tl;dr, I fully agree with the proposed site rules amendment, which seems to me warranted regardless of the degree of accuracy or reliability of LLM outputs. — Pierre-Normand

You clearly have put a lot of thought and effort into how LLMs work and how to make them work better. That seems like a useful exercise. It also raises a question. Do you actually use LLMs to solve problems, answer questions, or discuss issues in the non LLM world or only those directly related to the LLMs themselves.

An interesting, well written post. My thoughts.

About cosmology: If you define logic as, "Rules of correct inference from assumed premises", and you think about ultimate causes, then you run into the problem of needing new premises in order to prove existing premises. Therefore, there are only 3 choices:

1. There exists a cause without a cause
2. There is an infinite regression of causes with no beginning
3. Causality is circular (maybe like someone going back in a time machine to start the big bang) — Brendan Golledge

There are other possible choices.
4. Causation is not a valid, or at least not the only valid, way of thinking about how the universe works. This is mainstream philosophical position.
5. The universe is eternal. It's always been here and always will be. It never began and was never caused.

Whatever option you choose is outside the scope of ordinary logic. A thing without a premise cannot be acted upon by logic, you never get to the end of an infinite regression, and circular logic is ordinarily not considered valid. Therefore, SOMETHING definitely exists which is outside the scope of human reason. — Brendan Golledge

What you say may be true for deductive logic, but not for inductive. Inductive logics job, if you want to look at it that way, is to generate premises for deductive logic to work on.

Humans are hardwired to be social, so it's easy for us to attribute personhood to things that aren't really people. — Brendan Golledge

I think this is important. I have been thinking about a metaphysical argument for God that is similar to your understanding of deism. I just have not put my arguments together well enough to bring it out on the forum yet. Speaking personally, when I see, live in, the world, I often want to express my gratitude for something so wonderful. That is the heart of my understanding of God, although there's more to it than that. To be clear, when I say "metaphysical" I mean that it is not something that can be determined empirically. It is not true or false. That seems similar to how you are describing your attitude toward deism.

This philosophy is perhaps bleak because there is no covenant with the divine, and therefore there is no promise of personal fulfilment. But this religious belief also necessarily implies that there is a whole universe (or possibly multiverses) of beauty and goodness completely outside the scope of my own personal desires. — Brendan Golledge

I love the world. I can't believe how wonderful it is. Seems like you feel something similar. There are many people here on the forum and in the world who have a much sourer take. They are unlikely to find your approach useful.

Hey, @Plex, it’s expected you will participate in discussions you start.

A good response. Even-tempered and respectful.

I'll only add that if as a presumably thinking, presumably educated adult you have never been angered by something you heard in church, then either the drugs are working or you're not paying attention or not listening. — tim wood

I don’t go to church and I haven’t for many years, but I don’t remember ever being angered by something I heard there.

I do not believe in facts nor do I believe in good or bad. I do not believe that we truly know anything. Facts are only an ideal perfection, something we would like to achieve but cannot. — Plex

Here’s what Steven J Gould had to say about facts:

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." — Stephen J Gould

That is a good description of what facts and knowledge are to me. They are information which is adequate to make decisions about potential actions. Of course the information might be wrong, but there comes a time when you have to act even though there are uncertainties.

You say you don’t believe in facts, but every day you act as if you do - you make decisions and act based on the information you have.

My question was sincere and specific. What offended you so much? — tim wood

I don’t doubt your sincerity. I wasn’t offended, I was angered by the mean spirited and ignorant characterization of the people he disagrees with.

Don't be so practical man! First things first. — Benkei

I was an engineer for a reason.

I think risk is secondary though. — Benkei

Morally perhaps, but not practically.

the perpetual gains of a shareholder is another process I'm not ethically comfortable with. — Benkei

I’m not sure I understand this concern. Of course that could be because my retirement account is funded by bonds and mutual funds, which depend on the investments you’re talking about. at the same time, anyone with a 401(k) or pension depends on them too. A 401(k) is the US governments, retirement savings program, separate from Social Security.

I haven't gotten as far to think about actual policy implementations. — Benkei

Did I mention I was an engineer?

Your response is certainly more reasonable than mine.

I did not detect anything false or untrue in the OP. What offended you so much? Or were you trying to make a joke? — tim wood

Not a joke, although it would take more than this obnoxious OP to make me vote for Mr. Trump. I’m pleased to see it’s been moved to the garbage dump in the lounge.

the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, — Art48

Smug, arrogant crap. Makes me want to vote for Trump just to piss you off.

Laws are not invented wholesale. Laws are based on an inheritance. Most of that inheritance comes from a time before the United States. — Moliere

I'm not sure exactly what this means, but it seems to me that the specific laws we are concerned with have been legislated and enforced wholesale since the Supreme Court kicked Roe vs. Wade out the door.

