I look forward to what you have to say. In my sermon on Sunday I commented on AI as the world’s solution to our sense that we need to be more than we are. I prefer your pessimism (loved the background on that word!) to the optimism I have encountered among people who see this stuff as a good preaching aid.
I use AI in my workflow, and it has been very helpful. For example, instead of manually checking each book in the notes to see if an English translation exists, I can input the list into ChatGPT, and it quickly identifies which titles have been translated, saving a significant amount of time. That said, it can still make quite a few mistakes, so you have to stay vigilant. I’m not alarmed at the moment, but it’s clear the technology is only going to improve...
On a different note, I’m about 70 pages into "Patapsco Spirits," and I’m really enjoying it so far. "From All Ill Dreams" was genuinely creepy. I’m usually not frightened by ghost stories, even if I enjoy reading them, but that one was truly chilling. Bravo! May I ask if that story is based in part on personal experience? I certainly hope not!
I’m almost certain that you based the “Astounding Runcible” on the late “Amazing Randi,” even down to the Spanish-sounding name of his companion. Say what you will about Randi, but he was a master promoter. He convinced many people—including many scientists who should have known better—that his million-dollar challenge was definitive proof that the preternatural does not exist. I think you captured the absurdity of this claim perfectly with this passage describing one of Runcible's "debunkings":
“Runcible, however, having separated the nervous young woman from her home and contexts and resituated her in an alien, sterile laboratory setting, in front of bright lights, television cameras, and a collection of unsympathetic strangers, pronounced her to be a clever fake before a watching world.”
So much of the paranormal depends on setting and emotional context. Debunkers will call that a copout, but anyone who has read deeply in the literature knows it’s true. Also, sometimes trickery seems to be a necessary condition for real phenomena to manifest. That was certainly the case with Eusapia Palladino, who was known to fake effects but also produced phenomena that left trained magicians astonished. There are only shades of gray here.
I enjoyed parodying the "Amazing" Randi who was practically a parody of himself. The story of the French girl who was "debunked" was based on a similar "debunking" of a 16-year-old Russian girl, carried off to a laboratory setting in New York. She was deemed deluded or fraudulent (Joe Nickell, I believe, was involved). She returned to her village in Russia and continued her healing work nonetheless. As you might ascertain, I'm not impressed by professional skeptics. They're usually not objective researchers.
"From All I'll Dreams" was based on personal experiences.
Now that you mention it, I do remember that particular "debunking." I share your skepticism toward professional skeptics. Joe Nickell has come up with some pretty risible "explanations," accepted by "serious people" only because the alternative is to entertain the reality of the preternatural. One example that comes to mind is his claim that Joseph of Cupertino’s levitations were the result of the sickly friar’s supposed “athleticism”—he was the seventeenth-century Michael Jordan, don’tcha know—his powerful leg muscles, developed by his constant kneeling in prayer, somehow enabling him to hoodwink the credulous. Never mind that Joseph was an invalid for much of his life, or that many of his levitations took place in the open air before large crowds. We musn't let pesky facts get in the way of our pet hypotheses. I highly recommend Carlos Eire's recent "They Flew" on Joseph.
By the way, do you have a Substack email? Would that be a good way to get in touch?
I do. But I can never remember it. You can email me at addhart@yahoo.com, though. Nikell is one of those whose explanations often are more absurd than any of the preternatural ones.
Hello Addison, I read the three articles and found them interesting because the world of AI doesn’t appeal to me in the least. Like the person interviewed in the BBC article, I like to feel my brain is working, but I have several students who use ChatGPT for every assignment a teacher gives them. Having a poem generated by AI and getting a good response from the teacher would feel like cheating to get an Olympic Medal. Now you have the medal on the wall but you know it’s fake—there’s no sense of real reward for the labor. I really don’t understand the motivation. As for those using AI discussed in the RS article, that’s truly bizarre. How did we get here?? It really is a page taken from Black Mirror without seeing any irony. I remember watching a lovely documentary by Jean Aspen when she and her husband and son moved up to the wilderness in Alaska and were laboring to build their cabin. Her son who’s 10 years old feels the challenge and says at one point that he wishes they could just snap their fingers and have the cabin built. Jean tries to explain to him that the labor is truly the only way to appreciate the reward. The old idea that chopping your own wood warms you twice. I love the feeling of waking up early, splitting some kindling, lighting the fire and feeling the cold slowly being replaced by warmth while it’s still dark outside of my cabin. Snapping the fingers—pushing a button—does not offer the same good feeling. I’m probably over-simplifying, but the human race has seemed bent on being able to reduce work and increase leisure time for thousands of years. When I look at the trade off, it sometimes looks like a deal with the devil. Times I’ve been hiking or camping in the rough are not as comfortable, but I do feel that the coffee is better having percolated over a fire.
Good points all. The Benedictine balance of prayer, study, and purposeful physical work is an ideal that can be adapted to our lives. Leisure is to be valued for providing space to think, pray, contemplate. The culture we've created has taught us wrongly that sheer speed is efficiency, that everything we desire should come easily to us, and that time and moving at a slower pace are boring and should be avoided through distraction. Then along come the internet and now AI and try to absorb us. It's no wonder so many are depressed or delusional or both. We aren't meant to live online, under surveillance, and chained to "magical" tech.
I look forward to what you have to say. In my sermon on Sunday I commented on AI as the world’s solution to our sense that we need to be more than we are. I prefer your pessimism (loved the background on that word!) to the optimism I have encountered among people who see this stuff as a good preaching aid.
