Thank you, Sir.

End of story, really. — Banno

So, in your view, "End of story, really." is a legit thing to say, but "End of History" somehow is not?

There's a Thread that I started about the alignment chart in D&D, maybe we can talk there, about this issue.

Perhaps we may continue this conversation in the Thread for the Basilisk's existence.

For this Thread, here's my question to you:

What would Jesus Christ think and say about Roko's Basilisk, in your opinion?

No problem, happy to help :up:

Here's more information about the references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draconomicon

All of that is in the references that I told you.

If you want to know more about them, I just gave you two references.

All of your questions have their corresponding answers in the 2nd and 3rd Editions of the Draconomicon.

I question that the only criterion of truth is what can be considered 'objective'. I've written an off-site essay on that question, Scientific Objectivity and Philosophical Detachment, which is very hard to summarise down to a forum post. But suffice to say that it sees philosophical detachment as superior to scientific objectivity, because it doesn't pre-suppose the division between knower and known that characterises modern thought. The culmination of philosophical detachment is seeing beyond the ego-logical perspective, an insight outside the domain of self-and-other, subject and object, as understood in the various schools of the perennial philosophies. — Wayfarer

Very interesting.

The truth of the formula seems to be related to the working of our physics and not something objectively true, the way the question is worded. — noAxioms

Nonsense.

You seem to have strong psychology. Cool man. :up: — Corvus

MoK a Dragon, what do you expect?

Doesn't matter. Carry on.

What is a drug, in practical terms, for the purpose of its scheduling in a federal agency, such as the FDA? — Arcane Sandwich


Something that if allowed unfettered access to the average person or child may reasonably result in serious injury, death, or worse, annoyance to those of higher moral value or at minimum, greater intellect.

Kidding. Mostly. Glad to be here. — Outlander

Cool. Glad to have you here. Thanks.

How can one ensure this is not simply another meta-philosophy topic that is best and greater encumbered by a simple "The ethics of self control vs. indulgence" type of discussion. — Outlander

Hmmm, well for the topic of this Thread specifically, I think that the paradigmatic example for this discussion is the Straight Edge ideology and lifestyle.

Why go the speed limit when I can go 10 miles over? — Outlander

You already know the answer to that. Everyone does.

Why be a good person when others who clearly are not seem to not only walk around with impunity impeded, but on many an occasion succeed and live better lives? — Outlander

That's a legitimate question. Is that what you want to discuss? I propose that we discuss it from the perspective of the Straight Edge ideology and lifestyle.

Why do anything one doesn't have to? — Outlander

What do you mean?

And to top that, why must one do anything? — Outlander

What do you mean?

So many greater, and again, mostly if not all encompassing avenues and schools of thought come to mind. So, make your case. — Outlander

I'll do it with a music video. Watch the following video, and then tell me if the point being made by Earth Crisis is Ethical:

What differentiates doing/using/willingly becoming under the influence of "drugs" (which you've yet to define, I might add) from any of the aforementioned (and ongoing) philosophical debates? — Outlander

See the music video that I embedded above this quote of yours. Then we'll talk.

• What are your thoughts on Emerson's Transcendentalism?
• What are your thoughts on Peirce's Reasonableness?
• What do you think of Materialism?

Yep. Your lizardfish are a different, and less tasty, species to our flathead. — Banno

Spoken like a True Australian.

You know what we import from Australia? — Arcane Sandwich

Coal. — Banno

For your Nuclear Power Plants of The Future?

That sounds like quackery.

The Matrix is not even malevolent per say. It is interested in self preservation, just so happens that's at the expense of humans. So if you mean you want to create a destructive, offensive AI sort of like Tron in the original Tron movie (he was a program used to search out and destroy other "bad" or "malicious" programs), you don't have to worry about the ethics of the situation or the label "malicious". You just need to make sure the AI has proper safe guards built in so it can't then run amuck itself after it has destroyed it's targets.. — philosch

No, I don't want any of this, that's neither benevolence nor malevolence, it's either neutral morality ("neutrevalence", or "neutral balance", if you will), or lack of morality to begin with (which is what I believe defines a machine, at least partially, if not wholly).

Well to start with you need to shore up some definitions. Since AI is a computer generated construct it can't be malevolent. — philosch

Yes it can, have you ever played Dungeons & Dragons? I'm :100: confident that I can create not one, but three types of Evil A.I.s, like so:

AI1 = Lawful Evil
AI2 = Neutral Evil
AI3 = Chaotic Evil

Very easy to do. Now, the more difficult question, is what sort of malignant A.I. is it going to be? There's three options:

(Option 1) Lawful.
(Option 1) Neutral.
(Option 1) Chaotic.

I already said that it was going to be malevolent by definition. So, what's malevolence, exactly? You know what? Scratch that, I have an even better question:

Which option (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic) would be the best fitting one for Roko's Basilisk, specifically?

I don't. I agree with the last part, I don't agree with the first part.

May I chime in?

Here's the thing, people. It's much simpler than what all of you are saying. A good regulator = a good unofficial moderator.

As such, that person is not technically a moderator.

Is that person doing backseat moderation?

Of course not.

That's what makes him a good regulator!

If any of you ever played D&D, you'd understand all of this in a heartbeat.

Maybe = modal operator for "maybe".

I'm not sure. Maybe. You seem to have some sort of point, but it's a bit unclear. To my ear, at least.

You think that if you believe something, that makes it a fact. — flannel jesus

I don't think that. Never have, never will.

Well, technically speaking, it is. — Arcane Sandwich


ok that's dumb lmao. — flannel jesus

But is it false?

↪Arcane Sandwich
Ah right but when you insult people it's an objective fact XD — flannel jesus

Well, technically speaking, it is.

you're such a dick. — flannel jesus

And this is news to you, in some way?

That's an opinion, not a fact.

If you say so.

What, exactly, always existed?
— tim wood

The Universe. — Arcane Sandwich

Sorry, non-responsive, a non sequitur. — tim wood

The Universe has always existed. That is True.

Sure. See

So it always existed. — Arcane Sandwich

What, exactly, always existed? — tim wood

The Universe.

Sounds like London-ish thing to say, I suppose.

So it always existed.

Yes, it is, because what makes it a fuel is the efficient causation of the burning.

Like when you oxygenate a fire.

And how are you so sure? It has all four causes.... — tim wood

There is only efficient causation.

There is no formal causation,
There is no material causation,
And there is no finalistic causation either.
The only type of causation that exists is efficient causation.

My proto-consciousness views are also generally dismissed, so I don't put much stock in someone's ideas being dismissed. — Patterner

That's a fair thing to say.

this is a pretty silly thread. — tim wood

:100:

And the telos of a fuel? — tim wood

There is no such thing as the telos of a fuel.

In Other Words.

No Artificial Intelligence
Will Ever Understand the True Meaning of the Qur'an
For the Qur'an Itself
Not the One That is Written
Is None Other than The Book of Nature Itself,

And What is a Machine,
if Not Artifice?
The Exact Opposite of Nature Itself?

I Fear Not the Machine
Nor do I Rage Against it
The Machine is Nothing to Me
For I am Human.
And as Such,
I am from Nature Itself.
Where is the Machine From?
If not from Nature's Creatures?

The Qur'an that can be written
Is not the True Qur'an.

Just as the Tao that can be said
Is not the True Tao.

The Difference is
That Tao is an Open Book

The Qur'an
Is a Secret Book:
You Will Never Understand It.
Because it is the Book of God.
And What is God,
if not Secret?

It tests those enlightenment-era values against older religious values involving inviolable divine directives or the sanctity of the holy book. — BitconnectCarlos

Perfectly said.
Flawless.
Impeccable.