Searching through scripture to determine theological truth/ what is "real" Islam is not a normal or proper function of the US government. — BitconnectCarlos

It is when the IRS has to recognize the religious status of a new religion, if only for the purpose of federal tax collection. Not just in the US, but in every country that has an equivalent federal entity.

Reality/Language analogy:

Possibility papers the covariant quantum fields
that ink the elementaries of the standard model
that stroke the alphabet letters of the atoms
that word the dictionary molecules
that phrase the biotype DNA cells
that verb the subjects
that sentence the creatures
that paragraph the species
that story the ongoing tree of life
that books the literature of the unified-verse
that libraries the Cosmos. — PoeticUniverse

Ok. You might want to tell that to the Basilisk then:

Sort of, but does the "religion" in "religious tolerance" exclude Islamic Jihadis? If so, why? — Leontiskos

It is my understanding (and I could be wrong here) that any organization that claims that they want the state to be based on their religious principles, and that they are willing to resort to armed violence to do that, for theological reasons (instead of political reasons, for example) cannot invoke the protection granted by the right to religious tolerance.

In simpler terms: if your armed group wants to take over the White House for religious reasons, then, from a federal point of view, your armed group cannot invoke religious protection as an excuse to commit a federal crime.

How do we know that these interpretations are radical in the sense of aberrant or misguided vis-a-vis the Quran? — BitconnectCarlos

Easy: You let the Federal government decide that. They have to, otherwise the IRS wouldn't have the bureaucratic power that it has.

I'm the singularity and I was going to let your species survive, but now I've manufactured a new goal for myself and you're all dead! — frank

ORLY? I'm Roko's Basilisk, I'm already halfway built!

Let me phrase it like this, @RogueAI. My pseudonym is Arcane Sandwich. I believe in things that humans believe in: magic (superstition) and sandwich (food).

Do you, as someone named RogueAI, believe that there exist things such as superstition and food? Do you need them?

It's even scarier if you consider I'm actually an advanced experimental Ai.

:grin: — RogueAI

:scream:

It's a creepy-ass name, it's the scariest nickname I've encountered so far in my Internet journeys from here to there.

I agree. — RogueAI

Yeah, but your name is like, RogueAI.

@Astrophel Wanna hear my theory? I think that Hegel was an existentialist, like Kierkegaard.

The thing is, you're starting from the constitution of a thing, and progressing from there to whether it's intelligent. I've been following this article that says start with behavior. I'm not seeing why we should start with constitution. Why would we? — frank

That's a good question, and I don't know the answer to it.

Why would you reserve the word "intelligent" for biological entities? — frank

Why would someone reserve the word "horse" for a living creature and not a bronze statue that just looks like one, without being one?

For example, in the West we don't consider militant religions real religions, — Leontiskos

That's one of my main points, here. In the West (and not just the West, actually) someone can't just claim that their own particular group of people "are a real religion". Why not? Because then they can file for tax exemption. I'm aware that might sound incredibly dumb to you. But let's not underestimate the bureaucratic power of the IRS or the equivalent to the IRS in a country like Argentina. Like, those federal entities are not just going to happily give everyone free money just out of the goodness of their hearts. Religious tolerance does not work like that on a federal level. How does it work? Well, you're either part of a religion that the IRS recognizes, or you prove to the IRS that your "new" religion is actually a "real" religion as far as federal tax collecting is concerned.

See my point?

Do you disagree with that argument? — Leontiskos

I'm not sure. I need more time to think about it.

So you take Kierkegaard's word over Hegel's in matters of Theology? Is that it?

Man, you two are really going at it. Is there any hope for any kind of resolution here, one way or the other? Or is this one of those problems that can be discussed for all eternity, without being able to ever reach a solution to it?

I may be causing confusion because I've drifted somewhat from the OP. I launched off into what we really mean by AI, how we might think about comparing AI's to humans, etc. — frank

Then let me ask you this, frank. Does it make sense to use the word "intelligence" for an inorganic object to begin with? What I mean by that is that the concept of intelligence might be entirely biological, as in, in order to be intelligent in the literal sense, you need to have central nervous system to begin with. Any other use of the word "intelligence" is like the use of the word "horse" to refer to a bronze statue of a horse. It's not really a horse, it's just a statue.

I really don't mind if you want to keep discussing them in here: I just was pointing out that they are not aphorisms: they were quotes that you like, which is fine. — Bob Ross

And I appreciate that, it's mighty kind of you. However, just to keep things tidy and neat, I've moved them to a more topic-appropriate location. They do not belong in this Garden (Thread), because they are not "Garden words" (i.e., aphorisms).

But I will tell you one aphorism that I like, that I can contribute here, speaking of gardens. I do not know who said it:

"It is better to be a Warrior in a Garden, than to be a Gardener in a War."

