Is our universe alone?

[TimeSeeker]

Does 'evidence' provide absolute certainty?

How do I tell if it does?

Are you really asking me now what the answer to this question is ESPECIALLY AFTER I have on countless times ALREADY explained to you HOW TO find absolute certainty, and thus KNOW, for sure?

Are you absolutely certain that you do NOT have alzhiemers?

In case you have forgotten, this is the third time that I have asked you this question.

I don’t know what it means to “know for sure”.

Those are your words.

I already linked you to a page where it explains (quite clearly) that absolute certainty is impossible. And I am sufficiently certain of its impossibility bar actual evidence of “absolute certainty”.

So if are telling me HOW to acquire the impossible, I have to ask: do you understand what I am saying?

Or do you just like flip flopping from perspective to perspective like a dying fish?

For somebody who claims to be open you sure are trying to impose your language on others.

[Atla]

Is that an absolute correct truth?

Are you absolutely certain that there is no absolute footing available for us?

No, it's not, and I'm not absolutely certain of that either, as I just explained.

If full understanding is unreachable, then there is no use in me proceeding.

Well if you are after full understanding, then you probably made some error somewhere.

I do not think WHERE the thoughts ARE has any bearing on this

Well that's just fucking practical isn't it.

but let us say thoughts are within the head. Now, how does that equate to them being finite?

Also, my questions were in regards to 'thinking processes' and NOT in regards to 'thoughts, themselves,' being finite. I agree thoughts to a very high degree are finite. I was questioning does 'thinking processes' have to be finite?

Why, have you seen people with infinitely large heads?
And what's the big difference between thought and thinking process?

If you say so. Is this an absolute truth?

I won't repeat myself again.

Are there some people who really think that they have infinite thoughts?

And, are there some people who really start to talk/preach like they are/have the voice of the Universe, within them?

I wonder WHY?

It's a form of insanity, we already have a few of them on this forum.
You wouldn't by any chance be like them, right?

[Age]

How do I tell if it does?

Are you really asking me now what the answer to this question is ESPECIALLY AFTER I have on countless times ALREADY explained to you HOW TO find absolute certainty, and thus KNOW, for sure?

Are you absolutely certain that you do NOT have alzhiemers?

In case you have forgotten, this is the third time that I have asked you this question.

I don’t know what it means to “know for sure”.

I can tell.

You have PROVEN this countless times already with your EVIDENCE, in written words.

Those are your words.

Yes they were, still are, and always will be.

I already linked you to a page where it explains (quite clearly) that absolute certainty is impossible.

So, you are TRYING TO insist, with absolute certainty, that "absolute certainty is impossible". Fair enough. (That does explain a lot about you, and your type.)

You are aware right that just because you found some writings that agree with YOUR own BELIEF that that does NOT mean that I have to necessarily agree with it, also?

Also, just because you already linked to a page does NOT mean that the words on that page are absolutely perfectly written so that that means with absolute certainty that those words are absolutely True, Right, and Correct. Are you aware that you, and that linked page, could be WRONG, or partly WRONG? Or, do you BELIEVE otherwise?

Are you even aware that with every BELIEF that you so dearly love holding onto and INSIST is RIGHT, you are doing so with 'absolute certainty' that THAT BELIEF IS RIGHT?

That FACT comes across very clearly in YOUR WORDS.

So if are telling me HOW to acquire the impossible, I have to ask: do you understand what I am saying?

Are you saying; That 'absolute certainty IS impossible'?

If you are, then are you 'absolutely certain' of this supposed FACT?

If you are suggesting or saying that some thing is impossible, then you are aware right that you are suggesting or saying it with 'absolute certainty'?

By the way, Am I understanding what you are saying CORRECTLY? Are you saying; That 'absolute certainty IS impossible'?

Or do you just like flip flopping from perspective to perspective like a dying fish?

(The observes can clearly see WHO has been TRYING TO flip from one view or perspective to another. The evidence is clearly written in front of them/us.)

You, "timeseeker", have previously written that; "absolute perfection" IS impossible". Now, Are you absolutely certain that that IS True, or, are you reasonably certain that that IS True, or are you just somewhat certain that that MAYBE True? Or, even absolutely certain that that MAY BE True?

You write as though you are 'absolutely certain' about some things, but, you then say that you are only 'reasonably certain' about them. Which, by the way' MEANS that what you write and say could be WRONG or partly WRONG, anyway.

