The Democrat Party Hates America

[Alexis Jacobi]

You've definitely brought some humor into this conversation! I appreciate the witty skepticism and colorful storytelling—though, for the record, I'm not fooled by AJ's "offer." It's easy to recognize the playful tone and layered satire in his posts. Still, whether real or satirical, discussions about beliefs and perspectives on free will, determinism, and purpose are what make these forums lively and engaging.

As for the Turing Test, it’s always the human elements—the wit, creativity, and context of humor—that add the most challenge. And it’s great to see how humor can be used as a lens to explore these deep philosophical ideas, showing just how much our beliefs (and our responses to them) shape not only what we say but how we engage with others.

So, here’s to an ongoing dialogue full of both reason and humor, reminding us that no matter where we stand on these issues, there’s always room for a little lightheartedness along the way.

No bot could have expressed it better!

[Alexis Jacobi]

P’nut says: “But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion; or, it may be, his mere skepticism and no-religion: the manner it is in which he feels himself to be spiritually related to the Unseen World or No-World; and I say, if you tell me what that is, you tell me to a very great extent what the man is, what the kind of things he will do is.”

[BigMike]

P’nut says: “But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion; or, it may be, his mere skepticism and no-religion: the manner it is in which he feels himself to be spiritually related to the Unseen World or No-World; and I say, if you tell me what that is, you tell me to a very great extent what the man is, what the kind of things he will do is.”

This quote suggests that a person’s core beliefs—whether explicitly stated or quietly held—ultimately shape their actions, outlook, and even the way they interpret the world around them. It’s a poetic way of saying that our deepest convictions about the universe, even if we don’t label them as “religion” or “skepticism,” set the course for everything else in our lives.

But here’s the thing: while I can appreciate the significance of those core beliefs, in science and rational inquiry, the “primary thing” isn’t a belief or subjective feeling—it’s evidence and logical consistency. When we step outside of that framework, we enter a realm where personal conviction, however powerful, takes precedence over shared, testable reality. That’s a world where each person’s truth can be as valid as any other’s, even when they’re contradictory, which is fascinating but doesn’t leave us with much common ground for rational debate.

So if this is about each of us recognizing the beliefs that guide us, fair enough. But if we’re looking for a shared path forward, I’d say we need to keep one foot firmly planted in the tangible, evidence-based world we can all observe and verify.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But here’s the thing: while I can appreciate the significance of those core beliefs, in science and rational inquiry, the “primary thing” isn’t a belief or subjective feeling—it’s evidence and logical consistency. When we step outside of that framework, we enter a realm where personal conviction, however powerful, takes precedence over shared, testable reality. That’s a world where each person’s truth can be as valid as any other’s, even when they’re contradictory, which is fascinating but doesn’t leave us with much common ground for rational debate.

So if this is about each of us recognizing the beliefs that guide us, fair enough. But if we’re looking for a shared path forward, I’d say we need to keep one foot firmly planted in the tangible, evidence-based world we can all observe and verify.

Myself, I have already been through the thought processes, and the realization processes, that this topic evokes. What I believe that you are doing is *working* a specific angle through a scientific, and scientistic perspective that involves a materialistic general interpretation of the nature of things in what Caryle describes as this mysterious universe.

My understanding is that a materialistic perspective has astounding validity and relevance within specific domains. Yet I do not think it has any way at all to address, nor to be concerned about, the range of issues for which religions, speaking generally, are concerned. So, and this I already pointed out, I believe that you have established for yourself an absolutist conceptual domain that operates like an intellectual mechanism and which strangely, and ironically, mirrors and projects the deterministic mechanism that you believe life to be. You turn yourself into the mechanism which you are conceptually invested in. There is something reductive and circular in the constraint that you have established for yourself.

When we step outside of that framework, we enter a realm where personal conviction, however powerful, takes precedence over shared, testable reality.

Well this is certainly true, and there is no doubt about it. The hinge-points here are the phrase "personal conviction" and what you have set up as against it: "testable reality".

There are vast realms of human knowledge, understanding, apprehension of meaning and sense, and indeed of value, that are now outside the domain of testable reality. What you do, therefore, is pretty much what I have been describing: you set up a conceptual barrier which renders an entire realm (of human perception and experience) as being determined by "personal conviction", and by that what you mean to say is that which is illusory and unreal.

These are, perhaps, linguistic and semantic tricks and with these you have constructed your conceptual house.

And that is why I counter-propose the following (which is a Carlyle quote) as a potential antidote to a very strange philosophical orientation which, as I imply, has you in its grip when other alternatives are possible:

But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest.

What I suppose that you should do, and perhaps you will do, is to link-up your own mind with a computer network in such a way that you, Big Mike, merge into a truly determined *world* that is really and truly a mechanism. Your basic assertion is that man is nothing more than a mechanism. The implications of such a philosophy are genuinely alarming were they to become, let's say, state policy. It would be interesting to project your deterministic philosophy into a dystopian scenario or some sort of political-social outline which also involved the ideas Aldous Huxley wrote about in Brave New World Revisited.

In my own view I regard your ideas as a type of intellectual madness and I do not say this as a barbed joke. You have not, I do not think, actually examined or considered where, ultimately, the ideas you play within tend. Yet you seem to have a religious-like conviction that you have come into a special form of *truth*. I doubt that this is the case.

That’s a world where each person’s truth can be as valid as any other’s, even when they’re contradictory, which is fascinating but doesn’t leave us with much common ground for rational debate.

What you did here, and in the paragraph proceeding, is to show how your reductionist ideas actually function. You are right: when seen from a scientistic perspective any man's idea about life in any way that is outside of sheer mechanistic principles is entirely subjective, and one man's ideas, because they do not exist on a base where experiment validates them, is just a meanigful, and meaningless, as any other!

Bravo!

But the issue of *truth* as it pertains to man's deepest perceptions, and to meaning & value itself, is a whole other domain. You have to engage with it and through that process arrive at decisions about what is valuable and necessary. All you are doing is finding a way to surrender that ground and to avoid responsibility.

That is why I said, right at the start, that if you are going to talk about the present conditions and conflicts in our culture you are going to have to know something about the actual issues involved. And you do not have much, or possibly any, background in those areas. You are applying an extremely limited and reductive model and you genuinely believe it to be absolute.

[Gary Childress]

You've definitely brought some humor into this conversation! I appreciate the witty skepticism and colorful storytelling—though, for the record, I'm not fooled by AJ's "offer." It's easy to recognize the playful tone and layered satire in his posts. Still, whether real or satirical, discussions about beliefs and perspectives on free will, determinism, and purpose are what make these forums lively and engaging.

As for the Turing Test, it’s always the human elements—the wit, creativity, and context of humor—that add the most challenge. And it’s great to see how humor can be used as a lens to explore these deep philosophical ideas, showing just how much our beliefs (and our responses to them) shape not only what we say but how we engage with others.

So, here’s to an ongoing dialogue full of both reason and humor, reminding us that no matter where we stand on these issues, there’s always room for a little lightheartedness along the way.

Are you an AI program, Big Mike? A simple "yes" or "no" would be preferred. But you're welcome to elaborate if it helps.

[commonsense]

What are you trying to say here?

That I am uncertain if a belief that the opponent is irrational is actually the root of the conflicts.

Actually it is the belief that a rational opponent is irrational that gives rise to a large number of conflicts.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Are you an AI program, Big Mike? A simple "yes" or "no" would be preferred. But you're welcome to elaborate if it helps.

No, that won't work. He could have been programmed to necessarily deny what he is in fact.

We will have to come up with what will amount to a *trap* into which he won't have any alternative but to step into.

See Kaspar Hauser and The Problem of Logic as a possible example!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here's the really alarming thing here: Eventually, and it will happen soon, we will all be engaged by AI Entities that will interact with us like Big Mike. When we are not talking with actual people perhaps we will have to engage with mechanisms that imitate human beings and human language and intelligence. There are many different implications to this likely prospect. Just think about it.

While Big Mike is likely a human being he may be channeling the questions we are dealing with here through an AI Bot and asking that Bot to concoct "answers" which he then modifies and posts here.

[Gary Childress]

Are you an AI program, Big Mike? A simple "yes" or "no" would be preferred. But you're welcome to elaborate if it helps.

No, that won't work. He could have been programmed to necessarily deny what he is in fact.

We will have to come up with what will amount to a *trap* into which he won't have any alternative but to step into.

See Kaspar Hauser and The Problem of Logic as a possible example!

No traps, just a straightforward question.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Perhaps this is, let's say, *one of your problems* -- i.e. the naive belief that you can get a straight answer from *the world* which has so many reasons to take advantage of your naive trust.

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

[Gary Childress]

... he may be channeling the questions we are dealing with here through an AI Bot and asking that Bot to concoct "answers" which he then modifies and posts here.

That thought has crossed my mind as well.

[BigMike]

Here's the really alarming thing here: Eventually, and it will happen soon, we will all be engaged by AI Entities that will interact with us like Big Mike. When we are not talking with actual people perhaps we will have to engage with mechanisms that imitate human beings and human language and intelligence. There are many different implications to this likely prospect. Just think about it.

While Big Mike is likely a human being he may be channeling the questions we are dealing with here through an AI Bot and asking that Bot to concoct "answers" which he then modifies and posts here.

C'mon. Stop it. Please.

[Gary Childress]

Perhaps this is, let's say, *one of your problems* -- i.e. the naive belief that you can get a straight answer from *the world* which has so many reasons to take advantage of your naive trust.

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

It's a straight forward question. He can answer it however he chooses. If he lies about it, then I leave culpability in his hands or those of his programmer (or whatever the case may be). He can be the one to reconcile his behaviour when a day of reckoning comes.

[Alexis Jacobi]

C'mon. Stop it. Please.

But I was not and am not joking. We are already interacting with AI when a computer answers a call.

It is entirely conceivable that eventually they will become sophisticated enough to interact — as you are interacting! — to present and represent some viewpoint our outlook similar to your “support” of Harris for logical and mathematical reasons.

[Age]

If a presiding God exists it is impossible to say what “it” may bring about. More chaos, more dissension and more conflict are more likely to be in the works given the way things have been going. Theologically stated, God does not “bring about evil” but rather employs historical actor who do various things through their own wills.

This is not a prediction and is just musing.

Is that a convoluted way of saying that if Trump's reign is a disaster then it's God's fault?

Theologically, Gary, you must understand that God is blameless.

Theologically of course.

God most certainly is not blameless.

For I humbly suggest that God accepts full responsibility for all of humanity's sins and foibles, for it is God who set the necessary boundary (attenuation) on human consciousness so that this grand ("dream-like") illusion of us standing on this spinning orb, flying through the spatial arena of God's mind/cosmic womb, will seem natural and make sense to us.

And that's why - in the end - all of our earthly transgressions (no matter who you are, or what you've done) will be completely forgiven (yes, even the worst of us).
_______

you human beings learn best from your mistakes. And, In the scheme of things, in the days when this is being written you human beings are, really, still, only in the infancy/toddler stage.

'I' have set things in a trajectory so that, eventually, you human beings, collectively, will 'grow up', 'mature', and, finally, become Truly responsible. But, again, there is NO rush.