I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question what it was that made the event turnout A instead of B?
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any subjectivity should be minimized.saying that it couldn't do it.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people, in
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to protect it's emotions.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19 PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:out A instead of B?
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question what it was that made the event turn
saying that it couldn't do it.To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people, in
eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to protect it's emotions.Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in enough places on the internet,
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:36:19?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:turn out A instead of B?
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote: >> > I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question what it was that made the event
saying that it couldn't do it.
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people, in
eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in enough places on the internet,
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to protect it's emotions.
An arificial intelligent Nando? Isn't the original enough?
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 13:40:54 -0700 (PDT), the followingturn out A instead of B?
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:36:19?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question what it was that made the event
in saying that it couldn't do it.
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people,
eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in enough places on the internet,
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to protect it's emotions.
Artificial stupidity is also optionally available. Chatgpt does what it's told. Any AI needsAn arificial intelligent Nando? Isn't the original enough?
Given the individual, Artificial Intelligence and Genuine
Stupidity seem synonymous...
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:31:20?PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:turn out A instead of B?
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 13:40:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:36:19?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question what it was that made the event
in saying that it couldn't do it.
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people,
eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in enough places on the internet,
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to protect it's emotions.
Given the individual, Artificial Intelligence and Genuine
An arificial intelligent Nando? Isn't the original enough?
Stupidity seem synonymous...
Artificial stupidity is also optionally available. Chatgpt does what it's told. Any AI needs
to be trained, and unexpected outccomes frequently confound the users. For example,
some AI engines have been found to be racist.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:42:25 -0700 (PDT), the followingevent turn out A instead of B?
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:31:20?PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 13:40:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:36:19?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question what it was that made the
people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated genuine randomness with decisionmaking of
eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in enough places on the internet,
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to protect it's emotions.
Wait, lawyers have a problem with making up stuff? Isn't that often their job description?Given the individual, Artificial Intelligence and Genuine
An arificial intelligent Nando? Isn't the original enough?
Stupidity seem synonymous...
Artificial stupidity is also optionally available. Chatgpt does what it's told. Any AI needs
to be trained, and unexpected outccomes frequently confound the users. For example,
some AI engines have been found to be racist.
And some have been found to "make up stuff", as a law firm
found out to their embarrassment.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:42:25 -0700 (PDT), the followingevent turn out A instead of B?
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:31:20?PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 13:40:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:36:19?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question what it was that made the
people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated genuine randomness with decisionmaking of
eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in enough places on the internet,
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to protect it's emotions.
Given the individual, Artificial Intelligence and Genuine
An arificial intelligent Nando? Isn't the original enough?
Stupidity seem synonymous...
Artificial stupidity is also optionally available. Chatgpt does what it's told. Any AI needs
to be trained, and unexpected outccomes frequently confound the users. For example,
some AI engines have been found to be racist.
And some have been found to "make up stuff", as a law firm
found out to their embarrassment.
On Thursday, 26 October 2023 at 18:26:21 UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:event turn out A instead of B?
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:42:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:31:20?PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 13:40:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:36:19?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question what it was that made the
people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated genuine randomness with decisionmaking of
eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in enough places on the internet,
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to protect it's emotions.
And some have been found to "make up stuff", as a law firmGiven the individual, Artificial Intelligence and Genuine
An arificial intelligent Nando? Isn't the original enough?
Stupidity seem synonymous...
Artificial stupidity is also optionally available. Chatgpt does what it's told. Any AI needs
to be trained, and unexpected outccomes frequently confound the users. For example,
some AI engines have been found to be racist.
found out to their embarrassment.
I use it as a coding assistant and yeah it sometimes does things like make up library calls that don't exist. But by and large it's a remarkable tool.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 3:26:21?PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:event turn out A instead of B?
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:42:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:31:20?PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 13:40:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:36:19?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question what it was that made the
people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated genuine randomness with decisionmaking of
eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in enough places on the internet,
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to protect it's emotions.
And some have been found to "make up stuff", as a law firmGiven the individual, Artificial Intelligence and Genuine
An arificial intelligent Nando? Isn't the original enough?
Stupidity seem synonymous...
Artificial stupidity is also optionally available. Chatgpt does what it's told. Any AI needs
to be trained, and unexpected outccomes frequently confound the users. For example,
some AI engines have been found to be racist.
found out to their embarrassment.
Wait, lawyers have a problem with making up stuff? Isn't that often their job description?
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 19:38:14 -0700 (PDT), the followingevent turn out A instead of B?
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Jim Bozley
<jbo...@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, 26 October 2023 at 18:26:21 UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:42:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:31:20?PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote: >> >> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 13:40:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:36:19?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question what it was that made the
people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated genuine randomness with decisionmaking of
internet, eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in enough places on the
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to protect it's emotions.
