Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 40, No. 88.
        Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
                      Hosted by DH-Cologne
                       www.dhhumanist.org
                Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org




        Date: 2026-07-18 16:44:19+00:00
        From: James Rovira <jamesrovira@gmail.com>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 40.86: repetition's point

Thank you for these responses, Tim. We seem to think about the same way
about repetition and equivocation, but I would add this: I don't think we
know how special or at least unique (could have been uniquely awful) that
first kiss is until at least our second kiss, but usually long after, after
we've had a history of kisses and look back. I think that's the specific
kind of being "embodied, situated, and socially and
culturally aware and connected" that is needed to see the uniqueness of
that first kiss.

Kierkegaard's point, if I understand it, is that being immanent, embodied,
and existing in time as well as possessing memory makes the first
experience of anything unable to be repeated. Repetition is impossible for
any aesthetic or otherwise bodily experience.

He argues though that repetition may be possible with religious experiences
(I think he's thinking about the repetition of the liturgy every week)
because we *can possibly *experience it in a religious experience that
approaches it from contact with eternity, which by definition is outside of
time.

Otherwise, repetition is impossible for first kisses, first operas, etc.

Absolutely yes about equivocation, by the way. It can be deliberate, or it
can be unselfconscious.

I think we need to remember that AI is big business *in the case of every
single provider without exception*. Mystification with the technology
sells. That's all that matters to them. They will disseminate absolute
nonsense so long as they can build data centers over land donated to be
public parks.

Jim R

On Sat, Jul 18, 2026 at 4:24 AM Humanist <humanist@dhhumanist.org> wrote:

>
> Dear Jim,
>
> You asked ...
>
>     "...  can you repeat the first kiss that you ever had from
>      anyone?"
>
> No, I would say not.  And you asked ...
>
>     "Are subsequent first kisses from any number of partners
>      comparable to that first kiss ever?"
>
> No, not in the sense of them being like the experience of your
> first ever kiss.  That's to say, subsequent first kisses do
> not have, and, I would say, cannot have, the specialness of
> your very first ever kiss.
>
> It takes, I think, being embodied, situated, and socially and
> culturally aware and connected, at least, to be able to
> experience and appreciate the specialness of the very first
> time ever of something.  It's from these very first time ever
> experiences that we learn what being special is, it seems to
> me.  Just being told something is special doesn't do it.
>
> And, I agree, strongly, "...  using the same word [for machine
> intelligence and human intelligence] is linguistic sleight of
> hand."  But, I'd say it's not just "equivocation every single
> time," today, it's all too often deliberate falsification and
> hype'.
>
> -- Tim
>
>
> PS: I'm not a Medium subscriber so I couldn't access all of
>     "Why Sentient Machines Will Never Exist" -:(
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Jun 2026, at 09:05, Humanist <humanist@dhhumanist.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >              Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 40, No. 74.
> >        Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
> >                      Hosted by DH-Cologne
> >                       www.dhhumanist.org
> >                Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >        Date: 2026-06-26 15:46:40+00:00
> >        From: James Rovira <jamesrovira@gmail.com>
> >        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 40.70: repetition's point
> >
> > Thanks for the reply, Tim. Just to clarify, can you repeat the first kiss
> > that you ever had from anyone? Are subsequent first kisses from any
> number
> > of partners comparable to that first kiss ever?
> >
> > I don't think we can overstate the qualitative difference between
> inorganic
> > machine intelligence and organic human intelligence. We need two
> different
> > words -- using the same word is linguistic sleight of hand. It's
> > equivocation every single time.
> >
> > I also think we can somewhat understand why that is so:
> >
> > https://medium.com/@jamesrovira/why-sentient-machines-will-never-
> > exist-078fdb325b91
> >
> > Jim R



--
Dr. James Rovira <http://www.jamesrovira.com/>

   - *David Bowie and Romanticism
   <https://jamesrovira.com/2022/09/02/david-bowie-and-romanticism/>*,
   Palgrave Macmillan, 2022
   - *Women in Rock, Women in Romanticism
   <https://www.routledge.com/Women-in-Rock-Women-in-Romanticism-The-
Emancipation-of-Female-Will/Rovira/p/book/9781032069845>*,
   Routledge, 2023


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php