dimreepr

Which word has tripped you up? You did, and then you failed to understand the word justice; it's not my job to understand for you... Maybe true, yet here you are wasting mine; I'm not holding a gun to your head, feel free to go forth with multiplication on your mind. 😣 Yes, philosophy determined a way to think without bias; can't think of the word... I would ask for clarification, but what's the point, if you don't understand a simple question (topic title)...

Well, aren't you just full of sugar. I think the topic title is relatively biguous, please provide a more concise way to ask... Besides, in my experience ambiguity generally gets higher numbers, and can lead to a more enjoyable and informative discussion, just a thought. You're always welcome to ask me to clarify, because you've missed my point entirely. If philosophy can determine just how much free will we actually have (I think it may not be as much as I think (50%ish), and I'm bloody sure it's not as much as you think (90%+)) and can persuade our populous, IOW politicians, of that knowledge; then prison's could become obsolete, because most people would have a better understanding of what justice actually means... That's a rubbish heckle... 🧐

Bump, into the rabbit hole...

This whole topic is a rabbit hole, some just like the more fanciful tributaries @AIkonoklazt for instance.

How closely does the 'Flash' series' portrayal of the multiverse align with the complex and theoretical concepts of parallel universes proposed in scientific theories? Not very...

I find the human virus analogue to be woefully short sighted and very dangerous; it's like holding up your hands and saying "I can't help it"... We have enough food and the means to provide enough shelter and the means to drastically reduce our carbon footprint; ie. we have the ability to put the brakes on now. It's only the stupid, most unevolved, virus that would chose to kill the host...

And you seem remarkably entrenched in your position, because in the real world those sniper's became bombers and with the world's blessing...🙄

This thought struck me while reading the recent traffic on the subject, so instead of dragging that one off topic, here we are in my default forum (if anyone can think of a better place, feel free to let rip 😉) I mean that philosophically, it seems little more than a semantic exercise; but if we pulled it off politically, then it could liberate millions of prisoner's because we'd understand just how culpable they were and society would be satisfied with a far lower bar, as regards justice. But what could it mean scientifically other than just knowing?

Absolute bollox, their stated aim is little more than genocide; like I said in my first post, if they really want freedom they'd be far more effective if they organised a mass fence cutting protest with all participants carrying backpack's full of present's addressed to the people across the wire. What you don't have, is the right to kill them and all their family. All this noise, is what they think of as an excuse to ignore the reason for a fight...

Because it's not a genetic trait, any more than liking football is; for instance.

"It's not about who quotes who" he said in his best python; it's about who supports their potionposition the best; it's not always about citations, it's about a reasoned arguement with a splash of logical, not the fallacious type that you're using. 🙄 It's a shame, because I'd quite like to discuss the feasibility of artificial consciousness and the potential ethical problem's, if it did emerge, just without your artificial restriction's and guesswork. Way to miss the point, again (where's that slaphead emoji 🧐), it's not about who designed what, it's about the fact that a mammal has a design that work's, four limbs a head etc... And in the context of this topic, many robotisist's use that design in many way's, towards a human level assistant/slave.

The people that hate <insert name> are idiots; the Jews have adapted to a world that already hates them, by not caring. See how easily these things scale up and we're just talking.

Sound's like the sort of publication that given time, could become a bible to schism over.

This sounds awfully spiritual, ism if you like...

What you haven't done is explain "the missing piece" which sounds suspiciously like God magic to me... Every living thing has a design, mammals for instance, from whale's to bat's and human's to rat's, they all have the same basic design, many robot's too... The difference between a discussion and gainsay is, the number is finite, if you can explain it properly.

This is the noise of the good folk that thinks "they" can't be bad... Not a compliment @mistermack

Is that true for every decision though? The decision to move and place my foot when walking, at one end of the spectrum and the decision to work towards pressing the button at the LHC (assuming the actual button press is prior) at the other, in the spectrum of awareness. Why? The thing about determinism is knowing where to start; besides "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

Just to add to my choice of word's, Hamas forces Isreal to fire on an ambulance; a good guy would stay his hand, at that point...

Nevertheless my point stands and the analogy is consistent with this thread; all one can say with any confidence is, as things stand artificial consciousness is "probably" impossible today... Perhaps you should ask a school kid what the difference between a discussion and gainsay, is? 🙄 Unless this missing item is a soul (the magic one), then it already has been constructed and we're just missing the blueprints.

So what's the point of the topic? That's like saying "Human flight is impossible, if we discount plane's"; what's there to discuss?

Can you perceive the expansion of space, like you can with time?

Yes but all they do is cancel each other out, but never to zero.

I think the direction of freedom is almost, but not quite, that of Descarte; I think that that last decision was wrong, because it could damage my soul (not the magic one)... You don't understand the "software" at all. All you can say, with any certainty, is "you don't understand my software at all"; almost everyone can write an algorithm...

Imagine the life that would need to be lived for an otherwise ordinary human being to say that and expect his mother's validation? There are no bad guy's in this, because all the good guy's are drowned out by this sort of noise.

The current state of the debate...