed feelings about Trump, that doesn't mean I'm a fan.
The percentage of Egyptian Muslims who have positive feelings about Al-Quaeda is about 13%, which still seems high, but 70% is not even close.
76% of Pakistani Muslims believe Sharia Law is good. - THIS DOES NOT MAKE THEM TERRORISTS.
BEN'S PRETTY SHARP SO I'M PRETTY SURE HE KNOWS HE'S SPREADING MISINFORMATION.
ARE YOU SCARED YET?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
"The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority"
I guess they're conflating "Islam" and "Muslim".
I'm not sure why Stephen seems to be allergic to simple questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Well, good luck with that.I hope that what I want at the end is that it isn't the end. I hope I never desire death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Has the being you proposed set up a practical infinity of possibilities? Because if he had that is not really a plan.
Did you make plans for your vacation?
Yes.
What's the plan?
Well, there's a practical infinity of possibilities, anything could happen.
So nothing specific?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@linate
NDEs of atheists - most atheists meet a divine being and more than half of them come back believing in God.
That may be true, but that god is not "YHWH".
Those atheists reportedly move towards a more agnostic position and some adopt a Deistic sort of new-age "one with the universe" belief.
Agnostic =/= Theist (AND) Deist =/= Theist (THEREFORE) since they are not Theists they are still accurately described as Atheists. [LINK]
DEISM IS FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL TO ATHEISM.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
All of that aside, let's say that NDEs ARE REALLY REALLY REALZIES.
What do you believe are the real-world, practical implications for your daily life and what do you think it means for religion?
Created:
-->
@amandragon01
Possibly, though their consciousness during NDE's and the actual existence of what they see is far more in question than the in universe Vorlons.
But I heard that episode was based on a dream that felt super real, no, actually it was an NDE, I mean, that guy was falling and was about to die, and that allowed them to see into another dimension (beyond death) and then when they didn't die, they made a documentary about it and that's where the show comes from, but the writers didn't want people to think they were crazy so they never told anyone...
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I found this remarkably compelling. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i just showed you how dreams are different than NDEs. why are you going to just continue to pretend they're the same?
You've basically said that the people who talk about their NDE believe their experience was "more real than a dream".
This is obviously an opinion.
Lots of people have similar dreams, does this mean that those dreams are "real"?
Across cultures the strange sensation of sleep paralysis has evoked some vivid descriptions. In 1664 a Dutch physician published a case history of a woman with sleep paralysis. “'The devil lay upon her and held her down,” he wrote.
In Japan sleep paralysis is called “kanashibari.” The term is rooted in Buddhism; long ago it was believed that Buddhist monks could use magic to paralyze others.
In Newfoundland sleep paralysis has been called an attack of “Old Hag.” In China it has been labeled “ghost oppression.” A new study reports that in Mexico people may say that sleep paralysis feels like “a dead body climbed on top of me.” [LINK]
Created:
-->
@amandragon01
Kinda like, [LINK]Studies suggest children see loved ones more than most, Indians often report seeing Hindu gods and Americans Jesus.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you think there's elaborate stories embedded in our brain...
EXACTLY THE SAME TYPES OF "ELABORATE STORIES" YOUR BRAIN SHOWS YOU WHEN YOU ARE DREAMING.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Spinoza in 8 minutes. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
his link has some smart people explaining the difference in consciousness and AI
Brain. It consists of neurons. They process physical signals at lower level (sensing and moving) and higher level (reflexes, coordination, balance, etc). Brain also functions as an antenna and transmitter to mind.
Antenna and transmitter? What The Heck?
Mind. It consists largely of emotions (they have also chemical counterparts), wantings, beliefs (definitions, meanings, knowledge). There are also thoughts, imagination, decision-making, motivation, concept of “self”, etc.
Wrapped around lizard brain is mammal brain, otherwise known as the Limbic system. Your Limbic system is concerned with safety. This is the area of the brain where you keep track of past pain and pleasure memories. All mammal brain wants to do is keep you safe, so if you have survived up until now by doing certain things, mammal brain will push you to keep repeating those same behaviours. Mammal brain absolutely hates change. [LINK]
Consciousness. There resides awareness, inspiration, intuition, conscience, feelings, liveness, etc.
What would make anyone think that "inspiration" is somehow "not part of either the brain or mind".
Here we go.
Brain. HARDWARE.
Mind. FIRMWARE.
Consciousness. SOFTWARE.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
if you think there's an elaborate story embedded in our brain when we are dying,
Oh, you mean like a dream? Have you ever had a dream? Do you think all your dreams are "real"?
Can you tell the difference between a dream and (Quantifiable scientific) reality?
and you can't tell if AI has consciousness,
Can you tell if your favorite pet has consciousness? [LINK]
Does your dog love you?
Does your neighbor's dog love you too?
i also might have a bridge to nowhere that you might be interested in purchasing.
I also might have a beautiful eternal reward waiting for you after you die, if you swear to follow my book-of-ancient-rules.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
even if NDEs were based on culture, it doesn't mean they aren't still authentic experiences of the afterlife.
So you're basically saying your hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
In the same way that dreams can seem "more real than real".you said our brains are similar so we would have similar NDEs, but why would they be so vivid and more real than real and with such common elements that are more like a story and less like a random hallucination?
In the same way that psychedelic experiences can seem "more real than real".
For example, [LINK]
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
An appeal to complexity is also known as an appeal to ignorance.it's not exhaustive proof of God, and is sort of like the complexity argument for God.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i can't prove it, but i suspect humans will never create consciousness. they may mimic it with AI, but it won't be self aware and free thinking and philosophical.
How do you clearly and unambiguously distinguish "real" consciousness from "fake" consciousness?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
If it's the former then Blue Brain might become conscious (making it as complex as a real brain is hard but not impossible). But if it's the latter then presumably Blue Brain must fail.
HowEVer, if Blue Brain (or any other "Avatar" project) can seamlessly imitate the input and output of a "normal human brain" to such a degree that it is indistinguishable from a human brain (passes Turing/Voight-Kampff Test) how would anyone know if "element-x" is missing? [LINK]
Created: