Sisyphus

I can't imagine what possible motivation there might be for saying such a thing beyond purely being annoying.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18247

Well, alright then. Let's talk about Chavez as evil dictator. I believe he's made it illegal to slanderize government officials, a law which it seems could very easily be manipulated to pose a grave threat to a free and open press. Fair enough. Anything else? EDIT: It seems there still is quite a bit of dissent there, though. Chavez seems to mostly just respond with Bush-like accusations of unpatriotism towards the dissenters. The horror! EDIT again: Wikipedia has a pretty fair description of his critics' complaints:

What makes Chavez=Hitler, then? Do you know of a great friendship between Hitler and Castro that defies time and space? Or perhaps you're just going on the great love Nazis and Communists had for one another? As far as I can see, the argument goes something like this: We don't like Hitler. It's something everybody can agree on. Thus, he has ceased to be an actual historical figure that we can actually, you know, LEARN from, and become instead just shorthand for "evil incarnate," along with everything ever associated with him. Thus, if I can find something you and Hitler have in common (even getting elected legally, apparently), then you, too, become evil incarnate in the eyes of a lot of very stupid people. Thus we have stuff like Rummy slipping in Hitler references when talking about Chavez and giant Bush banners with Hitler mustaches.

I wonder if the Arabian Horse Racing Association has heard of him.

Ha. What does that even mean?

The chances that an alien life form would be similar enough to us to have any kind of communication with us is ridiculously small. Just think about Earth. In all the billions of years we've had life on earth and all the millions of species that have existed, how many can we communicate with meaningfully? None but ourselves, and that's of species that developed from the same source! Just imagine how different an organism of completely different origins would be.

Well sure, if you think God has one end state in mind that He's working towards by means of events. But why would you think that? Why can't the end be the events themselves?

m(21) I'm not anti-abortion, but if I did actually believe that "abortion is murder," I don't see how the mother being raped would change that fact. Incidentally, I don't consider it murder in all cases. The intitially fertilized ovum resembles nothing more than a tumor (not a person - destroying it is preventing a life, not ending it), and by the time it is born it's an infant (definitely a person - destroying it is murder). The line you draw in between is ultimately an arbitrary one.

I was responding more to the stereotype of Democrats as irresponsible socialists by pointing out that even this very conservative administration and a Republican-controlled Congress, for all their rhetoric, have increased spending, not decreased it, which combined with tax cuts doubly compounds the deficit problem. I didn't mean to imply that Bush single-handedly caused the deficit. He's part of the problem, and so are both sides of the aisle in Congress. The neocons are worse, IMO, though, because of supporting tax cuts we can't afford, pushing for unnecessary wars, shoving in at least as much pork-barrel nonsense as Democrats, and still having the gall to claim to be the party of small government and fiscal responsibility.

They sure are. Of course, he knew he was going to war in Iraq (voluntarily) before he even took office, and he still lowered taxes.

A spoiler alert lets you know information is coming up that may ruin the ending for you. What In My Memory is going to win is the apocolypse.

To be more fair, Bush is the biggest government spender since Lyndon Johnson.

Well, being that Chick's peers are paranoid psychotic pseudo-Christians, I imagine it has been.

Sure. How could it not?

I hold to the maxim that defining life is a question for lawyers, not scientists. To answer your question, you have to define what it means for the person to "die," and that is ultimately going to be an arbitrary distinction. Consider: the "you" of today and the "you" of one year ago share almost none of the same actual matter, and so what you've described, a "transfer to a new body," basically takes place constantly. Does that mean you've died? Further, what do you think is the difference between "alive" and "organic AI," as you use the term here? There is no scientific one, I can tell you that. If it looks like a human, works like a human, thinks like a human, then guess what? It's human. Consciousness is an emergent property of the physical processes of the brain, so if, as you posit, the body works the same and all the brain function is the same, then it doesn't make any sense to talk about whether or not there's a "person inside" or not. If you and I have a "person inside," then so does this new copy.

Sure there's evidence. But all the pictures and movies are so blurry! Why? My theory: bigfoot is out there, and he IS blurry. A blurry monster. Now THAT is scary. Seriously, though, didn't the guy in the suit in that movie admit it?

Surely the "Left Behind" series can provide all the answers you desire.

What do you mean, simply? Practically none of the matter that was in your body a year ago is still there. Does that mean you died, or that you're not the same person? Ultimately what you consider to be "you" is more or less arbitrary, so there never really is an answer to that question. But would it make you feel better if your brain was replaced a few hundred neurons at a time, while you're awake, so the consciousness is continuous?

Jack Chick has the right idea, but he's been tragically deceived. It's not Jesus holding things together... it's SATAN. If not for Satan, we'd all disolve into pure energy and go straight to heaven.

Why not replace the brain as well?

I've heard some people think the blue-eyed gene might have come from cross-breeding with neandertals, which seems plausible enough, but in trying to research it online I only managed to find a few extremely dubious articles on white pride and ultraconservative websites before I gave up in disgust. That might still be something to look into, though.

What does Iran have to do with anything?

I wouldn't say they're "behind" us. They've evolved for just as long as we have. I don't think we're that biologically different, either, though clearly we have significantly better problem-solving and learning ability, which allows all the rest. It should be noted, however, that for most of human history, our behavior was probably not much different from the rest of the great apes. I don't know about relative intelligences of different species in a given family, but we don't seem that out of the ordinary to me.

I heard he likes cupcakes, too. You know, [solemnly thoughtful]Hitler liked cupcakes.[/solemnly thoughtful]