Shows Herbert for the so-so writer he is.
Mod you to 1000.
You get what you deserve.
I personally teach kids with autism. I have also been around classrooms with kids in autism. Purposeful, intelligent socialization led by an adult who understands kids with autism will make a big difference to social skills. There are little things like eye contact that make a huge different to their life experiences. I have recommended social groups many times, and the kids have found the experience rewarding. I have also given specific pointers that have made large differences, but the social groups did a lot of the foundation laying for success.
If I had a child with autism, I would certainly send them to a social group. Of course I'd look around for the best I could find.
Ah, I see you use the Ministry of Truth's dictionary. Stop abusing language.
No shit. All of a sudden
Child porn and free speech are the same? You're messed in the head.
What kind of vile scum are you to equate free speech for political change with videos of people chopping heads off and incitement to murder?
Brains are charges and chemistry, but minds are something else, though clearly connected. Brains make minds, we know that. There is no reason to think that anything else can make a mind. There are some philosophers who say that a thermostat has a mind, but that's pretty clearly bullshit. These neural nets are simply primitive and chaotic data filters. Yes, at some point an AI will be able to convince us that it is concious, but there will be no reason to think it is anything but a parlor trick. Until we discover what minds are and how brains make minds, it's all speculation and guesswork.
And Searle doesn't every say, "I can't believe it's just physics." That's just an insult. He says that we don't know the physics of brains, but we know the effects.
These are computer programs, not artificial intelligences as some have come to think of them. They are simply some charges flipping around in some chips. There is no seeing or recognizing in human terms. We apply all that consciousness crap.
In this case, the neural networks are randomly formed nets that match up a few pixels here and there then spit out a result. There is no seeing. Increase the complexity a thousand times over and there will still be no seeing, but there might, might, might be less shitting processing with fewer bizarre results.
As John Searle said, brains make minds.
Everything else is just speculating.
So gender is only DNA? How about genitalia? A person with XY expressing male genitalia is the same sex as a person with XY expressing female genitalia? People with other chromosomal combinations? You have your own poorly-thought-through definitions. That's fine. Just don't impose them. You come across as ignorant.
You have forgotten more about software development than most people will ever know.
And no surprise with all the sexist and nasty transgender comments. Just sadness.
But he'd still be a complete asshole.
Technically female? I dunno, man. You need to do some research on gender before you go making comments.