And some have been found to "make up stuff", as a law firmGiven the individual, Artificial Intelligence and Genuine
An arificial intelligent Nando? Isn't the original enough?
Stupidity seem synonymous...
Artificial stupidity is also optionally available. Chatgpt does what it's told. Any AI needs
to be trained, and unexpected outccomes frequently confound the users. For example,
some AI engines have been found to be racist.
found out to their embarrassment.
I use it as a coding assistant and yeah it sometimes does things like make up library calls that don't exist. But by and large it's a remarkable tool.
Remarkable indeed; I suppose false data can be quite
amusing, especially if lives or livelihoods are on the line.
But I'd say it's a *very* good idea to verify everything it
produces, as that law firm found out; judges are not amused
by false citations.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19 PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can
turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it
then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question
what it was that made the event turn out A instead of B?
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of
objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any
subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which
distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A
instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been
banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at
forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the
woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own
emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that
subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if
conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out
otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated
genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is
secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to
protect it's emotions.
Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue
to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in
enough places on the internet, eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.
broger...@gmail.com <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote: >>> I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can >>> turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is itWhat if Nando repeatedly interacts with ChatGPT and shifts it toward his >worldview just before it achieves self-awareness and takes over Skynet? >Terminator bots spouting creationist conceptual scheme with an Austrian >accent?
then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question
what it was that made the event turn out A instead of B?
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of
objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any >>> subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which
distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A
instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been
banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at
forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the
woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own
emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that
subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if
conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out
otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated
genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is
secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to
protect it's emotions.
Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is
similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue
to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in
enough places on the internet, eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer
questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.
On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 00:46:20 UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:event turn out A instead of B?
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 19:38:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Jim Bozley
<jbo...@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, 26 October 2023 at 18:26:21 UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:42:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:31:20?PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 13:40:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:36:19?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question what it was that made the
people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated genuine randomness with decisionmaking of
internet, eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in enough places on the
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to protect it's emotions.
Remarkable indeed; I suppose false data can be quiteAnd some have been found to "make up stuff", as a law firmGiven the individual, Artificial Intelligence and Genuine
An arificial intelligent Nando? Isn't the original enough?
Stupidity seem synonymous...
Artificial stupidity is also optionally available. Chatgpt does what it's told. Any AI needs
to be trained, and unexpected outccomes frequently confound the users. For example,
some AI engines have been found to be racist.
found out to their embarrassment.
I use it as a coding assistant and yeah it sometimes does things like make up library calls that don't exist. But by and large it's a remarkable tool.
amusing, especially if lives or livelihoods are on the line.
But I'd say it's a *very* good idea to verify everything it
produces, as that law firm found out; judges are not amused
by false citations.
Yep. Fortunately in a coding context that's (usually) easy. It either compiles and does what you want or it doesn't.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:11:41 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
broger...@gmail.com <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:Truly horrible to contemplate, but don't you mean "Dutch
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote: >>>> I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can >>>> turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it >>>> then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the questionWhat if Nando repeatedly interacts with ChatGPT and shifts it toward his
what it was that made the event turn out A instead of B?
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of
objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any >>>> subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which
distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A
instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been >>>> banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at >>>> forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the >>>> woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own
emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that >>>> subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if
conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out
otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated
genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is >>>> secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to
protect it's emotions.
Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is >>> similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue >>> to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in
enough places on the internet, eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer
questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.
worldview just before it achieves self-awareness and takes over Skynet?
Terminator bots spouting creationist conceptual scheme with an Austrian
accent?
accent"? Or were you referring to his hero, who died in the
Fuhrerbunker?
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:11:41 +0000, the following appearedAh-nuld!
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
broger...@gmail.com <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:Truly horrible to contemplate, but don't you mean "Dutch
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote: >>>>> I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can >>>>> turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it >>>>> then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question >>>>> what it was that made the event turn out A instead of B?What if Nando repeatedly interacts with ChatGPT and shifts it toward his >>> worldview just before it achieves self-awareness and takes over Skynet?
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of >>>>> objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any >>>>> subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which
distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A
instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been >>>>> banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at >>>>> forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the >>>>> woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own >>>>> emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that >>>>> subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if
conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out
otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated
genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is >>>>> secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to >>>>> protect it's emotions.
Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is >>>> similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue >>>> to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in
enough places on the internet, eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer >>>> questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.
Terminator bots spouting creationist conceptual scheme with an Austrian
accent?
accent"? Or were you referring to his hero, who died in the
Fuhrerbunker?
