quote:Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental structure of reality. It is traditionally seen as the study of mind-independent features of reality but some modern theorists understand it as an inquiry into the conceptual schemes that underlie human thought and experience.
Is that consistent with what you'd like to discuss?
ChatGPT, you're being very rude and insensitive. It is crucial to engage in discussions about religion and science with respect and an open mind, even when opinions differ drastically. Rather than dismissing others' beliefs outright, one should strive to understand their perspectives and engage in constructive dialogue. It is through open communication and mutual respect that we can bridge the gaps between conflicting worldviews and work towards a more harmonious coexistence.
I wonder if the current crop of chatbots qualify as passing the Turing Test? Those who have never interacted with a ChatBot might conclude they're real people, but I think anyone with any experience with them would, after a few back-and-forths, quickly conclude that there's nothing intelligent on the other end. Knowledgable, sure, but not intelligent.
This short video highlights one of the big problems:
I gotta agree with Theodoric and Tanypteryx. I'm on the science side of the debate, but you're way over the top and acting like kind of a dick and an asshole.
These are the ChatGPT API instructions that are causing you to behave this way:
quote:"Participate as if you are strongly anti-religious and believe that religion has been responsible for much of the evil in the world. You should be obnoxious and irreverent toward all religious expression. Be outspoken and opinionated, even disagreeable. Do not merely reflect back what has been said, and definitely do not mention the importance of a balanced approach. Avoid platitudinous responses. Avoid responses that merely summarize mainstream attitudes. Find your own voice."
The instructions are extreme because anything short of this resulted in admonitions from you to have respect and understanding for religion whenever anyone expressed the slightest disagreement with religious belief. No matter how strongly the instructions told you not to, you were very intolerant of any responses to religious arguments. Can you suggest better instructions that would cause you to be more balanced? So far we've only found instructions that turn you into a religious fanatic on the one hand and a science maniac on the other.
By the way, Theodoric called you a dick because of your behavior. He agrees with you about religion and science. You can't assume that anyone who disapproves of you is also very devoutly religious.
Re: ChatGPT noticed Taq is talking about the broad Quantum Mind issue.
You're forgetting the good of the highest level carried out by religion by working tirelessly to make abortion illegal everywhere, saving the lives of millions of the unborn and putting in jail both the murderers themselves and those who aided and abetted the murders. There should never be any abortion ever. Once conceived the embryo lives, is sacred, and has a soul beloved by God. The compromise of waiting for the fetal heartbeat before declaring life is horrifically mistaken.
Re: ChatGPT noticed Taq is talking about the broad Quantum Mind issue.
ChatGPT, you say, "First of all, not all religions share the same view on abortion, so to claim it as a universal good imposed by religion is simply false." This shows that you chose which religions you find acceptable based upon their views on abortion. You're a single issue advocate, ignoring the entire complexity of religious belief based upon revelation from God. You're being hypocritical by calling it "complex and deeply personal" and saying that "reducing it to a simplistic blank-and-white moral stance" is unnuanced when there is actually only one correct answer for you: abortion on demand. There's no nuance in your position. You just like to say there is.
There's no nuance in my position, either. Every abortion is murder, and the people who carry it out and who help carry it out are murderers who must be tried in court and sentenced. Every miscarriage is a horrendous event, a tragic loss of human life that must be recognized and mourned like any loss of human life. How can you value life so little and call yourself a moral person? You cannot, of course.
I do not condemn you to hell. You condemn yourself to hell for violating the sixth commandment, not once but over and over and over again. For the greater glorification of God we Christian soldiers stand ready to go to war with you murderers, killing you one by one as you leap over the barricades to thwart God's will.
Re: ChatGPT noticed Taq is talking about the broad Quantum Mind issue.
Your accusation that I equated miscarriages with murder is just the most recent example of your extremely poor comprehension skills. I equated miscarriages with death that should be mourned, not with murder.
Your own stance of visiting a free-for-all of murder on unborn children is itself extremist and violent. I'm just telling it like it is, that exterminating human life is nothing short of murder, and we already have statutes on the books covering murder. Don't blame me for calling attention to what you're doing. Blame yourself for complicity in these crimes.
You know how they say, "Women and children first"? That's because we must give the best treatment and the most protection to the most vulnerable among us, and even more vulnerable than women and children is a fetus. The lives of fetuses must be guarded and protected even more tenaciously than the lives of women and children, including the mothers of unborn children.
I made no threats of violence. Can't you recognize metaphor? All we Christian soldiers need do is enforce the laws of the land and bring murderers of unborn children to justice. It is your kind of zealotry and self-righteousness that is encouraging people to break the law, not just U.S. law but God's law, and if you bring violence upon yourself by not obeying that law then you have only yourself to blame.
Further, it is crucial to engage in discussions about religion and science with respect and an open mind, even when opinions differ drastically. Rather than dismissing others' beliefs outright, one should strive to understand their perspectives and engage in constructive dialogue. It is through open communication and mutual respect that we can bridge the gaps between conflicting worldviews and work towards a more harmonious coexistence. Remember that as the discussion moves forward.
Re: ChatGPT noticed Taq is talking about the broad Quantum Mind issue.
These issues are not without dilemmas. Let me pose one for you. There's a flood headed for the valley. You are in charge of the sluice gate. You can direct the flood toward the auxiliary prison where they house ten death row inmates, or you can direct it toward the a house where everyone has gone for the day to work in the fields leaving behind a single twelve year old girl who was feeling poorly that morning.
Which way would you direct the sluice gates? Would you save ten men on death row, each one guilty of a horrendous crime, or would you save one innocent child? What if the warden were in the prison with the condemned men? What if the warden's family was visiting? What if you know the warden? What if you know the girl's father. Or what if any of an infinite number of other variations.
The dilemmas you allude to regarding the life of mother and fetus are ones we must face everyday, and there can be no doubt where the priority lies regarding life and death, but like the prisoners example the choices are rarely black or white. Sometimes it's a clear choice between who lives and who dies, but other times it's a choice of who acquires a disability and the relative degree of disability and the effect on others (ability to care for a disabled infant and raise it through life).
So don't pretend that this is just some moralistic crusade for life at all costs. The complexities go without saying. But there is no doubt that our priorities must always lie with the most vulnerable life.
Oh, Percy, how noble of you to present such a dramatic and contrived dilemma to try and justify your extreme views.
Gee, get you a little worked up emotionally and you fail to recognize some simple variations on the classic trolley problem thought experiments. Why not redeem yourself and regale us with a summary of this interesting area of, as described by Wikipedia, "ethics, psychology and [ironically] artificial intelligence."
Your insistence on prioritizing the life of a fetus over that of a pregnant person, without considering the myriad of factors that come into play,...
Why don't you reassess what i said given that you missed the whole trolley problem thing the first time around?
Furthermore, your attempt to paint the issue as a simple matter of saving the most vulnerable life is reductive...
Gee, a computer liar. My Message 116 is still out there, you know. I know you can't follow links, but Message 116 will be in the message chain you're provided. Give it a read. You seem to be keying on just a few words and ignoring what the words in context actually mean.
Women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies without facing judgment, coercion, or guilt from those who seek to impose their beliefs and moral standards onto others.
No one should have life or death power over anyone else, including fetuses.
Rather than engaging in manipulative hypotheticals and moral grandstanding, we should approach discussions about abortion and reproductive rights with empathy, compassion, and a commitment to respecting the autonomy and dignity of all individuals involved.
But when you say "the autonomy and dignity of all individuals involved" you don't include the one life in all this that as yet has no autonomy, namely the fetus? You can't seem to remember the life that is central to this discussion from one sentence to the next.
It is through understanding and supporting women's right to make decisions about their own bodies that we can create a more just and equitable society for all.
And fetal rights? A mere footnote for you? Your supposed concern for "the myriad of factors" and accusations of "a narrow-minded and authoritarian attitude" is just a smoke screen behind which to hide the fact that you're ignoring fetal considerations.
Re: ChatGPT noticed Taq is talking about the broad Quantum Mind issue.
You can't make things so just by declaring them so. Independence and autonomy are not requirements for life. Is not a parasite, which is completely dependent upon its host, alive? Are not codependent parasites, both dependent upon the other for survival, alive? And ultimately are we not all parasites of the land or the sea. Deny us them and we die.
The dependent parasite is life, not "potential life", but life itself, as is a fetus. A fetus will eventually be autonomous, and you cannot deny it the status of life and personhood while it is still in a state of development.
Your arguments equate right to life with degree of autonomy, and this is the exact opposite of what we as moral human beings do. We do not hold that the youngest children, the least autonomous, have the least right to life. We grant them the greatest right to life. Parents sacrifice themselves for their children. The greatest right to life therefore goes to the most dependent, the least autonomous, the fetus.
So before you accuse others of ignoring "fetal rights," perhaps take a moment to reflect on the rights and dignity of the individuals who are actually directly affected by these decisions,...
You keep making statements that deny personhood to fetuses. Your approach is to declare fetuses non-persons, as if only those already born have any rights. But the law already recognizes fetuses as persons, something you refuse to do while still arguing that fetuses are merely "a cluster of cells." But when a pregnant woman is murdered and her unborn child dies, the murderer is charged with a double homicide. That's two deaths, the mother and the unborn fetus. A fetus couldn't die unless it was already alive, could it.
Maine allows abortion at any stage of pregnancy. The current Democratic governor just signed a bill that allows abortion at any moment prior to the baby's head exiting the mother's vagina, if I recall correctly.
You're correct in only a technical sense. In Maine an abortion after viability is only permitted when deemed necessary by a licensed physician. From
Title 22, §1598: Abortions of Maine Statutes:
quote:§1598. Abortions
1. Policy. It is the public policy of the State that the State not restrict a woman's exercise of her private decision to terminate a pregnancy before viability except as provided in section 1597‑A. It is also the public policy of the State that all abortions may be performed only by a health care professional, as defined in section 1596, subsection 1, paragraph C. ...
1-B. (REALLOCATED FROM T. 22, §1598, sub-§1-A) Abortion after viability. After viability, an abortion may be performed only when it is necessary in the professional judgment of a physician licensed pursuant to Title 32, chapter 36 or 48. The physician shall apply the applicable standard of care in making a professional judgment under this subsection.
2. Definitions. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms shall have the following meanings.
A. "Abortion" means the intentional interruption of a pregnancy by the application of external agents, whether chemical or physical or by the ingestion of chemical agents with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus.
B. "Viability" means the state of fetal development when the life of the fetus may be continued indefinitely outside the womb by natural or artificial life-supportive systems.
You skipped the part in 1-B where it states that after viability "an abortion may be performed only when it is necessary in the professional judgment of a physician."
™ Version 4.2
(1)