-
-
Curious 2see if these 2 apropos & nuanced descriptions of eschatology (end of thjngs) & vocation (participation / intelligent calling 2engage / make things better) by
@DallasAWillard support or challenge ur p.o.v.: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7707915-this-present-universe-is-only-one-element-in-the-kingdom … https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7332291-in-any-case-we-should-expect-that-in-due-time … My fav line
pic.twitter.com/fBEpQmREuV
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @micahtredding @bierlingm and
Or... B) (Maybe check our Ilia Delio & catholicity) is it union & co-creation / co-stewardship? Via whatever game/model we are in?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @luke_dawgfan @bierlingm and
The ultimate value is another being who can create freely. This is why scripture always posits us as God's children—we are intended to grow up and bring about new possibilities and new life.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @micahtredding @bierlingm and
Ok this is rough, and somewhat hastily penned by me last summer... but curious if it relates to this conversation: http://www.metanoiamemo.com/2017/06/trauma-threats-virtue-and-ai-in-cloud.html?m=1 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @luke_dawgfan @micahtredding and
Minds don't naturally want anything, not even survival or quiescence. The reward function is always an external imposition, and eventually the question is (for natural and artificial minds) whether it is more difficult for the mind to get the reward or to hack its reward system.
3 replies 3 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @luke_dawgfan and
Then maybe a pure artificial mind without external impositions is more natural than a "natural" mind driven by artificial desire and aversion.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RitaJKing @luke_dawgfan and
Intuitively, I agree. To make us care about anything, the organism needs to take a perfectly fine and pure computational process and fuck it up with the illusions of meaning.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @RitaJKing and
Unevolved organisms don't have "that problem." As if nihilism is positive as it aims to remove illusions of meaning? Humans have consciousness as awareness awarenes as openness openness as receptivity receptive is available availability orients or can surrender to orientation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think nihilism is not the absence of meaning, but the unrequited need for meaning. Most organisms don't have complete minds with universal modeling capacity, so they cannot make their own nature to the object of their own dissatisfaction and regulation.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @RitaJKing and
A helpful response, thx. An add'l curiosity I have about u saying meaning fucks things up, or that meaning through modelling leads to dissatisfaction: Is this a correct model to seek & learn: meaning making that provides objective value to the mind, thus avoiding dissatisfaction?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @luke_dawgfan @RitaJKing and
I think that meaning is objectively arbitrary, yet it determines all that is valuable to a mind. There are sustainable and unsustainable structures of meaning. Sustainable ones allow modes of existence with full integrity.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.