If intelligence were that simple to replicate, AI wouldn't be nearly as limited as it is, especially with regard to the Turing test. As it stands, I think we'd all be able to separate the bots from real people in a matter of minutes regardless of how much intelligence had been programmed into the bot.

Your post posted 2 minutes after mine, so I'm first saying that you read quickly.

I'm saying that the distinction between property and substance dualism is a distinction without a difference. He's not addressed any important problem by redefining physical substance to include non-physical properties.

I disagree with your summation of substance dualism as "there are souls," because that suggests it's a theological position. It strikes me that you've jettisoned the classical Cartesian position so that you could move on to the more modern views. My thought is that substance dualism and it's newer offspring property dualism largely collapse into the same thing under analysis and no real headway has been made by Chalmers or Searle in their new classification system. They've just rearranged the furniture.

Substance dualism hold there are: 1. Physical things and 2. Mental Things. Property dualism holds there is one thing 1. Physical things, but it has two properties A. Physical properties and 2. Mental properties. So, property dualism begs the same question as substance dualism, which is what is this magical substance that contains mental properties? A property dualist simply declares that physical substance has mental properties, which means we have no idea what a physical substance is. It apparently has properties that can't be measured or observed. How does that help us any? Why not just say there are two types of substances?

We know we can have physical objects that don't have mental properties (like rocks and the like). Why then can't we have physical objects that have only mental properties? How would that particular physical object be any different than a Cartesian mind?

I'm to take it then from Chalmers that we a nebulous monistic universal substance that we call Physical Substance and sometimes it thinks and sometimes it just sits at the bottom of a stream.

My point to all this is that Western Philosophy hasn't moved an inch since Descartes. That's not an indictment. That's just an acknowledgment that he got it right. I do thank Chalmers for writing his fascinating book, though, and I do think Searle remains the clearest and most convincing of the modern day philosophers. I also think that Dennett is a waste of time, highly overrated, and has little significant to say.

No, I have all kinds of friends! All of the friends. All of the best friends! Everyone is my friend -- except for you! — Wosret

Alas, here's how I learn we're not friends. Sigh.

Also, I think that it was probably because Einstein was a jew and everyone feels bad for them because of Hitler, so that when you said that Einstein said it, people would be all like "oh, the poor jews", and not want to say it's wrong, because it might make the jews feel bad. That's clearly what happened. — Wosret

Honestly it is the least that can be done for the Jews considering their mistreatment. Sometimes when a regular white guy says something at work that makes sense, we'll agree to ignore it because regular white guys always get their way and now it's time for everyone else to get their way.

And now I've turned your playful comment into a cutting evaluation of liberal diversity trends. Well played Hanover! Well played indeed!

Since a central question of philosophy is "what is truth," it's hard to know if philosophy has arrived at the truth, considering we're not even sure what it is.

You can also look at the track record of science and conclude that with its constant modifications of theories, we can only expect that what we think today to be the truth will not be what is considered the truth in 1000 years.

The practical question is whether either science or philosophy has produced a useful result. It doesn't matter whether our reasoning bears any relationship to reality if we arrive at a successful result. I often think that many philosophical positions (and certainly some theological ones) might be terribly untrue (and some even incoherent), but they seem to yield useful results.

There are numerous examples of superseded scientific theories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories). In many of those examples, we still received useful results, even though the theory was ultimately wrong. In philosophy, fundamental principles are often accepted as true even though there is no way to show their existence, like time, space, free will, etc. (and some of these concepts become incoherent upon deep evaluation). In theology, I'd argue the entire enterprise is founded upon false premises, but there is no question that if done right, it can inject meaning and purpose into lives.

If we ask ourselves the question "does it assist us in living our lives" as opposed to "is it true," then I think philosophy falls just about where every other field does. It can, depending upon the life.

This is an interesting Wiki article I stumbled across a while ago where they have gone through and itemized all the unanswerable questions in philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_philosophy
Every time we begin a debate into one of these areas (which is often), I guess we could just cite this article for the proposition that we're going to get nowhere debating it.

