I'll accept your perspective and try to learn from it.
However I think that the comment is relevant, and you can see from the replies gathered before it was flagged that it did spark a relevant discussion.
Reminding that the speaker is a spiritual leader and not an authority on the use of technology is not a sneer and and not an ideological statement. In any context other than religion, which I understand is sensitive, a statement of that sort would be considered a contribution to the discussion, not an ideological battle. And that's precisely the problem - censoring a discussion about the relevance of religion to the matter is the ideological act.
The phrase “supernatural woowoo” is clearly against the guidelines I cited, as is age-old cynicism about the validity of religion or intellectual merits of anyone who believes in it. We're here for intellectual curiosity, not the same old predictable thing.
I agree. I personally listen to Sam Altman on these types of matters. He's someone with much more extensive qualifications than the pope!
Edit: it looks like I was wrong about this and Sam Altman has no formal qualifications. I still think he has probably picked up a lot of life experience over the years.
I do believe (believe, not know) that consciousness is something bigger than we know, I can even believe in panpsychism sometimes but I don't think any religion have any real clue about the nature of consciousness.
It's not something we can pinpoint in any experiment, even not clear how to design one in theory. Yet we know by our very personal experience that it exists. Sounds pretty supernatural to me.
Hm, how does one not get into that conclusion? Most everyone would agree we have the concept of "selfness", yet I don't think there's a scientific theory to explain how a set of physiochemical processes can have that endresult to an observer, any more than a computer has the idea of "me".
I'm not religious in the least bit, but this is a case where I'll take of the words of a guy with significant influence saying we shouldn't let a machine make our minds irrelevant as a win.
They could even finally be a source for good if they’d actually use some of the billions they collect.
Has anyone actually directly encountered a single vatican sponsored charity or program in the wild? It seems quite a morally bankrupt organisation to me, and i’m not sure what if anything it really has to do with Christianity or Christians anyore.
From the Wikipedia page on the Catholic Church: "By means of Catholic charities and beyond, the Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of education and health care in the world."
Just yesterday I went to see a presentation of a priest appointed to a massive parish in the rural area of South Sudan, setting up schools and bringing in aid.
> the Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of education and health care in the world.
Hm. In germany Catholic day care is funded by the state ie taxes by over 90%. Military chaplains 100%. Would be surprised if the difference is bigger in schools and hospitals. I heard that in France there is an actual separation of church and state and as a result the church is rather poor.
I don't know enough about the current Vatican affairs. But as an anecdotal experience, I was born at a catholic hospital at a small town in Southeast Asia. And they're the best managed hospitals in the area. I'm not even religious or catholic but I respect what they did here
The AI bros believe in and promote superficial woowoo. They are cult leaders and con men, not an authority on anything else. I wouldn't take advice from them on anything.
How to prepare homilies is clearly a religious topic
This is exactly the type of comment we're trying to avoid on HN.
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'll accept your perspective and try to learn from it.
However I think that the comment is relevant, and you can see from the replies gathered before it was flagged that it did spark a relevant discussion.
Reminding that the speaker is a spiritual leader and not an authority on the use of technology is not a sneer and and not an ideological statement. In any context other than religion, which I understand is sensitive, a statement of that sort would be considered a contribution to the discussion, not an ideological battle. And that's precisely the problem - censoring a discussion about the relevance of religion to the matter is the ideological act.
The phrase “supernatural woowoo” is clearly against the guidelines I cited, as is age-old cynicism about the validity of religion or intellectual merits of anyone who believes in it. We're here for intellectual curiosity, not the same old predictable thing.
2 replies →
I agree. I personally listen to Sam Altman on these types of matters. He's someone with much more extensive qualifications than the pope!
Edit: it looks like I was wrong about this and Sam Altman has no formal qualifications. I still think he has probably picked up a lot of life experience over the years.
It has to be ironic, right? Not sure what Sam Altman is qualified in apart from money making (which, of course, he's extraordinary excellent in).
Have you considered that our very consciousness is supernatural?
Considered at length, and ultimately rejected due to lack of evidence.
There's a lot of beauty in embracing not-knowing.
2 replies →
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
6 replies →
I do believe (believe, not know) that consciousness is something bigger than we know, I can even believe in panpsychism sometimes but I don't think any religion have any real clue about the nature of consciousness.
I don’t necessarily disagree but how do you get to the conclusion?
It's not something we can pinpoint in any experiment, even not clear how to design one in theory. Yet we know by our very personal experience that it exists. Sounds pretty supernatural to me.
Hm, how does one not get into that conclusion? Most everyone would agree we have the concept of "selfness", yet I don't think there's a scientific theory to explain how a set of physiochemical processes can have that endresult to an observer, any more than a computer has the idea of "me".
1 reply →
Why then does it change if we take drugs?
What does “supernatural” in the context of your comment means to you?
Ah, a man (or women) after my own heart in HN.
Do you limit it to human‘s consciousness?
> consciousness
What else is there?
4 replies →
How could it be?
I'm not religious in the least bit, but this is a case where I'll take of the words of a guy with significant influence saying we shouldn't let a machine make our minds irrelevant as a win.
They could even finally be a source for good if they’d actually use some of the billions they collect.
Has anyone actually directly encountered a single vatican sponsored charity or program in the wild? It seems quite a morally bankrupt organisation to me, and i’m not sure what if anything it really has to do with Christianity or Christians anyore.
From the Wikipedia page on the Catholic Church: "By means of Catholic charities and beyond, the Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of education and health care in the world."
Just yesterday I went to see a presentation of a priest appointed to a massive parish in the rural area of South Sudan, setting up schools and bringing in aid.
> the Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of education and health care in the world.
Hm. In germany Catholic day care is funded by the state ie taxes by over 90%. Military chaplains 100%. Would be surprised if the difference is bigger in schools and hospitals. I heard that in France there is an actual separation of church and state and as a result the church is rather poor.
3 replies →
I don't know enough about the current Vatican affairs. But as an anecdotal experience, I was born at a catholic hospital at a small town in Southeast Asia. And they're the best managed hospitals in the area. I'm not even religious or catholic but I respect what they did here
Ah yes, these priests killed and tortured around the world just to burn charity money.
> The pope believes in and promotes supernatural woowoo.
Hey, so does Peter Thiel!
The AI bros believe in and promote superficial woowoo. They are cult leaders and con men, not an authority on anything else. I wouldn't take advice from them on anything.