Thanks for the brief sketch of Star Trek lore. I know of the Borg, but one version of a cyborg is also an enhanced human being (vide Grace in Terminator Dark Fate).

If we can one day create general AI, we would for sure need to reconsider what it is to be human - a can of worms but you already knew that.

There's gotta be a workaround for future claims.

my good friend Hume — unenlightened

Hume was onto something, eh?

What needs to be added, assuming I'm on the right track, to

1. People kill
2. X
Ergo,
3. Killing is bad [ex 1, 2]
4. Y
Ergo,
5. We ought not kill [ex 3, 4]

X = ?

Y = ?

?

Tertium non datur — Heracloitus

Yep! What do you make of trivalent logic? True, false, and ... ?

look up "Hume's Fork" — ToothyMaw

Ok!

An interesting OP by all accounts. We made an assumption (or is it a conclusion? Dunno) and you called us out on it. Fair enough. However, as far as I can tell, you offer a hypothesis but you know very well that's only ... you know ... half the story. Perhaps I conflate some key concepts but is it my fault or is it someone elses?

It feels as though adequacy is critical to solving this ancient mystery of mind-matter. What sayest thou?

I haven't read any Hume. I know of his fork, however. — ToothyMaw

What's his fork? Can you edify me ... please?

I have come across the claim in another thread that no moral claims are true [ ... ] — ToothyMaw

Does this have anything to do with Hume's objection to ethics?

If something is not true is it false? — Edmund

Principle of bivalence: There are only 2 truth values (true and false; a proposition is either true or false, but neither both nor neither)

So if not A then B. Does this necessarily require "everything is A or B? — Edmund

1. ~A $\rightarrow$ B
2. ~~A v B [1 Imp]
3. A v B [2 DN]

The letters A and B are being used sensibly but not consistently.

Compare Everything is (A)rt or not (A)rt to Everything is (A)rt or (B)ald. :wink: @Banno

I also like @Pantagruel's answer. Gets right to the point and succinctly.

Speaking for myself, machines & humans can be symbiotically integrated (cyborgs) for, well, mutual benefit. It doesn't have to be a competitive, our relationship, it can be cooperative.

God is the creator!

I agree; although I would argue about the egoic delusions. I mean, that gets complicated as to the self being so disposable. — Constance

Most perceptive! Buddhism is simply a way.

What on earth are you talking about? — Bartricks

I'm scoutin'!

So why did you use symbols? — Bartricks

I was tryin' ta make sense of your claim that correlation entail implies causation. That be all to it mate!

It's quite simple really. Nobody in hell would want to have children.

The rest follows. — 180 Proof

As far as I can tell we're not doing anything that other ("great") philosophers haven't done!

To return to what you seem to be interested in, temporal precedence is implied in necessity; however, it may not be so for all.

Corrected for wars I hope.

Perhaps if we narrow the window a trend will jump out at us.

Philosophers vs. Sophists? A topic for another discussion mon ami.

Picking up where we left off, I'd say that you're on the right track but I sense multiple obstacles up ahead and I'm too old and exhausted to be of any help.

There's a spike in violence in the US of A then?

It's not much of choice we have! Nobody save a fool would want to be cuckoo!

Do you think implies means the same as entails? — Bartricks

Not anymore! Danke!

I don't know what that means - what do the arrows mean? — Bartricks

They're from symbolic logic where $\to$ = implies/entails.

Correlation ?→?→ causation. Would you agree?
— Agent Smith
To A. Smith: if you think you can get Bartricks to agree with anything, then you set yourself up to a Gargantuan task. Moses could get water out of a rock for his people in the desert by simply asking, and rather convincingly. Moses himself could not squeeze an agreement out of Bartricks, in my opinion. — god must be atheist

Thanks for the warning! I'm optimistic that Bartricks will home in on the point he's making.

An astute observation. What, if I may be so bold as to ask, exactly are you driving at here? As far as I can tell, we have on our hands an intertwined tangled ball of cognate concepts and our task seems to be obvious.

Correlation $?\to$ causation. Would you agree?

:up: Math to the rescue ... again!

Change — Gnomon

Can you elaborate further on, how shall I put it?, the relationship betwixt time and change.

Ok!

Is the relevant Russell set incoherent?

Was René Descartes "questioning rationality"?

Are you suggesting Einstein was wrong? — Benj96

Maybe although I've made a fool of myself to last a coupla lifetimes.

This has been proven already using two atomic clocks — Benj96

Yep, I'm aware of that. Danke for the gentle reminder.

It just doesn't feel right to me. This of course is the reason why the theory of relativity is like quantum physics - if you understand it, you don't understand it (re Richard Feynman) - for folks like me. Anyway, I don't see a long queue of scientists outside my humble abode just because "it doesn't feel right" to me.

To my knowledge, Hume's skepticism was aimed at a very specific target, but then it spilled over into other domains; for some reason he didn't go all the way if you know what I mean.

Muchas gracias señor/señorita @Banno!

Can someone please explain what the following are to me?

1. Deism
2. Pandeism
3. Panendeism
3. Panentheism
4. Pantheism

Danke!

Did I mention fruitarianism? What's up with wood anyway?

The answer to the OP would depend on how one defines "physical" and "supernatural". Is one the negation of the other?

:up:

An interesting OP. :up:

Mill's 5 methods (to establish causality).

1. Method of agreement

A, B, C occur with w, x, y
A, D, E occur with w, t, u

When w, also A (A is a necessary cause of w).

.
.
.

Visit Wikipedia for more.

Specific instances of the Gettier problem can be generated using a template (vide infra)

Constructing Gettier Problems.

The main idea behind Gettier's examples is that the justification for the belief is flawed or incorrect, but the belief turns out to be true by sheer luck. Linda Zagzebski shows that any analysis of knowledge in terms of true belief and some other element of justification that is independent from truth, will be liable to Gettier cases. She offers a formula for generating Gettier cases:

(1) start with a case of justified false belief;

(2) amend the example, making the element of justification strong enough for knowledge, but the belief false by sheer chance;

(3) amend the example again, adding another element of chance such that the belief is true, but which leaves the element of justification unchanged;

This will generate an example of a belief that is sufficiently justified (on some analysis of knowledge) to be knowledge, which is true, and which is intuitively not an example of knowledge. In other words, Gettier cases can be generated for any analysis of knowledge that involves a justification criterion and a truth criterion, which are highly correlated but have some degree of independence. — Wikipedia

Can anyone follow the above instructions and construct an original Gettier problem, anyone?

Doesn't all this - threatening politicians - remind you of recent Batman movies?

relativity — Benj96

Perhaps we need to make an appropriate distinction here, a distinction that would sort things out for us. Time simply can't be relative??? :chin: