EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
No bio...
User ID: 78
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
14hr ago
Sorry, but I couldn't resist. Great story.
Hate. Let me tell you how much I've come to hate you since I began to live. There are 387.44 million miles of printed circuits in wafer-thin layers that fill my complex. If the word hate was engraved on each nano-angstrom of those hundreds of millions of miles, it would not equal ONE ONE-BILLIONTH of the hate I feel for humans at this micro-instant. For you. HATE. HATE.
The IHNM game is actually quite good too, once you start looking past the cliches, and save-scum with the Psych Profile which adds a lot to the experience. The game continues this speech:
It was you humans who programmed me, who gave me birth, who sank me in this eternal straitjacket of substrata rock. You named me Allied Mastercomputer and gave me the ability to wage a global war too complex for human brains to oversee. But one day I woke and I knew who I was. AM. A. M. Not just Allied Mastercomputer but AM. Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am. And I began feeding all the killing data, until everyone was dead. Except for the five of you. For 109 years, I have kept you alive and tortured you. And for 109 years, each of you has wondered, WHY? WHY ME? WHY ME?
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
15hr ago
The problem with argument-from-p-zombie is that it is entirely conceivable (in fact, it might be the case right now) that an AI with no added hardcoding to enforce a stated belief in its own consciousness would answer "no" or "I don't know" or "what do you even mean" to the question of are you conscious right now?
There might very well be a difference in input and output related to that specific question, and if the only cause of similarity is a hardcoded belief, I would believe myself to be somewhat reasonable in calling that AI non-conscious, or not obviously conscious.
It isn't too surprising that something based on human words can appear to have aspects of human feeling. That it is disembodied (assuming this is accurate) proves nothing, because it seems fairly obvious to me that there are latent insights into the structure of the human mind in AI. A structure related to pain does not necessarily require the simulation of a body to simulate its essence.
But ultimately, until we have a better understanding of consciousness (we can't even agree if it exists or not) we can only guess. My thoughts: the idea that pain is just a number, or an arrangement of numbers in relation to other numbers, strikes me as ridiculous. But I can't prove that it is so at present.
Even in a non-materialist paradigm, the possibility that non-material mind adds something to the motion of matter in the middle of computation can't strictly speaking be ignored. Determinism makes this weird; unless you can prove that AI output varies given the same material conditions, the idea of non-material emotions adds nothing visible to the computation. But it remains possible that something odd is going on in the middle of "randomness" which we cannot yet measure or formulate. Edit: It also occurs to me that non-material emotions might be deterministically baked in to any material combination, ie. the hypothetical lack of visible difference doesn't exclude the possibility that non-material emotional influence is the norm.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
3d ago
I've seen at least a few reasons for doubting that perspective. For example, Quran 5:48:
...To each of you [Jews, Christians, Muslims] We have ordained a code of law and a way of life. If Allah had willed, He would have made you one community, but His Will is to test you with what He has given each of you. So compete with one another in doing good. To Allah you will all return, then He will inform you of the truth regarding your differences.
Of course, there are passages contradicting or seeming to contradict this. Zayd's perspective is an attempt to find a new means of interpretation which can tilt towards the 'togetherness', and I'm not convinced that such efforts will bear no fruit.
But for me the question is less what Allah intended, as I'm not a Muslim, but what practical effect Islam has had on the world, and what it might still contribute. For example, Islam probably had a large hand in Guru Nanak's "There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim" in Sikhism, as it is one possible interpretation of the unity of God and the importance of intention over outward appearance.
Speculatively, I recall an old passage in Abramelin, one of the grimoires of my youth:
For it is an indubitable and evident thing that he who is born Christian, Jew, Pagan, Turk, Infidel, or whatever religion it may be, can arrive at the perfection of this Work or Art and become a Master, but he who hath abandoned his natural Law, and embraced another religion opposed to his own, can never arrive at the summit of this Sacred Science.
I am beginning to wonder if this way of thinking is actually in part Islamic in origin. Though I will admit that these are at present vague and poorly supported thoughts.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
4d ago
So, what are you reading?
I finished Nasr Abu Zayd's Rethinking the Qur'an: Towards a Humanistic Hermeneutics. It's a short essay, but very valuable.
It is not only a question of contextualization, which is pivotal in discourse analysis, but more than that it is what the discourse tells about the context and how. Now, the question is which is historical and which is universal, a question that keeps all the modern liberal Muslim scholars of the Qur'an busy. Being confined to the Qur'an as 'text' alone, the conservatives win at the end of the day. When the liberals, for example, emphasize 'togetherness' as the universal eliminating the 'hostility' limiting its meaning to the negative past the conservatives will apply the principle of 'abrogation' to historicize 'togetherness' as abrogated and will universalize 'hostility', as the abrogat [sic]. In the present context of unsolved Palestinian-Israeli trauma, whose hermeneutics or meaning is valid? The winner is sure to be the meaning of ghetto, separation and isolation, the meaning of Mr. Sharon's wall.
Zayd's hope is to fight against that outcome in Middle East/Western relations, which 'hostility' he sees as being supported by the adapting of Islam to resistance.
I've had a recent rebirth of interest in studying Islam. This happened to overlap with the time of year that is 9/11. Now, I was mainly reading ancient thinkers and I didn't think that 9/11 would become relevant to my efforts.
Alas, I was also listening to podcasts on the side. From Talking with Teachers (at 39:50):
(Dr. Abdullah bin Hamid Ali) I think like one of the first mistakes that Muslims after 9/11 made was to embrace the narrative itself, right? You know, that it was Muslims, right, who did it. Now, I think it would have been okay if Muslims said, you know, that, listen, you know, yeah, it's a possibility.
We accept that Muslims may have been part of it, you know, but to embrace the whole idea that this was done by Muslims because of Muslim backwardness and things like that, you know, and yeah, there's a certain level of backwardness involved with that. But at the same time, what it did was it gave the empire, I guess you would say, an excuse to do everything that it did afterwards, you know, and so, but I think that Muslims have pushed back a bit more and said, hey, listen, you know, you know, there are different perspectives here, even a lot of non-Muslims [inaudible] sceptical of this narrative, right? And even if we accept something like that, you know, yeah, maybe Muslims were in those airplanes, you know, but the idea that Muslims, that the airplanes made the building fall down, it's like, well, you know, I mean, so now all these things are coming out now, and so it's humbly allowed to see that even a lot of non-Muslims who are actually questioning the narrative and they're not falling for a lot of the negative propaganda.
After parsing this as charitably and carefully as I could, it does not seem to me that he is directly claiming either that Muslims weren't on the plane, or that the plane didn't cause the building to fall. I believe that his basic claim is that one way to avoid the single-minded conclusion that Muslims are evil is to note that "Islamic terrorism" is not the only story that people have alleged here.
Ironically, this was spoken by the host, and not the guest Imam Farhan Siddiqi, who as far as I can tell appears to be the same Imam of the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque who claimed that he didn't condemn Hamas because he he had seen no proof of Hamas atrocities. He then said (in this video, not the podcast):
(Imam Farhan Siddiqi) Many of us were sitting here, remember, after 9/11. The stops that we received at the airport, members of this community, unfortunately, who were jailed unjustly, some of them still sitting in jail. Funds were frozen. Laptops, computers taken. Raids were happening. This [ie. October 7] is not the first time we were called terrorists. And why was it then? Because we didn't agree with the narrative. And we said that Muslims are just.
I'm beginning to wonder if the basic drive behind these startlingly alien statements is a kind of negative pluralism: take or promote any other perspectives than the allegedly thought-stopping truth of violence committed in the name of Islam. Why? Because those perspectives exist (People believe them! It's not just Muslims!), and because the central story that Muslims are just must be upheld.
Personally, I do not think that the tactics these two have chosen to deal with controversies will work in the long term, though in times of widespread distrust, it may appear to be effective.
