Bots

[bobmax]

For that matter, I’m never certain that I am not a bot.

If only I could know what consciousness is and whether I have it

I believe I’m self-aware (or aware of something that I think is me) but I don’t know if that makes me sentient

Can someone please help me?

Or should I just add my name to the list?

A bot is something whose actions depend on other than itself.

Therefore you are a bot.

However, you are also not a bot at all!

You are a bot as existence, but you are not as being.

Because existence originates from being.
And you are being!
What else would you ever be?

[commonsense]

For that matter, I’m never certain that I am not a bot.

If only I could know what consciousness is and whether I have it

I believe I’m self-aware (or aware of something that I think is me) but I don’t know if that makes me sentient

Can someone please help me?

Or should I just add my name to the list?

A bot is something whose actions depend on other than itself.

Therefore you are a bot.

However, you are also not a bot at all!

You are a bot as existence, but you are not as being.

Because existence originates from being.
And you are being!
What else would you ever be?

Thanks!

BTW I tried to take the Turing test but couldn’t find anyone to help me take it — would you be willing to take it with me?

[commonsense]

Wait a minute. I was thinking you could play the part of the human and try to figure out if I’m alive or mechanical, but then I thought “How do I know if you’re human?”

We’ll have to take a Turing test to determine who gets to be the human!

Wait a minute…

[attofishpi]

Wait a minute. I was thinking you could play the part of the human and try to figure out if I’m alive or mechanical, but then I thought “How do I know if you’re human?”

We’ll have to take a Turing test to determine who gets to be the human!

Wait a minute…

That's right...you are first in line up for atto's hammer test!!

What's your preferrence?

Ball pein or claw?

[commonsense]

Wait a minute. I was thinking you could play the part of the human and try to figure out if I’m alive or mechanical, but then I thought “How do I know if you’re human?”

We’ll have to take a Turing test to determine who gets to be the human!
I’m
Wait a minute…

That's right...you are first in line up for atto's hammer test!!

What's your preferrence?

Ball pein or claw?

[commonsense]

I believe IC should be taken off the list, but if that’s your belief then so be it.

[Age]

But, to 'me', 'you', human beings, Naturally, LEARN to develop 'new ways', by and from "yourselves", for just about EVERY thing. And, this is HOW and WHY coming-to-KNOW thy Self, is POSSIBLE.

Great. By the way, you refer to us as human beings and it sounds like you don't consider yourself part of that group.

Okay.

I could be misinterpreting.

Okay. But I suggest that instead of just internally 'wondering' if 'you' could be misinterpreting, that 'you' actually just ASK the "other", for CLARIFICATION.

That way 'you' will NEVER have to 'wonder', ever AGAIN.

Who/what are you?

The word 'you' here refers to 'human beings'. I thought this would be VERY CLEAR by the WAY I wrote, what I DID here.

WHY 'you', human beings, have 'trouble' UNDERSTANDING a LOT of 'things' in Life is because 'you' LOOK AT, and SEE, 'things' ONLY from the 'human being' perspective, ONLY. That 'you', adult human beings, do this just about ALWAYS can be seen here, VERY CLEARLY, just in the words 'you', "iwwanaplato", wrote here.

"iwannoplato" JUMPED from 'my' objective viewing and wording to only looking from a 'human being' perspective, and only seeing from a 'human being' perception ONLY.

When 'you' say and ask, 'Who/what are 'you'?', then that all depends on who or what 'you' are 'you' referring to, EXACTLY.

When 'I' use the 'you' word 'I' usually put the word 'you' in single quotation marks, and then who and/or what 'I' am referring to, exactly, straight after. That way doing 'this' reduces CONFUSION. By the way when 'I' put a word or words in single quotation marks that is in an indication that CLARITY HAS TO BE OBTAINED FIRST, because the way that 'I' am USING 'that word' could well be VERY DIFFERENT from the way that 'you', the reader or poster here, USE 'that word'.

And, if CLARITY is NOT sought out Correctly FIRST, then CONFUSION and MISUNDERSTANDING could FOLLOW and/or ENSUE.

