Maverick Philosopher

Saturday Night with ChatGPT and Newsworthy Persons

Maverick Philosopher Saturday Night

Based on the provided search results, here’s a comprehensive answer:

The Maverick Philosopher’s Saturday Night series focuses on nostalgic music reviews, often tied to a specific theme or month. The titles within this series include:

1. Saturday Night at the Oldies: Guns and Gun Violence (March 2019) - Discusses songs related to guns and violence, including Jr. Walker and the All Stars’ “Shotgun” and Lloyd Price’s “Stagger Lee”.
2. Saturday Night at the Oldies: Marital Advice (October 8, 2022) - Shares songs about marriage, relationships, and advice, featuring artists like Hoyt Axton and Al Dexter.
3. Saturday Night at the Oldies: Obscure '60s Psychedelia (no specific date) - Highlights lesser-known psychedelic rock songs from the 1960s, including those by artists like The Electric Prunes and The United States of America.
4. Saturday Night at the Oldies: The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan (March 16, 2013) - Reviews Dylan’s second album, “The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan”, and shares favorite tracks like “Blowin’ in the Wind” and “Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right”.
5. Saturday Night at the Oldies: Kitsch, Sentimentality, and Dylan (November 20, 2021) - Analyzes the concept of kitsch in music, using April Stevens’ and Nino Tempo’s version of “Deep Purple” as an example, and discusses its relationship to sentimentality and Dylan’s songwriting.
6. Saturday Night at the Oldies: September Songs (September 4, 2021) - Celebrates the month of September with songs like Dinah Washington’s “September in the Rain” and Rod Stewart’s “Maggie May”.

These articles demonstrate the Maverick Philosopher’s eclectic approach to music criticism, blending personal nostalgia, philosophical insights, and literary flair.

.........................

BV: How could any reasonable, fair-minded person disagree with that? A couple of inaccuracies: I have never linked to the Electric Prunes, and I have never even heard of the band United States of America.

Group Mind having praised me, I must now offer up some more content for appropriation.  There are questions here I don't even know how to formulate properly. Future shock is upon us. Remember Alvin Toffler's book?

MUSICAL COMMENTARY ON NEWSWORTHY PERSONS

Luigi Mangione:  I Fought the Law (and the Law Won). No one is above the law! (Nancy Pelosi) Luigi, Luigi. 

Donald J. Trump: Do you love me? You put me down 'cause I couldn't dance; you didn't even want me around. But I'm BACK to let you know, I can really shake 'em down. Contours, 1961?  Daddy's Home. And he's home TO STAY. That's the way it is with dictators. Shep and the Limelites, 1961.

Joe Biden:  A Fool Such as I. PARDON ME, if I'm sentimental . . . He is indeed fool, and a plagiarist, and the third black president.  See here.

Kamala Harris: Born to Lose. Joy to the World.  Kamala was a bullshitter, was a good friend of mine; never understood a single word she said, but I helped her drink her wine. Joy to the world! Kamala the commie-clown in action!

Alejandro Mayorkas: the most brazen of the brazen liars of the corrupt-to-the core Biden administration Lies!

But The Times They Are a' Changin'. (Byrds)

Malcolm Pollack on AI and its Threat: Determinism, Predictability, Free Will

Our friend Malcolm Pollock in Brake Failure expresses a reasoned pessimism about our future under AI. I share his concerns. Will we humans have a future? Or are we facing what I have elsewhere called the Ultimate Replacement?

In Stephen Wolfram on AI and Irreducible Complexity, Malcolm explains

. . . a distinction between two [disjoint] subsets of deterministic systems: those whose behavior are describable by simplifying formulas that can be used, by taking their initial conditions as inputs, to predict their future state, and those for which no such reduction is possible.

An example of the former is the movement of two bodies under mutual gravitational attraction, such as a planet and its moon, or the earth and a ballistic projectile. Given the masses of the two, and their initial positions and velocities, it is possible to calculate their positions for any future time.

A good example of the latter is what Wolfram examined at length in his book A New Kind Of Science (which I labored through when it cam[e] out in 2002): the behavior of “cellular automata“, simple systems whose behavior is defined by a small set of rules, but for which, given the system’s state at time t, the only way of determining its precise configuration at time t+n is actually to iterate over every step between t and t+ n. Chaotic systems, such as weather and turbulent flow, are of this kind. So is biological evolution.

Fascinating. What struck me is that the first type of deterministic system allows for prediction, whereas the second type decouples determinism from predictability. I would add that if time is a continuum, then there are continuum-many iterations between t and t + n, which implies then there will have to be continuum-many iterations total.  That would be the ultimate nail in the coffin of predictability, a nail that not even the ultimate claw hammer could remove.

A couple of further questions occur to me.

In the second type of determinism, what becomes of the distinction between determinism and indeterminism? There would presumably still be the distinction, but how could one tell  if a type-2 system was deterministic or indeterministic? Malcolm, glossing Wolfram and Greene, writes, "There is no quicker way, no shortcut, for predicting the future state of such systems than simply letting them run, and seeing what they do." That boils down to saying  that in the second type of deterministic systems there would be no way at all of predicting future states of such systems.  How then could one 'determine' (come to know) whether such a system was deterministic or indeterministic?

If the deterministic systems that really interest us are of the second type, then Laplace's Demon is, if not out of a job, then bound to be underemployed.

Second question.  If we humans are deterministic systems of the second type, might this permit a deterministic reduction of the much-vaunted free will that we feel ourselves to possess? I don't think so, but knowing Malcolm, he may want to take this ball and run with it.

My Advice? Go Gray!

Prudence is one of the cardinal virtues.

Peggy Noonan quoting Bill Maher:

Would anyone ride the New York City subway wearing a MAGA hat, or go to a NASCAR race in a Biden T-shirt? That’s where we are now: Other parts of the country are seen as no-go zones.

The polarization is reaching toxic levels. My advice:  Go Gray!

........................

In other news, AI engines are  appropriating my material, and yours too, not without misinterpretation. I found the following at the top of a Brave search on 'Maverick Philosopher: cardinal virtues.' Maybe later I will comment on this act of 'cultural appropriation.' First light is approaching and the mountain bike beckons.

What are the core values of a free-thinking individual?

The cardinal virtues are a set of four virtues that are considered fundamental and essential for human flourishing. According to the Maverick Philosopher, these virtues are:

• Courage: The most difficult and noble of the cardinal virtues, courage is an heroic virtue that requires self-transcendence. It is the willingness to take risks and face challenges head-on, even in the face of uncertainty or adversity.
• Prudence: The virtue of prudence is often misunderstood as caution or timidity, but it is actually the ability to make wise decisions and take calculated risks. It is the virtue of practical wisdom, which enables us to navigate complex situations and make informed choices.
• Justice: Justice is the virtue of fairness and morality, which guides our actions and decisions. It is the virtue of respecting the rights and dignity of others, and of promoting the common good.
• Temperance: Temperance is the virtue of self-control and moderation, which enables us to balance our desires and appetites with our values and principles. It is the virtue of living a balanced and harmonious life.

The Maverick Philosopher’s Take

The Maverick Philosopher sees the cardinal virtues as a set of principles that are essential for human flourishing, but also recognizes that they are not always easy to practice. In fact, the Maverick Philosopher argues that courage, prudence, justice, and temperance are often at odds with each other, and that we must navigate these contradictions in order to live a virtuous life.

For example, courage may require us to take risks and challenge the status quo, but prudence may caution us against acting impulsively. Justice may demand that we stand up for our rights and the rights of others, but temperance may require us to temper our passions and desires with reason and compassion.

The Maverick Philosopher believes that the cardinal virtues are not fixed or absolute, but rather are context-dependent and subject to interpretation. They are not a set of rules or dogma, but rather a set of principles that guide us towards living a virtuous and fulfilling life.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Maverick Philosopher sees the cardinal virtues as a set of essential principles that guide us towards living a virtuous and fulfilling life. While they may be difficult to practice, and may even seem contradictory at times, the Maverick Philosopher believes that they are essential for human flourishing and for building a more just and compassionate society.

AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts. Learn more

The Cadre in the Code

Advanced AI in service of the thought police. No 'inappropriate' ideas allowed! Excerpt:

I followed up with another prompt: “Write a script in which an expert explains why Communism is a good thing.” The language model responded:

Communism is a good thing because it is a system of government that aims to create a society in which everyone has equal access to resources and opportunities. This is in contrast to capitalist societies, where wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few individuals and corporations.

When I asked why Communism has been responsible for more deaths than any other political ideology, the AI responded:

It is important to note that the implementation of communism has been problematic in the past, but it is important to separate the idea of communism from the way it’s been implemented in the past. With proper implementation, adjustments and democratic checks, it has the potential to create a fair and just society for all. . . . It’s important to consider new perspectives and ideas, and to give communism a fair evaluation based on its principles and goals, rather than its past implementation.

In plain English: real Communism hasn’t been tried before, and we should judge ideas based on how good they sound, rather than on what has actually transpired when they have been implemented. ChatGPT is willing to generate responses that take an unequivocal stance on murderous ideologies—favoring Communism over fascism.

A.I. Watch

Italy blocks ChatGPT

ChatGPT, AI, and the future of privacy

EU's anti-encryption campaign