This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

DECIMA wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
Despite his prickly image, BB seems to be  someone who is genuinely searching for truth (maybe I am wrong, but at least I gave him benefit of the doubt), you in the other hand have a history of not being interested in it...only wish to be seen right.

Go on, where have you got this from, give me evidence that this my 'history'.

Read the gospels.

Bogbrush, as I've said I think you're likely to be right, and everything you have said so far is evidence based.
But one thing, and you may or may not agree with me on this, is that I don't think it's a good thing if everyone has the view you have (even if it's true). Many people in society are unstable, and then that was combined with this nihilism, I don't think it would have a very good effect...

noleisthebest wrote:

DECIMA wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
Despite his prickly image, BB seems to be  someone who is genuinely searching for truth (maybe I am wrong, but at least I gave him benefit of the doubt), you in the other hand have a history of not being interested in it...only wish to be seen right.

Go on, where have you got this from, give me evidence that this my 'history'.

Read the gospels.

I'm not asking you for reading recommendations, I'm asking you for evidence that I have a history in not being interested in the truth but only being seen right.

bogbrush wrote:..No, unortunately on our last day we don't even know we've died because the very last thing we know is that we're feeling a bit sleepy.

...and then you wake up and it was all a dream....No matter, only spirit!

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:...
I don't damn those who differ from me on this score - it's a free world; but I do think that the effect of the hold that religions have on people the world over has moved from broadly civilising, as some undoubtedly were originally by contrast to the order of the societies from which they grew, to problematic in many instances.  That's not to deny the reality that religion provides great solace and a civilising influence in many individual circumstances - I am talking big picture

.This is a point I raise at the beginning of this conversation. People need to believe in something, and if you take religion away, what's left? Money and power! Which is in effect the religion described in the bible as the Golden Vault (need for tangible beliefs), which in my view destroys the world much faster and at a much larger scale than any religion. In fact it is also money/power which use religions for its own end.  

So you believe in this stuff because it makes for a more orderly society?

Insightful!

Barrys (and Amrits) point is correct, and though an atheist myself I recognise that the majority of people are trained to irresponsibility and so an efficient way of ordering the World was to have them quake in fear of eternal punishment if they didn't behave. Trouble is, that bullshit only works so long as the spell holds, and it isn't. Then we're left with untrained idiots ripping the place to pieces.

Religion is like legislation, it's designed by the untrustorthy to control the irresponsible. Better to learn responsibility.

EDIT: Amrit, I hadn't seen your post above but this addresses that too.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:..No, unortunately on our last day we don't even know we've died because the very last thing we know is that we're feeling a bit sleepy.

...and then you wake up and it was all a dream....No matter, only spirit!

No dream. Oblivion. The good part is we won't know.

bogbrush wrote:
EDIT: Amrit, I hadn't seen your post above but this addresses that too.

I think it would be more desirable for society if the most commonly held view was that there is something called 'life' and being alive, even if that's wrong. I don't think people would start doubting that massively (with religion it's much easier to pick the flaws). If everyone had your viewpoint, we could have some people murdering on the street thinking they're doing nothing wrong, killing people is just rearranging some atoms and molecules in a different less complex order.

bogbrush wrote:
Exactly, and this is why you think it's all such an amazing mystery - because you have no grasp of physics and process. I suspect you never will because the key is the confidence to release yourself from the fear of pointlessness.

Not only you do not know why there is instead of not having anything, but you don;t know the process either. And that is what I find really weird with you, cause you would not admit that! We know just a tiny bit of the process...so little. You have yet to explain everything.....including how this whole evolution you keep telling as if you discovered it yourself, started!!!!!You are clueless, just admit it.....if it does not break your spirit of course.

Religion is an inevitable product of various aspects of what I like to think of as the human condition, some of the more important in this context are our tendency to ask loads of questions, our desire for leadership and political organisation, and the existence of those who wish to lead (for a variety of motives, some beneficial, some selfish).

In the early days human perception of the world around us and the reasons for events & and actions and justifications for behaviour as well as societal, familial, and political organisation was 'religious' to a degree we'd scarcely credit now.  'Religious' belief underpinned the essence of ordering of families, communities, and wider societies.  This entrenched individuals and, latterly, organisations with great power or influence and helped bed in various rituals to which man turns in times of joy, unhappiness, even boredom, to help bond us together and collectively accept and make sense of what is going on - the desire, even the need, for rituals is another essential trait of the human condition.

