The Democrat Party Hates America

[Belinda]

I have asked it questions about its own work ethics, and morality in general, and these are satisfactory with no evidence of political bias.

It's a tool that predicts what text you want to read Belinda, it doesn't have ethics it just knows how to output text about it.

OpenAI has an ethical policy that sets it apart, qualitatively, from the black AI, and arguably at the more ethical end of the spectrum of AI information businesses.

That's not the text prediction engine having ethics, that is the company selling the service to you having them. Given your previous writings about corporations and ethics, I am surprised at you for not noticing this difference, and also for suddenly having faith in the ethics of a mega-corporation.

I understand the discrepancy you mention. I thought that ethics is so intrinsic to the business success of Open AI that its ethical policy would be practical not cynical. Also , Open AI recognises the alternative which is what the dark AI applications, do, and wants to disassociate from them.

[FlashDangerpants]

I have asked it questions about its own work ethics, and morality in general, and these are satisfactory with no evidence of political bias.

It's a tool that predicts what text you want to read Belinda, it doesn't have ethics it just knows how to output text about it.

OpenAI has an ethical policy that sets it apart, qualitatively, from the black AI, and arguably at the more ethical end of the spectrum of AI information businesses.

That's not the text prediction engine having ethics, that is the company selling the service to you having them. Given your previous writings about corporations and ethics, I am surprised at you for not noticing this difference, and also for suddenly having faith in the ethics of a mega-corporation.

I understand the discrepancy you mention.

If that is true then you are at least one step closer to understanding my response to your asking GPT for its own opinions about its work ethic.

I still think you are the sort of low information consumer that can't tell you are working with a tool not an intellect when you ask it questions, but I am done with the discussion now, so you do you.

[Darkneos]

Only if adopted as a doctrine, which is a political/social/academic decision quite unrelated to the suspect metaphysics of the free will debate.

If a military strategist adopts the position that somehow things are different as a result of their conversion to a belief in determinism, I want to know about that, I have an urgent need to be on the other side in the event of any war.

Determinism is not merely a belief,or doctrine .It's an attitude towards how events transpire. Nobody ever had to teach me that free will is nonsense.The more a military strategist understands the causes and probable effects of specific strategies the better she is at her job.

I didn't say it is a mere doctrine, I said that it must be adopted as a doctrine to have an effect.

The problem you have is that there are so many ways to react to determinism once you convert people to that belief. They can simply adopt compatibilism, they can discover a belief that free will is a necessary illusion and go right back to how they were before. Or they could flop fatalistically and just lie there until they are eroded away by the bitter winds of fate. Or they could simply ignore it and say "none of this makes any difference to my day-to-day life".

So to make determinism have any actual outcome, you need a doctrine. You must live according the maxims that if human agency is mythical you will refrain from praising your children as praise and blame are redundant vestiges of a prior religion. I am sure your child rearing skills will now be scientifically super-charged.

Or you might find that even under a deterministic framework, you choose to give children lots of praise because you don't want them to work the stripper pole when they grow up. And before long you might find that determinism and free-will are a distinction that makes no actual difference. That all the decision outcomes you make under the one paradigm are equally well justified under the other.

Big Mike is an empty shirt. When he was challenged to explain how he could direct public policy in such a away that determinism was the difference maker, he came up with nothing that wasn't already being done without it. I think you are probably no less empty in that department because there is no reform available that only determinists could propose or defend other than a totalitarian one that you wouldn't want to take responsibility for.

The part about praise and blame is what Sapolsky argues as well with his take (or book). Though without praise or blame I'm not sure raising kids would go very well, or anything else in life/society. It's why when I asked BigMike about it he had nothing besides "trust me bro" and ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Also his appeals to "living in reality" were hollow at best.

For good or ill society and humans run on the belief (or illusion) of free will (among others) and so far no determinist I've heard or talked to has a plan or idea of how society would work without it, let alone individual interactions. They just assume nothing would change...which is frightfully stupid IMO.

[Will Bouwman]

We all know that matter is made up of energy...

What do you think that means in practice?

In "practicing" what?

I'm starting to wonder whether English is your first language. Or perhaps whether you can process more than one sentence in a paragraph. The very next sentence was a bit of a give away:

What is energy, and how does it turn into matter?

You don't know. There is no shame in that, because nobody knows. The shame is in not being able to admit that you don't know. It's very easy: I don't know what energy is, nor how it becomes matter. What I do know is that there are different hypotheses, the most mainstream of which are about quantum fields.
Beyond the quantum level, classical physics is a formal system based largely on the concepts and methods of Isaac Newton. At the scale that deals with saying

...physics deals with: just the physical. Nothing else.

is tautological, or definitional if you prefer.

