If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
The day will come (It is almost here already) when AI in human body will be intelligent, affective, emotive, social and "independent".
They will have to be considered "alive".
Meet Sophia, the first AI to have been granted full national citizenship (In Saudi Arabia), and granted all human rights, including protection by law (Note also that courts have given some mammals limited "legal rights" in some countries [Dolphins]):
Bob A (Also believes extra-terrestrials, under cover of appearing human, already live in hidden societies, among us)
Interesting Question: could Sophia enter FIDE women's chess tournaments? Why or why not?
Ok, I have to slightly modify my definition of alive to handle robots.
New definition of Life:
"Life is the only process in which the participants in the process are capable of doing , and sometimes do, examinations of the process, without any external programming, directions or control."
AI is nowhere close to being emotive nor independent (Saudi Arabia is engaging in a publicity stunt only.) Any "emotion" that appears to be expressed by any robot is purely programmed logic.
If you went to strike Sophia, I doubt very much it would do anything at all to prevent being struck. Of course it COULD be programmed to take evasive measures, but again, that is in its programming logic, created externally. If all humans perished and Sophia was on its own, the programming would have to have Sophia seek out power sources to keep itself going. Maybe there could be enough programming to recognize a power cord and plug itself in, but if there were no electricity, the programming would have to include how to first GENERATE electricity and then attach itself to the electricity, making sure the voltages / currents are matching what it needs. Then the programming would have to account for what to do once the internal battery wears down.
And the whole time that Sophia is powered up and there are no humans, it would not "think" for itself.
The best authority on robots is the late scientist and author Isaac Asimov. His 4 Laws of Robotics are (note that they start with 0, because initially he only had Laws 1, 2 and 3 and later realized a new one that took precedence over all others was needed):
0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where
such orders would conflict with the Zeroth Law.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the Zeroth or First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the Zeroth or First or Second Law.
Note that humanity is given priority over individual human beings.
The day will come (It is almost here already) when AI in human body will be intelligent, affective, emotive, social and "independent".
They will have to be considered "alive".
Meet Sophia, the first AI to have been granted full national citizenship (In Saudi Arabia), and granted all human rights, including protection by law (Note also that courts have given some mammals limited "legal rights" in some countries [Dolphins]):
... but Jesus was supposedly sin-free. So he didn't REALLY get to know what it is like to be us, i.e. sinners. (This is one reason why I questioned Christianity after initially accepting it in my teenage years -- that plus the notion that there is only 1 life for each soul, and it's whatever life God decides to throw us into. Very unfair, so much so that i cannot accept it.)
God knew full well of satan, and of evil, and of demons too. God knows all about sin, Pargat. So for each and everyone one of us our sins are already known.
That is why He is willing to forgive us our sins. He knows our mankind experience. He knows us before we sinned.
And then, when mankind did sin ... sigh. And, the sufferings of our sin too ... He knows our sins.
No need to walk in your shoes, Pargat. Your sins are already known.
It is up to you ... what you need to do all about that, ha!
...
We only get one life to live, Pargat ... sorries. And even better ... there's no 'take backs' or 'undos'.
Each life unique ... precious.
.
Last edited by Neil Frarey; Sunday, 24th March, 2024, 03:00 AM.
Ok, now to answer as best I can figure why God would have created a physical universe and made sure to allow an alive species that He would gift with spirit.
In almost all Near Death Experience (NDE) accounts, the person says he or she had a "life review" on the other side, after meeting some of their already-deceased relatives and friends. But a small subset of them are returned to Earthly life without this life review occurring.
In this life review, each and every moment of their Earthly life is replayed to them, and they not only re-experience their own feelings and emotions, but they ALSO experience the feelings and emotions of EVERYONE they affected. In Christian doctrine, humans are judged by God, but in Soul Plan theology, God has us judge ourselves by being put through this life review. All NDErs who have the life review say they experience intense shame and guilt over how they treated others. But God forgives all. Our punishment, for those who demand that there must be judgment, is this very intense feeling of shame and guilt. We are in the presence of God, of pure love, and we are exposed naked to his eyes with all our human faults. Even Sid will feel this.