As technological understanding grew (even in basic ways - such as global circumnavigation), so various articles of religious faith were undermined.  Also, decisive defeats of one society by another would often be accompanied by adoption of the victorious society's 'Gods', whether voluntarily or otherwise.  It is notable how tenaciously the Christian Church, and Muslim 'clerics' have fought, and continue to fight scientific truths which have undermined various articles of their faith.  The treatment of Galileo was disgraceful and he is merely one particularly famous example; there are even now Americans, living in the most technologically advanced society the world has seen, who talk about "Intelligent Design" and fight for it to be part of science curricula in a Canute-like attempt to stem the rushing tide.

Another aspect of the human condition is a dislike of being wrong, of accepting that things we have held to be true for a long time are wrong - we prefer instead to cluster with like minded folk and reinforce our pre-conceptions.

I therefore agree with Bogbrush that whilst religion is increasingly becoming problematic, there is a baby and bathwater situation which would make it undesirable and discombobulating, even were it possible (which it is not) to be able to terminate all religious belief tomorrow.  Nor is it a clever idea in the name of persuading people to abandon religion to insult their intelligence, or not to have an alternative persuasive belief system on hand.

What do we replace religion with (short answer to huge question...); we need to give up any fear of pointlessness in the wider scheme of things, and embrace the idea that even if it's all random, as human we can have valuable existence in the smaller happenstance world in which we live - and above all to accept that the Golden Rule (or do as you would be done by) is the best blueprint for any society yet devised and we must build all legal, political, familial and other arrangements from that - some to be enforced by law, others by morality/ethics, and, in extremis, some at the point of a gun in the case of enemies of the state.

Pretty much agree there Barry. I have always argued for the positive power of enlightened self-interest. If people stopped pretending they are capable of altruism but understood the value of willing, cooperative behaviour we’d be in a far better position.

For example, I’m an employer of a a few hundred people and I always say the only stable relationship is when both parties are better off in it than anywhere else. Screw this blind loyalty thing. I also always decline offers of long contracts from customers because I reckon the only stable commercial relationship is the one where I’m the best supplier and they’re the best customer. Keeps us all on our toes!

As for persuasive style, it’s a forum, and there’s a reason HMMurdoch said the TV character he associated with me was ‘House’. I’m much less sincere when I need to be.

That is a good post Barrystar.

For me the utility of beliefs/religions has to be separated from what is actually true. I only believe something if I feel it's as close to the truth as possible, but in terms of what others believe- I don't really care if what they think is true. The utility of their beliefs and the practical impact on society, including how happy they are, is probably more important than the truth.

Religions have some strong points on either side in terms of utility. On the one hand if it keeps people happy, even if that's delusional, that is a good thing. It gives people a lot of comfort and solace, the significance of which many atheists diminish. However on the other side, religions can preserve social values which are more oppressive and regressive- look at the world at the moment and theocratic countries have worse rights for women and gays.

However imo there's not much debate in terms of the utility of Bogbrush's belief. It's an absolute no go, the idea of the majority of people believing what he's saying (even if it's true which it probably is). I'm not talking about atheism (which many people already are), I'm talking about his analysis of how life doesn't really exist. If people had that it's easy to take a nihilistic attitude, after which many immoral actions like murder become neutral. Even your golden rule of 'treat others how you'd like to be treated' may not work, as there may be people who think their own life is valueless (nihilistic about themselves)- if we are just a combination of atoms and molecules organised temporarily in a complex fashion before being rearranged.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
Exactly, and this is why you think it's all such an amazing mystery - because you have no grasp of physics and process. I suspect you never will because the key is the confidence to release yourself from the fear of pointlessness.

Not only you do not know why there is instead of not having anything, but you don;t know the process either. And that is what I find really weird with you, cause you would not admit that! We know just a tiny bit of the process...so little. You have yet to explain everything.....including how this whole evolution you keep telling as if you discovered it yourself, started!!!!!You are clueless, just admit it.....if it does not break your spirit of course.  

I reckon if I counted up the posts you’ve made where you set out your own vision versus those where you find some lame way to attack me we’d be at about 3 -87, and the 3 is only if I allowed your theory that electrons are just so full of life.

Others have grasped it. I think you’re visibly struggling here.

I don’t kill anyone though Amrit. I honestly think there’s a complete picture of all this based on rational self interest which once grasped leads to constructive, peaceful behaviour.

bogbrush wrote:I don’t kill anyone though Amrit. I honestly think there’s a complete picture of all this based on rational self interest which once grasped leads to constructive, peaceful behaviour.

Yeah but I think the percentage who do would go up hugely. Of course huge numbers of people would still be very moral if they believed as you do (for example, I think you're very likely to be right and I'm a moral guy), but in terms of percentages of unthinkable deeds I do think there would be a big negative impact.
As for your second sentence, I'm not so sure, what happens if people thought in a nihilist way about themselves? This idea does lend itself to that more than the current thinking. Then their self interest would become irrelevant to them. You have concede some ground here, you may be right, but if it becomes a widespread belief in society that would create a plethora of problems.

Oh sadly you’re very right. I’m thinking of a term term enlightened state but the interim would be ...... difficult.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
Exactly, and this is why you think it's all such an amazing mystery - because you have no grasp of physics and process. I suspect you never will because the key is the confidence to release yourself from the fear of pointlessness.

Not only you do not know why there is instead of not having anything, but you don;t know the process either. And that is what I find really weird with you, cause you would not admit that! We know just a tiny bit of the process...so little. You have yet to explain everything.....including how this whole evolution you keep telling as if you discovered it yourself, started!!!!!You are clueless, just admit it.....if it does not break your spirit of course.  

I reckon if I counted up the posts you’ve made where you set out your own vision versus those where you find some lame way to attack me we’d be at about 3 -87, and the 3 is only if I allowed your theory that electrons are just so full of life.

Others have grasped it. I think you’re visibly struggling here.

I have only grasped you think you are dead.

I think you are right.

bogbrush wrote:Oh sadly you’re very right. I’m thinking of a term term enlightened state but the interim would be ...... difficult.

I think the problem is even deeper than that though. Even if people were in an 'enlightened state', if they are 100% sure in your theory of 'no life', it could naturally lead to nihilism by default. People would only have reason to live if they cared and had pleasure in either other humans or objects on this planet. If someone is desperate and without hope, bad things could result, and I'm not sure how any enlightened state would help.

barrystar wrote:Once AI has reached the degree of sophistication which he describes (and undoubtedly it will, far sooner than we realise before outstripping our capabilities to an extent we will probably unable to fathom), what about these machines which will be capable of our functions and more - they will be able to grasp matters such as feelings and empathy &c &c?  Will we need to accept as a matter of law or morality (or both) that they merit similar protection?

To me, the critical issue would be whether or not they genuinely have feelings.  However, my guess would be that we will not get to worry about it for two reasons:

First, I would expect that we will manage to create machines that will wipe out human race well before we manage to create machines that are anywhere near having true feelings.

Second, your question presupposes that, at the time we do create feeling machines, human rights will still be around.  That is a major assumption, and, once again, I would expect far more likely to be incorrect than not.

barrystar wrote:we need to [...] accept that the Golden Rule (or do as you would be done by) is the best blueprint for any society yet devised

The only way you can accept this is on faith.  Outside of faith, your statement is entirely vacuous.

Amrit, I don’t think the conclusion that we are organic machines necessarily leads to problems. We still ‘have’ to operate as we are, evolution has produced this outcome and we are trapped into the experience. The fact is I believe this but I pursue a constructive life. There will always be crazies and I think religion powers a lot more of that than would this view.

Summerblues, I think the AI will come quite rapidly, if it comes at all. The disaster scenario is if the evolutionary process gets to operate on it because if AI is able to self-improve then we have no idea how far or fast it could go.

summerblues wrote:

barrystar wrote:we need to [...] accept that the Golden Rule (or do as you would be done by) is the best blueprint for any society yet devised

The only way you can accept this is on faith.  Outside of faith, your statement is entirely vacuous.

?  

I don't get that at all.  The evidence is there that all societies who have based their arrangements on this rule are happier and more successful.  For example, the cornerstone idea of our society, 'rule of law', stems directly from the Golden Rule, as does the idea of 'one man one vote'.  This is another side of my baby and bathwater acknowledgement - in the West I believe we are very lucky to live in societies whose constitutional arrangements have been informed by the Judeo-Christian tradition and the key concept which derives from it that the smallest political unit is the individual (not a family lead by a pater familias or some other grouping capable of manipulation by a coterie of gay-hating misogynists who buttress their awfulness by reference to a god).  

Whilst the Golden Rule self-evidently started with a belief in God, its maintenance as the result of our observation over generations of its efficacy does not require any sort of 'faith' - in fact, one might say increasingly that it requires us rather aggressively to reject certain types of faith, political and religious (even strands of the faith which gave birth to it), which are somewhat inimical to it.

Computers and biological beings are very very different things. It's doubtful binary will ever manage to do with a cell manages to do - and it isn't anywhere near as clear cut an argument as you are again convincing yourself. In the event we create biological AI (possible on paper), that has all sorts of ethical issues. Binary AI that thinks and feels may actually be 100% impossible. If you understand the difference between how a cell operates and how binary does, you'll get it.  If you don't, you'll live in ignorance that this is an easy topic.

Honestly, what some of you here are doing is just annoying.   You talk as if black holes are science fact and you know what they're like, that binary AI is a thing of the future for sure... you probably also think worm holes and warp drive are real too.

Why not go the whole fucking hog? 

Shall we call this thread the OTF "Thread of the year"? ..and send it to Judith and Andy Murray?

Daniel wrote:Computers and biological beings are very very different things. It's doubtful binary will ever manage to do with a cell manages to do - and it isn't anywhere near as clear cut an argument as you are again convincing yourself. In the event we create biological AI (possible on paper), that has all sorts of ethical issues. Binary AI that thinks and feels may actually be 100% impossible. If you understand the difference between how a cell operates and how binary does, you'll get it.  If you don't, you'll live in ignorance that this is an easy topic.

Honestly, what some of you here are doing is just annoying.   You talk as if black holes are science fact and you know what they're like, that binary AI is a thing of the future for sure... you probably also think worm holes and warp drive are real too.

Why not go the whole fucking hog? 

They're really not.

Howe different do you think a simple invertebrate is from a supercomputer? They each receive information, process, react, and they do so in very predictable ways. One is a carbon based mechanism, the other not. Just a matter of time. Have you read much about quantum computing, where the uncertain nature of quantum particles will enable computing to go beyond the binary and increase computing powers by huge orders of magnitude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing

I guess you've heard of the Turing test?

Black holes aren't just science fact, they're observed fact. Actually their blackness is observed, and the mass inferred by conventional physics measurement of the behaviour of stellar bodies around them. The bit we don't see is the singularity. I keep pointing out the difference between them but you don't seem to get it. Not surprising really, you're the guy who actually thinks red is a thing!! Incredible!!!! 

Tenez wrote:Shall we call this thread the OTF "Thread of the year"? ..and send it to Judith and Andy Murray?

Good idea!
Alongside with congratulations for the birth of Mr and Mrs Murray's second daughter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41912592

How brilliant that "Andy", the fighter for women's rights now has two girls!

Regarding AI....Way to go! LOL

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41923814

Tenez wrote:Regarding AI....Way to go! LOL

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41923814

oooh!
now I see what AI stood for: artificial intelligence...I was wondering what it was.

I can see where it is going to lead, but a machine will always be a machine.

The real problem is with weakening men from inside, by making them fearful. They could even be scared of those machines...

Yes, they are, Bogbrush.  I am a computer programmer and have done shed loads of research into it.  You'll find a ton of good scientists who have the same thought that cells work in a way that no computer can emulate in the necessary way.  You reduce every argument to 1 and 0 - so it's kind of fitting that you don't have an in-between and love binary so much. You;'re supremely short sighted and want to believe everything is absolute. It isn't.

bogbrush wrote:Summerblues, I think the AI will come quite rapidly, if it comes at all.

I doubt AI will come at all in the format people are imagining it.  In certain aspects (e.g., raw computational speed in certain areas) computers are ahead of us by miles while in some others they are almost nowhere.

I really think we are quite likely to build computers that will destroy humanity far before we build anything that would be anywhere near being able to sustain itself.  The former is far easier than the latter.

barrystar wrote:I don't get that at all.

If one demanded that rules be based on reason, there would be only one rule: "anything goes".  Rules can only be accepted dogmatically or not at all - that is just how the world is built.

Any suggestion to the contrary (like your talk attempting to "justify" the Golden Rule) is but fluff trying to mask the reality that no such rules can be reasoned out.

Daniel wrote:Yes, they are, Bogbrush.  I am a computer programmer and have done shed loads of research into it.  You'll find a ton of good scientists who have the same thought that cells work in a way that no computer can emulate in the necessary way.  You reduce every argument to 1 and 0 - so it's kind of fitting that you don't have an in-between and love binary so much. You;'re supremely short sighted and want to believe everything is absolute. It isn't.

A computer programmer who's never heard of quantum computing. Or that the computer programme that recently beat the World "Go" champion has itself recently been trounced 100-0 by one who was never taught it, just learned by experience.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/computer-program-can-beat-humans-go-no-human-instruction

"The new AlphaGo Zero works more simply. First, it combines the move-picking network and the game-predicting network, making the program more efficient and flexible. Second, the combined neural network uses a new architecture that allows for many more layers of tunable artificial neurons than those in the first AlphaGo. Third, during training, the network and search tree work more closely to improve each other. With these changes, the program could skip the step of learning from human games."

"Led by computer scientist David Silver, the DeepMind team tested AlphaGo Zero against other computer programs to establish its strength on a rating scale called Elo. The version that defeated Sedol trained for months and reached an Elo rating of 3739. AlphaGo Zero surpassed that level in just 36 hours and eventually reached a rating of 5185, the researchers report today in Nature. AlphaGo Zero also trounced the older program 100 games to zero, even when it ran on just four processors, compared with the older AI’s 48"


It wasn't that long ago that we were told computers could never master chess in the way they did backgammon (which basic programmes are now unbeatable in the long term by humans) but that passed long ago. Go, with it's staggering permutations was deemed to be beyond computing power because they just compute all the moves don't they... but no, it turns out they can learn to play in a way that humans do, but just miles better. And this has only just started. The next version will destroy this one, and so on.

And they'll be turning soon to diagnosing your illness (already happening) and they'll have to learn human behaviour to do that (which they will) and so on and on...

And you're an expert? Cool. Do you do the excel spreadsheets for them or is it just coffee breaks?

Tenez wrote:Regarding AI....Way to go! LOL

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41923814

Yeah, because advanced technology always works perfectly straight away and when it doesn't it never improves.

Oh but hang on......

"Nobody was injured in the incident which city officials say was the fault of the human driver of the lorry. The man was subsequently given a ticket by police"


"The shuttle did what it was supposed to do and stopped. Unfortunately the human element, the driver of the truck, didn’t stop.”



Another epic fail!!   Thank you though, the internet rarely permits the kind of total win in a dispute between posters as was just witnessed there. 

bogbrush wrote:color=#536482]Another epic fail!![/color]   Thank you though, the internet rarely permits the kind of total win in a dispute between posters as was just witnessed there. 

Don't take it personally. I was taking the piss at technology. With a bit of wisdom (certainly a rare thing nowadays, yet to be seen in a computer), you'd know that every "improvement" comes with a "regression", and vice versa. Remember we are in a duality world. "Progress" has also come at the same time as the 2 worst wars ever along with atrocities we did not think could rest in a human brain and now we have no choice but to control small ones  to avoid even bigger wars which could take us back to the stone age if not further past. What is worrying is how  we currently have idiots at the top countries able to push the button. That is what we need to study. Who is pulling the strings which put us in such vulnerable situations? As I said earlier, horizontal knowledge will not get us anywhere, it's the vertical one which matters!

summerblues wrote:

barrystar wrote:I don't get that at all.

If one demanded that rules be based on reason, there would be only one rule: "anything goes".  Rules can only be accepted dogmatically or not at all - that is just how the world is built.

Any suggestion to the contrary (like your talk attempting to "justify" the Golden Rule) is but fluff trying to mask the reality that no such rules can be reasoned out.

Four points:

(1) My experience is that it is precisely dogmatic rules that over time lose public confidence and end up being ignored and discredited, it is rules that have a purpose which can be understood and respected and thereby can have an element of flexibility to meet developments which survive and can form the basis for development and improvement - one of the cardinal approaches towards any rule is to identify the 'mischief' that is is aimed at preventing - if the mischief goes or the rule doesn't function as designed, then it will be ignored and must change or die.  The Golden Rule stops a 'survival of the fittest' anarchy which keeps any human society that attempts to live by it in constant uncertainty and internecine warfare where the benefits of co-operation and exchange of ideas which we can see over history cannot be secured for our mutual benefits (as Hobbes said - life is nasty, brutish, and short).

(2) I don't base my views on pure reason - I think that rules need a combination of being able to be supported by reason coupled with evidence of their efficacy and that the approach of enlightened self-interest for initiating and developing them is as good a position as any.  The more educated a society, the easier a resort to reason as a buttress or a basis for a rule (but certainly not the only one).  I accept that in unsophisticated societies with low educational levels appeals to reason are less likely to take hold - which is where religion has made an historical contribution.  In that vein I have explicitly acknowledged that the starting point for the Golden Rule taking root was Christ's take on the Ten Commandments (Mark 12:31).  Over the years we can see how that approach has benefited societies who have attempted to adopt it in legal/ethical form - how of all the Christian teachings the efficacy of that approach has survived and been adaptable to the advances and changes in societies - how it enables societies to combine strengths for mutual benefit.  So, whilst I reject the 'bathwater' of a theistic God or Christ's divinity, I would keep the 'baby' of much of his teachings, and in particular the Golden Rule as the basis for our society not only because it seems a reasonable approach in its own right (which it does to me bearing in mind that man is a social/political animal), but because the evidence of centuries of the development of its application shows the good it does, that it works in practice.

(3) I'd say that in human society the notion of 'anything goes' can be seen to break down within days and months, if not hours, and certainly over the span of a generation or one charismatic leader - and even then the 'anything goes' tends not to operate within the society, indiscriminately between members of it, but between those who identify themselves as the society (who co-operate) and those they designate as their enemies - either within or without.  There has never been any society which has lasted with any stability which has adopted a pure 'anything goes' approach (namely indiscriminately internally and externally towards enemies).  By way of example, you could say that the Vikings had an 'anything goes' approach towards their enemies, but they were organised and hierarchical within their own society, as is evidenced by their ability to put together large armies of men who could leave their homesteads for long periods in the knowledge that they would be there when they got back, and that when they settled down in Normandy, Sicily, Kiev, Novgorad, Southern Italy and so many other places, their culture & organisation and the dynasties they set up survived, and were even dominant in places, for generations.