But you seem confused, and don't seem to be able to specify the actual subject matter of the discipline. You seem to think it has something to say about metaphysical entities, like "mind". It doesn't. It doesn't even try.

Mind is not an example I have used. What I have said is

...if by physical you mean subjects of physics, you're not saying anything. If instead you mean material, that is metaphysics.

Materialism is ontology, which is metaphysics. Newton famously insisted that has no place in "experimental philosophy", physics in other words, because his system is a formal description of what happens using concepts like force, basically how hard you have to push to move something, mass, how much an object will move the scales, and energy, how much damage a moving object will do if it hits you.
So when "practicing" physics, metaphysics is irrelevant. As I said though, there are physicists biting at the fringes.

[Belinda]

Determinism is not merely a belief,or doctrine .It's an attitude towards how events transpire. Nobody ever had to teach me that free will is nonsense.The more a military strategist understands the causes and probable effects of specific strategies the better she is at her job.

I didn't say it is a mere doctrine, I said that it must be adopted as a doctrine to have an effect.

The problem you have is that there are so many ways to react to determinism once you convert people to that belief. They can simply adopt compatibilism, they can discover a belief that free will is a necessary illusion and go right back to how they were before. Or they could flop fatalistically and just lie there until they are eroded away by the bitter winds of fate. Or they could simply ignore it and say "none of this makes any difference to my day-to-day life".

So to make determinism have any actual outcome, you need a doctrine. You must live according the maxims that if human agency is mythical you will refrain from praising your children as praise and blame are redundant vestiges of a prior religion. I am sure your child rearing skills will now be scientifically super-charged.

Or you might find that even under a deterministic framework, you choose to give children lots of praise because you don't want them to work the stripper pole when they grow up. And before long you might find that determinism and free-will are a distinction that makes no actual difference. That all the decision outcomes you make under the one paradigm are equally well justified under the other.

Big Mike is an empty shirt. When he was challenged to explain how he could direct public policy in such a away that determinism was the difference maker, he came up with nothing that wasn't already being done without it. I think you are probably no less empty in that department because there is no reform available that only determinists could propose or defend other than a totalitarian one that you wouldn't want to take responsibility for.

The part about praise and blame is what Sapolsky argues as well with his take (or book). Though without praise or blame I'm not sure raising kids would go very well, or anything else in life/society. It's why when I asked BigMike about it he had nothing besides "trust me bro" and ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Also his appeals to "living in reality" were hollow at best.

For good or ill society and humans run on the belief (or illusion) of free will (among others) and so far no determinist I've heard or talked to has a plan or idea of how society would work without it, let alone individual interactions. They just assume nothing would change...which is frightfully stupid IMO.

"Raising kids" is a lot like training puppies , depending on the developmental stage of the child. Education and training change proportions according to the age/stage of the child's ability. The very young child is a psychological part of her mother. the puppy is psychologically part of its parent substitute according to temperament and breed. Some breeds are more independent than others.

When we train a puppy we never blame him and we always praise good behaviour. This tactic even works with old dogs. I have an aged Romanian mongrel and I'd never blame him that would be stupid.

Blame is often a projection of one's own perceived failure. Blame is a feeble attempt to rationalise fear and greed, a means for social control

[FlashDangerpants]

I didn't say it is a mere doctrine, I said that it must be adopted as a doctrine to have an effect.

The problem you have is that there are so many ways to react to determinism once you convert people to that belief. They can simply adopt compatibilism, they can discover a belief that free will is a necessary illusion and go right back to how they were before. Or they could flop fatalistically and just lie there until they are eroded away by the bitter winds of fate. Or they could simply ignore it and say "none of this makes any difference to my day-to-day life".

So to make determinism have any actual outcome, you need a doctrine. You must live according the maxims that if human agency is mythical you will refrain from praising your children as praise and blame are redundant vestiges of a prior religion. I am sure your child rearing skills will now be scientifically super-charged.

Or you might find that even under a deterministic framework, you choose to give children lots of praise because you don't want them to work the stripper pole when they grow up. And before long you might find that determinism and free-will are a distinction that makes no actual difference. That all the decision outcomes you make under the one paradigm are equally well justified under the other.

Big Mike is an empty shirt. When he was challenged to explain how he could direct public policy in such a away that determinism was the difference maker, he came up with nothing that wasn't already being done without it. I think you are probably no less empty in that department because there is no reform available that only determinists could propose or defend other than a totalitarian one that you wouldn't want to take responsibility for.