I would just say that there is more scientific evidence pointing to the fact that abortion isn’t “killing a child”. — Samlw

What constitutes killing a child is not something that can be resolved by science. It's a matter of social convention, consensus. Obviously, consensus is lacking here in the US. It's not unfair that not everyone shares your values.

Further, most of the laws have been written by men -- I don't see our representative democracy as a palliative for the history of patriarchy that has dominated women's bodies so that men knew that their fucking made a kid. — Moliere

Women have a right to vote. Approximately 30% of state legislators are women, although that varies a lot depending on the state. Many of the most prominent opponents of abortion are women. To claim that women are not responsible for the laws passed in the same manner that men are is patronizing and disrespectful.

I have never heard a compelling argument for pro-life. All of them have been based on religion or personal feelings in which my answer is always to simply not have an abortion. The fact that abortions are legal doesn't force you to do anything, you can choose to have the child. My main issue with pro-life is that your taking away a choice for people that don't share the same beliefs when having it the other way, everyone can do what they want. — Samlw

This is a weak argument. As for justifications for pro-life beliefs being based on religion or personal feelings 1) I don't see how pro-choice beliefs are any different and 2) Those seem like pretty good reasons to me. As others have noted, people who are against abortion generally consider it killing a child. Let's take the paragraph I quoted above and change "abortion" to "kill a child." I think that puts a different light on it.

As for my personal feelings on abortion - I am strongly pro-choice. At the same time, I recognize that abortion is a bad thing and shouldn't be used as a normal method of birth control. It has consequences for both potential parents and I think it has a negative impact on society as a whole. We should do what we can to reduce the number of abortions as much as we can with non-coercive means.

An ugly name for a powerful thing.

To steal a line from comedian Larry Miller, it's like the difference between shooting a bullet and throwing it. It's not a decision. — Patterner

Before my first child was born, I knew that I would love her, but I didn't come close to anticipating how intense the emotional reaction would be when I first saw her. — wonderer1

Before my first child was born, I wasn't sure how the whole love thing worked. I've never grown emotionally attached to pets, so I wasn't sure how I would feel about my children. Then, like I said, it was like a switch. Makes me think maybe Darwin was right.

So you're saying it's not the form Bob paid for, but labor costs? — frank

That's not what I wrote.

What is love — Athena

The closest feeling I have to love unalloyed with other factors such as desire, expectation, and obligation is my love for my three children. It came to me as a force of nature - immediate and uncaused - automatic, like a switch being switched. It's a feeling of affection, respect, interest, protectiveness, and commitment. Most importantly, it's unconditional - it doesn't expect or require any response or acknowledgement.

how do we know when we are loved? — Athena

There are a few people in my life who have shown me they feel for me something similar to what I feel for my children. I don't feel like they owe it to me, but it feels wonderful. A gift.

What is this thing that Bob paid for? We could call it form. In the world of art, form goes hand in hand with its brother: content. Form is actual shapes molded into the clay. It's the technique that shows up, the style, whether medieval or modern. The content is something beyond the form: it's the meaning of the statue, which doesn't have to be something that can be put into words, although it could be. In the case of a statue, the content could be the way it makes us feel. — frank

Bob received an Ikea statue - assembly required - but he ordered a fully assembled statue.

What is this thing that Bob paid for? — frank

Bob received a blob of clay. What he ordered but didn't receive was the work required to turn that clay into a statue as well as the artists skill and vision.

What a great post. Here are some thoughts - rather piecemeal and off the cuff rather than comprehensive.

How much of the answer to this question depends on the existence of income as money rather than what is produced - material or agricultural? Money separates and abstracts the labor from the product. Of course, a sharecropper or slave gives some or all of what is produced to the landowner and even farmers who are landowners themselves pay taxes.

For example, a hedge fund manager might earn significantly more than a nurse, not because they are more deserving in a moral sense, but because of the structure of the market. — Benkei

Although there is need to address the fact that CEOs often have an income that is hundreds of times what their workers make, there is also the issue of risk. The willingness to take on risk has value that has to be compensated. Beyond willingness, there also has to be ability, which often depends more on wealth than income.

Even where we're not considering different types of labour but within the same type of labour, I might not be the best person to do the work and therefore less deserving. Or perhaps not deserving of the amount paid if the quality of my production lacks compared to others, even if the market accepts the price I set. By being paid income I divert income from people who might be more deserving of it than I am. — Benkei

I see this as a fraught issue. It makes sense that more trained, experienced, and competent people should be paid more than people who are less so, but so called "meritocracy" without more or less rigid job definition will generally lead to socially disadvantaged people, e.g. racial minorities and women, being paid less. Beyond that, it leads directly to those from historically privileged groups becoming even more privileged, but I guess that is outside the scope of this discussion.

This raises a critical question for the argument that we are entitled to our income: if we acknowledge the importance of need in labor contracts, then it follows that income should not be viewed as an absolute right. If individuals are hired based on their needs, the resultant income is not merely a reward for their labor but also a response to their vulnerability. — Benkei

This makes sense from an ethical perspective. As I see it, a good society should ensure a decent life to all it's members willing to participate. I think that would be hard to implement. I guess minimum wages are an attempt to get at the issue. Beyond that, the only practical solution I can think of is a universal basic income, which can separate work from income completely. I guess that's also outside the scope of this discussion.

Is the production process fair and just? Are workers adequately compensated? Are the environmental and social impacts of the work accounted for?

For example, a company that profits from exploitative labor practices or environmental degradation may pay its executives enormous salaries. Can those individuals claim a moral right to their income, when the production process itself is unjust? — Benkei

Solution - costs of production and prices should include social and environmental costs as well as those for labor, materials, and processing and transportation. Again, easier said than done.

When we center the discussion on worth, need and just production it becomes clear that individuals do not have an unqualified moral right to all of their income. — Benkei

As I noted previously, risk should also be considered.

In light of these factors, a moral right to income cannot be reasonably held. Instead, it is merely a legal right. — Benkei

The problem is enforcement. There have to be legal rights to enforce moral ones.

I think he signifies the importance of one's own authenticity in thinking and at least for me this is a huge part of why I enjoy philosophy and like learning about it. — Jafar

I agree. For me, philosophy is there to help us listen to and recognize the voice inside.

The Emerson doesn’t do it for me, I’m afraid. Too cryptic. Many of the people I have known who championed introspection have been breathtakingly arrogant and appear to lack self-knowledge. (I don’t think you’re one of those.)

I question the extent to which we are capable of examining our own beliefs - our cognitive biases and our unconscious processes might well be unassailable. — Tom Storm

Not to be flip, but that's what philosophy is for. For me, philosophy is about self-awareness - paying attention to how we think. If we are not capable of examining our beliefs, biases, and mental processes, then philosophy is useless, pointless.

@Jafar

I'm curious about the introspection part. How do you critically evaluate your own thoughts?
— Jafar

Good question. Can it even be done? Or do we just move from one set of emotionally based presuppositions to another? — Tom Storm

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to bring out one of my favorite quotes. I try to use it at least once every couple of weeks here on the forum. It's from "Self-Reliance" by Ralph Wald Emerson.

To believe our own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, -- that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,--and our first thought, is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment. Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what they thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. — Emerson - Self-Reliance

When Emerson says "genius" he doesn't mean like Einstein. It's more like our true nature, what Taoists call "Te" - our intrinsic virtuosity. It takes self-awareness and discipline to follow Emerson's path. You need to pay attention.

Ones hand is forced — Benj96

No, I can choose to do nothing.

They then offer you a trinary quarternary choice — Benj96

4) Deny the word.

Ignore the word — Benj96

Ignoring words is one of the fundamental human mental tasks. We can't pay attention to everything, we have to choose. The trick is knowing which ones to ignore.

I think the only way to get to "nothing nothing" might be using zero. — javi2541997

We are not talking about mathematical nothing, at least I'm not. We're talking about actual nothing - no matter, no energy, no fields, no quantum vacuum, no space, no time. Nothing.

When you say the universe is inevitable, how do you mean? Do you mean it is non-contingent or metaphysically necessary? — Bodhy

How could there possibly be nothing? Not nothing like the inside of an empty box with all the air removed and shielded against radiation, but nothing nothing. Not even a quantum vacuum. What does that even mean? How can you have nothing without something to compare it with? Is that metaphysics? I'm not sure.

Propositions that can be expressed by language are indeed linguistic entities. The ones that cannot be expressed by language, however, are not. — Tarskian

There are no propositions that can't be expressed in language.

Subset X of the natural numbers is a subset of the natural numbers — Tarskian

This is just a restatement of the tautological proposition "All subsets of the natural numbers are subsets of the natural numbers."

I can see you and I are not going to agree on this. I'll give you the final word.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of truth cannot be expressed by language — Tarskian

This is not right. Perhaps "the vast, vast majority of subsets of natural numbers cannot be expressed by language," but judgments of true or false only apply to propositions. Propositions are linguistic entities - they can all be expressed in language. If it can't be expressed in language, it isn't a proposition and if it isn't a proposition, it can't be true or false.

