No, not performance art. You guys just have no concept of actually investigating something, do you? If it’s not partially solved—meaning solved for you—and in the proper syllogistic format, you don’t know WTF to make of it. Too bad. But typical.
MillardJMelnyk
Karma: −315
So, no one is capable of thinking about something from real life unless it’s put in a special format? You’re incapable of thinking about a topic unless it’s spoon fed? You have no clue what a hypothesis is, then? Who said I want a “different reaction”? I’m a scientist. All results are good information. I don’t go into research with preconceived bias, as best I can help it. Looks like that’s a foreign concept here.
Fine, no worries. Bottom line, here: no one is interested in putting any effort into the topic, but has beaucoup excuses why they shouldn’t be expected to put any effort into it. The reaction to LLMs is wild, too. It’s like no one feels competent to vet the info that comes out of them, so let’s just trash it all, lol. Did I say anywhere that there has been nothing written about this or that I’m “the first”? So, why the “argument”? You’re all over the place. And why does “first and only” have any relevance at all? It doesn’t to me. So, great job on having the best-thought-out excuses so far, tho!
yeah, I agree. Nothing much here to stick around for.
That’s where everyone gets stuck. Everyone assumes that I have some particular, possibly off-the-wall definition I’m hoping to promote and argue for. Nope.
I’ve been studying the nature of belief, and later cultic belief, since the 70s. I have long experience and research into what people are talking about when they use the word “belief” or say “I believe that...”
But I didn’t stop there. I looked into what they were doing and what they experienced that “belief” referred to.
The assumption that you can reduce all that to a “definition” is unrealistic.
What’s more, the fact that this post was met with deflection and denial by people who definitely do not want to explore the idea proves that they have their own “definitions” of belief that are strongly incompatible with the possibility (and implications) that they developed from an underlying psychosis. I’d far more like to hear about theirs than pretend to promote or argue about some pet version of my own.
You provided a definition that we could start from, if you like. Is that your definition of belief, or was it just convenient—in the same way it was convenient for me to post an AI chat—to refer to someone else’s definition?
Seriously? What’s unclear about the possibility that belief is a psychological artifact, the result of psychosis?
Instead of complaining, why not try engaging? If you actually had any interest in the topic, at least you could try looking into how much thought I have in fact put into it instead of declaring from a position of abject ignorance that I’ve put none into it.
You make no sense.
Is the problem that it’s so far beyond your ken you don’t even know where to start?
What’s clear is that while complaining about how little thought I’ve supposedly put into it, you have steadfastly avoided putting any of your own into it.
Clearly, we have nothing to talk about.
Well, sadly, what I’m getting is pretty much what I always get when I present ideas that:
1. No one has thought about before.
2. No one likes.
3. No one wants to consider the possibility of.
4. And, thanks to #1, it’s all coming from a place of extreme ignorance.
That’s OK, I’m used to it.I’ll check in maybe tomorrow to see if anyone who is actually interested in the prospect has come along.
and I responded
In my experience, invariably, when people retreat to a position of presumed authority to declare something as nebulous as “rude”, they’ve got nothing worthwhile to say, but want to say it anyway.
At last, something with a little substance, although it doesn’t even come close to exploring or finding fault with the idea. That’s ok, it’s something.
Just a little retrospection should make crystal clear that most of your life experience has nothing to do with beliefs. Sure, you can couch it in that language if you want, but do you actually make beliefs out of everything you want and do? If you’re in a real-time activity, you can’t afford those extra cycles of consciousness—especially not when doing something like sports, driving, or making love. Are you saying that you actually experience life as a stream of beliefs?
You wouldn’t say the same if I presented an idea that you liked.
The defensiveness here is glaring, although not surprising.
Did you even read the chat?
I’m willing and able to put effort into this that would blow you away, once I get a seriously interested response. Why should I waste my time with naysayers?Engage me instead of trying to dismiss me and you’ll see.
Or maybe that’s exactly what you don’t want to see?
There is a very interesting and rich topic here. It’s OK. No one is twisting your arm to engage. You came here claiming sour grapes. Well, that’s pretty hard to honestly say, isn’t it, when you haven’t even tried?
I’d do that if I were presenting an argument. I’m not, as I clearly stated. Your comment merely shows that you aren’t familiar with collaborative exploration and investigation.
Try engaging with the post instead of groping for ways to avoid it. Give it a try.
Well, I read it again, reads like a response to the OP, so...
First, what argument? Please distinguish between a hypothesis and an argument.This is why philosophers make terrible scientists.
The first thing you do with a hypothesis is EXPLORE it: investigate, experiment, get experimental results so that any arguments don’t happen in an empirical vacuum—like almost all philosophy has always been.
The first thing you do NOT do is dismiss the hypothesis from a position of ignorance—which it necessarily is when you refuse to explore it.
Excellent job, btw, of calling out a non-existent “no true Scotsman” by employing the gambit you seem to think you’re calling out.
Sure, IF I did what you said, your conclusion would be true. If I have not done what you said, your conclusion would be false. Agreed. So, your point? You have no basis in fact to think that’s what I’ve done.
And you missed the whole point. Taking a hypothesis as an argument just shows you don’t know which room you’re in.But it’s clear you have no interest in exploring the hypothesis. Noted.
@zw5, yeah I’m confused, I read that as a response to the OP. It’s not?
PS. Clearly, you weren’t able to find any fault in the thinking presented. Whether mine or the AI’s, it’s still thinking that could have fault, right? Is that why you dismissed it instead of engage with it?
Great job at evading the material. I use AI precisely because I can’t find human beings who are able and willing to discuss this topic intelligently. Like, apparently, you.
I have written about this at length elsewhere. Your “there is no substance here” and “couldn’t even adequately argue for your beliefs” only expose your bias and lack of grasp of what I wrote in simple English.
It’s not an argument, as I literally and clearly stated.
It’s not a “belief”.
Apparently, you don’t understand the term “hypothesis”.
Any fool can evade. They can be quite clever about it, too. The fact remains, there is a very interesting and profoundly important topic here—and you’ve cast your vote: you have no interest in exploring it.
Don’t put that on me, dude.
Belief as Psychosis
No, dude. You’re thinking backwards. If you can’t answer foundational questions, you literally don’t know what “it” is, so how are you going to make “it” work? If you can’t deal with an idea conceptually, what makes you think you’ve got the competence to deal with it practically?
I’m not ignoring anything. Focusing on first steps first doesn’t mean you deny there are more steps...
But back your claim. You claim that the foundational questions “depend” on whether we can make it work. Explain that dependency. “You can’t just ignore that there’s no way to make it work...” So, you’ve already decided there’s no way to make it work. How did you do that? What stops it from working?
Your last paragraph was interesting, though. There you allow that “impossible to make it work” is an “if”. For every “if” there’s a counter-if: if it’s possible to make it work, then the answer to, “What repulses us from the idea of a society founded on the principle of provide-first?” is: because we’re delusionally paranoid.
But your statement fails, because you can’t determine if it’s possible to make “it” work until AFTER:
1. You understand what “it” is.
2. You have answers to foundational questions about “it”.
3. You understand “it” well enough to actually try to make “it” work.
4. You actually try very hard, in every which way you can think of, over and over, to make it work but fail to make “it” work—at which point you are justified in saying, “We couldn’t make it work,” but no one is ever justified in saying, “It cannot be made to work.”So, you’re really making claims without any rational/evidential basis here.
What a bunch of preconceived assumptions, tangential hypotheticals, and trite observations. Not really interested. There are gadzillions of way to dismiss. Very few to engage. Your opinion about “qualifications” is moot when it’s based on ignorance of what you’re “qualifying”. But thanks for confirming that there’s nothing for me here.
We agree on that!