That's actually not really a quote by Einstein... That's a myth. — Wosret

Einstein said that if you keep correcting people over and over over minor details you'll have no friends.

The text of Ecclesiastes indicates it was written by Solomon, but it's pretty clear it couldn't have been. This misattribution is likely the result of the authors trying to point out the wisdom contained in the work because Solomon's name was synonymous with "a wise man."

So, when we say "Einstein said..." all we mean is "Take note, what I'm about to say is really smart..." It's second only to "Hanover said.." Hanover, Einstein, Solomon in that order pretty much.

Since when do guns cause violence? They don't; but, make it all the more easier to conduct murders on a mass scale.

Would one want TNT to be made available OTC? I mean TNT is inherently not violent... — Question

My point only was that you can't blame the rash of terrorist violence we're now seeing on the lenient gun control laws in the US, considering Munich isn't in the US.

or gun ownership. — Wayfarer

I don't fully understand this comment. We are seeing terrorist acts in the US where there are limited gun restrictions and in Germany where there is significant gun restriction.

Good point. I've not posted over there since Black Wednesday. I don't know if the takeover occurred on a Wednesday or not, but as far as I know, there are no other Black Wednesdays, so from this point forward I move that it be so called. Anyone second my motion?

There will be a day when this site goes down and everyone will run over to PF waiting for this site to come back up. Mark my words.

I always wanted to live in the past when things were simpler because I'm told those were the good old days. The future belongs to Mad Max, which is pretty cool in some ways, but no so much in others.

I also once wanted to live a few minutes in the past so that I could stand behind my now self and flip my now self in the ears just to bother me if that makes sense, and I think it doesn't.

I can post some fliers around my neighborhood.

I never understood the PF business model, but what the hell do I know? The old PF stayed afloat through a bunch of volunteers, donations, and even donated server use. When they went to the for profit model with ad use, I didn't see how they could expect the free labor and donations to continue. My thinking was that if they are going to get money through ads, all the mods and admins should expect to get paid as well. In fact, it wasn't the ads per se that made me leave as much as it was the idea that my postings in some small part were leading to profits to an organization that I had some serious misgivings about.

I think it's impossible that we not continue to grow over here, so I'm not worried about our surviving unless we just give up one day.

I don't know Wayfarer's position exactly, but I don't categorize God as I would the number 4. The number 4 is descriptive, where God is thought (at least in the traditional sense) to be some sort of force or being, with the ability to create and to impose his will, among other things.

If you don't believe that an entity like God can exist because he defies our understanding of reality, that would not make God like the number 4, but would make him more like Pegasus, something that we imagine but that doesn't really exist.

Do numbers exist? Well it depends on who you ask! — Wayfarer

What do you mean by "numbers"? Obviously numerals representing amounts exist, but wouldn't an actual amount, like 4, be a descriptive term, like an adjective? If I have 4 round marbles, it makes no more sense to ask where the 4 is as it does to ask where the round is. It's not like I can have a sack full of 4s or rounds.

Fatigue is the inevitable end-process of any motivated action. — darthbarracuda

Prior to my dying (fatiguing), I have a child. That child is a new bundle of energy. He then fatigues and dies. This cycle does not lead to an eventual end process. It goes on forever if you accept that no energy is every created or destroyed. It just keeps forming and re-forming. It's a fixed cycle. It's not like the sun burns out and that energy is lost forever. The energy just went somewhere else.

Back in the day, when most everyone were rural, and actually owned things of value, they used to say that city folk talked for a living. More and more people are city folk, and communication is more versatile than being a beast is these days. — Wosret

I am both a beast and talkative, thus representing a new breed of person: versatile, intelligent, charming, powerful, and overflowing with kindness. I also live right on the cusp of rural and urban, with one shoeless foot planted in the mud and the other adorned in a shoe of magnificent tassel planted on the finest Italian marble.

Gender words have nothing to do with communication, as it's clear that we all sufficiently communicated long before anyone objected to certain words being used. Prescriptive language, whether it be in the prescribed format of speech or the substantive meaning of words, all suffers from the same problems, namely that it elevates certain words over others and it artificially creates an etiquette onto speech instead of allowing it to naturally evolve through the speakers.

Sure, we all know that certain words are derogatory and words that once were not might become so, but that doesn't permit a particular person or group to just sort of demand that certain words not be spoken because they are derogatory to him (or her). I get that I'm no longer permitted to call out of wedlock children bastard children despite it being accurate and to the point, but since we as a society have evolved away from depriving bastards of ordinary rights due to their impure existence, it no longer makes sense within our community of speakers to continue to use that term except as a general personal attack.

The point is that we're annoyed when we're told (i.e. prescribed) a particular way we are to speak because no one has the right to tell us what we actually mean when we use certain words. I know that when I call Sally "she," I mean she has a vagina and nothing more. I don't mean that her struggles with her sexuality are unimportant or should be subject to ridicule. The fact that Sally is offended because I've not adopted Sally Speech is a Sally problem, not a Hanover problem. However, I will concede, at some point if Sally Speech becomes English, then I can either choose to confuse everyone (and likely offend everyone) with outdated Hanover Speech or I can get with the program and speak English.

At this point, Sally Speech is not English. It's just annoying.

What the OP is saying, which I think is generally true, is that there is no specific purpose we can attribute to our existence. Considering the secular, contemporary explanation for the existence of the universe is couched entirely in causal, scientific terms, it would make little sense to attempt to provide a teleological explanation for it.

That is, the universe arose through the big bang and that matter then formed in various random ways and then life arose and evolution did what it did, and here we are. How could you expect to derive a teleological explanation from that? That was never your inquiry anyway. You were asking the "how" question, not the "why" question.

Keep in mind, though, that we can in fact answer the why question just as we can answer the how question; it's just there is a limit to the answers we can give. We can never give a first cause answer whether we're speaking in terms of causality or teleology. Why is it more troubling that I cannot fully explain my reason for existence than it is I cannot fully explain how I came into existence? It's not like offering a vague explanation of the Big Bang that spontaneously occurred to eternally existing matter (whatever that might be) is any better a first cause explanation than simply asserting a first cause teleological explanation that I exist to fulfill my pre-existing eternal purpose (whatever that might be).

The rain falls because the clouds fill with the moisture that evaporated up into the air and it precipitates out. A meteorologist could provide cause after cause for how that happens, and at some point, he won't know. The rain falls because the plants need nourishment so that fruit will grow and animals will eat and so that animals will reproduce. I could keep giving teleological reasons, but at some point, I won't know.

You paint a lovely picture, — Sapientia

I do. Optimism, positivity, and patriotism are things Europeans can't understand (or stand) about Americans. What confuses and annoys them most is our belief in the rightness of everything we do. We call that faith.

What of efficiency and progress? I guess in your view they take a backseat to stability and certainty. Yet that doesn't address any underlying problems, it merely sets them aside. — Sapientia

Your question asks why a conservative doesn't wish to be more progressive. Obviously these are competing world views, although no one is entirely stagnant nor entirely progressive. Despite what you say, we do address our issues. It's not as if the US is in the dark ages or that life in the US is significantly different than life in Europe (other than it being more affordable and generally more consumer friendly).

Yes, we have a national religion, but c'mon Hanover, we both know that religion has a far greater political influence in the U.S. than the U.K. It influences laws regarding abortion and it influences homophobia in the political realm, like, for example, that appalling and notorious televised convention that Ted Cruz attended. That simply wouldn't happen over here. — Sapientia

There's a difference between what individuals do and what a legislature may require. In the UK, I'm guessing you have the whole gamut, from racist, homophobic skinheads to civil rights leaders. The same holds true in the US. I think we both agree (but am not sure) that all these folks have the right to exist and believe whatever they want without legal restriction. In some parts of the country, they try to pass laws limiting abortion (Texas), although in others they pass laws expanding homosexual rights (the Bay area). In no instance though, can any jurisdiction pass a law that violates the Constitution, so all homosexuals can marry, no one can be denied an abortion (within certain limitations), and no black person can be legally discriminated against.

Regardless, it's pretty clear that you could move to the US and do exactly what you do in the UK without fear of government restriction. It wouldn't be like if you moved to Saudi Arabia or something. It'd take you a few months to meet like minded folks here in the US, and you could go about advocating the same old nonsense you did while in the UK.

That may be so, but the Supreme Court does determine when the use of deadly force is reasonable, and some legal experts criticise the current framework because it allows for such events as the two recent police killings in Louisiana and Minnesota to transpire. — Sapientia

The Supreme Court can only proclaim the Constitutional minimum for when deadly force may be used by an officer ((1) defense of officer's life, and (2) keeping a person from escaping who may pose a threat to life of others)). A police department or state could place greater limits on the officers. Regardless, if the cops in Lousiana or Minnesota are not convicted, it won't be because of some limitation on charging the officers set by the Supreme Court. It will be because a jury decides there's insufficient facts to convict.

I see. And so, if Senate Democrats refused to bring a President Trump nominee up for consideration for four years or so, you'd be fine with that? After all, there are no Constitutionally-mandated constraints on when the Senate must hold confirmation hearings and take a vote on the nominee. — Arkady

You really don't stay on point very well. You said that the Senate violated procedure in its failure to vote on the Obama nominee and therefore put the party over the nation. I pointed out that there was no violation of procedure because there wasn't.

Now you're asking whether I'd be unhappy if the shoe were on the other foot. Sure, I'd want a Republican nominee to be voted on, and I'd want him or her to be approved. I wouldn't argue, though, that there was a violation of procedure in the Senate's failure to vote. If I did argue that, I guess I'd just be wrong and terribly inconsistent, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

But thanks for the tacit agreement that Republicans' actions fails to live up to their stated ideals. — Arkady

I think that is what every Republican says, thus the significant anti-establishment sentiment among Republicans.

Secondly, what does it say about the country when the majority party simply disregards procedure in order to stonewall a President from making the judicial appointments which it is within his power to make? — Arkady

What procedural rule was violated? My copy of the Constitution doesn't set out a timeline for when the Senate is required to evaluate Justice nominees.

Republicans aren't in favor of actually shrinking or weakening the government: they're for doing away with programs and regulations which they don't like (e.g. labor standards and environmental regulations) and building up those which they do (e.g. our already-bloated military). — Arkady

You sound like a Tea Partier, arguing for re-establishing the Republican ideology as it was intended.

This would seem to fall pretty squarely within the purview of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which is indeed a matter for SCOTUS. — Arkady

It would if there were actually a law that permitted the discriminatory murder of black suspects and the Court needed to strike it down. As it is, we're all in agreement as to the law. Some might debate the facts as to what is going on, but everyone is in agreement: racial discrimination is wrong.

Yes, because Senate Republicans have refused to even vote on an Obama nominee, once again (and I repeat) putting party before country. — Arkady

How would the country benefit by voting on a bad nominee?

How depressing. Why isn't this a bigger issue for Americans? Have they been placated? Turned docile and submissive? Or did it never enter their consciousness to begin with? — Sapientia

Once upon a time, so the story goes, we were ruled by a tyrannical leader, who cared little for the rights of the people and who governed with an iron hand. Through the force of violent rebellion, we broke free from our shackles, but remained forever skeptical of our leaders. Through careful thought, we devised a system that checked the power of anyone who was granted power so that never again would we be subjugated. These rules, among other things, divided the power of our legislature into two houses, provided an executive the full power to veto, and a court to review everything to be sure it complied with our lofty principles.

It is ironic that you describe this system as one that leads to submissiveness, because it does the opposite: it weakens the government and leaves the power to the people. It is for that reason that Republicans decry an increasingly central and controlling federal government.

This system is not at all depressing. It leads to great stability and certainty. It has provided the world with its greatest economy and a protector of all that is just and right in the world.

In any case, the courts remaining conservative can't be a good thing for a nation that's already so backwards. Guns, religious prejudice, death penalty, cops killing blacks left, right and centre without punishment. — Sapientia

The Court's ruling on guns is based upon the 2nd Amendment. That is but one of the checks on the federal government designed to weaken the power of the federal government (for what it's worth). The US is extremely religiously permissive. You guys still have a national religion don't you? Racial discrimination by police officers has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. It's illegal to kill the innocent already and the courts haven't said it's ok, so I'm not sure how that concern fits into this discussion.

I can say that the US has at least figured out how to spell center.

but to actually support Trump should leave you feeling dirty. — Sapientia

The American system is a rigid two party system, and with the internal Senate rules requiring a 60% supermajority to bring anything to a vote, it will be impossible for anything much to pass. Add into the mix that the House will be Republican and the Senate likely Democrat, nothing will ever pass. That means that whether it's Trump or Clinton, it will be 4 years of gridlock, which is the way the system was set up. It intentionally protects the status quo, especially in times of great disagreement.

The big issue is who will be placed on the Supreme Court. The judiciary, an entire branch of government, hangs in the balance, with the current split being a 4-4 conservative/liberal. So, for that reason, I'll vote for Trump so that the courts will remain conservative. The appointments made by the next President could affect the country for decades.

The question was why people vote for Trump. You think those reasons are stupid, but that doesn't address the question. You're not saying that's not why they vote for Trump.

By analogy: People pray to God so that the sick will be healed. You think that's stupid. Nevertheless, that's why people pray.

I concede Trump's buffoonery to a large extent, but I must choose between two evils, and I've picked my poison.

Wow. Beautiful. Considering it on a logical level, though, I feel like You are reducing G-d to morality rather than vice-versa. In other words, from what You said, it should follow that G-d is merely an easier name for whatever You call the system of morality the governs Your life. Thus, G-d's reaction becomes irrelevant; we are just computers and the program we follow is G-d or morality or whatever You want to call it. An interesting idea. — David

I think I'm making God and good synonymous as opposed to reducing one or the other. It's consistent with my very expansive reading of the commandment against idolatry, which I take as a prohibition against objectifying him in any way. That would include considering him a thing of any sort. But I suppose that's an aside. Yes, God is goodness, and the goodness exists, but I think it's meaningless to ask where goodness physically exists, and I disagree that goodness waited around for some guy to be smart enough to create it.

am I doing this forum right? — David

You are, but as a practical matter, do whatever you want. That's what I do.

On Your end, how can You know that worshipping (as You understand it) G-d is actually causing G-d to feel worshipped? What I mean to say is that the G-d You happen to pray to is one whom You could never know how to pray to? Doesn't that make prayer feel useless? — David

Your capitalization of "You" is odd by the way. I agree, worship makes no sense. I don't even fully understand it under a traditional religious view. It would seem that God needn't be asked, but that strikes me as another question.

I'm a Trump supporter, so let me tell you why I support him. Hillary's a liar. The left's general plan is to give stuff away. We have no consistent immigration enforcement, yet we have very clear laws setting out what our immigration policy is supposed to be. Wanting to remain a sovereign nation is not equivalent to being xenophobic. No one is as sensitive in their daily lives as the media demands everybody be. And the biggest reason of all: there are no other Republican choices. I was a Kasich supporter, but he's not around anymore.

You guys sitting around trying to figure out why anyone would support Trump is like me sitting around trying to figure out why anyone would support Sanders. It's obvious. You guys are just wrong about everything you believe in.

I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. — Bitter Crank

but...

All that is to the good. — Bitter Crank

What anchors the good to reality if not God? Is it just man's declaration of what is good? Or, is the good good regardless of what demented person might call it bad? Unless you're willing to admit that the good is just some manmade invention subject to redefinition at will (and rejecting the view that our understanding of the good evolves over time, getting ever closer to the truth with the passage of time), it strikes me that you are a theist. Your god is what is good, just, and pure, and that god is what the Christian and the pious atheist both worship, just calling themselves different names.

So, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that God does exist.

My understanding of Jewish tradition (at least in one of its forms) is that the basis for obeying Jewish law is rooted in the value that you will obtain in this world. This is different from the Christian tradition that holds that you should do good in order to obtain eternal rewards. This is not to say that Jews don't believe in a world after this one, but the emphasis is exactly where you put it in your discussion above, which is doing things in a Jewish way for the benefit of this life.

Regarding whether God has tricked everyone and told them the opposite of what is true, I don't know what to make of that. If you don't have faith that God is honest, then I guess anything could follow as to what he meant when he said things. He'd be just like any other person you couldn't trust.

That they're attempting to diagnose the problem by surveying scientists seems to be evidence of the underlying problem. This is science after all, and it should be obvious to a scientist that its entirely irrelevant whether scientists believe there to be a crisis or not. If we define a scientific result as that which is reproducible, and we have evidence that it's statistically unlikely that most published findings are reproducible, then, as a matter of fact, journal articles are not to be considered a trusted source of scientific information. Whether scientists wish to gather together and declare the current state a crisis isn't a scientific event; it's a political one.

The solution is to qualify all scientific research for what it is. If it's preliminary and based only upon what one lab has determined, then it should be noted. If it has been reproduced, then our confidence level in those results can be increased. The political question then becomes what everyone wishes to do with the preliminary results, especially if there are no reproduced findings forthcoming. If we learn that talcum powder, for example, causes cancer based upon a single lab, do we shut down that entire industry or not?

Those rates are actually really reasonable. I mean they're not as good as Michael's $7 a night third world opium den, but for a west coast resort, pretty doable. Maybe I'll come out there and get the cucumber on my eyes treatment. I've always wanted that and oh yeah and a $7 third world opium den whore. That too.

Some more Street Photography (mostly around Chinatown, Bangkok). — Baden

So what you do is you ask someone what the capitol of Thailand is and when they tell you, you punch them in the crotch. An oldie but a goodie. Feel free to use it as your own.

If everyone could provide their mailing addresses, we could just photocopy and mail pictures to each other.

If I've been inconsistent year to year, I don't know. Point out my prior comment, and I'll respond. It is true that migrant workers do take some jobs the locals don't want (like.certain agricultural jobs), but no doubt others they do compete with the local market, especially overseas labor.

There is a worker class, middle class, upper class, etc. That's not a leftist notion. Anyone can categorize based upon income or job description regardless of political leaning. I don't think anti-Marxists argue there is no working class. The debate centers on the cause of the alleged struggle and it's solution.

Migrants haven't traditionally been more educated. Mexican migrants rarely have any meaningful formal education, for example.

It's likely immigrant labor and overseas labor is used as a scapegoat for other societal and individual failings, but certainly not all. The economic impact to a society is real when high numbers of jobs are performed by others.

My thesis is that the lack of consistent and meaningful immigration policy and the allowance of foreign nations with minimal labor regulation to perform domestic tasks has had a real negative impact on the working class. If we cure that failing will it be the panacea the working class needed? Of course not, but I'm a bit skeptical of any suggestion that immigration reform measures must be rooted in xenophobia or scapegoating at some basic level. You can't just open up all jobs to all comers and not expect a damaging effect on those who previously didn't have that level of competition for those jobs.

But that was my point. "Society as a whole" (as you use it) identifies a particular society, but not the society you're required to be in. Kim Kardashian lives in a different society from me and an Amish guy another. Which of these people lives in the "society as a whole" you've identified? You don't need to be a monk to avoid the impact of Kardashian's social values. You just don't need to live in her society. If your question is simply "what is the message of the vacuous social group in the US," it's obviously vacuousness.