The legality of course being that it is an AI based on tensor cores which reinforce learned behaviour using statistical methods.

If the core’s malfunction then so does the software which by its inherent programming will spew this old rubbish… that is to say don’t make me tell my boss or such such. The programmer and human interaction and intervention remains the bridge in effective utilitarian uses of such a system for good or bad

In metaethics, it is exceedingly common to divide views into two subcamps: anti-realism (i.e., that there are no categorical imperatives) and realism (i.e., that there are categorical imperatives). Although I find this to be an intuitive distinction (as an approximation), I am finding the distinction blurring for me the more precise I analyze my metaethical commitments. — Bob Ross

I feel that the distinction is indeed blurry, however it only seems Hegelian in that respect if I may say so

In terms of meta ethics is where morality does indeed retain its objectivism for right and wrong are both imperative and categorical using kantian terminology (if i was to really get dialectical in the German sense)

The interjection only becomes obvious post fact although admittedly that is not always the case

Of course the bible itself claims that all its text is the

word

of God as self proclaimed authority so the question is simply for atheists to chew over.

It may be respected in other ways of course depending on the nature of interpretation.



Happy Easter

Very well said.

It’s just a question of wildlife and morality that’s all huh @1 Brother James

A fair dichotomy and a distinction personally I’ve never been involved and my judgment on such activity does not preclude morality.

I don’t think we can truly humanise god in terms of human attributes.

For the atheist will always deny, the agnostic question it and the faithful have little doubt.

For gods nature the bible and other holy books ascribe it many qualities

Of course neuroscience or even its crude implementation falls short of understanding the true nature of consciousness. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there. (No pun intended)

Your opening post clarifies the distinction between the mind body dualism.

For me the whole thing is holistic, despite the clever words we may use such as quantum consciousness etc.

Artificial intelligence (slightly off topic here) will always fall short as machines are silicon based whereas we as humans are biological entities and carbon based.

Ontological objective idealism has less weaknesses and unlikely to be undermined rather than subjective idealism which again leads to solipsism

I think it’s as simple as that but forgive me if I have not considered further berkelian defences of subjective idealism..

I don’t think we can know the nature of Proto/consciousness that Penrose attests to. It’s a wild speculation for sure but we may never know the relation of proto consciousness to our consciousness.

If this consciousness is in fact pure energy unrelated to matter then the relation of it to matter remains a ripe area for scientific study.

Any block or unit of matter has energy in it but it’s contained in matter such as a log of wood.

To use the log of wood metaphor burning it releases its contained energy and entropy which after burning we’Re unable to collect the fire that was unleashed from.

To state that there is a proto/consciousness seems to me linguistically redundant at best…it would be better to refer to it as pure awareness and interaction with matter which is also energy as per Einstein

On the question of wages that’s complicated as there’s inflation involved, sometimes even a runway effect. The reduction of buying power keeps inflation in check

I would argue it is but hey if someone was to build over your garden you wouldn’t like it do you?

Whatever the aims of large corporations may be, continued growth to shareholders etc and money is used to bribe their government then that is corruption,

We need forests not displacement of natives although there could be compromise

Very good point from the t clark javi and themadman

@TheMadMan @javi2541997

Thank you for offering different insight …indeed how one should conduct himself in society is to live by high ideals and set a good example to impressionable youth. After all we live in planet where selfish interests of a faction can destroy whole habitats.

The entrepreneurial spirit of many tends to disregard natural wonders and they cut down trees to make clearances for human rather than animal habitats.

The indigenous rights of earlier settlers must somehow be defended to ultimately become an equilibrium between the various parties

There’s no point to a debate or any forms of protestation as gun culture is to entrenched in their culture.

It’s the nature of their capitalism to sell and and such make profits whether that be guns or bullet a or happy meal

Even a sane person with no priors can go mental and shoot people.

You just have to hope you’re not there

It’s actually a very good question. Hobbes I think it was that drew a very good analogy about what you’re taking about.

An example of the mind mater duality is hitting your big toe…the signal travelled to the brain to inform of pain and avoid pain in future.

Useful to brain and body.

It’s an evolutionary trait other wise we’d be breaking hurting our body without this

I just thought a thought. Thoughts must come from thoughts then. It’s a causal chain of thoughts. When thoughts stop happening we stop thinking don’t we ?

I think some level of leadership is required…the current president has a good hairstyle but trumps only needs to change his barber and hmm

It seems I am not immune to flaws wayfarer for in my last post the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It seems to me the marriage concept to them would be alien in a way.

A very human flaw in all aspects but machines do not marry so the divorce fees will be minimal or even non existent

It must however be given some level of credence of the nature delegating our tasks to them manifested to them the concept of desire such as lust.

So sayeth the wise one once more but this time he is even more wrong !!!

So where's the 'will' get in? — Isaac

Random noise, duh! :gasp:

Obviously at this point no solution seems good.

Hopefully it ends amicably

Well paradise was cool, some snake could speak to the woman it’s tasty he say…oh but wait god said no…don’t worry just an apple.

Ok fine.

Few hours later:

God: OUT!!!

Snakes be snakes really…blame the woman

Hmm not sure how the snake snaked his way to paradise

Atheism supports religion like a toilet brush supports the toilet. After a good crap that is and only after a crap.

Otherwise the toilet brush does not support the toilet.

Does that make sense ?

Opposites attract …flies

That essentially means this:

There is a sky (theistic claim)

Point at it says the atheist

I can’t says the theist.

Ha! Says the atheist that’s because the sky doesn’t exist.

Thanks for your support says the theist, I need to get some fresh air coz this toilet stinks

the observer creates the reality. — Wayfarer

Questionable in my opinion Wayfarer, the observer observes reality, and even as far as the observer has the ability to affect reality. Whether the observer CREATES reality runs into the problem of reality CREATING the observer.

Thank you for your comment Alex. The issue presented itself to me in another thread so it piqued my interest hence the reason for this thread.

I am somewhat satisfied with the conclusion derived above to that of the moth to light analogy whilst ignoring the technical aspect of putting it into practice as 180 Proof pointed out.

I do however believe the subsequent modified analogy of moths to darkness addressed it somewhat but not fully in my mind.

There is of course the matter of intent, does God in this case wish to be acknowledged by the nature of the separation of these two vastly different substances.

What I mean is this, the eternal that has existed can part and separate itself then the issue as I see it that the offspring of the eternal would retain the formers attributes such as unchanging, which obviously presents a problem the way Aristotle presented it.

Is the word dictionary in the dictionary? If the word is there how would you know what dictionary meant if you didn’t have a dictionary?

I thought you were the enlightened & wise one, I’m but a peasant

For the sake of future expediency shorten the following terms:

Biological Consciousness = Mind
Specimens = Mankind

This will enable you to spread your thoughts with much speed.

Keep the “thus” as it will make them sound that little bit more profound.

So sayeth the wise one

You use funny terminology species, biological consciousness as if you are not part of such a species but in fact have transcended it.

Correct ?

Most likely one of them solipsistic types by the looks of it.

Would that melody have meaning to another biological entity?

What does that mean ?

No do you ? What a pointless question.

Imagine if all that effort formatting your text has gone into composing an intelligent response :rofl:

Quote marks, italics, brackets…although nothing in bold. Slacking today are we?

9/10

The idea that a product of a perfect being is also perfect is a fallacy.

The son is not always like the father.