Go to jabberwacky.com
It's an AI (Artificial Intelligence) chat robot.
It's a robot.
It learns language based on what people have said to it and how they have interacted with it.
Is this robot thinking??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
all about our milkshakes
- john/laura
- we like to go the park, play, go to crema for treats, and to have fun.
13 comments:
I went to this site and played a while...I don't think this computer is really thinking...I think it is answering only as it is programed by its creator to answer. A lot of the things it said to me did not make since at all, but it was pretty funny.
yeah, sometimes it doesn't make sense. but i think it's still cool that it can answer based on configuring answers based on what other people have typed in. it's kind of like a baby who has kind of a weird brain learning a language.
It will probably make more sense as more people log on and chat with it. I like the Lewis Carrol theme; that it doesn't have to make sense to have value and be light and fun.
Tammie,
Don't you also answer as your creator programmed you to answer?
John
I'm not programmed. If I was, I could spell.
John,
I think my Creator gave me freedom of will and therefore freedom to think and say and do as I wish; sometimes, however, I wish I was programed and life would be so much easier...kind of like when I went to Ukraine in 1995 and the older people wanted communist back because they said at least they knew they would have jobs and a place to live and food to eat (not necessarily what they wanted, but they would have it provided for them.) My thoughts and speech and actions are very much affected by the stuff I put in my head and heart everyday - what I read, what I watch on tv, the people I am around, the thoughts that I think...you know...garbage in, garbage out...if I put His Word and Will in then hopefully my speech and actions will reflect His honor and glory when they come out.
P.S. We're having AWH pie auction tonight. I'm sorry we don't have one of your wonderful fruit pies to auction, Laura. You make wonderful crusts!
So God is not omnipotent, because he cannot control what you do?
oh man.
this is going to be a painfully long conversation.
-l
Hey John, I hope this in not too painfully long.
About a month ago my father and were discussing Christian thought and the issue of the conflict of Armenian and Calvin theology came up. I made some notes on it and include some of them here.
Actually, as I view things the problems begin with the view one has of original sin and of the creative will of God and how it allows the freedom of will for humanity. God had a master plan for the world (foreordination) and within that plan God allowed for the freedom of will. He also created all persons to be equal (not identical). God predetermined or predestined that should humanity choose not to do his will their destiny in eternity would be not to be with him. So long as mankind chose his will their destiny would be to be with God for ever in Eden. However in the first Adam we all died in sin and God provided the second Adam that we may all die to sin.
I have never tied my faith to any particular Restoration Movement person, but have always tried to use the historical gramatical method to discover what the authors of the origin documents present. My father is currently writing a study on Romans, and for that reason he is calling it "Paul's Romans." Like philosophers, theologians who develop systems have to have a point of beginning. Usually their fatal flaw is found within their view of the first ten chapters of Genesis. If God is no respecter of persons, Augustine, Calvin and those after them can not be correct in their salvation perspective. If all humanity sinned in the first Adam, and all humanity is saved in the Second Adam then, the perspective of how salvation in Christ came about. It also necessitates a radical new birth of the Spirit which comes at baptism (Romans 6) and the gifts which are derived from the divine indwelling gifts of grace, love, righteousness of God along with the redemptive blood of the cross. Our bodies then, (Romans 6:1fff) become instruments of righetousness. We live in a new age as persons controled by the logic of the Spirit. Romans 8 and 12.
My dad taught Augustine-Calvin- when he did the History of Christian Thought class years ago. I know he is a deep resource on Christian thought. One does not have to choose between the two views of Augustine/Calvin but should try to find the truth as though those views never came into existence. They certainly were not existent when Paul wrote.
The influence of Calvin is strong in the Anglican theology as well as in the Scottish theology from whence the Campbells came. In fact, they were more Arminian because they were reacting to the continued fregimentation of Protestantism and also because of their conviction that a child is born with a blank slate. If you read the five articles of the Remonstrantia produced by Arminius and his followers when he fell out with his professor at Leyden, you will find the statements are very close to what I believe. The Arminians never tried to form a separate church. They engaged in debate and lost to the greater influence of Calvin's followers to the point that the five points of the Remonstrantia were condemned at the Synod of Dort and the theology of the Netherlands was established more along the lines of the Calvin Reformed Church. The Arminians continued as a kind of sect for about thirty years when religious freedom was granted in Holland in 1630. Nevertheless the views of Arminius has a strong influence in England, Scotland, and Holland. There is a very strong Arminian influence in the views of Wesly and the theology of the Methodist Church. I have always thought that in my roots the division between the Church of Christ - Christian Church branch and the Methodist Church branch in my great great grandfather and great grandfather's family was not too great (no pun intended). The modern Methodist Church is neorthodox and far removed from its roots, however. I am sure A. Campbell knew of the theology of Arminus as well as the philosophy of John Lock. A. Campbell was also a friend of Thomas Jefferson through the Lock connection and the tabula rosa view of infants. That gave him both a philosophical and theological basis for his thinking which - I am sure - could have influenced him to arrive at his views of a return to the Bible alone and to remove himself from Calvin's view of the fall which necessitated a closer view of salvation for Campbell to that of Paul in Romans.
That's an interesting post, Dad. There are some interesting tidbits of church history that I didn't know about.
What are the views of Arminius? What are the five points? Maybe they are implied in what you said, but could you say what they are? (Maybe I will just google "Arminius" later and find out).
also....
the question we all dread....
can we have a "return to the Bible alone"?
Can we have a return to the Bible alone is a good question.
What have you found out about Armenius?
L, try this website CRI/INSTITUTE and go to Historical Theology and The 5 articles of the Remonstrants. Dennis Bratcher has some good articles there.
Post a Comment