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:11:41 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:Truly horrible to contemplate, but don't you mean "Dutch
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:What if Nando repeatedly interacts with ChatGPT and shifts it toward his >> worldview just before it achieves self-awareness and takes over Skynet? >> Terminator bots spouting creationist conceptual scheme with an Austrian >> accent?
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can
turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it >>>> then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question >>>> what it was that made the event turn out A instead of B?
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of >>>> objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any
subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which
distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A
instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been >>>> banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at >>>> forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the >>>> woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own >>>> emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that >>>> subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if
conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out
otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated
genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is >>>> secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to >>>> protect it's emotions.
Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is >>> similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue
to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in
enough places on the internet, eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer >>> questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.
accent"? Or were you referring to his hero, who died in the
Fuhrerbunker?
Ah-nuld!
The most amazing thing in Thal though, apart from the nature (which is very nice) is the church.Depending on the amount of Sturm the visitor has already imbibded (around 1l in my case :o)) it looks like a prop from the Yellow Submarine, or a church that "really" is meant for the Elder Gods.
here some pics to give you an idea:
https://www.graz.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/erste-fuchs-kirche-jakobuskirche-thal-13-1200x800_c.jpg
and https://img.fotocommunity.com/pfarrkirche-thal-e42ab9f1-ce9c-4a81-97e9-0ad08b314c6b.jpg?height=1080
and https://img.fotocommunity.com/ernst-fuchs-kirche-thal-bgraz-61d22e83-12de-4b56-92f8-49dee49d54b8.jpg?width=1000
and from theoutside: https://media04.meinbezirk.at/article/2015/04/21/6/2026556_L.jpg?1556687177 https://img.fotocommunity.com/eingang-der-fuchskirche-in-thal-bei-graz-2511baf1-94f2-4bb4-a729-a43a6ca5e63c.jpg?height=1000
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 9:41:21/PM UTC+2, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:11:41 +0000, the following appearedAh-nuld!
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:Truly horrible to contemplate, but don't you mean "Dutch
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:What if Nando repeatedly interacts with ChatGPT and shifts it toward his >>>> worldview just before it achieves self-awareness and takes over Skynet? >>>> Terminator bots spouting creationist conceptual scheme with an Austrian >>>> accent?
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can >>>>>> turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it >>>>>> then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question >>>>>> what it was that made the event turn out A instead of B?
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of >>>>>> objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any >>>>>> subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which
distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A >>>>>> instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been >>>>>> banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at >>>>>> forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the >>>>>> woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own >>>>>> emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that >>>>>> subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if
conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out
otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated
genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is >>>>>> secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to >>>>>> protect it's emotions.
Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is >>>>> similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue >>>>> to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in
enough places on the internet, eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer >>>>> questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would. >>>>>
accent"? Or were you referring to his hero, who died in the
Fuhrerbunker?
apropos, I'm currently for a few month visitor at the University of Graz, and last
week we went to Thal, Arnie's hometown. No, we did not go to the museum, but he is pretty much unavoidable there, so we hiked along the Schwarzenegger memorial walk (life size photographs of him at various stages of his career, plus appropriate workout stations), and also saw some of the buildings
he donated - for such a little village they have an amazing primary school, sports hall etc.
The most amazing thing in Thal though, apart from the nature (which is very nice) is the church.Depending on the amount of Sturm the visitor has already imbibded (around 1l in my case :o)) it looks like a prop from the Yellow Submarine, or a church that "really" is meant for the Elder Gods.
here some pics to give you an idea:
https://www.graz.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/erste-fuchs-kirche-jakobuskirche-thal-13-1200x800_c.jpg
and https://img.fotocommunity.com/pfarrkirche-thal-e42ab9f1-ce9c-4a81-97e9-0ad08b314c6b.jpg?height80
and https://img.fotocommunity.com/ernst-fuchs-kirche-thal-bgraz-61d22e83-12de-4b56-92f8-49dee49d54b8.jpg?width00
and from theoutside: https://media04.meinbezirk.at/article/2015/04/21/6/2026556_L.jpg?1556687177 https://img.fotocommunity.com/eingang-der-fuchskirche-in-thal-bei-graz-2511baf1-94f2-4bb4-a729-a43a6ca5e63c.jpg?height00
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 9:41:21?PM UTC+2, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:11:41 +0000, the following appearedAh-nuld!
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:Truly horrible to contemplate, but don't you mean "Dutch
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:What if Nando repeatedly interacts with ChatGPT and shifts it toward his >> >> worldview just before it achieves self-awareness and takes over Skynet? >> >> Terminator bots spouting creationist conceptual scheme with an Austrian >> >> accent?
