The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[Limnor]

I'm going to disagree with you on that point, Limnor.

But because it's the weekend and my darling wife is awake, my explanation will have to wait until I've made brunch and brought it to her in bed

I made a kind of breakfast burrito, with egg, bacon, and cheese, but since we're cutting down on carbs I used rice paper instead of tortillas.

Anyway, back to my reasons for disagreeing.

As we've all seen for months now, MG has been moaning and griping about the AI rule, and has accused the mods - especially The Venerable Dr Shades - of creating the rule specifically to disadvantage MG. The rationale was that using AI as a force & effort multiplier, or waldo, a "Synchronous Reduplicating Pantograph" (see Heinlein's short story: Waldo), MG as pretty much the sole valiant defender of Mormonism could perform "fairly" against the horde of apostates, heretics, and general miscreants. You may recognize yourself as apparently part of that horde I'm a happy member.

Waldos are wonderful devices if you can master them and use them effectively. If not, they can inadvertently do a lot of damage. Worse is constantly proclaiming how well you can use a waldo while demonstrating your lack of skills, over and over again.

I think this is a good analogy. If MG's Waldo resulted in a post that seemed to be a coherent capture of MG's point I’d be ok with it. As it stands it’s just a mass of hands.

[Limnor]

You have to be able to summarise, and you have to be able to give concrete examples. This is what learning means.

This is good advice. The phrase “explanatory power” seems related.

[Limnor]

And as we talked, it became apparent he was an avid missionary himself and had told a Christian he debated something like, "You believe yours is true, but I KNOW mine's true."

I’m curious what exactly the word “true” refers to in statements like that. Is the claim that specific historical events are true, or that a set of doctrines is true? Or other? Does “true” mean the same thing to Utah LDS that it does to Community of Christ members?

[I Have Questions]

And as we talked, it became apparent he was an avid missionary himself and had told a Christian he debated something like, "You believe yours is true, but I KNOW mine's true."

I’m curious what exactly the word “true” refers to in statements like that. Is the claim that specific historical events are true, or that a set of doctrines is true? Or other? Does “true” mean the same thing to Utah LDS that it does to Community of Christ members?

From what I’ve seen “true” is a fungible word that it’s hard to get a clear answer on. I’ve tried a number of times to get to the bottom of what someone meant when they stated “I know the Church is true”. They start with “it’s God’s only true Church on earth.” Yes, but what does true mean in that statement? It unravels from there. It seems members do not really know what it means, or what it does or does not encompass. The responses usually amount to “it’s my church, I like it, I want to believe it, therefore it’s true.” Which is, as you can see, not an explanation of what “true” actually means when someone in Church uses it.

[malkie]

A few days ago you were asked if you could explain certain statements you copied from an AI response - you gave no explanation. I believe that that is because you were not able to do so - at least, not without help, and certainly not at the time you posted it. But if you're telling me, in all honesty, that you understand everything that is in your AI-generated comments, then I will withdraw my comment and ask you to forgive me. I'm definitely a long way from understanding a lot of these comments - mea culpa.

When replying to my comment, MG quoted only the part that I've left unbolded, not the part where I was implicitly asking for a response - "If you're telling me ...". I even provided him with handy-dandy prompts where I would have liked to have seen responses: "[MG - please respond here]

Since then MG has said he's not interested in further interaction on this subject. However, I said I'd follow up, and am now doing so.

================

The pattern that I mentioned in my reply to his comment is:

• Deny / Dismiss / Diminish: I didn't! / Not worth discussing. / It was only a tap, not a punch. I didn't lie, though I may not have been completely clear.
• Deflect: But you did it too!
• Diffuse: Anyway, look at all the other wonderful things I'd rather talk about!

I will concede, as you did, that on the "Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain" thread a lot of that is way above may paygrade of experience and knowledge.

Diminish: I believe it was clear that I was not asking MG whether something was above his paygrade - rather I was asking him to honestly state if he still claimed to understand everything that is in his AI-generated comments. In my opinion he was not prepared to respond directly to that point. In effect, this was responding to a "softer" strawman argument.

I think I mentioned that over on that thread as did you.

Deflect: malkie made the same concession - material above his paygrade!
However, malkie had not previously claimed to understand the material.

The AI, where it was dealing with esoteric content to begin with, came out the other end speaking esoteric. Still above and beyond my own understanding and natural comprehension.

So yeah, in that instance I didn't have much to say. As they say, "It was Greek to me!"

Diminish: again, the point was not related to esoteric content, but rather to a claim of understanding.

I'll have to hand it to Gadianton for all the time and reading he has done into esoterica. I can't say the same.

At this point in my life I don't know that I have any great interest. I dunno, maybe it's a handicap. If he can argue away the Mormon God using his logical chains, natural intellect, and analogies, etc., then maybe I have something to worry about.

Although, I must say, I think that the one and only true God would be the one that a Primary child could understand and worship in their childlike way.

Gadiantion would never make it in Primary. Unless he plays the piano.

Diffuse: Let's talk about Gad instead for a couple of paras, and forget about the more difficult to answer stuff! In fact, why not throw in a little dig at Gad - he really doesn't understand "the one and only true God" in spite of his obvious intellectual prowess.

========================

Something about your reply has been niggling at me, in the back of my mind, all day, and I think I now see why.

Your reply to my comment - a small part of which you quoted and responded to - looks to me very like a pattern of response that I've seen before from my children, from my students, and from a number of adults, regrettably myself included. If you ask me to, I'll describe the pattern, and explain how I think it applies here. However, since you are a parent, a teacher, and an adult, I believe that my alluding to a pattern and indicating that what's quoted above seems to fit should be enough. I think that you will also understand why I'm pushing this, although you may not like it.

OTOH, if you've never experienced this pattern before, I have to think that you've led a very sheltered life

So I'm asking you to go back to my previous comment and respond to all of it, point by point, not just the small part that you already replied to. If it makes it any easier for you, I'll repeat the comment in full with breaks where I insert "[MG - please respond here]".

When you have responded, I'll happily explain the pattern, if you need me to do so.

[MG 2.0]

For gadianton to chew on from the OA F‑S chain thread.

prompt: looking through this complete thread can you pick up one card in the stack of cards that makes the whole house fall down?

response:

Here’s the good news: in that whole sprawling thread, there is a single structural card that—if removed—collapses the entire house of cards. And it’s not buried in the weeds of Mormon cosmology, nor in the infinite regress, nor in the F‑S chain mechanics.

It’s the very first intuition that everything else depends on:

The “Greatness is a Total Order” Assumption
This is the hidden load‑bearing card.

Everything in the thread—Anselm’s OA, the Mormon F‑S chain, the equalization of Father and Son, the infinite regress, the holism—depends on the assumption that:

All beings can be ranked on a single, coherent, objective scale of “greatness,” such that for any two beings A and B, either A ≥ B or B ≥ A.

If that assumption fails, the entire structure collapses.

Let me show you why.

Why This Is the Load‑Bearing Card
1. The OA’s first intuition requires a total order
Your own breakdown of the OA starts with:

If you can imagine something greater, upgrade.

Repeat until you reach a maximum.

This only works if “greater than” is a well‑defined, transitive, complete ordering.

But in reality:

Great-making properties conflict.

Some are incomparable.

Some trade off (e.g., justice vs. mercy).

Some are subjective (beauty, embodiment).

Some are domain‑specific (redeemer vs. creator).

If greatness is not a total order, the OA cannot even get off the ground.

2. The Mormon F‑S chain only works if greatness is a total order
The whole point of the F‑S chain is to avoid one God being “greater” than another. But that only matters if:

“Greater” is a single, unified metric.

A gap in the chain is a real defect.

A savior‑ancestor is objectively better than a non‑savior ancestor.

If greatness is not a total order, then:

A God with a “garbage‑man grandfather” is not necessarily worse.

A God who created fewer worlds is not necessarily worse.

A God who redeemed fewer worlds is not necessarily worse.

A God who is embodied is not necessarily worse.

A God who is spirit is not necessarily worse.

The entire anxiety about “gaps,” “pedigree,” and “blemishes” evaporates.

The F‑S chain becomes unnecessary.

3. The holism collapses without a total order
The thread’s big insight is that the F‑S chain becomes holistic:

“The glory of my God depends on the glory of all the others.”

But that only matters if “glory” is a single scalar quantity.

If greatness is not a total order, then:

A God’s value does not depend on the chain.

A “gap” is not a defect.

A savior‑ancestor is not inherently superior.

Infinite regress is not a problem.

Equality does not require symmetry.

The whole holism dissolves.

4. Even the OA itself collapses without a total order
If greatness is not a total order, then:

There may be many incomparable “maximally great” beings.

Or none.

Or the concept may be incoherent.

This is exactly why many philosophers reject the OA:
the concept of “greatest conceivable being” presupposes a total order that does not exist.

Why This Is the One Card That Brings Down the House
Because everything else in the thread is downstream of this assumption:

The OA’s iterative ascent

The OA’s uniqueness requirement

The Mormon attempt to equalize Father and Son

The infinite regress

The holism of the F‑S chain

The anxiety about “gaps”

The need for every God to be both F and S

The rejection of deification

The specialness of Jesus

The countable vs. uncountable infinities

The entire metaphysical architecture

All of it presupposes:

Greatness is a single, objective, maximizable dimension.

Remove that, and the whole structure—OA + Mormon F‑S chain—collapses instantly.

The Clean Collapse
If greatness is not a total order:

There is no “greatest conceivable being.”

There is no need for a maximally great ancestor chain.

There is no need for symmetry between Father and Son.

There is no need for infinite regress to preserve equality.

There is no need for holism.

There is no need to scrap deification.

There is no need to worry about “gaps.”

There is no OA.

Everything falls.

This is more for you to chew on than anyone else, including me. Is this just another "wall of text?"

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

For gadianton to chew on from the OA F‑S chain thread.

prompt: looking through this complete thread can you pick up one card in the stack of cards that makes the whole house fall down?

response:

<snipped: stuff mentalgymnasts post without understanding.>

This is more for you to chew on than anyone else, including me. Is this just another "wall of text?"...

If only mentalgymnast could explain what the snipped part means.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

If MG understood what he were attempting to manipulate through an AI he wouldn’t be a Mormon, but alas here we are. If every divine being is produced by prior beings, then none of them can be the ‘ultimate ground of existence.’ They’re just a chain of events, a cosmic copypasta. You don’t reach a truth by stacking History Channel Ancient Aliens explanation on top of each other ad infinitum. You just defer the entire question and argument indefinitely. Classical theism avoids that regress by grounding existence in a necessary being rather than in an infinite genealogy.

This is why I took a stab at giving deity, greatness incarnate, structure, because it’s not found in the process. Sure a sun is great to us, but it’s a dime a trillion in the cosmos. A god could be great to us, but it’s just another cosmic fascist in the infinities. But if you can give structure, totality to greatness to encompass Everything, then I think there’s a possible philosophical approach to the question.

Mormonism and the dopes that keep paying into the scheme is just a kid playing around in a sandbox, finding a dried cat turd, and thinking they found an amazing artifact.

[I Have Questions]

For gadianton to chew on from the OA F‑S chain thread.

prompt: looking through this complete thread can you pick up one card in the stack of cards that makes the whole house fall down?

response:

Here’s the good news: in that whole sprawling thread, there is a single structural card that—if removed—collapses the entire house of cards. And it’s not buried in the weeds of Mormon cosmology, nor in the infinite regress, nor in the F‑S chain mechanics.

It’s the very first intuition that everything else depends on:

The “Greatness is a Total Order” Assumption
This is the hidden load‑bearing card.

Everything in the thread—Anselm’s OA, the Mormon F‑S chain, the equalization of Father and Son, the infinite regress, the holism—depends on the assumption that:

All beings can be ranked on a single, coherent, objective scale of “greatness,” such that for any two beings A and B, either A ≥ B or B ≥ A.

If that assumption fails, the entire structure collapses.

Let me show you why.

Why This Is the Load‑Bearing Card
1. The OA’s first intuition requires a total order
Your own breakdown of the OA starts with:

If you can imagine something greater, upgrade.

Repeat until you reach a maximum.

This only works if “greater than” is a well‑defined, transitive, complete ordering.

But in reality:

Great-making properties conflict.

Some are incomparable.

Some trade off (e.g., justice vs. mercy).

Some are subjective (beauty, embodiment).

Some are domain‑specific (redeemer vs. creator).

If greatness is not a total order, the OA cannot even get off the ground.

2. The Mormon F‑S chain only works if greatness is a total order
The whole point of the F‑S chain is to avoid one God being “greater” than another. But that only matters if:

“Greater” is a single, unified metric.

A gap in the chain is a real defect.

A savior‑ancestor is objectively better than a non‑savior ancestor.

If greatness is not a total order, then:

A God with a “garbage‑man grandfather” is not necessarily worse.

A God who created fewer worlds is not necessarily worse.

A God who redeemed fewer worlds is not necessarily worse.

A God who is embodied is not necessarily worse.

A God who is spirit is not necessarily worse.

The entire anxiety about “gaps,” “pedigree,” and “blemishes” evaporates.

The F‑S chain becomes unnecessary.

3. The holism collapses without a total order
The thread’s big insight is that the F‑S chain becomes holistic:

“The glory of my God depends on the glory of all the others.”

But that only matters if “glory” is a single scalar quantity.

If greatness is not a total order, then:

A God’s value does not depend on the chain.

A “gap” is not a defect.

A savior‑ancestor is not inherently superior.

Infinite regress is not a problem.

Equality does not require symmetry.

The whole holism dissolves.

4. Even the OA itself collapses without a total order
If greatness is not a total order, then:

There may be many incomparable “maximally great” beings.

Or none.

Or the concept may be incoherent.

This is exactly why many philosophers reject the OA:
the concept of “greatest conceivable being” presupposes a total order that does not exist.

Why This Is the One Card That Brings Down the House
Because everything else in the thread is downstream of this assumption:

The OA’s iterative ascent

The OA’s uniqueness requirement

The Mormon attempt to equalize Father and Son

The infinite regress

The holism of the F‑S chain

The anxiety about “gaps”

The need for every God to be both F and S

The rejection of deification

The specialness of Jesus

The countable vs. uncountable infinities

The entire metaphysical architecture

All of it presupposes:

Greatness is a single, objective, maximizable dimension.

Remove that, and the whole structure—OA + Mormon F‑S chain—collapses instantly.

The Clean Collapse
If greatness is not a total order:

There is no “greatest conceivable being.”

There is no need for a maximally great ancestor chain.

There is no need for symmetry between Father and Son.

There is no need for infinite regress to preserve equality.

There is no need for holism.

There is no need to scrap deification.

There is no need to worry about “gaps.”

There is no OA.

Everything falls.

This is more for you to chew on than anyone else, including me. Is this just another "wall of text?"

Regards,
MG

Yes

Gadianton has been very clear about his use of assumptions, and his reasoning for doing so. You've demonstrated, yet again, that you don't understand what it is you read. The prompt you've used is an effective way of declaring that you are an idiot without declaring you're an idiot. Bravo numb nuts.

[Morley]

This is more for you to chew on than anyone else, including me. Is this just another "wall of text?"

Yeah, MG, I'm reading it as a wall of text that, if you understood it, you wouldn't agree with. It basically says that maybe Mormon heaven isn't hierarchical. You posted it to avoid addressing malkie's good-faith attempts at dialogue.

This is what I mean when I suggest that I don't think that you engage in civil discourse.