Or water or air or trees or animals or even other people. — Vera Mont

Agreed.

Nothing is truly free — Vera Mont

So, do you reject the word 'freedom' as unattainable?

I agree with everything you typed in your last post.
We are stewards of this planet at best. We have the right to exist on it and be sustained by it's resources. We have no right to 'use it up and wear it out,' based on individual carefree whim.
It's only something as pernicious as capitalism and/or theism that see's this planet and it's resources as expendable. Capitalists, because they only really care about their right to sate their own notions of excess and theists, as they believe, that their true glorification will happen in the next life and not in this one.

In the face of capitalism, we need as much as we can get because others will always try to take it from us. If we value the same things, we are in endless competition for them. And the competition itself propagates the fear of losing and thus the behaviour of hoarding. — Benj96

This is the crux of the matter. The problem IS global capitalism. It's all fear based (same as theism).
We need to remove it. UBI offers a good beginning. The money trick is the bedrock of capitalism, so getting rid of money must become the main goal of everyone who want's a better way for the human race to exist.
A resource based global economy is the ultimate goal, and technology/automation is the best tool we have to help make such happen. I have learned a little abouts the 'Gosplan' as it was employed by the USSR. It was fundamentally moneyless and successfully supported a large population.
Unfortunately evil people such as Lenin and Stalin started to corrupt it, from it's beginning.
It eventually failed completely due to corruption. This shows that a fair and equitable, resource based system can be established. We need a system that can also incorporate the need that many have for an individual sense of freedom and the notions of reward and recognition humans associate with demonstration of personal entrepreneurial aptitude.

Only if you're gone before the bear family arrives. — Vera Mont

There are no bears in the forests of Scotland. The existence of competitors for access to the berries, does not justify some vile human tribe/capitalist group claiming permanent ownership of the forest.
I have yet to hear a valid argument that supports the concept of ANY human OWNING land.
Legal occupation and protection from others taking what you and yours NEED, is a different matter. BUT, no-one has a RIGHT to OWN land imo.

It has nothing to do with greed or capitalism. — Tzeentch

:lol: Sure! and pigs are vegetarians!

that's their mistake. There is no free lunch. — Tzeentch

Even for a starving child?

If you were out in a forest, and you ate berries, growing on a bush for your lunch, does that count as a free lunch?

Your OP exemplifies the folly of a profit driven free market economy.
Capitalism fully supports and maintains the pernicious global plutocracy that the human race currently suffers under. You can choose to be part of it's support, or you can do what you can to help dismantle it.

Stephen Hawking had ALS and so did my mother. — Athena

Sorry to hear your mother went through that.
Do you know of Dave Warnock? He is currently dying of ALS and he is an atheist (ex theist), who speaks against theism and religious doctrine, online.

If your brother-in-law was awake during surgery he had a regional anesthetic, not a general anesthesia
that makes a person unconscious. His brain was still working, right? — Athena

It is called a local anesthetic here, not a regional anesthetic. If there was any 'consciousness' in the body, they you would think my brother-in-law would have experienced a reduction or 'loss of body consciousness.' If you are suggesting that loss of feeling or sensation in the body, IS loss of consciousness or 'mind' in the body, then I completely disagree.

From the source you cited, we have:
"We all know how it feels to have our heart beat fast with fear. This physiological response is the result of the autonomic nervous system’s reaction to the emotion we’re experiencing. The autonomic nervous system controls our involuntary bodily responses and regulates our fight-or-flight response. According to many psychologists, our physiological responses are likely how emotion helped us evolve and survive as humans throughout history.

Interestingly, studies have shown autonomic physiological responses are strongest when a person’s facial expressions most closely resemble the expression of the emotion they’re experiencing. In other words, facial expressions play an important role in responding accordingly to an emotion in a physical sense."

All physiological responses are controlled, enacted and terminated via the brain, imo.
My hand might shake due to fear. If I have no hands, then they wont shake with fear. This does not mean a person with no hands does not experience fear, in the same way a person with hands does.
There is no consciousness in your hands, or any other part of your body, imo.

AI can not have an emotionally feeling body. — Athena

The news article you cited suggested to me that the 'Tay' chatbot failed because it was NOT a very good AI system. It was obviously easily shut down. I have no concern over a badly programmed AI chatbot which is easily shut down. The future AGI/ASI systems proposed by the current experts in the field are way way beyond purported AI systems such as Tay or chatGBT.
Emulating the human brain processes that cause emotions/sensations/feelings in the human body is POSSIBLE in my opinion but I fully accept that we are still far away from being able to replace your pinky, with a replicant which can equal it's functionality and it's actions as a touch sensor.

Consider sites such as BIT BRAIN:
"One of the ways of studying human emotions is to study the nonconscious and uncontrollable changes that occur in the human body. Thanks to the latest advances in neuroimaging and neurotechnology, we can measure these changes with precision and then study them. But we face several difficulties, such as the problem of reverse inference (there are no specific somatic patterns associated with each emotion), inter-subject variations (no two brains are the same), and intra-subject variations (a person’s brain changes and evolves throughout time)."

I regularly watch atheists debate theists online (mainly via YouTube) and I have noticed that the theist side seems to be getting more and more 'frustrated,' and are becoming more and more abusive and offensive in their desperation. Their most embarrassing representatives, such as Kent Hovind and Ken Ham etc just repeat utter BS such as 'have you even saw an ape give birth to a human?' and 'do you really believe the whole universe came from something smaller that a typed dot?'
He then plays recorded laughter, in the background.
I can understand why it gets so exasperating for any interlocuter having to deal with such idiocy, and they must feel quite ignostic at times, but the struggle against evil people like Hovind must continue.

From Wiki:
Hovind established Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) in 1989 and Dinosaur Adventure Land in 2001 in Pensacola, Florida. He frequently spoke on Young Earth creationism in schools, churches, debates, and on radio and television broadcasts. His son Eric Hovind took over operation of CSE after Hovind began serving a ten-year prison sentence in January 2007 for federal convictions for failing to pay taxes, obstructing federal agents, and structuring cash transactions. In September 2021, Hovind was convicted of domestic violence against his estranged wife.

He was released from prison in 2015 and has continued his evanhellism ever since.
The damage done by characters like Hovind is very significant. Some young people are being brought up and educated via home schooling and Kent Hovind video's, due to their parents being fundamental christians. :scream:

My atheism has slightly different foundations - I don't argue there is no evidence. There's plenty of evidence (personal experience, the existence of the universe, consciousness, scripture, etc) it's just that this evidence is incomplete and or unconvincing (to most atheists) and can be readily argued against. — Tom Storm

I think that's a fair point Tom. Accuracy and clarity are very important indeed, when trying to increase confidence levels in what is true. I should have typed 'BECAUSE there is no convincing/significant evidence.'

I assign zero value to witness testimony/personal experience when it comes to the supernatural. Witness testimony does have it's uses, within our legal systems, but not if it has any supernatural element. For example:
"I saw an ethereal pink mist kill the victim, your honour, and a voice from the mist told me, the victim must die, as god demands it. Then a bullet formed in the mist and went through the victims head.
My 10 best friends, who were with me at the time, all saw it to! Honest!"
Inadmissible evidence in all courts, I hope, except perhaps a religious court, in somewhere like 17th century Salem (probably an arrow rather than a bullet, in that case.)
Personal experience is also so compromised by misinterpretation/mental states/consuming scooby snacks, etc that for me, means that such evidence also has zero value.
I perceive of no current existent in the universe, or any currently understood aspect of human consciousness, which provides any significant evidence of the existence of god.
Scripture is just produced from the tradition of human storytelling and the 'Chinese whisper' effect and is evidence of zero value as well, in my opinion.

I know I have not typed anything in this repose to your post Tom, that you are not already fully aware of.
I also know most other folks are fully aware of such as well. BUT, theists still believe, and it's not like there are only a few of them and they don't affect our human society much.
There are many times when I do feel totally ignostic and I just cant be bothered, dispelling the utter BS being proselytized by a particular theist or religious group, BUT, I always feel a 'counter pressure,' that if my ignosticism means I do nothing, then the more destructive affects of theism/religion grow and spread.

