Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Originally Posted by Crunched, neogaf"I dont understand what difference it would make if it was a lifestyle choice or not. If a man or woman has the potential to fall in love with someone of the same sex, he should be allowed to commit to that love, whether or not he was born with that preference. If the argument is really about homosexuality being a choice, I've been looking at the conflict all wrong since the beginning.
I don't see how what you said explains anything. Say homosexuality is a choice, and two homosexuals want to get married. How does them choosing to be gay invalidate that?
Are you saying the argument is that gay people choose to be gay and if they want to get married they could choose to be straight? As if the marriage is what they are in love with, and not the person?
I'm trying to wrap my head around this. How is that different than saying to a man, "you can't marry this woman because she is black, you can choose not to be attracted to black women if you want to marry"?
Is this really the argument? You are blowing my mind here. If this is really how these people think it is even more absurd than I originally thought."-link to thread
"And for interracial marriage in the US, you don't need to go back nearly that far.
The duality of this "I don't approve but I love you" amongst Xtians is hardly new. "Love the sinner, hate the sin", they'll say. But I've also witnessed bible study groups and have heard a lot of things Xtians say when they think they're only amongst themselves (having grown up around this nonsense.) They'll say, "don't worry, God will judge them." To what degree you want to believe their "love" for the "sinner" is genuine is up to you, but from what I've witnessed and heard in my life, I find this "love" to be dubious at best, but probably better characterized as words of one who both fears and loves (as instructed) a totalitarian ghost that they better heed, or else."-Phreak47, neogaf forum
Some nice quotes from forum goers over at neogaf.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Sunday, June 28, 2015
BTW it is not nonsense to believe in souls since there are NDEs, some of which do seem to refute the idea that consciousness requires a functioning brain.-extropia
Give a memory disrupting chemical to a person, and even if they're conscious for hours after taking it they won't remember a thing, fully living fully breathing fully conscious, and won't be able to say what happened and will claim they weren't conscious. These near death experience, the thing is they are memories recorded in the brain otherwise they couldn't report them, which suggests they're the product of some brain function, if they weren't recorded in the brain we would have the same outcome as happens when brain memory function is chemically disrupted in fully conscious humans, they can't report it.
That is whatever happened took place within the brain, unless we were to claim that the brain has some supernatural way of recording things that happen outside the scope of brain function. Which would be dubious as we know the process of memory storage is physical process of physical change in the brain via physical molecules interacting.-castiel
Saturday, June 27, 2015
At the end of the day the computer metaphor is just that... a metaphor and it does little to illuminate the actual workings there in.
Unless what the brain is doing is actual information processing and algorithms. A traditional computer can do anything that can be done through algorithms, and it is a machine that does information processing.
Now, let's ask what function of human activity... Remember the main purpose of brains was to act in the world, so their main purpose is functional, improving survival. So again, what function done by humans is beyond computers' ability to perform? Most anyone serious will say there is nothing any animal, including humans, can do physically upon the world that a computer cannot do given the same body.
Actually I'll say computers will not only be able to do the same, but with the right algorithms they will be better at survival than any animal even humans, beating brains at their own game.
Now there are those that say consciousness is nonfunctional, and thus that will be the one thing that can't be done. Well as a conscious entity, it seems like consciousness provide a HIGH BANDWIDTH ACCESS simultaneously to data from all sensory modalities, it definitely feels functional, and I'm highly skeptical of it being epiphenomenal. In the end even if this were the case[epiphenomenality], which I'm doubtful of, that we can achieve functional equivalence or even superiority without this, well the reality is it wouldn't actually matter now would it? AGIs could still outperform humans, again unless there is some fabled function humans physically perform that a computer cannot given the same body.
What are the odds that rather than finding common computational algorithms, in the landscape of possibilities, to solve problems[with researchers saying they've shown the brain doing algorithms we use on our cell phones like the kalman filter], or gain fields[which have been observed in artificial neural networks], evolution found some special nonalgorithmic way of processing information and generating survival? What's the prediction you'd make from such a hypothesis? That algorithmic processes to survive do not exist[an algorithmic machine for survival cannot be built]? That evolution somehow evaded these? That such traditional algorithms appear to exist in some brain functions for unknown reasons and do NOT actually contribute to brain function? -Darien S, kurzweil ai reply