dimreepr

I'm happy to acknowledge your right to neg my post, but without a reasoned argument, I really don't care; but thanks for participating... 🤒

What struck me as I read this, imagine how much more powerful AI could become if we copy n paste that wiring diagram into a supercomputer?

It always starts somewhere, then the ripples grow...

The one that fits the persons ability and intelligence on the spectrum of faith, you are certain of your position bc what you've built can be seen to be working, no faith needed, but you're an outlier; the outlier at the other end of the scale is a baby. All I'm saying is that most of us are dotted around the middle, whatever ism we follow, requires a fair bit of faith. For me, this statement applies to everyone on the spectrum equally. There's no evidence that science will continue to evolve, tomorrow.

That's a very shallow definition of rich, money is an ever more arbitrary measure of wealth distribution, it could change overnight and you have no money, you've still got the house and and a larder that can feed the family for six months. For me the truely rich are happy with that for six months.

They're not helping, they're prolonging the agony by giving Israel a 'world' license to carry on regardless. WWIII isn't beyond reason...

Fair enough; scienceism = people who put their faith in science; I count myself among their numbers. That includes a lot of people who don't really understand the science, bc we don't speak the language properly; the great thinkers evolve our thinking, sometimes against the prevailing/dogmatic understanding. Ditto religions. I'm not sure how else one could interpret that word, in the context of my post.

Baruch Spinoza - Wikipedia Given the context, isn't it obvious?

It's still basically the same question, in that nothing offered that you consider to be true.

Which ones are you talking about? Religion's may lag behind sometimes and resist fundamental changes in their belief, but they also contain great thinkers that challenge the dogma and lead to better explanation's. Ditto scienceism. How does it prove your point? Evolution is the very definition of chaos, and your premise is that atheist misunderstand evolution. IOW no need for a god to guild thing's... 😉

Philosophically speaking, language's can be misinterpreted, maybe the premise offered is valid, even when both appear to be speaking the same language, the smallest nuance can be the switch between the truths. If memory serves, it a Wittgenstein type question.

We are all indoctrinated, it's an inevitability if we survive our birth, please don't assume that your particular indoctrination is superior just bc; have a think about why your immune to the notion of god, just bc you don't believe in an ism...

They both are, which one is most acceptable? That depends on the culture/state/village, one grew up in...

Which circles back to my post, morals is an individual thing that depends on what we can see, which in 99.999...% of the time nobody actually does and so it's disconnected from objective justice, ethics is designed to interject and objectively view the scene. No, I said not really, in the context of actually seeing the scene. It's not Israel that's likely to get the message, they are so much stronger and therefore so much less likely to look for an alternative in fighting their corner, it's Hamas that needs to learn the "rope a dope" technique. We can't expect people to think morally, without ethics defining the rules of the game...

Of course they can, with a reasonable argument...

Well dark matter and dark energy, could be invisible pink unicorns, it depends on the story...

Indeed, but I'm not using it. Indeed, that's the role of ethics...

That depends on the eddy, in the flow.

That depends on how they chose to do that, the world is watching... Ouch, but aren't we equally capable?

Religion is easy to deny bc it generally needs a god to be the arbiter of, whatever... God is an easy target, bc it can't exist... If you want religion to make sense to those who don't believe, then take god out of the argument and explain what the people who wrote the bible, actually meant...

Yes, but he entirely missed the point, eugenics is not something we can control bc the enviroment changes in a future we have no idea about, no god need be involved, so whatever ism you choose, it has no bearing on the reality in front of you... 🙄

Is a virus evil for causing a cold? If God's exist, it would be irrational to assume that they work for you, given the success of the virus... 😉

Not really, "when we can clearly see who took my vision.", it would be foolish to offer the other eye, and I'd be entirely justified, even as a pacifist, in plucking one of theirs in order to profide context and consequences. Indeed, it's always easier when we can clearly see, who the actual bully is. It's not democracy that's the road block to ethics, it's capitalism and the accountant, they own the system.

The ethical argument is very different to the moral one: The moral argument is "an eye for an eye", which is justice when we can clearly see who took my vision. The ethical argument is "how do you know who took what, with only one eye?". Proportionality lies somewhere in between and I don't think the military is best placed to judge...

No, it sound's like you're refusing to acknowledge that bullies are created not born, they all live in basically the same place where the boarders is an arbitrary measure; they don't even have the excuse that they're living on an island and have evolved slightly differently. Everyone has condemned Hitler for the bully he was, isn't it time Israel stopped citing him as the reason to be the bigger innocent???