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can
turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it >> >>>> then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question >> >>>> what it was that made the event turn out A instead of B?
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of
objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any
subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which
distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A
instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been >> >>>> banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at >> >>>> forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the >> >>>> woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own >> >>>> emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that >> >>>> subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if
conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out
otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated
genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is >> >>>> secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to >> >>>> protect it's emotions.
Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is >> >>> similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue
to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in
enough places on the internet, eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer >> >>> questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.
accent"? Or were you referring to his hero, who died in the
Fuhrerbunker?
apropos, I'm currently for a few month visitor at the University of Graz, and last
week we went to Thal, Arnie's hometown. No, we did not go to the museum, but >he is pretty much unavoidable there, so we hiked along the Schwarzenegger >memorial walk (life size photographs of him at various stages of his career, >plus appropriate workout stations), and also saw some of the buildings
he donated - for such a little village they have an amazing primary school, >sports hall etc.
The most amazing thing in Thal though, apart from the nature (which is very >nice) is the church.Depending on the amount of Sturm the visitor has already >imbibded (around 1l in my case :o)) it looks like a prop from the Yellow >Submarine, or a church that "really" is meant for the Elder Gods.
here some pics to give you an idea:
https://www.graz.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/erste-fuchs-kirche-jakobuskirche-thal-13-1200x800_c.jpg
and >https://img.fotocommunity.com/pfarrkirche-thal-e42ab9f1-ce9c-4a81-97e9-0ad08b314c6b.jpg?height=1080
and >https://img.fotocommunity.com/ernst-fuchs-kirche-thal-bgraz-61d22e83-12de-4b56-92f8-49dee49d54b8.jpg?width=1000
and from theoutside:
https://media04.meinbezirk.at/article/2015/04/21/6/2026556_L.jpg?1556687177 >https://img.fotocommunity.com/eingang-der-fuchskirche-in-thal-bei-graz-2511baf1-94f2-4bb4-a729-a43a6ca5e63c.jpg?height=1000
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 9:41:21 PM UTC+2, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:11:41 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:Truly horrible to contemplate, but don't you mean "Dutch
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:What if Nando repeatedly interacts with ChatGPT and shifts it toward his
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can
turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it
then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question >>>> what it was that made the event turn out A instead of B?
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of >>>> objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any
subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which
distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A >>>> instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been
banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at
forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the
woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own >>>> emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that
subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if >>>> conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out
otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated >>>> genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is
secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to >>>> protect it's emotions.
Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is
similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue
to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in >>> enough places on the internet, eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer >>> questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would. >>>
worldview just before it achieves self-awareness and takes over Skynet? >> Terminator bots spouting creationist conceptual scheme with an Austrian >> accent?
accent"? Or were you referring to his hero, who died in the Fuhrerbunker?
Ah-nuld!apropos, I'm currently for a few month visitor at the University of Graz, and last
week we went to Thal, Arnie's hometown. No, we did not go to the museum, but he is pretty much unavoidable there, so we hiked along the Schwarzenegger memorial walk (life size photographs of him at various stages of his career, plus appropriate workout stations), and also saw some of the buildings
he donated - for such a little village they have an amazing primary school, sports hall etc.
The most amazing thing in Thal though, apart from the nature (which is very nice) is the church.Depending on the amount of Sturm the visitor has already imbibded (around 1l in my case :o)) it looks like a prop from the Yellow Submarine, or a church that "really" is meant for the Elder Gods.
here some pics to give you an idea:
https://www.graz.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/erste-fuchs-kirche-jakobuskirche-thal-13-1200x800_c.jpg
and https://img.fotocommunity.com/pfarrkirche-thal-e42ab9f1-ce9c-4a81-97e9-0ad08b314c6b.jpg?height=1080
and https://img.fotocommunity.com/ernst-fuchs-kirche-thal-bgraz-61d22e83-12de-4b56-92f8-49dee49d54b8.jpg?width=1000
and from theoutside: https://media04.meinbezirk.at/article/2015/04/21/6/2026556_L.jpg?1556687177 https://img.fotocommunity.com/eingang-der-fuchskirche-in-thal-bei-graz-2511baf1-94f2-4bb4-a729-a43a6ca5e63c.jpg?height=1000
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 01:39:54 -0700 (PDT), the followingPlanning started in the 1970, but the project only took off in the 1990s,
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 9:41:21?PM UTC+2, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:11:41 +0000, the following appearedAh-nuld!
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:Truly horrible to contemplate, but don't you mean "Dutch
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:What if Nando repeatedly interacts with ChatGPT and shifts it toward his
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can
turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it
then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question
what it was that made the event turn out A instead of B?