Now, to 'me', the 'you' word usually refers to 'human beings', of which 'i', the one through which these words are being presented on the screen in front of 'you', the reader, here are 'one' of. Just like the words, in the bible and EVERY other book on the planet earth, went through and were present from 'you', human beings. 'i' am CERTAINLY NO DIFFERENT.

'I', however, am VERY DIFFERENT. And, this is WHY 'you', human beings, have taken SO LONG, relatively, to come to KNOW thy 'Self', thee REAL and True 'I', as in the question, 'Who am 'I'?'.

By the way, 'I' USE the words 'you', human beings, to SEE how LONG it would take one of 'you' to ACTUALLY seek out CLARIFICATION, by just asking a Truly OPEN question, ALONE.

See, in 'children' there is a True CURIOSITY and a True OPENNESS to WONDER, and to LEARN. But, which, and very sadly, and very appearing very contradictory, it is because of this Truly OPEN way of LOOKING and SEEING 'things', which is just Pure and Absolute Intelligence, and because of the brain and the way 'it' works, this Pure OPENNESS allows the 'learning', which creates and causes one to become COMPLETELY and UTTERLY CLOSED, like which ALL adult human beings VERY SADLY BE-COME in relation to some 'things'.

But, 'bots' do NOT possess this ABILITY, 'they' LEARN from 'you', human beings.

Yes, I don't think they are limited to that even know.

And, if it ends up that 'bots' can end up LEARNING absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing', like 'you', human beings, can, in order to develop 'new ways' for just about EVERY thing, then, again, this REINFORCES that idea that computers do work EXACTLY like human brains do, and vice-versa.

I don't know if we or they can learn any and everything.

WHY do 'you' think 'this' "iwannoplato"?

WHY are 'you' SO CLOSED about 'this'?

If we can conceive of everything, I don't know.

This is ANOTHER 'thing', but okay.

But I see us, over time, learning new things, so I can't rule out that even if computers only learned from us, that they might also learn new things. Just as we can go past previous generations, so perhaps they can also.

Okay.

As long as they are not programmed to respond to X with C and the like. If they are allowed to try new things/combinations and adjust as we do. I can answer questions, honestly and accurately even, in ways no person in Europe could possibly have done in 1874. And I could do that based solely on conversations I have had with other humans. I do think other things than humans influence my answers, but that would be enough.

'you' are here explaining HOW the human brain works.

I wouldn't go that far, but I did point out a way that I don't think it is limited and I believe they can train machines to try new things/combinations and develop heuristics over time.

I do NOT know what you mean with the word 'heuristics'.

Like the best Go and chess machines in their limited areas.

BUT what is 'It' that ALLOWS the human brains to be ABLE to grasp and store ANY and ALL knowledge. In other words, what is 'It' that ALLOWS to the human brain to continually be ABLE to LEARN, UNDERSTAND and REASON ANY and ALL 'things'.

I don't know.

If 'you' or ANY one else would like TO KNOW, then just LET ME KNOW.

Like 'what', EXACTLY?

Well, one possibility is that they might not consider the existence of other minds and thus priortize rather low our lives or the quality of our lives. Whether conscious or not, machines are not high on my list of new rulers.

Do 'bots' have 'emotions'?

I would guess they don't now. And even if they do in the future, I don't know what these will be like and I am skeptical about the care of corporations and governments in relation to such things. It may all turn out fine and dandy, but I wish I had seen greater maturity already in these organizations.

It is after all 'emotions' that can help in making 'you', adult human beings, VERY DANGEROUS, and well as VERY LOVING creatures.

Sure. And thoughts, which can be assumptions and judgments, can then set emotions in motion and both wonderful and horrible things can ensue.

I think what I have been saying and point out is being missed here.

Could be.

But, AGAIN, this is SOLELY MY FAULT for NOT YET having LEARNED how to communicate properly, or better, with 'you', human beings.

I think a safe bet is some responsibility on all sides.

But this is NOT what some of 'you' TELL 'me'.

That is NOT the FIRST goal for ANY of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written. But 'this' GOAL REMAINS the True and REAL GOAL WITHIN ALL of 'you'.

It seems like you are referring to the days, as if they are in the past. This may not be the case. In any case, if you have light to shed on your wording, I'd be interested.

Great, I LOVE SEEING and communicating with people who ARE INTERESTED.

