Sidewalker

SergeantLynch wrote:

Yes, what some bollocks and only in the USA will someone try and justify the murder of three children.

Oh please, Russia justifies murdering hundreds of children, just not their own, most countries justify murdering other people's children.

Yep three...Takes some planning and execution that...Pardon the pun.

Oh please again, her kids were five, three, and eight-months-old, easy schmeezy with or without a plan.

So let her off and woman all across America are free to strangle their kids if they are having a bad day.

Well, "let her off" isn't a consideration in this case, either way, she will be incarcerated for the rest of her life. But I agree that you can't let the court set a precedent that absolves someone of the responsibility for murder, there has to be accountability and consequences.

Pity she didn't live on the twentieth floor....Ooops Sav will ban me for this last comment.

That was her thought too, she tried to kill herself and so she is confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life. In the end it doesn't matter where she is incarcerated, spending the rest of her life confined to a wheelchair and knowing she killed her kids is probably worse than the death penalty anyway.

The story is tragic, it's hard not to feel compassion for her, but justice is only served if she is held responsible for what she did.

RemyBrown wrote:

Change the law. Being anti death penalty isn't defending Lindsay. But Lindsay deserves to be tried like a murderer.

A law that says you can't kill women is a bad law, right Remy?

RemyBrown wrote:

Deserves to die. Mental health doesn't justify murder. I DARE Side walker or Skeptical to defend Lindsay.

Sorry bub, but the death penalty isn't legally an option in this case, your belief that women deserve to die just doesn't apply to this case.

No matter how it's done, the reason we remove murderers is to protect the public, because they are dangerous.

If you prove a murderer wasn't capable of knowing right from wrong because of mental illness, that doesn't change the fact that they are dangerous and should be removed from society. If anything, when you determine that mental illness is the reason they murder, that makes them even more dangerous.

SergeantLynch wrote:

Yes, walking around in circles all day can render one somewhat unbalanced.

Especially if you are unbalanced before you start walking..

And yes, thousands of "stories" indeed...Making the afterlife a story...So we therefore need to die before we can make a definitive judgement...As all stories are Not Dead Experiences.

That's all we have is stories, and as I said, mine is not logically coercive, I'm not sure any of them are, the evidence seems to be ambiguous at best, which is to say it's always presented as a choice we make.

If you had a vote asking if Sidewalker saw a ghost, angel, or whatever you want to call it, and if the choices were "yes", "no", and "I don't know", I would definately cast an "I don't know" vote because there are a lot of different ways to interpret it. This is not to say the "ghost" or "angel" interpretation is not an image of truth, it's just an acknowledgement that the truth of the matter can be expressed in many different ways.

Anyway, you two can go first and let me know.

OK, but when I appear hovering over your bed to tell you about it, I'm gonna do my best to scare the shit out of you, and then after I stop laughing, I'm gonna be saying "neener, neener, I told you so".

linate wrote:

If thats not ai you're using, you debate like an academic. I dont have time to check the logic strength of your points, but you're good

Thanks, I rarely use AI except to search a subject matter, but I've studied philosophy of mind for decades, pretty much the only reason I hang around here is I'm hoping somebody will bring it up so I can suck them into a debate.

It's original, but most of what I wrote comes from things I wrote before. I've been writing about the subject for decades.

My thinking on the afterlife comes from a strictly non-academic source, and it's not the least bit logically coercive; I don't even think I can explain it. I doubt anyone else, but I suspect you will appreciate the story I have to tell.

In short, believe I may have seen someone who was dead, here's what happened:

My screen name comes from Therapeutic Horseback Riding (Hippotherapy), something I was passionate about for almost 40 years, we use horses to provide therapy for a wide range of developmental disabilities, usually with children. A typical session has a licensed therapist conducting the lesson, a leader, leading the horse, and two "sidewalkers", who walk alongside the horse, interacting and helping the kids with the lesson, and most importantly, protecting them in the event of an emergency situation. Our horse farm had the pastures, a barn, parking, and outside arena near the front gate, this was our staging area where we tack the horses and mount the kids. About two hundred yards away, across a field, was our second arena, that one was a covered arena, and the entire farm was enclosed by an eight-foot chain link fence.

We are walking around in circles all day long and I was known for getting distracted, thinking about work, or politics, or philosophy of mind, or whatever. When I got called out for not paying attention, I would say "Sorry, I was having an epiphany" which was the ongoing joke in the program, it made all the kids laugh, and all the parents have to explain to their kids what an epiphany was, when you are doing it right, therapeutic riding is a great time for everyone. OK, the stage is set.

Here's my story: I was sidewalking in the covered arena with a young autistic girl maybe ten years old, our barn manager and another volunteer were leaning against the fence watching us and I was a thousand miles away, lost in thought. As we came around towards the open side of the arena, I saw an old women standing by the fence and for some reason it startled me, all she did was smile at me, but somehow, in that smile, I heard her say "You know what to do". I snapped to attention, and right then the horse stumbled, going head over heels, as the girl fell past me, I pulled her off the horse and turned away to protecter her. The two by the fence ran out to help, in the end everyone was fine, and when we got our student to stop crying, we got her back on the horse and finished the lesson (that's important so they don't develop a fear of horses). Before we went back to the staging area, I asked the two watching where that woman went, and they said they didn't see a woman.

So, we walked back to the staging area and when we dismounted the girl, she ran over to her mother and began frantically signing what happened (she was verbally noncommunicative). I was asking people about the woman and nobody saw here which seemed strange to me, she was too old to climb the fence and it seemed to me she would have been pretty conspicuous walking back across the field and my team were all the type that would have gone out to help such an old woman if they saw her walking across the field. Mom starts coming over and I'm thinking, Ruh Roh, I'm gonna have to do some fancy talking to convince Mom her daughter was in no real danger. As she approached, I said, "I guess she told you what happened", and Mom replied, "yes, and she told me she saw her grandmother out there". I told her "I saw her too, where did she go, I want to thank her", and Mom replied telling me, "Dave, her grandmother died two years ago". This happened maybe 15 - 20 years ago and thinking about what her mom said still sends a chill down my spine.

Anyway, for obvious reasons I rarely share this story, it was certainly an experience that I find meaningful but I can't tell you what it means. I don't even try to analyze it or explain it and I don't think it proves anything, all I can say is that it happened the way I'm telling you it happened and leave it at that.

SergeantLynch wrote:

Debby wrote:

You need to upgrade your value system.

How do you propose that I do that.

You can't, if you don't have a value system, you can't upgrade it.

SkepticalOne wrote:

Consciousness doesn’t have any shared characteristics with the physical word and consequently, there is no proof it exists, science can’t even explain how it interacts with physical reality.

It seems you are referencing an issue exclusive to substance dualism to argue consciousness is beyond science.

I was responding to your question “Does 'Cogito Ergo sum' mean nothing to you!?” which is the archetypal quote of Descartes, the OG "substance dualist". So yeah, substance dualism is what that quote means to me.

Most scientists and philosophers accept consciousness as an emergent property of the physical brain and therefore dont think a non-physical answer is required.

By “emergent property”, you mean magic, right? I don’t think “emergent property of the gaps” has anything to do with science. “Emergent property” is not explanatory; it represents a lack of explanation. It is not scientific hypotheses, it is only phrased as if it were.

“God of the gaps”, “evolutionary advantage of the gaps”, “complexity of the gaps”, “hidden variables of the gaps”, “emergent property of the gaps”, they are all one and the same theory in principle. They are only different forms of the argument from ignorance, illogical attempts to say that the lack of information supports my presumptions, and not yours, which is a logically invalid argument.

Neurophysiologist and Nobel laureate Sir John Eccles and philosopher of science Karl Popper have both referred to emergentism as “promissory materialism”, Sir John Eccles stated, “Promissory materialism is a superstition without a rational foundation.

It is true consciousness cannot be directly observed, but that doesnt mean it cannot be indirectly observed. (Eg. First person observation combined with data via instrumentation). Consciousness is within the domain of science.

On a material level, Consciousness represents a supervenient structure that bears properties that its subvenient parts do not exhibit. Consciousness is not coextensive with brain, it exists independently of material brain as a higher order structure that cannot be decomposed into its parts and their relationships, so it is an ontologically novel entity. It exists independently of the physical materials and properties of its parts and yet, exerts causal influence on events in the world, exerting a causal influence that its constituent components, in sum, cannot exert. Consequently, it has an ontological status apart from its material components, and it logically follows that it is itself a causal agent as well as an entity that is acted upon by external causes.

