dimreepr

So, how do you explain balance?

Yes it is, and it's informative, a tricky thing to do. But I'm with @studiot, the timeline issue confused rather than informed because, unlike "Pulp Fiction", the narrative didn't help to link to the story/entertainment. In this context, I don't see a difference TBH. I enjoyed it. I wonder if it was because of overlapping (as in a Venn), a contiguous timeline would just add to much complication for the average viewer.

The war on anything is a futile gesture, as history shows; for instance, if all the money we spend on war's, was spent on avoiding war's, then no one would feel the need to take drugs... 😉

I think they're just trying to ride the gravy train.

Well, then he'd be spinning in his grave... 🙂

OK, so what is the benefit of your god? How to not care if god is real... 😉 Nietzche would disagree.

Two thing's: 1. The question I asked is, how does this support your topic thesis? 2. Everything that work's is by design, from the ant to the human, for instance, the antill is designed by ant's unconsciously; why is that any different to a loom or a planet?

Why do you need a creator? The bible isn't tellin a story of god, it's "self help" publication.

For me this is the difference between a tax and a tythe, people are happy to pay a tythe, even if they have no intention of being benevolent; just in case. Perchance he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am.... -John Donne.

So what? How does that argue your point? Somewhat like your fundamental arguement and your subsequent attempts to support it, contraction's occur and questions are ignored... 🤔

For you perhaps, but isn't it a bit smug to assume you know better? Do you have what it takes to be the übermensch?

If the topic title was "artificial-consciousness-is-impossible, today", I'd have nothing to say on the subject and completely agree with the above statement; which also agrees with my anthill analogy. The point that you continue to ignore, is that 10,000 year's ago artificial intelligence was impossible and then we invented the loom. The point is, emergence depends on complexity and an anthill depends on simplicity, until it doesn't. I think fig 2 should be a ven diagram with a triple intersection labelled 'me'.

I think the correct question is, how do we replace the benefits of imagination, with cold hard facts?

An anthill is intelligent, but it can't be conscious because it's a house; is that about the size of it? Which throws up an interesting question, which part of the human body is considered the house (mobile anthill)? Which ultimately comes back to @Genady's, often repeated, question, that you have yet to answer; that's why I claimed that you don't understand, because if you did, you'd at least try to explain; it should be a rule on this forum "I make the claim, I should explain"...

It's not moot to those that do need the solice. When people can see that justice has been served, then no imagination is required; but the reason people think revenge is justified, is because they didn't get too see the little scrote be remorseful. If they want peace of mind, they have to forgive the lil scrote and their imagination is often the only place too look.

In the context of this thread, it means, you can't argue about something you don't understand; like a pedant argueing that a peanut is actually a legume, and the peanut thinking "of course I'm a nut, the clues in the title 🙄"... A philosiphers job is to "make sense" (of reality and explain it to me).

Indeed, but not everyone needs to be satisfied, just you. If I make a judgement, that you're different from me; what is the punishment for that????

So, it's a symantic argument, it's impossible for this to mean that; much like that river you can't cross twice, even when you do.

So, in a way being an atheist condones his actions, because he died before he got punished, we all know he deserved to be punished, and the only way that that can happen, is in the imagination of a believer...

What makes you think, I think that?

I think we're talking past each other, my point is that, if everyone gets to vote, then everyone gets to present a menu...

The fundamental flaw with such a statement is, we can't know what we don't know; it's basically an axiom. For instance, what is artificial? OK let's, if I program a machine to learn for itself, am I giving it an intention? And am I responsible for it's understanding?

The way I see such a system working, is ground up not (ground down, pun intended) top down; IMO, even the economy would prosper. As in my down syndrome example; it would be like tracing a drop of water down a pain of glass, or up, depending on how you interpret the metaphor

Indeed, it wouldn't balance...

Indeed, sisyphus was in heaven; subjectively...