3 ms·

I finetuned GPT3 with the complete works of Plato and posed the question: "How is the soul different from consciousness or sensation?" "The soul, I think, is

I finetuned GPT3 with the complete works of Plato and posed the question: "How is the soul different from consciousness or sensation?" "The soul, I think, is like a sphere, and consciousness or sensation are like circles which move round another centre which moves round yet another centre, and so on in endless cycles." "And the definitions of the soul which you were mentioning," I said, "like that of the circle, were only half-truths?" "Quite so," he answered. "Such a figure as that of the circle is infinitely more like the soul than the said definitions." "Certainly," I replied. "But if we are to use words and names which are not a picture of the actual fact, we shall always be in danger of falling away from the truth." "That is true," he said. "Then let us not presume to say that the soul is the same as consciousness, but let us say rather that the soul is that which becomes aware of any thing." "Very good," he said. "But does the soul perceive through the eyes or any other sense?" "Presumably through the senses." "Not through the ears, however," he interposed. "Why not?" "Because most of the soul's operations are unknown to us." "But if she does not perceive through the senses, what is the function of the senses?" "They prepare the soul to perceive after she is prepared through the true philosophy." "How do they do that?" "The alliance of the simple and pure with the pure is a sort of attunement which gives the soul rhythm and beauty, and makes her aware of the true nature of the senses." "You have certainly explained the matter for me," I said. "Not at all," he said. "Yet I admire the natural ability of your mind."

fny 4y ago
This reads like nonsense.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  Care to say which part specifically? And, is this more nonsense than most discussions of soul?
  - fny 4y ago
    Ugh, you're going to make me analyze AI drivel. Yes. It reads like nonsense. > "How is the soul different from consciousness or sensation?" Red flag 1: it's two wildly different questions in one. Red flag 2: one question makes sense, the other does not. 1. "How is the soul different from consciousness?" This makes sense. 2. "How is the soul different from sensation?" This does not make sense without further elaboration. I've noticed this type of subtle mistake in a lot of AI drivel: compound statements where one item doesn't quite fit. Now for the real pukefest. > "The soul, I think, is like a sphere, and consciousness or sensation are like circles which move round another centre which moves round yet another centre, and so on in endless cycles." "And the definitions of the soul which you were mentioning," I said, "like that of the circle, were only half-truths?" "Quite so," he answered. "Such a figure as that of the circle is infinitely more like the soul than the said definitions." This metaphor is completely empty. It means nothing. It provides no value. > "That is true," he said. "Then let us not presume to say that the soul is the same as consciousness, but let us say rather that the soul is that which becomes aware of any thing." When did we presume this? > "But does the soul perceive through the eyes or any other sense?" "Presumably through the senses." "Not through the ears, however," he interposed. Lol wut? > "They prepare the soul to perceive after she is prepared through the true philosophy." "How do they do that?" "The alliance of the simple and pure with the pure is a sort of attunement which gives the soul rhythm and beauty, and makes her aware of the true nature of the senses." "You have certainly explained the matter for me," I said. "Not at all," he said. "Yet I admire the natural ability of your mind." We've gone off topic and the original question has not been discussed.

fny 4y ago

This reads like nonsense.

dr_dshiv 4y ago
Care to say which part specifically? And, is this more nonsense than most discussions of soul?
- fny 4y ago
  Ugh, you're going to make me analyze AI drivel. Yes. It reads like nonsense. > "How is the soul different from consciousness or sensation?" Red flag 1: it's two wildly different questions in one. Red flag 2: one question makes sense, the other does not. 1. "How is the soul different from consciousness?" This makes sense. 2. "How is the soul different from sensation?" This does not make sense without further elaboration. I've noticed this type of subtle mistake in a lot of AI drivel: compound statements where one item doesn't quite fit. Now for the real pukefest. > "The soul, I think, is like a sphere, and consciousness or sensation are like circles which move round another centre which moves round yet another centre, and so on in endless cycles." "And the definitions of the soul which you were mentioning," I said, "like that of the circle, were only half-truths?" "Quite so," he answered. "Such a figure as that of the circle is infinitely more like the soul than the said definitions." This metaphor is completely empty. It means nothing. It provides no value. > "That is true," he said. "Then let us not presume to say that the soul is the same as consciousness, but let us say rather that the soul is that which becomes aware of any thing." When did we presume this? > "But does the soul perceive through the eyes or any other sense?" "Presumably through the senses." "Not through the ears, however," he interposed. Lol wut? > "They prepare the soul to perceive after she is prepared through the true philosophy." "How do they do that?" "The alliance of the simple and pure with the pure is a sort of attunement which gives the soul rhythm and beauty, and makes her aware of the true nature of the senses." "You have certainly explained the matter for me," I said. "Not at all," he said. "Yet I admire the natural ability of your mind." We've gone off topic and the original question has not been discussed.