Reece101

Boomer...No post boomer, a 60's inbetweener, and British.

And Sr Seuss isn't big news over hear...In fact, not news at all.

And investors in a competitive market, whether that be public or private, will weigh cost against benefit.

And the risk from extreme weather events in Texas, was probably not regarded as significant enough to warrant the cost of future weather proofing power supplies.

One could also rightly argue,  that peoples indifference and unpreparedness for extreme weather events, raises a different social question.....The reliance on a Nanny State and the inability to think for oneself....After all what effort does it take to have suitable clothing and a few extra food supplies in for the Winter.

I would certainly survive quite well if the power was down for a few days...And probably quite enjoy the experience.

I could certainly manage without the TV and internet and mobile signal.

And Texas was without power because of the extreme weather....Funny how you didn't mention that.

And the Dr Suess, Pepe le Pew reference, just didn't work for me.....It's an age thing I suppose.

Europeans. LOL.

And this is just another typical forum, where the conversation soon ended and the contentions began.

And Janesix is correct...Societies are naturally hierarchical.

And Janesix is also correct when she says that despite hardship people tend not to go without unnecessary necessities.

And we are a selectively moral species, and will happily discuss the needy with reverence.

But how many of us will sleep uneasily tonight worrying about the poor person next door working for a minimum wage

I Let's say you got a very skilled fighter or more, about to either severely damage you or force you to give in to demands unless you obey.

You either need to be (or have present and sided with you) a skilled fighter that can defeat him/her/them or have someone rich, powerful, charismatic and/or smart enough to ensure the fighter is no longer rendered both capable and willing of taking you down.

This analogy applies to so many situations. Power can be, has been and always will be just as defensive as it is offensive

That doesn't disprove me.

I would say it's safe to say that people who are good at sustaining power are typically good at managing money but the inverse isn't always true

Money is a means to an end but because money can be used passively to recycle it in a way that power can't (because not only are we all mortal but people who use power to maintain and gain more power in itself, end up resented by the other powerful people over time and betrayed in the end).

I've heard that before but real life proves this completely wrong. The reason that cliche is able to be falsely believed is that the bad guys make the headlines while the good guys are just another philanthropist millionaire who are assumed to be using their money for good just so they can tell others they are (so others become numb to it).

If it wasn't for rich and/or powerful people using their power and money for good, we'd still be in ancient egyptian and persian style Tyranny. There's a reason that monarchy isn't the worldwide norm anymore (and it's thanks to powerful people, not random people with pitchforks having angry revolts). Even the pinnacle of 'rebellion forcing democracy' which is France, required turncoats among the powerful.

Not sure I believe that, or what that has to do with this conversation.

Anarcho? what is that? If it's an anarchist, I believe that there should be laws. Anarchy doesn't work with large populations

Motherhood and fatherhood is an individual responsibility. You are NOT a victim of societal injustice if you can't afford kids.

Certain things are, by definition, true, thus making them practically undebatable. For instance, the statement, "A bachelor is not married," is true by definition, making any counter-argument futile.

Acknowledging past, present, and future concedes the change of time.

relativity requires an observer and observed- at least two positions in space.

More than one position in space disproves singularity

Variety disproves singularity.

Variable experience proves things change.  If nothing ever changed, experience would not vary.

• singularities are not static
  
• we see that black holes grow or shrink depending on the angular momentum of material sucked
  

• If you and I were the same component of singularity, we would be of one mind.
  
• If we were of one mind, we'd agree that things change
  

The sky is blue

P1: Every event has a cause

P2: An endless chain of causes is impossible

C: There exists a first cause

I mean that the measure of passage becomes not a time-based measure, but a measure of relative accomplishment. "When" is not a factor. "Done" is the factor

Metaphysical-1 time is not motion. It is the finite units of measurement ex seconds, minutes, hours, days

Observed { experienced } Time is motion, that, inherently is associated with sine-wave /\/\/\/ frequency patterns.

EMRadiation { bosonic photons } has two such sine-wave pattern ats 90 degrees { + } to each other.  

How about actually reaching a time when time no longer needs to be measured. When we measure according to our accomplishment and not the duration of the effort to reach it because it's no longer a competition. "I can name that tune in three notes..."  No. More simple; "I can name that tune, and I don't need a note as a hint."

Of course it does. First, I have to align with the side on which time does not exist but by human imposition. Apologists for time will introduce such terms as "relativity," but that is, after all, just an attempt to justify the concept in the first place

Time is a logical necessity.

An AXIOM of AXIOMS

Yeah, so we agree?

Honestly I don't understand the popular outrage against "flat-earthers".

They're much less dangerous than most religious people.

The opinion "the earth is flat" is generally harmless.

You really only NEED to account for the curvature of the earth (IFF) you're a ballistics technician or a satellite engineer.

MOST people never need to account for this incidental curvature or the earth. 

For example, when drafting blueprints or city planning, you're dealing with what is effectively and practically a flat surface

The fact that there is the mariana trench and mount everest would mean the world's surface is uneven, meaning it is not smooth, meaning it is not flat.

BOOM mic drop

Functionally, the earth is (for most people) indistinguishable from flat.

That's why maps (of the earth) are generally drawn on flat pieces of paper.

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion, it's either you have a good counter argument to the Chinese room and Mary's room, or you do not.

These are two separate thought experiments, therefore they abide by different rules. 

This is simply not an argument.

The man doesn't know what the symbols mean, just what symbols to write when some symbols come in through the door. 

if we cannot give AI the ability to experience subjective qualia, then we cannot have truly strong AI

How many billions of years did it take for Organic Intelligence to develop?

•  The Chinese Room.  Imagine an English speaking human-being who knows noChinese is put in a room and asked to simulate theexecution of a computer program operating on Chinesecharacters which he/she does not understand. Imagine the program the person is executing is an AIprogram which is receiving natural language stories andquestions in Chinese and responds appropriately withwritten Chinese sentences. 
  

           The claim is that even if reasonable natural languageresponses are being generated that are indistinguishablefrom ones a native Chinese speaker would generate, there is no “understanding” since only meaningless symbols arebeing manipulated. the human seems to understand Chinese, however, they do not, and the same is true of AI.

• Mary's Room. imagine Mary is an expert on color, and she can describe  the process of the human eye seeing color. however, Mary works in a completely black and white room, and she has never seen color. one day, a red apple appears on her computer screen, Mary has seen color for the first time. the question is: does she learn something new when she sees the red apple? is the answer is yes, she does, then there is more to color then what we can program into a computer, and color is a qualia (or subjective experience) in which humans have, that cannot be put into a computer. more examples of qualia are joy, or anger, because we cannot describe these experiences to someone who has not felt them, therefore, we cannot program them into a computer, and we cannot have true strong AI.
  

Feel free to present your own personally preferred definition of NIHILISM at your leisure.

You have defined nihilism not 3ru7al. You did so when you defined all atheists as nihilists. Atheism is not defacto nihilism unless NIHILISM=SUBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY.