God's nature establishes some truths that can't be contradicted. It still boils down to the logically possible.

BTW, I found a transcript wherein Craig discusses Ignatius, transubstantiation, and the Lutheran alternative of co-substantuation:


https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-the-doctrine-of-the-church/the-doctrine-of-the-church-part-7

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-the-doctrine-of-the-church/the-doctrine-of-the-church-part-8

Can an all-powerful God make a rock that he can't lift? No, he can't do that. The question implies that though he can do anything, there's something he. can't do.. It implies a self-contradiction. But that's alright because classical theists believe that God can do any logically possible thing that his nature allows. — BillMcEnaney

Craig agrees that omnipotence entails the ability to do anything that is logically possible. It is not a limitation to be unable to do the logically impossible.

if you read St. Ignatius of Antioch's 2nd-century letter to the Smyrnaeans where he warned them to avoid anyone who denied that bread changed into Christ's body and blood. — BillMcEnaney

Which implies that some people in the early 2nd century believed in transubstantiation.

Catholics pay attention to what the Early Church believed. But many Protestants ignore it because they believe sola scriptura. — BillMcEnaney

They believe scripture is the inspired word of God. The writing of the Apostolic fathers is not scripture.

Thanks for clarifying the question- sorry I had missed it.

Regarding the question "are we in a simulation?" I interpret this as similar to "is solipsism true?" It's impossible to prove one way or another, but nevertheless - it's rational to believe we are not.

Regarding the Turing test: it has been passed - to a degree. See: https://www.reading.ac.uk/news-archive/press-releases/pr583836.html

Conversely, humans have "failed" the Turing test (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna163206) -- observers inferred that a human's responses were not humans.

Regarding "true" AI: IMO, it would entail a machine engaging in thoughts, learning as we do, processing information as we do, and producing novel "ideas" as we do. Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) seem the most promising way forward on this front. Progress would not be measured by fooling people, but by showing there are processes that work like our brains do. Benefits include confirming our theories about some of the ways our brains work. The long game: success makes the "simulation hypothesis" that much more incredible, but never impossible.

And if a machine passes the test (it's a text test, so there's no robot body that also has to be convincing), then it exhibits intelligent behavior. The test is not too weak. — noAxioms

The Turing Test is passed by fooling people into believing there's a human giving responses in a conversation. This is feasible today at least within a limited range of conversation topics. What more are you looking for? A wider range of topics? Regardless, human responses are the product of thought processes (including feelings, reactions, influenced by motivations that could change during the course of the conversation). Example: a human can express true empathy; a computer can produce words that sound like it's expressing empathy - but it actually is not. The human may change her behavior (responding differently) based on this; will the computer?

Do you really want a self-driving car's actions to be (partly) directed by emotion?

The worst thing that you can do in an emergency is panic.

If the self-driving car is programmed correctly then it will probably do the best thing. — Agree-to-Disagree

Probably the right thing, sure - but only if the particular situation has been anticipated and programmed. I have in mind situations that aren't anticipated, but there are objectives imbedded in the thing along with the capacity to create a solution that meets that objective.

Just to be clear: I'm skeptical we can build a machine with actual emotions. Looking beyond that, if we could build such things, I'm assuming we can tailor its emotions toward usefullness and with fail-safes to prevent it doing something harmful or stupid due to panic . That's what I had in mind with my "emotional" self-driving car. We wouldn't build it with a "panic mode" that induces suboptimal behavior. A kid running in front of the car triggers an "emotional reaction" that results in the car temporarily abandoning its travel objective and focusing on figuring out how to avoid killing the kid. Alternatively, if a certain orange politician runs into its path, it would seek a course of action consistent with the zeroth law of robotics.

If you build a machine that has a sense of self, then one of its motivations is likely to be self survival. Why build a machine that will destroy itself? — Agree-to-Disagree

If we are building it, then we are building in the motivations we want it to have. Asimov's 3 laws seem reasonable.

Well, some people claim that they can't think at all! Are you conceding that they can think, just not creatively? Can you give a definition of "creative thinking " that could be used in a Turing-type test? — Ludwig V

It depends on how you define thinking. Digital computers can certainly apply logic, and Artificial Neural Networks can perform pattern recognition. One might label those processes as thoughts.

The Turing Test is too weak, because it can be passed with a simulation. Simulating intelligent behavior is not actually behaving intelligently.

What I had in mind with my comment about creativity was this. When you drive, if a child runs into the street, you will do whatever is necessary to avoid hitting her: brake if possible, but you might even swerve into a ditch or parked car to avoid hitting the kid. Your actions will depend on a broad set of perceptions and background knowledge, and partly directed by emotion. A self-driving car will merely detect an obstacle in its path and execute the action it is programmed to take. It can't think outside the box. A broader set of optional responses could be programmed into it, giving the impression of creativity- but the car wouldn't have spontaneously created the response, as you might.

Machines do lots of things better than we do, but they can't think creatively. Self-driving cars are possible, but their programming is very different from the way we drive.

Do we really want to? (Somebody else suggested that we might not even try) — Ludwig V

Sure: for proof of concept, it should be fine to produce some rudimentary intentionality, at the levels of some low level animals like cockroaches. Terminating it would then be a pleasure.

Give AI senses and the possibility to act, then the difference to human behaviour will diminish on the long run. Does this mean that we are just sophisticated machines and all talk about freedom of choice and responsibility towards our actions is just wishful thinking? Or is there something fundamentally wrong about our traditional concepts regarding mind and matter? I maintain that we need a new world-picture, especially as the Newtonian view is nowadays as outdated as the Ptolemaic system was in the 16th century. But this will be a new thread in our forum. — Pez

The possibly insurmountable challenge is to build a machine that has a sense of self, with motivations.

This NY Times Article indicates Bradley had a falling out with Wade, and subsequently helped Merchant build her case against Willis and Wade - implying that Bradley may have been a bit loose with the facts when helping Merchant.

Merchant would like to judge to infer that his prior statements to her about the start of their relationship are true, and (by implication) he's choosing to be uncooperative on the stand. But this has to be weighed against the possibility Bradley was simply being vindictive when he helped Merchant, and unwilling to stand by his statements to her because he's under oath. IMO, this cancels out any negative effect of Bradley's testimony or communications with Merchant.

In her court filing, Willis wrote: "“Conflict arises when a prosecutor has a personal interest or stake in a defendant’s conviction - a charge that no defendant offers any support for beyond fantastical theories and rank speculation.”

If that is true, then there is no conflict of interest. If she actually hired Wade because of her personal relationship, rather than perceived qualifications, the impact would be a poor prosecution - not a consequence that hurts the defendants in the RICO case.

The Fulton County Board of Ethics is holding a hearing next week to evaluate an ethics complaint against Willis. IMO, there's a better chance she'll be held to account in that venue, than in the disqualification hearing. But that won't get her disqualified.

My bad: I didn't think about the fact this would constitute solicitation. I've edited that out.

I tend to assume scam unless it's verifiably from a known source for a clear purpose, and that source has no history of scamming.

A gofundme was set up to help Donald pay his just judgement. IN the 10 days since this was set up, they've raised enough money to cover about 10 days worth of interest on the judgement.

The Fox headline was: "New presidential rankings place Obama in top 10, Reagan and Trump below Biden"

Within the article, they did acknowledge Trump came in dead last, but some readers won't look past the headlines.

If Trump wins the election he will listed as the 47th President. Will he then have two places in the ranking?

What is logic? IMO, it's semantics. "And", "or", if...then....else" and "not" have precise meanings, as clarified in truth tables. We apply logic applies to propositions, also semantic representations.

The world does not depend on logic. Our understanding of the world (which is semantical) is improved through valid logic. If we were omniscient, logic would be pointless.

There have been some attempts to return to a realistic view of the world. But neither of them seems to me very convincing. For example Karl Popper: all physical laws brought forward by science are only more a less happy guesses and can be falsified any time by a crucial experiment. — Pez

But their happy guesses of something that is underlying nature: actual natural law. Several philosophers (Armstrong, Sosa, Tooley are the best known) have proposed Law Realism: the notion that there exist actual laws of nature. Under this theory, laws of nature are relations between universals (IOW, they are not mere abstractions: platonic equations that exist in a "third realm").

A universal is a type of thing, something that is typically multiply instantiated. For example, electron and proton are two such universals. It is a law of nature that electrons and neutrons attract: "attraction" is a relation between the universals electron and neutron.

Laws of physics constitute our best guess at laws of nature, and are falsifiable - but that just means we've erred in the approximation of the actual law.

Law realism is a metaphysical theory, and in Armstrong's case - it's a fundamental aspect of the comprehensive metaphysical system he described in his life's work.

This abstract to Tooley's paper provides more background. If you want something more comprehensive, a used copy of Armstrong's "What is a Law of Nature" can be bought for $4 on Amazon.

The Trump cult has weaponized victimhood, and the GOP has embraced and furthered this paradigm because they perceive it to be successful. (Here's a paper submitted to the 1/6 committee on the topic).

And yet, the Pro-Trump media continues to feed the "witch hunt" narrative. The article Fox posted yesterday announces the verdict, then proceeds to describe Trump's grievances and repeats his courtroom defense - as if the prosecution never mounted a case.

The problem I see with claims that QM actually is deterministic is that it's like saying it is computable. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's at least probabalistically deterministic, and a pure state quantum system is fully deterministic.

Does Fernee embrace a Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM?

Why didn't Hur just leave it there? He is not qualified to make as assessment of Biden's cognitive capacities and it is extraneous to the assessment he was tasked and is qualified to make. — Fooloso4

I guess because he wanted to be thorough in presenting potential defenses. Biden IS old, and sounds old. Is a failure to remember specific years when something happened indicative of cognitive impairment? I don't think so, but it fits easily into the narrative.

Biden stole classified documents and gets off. — NOS4A2

Your allegation is unsupported by evidence. Here's a statement from the Hur report:

“We have concluded that there is not a prosecutable case against Biden. Although there was a basis to open the investigation based on the fact that classified documents were found in Biden’s homes and office space, that is insufficient to establish a crime was committed.The illegal retention or dissemination of national defense information requires that he knew of the existence of such documents and that he knew they contained national defense information.It is not a crime without those additional elements. Our investigation, after a thorough year-long review, concludes that there is an absence of such necessary proof. Indeed, we have found a number of innocent explanations as to which we found no contrary evidence to refute them and found affirmative evidence in support of them.”

In Trump's case - he knew he had national security documents, refused to turn them over when requested, hid them, and lied about it. And as you know, the classification level of the documents is not directly related to the crimes he is charged with - which stem from the espionage act.

Aside from the crimes, I continue to be astounded that Trump supporters think his alleged blanket declassification of national security documents somehow eliminates the national security risks of doing so.

But you have to accept that you’re in the minority and the median voter disagrees with you. — Chisholm

None of us have the facts necessary to make an objective judgment of the cognitive capacities of either candidate. The fact that more people believe Biden is cognitively incapable of doing the job is a tribute to the success of right-wing media at pushing that narrative. Consequently, it's an issue for Biden's campaign to deal with it. They may, or may not, be successful.

That said, I absolutely would prefer a younger, more dynamic candidate - who is a better campaigner. My main criticism of Biden is that he's a poor politician. I nevertheless think he's done a good job in his Presidential duties.

Biden doesn't bring anything to the table except "not Trump". — Benkei

He also brings "not Republican" to the table, which entails (among other things) the expectation he'd block attempts to further restrict women's reproductive rights. It also entails appointment of judges that are more apt to have a more expansive view of civil rights.