Now, are you 'absolutely certain' about some things you say and write here, or, are you only 'reasonably certain' about every thing you say and write here? Or, is some thing else happening here?

You have, by the way, already clearly expressed in the written words: "You mistake the complex for the simple. You are trapped in language - I am not".

Tell me if I am WRONG here but that comes across as though you are 'absolutely certain' that you are NOT trapped in language, that is; like you BELIEVE that I am, trapped in language.

So, Are you 'absolutely certain' that you are NOT trapped in language? Or, are you just 'reasonably certain' that you are NOT trapped in language? Or, some thing else?

If you are 'absolutely certain' that you are NOT trapped in language, then that means 'absolute certainty' does EXIST, (and therefore you also must be at times trapped in language. Because you fell for the trap, maybe?)

However,

If you are only 'reasonably certain' that you are NOT trapped in language, then that means that you might actually be trapped in language, (even right NOW. And, could that mean that you fell into the, language, trap, again?)

Or, you might have, or try to come up with, another explanation about you being trapped in language or NOT being trapped in language.

We await your reply.

[Age]

For somebody who claims to be open you sure are trying to impose your language on others.

Am I?

Have you got any examples that you can provide us with?

[surreptitious57]

Does evidence provide absolute certainty

Evidence can only provide some certainty but that can always be contradicted by subsequent evidence
As it can only ever be partial so therefore can only provide an incomplete picture of what it represents

[TimeSeeker]

Are you really asking me now what the answer to this question is ESPECIALLY AFTER I have on countless times ALREADY explained to you HOW TO find absolute certainty, and thus KNOW, for sure?

Are you absolutely certain that you do NOT have alzhiemers?

In case you have forgotten, this is the third time that I have asked you this question.

I don’t know what it means to “know for sure”.

I can tell.

You have PROVEN this countless times already with your EVIDENCE, in written words.

Those are your words.

Yes they were, still are, and always will be.

I already linked you to a page where it explains (quite clearly) that absolute certainty is impossible.

So, you are TRYING TO insist, with absolute certainty, that "absolute certainty is impossible". Fair enough. (That does explain a lot about you, and your type.)

You are aware right that just because you found some writings that agree with YOUR own BELIEF that that does NOT mean that I have to necessarily agree with it, also?

Also, just because you already linked to a page does NOT mean that the words on that page are absolutely perfectly written so that that means with absolute certainty that those words are absolutely True, Right, and Correct. Are you aware that you, and that linked page, could be WRONG, or partly WRONG? Or, do you BELIEVE otherwise?

Are you even aware that with every BELIEF that you so dearly love holding onto and INSIST is RIGHT, you are doing so with 'absolute certainty' that THAT BELIEF IS RIGHT?

That FACT comes across very clearly in YOUR WORDS.

So if are telling me HOW to acquire the impossible, I have to ask: do you understand what I am saying?

Are you saying; That 'absolute certainty IS impossible'?

If you are, then are you 'absolutely certain' of this supposed FACT?

If you are suggesting or saying that some thing is impossible, then you are aware right that you are suggesting or saying it with 'absolute certainty'?

By the way, Am I understanding what you are saying CORRECTLY? Are you saying; That 'absolute certainty IS impossible'?

Or do you just like flip flopping from perspective to perspective like a dying fish?

(The observes can clearly see WHO has been TRYING TO flip from one view or perspective to another. The evidence is clearly written in front of them/us.)

You, "timeseeker", have previously written that; "absolute perfection" IS impossible". Now, Are you absolutely certain that that IS True, or, are you reasonably certain that that IS True, or are you just somewhat certain that that MAYBE True? Or, even absolutely certain that that MAY BE True?

You write as though you are 'absolutely certain' about some things, but, you then say that you are only 'reasonably certain' about them. Which, by the way' MEANS that what you write and say could be WRONG or partly WRONG, anyway.

Now, are you 'absolutely certain' about some things you say and write here, or, are you only 'reasonably certain' about every thing you say and write here? Or, is some thing else happening here?

You have, by the way, already clearly expressed in the written words: "You mistake the complex for the simple. You are trapped in language - I am not".

Tell me if I am WRONG here but that comes across as though you are 'absolutely certain' that you are NOT trapped in language, that is; like you BELIEVE that I am, trapped in language.

