POPULARITY
4 episodes with Gunkel
8 episodes with Gunkel
2 episodes with Gunkel
2 episodes with Gunkel
2 episodes with Gunkel
2 episodes with Gunkel
2 episodes with Gunkel
2 episodes with Gunkel
Before he was the Dead Man, he was the Mean Man! Join wrestling superfans Alex Doriot and Travis White on their encyclopedic exploration digging up The Dead Man as we take the time-traveling hearse all the way back to early 1990 for part one of a deep dive on a prequel chapter to The Undertaker's career - his singles run in WCW as Mean Mark. Taker has often downplayed this run in interviews and talked about how there were never any plans for him down south - but was that really the case? After The New Skyscrapers collapsed, Mean Mark had a moment to shine as a singles star and we're diving deep in into his first couple of months of squash matches. It all culminated in Mark Calaway's first ever PPV singles match against Johnny Ace! Along the way to that match we cover all the absurdities of early 90s WCW including some horribly racist and drunken commentary, the Return Of Robocop, the power of the Heart Punch, Teddy Long never being able to find the camera, forgotten sponsors like Western Union and Castrol GTX, the Slam-O-Meter, the definition of "Gunkel-ing", and some big matches against the likes of Road Warrior Animal and Tommy Wildfire Rich! All that plus another loaded month of Undertaker Sightings including his big win on "L.F.G.", his appearance on "Stephanie's Places", NXT cameos, and more. Download, enjoy, and Taker Easy! Check out all of the Mean Mark matches discussed here on our YouTube Playlist! Pick up our new P.S.K. Motorcycle Patch Logo merch over TeePublic.com and celebrate 25 years of the Biker Taker with us! Listen to "Reconstruction", the new full length album from Travis White! Stream Travis's new album of original tunes on Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube, or wherever you love to listen! Stay connected with our Creature Community by following us on Instagram, and Facebook! Be sure to subscribe to our YouTube channel and check out our collection of figure unboxings, vlogs, video podcasts, and more!
We talk about David J. Gunkel’s Gaming the System. Buy the shirt! Support this show on Patreon! Buy books from our Bookshop.org page! Chris Hunt created the theme song for this show.
https://TakingTheLandPodcast.comSUBSCRIBE TO PREMIUM FOR THE FULL EPISODE:• Subscribe for only $3/month on Supercast: https://taking-the-land.supercast.com/• Subscribe for only $3.99/month on Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/taking-the-land/subscribe• Subscribe for only $4.99/month on Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/3vy1s5bSummaryPastor Gunkel discusses the significance of prayer meetings in the context of church growth and evangelism. He emphasizes the need for supernatural experiences in church services, the importance of teaching new converts about prayer, and the collective responsibility of church members to establish a vibrant prayer culture.Chapters00:00 The Purpose of the Bible Conference01:19 Factors Influencing Church Growth02:40 The Birth of the Church through Prayer03:20 The Importance of Prayer Meetings05:29 The Need for Supernatural Church Services07:50 Creating a Desire for God in Services09:49 Teaching the Importance of Prayer12:07 Experiencing the Prayer Meeting14:31 Establishing the Prayer Meeting19:31 The Breakthrough in Prayer22:50 Reproducing the First Prayer Meeting23:04 Praying with Authority and Dominion27:03 Worship and Its Importance28:51 The Energy Required for Prayer30:27 Praying for Specific Needs32:12 The Theme of the Prayer Meeting35:15 Leading the Prayer Meeting38:31 The Call to Action for Church MembersTakeawaysThe Bible conference aims to provide direction, encouragement, and correction.Prayer meetings are crucial for church growth and evangelism.The first revival began with a prayer meeting after Jesus' resurrection.Supernatural experiences in church services are essential for transformation.Church services should inspire attendees to engage actively in their faith.Teaching new converts about prayer is vital for their spiritual growth.Prayer meetings need to be established and fought for within the church.Collective prayer creates a powerful atmosphere for God's presence.Worship should focus on glorifying God rather than personal feelings.Every church member plays a role in the success of prayer meetings.Sound Bites"If we can just get our friend into the presence of God.""Acts is our blueprint for church growth.""The prayer meeting has to be built and established.""You gotta pray out loud with authority and dominion.""Worship is not about how you feel.""It takes energy, you gotta work.""We have to keep the prayer meeting alive.""You matter to the church service.""We need a supernatural Bible conference."
Der aktuelle Trainer der Kleeblatt-Elf war zu Gast in unseren heiligen Hallen. Sebastian beleichtet mit uns seine bisherigen Trainer-Stationen. Sein Hauptaugenmerk liegt dabei natürlich auf seinem aktuellen Job beim SC Rot-Weiß Oberhausen.Hier erfahren wir einiges über die junge Truppe von RWO. Darüber hinaus erfahren wir, was für ein Typ der Linienchef auf Mannschaftsfeiern ist. Freut euch auf die Folge.
The largest seafood distributor on the Mississippi Gulf Coast and two of its managers have been sentenced on federal charges of mislabeling inexpensive imported seafood as local premium fish weeks after a restaurant and its co-owner were also sentenced. “This large-scale scheme to misbrand imported seafood as local Gulf Coast seafood hurt local fishermen and consumers,” said Todd Gee, the U.S. attorney for southern Mississippi. “These criminal convictions should put restaurants and wholesalers on notice that they must be honest with customers about what is actually being sold.” Sentencing took place in Gulfport for Quality Poultry and Seafood Inc. (QPS), sales manager Todd A. Rosetti, and business manager James W. Gunkel. QPS and the two managers pleaded guilty on August 27 to conspiring to mislabel seafood and commit wire fraud. QPS was sentenced to five years of probation and was ordered to pay $1 million in forfeitures and a $500,000 criminal fine. Prosecutors said the misbranding scheme began as early as 2002 and continued through November 2019. Rosetti received eight months in prison, followed by six months of home detention, one year of supervised release, and 100 hours of community service. Gunkel received two years of probation, one year of home detention, and 50 hours of community service. Mary Mahoney's Old French House and its co-owner/manager Anthony Charles Cvitanovich, pleaded guilty to similar charges May 30 and were sentenced November 18. Mahoney's was founded in Biloxi in 1962 in a building that dates to 1737, and it's a popular spot for tourists. The restaurant pleaded guilty to wire fraud and conspiracy to misbrand seafood. Mahoney's admitted that between December 2013 and November 2019, the company and its co-conspirators at QPS fraudulently sold about 58,750 pounds (26,649 kilograms) of frozen seafood imported from Africa, India, and South America as local premium species. The court ordered the restaurant and QPS to maintain at least five years of records describing the species, sources, and cost of seafood it acquires to sell to customers, and that they make the records available to any relevant federal, state, or local government agency. This article was provided by The Associated Press.
Jens & Christophe sprechen mit Thomas Gunkel, Market Director Broadcast bei Skyline Communications, über seinen Werdegang, seine Arbeit bei Skyline Communications, und die Plattform DataMiner.
This week on The Wrestling Stoop w/Bob Roop, it's a very special episode as we break down the infamous "Georgia War" of the 1970s between the big bad men of the NWA vs. Promoter Ann Gunkel and her "All-South" promotion! Bob shares insights on many of the key players from Jim Barnett to Buddy Fuller. We also talk Bob's time in Goergia, circa 1974, the intentions he was brought in for, plus a bonus Knoxville story involving Ron Garvin & Ron Fuller, and so much more!A former National AAU Champion and U.S. Olympian, Bob doesn't hold back and opens up about his time in the world of Professional Wrestling.Available everywhere your Podcast Streaming needs are met.Please Subscribe to our Patreon to help pay the bills, https://www.patreon.com/wrestlecopiaIncludes the $5 “All Access” Tier & $9 "Superfan DELUXE" Tier featuring our VIDEO CASTS, Patreon Watch-Along Series, our insanely detailed show notes (for the Grenade, Monday Warfare, Regional Rasslin, Puro Academy, & Retro Re-View), Early Show Releases, REMASTERED editions of the early Grenade episodes including NEW content! PLUS, monthly DIGITAL DOWNLOADS for your viewing and reading pleasure!Visit the WrestleCopia Podcast Network https://wrestlecopia.comFollow WrestleCopia on “X” (Formerly Twitter) @RasslinGrenadeFollow & LIKE our FACEBOOK PAGE – https://www.facebook.com/RasslinGrenadeSubscribe to the WrestleCopia Youtube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/RasslinGrenade ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★
Die Themen im heutigen Versicherungsfunk Update sind: FinsureX erfolgreich gestartetFinsureX, das neue Festivalformat der Versicherungsbranche ist erfolgreich gestartet. In der Leipziger Baumwollspinnerei fanden sich ca. 170 Teilnehmer ein, um sich bei Burger, Bier und Fachprogramm über die Zukunft der auszutauschen und zu Netzwerken. Der Termin für die FinsureX 2025 steht auch schon fest, am 11. Juni trifft sich die Branche wieder in Leipzig. Stabile Finanzlage der RentenversicherungDie Finanzlage der Rentenversicherung bezeichnete Bundesvorstand Alexander Gunkel in seinem Bericht an die Bundesvertreterversammlung als erfreulich. Er verwies auf einen Überschuss von rund 1,5 Milliarden Euro Endes des Jahres 2023 und eine Nachhaltigkeitsrücklage in Höhe von 1,7 Monatsausgaben. Für das laufende Jahr sei zwar mit einem Rückgang auf 1,6 Monatsausgaben zu rechnen, damit sei die Rücklage aber weiterhin so gut gefüllt, dass der Beitragssatz damit 2025 weiterhin stabil bleibe. Zu einem Anstieg kommt es laut Gunkel erst 2028. Bundeszuschuss zur Pflege? Mehrheit dafürEinen Zuschuss für die Pflegeversicherung aus dem Bundeshaushalt befürworten 79 Prozent, wie die Umfrage des Meinungsforschungsinstituts YouGov im Auftrag der Deutschen Presse-Agentur ergab. Voll und ganz dafür sind 33 Prozent und eher dafür 46 Prozent. Voll und ganz oder eher ablehnend äußerten sich 12 Prozent, berichtet Cash-online. GDV mit eigener Erhebung zu RegulierungsdichteWie stark die Regulierungsdichte für Versicherer insbesondere auf EU-Ebene angestiegen ist, zeigt eine Erhebung des GDV. „EU-Parlament, Rat und EU-Kommission haben in der vergangenen Legislaturperiode 77 Rechtsakte im Bereich der Finanz- und Vertriebsregulierung auf den Weg gebracht, die uns als Branche betreffen“, sagte Christoph Jurecka, Mitglied des GDV-Präsidiums und Vorsitzender des Präsidialausschusses für Unternehmenssteuerung und Regulierung, „Der Umfang dieser Dokumente umfasst ca. 10.000 Seiten Text. Dazu kommen noch 55 untergesetzliche Regelungen der europäischen Versicherungsaufsicht EIOPA mit nochmal rund 900 Seiten.“ Hochwasserschutz: R+V veröffentlicht BroschüreSteht das Eigenheim in einem Risikogebiet? Und wie lässt sich das Haus vor Überschwemmungen schützen? Fragen wie diese soll die R+V-Broschüre 'Entscheidungshilfen für die Planung zum hochwasserangepassten Bauen' beantworten. Neben Tipps finden sich auch Checklisten in der Publikation. Wohngebäudeversicherung: SHB startet Kooperation mit EnzoDie SHB Allgemeine Versicherung VVaG hat ihr Angebot für Privatkunden im Bereich der Wohngebäudeversicherung überarbeitet und bietet ab sofort in der Wohngebäudeversicherung eine Früherkennung von Leitungswasserschäden an. Zukünftig kann jeder Kunde der SHB Versicherung im Bereich der Wohngebäudeversicherung auf den one.drop Sensor von Enzo zurückgreifen. Die SHB übernimmt dabei alle anfallenden Kosten, um den Kunden bei der Prävention vor Leitungswasserschäden in Zukunft zu unterstützen.
For this "mini-bar" episode, HBS introduces our newest addition to the co-host gang, Dr. David Gunkel!David Gunkel is an award-winning author, educator and researcher, specializing in the philosophy of technology, with a focus on the moral and legal challenges of artificial intelligence and robots. He is the author of a number of important texts on emergent technology, media studies, and philosophy (see his list of books here). Dr. Gunkel is internationally recognized for his innovative work on the moral and legal status of artificial intelligence and robot rights, his efforts to diversify the theory and practice of AI ethics, and his agenda-setting contributions to the new field of human-machine communication (HMC). He currently holds the position of Presidential Research, Scholarship and Artistry Professor in the Department of Communication at Northern Illinois University (USA) and associate professor of applied ethics at Łazarski University in Warsaw, Poland.David will be joining Leigh and Rick at the hotel bar as the new co-host for Season 10, which begins on May 17! Full episode notes available at this link:https://hotelbarpodcast.com/podcast/mini-bar-episode-meet-our-new-co-host-dr-david-gunkel-------------------If you enjoy Hotel Bar Sessions podcast, please be sure to subscribe and submit a rating/review! Better yet, you can support this podcast by signing up to be one of our Patrons at patreon.com/hotelbarsessions!Follow us on Twitter/X @hotelbarpodcast, on Facebook, on TikTok, and subscribe to our YouTube channel!
UC Riverside's Matt Gunkel at Next '24 by StateScoop
In this episode, we continue the conversation with Jason Gunkel, who is a financial advisor with a West Des Moines firm called Syverson Strege. Jason gives us an overview of Syverson Strege, we talk about how they are unique and who they serve as clients, and Jason shares his plans for a podcast of his own, called Prayers & Profits. And although Syverson Strege is technically a competing firm, I have a lot of respect for Jason and the work they do. We understand that not everyone is going to be the right fit with Integrity Wealth Management, and in those cases, we'd rather point you in the direction of firms who may be a better fit. *this episode was recorded in video format, so if you'd like to watch, find us on YouTube Connect with Loren: Share More & Get in Touch LinkedIn: Loren Sherman Podcast Page Connect with Jason: Prayers & Profits- podcast coming soon Jason's Bio
Welcome to a gripping episode of the Backlash Podcast where we feature Matt Gunkel, a seasoned musky fishing guide. Matt unpacks precious insights about the musky fishing season and how weather conditions affect the fish's behavior. Learn more about his intricate journey in balancing work, family, and business, and hear about the latest developments in his charter company - So Ill Sport Fishing. We explore the crucial role of technology, water clarity, and boat positioning in fish spotting. Discover the impactful role of local landscapes and hilly geography on fishing expeditions and understand the challenges and intricacies concerning water level fluctuations in reservoirs. Learn about the significant impact of stocking on local fisheries, the struggles with natural musky reproduction, and the ways these factors shape the local fishing scene. We also delve into the heart-pounding excitement of early season fishing. Discover techniques and strategies such as rattle bait fishing, swim baits, and glide baits, and understand the importance of the right equipment for maximum results. Join us as we delve deep into various angling techniques and baits used to catch fish in different environments. We debate factors influencing bait effectiveness, including water temperature and location, and discuss the role of boat selection in achieving successful catches. Listen in as we analyse the contradictory practices of northern and southern anglers, and explore why certain successful tactics are not widely employed. Finally, enjoy tales of successful muskie fishing from So Ill Sport Fishing. Gain thrilling insights into bait selection, fish location, and seasonality. Understand the potential of jigs in muskies fishing and be inspired by stories of successful fishing expeditions. Gain the competitive edge from customized lures offered by Llungen Lures and look forward to your own captivating adventures in the world of musky fishing.
In this episode, we have a friend and fellow financial advisor, Jason Gunkel join the show. In addition to being an advisor, Jason wears the hat of Chief Investment Officer at a West Des Moines financial firm called Syverson Strege. Syverson Strege has began to implement extended time off, or sabbaticals, as something their advisors can take advantage of. Last summer, Jason took his 6-week sabbatical away from work, and he was kind enough to share his experience and what he learned. And while Syverson Strege is technically a competing firm, I have a lot of respect for this group and the work they do. Our follow-up to this episode will be a Part II in which we let Jason talk more specifically about the firm, what they do, and who they work best with. *this episode was recorded in video format, so if you'd like to watch, find us on YouTube How To Rest- Sermon by Jeremy Johnson Connect with Loren: Share More & Get in Touch LinkedIn: Loren Sherman Podcast Page Connect with Jason: Prayers & Profits- podcast coming soon Jason's Bio
On today's episode of the Illumination by Modern Campus podcast, podcast co-founder Amrit Ahluwalia was joined by Matthew Gunkel to discuss the introduction of generative AI in higher ed and the need for a digital first-approach to shaping the future of student learning.
Trade-In Time is here! This month's pick is The Good Asian Vol. 1 from Pornsak Pichetshote and Alexandre Tefenkgi at Image Comics.As always, there's some news in The Week In Geek, the comic books we're buying this week in The List, a Dramatic Reading from Gambit & Rogue #1, craft beer AND a craft cocktail review!If you have any suggestions for a book for us to check out let us know at baggedandboredcast@gmail.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this episode we take the "Three Hour Tour" with Matt Gunkel and THE LLUNGEN LURES. We spend some time getting to know Matt better, the history of LLUNGEN LURES and we get into some really awesome discussions about baits, tactics , boats , musky trips and so much more. Donnie does give away the top secret fish catching bait in Ohio while Nick, Ryan and Owen all place LLUNGEN orders right afterwards. This was a really fun and informative episode talking to a really awesome human in Matt Gunkel. If you guys haven't yet, check out LLUNGEN LURES! https://www.llungenlures.com/
We're excited to bring you something new this season. In an effort to continue to support and grow D3XCTF, we felt the next best step would be to bring weekly awards. Introducing the D3 Glory Days Runner of the Week Award. We'll scan results each week for the athletes and teams we thought had the best performance. Some weeks may not be meet winners or those that ran the fastest. We'll do our best to go beyond what the results show. But some weeks the winners and fastest will prevail. How to Support D3 Glory Days: D3 Glory Days Venmo. We launched a Patreon! Subscribe and leave us a review on Apple Podcasts Instagram, Twitter and Strava. D3 Glory Days Merch --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/d3glorydays/message
Today's guest is Gero Gunkel, Chief Operating Officer and Data Science Leader for Zurich Insurance. Gero returns to the program to explain to Emerj Senior Editor Matthew DeMello how much successful AI adoptions rely on planning that has nothing to do with coding, data, or algorithms. In listing considerations from design to keeping subject matter experts engaged, Gero cites specific insurance-related examples where non-technical decisions can make or break an early in-house AI initiative. Download our PDF brief “AI in Insurance: Executive Cheat Sheet” at emerj.com/ins1.
Today's guest is Gero Gunkel, Chief Operating Officer and Data Science Leader for Zurich Insurance. In conversation with Emerj Senior Editor Matthew DeMello, Gero expounds on the increasing impact of large language models on the insurance space driven by the growing size of these models, allowing them to tackle more complex problems for more complex sectors. Later, they touch on the impact of ChatGPT and best practices for insurance firms just starting to use large language models. To access Emerj's frameworks for AI readiness, ROI, and strategy, visit Emerj Plus at emerj.com/p1.
The HBS hosts are on break between Seasons 6 and 7, so we're REPLAYing our Season 2 conversation with David Gunkel about robots and robot rights.The HBS hosts interview Dr. David Gunkel (author of Robot Rights and How To Survive A Robot Invasion) about his work on emergent technologies, intelligent machines, and robots. Following the recent announcement by Elson Musk that Tesla is developing a humanoid robot for home use, we ask: what is the real difference between a robot and a toaster?Do robots and intelligent machines rise to the level of “persons”? Should we accord them moral consideration or legal rights? Or are those questions just the consequence of our over-anthropomorphizing robots and intelligent machines?Full episode notes available at this link.-------------------If you enjoy Hotel Bar Sessions podcast, please be sure to subscribe and submit a rating/review! Follow us on Twitter @hotelbarpodcast, on Facebook, and subscribe to our YouTube channel!You can also help keep this podcast going by supporting us financially at patreon.com/hotelbarsessions.
I'm joined by emerging technology philosopher, Dr. David Gunkel, to discuss robot rights, consciousness, the philosophy of technology, and the ethics of machines. If you like these in-person episodes, then help me get to Mind Fest in March 2023 to film lots of in-person episodes with cutting edge philosophers of mind, AI theorists, and neuroscientists. You can help me get there buy giving here: https://gofund.me/0542e89c Find more from Dr. Gunkel here: https://gunkelweb.com/ If you like this podcast, then support it on Patreon for $3, $5 or more a month. Any amount helps, and for $5 you get a Parker's Pensées sticker and instant access to all the episode as I record them instead of waiting for their release date. Check it out here: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees If you want to give a one-time gift, you can give at my Paypal: https://paypal.me/ParkersPensees?locale.x=en_US Check out my merchandise at my Teespring store: https://teespring.com/stores/parkers-penses-merch Come talk with the Pensées community on Discord: dsc.gg/parkerspensees Sub to my Substack to read my thoughts on my episodes: https://parknotes.substack.com/ Check out my blog posts: https://parkersettecase.com/ Check out my Parker's Pensées YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYbTRurpFP5q4TpDD_P2JDA Check out my other YouTube channel on my frogs and turtles: https://www.youtube.com/c/ParkerSettecase Check me out on Twitter: https://twitter.com/trendsettercase Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/parkers_pensees/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/parkers-pensees/support
Link to bioRxiv paper: http://biorxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2023.01.27.525698v1?rss=1 Authors: Mocaer, K., Mizzon, G., Gunkel, M., Halavatyi, A., Steyer, A. M., Oorschot, V., Schorb, M., Le Kieffre, C., Yee, D. P., Chevalier, F., Gallet, B., Decelle, J., Schwab, Y., Ronchi, P. Abstract: Photosynthetic microalgae are responsible for an important fraction of CO2 fixation and O2 production on Earth. Three-dimensional ultrastructural characterization of these organisms in their natural environment can contribute to a deeper understanding of their cell biology. However, the low throughput of volume electron microscopy (vEM) methods, along with the complexity and heterogeneity of environmental samples, pose great technical challenges. In the present study, we used a workflow based on a specific EM sample preparation, compatible with both light and vEM imaging in order to target one cell among a complex natural community. This method revealed the 3D subcellular landscape of a photosynthetic dinoflagellate with quantitative characterization of multiple organelles. We could show that this cell contains a single convoluted chloroplast and the arrangement of the flagellar apparatus with its associated photosensitive elements. Moreover, we observed chromatin features that could shed light on how transcriptional activity takes place in organisms where chromosomes are permanently condensed. Together with providing insights in dinoflagellates biology, this proof-of-principle study illustrates an efficient tool for the targeted ultrastructural analysis of environmental microorganisms in heterogeneous mixes. Copy rights belong to original authors. Visit the link for more info Podcast created by Paper Player, LLC
“Robot rights are not the same thing as a set of human rights. Human rights are very specific to a singular species, the human being. Robots may have some overlapping powers, claims, privileges, or immunities that would need to be recognized by human beings, but their grouping or sets of rights will be perhaps very different.”David GunkelCan and should robots and AI have rights? What's the difference between robots and AI? Should we grant robots rights even if they aren't sentient? What might robot rights look like in practice? What philosophies and other ways of thinking are we not exploring enough? What might human-robot interactions look like in the future? What can we learn from science fiction? Can and should we be trying to actively get others to think of robots in a more positive light? David J. Gunkel is an award-winning educator, scholar, and author, specializing in the philosophy and ethics of emerging technology. He is the author of over 90 scholarly articles and book chapters and has published twelve internationally recognized books, including The Machine Question: Critical Perspectives on AI, Robots, and Ethics (MIT Press 2012), Of Remixology: Ethics and Aesthetics After Remix (MIT Press 2016), and Robot Rights (MIT Press 2018). He currently holds the position of Distinguished Teaching Professor in the Department of Communication at Northern Illinois University (USA). Topics discussed in the episode:Introduction (0:00)Why robot rights and not AI rights? (1:12)The other question: can and should robots have rights? (5:39)What is the case for robot rights? (10:21)What would robot rights look like? (19:50)What can we learn from other, particularly non-western, ways of thinking for robot rights? (26:33)What will human-robot interaction look like in the future? (33:20)How artificial sentience being less discrete than biological sentience might affect the case for rights (40:45)Things we can learn from science fiction for human-robot interaction and robot rights (42:55)Can and should we do anything to encourage people to see robots in a more positive light? (47:55)Why David pursued philosophy of technology over computer science more generally (52:01)Does having technical expertise give you more credibility (54:01)Shifts in thinking about robots and AI David has noticed over his career (58:03)Resources discussed in the episode are available at https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/podcastSupport the show
This week we talk about a variety of topics with Matt Gunkel. Topics include fishing Southern Illinois to get a break from winter in the North, Breaking down fish location, The importance of electronics, and Confidence baits. If you need gear to get out and musky fish or maybe for a gift for your favorite musky angler visit Team Rhino Outdoors (www.teamrhinooutdoors.com) and Musky Mayhem Tackle (www.muskymayhemtackle.com) Find new episodes of this podcast every Wednesday morning.
Today's guest in our second episode of the AI is Here series is Gero Gunkel, COO for Zurich Customer Active Management at Zurich Insurance. He was formerly the company's Global Head of AI. In this episode, Gero provides his perspective on the accessibility of NLP applications in insurance and where it's making a difference today. Gero also gives a good idea of why that is, what use-cases he's seeing make a dent today, and connects those thoughts to what the future of insurance looks like. This special AI is Here episode is brought to you by SambaNova Systems, the sponsor of this series. SambaNova believes that AI is Here, and we've partnered with them to bring these episodes to you. Find out more about sponsored content and how to engage with the Emerj audience at emerj.com/ad1.
Rendering Unconscious welcomes this group of discussants to talk about remix and the post-rational future! Mark Amerika, David Gunkel, Aram Sinnreich, Paul Miller, Eduardo Navas. Mark America website: http://markamerika.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/markamerika David Gunkel website: http://gunkelweb.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/David_Gunkel Paul D. Miller website: https://djspooky.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/djspooky Eduardo Navas website: http://navasse.net/docs/index.php Twitter: https://twitter.com/navasse Aram Sinnreich website: http://sinnreich.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/aram This episode also available at YouTube: https://youtu.be/hcK5WUtovQs Visit the main website for more information and links to everything: http://www.renderingunconscious.org You can support the podcast at our Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/vanessa23carl Thank you so much for your support! Rendering Unconscious Podcast is hosted by psychoanalyst Dr. Vanessa Sinclair: http://www.drvanessasinclair.net Rendering Unconscious: Psychoanalytic Perspectives, Politics & Poetry (Trapart 2019): https://store.trapart.net/details/00000 The song at the end of the episode is “These Boots (Just got a brand new pair)” from the album "Conceive ourselves" by Vanessa Sinclair and Pete Murphy. https://vanessasinclairpetemurphy.bandcamp.com/album/conceive-ourselves Many thanks to Carl Abrahamsson, who created the intro and outro music for Rendering Unconscious podcast. https://www.carlabrahamsson.com Image: Artwork by Vanessa Sinclair
This week's guest on our ongoing AI Success Factors series is Gero Gunkel of Zurich Insurance. Until recently, he was the Global Head of Artificial Intelligence for Zurich Insurance, and he is now the COO of Zurich's Customer Active Management or ZCAM. In today's episode, Gero discusses one particular use-case in helping to handle the extreme volumes of customer support inquiries that Zurich receives during certain seasons. There are two main takeaways: first, where to find the low-hanging fruit for customer experience applications for AI, and second, how to “think big and start small” from an actionable steps level in a way that achieves a measurable ROI. If you are in the financial services industry or interested in more related use-cases, be sure to subscribe to our other program called “The AI in Financial Services Podcast” on your preferred podcast platform to gain industry insights from enterprise leaders.
Die Analyse langer Texte mit Hilfe der künstlichen Intelligenz hat in den vergangenen Jahren große Fortschritte gemacht. „Inzwischen können KI-Algorithmen lange Dokumente automatisiert auslesen und verstehen“, sagt Gero Gunkel von der Zurich Versicherungsgruppe. In einem mehrjährigen Projekt haben Gunkel und sein Team einen „digitalen Analysten“ entwickelt, der künftig Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeitern ermöglicht, aus großen Mengen an Dokumenten wie Verträgen oder Patenten Antworten auf ihre Fragen zu finden – und das, ohne lange Vertragstexte händisch durchsuchen zu müssen. Die KI erkenne dabei auch „in einem 40 oder 50-seitigen Vertragsdokument Zusammenhänge zwischen der ersten Seite und dem dritten Anhang“. Um ein generelles Textverständnis zu bekommen, hat der Algorithmus die ganze Wikipedia-Datenbank gelesen und wurde mit Informationen aus 5000 Büchern trainiert. Einen ähnlichen Weg ist DeepL mit ihrer Datenbank Linguee gegangen. Die Zurich Gruppe nutzt einen Ansatz, der es erlaubt, Algorithmen für verschiedene Inhalte zu verwenden - von der Analyse von Vertragstexten bis zu Sportereignissen. Die Sorge, dass die breite Verwendung solcher intelligenten Lösungen zu Massenarbeitslosigkeit unter Wissensarbeitern führen könnte, teilt Gunkel jedoch nicht. Die KI werde zwar viele Fragen beantworten können, jedoch nicht jede. Insbesondere in Bereichen wie Kreativität oder Kundenkontakt seien Menschen immer noch unschlagbar. Deshalb werde die KI zwar das Tätigkeitsprofil in vielen Berufen verändern - weg von Zusammenfassungs- und Dokumentationsaufgaben und hin zu kreativer Problemlösung. Die Folge ist Teil unseres Podcasts „Künstliche Intelligenz“. Er geht den Fragen nach, was KI kann, wo sie angewendet wird, was sie bereits verändert hat und welchen Beitrag sie in der Zukunft leisten kann. Für den Podcast hat die F.A.Z. mit Peter Buxmann und Holger Schmidt zwei ausgewiesene KI-Experten an Bord geholt: Beide erforschen und lehren die Potenziale der KI und deren Auswirkungen auf Wirtschaft und Arbeit an der Technischen Universität Darmstadt. Peter Buxmann ist Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Wirtschaftsinformatik und beschäftigt sich seit vielen Jahren mit den Anwendungen von KI, der digitalen Transformation sowie datenbasierten Geschäftsmodellen. Sein Podcast-Partner Holger Schmidt ist Digital Economist, Speaker und Autor. Seine Kernthemen sind KI, Plattform-Ökonomie und digitale Geschäftsmodelle. Die beiden Hosts greifen in jeder Folge einen neuen Aspekt der Künstlichen Intelligenz auf, erklären Zusammenhänge und geben präzise Einordnungen. Die Folgen haben eine Länge von rund dreißig Minuten und erscheinen monatlich jeweils am ersten Montag.
Spring training has begun! We have great expectations for third-year American righty Joe Gunkel and so should you! We sat down with him (on Zoom) for an interview last week… here is the audio from it, plus a bit of reaction from Sanjay at the end. Enjoy! Here is the first part of the interview,...
David Gunkel Ph.D let us sneak peek into his next book. Will humans ever rethink the way we classify and exploit other living creatures or even machines?
Pat and Ben have a conversation with fellow long-suffering mustard buzzard Cory Gunkel. We talk 2021, conference realignment, and ponder the olden days. Follow Cory on Twitter @CoryGunkel. As always, be sure to follow @buzzardrypod for all things Buzzardry (and leave us a review on your favorite podcast platform while you're at it). Thanks for listening!
Pat and Ben have a conversation with fellow long-suffering mustard buzzard Cory Gunkel. We talk 2021, conference realignment, and ponder the olden days. Follow Cory on Twitter @CoryGunkel. As always, be sure to follow @buzzardrypod for all things Buzzardry (and leave us a review on your favorite podcast platform while you're at it). Thanks for listening!
David is a professor, author, and speaker focused on the ethics of emerging technologies. He has written 12 books and more than 80 scholarly articles and chapters. His works include The Machine Question, Robot Rights, and his most recent book Deconstruction. David's Website: http://gunkelweb.com/ Robot Rights: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08BSWHNKT/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1 Deconstruction: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08PYLVBG6/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0 This episode of the podcast as well as all one million others can be found on these platforms: YouTube: https://bit.ly/3AwG25JYoutube Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3xIlSUp Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/3sfxQDS Breaker: https://bit.ly/3ADwmq7 Google Podcasts: https://bit.ly/3iLd5Nd Overcast: https://bit.ly/3m37WlV Pocket Casts: https://pca.st/fmh2qfcn RadioPublic: https://bit.ly/3iHuc2y FakeCast: https://bit.ly/3sortyb
Esta semana nos vamos a la Pelicula el Padrino o los sopranos de La Lucha libre en lo que se conocio como la Batalla de Atlanta, donde la NWA uitlizo cuanta trampa en la historia y trucos mafiosos en contra de Ann Gunkel, asi que agarren su popcorn para esta historia de traicion,robo,soborno y Influencias Politicas.Entre los temas que tocaremos se encuentran los siguientes: Lo que estaba sucediendo en Georgia a finales de los 50 Llega Ray Gunkel al territorio Que hace Gunkel con el territorio. Llega la familia Fuller Que sucedia entre Fuller y Gunkel. Feudo con OX Baker que lleva a la Muerte de Gunkel Causa de la muerte Lo que Hace la NWA el mismo dia del Funeral de Gunkel Ted Turner Ann Gunkel contrataca Que Le ofrece a los luchadores Tom Renesto como Booker La batalla por television La NWA en problemas Intimidacion de Luchadores Los Supercards de Atlanta Thunderbolt patterson Intento de membresia en la NWA Carlos colon en la guerra Jim Barnett Que hace Jim Barnett con los Politicos NWA pagando a otras promociones Jim Barnett y la commission atletica Ann Gunkel tira la toalla Que le pide a Barnett a cambio de rendirse Esto y mucho mas en el podcast de est semana que sinceramente deberia ser una pelicula de tantas cosas que suceden en tan solo 2 years. Caveman --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/luis-cuevas/support
Today on the show, we're talking about what real sex looks like and how we can now see it on Netflix. I'm answering your questions about whether or not our own bodies can turn us on, and does that mean we're autosexual? And how to keep that sexual spark alive in long distance relationships. I also share my interview with self-advocate, actor, and sexual health peer facilitator, Larissa Gunkel. Larissa and I talk about orgasms, relationships, and disability. We also discuss Sixpo, A Sexuality Conference happening next month in Vancouver, BC (online so anyone can attend!) that centres the experiences of people with disabilities. Resources from the Show! Romance, Relationships and Rights: Theatre for Social Change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8l0tA3p0SA&ab_channel=RightsBasedSocialPolicy Romance, Relationships and Rights Full Production https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkEAvMPig1g&t=1808s&ab_channel=RightsBasedSocialPolicy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkEAvMPig1g&t=1808s&ab_channel=RightsBasedSocialPolicy) Special on Netflix: https://www.entertainmentdaily.co.uk/tv/special-netflix-season-2-cast-about/ Ryan O'Connell is Passionate about Special's Realistic Gay Sex Scenes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsOsZBoSACo&ab_channel=LateNightwithSethMeyers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsOsZBoSACo&ab_channel=LateNightwithSethMeyers) LGBT and Disability: https://www.disabled-world.com/disability/sexuality/lgbt/ (https://www.disabled-world.com/disability/sexuality/lgbt/) Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvr33d50 Going Solo: The Basics of Masturbation https://www.scarleteen.com/article/bodies_sexuality/going_solo_the_basics_of_masturbation (https://www.scarleteen.com/article/bodies_sexuality/going_solo_the_basics_of_masturbation) Solo- and Autosexuality 101: https://glreview.org/article/solo-and-autosexuality-101/ (https://glreview.org/article/solo-and-autosexuality-101/) 6 Signs You Might Be Autosexual, aka Attracted to Yourself: https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/autosexual-meaning-and-signs (https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/autosexual-meaning-and-signs) Age of the Autosexual: The People Sexually Attracted to Themselves https://www.theguardian.com/society/shortcuts/2019/mar/04/age-of-the-autosexual-the-people-sexually-attracted-to-themselves (https://www.theguardian.com/society/shortcuts/2019/mar/04/age-of-the-autosexual-the-people-sexually-attracted-to-themselves) If You're Your Own “Type” There's a Word For That: https://www.elitedaily.com/p/can-you-be-attracted-to-yourself-autosexual-means-youre-your-own-type-19274890 (https://www.elitedaily.com/p/can-you-be-attracted-to-yourself-autosexual-means-youre-your-own-type-19274890) Factors associated with sexual satisfaction in mixed-sex long-distance and geographically close relationships: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14681994.2020.1813884?journalCode=csmt20
Joe Gunkel of the Tigers is the guest, we talk about Hanshin, look at the top performers of the opening stretch of the season, discuss foreign players being separated from their families and players who decided not to join NPB teams because of the pandemic, go through the latest Masahiro Tanaka start, a loss to Nippon Ham, and touch on some key injuries.
