However, in a way, that is similar to the law of any modern nation, such as the Common Law in America or Britain, which does impose a bare minimum of morality on people by force, based on its own moral axioms (e.x. that acts such as rape or murder are inherently "immoral", and that society or the state therefore has a right to use force to prevent or punish those crimes, for example). — IvoryBlackBishop

But you don't see people worshiping the Supreme Court, or treating the judges as priests. And you have the right to defend you actions that is given to you by those same laws.
Whereas religions say you are wrong and that is the end of it, you have to grovel to the unseen high and mighty just because another human that says that he is the voice of the high and mighty tells you to.

This is turning into more of an anti-religion rant — IvoryBlackBishop

I am not ranting against religion, I am inquiring about the things you say. I have nothing against religion itself, my wife is religious.

less of a discussion about the finer details — IvoryBlackBishop

The finer details of what? To be able to say that religions have been and are useful then there should be some proof of that, what good has religion done for humanity?

While I certainly do not believe God, as described in sacred texts, exists, I certainly do believe Spinoza's imperfect description of God is. But my question is, since God could not care less about our well being nor will change the nature of the Universe to suit our desires, then is there any value engaging in religious thought and reflection? — Michael Lee

The answer to the question is a simple no, why bother.

I'd assume that credible business do provide some measure of financial accountability — IvoryBlackBishop

If we are talking about religion, I don't see how those 2 words are being used.
What exactly is the business of religion?
And just how can any of the western religions be called credible?

Almost all of the "churches" belonging to the religions have some stigma attached to them. Maybe some of the individual buildings in general have not been smeared by unholy priests and pastors, but the churches have been corrupt for centuries.

Every business has to make a profit, — IvoryBlackBishop

Religion as a business, that is new! Not really.

so if this is just a discussion about greed or using religion as a money-making tool, I'd prefer not to go there. — IvoryBlackBishop

As far as I know there is no discussion about it, nearly all religions take their believers money and have no responsibility to explain where it goes. And that is a truth that does not need to be discussed.

I've seen more and more churches broadcasting on social media as of late. — IvoryBlackBishop

And most of them have Apps to do their most important work. Collect the money.

You cannot reasonably expect two atheists to believe the same things. — alcontali

That is the insidious part of it. Atheists do believe things about morality but they may not even know themselves what exactly they believe, especially, given the subtle manipulations from the public-school indoctrination system, the mass media, the commercial advertisements, and so on. — alcontali

That is so much shit I do not even know where to start putting you straight. It is obvious that you read to much religious based literature and probable do not even know a non believer.

As an atheist you may still be able to reproduce but your progeny is pretty much scheduled to die out. So, you are probably just wasting your time. — alcontali

My kids all know how to look after themselves and do not need to go groveling to some unknown being begging for help. When the shit hits the fan my kids will survive while yours are down on their knees trying to get divine intervention on their behalf. And it won't get them anywhere.

You can clearly notice that unbelievers are gradually but surely losing the ability to form families and to reproduce, which is something that the old adage already had predicted : children are a gift from God. — alcontali

I am a non believer, and I have no problems reproducing!

Children in a lot of cases, even for believers, are a miscalculation of time of month. Most believers, especially the most fanatical, cannot say that they have planned to have children. They say that they just come because god sends then.

Did S change his name to Frank somewhere along the line? :chin:

Generally speaking, by "giving up" I mean, the rejection of commonly held values that guide Western economically driven sociopolitical mechanisms of incentives and disincentives that shape or to some degree govern human behavior in those particular societies. — Wallows

That is one classy way to declare your hippy-ness. You should have come out a long time again, you would have been happier.

The paltry quantity is offset by the superior quality. It is here most come for the final word on all topics. — Hanover

Yeah, OK. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Your response will be critical to the future success of this site. — Hanover

:rofl:

Haha, that was a sneaky way to get the last word! :up:

You will win the prize eventual.

