Someone here doesn't keep up with philosophy.

A good deal of philosophy is mythology, trendy mythology, which is why I tend to ignore the signals coming from that direction. It's not even a soft science: it's not science at all. So yes, you're quite right, and thank you for noticing I'm not taking part in that mostly-bewildered sideshow.

There is nothing -- repeat, absolutely nothing -- to indicate, in any way, that there is anything going on in brains that isn't mundane physics. Further, not anywhere in the body, not anywhere in the world, not anywhere in the entire universe. The tendency of certain personality types to attribute the unknown to various imaginary basics without bothering with objective fact, measurable cause and effect, and the inconvenience of presenting a falsifiable proposal is what got us gods, elves, banshees, ghosts, chupacabras, and so forth.

Me, I'll wait to assert that force X is making something happen until someone demonstrates that there is a force X. In the interim, we already know the living brain is replete with electrical, chemical and physical activity (by which I mean the actual physical configuration is known to change over time... I'm not just talking about niceties like oxygen transport.) We don't know what it all does in any kind of holistic sense; that makes it far too early to be presuming the existence of further activity of another order. If, however, we look into all the known activities and find that they cannot account for the end result, that's the time to look further -- that, or if someone builds an X detector and demonstrates that X is, in fact, going on -- as it were. I must point out to you that no such thing has occurred.

In the interim, the way to bet is clearly that it's all mundane, in the sense that we already understand the underlying physics principles. Everything from Occam's Razor to basic statistics tells us the probable solution lies in the set of solutions we've determined describe everything else; for one, we know of nothing else, for another, there's no evidence whatsoever that points to something else. There's simply no path from here to Dualism. Chalmer's assertions are baseless at this point in time, as they were when made. There's simply no evidence for consciousness as "it's own thing"; it exists in the mundane world, odds are that it is of the mundane world -- just like everything else we've ever looked into.

c'mon. Every indication says your brain is you. Chemical reactions, electrical impulses, stored states, massive, active and dynamic connectivity. That's what "you" arise from. When your brain stops, you stop. Your head contains a most effective EM shield consisting of wet, conductive layers that are sufficient to prevent huge RF and EM fields from getting into your brain tissue. The tiny, minuscule events going on inside your head can't get out under any circumstance for the same reason, unless you (a) punch a hole in your skull or (b) scan it with instruments so sensitive you can hardly comprehend the idea, or (c), you effectuate your mind's activity in some manner by moving your body via the nerves that connect your muscles and other parts to the brain through the base of your skull. Your brain is not an interface. Your brain is the computer. Everything we know about physics points this way; nothing points the way you suggest. It's simply not the way to bet. What you're talking about has basis only in mythology at this point in time.

o we don't know what "thinking" is -- at all -- not even vaguely. Or consciousness.

o so we don't know how "hard" these things are

o and we don't know if we'll need new theories

o and we don't know if we'll need new engineering paradigms

o so Alan Winfield is simply hand-waving

o all we actually know is that we've not yet figured it out, or, if someone has, they're not talking about it

o at this point, the truth is that all bets are off and any road may potentially, eventually, lead to AI.

Just as a cautionary tale, recall (or look up) the paper written by Minsky on perceptrons (simple models of neurons and in groups, neural networks.) Regarded as authoritative at the time, his paper put forth the idea that perceptrons had very specific limits, and were pretty much a dead end. He was completely, totally, wrong in his conclusion. This was, essentially, because he failed to consider what they could do when layered. Which is a lot more than he laid out. His work set NN research back quite a bit because it was taken as authoritative, when it was actually short-sighted and misleading.

What we actually know about something is only clear once the dust settles and we --- wait for it --- actually know about it. Right now, we hardly know a thing. So when someone starts pontificating about dates and limits and what "doesn't work" or "does work", just laugh and tell 'em to come back when they've got actual results. This is highly distinct from statements like "I've got an idea I think may have potential", which are interesting and wholly appropriate at this juncture.