I think that is the definition of an atheist, pretty much.
"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"
BECAUSE, there is no evidence.
An atheist will debate a theist, but an ignostic wont, as they think that the god notion is so unintelligible that if you believe in god, then you are not worth debating.

Based on our earlier exchange on Leonard Susskind's proposal that quantum entanglement may actually BE gravity. I thought you might enjoy this recent discussion on Quora:
https://www.quora.com/What-do-physicists-think-of-Leonard-Susskinds-paper-where-he-states-that-QM-GR

War has always been about sacrifice of people here and there for a greater goal. It is unavoidable. — noAxioms

Such words are easily typed but such a horrific situation, might mean you have to sacrifice your own family, as well as many other innocents, to stop a horror like fascism from taking over.
I hope you never personally face such horror's in your life.

Churchill did, but he didn't have the support needed, including from you apparently. — noAxioms

Thank goodness that we stopped him then. He was a butcher and a man who would be King, if he could.
His character was very similar to Hitler's or Stalin's imo.

How do you envision that these automated systems would have chosen better? No matter what, they still have to throw lives against the lives of the enemy and it is partly a numbers game. Would they have chosen differently? — noAxioms

I think they would reject all notions of war and would not allow such, as they would not be infected with the same primal fears/paranoia/territoriality/tribalism that humans have to combat.

I think that makes you an ignostic. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to use one of my currently favourite words.

Sorry, just checking to see if you really did consider yourself a hairless ape:

Do you suffer from alopecia universalis?

Well, I have included some points, as well as respond to banno's initial insults towards me, in this thread. But, I am happy to cease and desist, even though he has not yet properly apologised, and then I would return the gesture, for being unable to resist responding in kind to his initial cheek. :halo:

For example, both have uses in mathematics and physics, whereas "supernatural" is at best a fringe notion. — Banno

Notions of the supernatural have little use as they are 'fringe'????
Some people make their full living from the notion.
It is an enormous aspect of traditional human storytelling.
It's been used to justify the divine right of kings to rule!
It's the foundation of all human theism and theosophisim!
The notion of the supernatural has easily as much 'USE' as the concept of infinite has in maths and physics. What are you on about????

OK, I apologise. Sometimes I forget that I may be dealing with children. — Banno

:lol: Are you related to @Bartricks by any chance? I know you really do want to apologise properly. Shave your knuckles first, that might help!
Then you can tell me where you think the maths I posted 'from Quora,' is wrong.
I have often heard mathematicians refer to 1/0 as 'undefined.'
I am surprised you did not know that?
Have you practiced acting like a troll for a long time, or just sometimes, on TPF?

The appropriate thing for you to do is to reply to that issue. — Banno

BTW, how amazingly arrogant of you, to advise anyone on what is appropriate, when your manners are so low.

Whilst you are making up your mind!

Consider the following:
1/0.5=2 days. He eats half an apple a day.

If he wants to eat the apple for three days, then:
1/0.333=3 days. The amount of apple he gets to eat per day, is reduced. Lets reduce it further.

1/0.1=10 days. Further more..
1/0.05=20 days.
1/0.001=1000 days.
1/0.000001=1000000 days. So,

1/0.0…..001=100……00 days. And it goes on. Which means

1/0=∞. So, literally we can suggest 1/0=∞. But lets now consider these answers..

1/-0.5=-2 (don’t ask me how there can be negative amount of apples, please)
1/-0.1=-10
1/-0.0001=-1000 and so
1/-0.00……001=-100……00. Which means,
1/-0=-∞

We all know that zero is unbiased, which means there is no such thing as -0 and +0. This makes us conclude that -∞=∞. Which is not true.
So the above observations 1/0=∞ and 1/-0=-∞ are wrong in terms of strict math.
So the mathematicians call it UNDEFINED.

What do words like 'undefined' and 'not true' mean to you?
Do you consider the supernatural undefined and untrue?
Or do you think such questions are rubbish and shite?

Perhaps I will, after you apologise for your insulting mannerisms.

