Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:@chaz Well I suppose that someone who thinks that Jews control the world is never going to understand my way of thinking. Creationists don't think I can 'reason' either, and who have you ever managed to 'persuade' on here?

I never once said that jews control the world.
But yes I will never understand anyone, like you, that has problems with understanding simple statements and ideas.
I think there are one or two issues were I have persuaded. But people need to be able to understand simple statements and ideas, and not misquote for effect as you seem to do.

chaz wyman wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:@chaz Well I suppose that someone who thinks that Jews control the world is never going to understand my way of thinking. Creationists don't think I can 'reason' either, and who have you ever managed to 'persuade' on here?

I never once said that jews control the world.
But yes I will never understand anyone, like you, that has problems with understanding simple statements and ideas.
I think there are one or two issues were I have persuaded. But people need to be able to understand simple statements and ideas, and not misquote for effect as you seem to do.

OMG. You are actually quite insane.

SecularCauses wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:


How are you going to do that? Concentration Camps. or reason. You show precious little propensity to reason, and less skills at persuasion than most on this Forum.

I'm calling you on your bullshit along with everyone of your idiot supporters here. You claimed that because you could name three rich Jews, that the Jews control the entire US economy. Now, that is an irrational argument if there ever was one. So, please have anyone here, especially your fellow irrational bigots, explain how your statement is in any way rational? Any way consistent with logic? Science? It's not. You repeatedly make statements here that are beyond ignorant, and are no different in form and substance than what one encounters in a neo-nazi meeting of high-school dropouts. It is you who lacks the ability to see reason.

People who are also Jews do in fact actually control the US economy. The 4 or 5 leading economists that I mentioned had to top jobs. Not a week goes by that Wolfowitz is commenting on some issue or another - who elected him? And who was the architect of the current Credit Crunch? Alan Greenspan - one of the select few people that got rich whilst others lost their jobs and lost their shirts. Ben Bernancke is back in the top job in Obama's administration - who elected him? Another guy for whom the credit crunch was a real bonus to his bank statement.
You really need to wake up and smell the coffee.


Ever heard of Franz Leopold Neumann, Leo Strauss, Max Boot - whether Jewish politicos are of the left or the right one thing in American foreign policy stands out as irrational Israel.
Jews are over-represented at the highest levels of American society - whether you like it or not!
Get over it! You are just a closet anti-semite if you can't see the plain truth of this.
The thing is that for most issues I think that is fine. They are the best and most talented humans on the planet in Western style civilisation, for reasons I have enumerated.
But it does explain the US's often irrational and excessive protectionism for Israel; it often embarrassing vilification by the Arab world. Why would the US have so much interest in such a country? Why was it that they risked International condemnation by giving Israel all those Pershing tanks for free to crush the Arab resistance.
There is no objective reason why America seems at times the patsy for Israeli interests.
This has nothing to do with racism - its all to do with politics.
People have sympathies. When you understand the power that Jews have in the USA, it all fits into place.
It's a complete no-brainer.
Your response to call me an anti-semite is childish.

Tell me why is it that the US supports Israel so much?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:@chaz Well I suppose that someone who thinks that Jews control the world is never going to understand my way of thinking. Creationists don't think I can 'reason' either, and who have you ever managed to 'persuade' on here?

I never once said that jews control the world.
But yes I will never understand anyone, like you, that has problems with understanding simple statements and ideas.
I think there are one or two issues were I have persuaded. But people need to be able to understand simple statements and ideas, and not misquote for effect as you seem to do.

OMG. You are actually quite insane.

Not a stunning line of argument there.
Well either I am insane or you are too stupid to read.
Um.... let me think!

Here's how we can answer the problem.
Run along and find the post where I am supposed to have said "Jews rule the World!"
If you can do that, then I'll admit I am insane, until then I'll just carry on with the conclusion that you cannot read.

The being of a live creature means an active influencing the future via brain/quantum interaction.
Einstein’s space/time continuum supposes unlimited time axis, hence ad hoc, already given, determined, unlimited future. It means that our entire thinks, all our inventions, all our math... is set in advance. Einstein’s world (TR) does not give any sense :(

Cerveny wrote:The being of a live creature means an active influencing the future via brain/quantum interaction.
Einstein’s space/time continuum supposes unlimited time axis, hence ad hoc, already given, determined, unlimited future. It means that our entire thinks, all our inventions, all our math... is set in advance. Einstein’s world (TR) does not give any sense

This post seem to mean nothing at all.

Several years ago there was a livley dialogue in the science fiction literature about 'what is a Human Being' in the sense of defining it in terms that a computer could understand and that would include all the variations. It was really more difficult than you might think, humans have a lot more computing capacity than a computer and can recognize variations that a computer might miss. So the simple statement "this is a human being" was not sufficient.

thedoc wrote:Several years ago there was a livley dialogue in the science fiction literature about 'what is a Human Being' in the sense of defining it in terms that a computer could understand and that would include all the variations. It was really more difficult than you might think, humans have a lot more computing capacity than a computer and can recognize variations that a computer might miss. So the simple statement "this is a human being" was not sufficient.

Are you talking about the Turing Test?

chaz wyman wrote:

thedoc wrote:Several years ago there was a livley dialogue in the science fiction literature about 'what is a Human Being' in the sense of defining it in terms that a computer could understand and that would include all the variations. It was really more difficult than you might think, humans have a lot more computing capacity than a computer and can recognize variations that a computer might miss. So the simple statement "this is a human being" was not sufficient.

Are you talking about the Turing Test?

No, it appears that the 'Turing Test' is to determine if a machine can think and respond like a Human,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

The discussion I was refering to was about how to define what a Human is, so that a machine could recognize a human being, useing appropriate means of scanning. There are a lot of characteristics of a human being and gived the variety, it started to get very complicated. It illustrated how complicated the human brain is that we can easily distinguish what is human and what is not.

If you have access to a computer program for the 'Turing Test' it might be interesting to apply it to contributors on this forum, and see how many pass?

thedoc wrote:If you have access to a computer program for the 'Turing Test' it might be interesting to apply it to contributors on this forum, and see how many pass?

The Turing test is a test done by humans to test whether a person, not in the room with them communicating though a third person is a human or a computer.
There is no computer program for it, in this sense. Only a human can be the tester.

thedoc wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

thedoc wrote:Several years ago there was a livley dialogue in the science fiction literature about 'what is a Human Being' in the sense of defining it in terms that a computer could understand and that would include all the variations. It was really more difficult than you might think, humans have a lot more computing capacity than a computer and can recognize variations that a computer might miss. So the simple statement "this is a human being" was not sufficient.

Are you talking about the Turing Test?

No...
The discussion I was refering to was about how to define what a Human is, so that a machine could recognize a human being, useing appropriate means of scanning. There are a lot of characteristics of a human being and gived the variety, it started to get very complicated. It illustrated how complicated the human brain is that we can easily distinguish what is human and what is not.

This does not seem to make sense. Who would a computer ask, if not a human? Are you proposing that a computer asking another computer can tell that the computer pretending to be a human could be stopped by the test?
Why??