Instead of creepy I feel encouraged that these 3 valuable articles exist and thanks to you I and others can start exploring this alarming situation.
Looking forward to your responses.
Thanks for this Addison. I always look forward to your take on things.
Thanks.
I use AI in my workflow, and it has been very helpful. For example, instead of manually checking each book in the notes to see if an English translation exists, I can input the list into ChatGPT, and it quickly identifies which titles have been translated, saving a significant amount of time. That said, it can still make quite a few mistakes, so you have to stay vigilant. I’m not alarmed at the moment, but it’s clear the technology is only going to improve...
On a different note, I’m about 70 pages into "Patapsco Spirits," and I’m really enjoying it so far. "From All Ill Dreams" was genuinely creepy. I’m usually not frightened by ghost stories, even if I enjoy reading them, but that one was truly chilling. Bravo! May I ask if that story is based in part on personal experience? I certainly hope not!
I’m almost certain that you based the “Astounding Runcible” on the late “Amazing Randi,” even down to the Spanish-sounding name of his companion. Say what you will about Randi, but he was a master promoter. He convinced many people—including many scientists who should have known better—that his million-dollar challenge was definitive proof that the preternatural does not exist. I think you captured the absurdity of this claim perfectly with this passage describing one of Runcible's "debunkings":
“Runcible, however, having separated the nervous young woman from her home and contexts and resituated her in an alien, sterile laboratory setting, in front of bright lights, television cameras, and a collection of unsympathetic strangers, pronounced her to be a clever fake before a watching world.”
So much of the paranormal depends on setting and emotional context. Debunkers will call that a copout, but anyone who has read deeply in the literature knows it’s true. Also, sometimes trickery seems to be a necessary condition for real phenomena to manifest. That was certainly the case with Eusapia Palladino, who was known to fake effects but also produced phenomena that left trained magicians astonished. There are only shades of gray here.
I just saw a picture of Randi. You lifted the cane too. ;)
I enjoyed parodying the "Amazing" Randi who was practically a parody of himself. The story of the French girl who was "debunked" was based on a similar "debunking" of a 16-year-old Russian girl, carried off to a laboratory setting in New York. She was deemed deluded or fraudulent (Joe Nickell, I believe, was involved). She returned to her village in Russia and continued her healing work nonetheless. As you might ascertain, I'm not impressed by professional skeptics. They're usually not objective researchers.
"From All I'll Dreams" was based on personal experiences.
Thank you for the quick reply, Addison.
Now that you mention it, I do remember that particular "debunking." I share your skepticism toward professional skeptics. Joe Nickell has come up with some pretty risible "explanations," accepted by "serious people" only because the alternative is to entertain the reality of the preternatural. One example that comes to mind is his claim that Joseph of Cupertino’s levitations were the result of the sickly friar’s supposed “athleticism”—he was the seventeenth-century Michael Jordan, don’tcha know—his powerful leg muscles, developed by his constant kneeling in prayer, somehow enabling him to hoodwink the credulous. Never mind that Joseph was an invalid for much of his life, or that many of his levitations took place in the open air before large crowds. We musn't let pesky facts get in the way of our pet hypotheses. I highly recommend Carlos Eire's recent "They Flew" on Joseph.
By the way, do you have a Substack email? Would that be a good way to get in touch?
I do. But I can never remember it. You can email me at addhart@yahoo.com, though. Nikell is one of those whose explanations often are more absurd than any of the preternatural ones.
Thank you.
Exactly. Not only are their explanations often more absurd than what they're trying to explain, but their "research" is often very sloppy.
Hello Addison, I read the three articles and found them interesting because the world of AI doesn’t appeal to me in the least. Like the person interviewed in the BBC article, I like to feel my brain is working, but I have several students who use ChatGPT for every assignment a teacher gives them. Having a poem generated by AI and getting a good response from the teacher would feel like cheating to get an Olympic Medal. Now you have the medal on the wall but you know it’s fake—there’s no sense of real reward for the labor. I really don’t understand the motivation. As for those using AI discussed in the RS article, that’s truly bizarre. How did we get here?? It really is a page taken from Black Mirror without seeing any irony. I remember watching a lovely documentary by Jean Aspen when she and her husband and son moved up to the wilderness in Alaska and were laboring to build their cabin. Her son who’s 10 years old feels the challenge and says at one point that he wishes they could just snap their fingers and have the cabin built. Jean tries to explain to him that the labor is truly the only way to appreciate the reward. The old idea that chopping your own wood warms you twice. I love the feeling of waking up early, splitting some kindling, lighting the fire and feeling the cold slowly being replaced by warmth while it’s still dark outside of my cabin. Snapping the fingers—pushing a button—does not offer the same good feeling. I’m probably over-simplifying, but the human race has seemed bent on being able to reduce work and increase leisure time for thousands of years. When I look at the trade off, it sometimes looks like a deal with the devil. Times I’ve been hiking or camping in the rough are not as comfortable, but I do feel that the coffee is better having percolated over a fire.
Good points all. The Benedictine balance of prayer, study, and purposeful physical work is an ideal that can be adapted to our lives. Leisure is to be valued for providing space to think, pray, contemplate. The culture we've created has taught us wrongly that sheer speed is efficiency, that everything we desire should come easily to us, and that time and moving at a slower pace are boring and should be avoided through distraction. Then along come the internet and now AI and try to absorb us. It's no wonder so many are depressed or delusional or both. We aren't meant to live online, under surveillance, and chained to "magical" tech.