Total posts: 3,794
Posted in:
Who is Courtney Roth? There are about 60 Internet users by that name. I doubt all are as vile as this one, who seems addicted to two things: f**king and Trump. Surprised she doesn't use Courtney Trump; he sure occupies her head, rent-free.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
@Shila
@TheGreatSunGod
This is a time of reverence, not personal attack, no matter to whom, and which is always, always a lost argument. The last argument. Though not a Catholic, I appreciate the the Bishop of Rome, by whatever name is his, and personally mourn the loss of Francis. Have a proper heart today, at least.
GreatSun, Ra, - thank you for your posts today top start this string. Properly reverent and appropriate in this open forum. At least for some of us.
Created:
Posted in:
because they can.
People can also jump from high buildings because they can. Does not mean they should. That is the better principle. Some may think they are the exception to the rule, but gravity is a very jealous natural law and will take any takers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
When people are "safe" from diseases, they have no incentive to eat healthy or live healthy.
Who invented that gem? You and your sock puppet? You're barking arg the wrong tree. I eat healthy because I want the result of being healthy. I am 75. My doctor tells me I have the heart of a 20-year-old because I eat well and stay active. I do the grocery shopping, and only buy from the perimeter of the store = fresh meat, fruit, veggies and dairy. We grow our own, as well, and also freeze dry meals and have fresh water storage so we eat the same if emergency dictates the store unavailable, even if that emergency lasts four years, and growing. I never drink or smoke and never have, including any drug. Never, ever. Can you say the same?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
even tho you would think more vaccines = more health.
I am suspicious that the poor health of post-vaccine conditions has naught to do with subsequent health, but the poor, personal choice of what subsequently goes in the pie hole. The nemesis of personal health is in the mirror, not in the hypodermic vaccine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Wow. So much fluff. So is your self-centered motivation campaign to be a moderator. Consider me a no-vote [although I don't think that's how moderators are selected] should it come to that. And I am not alone. Maybe you quit the site in your head, but the reality is, you're still here, and that is not a good position-stake for a moderator. I respect those guys, one and all, but you ain't them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I don't know about other sites; I was attractred to this site. However, this site has two debate versions: "serious" Debate, and the informal Forum. The preference for the informal version is obvious. In 17 separate topics [excluding the DebateArrt section, and games], there are more informal topics in just two of them [science and religion] than all of the serious debates, combined. I think some of the "serious" debates do not fit that description, and belong in Forum, but, that's me. I find some topics in Debate trite and infantile, suited for the Forum. I personally have almost more posts in Forum than there are of all Debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Possible, of course. But is it honorable? Not according to my OED. That was your set condition. I've cited it back to you. You have illusions of moderation if you believe that is honorable. I hold you to your word, just as I hold to its definition. Can't be all things to all people. "Be yourself," Oscar Wilde said, "everyone else is taken."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
The condition was stated as "Behave with honor." If that's "honor" to you, you have bigger problems than this little exercise. or, don't words mean things anymore? I did not spend $1,900 on a print version of 20 volumes of the OED just to expect that outcome; I don't care how much wokeness screams about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Is it Elon's name of the design? Doubt it. He runs the company. He has people who do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I don't think EVs are innovative, either. They do poorly in damp/humid environments, the battery acts like a beta-test failure, and with over 50% of the vehicle being plastic components, and still needing petroleum-based lubricants [no one has yet innovated AlGoreGooeyJuice], it is not even "net-zero." 100% dependent on fossil fuel, except for fuel, and even for that, the battery still needs to be charged by connecting to an energy grid that is >60% from fossil fuel.
So, net zero... when??? ROFL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
1. Foster an environment where any opinion was welcome no matter how taboo.2. Foster an environment where we behave with honor and a basic level of respect for each other
Seems to me these two environments are opposed. How does one "foster an environment" of "[behavior] with honor and a basic level of respect for each other" where
"any opinion [is] welcome no matter how taboo?"
Created:
Posted in:
They got Trump to reverse his tariffs on Chinese electronics.
Trump is not a Chinese innovation. I asked what they've brought to the table. Obviously, nothing we haven't already innovated.
Created:
Posted in:
No need to innovate
Yes, berceuse otherwise, China's "innovation" is also known as theft
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
- China – 31.6% Global Manufacturing Output.
