generally speaking, do you think that a perfect modelling of your brain electronically, with the inputs and outputs of your meat-suit, and the instantaneous state of your electric fluxuations, would be another "you".
or is there something intrinsically special about your meatsuit that, despite more computational power and detail than you can imagine, cannot be reproduces in an alternate medium? i don't think there's anything significantly special about our physical analog brains, that one cannot reproduce it's pattern at some future point.
mind-body duality yes, to an extent, but probably not the historical interpretation.
yes, but they compose the framework. the specific pattern of electrical activity i think is me. maybe. hard to tell. i think "you" are an ephemeral ever shifting pattern bouncing between your chemical interactions... well, also mechanical.
bleh, also, chemical is not specific enough for semantic debate.
apparently, energy isn't a chemical. information and organization aren't chemicals either.
the question is do you want to do this colloquially or full on scientifically?
ahem, and if i were to say that i believe the core part of me, my consiousness, is a persistent and established physics reaction on a framework laid about by chemical reactions?
electrons are arguably more important to "who" you are, and chemicals to "what".
i've googled, please provide link. from what i read,
he could not return "guilty" of murder and was the lone holdout. after more deliberation the "guilty" camp actually lost people too. and there were numerous questions about the difference between a voluntary manslaughter conviction and a murder conviction.
voir dire is the prosecution and defense's responsibility too.
"How do your Native American, First Nations, and/ or Hawaiian friends react when you describe their cultures in these terms to their faces?"
oh what noble savagery. don't romanticize or idealize those nations and those times. hawaii was unified by war under kamehameha, war war war, that is the natural state of humanity it seems. north america was no different.
I include western europe when I speak of christendom.
the freedom I value most is actually that of speech. and britain's got some hatespeech laws on the books that I object to. i'd rather they legislate actions, not words, and not thoughts. but there are some countries in the western world that come close.
"Yeah, we see the spittle-lipped exports over here from time to time ; trying to invade our schools to brainwash other people's children; trying to limit our rights to choose how to carry out health care. Even trying to control what films we can see in the cinema. They don't like to be treated with contempt, but they're getting more likely to be treated with edged weapons."
also, nothing wrong with jews that europe wasn't entirely responsible for.
more jews in 'murica than in israel.
"German Interviewer: Mr. Williams, why do you think there's not so much comedy in Germany? Williams: Did you ever think you killed all the funny people?"
I'm american, the christian culture and roots have colored me to my outlook, to my language, it's inextricably permeated the fabric of my character. it has in part contributed and built a society that is better than all that have come before it, i'm happy with that too. i would not live in any other country on earth, i value too much the gaurantees on my freedoms that my birthright gives me. any other country on earth. christian values have helped build these things, these freedoms, there have been missteps along the way, but always we move toward progress. Again, i am made so that I cannot believe, but i also cannot ignore what those that do believe have brought to the table.
damn right, in god's country, in the good ole United States of 'murica.
a 30 year period where people think his birthday was. which isn't tied to the 25th at all. and 0 point of the years. as you should have interpreted i meant.
you may use whatever year numbering system you want, and many cultures do maintain their own internal year counting system. but you MUST know the western one. Good or bad, the role and impact that christendom has had on global affairs, requires that one use their calendar to function.
yes, let's just take the tactic of the young earth creationists and the intelligent design proponents for our own.
you throw out the tenets of an entire field of scientific study, because they're not in keeping with your world view, you are doing the same thing as those you look down on.
how much first hand evidence would you expect for a jewish carpenter living on the fringes of the roman empire? one cult among many cults, that only rose to prominence because it got lucky?
it's a damn miracle that it got the two mentions it did.
for those that are, apparently, the probability is that it is more likely that there was a historical jesus than not.
perused a bit, seems like you could liken the "christ myth theory" as a splinter theory that the majority of scholars of the subject dismiss. and that the two points widely accepted as being historic in jesus' life are the crucifixion, and baptism by john the baptist. everything else is argued over. the first because some roman scholar mentioned that the "christus" was executed by pontius pilate, and spoke dismissively about christianity. - later scholarship would probably remove that part, etc etc it was confirmed by some jewish scholar too. and the john the baptist baptism wouldn't stay in if they made it up for some purpose later on. because it implies that jesus had sins to wash away, and it positioned john the baptist as someone capable of washing away the sins of christ.
"If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."
apparently, study of ancient history falls apart if we require the kind of proof that you're looking for for a historical jesus.
poles, the arctic and antarctic ice receded, and the earth got less pumpkin shaped and more billiard shaped. the ice at the poles was compressing the earth's volume to the equator, once the ice melted, the poles sprung back and the equator circumference got slightly smaller.
... revisionism at its best. was christ born in that vicinity of years? yes, the man later to be known as christ was born in a 30 year window of that time. was he a jew yes. was he the son of god? debatable. saying christ's existence in relation to the year 0 is mythological, is not historically accurate.
there was a dude, later people worshipped him as the son of god. we use his putative birthday as the 0 point of our calendar. that's all acceptable to me, as one so made that I cannot believe, yet living in a christian dominated society, living in an era that has been fundamentally shaped and defined by christian nations and their various wars.
I will not deny that christ existed, as I will not deny that muhammad existed, or that moses, ramses ii or joseph smith existed.
religions surrounding messianic figures do not spring ex nihilo.
well, that had more to do with prior restraint and censorship. prohibitions on what to say.
it is perhaps, not ideal, but acceptable, to assess and penalize the consequences of speech. but I'd rather see them taken case by case, with judge and jury erring on the side of less restraint rather than more.
as christopher hitches was wont to point out. the case in which oliver wendall holmes made the "fire" analogy, was decided against the person, who in this case, was distributing pamplets, which encouraged young men to resist the draft for world war 1.
by our present standard, the pampleteers were convicted and imprisoned for political speech. no calls to violence. no calls for violent acts. no mass panic.
Resist entanglement in foreign wars, that's all they were saying.
"Sometimes I wonder if Lincoln didn't make a massive mistake in going to war with the South. Sure he forced them back into the union where the emancipation proclamation could be enforced - but what did that actually achieve ? The South sure didn't become any less racist. Jim Crow still happened, and Trump still got elected (and the South were pretty critical to that process)."
that's literally your first paragraph. suggesting that perhaps the civil war wasn't worth it because even though slavery was ended, racism was not.
i meant equating them morally when calling your comparison hyperbolic,apologies, dropped a word in there and changed the accusation, that's on me.
they are not equally morally evil. making a person property, is nowhere close to be as morally benign as simply hating a person irrationally.
:) and it's his right as an American to say, "those fuckers should be stripped of their US citizenship and thrown in jail." as a true-blooded american, he can want it as much as he wants. doesn't mean he'll try to do something about it. "they should be" isn't the same as "i'm going to try to". probably because there are definitely distasteful things that people do that you wish you could throw them in jail for.
"...working towards a fairer and better society, are things to be proud of."
i think that is the disconnect between what they think of SJW's and what you think of them.
If you want a better world, I hope you're donating to charities, money or time, or volunteering with habitat or something. you know actual work that actually helps people. walk for cancer, march of dimes etc. etc.
ranting on twitter doesn't count as "working towards a fairer and better society."
those protests after the election were hilarious. some people treated them as cry-ins... which is, adorbs? and other people chanted "not my president." which... yes he is. and still others walking around trying to flip cars.
meanwhile, I'm just sitting there, wondering what goal they're trying to achieve, how they think they'll achieve it, and why i find it all so hilarious?
Slashdot Mirror
generally speaking, do you think that a perfect modelling of your brain electronically, with the inputs and outputs of your meat-suit, and the instantaneous state of your electric fluxuations, would be another "you".
or is there something intrinsically special about your meatsuit that, despite more computational power and detail than you can imagine, cannot be reproduces in an alternate medium? i don't think there's anything significantly special about our physical analog brains, that one cannot reproduce it's pattern at some future point.
mind-body duality yes, to an extent, but probably not the historical interpretation.
yes, but they compose the framework. the specific pattern of electrical activity i think is me. maybe. hard to tell. i think "you" are an ephemeral ever shifting pattern bouncing between your chemical interactions... well, also mechanical.
bleh, also, chemical is not specific enough for semantic debate.
apparently, energy isn't a chemical. information and organization aren't chemicals either.
the question is do you want to do this colloquially or full on scientifically?
stovetop works just as good, or apparently brown bag+microwave.
air popped is more fun, and you can apparently roast your own coffee with one if you get the right gadget.
but air-popped lets you control the oil.
try nutritional yeast with a bit of salt.
it's a good topper.
ahem, and if i were to say that i believe the core part of me, my consiousness, is a persistent and established physics reaction on a framework laid about by chemical reactions?
electrons are arguably more important to "who" you are, and chemicals to "what".
obligatory xkcd.
https://xkcd.com/435/
essentially this, most fines i think are like that, "if you want to continue doing business with us, you'll pay us"
yes, and I believe gitmo is the pinnacle of human rights values.
washington, lincoln, and roosevelt, both, would like a word with you.
certainly not the worst, but by no means the best.
i've googled, please provide link. from what i read,
he could not return "guilty" of murder and was the lone holdout. after more deliberation the "guilty" camp actually lost people too. and there were numerous questions about the difference between a voluntary manslaughter conviction and a murder conviction.
voir dire is the prosecution and defense's responsibility too.
... i can't see the trolls for the trees in this thread...
well played sirs, well played.
"How do your Native American, First Nations, and/ or Hawaiian friends react when you describe their cultures in these terms to their faces?"
oh what noble savagery. don't romanticize or idealize those nations and those times. hawaii was unified by war under kamehameha, war war war, that is the natural state of humanity it seems. north america was no different.
I include western europe when I speak of christendom.
the freedom I value most is actually that of speech. and britain's got some hatespeech laws on the books that I object to.
i'd rather they legislate actions, not words, and not thoughts.
but there are some countries in the western world that come close.
"Yeah, we see the spittle-lipped exports over here from time to time ; trying to invade our schools to brainwash other people's children; trying to limit our rights to choose how to carry out health care. Even trying to control what films we can see in the cinema. They don't like to be treated with contempt, but they're getting more likely to be treated with edged weapons."
yeah, but they're adorable in their flailing.
cuz real 'muricans don't need no stinkin' facts.
also, nothing wrong with jews that europe wasn't entirely responsible for.
more jews in 'murica than in israel.
"German Interviewer: Mr. Williams, why do you think there's not so much comedy in Germany?
Williams: Did you ever think you killed all the funny people?"
I'm american, the christian culture and roots have colored me to my outlook, to my language, it's inextricably permeated the fabric of my character. it has in part contributed and built a society that is better than all that have come before it, i'm happy with that too. i would not live in any other country on earth, i value too much the gaurantees on my freedoms that my birthright gives me. any other country on earth. christian values have helped build these things, these freedoms, there have been missteps along the way, but always we move toward progress. Again, i am made so that I cannot believe, but i also cannot ignore what those that do believe have brought to the table.
damn right, in god's country, in the good ole United States of 'murica.
a 30 year period where people think his birthday was. which isn't tied to the 25th at all. and 0 point of the years. as you should have interpreted i meant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
you may use whatever year numbering system you want, and many cultures do maintain their own internal year counting system. but you MUST know the western one. Good or bad, the role and impact that christendom has had on global affairs, requires that one use their calendar to function.
good day sir.
yes, let's just take the tactic of the young earth creationists and the intelligent design proponents for our own.
you throw out the tenets of an entire field of scientific study, because they're not in keeping with your world view, you are doing the same thing as those you look down on.
how much first hand evidence would you expect for a jewish carpenter living on the fringes of the roman empire? one cult among many cults, that only rose to prominence because it got lucky?
it's a damn miracle that it got the two mentions it did.
i'm not an expert, neither are you, but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.abc.net.au/religion...
for those that are, apparently, the probability is that it is more likely that there was a historical jesus than not.
perused a bit, seems like you could liken the "christ myth theory" as a splinter theory that the majority of scholars of the subject dismiss. and that the two points widely accepted as being historic in jesus' life are the crucifixion, and baptism by john the baptist. everything else is argued over. the first because some roman scholar mentioned that the "christus" was executed by pontius pilate, and spoke dismissively about christianity. - later scholarship would probably remove that part, etc etc it was confirmed by some jewish scholar too. and the john the baptist baptism wouldn't stay in if they made it up for some purpose later on. because it implies that jesus had sins to wash away, and it positioned john the baptist as someone capable of washing away the sins of christ.