Many NDErs actually say they are hooked up to a machine to have this review done. Now think about that ... it means our souls contain every memory we accumulate in our lives, and contain the feelings and emotions of others we affect. In the latter case, how did the soul get that information? We did not experience others' feelings and emotions during our Earthly life!
And just think about this in standard computer terms. Think about how many petabytes of information this must entail ... all stored in our soul, not in our brain! It is truly supernatural.
This to me is a clue why God created us and put us in a physical universe in which we have to fight to survive. It is because God Himself cannot directly experience this, and yet He MUST experience it all in order to be an infinitely knowledgeable God. The story of Jesus is interesting in the respect that God made Himself human in order to experience our trials and tribulations, according to Christian doctrine. But Jesus only lived one life. That's a very tiny data sample! Not only that, but Jesus was supposedly sin-free. So he didn't REALLY get to know what it is like to be us, i.e. sinners. (This is one reason why I questioned Christianity after initially accepting it in my teenage years -- that plus the notion that there is only 1 life for each soul, and it's whatever life God decides to throw us into. Very unfair, so much so that i cannot accept it.)
On the other side, there is a facility called the Hall of Records. It contains every second of every Earthly life ever lived, in full 3D detail, with all data regarding feelings and emotions included. According to NDErs who have seen this facility, it appears to go on into infinity. It probably contains the records of all other alive species as well through the Universe. And there is the possibility of parallel universes. Yes, true infinity awaits us! I would love to work as a Librarian in that facility! LOL
So we exist to be God's data gatherers, so that He can truly know and understand what it means to be without His own powers. This is why our souls gather all this information. And there are untold gazillions of souls on other planets throughout the Universe doing the same thing. It is intentional in the design of the Universe that all civilizations should be seperated by vast distances and unable to communicate directly with each other. Whether this will eventually be overcome is left unanswered.
I was aware that you did not include in your system, Spirits or trees; I was trying to say that I want to include both, but am not sure how I can do it. Your system seems, on what we know about trees so far, to exclude them from being designated "alive"; agreed re your system.
It is problematic to me that your definition excludes so much that heretofore we've just generally accepted as being "alive", like us. Maybe you are right........But if you are, it leaves me with an uneasy feeling about our new schema......
Bob A
Ok, now I get what you meant. But there is a problem: trees act only like machines. If we could emulate the photosynthesis process, we can make artificial trees that act just as natural trees. We could replace roots in the soil with electrical wires and cables.
"Alive" must mean something that machines CANNOT emulate. Otherwise we'd have to call all machines "alive" and protect them as much as we do humans.
So far at least, despite the current over-indulgence with the term "artificial intelligene", AFAIK there is no machine created by man that is self-aware and is capable of examining its own process of existing. AFAIK there is still no HAL computer.
I was aware that you did not include in your system, Spirits or trees; I was trying to say that I want to include both, but am not sure how I can do it. Your system seems, on what we know about trees so far, to exclude them from being designated "alive"; agreed re your system.
It is problematic to me that your definition excludes so much that heretofore we've just generally accepted as being "alive", like us. Maybe you are right........But if you are, it leaves me with an uneasy feeling about our new schema......
I agree that "Consciousness" and "alive" seem intimately intertwined. Pargat has gone down a particular aspect of consciousness in his attempted definition: "Self-aware".
I have always considered "alive", that which is "independently" conscious. So a DNA strand is not "alive", but a constituent building block of that which can be alive. The complete being, the butterfly, is therefore "alive". But then, one can say the butterfly is "dependent" - needs air, water, food, etc to continue to be alive. But somehow I am not inclined to like this counter much.
But I have problems with Pargat's approach. I desperately want to believe that a tree is both alive, and has a unique non-material partner Spirit joined to it. But I don't think a tree is self-aware (Except in Lord of the Rings).
I guess I am still in quest of being "enlightened"!