OOOPPss, I did it again. :blush:

It would be nice to have someone like him around.

Do you think Plato would work?

https://www.amazon.com/Plato-Googleplex-Philosophy-Wont-Away/dp/B00JBEM1TO

https://www.amazon.com/Plato-Platypus-Aristotle-Aardvark-Washington/dp/B00ATGR6AC

Its etymology CLEARLY indicates it was meant to denote “being without a god” (not being without a “belief” in a god)…and that was the use of the word throughout history. (Until debating atheists got hold of it.) — Frank Apisa

Some etymology sites give slightly different ways of looking at it. And disagree with you.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=Atheist
atheist (n.)

1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts).

“Atheist”, it should be noted, was introduced to the English language BEFORE theist…so it could not have been derived the way some atheists want to insist, by “a” (without) + “theist” (a “belief” in a god) = without a “belief” in a god.) — Frank Apisa

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=theist
theist (n.)
1660s, from Greek theos "god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendent god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as believing in a personal God and allowing the possibility of revelation.

As they both have the same root there is no need for one to be derived from the other. They were just words created for different purposes.

Ooops. Did I just ruin something?

Looks like Tiff is in line to win this thread as well.

Go girl. :up:

Are you keeping it secret? — fishfry

Of course he is, but all will be revealed when he goes to pick up his Nobel prize.

My 3. and 4. are hardware, yours software. — Zelebg

3. Display A: visual output inner -> feeds into 4.
4. Camera B: visual input inner -> feeds into 5.

How do you figure that it HAS to be hardware? Why would software need internal a viewing screen for another camera to watch? Why not just go from 2 to 5 without the BS in the middle.

It would make more sense if the external camera feed "showed" (3) the recognition program the data so that it could "see" (4) it. which is exactly as what a facial recognition program does.

Have you been watching Giorgio again?

Most importantly, or for a start, it does not have the same hardware configuration. — Zelebg

Does not have the same hardware configuration as WHAT?

Your idea of an conscious computer or a human being that has no hardware?

The example I gave you fits exactly to your specs, so what is the problem with it? Can you explain that to me?

I suppose it might be questioned what exactly should "Program A" be doing and what part of that should go onto inner screen


But what I am suggesting here is both what and how to implement, and relevant part is hardware configuration, not software modules. — Zelebg

Make up your mind, is it the software or the hardware that you think is important? Because, as the song goes, you can't have one without the other.

Sounds hasty.. — Monist

Not really, if you don't know and I don't know there is probably no one that does know. Hence there is no answer or at least no answer that is accepted universally.

I do not know if I know anything. — Monist

So there is your answer, we do not know.

I already told you where/why I think you are wrong. "5. Program B: consciousness & free will -> feeds into 6.& 2" does not equal "a visual recognition program" — Sir Philo Sophia

In what way do you think it is different?

and it is Zelebg job to explain to you why not, — Sir Philo Sophia

But you are the one that said I was wrong, not him.

or your job to explain to us why you logically conclude they are equal or highly similar. — Sir Philo Sophia

I did, if you did not understand the comparison just say so.

I think Zelebg will explain it to us when he replies. stay tuned... — Sir Philo Sophia

So you don't have an answer, but I am wrong? :chin:

It is raining, that is the truth.

Do you agree with that?

The best way to reply to someone is to select the text you want to reply to, then click on the reply button that appears.
IF for some reason nothing happens, try right mouse button click on quote button.

do you not appreciate the difference between pattern recognition (e.g., an AI neural network detecting the presence of a orange) and the abilities human Consciousness? — Sir Philo Sophia

No, explain it to me please.

And then maybe you can explain why my telephone is not a conscious thing using Zelebg's method.

no. that is pattern recognition, which current AI robots routinely do. — Sir Philo Sophia

What is the difference?

Your eye's target is a thing that isn't yourself — Qwex

How can you see an imaginary character?

