"Would you say the program the person is running is self-aware? No, right?"
I am not convinced. If there is self-awareness it is in the algorithm. There is plenty of evidence from brain damage that shows how specific damage to parts of the brain that do particular calculations affect perception.
"Machines aren't magic. With enough effort they can do any magic trick you want, but it's just a trick."
So your saying people are magic and nothing they do is a trick?
Why should one accept these double standards exactly?
If some set of people want to make up their own reality to live in then fine - but they're expecting other people who don't live in Never-Never Land to subsidise their lessions on pirate battles.
Just because you don't necessarily use those tiny little watch screwdrivers everyday doesn't mean you aren't helped out by knowing a bit about how to use them.
Either way acedemics is not about learning exactly what you need to do your job it's about proving you have the ability to learn and reason full stop.
The end of your formal education is not the end of your learning. Most of what I need to do day to day is not stuff I learnt in school but I imagine it would be considerably more difficult for me to pick it up if I tried to focus incredibly narrowly on specifics as if things could be so neatly deliniated.
I hate to point this out but even in this very thread there are people who would wish they were that Nazi guard so they could obey the orders with glee.
Genocide is a recurring fashion I'm afraid.
You can't make the "bad" social goals go away by constructing laws because ultimately laws are just things people agree to do that are written down. Just like anything else their meaning only arises from implementation, not from definition.
I like being entertained - can't do anything like what occurs in The Dark Knight Rises but I don't see people getting in the same sort of hoo-ha over its existence.
After extinctions new species get a shot - a desire to maintain the status quo of species that happen to exist at the time humans are around is just another form of anthropocentrism.
Microsoft is clearly thinking that everyone will be on tablets and they want some of that iPad money.
Risky is not an adequate adjective for that strategy.
Science doesn't require I give a shit about what Lysenko said - politics played in the name of science is still politics. One cannot paste estipmological templates over people and expect them to stop being people because of it.
"Choosing to believe what a religion says even when there's clear incontrovertible evidence to the contrary is more or less mental illness, not a legitimate religious belief."
Facts were made by Satan to test the Faith of the Righteous.
One has to understand, and be willing to understand, before evidence can become incontrovertible.
I think there's some sort of distinction between "intellectuals" and "people who are intelligent", because the traits you describe don't seem to have much to do with the later.
Me, to teacher in religious education class at secondary level after doing the Genesis story:
"Sir, do you believe this stuff?"
"I think it helps to do so."
Didn't really understand before that moment that people really did exist who believed this stuff to be true that I saw in pretty much the same light as the Greek myths I had learned about at primary school level.
If there is something that you really don't want to do, and have already firmly decided not to do, and you still go ahead and do it anyway, that would prove you possess free will.
Not really - this presumes that the internal dialogue is in control of one's actions. It could merely be commentary - the journalist who thinks he is the story.
"You" might very well debate long and hard about what it is "you" want to do whilst the mechanisms that actually get to decide that will do what it is "they" want to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhh, I don't think he gets much of a say over it from six feet under.
This comic is very morish.
"Irony: An AC complaining about the lack of community, posting nothing of value!"
Double bonus points for injecting political slurring nonsense into the mix as well.
That just made my day.
Hey, I'm not recommending anything. Just commenting on the strange idea that you could buy a "hippy" phone that isn't developed by a large corp.
Fight mega corp! Buy from big corp!
He was made redundant you insensitive clod!
"Would you say the program the person is running is self-aware? No, right?"
I am not convinced. If there is self-awareness it is in the algorithm. There is plenty of evidence from brain damage that shows how specific damage to parts of the brain that do particular calculations affect perception.
"Machines aren't magic. With enough effort they can do any magic trick you want, but it's just a trick."
So your saying people are magic and nothing they do is a trick?
Why should one accept these double standards exactly?
If some set of people want to make up their own reality to live in then fine - but they're expecting other people who don't live in Never-Never Land to subsidise their lessions on pirate battles.
Just because you don't necessarily use those tiny little watch screwdrivers everyday doesn't mean you aren't helped out by knowing a bit about how to use them.
Either way acedemics is not about learning exactly what you need to do your job it's about proving you have the ability to learn and reason full stop.
The end of your formal education is not the end of your learning. Most of what I need to do day to day is not stuff I learnt in school but I imagine it would be considerably more difficult for me to pick it up if I tried to focus incredibly narrowly on specifics as if things could be so neatly deliniated.
I hate to point this out but even in this very thread there are people who would wish they were that Nazi guard so they could obey the orders with glee.
Genocide is a recurring fashion I'm afraid.
You can't make the "bad" social goals go away by constructing laws because ultimately laws are just things people agree to do that are written down. Just like anything else their meaning only arises from implementation, not from definition.
I like being entertained - can't do anything like what occurs in The Dark Knight Rises but I don't see people getting in the same sort of hoo-ha over its existence.
After extinctions new species get a shot - a desire to maintain the status quo of species that happen to exist at the time humans are around is just another form of anthropocentrism.
Microsoft is clearly thinking that everyone will be on tablets and they want some of that iPad money. Risky is not an adequate adjective for that strategy.
Science doesn't require I give a shit about what Lysenko said - politics played in the name of science is still politics. One cannot paste estipmological templates over people and expect them to stop being people because of it.
The algorithm of evolution is poorly understood.
"Choosing to believe what a religion says even when there's clear incontrovertible evidence to the contrary is more or less mental illness, not a legitimate religious belief."
Facts were made by Satan to test the Faith of the Righteous.
One has to understand, and be willing to understand, before evidence can become incontrovertible.
I think there's some sort of distinction between "intellectuals" and "people who are intelligent", because the traits you describe don't seem to have much to do with the later.
No: that's why it's a fallacy.
Composition fallacy: the properties of the whole are the same as its parts.
Example: a watch can keep time therefore a cog can keep time.
Worked for me.
Me, to teacher in religious education class at secondary level after doing the Genesis story:
"Sir, do you believe this stuff?"
"I think it helps to do so."
Didn't really understand before that moment that people really did exist who believed this stuff to be true that I saw in pretty much the same light as the Greek myths I had learned about at primary school level.
Mathematics is not a hammer: it is an infinitely large toolbox.
Well of course not - why should it?
It seems entirely possible to experience without being able to make any decisions in relation to that experience.
Not really - this presumes that the internal dialogue is in control of one's actions. It could merely be commentary - the journalist who thinks he is the story. "You" might very well debate long and hard about what it is "you" want to do whilst the mechanisms that actually get to decide that will do what it is "they" want to do.
I'm sure you can catch up if you work at it.