New Discovery

[Belinda]

Peacegirl wrote:-



What you describe is eternity, a state of being in which there are no ego selves, no time, no force, and no space.

No. Unless you asked ChatGPT to do something it would be inert, so" I didn't ask it to do anything. It offered a summary, and it missed the boat." (Peacegirl) is nonsense. Chat can't offer anything of its own volition it is a machine.

It asked if I wanted a summary of the first three chapters in my word document. I clicked okay not knowing what it would say. It gave an overview of the purpose of the book, which was decent, but it did not explain the actual discovery, which it did not know how to explain or just missed entirely. You’re right, it’s a machine and, as such, cannot always think or summarize like a human can.

Perhaps "the discovery" is discussed in a later chapter of the book.

[peacegirl]

The "purpose of this thread" is not what Peacegirl says it must be. Once your thoughts are posted your thoughts are public and individuals use your ideas as they wish. Your thoughts and ideas on the forum are not your intellectual property.

I never said otherwise, but the problem is that without a true understanding, it can lead to a host of problems in its translation. Using ideas should be an effort to use those ideas correctly, not misinterpret (either purposely or not) them and spread misinformation.

Lessans's theory does not interest me except as a bone of contention.

I gather that, Belinda. The funny part is you have no idea what this discovery is about, or you would ask questions that are related to the content, not bring up subjects --- like eternity --- that are off topic.

[peacegirl]

No. Unless you asked ChatGPT to do something it would be inert, so" I didn't ask it to do anything. It offered a summary, and it missed the boat." (Peacegirl) is nonsense. Chat can't offer anything of its own volition it is a machine.

It asked if I wanted a summary of the first three chapters in my word document. I clicked okay not knowing what it would say. It gave an overview of the purpose of the book, which was decent, but it did not explain the actual discovery, which it did not know how to explain or just missed entirely. You’re right, it’s a machine and, as such, cannot always think or summarize like a human can.

Perhaps "the discovery" is discussed in a later chapter of the book.

No. ChatGpt did not explain the most important part because it didn't know how. it was right there in Chapter Two. ChatGpt failed probably because it cannot easily interpret THE MEANING of a passage the way humans can. That said, it has capabilities that surpass what humans can do because of speed alone. I am sure you didn't read these chapters either, because your entire demeanor would have been different, even if you didn't understand it all the first time around. You would have had questions that would have indicated some grasp of the material. Have a little humility, okay?

[Belinda]

I never said otherwise, but the problem is that without a true understanding, it can lead to a host of problems in its translation. Using ideas should be an effort to use those ideas correctly, not misinterpret (either purposely or not) them and spread misinformation.

Lessans's theory does not interest me except as a bone of contention.

I gather that, Belinda. The funny part is you have no idea what this discovery is about, or you would ask questions that are related to the content, not bring up subjects --- like eternity --- that are off topic.

That is true. Some texts contain nothing of interest to me.

[Belinda]

It asked if I wanted a summary of the first three chapters in my word document. I clicked okay not knowing what it would say. It gave an overview of the purpose of the book, which was decent, but it did not explain the actual discovery, which it did not know how to explain or just missed entirely. You’re right, it’s a machine and, as such, cannot always think or summarize like a human can.

Perhaps "the discovery" is discussed in a later chapter of the book.

No. ChatGpt did not explain the most important part because it didn't know how. it was right there in Chapter Two. ChatGpt failed probably because it cannot easily interpret THE MEANING of a passage the way humans can. That said, it has capabilities that surpass what humans can do because of speed alone. I am sure you didn't read these chapters either, because your entire demeanor would have been different, even if you didn't understand it all the first time around. You would have had questions that would have indicated some grasp of the material. Have a little humility, okay?

Tell me again what the title of the book is and send a quotation concerning "the meaning" and I will have a go myself at asking Chat.

[peacegirl]

Perhaps "the discovery" is discussed in a later chapter of the book.

No. ChatGpt did not explain the most important part because it didn't know how. it was right there in Chapter Two. ChatGpt failed probably because it cannot easily interpret THE MEANING of a passage the way humans can. That said, it has capabilities that surpass what humans can do because of speed alone. I am sure you didn't read these chapters either, because your entire demeanor would have been different, even if you didn't understand it all the first time around. You would have had questions that would have indicated some grasp of the material. Have a little humility, okay?

Tell me again what the title of the book is and send a quotation concerning "the meaning" and I will have a go myself at asking Chat.

I just asked ChatGpt the question: What is the two-sided equation in the book Decline and Fall of All Evil by Seymour Lessans. It answered that it had no information. You can try and let me know if it tells you something different.

[peacegirl]

Lessans's theory does not interest me except as a bone of contention.

I gather that, Belinda. The funny part is you have no idea what this discovery is about, or you would ask questions that are related to the content, not bring up subjects --- like eternity --- that are off topic.

That is true. Some texts contain nothing of interest to me.

Then why would you visit a thread about a book that holds no interest to you?

[Belinda]

That is true. Some texts contain nothing of interest to me.

Then why would you visit a thread about a book that holds no interest to you?

Idle curiosity. You are right. I should find a more fruitful occupation.Maybe you should too.

I did look up ChatGPT and asked had it any information about it (title and author). There were details of publishers and dates of publication. Also several criticisms of the material, mostly being to the effect that what Lessans claims to be scientific is not scientific. Much the same as what FlashDP has been telling you.
ChatGPT can only quote what is out there, and does not offer interpretation where there is no published interpretation.

[peacegirl]

I tried again using copilot and got the following. Although it still does not accurately explain the two-sided equation, it is still a good promotion for the book. Maybe the more I offer to ChatGpt, the better it will explain the central concept and create interest. Thank you Belinda; you helped me realize how Gpt could help spread this knowledge.

https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/e8G ... bHutHxEAeT

[Belinda]

I tried again using copilot and got the following. Although it still does not accurately explain the two-sided equation, it is still a good promotion for the book. Maybe the more I offer to ChatGpt, the better it will explain the central concept and create interest. Thank you Belinda; you helped me realize how Gpt could help spread this knowledge.

https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/e8G ... bHutHxEAeT

You are right about ChatGPT helping to spread knowledge, but with reservations. It does sometimes make mistakes, and the human has to be able to steer ChatGPT along the line of enquiry the human wants to pursue. Also, just as the human needs to be able to check the bibliography of a serious book, so the human needs to be able to evaluate Chat GPT's sources. All serious books have bibliographies, and indexes.

ChatGPT also has certain ethics trained into it so it can and does refuse some conversations that would be contrary to the interest of OpenAI. These ethics are nothing unusual , just main stream ethics.

[peacegirl]

I tried again using copilot and got the following. Although it still does not accurately explain the two-sided equation, it is still a good promotion for the book. Maybe the more I offer to ChatGpt, the better it will explain the central concept and create interest. Thank you Belinda; you helped me realize how Gpt could help spread this knowledge.

https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/e8G ... bHutHxEAeT

You are right about ChatGPT helping to spread knowledge, but with reservations. It does sometimes make mistakes, and the human has to be able to steer ChatGPT along the line of enquiry the human wants to pursue. Also, just as the human needs to be able to check the bibliography of a serious book, so the human needs to be able to evaluate Chat GPT's sources. All serious books have bibliographies, and indexes.

ChatGPT also has certain ethics trained into it so it can and does refuse some conversations that would be contrary to the interest of OpenAI. These ethics are nothing unusual , just main stream ethics.

This book is ethical, so that isn't an issue. I'm also not worried about the book not having bibliographies and indexes only because he was laser focused on his discovery, which took years to not only grasp its full significance, but to put it into the kind of language others could comprehend. He did give mention to the philosophers that helped to shape his thinking. I think I can edit some of ChatGpt to make it much more accurate. Right now, ChatGpt says Lessans claimed we are not morally responsible, which is true, but this claim is just the first half of the two-sided equation. It misses the other half entirely, which, when understood, increases moral responsibility, not decreases it, which is the present thinking. Lessans did not use the word "moral responsibility" in the book, just the word "responsibility."