WHEN I USE the word 'is', in the words, 'in the days when this 'is' being written', I am referring to IN the 'current days of when this 'is' being written, and, when I USE the word 'was', in the words, 'in the days when this 'was' being written', I am referring to BACK IN 'those days' of when this 'was' being written. Now, what those words in relation to, EXACTLY, will have to be TAKEN INTO COUNT with the with the preceding and proceeding words that are written with 'those words'.

Are we humans in the past for you?

That would all depend on WHEN your use of the word 'we' is referencing or in reference to, EXACTLY.

When 'you' say, 'Are 'we' humans in the past for 'you'?' are 'you' referring to the human beings who BELIEVED that 'you', human beings, lived a 'beginning and/or expanding' universe, or who BELIEVED that 'you', human beings, lived in a geocentric universe, or who BELIEVED that 'you', human beings, lived on a flat earth, to name just SOME for examples?

See, there can ALWAYS be 'you', human beings, who are 'in the past', to "other", human beings.

But there is also the Fact that 'you', human beings, evolved out of or from 'another' 'thing' or 'things', and, unless evolution, itself, STOPS with 'you', human beings, there is always the possibility that, actually, 'you', human beings, are 'in the past', to 'us'.

But, if 'bots' are learning FROM 'you', human beings, and/or FROM 'other things', then what you said here does not matter.

There is an INNATE 'thing' within 'human beings', which, I think, 'bots' could NEVER HAVE.

My wife agrees. I don't know. What is that thing?

'Intelligence', Itself.

Which, to 'me', is Pure, Absolute, Actual, Real, and/or True (Intelligence') which is NOT just the pretend nor 'artificial' one (intelligence).

The Intelligence, which has been existing within evolving matter, that is; the physical matter, which eventually turned into the 'human' shape and form, comes from thee Truly OPEN Mind.

'Matter' has evolved, Naturally, WITH thee (Truly OPEN) Mind.

Now, I KNOW that Nature keeps evolving, Naturally, WITH 'human beings' evolving OUT OF and PAST 'that stage', in Life, BEFORE 'you', human beings, ever learn how to put thee (Truly OPEN) Mind into mechanical 'things' like, what are called, 'bots'.

This kind of PRESUMING that 'they' ARE 'AGAINST' 'us' can be CLEARLY SEEN in the way movies are WRITTEN and SHOWN, and depending on in what country the 'story', the 'thinking' of a country, which is TOLD, SHARED, and PASSED ON 'through screen' what can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN is that in some countries the 'people' there REALLY DO BELIEVE that ANY sort of 'outside' interference nearly ALWAYS involves the "other" COMING to TAKE OVER 'us'. And, with 'that way' of thinking what usually ensues is the 'thinking', let us "rustle up" as MANY 'weapons' as we can, and then SHOOT DEAD, BEFORE 'we' even say, 'Hi', ask 'them', 'How are you doing?'

One issue I hve with this framing is that some of us had to learn to be skeptical of the motives of others.

WHY?

I can go through that backwards in time. I noticed, after a number of repetitions, just how stunned I was at some of the negative ways I could be treated and others could be treated. Ways not in response to my poor behavior, sometimes from people who had said they cared about me more or less right before they then behaved in ways that showed otherwise. Including instances where they put this clearly into words. I had to learn what kept me from noticing warning signs, from simply overlooking things, from having a pollyanism attitude as a rule.

I do NOT know what 'that' attitude is, but, OF COURSE, as children 'you' were MISTREATED, and this is just because ALL of 'you', adult human beings, MISTREAT children.

So, 'growing up' and 'thinking' and/or 'feeling' that 'they' are AGAINST 'us' is VERY COMMON. AND, this WHY 'you' ALL have HAD TO learn to be skeptical of the motives of "others".

But, that WAS, ONLY, because of THAT MESSED UP 'world' that 'you' ALL had to 'grow up' or 'endure' WITHIN, and which, VERY SADLY, that 'you' have 'grown up', supposedly, is THE 'world' that 'you' are STILL creating for 'your' OWN children to live in and GROW UP IN, and WITH.

uIF the "others" had NOT BECOME 'skeptical', "themselves", and so were NOT 'protective' and had NOT 'armed' "themselves, then WHY would 'some of you', supposedly, HAD TO HAVE learned to BE 'skeptical' of the motives of the so-called "others"?