The part about praise and blame is what Sapolsky argues as well with his take (or book). Though without praise or blame I'm not sure raising kids would go very well, or anything else in life/society. It's why when I asked BigMike about it he had nothing besides "trust me bro" and ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Also his appeals to "living in reality" were hollow at best.

For good or ill society and humans run on the belief (or illusion) of free will (among others) and so far no determinist I've heard or talked to has a plan or idea of how society would work without it, let alone individual interactions. They just assume nothing would change...which is frightfully stupid IMO.

"Raising kids" is a lot like training puppies , depending on the developmental stage of the child. Education and training change proportions according to the age/stage of the child's ability. The very young child is a psychological part of her mother. the puppy is psychologically part of its parent substitute according to temperament and breed. Some breeds are more independent than others.

When we train a puppy we never blame him and we always praise good behaviour. This tactic even works with old dogs. I have an aged Romanian mongrel and I'd never blame him that would be stupid.

Blame is often a projection of one's own perceived failure. Blame is a feeble attempt to rationalise fear and greed, a means for social control

Cool, you can now persuade normal non-determinist people to look for ways to avoid the concept of blame while teaching responsibility to their kids. Doctrine of Determinism: not required, actual metaphysics of the situation: not important.

[Belinda]

The part about praise and blame is what Sapolsky argues as well with his take (or book). Though without praise or blame I'm not sure raising kids would go very well, or anything else in life/society. It's why when I asked BigMike about it he had nothing besides "trust me bro" and ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Also his appeals to "living in reality" were hollow at best.

For good or ill society and humans run on the belief (or illusion) of free will (among others) and so far no determinist I've heard or talked to has a plan or idea of how society would work without it, let alone individual interactions. They just assume nothing would change...which is frightfully stupid IMO.

"Raising kids" is a lot like training puppies , depending on the developmental stage of the child. Education and training change proportions according to the age/stage of the child's ability. The very young child is a psychological part of her mother. the puppy is psychologically part of its parent substitute according to temperament and breed. Some breeds are more independent than others.

When we train a puppy we never blame him and we always praise good behaviour. This tactic even works with old dogs. I have an aged Romanian mongrel and I'd never blame him that would be stupid.

Blame is often a projection of one's own perceived failure. Blame is a feeble attempt to rationalise fear and greed, a means for social control

Cool, you can now persuade normal non-determinist people to look for ways to avoid the concept of blame while teaching responsibility to their kids. Doctrine of Determinism: not required, actual metaphysics of the situation: not important.

There is plenty about it in popular literature. As long ago as when I was A child my chums knew enough to know it was bad to 'call people names.'
The academic doctrine of determinism is something else .Academic doctrine is to common sense as science is to common sense. Both have their social uses.

[FlashDangerpants]

"Raising kids" is a lot like training puppies , depending on the developmental stage of the child. Education and training change proportions according to the age/stage of the child's ability. The very young child is a psychological part of her mother. the puppy is psychologically part of its parent substitute according to temperament and breed. Some breeds are more independent than others.

When we train a puppy we never blame him and we always praise good behaviour. This tactic even works with old dogs. I have an aged Romanian mongrel and I'd never blame him that would be stupid.

Blame is often a projection of one's own perceived failure. Blame is a feeble attempt to rationalise fear and greed, a means for social control

Cool, you can now persuade normal non-determinist people to look for ways to avoid the concept of blame while teaching responsibility to their kids. Doctrine of Determinism: not required, actual metaphysics of the situation: not important.

There is plenty about it in popular literature. As long ago as when I was A child my chums knew enough to know it was bad to 'call people names.'
The academic doctrine of determinism is something else .Academic doctrine is to common sense as science is to common sense. Both have their social uses.

Science makes things possible that weren't previously possible. Determinism just has no such thing to offer.

[Belinda]

Cool, you can now persuade normal non-determinist people to look for ways to avoid the concept of blame while teaching responsibility to their kids. Doctrine of Determinism: not required, actual metaphysics of the situation: not important.

There is plenty about it in popular literature. As long ago as when I was A child my chums knew enough to know it was bad to 'call people names.'
The academic doctrine of determinism is something else .Academic doctrine is to common sense as science is to common sense. Both have their social uses.

Science makes things possible that weren't previously possible. Determinism just has no such thing to offer.

Dasein? Improved understanding of others? Progress in child education? Progress in medicine? Psychoanalysis? Peace making? More effective control of crime? Those are not, strictly speaking, technology but they all progress towards civilisation. If technology is to be controlled then far better it be controlled by people who understand that causes have effects.

[FlashDangerpants]

There is plenty about it in popular literature. As long ago as when I was A child my chums knew enough to know it was bad to 'call people names.'
The academic doctrine of determinism is something else .Academic doctrine is to common sense as science is to common sense. Both have their social uses.

Science makes things possible that weren't previously possible. Determinism just has no such thing to offer.

Dasein? Improved understanding of others? Progress in child education? Progress in medicine? Psychoanalysis? Peace making? More effective control of crime? Those are not, strictly speaking, technology but they all progress towards civilisation. If technology is to be controlled then far better it be controlled by people who understand that causes have effects.

What is that list supposed to be of? There is no outcome in any of that stuff that requires a doctrine of determinism to bring about.

Everybody know about cause and effect, it is the height of absurd arrogance to suppose that only determinists understand it.

[Belinda]

Science makes things possible that weren't previously possible. Determinism just has no such thing to offer.

Dasein? Improved understanding of others? Progress in child education? Progress in medicine? Psychoanalysis? Peace making? More effective control of crime? Those are not, strictly speaking, technology but they all progress towards civilisation. If technology is to be controlled then far better it be controlled by people who understand that causes have effects.

What is that list supposed to be of? There is no outcome in any of that stuff that requires a doctrine of determinism to bring about.

Everybody know about cause and effect, it is the height of absurd arrogance to suppose that only determinists understand it.

If you understand that effects have causes then you are on your way to understanding that each event was a necessary event.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

...hateful sources.

The Democrat Party is the source of hate.

The Democrat Party hates America.

That's why it wants to fundamentally change the country away from the principles of individualism and freedom made possible with minimal centralized power ... and that equates to totalitarianism.

Democrats do love their totalitarians.

Democrats do hate the fundamental USofA.

So why is it America always backs fascists until it can't any more?

[FlashDangerpants]

Dasein? Improved understanding of others? Progress in child education? Progress in medicine? Psychoanalysis? Peace making? More effective control of crime? Those are not, strictly speaking, technology but they all progress towards civilisation. If technology is to be controlled then far better it be controlled by people who understand that causes have effects.

What is that list supposed to be of? There is no outcome in any of that stuff that requires a doctrine of determinism to bring about.

Everybody know about cause and effect, it is the height of absurd arrogance to suppose that only determinists understand it.

If you understand that effects have causes then you are on your way to understanding that each event was a necessary event.

And now you have given up. The only way determinism makes any difference at all is if you persuade everyone to adopt your clockwork version of causation, and then they get to pat themselves on the back for being superior to those who labour under superstitions about choice.

Meanwhile every question about how to find correct answers from determinism given that it obsequiously services everybody's intuitions and biases somehow remains unanswerable.

[Belinda]

What is that list supposed to be of? There is no outcome in any of that stuff that requires a doctrine of determinism to bring about.

Everybody know about cause and effect, it is the height of absurd arrogance to suppose that only determinists understand it.

If you understand that effects have causes then you are on your way to understanding that each event was a necessary event.

And now you have given up. The only way determinism makes any difference at all is if you persuade everyone to adopt your clockwork version of causation, and then they get to pat themselves on the back for being superior to those who labour under superstitions about choice.

Meanwhile every question about how to find correct answers from determinism given that it obsequiously services everybody's intuitions and biases somehow remains unanswerable.

Determinism is not "clockwork " if by clockwork you mean predictable.

The medieval worldview that God who, as the top and source of existence , conferred free will on humans is now regarded as a superstition because there are now better ideas about God. Superstition is a disability. If there were a Creator and Sustainer of the world then He would want man to use their God-given common sense.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you understand that effects have causes then you are on your way to understanding that each event was a necessary event.

And now you have given up. The only way determinism makes any difference at all is if you persuade everyone to adopt your clockwork version of causation, and then they get to pat themselves on the back for being superior to those who labour under superstitions about choice.

Meanwhile every question about how to find correct answers from determinism given that it obsequiously services everybody's intuitions and biases somehow remains unanswerable.

Determinism is not "clockwork " if by clockwork you mean predictable.

The medieval worldview that God who, as the top and source of existence , conferred free will on humans is now regarded as a superstition because there are now better ideas about God. Superstition is a disability. If there were a Creator and Sustainer of the world then He would want man to use their God-given common sense.

Beside the point. Your belief in determinism has no effect, and only other people who believe in determinism would conclude that it does. None of the recommendations that supposedly come from it actually need it, and it doesn't clarify anything.

I really don't care about religion, I don't know why you always veer off onto that topic.