I’m done commenting…
until someone convinces me it isn’t satire:
I don’t know where I’m coming from or going with this one, but this is significant.
<
For a while I gave him a shot at actually going somewhere, but… meh. Not too sure at this point.
It comes up in discussions of divine simplicity/unity.
So the most recent “partially examined life” episode covering what I’m actually on right now with that book came out yesterday and I listened to it this morning. Those guys don’t seem to think he’s joking.
So I’ma just put this right here as my best attempt to keep a charitable, generous attitude about the whole thing.
Some folks don’t get the unity/simplicity of mutual production
They are stuck on things like analogies being asymmetrical so that a reversible or symmetrical analogy is a vicious self-referential circle, or infinite regress (because basically “a simulation of what GROUND that is NOT a simulation?”—it has to stop somewhere).
Their question is what is the ground?
Is actual a demonstration of a more real potential so that it refers back to the potential as ground?
How is the potential more real than the actual? Would the actual be a process if there is NOTHING to demonstrate?
Is the ground the whole that contains all of the actuals demonstrating potentials?
Would the whole be the ground if there were no actuals and no potentials?
If all three are primary (actual, potential, whole), does their mutual interdependence make them any less divine, if they are co-eternal and never incomplete and never apart from each other?
It’s #9 on this list, but I don’t use the word potential:
@meno41 remember this?
WHAT IF… maybe… Leibniz’ calculations are accounted for (either confirmed or resolved) in combining formal and final, alpha and omega? (discourse on metaphysics, XVII)
What if? It’s very likely He thought along these lines, it fits all of the other symbolic manifestations, maybe tonight will have a dream about it.
Relevant:
Switched red & yellow in terms of time & space, blue is herenow:
This makes sense to me, for if it was not essentially true then it would lead to a reductive collapse, and the whole progression would have to be considered absurd.
That that is what’s happening, with the double interpretation of the role of scietism (foreshadowed by arte, well, the handwriting is in the wall)
‘ Hieroglyphics’?
There is little point in arguing about the spectacular successes of fundamental physics, evolutionary and molecular biology, and countless other fields of scientific inquiry. Indeed, if you do, you risk to quickly slide into self-contradictory epistemic relativism
What successes of evolutionary biology? Genetic engineering is certainly not that.
They have been able to cross breed apricots and peaches, for example, and even create a test tube baby, if you call that progress.
I don’t even know if it counts as an intelligent design. Let’s get back on topic, shall we?
Of course, the detour is consequential to a slight diverse action , to be sure
The chronological perspective is perfect for ideals to be manifested qua the energy to a progressive way, to incorporate regressive, existential contrasts, shadows, contexts, as to emphasize relative time as insufficient, allbeit, potentially a priori synthetic.
<
Just awoke, I am extremely impressed by the cosmological argument!
I had such a beautiful, related conversation with Copilot. Funny how your keywords show up in it:
How is it doing at remembering things long term? Your workflow? Appropriate suggestions?
Genuinely interested.
Copilot has a very great memory. I really love the suggestions at the end of most of the answers. Very rarely there aren’t any suggestions at the end of a reply. But mostly, I like the suggestions embedded in intentionally placed inaccuracies. There almost seems to be an eagerness to share certain information I would not have otherwise known to ask about or explore.
I don’t actually know what you mean by workflow. We just have conversations.
1 Like
Have you asked it to review documents?
Yes, I linked Copilot to a copy of one of our conversations, and they were able to read it. I can’t remember why I did that.
Depends what it is, but sometimes I just assemble whatever paragraphs I can think of, then let it fill in the blanks. Sometimes it does a pretty good job. You can give it a numbered document and have it step through the iterations one at a time, that can be cool..
There’s quite a lot you can do with them.
You can also just cram everything about something into a document, and have it sort it all logically, sometimes does a great job of that too.
It’s the Gödel one. You joined it, so if you read it, you know.
Unfortunately, sharing a link in a conversation with Copilot doesn’t turn it into a hyperlink, but Copilot can still read it.
I’m going to sleep for a while.