Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[KittyTac]

I'd be a brain in a jar connected to a powerful computer.

[wierd]

Depends.

Is this sweet robot body fully self-repairing, and a complete Von-nueman probe type machine? (EG, is it capable of fully manufacturing and assembling all of its component parts?)  Does it have some fault tolerance?  How durable is it? (will I be fixing broken parts all the damn time, or is that a once ever few centuries type thing?)


Does this process fix the endemic problems with organic nervous systems? (eg, does the self-repair feature cover in-situ incremental replacement of damaged or destroyed components, such that it is transparent to the resident intelligence?)


I have a pretty high bar set on where I would be willing to sign up for body replacement, you see.


Also, is this feature set compatible with long-haul space vehicle construction requirements?  (EG, is it capable of interstellar voyage, with sufficient durability to endure protracted (hundreds of thousands of earth years) periods in interstellar space without dangerous levels of degredation from ionizing radiation, and does it down-cycle the intelligence's process while undertaking the long voyage to avoid boredom induced madness? etc.)


You see, I had often contemplated what would happen if say, you took a human intelligence, plugged it into a sufficiently large neural simulation capable of redundant hosting of that human's brain, and planted that inside a suitable spaceship type body that has true self-manufacture capabilities.   Since the major issue with interstellar travel is that humans just dont live long enough, and that they need too many resources en-route, doing this would fix nearly all of them. 

[TD1]

You say you have a high bar set, but I suspect you would willingly jump onto a sub-par robotic ride if your original body had, say, terminal cancer.

[wierd]

terminal cancers are only terminal because there is no current treatment available.  For instance, leukemia used to have an absurdly bad survival rate. Now, there is a pretty reasonable chance you can survive if you get a good donor.

In such a circumstance, I would take quality cryonics over inferior body replacement.  That would give me the time I need for treatment to become available.

But none of that "just a frozen head" bullshit.  Full cryo.

[dragdeler]

-snip-

[smjjames]

Since this goes into religio-political news from time to time....

The Russian Orthodox church is undergoing a major split with the Patriarchate of ConstantinopleIstanbul over the decision to grant independence to the Ukraine Orthodox church. It's mentioned there was a smaller split in the 1990s that lasted only a few months, but this one is bigger, supposed to be the biggest since the 1054 schism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/world/europe/russia-orthodox-church.html
https://www.france24.com/en/20181015-russian-orthodox-church-cuts-ties-with-constantinople
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2018/10/16/the-russian-orthodox-church-has-broken-ties-with-orthodoxy-s-leader-here-s-what-that-s-all-about
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45870939

Also, why do people keep referring to Constantinople, there is no modern city called Constantinople, it's called Istanbul? Shouldn't the Patriarchate of 'Constantinople' be called the Patriarchate of Istanbul?

[redwallzyl]

It's an autocephaly dispute not a theological one so not really the same as a schism.

[Loud Whispers]

Also, why do people keep referring to Constantinople, there is no modern city called Constantinople, it's called Istanbul? Shouldn't the Patriarchate of 'Constantinople' be called the Patriarchate of Istanbul?

Istanbul is literally just the Turkish transliteration of Constantinople, while the name Constantinople is the original and was an uncontroversial usage until the Turkish Republic thought Constantinople wasn't as Turkish as Istanbul and wanted everyone to use Istanbul instead on maps/post addresses 100 years ago. Constantinople and Istanbul are literally the same city

Regarding naming of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Patriarchate takes from Greek traditions, and so uses the original Greek name. Swedes had Konstantinopel, Slovenians had Konstantinopel, Hungarians had Konstantinápoly, Catalans had Constantinoble, Spanish & Portuguese had Constantinopla, Persians had Qostantaniyeh, the Maltese had Kostantinopli, Poles had Konstantynopol, Croations had Konstantinopo, Romanians had Constantinopole or Stambul (again both names for the same city), Italians had Bisanzio (Byzantium) or Costantinopoli, France had Constantinople or Stamboul (same again), Greeks call it Konstantinoupoli, Turks call it Istanbul, English call it Constantinople or Istanbul depending on who you're trying not to offend

-Note basically that the countries which have had alliances with Greece AND Turkey in the past 100 years will probably have Constantinople and Istanbul as their language's term for the city, otherwise they will have one or the other

It's an autocephaly dispute not a theological one so not really the same as a schism.

The East-West Schism wasn't really a theological dispute either, to my knowledge.

It wasn't until it was

[smjjames]

It's an autocephaly dispute not a theological one so not really the same as a schism.

The East-West Schism wasn't really a theological dispute either, to my knowledge.

The wiki article section on the event that broke the proverbial camels back is rather inadequate in describing why the two popes excommunicated each other (other than just pure yelling at each other) or what led up to the event, but it does hint at political tensions at the time.

@LW: I am perfectly aware that it's the same city, I was just venting about it being not logical to call it Constantinople when that's not the modern name, at least to me anyways.

[Loud Whispers]

My point is to point out both names are the modern name, it's like complaining about Taiwan or Chinese Taipei. Which name you pick speaks a gorillion words

[smjjames]

Or perhaps we should call it Lygos (a Thracian settlement according to Pilny the Elder)-Byzantium-Augusta Antonina (briefly during the third century AD)-New Rome (still used in the official title of the Patriarchiate apparently)-Constantinople-Istanbul

[KittyTac]

It's an autocephaly dispute not a theological one so not really the same as a schism.

The East-West Schism wasn't really a theological dispute either, to my knowledge.

It was a dispute over the Pope's authority.

[Descan]

Eh, the Turkish translation of "Constantinople" is "Konstantiniyye," not "Istanbul." It's like saying "New York" is the American translation of New Amsterdam.

One of the more common theories behind the names origin, because honestly we don't actually know, is that it stems from the medieval Greek phrase "To/In The City," "εἰς τὴν Πόλιν," which is pronounced as [is tim ˈbolin]. At any rate, before 1928 it was basically a coin toss which word was used, but the official name was Istanbul after the Turkish Republic... Gave it an official name. Before then, the Ottoman empire used Be Makam-e Qonstantiniyyah al-Mahmiyyah, or "The protected location of Constantinople," and "İstanbul" basically interchangably - they didn't have an official name for it.

After 1928, the Turks settled on İstanbul and promoted it to other countries. It's only really since the Turks took a definitive stance on it that it's become a hot-button topic, because both words were used interchangeably by both Greek and Turkish people before then.

[Persus13]

It's an autocephaly dispute not a theological one so not really the same as a schism.

The East-West Schism wasn't really a theological dispute either, to my knowledge.

The East West Schism was lot of different things, but theological disputes was definitely part of it. Issues like the authority of the pope and the use of filioque in the Nicene Creed and icons in worship were all theological issues. Political and cultural tensions also played a role, but then, they usually do.

Since this goes into religio-political news from time to time....

The Russian Orthodox church is undergoing a major split with the Patriarchate of ConstantinopleIstanbul over the decision to grant independence to the Ukraine Orthodox church. It's mentioned there was a smaller split in the 1990s that lasted only a few months, but this one is bigger, supposed to be the biggest since the 1054 schism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/world/europe/russia-orthodox-church.html
https://www.france24.com/en/20181015-russian-orthodox-church-cuts-ties-with-constantinople
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2018/10/16/the-russian-orthodox-church-has-broken-ties-with-orthodoxy-s-leader-here-s-what-that-s-all-about
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45870939

Also, why do people keep referring to Constantinople, there is no modern city called Constantinople, it's called Istanbul? Shouldn't the Patriarchate of 'Constantinople' be called the Patriarchate of Istanbul?

It's an autocephaly dispute not a theological one so not really the same as a schism.

News headlines can be fond of hyperbole, but calling this the biggest split in Orthodox history since the Schism seems accurate, considering the size of the Russian Orthodox church.

As for Constantinople vs. Istanbul, there are locals who still refer to Ho Chi Minh City as Saigon. Names are important to people because of the meaning they carry.

[Loud Whispers]

Eh, the Turkish translation of "Constantinople" is "Konstantiniyye," not "Istanbul." It's like saying "New York" is the American translation of New Amsterdam.

One of the more common theories behind the names origin, because honestly we don't actually know, is that it stems from the medieval Greek phrase "To/In The City," "εἰς τὴν Πόλιν," which is pronounced as [is tim ˈbolin]. At any rate, before 1928 it was basically a coin toss which word was used, but the official name was Istanbul after the Turkish Republic... Gave it an official name. Before then, the Ottoman empire used Be Makam-e Qonstantiniyyah al-Mahmiyyah, or "The protected location of Constantinople," and "İstanbul" basically interchangably - they didn't have an official name for it.

Transliteration, not translation, though I got it wrong - it was a transliteration of εἰς τὴν Πόλιν, not Constantinopolis. I got tricked by crafty Georgians and you are correct

News headlines can be fond of hyperbole, but calling this the biggest split in Orthodox history since the Schism seems accurate, considering the size of the Russian Orthodox church.

As for Constantinople vs. Istanbul, there are locals who still refer to Ho Chi Minh City as Saigon. Names are important to people because of the meaning they carry.

See also the dispute between Derry vs Londonderry, or Burma vs Myanmar