In Christian theology pneumatology is always about the Holy Spirit
This seems likely but I know that some denominations have discussed the nature of angels and their interaction with humans.
Superintelligence” just means an extremely intelligent agent, and gods are, by hypothesis, extremely intelligent agents.
If you said “God” or the “Christian God” here that might be ok, but you seem to be trying to smuggling in a notion about deities that simply isn’t true for the lowercase gods.
There were other points I think that showed up the first time I read it, but I’m not reading it as carefully now (reading this is a bit exhausting).
Okay, given those two examples I think your objections are nitpicks. I think you’re probably unsatisfied with the piece for other, unmentioned reasons that you might not have introspective access to. Same with the people who upvoted Manfred’s comment, which singles out the only paragraph in the piece that could really be interpreted as containing much too much fluff, and even then I explicitly recommended that people who weren’t interested in the meta stuff about the blog skip ahead to the discussion of the solution only.
Overall, given the criticisms of the piece, I think I should be satisfied that I didn’t leave out anything important, and that people who are unsatisfied with it are mostly not the people I want in my audience anyway. I’m left thinking that my primary aim should be to experiment with writing style more.
Well:
This seems likely but I know that some denominations have discussed the nature of angels and their interaction with humans.
If you said “God” or the “Christian God” here that might be ok, but you seem to be trying to smuggling in a notion about deities that simply isn’t true for the lowercase gods.
There were other points I think that showed up the first time I read it, but I’m not reading it as carefully now (reading this is a bit exhausting).
Okay, given those two examples I think your objections are nitpicks. I think you’re probably unsatisfied with the piece for other, unmentioned reasons that you might not have introspective access to. Same with the people who upvoted Manfred’s comment, which singles out the only paragraph in the piece that could really be interpreted as containing much too much fluff, and even then I explicitly recommended that people who weren’t interested in the meta stuff about the blog skip ahead to the discussion of the solution only.
Overall, given the criticisms of the piece, I think I should be satisfied that I didn’t leave out anything important, and that people who are unsatisfied with it are mostly not the people I want in my audience anyway. I’m left thinking that my primary aim should be to experiment with writing style more.