If it says it can create visualisation from text, that of images. Then it ought to synthesize text into word painting. it is impressive at writing poetry verse and fiction on themes. I think how it mimics the outcomes of text expressed as imagery compared to the human imagination is fascinating. Also interesting with prompts if it can conceptualise designs by return of descriptions of the desired thing with complexity.

Definitions may be a product of process philosophy. If you are engaged in philosophy why would you dwell in your project on a past byproduct?

It impresses on the level of insight the programmers have on grammatical and semantic operation to allow that model to behave as it does on information and language processing and with personality. Whilst complex it is operating from rules and information sources from the internet that give it the ability to run semantic inference models on all types of information scenarios. really impressive feat of engineering.

A scientific research field that increases knowledge of biology, moreso brain / body duality is helpful to refine a knowledge of the limits human free will and the physical processes that may be innate to the human organism. It gives an idea of what orientation the biological animal might be orientated to in terms of mental process in cognition, sociability, language and dexterity. It has some crossover with other observed theories in personality theory how the environment is processed in a type of individual. The observations of brain activity in different individuals who have been measured in other ways first for certain dominant traits and abilities have formed a map of brain activity suggesting distinct physical parts of the brain are designed biologically for behaviour and certain functions. It has not necessarily solved the matter of unified consciousness as a model but we can see from AI that sentient meanings and operations on them are drawn from a vast repository of mental states and dispositions that in theory are suggested from depth psychology. The brain in its electrical activity can be observed accessing certain physical regions when the subject is engaged in or reacting to specific information, tasks and stimuli which has gone someway to validate theory about the dispositions of the mind from biology and conditions of its being that have preexisted in medical science and psychoanalysis in depth psychology, helping to form a greater understanding of ourselves as human beings. With the emphasis in philosophy on what is the 'being'?

Philosophical analysis of both those theories would determine their context. The arena of psychology posits many ideas that are the imaginations of a group of a certain type of speculative theorist who don't engage in a scientific project, proper, but has the flaw of word and picture artistry more than scientific proof, which makes it pseudo science no matter how many books and people sign up to the idea, it only make it a form of literary art. It is not to say that the content may hold truths but these theories if they are theories would necessarily have to be held to scrutiny for the utility and worth as forms of art, since it is clear they are pseudo-science or having the appearance of universality in concept of nature.

You ask such questions as "what is collective intelligence", but you don't apparently know what process philosophy has in its outcomes for shaping reality in the form of collective intelligence.

Imagine understanding process philosophy and studying it a while. It would help to start by knowing how to create more than nothing.

Trust, friendship and evident curiousity are evident signposts that process philosophy is possible and the attainment of collective intelligence.

Chat GPT answering. A good rule of thumb definition. It would answer my college homework.

What defines a person as being able to reason to posit concrete ideas as logos?

The ability to reason and posit concrete ideas as logos is often associated with qualities such as critical thinking, logical reasoning, and the ability to formulate arguments based on evidence and reasoning. Here are some key factors that can define a person as being able to reason to posit concrete ideas as logos:

Rational thinking: The ability to think critically and rationally is essential for developing concrete ideas and arguments. This involves analyzing information, identifying patterns and relationships, and evaluating evidence.

Logical reasoning: Logical reasoning involves the ability to construct valid arguments based on premises that are logically consistent and coherent. This requires an understanding of basic logical principles such as deduction and induction.

Knowledge and expertise: In order to formulate concrete ideas, a person needs to have a certain level of knowledge and expertise in the relevant field. This knowledge can come from education, training, and experience.

Effective communication: Being able to communicate ideas effectively is crucial for persuading others of the validity of one's arguments. This involves using clear and concise language, presenting evidence in a logical and organized way, and anticipating counterarguments.

Open-mindedness: Being open-minded and willing to consider alternative viewpoints is also important for developing concrete ideas. This involves being willing to challenge one's own assumptions and beliefs, and being receptive to new information and perspectives.

Overall, the ability to reason and posit concrete ideas as logos requires a combination of critical thinking, logical reasoning, knowledge and expertise, effective communication, and open-mindedness

It's a better demonstrative writer than me.

Do you know how to explain process philosophy?

Process philosophy is a philosophical school of thought that emphasizes the process of change and becoming, rather than fixed and static states. It views reality as a dynamic and evolving process, where everything is interconnected and in a state of constant flux.

At the core of process philosophy is the concept of "process" itself, which refers to the ongoing activity of change and development. Process philosophers argue that everything in the universe is part of a larger process, and that everything is constantly changing and evolving over time.

Process philosophy also emphasizes the importance of relationships and interconnections between things. According to this view, everything is connected to everything else, and each thing is defined by its relationships to other things.

Another key concept in process philosophy is the idea of "creativity." Process philosophers argue that the universe is not predetermined or fixed, but rather that it is constantly creating new possibilities and potentialities. This creativity is inherent in the ongoing process of change and evolution.

Process philosophy has had a significant impact on various fields, including theology, psychology, and environmentalism. It offers a way of understanding the world that is more fluid and dynamic, and that emphasizes the importance of relationships and interconnectivity between things.

I think it may be more than simply words misread out of context but whole idioms of speech.

Which is why a philosopher must be bold enough to radically challenge common clichés.

I would suggest one of the biggest struggles we face is disempowerment.

Many forms of alienation from participating.

Here you are stating that charity is an enabling factor. Church dogmatics and Virtue ethics have long understood the innate power of virtue as enabling. Or for the fact it has always been in the teachings.

What for the discussion is the subject? The notion of what a 'libertarian' is in contemporary or historical sense, or the logical demonstration of knowledge of 'free will'.

I would also struggle to find an instrumental definition of the use of the term 'free will' when interspersed with the notion of a 'libertarian'.

Is the author of the question asking if a 'libertarian' has a principled and dogmatic duty to a cause or number of causes?

If so you would need to find a present day 'libertarian' of the political activist variety who has stood for elections and enquire with he or she what causes and beliefs are held.

If you mean the type of 'libertarian' you find in online forums who appear to have some cultish fetish for the iconic authors of certain works on economy, again you would be obliged to find out if the mindset of such a person was causally dogmatic in servitude to a creed of ideas and principles.

Again if you found such a person politically campaigning or making public speeches you might
enquire as to how their thought process to common issues of society and governance would
effect remedy. If such a person could not adapt to your scenarios and they, given all reasonable
time to respond, can only reel off tracts from cult texts then the extent to which they are reliant on them as the source of answers, it may reveal how much of their present action is determined by idealism or ideological creed.

It would also rather depend whether being a 'libertarian' only meant signing up to preach its creed.
Much as a PR person knows they are performing a duty of their job.

And how much can be said of the person committed to their job that they either have the mindedness to form new opinions or act on new beliefs formed from those opinions?

If there is the matter of acts of 'determinism' then it is at the level of conscious processing of
new information. The subject in its ontological universe may be committed to being an
authority in 'libertarian' ways as much as the rightness of action he or she finds concreteness in
situational ego.

Does the subject have 'free will'. On an individual basis without claiming anthropological certainty,
having decided their class of person. The answer lies in the extent you could engage in participatory conversation and to what extent the synthesis of new conceptual arrangement modify the hierarchy
of beliefs in terms that were posited as the creed of the person. In other words whether the ideas
or solutions a 'libertarian' posits as terms or remedies in economics have been taken on purely as ideas
or as a succession of interpenetrating factors and causes with precedence that allow plausible
determination in there operations. And that they can be elucidated as such.

Or alternatively such a person may be socially committed to the social creed of the matter and
no inquiry would yield self evident understanding of the formulation of the ideas held.

Whether randomness is the consequent of the alternative to determinism by understanding, that is
another point of inquiry. That when an ideologically primed individual is challenged to reveal the
concepts that bring about the understanding, again perhaps challenged to solve an analogue of
the same problem, there is the problem of the subjective will.

Since creativity is a subjective expression, the fact that there is this apparent difference between
the observer and the observed, that free will can only be simply a matter of constraint has more
tractable ground in reality. You might therefore wonder whether the lack of engagement in
self agency with notions in novelty are for the presence of a constraint which could be external
social pressure, in the form of power hierarchies or individual in the form of instinctual disposition to
the making of new ideas which in play run against an established mode of being and mindset.