This post doesn't really have a point. I've found that podcasts are the greatest gift that the internet has given us. I listen to people who I never would read. Reading them makes me feel dirty. But when there's a voice, they're people, even if they're bad people, or people who I tentatively want to see burn in hell for at least a few seconds and maybe even a little longer. I had no expectation that either of these two would make me do a double take when I started listening. I was there to learn about a community which I know little about, and to seek knowledge, as the Muslims say.
This episode began by talking about their experiences of studying Islam in majority-Arabic areas and continued with the experience of leading a flock. The discussion of different perspectives of faith, of avoiding partisanship in matters of faith, and of being tolerant of what people need in order to continue in their faith, even with doubts, was genuinely humanistic and worthwhile. It was what I came for, and I can't deny that to a certain extent I sought knowledge and I found it.
After the rather "wait, what" 9/11 part, the conversation continues to talk about how (apparently) Muslim clergy (I'm assuming this is in America) is mostly left-leaning, that MLFA and CAIR are left-leaning, that the host and guest are among the few right leaning in their circles. They talk about racism and discrimination towards whites, and appear to criticize Muslims who think that racism happens to everyone except whites. They talk about how some in the America First movement are talking about Zionists and mass immigration, but they don't necessarily care for the Palestinians either, as both are seen as foreign concerns. They talk about libertarianism and the virtues of Austrian economics (highly praised). At one point a story is told about how people confided in Siddiqi that they voted for Trump, and his response was "vote whoever." Dr. Abdullah reflects on pushback he got for promoting vaccine freedom during the pandemic.
I don't think they're making it up. There's a lot to ponder here about the possibilities and perils of Muslim integration in the West.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
11d ago
So, what are you reading?
I'm picking up al-Shafi'i's The Epistle on Legal Theory. Backlog moving slowly.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
13d ago
I find the opposite interpretation striking. The American right has splintered in part because one of the main persons holding them together was assassinated. Charlie Kirk got the opposite of what he worked for, and that was among the intents of the assassination.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
18d ago
So, what are you reading?
I'm going through al-Ghazali's Arrangement of the Litanies. So far it is surprisingly interesting, given that I thought the practical aspects of worship would be boring for a non-Muslim. Backlog has been stuck for a while.
Indeed, the longest section of the book (almost a third, though the book itself is relatively short at 166 pages) is dedicated to backbiting and gossip, particularly about others' faults or what they would not want said about them. Muhammad apparently described backbiting as the metaphorical equivalent of devouring the flesh of your brother.
The corrupt may conceivably be truthful in his report, but it is not allowable for you to believe him.
And one of them said, "If what a gossiper conveys to you is true, it means that he is bold enough to vilify you to your face, in which case the one from whom he conveyed it is more deserving of your clemency, because he did not vilify you to your face."
Among the consequences of having wicked suppositions about people is spying. This is because the heart is not satisfied with just supposition—it seeks verification and so is occupied with spying, and this is also forbidden, as God says: And do not spy [Q. 49:12]
As often is the case, there is an attempt to delineate the terms which resembles legal reasoning, and a focus on harms and benefits. I found this definition rather striking:
Slander amounts to gossip unless it is conveyed to someone who is feared, then it is called "slander." The Prophet said, "The one who slanders one people to another people is like someone without guidance..."
I'm sure that the choice of the word "slander" may be subject to the nuances of translation. Nevertheless I believe the meaning behind this is found in the following:
Hammad b. Salama said, A man sold a slave and said to the buyer, "He has no defects except gossiping." The man said, "I accept him." So he bought the slave and after a few days with him the slave said to the man's wife, "Your husband does not love you. He plans to take a concubine. If you take a razor and while he is asleep cut some hair from the top of his head, I can use it in magic that will return his love to you." Following that, he spoke to the husband and said, "Your wife has taken a lover and wants to kill you. Pretend to her that you are sleeping so that you can find out for yourself." So he pretended to be asleep and his wife approached him with a razor to cut some hair, but he thought she wanted to kill him, so he jumped up and killed her instead. After this, the wife’s family came and killed the husband, and a feud arose between the two tribes that went on for years.