I wonder which excuse they'll use to overturn Colorado's decision. My guess: inadequate due process.

Just to be clear, the immunity issue (which is what we were discussing) has no bearing on his candidacy. He could be rotting in prison and still be a candidate for President.

The next step will be to file the appeal to the Supreme Court, and this will probably be on the deadline date of Feb 12 (they'll squeeze every possible millisecond of delay possible). Some analysts have suggested SCOTUS might decline to hear it, letting the DC appeal's court ruling stand. My guess is they'll hear it.

That's not really true. Sure, everyone is happy to take home more money, but lots are unhappy with the way the tax cuts were divided up. Many are also unhappy that the corporate tax cut was permanent while the individual tax cut was temporary. And since you agree deficits and debt matter, you should agree the long term effects are relevant to the analysis- irrespective of people liking the extra cash.

Do you understand that the 2017 TCJA is still in effect until 2025? You probably benefited from it when you filed your taxes. — L'éléphant

Yes and yes. Do you think that's the full story? Do deficits and debt not matter?

oops. Got it.

his Christian nationalist foreign policy handlers would let him do anything to harm or even inconvenience Israel. — flannel jesus

Did you mean, "wouldn't"?

You have to think outside the box. — L'éléphant

What's your point? I simply answered your question. My point was that it's silly to just give credit or blame to a sitting President based on the status of the economy. Rather, we should credit or blame them for policy we believe to be beneficial or detrimental. Whether or not the Ryan tax cuts were beneficial or detrimental is open to debate. In one sense, everyone who paid less taxes got some benefit (some more than others) , but it also resulted in higher deficits, and an increase in national debt.

It's a hard choice - between a narcissist con man and a supporter and facilitator of genocide and ethnic cleansing — unenlightened

What makes you think Trump would be any less supportive of Israel, in its efforts to eliminate Hamas?

There is nothing to echo — NOS4A2

You're echoing accusations about Willis, treating them as established fact. As I noted, there have been accusations- and many of them have been debunked (see: https://www.justsecurity.org/91627/the-fulton-county-disqualification-allegations-myths-facts-and-unknowns/). She may have done something illegal or unethical, but it's premature to draw that conclusion at this point.

You're also echoing the claim that the courts and justice system are "weaponized". This has all the elements of conspiracy theory. It appeals to Trump cult members because it supports the narrative that Trump is a victim.

It's a common thread among members of the Trump cult, that they echo his ad hominem attacks and ignore their saviour's legal and moral issues.

If Willis broke the law, I hope she suffers the legal consequences. Can you say that about Trump?

I'm not a lawyer, but in my IT career, project leaders didn't need technical expertise, they needed management skills. I related this to what the article said:

As critics allege, it appears to be true that Wade does not have experience in prosecuting RICO cases or other felony cases. “An AJC [Atlanta Journal Constitution] review of court records in metro Atlanta found no evidence he ever prosecuted a felony.” However, many prosecutors do not have experience with RICO cases and such experience should not necessarily be required to be one of the multiple special prosecutors on this case – particularly given that Wade serves as the lead prosecutor, and another special prosecutor on the case is a leading RICO expert. At any rate, Wade has relevant experience handling felony cases as a defense lawyer.

also

Willis told the New York Times that she hired Wade after several other candidates turned her down.

Much of the negative reporting was based on Roman's accusations, which the JUSTSECURITY article shows to be false. It appears to me that this article, plus her filing (assuming she's being truthful) exonerates her of everything but poor judgement in getting romantically involved.

Re: never having worked a RICO case- the article indicates it's not problematic because of his role as lead prosecutor. An attorney with RICO expertise reports to him.

She says in her filing that she's known and respected him a long time.

It's in her court filing. If she lied on it, her law license is in jeopardy.

every potential juror is going to know she was fucking him when she gave him the job. — RogueAI

According to Willis, she was not romantically involved with Wade when she hired him.