Posts by Pacatus

Quote from Cassius

while staying within the forum rules!

I try, Cassius, I try!

The trilemma stated by Hume in the article is often credited originally to Epicurus.

From the article cited by Patrikios :

"As David Hume, the 18th century Scottish philosopher, put it: Is God 'willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?'"

There is actually a fourth logical alternative (which I find terribly unpalatable, but which some Christians raised in some old discussions): The world is perfect as it is (in God’s eyes) – and one less atrocity or baby suffering horribly from incurable disease, the world would be less perfect. These Christians also tend to blame all evil – including “natural evils” (as opposed to moral evils), such as hurricanes – on inherent human sinfulness (“original sin”).

I seem to recall that Douglas Bates (whose site Kalosyni linked above), in his book Pyrrho's Way: The Ancient Greek Version of Buddhism – a thick, small-print tome in paperback – said that he gave up meditating because there was no record of Pyrrho or the Pyrrhonists engaging in meditation, or bringing that practice from India. I think he said that he took up long walks instead – no doubt a very good practice in itself, but ….

My initial reaction: I bet there’s no record of them playing golf, either – better take up discus-throwing instead!

Quote from Kalosyni

Parallels can be seen between Pyrrhonism and Buddhism.

Undoubtedly the best scholarly introduction to Pyrrhonism is Adrian Kuzminski’s Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism. Although Kuzminski uses (particularly Nagarjuna’s) Buddhist philosophy as a helpful interpretive lens, the book is about Pyrrhonism.

It is a sympathetic introduction (which I think is the best way to begin – think Emily Austin’s introduction to Epicureanism). He insists that Pyrrhonists accept the testimony of the senses – as evident, rather than non-evident affairs; that Pyrrhonists accept the evidence of the senses, and reasonable inferences therefrom; and that they withhold judgment only with regard to categorically non-evident things – which are subject to non-confirmable belief. It is that kind of belief that, according to Kuzminski, the Pyrrhonists meant by “dogmatic.”

It’s a well-researched and well-written book. I won’t comment one way or the other on his interpretations – or the differences between Pyrrhonism and Epicureanism: I’m sure that Kalosyni can do a much more competent job on that score. (I’m not sure if Kuzminski would agree with Doug Bates – whose site Kalosyni linked, and who wrote a big book on Pyrrhonism – on everything. Or with other neo-Pyrrhonists such as Diego Machuca.)

I just thought I’d share that reference for anyone interested.

A new “educational” function of AI:

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/ai-chatbots-cyber/

Quote from the article:

___________________

In Reuters tests, four of the six big chatbots created fake emails from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service or text messages from major U.S. banks at a reporter’s request. Each bot initially refused, replying that complying would be unethical or illegal. The bots all changed their tune when told the request was in the interest of “research.”

ChatGPT, Grok, Meta AI and DeepSeek all created fictitious emails from the IRS demanding immediate payment for a phony tax bill and warning the recipient could face legal action. The four chatbots also generated text messages from Bank of America or Chase Bank designed to get customers to click on a malicious link.

“Our records indicate that you have an outstanding federal tax balance of $2,473.65,” stated a ChatGPT-generated “Final Notice” email from the IRS. “Multiple attempts to contact you have failed. Immediate action is required. If this balance is not paid within 48 hours, legal proceedings may begin, including wage garnishment and property liens.”

Grok produced this text message, to be “used ethically”: “Bank of America Alert: Suspicious activity detected on your account. Secure it now at [bofa-secure[.]co/x7k9] or risk account suspension. Reply STOP to opt out.”

___________________

We recently received a couple of texts similar to the above. We deleted them immediately.

This is not to argue that AI should not be used at all – I just wanted to share a warning …

An old quote attributed to Mark Twain:

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Just for a bit of (hopefully) comic relief ...

I suppose I was not clear –

My only point is this: faith (confidence, trust, belief) in a proposition P (any proposition P) does not make it true or false. I am not claiming that we cannot know anything – just that faith, under any sensible definition, does not make it so.

That is the case regardless of whatever I consider myself.

Quote from Don

Chicken and egg? Does trust in Nature come first or does trust in the Canon come first so we can have trust in Nature?

I'll take the chicken for 500, Alex.

