that process [being a human] has reached such complexity and sophistication that it seems to involve what we call intent, will, deliberation — ENOAH
Of course it is trustworthy; but it's not your mind. There's no your, no you. — ENOAH
The question (which I won't take the time here) is more like, how can I ensure I am input with the coding which will yield the most functional results for that very system (which I share with all minds) and for my body and my species? — ENOAH
there is no Mind and no Trusting… your mind moves autonomously — ENOAH
Ultimately, can I trust my mind? No, it's lying to you, it's not who you think you are. Yes, you have no choice. You are trusting your mind incessantly. — ENOAH
here is how you guys see it and here is how each of your views differs. — Benj96
What point is there to it, if not to make your thoughts clear? — flannel jesus
yes — flannel jesus
If you perceived me saying some post of yours read like a non sequitur to me, the point of me saying that is not rudeness or cruelty but to express that I don't understand how your reply to me makes sense given what I was saying. The correct response to that isn't for you to decide to start being cruel to me, the correct response is to either spell out why your reply does make sense, or to just disengage. — flannel jesus
I really don't know what you're on about anymore. — flannel jesus
If you believe I was cruel to you first, please show me where — flannel jesus
just start saying rude things to me — flannel jesus
why are you doing this? — flannel jesus
I have no idea how any of these words relate, at all, to anything I said — flannel jesus
I have no idea what you're talking about at this point. — flannel jesus
If I may, I think he was referencing your position that we may be permitted stupidity if. . ., not you personally. — ENOAH
’instilling faith’ if achieved, is the (temporary and temporal) settlement of that dialectic, commonly called belief and confused for not being knowledge. — ENOAH
The word [earnest] has an evolved (in both each individual and History) function of triggering the movements/arrangements of other words which eventually trigger conditioned Feelings which eventually trigger actions (more mental/or physical) . — ENOAH
All of this process seems to contain "intent" "deliberation" a "self". Hence these discussions etc. But there is no "trusting your own mind" directed by that "you". It is all just the movements of that mind — ENOAH
Antony Nickles yeah that just sounds like nonsense to me. — flannel jesus
I have no idea how a guy saying he doesn't trust his own reasoning could be interpreted as "political" — flannel jesus
If he doubts his own ability to reason, and his own ability to reason leads him to think he should trust science, then OF COURSE he's going to doubt if he should trust science. Just read his words. He spells it out, I'm not speculating. He literally says he doesnt trust his own reasoning abilities. — flannel jesus
This thread is about trusting your own mind, trusting your own judgment, trusting your own ability to reason - the thread I linked is about a guy who says he can't trust his own ability to reason. It's entirely on point. — flannel jesus
Ok, then is [earnestness], not in the speaker, but the receiver? The receiver interprets the committed "action" as earnest? Hence, speaker's intention is irrelevant? Where I'm currently settled is that (notwithstanding my previous "flippancy") "earnestness" is neither in the speaker (intent) nor in the receiver (interpretation) and (perhaps frustratingly to our conventional logic) it's in both. Why? Because it is imbued in the "word." — ENOAH
this guy's post is also an epistemological problem. — flannel jesus
The guy who made the thread, somehow, came to distrust his own ability to reason and discern fact from fiction. — flannel jesus
You should NOT trust your mind, but you can gain trust in certain beliefs by applying critical thinking: seek out contrary opinions, test your beliefs through discussion with others (like on this forum), attempt to mitigate confirmation bias by trying to identify objective reasons to support or deny some presumption you may have. Learn at least some basics of epistemology (including the limits of each technique). — Relativist
I can't disagree — ENOAH
I am discussing my thoughts approached at different "layers" and am poor at articulating that. — ENOAH
I still stand behind the "essence" of my thought…. I don't abandon my general thinking… to show you… [ I am ] earnest. — ENOAH
If the speaker is speaking in earnest*, who am I to judge? Why would I deny myself the opportunity to "play ball" with anyone who truly just wants to play ball? — ENOAH
I would "argue" there's a false bar for most, if not all words, not just earnest etc. — ENOAH
If the speaker is speaking in earnest, who am I to judge? [on a litmus test]… That is, "earnest" is related to "intention" — ENOAH
I'm not convinced that the desire for a universal principal is simply the result of us wanting to shirk our responsibility or culpability. — Benj96
Everyone can be rash, everyone can be stupid, misinformed or otherwise malpracticing adequate reason. My question is how does one know when that is the case - ie they're chatting sh*t. And to the contrary, when they really do know what they're talking about. What is the litmus test in the realm of discourse with others which may be either just as misinformed or very much astute and correct? Is there a universal logic/reason? Or only a circumstantial one? — Benj96
…[an animal’s] inability for it to question its existence or purpose does not alleviate guilt on my part then I should be grateful for the food put on my table.… At what point does a human being rationalize its consumption? — Deus
But I think people's inclinations can be affected by arguments… on average, more truthful arguments receive some advantage from their truthfulness. — xorn
it is not me making a judgment about people; I am just describing how disclaiming belief works in the world. And I’ll consider a competing claim, but dismissing the entire project as impossible claiming that I’m in no position is to remove any rationality from philosophical discourse. If someone is claiming they don’t believe in God, in a certain sense they are saying there is no mystery in the world and nothing outside of (above) our power. Now, they might not want that to be the implication of it, but those are some of the things which are believed, and so some of the things which are refused in the denial.That's one hell of a big inference about a whole hell of a lot people you know nothing about. — Vera Mont
You were drawing out the inference you made of what I said. Your interpretation. — Vera Mont
Before every such statement [“I think there is a god." or "I believe there is a god." or "I believe in God."] there is an expressed or implied question. — Vera Mont
the statement points back to a requirement for making it. — Vera Mont
you might want to consider if there's a charitable interpretation of the original post that could resolve this apparent inconsistency. - GPT-4 — Pierre-Normand
I believe this is one of those misconstructions through the substitution of similar but not interchangeable words. The words 'slippery', amorphous' and 'ever-changing' do not mean 'irrational'; nor does 'difficult' mean 'unable to be clarified'. — Vera Mont
…subject to imprecise applications and interpretations. — Vera Mont
[“I believe in God”, “I think there is a god”]…are …separate uses …in the same context: answering the question: "How do you regard God?" — Vera Mont
Language is slippery; difficult to handle effectively. I doubt any hard rule can apply to all the words in one language — Vera Mont
Now, why did you change the example? — Vera Mont
If God comes into it, it should be by way an example such as: "I think there is a god" - uncertainty leaning toward belief - "I believe there is a god" - growing conviction - and "I believe in God" - declaration of faith in a particular deity. — Vera Mont
My point is that the 'AGI', not humans, will decide whether or not to impose on itself and abide by (some theory of) moral norms, or codes of conduct. — 180 Proof
I suspect we will probably have to wait for 'AGI' to decide for itself whether or not to self-impose moral norms and/or legal constraints and what kind of ethics and/or laws it may create for itself – superceding human ethics & legal theories? – if it decides it needs them in order to 'optimally function' within (or without) human civilization. — 180 Proof