Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Grok’s analysis of the meaning of the two statements certainly shows a contradiction, it’s just not very good at logic so isn’t able to understand that “you can’t avoid doubt” and “you can avoid doubt” are contradictory.
I was watching a movie earlier and one of the characters was innocent, but then he committed a crime and was found guilty.
How can the same character be both innocent and guilty. What a terrible movie with such an obvious contradiction. Right?
I was watching a movie earlier and one of the characters was innocent, but then he committed a crime and was found guilty.
How can the same character be both innocent and guilty. What a terrible movie with such an obvious contradiction. Right?
Was it The Passion of The Christ?
Grok’s analysis of the meaning of the two statements certainly shows a contradiction, it’s just not very good at logic so isn’t able to understand that “you can’t avoid doubt” and “you can avoid doubt” are contradictory.
Typically in default non-monotonic logic this is normal although there's a bit missing (and doesn't really need stating as it's always the same form)
The default rule is:
You can't avoid doubt iff it's not the case that you can avoid doubt
There's also a unstated default rule that this is too much of a small step past logic 101 for D2 to cope.
There's also a unstated default rule that this is too much of a small step past logic 101 for D2 to cope.
Luckily I have you and craig to learn from.
I was watching a movie earlier and one of the characters was innocent, but then he committed a crime and was found guilty.
How can the same character be both innocent and guilty. What a terrible movie with such an obvious contradiction. Right?
I don’t see how you can say I don’t get to be assured because that’s not how reality works and then offer a way from me to be assured without either contradicting yourself or lying about one of those things.
But maybe the obvious explanation is that you actually think you are Jesus and trying to speak in parables like he does.
Are you still salty that you ended up bottom of the poster brain ratings? It's not your fault you have a peanut rattling around that great big skull of yours, we can't all be craig.
I have to confess, observing the bible thumper on god botherer violence is a guilty pleasure of mine.
I was hoping that Son of Man might be able to write better than chezlaw.
These questions are unproductive from my end. You’ve clearly already made up your mind about me.
I asked whether you had adherents precisely because I was curious whether anyone else had a different reaction to your claims. I don't know that I am any less open to your claims than anyone else you have met in your life.
Your anonymous screen name won’t save you from what’s coming.
I know that you don't want to answer any more of my questions, which is fine, but if you change your mind, I would be curious to know whether your status as a prophet and the Son of Man allows you access to mundane facts such as the real names of posters on 2+2. I wouldn't have imagined that someone could obscure his real identity from the Son of Man by using a screen name, but I admittedly don't know how all this works.
FWIW, I certainly don't expect an anonymous screen name to save me from whatever awaits me after I die. I'm with you on that point.
Incidentally, today I came across this, which relates to the 'simulation theory' discussion, 'simulation theory' being a newish name for an old idea, the old schoolboy 'How do you know anything is real?' gag :-
Some of my cousins who had the great advantage of University education used to tease me with arguments to prove that nothing has any existence except what we think of it. The whole creation is but a dream; all phenomena are imaginary. You create your own universe as you go along. The stronger your imagination, the more variegated your universe. When you leave off dreaming, the universe ceases to exist. These amusing mental acrobatics are all right to play with. They are perfectly harmless and perfectly useless. I warn my younger readers only to treat them as a game. The metaphysicians will have the last word and defy you to disprove their absurd propositions.
Winston S. Churchill, My Early Life (1930)
Churchill like many was probably bewildered by thought experiments rather than claim of truths. It's going to be great in a 100 years or so when we can make that true with 'better than life' It's fun to see people still crying about simulation as we approach the cusp of simulating. Unless it isn't possible of course
I still pose the question 'when will the V in VR be seen as anachronistic?'. I'm confident it will be long after the A in AI and Alife are wildly considered as offensive
Not everyone can make the cut
Churchill like many was probably bewildered by thought experiments rather than claim of truths. It's going to be great in a 100 years or so when we can make that true with 'better than life' It's fun to see people still crying about simulation as we approach the cusp of simulating. Unless it isn't possible of courseI still pose the question 'when will the V in VR be seen as ana
Your "craig" impression is nowhere near as good as Rococo's.
He most likely was strawmanning skepticism, and to call skeptical challenges useless is sort of hilarious when they’re basically so strong that most philosophers shrug their shoulders and ignore them.
The Moorian shift for example claims we can ignore skeptical challenges because their conclusions are so implausible that you shouldn’t accept any set of premises that lead to the conclusion that, for instance “I don’t know that I have hands”. But how could that ever be a good argument?
I’m not a solipsist but I find the sort of dismissal that Churchill attempted to be quite a braindead reply.
