Philosopher & A̶s̶s̶o̶c̶i̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶D̶e̶a̶n̶ @UNC School for Civic Life & Leadership. Ethics, religion, & politics. Academic freedom. RT≠endorse; opinions own
Durham
Joined July 2020
- Tweets3.1K
- Following301
- Followers15.6K
- Likes11.8K
Pinned Tweet
I’ve been off this platform almost entirely.
That’s because three months ago, I almost died.
I’ve wrestled with what to say or whether to say anything at all. But what happened has so profoundly impacted my family & me that silence would be false.
There's a clear pattern to the 'pangram is trash' genre:
- claim it says your non-AI work is 100% AI but never give any evidence
- after relentless pushback post a sample (almost always an abstract) that pangram itself clearly says is too short for reliable evaluation
I think it would be much wiser to shift debates about AI away from questions of consciousness & to questions of life:
1) I think the concept of 'life' or 'living creature' is clearer, more determinate, less controversial, &, in this context, more helpful than 'consciousness.' 1/
5) I am not granting AI consciousness nor saying that debate is unimportant. But I think it's greatest perceived importance depends on assuming a link between consciousness & ethical obligation/standing or 'suffering' & 'harm' that is highly debatable & very far from clear.
This is funny for how badly it understands Protestantism. Protestants will see this & be like, “Beautiful! God be praised for all this, which is really our tradition, even as Rome is off somewhat.” And, “Wow! Narrator Chris Pratt is not Catholic & basically evangelical. Cool!”
I dislike fraternities, but banning all-male organizations at colleges, let alone equating them with hatred & white supremacy, is the height of progressive intolerance & bigotry. Young men, especially in our moment, need more not less opportunities to connect with other men.
David Decosimo retweeted
The horrific treatment of @DavidDecosimo by SCiLL leadership is one of the most disgraceful things that I've witnessed in higher education (high bar). @WSJ, your lack of interest in the truth is embarrassing.
theassemblync.com/news/educa…
In trying to defend new Church teaching on the death penalty by squaring it with tradition, MAJOR work is being done by the claim: 'They did not have the ability to reliably imprison dangerous criminals, but we do.'
But that is just historically false. Dungeons were all too real.
In pre-modern Europe & indeed in the very cities where Thomas & other medievals wrote, people could be readily be held in prison for years. The idea that they embraced the death penalty b/c it was the only way to protect society from murders seems like a post hoc rationalization.
This may upset some but from the super-majority view of nearly 2000 years of Catholic thought, the claim of the first sentence that the death penalty attacks the inviolability & dignity of the person is incorrect. This is a very clear & straightforward historical reality. 1/
The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. The common good can be safeguarded and the requirements of justice can be met without recourse to capital punishment: effective systems of detention have been developed that protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption. #NoDeathPenalty
I believe & think the Church teaches that Thomas is one of the best sources for speculative & practical wisdom, not stopping with him but, in his spirit, building on truth wherever it is found. The times demand a precision & depth for which a quasi-secular ethic is inadequate.