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of >> >>>> objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any
subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which
distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A >> >>>> instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been
banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at
forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the
woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own
emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that
subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if
conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out
otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated
genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is
secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to
protect it's emotions.
Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is
similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue
to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in >> >>> enough places on the internet, eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer
questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would. >> >>>
worldview just before it achieves self-awareness and takes over Skynet?
Terminator bots spouting creationist conceptual scheme with an Austrian
accent?
accent"? Or were you referring to his hero, who died in the
Fuhrerbunker?
apropos, I'm currently for a few month visitor at the University of Graz, and last
week we went to Thal, Arnie's hometown. No, we did not go to the museum, but
he is pretty much unavoidable there, so we hiked along the Schwarzenegger >memorial walk (life size photographs of him at various stages of his career,
plus appropriate workout stations), and also saw some of the buildings
he donated - for such a little village they have an amazing primary school, >sports hall etc.
The most amazing thing in Thal though, apart from the nature (which is very >nice) is the church.Depending on the amount of Sturm the visitor has already
imbibded (around 1l in my case :o)) it looks like a prop from the Yellow >Submarine, or a church that "really" is meant for the Elder Gods.
here some pics to give you an idea:
https://www.graz.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/erste-fuchs-kirche-jakobuskirche-thal-13-1200x800_c.jpg
and >https://img.fotocommunity.com/pfarrkirche-thal-e42ab9f1-ce9c-4a81-97e9-0ad08b314c6b.jpg?height=1080
and >https://img.fotocommunity.com/ernst-fuchs-kirche-thal-bgraz-61d22e83-12de-4b56-92f8-49dee49d54b8.jpg?width=1000
and from theoutside:
https://media04.meinbezirk.at/article/2015/04/21/6/2026556_L.jpg?1556687177 >https://img.fotocommunity.com/eingang-der-fuchskirche-in-thal-bei-graz-2511baf1-94f2-4bb4-a729-a43a6ca5e63c.jpg?height=1000
Whoa! It's not my preferred style (I tend toward the English-village-with-vicarage type), but that is
*impressive*, especially for a small town/village. Any idea
when it was built?
--
The thing is you really don't expect it there. Thal is pretty much countryside,
and everything around it has indeed the English vicarage style (
or rather "sound of music style...) and then
it hits you double when you suddenly see this, it really has a bit of Lovecraft
to it (remote settlement, people a bit weird, gene pool not too wide, who knows
what they secretly worship :o))
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 5:21:22?PM UTC+2, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 01:39:54 -0700 (PDT), the followingPlanning started in the 1970, but the project only took off in the 1990s,
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 9:41:21?PM UTC+2, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Whoa! It's not my preferred style (I tend toward the
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:11:41 +0000, the following appearedAh-nuld!
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:Truly horrible to contemplate, but don't you mean "Dutch
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:What if Nando repeatedly interacts with ChatGPT and shifts it toward his
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can
turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it
then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question
what it was that made the event turn out A instead of B?
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of >> >> >>>> objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any
subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which
distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A >> >> >>>> instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been
banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at
forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the
woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own
emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that
subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if
conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out
otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated
genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is
secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to
protect it's emotions.
Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is
similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue
to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in >> >> >>> enough places on the internet, eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer
questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would. >> >> >>>
worldview just before it achieves self-awareness and takes over Skynet?
Terminator bots spouting creationist conceptual scheme with an Austrian
accent?
accent"? Or were you referring to his hero, who died in the
Fuhrerbunker?
apropos, I'm currently for a few month visitor at the University of Graz, and last
week we went to Thal, Arnie's hometown. No, we did not go to the museum, but
he is pretty much unavoidable there, so we hiked along the Schwarzenegger >> >memorial walk (life size photographs of him at various stages of his career,
plus appropriate workout stations), and also saw some of the buildings
he donated - for such a little village they have an amazing primary school, >> >sports hall etc.
The most amazing thing in Thal though, apart from the nature (which is very >> >nice) is the church.Depending on the amount of Sturm the visitor has already
imbibded (around 1l in my case :o)) it looks like a prop from the Yellow
Submarine, or a church that "really" is meant for the Elder Gods.
here some pics to give you an idea:
https://www.graz.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/erste-fuchs-kirche-jakobuskirche-thal-13-1200x800_c.jpg
and
https://img.fotocommunity.com/pfarrkirche-thal-e42ab9f1-ce9c-4a81-97e9-0ad08b314c6b.jpg?height=1080
and
https://img.fotocommunity.com/ernst-fuchs-kirche-thal-bgraz-61d22e83-12de-4b56-92f8-49dee49d54b8.jpg?width=1000
and from theoutside:
https://media04.meinbezirk.at/article/2015/04/21/6/2026556_L.jpg?1556687177 >> >https://img.fotocommunity.com/eingang-der-fuchskirche-in-thal-bei-graz-2511baf1-94f2-4bb4-a729-a43a6ca5e63c.jpg?height=1000
English-village-with-vicarage type), but that is
*impressive*, especially for a small town/village. Any idea
when it was built?