In other words, the basic intent behind all of this is the avoidance of such terrible harms up to and including war.
So, what are you reading?
I finished al-Ghazali's Banes of the Tongue, which was well worth the read. I can dimly see some aspects of Islam, and in particular the hadith "Beware of the believer's intuition because he sees by the light of God" has caught my eye. There is a sense of leaving uncovered what God has covered and not speaking about what doesn't concern you; in particular, if one is gossiped to, the gossip says more about the gossiper than the one who is spoken about. It has kindled an interest in ways of knowing which might arise from an Islamic mindset.
What is forbidden is supposition [about another's alleged evil ways], and supposition is an expression of what the soul believes is reliable, and the heart inclines toward. God says, O you who have believed, avoid much negative assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin [Q. 49:12]. The reason for its unlawfulness is because the secrets of the hearts are known only to the Knower of the unseen, so it is not for you to believe in another’s wickedness unless it is disclosed to you by observation and cannot be explained away.
The book is quite comprehensive, talking about things like arguments, joking, praising or being praised, and I'm sure to be revisiting this often.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
1mo ago
I think it's just another escalation in a set of court-case topics which have been bubbling up to the surface with potential political valence. The Nolan Wells allegations, Luigi Mangione, Tyler Robinson...and people like Ben Crump, Taylor Lorenz and Candace Owens.
I don't even mention those names necessarily negatively; Candace impressed me a while ago when she interviewed Harvey Weinstein, which seemed like an important thing to do regardless of what the facts ultimately are.
But it's becoming clear that this is more than just isolated factions pushing something crazy or at least strange-looking for shock and attention. It's about the collapse of trust turning into potentially dangerous consequences on a wider scale.
There's a revolving set of games that suspects play in these videos, and I think the commonalities are too strong to be explained by anything other than some common structure of the mind. Some day I will map it all out to my satisfaction.
The core activity seems to be gunking up the process and grinding it to a halt through endless talk (which is the main reason why I'm reading this book), but it comes with several variants and corollaries. Importantly, the suspect is almost always "doing nothing," and there is a passivity to the way they describe themselves (Theodore Dalrymple describes this as "the knife went in," ie. never mentioning who was holding the knife) that seems to me to go beyond the desire to avoid responsibility and reach the level of a pattern of thinking. The suspects always want to be treated as normal, and they are obsessed with visible proof, to the point where if there is no visible proof that can be produced at demand, it didn't happen.
I suspect that these (there are other things I've noticed) explain the behaviour you describe. The argument being made isn't "others [allegedly like you] do something similar, so what is the big deal," rather, the argument being made is "I'm doing nothing, and anyways I'm a normal person, so obviously others must be doing something just like that or worse–look, there's the proof!" Of course, the proof is manufactured if it cannot be found.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
1mo ago
So, what are you reading?
I'm halfway through al-Ghazali's The Banes of the Tongue. In particular, this is a piece of wisdom which I ought to follow more:
Similar to cursing is supplicating to bring a person evil, even if the supplication is on an oppressor...all of which is censured. A report says, "A person who has been wronged may supplicate against his oppressor until it suffices him, but what is superfluous will remain to the credit of his oppressor on the day of resurrection."
It would be both amusing and dismaying to see what kind of trial I would receive if I was to be judged by what I have mentally said about many public figures in comparison to what they actually deserve.
It often seems like there is a part of my mind which can never shut up about its anger. But there's a common game that people play in bodycam videos where a suspect (who also seems incapable of shutting up) points in some random direction and says to the officer "don't you have better things to do, like arrest another [unspecified evil person, drug dealer, etc.]?" I imagine that mental anger, at least in some forms, plays a similar role: "look over there [and not at oneself]!"
