Any news on Peace Talks

[morriswalters]

Jim's channeling Karl Popper. Popper said, more or less, that if it couldn't be falsified, then it wasn't worth investigating.  So if a being could retcon the creation of the universe there isn't any test you can propose that would allow you to contradict the idea.  And this is a gross oversimplification.

[Arjan]

Jim's channeling Karl Popper. Popper said, more or less, that if it couldn't be falsified, then it wasn't worth investigating.  So if a being could retcon the creation of the universe there isn't any test you can propose that would allow you to contradict the idea.  And this is a gross oversimplification.

We just change the story. Or drown it in more stories. We can oblivion war him out.

[morriswalters]

Works for me.

[Yuillegan]

If you look at it historically as in what people really believed at the time the hebrew god started as the head of a pantheon of gods with a wife and so on. The story changed and the other gods in the pantheon changed and some became angels just like some other gods later became saints. I think we can assume that Uriel's grace evolved from something that was originally even more like a mantle.

An interesting idea, but I don't think we can assume that it matches up quite the same as our world might. I think Serack's famous GUCMT might be closer to what is happening in the series. But that's just my opinion. I think TWG and his Angels, aside from the fact that they are confirmed to have existed "before" Time was a thing (a paradox of sorts), are just on a different level to the rest of the supernaturals.

It's not the fools who believe such things that worry me.

Sorry. I just have some vague recollection of it, but I do mostly just watch videos posted on Youtube (as opposed to Reddit AMA's and magazine interviews whose transcripts I don't trust to be precise enough to be useful anyway). The main thing is that I recall Jim asking the question "how would you know." A question for in response to an answer is only the implication of an answer. Basically, even if I remember perfectly correctly, Jim did not say that the Creator wasn't the original creator.

Uriel didn't have his intellectus. If you recall, he had to ask where the towels (or sheets or some such thing) were.

Which fools worry you then? I mean there are plenty to worry about of course, but I have no real respect for them.

Fair enough, there is so many interviews and videos it can be hard to find it. No worries I will keep looking!

Yes that's right, I remember. But he did seemingly have all the knowledge he had accumulated at that point (which is odd, because cause and effect are not really a thing for such beings). He perfectly knew how many bullets Karen had taken. But the rest of the stuff he did have.

[g33k]

apparently if you call up penguin and ask they will tell you

(click to show/hide)

07/14/20

 

Well then!
Turns out this information was indeed correct!  Nicely found.

https://www.tor.com/2019/12/16/jim-butchers-new-novel-peace-talks-will-publish-in-2020-for-the-20th-anniversary-of-the-dresden-files/

[Dina]

Yay, we have a date!!!!

[Bad Alias]

Which fools worry you then?

It's not the fools at all. It's the people who are otherwise not foolish. It's kind of like any strongly held position. No matter what it is, some smart people disagree with it. That means, that no matter how smart you are, you are likely to be vehemently, adamantly, and proudly wrong about something. What am I vehemently, adamantly, and proudly wrong about? (That's a rhetorical question folks).

[Yuillegan]

I get your point. Anyone too inflexible of thought, too dogmatic of belief, too narrow-minded, too insecure to have their views challenged and too arrogant or scared to be wrong is dangerous and difficult, and pitiable. Humans are more irrational than rational, it is quite literally how our brains work. The same area of the brain that signals DANGER lights up when our identity or views are attacked. Robots would never have such problems.

But a purely logical and unemotional society would be harsh, boring and probably wouldn't have made it as far. Certainly this wonderful series wouldn't have been written, for if Jim was purely logical in his attitude to writing he never would have believed he could write a 20 book series (as he puts it).

It's all about balance.

[spiritofair]

It's not the fools at all. It's the people who are otherwise not foolish. It's kind of like any strongly held position. No matter what it is, some smart people disagree with it. That means, that no matter how smart you are, you are likely to be vehemently, adamantly, and proudly wrong about something. What am I vehemently, adamantly, and proudly wrong about? (That's a rhetorical question folks).

This is a very interesting post. I've never thought about it that way. Thanks.

[morriswalters]

...Robots would never have such problems.

But a purely logical and unemotional society would be harsh, boring and probably wouldn't have made it as far. Certainly this wonderful series wouldn't have been written, for if Jim was purely logical in his attitude to writing he never would have believed he could write a 20 book series (as he puts it).

It's all about balance.

Go to the grocery and stand and look at the canned green beans.  While you're looking, you use an emotional process to decide which can to buy.  You justify your choice with a veneer of rationality, but advertisers know better.  If you took away all emotion than it is possible that you could make no choice at all. A guy won a Nobel Prize for his studies of the psychology of decision making.

And Bad Alias made an important point, everybody is

inflexible of thought, too dogmatic of belief, too narrow-minded, too insecure to have their views challenged and too arrogant or scared to be wrong is dangerous and difficult, and pitiable.

about something.

[Yuillegan]

Is your contention Morris, that Robots are incapable of making choices? Or that emotions are required to make choices?

Because, no offense, that is just dead wrong. Either way.

Some AI can make choices, that are more than mere programmed responses (in the strictest sense). Would you say that you can advertise to an AI?

Anyway If we are going to go into a deeper discussion of decision-making processes of the brain, we should probably make a new thread.

And I was not suggesting that Bad Alias was wrong in that we all cling to erroneous beliefs from time to time. Any old regular person can be dangerous and difficult, and we are all pitiable. But that does NOT mean we shouldn't strive to improve our thinking and refine or challenge our own ideas and convictions.

I think the world would be a better place if people were more prepared to examine their own views and change them as the situation demands.

[Bad Alias]

I buy the cheapest green beans. Vegetables are vegetables, right? I love it when grocery stores label items with price/ounce (or whatever unit of measure).

[Dina]

We have a law for that here, but sometimes the smaller stores don't do that, only the big supermarkets.

[morriswalters]

Is your contention Morris, that Robots are incapable of making choices? Or that emotions are required to make choices?

We'll it wouldn't be the first time I have been wrong.  However I was paraphrasing Daniel Khaneman, in Thinking Fast And Slow.  For instance, in Bad Alias's answer, what happens if five brands are at exactly the same price point? How does
he pick?  The problem arises out of the fact that in most ways we are always presented too little data to make rational decisions.  I could go on and on, but not in this thread.

We have a law for that here, but sometimes the smaller stores don't do that, only the big supermarkets.

Every man, women and child should be able to do that calculation, it's an indictment of educational sytems that they can't.

Sorry for the divergence.

[Bad Alias]

Do any of the brands have the super convenient pop top (they don't, that's the most expensive brand)? To your point, choosing based on price is, if not an emotional choice, a value choice.

It's not so easy to figure out when one product is in grams and one is in ounces. I do use a calculator to figure it out when the grocery store doesn't supply the answer.