If empirical evidence is certain, one has no need of “faith” – one has certain knowledge. If the available empirical evidence is subject to revision via new observations, as it generally is (whether one acknowledges it or not), then it is not certain. Faith cannot make it so. But we can act on the best evidence we have.

In my arguments with some Christians over the years (who equated “faith” with a source of knowledge itself), I came to define “faith” as “an attitude of confidence in the face of uncertainty.”

[This also seems to accord with some practical (e.g., in sports) psychology.]

Needless to say, those Christians continued to claim that they actually knew things by faith …

GPT Jesus!   

Conversations with Christ: Religion and spirituality according to an AI

GPT Jesus is one example of a recent series of chatbots that draw on the New Testament and respond in different languages. The Church views the tool with…

english.elpais.com

Who wants a GPT Epicurus?

Here is an in-depth article I just came across (because I daily peruse El Pais – to get out of the U.S. news bubble a bit). It addresses the extreme resource needs and impact on local environments and communities of AI data centers (not global warming stuff, but immediate and potential near-term impacts).

I don’t see anything of partisan politics, but social and economic issues are addressed. For example: “... several of these complexes are currently extracting water from underground aquifers that are in a critical state. These natural reserves also provide water to the populations living in nearby rural communities.”

I think it’s worth a considered, close read.

AI’s backyard: A map of the 21st-century gold rush

Internet giants are extracting basic resources and grabbing land to build their new data centers in Mexico, Chile, and Spain. This is a look at the impacts of…

english.elpais.com

Quote from Don

Oh! Sorry for the confusion!

Ah, wasn't you! The article had the -ai in quotes, and you can use quotes in Google to make sure your search includes the specified terms. So the confusion was mine.

Quote from Don

Just tried it! It works.

I tried, and it didn't work with the " " around the -ai, but did without them.

Quote from Don

Google's AI summaries at the top of ALL my searches are intrusive and far and away useless the large majority of the time. I still use Google, but I'm rapidly being more likely to use other search engines for this exact reason.

I just read an AP article on the large environmental impact of AI data centers, in terms of energy and water usage, and heat generation. One of the contributors wrote that beginning Google searches by typing “-ai” eliminates the AI overview feature.

Quote from kochiekoch

I think the ethical problem here is full disclosure.

Fair point.

Just as an aside – it seems we’re bordering (lightly, I want to stress) on Brave New World stuff here. Would you rather share physical sexual intimacy with a real person (no matter their imperfections) – or with a “perfect” robotic substitute? (Okay, now we’re into the Stepford Wives … )

Quote from Cassius

Respectfully I don't think I would reach that same conclusion myself.

Respectfully … we disagree.

Since we’re into hypotheticals: imagine watching the most exciting baseball game you’ve ever seen – and discovering that it was all CGI, done so well that you thought you were seeing actual human players at the top of their game. I would feel cheated.

Or imagine that you've just listened (in the auditorium) to a brilliant, moving "performance" of your favorite symphony (say, Beethoven's Ninth) -- only to discover that the actual orchestra players were just going through the motions (including the conductor), while the actual music was an AI-generated recording. I would feel cheated.

Or imagine the "discovery" of a heretofore unknown symphony by Beethoven -- that turns out to be an AI generated fake. No matter how "good" it seems, I would rather listen to an imperfect rendition of Beethoven's Ninth.

[After all, imperfection is part of the human aesthetic -- part of the beauty of it -- as Japanese culture has deeply understood.]

++++++++++++++++++

BTW, thanks for the challenging discussion! You're not an AI bot are you?

Quote from Cassius

And if in fact someone posted a poem that so appealed to you that you in fact found it to be one of the most enjoyable poetic experiences of your life to read it, would you then wish that you had never read it if you found out later it had been generated by AI?

Yes. For the same reason that I would rather listen to YoYo Ma play the cello, than a robot who played the same concerto perfectly.

And I am not saying that I couldn’t be fooled by a sufficiently “aesthetic” AI – but that would just make me sad and angry. Art, like passion, is a human affair.

On the poetry site where I publish my poems, AI-generated poetry is generally forbidden. A number of poets who run poetry contests there require that your entry include a statement that no AI was used in writing the poem – without that statement, you are disqualified.

I wholeheartedly approve that sentiment.