There are many, many differences between an M1 Garand and an M1 carbine. The Garand is larger and heavier. The carbine shoots a less powerful round, but has a larger magazine. It was designed specifically for soldiers who wanted a lighter rifle than the M1, like paratroopers and radio specialists. They have something like one butt plate screw in common. The fact that an M1 carbine was used in a crime once 50 years ago---and granted, it was a truly horrific crime---hardly seems like a compelling case for banning the import of a completely different weapon that happens to have a similar name.

Is that the .308 variant? I've never seen an extended mag for the .30-06. A .308 with a 20-round mag is basically an M-14 (minus selective fire). And you're right, only a deranged moron would jack up an M1 by putting a black composite stock on it. That would be like letting your kid fingerpaint over an original Rembrandt.

Well, we're reaching WAY back here, but according to Wikipedia, he used an M-1 carbine, which may as well be an M1911 for all the similarity it has to an M-1 Garand.

It depends on whether the audience has the maturity to read about an event without automatically getting upset about it. Sadly, most Americans have been conditioned by repeated example to do the opposite. This is highly desirable from the standpoint of the media, because irritated emotions tend to shut down critical thinking.

It makes me wonder exactly when and how those rules got onto the law books, how they were sponsored, and what relationship the supporting politicians had with the major corporations of that time.

There are lots of ways to cheat that are legally legitimate.

Knowing you're dying can be a bad trip, no drugs required. Someone who's looped their fear until their soul is crushed isn't in much danger - they've already hit bottom.

Knowing you're going to die is a terrible burden, but it presents you the opportunity to choose the last memories your friends and family will have of you. They can remember you living your last weeks in fear and dying terrified, or you spending some time recalling the good times, and perhaps forgiving some of the bad ones. That's all the control you have left of your legacy, and you don't have much time to take advantage of it.

LSD, especially low* doses with someone to help guide can sometimes give people a new perspective. If they can relax their fixation on the fact that their time is up they may see the bigger picture - that we're all mortal, that life is a cycle, and that this is just a part of it. It may give you the opportunity to make your peace with the world. And if not, you're dead anyway. So why not?

* There's adequate margin between free-association, preconception-questioning levels and moon-howling-naked.

You're missing the point.

My argument was facetious. It would be no more about making abortion rare than "assault weapons" bans, "Universal Background Checks" and gun registration are about preventing gun violence.

The true purpose of tracking everyone who had an abortion would be so that they could be prosecuted if and when the political winds change enough to make it possible, just like those gun control schemes are about hassling,harassing and tracking legitimate gun owners until the political winds allow for banning and confiscation.

LK

Dude, you're behind the times. Barrack Obama issued an executive order to stop the unthinkable practice of importing scary assault weapons from scary foreign places to be sold to American citizens. What he meant was he stopped the re-importation of American-manufactured M-1 rifles that were shipped to allies overseas and were then being sent back to the CMP for sale to American citizens. M-1s are brown and have no pistol grip. The internal magazine accommodates 7 rounds, plus one in the chamber. And as you probably know, they have been involved in approximately 0% of shooting rampages by disturbed people. Gotta keep those bad boys off the streets.

You seem to misunderstand how burden of proof works.

I've never understood the logic of this kind of "retribution." Granted, it's done with malice, so that's bad. But what, a bunch of unarmed anti-gun hippies are going to attack the homes of people they know have guns and are serious enough to get a license to carry one at all times? If anything, this seems like a list of "houses not to hit" for potential burglars. "Okay, we know not to go to that house, because if we do, we're gonna get shot. Let's hit the home of his hippie neighbor who posted a retribution list of concealed carry licensees. He's sure to be unarmed."

You seem to be confusing the database for background checks, which most certainly does exist, and which is run on me whenever I purchase a gun, with a national gun registry. The former may be reasonably expected to prevent gun violence at some level, and most gun rights advocates that I know don't object to it. The latter has no logical relation to preventing gun violence, but every possible relation to confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens.