so i was having this argument with a friend about the westboro baptist idiots.
my point is that while they are horrible people, they are pretty much right in that the bible is against gays because it has verses in both the old and the new testament.
which is one of many reasons to reject the bible as merely man-made rules from ancient middle-easterners.. and she argued that there are problems in translation, etc.
Prominent NT scholar Ben Witherington III explains why he opposes gay marriage.
This is perhaps the mildest, kindest and most reasonable explanation of a biblical position against gay marriage you could hope to hear. Miles ahead of most Watchtower comments. Yet it's interesting that this view is still totally unacceptable. It seems it doesn't matter how reasonable or loving you try to make the position sound, it's just plain wrong whichever way you look at it.
as portrayed in the convention videos this year about sergei (the fictional jw character in cold-war-era ussr), the jw leaders expect loyalty, even enduring imprisonment and/or death.
in one scene sergei was offered an early release from prison if he would sign a statement renouncing his religion.
well he refused and spent 5 years in prison as a result.
No he affirmed his faith by partaking of the holy sacrament of theocratic warfare strategy. I once wrote a thread on this topic.
now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!
perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.
now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.
That's a coincidence Cofty game me some great advice by PM too. He said to me: "fuck off". I still remember the exact phrase to this day.
They say Balir should be tried for mismanagement rather than war crimes now. Whatever. If it ends up behind bars we could live with the false terminology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znmk2viuqba.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/simulation_hypothesis.
consequences of living in a simulation[edit]some scholars speculate that the creators of our hypothetical simulation may have limited computing power; if so, after a certain point, the creators would have to deploy some sort of strategy to prevent simulations from themselves indefinitely creating high-fidelity simulations in unbounded regress.
Ruby that's one of the fascinating things. Does the universe remember? And what does it mean if it does?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znmk2viuqba.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/simulation_hypothesis.
consequences of living in a simulation[edit]some scholars speculate that the creators of our hypothetical simulation may have limited computing power; if so, after a certain point, the creators would have to deploy some sort of strategy to prevent simulations from themselves indefinitely creating high-fidelity simulations in unbounded regress.
Because simulations do not have the properties of the things which they are simulating. They are a mathematical representation. Not an actual manifestation.
I guess it depends what you think consciousness is. If a computer works out that a conscious being would do a certain thing and simulates them doing so, versus a material being undergoing the same process and performing the same act, is there a meaningful distinction between the two? I guess you could say the "real" being "feels" it whereas the simulated version doesn't. But what does "feel" it mean? Once again it is a curious situation where in order to preserve a materialist perspective on reality one first needs to insist that there is more to reality than the material. That the mental world has a reality beyond what can be explained purely by the working of its parts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znmk2viuqba.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/simulation_hypothesis.
consequences of living in a simulation[edit]some scholars speculate that the creators of our hypothetical simulation may have limited computing power; if so, after a certain point, the creators would have to deploy some sort of strategy to prevent simulations from themselves indefinitely creating high-fidelity simulations in unbounded regress.
Assuming for a moment that we are in a simulation - then it follows we should be able to show that simulations can produce consciousness.
Or that we should be able to in the future. I don't think anyone is saying it's already possible.
But what are the reasons for suspecting it will not be possible? Only on mystical grounds when you think about it. Consider this thought experiment: imagine the technology existed to replicate your physical body atom for atom including your brain. Would that new being possess consciousness? A committed materialist would surely need to answer yes. To answer otherwise would need to invoke a substance other than the material as being involved in consciousness. If nothing is involved in consciousness other than the material, then it follows that the ability to minutely engineer matter will result in the ability to replicate consciousness. If you say there is more to consciousness than replicating its material conditions then you are not a materialist!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znmk2viuqba.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/simulation_hypothesis.
consequences of living in a simulation[edit]some scholars speculate that the creators of our hypothetical simulation may have limited computing power; if so, after a certain point, the creators would have to deploy some sort of strategy to prevent simulations from themselves indefinitely creating high-fidelity simulations in unbounded regress.
Okay I tried twice to show how it is begging the question. I won't flog a dead horse.
I'll just point out that "all the evidence" you think shows we are physical creatures could equally be evidence that we are simulations of physical creatures. We cannot know which. We know we have consciousness. We don't know this has a purely physical base. We know it looks like it is purely physical, but that's what we'd expect from a simulation also. That's the point at issue. Simply saying "it looks this way" doesn't solve the puzzle.
By the way I completely understand the point you are making. You are saying that, as sophisticated as simulations may be, there is no evidence that any entity within an simulation possesses consciousness. I completely understand this point you are making. But I also understand that it misses the point. In order to make the statement "we know of no simulation that possesses consciousness" you need to make the prior assumption that we ourselves are not simulations. And if you allow for that assumption you are begging the question.
There I go, I tried a third time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znmk2viuqba.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/simulation_hypothesis.
consequences of living in a simulation[edit]some scholars speculate that the creators of our hypothetical simulation may have limited computing power; if so, after a certain point, the creators would have to deploy some sort of strategy to prevent simulations from themselves indefinitely creating high-fidelity simulations in unbounded regress.
Our physical brains? As in the very brains that we are trying to work out if they are purely material or if they are a simulation? If your argument assumes that they are purely physical to start with that's called begging the question.
You cant say "we know purely material brains give rise to consciousness because our brains are purely material and they give rise to consciousness" within the context of a discussion about whether our brains are purely material or part of a simulation. Because if we "knew" that, then we'd already know the answer to the very thing we are calling into question. And if we already "know" that our brains are not a simulation then there's no point having a discussion.
as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?
why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?
it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.
Yes Ray Kurzweil and Aubrey de Grey are the secular equivalent.
as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?
why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?
it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.
Well Splane wasn't shy about demonstrating the doctrine with "visual aids" on JW TV. Maybe he devised the doctrine and has been handed the "privilege" of writing about it and explaining it on TV.
