OT: IT'S TIME... Who are you voting for ... ???

[droolmaster0]

One of my best friends at school was the "result" of a rape. Are you suggesting that she didn't deserve to live? That she should never have been born? She loved life and the world would've been poorer without her.

Because of the nature of the argument, which includes such questions as to what is a human being, what are rights and to what kind of beings to they apply, can one apply these concerns retroactively, etc - sometimes these discussions can lapse into a kind of semantic incoherence. I would claim that:
OF COURSE she deserved to live. However, and this is no contradiction - the mother had the ethical right to an abortion. the world very well might have been poorer without her. But this 'deserving of life' is something that we consider from the vantage point of years after this decision has been made. Before she was born, this wasn't the issue.

Unless you are willing to say that there are no cases at all where abortion is an ethical course of action, you can point to instances where people have lived and enriched the world. You can also point to situations where both the mother's and the child's lives were terrible as a result. There are no sure things here - but I would still maintain that the choice should be up to the mother herself, regardless of these other truths, which coexist with each other.

[Delicious Lamprey Problem]

Better yet, when is it a human being? Aren't all human beings worthy of the right to live?

See, that argument fails for me. It's always said as though there were some weight behind it, as if being a human being is something special. I happen to far prefer dogs to humans, and yet it's perfectly legal to have a dog killed for almost any reason. Unwanted humans are even more difficult to home; I say, kill them.

Life really isn't special.

[Diametro]

Maybe you're just not happy with your synths ...

[droolmaster0]

Maybe you're just not happy with your synths ...

Do synths have rights?

[setAI]

you seem to misunderstand the scientific method. as an atheist, I dont BELIEVE there is a god. nor do I BELIEVE there isn't a god. try to think about this.

ah but science is half empirical and half theoretical-

and the best theories we have tell us:

-the universe is an infinite multiverse where ALL physically possible states of matter and energy are realized in some region http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302131

- the human brain and it's developed technology at it's current complexity of 10^15 bits/ops http://www.merkle.com/brainLimits.html is no where near the optimal limit of information processing of 10^51 ops/ 10^31 bits per kg that just our type of 4D spacetime physics supports http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9908043

therefore whole UNIVERSES of near optimal intelligence necissarily exist in parts of the universe- and those parts have the compuational power to fully simulate and manipulate the ENTIRE Cosmos everywhere/everywhen through local manipulations of spacetime which avail them the ability to access non-local regions of the universe: Omnipotence/Omniscience/Omnipresence

so all of our best theories and Ontological concepts IMPLY infinite godlike intelligence and utility in the Universe with the ability to directly edit the physics algorithms and states of our world like/as a computer simulation

as we are beginning to ourselves-

theology then- is nothing more than the acknowledgement of the universality of physics and logic and the acceptence that humankind and it's civilization is not the optimal allowed in the entire Cosmos

[scorpio01169]

One of my best friends at school was the "result" of a rape. Are you suggesting that she didn't deserve to live? That she should never have been born? She loved life and the world would've been poorer without her.

i don't think she would want her business put out there like this.

[Delicious Lamprey Problem]

Do synths have rights?

Only in stereo. Else you should use their lefts.

[asynchro_nous]

I happen to far prefer dogs to humans...

Well, that's one approach to preventing unwanted pregnancies...

[Delicious Lamprey Problem]

Eeeek!

[BonsoWonderDog]

i don't think she would want her business put out there like this.

I'm pretty sure I didn't give enough info to identify her. Or him.

Actually....it was a dog, not a person.

I didn't have many friends at school.

Or still....


I'm so depressed.... :cry:

[jasonbmerrill]

I had a colleague that genuinely argued that since a kid didn't really have a real personality, or a real sense of "self" until about 1.5 or 2 years old, that abortion should be legal for up to 1 year. For the record, I agree with 96% of all the points CR is making.

peter singer much??

[droolmaster0]

ah but science is half empirical and have theoretical-

 

ok - how exactly does your quantification of this work? Why not 30/70, or 80/20? Why not partly/partly? If this is an inexact description of the breakdown, then it certainly isn't scientific....

 

and the best theories we have tell us:

 

'Best' meaning? the ones that are the most appealing to you? Multiple universes are cool - all infinite copies of me agree with this - but is this something that can actually be tested?

 

-the universe is an infinite multiverse where ALL physically possible states of matter and energy are realized in some region http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302131

 

Note - I didn't read, since your statement of this as fact relegates this to fantasy. But, again - I think it is fantastic that in some universe there exists a Droolmaster with green eyebrows. I must suppress the urge, though, to agree with you outright without further research. In your favor though, is the fact that in some universe, is a droolmaster who agrees with you.

 

- the human brain and it's developed technology at it's current complexity of 10^15 bits/ops http://www.merkle.com/brainLimits.html is no where near the optimal limit of information processing of 10^51 ops/ 10^31 bits per kg that just our type of 4D spacetime physics supports http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9908043

 

How to express this - it IS incoherent, but I think the way to express it is the notion that you are trying to quantify the complexity of the brain. I imagine that this would include (or else it is somewhat meaningless to me) the complexity of subjective experience. But the notion that this can be quantified meaningfully is ridiculous. The process of doing so goes like this - I want to do it, I come up with a method, and I then declare that this quantification includes all possible experience. It's laughable, really. But again, I am humbled by the (infinite number of) droolmasters in other universes who agree with you, and would have me executed as a heretic.

 

therefore whole UNIVERSES of near optimal intelligence necissarily exist in parts of the universe

 

How do they fall short exactly? Aren't their droolmasters up to snuff?

 

- and those parts have the compuational power to fully simulate and manipulate the ENTIRE Cosmos everywhere/everywhen through local manipulations of spacetime which avail them the ability to access non-local regions of the universe: Omnipotence/Omniscience/Omnipresence

 

Look - I am somewhat ambivalent here. On the one hand, I think that what you're saying is absolutely ridiculous, on the other hand I want to suck up to you so that I can get some of the weed you've been smoking.

 

so all of our best theories and Ontological concepts IMPLY infinite godlike intelligence and utility in the Universe with the ability to directly edit the physics algorithms and states of our world like/as a computer simulation as we are beginning to ourselves- theology then- is nothing more than the acknowledgement of the universality of physics and logic and the acceptence that humankind and it's civilization is not the optimal allowed in the entire Cosmos

 

Oh. That's what it is. Damn.

[setAI]

ok - how exactly does your quantification of this work? Why not 30/70, or 80/20? Why not partly/partly?

yeah- ok- science is part empirical and part theoretical- I did not mean 50/50-

'Best' meaning? the ones that are the most appealing to you? Multiple universes are cool - all infinite copies of me agree with this - but is this something that can actually be tested?

I agree with and defer to David Deutsch's view that Quantum Computers are proof of parallel universes within Qunatum Mechanics- and that the Many Worlds Interpretation is the only VALID interpretation of QM-and that a natural example of interfenece between parallel universes is the fuzzines of shadows- for an everyday example

...you are trying to quantify the complexity of the brain. I...

read Marvin Minsky: your brain and all of it's rich sensory experiences and qualia are about 400 kludged neural organs running highly redundant glitched binary logic- 10^15 bits/ops is GENEROUS- most of the brain is literally parts kludged in to cancel out other parts that aren't needed anymore or don't work right-

and read my sig to understand how the duality of conscious experience and abstract information processing are made One

How do they fall short exactly? Aren't their droolmasters up to snuff?

I think that NEAR optimal compuation is fine and cheap for most things- why spend vastly more for just a little improvement to get that little bit closer to the top?

besides I am a big advocate for INFINITE HYPERCOMPUTATION http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+hypercomputation/0/1/0/all/0/1 - using tricks and bootstraping the Multiverse to get to Infinity- thus no limits

on the other hand I want to suck up to you so that I can get some of the weed you've been smoking.

it's California purple bud

[llamastorm]

It's puff puff pass, puff puff PASS.

Quit hogging it.

[BonsoWonderDog]

peter singer much??

I don't understand what that means sorry.

