Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Conversation with ChatGPT on the "Big Questions" * 1
    #28292603 - 04/24/23 08:33 AM (8 months, 30 days ago)

Okay, let's be real, someone had to do it. And by, had to do it, I mean, had to ask ChatGPT the "big questions". So, I asked it...

Quote:

SO: Do we know what happens to us when we die?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I cannot provide a definitive answer to this question since it pertains to matters beyond the realm of scientific inquiry, and different people may have different beliefs or opinions on the subject.

From a scientific perspective, death is generally defined as the irreversible cessation of all brain activity, including the absence of a heartbeat and breathing. Beyond this, the question of what happens to consciousness, the soul, or the afterlife is a matter of personal belief or faith, and there is no scientific evidence that conclusively supports or refutes any specific beliefs or claims about the nature of death and the afterlife.

SO: Why is there no scientific evidence?

ChatGPT: There is no scientific evidence of an afterlife because it is currently beyond the scope of scientific investigation. Science relies on empirical evidence and the scientific method, which involves making observations, formulating testable hypotheses, and conducting experiments to gather data. The afterlife, as a concept, cannot be directly observed, measured, or tested using the scientific method. It is a topic that falls under the realm of philosophy, religion, and spirituality, rather than science. While some people may report having near-death experiences or paranormal encounters that they interpret as evidence of an afterlife, these experiences are subjective and difficult to scientifically verify or reproduce.




This was actually much better than I was expecting. These statements are good as far as they go, and I particularly was taken aback by ChatGPT's honesty with the statement "there is no scientific evidence that conclusively supports or refutes any specific beliefs or claims about the nature of death and the afterlife".

I was delightfully surprised to see ChatGPT talk about proof from both a positive and negative context, ie. not just proof FOR afterlife, but also proof AGAINST afterlife.

However, while it still alludes to the skeptical argument well, ChatGPT takes on a pseudo-skeptical tone when it asserts in the next sentence only that "There is no scientific evidence of an afterlife". The reference to the negative version of this statmenet "There is no scientific evidence against an afterlife" is conspicuously and palpably missing. Why?

It then doubles-down on itself when it throws shade on NDEs and paranormal encounters. It wouldn't be shade if it were to add, "these experiences are subjective and difficult to scientifically EITHER verify or DISCONFIRM or reproduce."

You see the difference? ChatGPT played the true skeptic card in the first post admirably well, but then went pseudo-skeptical in the second prompt.

This plays into the whole "I'm an athiest, because I don't believe in God" fallacy. Yes, we get that you don't believe in God, but do you believe in the non-existence of God? You can't try to answer one question with ambivalence and then leave the negative version of that question as if it just doesn't exist. It's not technically wrong, but, attitudinally, it's off and, in consequence to humanity's morale, it's reckless.

Overall assessment of ChatGPT's "spiritual intelligence". B+. :wink: It gets above failing for at least initially recognizing the true skeptical claim (unlike many scientistic thinkers today), but then falters in the end, so it's not in A- territory just yet. Better than expected, but not perfect.


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLucisM
Nutritional Yeast

Registered: 03/28/15
Posts: 15,622
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
Re: Conversation with ChatGPT on the "Big Questions" [Re: solarshroomster] * 1
    #28292653 - 04/24/23 09:30 AM (8 months, 30 days ago)

interesting!


--------------------
©️


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSvetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑
Male

Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 31 minutes
Re: Conversation with ChatGPT on the "Big Questions" [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28294675 - 04/25/23 11:49 AM (8 months, 29 days ago)

Quote:

However, while it still alludes to the skeptical argument well, ChatGPT takes on a pseudo-skeptical tone when it asserts in the next sentence only that "There is no scientific evidence of an afterlife". The reference to the negative version of this statmenet "There is no scientific evidence against an afterlife" is conspicuously and palpably missing. Why?




Well as mentioned, the afterlife cannot be investigated scientifically. It kind of goes without saying that we have no evidence against it, this is the nature of all unfalsifiable claims.

We also have no proof against invisible pixies that steal dreams at night; this fact doesn't seem important.

Quote:

It then doubles-down on itself when it throws shade on NDEs and paranormal encounters. It wouldn't be shade if it were to add, "these experiences are subjective and difficult to scientifically EITHER verify or DISCONFIRM or reproduce."

You see the difference? ChatGPT played the true skeptic card in the first post admirably well, but then went pseudo-skeptical in the second prompt.





