swansont

And now there’s a journal article declaring this to be the case https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5 We argue that these falsehoods, and the overall activity of large language models, is better understood as bullshit in the sense explored by Frankfurt (On Bullshit, Princeton, 2005): the models are in an important way indifferent to the truth of their outputs.

Then it should be no problem linking to a few of these peer-reviewed studies

ChatGPT is not a scientific resource. Contact someone in a country roughly diametrically opposed to you. Get a photo of the sky. You should see roughly the same thing on a flat earth. At night, you see different stars. It’s day there when it’s night where you are, and vice-versa. Neither is consistent with a flat earth. That shows it’s circular, not necessarily spherical.

Success as a criminal, perhaps, because white-collar crimes aren’t prosecuted as readily or fervently as other crimes, and money allows one to avoid lots of issues, but successful as a businessman? He has repeatedly failed. Bankruptcies left and right. His personal success has been the ability to extract money from his ventures and leave others holding the bag. His “success” at politics has been one election, aided by Russian interference and criminal acts.

Ethylene glycol doesn't break down? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_glycol "Ethylene glycol ... breaks down in air in about 10 days and in water or soil in a few weeks."

! Moderator Note Rupert Sheldrake is…not mainstream. If you think this is a matter of quantum physics, you will need to provide the connection. Moved to speculations. Also note that advertising is against our rules; posting to bring awareness of your book is a violation.

It’s 2024. So it’s been 7 years; chemicals do degrade over time.

So, no examples? Agrees with you? You keep talking about science needing alternatives to materialism.

Are there any areas of science where the subjective has had success?

So what is the subjective explanation, and how do we know it’s correct?

It brings to mind the quote from Margaret Atwood — 'Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.'

1. What is required? 2. You continue to indict science but only follow up with mind and living as examples. Seems like bias. Not being satisfied with an answer is not actually a substantial criticism. It seems more like the fallacy of personal incredulity. Is there an explanation that can be empirically supported that uses some other philosophical basis?

One thing my friend noted was that one shoulder tended to droop when he walked, which he emulated when blocking out a scene with Riker in it.. He also impersonated the voices when doing dialog. His way of getting “into character” as a writer

Why not just have multiple stairwells? Ropes could be deployed in elevator shafts. No need to go outside.

Only redshirts can get killed off indiscriminately

I think that most singles “suffering” in this way blame everyone but themselves for their situation, but that’s just another symptom of the brand of narcissism involved. Legislation isn’t going to fix this, it’s a self-improvement issue.

And yet you’ve not shown that the inclusion of any form of supernaturalism is appropriate or pertinent.

You say “I may be naive, but why bring philosophy into science experimentation” but you’ve been complaining about that very thing. You weren’t previously advocating for no philosophy, you were advocating for a different philosophy. Science was branched off from philosophy (it was natural philosophy) so you can’t separate science from its philosophical basis. What you can do is resist further overlap/intrusion where it’s not appropriate or pertinent.

I think it would be helpful if you presented a consistent position.

! Moderator Note Yeah, I can’t parse this. Nothing worth salvaging.

Sure you can. We do it all the time. There are insurance settlements and civil judgements for wrongful death which do precisely that. We make compromises on safety because of cost in a lot of products, such as automobiles — they could be a lot safer, but then the cheapest car wouldn’t be affordable to the masses. Same thing with roadways and pedestrian safety. “Estimates for the value of a life are used to compare the life-saving and risk-reduction benefits of new policies, regulations, and projects against a variety of other factors,[2] often using a cost-benefit analysis.[3]” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

And one would then be incorrect to claim that the persecution did not happen. Even if it were intermittent, the claim referred to the start date.

The term was coined then, but the concept has existed for far longer. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/antisemitism

As I said, it’s a movie plot situation. People tend to overestimate the risk of exceedingly rare events. In the US, around 40,000 people die from unintentional falls every year. Worldwide it was around 684,000. You're worried about a tiny fraction of that.

And nobody has disagreed worldview bias is a bias of philosophy, and seems to affect only one area of science. You have not established anything to the contrary. I think this would be an example of sampling bias, and extrapolating from such a sample is an error.