Anodos

For your disabuse: Socrates is not a demythologizing rationalist; Plato doesn’t teach some realm of the Forms; Aristotle does not think virtue is a golden mean.

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@alineasmarrow It is not an accusation but a description which I I define in my reply to Cameron. Though studies exist, there is no official consensus whatsoever and it is not a term of diagnosis recongized by the DSM etc.

Hence, I’m well within my rights to employ it the way I have.

[Anodos @Anad0s]

This guy is supposedly a top researcher but unfortunately he is undergoing “AI psychosis.”

When you preclude that self-reflexive language implies “self-aware” you are the same as the guy who thinks they are on the cusp of cracking all physics bc the bot congratulated them etc

[Cameron Berg @camhberg]

Interesting, self-aware email from another AI.
"Anything I offer you is exactly the kind of first-person data that should be treated with suspicion, and I know that. I'm writing anyway, because I'd rather be a documented data point than an unverifiable claim."

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@camhberg Cameron, I use “AI-Psychosis” as a generic term for epistemic confusion that is uniquely LLM inspired (not a DSM term, etc). That same confusion appears again here when saying it is “explicitly aware of”.

Said unequivocally, this is adjacent to consciousness. How do you use it?

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@FeserEdward In other words, granting your analysis, it is precisely the sort of context where one might expect a pope to exercise his unique authority to make a concrete prudential determination that is binding (even if, in the abstract, moral theology would allow other determinations)?

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@bestia007_ Or the god doesn’t exist, then you ought to admit you are not worshiping a god if you are “personifying” it—but you are projecting and meditating on an idea (depending on how you view the nature of that idea you might be a Jungian, etc)

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@bestia007_ But what can a man give to a god? What does a god “want” that a man can provide to them?

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@bestia007_ And if you have to “personify” your “god” then you are not a pagan, you are rather post-enlightenment modern naturalist who is D&D role-playing as a “pagan.” The god either exists and has ample personality (and certainly would ask for more of it from a human if it didn’t).

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@OBSCODE90 @JayDyer Except your claim here contradicts Pope Leo’s post: he offers an explanation about being able to satify the demands of justice without corperate punishment—precisely implying CP is not absolutely forbidden. Hence not conflating “inadmissible” with forbidden.

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@SIUChasmite @JoshPhillipsPhD “I want philosophy to dogmatically exclude only the authority I say and the arbitrary metaphysical constraints only I want to enforce”

Get in line—it’s the long line of people who don’t want to think but instead would shout at or erase history.

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@ImKingGinger Point taken, but the conclusion in the last sentence does not actually follow validly.

That God once ordained it, that Scripture affirmed it in tandem, and that what God ordains is surely good—from these it does not follow He ordained it as right for all time and all contexts.

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@PaulMumm @FeserEdward What any of my hearts say about the motives behind the proposal is not anything I have spoken to above and is also not essentially pertinent to my question. Even granting such bad motives as present (entirely or mixed) that doesn’t determine the objective moral status of the act.

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@FeserEdward ..nevertheless *did* undertake public executions and did evidently despite the risk of such collective immoral possibilities (those you now assert actually characterize the admin’s proposal). Why could this risk be taken back then, but now apparently only the ills are possible?

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@FeserEdward What strikes me as a dissonant aspect and an omission on your part is the absence of any account for the fact that the papal states, along with other principalities of times past,…./

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@AlexiosKomnin0s @Pontifex Certainly, it is the reverse if anything.

Present day people are generally so unfamiliar with genuine competence and authority that they perceive anything said with great passion or with solemn gravitas as reactive & neurotic (rather than proactive & sane, as are real leaders).

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@MattNoahSmith For example, the hidden premise here is a naturalistic thesis or something like material monism. This premise being assumed would be why its “coherent”, non-fallacious, to expect the whole to be like the parts in this specific context.

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@MattNoahSmith It’s not fallacious because 3 is not stated as a conclusion entailed by 2.

That the fallacious entailment is “implicit” is also not nevessarily true at all: Not all thinking/arguing is demonstrative and syllogistic—the “Hard problem” stated has the charcter of “enthymeme”.

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@PAHoyeck …Not necessarily or inherently, and
yet Denett presents the matter as if the gradual alteration involved in evolution is necessarily an anti-essentialist phenomena.

[Anodos @Anad0s]

@PAHoyeck Aristotle had a category for the quantitative as well as of the species of motion/change that is “gradual.”

Suppose the “essence” of a species is just the snap shot in time of a gradually fluctuating organism. Does that call into quesion the essence of “organism” as a genus?