Yeah, but by what tech that they, themselves, innovated? They do great reverse engineering to copy stuff, but what have they innovated lately, besides covid?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Jesus too used magic which he called miracles.
There is not a single miracle performed by Jesus using magic. All miracles follow natural law with applied sufficient faith to command nature to follow its own rules; a skill he has in abundance, such as commanding a spirit departing the body to return to it, such as will happen with resurrection. All who resurrect [virtually everyone, including sons of perdition who will not inherit any kingdom of glory for their wickedness] do so by this priesthood power of healing faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Magic is not necessarily evil in its nature, but we've developed a history of thinking black is the equivalent of evil. Bad association, that's all.
Created:
Posted in:
AI is very, very bad at researching.
That's why it was dubbed "artificial."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
wrongly referred to as AI.
That always may be true, but I find a lot of questions google keeps messing up are answered quite adeqtately by a random-thinking human brain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
wrongly referred to as AI.
I agree with that. AI is very poorly named. We tend to do that with new tech stuff. A lot of new tech is named poorly. Who ever thought a trail coming out of a mouse's head was aptly named that needed anatomy instead of so much high tech educating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
AI is permanent.
Nothing artificial is permanent That's why it's artificial. Favce it; it is a sorely named tech, just like "mouse" was for a computer peripheral. The tail was coming ours of trey mouse's head. Never did Ike that one. We just do not do a good, creative job of naming tech stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I dont know what that means.
It's my own created idiom. Just replace the 'f' back to the original 'j', and you have the mind at that useless play.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
you are fighting for a lost cause
Nope. As long as I can think, and produce, I'll be ahead of AI. I'll be impressed when AI can crawl under my car to losses the oil plug and not get dirty, or set my granddaughter on it's knee and comfort the loss of her first boyfriend. And that's the easy one. She's not yet quite old enough for that. The other, younger stuff that causes her tears are the toughest there is. Having raised her mother, I know she never had tougher times. Nope, AI will never have that kind of skill that always ends with her arms tight around my neck. AI is useless to give and receive like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
greatest technological advancement since invention of internet.
I'm not yet yet certain that was such a great idea. It cannot touch the invention of the light bulb, or even a paper clip.
Now, as for the invention of writing...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Just tell AI to give you 80 arguments on forum topic,
What's simple is that we are not debating you; we're debating AI, and it is so artificial, it cannot even appreciate when it wins, or accept losing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
think of AI as my "second brain".
What's wrong with the 1st brain? All one needs is one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It makes debating easy.
Not here, it doens't. You have a goose egg there. And you just negated any debate with me. I will not use it, and will not compete with it. I do not consider artificiality as an adversary
Created:
Posted in:
Within other topical posts in which I have participated with regard to AI, I have opposed the general use of that tech. While I recognize there may be valid use of AI, I have several concerns that it represents potential for harm. Here are my resins of opposition:
In later junior high school [8th, 9th grade] I began writing reports, essays, term papers, etcd, and also later in high school and college, which were seriously researched, which meant, then, frequenting my local library. We did not yet have the Internet in the 60s when I was in school, graduating from high school, and beginning college. While it would have been easy to plagiarize, even then, not having the facility of copy/paste, unless by the laborious re-write, I always cited my sources when not enlightened by personal written record of my own thinking. I determined early on that plagiarism would not represent my efforts fairly. I did not fool myself that others original thoughts will never be used by me without citation for their effort. Ignoring all that, just to get a paper written, is easier accomplished today, even without use of AI. With AI, the effort is easier still, but I cannot ignore that it amounts to cheating my own education if I indulge in it, even now. I will not do it.
I wasn't paid for my education efforts of writing such essays and reports ion school. I am paid today for the books and articles that I write, but I will never indulge the use of AI to do my thinking and writing for me simply because it is not representative of my own thinking. I cannot, in good conscience, take payment for printed or online publication over my name. I will not do it. Nor will I do it even when I am ghostwriting for another to publish over their name. They are paying me for that service, but I will not be paid for others' thinking, even if it is merely an artificial brain.
The same is true of illustration, which AI can now do, for the very same reason.
There is another concern. Once I have published anything with my name under it, I have announced publicly that it is my work. Even if what is written or illustrated is merely personally opinion, particularly when about another person, or about a specific point of view that I may not personally share, I have opened myself to legal consequence if it is considered libel or slander. If I have done so by use oof AI, who else knows that is the source, and not me, personally. I am still libelous or slanderous and can suffer the legal consequences. I will not do it.
