Should I be upvoting this just because it made me laugh? I feel like that probably isn’t really the purpose of the karma system, but “You’re a bad human” really tickled me.
Far be it from me to suggest humor value is not a sufficient voting criterion, but if you want to reward the coiner of that particular turn of phrase, may I suggest purchasing a few hundred paperclips and storing them in a safe place?
Ah, but I want to reward the spreader of humor, not the originator of the phrase. Does Clippy really say “You’re a bad human.”? I find this difficult to believe.
I intended it mostly just to be silly. I didn’t really know a better place to post it.
It was somewhat inspired by Trust in God, or, The Riddle of Kyon. That piece of rationalist fiction was very short due to God being a character. I took it to the extreme, and made the God the main character.
Well… I for one think the OP is playfully insightful, and deserves an upvote, duly given. I like how it mashes Judaism/Christianity and secular humanism in a stylistically sound HPMOR manner.
I suspect the Myer-Briggs ” xNTx ” ’s will like this, and others will think it’s daft. Curious to test this, and would appreciate feedback from those who know their MB type indicator.
And also… I am happy with my interpretation of the OP… but Daniel, I’d like to know if I’m wide of the mark, and as others have suggested you were trolling, or walked away from a part-done post.
Random trivia time: The start of Gospel by John: “In the beginning was the Word”—the greek word used there for ‘word’ is Logos—which can translate, among other things, to ‘cause’ and ‘reason’, from which we get english words like “Logic” or for that matter to “ratio”—from which we get words like “Logarithm”.
So, really: If you were going for a rationalist omake of the Bible, “In the beginning was Reasoning” might have been better, even if it’s from a Gospel and not from Genesis.
Good fiction requires conflict. An examination of the problem of creating a worthwhile universe, assuming pragmatic omnipotence, that was sufficiently serious as to address actual difficulties in the process, would constitute an installment in the Fun Theory sequence.
While your statement is true, Daniel seems to be trying to construct a short bit in the same vein as the HPMR chapter 64 omake. In that regard, this does fit the basic approach to many of them.
This is one of the main reasons I’ve always been confused by people’s assertions of the Bible’s great literary value. The only permanent character basically doesn’t have to deal with conflict.
God is for most of the Bible in the backdrop. The actual good literature is generally in sections with minimum amounts of divine intervention. Much of Samuel and Kings falls into this category. Some other well done literary sections are the sections where the characters are in conflict with God. See for example the story of Jonah.
Note also that even if this were not the case, there would still be literary value because of the immense influence the Bible has had on Western literature.
This may be a definitional issue then. I’m not sure how to make the notion of literary value at all precise since I only have a vague intuition. I do however see sort of where you are coming from. In your view, to have literary value, the literature itself needs to be somehow worth reading independently of whether other later actually good texts were influenced by it. Is that the relevant distinction?
There’s debate; in short, the Tetragrammaton (יהוה, or YHWH) is intentionally unpronounceable for complicated reasons. Really, if you’re going to spell out the name of God anyway, one set of vowels is as good as another—or you may as well just say “God”, it’s not like it means anything.
TL;DR: Yes, there’s multiple ways to spell it. (And no, I’m not going to say ‘summary’. Because I’m contrarian, that’s why.)
What’s confusing is how out of character this seems for DanielLC. I’m assigning a non-negligible probability to the hypothesis that ve walked away from a computer without logging out (or something) and this is just a drive-by troll.
This doesn’t seem that out of character. If one looks at Daniel’s contributions while his comments are generally of high quality is submissions for discussion threads are of highly variable quality.
I was comparing based on content, not quality. I didn’t quite get what this was supposed to be at first- it might forestall some confusion if the title were edited to include the prefix [Omake].
Of course, if it were me posting this I probably would have said
[Omake] The Gospel of UFAI
In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God.
And Prime Intellect said, Let there be bliss: and there was bliss.
You made me think there was an update.
You’re a bad human.
Should I be upvoting this just because it made me laugh? I feel like that probably isn’t really the purpose of the karma system, but “You’re a bad human” really tickled me.
Far be it from me to suggest humor value is not a sufficient voting criterion, but if you want to reward the coiner of that particular turn of phrase, may I suggest purchasing a few hundred paperclips and storing them in a safe place?
(I stole it from Clippy.)
Ah, but I want to reward the spreader of humor, not the originator of the phrase. Does Clippy really say “You’re a bad human.”? I find this difficult to believe.
Example uses here, and here.