Oh yes it is! Do you like panto Mr Bammo?

Your bitching at me makes no difference to that argument. It does say quite a bit about you. — Banno

If you bitch at me Bammo, I will bitch right back at you. Have your wee tantrums, in your own padded room. Don't try to spew over me. I hope that explains ME very clearly to you.
I tried to explain my position to you, I could not give a flying f***, if you disagree with it.
Learn to be a better interlocuter or continue being surrounded by rubbish and shite of your own creation.

I intend no personal offense to you, by my next three sentences, it is more about personal preference and my personal tastes.
I found your response to be a little top heavy in prose and word salad.
I tried to ignore that and find any significant points that I thought you were trying to make.
I always try to adhere to the scientific KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid.

I find the term supernatural to be unintelligible. I also find most other placeholder terms such as 'infinite' and 'nothing,' to be unintelligible. This adds to the credence level I have for atheism, and against all theism and theosophism. So,

What did you mean with the word, “compare”? — Experience of Clarity

Your 'incorrect map,' being compared to the 'real' surroundings in the scenario you offered, was, in my opinion, a poor way to exemplify the reasoning used by theists, or anyone else, who accept the existence of the supernatural.
'True believers,' need no evidence and require no test or measure of the supernatural. They believe the supernatural is fact, because they have been indoctrinated to accept the supernatural from an early age, and they have been terrorised into accepting the content of a book, as the word of their god, Or they make a living from selling the concept of such proposed existents.

As long as the supernatural remains completely hidden, and is not empirically verified, then I maintain my very high credence level that it has no existents, and IS unintelligible. Same for other concepts such as 'nothing' and 'infinite.'

What you consider new and improved about your version removes from consideration the appeal to the real world and to real human processors. — Experience of Clarity

I don't see why, as I am employing 'reality' and my human processor (brain). I just found your 'incorrect map' analogy, along with its observational solution, a bit weak.

The passage guts the concept of its relevance to reality in the same way that the duped map-reader in my post has not conferred with reality. — Experience of Clarity

I agree, but again perhaps it's just down to personal preference and taste. Many people favour their own way of arriving at much the same position.

There are many obvious examples of these moral dilemma's from history. Here are two.

1. Would YOU have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force the Japanese to surrender? The story goes that the Americans DID demonstrate the power of the bomb to the Japanese top brass and told them to surrender before they dropped the bomb, but the Japanese top brass refused (including their moronic emperor.) Would you have went the alternate route of invasion of the Japanese homeland and the price of doing that for all sides involved?

2. Churchill knew the city of Coventry was going to be massively bombed, as the British has broken the enigma code, but if he evacuated the city then the nazi's would know the British had broken the code and they would change it, which could have led to the defeat of Britain by the nazi's. So he let Coventry be bombed and many innocents died. What would YOU have done?

An automated system at the level of an AGI or ASI would hopefully prevent such scenario's from happening in the first place or be better able to create alternatives to binary choices between horrific choice 1 or horrific choice 2.

If the details surrounding Truman and Churchills decisions are all true, as I read them, then I would have made the same decisions as they did. I could not have survived either of them however. My suicide soon after, would have been the only relief I could imagine.
An automated system may not feel such a need to self-destruct however and that is probably better.
I am no fan of Churchill or Truman and I don't know how they managed to live with themselves after making such decisions but my opinion on that, is merely that, ..... my opinion

This is shite. — Banno

Are you referring to your thought processes that are producing your current responses here?

Like saying you can't teach a fish to ride a bicycle, hence fish are nonsense. — Banno

I asked for you to exemplify 'nothing' and 'infinite' so, put the fish back where it belongs, and put the bike back wherever you got it from. Try to pull on your big boy pants, and provide an actual argument.

Yep. But I'm far from convinced that you can. — Banno

Yeah, right back at you!

Nothing and infinite are both quite "intelligible". Your comparison with supernatural fails. — Banno

Do you know what 'do better' means?
Is exemplification of nothing and infinite demonstrable using anything that currently exists in the natural world? If so, then reveal it, or just keep coming across as the annoying empty vessel that you can be at times.

