It must be nice having one's job responsibilities be naming off science fiction movie concepts, rather than analysis and practical application of actual science.
We have not even the broadest notion of how to "download human consciousness into computers".
No, you falsely define "evidence", and then base your argument on that directly-false definition.
We could go into the history of Logical Positivism, which has thoroughly refuted your whole methodology here as a valid constraint on human knowledge (epistemology), but I'll simplify it for you.
If you find your significant other in bed with someone else, you have all the evidence of it happening you need, and in no way have to replicate the event for me for it to be "evidence". "Evidence" simply doesn't mean what you wish to misrepresent it to mean.
It is in no way "my job" to do anything. It is in no way my job to satisfy your demands for what you'll accept as evidence--the answer to that already clear as "nothing whatsoever". You've thoroughly demonstrated that by your rejection of findings of physics per se--when they don't correspond to your preconceived biases.
Yes, you have absolutely no evidence of a Prime Mover.
That in no way means there is no evidence. It just means you haven't, or refuse to, do a simple Google search on the matter.
Here's a few terms to try for a great deal of evidence:
"holographic universe" "Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" "testimonies of religious experience" "Lancet peer-reviewed NDE study" "religious persecution of Rome" "prophecy fulfillment"
Yes, we could do the standard thing and watch you equivocate "evidence" to mean "proof" (it doesn't, nor am I proposing to force-convert you as the inescapable logical consequence of being provided "proof"), or try to ludicrously narrow the scope of the subject at hand (e.g. I don't find "Prime Mover" in these searches at all!), or claim that if you have an alternate explanation for an item of evidence, it then ceases to be evidence (it doesn't, in this or any other context whatsoever).
All are commonplace. Neither are interesting or philosophically sound. Neither alters the fact I can simply wait until you are unable to continue this, or any, argument--according to you yourself. I suggest a re-evaluation of strategy.
In your extremely constrained context of discussion, perhaps.
The primary reason to consider that causality applies here as well is that the overwhelming majority of phenomena we observe does, and if I ask if you'd naturally then question any other phenomenon we observe as having any cause at all, I don't really need to hear your answer, nor your psychological motivation for special pleading this in particular.
And yes, there is evidence, a great deal of it. How is it you know the sum totality of evidence experienced by other people than yourself, anyway? Psychic powers?
Occam was...
a) theist
b) clearly rejecting this now-ubiquitous notion that his Razor could ever be used to arbitrate what is actually the case--rather, given multiple possible models with precisely equivalent evidence, it advocates the simplest one should be used purely for conceptual economy; it says nothing about what is true or "probably true"
Your random generation loop has run once, insofar as there is scientific evidence.
Since the odds of a sequentially dependent set of events cannot be greater than the step with the -least- probability, it is the fact out of all possible physical laws and initial conditions, we have sentient life rather than "space-time goo" that is the more relevant constraint at hand.
Provide a counter-demonstration and whip up a sentient AI.
As this discussion rapidly devolves into the standard "you can't define rigorously the term 'complex', therefore even though both of us are perfectly clear what it is, you have no point I'll acknowledge until then" intellectual dishonesty, I'll pass on further followup--for now.
"For more than 200 years, we have believed in the science of determinism..."
Our culture being steeped in Newtonian mechanics (where everything is fundamentally predictable) for a very long time has had a strong psychological influence, even after QM comes along to show that determinism itself is very questionable as a principle.
Supervenience is a trickier question than most realize, even top-flight physicists.
Like Orwell's "Animal Farm", you have some basic knowledge of the subject matter when you're capable of telling metaphor from literal principles.
I trust you'll be spending no time with a smarmy and mentally-confused attack on that work. This isn't every other book in existence, this is the bible--right? That has your special rules.
Ketamine can produce effects of experiences corresponding to every perception on Earth, all of which can be unquestionably real.
That this is the case for NDE's as well, is irrelevant. The NDE's are remarkable for exactly the reasons stated, and are evidence for exactly the reasons stated. After you again claim it isn't evidence, it will remain exactly the evidence it is.
Okay, yes, I agree with your diagram. I think we're getting some semantics confusion here. By "God" I was referencing "God the Father", while "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" are also valid constructions.
Saying that "Christ is God's body" though, is a somewhat unclear rendering to me, though, that I have not heard used.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas "triad", from trinus "threefold")[1] defines God as three consubstantial persons,[2] expressions, or hypostases:[3] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.[5][6][7]
Ah, no. I have to presume you are hearing this from a Mormon stance, which is a directly-false restatement of Christian theological history, to try to "retrofit" legitimacy to their erroneous positions.
Let's simplify. Is it your understanding that Jesus was conceived by God in a physical body with Mary (i.e. by "regular sex")? Do you consider this to represent the historical Trinitarian position?
Read. Just read. Or, stop lying in comically transparent ways.
Both NDE's and ketamine experiences he considers spiritual, and this is totally at odds with your "just hallucinations" position. From that stance, both NDE's and ketamine are a "door" to that spiritual reality, which he considers to involve quantum phenomena as it's underlying "substrate". That aside, in no way is he saying that ketamine experiences refute the spiritual reality of NDE's.
Slashdot Mirror
You have what you believe, I have what I know.
Sure.
In fact, we should even then restudy your quote, say, in 150 years.
Pencil you in? Bring friends.
More consequential is that you read again.
He said, "O Lord, there are many around the drinking trough, but there is nothing in the cistern."
Oh. So, you have something entirely made-up to suggest.
will have to decide whether a human created by man should enjoy the same protection as a human created by their god
What protection do you think you have now, and why?
Since I know you won't invoke a "soul", show me your "has rights" DNA sequence in contrast to other animals' "does not have rights" sequence.
Bonus points if you are a vegetarian, and thus not a total lifelong hypocrite.
So, then, I'd invoke prior art from two thousand years ago, and ask Huawei the natural follow-on question regarding their hypothetical product:
"On the day when you were one you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"
(Thomas 11)
It must be nice having one's job responsibilities be naming off science fiction movie concepts, rather than analysis and practical application of actual science.
We have not even the broadest notion of how to "download human consciousness into computers".
400 years? Sounds about the time fractional reserve banking started. Difference is back then lending what you didn't own was illegal, and hidden.
No, you falsely define "evidence", and then base your argument on that directly-false definition.
We could go into the history of Logical Positivism, which has thoroughly refuted your whole methodology here as a valid constraint on human knowledge (epistemology), but I'll simplify it for you.
If you find your significant other in bed with someone else, you have all the evidence of it happening you need, and in no way have to replicate the event for me for it to be "evidence". "Evidence" simply doesn't mean what you wish to misrepresent it to mean.
It is in no way "my job" to do anything. It is in no way my job to satisfy your demands for what you'll accept as evidence--the answer to that already clear as "nothing whatsoever". You've thoroughly demonstrated that by your rejection of findings of physics per se--when they don't correspond to your preconceived biases.
Sorry, I will have to defer for a while my evaluation of you as a pile of dirt.
Rest assured, though, it will happen.
Yes, you have absolutely no evidence of a Prime Mover.
That in no way means there is no evidence. It just means you haven't, or refuse to, do a simple Google search on the matter.
Here's a few terms to try for a great deal of evidence:
"holographic universe"
"Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics"
"testimonies of religious experience"
"Lancet peer-reviewed NDE study"
"religious persecution of Rome"
"prophecy fulfillment"
Direct recent study link if that's too much work.
Yes, we could do the standard thing and watch you equivocate "evidence" to mean "proof" (it doesn't, nor am I proposing to force-convert you as the inescapable logical consequence of being provided "proof"), or try to ludicrously narrow the scope of the subject at hand (e.g. I don't find "Prime Mover" in these searches at all!), or claim that if you have an alternate explanation for an item of evidence, it then ceases to be evidence (it doesn't, in this or any other context whatsoever).
All are commonplace. Neither are interesting or philosophically sound. Neither alters the fact I can simply wait until you are unable to continue this, or any, argument--according to you yourself. I suggest a re-evaluation of strategy.
In your extremely constrained context of discussion, perhaps.
The primary reason to consider that causality applies here as well is that the overwhelming majority of phenomena we observe does, and if I ask if you'd naturally then question any other phenomenon we observe as having any cause at all, I don't really need to hear your answer, nor your psychological motivation for special pleading this in particular.
And yes, there is evidence, a great deal of it. How is it you know the sum totality of evidence experienced by other people than yourself, anyway? Psychic powers?
Occam was... a) theist b) clearly rejecting this now-ubiquitous notion that his Razor could ever be used to arbitrate what is actually the case--rather, given multiple possible models with precisely equivalent evidence, it advocates the simplest one should be used purely for conceptual economy; it says nothing about what is true or "probably true"
Your random generation loop has run once, insofar as there is scientific evidence.
Since the odds of a sequentially dependent set of events cannot be greater than the step with the -least- probability, it is the fact out of all possible physical laws and initial conditions, we have sentient life rather than "space-time goo" that is the more relevant constraint at hand.
Very.
Provide a counter-demonstration and whip up a sentient AI.
As this discussion rapidly devolves into the standard "you can't define rigorously the term 'complex', therefore even though both of us are perfectly clear what it is, you have no point I'll acknowledge until then" intellectual dishonesty, I'll pass on further followup--for now.
It will be interesting to see how "IRB approval" helps them... very long term.
From whom?
Would that be an ethics board consisting of investors, politicians, or an objective mix of both?
"For more than 200 years, we have believed in the science of determinism..."
Our culture being steeped in Newtonian mechanics (where everything is fundamentally predictable) for a very long time has had a strong psychological influence, even after QM comes along to show that determinism itself is very questionable as a principle.
Supervenience is a trickier question than most realize, even top-flight physicists.
Like Orwell's "Animal Farm", you have some basic knowledge of the subject matter when you're capable of telling metaphor from literal principles.
I trust you'll be spending no time with a smarmy and mentally-confused attack on that work. This isn't every other book in existence, this is the bible--right? That has your special rules.
Ketamine can produce effects of experiences corresponding to every perception on Earth, all of which can be unquestionably real.
That this is the case for NDE's as well, is irrelevant. The NDE's are remarkable for exactly the reasons stated, and are evidence for exactly the reasons stated. After you again claim it isn't evidence, it will remain exactly the evidence it is.
Okay, yes, I agree with your diagram. I think we're getting some semantics confusion here. By "God" I was referencing "God the Father", while "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" are also valid constructions.
Saying that "Christ is God's body" though, is a somewhat unclear rendering to me, though, that I have not heard used.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas "triad", from trinus "threefold")[1] defines God as three consubstantial persons,[2] expressions, or hypostases:[3] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.[5][6][7]
This is the Trinitarian position. Jesus (the Christ) is not "God's body".
Ah, no. I have to presume you are hearing this from a Mormon stance, which is a directly-false restatement of Christian theological history, to try to "retrofit" legitimacy to their erroneous positions.
Let's simplify. Is it your understanding that Jesus was conceived by God in a physical body with Mary (i.e. by "regular sex")? Do you consider this to represent the historical Trinitarian position?
Read. Just read. Or, stop lying in comically transparent ways.
Both NDE's and ketamine experiences he considers spiritual, and this is totally at odds with your "just hallucinations" position. From that stance, both NDE's and ketamine are a "door" to that spiritual reality, which he considers to involve quantum phenomena as it's underlying "substrate". That aside, in no way is he saying that ketamine experiences refute the spiritual reality of NDE's.
Read.
I understand reality just fine, thanks.
You, however, apparently fail to understand English.