dimreepr

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...

I put this topic here instead of the lounge, because it's a pseudo-joke... I'll start: I get a warm feeling, when I think about the horrendous things Jimmy Saville did to children, by imagining what the god of his victims did to him, when he died before he faced true justice...

In a system where everyone has to vote, the representative and the voter will have the same 'self-interest', one being an extention of the other; the government would be formed from the cooperation of the most self-interested people, so to speak... For instance, people with down syndrome would naturally vote for the most eloquent person (probably a fellow) that understood their need's; and one day, when the star's align, he would be bezzy mates with the big kid in the playground; only if everyone gets a chance at life/to vote... 😇

Hehem, that's exacly my point in the contex of this topic.🤔 As for the rest of your post, you do them a disservice, sir!!! They did the best job they could with the tool's at hand, the easiest job for a builder is to criticise the work of the previous builder (he said with a van full of modern power tools).

who gets to vote, directly? What you seem to be saying is, only those with a Wi-Fi connection, is that due to a lil' bias perchance... 🤔

Is that why they include and amending formula? Everyone has a right to walk on public roads, too - yet I wouldn't let my three-year-old out by himself, even if he wanted to. I guess that's because of my know-better fascist tendencies. My point is, the founding father's genuinely wanted a better society and designed it with that intention in mind; understanding that it has to flexible enough to be amended. How do you think it should have been written, that would have avoided the shit storm that's currently raging? At least with my proposal, the increase in votes would dilute the marginal, pseudo-smart, fuckwits. All who is saying? There has to be reprasentatives, otherwise what's the point of a vote, why don't you put yourself up as a "None of the above" ticket... 😉

Maybe, did you question yourself???

A constitution is designed, by those that know better, to freeze the intention of those word's, which are inevitably forged in a biased system; yin-yang. For any system to achieve equity, democracy et al has to mean that everyone gets a chance; even if they don't want too...

Fascist, is just another word among many, that points to the same mistake; I know better... I'm not saying your intentions are evil, that's just the yin-to your-yang... All I'm saying is, the fundamentals have to be as free as possible from the potential bias of anyone/thing. Thanks, that was a good read.

And then write a whole new set of arbitrary limits, to be exploited; politics is like water seeping through rock's, every crack will be widened. The fundamentals have to be water-resistant, everyone has to vote (privately), to the best of their ability; something along those lines, perchance. If individual intelligence is so important for accuracy, then how can a crowd of people with random guesses be, more often than not, more accurate at guessing the wieght of a cow than an expert? (I'm sure there's study out there somewhere, don't make me find it, please).