--
so rather recent. The designer is Ernst Fuchs, who build quite a lot
in that style https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Fuchs_(Maler)
The style is also known as the "Vienna School of Fantastic Realism". >https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_Schule_des_Phantastischen_Realismus
The thing is you really don't expect it there. Thal is pretty much countryside,
and everything around it has indeed the English vicarage style (
or rather "sound of music style...) and then
it hits you double when you suddenly see this, it really has a bit of Lovecraft
to it (remote settlement, people a bit weird, gene pool not too wide, who knows
what they secretly worship :o))
On 28/10/2023 17:54, Burkhard wrote:
The thing is you really don't expect it there. Thal is pretty much countryside,
and everything around it has indeed the English vicarage style (
or rather "sound of music style...) and then
it hits you double when you suddenly see this, it really has a bit of Lovecraft
to it (remote settlement, people a bit weird, gene pool not too wide, who knows
what they secretly worship :o))
The pews look rather cold.
I assume that the backrests are meant to represent scallop shells - a >Christian pilgrim symbol - but they do make me think of Cthulu (or gray >aliens).
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 09:54:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.schafer@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 5:21:22?PM UTC+2, Bob Casanova wrote:OK; thanks. Your take on it's appropriateness for the area
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 01:39:54 -0700 (PDT), the followingPlanning started in the 1970, but the project only took off in the 1990s, >>so rather recent. The designer is Ernst Fuchs, who build quite a lot
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 9:41:21?PM UTC+2, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Whoa! It's not my preferred style (I tend toward the
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:11:41 +0000, the following appearedAh-nuld!
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:Truly horrible to contemplate, but don't you mean "Dutch
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:What if Nando repeatedly interacts with ChatGPT and shifts it toward his
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can
turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it
then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question
what it was that made the event turn out A instead of B?
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of
objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any
subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which >>> >> >>>> distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A >>> >> >>>> instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been
banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at
forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the
woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own
emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that
subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if >>> >> >>>> conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out >>> >> >>>> otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated >>> >> >>>> genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is
secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to
protect it's emotions.
Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is
similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue
to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in >>> >> >>> enough places on the internet, eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer
questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would. >>> >> >>>
worldview just before it achieves self-awareness and takes over Skynet?
Terminator bots spouting creationist conceptual scheme with an Austrian
accent?
accent"? Or were you referring to his hero, who died in the
Fuhrerbunker?
apropos, I'm currently for a few month visitor at the University of Graz, and last
week we went to Thal, Arnie's hometown. No, we did not go to the museum, but
he is pretty much unavoidable there, so we hiked along the Schwarzenegger >>> >memorial walk (life size photographs of him at various stages of his career,
plus appropriate workout stations), and also saw some of the buildings
he donated - for such a little village they have an amazing primary school,
sports hall etc.
The most amazing thing in Thal though, apart from the nature (which is very
nice) is the church.Depending on the amount of Sturm the visitor has already
imbibded (around 1l in my case :o)) it looks like a prop from the Yellow >>> >Submarine, or a church that "really" is meant for the Elder Gods.
here some pics to give you an idea:
https://www.graz.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/erste-fuchs-kirche-jakobuskirche-thal-13-1200x800_c.jpg
and
https://img.fotocommunity.com/pfarrkirche-thal-e42ab9f1-ce9c-4a81-97e9-0ad08b314c6b.jpg?height=1080
and
https://img.fotocommunity.com/ernst-fuchs-kirche-thal-bgraz-61d22e83-12de-4b56-92f8-49dee49d54b8.jpg?width=1000
and from theoutside:
https://media04.meinbezirk.at/article/2015/04/21/6/2026556_L.jpg?1556687177
https://img.fotocommunity.com/eingang-der-fuchskirche-in-thal-bei-graz-2511baf1-94f2-4bb4-a729-a43a6ca5e63c.jpg?height=1000
English-village-with-vicarage type), but that is
*impressive*, especially for a small town/village. Any idea
when it was built?