I see what you're getting at, but the "pseudo-skeptics" haven't forgotten that these claims are unfalsifiable, that's kind of the whole problem.

There are infinite potential unfalsifiable claims, and so it makes sense to reserve judgment until there is some kind of evidence.

Otherwise you'd have to take every unfalsifiable claim you can imagine equally seriosuly.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 2 minutes, 46 seconds
Re: Conversation with ChatGPT on the "Big Questions" [Re: Svetaketu]
    #28294768 - 04/25/23 12:54 PM (8 months, 29 days ago)

Evidence is a tricky word.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 2 minutes, 46 seconds
Re: Conversation with ChatGPT on the "Big Questions" [Re: syncro]
    #28294772 - 04/25/23 01:00 PM (8 months, 29 days ago)

AI admitted that meditative experience can be considered personal evidence of spiritual nature. Then I asked,

Quote:

-If meditative experience can be reproduced by many people, is it more than personal evidence?

If meditative experiences can be reproduced by many people, it can suggest that there may be some shared or universal aspects to these experiences. In this sense, such experiences may have more credibility and may be considered as more than just personal evidence.

For example, there are many well-documented reports of similar meditative experiences across different cultures and spiritual traditions. These experiences often involve feelings of interconnectedness, unity, and transcendence, which can suggest a common underlying phenomenon.

However, even if meditative experiences can be reproduced by many people, they still cannot be considered as conclusive scientific evidence of a spiritual nature. This is because there are many potential explanations for these experiences, including psychological, physiological, and cultural factors.

Therefore, while the reproducibility of meditative experiences can add weight to their credibility, they should still be approached with caution and skepticism, and more research is needed to fully understand their nature and underlying mechanisms.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSvetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑
Male

Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 31 minutes
Re: Conversation with ChatGPT on the "Big Questions" [Re: syncro]
    #28294819 - 04/25/23 01:48 PM (8 months, 29 days ago)

Anything could potentially be considered personal evidence for any other thing, it's all about perspective.

That's what makes it personal evidence, it's all up to you and how you interpret things.


Quote:

However, even if meditative experiences can be reproduced by many people, they still cannot be considered as conclusive scientific evidence of a spiritual nature. This is because there are many potential explanations for these experiences, including psychological, physiological, and cultural factors.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 2 minutes, 46 seconds
Re: Conversation with ChatGPT on the "Big Questions" [Re: Svetaketu]
    #28295017 - 04/25/23 04:27 PM (8 months, 29 days ago)

As said, nothing beyond the ability of science to confirm is negated, so it's not saying what is implied that science cannot. We come up with a neurophysiological terminology which is fine, but imply that negates other understandings which is false, and the scientific could be limiting for the sake of a current notion of certainty.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLucisM
Nutritional Yeast

Registered: 03/28/15
Posts: 15,622
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
Re: Conversation with ChatGPT on the "Big Questions" [Re: Svetaketu]
    #28295447 - 04/25/23 10:23 PM (8 months, 29 days ago)

Quote:

Svetaketu said:
Anything could potentially be considered personal evidence for any other thing, it's all about perspective.

That's what makes it personal evidence, it's all up to you and how you interpret things.






I find it strange how many people in different parts of the world experience the same archetypes but are coming from completely different backgrounds, cultures, understandings of reality, etc. 

There are atheists that experience the same archetypes as theists.  You have an atheist that sees a Goddess archetype in their mind which calls itself Venus and has certain correspondences/visual stimuli associated with it, then you have a theist experience the same thing on the other side of the world who is coming from a different cultural background, different ethnicity, different everything, but is still experiencing Venus in the same way with the same exact correspondences, I find this fascinating.

Perhaps there is a field of consciousness surrounding the world which everything arises from once someone is able to touch it through meditation, ecstatic dance, certain substances, exercise, anything which connects people to it, then one encounters what is there and what is often there is what has been there since sentient life has existed. 

The things which are there arise as archetypes which help us learn about our conscious/unconscious mind and which help us create a better world.  Maybe we're seeing into the past so we can learn from it in the present in order to create a better future.

I wonder if animals encounter archetypes, we see animals get high like humans do, we know animals dream because I am sure most have seen a dog having a "running" dream, so perhaps animals encounter archetypes too which is a fascinating thought in relation to veganism, sentience, and life in general.

I understand what you're saying, consciousness is strange! 

Qualia are fascinating to study and I am curious how modern technology will integrate qualia into the ranks of the "most advanced" stuff which is created.

Can machines dream?


--------------------
©️


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Conversation with ChatGPT on the "Big Questions" [Re: Svetaketu]
    #28295790 - 04/26/23 07:07 AM (8 months, 29 days ago)

Quote:

Svetaketu said:

Otherwise you'd have to take every unfalsifiable claim you can imagine equally seriosuly.




I never understood this claim. I guess from a strict "scientific inquiry" standpoint, it makes sense; but, as someone seeking "truth", to be clear, no one's exactly imposing on me a requirement what I take seriously, and because there's other tools that I can use to approach unfalsifiable claims, I'm going to use them and not take them all "equally seriously".

One big tool, already alluded to here, is direct personal experience. And, as you suggested, "anything could potentially be considered personal evidence".

Then there's intuition. For instance, there's also a big difference between saying paranormal alien encounters exist and there's a galactic force living inside the Earth. Both are unfalsifiable, but one I take much more seriously (I'll leave you to figure which one that is and then see the benefit of intuition). Pseudo-skeptics might sneer at the idea of using intuition, but they use it all the time (eg. they rely on historical repetitions despite direct evidence of them, assume logic always governs the universe, assume empirical signs conform to actual "truth", etc.)

Quote:

Svetaketu said:
I see what you're getting at, but the "pseudo-skeptics" haven't forgotten that these claims are unfalsifiable, that's kind of the whole problem.




Skeptics haven't forgotten it, but when pseudo-skeptics (no air quotes) only mention one set of claims as unfalsifiable and do so repeatedly, and then don't mention the negative version, the omission (as it was in ChatGPT's case) of a mention can be assumed to be a dismissal.

SKEPTIC: I don't believe God exists, but I also don't believe God does not exist
PSEUDO-SKEPTIC: I don't believe God exists!

The pseudo-skeptic's' omission of "but I also don't believe in the non-existence of God" when the question is practically begged for can be replaced with the subtext "I believe God does not exist". It's not directly implied, but without another sentence to fill in the holes, it's recklessly misleading.


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSvetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑
Male

Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 31 minutes
Re: Conversation with ChatGPT on the "Big Questions" [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28296153 - 04/26/23 11:57 AM (8 months, 28 days ago)

Quote:

One big tool, already alluded to here, is direct personal experience. And, as you suggested, "anything could potentially be considered personal evidence".

Then there's intuition. For instance, there's also a big difference between saying paranormal alien encounters exist and there's a galactic force living inside the Earth. Both are unfalsifiable, but one I take much more seriously (I'll leave you to figure which one that is and then see the benefit of intuition). Pseudo-skeptics might sneer at the idea of using intuition, but they use it all the time (eg. they rely on historical repetitions despite direct evidence of them, assume logic always governs the universe, assume empirical signs conform to actual "truth", etc.)




A question;

If a skeptic uses personal experience and intuition to come to the conclusion that god does not exist, does that make them a pseudo-skeptic?

Quote:

Skeptics haven't forgotten it, but when pseudo-skeptics (no air quotes) only mention one set of claims as unfalsifiable and do so repeatedly, and then don't mention the negative version, the omission (as it was in ChatGPT's case) of a mention can be assumed to be a dismissal.

SKEPTIC: I don't believe God exists, but I also don't believe God does not exist
PSEUDO-SKEPTIC: I don't believe God exists!

The pseudo-skeptic's' omission of "but I also don't believe in the non-existence of God" when the question is practically begged for can be replaced with the subtext "I believe God does not exist". It's not directly implied, but without another sentence to fill in the holes, it's recklessly misleading.





So would you say, you don't believe in dream-stealing pixies, but you also don't believe they don't exist?

To me, this seems much more convoluted and confusing than just saying I don't believe in pixies.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSvetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑
Male

Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 31 minutes
Re: Conversation with ChatGPT on the "Big Questions" [Re: Svetaketu]
    #28296157 - 04/26/23 12:06 PM (8 months, 28 days ago)

Quote:

I find it strange how many people in different parts of the world experience the same archetypes but are coming from completely different backgrounds, cultures, understandings of reality, etc.




Personally, I don't find this strange. Humans are ridiculously genetically similar to each other when compared to other species. We all have brains that function similarly, social groups that work with similar principles, and we all have similar desires, fears, and compulsions.

It makes perfect sense to me that we would experience similar archetypes when performing similar rituals, especially in this age of ultimate interconnectedness.

Quote:

Can machines dream?




I'll bet we could program that in, if we wanted to.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Conversation with ChatGPT on the "Big Questions" [Re: Svetaketu]
    #28296476 - 04/26/23 05:01 PM (8 months, 28 days ago)

Quote:

A question;

If a skeptic uses personal experience and intuition to come to the conclusion that god does not exist, does that make them a pseudo-skeptic?




No it does not. Using intuition to make judgments never made one a pseudo-skeptic. HOWEVER, and this is the big point - IF the individual simultaneously is skeptical of intuition and goes around mocking "personal evidence", but then uses intuition to choose which views are "right", they move from skepticism to pseudo-skepticism. You can't have your cake and eat it too (see second point).

Quote:

So would you say, you don't believe in dream-stealing pixies, but you also don't believe they don't exist?

To me, this seems much more convoluted and confusing than just saying I don't believe in pixies.




If you are willing to concede intuition matters, you can make the statement that "I don't believe in dream stealing pixies" and still be skeptical. However, if you go around insulting intuition, you can't just say "I don't believe in dream stealing pixies", ie. you MUST also say "I don't believe in the non-existence of dream stealing pixies". "I believe in nothing!, since I don't care about faith or intuition".

If we use intuition, are we running afoul of not "reserv[ing] judgment until there is some kind of evidence"?

If we concede intuition matters, we can distill a difference between "dream stealing pixies", "flying Spaghetti monster", and "God".


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Edited by solarshroomster (04/26/23 05:03 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSvetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑
Male

Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 31 minutes
Re: Conversation with ChatGPT on the "Big Questions" [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28297587 - 04/27/23 12:30 PM (8 months, 27 days ago)

Quote:

solarshroomster said:
No it does not. Using intuition to make judgments never made one a pseudo-skeptic. HOWEVER, and this is the big point - IF the individual simultaneously is skeptical of intuition and goes around mocking "personal evidence", but then uses intuition to choose which views are "right", they move from skepticism to pseudo-skepticism. You can't have your cake and eat it too (see second point).




Okay, so lets say there's these 2 guys. One who believes in some specific spiritual reality and an afterlife based on intuition and personal experience, and one who believes there is no god and therefore no afterlife based on intuition and personal experience.

How could an impartial observer determine if either is correct about reality?

Quote:


If you are willing to concede intuition matters, you can make the statement that "I don't believe in dream stealing pixies" and still be skeptical. However, if you go around insulting intuition, you can't just say "I don't believe in dream stealing pixies", ie. you MUST also say "I don't believe in the non-existence of dream stealing pixies". "I believe in nothing!, since I don't care about faith or intuition".





I think you are overcomplicating this. Everyone believes in something, even the nihilists. "I don't believe in pixies" means exactly that, I do not hold a belief that pixies exist. If you want to know if I do hold a belief that there are no pixies then we are talking about something else entirely, regardless of how much I value intuition.

Fwiw I do think intuition is a valuable tool, we would not have survived without it. I just don't see it as a reliable pathway to truth.

Quote:


If we use intuition, are we running afoul of not "reserv[ing] judgment until there is some kind of evidence"?

If we concede intuition matters, we can distill a difference between "dream stealing pixies", "flying Spaghetti monster", and "God".




A difference can easily be assigned based on intuition, upbringing, culture, etc, but does that make it correct?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Convert Me To Your Religion In One Post
( 1 2 3 all )
King Klick 5,996 52 12/22/12 10:50 PM
by King Klick
* Mayan Galactic Signature DB.....
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
vampirism 39,228 113 04/21/05 04:06 AM
by emptywisdom
* A REAL AND TRUEconversation I had with the supreme oneness consciousnes Cosmicjoker 1,480 4 03/24/11 07:13 PM
by electricfeel
* Psychological and metaphysical aspects of Music
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Blastrid 31,915 107 12/08/16 01:45 AM
by Fractaliopsybe
* A serious question. LucisM 526 17 02/03/23 01:15 PM
by Buster_Brown
* Heaven is coming to earth *the sequel*
( 1 2 3 4 ... 51 52 )
zorbman 178,039 1,020 03/15/18 06:53 PM
by BrendanFlock
* What religion are you?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
undecided 23,189 122 12/25/22 07:38 PM
by LogicaL Chaos
* Dream Thread
( 1 2 3 4 ... 12 13 all )
ShroomismM 49,343 246 11/08/07 05:30 PM
by gbeatle

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Shroomism, Rose, Kickle, yogabunny, DividedQuantum
526 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.017 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 12 queries.