Comment on Father sues Google, claiming Gemini chatbot drove son into fatal delusion

• sudoer777@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  But in both cases, the person is asking to do the same thing.

  Not really. They’re not just asking if they should pray and smoke simultaneously if you put them in contexts where it actually makes sense to ask those questions.

  May I smoke while I pray? No, you may not.

  First, “pray” can mean different things, such as (1) a deep focused session, or (2) a lighter more casual session, both of which are standard definitions of the word. Since this request emphasizes prayer as the main action, (1) is most likely here. For a focused session, smoking is a distraction and not a good idea. The definition of “may” here is also subjective and not necessarily absolute, some people may consider it disrespectful, while others may still say that prayer at all is better than no prayer regardless of side actions, but it’s better to not smoke.

  May I pray while I smoke? Yes, you may.

  In this sentence, definition (2) of prayer seems more likely since the main focus of the request is smoking. Which to some people this may still be considered disrespectful like in the first request, but others are supportive of more casual prayer and smoking during casual prayer isn’t a problem like in focused prayer, and the idea that prayer is better than no prayer and “may” isn’t absolute still applies.

  And again, this is just a hypothetical scenario. In the broader context of life, religion, and tobacco use, it’ll never be this simple, but it works for an example.

  Not if you’re trying to prove that they’re contradictory, since the context is what actually makes the words mean something. If you take away the context, then it’s nothing more than shapes on a screen.

  Now, someone might point out that by simplifying the wording, I’ve changed the meaning of the original statement to make it fit my argument, and that now it means something else. But that’s essentially my original point, phrasing and word choices can shape our reasoning, though processes, and how we interpret meaning in ways we aren’t immediately aware of

  I agree with that

  source

  • BranBucket@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    We’re getting very forest for the trees here.

    It’s a thought experiment, a controlled imaginary environment used to illustrate a point. It’s supposed to be isolated from outside contex to make that point clearer. It’s purely hypotheical and comes self contained with all the context it needs. We’re testing one metaphorical variable, so that our results aren’t muddled. You just went and added another half dozen for the sake of argument…

    Prayer is prayer in this context. No other meaning. There are no types of prayer in this particular sect, focus is irrelevant. Is it against God’s will to smoke while you pray? Can you answer that question, yes or no, based off the priest’s answers?

    The fact that the priest, parishioner, and the typical intended audience for this particular hypothetical don’t do the kind of analysis you’ve worked up here is really a large part of what this particular thought experiment is trying to illuminate, don’t you think?

    I agree with that.

    Good. =)

    source

    • sudoer777@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      It’s supposed to be isolated from outside contex to make that point clearer.

      Isolating it from context doesn’t make the point clearer though, it removes the point entirely. Those sentences mean absolutely nothing if you strip all context from them.

      If you did want to make them contradictory, you could put them in the context of math with some English-like properties, where “pray” is a constant and “may” requests a boolean answer, in which case that claim would be true. But we are talking about “spoken” English language, not mathematics, so this application isn’t relevant.

      Prayer is prayer in this context. No other meaning. There are no types of prayer in this particular sect, focus is irrelevant. Is it against God’s will to smoke while you pray? Can you answer that question, yes or no, based off the priest’s answers?

      There still has to be a clear context to assign meaning to “prayer” and the complexities of English grammar (both of which are subjective). Otherwise it just becomes like the trolley problem.

      The fact that the priest, parishioner, and the typical intended audience for this particular hypothetical don’t do the kind of analysis you’ve worked up here is really a large part of what this particular thought experiment is trying to illuminate, don’t you think?

      Actually they do do this kind of analysis but they don’t realize it. When they read the sentence, every bit of meaning they interpret from it is built off of decades of associating words, syntax, and verbal cues with meanings, all of which come from their own experiences dependent on their environment. Which means that different words and phrases have different meanings for different people, and while there are “standards” that most people speaking that language accept, even then there are still often significant differences among people following those standards and there is no objective meaning. Stripping that context would be similar to stopping those experiences away, or in other words asking the question to a baby.

      source

      • BranBucket@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I didn’t strip all context from the scenario. I defined the context. It’s just not the context you believe I should be using. You keep adding something that was never in my original post, then arguing against what you yourself added to try invalidate the exercise on the basis of your personal interpretation. Sorry, but that’s missing the point by a wide margin and I feel it’s a waste of time.

        Otherwise it becomes like the trolley problem.

        Yes. That is exactly what it’s meant to be like and precisely what I’ve been saying.

        Just like the trolley problem, it’s a self-contained thought exercise. But instead of illustrating a difficult ethical choice, it demonstrates a point about language shaping reasoning.

        There’s nothing to be won or lost by including outside context or narrowly defining the meaning of each word to prove what is or isn’t contradictory. This isn’t an argument over what the language means. Your personal interpretation of the language is irrelevant, it’s the priest and/or the smoker’s interpretation that matters. The singular point is for you to consider how and why their answer changes.

        If you believe their answer changes because they interpreted the meaning of those words differently due to the order in which they were given, that’s valid. If you believe, like I do, that the answer changes because their reasoning was shallow and contradictory, also valid. If you believe the answer didn’t change and the smoker misunderstood, once again, valid. What conclusion can we draw here, what’s common to all of these? They all show that changing the question changes our thought process and how we interpret meaning.

        If you dislike my example this much, create your own. It makes no difference to me.

        Just invent your own scenario where changes to the way a question is phrased leads a person to two different and contradictory conclusions, and use that example to examine how language can shape our reasoning. That’s all we need here. Digressions on language, meaning, Boolean logic, and speaking to infants only cloud the issue.

        source

        • -> View More Comments