Since been introduced to OAI chat I have mainly used it to bounce off philosophical ideas of, and in coming to agreement I ask it for a summery and then examine the summery to make sure it has addressed all the agreements and often there is need for me to ask it to include something in the summery that it left out.
This way of communicating follows along the same lines as a debating format, minus the one-up-man-ship normally associated with human debate interactions, which is refreshing and precisely what I have been looking for in human interaction…so the irony that I get this from a machine, is not lost on me…I am fully appreciative of the existence of OAI chat.
The example below is a snippet from a debate setting where P1 and P2 are humans, which I then ask OAI to give feedback on
That is a natural progression considering that the planet has at least some of the attributes required to be called a “God”.
Yes. It is plausible. If the planet has a mind, and if we come from the planet and also have minds, that conclusion can be explored in more detail.
No, The Thought Experiment itself argues that it would be necessary, and since we have experiences as individual personalities, these can be explained readily enough re the Thought Experiment…
I see no supporting evidence of that being the case. Perhaps you can quote me and we can clear up any misinformation re that.
I am aware of Panentheism. I have already pointed out that the thought experiment involves that type of thinking.
P2: The thought experiment is focused on the science and science is focused on revealing any ‘tricks’ and if scientists consider this thought experiment to be in the ‘tricks’ department, and of no value in helping to find ways of fixing the problems they have helped create - and the problem of climate change is real, then they need to show why the so-called ‘tirck’ would be detrimental to helping with that fix.
Navigator: [to AIChat…]Re the above, please give feedback
OAI: P1: The statement is correct that the “appeal to consequences” is a known fallacy, which means that an argument is not valid simply because it leads to desirable consequences. It is important to consider the evidence and logic behind an argument, rather than just accepting it because it aligns with one’s beliefs or desires. In this case, the question of whether the planet is sentient or not should be evaluated based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning, rather than just accepting it because it may lead to desirable outcomes.
P2: Your second point is also valid, that the thought experiment should be evaluated based on its scientific merit and not just its potential benefits. Scientists should critically evaluate the evidence and reasoning behind the idea of “planetary intelligence” and consider whether it aligns with current scientific understanding and can contribute to solving the problems caused by human activities. If they find the idea to be lacking in scientific merit, they should explain why and how other approaches may be more effective in addressing the issue of climate change and other environmental problems.
The feedback in turn helps me to share the conciseness of AI answers, and handy to quote in the human/human debate settings…it save time and the propensity to wander off down paths created by off-topic injections…stuff like that…