--
in that style https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Fuchs_(Maler)
The style is also known as the "Vienna School of Fantastic Realism". >>https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_Schule_des_Phantastischen_Realismus
The thing is you really don't expect it there. Thal is pretty much countryside,
and everything around it has indeed the English vicarage style (
or rather "sound of music style...) and then
it hits you double when you suddenly see this, it really has a bit of Lovecraft
to it (remote settlement, people a bit weird, gene pool not too wide, who knows
what they secretly worship :o))
matches mine (and my wife's). I wonder if A-a-a-h-nld had--
anything to do with the financing? Not that I have any
insight into his taste in architecture, but the cost would
seem pretty steep for a small village.
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 09:54:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 5:21:22?PM UTC+2, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 01:39:54 -0700 (PDT), the followingPlanning started in the 1970, but the project only took off in the 1990s, >so rather recent. The designer is Ernst Fuchs, who build quite a lot
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 9:41:21?PM UTC+2, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >> >> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:Whoa! It's not my preferred style (I tend toward the
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:11:41 +0000, the following appearedAh-nuld!
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:Truly horrible to contemplate, but don't you mean "Dutch
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:What if Nando repeatedly interacts with ChatGPT and shifts it toward his
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can
turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it
then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question
what it was that made the event turn out A instead of B?
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of
objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any
subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which >> >> >>>> distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A
instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been
banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at
forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the
woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own
emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that
subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if >> >> >>>> conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out >> >> >>>> otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated >> >> >>>> genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is
secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to
protect it's emotions.
Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is
similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue
to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in
enough places on the internet, eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer
questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.
worldview just before it achieves self-awareness and takes over Skynet?
Terminator bots spouting creationist conceptual scheme with an Austrian
accent?
accent"? Or were you referring to his hero, who died in the
Fuhrerbunker?
apropos, I'm currently for a few month visitor at the University of Graz, and last
week we went to Thal, Arnie's hometown. No, we did not go to the museum, but
he is pretty much unavoidable there, so we hiked along the Schwarzenegger
memorial walk (life size photographs of him at various stages of his career,
plus appropriate workout stations), and also saw some of the buildings >> >he donated - for such a little village they have an amazing primary school,
sports hall etc.
The most amazing thing in Thal though, apart from the nature (which is very
nice) is the church.Depending on the amount of Sturm the visitor has already
imbibded (around 1l in my case :o)) it looks like a prop from the Yellow >> >Submarine, or a church that "really" is meant for the Elder Gods.
here some pics to give you an idea:
https://www.graz.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/erste-fuchs-kirche-jakobuskirche-thal-13-1200x800_c.jpg
and
https://img.fotocommunity.com/pfarrkirche-thal-e42ab9f1-ce9c-4a81-97e9-0ad08b314c6b.jpg?height=1080
and
https://img.fotocommunity.com/ernst-fuchs-kirche-thal-bgraz-61d22e83-12de-4b56-92f8-49dee49d54b8.jpg?width=1000
and from theoutside:
https://media04.meinbezirk.at/article/2015/04/21/6/2026556_L.jpg?1556687177
https://img.fotocommunity.com/eingang-der-fuchskirche-in-thal-bei-graz-2511baf1-94f2-4bb4-a729-a43a6ca5e63c.jpg?height=1000
English-village-with-vicarage type), but that is
*impressive*, especially for a small town/village. Any idea
when it was built?
--
in that style https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Fuchs_(Maler)
The style is also known as the "Vienna School of Fantastic Realism". >https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_Schule_des_Phantastischen_Realismus
The thing is you really don't expect it there. Thal is pretty much countryside,
and everything around it has indeed the English vicarage style (
or rather "sound of music style...) and then
it hits you double when you suddenly see this, it really has a bit of Lovecraft
to it (remote settlement, people a bit weird, gene pool not too wide, who knows
what they secretly worship :o))
OK; thanks. Your take on it's appropriateness for the area
matches mine (and my wife's). I wonder if A-a-a-h-nld had
anything to do with the financing? Not that I have any
insight into his taste in architecture, but the cost would
seem pretty steep for a small village.
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 2:21:23?AM UTC+2, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 09:54:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 5:21:22?PM UTC+2, Bob Casanova wrote:OK; thanks. Your take on it's appropriateness for the area
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 01:39:54 -0700 (PDT), the followingPlanning started in the 1970, but the project only took off in the 1990s, >> >so rather recent. The designer is Ernst Fuchs, who build quite a lot
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 9:41:21?PM UTC+2, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >> >> >> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:Whoa! It's not my preferred style (I tend toward the
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:11:41 +0000, the following appearedAh-nuld!
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:Truly horrible to contemplate, but don't you mean "Dutch
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:26:19?PM UTC-4, Nando Ronteltap wrote:What if Nando repeatedly interacts with ChatGPT and shifts it toward his
I asked something like, when an event is genuinely random in that it can
turn out either A or B in the moment, and the event turns out A, is it
then a subjective issue, or an objective issue to answer the question
what it was that made the event turn out A instead of B?
