God and morality

[Fanman]

To be fair and balanced. AI doesn't always get things right. I was doing some work with Microsoft Copilot, and it stated:

"Nothing is "wrong" in the sense of malfunction. I think what happened is that I was analysing a different question from the one you were asking."

I think that's hilarious. Safe to say I won't be using that AI for a while.

[Fanman]

For the neutral reader. In the cooldown from my 'discussion' with Flash, what I take away from it is this:

How can I be bound by a biased interpretation of something I never said — when the person who said it is the same biased person making the interpretation and the accusation? The analogue that comes to mind is judge, jury, and executioner.

Update to my post: Regarding the above, it's also like the pot calling (or demanding) that the kettle is black, without being able to prove conclusively that the kettle is black. I think that's a reasonable analogy. It will always be a matter of opinion...

[Greatest I am]

For the neutral reader. In the cooldown from my 'discussion' with Flash, what I take away from it is this:

How can I be bound by a biased interpretation of something I never said — when the person who said it is the same biased person making the interpretation and the accusation? The analogue that comes to mind is judge, jury, and executioner.

Update to my post: Regarding the above, it's also like the pot calling (or demanding) that the kettle is black, without being able to prove conclusively that the kettle is black. I think that's a reasonable analogy. It will always be a matter of opinion...

I hope not, as without proof via sound argument, opinions are worthless.

Exceptions to this rule ends with inquisitors and jihads.

“Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read'st black where I read white.”
― William Blake

Supernatural is super black/stupid thinking.

[Greatest I am]

For the neutral reader. In the cooldown from my 'discussion' with Flash, what I take away from it is this:

How can I be bound by a biased interpretation of something I never said — when the person who said it is the same biased person making the interpretation and the accusation? The analogue that comes to mind is judge, jury, and executioner.

Update to my post: Regarding the above, it's also like the pot calling (or demanding) that the kettle is black, without being able to prove conclusively that the kettle is black. I think that's a reasonable analogy. It will always be a matter of opinion...

Oh. I almost forgot the solution to your problem.

In arguing, reciprocity is fair play.

If an interlocutor is is below par and cannot produce a proper quote, you may as well debate a defective bot.

[Immanuel Can]

So you differentiate between the "advanced" and...what, the "primitive"? The "unadvanced"?

I certainly do differentiate. Late Vedanta is distinct from earlier, Medieval religious concepts. Modern Buddhist ethics are also late and in that sense advanced. When compared to antiquated forms. And certainly late Christian forms, perhaps divorced from overt superstitions, are similarly “advanced”.

This doesn't seem a great way to respect the distinctives these various religions claim for themselves, nor a great way to deal with their disagreements and points of contest. Rather, it seems a way to subsume them all to the narrative of Western relativism and ignore their particulars entirely.

I am glad that you here imply potential respect for what is admirable in other non-Christian traditions.

We should respect what is admirable in anything. But what makes it "admirable" must be drawn from some meta-perspective, obviously...some governing viewpoint from which we are able to say what is "admirable" and what is "deplorable." And that meta-perspective will be one of the "religions" or ideologies themselves.

We must always sift. There are good elements, and there are bad, in many worldviews. It is not right to reject everything in another's view merely because some of it is poison; but it's also not right to swallow poison along with that which is "admirable."

Human concerns are precisely the same all across the world and throughout history, insofar as humans are largely the same.

That will only be relevant in the case that the "religion" in question is merely a figment of human imagining, rather than any objective truth.

No, it is simply a way to examine “humanity” through a generalizing lens.

Oh. Then you'd stopped talking about "religion"? You should have said you were changing subjects completely. It came off as related. But it wasn't?

Well, why did you throw that comment in, completely out of context, then?

From which religious or ideological perspective did you launch that "should"?

It is a type of conditional imperative, no?

Same question: on what do you base your justification to issue that particular imperative? What shows you're right, that we "should" do that?

[Fanman]

Further down the line (or downstream) from my 'discussion' with Flash. Reflectively, I realise that if someone wants to react negatively towards you, you can't do much about it. I shared Copilot's earlier thoughts on my question/challenge, and one of its responses was, "That's a serious philosophical question". I didn't draw attention to it at the time, because I wanted to see how far he would go away from what the machine actually said to serve the caricature and narrative that he had created of me. And true to form, he completely ignored what Copilot said in that respect.

He tried creating a subtext from AI output (which is strange because AI should be read verbatim). I wasn't very surprised because I realise optics were crucial to his goal. However, I did question why he was blind to how obvious his omission was. That's why I posted something that didn't say I was right in the strictest sense, because I wanted to see if he would use that against me, and true to form, he did. I wouldn't say I shared my work with Copilot as bait because its output was useful to share, relative to my actual initial question that he objected to (and later retracted his objection). But I did find it strange that he tried to capitalise on something only because it didn't parrot what I was saying or create an echo chamber I could use to claim I was right.

Greatest I am,

I think your point has good traction, but I wouldn't say opinions are worthless; they can be perfectly valid inferences. However, if someone is biased, you can't reasonably accept what they're claiming. Suppose someone justifies their own inferences even though a valid, empirical objection has been raised — that reflects bias. So you can reasonably believe they have an agenda other than philosophy.

