"God" is one of the greatest mysteries of human existence. So if a philosopher seeks wisdom, then knowing about God would be a high priority.
— Metaphysician Undercover
What we "know about" (which?) "God" is that it is "the greatest mystery" – the (ultimate) inexplicable "answer" to every question that begs them all. Recognizing that "God" does not explain anything (re: mythos) is what motivated the Presocratic proto-scientists (physiologoi) in Ionia & Elea to speculate on rational explanations (logos) of nature (phusis) and our minds (nous). IMO, to seek explicable wisdom is incompatible with seeking inexplicable "God". — 180 Proof

True mon ami, very true. Story-telling (mythology) must've be a really big deal to prephilosophical/prescientific cultures. It was their way of grasping (explaining) reality and it probably satisfied their curiosity, especially that of the younglings, more inquisitive but equally credulous/gullible.

The shift to natural explanations took place, as per Wikipedia, with Thales of Miletus at the head of the pack. The rest is history of course.

Nobody seems to know how ChatGPT actually works. The latest reports say it's about statistical predictions of what the next word should be. It has been trained on a large body of text, probably classified into various categories like psychology, philosophy, etc. It actually reminds me of well-disguised plagiarism (paraphrasing/word substitions, and the rare dead giveaway standard expression found in formal discourse).

Every possible combination has been tried and none have unlocked the room where God resides ... peacefully.

Indeed, three threads by the same person, repeating the same error. — Banno

:lol: I thought the OP was trying out different strategies/approaches to his thesis, exploring different aspects of it that is.

Perhaps he means to show or investigate protomorality in the form of group cohesion effected through culturual norms. I dunno, just a wild guess.

:up:

Interesting.

Cultural moral norms (cultural norms whose violation is commonly considered to deserve punishment) are parts of strategies that solve cooperation problems. Proposed counterexamples are always welcome. — Mark S

Well, we did discuss, in the old thread of yours, the mafia; may be we can find counterexamples thereabouts.

Nope. It’s impossible because there is no way to get outside of your perception. Ironically getting outside your perception would disprove it immediately. So in order to test or prove it it would have to be wrong. — Darkneos

I see. Good point.

brain — Andrew4Handel

Gets my vote if it were a poll.

Not all cultural norms are congruent with morality though. That's of course a strawman of your position, but just thought it's a good feedback for your project.

That's an interesting comment. There must be/there'a gotta be a way of either proving/disproving solipsism, right?

In other words, god-of-the-gaps. — 180 Proof

You know what, my money is on Gnomon's G*D/Enformer resembling Fortuna more than YHWH!

:up: Mercie beaucoup.

No, much, much simpler, and it seems you're getting along fine with your rather quaint little project. Forget what I said, it's of no consequence.

Right. It has to be able to forget itself completely to make it a game worth playing. (No peeking now!) — Wayfarer

:up: How did you know? Superb!

---

The OP is quite clear on what the Triad means. Two classical and one Hegel(ian). I don't think Hegel's formulation helps in clarifying the matter (for me). He further muddles it in fact, unless he's coming at it from a very different and unique, heretofore unknown, angle.

The alarm just accomplished its task: warning you for approaching dangers. :smile: It doesn't matter the place where it went off. — javi2541997

:ok: That's a reasonable way to view the situation. It's just that some would find it unsettling.

The alarm went off in the kitchen and the intruder was in the bedroom! It's amazing, nature!

Nice diagram of the visual system. There's only 1 tree of course, but the point is the representation of the tree, the image on the retina, is, well, true (direct realism) or embellished (indirect realism).

Danke, kind sir, for the link.

As per Witty, the meaning of "logos" is its use (re: context). "John of Patmos" and Heraclitus of Ephesus clearly used "logos" differently — 180 Proof

Yep, that's what I suspected, although in a much plainer and simpler way than the great Wittgenstein thought
That means we're all being taken to watch the same movie, but we each return home with very different ideas of what the movie is about. @Gnomon, sound familiar? Happens all the time in me tiny world.

Well, I dunno about you, but I am confused. Perhaps you need to look at the matter from a different angle, oui?

Heraclitus, now I recall, does expound the notion of the logos. How stupid of me! Trust me to remember important stuff! :groan:

Anyway, what I'm worried about is that we could be mistaken as to what the word "logos" means. Perhaps it doesn't have a meaning and is more like ... a reminder, a knot in the handkerchief.

Why are you starting multiple threads on the same topic? Does it mean a lot to you, this MACS? I don't think cultural norms track morality only. Sinister elements may too.

I wouldn't know mon ami. I usually try not to get confused, but it seems I am ... quite confused.

Seemingly, the masses go to vote just for trivial aspects rather than asking to the politicians more effectiveness. We live in a period of time where it is more important for a politician to have a good spotlight than a great rethoric. — javi2541997

Précisément!

Thank-you. I need your scrutiny. May it continue. — ucarr

:ok:

:up: You seem to be on the right track given what I know.

:lol:

Again, I think an empirical question. We know for example, that the brain has various ways of integrating information from sensory information. Humans develop over time from fetuses, and all that pretty standard stuff. — schopenhauer1

That is what we all agree is the case. I don't see a problem/issue except that it's what it is.

Ha, perhaps so! — schopenhauer1

He's in a high level domain where one's mind and the thoughts its thinking can't be adequately distinguished; stuff like what he's going through is part of the territory.

Right, so what is NOS4A2 getting at? Can you see how I am confused as to what he is saying?

He doesn't like terms like "actually out there". He only cares what we perceive, but it is exactly the fact that direct realism posits that what we perceive is "actually out there" that is the question at hand. But then he keeps not wanting that to be the case! — schopenhauer1

Then he's talking about something else and latched onto the nearest object so to speak.

Indeed, that is the right question? How we answer it depends on facts and how pragmatic they are.

Cultural norms may track other things as well

I would vote for you if you stood in the elections, but not because you're black.

Obama was the less bad option in both elections. IMO, his being black helped in 2008. — 180 Proof

Then America is doomed! A leader is chosen for leadership qualities and there's no correlation between the color of one's skin, gender too for that matter, and how well you can manage a country's affairs. :smile:

So, we're electing leaders based on sex/gender now? Barack Obama wasn't given accommodation in the White House because he was black, he was for the simple reason that he had or seemed to have a good plan as regards how to run the country. Obama just happened to be black. :smile: Hopefully, if Nikki Haley becomes POTUS, she too just happens to be a woman.

Direct/naïve realism is easy to understand: one perceives what is actually out there (a green object is green). Indirect realism, however, posits that we're only aware of mental representations of things (green is just how the mind sees the "green" object).

Are you perhaps talking about, say, an interaction between two hypercubes? — ucarr

No, definitely not, that kinda stuff is above me pay grade mate, but look at the underlined term in your sentence.

:ok:

Striking resemblance to paraconsistent logic I must say. However, wouldn't the analogy work better if we take two things rather than one thing doing weird stuff in spacetime?

A real Artificial Intelligence will bridge all of human perspective/consciousness, and offer us a truly "bird's-eye view" perspective on things that matter. The integration of ChatGPT (or Sydney) into Bing Search is (in my opinion) ultimately inconsequential when looking at the impact of "real AI" on human life. — Bret Bernhoft

I guess so, that could be one of the feats it accomplishes.