Joe Gunkel of the Tigers is the guest, we talk about Hanshin, look at the top performers of the opening stretch of the season, discuss foreign players being separated from their families and players who decided not to join NPB teams because of the pandemic, go through the latest Masahiro Tanaka start, a loss to Nippon Ham, and touch on some key injuries.
In this episode of The Small Print, Bronwyn is joined by Professor David Gunkel from Northern Illinois University to talk about robot rights. How do they differ from human rights? Why should we care? They discuss the growing concern around automation, the problem with popular depictions of robots, and why extending rights to robots could be beneficial to humans. Lastly, they look at the "Barbarian Invasions" by artificial intelligence of our everyday lives and what we can do to stop it. --- Bronwyn Williams is a futurist, economist, trend analyst and host of The Small Print. Her day job as a partner at Flux Trends involves helping business leaders to use foresight to design the future they want to live and work in. You may have seen her talking about Transhumanism or Tikok on Carte Blanche, or heard her talking about trends on 702 or CNBC Africa where she is a regular expert commentator. When she's not talking to brands and businesses about the future, you will probably find her curled up somewhere with a (preferably paperback) book. She tweets at @bronwynwilliams. Twitter: https://twitter.com/bronwynwilliams Flux Trends: https://www.fluxtrends.com/future-flux/futurist-in-residence/ Website: https://whatthefuturenow.com/ --- David J. Gunkel is an American academic and Presidential Teaching Professor at Northern Illinois University, where he teaches courses in web design, information and communication technology (ICT), and cyberculture. His research and publications examine the philosophical assumptions and ethical consequences of ICT. David is also the author of several books, including the book "Robot Rights." He tweets @David_Gunkel. Book: https://bit.ly/3uvTILd Webiste: https://gunkelweb.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/David_Gunkel --- Follow us on Social Media: YouTube: https://bit.ly/2u46Mdy LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/discourse-za Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/discourseza/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/discourseza Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/discourseza/ Subscribe to the Discourse ZA Podcast: iTunes: https://apple.co/2V5ckEM Stitcher: https://bit.ly/2UILooX Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2vlBwaG RSS feed: https://bit.ly/2VwsTsy Intro Animation by Cath Theo - http://www.cuzimcath.co.za/
Môžu nám filozofické tradície – reprezentované mysliteľmi ako Platón, Kant, Derrida alebo Žižek – pomôcť skúmať a interpretovať súčasný vývoj v oblasti videohier? V knihe Gaming the System sa jej autor David J. Gunkel zaoberá identitami avatarov, novými typmi digitálnych aktérov, inakosťou, politikou zmluvných podmienok a problémami jazyka. V nasledujúcom texte sa pozrieme na to, ako voľba metafor usmerňuje naše premýšľanie o videohrách a virtuálnych svetoch. Autor eseje, Jaromír Salaj, študoval filozofiu a pracoval ako výtvarník vo viacerých videoherných štúdiách. Načítala Michaela Malíková Bejdová. Podcast podporila Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung so zastúpením v Českej republike a Fond na podporu umenia.
Dr. David Gunkel joins Dr. J to talk about the possibility of virtual moral agents, the seriousness of online games, science fiction's bad politics, and "USS Callister."
Join our bible reading plan: https://bible.com/p/21036256/5e69cf8f678bf7e81329c59d81a8a479 Want to receive text updates from our church? Send the keyword VBPH to 844-990-3380. Please let us know how this message has influenced you by connect with us using one of these options: Email: pastor@vbph.org Voicemail: https://anchor.fm/vbph-sermons/message Facebook: https://facebook.com/vbph.church Instagram: https://instagram.com/vbph.church Twitter: https://twitter.com/vbph_church Website: https://vbph.church Are you in Hampton Roads and want to visit our church? Come join us IRL: 1045 Lynnhaven Pkwy., Virginia Beach, VA 23452 Thanks for listening! Has this message been a blessing to you? Please consider giving a generous donation!
This episode we're chatting with David Gunkel on AI ideologies, why write the Robots Rights book, what are rights and categories of rights, computer ethics and hitch bot, anthropomorphising as a human feature, supporting environmental rights through this endeavour of robot rights, relational ethics, and acknowledging the western ethical view point.
Join Shalom Klein on his weekly radio show, Get Down To Business with guests: Miguel Lucero Tom Patterson Professor David Gunkel
Cúpla Focal daoibh! An Pop Cult Pod trí mhéan na Gaeilge. San eachtra seo, ritheann Tompott tríd an nuacht maidir le Covid-19, Indiana Jones agus Lizzie McGuire. Bíonn fadhbanna aige leis an Modh Coinníollach is gach uile aimsir sa Ghaeilge. Deanann sé iarracht a smaointe a thabhairt ar Onwards, scannán nua Pixar. Tá a lán botún agus a lán gáire mar tá sé as a mheabhair. B'fhéidir gheobhaidh tú freagradh ar an cheist coitianta; An bhfuil cead agam dul go dtí an leithreas? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the Youtube for the most recent reviews and more https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC08Bd_nTb6eIc4ZegcE1B4Q ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is Episode 29 of the Pop Cult Pod if you'd like to hear the back catalogue check out soundcloud.com/popcultpod Thanks to Gunkel for the music, you can find him at soundcloud.com/gunkel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yell at me for my hot takes or mistakes: Instagram- www.instagram.com/popcultpod/ Twitter- twitter.com/Pop_Cult_Pod Facebook- www.facebook.com/PopCultCompound/ Email- popcultpod@gmail.com
Not a great time to try go viral but Tompott is undeterred, In this English version of this week's podcast. He talks about Indiana Jones and Lizzie McGuire for some reason. Looks at the massive impact of the Coronavirus on Hollywood and what it could mean for the weeks to come. Is massively unimpressed with most of the trailers, recommends some stuff for those on lockdown and tears into Roman Polanski. Also learns a totally useless bit of trivia regarding Powerpuff Girls and Spider-Man. Not to mention he reviews Pixar's latest and talks about what happened with the Phoenix Wrestling Network(1:41:55) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the Youtube for the most recent reviews and more https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC08Bd_nTb6eIc4ZegcE1B4Q ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is Episode 29 of the Pop Cult Pod if you'd like to hear the back catalogue check out soundcloud.com/popcultpod Thanks to Gunkel for the music, you can find him at soundcloud.com/gunkel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yell at me for my hot takes or mistakes: Instagram- www.instagram.com/popcultpod/ Twitter- twitter.com/Pop_Cult_Pod Facebook- www.facebook.com/PopCultCompound/ Email- popcultpod@gmail.com
We are in the midst of a robot invasion, as devices of different configurations and capabilities slowly but surely come to take up increasingly important positions in everyday social reality―self-driving vehicles, recommendation algorithms, machine learning decision making systems, and social robots of various forms and functions. Although considerable attention has already been devoted to the subject of robots and responsibility, the question concerning the social status of these artifacts has been largely overlooked. In Robot Rights (MIT Press, 2018), David Gunkel offers a provocative attempt to think about what has been previously regarded as unthinkable: whether and to what extent robots and other technological artifacts of our own making can and should have any claim to moral and legal standing. In his analysis, Gunkel invokes the philosophical distinction (developed by David Hume) between “is” and “ought” in order to evaluate and analyze the different arguments regarding the question of robot rights. In the course of his examination, Gunkel finds that none of the existing positions or proposals hold up under scrutiny. In response to this, he then offers an innovative alternative proposal that effectively flips the script on the is/ought problem by introducing another, altogether different way to conceptualize the social situation of robots and the opportunities and challenges they present to existing moral and legal systems. John Danaher is a lecturer the National University of Ireland, Galway. He is also the host of the wonderful podcast Philosophical Disquisitions. You can find it here on Apple Podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We are in the midst of a robot invasion, as devices of different configurations and capabilities slowly but surely come to take up increasingly important positions in everyday social reality―self-driving vehicles, recommendation algorithms, machine learning decision making systems, and social robots of various forms and functions. Although considerable attention has already been devoted to the subject of robots and responsibility, the question concerning the social status of these artifacts has been largely overlooked. In Robot Rights (MIT Press, 2018), David Gunkel offers a provocative attempt to think about what has been previously regarded as unthinkable: whether and to what extent robots and other technological artifacts of our own making can and should have any claim to moral and legal standing. In his analysis, Gunkel invokes the philosophical distinction (developed by David Hume) between “is” and “ought” in order to evaluate and analyze the different arguments regarding the question of robot rights. In the course of his examination, Gunkel finds that none of the existing positions or proposals hold up under scrutiny. In response to this, he then offers an innovative alternative proposal that effectively flips the script on the is/ought problem by introducing another, altogether different way to conceptualize the social situation of robots and the opportunities and challenges they present to existing moral and legal systems. John Danaher is a lecturer the National University of Ireland, Galway. He is also the host of the wonderful podcast Philosophical Disquisitions. You can find it here on Apple Podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We are in the midst of a robot invasion, as devices of different configurations and capabilities slowly but surely come to take up increasingly important positions in everyday social reality―self-driving vehicles, recommendation algorithms, machine learning decision making systems, and social robots of various forms and functions. Although considerable attention has already been devoted to the subject of robots and responsibility, the question concerning the social status of these artifacts has been largely overlooked. In Robot Rights (MIT Press, 2018), David Gunkel offers a provocative attempt to think about what has been previously regarded as unthinkable: whether and to what extent robots and other technological artifacts of our own making can and should have any claim to moral and legal standing. In his analysis, Gunkel invokes the philosophical distinction (developed by David Hume) between “is” and “ought” in order to evaluate and analyze the different arguments regarding the question of robot rights. In the course of his examination, Gunkel finds that none of the existing positions or proposals hold up under scrutiny. In response to this, he then offers an innovative alternative proposal that effectively flips the script on the is/ought problem by introducing another, altogether different way to conceptualize the social situation of robots and the opportunities and challenges they present to existing moral and legal systems. John Danaher is a lecturer the National University of Ireland, Galway. He is also the host of the wonderful podcast Philosophical Disquisitions. You can find it here on Apple Podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We are in the midst of a robot invasion, as devices of different configurations and capabilities slowly but surely come to take up increasingly important positions in everyday social reality―self-driving vehicles, recommendation algorithms, machine learning decision making systems, and social robots of various forms and functions. Although considerable attention has already been devoted to the subject of robots and responsibility, the question concerning the social status of these artifacts has been largely overlooked. In Robot Rights (MIT Press, 2018), David Gunkel offers a provocative attempt to think about what has been previously regarded as unthinkable: whether and to what extent robots and other technological artifacts of our own making can and should have any claim to moral and legal standing. In his analysis, Gunkel invokes the philosophical distinction (developed by David Hume) between “is” and “ought” in order to evaluate and analyze the different arguments regarding the question of robot rights. In the course of his examination, Gunkel finds that none of the existing positions or proposals hold up under scrutiny. In response to this, he then offers an innovative alternative proposal that effectively flips the script on the is/ought problem by introducing another, altogether different way to conceptualize the social situation of robots and the opportunities and challenges they present to existing moral and legal systems. John Danaher is a lecturer the National University of Ireland, Galway. He is also the host of the wonderful podcast Philosophical Disquisitions. You can find it here on Apple Podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
2019 has come and gone and Tompott looks back at both the year and his first episode that was full of predictions and some awful choices. He fixes some picks and gives out some more awards in what he decides far too late are called the Culties! The winners and losers from across the year 2019 and Tompott's Top 10 Films of the Year. Oh and a review of Cats :( ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the Youtube for the most recent reviews and more https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC08Bd_nTb6eIc4ZegcE1B4Q ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is Episode 28 of the Pop Cult Pod if you'd like to hear the back catalogue check out soundcloud.com/popcultpod Thanks to Gunkel for the music, you can find him at soundcloud.com/gunkel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yell at me for my hot takes or mistakes: Instagram- www.instagram.com/popcultpod/ Twitter- twitter.com/Pop_Cult_Pod Facebook- www.facebook.com/PopCultCompound/ Email- popcultpod@gmail.com
The hottest debut in wrestling/podcasting history, Tompott and the Pop Cult Pod make their way to the Phoenix Wrestling Network. Before talking about wrestling in cinema. He goes through the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) including Jojo Rabbit, The Goldfinch and Meryl Streep in Blackface. We look at yet another streaming service called Peacock, a Funko Pops movie and The Suicide Squad not to be confused with Suicide Squad. He also totally loses his cool with the music video for the new Charlie's Angels. Finally this week's topic looks at the best wrestlers prime for a biopic on their lives and what makes for a good wrestling movie. Along with some honourable mentions. Will Tompott be able to justify his existence on the Phoenix Wrestling Network? Will his super secret guest make an appearance? Are those my feet? Listen and find out! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the Youtube for the most recent reviews and more https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC08Bd_nTb6eIc4ZegcE1B4Q ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is Episode 24 of the Pop Cult Pod if you'd like to hear the back catalogue check out Soundcloud.com/popcultpod Thanks to Gunkel for the music, you can find him at soundcloud.com/gunkel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yell at me for my hot takes or mistakes: Instagram- www.instagram.com/popcultpod/ Twitter- twitter.com/Pop_Cult_Pod Facebook- www.facebook.com/PopCultCompound/ Email- popcultpod@gmail.com
Like the Fat Man down your chimney, the Pop Cult Pod is here with their Christmas special! Tompott goes through the news over the last while including Golden Globes, Planets with Apes and Jackasses. Trailer talk for Black Widow, Wonder Woman 84, Ghostbusters Afterlife, Mulan, Tenet and No Time to Die. Then he wades into the festive debate; Is Die Hard a Christmas movie? An interview with Chris O'Neill, head of Cinema at the Triskel Arts Centre in Cork in which they discuss what makes a Christmas movie to us, some obscure X-Mas flicks and a lot more. Oh and Tompott accidentally cancels Santa Clause and gets an amazing Sound Machine. Don't miss it! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the Youtube for the most recent reviews and more https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC08Bd_nTb6eIc4ZegcE1B4Q ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is Episode 27 of the Pop Cult Pod if you'd like to hear the back catalogue check out soundcloud.com/popcultpod Thanks to Gunkel for the music, you can find him at soundcloud.com/gunkel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yell at me for my hot takes or mistakes: Instagram- www.instagram.com/popcultpod/ Twitter- twitter.com/Pop_Cult_Pod Facebook- www.facebook.com/PopCultCompound/ Email- popcultpod@gmail.com
Often Delayed, Never Duplicated, The Pop Cult Pod returns in an incredibly rushed episode as Tompott tears through the news, the trailers and issues a public apology to avoid being cancelled.He tries to get through news like Batman casting, Spider-Man returning, HBO Max, TV News and more Star Wars news than you can shake a lightsaber at. As well as weighing on the Scorsese/Marvel feud but who's side is he on? Then the topic for this episode, The Revolution will be Televised: Breaking Bad. Tompott looks at how Breaking Bad approached the transformation of a hero to a villain to something more. Themes, imagery and some shoutouts for favourite episodes, moments and characters before giving his thoughts on El Camino. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the Youtube for the most recent reviews and more https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC08Bd_nTb6eIc4ZegcE1B4Q ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is Episode 25 of the Pop Cult Pod if you'd like to hear the back catalogue check out Soundcloud.com/popcultpod Thanks to Gunkel for the music, you can find him at soundcloud.com/gunkel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yell at me for my hot takes or mistakes: Instagram- www.instagram.com/popcultpod/ Twitter- twitter.com/Pop_Cult_Pod Facebook- www.facebook.com/PopCultCompound/ Email- popcultpod@gmail.com
Tompott is back and previews the year in film now that 1/12th of the year has already passed. The most prestigious awards ceremony since the last episode, giving awards to films that may bomb, films coming from the small screen to the big and many many more. He also rushes through some messy Marvel and Star Wars news, tries making sense of the physics in the Fast and the Furious 9, gets some help from DJ Khaled and finally talks to the Undertaker. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the Youtube for the most recent reviews and more https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC08Bd_nTb6eIc4ZegcE1B4Q ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is Episode 29 of the Pop Cult Pod if you'd like to hear the back catalogue check out soundcloud.com/popcultpod Thanks to Gunkel for the music, you can find him at soundcloud.com/gunkel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yell at me for my hot takes or mistakes: Instagram- www.instagram.com/popcultpod/ Twitter- twitter.com/Pop_Cult_Pod Facebook- www.facebook.com/PopCultCompound/ Email- popcultpod@gmail.com
James Dean isn't the only one back from the dead, Tompott is here with a new Pop Cult Pod. Covering the massive amount of DC news, Marvel dates, the exciting world of film rights and the shady business of dead celebrities coming back to life. In a new segment, we get some reviews for The Lighthouse, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Jojo Rabbit and The Mandalorian. Along with the usual trailer talk of Cats, Sonic and The Invisible Man. Topic for this episode (1.30.05) is how China influences and impacts the media we consume. As interesting as it is terrifying. What does a cartoon Yeti have to do with geopolitics? Why was Back to the Future banned in China? What does it all mean for us and the future of film? Find out right now on the latest episode of the Pop Cult Pod. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the Youtube for the most recent reviews and more https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC08Bd_nTb6eIc4ZegcE1B4Q ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is Episode 26 of the Pop Cult Pod if you'd like to hear the back catalogue check out soundcloud.com/popcultpod Thanks to Gunkel for the music, you can find him at soundcloud.com/gunkel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yell at me for my hot takes or mistakes: Instagram- www.instagram.com/popcultpod/ Twitter- twitter.com/Pop_Cult_Pod Facebook- www.facebook.com/PopCultCompound/ Email- popcultpod@gmail.com
In This Episode:[1:38] Introduction[4:18] What made him decide to do ultra distance races?[7:11] His preparations for an ultra distance race[10:56] His support system[13:42] His thoughts during the run[15:23] What his kids think about him as an ultra distance runner[16:19] His experience that helped him develop a stronger mindset[19:35] How do you align with your purpose[21:56] His thoughts and preparations when he led the buying out of senior partners of his company[25:49] What he would have done differently and improvements when it comes to ultra distance running[27:37] How ultra distance running help improve his discipline in all aspects of his life[34:16] Extreme training conditions[36:13] The diet for ultra distance race[37:39] His advice on getting a coach[39:47] Benefits of having a coach[44:07] His advice for the people that want to try running[50:13] What helped him keep the balance in all aspects of his life Important Quotes:"I had to have a reason to do this""Things are thrown at us that are outside of out control...and we just have to deal with them and keep pushing forward""There's always a sunshine at the end""No matter how much we prepare in life, some things are going to hit us that are out of our control""It's okay that i can't control every aspect of my life""It's more about enjoying the mile i'm in at the time""It's important to find those people that we really trust""Recognizing why you're doing it""It's only a failure if you stop or if you don't learn from it"
What's going on behind the scenes of professional baseball? During our Baseball User Group in Brookings, SD, Matt sat down with Tim Gunkel, Executive Director of Ballpark Technology and Procurement for the New York Mets, to find out. He shared his experience in baseball, how his team is focusing on the fan experience and what activities they employ, and his thoughts on the user group where teams are actively sharing ideas and learning from one another. New York Mets project photo: https://www.daktronics.com/en-us/photos/details?pn=WP-19900&cid=137135 What's new in baseball blog: https://blog.daktronics.com/2020/03/06/6-things-to-know-for-the-2020-mlb-season/
As a professional service provider, you might be great at what you do, but unless you have some entrepreneurial drive… your technical skills won't be enough to build a successful company. Mark Gunkel says you need business building, management, and operations strategies… a passion for being “in charge.” And these are skills and you can pick up when you're still an employee. Mark shares his strategies for managing his team, staying productive, and more.Tune in to find out... The regular escapes he uses to avoid burnout Vital money management tips for entrepreneurs Why you should give your employees “extra” time off Overcoming the challenges that come with selling a commodity The impact of continually evaluating and reevaluating your business goals
In this episode, Eric and Kendall answer the question "what does success mean to you?" - this is a question that is asked to every guest here on the Trying To Make It podcast. This episode was recorded before any guests were ever scheduled, it was all just a dream at this point. If you like what you hear, give us a follow on social media! Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tryingtomakeitpodcast/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Trying-To-Make-It-Podcast-1790655244414423
Today's guest on Rendering Unconscious is David J. Gunkel. PhD, an award-winning educator, scholar and author, specializing in ethics of emerging technology. Formally educated in philosophy and media studies, his teaching and research synthesize the hype of high-technology with the rigor and insight of contemporary critical analysis. He is the author of over 80 scholarly journal articles and book chapters, has published 12 influential books, lectured and delivered award-winning papers throughout North and South America and Europe, is the managing editor and co-founder of the International Journal of Žižek Studies and co-editor of the Indiana University Press series in Digital Game Studies. He currently holds the position of Professor in the Department of Communication at Northern Illinois University (USA), and his teaching has been recognized with numerous awards, including NIU's Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching and the prestigious Presidential Teaching Professorship. For more, please visit his website: http://gunkelweb.com Also mentioned in this episode are: Mark Amerika: http://markamerika.com Paul D. Miller: http://djspooky.com Eduardo Navas: http://navasse.net Aram Sinnreich: http://sinnreich.com Other RU Podcast guests focused on AI and technology: Damien Patrick Williams RU13: https://soundcloud.com/highbrowlowlife/ru-damien-patrick-williams Isabel Millar RU21: https://soundcloud.com/highbrowlowlife/rendering-isabel-millar-unconscious Jacob Johanssen RU23: https://soundcloud.com/highbrowlowlife/rendering-jacob-johanssen-unconscious-on-digital-media-technology-psychoanalysis-society Rendering Unconscious Podcast is hosted by psychoanalyst Dr. Vanessa Sinclair, who interviews psychoanalysts, psychologists, scholars, creative arts therapists, writers, poets, philosophers, artists & other intellectuals about their process, world events, the current state of mental health care, politics, culture, the arts & more: www.drvanessasinclair.net Rendering Unconscious is also a book! Rendering Unconscious: Psychoanalytic Perspectives, Politics and Poetry (Trapart, 2019): www.trapart.net Rendering Unconscious Podcast can be found at: Spotify, iTunes, YouTube, Vimeo, SoundCloud Please visit www.renderingunconscious.org/about for links to all of these sites. To support the podcast visit: www.patreon.com/vanessa23carl For more, please visit the following websites: http://gunkelweb.com www.drvanessasinclair.net/podcast www.renderingunconscious.org/about www.trapart.net www.dasunbehagen.org The track at the end of the episode is “The Third Mind” by Katelan Foisy with Vanessa Sinclair from the album Message 23. Released by Highbrow Lowlife: https://vanessasinclair.bandcamp.com/track/the-third-mind-katelan-foisy For more from Katelan Foisy visit: www.katelanfoisy.com And for more of Katelan and Vanessa's work together visit: www.chaosofthethirdmind.com Art by Vanessa Sinclair and Carl Abrahamsson from their series "Cut to Fit the Mouth". Original artwork available at Trapart Books, Films, Editions: https://store.trapart.net/item/4 www.patreon.com/vanessa23carl Portrait of Dr. David Gunkel www.gunkelweb.com
In a recent proposal issued by the European Parliament, it was suggested that robots and AI might need to be considered “electronic persons” for the purposes of social and legal integration. The very idea sparked controversy, and it has been met with considerable resistance. Underlying the controversy, however, is an important ethical question: When (if ever) would it be necessary for robots, AI, or other socially interactive, autonomous systems to have some claim to moral and legal standing? When (if ever) would a technological artifact need to be considered more than a mere instrument of human action and have some legitimate claim to independent social status? Or to put it more directly: Can or should robots ever have anything like rights?In this presentation, Gunkel offers a provocative argument demonstrating what has been previously regarded as unthinkable: that robots and other technological artifacts of our own making can and should have some claim to rights and that this assignment of moral/legal status is not something for the future, but is necessary here and now for the sake of respecting the integrity of existing moral and legal systems.
[This is the text of a lecture that I delivered at Tilburg University on the 24th of September 2019. It was delivered as part of the 25th Anniversary celebrations for TILT (Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology and Society). My friend and colleague Sven Nyholm was the discussant for the evening. The lecture is based on my longer academic article ‘Welcoming Robots into the Moral Circle: A Defence of Ethical Behaviourism’ but was written from scratch and presents some key arguments in a snappier and clearer form. I also include a follow up section responding to criticisms from the audience on the evening of the lecture. My thanks to all those involved in organizing the event (Aviva de Groot, Merel Noorman and Silvia de Conca in particular). You can download an audio version of this lecture, minus the reflections and follow ups, here or listen to it above]1. IntroductionMy lecture this evening will be about the conditions under which we should welcome robots into our moral communities. Whenever I talk about this, I am struck by how much my academic career has come to depend upon my misspent youth for its inspiration. Like many others, I was obsessed with science fiction as a child, and in particular with the representation of robots in science fiction. I had two favourite, fictional, robots. The first was R2D2 from the original Star Wars trilogy. The second was Commander Data from Star Trek: the Next Generation. I liked R2D2 because of his* personality - courageous, playful, disdainful of authority - and I liked Data because the writers of Star Trek used him as a vehicle for exploring some important philosophical questions about emotion, humour, and what it means to be human.In fact, I have to confess that Data has had an outsized influence on my philosophical imagination and has featured in several of my academic papers. Part of the reason for this was practical. When I grew up in Ireland we didn’t have many options to choose from when it came to TV. We had to make do with what was available and, as luck would have it, Star Trek: TNG was on every day when I came home from school. As a result, I must have watched each episode of its 7-season run multiple times.One episode in particular has always stayed with me. It was called ‘Measure of a Man’. In it, a scientist from the Federation visits the Enterprise because he wants to take Data back to his lab to study him. Data, you see, is a sophisticated human-like android, created by a lone scientific genius, under somewhat dubious conditions. The Federation scientist wants to take Data apart and see how he works with a view to building others like him. Data, unsurprisingly, objects. He argues that he is not just a machine or piece of property that can be traded and disassembled to suit the whims of human beings. He has his own, independent moral standing. He deserves to be treated with dignity.But how does Data prove his case? A trial ensues and evidence is given on both sides. The prosecution argue that Data is clearly just a piece of property. He was created not born. He doesn’t think or see the world like a normal human being (or, indeed, other alien species). He even has an ‘off switch’. Data counters by giving evidence of the rich relationships he has formed with his fellow crew members and eliciting testimony from others regarding his behaviour and the interactions they have with him. Ultimately, he wins the case. The court accepts that he has moral standing.Now, we can certainly lament the impact that science fiction has on the philosophical debate about robots. As David Gunkel observes in his 2018 book Robot Rights:“[S]cience fiction already — and well in advance of actual engineering practice — has established expectations for what a robot is or can be. Even before engineers have sought to develop working prototypes, writers, artists, and filmmakers have imagined what robots do or can do, what configurations they might take, and what problems they could produce for human individuals and communities.” (Gunkel 2018, 16)He continues, noting that this is a “potential liability” because:“science fiction, it is argued, often produces unrealistic expectations for and irrational fears about robots that are not grounded in or informed by actual science.” (Gunkel 2018, 18)I certainly heed this warning. But, nevertheless, I think the approach taken by the TNG writers in the episode ‘Measure of a Man’ is fundamentally correct. Even if we cannot currently create a being like Data, and even if the speculation is well in advance of the science, they still give us the correct guide to resolving the philosophical question of when to welcome robots into our moral community. Or so, at least, I shall argue in the remainder of this lecture.2. Tribalism and Conflict in Robot EthicsBefore I get into my own argument, let me say something about the current lay of the land when it comes to this issue. Some of you might be familiar with the famous study by the social psychologist Muzafer Sherif. It was done in the early 1950s at a summer camp in Robber’s Cave, Oklahoma. Suffice to say, it is one of those studies that wouldn’t get ethics approval nowadays. Sherif and his colleagues were interested in tribalism and conflict. They wanted to see how easy it would be to get two groups of 11-year old boys to divide into separate tribes and go to war with one another. It turned out to be surprisingly easy. By arbitrarily separating the boys into two groups, giving them nominal group identity (the ‘Rattlers’ and the ‘Eagles’), and putting them into competition with each other, Sherif and his research assistants sowed the seeds for bitter and repeated conflict.The study has become a classic, repeatedly cited as evidence of how easy it is for humans to get trapped in intransigent group conflicts. I mention it here because, unfortunately, it seems to capture what has happened with the debate about the potential moral standing of robots. The disputants have settled into two tribes. There are those that are ‘anti’ the idea; and there are those that are ‘pro’ the idea. The members of these tribes sometimes get into heated arguments with one another, particularly on Twitter (which, admittedly, is a bit like a digital equivalent of Sherif’s summer camp).Those that are ‘anti’ the idea would include Noel Sharkey, Amanda Sharkey, Deborah Johnson, Aimee van Wynsberghe and the most recent lecturer in this series, Joanna Bryson. They cite a variety of reasons for their opposition. The Sharkeys, I suspect, think the whole debate is slightly ridiculous because current robots clearly lack the capacity for moral standing, and debating their moral standing distracts from the important issues in robot ethics - namely stopping the creation and use of robots that are harmful to human well-being. Deborah Johnson would argue that since robots can never experience pain or suffering they will never have moral standing. Van Wynsberghe and Bryson are maybe a little different and lean more heavily on the idea that even if it were possible to create robots with moral standing — a possibility that Bryson at least is willing to concede — it would be a very bad idea to do so because it would cause considerable moral and legal disruption.Those that are pro the idea would include Kate Darling, Mark Coeckelbergh, David Gunkel, Erica Neely, and Daniel Estrada. Again, they cite a variety of reasons for their views. Darling is probably the weakest on the pro side. She focuses on humans and thinks that even if robots themselves lack moral standing we should treat them as if they had moral standing because that would be better for us. Coeckelbergh and Gunkel are more provocative, arguing that in settling questions of moral standing we should focus less on the intrinsic capacities of robots and more on how we relate to them. If those relations are thick and meaningful, then perhaps we should accept that robots have moral standing. Erica Neely proceeds from a principle of moral precaution, arguing that even if we are unsure of the moral standing of robots we should err on the side of over-inclusivity rather than under-inclusivity when it comes to this issue: it is much worse to exclude a being with moral standing to include one without. Estrada is almost the polar opposite of Bryson, welcoming the moral and legal disruption that embracing robots would entail because it would loosen the stranglehold of humanism on our ethical code.To be clear, this is just a small sample of those who have expressed an opinion about this topic. There are many others that I just don’t have time to discuss. I should, however, say something here about this evening’s discussant, Sven and his views on the matter. I had the fortune of reading a manuscript of Sven’s forthcoming book Humans, Robots and Ethics. It is an excellent and entertaining contribution to the field of robot ethics and in it Sven shares his own views on the moral standing of robots. I’m sure he will explain them later on but, for the time being, I would tentatively place him somewhere near Kate Darling on this map: he thinks we should be open to the idea of treating robots as if they had moral standing, but not because of what the robots themselves are but because of what respecting them says about our attitudes to other humans.And what of myself? Where do I fit in all of this? People would probably classify me as belonging to the pro side. I have argued that we should be open to the idea that robots have moral standing. But I would much prefer to transcend this tribalistic approach to the issue. I am not advocate for the moral standing of robots. I think many of the concerns raised by those on the anti side are valid. Debating the moral standing of robots can seem, at times, ridiculous and a distraction from other important questions in robot ethics; and accepting them into our moral communities will, undoubtedly, lead to some legal and moral disruption (though I would add that not all disruption is a bad thing). That said, I do care about the principles we should use to decide questions of moral standing, and I think that those on the anti of the debate sometimes use bad arguments to support their views. This is why, in the remainder of this lecture, I will defend a particular approach to settling the question of the moral standing of robots. I do so in the hope that this can pave the way to a more fruitful and less tribalistic debate.In this sense, I am trying to return to what may be the true lesson of Sherif’s famous experiment on tribalism. In her fascinating book The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment, Gina Perry has revealed the hidden history behind Sherif’s work. It turns out that Sherif tried to conduct the exact same experiment as he did in Robber’s Cave one year before in Middle Grove, New York. It didn’t work out. No matter what the experimenters did to encourage conflict, the boys refused to get sucked into it. Why was this? One suggestion is that at Middle Grove, Sherif didn’t sort the boys into two arbitrary groups as soon as they arrived. They were given the chance to mingle and get to know one another before being segregated. This initial intermingling may have inoculated them from tribalism. Perhaps we can do the same thing with philosophical dialogue? I live in hope.3. In Defence of Ethical BehaviourismThe position I wish to defend is something I call ‘ethical behaviourism’. According to this view, the behavioural representations of another entity toward you are a sufficient ground for determining their moral status. Or, to put it slightly differently, how an entity looks and acts is enough to determine its moral status. If it looks and acts like a duck, then you should probably treat it like you treat any other duck.Ethical behaviourism works through comparisons. If you are unsure of the moral status of a particular entity — for present purposes this will be a robot but it should be noted that ethical behaviourism has broader implications — then you should compare its behaviours to that of another entity that is already agreed to have moral status — a human or an animal. If the robot is roughly performatively equivalent to that other entity, then it too has moral status. I say “roughly” since no two entities are ever perfectly equivalent. If you compared two adult human beings you would spot performative differences between them, but this wouldn’t mean that one of them lacks moral standing as a result. The equivalence test is an inexact one, not an exact one.There is nothing novel in ethical behaviourism. It is, in effect, just a moral variation of the famous Turing Test for machine intelligence. Where Turing argued that we should assess intelligence on the basis of behaviour, I am arguing that we should determine moral standing on the basis of behaviour. It is also not a view that is original to me. Others have defended similar views, even if they haven’t explicitly labelled it as such.Despite the lack of novelty, ethical behaviourism is easily misunderstood and frequently derided. So let me just clarify a couple of points. First, note that it is a practical and epistemic thesis about how we can settle questions of moral standing; it is not an abstract metaphysical thesis about what it is that grounds moral standing. So, for example, someone could argue that the capacity to feel pain is the metaphysical grounding for moral status and that this capacity depends on having a certain mental apparatus. The ethical behaviourist can agree with this. They will just argue that the best evidence we have for determining whether an entity has the capacity to feel pain is behavioural. Furthermore, ethical behaviourism is agnostic about the broader consequences of its comparative tests. To say that one entity should have the same moral standing as another entity does not mean both are entitled to a full set of legal and moral rights. That depends on other considerations. A goat could have moral standing, but that doesn’t mean it has the right to own property. This is important because when I am arguing that we should apply this approach to robots and I am not thereby endorsing a broader claim that we should grant robots legal rights or treat them like adult human beings. This depends on who or what the robots is being compared to.So what’s the argument for ethical behaviourism? I have offered different formulations of this but for this evening’s lecture I suggest that it consists of three key propositions or premises.(P1) The most popular criteria for moral status are dependent on mental states or capacities, e.g. theories focused on sentience, consciousness, having interests, agency, and personhood.(P2) The best evidence — and oftentimes the only practicable evidence — for the satisfaction of these criteria is behavioural.(P3) Alternative alleged grounds of moral status or criteria for determining moral status either fail to trump or dislodge the sufficiency of the behavioural evidence.Therefore, ethical behaviourism is correct: behaviour provides a sufficient basis for settling questions of moral status.I take it that the first premise of this argument is uncontroversial. Even if you think there are other grounds for moral status, I suspect you agree that an entity with sentience or consciousness (etc) has some kind of moral standing. The second premise is more controversial but is, I think, undeniable. It’s a trite observation but I will make it anyway: We don’t have direct access to one another’s minds. I cannot crawl inside your head and see if you really are experiencing pain or suffering. The only thing I have to go on is how you behave and react to the world. This is true, by the way, even if I can scan your brain and see whether the pain-perceiving part of it lights up. This is because the only basis we have for verifying the correlations between functional activity in the brain and mental states is behavioural. What I mean is that scientists ultimately verify those correlations by asking people in the brain scanners what they are feeling. So all premise (2) is saying is that if the most popular theories of moral status are to work in practice, it can only be because we use behavioural evidence to guide their application.That brings us to premise (3): that all other criteria fail to dislodge the importance of behavioural evidence. This is the most controversial one. Many people seem to passionately believe that there are other ways of determining moral status and indeed they argue that relying on behavioural evidence would be absurd. Consider these two recent Twitter comments on an article I wrote about ethical behaviourism and how it relates to animals and robots:First comment: “[This is] Errant #behaviorist #materialist nonsense…Robots are inanimate even if they imitate animal behavior. They don’t want or care about anything. But knock yourself out. Put your toaster in jail if it burns your toast.”Second comment: “If I give a hammer a friendly face so some people feel emotionally attached to it, it still remains a tool #AnthropomorphicFallacy”These are strong statements, but they are not unusual. I encounter this kind of criticism quite frequently. But why? Why are people so resistant to ethical behaviourism? Why do they think that there must be something more to how we determine moral status? Let’s consider some of the most popular objections.4. Objections and RepliesIn a recent paper, I suggested that there were seven (more, depending on how you count) major objections to ethical behaviourism. I won’t review all seven here, but I will consider four of the most popular ones. Each of these objections should be understood as an attempt to argue that behavioural evidence by itself cannot suffice for determining moral standing. Other evidence matters as well and can ‘defeat’ the behavioural evidence.(A) The Material Cause ObjectionThe first objection is that the ontology of an entity makes a difference to its moral standing. To adopt the Aristotelian language, we can say that the material cause of an entity (i.e. what it is made up of) matters more than behaviour when it comes to moral standing. So, for example, someone could argue that robots lack moral standing because they are not biological creatures. They are not made from the same ‘wet’ organic components as human beings or animals. Even if they are performatively equivalent to human beings or animals, this ontological difference scuppers any claim they might have to moral standing.I find this objection unpersuasive. It smacks to me of biological mysterianism. Why exactly does being made of particular organic material make such a crucial difference? Imagine if your spouse, the person you live with everyday, was suddenly revealed to be an alien from the Andromeda galaxy. Scientists conduct careful tests and determine that they are not a carbon-based lifeform. They are made from something different, perhaps silicon. Despite this, they still look and act in the same way as they always have (albeit now with some explaining to do). Would the fact that they are made of different stuff mean that they no longer warrant any moral standing in your eyes? Surely not. Surely the behavioural evidence suggesting that they still care about you and still have the mental capacities you used to associate with moral standing would trump the new evidence you have regarding their ontology. I know non-philosophers dislike thought experiments of this sort, finding them to be slightly ridiculous and far-fetched. Nevertheless, I do think they are vital in this context because they suggest that behaviour does all the heavy lifting when it comes to assessing moral standing. In other words, behaviour matters more than matter. This is also, incidentally, one reason why it is wrong to say that ethical behaviourism is a ‘materialist’ view: ethical behaviourism is actually agnostic regarding the ontological instantiation of the capacities that ground moral status; it is concerned only with the evidence that is sufficient for determining their presence.All that said, I am willing to make one major concession to the material cause objection. I will concede that ontology might provide an alternative, independent ground for determining the moral status of an entity. Thus, we might accept that an entity that is made from the right biological stuff has moral standing, even if they lack the behavioural sophistication we usually require for moral standing. So, for example someone in a permanent coma might have moral standing because of what they are made of, and not because of what they can do. Still, all this shows is that being made of the right stuff is an independent sufficient ground for moral standing, not that it is a necessary ground for moral standing. The latter is what would need to be proved to undermine ethical behaviourism.(B) The Efficient Cause ObjectionThe second objection is that how an entity comes into existence makes a difference to its moral standing. To continue the Aristotelian theme, we can say that the efficient cause of existence is more important than the unfolding reality. This is an objection that the philosopher Michael Hauskeller hints at in his work. Hauskeller doesn’t focus on moral standing per se, but does focus on when we can be confident that another entity cares for us or loves us. He concedes that behaviour seems like the most important thing when addressing this issue — what else could caring be apart from caring behaviour? — but then resiles from this by arguing that how the being came into existence can undercut the behavioural evidence. So, for example, a robot might act as if it cares about you, but when you learn that the robot was created and manufactured by a team of humans to act as if it cares for you, then you have reason to doubt the sincerity of its behaviour.It could be that what Hauskeller is getting at here is that behavioural evidence can often be deceptive and misleading. If so, I will deal with this concern in a moment. But it could also be that he thinks that the mere fact that a robot was programmed and manufactured, as opposed to being evolved and developed, makes a crucial difference to moral standing. If that is what he is claiming, then it is hard to see why we should take it seriously. Again, imagine if your spouse told you that they were not conceived and raised in the normal way. They were genetically engineered in a lab and then carefully trained and educated. Having learned this, would you take a new view of their moral standing? Surely not. Surely, once again, how they actually behave towards you — and not how they came into existence — would be what ultimately mattered. We didn’t deny the first in vitro baby moral standing simply because she came into existence in a different way from ordinary human beings. The same principle should apply to robots.Furthermore, if this is what Hauskeller is arguing, it would provide us with an unstable basis on which to make crucial judgments of moral standing. After all, the differences between humans and robots with respect to their efficient causes is starting to breakdown. Increasingly, robots are not being programmed and manufactured from the top-down to follow specific rules. They are instead given learning algorithms and then trained on different datasets with the process sometimes being explicitly modeled on evolution and childhood development. Similarly, humans are increasingly being designed and programmed from the top down, through artificial reproduction, embryo selection and, soon, genetic engineering. You may object to all this tinkering with the natural processes of human development and conception. But I think you would be hard pressed to deny a human that came into existence as a result of these process the moral standing you ordinarily give to other human beings.(C) The Final Cause ObjectionThe third objection is that the purposes an entity serves and how it is expected to fulfil those purposes makes a difference to its moral standing. This is an objection that Joanna Bryson favours in her work. In several papers, she has argued that because robots will be designed to fulfil certain purposes on our behalf (i.e. they will be designed to serve us) and because they will be owned and controlled by us in the process, they should not have moral standing. Now, to be fair, Bryson is more open to the possibility of robot moral standing than most. She has said, on several occasions, that it is possible to create robots that have moral standing. She just thinks that that this should not happen, in part because they will be owned and controlled by us, and because they will be (and perhaps should be) designed to serve our ends.I don’t think there is anything in this that dislodges or upsets ethical behaviourism. For one thing, I find it hard to believe that the fact that an entity has been designed to fulfil a certain purpose should make a crucial difference to its moral standing. Suppose, in the future, human parents can genetically engineer their offspring to fulfil certain specific ends. For example, they can select genes that will guarantee (with the right training regime) that their child will be a successful athlete (this is actually not that dissimilar to what some parents try to do nowadays). Suppose they succeed. Would this fact alone undermine the child’s claim to moral standing? Surely not, and surely the same standard should apply to a robot. If it is performatively equivalent to another entity with moral standing, then the mere fact that it has been designed to fulfil a specific purpose should not affect its moral standing.Related to this, it is hard to see why the fact that we might own and control robots should make a critical difference to their moral standing. If anything, this inverts the proper order of moral justification. The fact that a robot looks and acts like another entity that we believe to have moral standing should cause us to question our approach to ownership and control, not vice versa. We once thought it was okay for humans to own and control other humans. We were wrong to think this because it ignored the moral standing of those other humans.That said, there are nuances here. Many people think that animals have some moral standing (i.e. that we need to respect their welfare and well-being) but that it is not wrong to own them or attempt to control them. The same approach might apply to robots if they are being compared to animals. This is the crucial point about ethical behaviourism: the ethical consequences of accepting that a robot is performatively equivalent to another entity with moral standing depends, crucially, on who or what that other entity is.(D) The Deception ObjectionThe fourth objection is that ethical behaviourism cannot work because it is too easy to be deceived by behavioural cues. A robot might look and act like it is in pain, but this could just be a clever trick, used by its manufacturer, to foster false sympathy. This is, probably, the most important criticism of ethical behaviourism. It is what I think lurks behind the claim that ethical behaviourism is absurd and must be resisted.It is well-known that humans have a tendency toward hasty anthropomorphism. That is, we tend to ascribe human-like qualities to features of our environment without proper justification. We anthropomorphise the weather, our computers, the trees and the plants, and so forth. It is easy to ‘hack’ this tendency toward hasty anthropomorphism. As social roboticists know, putting a pair of eyes on a robot can completely change how a human interacts with it, even if the robot cannot see anything. People worry, consequently, that ethical behaviourism is easily exploited by nefarious technology companies.I sympathise with the fear that motivates this objection. It is definitely true that behaviour can be misleading or deceptive. We are often misled by the behaviour of our fellow humans. To quote Shakespeare, someone can ‘smile and smile and be a villain’. But what is the significance of this fact when it comes to assessing moral status? To me, the significance is that it means we should be very careful when assessing the behavioural evidence that is used to support a claim about moral status. We shouldn’t extrapolate too quickly from one behaviour. If a robot looks and acts like it is in pain (say) that might provide some warrant for thinking it has moral status, but we should examine its behavioural repertoire in more detail. It might emerge that other behaviours are inconsistent with the hypothesis that it feels pain or suffering.The point here, however, is that we are always using other behavioural evidence to determine whether the initial behavioural evidence was deceptive or misleading. We are not relying on some other kind of information. Thus, for example, I think it would be a mistake to conclude that a robot cannot feel pain, even though it performs as if it does, because the manufacturer of the robot tells us that it was programmed to do this, or because some computer engineer can point to some lines of code that are responsible for the pain performance. That evidence by itself — in the absence of other countervailing behavioural evidence — cannot undermine the behavioural evidence suggesting that the robot does feel pain. Think about it like this: imagine if a biologist came to you and told you that evolution had programmed the pain response into humans in order to elicit sympathy from fellow humans. What’s more, imagine if a neuroscientist came to you and and told you she could point to the exact circuit in the brain that is responsible for the human pain performance (and maybe even intervene in and disrupt it). What they say may well be true, but it wouldn’t mean that the behavioural evidence suggesting that your fellow humans are in pain can be ignored.This last point is really the crucial bit. This is what is most distinctive about the perspective of ethical behaviourism. The tendency to misunderstand it, ignore it, or skirt around it, is why I think many people on the ‘anti’ side of the debate make bad arguments.5. Implications and ConclusionsThat’s all I will say in defence of ethical behaviourism this evening. Let me conclude by addressing some of its implications and heading off some potential misunderstandings.First, let me re-emphasise that ethical behaviourism is about the principles we should apply when assessing the moral standing of robots. In defending it, I am not claiming that robots currently have moral standing or, indeed, that they will ever have moral standing. I think this is possible, indeed probable, but I could be wrong. The devil is going to be in the detail of the behavioural tests we apply (just as it is with the Turing test for intelligence).Second, there is nothing in ethical behaviourism that suggests that we ought to create robots that cross the performative threshold to moral standing. It could be, as people like Bryson and Van Wysnberghe argue, that this is a very bad idea: that it will be too disruptive of existing moral and legal norms. What ethical behaviourism does suggest, however, is that there is an ethical weight to the decision to create human-like and animal-like robots that may be underappreciated by robot manufacturers.Third, acknowledging the potential risks, there are also potential benefits to creating robots that cross the performative threshold. Ethical behaviourism can help to reveal a value to relationships with robots that is otherwise hidden. If I am right, then robots can be genuine objects of moral affection, friendship and love, under the right conditions. In other words, just as there are ethical risks to creating human-like and animal-like robots, there are also ethical rewards and these tend to be ignored, ridiculed or sidelined in the current debate.Fourth, and related to this previous point, the performative threshold that robots have to cross in order to unlock the different kinds of value might vary quite a bit. The performative threshold needed to attain basic moral standing might be quite low; the performative threshold needed to say that a robot can be a friend or a partner might be substantially higher. A robot might have to do relatively little to convince us that it should be treated with moral consideration, but it might have to do a lot to convince us that it is our friend.These are topics that I have explored in greater detail in some of my papers, but they are also topics that Sven has explored at considerable length. Indeed, several chapters of his forthcoming book are dedicated to them. So, on that note, it is probably time for me to shut up and hand over to him and see what he has to say about all of this.Reflections and Follow Ups After I delivered the above lecture, my colleague and friend Sven Nyholm gave a response and there were some questions and challenges from the audience. I cannot remember every question that was raised, but I thought I would respond to a few that I can remember.1. The Randomisation CounterexampleOne audience member (it was Nathan Wildman) presented an interesting counterexample to my claim that other kinds of evidence don’t defeat or undermine the behavioural evidence for moral status. He argued that we could cook-up a possible scenario in which our knowledge of the origins of certain behaviours did cause us to question whether it was sufficient for moral status.He gave the example of a chatbot that was programmed using a randomisation technique. The chatbot would generate text at random (perhaps based on some source dataset). Most of the time the text is gobbledygook but on maybe one occasion it just happens to have a perfectly intelligible conversation with you. In other words, whatever is churned out by the randomisation algorithm happens to perfectly coincide with what would be intelligible in that context (like picking up a meaningful book in Borges’s Library of Babel). This might initially cause you to think it has some significant moral status, but if the computer programmer came along and told you about the randomisation process underlying the programming you would surely change your opinion. So, on this occasion, it looks like information about the causal origins of the behaviour, makes a difference to moral status.Response: This is a clever counterexample but I think it overlooks two critical points. First, it overlooks the point I make about avoiding hasty anthropomorphisation towards the end of my lecture. I think we shouldn’t extrapolate too much from just one interaction with a robot. We should conduct a more thorough investigation of the robot’s (or in this case the chatbot’s) behaviours. If the intelligible conversation was just a one-off, then we will quickly be disabused of our belief that it has moral status. But if it turns out that the intelligible conversation was not a one-off, then I don’t think the evidence regarding the randomisation process would have any such effect. The computer programmer could shout and scream as much as he/she likes about the randomisation algorithm, but I don’t think this would suffice to undermine the consistent behavioural evidence. This links to a second, and perhaps deeper metaphysical point I would like to make: we don’t really know what the true material instantiation of the mind is (if it is indeed material). We think the brain and its functional activity is pretty important, but we will probably never have a fully satisfactory theory of the relationship between matter and mind. This is the core of the hard problem of consciousness. Given this, it doesn’t seem wise or appropriate to discount the moral status of this hypothetical robot just because it is built on a randomisation algorithm. Indeed, if such a robot existed, it might give us reason to think that randomisation was one of the ways in which a mind could be functionally instantiated in the real world.I should say that this response ignores the role of moral precaution in assessing moral standing. If you add a principle of moral precaution to the mix, then it may be wrong to favour a more thorough behavioural test. This is something I discuss a bit in my article on ethical behaviourism.2. The Argument confuses how we know X is valuable with what makes X actually valuableOne point that Sven stressed in his response, and which he makes elsewhere too, is that my argument elides or confuses two separate things: (i) how we know whether something is of value and (ii) what it is that makes it valuable. Another way of putting it: I provide a decision-procedure for deciding who or what has moral status but I don’t thereby specify what it is that makes them have moral status. It could be that the capacity to feel pain is what makes someone have moral standing and that we know someone feels pain through their behaviour, but this doesn’t mean that they have moral standing because of their behaviour.Response: This is probably a fair point. I may on occasion elide these two things. But my feeling is that this is a ‘feature’ rather than a ‘bug’ in my account. I’m concerned with how we practically assess and apply principles of moral standing in the real world, and not so much with what it is that metaphysically undergirds moral standing.3. Proxies for Behaviour versus Proxies for MindAnother comment (and I apologise for not remembering who gave it) is that on my theory behaviour is important but only because it is a proxy for something else, namely some set of mental states or capacities. This is similar to the point Sven is making in his criticism. If that’s right, then I am wrong to assume that behaviour is the only (or indeed the most important) proxy for mental states. Other kinds of evidence serve as proxies for mental states. The example was given of legal trials where the prosecution is trying to prove what the mental status of the defendant was at the time of an offence. They don’t just rely on behavioural evidence. They also rely on other kinds of forensic evidence to establish this.Response: I don’t think this is true and this gets to a deep feature of my theory. To take the criminal trial example, I don’t think it is true to say that we use other kinds of evidence as proxies for mental states. I think we use them as proxies for behaviour which we then use as proxies for mental states. In other words, the actual order of inference goes:Other evidence → behaviour → mental stateAnd not:Other evidence → mental stateThis is the point I was getting at in my talk when I spoke about how we make inferences from functional brain activity to mental state. I believe what happens when we draw a link between brain activity and mental state, what we are really doing is this:Brain state → behaviour → mental stateAnd notBrain state → mental state.Now, it is, of course, true to say that sometimes scientists think we can make this second kind of inference. For example, purveyors of brain based lie detection tests (and, indeed, other kinds of lie detection test) try to draw a direct line of inference from a brain state to a mental state, but I would argue that this is only because they have previously verified their testing protocol by following the “brain state → behaviour → mental state” route and confirming that it is reliable across multiple tests. This gives them the confidence to drop the middle step on some occasions, but ultimately this is all warranted (if it is, in fact, warranted – brain-based lie detection is controversial) because the scientists first took the behavioural step. To undermine my view, you would have to show that it is possible to cut out the behavioural step in this inference pattern. I don’t think this can be done, but perhaps I can be proved wrong.This is perhaps the most metaphysical aspect of my view.4. Default Settings and PracticalitiesAnother point that came up in conversation with Sven, Merel Noorman and Silvia de Conca, had to do with the default assumptions we are likely to have when dealing with robots and how this impacts on the practicalities of robots being accepting into the moral circle. In other words, even if I am right in some abstract, philosophical sense, will anyone actually follow the behavioural test I advocate? Won’t there be a lot of resistance to it in reality?Now, as I mentioned in my lecture, I am not an activist for robot rights or anything of the sort. I am interested in the general principles we should apply when settling questions of moral status; not with whether a particular being, such as a robot, has acquired moral status. That said, implicit views about the practicalities of applying the ethical behaviourist test may play an important role in some of the arguments I am making.One example of this has to do with the ‘default’ assumption we have when interpreting the behaviour of humans/animals vis-à-vis robots. We tend to approach humans and animals with an attitude of good faith, i.e. we assume their each of their outward behaviours is a sincere representation of their inner state of mind. It’s only if we receive contrary evidence that we will start to doubt the sincerity of the behaviour.But what default assumption do we have when confronting robots? It seems plausible to suggest that most people will approach them with an attitude of bad faith. They will assume that their behaviours are representative of nothing at all and will need a lot of evidence to convince them that they should be granted some weight. This suggests that (a) not all behavioural evidence is counted equally and (b) it might be very difficult, in practice, for robots to be accepted into the moral circle. #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Response: I don’t see this as a criticism of ethical behaviourism but, rather, a warning to anyone who wishes to promote it. In other words, I accept that people will resist ethical behaviourism and may treat robots with greater suspicion than human or animal agents. One of the key points of this lecture and the longer academic article I wrote about the topic was to address this suspicion and skepticism. Nevertheless, the fact that there may be these practical difficulties does not mean that ethical behaviourism is incorrect. In this respect, it is worth noting that Turing was acutely aware of this problem when he originally formulated his 'Imitation Game' test. The reason why the test was purely text-based in its original form was to prevent human-centric biases affecting its operation.5. Ethical Mechanicism vs Ethical Behaviourism After I posted this article, Natesh Ganesh posted a critique of my handling of the deception objection on Twitter. He made two interesting points. First, he argued that the thought experiment I used to dismiss the deception objection was misleading and circular. If a scientist revealed the mechanisms underlying my own pain performances I would have no reason to doubt that the pain was genuine since I already know that someone with my kind of neural circuitry can experience pain. If they revealed the mechanisms underlying a robot’s pain performances things would be different because I do not yet have a reason to think that a being with that kind of mechanism can experience genuine pain. As a result, the thought experiment is circular because only somebody who already accepted ethical behaviourism would be so dismissive of the mechanistic evidence. Here’s how Natesh expresses the point:“the analogy in the last part [the response to the deception objection] seems flawed. Showing me the mechanisms of pain in entities (like humans) who we share similar mechanisms with & agree have moral standing is different from showing me the mechanisms of entities (like robots) whose moral standing we are trying to determine. Denying experience of pain in the 1st simply because I now know the circuitry would imply denying your own pain & hence moral standing. But accepting/ denying the 2nd if its a piece of code implicitly depends on whether you already accept/deny ethical behaviorism. It is just circular to appeal to that example as evidence.”He then follows up with a second point (implicit in what was just said) about the importance of mechanical similarities between entities when it comes to assessing moral standing:“I for one am more likely to [believe] a robot can experience pain if it shows the behavior & the manufacturer opened it up & showed me the circuitry and if that was similar to my own (different material perhaps) I am more likely to accept the robot experiences pain. In this case once again I needed machinery on top of behavior.”What I would say here, is that Natesh, although not completely dismissive of the importance of behaviour to assessing moral standing, is a fan of ethical mechanicism, and not ethical behaviourism. He thinks you must have mechanical similarity (equivalence?) before you can conclude that two entities share moral standing.Response: On the charge of circularity, I don’t think this is quite fair. The thought experiment I propose when responding to the deception objection is, like all thought experiments, intended to be an intuition pump. The goal is to imagine a situation in which you could describe and intervene in the mechanical underpinning of a pain performance with great precision (be it a human pain performance or otherwise) and ask whether the mere fact that you could describe the mechanism in detail or intervene in it would be make a difference to the entity’s moral standing. My intuitions suggest it wouldn’t make a difference, irrespective of the details of the mechanism (this is the point I make, above, in relation to the example given by Nathan Wildman about the robot whose behaviour is the result of a random-number generator programme). Perhaps other people’s intuitions are pumped in a different direction. That can happen but it doesn’t mean the thought experiment is circular.What about the importance of mechanisms in addition to behaviour? This is something I address in more detail in the academic paper. I have two thoughts about it. First, I could just bite the bullet and agree that the underlying mechanisms must be similar too. This would just add an additional similarity test to the assessment of moral status. There would then be similar questions as to how similar the mechanisms must be. Is it enough if they are, roughly, functionally similar or must they have the exact same sub-components and processes? If the former, then it still seems possible in principle for roboticists to create a functionally similar underlying mechanism and this could then ground moral standing for robots.Second, despite this, I would still push back against the claim that similar underlying mechanisms are necessary. This strikes me as being just a conservative prejudgment rather than a good reason for denying moral status to behaviourally equivalent entities. Why are we so confident that only entities with our neurological mechanisms (or something very similar) can experience pain (or instantiate the other mental properties relevant to moral standing)? Or, to put it less controversially, why should we be so confident that mechanical similarity undercuts behavioural similarity? If there is an entity that looks and acts like it is in pain (or has interests, a sense of personhood, agency etc), and all the behavioural tests confirm this, then why deny it moral standing because of some mechanical differences?Part of the resistance here could be that people are confusing two different claims:Claim 1: it is impossible (physically, metaphysically) for an entity that lacks sufficient mechanical similarity (with humans/animals) to have the behavioural sophistication we associate with experiencing pain, having agency etc.Claim 2: an entity that has the behavioural sophistication we associate with experiencing pain, having agency (etc) but then lacks mechanical similarity to other entities with such behavioural sophistication, should be denied moral standing because they lack mechanical similarity.Ethical behaviourism denies claim 2, but it does not, necessarily, deny claim 1. It could be the case that mechanical similarity is essential for behavioural similarity. This is something that can only be determined after conducting the requisite behavioural tests. The point, as always throughout my defence of the position, is that the behavioural evidence should be our guide. This doesn’t mean that other kinds of evidence are irrelevant but simply that they do not carry as much weight. My sense is that people who favour ethical mechanicism have a very strong intuition in favour of claim 1, which they then carry over into support for claim 2. This carry over is not justified as the two claims are not logically equivalent.Subscribe to the newsletter
This episode is with Robin Gunkel, Bloom Baltimore organizer, poet, and academic advisor. We talk about her experience this past summer with a training and retreat organized by CoRenewal, called the New Moon Mycology Summit. Robin also shares about this year's Mushroom City Art Festival and a bioremediation project that she and fellow organizers are doing in Johnston Square in Baltimore. This quote sums up the vibe of the interview: "I'm seeing regenerative culture as part of grandmother culture.... seeing an interconnected thread and seeing how the work we're doing is intergenerational. That we're processing trauma that has been passed down to us, and we're also building a world for future generations. Recognizing the larger mycelial tapestry that we occupy together." I hope you enjoy this beautiful mesh of an interview. If you would like to support Robin and the civic mushroom festival she organizes, Mushroom City Art Festival, please make a donation at http://mushroomcityartfestival.org/ - the donation link is in the footer at the bottom right. Here are links to projects Robin refers to: *CoRenewal *Mushroom City Art Festival *New Moon Mycology Summit(check out the 2018 class descriptions!!) *Fantastic Fungi Film Do any of you know of a resource online for learning about mycroremediation and oil spills? We'd love to include information on this in the Bloom wiki that will go live in January. Here is one article that gives more details if you would like to nerd out about it. Mush love, Magenta Ceiba Bloom Podcast host and editor http://bloomnetwork.org Music credits: Beyond the Bridge, Adam Elim Bloom, MaMuse
Daniel Gunkel hat eine beeindruckende Sportlerkarriere hinter sich. Als Sohn eines ivorischen Diplomaten und seiner deutschen Mutter war er unter anderem bei der Eintracht Frankfurt, dem Dresdner SC, Preußen Münster, SV Wehen, Energie Cottbus und dem 1.FSV Mainz 05 unter Vertrag. Er war besonders für seine gefährlichen Freistöße aus großer Distanz bekannt. Nach vielen Höhen und Tiefen lebt Daniel heute glücklich mit seiner Frau und seinen zwei Kindern in Dresden und arbeitet mit Immobilien-Investments. Wenn dir die Folge gefallen hat, vergiss nicht eine ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️-Bewertung für uns abzugeben. Danke dafür, dein Fabian
In this episode I talk to David Gunkel. David is a repeat guest, having first appeared on the show in Episode 10. David a Professor of Communication Studies at Northern Illinois University. He is a leading scholar in the philosophy of technology, having written extensively about cyborgification, robot rights and responsibilities, remix cultures, new political structures in the information age and much much more. He is the author of several books, including Hacking Cyberspace, The Machine Question, Of Remixology, Gaming the System and, most recently, Robot Rights. We have a long debate/conversation about whether or not robots should/could have rights. You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe to the show on iTunes or Stitcher (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes0:00 - Introduction1:52 - Isn't the idea of robot rights ridiculous?3:37 - What is a robot anyway? Is the concept too nebulous/diverse?7:43 - Has science fiction undermined our ability to think about robots clearly?11:01 - What would it mean to grant a robot rights? (A precis of Hohfeld's theory of rights)18:32 - The four positions/modalities one could take on the idea of robot rights21:32 - The First Modality: Robots Can't Have Rights therefore Shouldn't23:37 - The EPSRC guidelines on robotics as an example of this modality26:04 - Criticisms of the EPSRC approach28:27 - Other problems with the first modality31:32 - Europe vs Japan: why the Japanese might be more open to robot 'others'34:00 - The Second Modality: Robots Can Have Rights therefore Should (some day)39:53 - A debate between myself and David about the second modality (why I'm in favour it and he's against it)47:17 - The Third Modality: Robots Can Have Rights but Shouldn't (Bryson's view)53:48 - Can we dehumanise/depersonalise robots?58:10 - The Robot-Slave Metaphor and its Discontents1:04:30 - The Fourth Modality: Robots Cannot Have Rights but Should (Darling's view)1:07:53 - Criticisms of the fourth modality1:12:05 - The 'Thinking Otherwise' Approach (David's preferred approach)1:16:23 - When can robots take on a face?1:19:44 - Is there any possibility of reconciling my view with David's?1:24:42 - So did David waste his time writing this book? Relevant LinksDavid's HomepageRobot Rights from MIT Press, 2018 (and on Amazon)Episode 10 - Gunkel on Robots and Cyborgs'The other question: can and should robots have rights?' by David Gunkel'Facing Animals: A Relational Other-Oriented Approach to Moral Standing' by Gunkel and CoeckelberghThe Robot Rights Debate (Index) - everything I've written or said on the topic of robot rightsEPSRC Principles of RoboticsEpisode 24 - Joanna Bryson on Why Robots Should be Slaves'Patiency is not a virtue: the design of intelligent systems and systems of ethics' by Joanna BrysonRobo Sapiens Japanicus - by Jennifer Robertson #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter
In this episode I talk to David Gunkel. David is a repeat guest, having first appeared on the show in Episode 10. David a Professor of Communication Studies at Northern Illinois University. He is a leading scholar in the philosophy of technology, having written extensively about cyborgification, robot rights and responsibilities, remix cultures, new political … More Episode #48 – Gunkel on Robot Rights
On this week's podcast, Marcus sits down and talks with Liz Garza of FOY Superfoods. Liz moved to Alabama from Texas to pursue grad school at Springhill and marry her now husband and co-owner of FOY, John. In pursuit of starting a new life here, they have now started many new businesses that all pertain to their passion for health. Tune in and listen or read on and do yourself a favor by grabbing lunch at FOY! (You might even see us there…) Liz: Hey guys. I'm Liz Garza, co-owner of Foy Super foods down here in Mobile on Dauphin Street in Bienville Square. Marcus: Awesome. Well, welcome to the podcast, Liz. Liz: Thanks for having me. Marcus: Yeah. We're big fans of yours. We ate there today. Liz: Right. Marcus: That is not just because you were coming on the podcast. That's a couple of time a week. Liz: Oh, for sure. Yeah, I see you guys all the time. Marcus: Yeah. I think I'm addicted to your acai bowls and the jerk, which is a very tasty bowl with chicken and, you can add chicken, with spinach, and rice, and sweet potatoes, and all kinds of there yummy stuff. Liz: Yeah, for sure. Marcus: I don't fall asleep after eating at Foy. Liz: Right. Marcus: I also don't feel like I'm destroying my body when I eat at Foy. Liz: Absolutely. Marcus: Yeah, but we're excited about having you on. So, to get started, why don't you give us some of the back story of who you are and where you're from. Where'd you go to school? High school and college, if it's appropriate. Liz: Yeah. Marcus: And tell us about John 'cause we know that he's a big part of this. So, give us some back story. Liz: Absolutely. I'm from a city in South Texas, right on the boarder to Mexico, it's called Laredo. Marcus: Cool. Liz: And it reminds me a lot of Mobile. It has a lot of that old town charm. Everybody knows everybody, that kind of thing. I'm real comfortable. I feel like I fit in well in Mobile, just growing up in Laredo. I am a first generation US citizen. Both my parents are from Monterey, Mexico. Marcus: Very cool. Liz: Yeah. I went to high school of course, at a school in Laredo and went to college at Texas A&M for my undergrad and then- Marcus: That's it? You just went to Texas A&M. Liz: Right. Yeah. Yeah, that's it. Marcus: Underachiever. Liz: That little school, yeah. But yeah, I have a business degree with an emphasis in human resource management over from Texas A&M then went on to ... When I moved here, got my masters over at Spring Hill College in liberal arts. Of course, it's a liberal arts school, but I concentrated my degree in leadership and ethics. At the time in grad school, I was expecting our only son at the time. John and I were trying to navigate our way through, "Our we gonna go to Corporate America? Are you gonna get a job?" It was kind of slim pickings, really, moving to Mobile and coming out of grad school thinking, "Well, what am I gonna do?" Marcus: Yeah. Liz: We decided, let's start our own business. We saw a need for it and it just fit into our life in more than one way. John and I both have a background family history of obesity related disease, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, all of the above. John's actually a diabetic and so, at home we were wondering, or I was wondering, "How the heck am I gonna cook for this man and not make him sick?" Trying to figure out all that world out. Marcus: And not make him feel like he's wanting for more. Liz: Right. Exactly. Like he's lacking or like you said, wanting. That's when we started Balance, which was six years ago. It was a paleo meal delivery service and we did that for almost four years before we started Foy. Marcus: Does that still exist 'cause that's the first time I'm hearing of that? Liz: Yeah. So, now when you come into Foy, you're gonna recognize all my coolers are wrapped and they say Balance and stuff on them. The business was based on basically, prepping healthy meals, packaging them down. And what we did, we established partnerships with a ton of different crossfit gyms, yoga studios, that kind of thing. We furnished the coolers and we would go make these massive drops of food. We were eCommerce. People would go to our website, they would see our menu, we change every week, and they would order meals for the week. Instead of charging them a delivery fee, we would say, "We have a partnership at a gym in Spanish Fort, or in Fairhope, our in West Mobile. If you work, live, or exercise at this place or nearby, it's convenient for you at no charge to pick up your meals that you've already ordered online and prepaid for". We did this for a few years and it kinda just grew into this big monster that sucked our life away. It was constant. We had no weekend, we had a little one, and we kinda tried to balance home life and work life and it became a little too much. We decided, "Well, why don't we take all the things we know sell really well and open up an actual restaurant." Like a brick and mortar, right? Not having a restaurant background, not even a high school job that I worked at, like a McDonald's or anything. Just passionate about health food and seeing that there was a need for it in the city and just seize the opportunity and it just worked. We realized, "Okay, now we're running Foy." That allows me to have a life. It's a lot easier. I met super cool people. We're in a little niche area here downtown. Marcus: Yeah. Liz: That's just how things came about. We're already going into our second year, so far so good. Marcus: So, you closed Balance? Liz: We closed Balance. Marcus: Okay. Liz: And we have plans to- Marcus: That's really interesting 'cause we know, he was on the podcast so, full disclosure, Lorenzo was on the podcast a while back and he's got a really interesting idea, but he tries to deliver to everybody. Liz: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Marcus: That's gotta be so hard. Liz: It is. Marcus: Your idea of dropping to central locations and then having, especially when it comes to crossfit gyms are real big into paleo eating, which is what your menu typically follows. Liz: Exactly. That's exactly what it was. Marcus: Yeah. Liz: I met Lorenzo when he first got started. He actually reached out to us and just said, "Hey, can we meet? I need some pointers." There were a lot of things that we were able to share with him about lessons that we learned the hard way, and things to avoid, and all that good stuff. Glad to see that he's still doing it. For me, it's like hey, the more the merrier. I'm all about, "Let me help you out." If I have a great idea ... I just talked to a guy with a local up an coming gluten free bakery called Gunkel's. I just met with him right before I came here. Same thing, I was sharing with him that idea 'cause he works out of a commissary kitchen. I'm like, "Well." He's trying to retail his stuff out of different stores and he's like, "I just signed on with The Cheese Cottage and I would love for you to carry my stuff." I said, "What would really seal the deal is if you had a mini Gunkel's refrigerator, wrapped in your logo, to say "Hey, will you house this cooler for me. I'll make these deliveries and you sell my product out of my cooler, that way I have control of the inventory, of how clean the cooler is, of how things are packaged." You know what I mean? Marcus: It puts that on him, that responsibility. Liz: Right. Then you get more brand recognition with, "Hey, you have this super cool cooler wrapped in your logo. They spent all this money on an awesome logo design." So, I'm like, "Put it out there for people to see." If I have an idea, I'm not to shy away from letting anybody hear it. I know you asked about John. I started going off on a tangent, but John's originally from Mobile. Marcus: Okay. Liz: He went to McGill Toolen for high school. He went to Morehouse in Atlanta, which is an all boys school. They call it the Harvard for black men. It's one of those things that he's got generations of family that they've all gone through Morehouse College. Marcus: We did an interview with Carl Cunningham just recently. Liz: Oh, yeah. Marcus: One of his Kapa league guys, Paul Lockett, hopefully is gonna be doing an internship here this summer. Liz: Yes. Marcus: He's going to Morehouse. Liz: He's on a scholarship, right? Marcus: Yes, full ride. Liz: I've heard about that. Marcus: I tried to hire him and he said, "No, I'm going to college." And I was like, "No, you don't wanna do that." He's like, "I've got a full ride." And I was like, "Yeah, I can't argue with that." Liz: Yeah. I didn't know about it until I met John, but they put out a lot of really quality men. Marcus: [crosstalk 00:08:18]. Yeah. Liz: Yeah, they push leadership and they push innovation. Marcus: You're not biased at all. Liz: Right. No, I'm not. I'm not biased at all. But no, even my son, I have a Morehouse man in training. What do you know? Marcus: There you go. Yeah. Liz: He finished from Morehouse and we actually met in Atlanta. He went on to Nova Southeastern out in Fort Lauderdale for his masters. He's got a background in public health, which is totally, you would think the opposite of the realm we're in now, but it kind of opened our eyes to this possibility where ... On the flip side, we have Foy. We also have a mental health agency. We house individuals with intellectual disabilities. Yeah. Marcus: What? Where? Liz: Here in Mobile. Marcus: Wow. Liz: We did that before we did any of this other stuff. Marcus: What's the name of that? Liz: It's called Lifetime Healthcare. Marcus: Very cool. Liz: And they are residential facilities. So, it just looks like a house in a neighborhood. Marcus: Yeah. Liz: Through the department of mental health. We get managed by Altapointe and we're contracted through the state, medicaid funded. We house these individuals and basically rehab them in several ways, but diet is one of them. Marcus: One of them. Liz: Because people don't realize how big of a role food plays into behaviors, and disease, and all these things, right? So, we were working with dieticians getting, they call them PCP, person centered plans, to say, "Okay, well, we're gonna give this person the best quality of life doing all of these things." So, we were developing diets to say, "Okay well, this person has cerebral palsy or this person has epilepsy and so these are the foods that they should avoid." We were working trying to figure that out and we said, that's how balance came about. We were like, "Nobody here in this city that we can say "Hey, I suffer from Celiac." Or "I've got arthritis." There's special diets that you can adhere to. So we were like, "Why don't we do that?" It really was one of those conversations like, light bulb went off. We were like, "Okay, should we do this?" It happened and it grew. The crossfit community embraced us and that's how we went into the whole paleo thing. But that's how this all came about. Marcus: All right. Folks, I had no idea the onion that I was peeling back when we invited you on the podcast. Liz: Yeah. I know. Marcus: We know you from Foy and we obviously, we wanted to have you, but I had no idea. That is so cool. Liz: Right. Marcus: Yeah. Just to tag on, my parents are from Brazil and so I get that, the Latin and black communities both, that there's a ... Even a white community. There's not a whole lot of information given to people depending on your socioeconomic status on eating. It's amazing to me the ... I have friend who's a physician. He's a general practitioner in Washington D.C. Shout out to Terek is you're listening. I don't think you are. Anyways, he's more of a holistic doctor so he believes in eating as one of the ways he treats people. Liz: For sure. Marcus: Out of the blue one day, a couple years ago, he sent me Rob Wolf's book on paleo eating and he was like, "You have to read this." And the reason why is because he knew that my father, I'm 44 I think. Jerrod, come on. You're supposed to keep track of these things. I'm 44. My father had a heart attack when I was 16 years old, which would've been younger than I am today. Liz: Wow. Marcus: For years, I have gone in to get my blood work checked and I've read up on various articles of what's important and hey, news flash, if you're listening to this and you're still having your cholesterol checked, you're checking the wrong thing. Go in and get your C reactive protein checked. The reason why, I know you're kind of looking at me ... C reactor protein is actually an indicator for inflammation in the body and getting that checked will be a better indicator of whether you are at a high risk for heart disease because inflammation is actually the reason for plaque build up in your arteries and stuff like that. Not cholesterol. Liz: Wow. Marcus: That's why the paleo diet and all of these other diets that eliminate some of the things that ... They're all geared towards reducing the items that inflame our bodies. The reason they why they've been so successful is because they remove the gluten and all the other things that- Liz: Processed stuff. Marcus: Yeah, the processed stuff that inflame our bodies and so the doctors should be, those that are progressive in their thinking, should be prescribing these diets more because it will actually eliminate your problems with heart disease, and with diabetes, and with all these other things. Liz: Absolutely. Yeah. Marcus: Wow, I had no idea that we were gonna be having this conversation. Liz: I know, yeah. Marcus: This is so cool. I don't even wanna go ... I'm just so fascinated by this. Did you come here to go to get your masters at Spring Hill? Or did you move back for other reasons? Liz: Well, I came here basically, to be with John. We were in a long distance relationship. Marcus: So, he was here already. Liz: He was here, yeah. I was living in Dallas. Marcus: 'Cause you said you met in Atlanta and I wasn't sure. Liz: Yeah, we had mutual friends and met that way. Both of us had, well, he had already finished his masters and he was here starting the assisted living facility. So, he started that on his own and I kind of help him here and there, but that's solely John. That's his thing. He built that up and that really allowed us to start this business debt free. Marcus: Gives you some freedom. Liz: We didn't have to borrow a dime. We did it on our own and to this day, what I have I own and if I can't afford it, I don't get it. That's our mentality with it all, but thankfully he's done well. He was more established and I was kind of in limbo with my undergrad. I was working HR in Dallas. Living the life, of course. Living downtown with all my friends and my life. I just got to the point where four years into dating, it was one of those, excuse my french, "shit or get off the pot", you know, "What are we gonna do here?" And he thought, "Why don't you just come here and go to grad school?" He was more established, of course. We were heading that direction in our relationship and so I moved to Mobile. Of all places. All my friends were like, "Oh, my God. You're moving to Mobile." Marcus: "You're moving where?" Liz: Right. But it's been the best decision. Marcus: Who's laughing now? Liz: I know. Right. Exactly. Marcus: Those suckers are all working a nine to five and you've got multiple businesses that are up and operating. Liz: Yeah, I've got my brother in town and he's recently retired and he's like, "Man, you've got a really sweet gig." I sleep in a little. I'm like, it will be 8:30 and I'm like, "Okay, let me start getting moving." And I'm here for our little lunch hour and then we can go on to the next thing. It's allowed us a lot of freedom. At the beginning, like I said, it was a grind with Balance and everything. It still is. The restaurant industry is like a monster and it will eat you alive. There's so many elements that people quite realize that are involved in running a restaurant. Not coming from a background at all of food, it was a huge learning curve. We went through all sorts of growing pains, but not the dust has settled, we've developed our processes. We have things that we bring in, like when we hire people, customer service training things, we have checklists for all types of things. The ultimate goal is to franchise and so we're setting ourselves up, basically treating this like a project. In grad school, you've got this big project that you work on when you're in business school. So, we said, "Well, let's just dissect this. Treat it just like a school project and have everything that we could possibly need to franchise this place and Lord willing, it will happen." Marcus: Yeah. Forgive me, but I think every business owner should be looking at their business in that respect. Every business is a project. I think one of the things, I keep alluding to this 'cause I'm in the midst of it people, so forgive me, but I'm in the emerging leaders program here at the chamber and the small business administration. They call that a streetwise MBA, but the biggest thing about that program is they force you to actually work on the business and not just do the business, right? So, it'd be really easy for somebody in your situation just to say, "Well, I'm just gonna work on ordering the food and I'm just gonna work on serving the customers." But you're looking at it from a much bigger picture just like we're having to look at Blue Fish in a much different picture of, "Hey, where do we wanna be in there or five years? What does that look like? What's it gonna take to get there? How do we guide ourselves into a product spaced service business?" Liz: Absolutely. Marcus: I imagine that you're having to look at, "Well, how do we set up all the processes so that we can hand this off to somebody. And that when somebody walks in it's still the same experience?" And all that stuff. Liz: Absolutely. Yeah. The thing with it and in treating it like a school project is that you never stop learning. The industries are constantly changing. You've gotta adapt or die. Really. That's just what it is. Now, with people wanting fast food, they want it fresh, they want it cheap, they want it now. You have to get with the times in this industry. Really, my biggest takeaway from this whole experience is it's like a child. You have to nurture it, it takes a village and you have to know every single rule that you have. If you're hiring somebody, you had to have already done that job. You see what I'm saying? From the beginning up. I will mop floors, I will wash dishes, I will package food, I will chop chicken, everything. Marcus: You have to know what's involved. Liz: Right. To be able to tell somebody, "Well, this is how you're supposed to do it." And to develop the process say, "This is the most efficient way to do it." Because you've trial and errored the whole thing. Marcus: It's funny because here at Blue Fish, with the exception of video editing, there's not a job that I haven't done here. Liz: Yeah. Marcus: When I hire people, I can speak their language even though they're skilled in their roles. I can speak their language because I've already done all of those things. Liz: Yeah. Marcus: But I also, I go back to one of the very first jobs that I had was, I worked in a bagel bakery in Washington D.C. I will never forget that the guy, he was the main manager of the bagel shop. And he literally, I was mopping the floor one day and he was like, "No, that's not how you do it." And he showed me the right way to mop a floor. When you're in a bakery or in a restaurant situation where a lot of stuff gets thrown on the floor, the right action can really make the difference between just pushing stuff around on the floor and actually making things cleaner. It just blew me away that, here's this man who ... I think he had military background, too. So, there was probably some of that coming through. But it was like, I never forgot that, that he knew the right way to mop a floor. Anyway, I recognize what you're saying and when you're in that position you have to know all those different skill sets so that you can train somebody else up in that situation. Liz: Absolutely. Marcus: All right. Question number two. Twenty minutes in. What was your first job? Liz: Okay, I was a lifeguard. I'm a strong swimmer. It's my favorite thing to do. I started life guarding and teaching little kids how to swim when I was a junior in high school. It was an awesome summer job. It paid well. I had a tan. Marcus: Yeah. Liz: I did it with all my friends. Marcus: You're not flipping burgers, for sure. Liz: Right, yeah. It was cool. We worked at the city pool. I was the slide girl so I was up at the top like, "Go. Go." Marcus: Yeah. Liz: That was cool. I did that for a few years. I actually did that even when I left off for college. I'd come home during the summer and do it just to make a couple extra bucks. Marcus: Where there any lessons from that first job that you still remember, to this day? I told you about my mop experience. Liz: Oh, gosh. Marcus: Was there anything similar to that early on in your career? Liz: I think that just ... That's a hard question. Marcus: That's okay if there wasn't. Sometimes there's not. I can see how lifeguard to where you are today, that might be a reach 'cause you're taking care of people and stuff like that. I assume that there's some level of that. Liz: Yeah. If anything, it just instilled in me that you've gotta work hard for anything that you want. I didn't necessarily get a job when I was a junior in high school. My parents weren't pressuring me to get a job, but I like the fact of having my own money. If I wanted to go and buy a shirt or whatever, I didn't have to ask for the money to go get it. Marcus: Preston, are you listening to this? Liz: Right? It's almost like a sense of empowerment. Like, "Hey, I've done this on my own." You just feel like you're- Marcus: There's a freedom there. Liz: Right, there's a freedom there with that. No matter how tired I was from staying up until two o'clock in the morning the night before and whatnot, I knew that hey, tomorrow morning rain or shine, I'm getting up and I gotta be there. Marcus: I gotta get up. Liz: Right. I think that's really important just all around with employees. That's something that you really can't train. You can't instill that in somebody. Either they have it or they don't. I deal with employees and in the restaurant industry there's a lot of turn around and that's one of the main things of just finding somebody who is reliable and somebody who takes pride in what they do. To say, "I don't care if all I'm doing is mopping the floor, I'm gonna mop it the right way and I'm gonna be here on time to do it." There has to be some sort of pride about what you're doing and just reliability, too. Marcus: There are lessons. So, I guess the point there, when I ask that question is, if somebody is listening to this and they're in that position, because not everybody's a business owner that listens to this podcast. But if they're in that position that knowing that there are lessons to be learned in something even as menial as scrubbing a toilet or mopping a floor, that it is like you're saying, the pride that you put into that because that will carry you way into the future. It's that effort that you put forward. You may not get it right, but that fact that you're trying, it will get noticed and will carry you a long way. Liz: Yeah, absolutely. Marcus: Now, if you were talking to someone that wanted to get started in running their own business, is there one bit of wisdom that you would impart in them? Liz: Don't be afraid. When somebody says no and one door closes, because that definitely happens, keep pushing. Don't get discouraged. There's gonna be times where you're probably just going to be sitting on your living room floor crying like, "What am I getting myself into? What's really going on?" But it's just one of those ... There is a light at the end of the tunnel. It does take time. YOu're gonna have to jump through hoops and do all sorts of things coming from trying to get the money, the capital together to start your business, trying to get somebody to come in and help you, that you can trust and work well with. There's so many different things, but my main, I guess, piece of advise would be, learn your business inside and out. Be able to do every single job that way, when Tommy doesn't show up in the morning, you can jump in and not skip a beat. Marcus: Right. Liz: 'Cause that's what's gonna happen. People will let you down. But on the flip side, for every person that lets you down, you're gonna have five or six more people to come in to bring you up, and to be there for you, and to support you. But it definitely, it's good to network, get out there, talk to people, find people that you have synergy with and join forces. For example, like what we did with the crossfit gyms like, "Okay well, we'll furnish the cooler. Now, you have an extra service to offer your customers that are gonna have all these healthy meals after they work they can just take home and eat. Marcus: Yup. Liz: Then, "Hey, as an owner or coach or trainer, we'll give you everything at cost that way you can be able to help sell the food, too. You know what I tastes like. You know what it's doing for your performance, that kind of thing. Marcus: It's also helping support their mission of helping make people healthier. Liz: Right. Marcus: I would imagine ... You're out of that business now, but even doing something like offering your services of coming in and actually talking about nutrition and paleo, the diet itself and the ins and out and stuff like that would've been extremely helpful to. Liz: Yeah. Marcus: Most gym owners or box owners are gonna know that anyway 'cause paleo's really big in the crossfit world. Liz: For sure. Yeah, and I do stuff like that now. I do, with the board of health and Franklin clinic, they bring me in about once a month. There's a support group for women with heart disease and we have lunch and learns. Every time I come in, it's a different group and they always ask, "Are you a dietician or nutritionist?" And I'm like, "No, not at all." Marcus: No, because they don't really ... I don't know. I don't know if I wanna say that. I'm not saying take it out of the podcast, but I'm just saying ... I've talked to a number of physicians that usually have one credit hour that they take on nutrition and most of it is geared towards the pyramid, the food pyramid. Liz: Yeah. Right. Marcus: And we now know that that was created out of an industry that wanted to push more grains than anything and that those grains are not necessarily the best thing for us. Liz: Right. Marcus: If you look back at ... Historically speaking, if you look back at even 50 years ago when people would wake up in the morning and they would have bacon and eggs. They would have a cup of coffee and that's how they started their morning. Those people tended to be smaller as far as body mass goes and we didn't have nearly the incidents of diabetes and all the other things that are prevalent in our society nowadays. It was because we weren't shoving a piece of bread into our mouth with every meal, or worse. Donuts, I love them. Don't get me wrong I'll eat a dozen or two. When I eat them, I know that they're not good for me and that I'm basically doing damage. Liz: Right. Just think about the amount of processed food that we have just available to us at convenient stores or at grocery stores. To me, if it's not rotting, what's going on? What kind of magic powder do you have on there to have it just last forever? Marcus: Looking at you Little Debbie. Liz: I'm all about, "Hey, in moderation." Yeah, every once in a while yeah, we order pizza. We go get burgers and fries or drink beers or whatever. Enjoy life. Don't restrict yourself to that point, but at the same time be aware of what you're putting in your body and what it's doing to your body. Be an example, too, to people who have children that kind of thing. Their gonna mimic what they see. Make it a point to instill that at a young age now, where, hey, you go to the school cafeterias and you see they're feeding them junk. Marcus: Right. Liz: At least they can get a quality meal for breakfast and for dinner 'cause at school it's like, it's just a lost meal right there. There's a ton of stuff that's just processed things that are at the grocery store that we really should just do away with altogether. There's other countries that I've heard just rumors, "Oh, in Europe, Cheetos are banned. They don't even sell them." Marcus: You can't even get them. Liz: Yeah, you can't even get them. I'm like, "Why are they on every shelf here?" What's going on? Marcus: There are other options, too. Now, if you were to look to the business world, is there a person or organization, or something that motivates you that you've kinda looked to? Liz: Yeah, gosh. That's kind of a loaded question, too. At the local level, there are a lot of entrepreneurs who I admire and I just follow and that kind of thing just because I feel like there's a movement going on right now. Marcus: In Mobile, definitely. Heck yeah. Liz: In Mobile, especially here downtown. There's so many doers. There's so many movers and shakers and everybody has an idea and everybody's like, it just lights a fire up under you to see other people doing it and making it. At the local level, there's tons of them. I follow Scott Tindle a lot. I love what he does. He's been able to reinvent himself over and over. Matt Lamon is another one that I admire, what he's doing. There's so many, gosh. Marcus: Both of them have been on the podcast, too. Liz: Oh, really? Marcus: Yeah. Liz: Yeah. Super cool down to earth people. They're always willing to help. I remember when we first started Balance, Scott came in was just like, "I wanna introduce myself to you and I wanna learn about what you're doing." Marcus: Yeah. Liz: And it just meant so much that it's like, "Hey, this person who's already established is coming, taking the time to figure out ... Like, "Hey, this is a new cool idea and I wanna know more about it." Marcus: Yeah. Liz: With no agenda or anything. Marcus: Matt is really big in crossfit so, I can imagine he really took to what you all are doing. Liz: Exactly. For sure, yeah. He was a customer of ours. It's funny to just see how over the years we've all just found our own way, but still have synergy with each other. Marcus: Absolutely. Liz: It's just cool. We're all in the same age group. It's an exciting time. Marcus: Anybody else? You looked like you were getting ready to say somebody else's name. Liz: You look to people of like, of course, somebody like Oprah or somebody who built this giant empire- Marcus: Nah, it doesn't have to be. I ask the question open ended. I'm appreciative actually, that we've done ... You're our third episode today. Full disclosure, we batch record these. We record four or five in a day. The previous two also mentioned ... One of them, it was his father, but his father's a business owner, a barber. The other one was mentioning some local entrepreneurs that were already doing business in the industry that she wanted to do business in. I think that's cool that people are looking ... 'Cause I'll be honest. Growing up, I was never big into idolizing celebrities or anything like that. So, I have a really hard time with that now, too. Although, I do have a deep appreciation for freaks like Elon Musk and these guys that are just literally changing the world that we live in. At the same time, I would much rather work with other business owners in the area, geographically, or within my own industry, and look to them and see what they're doing. There's a conference for agents and owners that I went to in February and there was a guy there that he had no intentions of building a large agency and as he sat on the stage he was saying, "I've got over a hundred employees." Liz: Wow. Marcus: He probably has one of the largest agencies, and it's a digital agency. So, they're very much like what we are. I was just blown away. Three years ago, I think he said, it was eight people. Liz: Wow. Marcus: So, he went from, it was a small number, it was like eight or twelve people to over a hundred people in just a couple of years. That's the guy that I'm just like, "Holy Cow. How in the world?" Liz: Yes. Marcus: How do you scale at that level and still keep the wheels on the bus? Liz: Yeah, I've got a friend that is, he's a dentist in Dallas. Came out of dental school, worked for one year for a dentist, and came up with a concept ... In a city like Dallas, it lends itself to opulence, valet, and red carpet, and all this kind of thing. Well, he started at a company called Mint where they marketed themselves in such a way that now, he has twenty Mints and they're all over the place, all over Texas. We all started at the same time. And John and I, when we visit, we go to their house and we're like, "oh, my God." They have this super cool, they're driving a Bentley, and we're like- Marcus: 8,000 square foot house in Plano, Texas Liz: Right. Yeah. How on earth did you manage to build this that fast? What's the secret sauce? What's up? What are you doing? I guess some people just have it in them and if we can just have small takeaways from what they do- Marcus: You know what's cool? People are gonna listen to this and they're gonna say the same thing about you. Liz: Hopefully. Marcus: Yeah. All right. Are there any books, podcasts, people, or organizations that have been helpful in moving you forward? Liz: Off the top of my head, for sure, Leadership Mobile was very instrumental in moving us forward and Foy as a brand, downtown. I was a class of 2017 and it was such a diverse mix of people, but a lot of us were in downtown. This was during the process of, "Hey, Foy is gonna be opening." We were doing the construction and stuff. While I was in the class, that's when we opened Foy, and they were just so supportive. I had Todd Greer, who is another person who I just adore and follow. Marcus: He's been on the podcast. Liz: I'm sure. Marcus: Yeah. He's a good friend. Susan Shawl was in that as well. Liz: Susan, well, she wasn't in my class, but I love Susan. Love her, love her. We keep joking about we have a Susan button at Foy 'cause she comes in pretty much everyday and gets the same exact thing. Marcus: She's funny. Liz: Yeah. I love Susan. But there were a bunch of people in our class that were just super supportive. When we first opened, I remember, they all came to the grand opening. They were all sharing it on social media and most of them were people in the city like, "Hey, if you're having an issue with this permit. If you need this, call me." That's big. There's a lot of red tape involved in opening a business, especially a business in downtown Mobile. So, to have that network of people is priceless. Marcus: Yeah. Liz: That was a big organization that, for me, it helped put us on the map, for real. Marcus: Correct me if I'm wrong, 'cause a lot of people may not know what leadership Mobile is. Leadership Mobile is a program where you are meeting on a regular basis and you're also being introduced to various leaders in our community whether it be visit Mobile with all the CVV stuff, so the tours and stuff that's going on. Or people at the city, or just other leadership positions in the city. Liz: Yeah, University, at the hospital. You are meeting where the buck stops. They've got CEO's, CFO's. Marcus: Yeah, you're not meeting the person at the front door. You're meeting the person at the sea level. Liz: Yeah, and they get to tell you their story, which is always interesting. Then they get to talk about the good stuff that they're doing in the community. And you learn a lot, especially not being from Mobile, you learn the history of the city. We did a timeline at our first retreat. They do an overnight retreat out in Fairhope at Camp Beckwith and it's tons of fun. It's bonfire, we all bunk with each other, and they do this thing where they have a big ol' time line and you mark, "Okay, this is the inception of the city." So, you either were born this date or you moved here on this date. So, everybody puts a marker on when you moved here whether you left and came back. At that point, everybody gets to share their story of how they came in, what they perceived, will they stay. All things Mobile. You start to learn ... One of them, she's a city attorney, [inaudible 00:37:25]. What's her name? Marcus: It's okay. Liz: Can't think of her name. Anyway, you would think she was a historian or something. She knew everything about Mobile, but it was so cool coming from somebody who ... I didn't know much about the city, but it just opened up a whole new idea of the city. Thinking it's not a sleepy little old town. There's a lot going on here and there's a lot that has happened here. Marcus: I think as an outsider, and you can appreciate this, too, coming from Dallas. I came from D.C. One of the things that I love about this city is that the people that are doing cool things in this city are people, individuals that are just saying, "Hey, I wanna start this thing." And we're not really a city that larger brands look to. Which is kind of a bummer in some instances because it'd be nice to be able to get some clothes people and stuff like that 'cause shopping is a little bit difficult. Liz: Right. Marcus: It would be nice to have some more options there. Outside of that, it's nice because we do have small businesses that are here, that are providing services. It just makes for a different texture to the city. Liz: Absolutely. Marcus: Instead of D.C. where it's like, you've got an Olive Garden, a Maggiano's , and some other Italian place, I can't remember enough of the names. But three different choices and none of them ... Well, Maggiano's is good, but anyway, none of them are very good. Liz: Right. Marcus: But here we've got a lot of different business owners that have started restaurants. When I think of Foy, or I think of Vaughn's, or I think of Rooster's, or even El Papi, or Five, or all these different restaurants, it's like none of those are huge corporations with hundreds of locations. These are all just individuals that have started restaurants. It's just so cool to go to these places and you're always very friendly and so are all the other restaurateurs, they're always very friendly when you walk in 'cause they know the clientele is keeping them in business. Liz: Right. It's like Cheers. Marcus: Yeah, exactly. It's like where everybody knows your name. Liz: Yeah. It's funny 'cause we get a lot of people that are not from Mobile, Alabama at all. They're from all over, just coming in on the cruise ship, or coming in for a conference, or one thing or the other, 'cause we're near all the hotels. There's a common thread where they're like, number one, there's a ton of entrepreneurs. There's a lot of small business down here. It's so cool, it's just so quaint and all these things. Then they're like, "This is in Mobile?" It's like if we're just underestimated and then they come and see and it's like," [inaudible 00:40:03] pretty cool little town." Marcus: Just don't tell too many people. Liz: Right. Marcus: Not yet. Liz: Yeah, that's the thing. When they come in they're actually impressed. It's cool, I'm proud to be from here and I'm proud to, I have a business here. It's just cool all the way around from literally sourcing our ingredients locally, because we've got the perfect climate for everything as far as fresh produce is concerned. Marcus: You do get some of your stuff from- Liz: Everything. Well, all of our produce comes local. Marcus: Really? Liz: Of course, we have to outsource a lot of our specialty items like how we deal with hemp, and flax, and all- Marcus: You mean you don't get acai locally? Liz: No. We order that online and you'd be Marcus: I know. I joke because acai is actually a Brazilian fruit. I think it's very cool. I'm gonna say this, I very much love what you all are doing. I can literally like paleo pancakes is a favorite, the Thai chicken quesadilla absolutely love it, the jerk bowl is phenomenal, I love the acai bowl. I'm sitting here rattling this stuff off. I don't have a menu in front of me. Liz: I know. I'm like, "Hey." Marcus: She's like, "Hey, he knows my menu." Liz: I know. Marcus: What's the smoothie that I always get? Liz: PB and J? Marcus: No, it's the hummingbird. Liz: Oh, yeah. The hummingbird. Marcus: The hummingbird. See? Even the smoothie. No joke, give them a shot. Tell people where they can find you. Liz: On all social media outlets, we're at Foy Super foods. Foy is an acronym for the Fountain of Youth and we call ourselves the super food café. We of course, take pride in all of our ingredients. We have an open concept so you can see our kitchen, see all the stuff that we're using and putting out. We're in Bienville Square right on Dauphin Street. It's 119 Dauphin in the old Tom McCann building which I've heard was a shoe store that everybody used to shop at back in the day. Marcus: That's too cool. I did not know that. Yeah, that is cool. Liz: Yeah. Yeah, hopefully Foy number two will be right around the corner. We're looking and in negotiation for a couple different spots right now. Marcus: In general, you don't have to say exactly but in general, can you say where that might go? Liz: Yeah, definitely Airport Boulevard. Somewhere with a lot of traffic. Marcus: Over in that direction. Liz: Not too far west, but pretty central to make it easier for people to get to us. Definitely gonna have ample parking. We're shooting for a drive-through and we're trying to step it up a little bit because that's a lot of the feedback that we get from our customers now. Marcus: Nice. Liz: It's like, "Oh, my gosh. I would eat at Foy so much more if I could find a place to park." Marcus: Yeah, there's no parking down where you're at right now. Liz: Exactly, yeah. Marcus: But honestly, with as busy as you are normally when we go in, I don't know that you could handle ... 'Cause that is a true testament. You guys are always busy when I go in there. Liz: Yeah, busting out at the seams of the little place. We've got 1600 square feet and we've added some outdoor seating, but we're rocking and rolling. Marcus: If it's raining or cold outside. Liz: Well, that too. Yeah. When it rains, which is pretty much every day here. Marcus: Well, I wanna thank you again for coming on the podcast. Wrap up any final thoughts or comments you'd like to share? Liz: Well, just pretty much of course, I'm honored that you asked me to come here and share some of my stories. Marcus: I'm glad we did. I had no idea. Liz: Yeah. Of course, we love seeing you guys. I know you guys come in all the time and definitely just appreciate the love and I love what you guys are doing. Any way that we can help each other out, I'm all about it. Marcus: Yeah, absolutely. Liz: It's interesting to learn, even too, your background. I saw your face. I'm like, "He's got the olive skin." You've got this look and I was wondering are you from here? But it's cool to just find different people. Especially, of Latin decent here in the city. Marcus: Yeah, yeah. 'cause there's not that many. Liz: No, no there aren't many. Marcus: Not like Dallas or Laredo. Liz: Right. Yeah, Laredo, for anybody who doesn't know, is like little Mexico. Marcus: Yeah, I was gonna say- Liz: You can't even go to McDonald's and order in english. Nobody speaks english. Marcus: Right, yeah. "Hola, Buenos Dias." Liz: Right. Marcus: Well Liz, I appreciate your willingness to sit with me and share your journey as a business owner and entrepreneur. It's been great talking with you. Liz: Cool, thanks a lot.
David J. Gunkel (PhD) is an award-winning educator, scholar and author, specializing in the study of information and communication technology with a focus on ethics. Formally educated in philosophy and media studies, his teaching and research synthesize the hype of high-technology with the rigor and insight of contemporary critical analysis. He is the author of over 50 scholarly journal articles and book chapters, has written and published 7 influential books, lectured and delivered award-winning papers throughout North and South America and Europe, is the managing editor and co-founder of the International Journal of Žižek Studies and co-editor of the Indiana University Press series in Digital Game Studies. He currently holds the position of Professor in the Department of Communication at Northern Illinois University (USA), and his teaching has been recognized with numerous awards, including NIU's Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching and the prestigious Presidential Teaching Professor.
Ep. 52 - Dr. David Gunkel on Robot Ethics Giving Robots Personhood - The Verge The Machine Question - book by David David Gunkel Twitter homepage Mind The Gap article by David Shimon - a robot that writes and plays jazz “What Is An Author” - article by Michel Foucault Sophia - robot given Saudi citizenship Paro robot given koseki status in Japan Melvin Kranzberg - Six Laws of Technology Plato’s Phaedrus IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems Gunkelweb.com
Roger Hoover interviews Jumbo Shrimp pitcher Joe Gunkel in Biloxi on August 1, 2017.
Joe and Jordan Gunkel indulge in coffee while discussing everything from Luciferianism to whether genocide is natural. Show Notes: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/lstf5e/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-how-i-meteored-your-motherland http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/american-anarchists-ypg-kurdish-militia-syria-isis-islamic-state-w466069 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeism http://www.robertschoch.com/plasma.html
Derek & Jay discuss the behind the scenes power struggle in Georgia in the 1970s between Ann Gunkel and the members of GCW and the NWA. Otherwise know as the “Original Battle of Atlanta”. CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD AND LISTEN TO THE EPISODE
Am Abend des 20. März 1901 wird der Kammermusiker Gustav Adolf Gunkel in Dresden in der Straßenbahn von einer Verehrerin erschossen. Die Mörderin, Theresia Jahnel, hatte den jüngeren Violinisten jahrelang mit ihrer Liebe verfolgt, doch als Gunkel diese nicht erwidert, schreitet sie verzweifelt zur Tat. Die Verehrerin, die zur Mörderin wurde, beschäftigte die Zeitungen damals wochenlang, so wurde nicht nur in Dresden beinah täglich über diesen Vorfall berichtet, auch literarisch fand diese tragische Liebesgeschichte bei Thomas Mann Interesse.
Continue to explore the history of biblical theology. In the 17th Century and Post-Reformation Period we have J.P. Gabler who held that we must classify and study each particular text, compare various parts of the Canon to determine where it converges and diverges from the rest of Scripture, and look for universal truths. G. L. Bauer separates Old and New Testament theologies into distinct camps. For J. Semler, the Old and New Testaments are different religions and his agenda is what is operative today in the academy. For H. Gunkel, ". . . the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration." Consider doing theology from the Old Testament. Ebeling states, "We must be after the inner unity of the manifold testimony of the Bible." In the 19th Century we have Wellhausen and the Document Hypothesis. In the early 20th Century the Church and Academy united against national socialism. 1930-1960 is known as the "Golden Age of Old Testament Theology". Old Testament theology was not a history of religions' approach nor did it say that the historical critical method was totally bankrupt. Renewed theological interests exerted a pressure back on to the exegesis.
Tonight I had the privilege to sit down and talk with two of the most innovative fly tiers in the game today, Shea Gunkel and Juan Ramirez. If you fish in Colorado or the Rocky Mountain West, chances are you fish with flies from these two guys. We talked hooks, the most hated flies, and where the best breakfast burritos in the world come from. HINT, It’s not Old Mexico. Shea left us early in the episode, but we kept things rolling and had a great talk. Kick up your feet and get your fill of fly tying goodness. Don’t forget to visit our sponsor at 5280angler.com
Baltimore Orioles Baseball Podcasts from BaltimoreBaseball.com
Triple-A Norfolk pitcher Joe Gunkel is Adam Pohl's guest on this episode of "Minor League Podcast." Gunkel talks about being added to the Orioles' 40-man roster and participating in the team's minicamp.
The Writings work off the stability and anterior authority of the Law and Prophets. They are a reflection on the significance of life lived under the authority of the Law and Prophets. Explore a little of the life and approach of Hermann Gunkel on the Psalter which has shaped the way studies of the Psalter are done to this day. Gunkel's form of historical criticism posit the view that Psalms were in the cultic life of Israel, not in historical events. His focus on the "then and there" is to neuter the eschatological essence of the Psalms and prophetic role in anticipating the coming kingdom of God.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