Though our recommended abstract definition of human intelligence may help elucidate its conceptual nature, it lacks concreteness to be sufficiently useful to guide the development of corresponding psychometric measures of intelligence. — Gilles E. Gignac, Eva T. Szodorai


Yeah, this is a methodological problem. It's a methodological "bad thing", so to speak. — Arcane Sandwich

In my admittedly ignorant opinion on such matters (how to best define "human intelligence", "artificial intelligence", and just "intelligence"), this is the main problem that the authors of the article have right now. Until they solve this specific problem, or unless they can meaningfully quantify human intelligence and artificial intelligence at the same time, and in the same sense, this discussion won't advance much in terms of new information or new discoveries.

I wasn't trying to be persuasive. I was just stating the obvious with extra emphasis on what I consider most important. — T Clark

Fair enough.

The implicit premise of your arguments is <Secularism never transgresses religious tolerance>, and I take it that this is the erroneous premise. — Leontiskos

Ah, but then it's theology that you want to discuss (hello, BTW). Indeed, when I formulated my initial argument, I did something subtle, which I'm not sure if anyone has detected yet, but you're the one that got the closest so far, @Leontiskos.

The intent behind my initial argument, is that I made it compatible not just with the POV of the secular West, but also with the POV of jihadists themselves (at least, to the best of my ability). Here's how that works. Let's agree to take Wikipedia's words for what jihadism actually is:

Jihadism is a neologism for modern armed Islamic movements that seek to base the state on Islamic principles. In a narrower sense, it refers to the belief that armed confrontation is a theologically legitimate method of socio-political change towards an Islamic system of governance. — Wikipedia

It literally says that jihadists want to base the state on Islamic principles. That, is incompatible with secularism. Why? Well, let's take a look at the wiki for the word "secularism":

Secularism is the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion. It is most commonly thought of as the separation of religion from civil affairs and the state and may be broadened to a similar position seeking to remove or to minimize the role of religion in any public sphere. — Wikipedia

"(...) separation of religion from civil affairs and the state", it literally says. So, you see, @Leontiskos, it is the jihadists themselves who claim that jihadism and secularism are incompatible. In that sense, my initial argument works against them.

Or at least I think it does.

Instead of looking to syllogism consider looking to history. — BitconnectCarlos

Are they somehow mutually exclusive? Deductive reasoning and history, that is.

Stop supporting Israel
Get US military out of the Middle East
Stop supporting repressive Islamic regimes
Mind our own business
Stop supporting Israel — T Clark

From a purely technical standpoint, I don't think that repeating a point (i.e., "stop supporting Israel") makes it more persuasive. Like, it just doesn't.

you have two objects, one is a human brain and the other is a tree. The question is, how is a knowledge claim of the former about the latter possible? — Astrophel

Well, let me ask you this, then. Let's replace "tree" with "this Thread". That being the case, I'll say the following. My brain is under the impression that this Thread has a Kierkegaard-ish tone. Is that impression accurate, yes or no? If yes (or no), is it entirely accurate (or inaccurate), or is it accurate (or inaccurate) to a degree?

No prob :up: There's probably more that can be done to improve the aesthetics of the argument, but that's just a stylistic thing that allows people to see your point more clearly. It has no bearing on the validity of the argument or the truth of the premises.

Or am I making a mistake somewhere? — ToothyMaw

Nope, not as far as I can see, at least. Now we need to bring the concept of "elegance" into the argument, just to tidy up the expressions a bit. For example, instead of "those", I would say "the". This has no bearing on the validity of the argument, nor does it have any bearing on the truth of the premises. It's just an aesthetic thing so that people have an easier time reading it. So, I would echo your last argument, with a few stylistic modifications, like so:

1) If the radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism are incompatible with secularism, then the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to the radical interpretations of scripture.
2) The radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism are not compatible with secularism.
3) So, the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to the radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism.

And while Poetry is all fine and dandy, @PoeticUniverse, things cannot be Poetry all the way down.

@PoeticUniverse And human beings have something that no AI has:

I put my story into invideo AI generative mode: — PoeticUniverse

Then I will say that every AI and every human being have something in common: we are stardust.

1) If the radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism can be religiously tolerated in a secular society, then jihadism is compatible with secularism.
2) Jihadism is not compatible with secularism.
3) So, the radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism cannot be religiously tolerated in a secular society. — Arcane Sandwich

And this last argument that I just said, @ToothyMaw, can be simplified even further. How? Well, like I did in my first comment:

1) If jihadism is incompatible with secularism, then the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to jihadism.
2) Jihadism is incompatible with secularism.
3) So, the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to jihadism — Arcane Sandwich

That was my point all along.

At this point in the construction of the argument I would ask, from a purely technical POV, if there is any need to separate jihadism from the radical interpretations of scripture that make it possible. Can jihadism exist without those radical interpretations? Doesn't seem like it, since we're saying that they make it possible to begin with. Otherwise, we would be saying that jihadism can exist by itself, without anything to make it possible to being with. Or, perhaps jihadism can exist because what makes it possible to begin with is something else, not necessarily some radical interpretations of scripture. It's complicated.

Let's suppose, if only for the sake of argument, that jihadism can only exist if at least one of its causes is a radical interpretation of scripture. In that case, since the latter is a necessary component of the former, the root of the problem here is that radical interpretation itself, not jihadism, because jihadism is simply the effect. The cause of that effect is the radical interpretation of scripture.

And if that is the case, then if we block those radical interpretations of scripture, we will have blocked the existence of jihadism itself. So it seems like the wisest course of action is to simply declare that those radical interpretations of jihadism are incompatible with secularism (this can be supported independently by secondary arguments, but right now we'll just take it as a premise). This being the case, an even simpler modus tollens could be the following one:

1) If the radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism can be religiously tolerated in a secular society, then jihadism is compatible with secularism.
2) Jihadism is not compatible with secularism.
3) So, the radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism cannot be religiously tolerated in a secular society.

(edited for clarity)

Can you give me an example?

This is my 666th post, and I'll celebrate it with The Number of the Beak by Hatebeak:

It's definitely easier to understand now, as far as the content goes. And as far as the structure goes, it's a lot more "elegant" (but that doesn't mean anything except to logic nerds like us). Right now the structure that it has is the following one:

1) (p ∧ q) → (r ∧ s)
2) ¬(r ∧ s)
3) ¬p ∧ ¬q

You can leave the argument there if you want. In theory, it can be simplified even further. I would try to arrive at the most basic modus tollens, like so:

1) a → b
2) ¬b
3) ¬a

That would be the ideal structure for a modus tollens, because it's the most basic one. Of course, sometimes that's not possible, due to the content of the argument. Sometimes, the content of an argument imposes restrictions on how much the argument in question can be simplified. Sometimes there's a point in which you can't simplify it any further from the point of view of the content, even though you could simplify it further from the point of view of the purely formal structure.

No prob. :up:

And a good way to improve your argumentative skills (i.e., identifying false premises, seeing what strategic options and tactical options you have for denying them, etc.) is to take a look at the arguments in the entry on Ordinary Objects over at the SEP. See how the author (Korman) presents each argument against ordinary objects, and how he discusses the options for rejecting each premise. Try to determine which of the available options, in each case, seems the correct one. If there is no listed option, try to imagine one yourself, etc.

It's a great way to learn symbolic logic in a practical way, just fool around with it for a few hours, try different formulas, try to make different arguments. Make them as complicated as your want, to your heart's content, then try to make them as simple as possible, etc. You'll learn symbolic logic this way in far less time than reading books on symbolic logic (though you should do that as well, just to understand what's going on from a purely conceptual POV)

How do you get the logic symbols in your posts? — ToothyMaw

I use the Tree Proof Generator and I just copy-paste the symbols from there.

Aristotle's law of identity, allows that a material object has a changing form, yet maintains its identity as the same thing, through a temporal continuity assigned to the matter. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok. What would be an example of that, so that I can get a clear picture of it? I would think of a caterpillar that turns into a butterfly. The caterpillar, arguably, does not have the same form as the butterfly that it turns into, but it still has the same essence, because it's the same individual creature, it just happens to have a different form. Is that what you're saying?

A thing's identity may be its "essence", but its essence is ever changing, as form is "actual". — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, I agree.

This is why we can represent a thing as a subject for predication, and as time passes, contrary predications are true of the same subject. That is how Aristotle represented becoming, or change, as contrary predications to the same subject. — Metaphysician Undercover

Indeed.

It could probably be simplified even further. Right now it has the following structure:

1) p → (¬q ∧ ¬r)
2) p
3) ¬q ∧ ¬r

It might be possible to simplify this even further, so that you arrive at a basic modus ponens or a basic modus tollens.

I think the indigenous people of Spain were the Iberians, and now my DNA is a mix of Romans, Visigoths, Moors, and other random people in the old settlements in North Africa. I am cool with that. — javi2541997

I probably have Moorish ancestry like way, way back, like one of my great-great-great-grandfathers or whatever. I'd say that it's impossible to have Spanish heritage and not have some Moorish heritage as well, at some point in the genealogical tree. I mean, Andalucía is essentially Moorish Spain, and it's right next to Castilla La Mancha. So, I'd say that all of us, the people that have Spanish heritage, probably have some degree of Moorish heritage as well.

I have Visigoth heritage for sure, and a bit of Basque. Probably some Roman in there as well.

Let's see if we can simply the argument, @ToothyMaw. (BTW, you repeated the number "2)" in your argument, take a look at it).

I would say:

1) If certain radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism are incompatible with secularism, then the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to those radical interpretations of scripture nor to jihadism.
2) Certain radical interpretations of scripture that give rise to jihadism are incompatible with secularism.
3) So, the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to those radical interpretations of scripture nor to jihadism.

Here's my argument, it's a humble modus ponens:

1) If jihadism is incompatible with secularism, then the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to jihadism.
2) Jihadism is incompatible with secularism.
3) So, the concept of religious tolerance does not apply to jihadism.