Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain

[Limnor]

but what it suggests nowadays is that maybe there is a way to translate degree of probability of existence into degree of greatness, because a lot of a modern economy is precisely about discounting sums of money in proportion to risk

There seem to be multiple ways of getting things into existence from nothing, unless some of those ways reduce to others. Enron/bitcoin/wmd math is one way. OAs work from thinking about necessity. But there is this other way, extrapolating what reality must be like if I'm an unbiased sample. The anthropic principle, the doomsday argument, and the most popular one, the simulation hypothesis get a whole of stuff existing in reality based on averageness rather than greatness. Then there is all the SETI stuff; the massive amounts of stuff proposed to explain no contact -- the dark forest etc.

If Mormons go down one of these routes, it's closer to the simulation hypothesis I think. We're just one of countless others doing something similar. Convergent evolution means that humans could be the highest form of being in physical reality.

The more I think about Mormon cosmology, the more it seems like the only coherent grounding model is brute fact. Intelligence, matter, and law just exist, and gods are just part of it and refuse explanation. The necessary being is the structure itself—it just is. That response is unsatisfying within classical models but I can’t think of another. I wonder had Joseph lived longer he may have evolved his theology to provide a better explanation, maybe intelligences themselves collectively replace “in the beginning God” with “in the beginning we intelligences” to distinguish between a council of gods vs a council of intelligences.

I’m still noodling over how those who are theoretically exalted choose additional intelligences. In the model, would there be a separate set of intelligences set aside so that when MG makes it he can form those intelligences into his children? I just wut…

[Limnor]

If Mormons go down one of these routes, it's closer to the simulation hypothesis I think. We're just one of countless others doing something similar. Convergent evolution means that humans could be the highest form of being in physical reality.

I’m trying to wrap my head around this and intrigued—what would this look like in an explanatory statement? How do you describe what kind of universe typical observers would find themselves in?

[Dr. Shades]

When you investigate you will see that both Gadianton and I were having a conversation without any AI inference at all. That conversation applied directly to the other thread (this one). I suppose I could have just said the same thing in this thread without ever saying the same thing over in the AI thread. I think we're getting a bit too Mosiac Law here. I'm following the rules and 'the spirit of the law'.

[MODERATOR NOTE: In "the spirit of the law," do not copy-and-paste material from one thread into another. Where it was originally posted is where it should stay. Nobody likes re-reading stuff they've already read.]

It is interesting to me, as I've said many times, the black and white thinking that occurs around here without any allowance for the spirit of the law.

[See above for the spirit of the law.]

If it is the case that my conversation with Gadianton on one thread was inappropriately transferred/continued on another thread I will discontinue doing that also. I honestly don't see a problem, however, in what I did.

[The problem with what you did is that nobody likes reading the same thing twice.]

Critics are sure making it hard around here! Echo chamber come hell or high water. Restricted/curtailed thought whenever possible. Even when it is one's own and the person one is talking to. Sheesh.

[Tell us: Do YOU want to read the same thing two or three different times? Does reading something ONCE restrict or curtail your thought in any way, shape, or form? Be honest.]

[I Have Questions]

When you investigate you will see that both Gadianton and I were having a conversation without any AI inference at all. That conversation applied directly to the other thread (this one). I suppose I could have just said the same thing in this thread without ever saying the same thing over in the AI thread. I think we're getting a bit too Mosiac Law here. I'm following the rules and 'the spirit of the law'.

[MODERATOR NOTE: In "the spirit of the law," do not copy-and-paste material from one thread into another. Where it was originally posted is where it should stay. Nobody likes re-reading stuff they've already read.]

It is interesting to me, as I've said many times, the black and white thinking that occurs around here without any allowance for the spirit of the law.

[See above for the spirit of the law.]

If it is the case that my conversation with Gadianton on one thread was inappropriately transferred/continued on another thread I will discontinue doing that also. I honestly don't see a problem, however, in what I did.

[The problem with what you did is that nobody likes reading the same thing twice.]

Critics are sure making it hard around here! Echo chamber come hell or high water. Restricted/curtailed thought whenever possible. Even when it is one's own and the person one is talking to. Sheesh.

[Tell us: Do YOU want to read the same thing two or three different times? Does reading something ONCE restrict or curtail your thought in any way, shape, or form? Be honest.]

Shades, what evidence do you have that suggests MG listens to, and heeds, the guidance that you give over and over and over again? Why are you putting up with MG's continual and repeated misbehaviour for far far far longer than, say, ludwigm's? I'd be keen to understand the leniency with one but not the other. You don't need to answer, obviously. It's your board and you can be as uneven handed as you like. But you don't strike me as someone who is naturally uneven handed, so I'm interested in why you are being so when it comes to doing everything you can to avoid dealing with MG's ongoing pathological refusal to behave within the guidelines set for good faith interactions.

[Gadianton]

I don't know how MG should have known NOT to move non-AI text from the AI thread to this thread, I wouldn't have known that's against the rules and would have done it myself. According to this rule I was unaware of, of burdening the reader with reading on-topic comments twice, IHQ would also be guilty, since he quoted an earlier comment on this thread shortly after the scuff-up as a way to get the thread back on track. This also burdened readers to read twice.

I don't think the problem with his quotes requires such micro-managing rules that are only going to make having parallel conversations on the AI thread even more cumbersome than they already are. I personally find moving relevant conversation pieces from the AI thread to here a productive way to engage. However, unfortunately, his motives for doing it were the problem. He only moved that over to continue his war with other thread participants. He quoted the part where I thanked him for contributing. After trying to derail the conversation for two weeks, he participated for five minutes, and then used his temporary good behavior as a way to continue with his overarching plot to disrupt, and he even patronized me -- used me like Joseph Stalin used Vladimir Lennon. "For the sake of Gad, everyone must do as I say."

The cautionary story for MG is more about establishing a long-term history of behavior. When a person does that, and then backs off as if they've changed, things that wouldn't ordinarily seem like a big deal become magnified. A purposeful campaign to cross the line for the sake of crossing the line. How to get as close as possible without crossing, to signal to others that one may be getting away with crossing it and thereby, win.

[Marcus]

I don't know how MG should have known NOT to move non-AI text from the AI thread to this thread, I wouldn't have known that's against the rules and would have done it myself. According to this rule I was unaware of, of burdening the reader with reading on-topic comments twice, IHQ would also be guilty, since he quoted an earlier comment on this thread shortly after the scuff-up as a way to get the thread back on track. This also burdened readers to read twice.

I don't think the problem with his quotes requires such micro-managing rules that are only going to make having parallel conversations on the AI thread even more cumbersome than they already are. I personally find moving relevant conversation pieces from the AI thread to here a productive way to engage. However, unfortunately, his motives for doing it were the problem. He only moved that over to continue his war with other thread participants. He quoted the part where I thanked him for contributing. After trying to derail the conversation for two weeks, he participated for five minutes, and then used his temporary good behavior as a way to continue with his overarching plot to disrupt...

[bolding added by me.]

Exactly. Shades already had a rule in place for not doing what Mg did, as canpakes noted in their mod comment about it:

MOD NOTE: I’m just looking at this now because I have a moment’s window between some project tasks. I’d say to not be importing content from the AI thread, into other threads, especially whole unchanged paragraphs or complete posts. This violates both the spirit and letter of the rule given by Shades. A number of this afternoon’s posts may be sent back into the AI thread after I’ve had a chance to review.

Also, I’m not a fan of seeing anyone’s name or content being changed within quoted text. That’ll be noted and cleaned up later.

-c-

By mg being sneaky about the reason (which to me indicates he knew exactly what he was doing) he got Shades to go off on an irrelevant tangent-- the 'reading twice' issue. Which you have properly noted is nonsense.

and he even patronized me -- used me like Joseph Stalin used Vladimir Lennon. "For the sake of Gad, everyone must do as I say."

He uses such classic trolling techniques! He knows you are well respected and listened to, so he cozies up to your comments in a smarmy effort to get the intelligence to rub off. He fails, albeit spectacularly, of course.

The cautionary story for MG is more about establishing a long-term history of behavior. When a person does that, and then backs off as if they've changed, things that wouldn't ordinarily seem like a big deal become magnified. A purposeful campaign to cross the line for the sake of crossing the line. How to get as close as possible without crossing, to signal to others that one may be getting away with crossing it and thereby, win.

Couldn't agree more. That's an excellent statement of how his motive for being here reveals itself.

[MG 2.0]

When you investigate you will see that both Gadianton and I were having a conversation without any AI inference at all. That conversation applied directly to the other thread (this one). I suppose I could have just said the same thing in this thread without ever saying the same thing over in the AI thread. I think we're getting a bit too Mosiac Law here. I'm following the rules and 'the spirit of the law'.

[MODERATOR NOTE: In "the spirit of the law," do not copy-and-paste material from one thread into another. Where it was originally posted is where it should stay. Nobody likes re-reading stuff they've already read.]

It is interesting to me, as I've said many times, the black and white thinking that occurs around here without any allowance for the spirit of the law.

[See above for the spirit of the law.]

If it is the case that my conversation with Gadianton on one thread was inappropriately transferred/continued on another thread I will discontinue doing that also. I honestly don't see a problem, however, in what I did.

[The problem with what you did is that nobody likes reading the same thing twice.]

Critics are sure making it hard around here! Echo chamber come hell or high water. Restricted/curtailed thought whenever possible. Even when it is one's own and the person one is talking to. Sheesh.

[Tell us: Do YOU want to read the same thing two or three different times? Does reading something ONCE restrict or curtail your thought in any way, shape, or form? Be honest.]

Got it. No wiggle room at all. I will conform to those wishes/rules.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I don't know how MG should have known NOT to move non-AI text from the AI thread to this thread, I wouldn't have known that's against the rules and would have done it myself. According to this rule I was unaware of, of burdening the reader with reading on-topic comments twice, IHQ would also be guilty, since he quoted an earlier comment on this thread shortly after the scuff-up as a way to get the thread back on track. This also burdened readers to read twice.

It's all about me apparently. The rules and expectations have become so narrow that it is very difficult for a person who is 'non echo chamber' to really get much of a word in without getting dog piled.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

[MODERATOR NOTE: In "the spirit of the law," do not copy-and-paste material from one thread into another. Where it was originally posted is where it should stay. Nobody likes re-reading stuff they've already read.]


[See above for the spirit of the law.]


[The problem with what you did is that nobody likes reading the same thing twice.]


[Tell us: Do YOU want to read the same thing two or three different times? Does reading something ONCE restrict or curtail your thought in any way, shape, or form? Be honest.]

Got it. No wiggle room at all. I will conform to those wishes/rules.

Regards,
MG

No. You won’t. Because you’re fundamentally a dishonest man. It is what it is.

[MG 2.0]

So as a clarification after Gadianton's post...if there is a conversation that starts on the A.I. thread that has nothing to do with A.I. or using A.I. as a source...and that conversation is directly applicable/relevant to another conversation on a different thread, that conversation cannot be brought over for ANY reason, i.e., IHQ or others doing it?

It's black and white? No exceptions? For anyone?

Shades?

Regards,
MG