Articulating your thoughts is an essential part of philosophy, but there is, in my opinion, more to philosophy. It involves a critical examination and evaluation of those thoughts and opinions, whether they are your thoughts and opinions or someone else's. — Fooloso4

Agreed, but the purpose behind that examination and evaluation is to figure out how other's thoughts fit into your own understanding of how the world works. If they don't fit, then you can either reject them, change your own understanding, or do a little of both.

I'm curious about the introspection part. How do you critically evaluate your own thoughts? — Jafar

Many people here don't see introspection and intuition as valid ways of knowing, while to me, they are the strongest intellectual tools we have to work with. How can I have confidence in what I think if I am not aware of how I think. Although it's not the standard definition, that's what philosophy is to me - an exercise in learning to be more self-aware. Even an understanding based on reason must come from, be motivated by, something intuitive. And to be useful, an intuitive understanding often must be justified using reason.

When I hear someone else's ideas, someone here on the forum or Immanuel Kant, I have to check them against my own understanding of how the world works to see if they resonate. If they don't, sometimes I'll reject the ideas and sometimes I'll expand my understanding to make room for them. The final arbiter is your own judgment. Parroting philosophers is not philosophy. Eventually you have to take responsibility for your own beliefs.

I think this puts you at a distinct advantage. All too often giving an opinion is mistaken for doing philosophy. Rather then telling others what you think inquire into what others say on topics that interest you. — Fooloso4

@Jafar

To be clear, many of us here disagree with @Fooloso4’s opinion. You shouldn’t let it stop you from putting your thoughts into words. Introspection is a valid method for obtaining knowledge. You should appreciate the irony of him giving his personal preference without justification in this instance.

Why not start a discussion in an area where you are comfortable. Write a good OP (original post) and be ready to answer questions and stand up for your ideas. Keep it simple and non-controversial until you feel more comfortable. Warning - consciousness, metaphysics, free will and some other topics tend to be quagmires. Look over the past couple of weeks and make sure you aren't repeating something done recently. Try not to focus on too narrow a subject to start or you might not get many responses, which can be discouraging.

From what I can see in your OP, you write clearly and well.

By reason, I generally mean a cause for an action, whether it is feeling, preference, value, rationality, etc. — MoK

Perhaps "a reason" would be clearer than "reason." Even then I'd be tempted to argue your point, but then we'd just get sucked into another of those unresolvable arguments that results whenever we dive into the bottomless pit of free will.

A decision is either based on a reason or not, in the first case we are dealing with an unfree decision, and in the second case we are dealing with a free decision. — MoK

Most of our decisions are not based on reason, for example when I decide to order a cheeseburger rather than pate de foie gras or when I turn left on Washington Street without thinking about it. Preferences and values are not generally rational.

As you noted, this isn’t a critique of the OP. All philosophical positions are like this: so I am failing to see how you are resolving the paradox or denying its existence. — Bob Ross

After reading your response, I went back and reread the OP. I think I misunderstood the argument you are trying to make. I still don't think there is any paradox, but I certainly haven't made that case.

But you seem to be using the notion of "useful" as the arbiter of moral import here.. Which is indeed revealing. If "character counts" in some way, this notion of "useful" would be contested at least as far as moral value. — schopenhauer1

I don't see being an asshole as a moral issue. I acknowledge you have defined that term differently than I did. Under either definition, perhaps it would be more useful to characterize it as a management issue.

Is being an asshole inherent to someone's nature/personality/character or is an asshole made- something you become/work at? — schopenhauer1

I often tell my brother that he and I are assholes. By that I mean we are sometimes, often, insensitive to how the things we say and do affect other people. I usually say (at least to myself) it is a matter of temperament, i.e. a "characteristic or habitual inclination or mode of emotional response" (Merriam Webster). Claiming that in no way absolves me from responsibility for the things I say and do. It is something I have worked to soften all my life, with some success.

if someone is a longstanding asshole, that is to say, "sets the precedent" for being an asshole really early on in a community, they seem to get more of a "pass" as it's just "them being them!" — schopenhauer1

I see this in a somewhat more positive light. It is often true that I recognize qualities in a person that compensate for any difficulties in their behavior. As an engineer, it was much more important whether a coworker was competent than that they were a bit cranky or tactless.

Philosophers often get confused by language because their thoughts reflect upon the ways the world is normally interpreted - which is using something full of holes and prejudices to analyse something full of holes and prejudices. — fdrake

This is a good way of looking at it.

People who are not philosophers are also bewitched by language, they just don't need to care, because few of the inconsistencies in our norms of interpretation matter. — fdrake

I'm not sure if I think this is true. I'll have to think more about it.

errors of presupposition arise when a person's way of thinking is so tied to a use case, or nascent context, that it stops that person from understanding what they intend. — fdrake

As I noted in my response to @Shawn, I think the primary error associated with presuppositions is caused by the fact we don't recognize them as such and try to establish their truth by empirical means.