Jobs that robots can't do

[Keith&Co.]

Why would we accept a Neurosurgeon's opinion on souls as being any more credible than someone who sells New Age jewelry at a Renaissance Fair?
Do they cover souls in medical school?

Absurd comparison.

Sez you. Can you show this?

A neurosurgeon would logically be the LAST persons whom should believe in souls. Right?

I'm not following your logic, there. Christains can't go to med school? Muslims? New Agers? Is there a test at the end of med school or Neuro residency to keep dualists from graduating?

Since, after all: they are highly-trained experts in regards to the biological and neurological mechanisms which naysayers believe are responsible for imbuing us with the characteristics that believers say come from the soul.

They're technicians on parts of our biology. How does this prevent them holding an opinion on dualism?

How can you not see this?

Because you're making sweeping generalizations with little or no evidence offered, maybe?

A neurosurgeon who believes in a soul is like the president of an Atheist society saying he has had unexplained divine epiphanies.

Sure. And you say this because you have data on how many neurosurgeons are atheists?
Like, half the scientists in the country that accept evolution accept also that it's part of God's plan. You have to be careful with casual connotations of someone's degree or expertise.

And, really, 'atheist' means no belief in any gods. It's not automatically a disbelief in an afterlife, just that if there is one, it's not under divine direction.

If you're not gonna entertain the possibility of a soul even after reading (though I doubt you read it)

No, I haven't read it. I'm still waiting for you to give me some reason to think it's more significant than any other 'I been to heaven' claim with no evidence.

And you have no idea if I entertain the possibility of a soul. I'm just criticizing your argument, not the conclusion.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

I disagree that being an Atheist automatically prohibits someone from believing in energy-driven entities out there that are thus far undetectable by current scientific processes.

Why?

Hmm..I reckon maybe because I AM one of those.

NO "Gods." But, yeah..maybe some sort of animating "spark" of life that some call a "soul" but I think actually is part of the Deistic (not theistic) In Intelligent (but non-caring) Creating Fabric of the Cosmos.

No Heaven...only merging with that Force after death. If your mind is of sufficient frequency and level to do so.

No Hell...but an absence of that Synthesis, after physical death.

No Angels or Demons...but if you are "in tune" you can "meld" with something larger and smarter and more powerful than you. Like Goethe said: "Be noble and mighty forces will come to your aid."

Drew

 

[Keith&Co.]

I disagree that being an Atheist automatically prohibits someone from believing in energy-driven entities out there that are thus far undetectable by current scientific processes.

'Kay.
If you're going to go that far to define what you believe in, more power to you.
But the term 'atheist' specifically means not having a theistic belief in gods.
Not necessarily a disbelief in an afterlife, though.

I grew up in a haunted house. I believe in ghosts. But for purely subjective reasons that I can't show to interested, or disinterested, observers.

So, anyway, what logically prevents NS docs from being dualists?

 

[Saint_of_Me]

Keith.....

Here is an article that shows how much more common it is for MDs to be non-believers than it is for the general public.

Thus: since Neurosurgeons are of course MDs, I believe this props my opinion that a neurosurgeon who believes in a soul is of note. And that my comparison of them to a Randi who cannot explain a witnessing of anything paranormal is a fairly accurate one.

Drew

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/why-do-so-many.html

 

[Keith&Co.]

Keith.....

Here is an article that shows how much more common it is for MDs to be non-believers than it is for the general public.

No, it does not.
It discusses why MD's accept evolution. Evolution is not equal to atheism. The article doesn't mention atheism at all.

Thus: since Neurosurgeons are of course MDs, I believe this props my opinion that a neurosurgeon who believes in a soul is of note.

Belief in souls is not of note.
EVIDENCE for souls would be of note. Someone who believes in souls because he's seen dependable evidence for them, that stands up to scrutiny, that would be extremely noteworthy.

This is just confusing....

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Can we get back to talking about robots? Turing tests don't count.

 

[Canard DuJour]

As a guy whose job was replaced by technology, I've been telling young people to get jobs not easily replaced. Plumbing, electrician, HVAC, that sort of thing. Robots can create those systems but it's a long way off before they can install and service them.

This.

Vending machines which can dispense good enough medical or legal advice aren't far off.

Robots which can make their way to your irregularly shaped home/business/whatever, listen to and understand your account of an intermitent plumbing/electrical/HVAC fault then find and fix it are further away than StarTrek. By "StarTrek" I mean a post-historic, total-wealth scenario such that there is no longer a human labour market.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

No, it does not.
It discusses why MD's accept evolution. Evolution is not equal to atheism. The article doesn't mention atheism at all.

Thus: since Neurosurgeons are of course MDs, I believe this props my opinion that a neurosurgeon who believes in a soul is of note.

Belief in souls is not of note.
EVIDENCE for souls would be of note. Someone who believes in souls because he's seen dependable evidence for them, that stands up to scrutiny, that would be extremely noteworthy.

This is just confusing....

But anyone who believes in Evolution doesn't believe in a a biblical God.

Or of a Heaven. Or of a soul. Well, not usually.

I may be in the minority, here. Which is not an uncommon position for me.

To the OP.....

Sorry, I strayed waay off-topic. (again: not unusual for me. LOL) I will cease on this here. Perhaps Keith & I can continue on another thread.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But anyone who believes in Evolution doesn't believe in a a biblical God.

Incorrect. They just take Genesis as a parable. The 'fall' is a warning about man's capacity for sin, not a fruit-based transmission of guarded knowledge.

The Catholic Church's official position on evolution is: Yep.

The literalists insist you can't be a Christain and accept evolution, but who listens to them?

 

[dystopian]

Who do you think you are calling ignorant, you arrogant ass?

I'm not calling anyone ignorant. I am, however, stating you *seem* a bit ignorant.

No evidence for a soul?

Correct, there is no empirical evidence for a soul.

LOL. I can post hundreds of links.

I'm sure you could. Just like I could post hundreds of links about how Elvis is still alive. I don't think my links would be any more convincing than yours.

Some from Neurosurgeons.

Oh, I'm sure you could dredge up a few neurosurgeons who talk about their personal belief in a soul. You will not however, and can not, find any neurosurgeons who've put forth credible peer reviewed empirical evidence for souls. Neuroscience as a field has long ago established why a soul without a brain to support it does not make sense. Everything that neuroscience has uncovered over the past century has demonstrated that souls can not exist without the body. A neurosurgeon who professes belief in such a thing is someone who is incapable of letting the facts and science that make his job possible override his faith based beliefs. An honest neurosurgeon would have to accept that since brain damage can and frequently does lead to dramatic changes in personality, there can be no such thing as a soul that is independent of the brain.

We have a doc here at the VA who has some interesting things to say about that.

Interesting? I doubt it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes

Oh joy. Robert Lanza, who promotes the complete woo nonsense of biocentrism, which is essentially the same shit deepak chopra has been peddling. Nothing in Lanza's pet hypothesis is supported by science, he just appeals to quantum physics being weird and thinks that means that the universe can only exist because of conscious beings. Which is a circular argument if ever there has been.

You're not doing your position any favors by pointing to kooks like Lanza; who has never produced a shred of evidence for his biocentrism.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...t-assures-readers-that-there-is-an-afterlife/

http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/harvard-neurosurgeon-confirms-the-afterlife-exists/

You're also not doing your position any favor pointing to an article about Eben Alexander, who doesn't provide anything remotely resembling evidence for his claims and who really should know better. Thanks to science, we know the brain is capable of creating all sorts of delusions. Alexander was in a coma, with doctors employing drugs that selectively shut down parts of his brain. Now, any neurosurgeon worth his salt can tell you that messing with the brain will result in all sorts of possible consequences, including things like false memories. Alexander wrote a book about his experience (why is it that these people always have a book to sell?), in which he made claims that have later been demonstrated to simply not be true. For instance, he claimed to be clinically dead. The doctor responsible for treating him disputes this claim. As does basic science.

His surgical privileges have also been suspended more than once, btw, after repeated lawsuits against him suggesting that he's incompetent. There's court-documented evidence of him falsifying surgical reports to cover his own ass. Alexander was just trying to sell a book, and lied about many things in order to do it. Thanks to the gullibility of non-skeptics, people like him get away with it.

This is the problem with people who believe this sort of nonsense. You just don't do enough digging for the truth.

http://www.skeptic.com/insight/proof-of-heaven/

And it also sound like you are pretty much in the dark about neuro-plasticity. Have you even ever heard of it?

Of course I have. Which is why I know it does the exact opposite of what you seem to think, and in fact provides very strong evidence against souls. Neuroplasticity is a catch-all term referring to changes in neural pathways and synapses for a variety of reasons. Why would anyone think this is evidence for a soul? When a person suffers brain damage, neuroplasticity can enable them to retain or regain certain functions. However, this same neuroplasticity/damage can lead to dramatic changes to an individual's personality and memory. So, we are forced to conclude that personality is entirely dependent upon the brain. It is a physical process. It can not survive destruction of the physical processes that create and sustain it.

 

[Turambar]

There is no job that can't, in principle, one day be done by machines.

Oh really? What about a sperm donor? Hey, if you get paid for it it's a job.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Can we get back to talking about robots? Turing tests don't count.

Fool!

Any AI that can pass a Turing test certainly can count!!

- - - Updated - - -

As a guy whose job was replaced by technology, I've been telling young people to get jobs not easily replaced. Plumbing, electrician, HVAC, that sort of thing. Robots can create those systems but it's a long way off before they can install and service them.

This.

Vending machines which can dispense good enough medical or legal advice aren't far off.

Robots which can make their way to your irregularly shaped home/business/whatever, listen to and understand your account of an intermitent plumbing/electrical/HVAC fault then find and fix it are further away than StarTrek. By "StarTrek" I mean a post-historic, total-wealth scenario such that there is no longer a human labour market.

I disagree. We have had doctor programs for quite some time that are as good as a GP. They require a trained observer, though--a nurse + program is as good as a GP but the vending machine won't have the nurse.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is no job that can't, in principle, one day be done by machines.

Oh really? What about a sperm donor?

I've long thought that we could clone healthy bone marrow and make big blood producing aquariums under automated control. No human contact with the blood product until it's delivered to the patient.

You could also clone several different testicles, put them in an array in a robot with a delivery system ("Seven settings! Eight textures! For your pleasure!") and the customer could select the donor setting ("Available in this unit: Nobel Prize Winner; Movie Star; Olympic Athlete; Porn Star; Celebrity Chef.").
All in a simple outpatient procedure, self-delivering to the convenient hotel, motel, bedroom or office restroom of your choice. All credit cards and most debit cards accepted.

 

[bilby]

Oh really? What about a sperm donor?

I've long thought that we could clone healthy bone marrow and make big blood producing aquariums under automated control. No human contact with the blood product until it's delivered to the patient.

You could also clone several different testicles, put them in an array in a robot with a delivery system ("Seven settings! Eight textures! For your pleasure!") and the customer could select the donor setting ("Available in this unit: Nobel Prize Winner; Movie Star; Olympic Athlete; Porn Star; Celebrity Chef.").
All in a simple outpatient procedure, self-delivering to the convenient hotel, motel, bedroom or office restroom of your choice. All credit cards and most debit cards accepted.

Making DNA with an arbitrary pre-programmed sequence is already done by machine.

The rest of the job of making artificial spermatazoans with a custom genetic profile, plus artificial seminal fluid is not particularly difficult; but to would be expensive and probably pointless, given the abundant natural supply.

An artificial sperm donor is certainly possible, in principle. It is highly unlikely ever to compete with the natural version on price, but might be able to compete effectively on quality.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Vision got the Scarlett Witch pregnant once. I remember because I was pissed off that a frigging robot was getting more action than me.

Data did the same thing once.

Fuck you, robots.

 

[bilby]

Vision got the Scarlett Witch pregnant once. I remember because I was pissed off that a frigging robot was getting more action than me.

Data did the same thing once.

Fuck you, robots.

It seems that they have taken your last comment literally.

That's the problem with robots.

 

[Bronzeage]

I've long thought that we could clone healthy bone marrow and make big blood producing aquariums under automated control. No human contact with the blood product until it's delivered to the patient.

You could also clone several different testicles, put them in an array in a robot with a delivery system ("Seven settings! Eight textures! For your pleasure!") and the customer could select the donor setting ("Available in this unit: Nobel Prize Winner; Movie Star; Olympic Athlete; Porn Star; Celebrity Chef.").
All in a simple outpatient procedure, self-delivering to the convenient hotel, motel, bedroom or office restroom of your choice. All credit cards and most debit cards accepted.

Making DNA with an arbitrary pre-programmed sequence is already done by machine.

The rest of the job of making artificial spermatazoans with a custom genetic profile, plus artificial seminal fluid is not particularly difficult; but to would be expensive and probably pointless, given the abundant natural supply.

An artificial sperm donor is certainly possible, in principle. It is highly unlikely ever to compete with the natural version on price, but might be able to compete effectively on quality.

The economic argument of "who is going to pay for something that billions of people happily give away," seems like the end of the question, but I ask the same question every time I see internet porn. Internet porn is old enough to buy cigarettes in most states, and even though most of it is given away, there's enough money in the game to insure there's new porn every day of the week.

 

[dystopian]

The economic argument of "who is going to pay for something that billions of people happily give away," seems like the end of the question, but I ask the same question every time I see internet porn. Internet porn is old enough to buy cigarettes in most states, and even though most of it is given away, there's enough money in the game to insure there's new porn every day of the week.

Actually, internet porn is old enough to buy cigarettes in *every* state, given that according to Wikipedia, the first low-res porn images were hosted on a public access FTP server located on the 17th floor of the electrical engineering, mathematics & computing faculty building of the Delft University of Technology as early as '91.

/fun porn-related facts.

 

[bilby]

Is it just me, or is it terrifying to think that there are people who weren't even born when Internet porn first started who are driving cars perfectly lawfully on public highways?

Shit, I still reflexively think of years starting 199- as 'the future', and of years starting 200- as 'The distant future'. And now they are in the past. How the fuck did that happen.

 

[Togo]

Dude, on-line porn is older than the internet. I found some back in '89, by dialling into the right message board.