The mass propaganda of Protestants against Catholics is well known.
— javi2541997
Is it? By whom? Which particular Protestants are waging what propaganda campaigns? If you accuse someone, you're expected to provide evidence. If you accuse millions of anonymous people, we should just let it slide? — Vera Mont

I still feel lost. Now, I have a closer approach to Christianity, but only the surface. Yet I am aware that I can sound contradictory about stating that philosophy doesn't fill my ethical notions but religion does, etc. I feel I am trapped in a cage. — javi2541997

Although I was dubious about religion, I became sure that enlightenment was real, and had some vivid epiphanies at quite a young age. — Wayfarer

I'm aware of Armstrong, that he is author of Materialist Theory of Mind, which has always been anathema to me. — Wayfarer

Skeptic, Individual, questioner, including atheists, agnostics and those scientifically minded who demand a measurable, well researched and logical explanation. Although frequently "nonbelievers," people in Stage III are generally more spiritually developed than many content to remain in Stage II. Although individualistic, they are not the least bit antisocial. To the contrary, they are often deeply involved in and committed to social causes. They make up their own minds about things and are no more likely to believe everything they read in the papers than to believe it is necessary for someone to acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior (as opposed to Buddha or Mao or Socrates) in order to be saved. They make loving, intensely dedicated parents. As skeptics they are often scientists, and as such they are again highly submitted to principle. Indeed, what we call the scientific method is a collection of conventions and procedures that have been designed to combat our extraordinary capacity to deceive ourselves in the interest of submission to something higher than our own immediate emotional or intellectual comfort--namely truth. Advanced Stage III men and women are active truth seekers.

Despite being scientifically minded, in many cases even atheists, they are on a higher spiritual level than Stage II, being a required stage of growth to enter into Stage IV. The churches age old dilemma: how to bring people from Stage II to Stage IV, without allowing them to enter Stage III.

Certainty is, on some accounts, indubitable belief.

Now there are all sorts of things that go undoubted. Are we certain of them all?

Or do we need reason, justification, warrant, to doubt? — Banno

Previous experience has shown that Corvus will not correct his errors nor accept any interpretation not at one with his own, apparently now to the point of extremis.

On the other hand, he has quite successfully made this thread about himself. — Banno

It can be helpful to understand that some posters post seeking narcissistic supply, and admitting having been wrong is never part of that 'plan'. In such cases, it's good to be able to recognize that one has made a mistake oneself, in thinking that one is dealing with a reasonable person. — wonderer1

Why - because that would be entertaining? — Banno

Are You Not Entertained? — Maximus, and Banno

And if you’ll are mad that God messes with Abraham’s head well I’ve got some news for you… — Moses

In Corvus world, there's only one way for the ground to get wet. — flannel jesus

P 1: If I am thinking then I must exist
P2: I am thinking
C: Therefore I exist.

That seems valid but it may not be sound I suppose, although it is hard to see what is wrong with it. — Janus

They think the real danger is that we have a dangerous tool to use against each other. — Metaphyzik

...(singularity is near / kurzweil).

I find the whole subject to be surrounded by religious-like zeal. In a positive way. We all want to (most of us anyways) embrace a positive fantastic advancement. It’s just that the emperor has no clothes most of the time. — Metaphyzik

In 2023, Hinton expressed concerns about the rapid progress of AI.[32][31] Hinton previously believed that artificial general intelligence (AGI) was "30 to 50 years or even longer away."[31] However, in a March 2023 interview with CBS, he stated that "general-purpose AI" may be fewer than 20 years away and could bring about changes "comparable in scale with the Industrial Revolution or electricity."[32]

In an interview with The New York Times published on 1 May 2023,[31] Hinton announced his resignation from Google so he could "talk about the dangers of AI without considering how this impacts Google."[66] He noted that "a part of him now regrets his life's work" due to his concerns and he expressed fears about a race between Google and Microsoft.[31]

In early May 2023, Hinton revealed in an interview with BBC that AI might soon surpass the information capacity of the human brain. He described some of the risks posed by these chatbots as "quite scary". Hinton explained that chatbots have the ability to learn independently and share knowledge. This means that whenever one copy acquires new information, it is automatically disseminated to the entire group. This allows AI chatbots to have the capability to accumulate knowledge far beyond the capacity of any individual.

I do marvel at the learning that happens and how patterns can be put together.

I just balk at calling that intelligence / mental abilities / on the way to consciousness. It is a leap. A neural net is like a pattern buffer (that is just over simplifying it of course) that makes the patterns and logic behind the structure of it grow. — Metaphyzik

What seems to be missing is the important part - the intent, or whatever you may consider to be the drive or will or self-awareness. An AGI would still be able to say: I think therefore I am (or whatever variant you prefer). — Metaphyzik

Keep in mind that a chat bot is supposed to look like a human conversing, that’s it’s programming…. — Metaphyzik

How's that, then? Can you set it out? — Banno

Just not sure how that helps to consider a program as intelligent. — Metaphyzik

In philosophy, intentionality is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs. To say of an individual’s mental states that they have intentionality is to say that they are mental representations or that they have contents. Furthermore, to the extent that a speaker utters words from some natural language or draws pictures or symbols from a formal language for the purpose of conveying to others the contents of her mental states, these artifacts used by a speaker too have contents or intentionality. ‘Intentionality’ is a philosopher’s word: ever since the idea, if not the word itself, was introduced into philosophy by Franz Brentano in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, it has been used to refer to the puzzles of representation, all of which lie at the interface between the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of language...

Give me an example of how an abstract feature of training data can lead to reasoning? This is more in the line of mysticism isn’t it? — Metaphyzik

I think the "problem" with Descarte's thought experiment is the "I". — ENOAH

Without an explanation (whether panpsychism or something else), the question of how matter becomes conscious is "it just does." Which is magic without an attempt at an explanation. — Patterner

Amen. And I have apnea. Even with the CPAP, it's almost impossible for me to read. Even excellent, exciting novels are almost always beyond my ability. But I commute more than a half hour each way, and often more than an hour, and audible is great for me.

Tse is not available on audible. I try to read it as I can. — Patterner

Lars Chittka is mentioned in the article. He has a great book called The Mind of a Bee. — Patterner

Please let me know what you think! — amber

...but just read this back to yourself. You're a troll, and what you're doing here is trolling, and we know you're a troll, and we know that there is no good reason to throw pearls before trolls. ...but apparently to your mind the religious are simply afraid of subjecting their personal inferences to your superior rational skills, lol. — Leontiskos

A third-person example has already been provided: link. Feel free to address it. — Leontiskos

(I won't "make it personal," no. That is a terrible approach in general, especially when it comes to contentious religious debates.) — Leontiskos

- Someone who has interacted with God on a number of occasions is similarly situated to the child. — Leontiskos

The Gideon example is also interesting because in general it's not considered to be a good sign of his character that he "puts the Lord to the test." — Count Timothy von Icarus

You shouldn't be saying it, you shouldn't even be saying it if you were right. It's so disgustingly self righteous and haughty. — flannel jesus

I am certain that if our senses pointed inwards our so-called inner lives would be less of a mystery. In there is a multiplicity of parts and movements we just aren’t privy to in the present arraignment. — NOS4A2

ASSISTANT: (Opus, Third answer, temperature still set to 0.3) — Pierre-Normand

[quoting Opus(?), Second answer, temperature set to 0.3]
On the core topic of direct and indirect realism, I am struck by the way our conversation has highlighted the richness and complexity of perceptual experience. While the dichotomy between direct and indirect realism can serve as a useful starting point, it seems clear that a truly comprehensive account must go beyond such simple categorizations.

As Haiku eloquently expressed, perception is an embodied, dynamic process of organism-environment coupling. It is not merely a passive reception of sensory inputs, but an active engagement with the world and its affordances. This holistic perspective resonates with the phenomenological tradition, which sought to describe the lived experience of perception in all its nuanced depths.

At the same time, Opus's rigorous analysis reminds us of the importance of precision and logical clarity. The physiological and causal underpinnings of perception cannot be ignored, even as we acknowledge the directness of the perceptual act itself. A truly satisfying account must find a way to integrate these different levels of analysis without falling into reductionism or oversimplification.

Perhaps what is needed is a kind of "transcendental empiricism" – a philosophical framework that can do justice to both the first-person, phenomenological dimensions of perception and the third-person, scientific insights into its underlying mechanisms. Such an approach might draw inspiration from thinkers like Merleau-Ponty and Wilfrid Sellars, who sought to bridge the gap between the manifest and scientific images of the world. — Pierre-Normand

Thinking is a private mental event. It has nothing to do with being in any shape or form. — Corvus

Indeed! Although your detractors may rather feel vindicated in their intuition that you are a bot ;-) — Pierre-Normand

[quoting Claude 3 Haiku]Perhaps the most constructive path forward is to resist the temptation to declare a decisive victory for either direct or indirect realism, and instead focus on developing a more holistic understanding of the human experience of the world - one that acknowledges the complexities and ambiguities inherent in our perceptual faculties. — Pierre-Normand

From my perspective, the question of the thread looks like an attempt to address a complex subject (actually a diverse set of subjects) with a false dichotomy. — wonderer1

2. Early Christians were willing to die for their belief in the content of the New Testament — Brendan Golledge