Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks: Atheism has failed; only religion can defeat the new barbarians. Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius: Atheist terrorism a bigger problem? Islamic Human Rights (sharia)?!
BBC's news hour was today reportedly today much less targeted on smearing President Trump now that he is heading for their beloved islamofascist Saudi dictator family.
After pressure from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (via OIC, OPEC, etc. organizations, lobbyists and politicians such as e.g. McCain, etc.) Mr. Trump (that's what BBC calls the US President) now not only boosts the Saudis but as a consequence turns Americans against Russia (because of Iran being the Saudi's main target). Moreover, as China has surpassed the US economically (and all indicators accelerate this trend) military pressure (and due military production) combined with the US fonzi scheme ("printing money" under the cover of $ still being a world currency) that has replaced much real production, seems to be the options President Trump has bowed down to - and thereby also charged the world's third most dangerous country (after Pakistan) to a dangerous point. US aggressions against China won't help to get China's help to calm down Korea tensions, will it.
According to Jonathan Sacks, Peter Klevius has ended up us a "marvelous creation" in the Universe, i.e. that he is mentally extremely fit (almost as fit as he is physically). However, the "creation" called Klevius is "marvelous" only from a human point of view - a fact that Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks seems to completely have missed.
Is Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks mentally retarded? If so, pay no relevance to what Klevius says below. However, if he has close to average intelligence, then his idolatry of himself as an "intellectual" while spewing out the most reprehensive non sense, must be challenged.
Jonathan Sachs (a Jewish lord, rabbi etc. in England frequently used in BBC's propaganda for "monotheisms" - especially islam, which has managed to cause more suffering than any of the other "monotheisms"): Where do we come from?
Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius answer to this poorly (mis)informed Jew:
Jonathan Sachs (a Jewish lord, rabbi etc. in England frequently used in BBC's propaganda for "monotheisms" - especially islam, which has managed to cause more suffering than any of the other "monotheisms"): There's a delicate balance built in where humans can be.
Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius answer to this poorly (mis)informed Jew: No, there's no "delicate balance" other than your words.
Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius intellectual help to this poorly (mis)informed Jew who obviously lacks average intelligence (most people are Atheists): Read Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) to get a better and more humble view on yourself and your pompostrous "the god chosen people" ideology. It's in original English, i.e. Swedish, but if you don't master Swedish you can ask someone to read for you - or, you can donate to
Klevius so he can arrange for a good translation worldwide.
Lord rabbi Jonathan Sacks: Antisemitism is not ancient. The "Scapegoats” (i.e. muslims) are not indigenous to it.
Although the sonless "prophet" Mohammad fable was made by Malik some half a century after his alleged death, what is important is that islam considers the hadith about the slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina as an essential and even proud part of itself as the "religion of conquest" under which everyone has to surrender, and first in line the Jews who "falsely pretend to have the original Abrahamic faith".
Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius suggestion to Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks: Don't do politics with your Judaism. And if you need some Kabbala "spirituality" I'm certain there are some books, programs, clubs etc. for you to enjoy without having to contribute to islamofascism and other forms of religious hatred, racism and sexism.
Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks: When ("monotheist") religion dies and consumerism takes its place, people are left with a culture that encourages them to buy things they don’t need with money they don’t have for a happiness that won’t last.
Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Peter Klevius: Japan is just one example of why every word in this crackpot sentence sucks.
The test of faiths is whether they can make space for difference as described in the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration against all sorts of fascisms. And with this measures they all fail. Some less and some more, but from a Human Rights universal equality point of view only Atheism fills the measure. And dude, don't you ever conflate Atheism with Communism/socialism - you don't conflate apples and pears either, do you.
Sir Lord Rabbi Jew (or whatever) Jonathan Sacks: The greatest Jewish rabbi, Maimonedes got everything from the wonderful muslims of Andalus.
Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius: Including the muslim attires he had to cover himself in so not to be killed by muslims, or the "great" Maimonides manner of pretending to be a muslim. Not to mention that if Maimonedes is considered a "great" Jew then the standard must be pretty low.
Not even muslims are safe among muslims.
Sir Atheist "islamophobe" and Human Rights defender Klevius wise words for an ignorant (hopefully, cause the alternative is worse):
Klevius sex segregation point: Never let heterosexual attraction shade personhood. Here both men and women often miss the point. Men see women as the "heterosexual other", sometimes even "inferior other", and women often contribute to this view by confusing their heterosexual attraction with their personhood. The "body" sociology didn't help either to get out of this unfortunate catch 22 that Klevius has pointed at since his teens*.
* As a teenager Klevius was forced out of his country alone, without money, and with no previous ties. However, although Klevius managed the language and fixed a decent job, he didn't manage the local, and quite different dialect, which caused problems communicating with prejudicial teen girls at noisy discotheques etc. However, in his job environment he happened to meet a very nice girl whose pictures he had used to drool over in a "men's magazine", and who told him she had never had sex. Klevius also met many young university teens who offered "posing" (sometimes Klevius got it even for free) in the main news paper and who had their "offices" just behind Klevius workplace in the most central part of the capital city. Those girls made a very distinct line (no copulation) between themselves and what they called the "whores". Times have changed but the entanglement of heterosexual attraction and female personhood in sex segregation is still equally unsolved for most girls/women. But with a (negative) Human Rights approach based on the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration no woman should have to suffer of sex segregational prejudices about sex - no matter how sexy men might think she looks like, and no matter if she doesn't want to have to do with heterosex or sex at all, icl. if she doesn't want to have children.
Yes, Klevius knows. These kind of thoughts make him an evil "islamophobe". But that's sadly the fate nowadays for anyone defending everyone's Human Rights - even women's.
Drawing from 1979 by Peter Klevius.
John Searle seems to have a quite different approach to heterosexual attraction and consciousness than Klevius.
In a lawsuit Joanna Ong, 24, is seeking damages for sexual harassment and assault as well as for wrongful termination and creation of a hostile work environment.
“As a philosopher, Searle should be familiar with the concept of coercion. Instead, he and the university have “used their power and platform to abuse others.”
The lawsuit, which lists Searle and the Regents of the University of California as defendants, claims Searle groped Ong in his office after he told her “they were going to be lovers.” He also said he had an “emotional commitment to making her a public intellectual,” the complaint states, and that he was “going to love her for a long time.” Ong turned Searle down and reported him to other UC Berkeley employees, but they did nothing, the complaint states. Instead, Searle cut Ong’s salary and she was eventually fired, according to the complaint, which also claims Searle watched pornography at work and made sexist comments.
Searle, 84, is famous for his work in the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind and has taught at UC Berkeley since 1959.
Artificial intelligence (AI), consciousness - and EMAH
Wikipedia: Artificial intelligence (AI) is intelligence exhibited by machines. In computer science, the field of AI research defines itself as the study of "intelligent agents": any device that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of success at some goal
Peter Klevius: A shock absorber fulfills every bit of this definition - and can be digitally translated, i.e. e.g. "shock absorbed by wire", either partially or fully!
Wikipedia: As machines become increasingly capable, mental facilities once thought to require intelligence are removed from the definition. For instance, optical character recognition is no longer perceived as an example of "artificial intelligence", having become a routine technology.
Are there limits to how intelligent machines – or human-machine hybrids – can be? A superintelligence, hyperintelligence, or superhuman intelligence is a hypothetical agent that would possess intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human mind. ‘’Superintelligence’’ may also refer to the form or degree of intelligence possessed by such an agent.
The philosophical position that John Searle has named "strong AI" states: "The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds." Searle counters this assertion with his Chinese room argument, which asks us to look inside the computer and try to find where the "mind" might be.
Searle's thought experiment begins with this hypothetical premise: suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in constructing a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output.
Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking human being.
Searle then supposes that he is in a closed room and has a book with an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient paper, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. Searle could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows, says Searle, that he would do so as well, simply by running the program manually.
Searle asserts that there is no essential difference between the roles of the computer and himself in the experiment. Each simply follows a program, step-by-step, producing a behavior which is then interpreted as demonstrating intelligent conversation. However, Searle would not be able to understand the conversation. ("I don't speak a word of Chinese",he points out.) Therefore, he argues, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.
Searle argues that, without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and, since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word. Therefore, he concludes that "strong AI" is false.
Peter Klevius: Nonsense! 'Intentionality' is an illusion. There's no "gap" between input and output where 'intentionality' could be squeezed in. Moreover, if Searle believes in 'intentionality' he can't refute 'the free will' either. The machine could also be understood by the Chinese speakers without "understanding" - only fulfilling the Turing criterion. There is no 'understanding' or consciousness', other than the usage of these terms.
Wikipedia: No one would think of saying, for example, "Having a hand is just being disposed to certain sorts of behavior such as grasping" (manual behaviorism), or "Hands can be defined entirely in terms of their causes and effects" (manual functionalism), or "For a system to have a hand is just for it to be in a certain computer state with the right sorts of inputs and outputs" (manual Turing machine functionalism), or "Saying that a system has hands is just adopting a certain stance toward it" (the manual stance). (p. 263)
Searle argues that philosophy has been trapped by a false dichotomy: that, on the one hand, the world consists of nothing but objective particles in fields of force, but that yet, on the other hand, consciousness is clearly a subjective first-person experience.
Searle says simply that both are true: consciousness is a real subjective experience, caused by the physical processes of the brain. (A view which he suggests might be called biological naturalism.)
Searle has argued that critics like Daniel Dennett, who (he claims) insist that discussing subjectivity is unscientific because science presupposes objectivity, are making a category error. Perhaps the goal of science is to establish and validate statements which are epistemically objective, (i.e., whose truth can be discovered and evaluated by any interested party), but are not necessarily ontologically objective.
Searle calls any value judgment epistemically subjective. Thus, "McKinley is prettier than Everest" is "epistemically subjective", whereas "McKinley is higher than Everest" is "epistemically objective." In other words, the latter statement is evaluable (in fact, falsifiable) by an understood ('background') criterion for mountain height, like 'the summit is so many meters above sea level'. No such criteria exist for prettiness.
Beyond this distinction, Searle thinks there are certain phenomena (including all conscious experiences) that are ontologically subjective, i.e. can only exist as subjective experience. For example, although it might be subjective or objective in the epistemic sense, a doctor's note that a patient suffers from back pain is an ontologically objective claim: it counts as a medical diagnosis only because the existence of back pain is "an objective fact of medical science". But the pain itself is ontologically subjective: it is only experienced by the person having it.
Searle goes on to affirm that "where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality". His view that the epistemic and ontological senses of objective/subjective are cleanly separable is crucial to his self-proclaimed biological naturalism.
Klevius: All of this is more or less non sense due to a balancing act (deliberate or just out of ignorance) to satisfy certain needs and wishes. To understand this you need to read Klevius and contrast it with the above:
1 Existence-centrism (Klevius 1992:21-23, ISBN 9173288411), i.e. the simple fact that there's no difference between 'reality' and 'conscious experiences'.
2 Klevius EMAH - the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis which eliminates prejudices about the mind, as well as the naive idea about "a thoughtful and subjective brain", and therefore opens up for a human brain that fits the nature it belongs to and from which it emerged. Moreover, Klevius analysis also opens up for a more truly human approach to other humans, i.e. that that's what we have in common - and only we can see it, not a non-human (Klevius 1992:36-39), which fact doesn't eliminate that we should try to cope with non-humans in a "humane" way.
The preposterous thought that "we are special" stands on two contradicting pillars:
1 We, out of our existence-centrism (read Klevius' book, Jonathan!), define what's "outside" - i.e. the foundation for making (usually just some of) us "special".
2 Only by fully accepting our existence-centrism can we drop religions and fully understand what it is to be a human together with other humans (read carefully Klevius' analysis of the negative part of the Human Rights declaration, Jonathan!).