Bob A (What do I know about what is going on in the Multi-verse)
Hey Bob, I didn't write anything at all about trees having spirits or being self-aware. Trees / plants do not appear to conduct or to be able to conduct examinations of the life process, therefore my definition does not consider them as alive.
Source: I believe that one source of the "free will" concept comes from "Religion/Spirituality". That is because all Religions believe that humans are "moral" animals. Thus they CAN choose between "good" and "evil" (Such choice is not pre-determined, despite some modern science views). So man/woman is "responsible" for their judgments and actions. The Supra-Natural, the Creator, puts a condition on a human coming into being - they are to do "the good" and avoid doing "evil/The bad". Modern Determinism replaces this with humans are not allowed to do "damage" (Even though it is not their "choice"; they are pre-determined). Society to function cannot have humans running amok causing "damage".
Question: Why is it that many atheists hold that man is an "ethical" animal (The secular equivalent of religious/spiritual "morality")? They argue that man is responsible and has free will just from the fundamental elements that make up "Human Nature"! Do any CT'ers hold this position......if so, can you elaborate on how you deal with "modern science determinism"?
Bob A (Theist Community)
What the theist calls the 'soul', the scientist calls 'consciousness' ... the rest is only deterministic sophisticated machinery !!
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Friday, 22nd March, 2024, 10:40 PM.
I agree that "Consciousness" and "alive" seem intimately intertwined. Pargat has gone down a particular aspect of consciousness in his attempted definition: "Self-aware".
I have always considered "alive", that which is "independently" conscious. So a DNA strand is not "alive", but a constituent building block of that which can be alive. The complete being, the butterfly, is therefore "alive". But then, one can say the butterfly is "dependent" - needs air, water, food, etc to continue to be alive. But somehow I am not inclined to like this counter much.
But I have problems with Pargat's approach. I desperately want to believe that a tree is both alive, and has a unique non-material partner Spirit joined to it. But I don't think a tree is self-aware (Except in Lord of the Rings).
I guess I am still in quest of being "enlightened"!
Bob A (What do I know about what is going on in the Multi-verse)
Bob A (Searching out the "Inanimate/Animate" conundrum)
Bob,
Your conundrum may get resolved when you realize that the one categorization mainstream science has neglected to adopt is that the most fundamental difference between what we can call 'alive' vs 'only a complex machine' is the presence of consciousness in the former...
The USA military, some time ago, learned of the intelligence of dolphins. They did experiments and learned that a dolphin was self-aware.
They put a mirror under water. Then the affixed a ribbon to the chest of the dolphin. The dolphin came up and admired its ribbon for some time. The conclusion was that it was well aware of the difference between its objective world in which it live, and its own self as separate in some way from the rest.
I don't have a cite for this, but likely it can be googled....long time ago that I read of this.
Bob A (Searching out the "Inanimate/Animate" conundrum)
I will chew on what you've posted so far......great discussions re both "alive" and the "Supra-Natural".
Yes I founded "The Theist Community".
I also am its only member, so far. Though minimal in theology and liturgy, I believe it likely should be classed as a "Religion". It's core belief is in the "Supra-Natural" (What other religions refer to as God, Yahweh, Allah, the Great Spirit, etc.).
Closely associated in some ways are "Deism", and "Ietsism" ((Dutch: Ietsisme; Dutch pronunciation: [itsˈɪsmə]) is an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcendent reality. It is a Dutch term for a range of beliefs held by people who, on the one hand, inwardly suspect – or indeed believe – that "there must be something undefined beyond the mundane and that which can be known or can be proven", but on the other hand do not accept or subscribe to an established view of the nature of a deity offered by any particular religion. Some related terms in English are agnostic theism (though many ietsists do not believe in anything that could be called "god", and therefore are agnostic atheists), eclecticism, deism and spiritual but not religious. - Wikipedia)
Bob A (Theist)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Friday, 22nd March, 2024, 06:41 AM.
2. Fb Group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/6579...ref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARBPgftXHCO1yVfGVVSsm8bFkSm5X5qQg-X2uXyf6VEUHZLEW65g-IEFXKRB4x-W3mOJcMD9Q60UUBIq6T0_ve7eO-NexVUbpWIDC2z4rWYC2BpC___8fFTq8Rx6M9vxkJiYr5nweWlFsoBXpgU55U0PX7eq-OOCotDEbtQk5k-Wyvg-AcgKzkwhHJ0wamiZl0_PPzLgpMdHVrUP9i_xh_1JVgHn0_S48byksjXXOwX6tArN21q-t_4zaN5XmORvf3Ovdxev2R3wjMzxtJ0T8hlWteLH3P7u8cxW3mhWtypHFx5pHHHIwV7EXlrtmbrfmbQzug - Spiritual/Religions Discussion Club - a wide-open forum where all aspects of spirituality and various Religions can be discussed. There is no attempt to proselytize for members for the Theist Community........everyone has to decide these things for themselves. Some interesting discussions.
3. Statement # 2 of the Theist Community "Core Beliefs" - "2. Life events are, generally, random, not by design."
Random here does not mean that there are no causes - we are effective beings; we can cause good things or bad things; material things can break down and cause damage and death - getting caught under a breaking tree branch.
But "Random (generally) means that the Supra-Natural has not determined/ grand designed all that is going to happen. Most things are just random events in a material multi-verse. Most events don't happen for any "reason" - that they are planned by God to achieve some certain result. TC does not believe in Karma - that one gets compensated in the future for having undergone some trauma in the future (May or may not happen - just pure luck). There is no "What goes around, comes around" - again, maybe, maybe not. It is dependent on the causes operating randomly in the multi-verse.
Does this generate any ideas that might continue this discussion?
Bob
I was in Europe when this thread started and missed most of it until I got back, otherwise I would have contributed much sooner.
Bob A., are you the founder of Theist Community?
Here are my own theological beliefs, shared by a significant number of others, and verified to a degree by MOST (but not all) accounts of Near Death Experience (NDE):
Soul Plan Theology Part 1
The first thing is that there is an eternal creator God who has the power to create the Universe and everything in it, and obviously did so. He gave the Universe special laws and conditions that allow for the existence of planets like Earth (possibly billions of them). And on these planets can exist ecosystems that eventually support the rise of life, which I have defined in other posts as a process in which the participant(s) in the process are capable of doing, and often do, examination of the process. In Earth's case, the only species that has risen to the extent of being alive are Human Beings. Other species seem to be alive, but are missing the key ingredient, the so-called "breath of life". Or maybe they just didn't touch the Monolith (LOL Space Odyssey 2001 joke).
I do believe that part of being alive is to have within our bodies a spirit or soul, also created by God. One question I still have is whether God created all souls at the beginning of time, or whether God is in fact still creating souls and will do so into the infinite future. I prefer the latter, because it allows for no end to the creation of souls. The former belief would place a finite limit on the number of souls. When it comes to God, I do not believe in finite limits; this is why I believe God is still learning and will do so forever, and His created souls are His agents for learning, which is not to diminish His unfathomable love for each and every soul.
Each soul God creates exists in spirit form in a heavenly realm where God's love is the very essence of existence. Here on Earth, love is not a "force". You cannot make anything move by even the most powerful love you can possibly muster. But in the Heavenly realm, God's love is the source of all energy and existence. The physics of this realm are beyond all human understanding. Communication between souls is telepathic. Souls can be in multiple locations at the same time. Souls can create "material" things simply by thought. Souls do not need air, water, food, and they never sleep. Souls have mental abilities far beyond anything seen here on Earth. They are not endlessly singing hymns to God, although they do so at times.
And speaking of time, it DOES exist but it is considered totally irrelevant because it never ends. Many NDErs say time "doesn't exist" on the other side, but I think this must be a misinterpretation. Time must exist for any change to occur, and the NDErs that say time doesn't exist still describe their experience as a sequence of events. What i think they really mean is that time is of no consequence whatsoever on the other side, and so can be dismissed entirely. If I"m wrong and time really doesn't exist, I'm looking forward to finding out what that REALLY means!