Freedom it can be said is limited by partiality, which has a number of causes including an establish
identity of the subject as a subject historically socially conditioned.

I don't want to seem confused, but 'rational free will' and its absence is not a marker for constraint in my opinion, since ideas alone have operational efficiency from unconscious sources in the brain. I think we sometimes refer to those as gestalt or unconscious picture thinking, and for the subject's universe are its own determinations and options for courses of action in its own process of determinate willing.

How do you become a philosopher?

I think you have two major commitments. The social and the intellectual. When I think of contemporary Philosophers today they have academic discipline to the extent they have acquired the power of study, research and discourse for authorship.

They often have the talents of professorship and public speaking. They are often committed to utility subjects like Psychology and Virtue Ethics in their social discourse. They are often prolific writers and are found writing discourse on historical political figures, characters in works of fiction, symptoms in the human condition found in psychoanalysis, and problematising contemporary life on deficiencies in human psychological development and the lack of education in the formation of principles and coherent moral reasoning.

Part of their social commitment is to teach matters on process philosophy which provide the tools for logical reasoning which if practice allow the users to find common cause in the good of society. You can engage in the project of a public philosopher when you become proficient in the communication and social projects which attain others belief in your work.

If all your fellow author are merely writing random tracts of text from obscure frameworks of ideas from institutional acedemic discourse it is no wonder that what is being practiced has zero utility in the participation of reality amongst it's members. It seems that much is lacking in our number on the application of practical philosophy to engineer solutions to modern problems. And its error has been through sophistry to engineer modern problems that are not born of reality. The extinguishment of toolsets and process philosophy leads only back to a pre civilization barbarism. If one could see that psychology posits many assertion on lived reality then the art of refined discourse and deliberation ought yield fruits. It seems uncommon for members to labour in a participatory fashion and in doing so failing to charitably mark the territory with the desired product outcome of their project. It would seem both social and intellectual commitment is necessary all focused, nurturing and indwelling without consigning philosophy to fleeting moments of insight outside a cultural canon of purposeful movement to ends proven to exhibit the achievement of logos.

Missing a whole aspect or edifice in the understanding. I presume sensory simple mistakes are not the essence of the question.

Is there such a thing as thinking philosophically as opposed to thinking itself. Which in and of itself is a world orienting aspect of consciousness and a reaction to environment need by some resolve of willing. At what point can thinking be classified as having the attribute, philosophically?

Is there a point to this? Is there not elementary neuroscience and psychology first in modern philosophy?

Who said that there's such a thing as "direct realism"?

Philosophy is often a misused term. Particularly by folk who think speculative material science is in the discipline. Philosophy is a developmental science. You become more educated in it and maybe you get to use its tools in different settings and arenas.

Academic philosophy or literary philosophy is highly dialectical and should be understood as an acedemic discipline for its own ends.

Practical philosophy is when you're capable
to enter into the domain of the public and
social sphere as an agent of positive
change and a skilled worker at detection
of fundamental error or flawed reason.

A practice and evolving group of skill sets which
almost always needs retuning and continued
reinforcing from study and teaching.

I like this thread but have nothing substantive to add. The term 'the unmoved mover' itself
speaks to me relating to being for itself and agency of willing, that is the determinate thing
transcendent in pure action in its aim. That is willing moving to its ends.

It is peers that will determine your social reality.

Philosophical Tools for Thinking are necessary otherwise the garbage in / garbage out premise holds as the outcome.

Philosophy texts tend to be Map and territory inducting the reader into the realm of thought. To do the real work of philosophy is to have the tools to operate coherently within a scientific or substantially real social environment. Or privately to construct a creative discourse that develops self and the needs of reality.

A "black hole" is a crowd of thoughts and opinion on a subject where no light is shed on reality.

"Liberty is a buzzword"
- O.I.L Slick

Why in the aspect of ordering principles such as 'morality' do you need the strict dogmas and governance by formal religion over the social concerns of society. How can you accord uneducated opinions of those demanding ultimate freedom of the individual and hold a coherent argument that society will achieve its necessary ends through its own self ordering.