So, Are you 'absolutely certain' that you are NOT trapped in language? Or, are you just 'reasonably certain' that you are NOT trapped in language? Or, some thing else?

If you are 'absolutely certain' that you are NOT trapped in language, then that means 'absolute certainty' does EXIST, (and therefore you also must be at times trapped in language. Because you fell for the trap, maybe?)

However,

If you are only 'reasonably certain' that you are NOT trapped in language, then that means that you might actually be trapped in language, (even right NOW. And, could that mean that you fell into the, language, trap, again?)

Or, you might have, or try to come up with, another explanation about you being trapped in language or NOT being trapped in language.

We await your reply.

If my words are evidence for anything then explain to the observers how certain you are that you are INTERPRETINg that evidence correctly...

Or is that misinterpreting the evidence?

Guess we will never know. Because you insist on playing metahpysical games

[TimeSeeker]

For somebody who claims to be open you sure are trying to impose your language on others.

Am I?

Have you got any examples that you can provide us with?

Your claims of contradiction. Which are based on incomplete evidence

That is - the evidence which you are missing is what goes on in my head.

[Age]

Is that an absolute correct truth?

Are you absolutely certain that there is no absolute footing available for us?

No, it's not, and I'm not absolutely certain of that either, as I just explained.

Okay, so, you are not absolute certain that there is no absolute footing available for us. Have I got it right now?

If full understanding is unreachable, then there is no use in me proceeding.

Well if you are after full understanding, then you probably made some error somewhere.

I was telling you that I had explained some thing, enough times already.
I then said; 'Do I need to explain HOW again'.
To which you replied; 'What do you mean then?' and then also wrote; 'A full understanding is unreachable,'
To which I replied: 'If full understanding is unreachable, then there is no use in me proceeding'.
Meaning; If, as you say, that full understanding is unreachable, then there is NO use me, trying once again, to answer your question; What do you mean then? In other words, there is NO use you even asking me to explain what I mean, to you, if you are NEVER going to EVER fully understand me anyway. If you can NEVER fully understand me, then there is NO use me even trying to get you fully understand.

To which you then replied with the totally twisted, completely missing the mark comment; Well if you are after full understanding, then you probably made some error somewhere.

Just to make it crystal clear, it was YOU who was seeking understanding. YOU were the one who asked me the question; What do you mean then?

I was NOT seeking understanding. YOU were/are.

I have ALREADY gained FULL understanding.

I do not think WHERE the thoughts ARE has any bearing on this

Well that's just fucking practical isn't it.

By what you say here, are you now still TRYING TO say that because thoughts are within the head, then that MEANS 'thoughts are finite'?

I do NOT see any correlation. Maybe you would like to explain how the two relate to each other?

but let us say thoughts are within the head. Now, how does that equate to them being finite?

Also, my questions were in regards to 'thinking processes' and NOT in regards to 'thoughts, themselves,' being finite. I agree thoughts to a very high degree are finite. I was questioning does 'thinking processes' have to be finite?

Why, have you seen people with infinitely large heads?

What do you think? And, what would that even entail?

And what's the big difference between thought and thinking process?[/quote]

The actual and real difference, that is what. That difference IS one comes AFTER the other. A thinking process comes with a completely closed perspective, with a narrow, field of view, perspective, or with a completely OPEN perspective, and/or, any where in between the two extremities. That is in case you are still unaware IS the 'thinking process'. The 'thinking process' comes BEFORE the other, (just to be absolutely clear here, for you). The other one is 'thought'. You know, those things that come AFTER some kind of thinking process has already happened? A thought comes from and AFTER the 'thinking process'.
One example of A 'thinking process' IS since I already BELIEVE ''absolute certainty IS impossible" I WILL find (any) things that will support and confirm my biases and biased BELIEFS. Although this type of 'thinking process' happens sub and even unconsciously within human beings this still does happen.
One example of A 'thought', based on and arrived from that type of closed thinking process, IS "I already linked you to a page where it explains (quite clearly) that absolute certainty is impossible."

NOW, can you notice and see the difference between a 'thought' and a 'thinking process'? By the way I am not sure if it is BIG enough difference for you to notice, see, and understand. But we will see.

If you say so. Is this an absolute truth?

I won't repeat myself again.

But I do NOT recall you EVER saying previously whether; "The fact that basically, by and large, thoughts are in the head and finite, and that, Openness has nothing to do with that "FACT", was an 'absolute truth' or NOT. Are you sure you did respond to that question directly? Are you sure you would NOT like to NOW provide us with a 'Yes' or 'No' answer?

Are there some people who really think that they have infinite thoughts?

And, are there some people who really start to talk/preach like they are/have the voice of the Universe, within them?

I wonder WHY?

It's a form of insanity, we already have a few of them on this forum.

But YOU do NOT have a form of insanity RIGHT?

ONLY "other" people have, am I CORRECT?

You wouldn't by any chance be like them, right?

From just about nearly of ALL I say, and write down here (clearly to be observed and seen) in this forum, to some here when this is written, I would be seen as the most insane one of ALL. Which by the way, that ONE word can be seen with and from two completely different perspectives, thus giving and provide two, as you might say, BIG different answers.

By the way, is asking a person if they are like an insane person a very sane thing to do?

What kind of response do you think you would get from an insane person if you asked them; You would not, by any chance, be like an insane person, right?

[Age]

Does evidence provide absolute certainty

Evidence can only provide some certainty but that can always be contradicted by subsequent evidence
As it can only ever be partial so therefore can only provide an incomplete picture of what it represents

I asked that question to "timeseeker", with 'tongue in cheek', as some might say.

"Timeseeker" insists that 'absolute certainty is impossible' (just like the exact same you are doing here) but "timeseeker" was expressing there is evidence to back up that what is being insisted as being 'absolute certain'. Expressing that there is evidence to support some thing like, 'absolute certainty is impossible, is to suggest that there IS 'absolute certain' evidence, for that BELIEF.

If some person, any person, is going to insist and claim that 'absolute certainty' is impossible' IS CORRECT, then they also have to accept that ANY and ALL supposed so called "evidence" for this claim is ONLY offered with 'reasonable certainty', which implies that the so called "evidence" may in fact NOT be evidence at all, as it could be WRONG or INCORRECT.

[surreptitious57]

What kind of response do you think you would get from an insane person if you asked them
You would not by any chance be like an insane person right ?

You asked Time Seeker if he had Alzheimers which is actually worse because that affects cognitive ability
Whereas you can be insane and still function as an intelligent person at least from your own perspective

[TimeSeeker]

Does evidence provide absolute certainty

Evidence can only provide some certainty but that can always be contradicted by subsequent evidence
As it can only ever be partial so therefore can only provide an incomplete picture of what it represents

I asked that question to "timeseeker", with 'tongue in cheek', as some might say.

"Timeseeker" insists that 'absolute certainty is impossible' (just like the exact same you are doing here) but "timeseeker" was expressing there is evidence to back up that what is being insisted as being 'absolute certain'. Expressing that there is evidence to support some thing like, 'absolute certainty is impossible, is to suggest that there IS 'absolute certain' evidence, for that BELIEF.

If some person, any person, is going to insist and claim that 'absolute certainty' is impossible' IS CORRECT, then they also have to accept that ANY and ALL supposed so called "evidence" for this claim is ONLY offered with 'reasonable certainty', which implies that the so called "evidence" may in fact NOT be evidence at all, as it could be WRONG or INCORRECT.

There is evidence. The 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Maxwell’s demon

[Age]

I don’t know what it means to “know for sure”.

I can tell.

You have PROVEN this countless times already with your EVIDENCE, in written words.

Those are your words.

Yes they were, still are, and always will be.

I already linked you to a page where it explains (quite clearly) that absolute certainty is impossible.

So, you are TRYING TO insist, with absolute certainty, that "absolute certainty is impossible". Fair enough. (That does explain a lot about you, and your type.)

You are aware right that just because you found some writings that agree with YOUR own BELIEF that that does NOT mean that I have to necessarily agree with it, also?

Also, just because you already linked to a page does NOT mean that the words on that page are absolutely perfectly written so that that means with absolute certainty that those words are absolutely True, Right, and Correct. Are you aware that you, and that linked page, could be WRONG, or partly WRONG? Or, do you BELIEVE otherwise?

Are you even aware that with every BELIEF that you so dearly love holding onto and INSIST is RIGHT, you are doing so with 'absolute certainty' that THAT BELIEF IS RIGHT?

That FACT comes across very clearly in YOUR WORDS.

So if are telling me HOW to acquire the impossible, I have to ask: do you understand what I am saying?

Are you saying; That 'absolute certainty IS impossible'?

If you are, then are you 'absolutely certain' of this supposed FACT?

If you are suggesting or saying that some thing is impossible, then you are aware right that you are suggesting or saying it with 'absolute certainty'?

By the way, Am I understanding what you are saying CORRECTLY? Are you saying; That 'absolute certainty IS impossible'?

Or do you just like flip flopping from perspective to perspective like a dying fish?

(The observes can clearly see WHO has been TRYING TO flip from one view or perspective to another. The evidence is clearly written in front of them/us.)

You, "timeseeker", have previously written that; "absolute perfection" IS impossible". Now, Are you absolutely certain that that IS True, or, are you reasonably certain that that IS True, or are you just somewhat certain that that MAYBE True? Or, even absolutely certain that that MAY BE True?

You write as though you are 'absolutely certain' about some things, but, you then say that you are only 'reasonably certain' about them. Which, by the way' MEANS that what you write and say could be WRONG or partly WRONG, anyway.

Now, are you 'absolutely certain' about some things you say and write here, or, are you only 'reasonably certain' about every thing you say and write here? Or, is some thing else happening here?

You have, by the way, already clearly expressed in the written words: "You mistake the complex for the simple. You are trapped in language - I am not".

Tell me if I am WRONG here but that comes across as though you are 'absolutely certain' that you are NOT trapped in language, that is; like you BELIEVE that I am, trapped in language.

So, Are you 'absolutely certain' that you are NOT trapped in language? Or, are you just 'reasonably certain' that you are NOT trapped in language? Or, some thing else?

If you are 'absolutely certain' that you are NOT trapped in language, then that means 'absolute certainty' does EXIST, (and therefore you also must be at times trapped in language. Because you fell for the trap, maybe?)

However,

If you are only 'reasonably certain' that you are NOT trapped in language, then that means that you might actually be trapped in language, (even right NOW. And, could that mean that you fell into the, language, trap, again?)

Or, you might have, or try to come up with, another explanation about you being trapped in language or NOT being trapped in language.

We await your reply.

If my words are evidence for anything then explain to the observers how certain you are that you are INTERPRETINg that evidence correctly...

The Observers will be the Judge of that. They can already see what I AM interpreting. I have been and am writing that interpretation down, for them to see.

I am just here to expose your thinking, with your own words. I evoke from you, your words. You will answer questions, up to a certain point, then you refuse to. So, the Observers can decide WHY.

But if you are still interested in HOW certain I am that I am INTERPRETING the evidence in YOUR words correctly, then the answer to that is I am pretty certain. But I think you might have misunderstood Me again. Your words that are evidence for some thing is NOT necessarily in the words that you write down BUT ALSO in those obvious words that you do NOT write down. There some times is far more evidence in those obvious unwritten words, which you are TRYING TO keep to your self, then in those words that are written down clearly for ALL to see.

Or is that misinterpreting the evidence?

Now that would depend.

Guess we will never know. Because you insist on playing metahpysical games

As long as you keep insisting that your claims are True, Right, and Correct, then I will keep doing what I am doing.

The easiest way to get Me to STOP is for you to STOP insisting that YOU are RIGHT.

[Atla]

Okay, so, you are not absolute certain that there is no absolute footing available for us. Have I got it right now?

Yes, basically. But now you'll probably say some bullshit about absolute certainty again.

I was telling you that I had explained some thing, enough times already.
I then said; 'Do I need to explain HOW again'.
To which you replied; 'What do you mean then?' and then also wrote; 'A full understanding is unreachable,'
To which I replied: 'If full understanding is unreachable, then there is no use in me proceeding'.
Meaning; If, as you say, that full understanding is unreachable, then there is NO use me, trying once again, to answer your question; What do you mean then? In other words, there is NO use you even asking me to explain what I mean, to you, if you are NEVER going to EVER fully understand me anyway. If you can NEVER fully understand me, then there is NO use me even trying to get you fully understand.

To which you then replied with the totally twisted, completely missing the mark comment; Well if you are after full understanding, then you probably made some error somewhere.

Just to make it crystal clear, it was YOU who was seeking understanding. YOU were the one who asked me the question; What do you mean then?

I was NOT seeking understanding. YOU were/are.

I have ALREADY gained FULL understanding.

Okay you aren't after it then, you think you already gained it.
You are insane. You just think that you gained full understanding, but that's almost certainly not possible. You probably made an error somewhere.

By what you say here, are you now still TRYING TO say that because thoughts are within the head, then that MEANS 'thoughts are finite'?

I do NOT see any correlation. Maybe you would like to explain how the two relate to each other?

What do you think? And, what would that even entail?

Is that a joke? How could there be an infinite amount of "stuff" in a human's head? (For example it would immediately collapse into a black hole.)

The actual and real difference, that is what. That difference IS one comes AFTER the other. A thinking process comes with a completely closed perspective, with a narrow, field of view, perspective, or with a completely OPEN perspective, and/or, any where in between the two extremities. That is in case you are still unaware IS the 'thinking process'. The 'thinking process' comes BEFORE the other, (just to be absolutely clear here, for you). The other one is 'thought'. You know, those things that come AFTER some kind of thinking process has already happened? A thought comes from and AFTER the 'thinking process'.
One example of A 'thinking process' IS since I already BELIEVE ''absolute certainty IS impossible" I WILL find (any) things that will support and confirm my biases and biased BELIEFS. Although this type of 'thinking process' happens sub and even unconsciously within human beings this still does happen.
One example of A 'thought', based on and arrived from that type of closed thinking process, IS "I already linked you to a page where it explains (quite clearly) that absolute certainty is impossible."

NOW, can you notice and see the difference between a 'thought' and a 'thinking process'? By the way I am not sure if it is BIG enough difference for you to notice, see, and understand. But we will see.

That is your subjective, quite nonsensical definition of thought vs thinking process. And why would thinking process have to be reduced to two extremities.

But I do NOT recall you EVER saying previously whether; "The fact that basically, by and large, thoughts are in the head and finite, and that, Openness has nothing to do with that "FACT", was an 'absolute truth' or NOT. Are you sure you did respond to that question directly? Are you sure you would NOT like to NOW provide us with a 'Yes' or 'No' answer?

I said again and again that to my knowledge absolute certainty is not possible, but even this isn't certain. Which part of this don't you understand?

But YOU do NOT have a form of insanity RIGHT?

ONLY "other" people have, am I CORRECT?

I don't think I have THIS kind of insanity, at least.

From just about nearly of ALL I say, and write down here (clearly to be observed and seen) in this forum, to some here when this is written, I would be seen as the most insane one of ALL. Which by the way, that ONE word can be seen with and from two completely different perspectives, thus giving and provide two, as you might say, BIG different answers.

By the way, is asking a person if they are like an insane person a very sane thing to do?

What kind of response do you think you would get from an insane person if you asked them; You would not, by any chance, be like an insane person, right?

So the cat is out of the bag then.
You are just another sick fucktard who believes to have some kind of access to universal thoughts, some kind of absolutely certain thoughts of the universe, or whatever.

You are insane. Seeing how you very seriously hyped up your own infallibility, this is pretty disappointing (but very entertaining).

[Age]

For somebody who claims to be open you sure are trying to impose your language on others.

Am I?

Have you got any examples that you can provide us with?

Your claims of contradiction. Which are based on incomplete evidence

Is that the same type of 'incomplete evidence' that is lacking here too?

That is - the evidence which you are missing is what goes on in my head.

Is that the same evidence also, which you again talk about, but will NOT show examples of being actual evidence for your claim here?

Once again, WHERE is the actual evidence that I am, supposedly, trying to impose My language on others?

In other words WHAT language, and, WHERE did I supposedly try to do this? Show with examples, not just with the thoughts within that head.

[Age]

What kind of response do you think you would get from an insane person if you asked them
You would not by any chance be like an insane person right ?

You asked Time Seeker if he had Alzheimers which is actually worse because that affects cognitive ability
Whereas you can be insane and still function as an intelligent person at least from your own perspective

HOW IS asking a person a straight out simple question for clarity WORSE than asking any other straight out simple question for clarity?

I had already made the provision, you may not remember this but... have you got the onset of alzhiemers? If the answer would have been "No", then I accept that response. And, If the answer would have been "Yes", then I would have accepted that response, equally. If they had responded with a "Yes", then I would, as you have just stated been aware that they have some sort of cognitive disability and SO would respond in different ways. If they responded with a "No", then I may have continued on EXACTLY as I am now, or wondered MORE. But either way they will NOT respond to that question, even though I have asked three times already, so I just carry on.

Do NOT ALL adult human beings function as an intelligent person, at least from their own perspective?

The Truth of what is the actual Real and True case of this, will come to light.