[hookie]

That's an easy one. The difference between Obama and Palin has to do with adaptivity and intellectual capacity, and not necessarily directly measurable experience. We need a president who is intelligent. The office is so unique in its rigors and demands as times change and events unfold that NOBODY really has "experience" that ultimately fits the position. It's more about talent and ability. There are qualities that tend to define someone as presidential material, and probably chief among them is this certain flexible and adaptable intelligence, which also includes the willingness to listen to others, think in non-partisan terms, seek the counsel of experts, and consider multiple points of view in making decisions. In contrast, Republicans have demonstrated a dangerous combination of stubbornness and inability at this. Republican foreign and domestic policy has adhered to the tired philosophy that what is good for corporate America is by default good for the rest of America. Sort of a cross between Reagan's trickle down myth wherein the "free market" always brings the greatest good, and early 20th century corporatism espoused by the likes of Calvin Coolidge. Yes, McCain is a war hero, and I suppose, a good legislator. But he is out of touch. He went on record not long ago admitting he knew next to nothing about economics, and admitted that he would need to pick a VP who was strong in that area. That person is now Palin (!!??). Moreover, his position on foreign policy is a relic of the Cold War. He still has it in his mind that "winning" is a simple matter of bringing sufficient might to bear. To put it bluntly, he's no TR, and this is not 1898. Meanwhile, Palin is the everyman (or woman) candidate, which is fine, but we don't need an everyman as vice president. We need exceptional people for this position, and soccer moms don't cut it. Some may find her likable as a person, but that's not really relevant. America has had a problem with this for some time now, this aversion when it comes to electing people smarter than themselves. It should be clear by now that when you elect a wastrel C student with strong corporate ties, it puts you where we are right now, which is not a good place. On that point, I think it's interesting how the word "elite" has been thrown around and contested in this campaign. The word has two primary connotations in our culture, describing in turn people who are smarter than average, and people who are wealthier than average. Strangely, many seem to prefer a candidate of the latter type over the former. We resent people who are smarter than we are, but admire and envy those who are materially successful.

You make some good points. I'm not saying Palin is qualified. I questioned why so many people are overlooking so much with Obama. He is a dynamic speaker, really knows how to get the crowd going, pumped up. He SOUNDS like he is intelligent, but again, I'm looking at his record, what has he actually done. What does he believe in, what does he stand for - and how will he do what he says. It's one thing to be intelligent, it's another thing to make intelligent choices. Obama has shown me he is a great speaker - knows how to rally the people. But that's it.

Somehow this is strictly a bash against republicans, as though only republicans are responsible for all the problems. I'd like to hold all politicians accountable. Don't forget Congress has been 'controlled' by the democrats at times...

I

[hookie]

Yeah, that must be it.

Pretty cocky response. Sounds like you are one who thinks of himself as of such superior intelligence and finds it far below yourself to respond to such rubbish. Or maybe you just don't have anything intelligent to say.

[droolmaster0]

yeah- ok- science is part empirical and part theoretical- I did not mean 50/50- I agree with and defer to David Deutsch's view that Quantum Computers are proof of parallel universes within Qunatum Mechanics- and that the Many Worlds Interpretation is the only VALID interpretation of QM-and that a natural example of interfenece between parallel universes is the fuzzines of shadows- for an everyday example

The problem here is that to make your point you are citing references that I haven't read...and I doubt that anyone here (other than yourself has read). I'm not very inclined to spend lots of time researching something that to me is not plausible - that you could prove that parallel universes exist. So, you would be in the difficult position of describing the proof succinctly. But I cannot accept that there are parallel universes based on a reference....though again, the notion is extremely attractive in a multiple droolmaster kind of way.

read Marvin Minsky: your brain and all of it's rich sensory experiences and qualia are about 400 kludged neural organs running highly redundant glitched binary logic- 10^15 bits/ops is GENEROUS- most of the brain is literally parts kludged in to cancel out other parts that aren't needed anymore or don't work right-

But I don't take strong AI seriously at all...you have to realize that what you say, IN ITSELF, is nonsense to practically everyone here. Not that it doesn't hold together in sentences and paragraphs - but it would be like me referring to this and that Wittgensteinian reference, without actually doing the explaining myself. Why should I read this if you don't come part of the way?

and read my sig to understand how the duality of conscious experience and abstract information processing are made One

I think that the sig is cute, but I don't think that it means much in reality.

I think that NEAR optimal compuation is fine and cheap for most things- why spend vastly more for just a little improvement to get that little bit closer to the top?

True, but at that point I was just enjoying hearing myself talk.

besides I am a big advocate for INFINITE HYPERCOMPUTATION http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+hypercomputation/0/1/0/all/0/1 - using tricks and bootstraping the Multiverse to get to Infinity- thus no limits

I think that you should actually make your arguments in simple English - there would be a much greater chance that I (and perhaps others) would then check out the references. You leave too much out of your arguments.

it's California purple bud

I retract it all. Send some over in a cab. I'll pay.

[droolmaster0]

Pretty cocky response. Sounds like you are one who thinks of himself as of such superior intelligence and finds it far below yourself to respond to such rubbish. Or maybe you just don't have anything intelligent to say.

Probably the latter. But ultimately it comes down to spending time arguing against the same garbage over and over and over again. But then again, if I'm I don't have anything intelligent to say, you would have stopped reading by now.

[sizzlemeister]

I'm alright with abortion; liberal democrats ought to practice it more - no age limit. The more the democrats abort themselves, the better, frankly. You know, and if the abortion fails, then Obama can lay you on a table near a closet and let you starve to death. You'll die, eventually.

[hookie]

It says so on his site. How do you know where McCain stands? I'm not arguing FOR McCain, I'm questioning what 'we' know about Obama and what he stands for. Please re-read my post. McCain's idea of spreading the wealth means bigger tax cuts for people who are already well off. That's the typical left response. However, some of this might be true, but there's still a misunderstanding about capitalism. As far as I know, Sweden isn't a burning pile of ashes yet with rioters in the streets. Didn't say it would. Yes. And? What would Jesus do? I'm not a biblical scholar, but I'm guessing Jesus would help the poor, not be MANDATED to do so. Yes, there IS a difference. Government control. Nonsense of course. I agree here. Nonsense. It's not like you stumble into the hospital with a broken leg and have to wait a week while you're bleeding to death. It should also mean that you shouldn't have to pay through the nose when you fall ill or lose your job. Healthcare is NOT a right, at least in the US Constitution Maybe you need to research this part a bit more. Find out how many qualified medical doctors leave the field or come to the US because they cannot practice medicine, they are controlled by government regulations and restrictions. The patient's interest doesn't matter. At least everyone has healthcare! Yes, but no choices. There's a lot of space between RAAARGH EVIL SOCIALISTS and "screw everyone who's off worse than me!". Don't lean to the latter because you're afraid of the former.

I understand, but don't automatically think I'm so far to 'the right' on this one.

[hookie]

I wonder how long it will be before conservatives acknowledge that based on all the empirical data Socialized Medicine is the most successful political idea in the history of modern Democracy? I mean none of the fruits of Capitalism even come close to the success of Socialized Medicine which is universally supported in every first world country except the US- it is a testament to willful self-ignorance and isolation that most Americans aren't even AWARE that Socialized Medicine has worked completely and has won the debate on how to take care of people in society-

Sorry to say, but THAT is an extreme radical statement. Can you tell us how this has worked so well? Please share the fruits of this wonderful system.

[hookie]

you seem to misunderstand the scientific method. as an atheist, I dont BELIEVE there is a god. nor do I BELIEVE there isn't a god. try to think about this.

 

I might be way off on this, but I'm thinking you're an agnostic, not atheist.

[raffor]

You've asked me this before, and apparently didn't bother to read the answer.

I am sorry if I asked you this question before, but I went all the way back to the first page and cannot find your answer. Can you give me hint and give the # of that post??

[kooki_sf]

I might be way off on this, but I'm thinking you're an agnostic, not atheist.

no, I think evidence shows a pretty clear lack of a supreme being.

but its not something i have to believe, because its actually supported by evidence. this has nothing to do with gut feelings.