Created:
Posted in:
It's not hard to grasp why people can find this idea confronting
Not a surprise to me. I say to the portagonists of such nonsense: "Argue for your limitations; they're yours." [Richard. Bach]
Given my personal philosophy, I do not see a purpose to existence when I don't even have the ownership of my own mind, even if my body is enslaved. Worse that it's not even a living entity, this "determinism."
Created:
Posted in:
Is freewill an illusion?
The illusion is that there is no free will. Anything to belittle our own ties to divinity, and our eventual life potential. Things, i.e., inanimate objects, do not control living beings u8nless those living beings allow it to take over. Things such as AI, let alone the inanimate matter out there wandering around, Nothing more destructive to human intelligence than thinking they are not the ultimate creation. Argue for you limitations; they're yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
More sex?
Yeah, that one stopped me, as well. Particularly when radicals can't even decide what's what, gonad-wise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I disagree.
Determinism ... Scientific Argument:... Neuroscience:...
All three are just limiting objections, and the third is merely a sub-set of the second, after all. But what science "concludes" is about as rational as science once concluded geocentricity, and now, climate crisis.
Earth is no more the center of the universe, let alone our solar system, than an argument that birds fly, camels walk, and, therefore, butterflies swim. Two factual arguments do not necessarily mean a third is also true, but that is the form of a syllogism, but incorrectly applied. And, both volcanism and "snowball earth" have concluded that our historic climate range has been far worse than ours, today, even within the advent of mammals [about 140M years ago], whose systems are virtually identical to human physiological systems, today. In other words, we can endure far worse climates than now, and can think of adaptations - not dependent on evolutionary adpaptations, to improve our survival.
Therefore, what "science," today, says of free will totally ignores that the signals they read now by MRI, or other tech applied, and thinking these are determinism, or science, already deciding before we decide ignores the root of ambition, planning, and execution - the decision-making process of an advance human species. WE have ambition to achieve, WE make a plan, and only then, WE decide to act. That three-phase process is all in our own heads, not the universe. Science has just not caught up to reading correctly what they read. It's kind of like our misunderstanding the First Amendment, which does not say, nor imply, "separation..." What it does say, in the Preamble is: "...a more perfect union." That's the goal. No determined universe is going to force our hand to make that happen. We do so by our free will to make it happen, and whatever inputs we need, government or religion, or science, will work to help that accomplishment. Why separate them as if they can only exist autonomously?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
To say God created death is to say God created nothing.
Death = nothing? Nope. Death is a process, like any other. It has a sequence of steps, all but one of which occur during life, and only the last process step results in the consequence of the end of mortal life, but not the end of the spirit's life, which dosed not ever die. That which is nothing is, literally, ex nihilo.
No, infinite regress is impossible. We can talk of hypothetical things in certain realms of knowledge like mathematics being infinite, but those are only analytical and not real
Who says infinite regress is impossible? Non-infinate thinkers, that's who. Show me God's claim that infinite regress is impossible. Otherwise, that's as silly as claiming, today, the geocentricity of Earth relative to the universe, let alone to our solar system. That's just egocentricity. What is unreal about analytics? Are you claiming thought is not real? That's just ex nihilo, as well. Creation [or, rather, organization of chaotic matter and energy] is what makes thought reality.
Also, a thing is what it is. that puts a limit on it. Also, matter is limited by how it is organized. That puts a limit on it. We are limited by what we are meant to do (you cannot do everything in a lifetime). We also have only two parents and come from one place ultimately. That is a limit.
I grant that thinge have limits. But, no thing [an "it" grammatically] is a living presence. All living beings [including plants] are eternal by regression and progression. They will always exist. They will change forms [for example, from spirit matter to physical matter] by form-changing which is not a limitation. Life is not limited but by its form. I will never be a rose. Neither a rose, me, or anyone else. And our parents both have parents... and so on, and, therefore, that is not just one place, nor one set of parents.
"There is no finish line."
I agree, and agree with your conclusion that the period is a finish line. But, relative to life, the statement is true. As I said, our life included for changes, but no living being has an end, ever. There are milestones, but they are merely a marker on the path, but do not define the entire path.
"Who designed the Designer?"