[Belinda]

I tried again using copilot and got the following. Although it still does not accurately explain the two-sided equation, it is still a good promotion for the book. Maybe the more I offer to ChatGpt, the better it will explain the central concept and create interest. Thank you Belinda; you helped me realize how Gpt could help spread this knowledge.

https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/e8G ... bHutHxEAeT

You are right about ChatGPT helping to spread knowledge, but with reservations. It does sometimes make mistakes, and the human has to be able to steer ChatGPT along the line of enquiry the human wants to pursue. Also, just as the human needs to be able to check the bibliography of a serious book, so the human needs to be able to evaluate Chat GPT's sources. All serious books have bibliographies, and indexes.

ChatGPT also has certain ethics trained into it so it can and does refuse some conversations that would be contrary to the interest of OpenAI. These ethics are nothing unusual , just main stream ethics.

This book is ethical, so that isn't an issue. I'm also not worried about the book not having bibliographies and indexes only because he was laser focused on his discovery, which took years to not only grasp its full significance, but to put it into the kind of language others could comprehend. He did give mention to the philosophers that helped to shape his thinking. I think I can edit some of ChatGpt to make it much more accurate. Right now, ChatGpt says Lessans claimed we are not morally responsible, which is true, but this claim is just the first half of the two-sided equation. It misses the other half entirely, which, when understood, increases moral responsibility, not decreases it, which is the present thinking. Lessans did not use the word "moral responsibility" in the book, just the word "responsibility."

Your metaphor "two sided equation" does not fit with my scant mathematical knowledge. I did algebra at school but was never good at it. I think there were bilateral equations but I have long since forgotten what they were. Can you give me another metaphor? Or maybe say literally what you mean.

For the rest of my reply, I did gather this was not, nor intended to be ,a scholarly book. But that is okay by me as long as the author does not pretend his writings are scholarly.

[peacegirl]

You are right about ChatGPT helping to spread knowledge, but with reservations. It does sometimes make mistakes, and the human has to be able to steer ChatGPT along the line of enquiry the human wants to pursue. Also, just as the human needs to be able to check the bibliography of a serious book, so the human needs to be able to evaluate Chat GPT's sources. All serious books have bibliographies, and indexes.

ChatGPT also has certain ethics trained into it so it can and does refuse some conversations that would be contrary to the interest of OpenAI. These ethics are nothing unusual , just main stream ethics.

This book is ethical, so that isn't an issue. I'm also not worried about the book not having bibliographies and indexes only because he was laser focused on his discovery, which took years to not only grasp its full significance, but to put it into the kind of language others could comprehend. He did give mention to the philosophers that helped to shape his thinking. I think I can edit some of ChatGpt to make it much more accurate. Right now, ChatGpt says Lessans claimed we are not morally responsible, which is true, but this claim is just the first half of the two-sided equation. It misses the other half entirely, which, when understood, increases moral responsibility, not decreases it, which is the present thinking. Lessans did not use the word "moral responsibility" in the book, just the word "responsibility."

Your metaphor "two sided equation" does not fit with my scant mathematical knowledge. I did algebra at school but was never good at it. I think there were bilateral equations but I have long since forgotten what they were. Can you give me another metaphor? Or maybe say literally what you mean.

ChatGpt mentioned "metaphorical framework." The two-sided equation is not metaphorical. It is literal in that there are two sides to this equation. It is true that man is not responsible because his will is not free, but the other side is paramount in that it creates a situation where a person cannot take advantage of this knowledge. It's like giving only part of a "mathematical equation" that would not be an accurate representation. Another analogy would be playing a concerto with half the orchestra missing. Without the other side of this equation, it appears that the answer to the world's problems is to just excuse everyone, which is altogether wrong.

For the rest of my reply, I did gather this was not, nor intended to be ,a scholarly book. But that is okay by me as long as the author does not pretend his writings are scholarly.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "scholarly." If you mean it didn't meet the standards of academia, I can accept that. But if you mean that it doesn't have value because these standards were not met, you are flat out wrong.

[Belinda]

This book is ethical, so that isn't an issue. I'm also not worried about the book not having bibliographies and indexes only because he was laser focused on his discovery, which took years to not only grasp its full significance, but to put it into the kind of language others could comprehend. He did give mention to the philosophers that helped to shape his thinking. I think I can edit some of ChatGpt to make it much more accurate. Right now, ChatGpt says Lessans claimed we are not morally responsible, which is true, but this claim is just the first half of the two-sided equation. It misses the other half entirely, which, when understood, increases moral responsibility, not decreases it, which is the present thinking. Lessans did not use the word "moral responsibility" in the book, just the word "responsibility."