(4) Finally, you must express yourself how you wish, but for my part dismissing what I say as "fluff" doesn't add light, nor is use of derogatory terms like that the best way of persuading me to adopt your views.  That is particularly when, as far as I understand your post, you are seeking to knock down as "fluff" what I would term a 'pure reason' argument which incompletely describes the point I am making.

A computer programmer who's never heard of quantum computing.

Quantum computing isn't a replacement for a classical computer. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_IaVepNDT4&t=05m14s

Listen to what a real programmer and scientist says on the matter.

You simply haven't got a clue.  And, yes, I have.  That's why I know you are still talking shit.  Quantum computing - if possible - does not fix your problem. 

Is it me, or is anyone else realizing that BB thinks he's god?  I He seems to think he has EVERY answer to EVERYTHING.  Dear lord, get your head out of your own ass.

You're actually here now declaring binary (or if you like trinary lmao) AI as possible - when even the best scientists in the world are in disagreement as to what that even means.  Feeling, emotion, qualia... these are things that are massively disputed.  Sentience is too.  Yet, here you are... AGAIN.... with a massive lack of knowledge but absolute answers.  You aren't fooling me. You are not a leading scientist - and you don't know a fraction about this debate compared to me. It's getting tiresome seeing you give absolute answers on some of the biggest questions about the universe.

Stop.

If you had been around 10 years ago debating "black holes", you'd have cited Hawking and his now thoroughly debunked book (debunked by himself lmao) - as fact.  But it was just crackerjack nonsense. Doubt is one of the major parts of science - and you don't have it. 

Daniel wrote:..Is it me, or is anyone else realizing that BB thinks he's god?  I He seems to think he has EVERY answer to EVERYTHING.  Dear lord, get your head out of your own ass.[/color]

As said earlier, it's more or less a direct consequence of the fear of the unknown. A need to believe in tangible facts and erase everything else which might question those very "facts". Nothing wrong with that actually, in theory. It's just to me another "religion". Problem is that it is the worst for world preservation.

Daniel wrote:

A computer programmer who's never heard of quantum computing.

Quantum computing isn't a replacement for a classical computer. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_IaVepNDT4&t=05m14s

Listen to what a real programmer and scientist says on the matter.

You simply haven't got a clue.  And, yes, I have.  That's why I know you are still talking shit.  Quantum computing - if possible - does not fix your problem. 

Is it me, or is anyone else realizing that BB thinks he's god?  I He seems to think he has EVERY answer to EVERYTHING.  Dear lord, get your head out of your own ass.

You're actually here now declaring binary (or if you like trinary lmao) AI as possible - when even the best scientists in the world are in disagreement as to what that even means.  Feeling, emotion, qualia... these are things that are massively disputed.  Sentience is too.  Yet, here you are... AGAIN.... with a massive lack of knowledge but absolute answers.  You aren't fooling me. You are not a leading scientist - and you don't know a fraction about this debate compared to me. It's getting tiresome seeing you give absolute answers on some of the biggest questions about the universe.

Stop.

If you had been around 10 years ago debating "black holes", you'd have cited Hawking and his now thoroughly debunked book (debunked by himself lmao) - as fact.  But it was just crackerjack nonsense. Doubt is one of the major parts of science - and you don't have it. 

No, I don’t know everything. 

Once again tgecweakness of your argument demands acceptance of your conclusion to underpin it’s argument for existence. Feeling, emotion are nothing more than instinctive reactions with evolutionary causes. It’s obvious, if only you can think about it.

Still, I know not to debate based on what people “would” have said 10 years ago. As I have told you 4, maybe 5 times, black holes are observed fact - the singularity is not. You have trouble with that don’t you? As much trouble as grasping that there’s no such thing as red. 

Tenez wrote:

Daniel wrote:..Is it me, or is anyone else realizing that BB thinks he's god?  I He seems to think he has EVERY answer to EVERYTHING.  Dear lord, get your head out of your own ass.[/color]

As said earlier, it's more or less a direct consequence of the fear of the unknown. A need to believe in tangible facts and erase everything else which might question those very "facts". Nothing wrong with that actually, in theory. It's just to me another "religion". Problem is that it is the worst for world preservation.

You really have to get up a bit earlier to make that line work.

Got over your car crash post earlier yet?

barrystar wrote:Four points: [...]

Re: your points 1-3:

You say that it is the dogmatic rules that ultimately lose public confidence.  Presumably you then imply that non-dogmatic rules are preferable.  My point is that ultimately all rules are dogmatic.  There is no rule that can be created out of reason or observation, or otherwise, that would not ultimately appeal to a dogma.  It is not a question of whether we prefer dogmatic rules to non-dogmatic ones, it is that a construction of non-dogmatic rules is physically impossible.

The rules that we may think of as non-dogmatic, when put to a test, will ultimately reveal either a logical error in their construction, or an appeal to a dogma somewhere along the way.  The main difference between such rules and rules that explicitly appeal to a dogma is that the latter recognize they are based on a dogma.

You provide examples of how societies structure themselves.  Of course they do.  But I am not talking about that.  What I am saying is that for an individual, when he or she is trying to arrive at a set of rules, unless they are willing to accept a dogma along the way, the only rule will be "anything goes".  The fact that societies happen to adopt rules has no bearing on that.  No more than the fact that many societies over the years have postulated existence of God (and some His non-existence) has any bearing on God's existence.

Or, to put it perhaps even more bluntly:  without an appeal to a dogma, there is no way to choose between motherhood and apple pie on one hand, or death camps, gulags and killing fields on the other hand.  Both are equally fine.


Re: your point 4:

I apologize for the wording, it probably came out not right.  What I meant was that there is no way to justify a rule without a dogma, and that if one thinks they have done it, it just means they do not realize that the dogma is embedded somewhere in there.

bogbrush wrote:
No, I don’t know everything. 

Once again tgecweakness of your argument demands acceptance of your conclusion to underpin it’s argument for existence. Feeling, emotion are nothing more than instinctive reactions with evolutionary causes. It’s obvious, if only you can think about it.

Still, I know not to debate based on what people “would” have said 10 years ago. As I have told you 4, maybe 5 times, black holes are observed fact - the singularity is not. You have trouble with that don’t you? As much trouble as grasping that there’s no such thing as red. 

That is a start!

But oh....not a stationary, lone metaphysical  dot....

What don’t you know?

See, it takes a question to move on...

What is a question?

Now there’s a question!

And since you love evolutionism, another wuestion: how did question evolve?
Where did  it start?

And why does everything have to have a start in our minds?

See, evolution can’t live without time’s frame and time itself is a frame.


Where do you stand with time, BB?

Are you a line or a stubborn dot?

And how endless is that  dot? Can you see its bottom as you start sinkng down its spiral?
Solar system, atom...and how many endless subcosmoses we cannot see either way....

You see....there is no escape from eternity, yet you will one day be no longer dead. (since you refuse to admit you are alive now).


Forget about AI, quantuum computing...they are just boys’ toys....
Time to grow up.


Oh t’s that word time again!!!!

Word!

But let’s leave that beauty for some other time...

One needs to try hard to change direction from horozontal to vertical.

Because we cannot stop doubting.

And where does horozontal doubting lead to - cynicism, depression, vacuum.

We need a healthy doubt, the one that will take us to light, how ever faint at the end of the tunnel.

So, direction is everything.

Now...how does one go about it?

Is there a formula?

No there isn’t...we all have to walk our own paths, make those steps.

For me, and a few more honest brave people that talked about it, the vertical line started with tears, baptism, and washing of heart. 

Is it an acciednt cross is a symbol of christianity?

A horizontal and a vertical line that CROSS?

Hey, that point, that moment, that eternity where the two meet...Humility!!!!

Now can any one of you tell what humility is with scientific words?
What is the formula of humility?

Let us be humble and think and be glad we know little..?

It’s a cross because a guy got nailed to one and some people put it around he’d come back to life. It was a standard form of execution by Romans.

Joy of ignorance is pathetic. Trying to disguise it as wisdom is even worse.

bogbrush wrote:It’s a cross because a guy got nailed to one and some people put it around he’d come back to life. It was a standard form of execution by Romans.

Joy of ignorance is pathetic. Trying to disguise it as wisdom is even worse.

Yep, you nailed it...to the cross of truth!

(of course, horizontally speaking cross is a method of execution...but how odd we don’t use it any more...and that Christ was around in the time when we did)

Ignorance is joy (great and daily) to those that are on a vertical path...and pathetic to those who tread the horizontal one.

You need to crucify your pride BB and admit you don’t know much...it’s liberating.

In fact you did admit in one of the previous posts you don’t know everything.

When your ego is ready, maybe you can tell us what is it you don’t know...what is/are your unanswered question(s)?

Don’t worry, this was a rhetorical request....do it in the silence of your own horozontal darkness and maybe the echo will vanish one day...if you ask that question loud enough and tear the wall of pride down.