"If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."
apparently, study of ancient history falls apart if we require the kind of proof that you're looking for for a historical jesus.
poles, the arctic and antarctic ice receded, and the earth got less pumpkin shaped and more billiard shaped. the ice at the poles was compressing the earth's volume to the equator, once the ice melted, the poles sprung back and the equator circumference got slightly smaller.
... revisionism at its best. was christ born in that vicinity of years? yes, the man later to be known as christ was born in a 30 year window of that time. was he a jew yes. was he the son of god? debatable. saying christ's existence in relation to the year 0 is mythological, is not historically accurate.
there was a dude, later people worshipped him as the son of god. we use his putative birthday as the 0 point of our calendar.
that's all acceptable to me, as one so made that I cannot believe, yet living in a christian dominated society, living in an era that has been fundamentally shaped and defined by christian nations and their various wars.
I will not deny that christ existed, as I will not deny that muhammad existed, or that moses, ramses ii or joseph smith existed.
religions surrounding messianic figures do not spring ex nihilo.
hate to say it, but sounds like you deserve it.
well, that had more to do with prior restraint and censorship. prohibitions on what to say.
it is perhaps, not ideal, but acceptable, to assess and penalize the consequences of speech. but I'd rather see them taken case by case, with judge and jury erring on the side of less restraint rather than more.
the EU has erred on the side of more restraint.
blasphemy laws for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
EU not really that much, though germany and austria have some fine... and ireland it looks. anyway...
as hitchens pointed out
'who is "good" enough to decide what is acceptable and what isn't?' who would you have decide for you what you can and cannot see?
as christopher hitches was wont to point out. the case in which oliver wendall holmes made the "fire" analogy, was decided against the person, who in this case, was distributing pamplets, which encouraged young men to resist the draft for world war 1.
by our present standard, the pampleteers were convicted and imprisoned for political speech.
no calls to violence. no calls for violent acts. no mass panic.
Resist entanglement in foreign wars, that's all they were saying.
"Sometimes I wonder if Lincoln didn't make a massive mistake in going to war with the South. Sure he forced them back into the union where the emancipation proclamation could be enforced - but what did that actually achieve ? The South sure didn't become any less racist. Jim Crow still happened, and Trump still got elected (and the South were pretty critical to that process)."
that's literally your first paragraph. suggesting that perhaps the civil war wasn't worth it because even though slavery was ended, racism was not.
i meant equating them morally when calling your comparison hyperbolic,apologies, dropped a word in there and changed the accusation, that's on me.
they are not equally morally evil. making a person property, is nowhere close to be as morally benign as simply hating a person irrationally.
yeah, i was kind of surprised is all. campus cops were glorified security guards where we were.
i'm just pointing out to you that equating racism to slavery is hyperbolic. they are not same thing, and stating they are so is disingenuous at best.
:) and it's his right as an American to say, "those fuckers should be stripped of their US citizenship and thrown in jail." as a true-blooded american, he can want it as much as he wants. doesn't mean he'll try to do something about it. "they should be" isn't the same as "i'm going to try to". probably because there are definitely distasteful things that people do that you wish you could throw them in jail for.
"...working towards a fairer and better society, are things to be proud of."
i think that is the disconnect between what they think of SJW's and what you think of them.
If you want a better world, I hope you're donating to charities, money or time, or volunteering with habitat or something. you know actual work that actually helps people. walk for cancer, march of dimes etc. etc.
ranting on twitter doesn't count as "working towards a fairer and better society."
those protests after the election were hilarious. some people treated them as cry-ins... which is, adorbs? and other people chanted "not my president." which... yes he is. and still others walking around trying to flip cars.
meanwhile, I'm just sitting there, wondering what goal they're trying to achieve, how they think they'll achieve it, and why i find it all so hilarious?