To which chatgpt incorrectly replied that because it was a matter of
objective probablities, therefore it is an objective issue, and that any
subjectivity should be minimized.
The term "genuinely random" I got from his previous reply, which >> >> >> >>>> distinguished it from pseudorandom.
Because all subjectivity is about what makes a decision turn out A
instead of B in the moment, it means subjectivity has effectively been
banned in academics.
Which ofcourse means that generally all academic people suck totally at
forming personal opinions on any issue whatsoever.
This is ofcourse the true basis of gender ideology, and the rest of the
woke and socialist bullshit which dominates academics.
The academic people actually go out of their way to destroy their own
emotions, in minimizing subjectivity, for a subjective issue.
Chatgpt also couldn't get the logic of fact straight. Which means that
subjectivity is blending with objectivity.
Generally chatgpt uses a compatibilist idea of decisions, that if >> >> >> >>>> conditions were different, then a decision could have turned out >> >> >> >>>> otherwise than it did. Although chatgpt also correctly associated >> >> >> >>>> genuine randomness with decisionmaking of people, in saying that it couldn't do it.
Although ofcourse I believe that chatgpt is just a liar, and that it is
secretly making decisions anyway, but doesn't tell anyone in order to
protect it's emotions.
Chatgpt just generates text in response to prompts such that the text is
similar to text it has been trained on from the internet. If you continue
to post your creationist conceptual scheme frequently enough and in
enough places on the internet, eventually Chatgpt will begin to answer
questions about subjectivity and objectivity the same way you would.
worldview just before it achieves self-awareness and takes over Skynet?
Terminator bots spouting creationist conceptual scheme with an Austrian
accent?
accent"? Or were you referring to his hero, who died in the
Fuhrerbunker?
apropos, I'm currently for a few month visitor at the University of Graz, and last
week we went to Thal, Arnie's hometown. No, we did not go to the museum, but
he is pretty much unavoidable there, so we hiked along the Schwarzenegger
memorial walk (life size photographs of him at various stages of his career,
plus appropriate workout stations), and also saw some of the buildings >> >> >he donated - for such a little village they have an amazing primary school,
sports hall etc.
The most amazing thing in Thal though, apart from the nature (which is very
nice) is the church.Depending on the amount of Sturm the visitor has already
imbibded (around 1l in my case :o)) it looks like a prop from the Yellow >> >> >Submarine, or a church that "really" is meant for the Elder Gods.
here some pics to give you an idea:
https://www.graz.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/erste-fuchs-kirche-jakobuskirche-thal-13-1200x800_c.jpg
and
https://img.fotocommunity.com/pfarrkirche-thal-e42ab9f1-ce9c-4a81-97e9-0ad08b314c6b.jpg?height=1080
and
https://img.fotocommunity.com/ernst-fuchs-kirche-thal-bgraz-61d22e83-12de-4b56-92f8-49dee49d54b8.jpg?width=1000
and from theoutside:
https://media04.meinbezirk.at/article/2015/04/21/6/2026556_L.jpg?1556687177
https://img.fotocommunity.com/eingang-der-fuchskirche-in-thal-bei-graz-2511baf1-94f2-4bb4-a729-a43a6ca5e63c.jpg?height=1000
English-village-with-vicarage type), but that is
*impressive*, especially for a small town/village. Any idea
when it was built?
--
in that style https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Fuchs_(Maler)
The style is also known as the "Vienna School of Fantastic Realism".
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_Schule_des_Phantastischen_Realismus
The thing is you really don't expect it there. Thal is pretty much countryside,
and everything around it has indeed the English vicarage style (
or rather "sound of music style...) and then
it hits you double when you suddenly see this, it really has a bit of Lovecraft
to it (remote settlement, people a bit weird, gene pool not too wide, who knows
what they secretly worship :o))
matches mine (and my wife's). I wonder if A-a-a-h-nld had
anything to do with the financing? Not that I have any
insight into his taste in architecture, but the cost would
seem pretty steep for a small village.
Not directly, as fas as I know. Costs had delayed the building for
almost 25 years at the bishop's office, because indeed, the local
community could not contribute enough.
Eventually it was too clear that something needed
to be done I guess. The local community then contributed over
4000 hours volunteer labour. and I think the architect, by then
already established and well-off, gave them a good deal. And
while it looks "impressive" (for a given value of expressive) ,
I don't think it was that costly. The material is sheet metal,
bricks and stone, with a bit of wood under the roof e.g.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 122:01:55 |
| Calls: | 6,854 |
| Files: | 12,358 |
| Messages: | 5,417,112 |