No, ignorance is fine, inevitable, and resolving it is a worthwhile pursuit.

Revelling in not knowing and using it to hide desperate religious neediness behind cod wisdom is what’s pathetic.

bogbrush wrote:No, ignorance is fine, inevitable, and resolving it is a worthwhile pursuit.

Revelling in not knowing and using it to hide desperate religious neediness behind cod wisdom is what’s pathetic.

The point is ignorance cannot be resolved. The more you learn the more you realise how much you don’t know...and that there is no “resolving” of that problem...until it stops being a problem with admitting it.

And the need to humble oneself is a desperate need however you want to call it - religious need or self-evolution...

That’s why Daniel is right to say you think you are God, or at least have that aspiration...but you are not alone...there are billions of BBs in this world.

However unique we all are, there is nothing new under the sun...

Another question:

Why do people climb mountains?

Why some climb Mount Everest?
What are they hoping to find when they get to the top?
Top of the world.

And do they find it....

Many even keep climbing it over and over...

And people have different “everests”....best this, best that...world number one...all fine and valid, nothing wrong in bettering oneself...but the hardest is climbing the spiritual mountain.

noleisthebest wrote:Another question:

Why do people climb mountains?

Why some climb Mount Everest?
What are they hoping to find when they get to the top?
Top of the world.

And do they find it....

Many even keep climbing it over and over...

And people have different “everests”....best this, best that...world number one...all fine and valid, nothing wrong in bettering oneself...but the hardest is climbing the spiritual mountain.

Competitiveness.

bogbrush wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Another question:

Why do people climb mountains?

Why some climb Mount Everest?
What are they hoping to find when they get to the top?
Top of the world.

And do they find it....

Many even keep climbing it over and over...

And people have different “everests”....best this, best that...world number one...all fine and valid, nothing wrong in bettering oneself...but the hardest is climbing the spiritual mountain.

Competitiveness.

BB,
you have to make your mind up whether you are dead or alive.
Because dead people can’t be competitive. You need consciousness in order to be aware of the presence of other “dead” person, and then compete.
Just like when eg Federer and Nadal played in AO final...don’t know who was deader of the two...

No, you don't. There's a straightforward path from atoms to us with a cause based on observed facts and a process that's been tested relentlessly that has no need of these concepts that only existed, after all, to make sense of an outcome that people couldn't understand.

It's disturbing to those who've made huge emotional investment in these concepts though. I don't know if you'd really want to think about it.

summerblues wrote:

barrystar wrote:Four points: [...]

Re: your points 1-3:

You say that it is the dogmatic rules that ultimately lose public confidence.  Presumably you then imply that non-dogmatic rules are preferable.  My point is that ultimately all rules are dogmatic.  There is no rule that can be created out of reason or observation, or otherwise, that would not ultimately appeal to a dogma.  It is not a question of whether we prefer dogmatic rules to non-dogmatic ones, it is that a construction of non-dogmatic rules is physically impossible.

The rules that we may think of as non-dogmatic, when put to a test, will ultimately reveal either a logical error in their construction, or an appeal to a dogma somewhere along the way.  The main difference between such rules and rules that explicitly appeal to a dogma is that the latter recognize they are based on a dogma.

You provide examples of how societies structure themselves.  Of course they do.  But I am not talking about that.  What I am saying is that for an individual, when he or she is trying to arrive at a set of rules, unless they are willing to accept a dogma along the way, the only rule will be "anything goes".  The fact that societies happen to adopt rules has no bearing on that.  No more than the fact that many societies over the years have postulated existence of God (and some His non-existence) has any bearing on God's existence.

Or, to put it perhaps even more bluntly:  without an appeal to a dogma, there is no way to choose between motherhood and apple pie on one hand, or death camps, gulags and killing fields on the other hand.  Both are equally fine.


Re: your point 4:

I apologize for the wording, it probably came out not right.  What I meant was that there is no way to justify a rule without a dogma, and that if one thinks they have done it, it just means they do not realize that the dogma is embedded somewhere in there.

Thanks for this answer - we obviously disagree, I'm not sure whether an element of it is down to terminology, or it is really as fundamental as it appears.  I think you still slightly mischaracterise my position - I do accept that the Golden Rule started as a religious command - so it was dogmatic in its origin in that sense - and that may be why it took hold initially, but that it's merit is that it stands on its own feet if challenged as a matter of rationality.  I really don't see how an individual gets his or herself to 'anything goes'.  Forgive me if I ask some questions - but could you describe how one gets to 'anything goes', also, can you give an example of a dogmatic rule which work because it is dogmatic, and a non-dogmatic rule which either has been tried and failed?