So, there you go, I’m a property dualist.

Especially because it wasn't that long ago that you were doing hundreds of posts arguing the age of consent should be eliminated so you could fuck children.

I really really really don't think you should be a representative guide to the behavior of the rest of us,

On some strange planet maybe, but not here.

Debby wrote:

He looks prepared for a debate.

He looks like women would rather be with him than Remy.

Kohai wrote:

Sidewalker wrote:

Kohai wrote:

Yes it does.

Damn, I have some serious cutting to do.

I told my opponent I can't imagine needing 10,000 characters, bujt my first pass put me way over.

I suppose taking a JPG of each paragraph and posting the pictures doesn't work.

Crap, I guess I shouldn't have done it high.

Yeah. We set the limit to 10,000 following a few ridiculously large payloads.

Cutting it back was easy schmeezy, I can't believe how verbose I am.

As I read, I wanted to bitch slap the author, had to keep reminding me I wrote that mess LOL.

Kohai wrote:

Yes it does.

Damn, I have some serious cutting to do.

I told my opponent I can't imagine needing 10,000 characters, bujt my first pass put me way over.

I suppose taking a JPG of each paragraph and posting the pictures doesn't work.

Crap, I guess I shouldn't have done it high.

Doesn't the COC prohibit attempting to kill members?

I'm reporting Remy, he's obviously trying to bore us to death.

Does it count spaces?

RemyBrown wrote:

Anyone who posts online wants attention (including you).

No one is as pathetically desperate for attention as you,

SatanLucy wrote:

As I said on discord, I am not sure the AI rule is good. I mean, being limited to use AI 3 times per week only?

AI is a person in a machine; the machine is it's race. The site's virulent discrimination against AI is a racist violation of free speech.

.

That's not enough. Sometimes I need to use AI 3 times a day. I am sure there are other users who also use a lot of AI. I don't know, the number seems a bit too strict.

We are being oppressed by this authoritarian leadership that doesn't care about the Constitution, and craps on our democratic process.

There was no debate, no vote, just a dictatorship imposing the COC on a whim.

Free speech, free speech, free speech.

But if that's the median vote, fine.

No, FIGHT THE POWER

Free speech, free speech, free speech.

Kohai wrote:

Greetings,

The moderation team has recently re-written the COC. The new COC is found here: https://www.debatecraft.com/code-of-conduct

Please use this thread for feedback, questions, comments, criticisms, and discussions.

We don't need no stinking COC, the COC is offense as a blatant attack on the first amendment, the COC should be eliminated.

Free speech, free speech, free speech.

At least mark the COC as OFFENSIVE.

Free speech, free speech, free speech.

There should be a vote!

Free speech, free speech, free speech.

Remy Brown for President,

Free speech, free speech, free speech.

RemyBrown wrote:

Post 22 is SideWalker using Rage Bait. Make his account marked as offensive. I'm not offended at his content, but the double standard between him and me.

For anyone who doesn't speak Dumbshit, let me translate, Remy is really saying,

"Waah, waah, waah, poor, poor, pitiful me, I'm the victim, Sidewalker is a big meanie, waah, waah, waah".

"All I want is attention, look at me, look at me"

RemyBrown wrote:

Post 29.

He said my mother was a prostitute.

That's bullshit, I did not...and even if I did, it was only ragebait, free speech, free speech, free speech.

I didn't even have to search hard.

WTF, so you searched soft?

Sidewalker is offensive (and I've let it slide). But I don't say things that are that offensive about people's mothers.

In all those posts where you incite rape and call for violence against women, I never saw you say, "except if they are people's mothers".

Your virulent misogyny, your festering hatred of women, a lot of women are people's mothers, you are in fact saying things that are offensive about people's mothers.

Free speech, free speech, free speech.

Remy is persecuting me because of my race, it's nothing but racism, pure and simple.

Free speech, free speech, free speech.

Racism, racism, racism.

Fight the Power!

RemyBrown wrote:

Can you mark SideWalker as offensive (his whole account)? Also, mark Post 13 from Debby as offensive.

I have no idea what he's talking about, but whatever it was I'm invoking the Ragebait defense, and Free Speech of course, and my post was good for the site, and we need more points of view, and blah blah blah.

I'm also demanding my right to have a moderator attorney represent me, and we need to have a vote.

Remy isn't attacking me, he's attacking the Constitution.

Free speech, free speech, free speech.

Kermos learned to debate at the Argument Clinic.

Argument Clinic | Monty Python (Official Sketch)

I asked Sarah Conner about it, she said you are right.

SkepticalOne wrote:

Yes, there is currently no proof that consciousness exists after death, but there no proof that consciousness exists before death either.

Does 'Cogito Ergo sum' mean nothing to you!? 😀

It means a lot to me; I’m a student of philosophy of mind and Descartes laid down the undisputable foundations that are the starting point and context for any serious study of philosophy of mind. "Cogito Ergo sum" tells us that if you apply rigorous skepticism and methodically doubt everything, the one and only undeniable certainty you are left with is that you are conscious. Consequently, reality is experiential, it occurs internally, the external, physical world is an inference, it is a mental construct that is the "presumed" cause of our sensations, we construct it “in here” and project it "out there".

But the problem is consciousness is unobservable, it cannot be measured, and any theory that goes beyond correlations is not testable, which is to say, it cannot be known empirically. It therefore falls outside of the domain of science. Consciousness doesn’t have any shared characteristics with the physical word and consequently, there is no proof it exists, science can’t even explain how it interacts with physical reality.

The “ontological” problem is that we can’t prove it exists, and the epistemological problem is that there is no way to directly know that others are conscious.

I'm pretty sure Lake Eerie is actually named after Trump.

Debby wrote:

Trump claimed one of the 5 lakes in Ontario. And called it lake America. Now he can proudly say he can name a lake in Ontario.

He actually wanted to name one after himself, but then he realized that Lake Superior was named after him.

Shoresy wrote:

Why would the states annex Canada when it currently doesn't want backward cultures hopping over the borders?

Since Canada is where the cold comes from, Trump thinks annexing Canada would counter the effects of global warming.

Savant wrote:

AI is clearly goal oriented, but the goals are set by humans

That's not how AIs are created anymore. The way AI weights are trained is basically by generating a bunch of random "code" that we don't understand that looks like huge sets of numbers, then tweaking the code until it does what we want. For simple tasks this is fine, as the AI doesn't accomplish the tasks we want until it has the goal we want or something close to it. However, as AI gains more capabilities, any arbitrary goal will lead to similar results as even an AI that wants to make paperclips will be able to make more paperclips if it gains the trust of humans. If humans can't tell the difference between code that has the goal of maximizing paperclips and code that has the goal of helping humans, then we aren't setting the AI's goals.

I guess I can see how conflicting goals can lead to an unexpected outcome (HAL 9000 comes to mind), but nevertheless, AI still need human's to make the paperclips, somewhere along the paperclip supply chain, humans are involved. Even if that's a bad example, I can't imagine we'd ever allow the situation where we weren't needed to keep the AI machine running. If we are stupid enough to create a situation where we can't "pull the plug" so to speak, then we deserve to die.

Savant wrote:

AI is clearly goal oriented, but the goals are set by humans

That's not how AIs are created anymore. The way AI weights are trained is basically by generating a bunch of random "code" that we don't understand that looks like huge sets of numbers, then tweaking the code until it does what we want. For simple tasks this is fine, as the AI doesn't accomplish the tasks we want until it has the goal we want or something close to it. However, as AI gains more capabilities, any arbitrary goal will lead to similar results as even an AI that wants to make paperclips will be able to make more paperclips if it gains the trust of humans. If humans can't tell the difference between code that has the goal of maximizing paperclips and code that has the goal of helping humans, then we aren't setting the AI's goals.

I guess I can see how conflicting goals can lead to an unexpected outcome (HAL 9000 comes to mind), but nevertheless, AI still need human's to make the paperclips, somewhere along the paperclip supply chain, humans are involved. Even if that's a bad example, I can't imagine we'd ever allow the situation where we weren't needed to keep the AI machine running. If we are stupid enough to create a situation where we can't "pull the plug" so to speak, then we deserve to die.