Mark Siljander

To flesh out the... Absolutely. Large language models are very good at that, by the way. You can use them technically to do that. So we've done that, something very similar with the word God. You can ask a large language model to... specify the semantic domain of God. And one of my colleagues has found a set of words that can be used to replace the concept of God with 99.5% completeness, right?

So you imagine that the concept of God could be explicated by a cloud of closely related words, which is, it sounds like that's what you're trying to do with the concept of love. Exactly. Okay, okay.

So you imagine that the concept of God could be explicated by a cloud of closely related words, which is, it sounds like that's what you're trying to do with the concept of love. Exactly. Okay, okay.

So you imagine that the concept of God could be explicated by a cloud of closely related words, which is, it sounds like that's what you're trying to do with the concept of love. Exactly. Okay, okay.

So you're doing that in Aramaic. We find that the Hebrew cognates And the Quranic cognates, because they're all sister languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic are similar to Spanish, French, and Italian. They're all based on Latin. Most of the Arabic and Hebrew are based on Aramaic, the most ancient language.

So you're doing that in Aramaic. We find that the Hebrew cognates And the Quranic cognates, because they're all sister languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic are similar to Spanish, French, and Italian. They're all based on Latin. Most of the Arabic and Hebrew are based on Aramaic, the most ancient language.

So you're doing that in Aramaic. We find that the Hebrew cognates And the Quranic cognates, because they're all sister languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic are similar to Spanish, French, and Italian. They're all based on Latin. Most of the Arabic and Hebrew are based on Aramaic, the most ancient language.

But they're all cousins, regardless of the scholarly debates of which came first, which is frankly irrelevant. They're all similar. They use similar words, understandable words. And as a consequence, we're using these... New common ground discoveries. Yeah, yeah. To engage people. That's what was missing in Palestine during the visits. We could talk about tea and coffee and family. Right.

But they're all cousins, regardless of the scholarly debates of which came first, which is frankly irrelevant. They're all similar. They use similar words, understandable words. And as a consequence, we're using these... New common ground discoveries. Yeah, yeah. To engage people. That's what was missing in Palestine during the visits. We could talk about tea and coffee and family. Right.

But they're all cousins, regardless of the scholarly debates of which came first, which is frankly irrelevant. They're all similar. They use similar words, understandable words. And as a consequence, we're using these... New common ground discoveries. Yeah, yeah. To engage people. That's what was missing in Palestine during the visits. We could talk about tea and coffee and family. Right.

But I was ignorant in terms of faith, in terms of their faith.

But I was ignorant in terms of faith, in terms of their faith.

But I was ignorant in terms of faith, in terms of their faith.

Well, you also said something very interesting, which we should also not gloss over, which is that— You could imagine that the secular view of conflict is that it's primarily political and economic, right? And that's always struck me as wrong. Political and economic conflict is secondary to conflict about first principles, about conflict about—and that's really theological conflict—

Well, you also said something very interesting, which we should also not gloss over, which is that— You could imagine that the secular view of conflict is that it's primarily political and economic, right? And that's always struck me as wrong. Political and economic conflict is secondary to conflict about first principles, about conflict about—and that's really theological conflict—

Well, you also said something very interesting, which we should also not gloss over, which is that— You could imagine that the secular view of conflict is that it's primarily political and economic, right? And that's always struck me as wrong. Political and economic conflict is secondary to conflict about first principles, about conflict about—and that's really theological conflict—

when you get right down to it. So it seems to me to be completely... It's as absurd to presume that you can make peace without a theological discussion as it is to assume that if you decapitate a tyranny, it will turn into a democracy. Right. Those are equally...

when you get right down to it. So it seems to me to be completely... It's as absurd to presume that you can make peace without a theological discussion as it is to assume that if you decapitate a tyranny, it will turn into a democracy. Right. Those are equally...

when you get right down to it. So it seems to me to be completely... It's as absurd to presume that you can make peace without a theological discussion as it is to assume that if you decapitate a tyranny, it will turn into a democracy. Right. Those are equally...

These nonsensical propositions, and that seems to be especially obvious, as you pointed out, what, it's 120 conflicts in the world right now, and what's the proportion of those that have to do with religious conflict? Well, I didn't say religious.