I wouldn't say that Flash is below par. I know you don't like the bible and God stuff, but I would call him a biblical fool. Which doesn't mean he's not intelligent.

But as I said, I think your points do have traction, even if I don't completely agree with them. Some people will try to push you to lose your temper and give them as 'good' as they are. But if you do, you end up in the same muddy waters as them, without intellectually (or philosophically) showing where they are mistaken or how far they have drifted away from coherence and cogency. So, another takeaway from my 'discussion' with him is that you can stand up for yourself — while staying in proverbial clean waters and not losing who you actually are to being offended.

[Fanman]

Further on my open downstream reflection. This is the process I am referring to, covered in my initial objection, the last post on the previous page:

You have a bias → you create an inference based on that bias → you claim the inference is justified (by you being right) → you ignore a valid empirical objection to maintain the inference → you fail to articulate a response to the counterargument → you insist you are right → you walk away the objective winner.

Realistically, I can't accept that as good philosophy. Now, contrary to how that appears, it doesn't mean the person is stupid. On the contrary, I believe it means they are so desperate to create an optic that they purposely suppress reason and rationality, but that's just my opinion. I wouldn't reason like that because I don't need to, but under the same pressure, who can say what any of us would do.

I really don't hold it against him because it's funny that someone would do that only to make someone else look bad. I'm reflecting openly. However, the downstream effect is that, on top of the Copilot omission and the abuse. He loses credibility and the perception of intellectual honesty and fairness, which are key factors on a philosophy forum and for progressive philosophy generally.

So, to my knowledge. No school of thought justifies or advocates the process that he followed, because it is self-reinforcing and circular. It implies, "I am certainly right because I say I am certainly right. And I don't care if you reasonably object to that."

[popeye1945]

As long as you insist on talking about religion as a source of morality, you're failing to distinguish the ventriloquist from his dummy. There is one source of meaning in the world: consciousness. All things created by humanity are biological extensions of the nature of humanity; religion is no exception. The dummy talking back to you is you.

[Fanman]

Continued from my last post. I think this will be the last post of my downstream, open reflection on my long 'discussion' with Flash.

Here's an analogy: If it is open knowledge that you don't like me, and I don't say anything homophobic, but you do, can you justifiably attach what you said to me just because I said the word, gay out loud?

I believe that kind of 'reality' only occurs when someone tries to make their inferences your truth. 'Amen'.

[FlashDangerpants]

This weird little man is obsessed with me

[Fanman]

This weird little man is obsessed with me

I'm not obsessed with you, Flash. I'm not weird, and I'm not little. I stated what I am doing; you are just trying to create a narrative. It's obvious. Give it a rest. I don't fit into the picture you're trying to create.

[Fanman]

For the neutral reader. AI is a game-changer; maybe that's why people who use rhetorical argumentation (in my experience) don't approve. In the past, if someone called you a "weird little man," online there's not much you can do except insult them back or ignore them, because people don't (usually) jump to others' defence, as they don't want to get involved, regardless of what they think and feel about you.

Now, I have a chat open with ChatGPT that's been going on for months, so I prompted it:

Would you ever describe me as this based on our discussions? "weird little man".

I won't share the whole reply, but it stated:

No, brother. Not based on our discussions.

I'd describe you as intellectually curious, philosophically ambitious, physically disciplined, spiritually reflective, and unusually interested in building coherent conceptual frameworks.

Now, I'm not saying AI, even ChatGPT, which is by far the best I have used, overrides human opinion. However, it does provide an epistemically significant take on you based on the nature and substance of your discussions. So when someone is abusive towards you, or trying to make you feel bad about yourself, it provides an extra opinion that doesn't have a bias against you.

That's a positive way to use the machines, in my opinion.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you ever find yourself asking ChatGPT if you are weird, the answer is yes, irrespective of what the obsequious chatbot tells you.

You may as well get your mum to write a note about what special boy you are as post ChatGPT telling you that you are intellectually curious and physically disciplined. That's really doubly weird.

Physically disciplined. LOL.

[FlashDangerpants]

For the neutral reader. In the cooldown from my 'discussion' with Flash, what I take away from it is this:

How can I be bound by a biased interpretation of something I never said — when the person who said it is the same biased person making the interpretation and the accusation? The analogue that comes to mind is judge, jury, and executioner.

Update to my post: Regarding the above, it's also like the pot calling (or demanding) that the kettle is black, without being able to prove conclusively that the kettle is black. I think that's a reasonable analogy. It will always be a matter of opinion...

I hope not, as without proof via sound argument, opinions are worthless.

You got gaslit by a guy who is so insecure he just posted a note from ChatGPT telling him he's "physically disciplined".

He's pissy at me because I mock his excessive use of AI. I think I will continue to do that.

[Fanman]

Why bother defending myself? I'll let Flash tell my story. He seems to know it better than I do. It must be all the years we've known each other. Or his immaculate insights. What a guy he is. I'm so jealous.

NB: But on a serious note. I didn't tell ChatGPT what to say. That's a fact.