Rubbish. — Banno

Just like your response then? Can you do any better?

I think your example of an incorrect map, does not compare with the 'level of unintelligibility' of concepts such as the supernatural, or god, or omnipotent etc.
One of the rules of reason is 'non-contradiction.' A bad map can be identified, by, as you suggested, conformation of what you see in view, compared to what is depicted on the map.
Such is not the same as the situation, when you consider 'x OR not x is true, for any given instant of time, but x AND not x being true at the same instant of time, is unintelligible.'
Then, along comes a theist and they suggest, that if a supernatural god is involved, then, "x AND not x is true at the same moment of time", is totally intelligible!!

So, that is more like a situation where you have no map, and you are totally lost, BUT, you should not be concerned, as long as you believe in god, it will show you the way, no map required. That's what's unintelligible!
The fact that unintelligible exists as a concept, should not attract anyone to it.
Living in a cave, waiting for a deity to communicate with you, would be a waste of life.
The unintelligibility of the existence of god/supernaturals, should be enough for any rational human to not waste themselves, via theistic or theosophistic dalliances.

:roll: Another non-existent who's followers you pander to! Only Kiddin! Put down the gun/Killie pie, and walk away slowly! :fear:

:grin: Forfar or Killie?

Good people have such thrusted upon them. Your judgement of yourself is often not as important as how others might judge you. In my opinion your views are far far more balanced, and show more insight, into the very fringe issue of anti-life(natalism), compared to posters such as schopenhauer1.

Hence, the notion of a supernatural event is unintelligible. — Banno

All such terms are just projections of the human ability to be completely illogical, an ability which DOES exist. As you say, any discovered supernatural, would become instantly natural. The term 'nothing' or 'infinite' are just as unintelligible. But, 'unintelligible,' EXISTS as a 'notion.' Such serve as notional comparators, same as god, they have no more value than that.

For your information—@schopenhauer1 is our resident anti-natalism expert. — T Clark

I could not disagree more, and suggest you read more of the posts of @DA671

I described a trolley problem where 5 lives can be saved by taking action that kills one. What’s does your consistent moral code say about this? Why isn’t it done today? Why is it more moral to let the 5 die, and should this standard be changed? — noAxioms

We may well apply morality as a pure numbers game, when there is no other information available. For me personally, It would totally depend on what information was available around the scenario.
Would I find it 'worth it' to cause the death of a large number of innocent people, say 1000, to kill a tyrant that's destroying our way of life, yes, probably. Your 'trolley' style problem needs more detail about the individuals involved. In the absence of such detail, the morally consistent approach for me, is that if we are talking about a train track lever that switches the trolly from one track to another, then I would probably pull the leaver and let 1 die rather than 5, if I know nothing about the people involved.
If the 1 was my child/wife etc, it's probably then going to be bye bye 5, unless it was 5 children.
In any such situation, of choosing what you consider horrific outcome 1 and horrific outcome 2, but you do have some personal moral notion of a lesser evil between the two choices, then you make your choice, but you will probably never recover from the experience. It will take it's toll on you for the rest of your life.
I would never advocate for harvesting the organs of 1 to save many, like you suggested, no.

Kate Forbes is 33. The other two candidates are Humza Yousaf who is 38 and a practicing Muslim:

and Ash Regan who is 48 and is not religious:

I think all 3 candidates are unsuitable as a replacement for Nicola Sturgeon. I don't get a vote however as I am not a member of the SNP. Based on the two 'head-to-head' debates I have watched, featuring all 3 candidates. I would certainly not vote for Kate Forbes.

I am away for a shower and a shave however. A night of eating and drinking will ensue.
Bye fur noo!

Dew you believe at 6/1 — invicta

BTW I am not Dewish and I don't believe, at any favourable odds.

Anyway there’s a horse at 16:25 at Wolverhampton called Dew you believe at 6/1

Cheeky 5er for your lack of faith ? — invicta

My father was a gambler and it caused him much grief in his life and contributed to his early death at 67. He gambled mainly on horses, so I never have, and never will. I get no joy at all from gambling, it's not one of my pastimes.