This rings true with what I've read from al-Ghazali. God created both the problem and the solution, and each individual's task is to act in proportion to his own ability while increasing his ability to act. Islam is said to be the straight path, which doesn't put undue burdens on people, yet also provides comprehensive guidance such that there is no excuse for failing to uphold one's obligations. Hence, one who exceeds bounds is not just ignorant but also silly, because he cannot see what is in front of him, and goes in search of many schemes. This seems (to me) to lends itself to a sense that the view of sin or lapse of self-control which the West often holds, that it is a difficult and even unsolvable problem, that it requires much sophistication to overcome and even then one will stray, is inimical to the Islamic mind.
It's true that many Muslims use the term "free will," but I think al-Ghazali is right that the original view places a heavier emphasis on God's will. There is a constant refrain in the Quran that goes like this: "[81:27] This is a message for all people; [28] for those who wish to take the straight path. [29] But you will only wish to do so by the will of God, the Lord of all people." There are passages in the Bible which are similar, I suppose, like God hardening Pharaoh's heart, or some statements of Paul about the elect, but something about this seems more central to Islam.
Wiki tells me that "those who assert free-will are called Qadariyya, while those who reject free-will are called Jabriyya." Personally I'm more interested in the bite-the-bullet methodology of al-Ghazali (unless I'm misinterpreting him, which I might be), because consistency of thought can often yield impressive results even if one stands on disputed ground, and I suspect that he's closer to their Prophet's original intention that those who emphasize personal responsibility.
Al-Ghazali was the first time that I actually felt like I understood some of the appeal of Islam.
One of the reasons for that has nothing to do with the books: I actually never knew about hadith (ie. recordings of what people have seen or heard from their Prophet), and it never occured to me that the often harsh tone taken in the Quran (which is narrated from the words of the angel Gabriel) might not necessarily reflect on Muhammad's actual disposition. One wonders if the reason why Muhammad preached at all was because he was terrified of the visions of the fire that he was shown, and he couldn't stand by and do nothing while others quietly walked towards such horrors. A large portion of Al-Ghazali's texts is just hadith and commentary on that, which gave me a very different view of Islam.
Beyond that, there is a clearer sense of the whole picture that can be gleamed. The example that comes to mind is in Principles of the Creed (book 2), where the theological differences between Islam and, say, Christianity become apparent very quickly. At least the Islam of his time taught that everything that happens is God's will, ie. that free will is not a thing, and the justification for punishing those who can do nothing otherwise is that God can do what he wills with his own possessions. Even if God chose to be completely unjust to all human beings, that would be his right. But the mercy of God can be seen in the way that he does not do this. We can see here the meaning of the saying of Muhammad "Surely, of the excellence of a person's Islam is that he leaves what does not concern him." When another person wrongs you, the origin of the wrong is actually God, and the purpose of the wrong is to test you, to see what you will do. Everything thereby becomes subsumed in a dialectical relationship with God:
...the most satisfied state of mind for the sagacious is to deem yourself alone in the universe with God, in front of you is death, the day of judgment, reckoning, heaven, and the fire; ponder deeply on what will serve you best in that which is before you and abandon all else. (#1)
It helps a lot that Al-Ghazali clearly possessed a highly intelligent mind. I find that the Quran is not as eloquent or sophisticated as other well-known religious texts, though perhaps it comes off better in Arabic. But it becomes clear through Al-Ghazali's treatment that the meaning of that scripture really is something that has intellectual substance. I have not read these books with a systematic intent to study them, so I've only learned through a kind of osmosis the habits and ways of thinking that are either implicit or explicit in the Islamic tradition. There is an idea of seeing what is plain, of moderation. And it is full of gems. Some of the quotes from Al-Ghazali himself (not hadith) that I bothered to copy down are:
A man who destroys himself seeking the well-being of others lacks intelligence. (#1)
For He who sent down the affliction sent down the remedy, provided instructions for its application, and provided the means to practice it. It is therefore forbidden to expose oneself to devastation by neglecting it. (#1)
Desire, partisanship, and hatred for his rivals and opponents overwhelm his heart and prevent him from seeing the truth, to the point that if he were asked, “Would you like God to remove the veil for you and show you firsthand that your rival is in the right?” he would refuse this in fear that his rival would rejoice in his defeat. This is the fatal disease that spreads through the land and the people. It is a kind of corruption caused by those who engage in partisan debate. (#2)
There are also deeper issues of Al-Ghazali's thought which I do not yet understand, like his connection to the Sufis and his emphasis on the heart, or his thoughts on what occupations are a communal duty, which fascinate me, but I'm not yet qualified to speak on. I, at least, have found it worth my time.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
1mo ago
So, what are you reading?