Concurrent with what I said previously, a father-figure Designer created God, our Designer. And, conditio0onal on worthiness for understanding how to apply the Design Rules, we ultimately become Designers, ourselves.
When We speak of God we speak of absolute, perfect and complete Being itself.
And as I mentioned before, what makes us think God's level of performance is absolute -
All-Perfect, All-Knowing, All-Powerful and All-Loving. That means He is not God.
Who decided to limit God like that? We did? ROFL How do we, imperfect, incomplete, et al, beings decide to limit God, even by description of being "all-whatever," which implies he's at an end of his progression. We blind ourselves, and God to limited progression. Limited regress, too. How did we decide we had the authority to make such a claim? God calls himself "Eternal" and that implies an ever-sharp pencil. I believe him. And I believe in my own eternity and everyone else's eternity
[note the absence of the period]
Created:
AI eases that transition.
Do you know the maxim: "Don't let temps make permanent decisions."
The temp, here, is AI. As I said, AI is, first of all, artificial. That makes as much sense as if/then logic, which is flawed because the "if" clause is invariably, currentry false. and so cannot ever justify the "then" clause. And that is typically how AI approaches reality: by if/then. And that's supposed to represent reality's soft landing?
ROFL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
privation in philosophy.
My understand of privation is that one's needs and wants are simply unavailable, and that this is a constant, i.e., never has been, is not, and never will be available. Death is deprivation; i.e., needs and wants have been and are available, but ultimately will not be available, primarily because body systems do not sustain throughout life. At a cellular nucleus level, the telomeres, the protective "sleeves" at the ends of the DNA double helix in each nucleus breaks down and cannot be repaired, interrupting normal bodily function, allowing aging and death to occur; something I endure, now., on my way to ultimate demise
imperfect purpose
By "imperfect purpose," I mean that God did not create perfect systems, and that was not a failure, but for a purpose. His purpose was for us, by free agency and dominion, to figure out how to improve the imperfections we were given. Simple example. God made a simple box, and this represents the Earth and all that is n it, for our use. Ir has a bottom and four perpendicular sides. Maybe the sides are not all the same size, or some sides have holes in them. It's our job to apply critical thinking to improve the box, ultimately to be a better container to protect all that is in it - maybe even by adding a lid. We are supposed to return Earth to God, beiter than we were given, thus proving our willingness to be obedient to him, and to improve ourselves [who are also imperfect] and our box.
infinite regress is not possible
Sure it is. Get a sharper pencil with an infinitely smaller point. Why do we restrict ourselves thinking up [poorly] that we are limited? Why think that? "The greatest sin is to limit the Is. Don't" - Richard Bach. One idea is to consider perfection as a process rather than a destination. Some things we do are already done perfectly. The trick is to agh capability - an infinite process, not ever fully achieved. God is just further along on the same path. His God is father along than him, because we have progressively sharper pencils. And so on...
God has to have always been God in order to be God.
Who says that's his condition? Do they know what they're talking about, or is this just poor critical thinking? Progress What's wrong with a progressing God who is more perfect today than he was yesterday, last year, last epoque, last... We progress, don't we? I'm smarter and more cap[able than I was twenty years ago, ands so on... Why not God? Does God always act with all the power in his possession, or only the power needed to do stuff? Some stuff is more difficult that other stuff, just as we encounter stuff to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I already provided plenty of proof against this.
You have offered personal opinion, and nothing more. I prefer my view, because I remain in charge of me by my assertion of free agency and dominion of Earth.
The results of your opinion is personal defeat.
Knowledge gained from environment or genes, or found in brain structure, usually when wanting something and knowing it is not there.
Tell me what infant told you that little gem, considering:
"...the newborn infant can be awake, exhibit sensory awareness, and process memorized mental representations. It is also able to differentiate between self and nonself touch, express emotions, and show signs of shared feelings. Yet, it is unreflective, present oriented, and makes little reference to concept of him/herself. Newborn infants display features characteristic of what may be referred to as basic consciousness and they still have to undergo considerable maturation to reach the level of adult consciousness. The preterm infant, ex utero, may open its eyes and establish minimal eye contact with its mother. It also shows avoidance reactions to harmful stimuli. However, the thalamocortical connections are not yet fully established, which is why it can only reach a minimal level of consciousness."
In other words, boyo, your "wanting something and knowing it is not there" is your personal wish balloon. Keep blowing, it needed more bozone..
