I was writing LLMs in the 80s. I followed the instructions in Scientific American and Godel, Escher, Bach.
Rev. 2:12-29, Pergamum and Thyatira.
comment ignored as likely part of the 50% fakery
Wonderful. What if the Bible is part of the reality of truth, how would you know you're trying to dodge it rather than sophisticatedly debunking something false when you reject it? What's the baseline for reality if it isn't something outside you and something inside you both in agreement?
What is truth?
Same thing goes if you suggest to someone religious that the Bible is not quite what they think it is. The more examples you give them and the more carefully you explain them, the harder they resist.
Heh heh. Sure, there are many misunderstandings about the Bible, but how would you go about coming to the truth of the matter with a common agreement on the means of pursuit so that an outside party can objectively tell where any "resistance" might lie?
I like the fear angle, it's valid up until the point that you realize the truth is responsible for itself and will not deceive, so you need have no fear of exploring it. "Who fears is not perfected in love."
Last time they came up with something this, ahem, retarded, the Bible disproved it right away for me, ca. March 2020, namely Lev. 13:45. The sick cover their mouths, which means the healthy don't have to.
Let's see how the Bible disproves this one. Hmm, the presenting claim is: "You killed me by mixing my weak constitution, for which I'm not responsible, with a wafted byproduct of what would otherwise be your right to engage publicly; therefore everyone's right to eat normally is negated by my right to your consideration." The answer should come in the form of defining reasonable and unreasonable accommodation.
Ah yes, it's 1 Cor. 10:25-26: "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." Because grilling is commonly done in society without ill consequence or medical reaction, it can be assumed it need not force a special accommodation. If someone says it's a matter of conscience, where there would have to be reasonable proof that smell kills, then you could make an argument to abstain when you know such a person is around. But that would need (1) cooption of medicine to invent an illness where significant rights (eating) can be trampled at the mercy of unlikely, unproven theory, and (2) sheeple society that believe self-destructive altruism toward a person who may not exist is better morals than one's obvious duties to oneself and one's family and neighbors who do exist. And it wouldn't affect private property without further transmission theory.
If people really could die of smelling something, we'd be accumulating death certificates where the diagnosis was allergic reaction to ordinarily occurring airborne phenomena. Yes, if you think peanuts or mayonnaise will inflame you, I'll politely not engage in those nearby you, but you don't run my life. A quick check shows this is almost entirely due to actual ingestion with no deaths blamed on simple scent. Peanuts have dust, but grilling doesn't produce airborne dust AFAIK. So I don't think what you smell will kill you, and again natural evils have their natural limit.
Vlad: You're horrid for being a woman
Also Vlad: You're horrid for being a man pretending to be a woman
Luke 7:33-34
Correct, I no longer have to wade through four pages per session of flat-birthers and Hitlerjuden carrying out the recycling.
Otherwise engagement is the same, i.e. signal-noise ratio is hitting several nines.
Nelson Mandela enters the chat
I have no problem believing that certain corporations like Berkshire Hathaway (owners of Fruit of the Loom) were willingly conscripted by the US government to participate in early pilot programs to invent althist and make it retroactive reality. The corporation scrubs and locks all its official history to remove a minor item (e.g. a cornucopia in the logo), while the government massages the internet with its early image recognition models to remove or neutralize any residual graphic evidence. Suddenly the confused public, who knows the truth, cannot evidence it graphically (except for finding a couple old newspaper clippings with the word "cornucopia").
Welcome to Tlon, Uqbar.
The solution is truth of course. Althist is simply larping and massive narrative seizure, and has been happening since the 72,000-year reign of "Enmendurana". All modern geology, evolutionary biology, and astrophysics is althist larping. Yet even confused normies with an experience (memory) will eventually overcome even billions of lockstep zergs with an pretense. (At c/Christianity I'm getting ready to post about how this is done as to Egyptian history.) Simply trust that truth will guide you and it will.
sounds unregulated
The reason you don't see this all the time is actually guardrails built into the system, systems on top of systems, that look for this kind of content and tries to stop it from getting back to the user (there are many different strategies, you could simply look for certain words and block messages containing them, you can use LLMs themselves to scan for problematic content) they are just not perfect
Simpler: The makers have no liability and so they have no requirement to follow through on their guardrail promises, they only need to steer clear of bad optics which is a totally different dynamic than actually doing no harm. "Not perfect" is by design.
It seems like magic
It is what all cultures have called magic, namely mechanics that defy explanation by any individual. The fuzzy line between science and magic isn't that one is supernatural but that one is harder to explain. The difficulty with magic is whether it's regulated ("miracles") or unregulated ("sorcery"). Nobody wants to put in regulation time, as said above. (Whoso will not self-regulate will become regulated.)
us who successfully have helped people as competent & skillful NLP & clinical-hypnosis therapists at least have a Clue
Thank you, my friend. Now that you mention it, I am someone who needs help with having humility with others. Would you be willing to help?
Simple. AI cannot be conscious, but humans and spirits can put so many trapdoors and backdoors into it that it can be used to manipulate and pick off individuals. Review The Screwtape Letters for the method.
I understand. So are you asking me because you want to help me understand structure and function?
Yes, I'm interested! Thank you for reminding me, since here I was responding to a negative focus and didn't counteract that with positive focus. Where would you like to share about God's design for human structure and function from a positive standpoint?
Welcome, you seem to have some reasonable ideas and I look forward to more! Permit me to apologize on behalf of the guy who thinks he's doing well to redirect everything to his observed word associations. Give him time, he'll grow on you, but not much.
Please feel free to lay out evidence. You can post single images (including large ones) as new posts. This is a legal-speech forum with a basic honor code in the sidebar. I'm the guy who says "Name The Jew For Real", meaning that collectivism is unhelpful and counterproductive when we can instead focus on individuals and their specific misdeeds. I appear to be welcoming you on a very old thread, so I won't get specific for now but will meet up with you on the more current topics.
In 2019 I had countless sub reddits under my control.
And the man who had more subreddits under his control is now our pastry chef!
The office is SwampRangers.com. I tell people here I volunteer for Scott Lively. I larp as the guy with the eyepatch.
Yeah, some of my boards are experimental; in this case I want to hear from flat earthers same as you. For that purpose, my alt is a flat earther, he has it all worked out except for that last equation ....
SwampRanger is more interested in Sci Fi from that perspective it seems.
Almost. I think I was being a bit sarcastic too. Unironically, Interstellar is so bad that it works better if you totally change the genre and pretend it's e.g. a Bollywood attempt at Hindu evangelism, with occasional input from Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar to make it sound more honest.
Less unironically, I've noted most time travel movies aren't about time travel at all but about multiverse bifurcation. The plot is trying to make a point that doesn't care if the time travel makes sense (e.g. Looper). Star Trek: TNG would routinely have a separate team of plot writers and tech consultants, and when the plot writers wanted something to force the characters to act a certain way they'd just leave a slug in the script for the tech team to fill in as they saw fit, and then the techs would invent something mostly consistent for Geordi to say that was both transparent-sounding and opaque at the same time. (I think the franchise jumped the shark about when Kirk and McCoy climbed onto Spock who had the only pair of gravity boots and they turned them into upward jets and then shot past a whole series of numbered decks that the Enterprise never really had before, including two that had the same number because the same shot made it into the final cut twice.)
So, with total irony, bite my tongue because planted firmly in my cheek, the link was when my office was first authorized to disclose how time travel really works, and was received quietly as the Rangers intended. (checks watch) The second disclosure hasn't gone out yet.
What does that even mean?
Exactly. That's also the slogan of c/FlatEarth because "even" is a pun.
Like I said, a morality play. Science takes a few thousand years to catch up with religion on average. Notice how The Black Hole itself (not to mention Star Trek Undiscovered Country) couldn't help putting heaven and hell in the black hole? But they ain't there, which is why black hole as amorphous "Facilitator" makes more sense ....
Heh heh. Well, whatever Thorne says will be accurate, but like his friend Hawking he will be sensationalizing it. But the idea of getting caught in a vortex to affect exactly the spacetime your former self is in, well, science hasn't figured that out yet, but it's routine for the spiritual realm. So perhaps the effects are "too good" for what science knows now. The time dilation was "all right" but by my standards "all right" means at Planet of the Apes level.
Sure, but the movie's better as a morality play than as sci-fi. They're trying to express spiritual entanglement as physical entanglement, which is what makes it fallacious. Yes, Kip knows better, but his philosophy is that all blackhole news is good news.
I like part fake and part real. Maybe #13 was fake (astronauts never in danger) just to prove they could snow all the people if they had need to, even though they knew they could go back when needed.
I read it as a book of puzzles, it doesn't want to be described in one sentence and I probably didn't finish reading it through until adulthood. It weaves the theme of self-awareness to explore what we do with life and what we think we want computers to do (in the 80s) and then applies the truth no system is perfect to demonstrate the zen of never really knowing it all anyway. If you have a lot of time to pursue many Carrollian wordplay and logicplay fugal voices to get a roundabout view of the braided thesis, go for it, it's still relevant; but otherwise check out Hofstadter's articles and shorter books to get a feel first.