A.I. is either self-conscious, and, therefore, alive, or it is utterly lifeless and without feeling whatsoever. Which?
A.I. is either self-conscious, and, therefore, alive, or it is utterly lifeless and without feeling whatsoever. Which?
And the capitalist has an interest in keeping wages low and profits high, and the workers have the opposite interest.
I was more or less with you until this last comment. You describe the miserly capitalist, and they do exist, but that version of capitalism has, does not, and will never fully succeed. That is the one downside of capitalism, that it restricts the agency of workers to be worth what they truly are worth to an open, and competitive environment where everyone's success in the company can and will be achieved by the executive in that organization who is not jealous of his wealth, but knows his own wealth will increase by allowing all in his company who desire to achieve their dreams, as well. I agree, that is a rare capitalist, but they do exist, and I had the good fortune to work for one [with one was his opinion] before I left to be my own entrepreneur.
Thanks, Mom started teach me and my two older brothers when we were very young. First recipe I learned from Mom is chocolate chip cookies at five. Then observing me making them is how she discovered why I was yielding fewer cookies than her recipe should yield because I was eating the finished dough before baking!
Not my place to tell you anymore than you can tell me my past and future. Self-discovery, my friend, because only you know what's on your head. and heart, and that's true for all of us. AlI know is what is apparent to anyone who is paying attention. You're simply all over the map, not centered. Why is up to you.
The point of reincarnation is that it requires several lifetimes in mortality to learn how to progress properly. The point of resurrection as that several lifetimes in mortality are not necessary, but that the purpose of mortality is achievable in a single mortal lifetime. The difference is that purpose of eternity is requires an eternity to learn all the processes necessary to achieve, and that perfection is not a singular achievement, but a never-ending process of progression.
No, I disagree that prevention by gene manipulation occurred to prevent attempting to build the Tower of Babel. Gods are not afraid of mortal people. The means of achievement of the tower builders was going to always be impossible because the achievement of becoming as the gods is not achievable by the means they devised. Gods define the rules, not mortal men. There is a clearly defined process of that achievement, to a point we can understand now, and it has clear instructions, not all of which have yet been revealed, but we know the beginning of the process, and those beginning steps are required to achieve before moving on. Eternal progression means just that; perfection is not an achievement, it is a never-ending process. Processes have rules and they cannot be shortcutted by any means such as the Babel folks attempted anymore than we can do it, now.
At this point, that achievement is only a possibility. It is a personal goal, and it is possible to achieve, but there is also possibility to fail in the attempt. Way to early, but I solidly believe in eternal progression.
Note: the above topic sgould have indicated that the control of human behavior will never be enabled in a democracy or a republic, since we in the U.S. are a blend of the two forms of government. In a socialist or comminost, or a chaotic stater, sure, control can be imposed, but never in a free society.
Legislation will never enable control of human behavior realtrive tor control of human use of tools, such as bay an effort to ban guns. First of all, no one has been able to successfully define a particular tool: the "assault weapon." Without proper definition, how do we legislate its control. Nope.
And then, there is the issue of trying to "control" by the tool's complete ban. That will not solve the problem, either, because if we ban assault weapons, we'll just use a different tool to eliminate our perceived problems with other people. A spoon can kill. Are we going to ban spoons? That's the paradigm, boys and girls. Useless.
And then, there's the effort to control human behavior by legislation. That has been tried unsuccessfully ever since the ancient Greeks decided to legislate all crime as punishable by death. Nope, that was just a civilization-killer. Not the right answer.
So, what is the3 answer, you who seek to ban guns altogether? Back to the spoon? Absurd.
The humble calculator does nothing until taken in hand. Just another tool, like a gun; evidence that we will never be able to successfully legislate human behavior relative to tool use, because that is the engine of misuse of tools, not the tools, themselves.
If that's your shtick, run with it.
Regardless, that is my takes on it. Having been aware of the track record of both major parties over the last 60 years, it is my conclusion that we would be better off without political parties at all. let candidates run on their own merits and projected plans for realizing Madison's dream from the Preamble; '...to form a more perfect union."
All who have lived on Earth will resurrect, re-joining the spirit with the physical body, justo as Jesus did [and he did not suddenly lose that physical body to become just a spirit, again, as some of Christianity believes. Satan, and all who fell from heaven with him, and who never we bien into a physical, mortal body, remain as spirits only, will not resurrect because they have no physical body to resurrect, and therefore will have less power than nay person born on Earth who dosed resurrect.
Before our resurrection, but after Christ returns to Earth, those who are still mortal will continue dying as normal, but there will be a period of time during which Satan will be bound and can have no influence over the Earetrh and its inhabitants. Durong thatperiod, the Holy Spirit will, himself, be born into a physical body and live a mortal life, die, and resurrect as everyone else.
Exaultation is deserved eternal life in the presence of God; in fact, with the godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit [see above for his exigence]. Not all who resurrect will earn exaltation, only those whose mortal lives were lived according to the commandments of God, including successful practice of repentance.
Socrates never met a good French chef.
And neither did Glaucon, and worse, he never realized that if you makes a Béchamel sauce and need a Velouté, add some white stock [chicken, venal, or fish]. If you want, instead, a rich Espagnole [brown sauce], substitute a brown stock [beef] and Cabernet wine as the stock. Such can be done variably forever, and be made and eaten anywhere where sensibility and out-of-the-box thinking reigns.
Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilized man
That just says Marx still didn't get it. Wrestling with nature is not a proper dominion of it as God intended. WE make best progress when we learn from natured rot work within its paradigm by cooperation, not by being combative. And just because Marxism now claims to deal with indirect labor, by the quotes you give, the3ir approach is stroll trying to bring labor of any kind under control. Nope. When I managed a group in manufacturing, I tougtthem the secret of beings able to indersand how their work supported the bottom line so they could more easily understand the woertrh of their on dividual contribution to the bottom line. I taught them to understand the finance-end of their individual workload so they could calculate their personal worth. It made my hob at review time for pay increases easier because they could easy calculate what that should be. So review time w2a no big secret to anybody.
one thing that accomplished once the rest of the company adopted what I was doing was easily refuse an eefortr to un ionize the company. Who needs a union rep who is justo going to demand union dues when you can negotiate your income yourself without paying dues to any dummy?
Frankly, I don't think marxist's think of those concerns in the first place. After all, they limit the concept of "work" to Bourgois [management] and proletariats [direct labor], totally ignoring there's an entire class of indirect labor that actually exceed the numbers of either of the other two. But Marx never ran a lemonade stand, when even kids learn the basics of free-market capitalism. All three functions are involved in a lemonade stand, even if the employment is a single person. Marxist's dpn't get it, and haven't since 1848 when Marx & Engels first published their unmastered bastardized manifesto.
By the way, welcome back.
No, I don't find anything you say offensive, just a different POV than mine, and that's perfectly fine with me. We, humanity, are meant, I believe, to discuss matters to more fully understand one another, and still try to get along. That is, I think, the lesson from the Tower of Babel: get along in spite of differences.
have their own concept of justice, which is to send all the non-believers and sinners to burn in hell.
But that statement, on its own, does not account for the opportunity of repentance, which is a concept that is represented to me by much of Christianity as a turnstile effect of sinning, go to a priest/pastor seeking absolution, go out and commit the same sin, or others, and return to the confessional. That's not repentance. And that denies the atonement of Christ. I do not believe in original sin, either. We do not bear the stain of Adam and Eve any more than they bear ours. That, too, denies the atonement of Christ. Repentance is supposed to be turning away from a sin, oversomiong it and no longer committing it. That's not a turnstile, that's solid growth toward perfection. If we keep committing the same sins, we are not successfully repenting.
This is if you think the Earth is the only planet with life in this universe, which is not true.
I agree with that, but there is no evidence in reincarnation that we go to different planets. Not salting it is I'm possible3, just that we do not kn ow, and that always causes guessing. Not always the best endeavor applied.
Yes, they all share godhood, which likely has several levels of assignment and duty
Eh... not mine. I am a cook of some refinement. I have a blend of seasonings of my choices I apply immediately after roasting [I never fry them] while still steaming out of the oven, sealing the flavors to the potato. And I always cut steak fries - double wide - not thin sticks. Better to dip into fry sauce, which I also make myself. I also use a BBQ sauce called "Whisky Maple" from Rufus Teague Made Some Sauce. They have several flavors, but that one is my favorite. I buy it online; no local store near me carries it.
First pass, they contain both truth and error, just as the Holy Bible does, That volume, I have read clover-tro-cover in four languages [and I've read the Quran in two, and the Tripitaka just n English] and none completely agree, word-for-word, with another. Just in English, the Bible suffers under more than 2 dozen translation, and they do not agree word-for-word, either. "infallible" is not a word I would apply to any of them. Valid advice, mostly, yes, I agree.
A burger, which is always more than just the meat [which can even be processed, i.e., taux-beef] is of variable virtue considering the aside condiments and whatnot applied.
Fries are an honest, single product, with only variation in preparation and presentation. Ergo, the fry is more tastefully virtuous.
But, then, my preference aligns with philochristos: give me onion rings.
What is the acronym "recc?" I've never knowingly looked for one.
I watched a single video some months ago which demonstrated two separate reactions of looking at one's self in a mirror for the first time.
these two results demonstrated that the A.I. was tought to smile as reaction of self-awareness in the mirror, while the human, recognizing he looked at his reflection, was genuinely pleased to do so without being told in advance that he would see a reflection of himself.
AI has a long way to go to compete with humanity.
-15 and +15. You've been both
But, it was not the Roman's who insisted on the crucifixion of Christ.It was the Jewish Sanhedrin who insist4ed Rome do that because they were forbidden by Rome to exact punishment of death. It was the Jews who demanded his death, and conspired with Judas to pay him silver to betray Christ in Gethsemane. Pilate, himself, washed his hands of the whole affair. No wonder it was not spoken of much by the Roman's; a contemporary insignificant blip on their radar. You note Vespasian and Titus, and the Seneca's, but avoid Flavius Josephus, 1st century Roman/Jewisdh historian who was fully aware of Jesus, and Pilates role and wrote of it, even acknowledged that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead.
Have you read the 120-volume set of Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews," which covers their history from creation to about 70 C.E. I own it and have read it.
Reincarnation and resurrection are separate terms meaning separate concepts of life. Reincarnation is repetitive for each individual; resurrection is a singular event for each individual. But, reincarnation is not a good explanation why the population of Earth keeps increasing. It should be relatively stable since it is repetitive. We do not reincarnate to separate individuals.
Yes, the Earth is described as green. This is just text, not a picture. Each glyph represents either single letters, or groups of letters, i.e., a whole word. Some glyphs represent several words together, =or a single word such as the last four glyphs saying "triumph." There is only one way to know this and that is by memory. It is in this respect that I say Egyptian hieroglyphs are more complicated than Roman charters that we use.
Polytheists will rise
They already have. Many Christians and Jews are caught in the middle of the argument and, by doctrine that cannot find relevance biblically, believe they are not polytheists, themselves. But they ignore from Genesis, 1:26. From the beginning [Gen 1:1 - 25] "God," alone is the reference, but in Hebrew, "God" is said to be "Elohim" [אֱלֹהִ֑ים] which is a plural [third person] noun, but it is paired with "ba'ra" [בָּרָ֣א] "create" [singular], and such is the case through verse 25. However, Genesis 1:26, the Hebrew verb "make" (נַעֲשֶׂה - na'aseh) is in the plural form in addition to the plural form "Elohim." Multiple gods..It is the first person plural verb, meaning "let us make man in our image." The phrase "in our image" also uses plural pronouns (נו - nu), reflecting the plural verb form. Why the change? To acknowledge that there is a hierarchy of gods, with one at the head, but others beside him. Christians acknlowledge "God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but somehow could not conceive that these are separate individuals as Genesis acknowledges at the point of creating man in their shared, but separate images and being separate gods.