Given all this, why would there be a physical Universe at all? I will get into that in my next post.
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Saturday, 23rd March, 2024, 06:14 PM.
Hi Pargat. Thanks for the above posts. Lots of stuff to think about. One item in particular: should your definition be amended to include potential / future possibilities? For example, a fetus is not capable of self-reflection (as far as I know) and yet in most cases 'acquires' that ability some time after birth. So is a fetus not alive at some stage in its development? Similarly, could a mammal like a dolphin be viewed as having the potential to self-reflect and therefore be considered as part of an 'aliveness continuum'?
Wow, the fetus question is really difficult and intriguing. And it even goes beyond the fetus into the toddler / young chld stage, because a toddler / young child could also be said to be unable to self-reflect. But given good brain health, we can say that both the fetus and the toddler / child have built-in what my definition calls "the capability" of self-reflection. Just as we have the capability of language or of math, but don't develop it until a few years after birth.
Given that, I think we should be able to say that if brain health is normal, both the fetus and the toddler are alive and should be treated as such. As far as how this impacts abortion laws .... I've personally never been strongly pro-choice or pro-life, but I've kind of vacillated between the two. On the one hand, I do understand issues with women being raped or there is incest or other unusual circumstances of a conception, but on the other hand once a life is there, it should be respected as something truly magical because of the special status of human beings in the Universe. So my beliefs are probably pro-life with the caveat that there should be FAR more support for single mothers, for child support, for all the things that are necessary for a healthy raising of a child IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. What I'm against are conservatives who are strongly pro-life, yet want to cut things like food stamps, school lunches, drug and alcohol rehabilitation (especially for pregnant women / single mothers). That is just horrible politics.
If brain health is NOT normal for either fetus or toddler, then we have a different situation. Doctors and medical specialists would have to weigh in on whether the individual could ever be able to self-reflect. In any case, yes or no, once the birth has taken place, I think full life support should be in place in case in the future there could be some cure for the brain condition. But for the fetus, I could see that a diagnosis of irreparable brain damage or sever underdevelopment could be a valid reason for abortion.
I don't think an INDIVIDUAL dolphin or dog or whale should be viewed as having a future capability of self-reflection. But ALL SPECIES of animals, and maybe even more than just animals, could be considered as having POSSIBLE future self-reflection capabilities and so all species should be considered sacrosanct. Saving an individual dolphin, not so important, but saving the dolphin species, very important imo.
I'd love to read your ideas (and anyone else's) on these aspects. I may have come up with this new (?) definition of life, but my opinion is no more important than anyone else's.
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Friday, 22nd March, 2024, 04:27 AM.
On further reflection ... by my own definition of life as
"the only process in which the participants in the process are capable of doing, and sometimes do, examinations of the process",
I no longer believe Planet Earth could possibly be alive. For it to be alive, it must somehow be aware of the results of human examination of the life process. I do not see any way that Planet Earth could be aware of such. Therefore we humans are only examining the life process because WE are alive, whereas Planet Earth could not be examining the life process using humans since there is no "feedback" mechanism AFAIK back to Planet Earth.
So by my definition, humans are the only elements of the entire known Universe that are alive. (until we can prove the existence of intelligent aliens)
Although I do not classify myself as Christian (I might have more to say on that later), it is interesting that this definition of mine does make humans special in the entire Universe just as the Bible says we are (probably somewhere in the book of Genesis).
Hi Pargat. Thanks for the above posts. Lots of stuff to think about. One item in particular: should your definition be amended to include potential / future possibilities? For example, a fetus is not capable of self-reflection (as far as I know) and yet in most cases 'acquires' that ability some time after birth. So is a fetus not alive at some stage in its development? Similarly, could a mammal like a dolphin be viewed as having the potential to self-reflect and therefore be considered as part of an 'aliveness continuum'?
Leave a comment: