I don't get this argument. If there was a series of cogs that acted just like a person, with all the emotions, concerns, thoughts, and motivations of a person, I'd see no reason to treat it as magically different from any other person. The only reason to do so would be if you had a vendetta against sprockets.
"Free-will" as a concept was a response to god dictated fate, which isn't the same as determinism.
Determinism vs. Free Will, on the other hand is an artificial construction. Just because the conclusions you come to are a natural result of the inputs you experience and your personality doesn't somehow make them not your decisions.
Uh, who the fuck said animals aren't conscious? Not me. Human intelligence, for all intents and purposes, is just a special case of animal intelligence, and science supports that notion too.
I don't feel the need to ascribe a cohesive likelihood of non-dishonesty to faith. I understand and appreciate that some of what is published scientifically is dishonest, but with the more direct understanding that the greater frameworks of academic publishing and the scientific method have ways of isolating and identifying those lies, and that the fundamentals of any field are within my personal ability to retest and examine.
Ascribing that to faith brushes aside the cautious thought that goes into the system for identifying scientific truths as equal to preaching from a pulpit.
Very clever, but I'm going to go with a brief verbal rendition rather than attempt recreate the entire field of artificial intelligence in a post:
Consciousness could be roughly described as the ability to respond to complex stimulus in complex ways, specifically including the ability communicate those stimuli abstractly, and self-reference.
I have many other definitions I'm happy to work with.
It's science news in that we've isolated a repeatable brain interaction electrical with a specific known effect.
That's a big deal, because it can begin to allow use to attribute direct cause to some human behaviors. Which has potential therapeutic applications, and maybe even someday can allow us to start the previously impossible task of improving on the human brain.
Yeah, but I meant more in the general realm how people collectively view it as less laughable than creationism, even though they loosely fill the same boots.
I guess fundamentalists aren't pushing for it to be taught in science class, which is all I can really ask.
It's not about how silly things sound, it's about how directly contrary to observable reality Cartesian Dualism is. I'm pretty flexible about people believing things for no reason, hell I do too, but dualism at this point, is, like creationism, plain old science denial.
And it's also burning out because they have collectively achieved exactly nothing in the "actually it's about ethics in journalism" banner in 2 months, in spite of massively massive amounts of time and effort to discredit women they claim to have no interest in.
That arc was inevitably apparent to everyone who's familiar with gamers' actual history of trying to influence the industry. There's this whole history of making big, entitled, noisy movements about petulant non-concerns, then when the cards were on the table, just not caring about the principle that was so important.
That's not even including the fact that the initial attacks were undisguised misogyny, and no one thought that keeping the brand name forged in that behavior was a bad idea.
This broad umbrella category of defense which could be called "all trolling is the same, and thus is no big deal" always reads to me as reflecting extremely poorly on the people who make it.
It's kind of a trivial application of empathy to ask "How would this feel if it were me, instead?" And the conjunct of some strangers openly publishing your home address and other strangers threatening your life never seems harmless under that assessment.
You can put a password lock on 3d mode on the 3DS, the oculus rift comes with a big 'ol "not for kids" warning, and I wouldn't be surprised if 3d movies include warnings(but who buys those?)
People were already aware of this risk, but thanks France.
You're citing the cuts the republicans forced by threatening legislative innaction that would recrash the economy as evidence that Obama is complicit in anti-science behaviors?
I mean, there's lots Obama has done, hasn't done, but the shit the republicans intentionally caused by threatening criminally irresponsible negligence as a condition of obeying their legislative agenda isn't "his".
Enforcement is all I mean. Well, that and that abstract classes are proper classes and have all the collision problems that implies when multiple inheritance rears its ugly head.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get this argument. If there was a series of cogs that acted just like a person, with all the emotions, concerns, thoughts, and motivations of a person, I'd see no reason to treat it as magically different from any other person. The only reason to do so would be if you had a vendetta against sprockets.
"Free-will" as a concept was a response to god dictated fate, which isn't the same as determinism.
Determinism vs. Free Will, on the other hand is an artificial construction. Just because the conclusions you come to are a natural result of the inputs you experience and your personality doesn't somehow make them not your decisions.
As someone said "How can something as unconscious as matter give rise to something as immaterial as consciousness?"
"How can something as visually dull as impure silicon give us complex moving pictures that responds to input across a network."
Because that's exactly how it works, and glosses over a lot of important sub-processes that make it work for rhetorical reasons.
Uh, who the fuck said animals aren't conscious? Not me. Human intelligence, for all intents and purposes, is just a special case of animal intelligence, and science supports that notion too.
Presumably the connections to IPs happen through TOR.
I don't feel the need to ascribe a cohesive likelihood of non-dishonesty to faith. I understand and appreciate that some of what is published scientifically is dishonest, but with the more direct understanding that the greater frameworks of academic publishing and the scientific method have ways of isolating and identifying those lies, and that the fundamentals of any field are within my personal ability to retest and examine.
Ascribing that to faith brushes aside the cautious thought that goes into the system for identifying scientific truths as equal to preaching from a pulpit.
Very clever, but I'm going to go with a brief verbal rendition rather than attempt recreate the entire field of artificial intelligence in a post:
Consciousness could be roughly described as the ability to respond to complex stimulus in complex ways, specifically including the ability communicate those stimuli abstractly, and self-reference.
I have many other definitions I'm happy to work with.
It's science news in that we've isolated a repeatable brain interaction electrical with a specific known effect.
That's a big deal, because it can begin to allow use to attribute direct cause to some human behaviors. Which has potential therapeutic applications, and maybe even someday can allow us to start the previously impossible task of improving on the human brain.
Yeah, but I meant more in the general realm how people collectively view it as less laughable than creationism, even though they loosely fill the same boots.
I guess fundamentalists aren't pushing for it to be taught in science class, which is all I can really ask.
It's not about how silly things sound, it's about how directly contrary to observable reality Cartesian Dualism is. I'm pretty flexible about people believing things for no reason, hell I do too, but dualism at this point, is, like creationism, plain old science denial.
Dualists are still staggeringly common.
Why are so many people so adamant about the notion that consciousness can't come from the physical brain?
This non-logic doesn't justify a proper response, as it's just stating untruth as unequivocal fact.
You're being a dull moron, and you should stop.
It will if you go and set the bit yourself, and correct all the errors it causes.
People in the UK don't eat KFC, do they?
"Oh yes, we successfully dictated editorial content through advertisers! That's how journalistic ethics are supposed to work, right?"
You are really fucking dumb.
You don't have to be emotionally older than 6 years to use them. Just physiologically.
Hey, I've got a fun fact for you:
Threats aren't protected under any nations' free speech protections. Zero of them.
Having stupid opinions, and insulting people are protected under: a great many.
Whether you pretend there's no difference or not, this is a long-settled question, and you need to grow up.
And it's also burning out because they have collectively achieved exactly nothing in the "actually it's about ethics in journalism" banner in 2 months, in spite of massively massive amounts of time and effort to discredit women they claim to have no interest in.
That arc was inevitably apparent to everyone who's familiar with gamers' actual history of trying to influence the industry. There's this whole history of making big, entitled, noisy movements about petulant non-concerns, then when the cards were on the table, just not caring about the principle that was so important.
That's not even including the fact that the initial attacks were undisguised misogyny, and no one thought that keeping the brand name forged in that behavior was a bad idea.
This broad umbrella category of defense which could be called "all trolling is the same, and thus is no big deal" always reads to me as reflecting extremely poorly on the people who make it.
It's kind of a trivial application of empathy to ask "How would this feel if it were me, instead?" And the conjunct of some strangers openly publishing your home address and other strangers threatening your life never seems harmless under that assessment.
In France, those are all things that have wine pairings.
You can put a password lock on 3d mode on the 3DS, the oculus rift comes with a big 'ol "not for kids" warning, and I wouldn't be surprised if 3d movies include warnings(but who buys those?)
People were already aware of this risk, but thanks France.
You have to deliver the package to the prison office for inspection before prisoners can receive the delivery.
You're citing the cuts the republicans forced by threatening legislative innaction that would recrash the economy as evidence that Obama is complicit in anti-science behaviors?
I mean, there's lots Obama has done, hasn't done, but the shit the republicans intentionally caused by threatening criminally irresponsible negligence as a condition of obeying their legislative agenda isn't "his".
I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make. For once a less to the point, more verbose post might have been better.
There's always lots of statistical noise. If the volume of data is large enough, you can still uncover meaningful valuable.
Enforcement is all I mean. Well, that and that abstract classes are proper classes and have all the collision problems that implies when multiple inheritance rears its ugly head.