dimreepr

Google it. 😉

Assuming anything is the wrong place to start, if you want the truth. What would be the benefit of a computational model? For instance, would the joke be funnier? The computer say's "the joke is n% funnier, when humans listen to it in a group". What does that tell you about the joke?

When did I say that? https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/spectators-witness-history-manassas?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2mX0QB0RqUupWigL0tXDlexICHoaD66FEusNY4bnyCaPSEvD-hlXBk-lM_aem_AdJUJwgueDkpOj0ewWkvrSsAp8nzczPoxZyFEPydu44kwthVDOBHoLa2xQRyMFpidMvLJLvn8GL7y_iCP72umPje#:~:text=Watching the Federal army advance seemed like the perfect Sunday afternoon diversion.&text=It is a popular%2C almost,battle of a short rebellion The view from that hill was such bc it didn't really affect them. I was listening to a debate a few weeks ago, in which the story of a runaway slave helped a northern general with an overwhelming army, corner and then refused to attack, letting them slip away, which happened time after time; some think it was bc of his trust/distrust of a negro, I wonder how his perspective was different? I'm sorry I can't remember the specifics or the source bc it was a tangent of the debate. Apologies @TheVat But this is well worth a listen and it's beyond me to summarise a summary.

From who's perspective?

For a start, the battles were considered a fine days entertainment, that seems to answer most of this; as for the rest of your question, it's a case of economic need; the south needed it's slaves/property, more than they needed a clean moral conscience, the north didn't. The English avoided the need for a battle, by paying compensation to the slave owner's; a debt BTW that lasted well into the 1990's.

The closest I can come to a formal definition is a 'joke', one form of intelligence makes a joke for another form of intelligence to laugh, if they don't laugh they're not cognisant of the intention, a computer won't ever laugh, however intelligent we make them.

Australian magpies are known for there swooping behaviour which, on the face of it seems territorial, but they can be persuaded to leave some alone or to become a sought out target. They can also get our intentions wrong, one person tried to save a chick and failed and has been terrorised ever since by the parents. How close they are to our level of intelligence can never be known, bc we aren't capable of walking a mile in their shoes or suckers.

Why would they? It's nothing more than a meme, the standard big bang theory is, first there was nothing, which exploded... I suspect my point has been misunderstood, see how easy it is...

"Born to be wild" isn't for everyone... Kind of God like, in his chosen idiom...

You can but dream...🙏

Your overlords aren't going to invite you to dine on them. With them, maybe, but in a very different sence. 😉

Well I think they're icky...

Well at least they haven't waged war on us, yet... 😉

I think his point is, the octopus had it's reasons and the woman put her own interpretation on the event; in the parlance of a ghost denier, she was primed, she knew the octopoid show intelligence. It could be a simple as, "this is where I get fed by humans, so where is it bitch?". Absolutely, such hubris this is the test for self awareness "Harry, bring out the mirror and if they can't see it, they're either blind or stupid." Sorry I didn't read the second paragraph before my reply, kinda hammered it home though. 🙂

There's always a relationship between those involved in the game. Are you talking about the tyranny of choice? What exactly do you mean by relationship? Taken on the face of it, I don't think so, for instance, why would a draw be a problem at all?

I could be arguing in my spare time, it doesn't make it any less valuable... 🧐

The thing about Wittgenstein and all the Goats of philosophy is, "I'm not worthy" is the playground of fools... The written word, or in this case the captured speach, becomes a prison of thought for those that 'want' to admire him and a target of ridicule for those that don't; neither are right. And before you report me a third time for trolling, this is just an observation not a declaration of your intelligence. IOW the ubermensche is within us all, it's circumstance that extract's it...

There's more to this than that, watch this before you cast your final vote...

I'd say a crash course is prophetic irony...

I don't think you can learn how to be a philosopher, by reading text, at best one would be a facsimile; even a post grad philosophy student, doesn't emerge as a fully formed philosopher, and may never achieve the accolade. When we can't think for ourselves, we can always quote - Ludwig Wittgenstein

That would seem to be the next step, in some AI system's.

I was going for irony, "someone like"...😉 It strikes me as the start of a future dogma, which is why Socrates refused to write what he thought, I think Listen to the first 5 mins, he explains it much better than I ever could, and the rest is well worth anyone's time...

I understand exacly how a motor vehicle work's, and even if I could build one from scratch, it doesn't mean I can drive it successfully.

The question, both the OP and your's isn't ethical at all, it's political; it's basically the same as illegal immigration or the war on terror or the war on drugs, this is obviously a terrible thing; so let's promote the fear of it, and while everyone is running around like headless chickens, we can test our latest superweapon under the banner of promoting peace. IOW there is no such thing as utopia or a winnable war on an abstract noun. You missed a lot of context there, Tonto... No one would be happier than me, if you put me in my place bc I would learn something...

Neil is...