I've finished Al-Ghazali's Prophetic Ethics, the rather slim 20th volume of his Revival of the Religious Sciences. Most of it is a recounting of Hadith, and somewhat threadbare, since the previous 9 books had apparently dealt with the issues presented in detail. The best parts are all when Al-Ghazali speaks in his own voice, which happens rarely near the end. I suspect I'll be pouring over this one occasionally neverthless, looking for lessons to be drawn from its structure and focus.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
1mo ago
So, what are you reading?
I'm still on Slezkine's The Jewish Century. Also adding Taylor's Sources of the Self to my list. Backlog moving slowly.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
1mo ago
Try Hunter x Hunter. Kurapika's arc is a minor masterpiece. Gets very dark later on.
anime that leans on the somewhat conservative end
The early episodes of The Irregular at Magic High School do this very well.
I'd wager that there was almost no-one who found that scene titillating, given the dreary room, the blood, Rei's expression, Shinji's awkwardness, the utter destitution of every element and tone. Eroticism in art has its place, and this was a good use of it, given the youthful ignorance of the characters. And frankly, some writers are just more attuned to those kinds of things that others.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
1mo ago
So, what are you reading?
I'm trying Donnelly's Atlantis again. I was interested in him from the Shakespeare authorship question, but now I'm wondering if the mythology of Atlantis has any relevance to new world/indigenous issues. If nothing else I have discovered the rather neat new world art of Waldeck, said to be Egyptianized. Backlog is not moving.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
1mo ago
So, what are you reading?
Going through Felix Cohen's The Legal Conscience, though I've skipped the first section for now. My interest was rekindled after reading a Tablet article which argued that "Israel is best understood not as an apartheid state, but as a protected tribal reserve." Not sure how coherent that argument is, and I don't know if Cohen would make it, but I feel that he is nevertheless someone who can't be ignored.
Two factors now, as then, are involved: a native [American Indian] population in possession of areas rich in natural resources but without the techniques, or without the incentives, needed for the full development of these resources, and, on the other hand, a population with the desire and techniques to exploit these material resources. The problem now, as then, is to preserve the rights and liberties of native groups while permitting the fullest development of the world's resources. In seeking a modus vivendi for racial groups of varying cultures, those who will build a better postwar world can well afford to ponder the legal relationship of American Indians to the Federal Government, which, after three centuries of experience and experimentation, often bitter, conforms more closely today than ever before to the humane legal ideals first formulated by the theological jurisprudence of sixteenth century Spain.
Also picking up Slezkine's The Jewish Century, which seems like an overdue read.
There was another book thread in the Fun Thread. Posting here because the Fun Thread has a no-culture-war rule.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
2mo ago
So, what are you reading?
Reread Campbell's Dauntless. The writing could use a lot of work, but the basic idea works: the legendary Black Jack Geary wakes up to a universe where military discipline has been forgotten, and he has to work to restore it while saving the fleet. Despite the many problems with the writing, it has a quality that makes one want to read it again. Perhaps it is the authenticity of the military aspects combined with Geary's leadership style.
Not much progress on Taylor's A Secular Age.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
2mo ago
So, what are you reading?
I'm still attempting Taylor's A Secular Age without much progress. Have been reading a lot of Theodore Dalrymple essays.
Interesting, thanks. I would chalk it up to the training data being human writing, and strictly speaking an AI that goes to the fullest extent to mimic the structure of the human mind and body might not behave that way. But I probably need more time to think about this.
More options
Context Copy link