Your metaphor "two sided equation" does not fit with my scant mathematical knowledge. I did algebra at school but was never good at it. I think there were bilateral equations but I have long since forgotten what they were. Can you give me another metaphor? Or maybe say literally what you mean.

ChatGpt mentioned "metaphorical framework." The two-sided equation is not metaphorical. It is literal in that there are two sides to this equation. It is true that man is not responsible because his will is not free, but the other side is paramount in that it creates a situation where a person cannot take advantage of this knowledge. It's like giving only part of a "mathematical equation" that would not be an accurate representation. Another analogy would be playing a concerto with half the orchestra missing. Without the other side of this equation, it appears that the answer to the world's problems is to just excuse everyone, which is altogether wrong.

For the rest of my reply, I did gather this was not, nor intended to be ,a scholarly book. But that is okay by me as long as the author does not pretend his writings are scholarly.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "scholarly." If you mean it didn't meet the standards of academia, I can accept that. But if you mean that it doesn't have value because these standards were not met, you are flat out wrong.

I think a popular book that combines science and philosophy can have value despite its not being scholarly. That is not the problem . The problem is mainly the extraordinary claim that people will stop harming each other.

You must be aware that this claim has been made before, conditionally, not usually as a predetermined conclusion. I encountered a belief in ages of man's evolution , ages that are named after metals.

The “Age of Gold” (from Hesiod’s Works and Days) began as a myth of a lost primordial harmony, when humans lived effortlessly in justice and abundance under divine order. Versions appear across Indo-European traditions (Vedic Satya Yuga, Norse Gullaldr, etc.) and later merged with Edenic imagery in biblical thought.

Over time, this cyclical view — where history inevitably declines from perfection — came to express a kind of cosmic determinism: humanity moves through preordained ages governed by fate, not by human choice. In modern eras, thinkers inverted this fatalism, imagining a future Golden Age achievable through reason or progress, but the deterministic pattern of rise and decline remained embedded in the myth’s structure.
(ChatGPT)

[Belinda]

This book is ethical, so that isn't an issue. I'm also not worried about the book not having bibliographies and indexes only because he was laser focused on his discovery, which took years to not only grasp its full significance, but to put it into the kind of language others could comprehend. He did give mention to the philosophers that helped to shape his thinking. I think I can edit some of ChatGpt to make it much more accurate. Right now, ChatGpt says Lessans claimed we are not morally responsible, which is true, but this claim is just the first half of the two-sided equation. It misses the other half entirely, which, when understood, increases moral responsibility, not decreases it, which is the present thinking. Lessans did not use the word "moral responsibility" in the book, just the word "responsibility."

Your metaphor "two sided equation" does not fit with my scant mathematical knowledge. I did algebra at school but was never good at it. I think there were bilateral equations but I have long since forgotten what they were. Can you give me another metaphor? Or maybe say literally what you mean.

ChatGpt mentioned "metaphorical framework." The two-sided equation is not metaphorical. It is literal in that there are two sides to this equation. It is true that man is not responsible because his will is not free, but the other side is paramount in that it creates a situation where a person cannot take advantage of this knowledge. It's like giving only part of a "mathematical equation" that would not be an accurate representation. Another analogy would be playing a concerto with half the orchestra missing. Without the other side of this equation, it appears that the answer to the world's problems is to just excuse everyone, which is altogether wrong.

Analogy is not equation.
A part of a mathematical equation would be nonsensical. The mathematical equation is complete or else it is meaningless. A simple mathematical equation is 2+2=4.

Determinism means what happens in the future is caused . An equation is uncaused.

Peacegirl wrote:

It is true that man is not responsible because his will is not free, but the other side is paramount in that it creates a situation where a person cannot take advantage of this knowledge.

Is not an equation it is a disjunctive.

Besides, man is responsible despite that what he does is caused by matters beyond his control. This is because a free man is a man who voluntarily shoulders responsibility for himself.

I'm inclined to give Lessans top marks for trying. Unfortunately sometimes we fail despite our best efforts.