Created:
-->
@Shila
I cannot get around the clear notion that the flaw of AI is that it's first word tells all: artificial. Why do we need to depend on artificial. That's not reality. No wonder so many people think God is artificial.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
does that mean there's male women... and female men?
Emphatically: no! Se my post #3. We cannot self-identify, because cis-gender is not properly determined by vagina/penis. The gonads - the set of ovaries or testes determines gender, and the brain has no choice in the matter. None. . Note that LGBTQ+ conveniently ignores F and M - which is what 99.99999993% of us, worldwide, are.
Created:
-->
@Savant
but it's a pretty strong correlation.
Pretty strong? According to the Library of Medicine, only 0.0000007% of us [about 500 of us, worldwide] are not XX or XY, but a numbers of other variables. The truth of the matter is that 100% of us have either ovaries or testes as gonads. Our cis-gender should not be designated by a vagina or penis, but by the gonads. But that is problematic since ovaries are internal, but everopne has them, one set to a customer, only, even if one has both a vagina and penis. So, "transgender" does not exist, and cannot be chosen by the brain. That is a head-trip. The brain cannot modify the gonads. Hormones do not change them. Surgery does not change them. Worse, every single cell in the body - about 1 trillion of them, also contain, by DNA, our appropriate gender determinative. Are we going to surgically change all of them? Don't thinks so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
So God created something imperfect?
What do you think death is? The entire creation of heaven and earth is to an interim, imperfect purpose, to be resolved by our efforts in free agency and dominion to return a heaven and earth, and all in it/them to God in perfection. We do that, not God. We will learn how to achieve perfection, and then make it happen by his instructions. We, after all, need to learn to become like him. How do we do that if he does everything for us? It is not God who is imperfect for creating imperfection. This is an eternally repeating process. God was once likes us; imperfect, and mortal. He also had a God in a heaven above him, who created his "heaven and earth... and so on...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Killing lawyers is not trivial.
I did not say it was. That's Will's line, not mine, you quoted. I said the law [sometimes] compels to do useless things - trivia.] We can distinguish the difference between lawyers and the law, yeah?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Nulla est mendaciorum copia, quae veritatem improbare possit.
Therefore...? η αλήθεια θα σε κάνει ελεύθερο
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Person's choice is contingent on....
...and that contingent on... and that contingent on... ad nauseas.
Tell me based on what knowledge a newborn infant chooses to cry - a reaction to both internal and external stimulus. That it chooses to do so is clear; the infant cries. But, based on knowledge? Nope. Environment? Maybe.
person's genes and brain structure,
Nope, no "and." Your genome and mine, and everyone else's determine structure of all bodily systems., many of which are autonomic - no choice required. But all choice is freely made, even if we are prevented from acting on choice. Neither God nor the universe messes with free agency. We choose to be righteous; we choose to be evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Si magnitudinem quaeris, hic summa sapientia est. Vincit Amor.
...is likely based upon a poem in hexameter by Vergil in 37 B.C.E, the last of a 10-poem series, and contains the line, "Omnia vincit. amor: et nos cedamus amori."
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
In our image, in our likeness.Who's?
God is a title, not a name, and there are several others with him in the creation process; probably including the pre-mortal Jesus's Christ, who is Jehovah of the Old Testament.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Free will is the only assurance in the universe because the Earth was created imperfectly for a purpose: that we choose by free will to improve it ourselves and deliver it back to God in a perfect state, for that is the dominion God granted to us to perform, and he did not guarantee we would succeed. That, too, is on us, entirely.
Lex potest cogere justum res. The law can compel to do just, and therefore, righteous things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
What opportunities do you have?
I still write and illustrate/graphic design for myself and freelance customers, and continue investment in my portfolio of precious metals, real estate, and a few stocks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
I like that phrase of equal opportunity.
Yeah, but is that equal input or equal output? I prefer thinking we are not collectively expectant to have either one. What is important is individual ambition, planning, and execution, which my father taught me beginning in elementary school to stop worrying about this or that other competing student, but to compete with myself and apply ambition, planning, and execution on my own terms and excel on my terms. Equal opportunity is a shell game, always was and always will be a failure because it's a socialist/marxist attitude of collectivism. We're meant to be individuals in a free society. I make my own opportunities, thank you.
Created: