iNow

No offense intended toward MigL, but there’s no reason to accept that claim as valid.

But you replied to me, and I was indeed talking about the former… the group Zapatos correctly describes. THEY are the ones no longer agreeing to help facilitate elections and polling stations because Trumps crazies threaten them with mob violence and death and intimidation more broadly all for just doing their jobs. It’s no longer safe to perform a fairly basic civic duty. Recall the stories of militias showing up heavily armed in polling station parking lots and following workers home as recently as 3 years ago… all because of the guy about to get elected again.

Nobody here except you has mentioned policy, AI or otherwise. The thread regards whether evolution is an earth only process.

Would you have preferred I used self-indulgent?

Indeed. Also, my comment above about trust being a major challenge moving forward may have been overly broad and definitely wasn’t restricted solely to SFN Not Bard? Or DeepMind?

We don’t. Trust is going to be an even bigger problem moving forward, and this includes text, audio, video, and crosses essentially all modalities.

I should’ve selected a different word to describe my meaning. Like “based on tallies” We’re obviously thinking of different groups and people. This does not apply to most, I can assure you.

This is a bigger question, but it involves counting and recounting when challenged. Though in an “honest” way simply meant above that the vote tallies repeatedly confirmed who won and who did not… if Trump wins, he’ll act like an authoritarian. If Trump loses, he’ll also act like an authoritarian AND claim it was rigged then sick his minions on honest civil servants trying to do serve their country as volunteers during elections. And here in Iowa his support is loyal. He enjoys not just a 54% level,of support, but that support is rabid and unwavering.

A self-professed wiseman recently said (within the last 60 minutes, IINM): Why are you replying if you don't have a point? Are you forgetting that "making a point" is "making a point regarding the topic at hand?" Do you have the ability to not respond to a thread in which you have no actual argument to contribute to?

And a 90% chance of triggering a second civil war when he loses the next one again in an honest way.

Yes, many definitions were established, and various participants have been exercising their freedom to choose completely different ones when posting. Depends entirely on the definition one selects. Welcome to philosophy… where we’ll be speaking of the exact same thing without making any significant progress for many centuries to come.

Wait, so you’re saying this Trump fella isn’t a standup guy? I dunno. You sure seem to be jumping pretty quickly to your conclusion.

+1 for leading by example

At least not until next Tuesday.

Yeah, and I told him to go punch himself in the face, too. 😂

Go away, bot. You’re drunk

Punching yourself in the face would be one such example.

Note to self: Looks like a back door to reintroduce another version of the “red doesn’t exist” dumbassity

I’ve read it several times. It’s a large part of the reason I’m an atheist today. Did you have a specific section or at least book you’d like US to focus to focus upon seeking validation of YOUR point? Maybe at least define which of the numerous versions of “THE Bible” you’re “citing.” And how come bibles don’t exist if the color red doesn’t exist? You’re horribly inconsistent to the point of absurdity.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Overlapping_Magisteria

I understand, but please take note that reading your replies suggests otherwise.

Appears to be a sloppy form of the nonoverlapping magisteria position that science and religion are two circles in a Venn diagram with zero occlusion (another self-evidently false apologist assertion)

Of course AI are not exchanging DNA, but they ARE rejecting flawed forecasts and reinforcing successful ones… I.e. engaging in a form of selection, aka: evolving… and this is happening quite rapidly. But your record of having an enormous chip on your shoulder about all things AI remains unblemished.

Too late And yet when asked for a falsifiable definition of soul, that is the one you shared. Pathetic.

By this definition then it obviously exists. The problem you face is this definition isn’t agreed upon by anyone but you (and maybe your mom).