I totally was thinking you were attributing the quote to Microsoft Word’s irritating assistant. Things make more sense.
“It looks like you’re trying to write a suicide note! Would you like some help?”
Did you just… happen to have those on hand, or...?
The magic of Google.
Ah, ok.
For what it’s worth, what actually brought it to mind was this exchange. Yes, I know. Burn.
What exactly do you want to tell us with that one? No offense intended, but why did you post this? I don’t see any valuable insight in this line.
I intended it mostly just to be silly. I didn’t really know a better place to post it.
It was somewhat inspired by Trust in God, or, The Riddle of Kyon. That piece of rationalist fiction was very short due to God being a character. I took it to the extreme, and made the God the main character.
Well… I for one think the OP is playfully insightful, and deserves an upvote, duly given. I like how it mashes Judaism/Christianity and secular humanism in a stylistically sound HPMOR manner.
I suspect the Myer-Briggs ” xNTx ” ’s will like this, and others will think it’s daft. Curious to test this, and would appreciate feedback from those who know their MB type indicator.
And also… I am happy with my interpretation of the OP… but Daniel, I’d like to know if I’m wide of the mark, and as others have suggested you were trolling, or walked away from a part-done post.
Even if this interpretation is correct (and at this point I think it probably is)… is it about ‘secular humanism’ or wireheading?
Hmm… good point! Maybe OP will let us know what he was thinking.
I guess this shows that one can find various meanings in stuff, whether they were put there intentionally, or not.
Random trivia time: The start of Gospel by John: “In the beginning was the Word”—the greek word used there for ‘word’ is Logos—which can translate, among other things, to ‘cause’ and ‘reason’, from which we get english words like “Logic” or for that matter to “ratio”—from which we get words like “Logarithm”.
So, really: If you were going for a rationalist omake of the Bible, “In the beginning was Reasoning” might have been better, even if it’s from a Gospel and not from Genesis.
Good fiction requires conflict. An examination of the problem of creating a worthwhile universe, assuming pragmatic omnipotence, that was sufficiently serious as to address actual difficulties in the process, would constitute an installment in the Fun Theory sequence.
While your statement is true, Daniel seems to be trying to construct a short bit in the same vein as the HPMR chapter 64 omake. In that regard, this does fit the basic approach to many of them.
Ah, now this makes some sense!
If this was the idea, however, it seems like there was probably a way to frame it that wouldn’t have resulted in sixteen downvotes.
This is one of the main reasons I’ve always been confused by people’s assertions of the Bible’s great literary value. The only permanent character basically doesn’t have to deal with conflict.
God is for most of the Bible in the backdrop. The actual good literature is generally in sections with minimum amounts of divine intervention. Much of Samuel and Kings falls into this category. Some other well done literary sections are the sections where the characters are in conflict with God. See for example the story of Jonah.
Note also that even if this were not the case, there would still be literary value because of the immense influence the Bible has had on Western literature.
I don’t think that having an immense cultural influence is a sufficient condition to constitute literary value.
This may be a definitional issue then. I’m not sure how to make the notion of literary value at all precise since I only have a vague intuition. I do however see sort of where you are coming from. In your view, to have literary value, the literature itself needs to be somehow worth reading independently of whether other later actually good texts were influenced by it. Is that the relevant distinction?
Yes.
Isn’t there a spelling error there? Or can Yahweh be transliterated several ways?
Also, post does not seem likely to cause bliss :(
There’s debate; in short, the Tetragrammaton (יהוה, or YHWH) is intentionally unpronounceable for complicated reasons. Really, if you’re going to spell out the name of God anyway, one set of vowels is as good as another—or you may as well just say “God”, it’s not like it means anything.
TL;DR: Yes, there’s multiple ways to spell it. (And no, I’m not going to say ‘summary’. Because I’m contrarian, that’s why.)
What’s confusing is how out of character this seems for DanielLC. I’m assigning a non-negligible probability to the hypothesis that ve walked away from a computer without logging out (or something) and this is just a drive-by troll.
It was a spelling error. The fact that there’s no “correct” spelling is a coincidence.
This doesn’t seem that out of character. If one looks at Daniel’s contributions while his comments are generally of high quality is submissions for discussion threads are of highly variable quality.
I was comparing based on content, not quality. I didn’t quite get what this was supposed to be at first- it might forestall some confusion if the title were edited to include the prefix [Omake].
Of course, if it were me posting this I probably would have said
The point is what? That suffering is incompatible with an all powerful all good deity? This is not a novel point.