Your own simulate presence. — Qwex

Are simulation and imagination the same thing? I can imagine that I am eating pizza, is that the same as simulating eating pizza?

I suppose it can be argued any imagination you produce is yours only, and thus it is yourself you're talking to. — Qwex

Talking WITH.

However, I'm not ready to explain that. — Qwex

Why not?

To make sure that others know you have replied to them, you can use the "Quote" or reply functions.

You missed Zelebg's magical module which your cellphone is missing: — Sir Philo Sophia

No, I did not miss it. I explained it.

Consciousness in living beings allows us to recognize things by comparing them to things we know. Once we have recognized a person we can decide to say hello or not.

1. Camera A: visual input extern -> feeds into 2.
2. Program A: subconsciousness & memory -> feeds into 3.
3. Display A: visual output inner -> feeds into 4.
4. Camera B: visual input inner -> feeds into 5.
5. Program B: consciousness & free will -> feeds into 6.& 2.
6. Speaker: audio output extern — Zelebg

Actually this looks like a visual recognition program more than a conscious computer. Some of the new mobile phones and computers have facial recognition software that will welcome you with a cheery "Hello" when it recognizes your face. And the steps are nearly the same.

1. camera picks up your face
2. camera software sends image to facial recognition software
3. 4. facial recognition software sees and scans image then looks for id in data base
5. facial recognition software finds id and decides to send authorize to user
6. speaker says "Hello"

My cell phone listens to me all the time, I think that most of us know this. I always talk about cats to my phone and it always shows nice pictures of them on the lock screen. But do not try to tell me that the bloody thing is doing it consciously, because that is not true.

If you create an imaginary character and you start talking to them, does it mean you're talking to somebody or are you talking to yourself? — Craiya

It means that you are talking with yourself.

What happens when the all seeing eye turns inward? — Wallows

They see all of the inner shit. :chin:

One: Are there implications to the “celebrating” the more secular aspects of Christmas…while not giving even passing thought to the religious reason the “holiday” even exists? Is there an element of hypocrisy involved…or is the activity a normal, non-hypocritical result of living in a culture motivated by that aspect?

And two (A more frivolous consideration): Because of the windowed alcove in which we set the tree, there is an area of that tree which absolutely cannot be seen by anyone inside or outside the house. My wife insists that the area be decorated as fully as the areas that can be seen. Is she nuts…or am I for suggesting it is just a waste of time? — Frank Apisa

I can sympathize with this entirely. I am a non believer but my wife is, so I can sort of say that I celebrate for her. That way I can get my Christmas dinner.

Our tree sits in the corner of a bay window that goes around the corner of the house, and there is a part that sits behind the supporting post. My wife insists that the lights and decorations do not get interrupted and that that part looks just like the rest.
That is what we men love about women, the way they think. So entertaining. :wink:

"Are the police just or am I just? "

Cops are not supposed to be either. Their job is to try to prevent and investigate crime. Justice comes later.

What you described has nothing to do with the police organization as such. It is just a bunch of bullies taking advantage of the fact that they wear uniforms.

Who? BK? I don't know what is all in "real" meat... Not that it matters, cause decaying flesh seems all equally gross to me. — Artemis

http://dailybuzzlive.com/mcdonalds-uses-worm-meat-fillers-can-legally-call-100-beef/
:lol:

Eh, they're just mad that BK is selling a meat-less burger that really tastes good now and are looking for something to complain about. — Artemis

Does that mean that they have stopped using worms as the protein additive, or that worms do not count as meat? :chin:

Over population is probably the cause of some of or even most of the other problems, but their is one thing that is even worse in my opinion.

Vanity.

Zero is the total product of one's life.
You start with it and anything added is left behind at the end.

Impeachment of a president. ---- They say he did something wrong.

A trial without any crime being committed. ---- He says he has done nothing wrong.

And the polls show an immediate rise in popularity. ---- ?

Does that mean that the public approves of him doing something wrong if it will make America great again?