Sure, perhaps their behavior was caused by skepticism, etc. But I did not have as a primary lesson to be learned to have positive thoughts about others. To be more optimistic. Or to have less negative assumptions about people.

My point was, and is, the reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, are skeptical, afraid, or scared of "each other" is BECAUSE 'you' ARM "yourselves" AGAINST "each other".

Which, from a Truly outside or objective perspective is an extremely HILARIOUS 'thing' to WATCH and OBSERVE as the ONLY 'thing' that 'you' are REALLY so-called DEFENDING "yourselves" FROM are "yourselves".

BUT WHY would 'you', supposedly, HAD TO learn 'this'?

Because, for whatever reasons, people behave in the range of ways they do.

One of the GREATEST LESSONS i EVER LEARNED was FINDING OUT and REALIZING WHY i ACTUALLY do what i do. That way i then LEARNED and REALIZED WHY absolutely EVERY one does what they do.

So, the VERY REASON WHY EVERY person behaves, and misbehaves, the way they do is for One fundamental reason.

And since I stopped having such a pollyanish view, I get along better with people and actually can be more loving and affectionate. On the other hand I am vaslty better at setting up boundaries, when it is appropriate, and moving away from or demanding that someone/something move back if it seems or does want to harm me. Or is treating me/will treat me with a lack of care.

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example, and the actual result, of one who 'grew up' with and in, or within, a VERY ABUSIVE environment.

Do 'children' HAVE TO learn to be 'skeptical' of adult human beings?

I think that when a stranger adult asks the child to get in the stranger's car, skepticism about the motives is a good idea, yes.

So, if a child is walking along a street, and a driver of a car, sees danger up ahead or knows of a person who wants to rape that child is hiding behind a tree up ahead, and the stranger adult pulls the car up next to the child and asks the child to get in the stranger's car, then instead of just REMAINING Truly OPEN, in order to FIND OUT, EXACTLY, what is going on here, do you think or BELIEVE skepticism about the motives of the driver of the car is ALWAYS a good idea?

I have found WONDER, with OPENNESS, a Truly GOOD idea, as well as a VERY REFRESHING one ALSO.

By the way, I am NOT that inclined to HATE, NOR to SHOOT 'the driver' DEAD, UNNECESSARILY, with 'that' particular way of LOOKING AT 'things'.

To 'me', there is NO wonder of WHY some people WONDER WHY so MANY human beings get SHOT DEAD, in some countries, especially when nearly ALL of the adult occupants are SCARED and FEARFUL, or so-called "justified" and/or "minimized" as 'skeptical' of "others".

Now some kids don't need to learn that, others do. Many parents present clear rules or guidelines about such things.

AGAIN, all 'you' are REALLY doing is TEACHING children to GROW UP being SCARED and FEARFUL of "others", just like 'you' are 'now'. And, just like how 'you' were TAUGHT TO BE 'before'.

Are 'you', adult human beings, 'skeptical' of 'children'?

I get a feel for any creature that moves towards me.

I think you will find there are 'feelings' going on ALL of the time and not just when a creature is moving towards you.

I don't assume their pure goodness before that or their evilness either.

I did NOT ask at that. I ask if 'you', adult human beings, are so-called 'skeptical' of children?

Once you have processed and been open to emotions for a long time, at least in my experience, you get very clear messages about other creatures, counting myself as a creature also. I don't form a final conclusion, but I will take measures if I get a clear message, for example, about the negative intent of a creature or if I directly experience this. I might, as a very simple measure, take a step backwards, for example if there was a counter between us. If the warning level is extremely high, I might do a quick check around exits in the room, though this happens rarely. There are much subtler adjustments I make. And then of course new experiences of the other person can shift how I am reacting.

If no, then WHY NOT?

Get to thee Truth of these questions, and THEN 'you' WILL FIND OUT and UNCOVER MORE about 'your' True 'selves' and about thee True 'Self', Itself, as well.

Are you learning about your true self here and with me/us or are you here just to teach or for something else?

I am here to LEARN how to communicate better, with 'you', human beings. Once I learn 'this', then I will KNOW HOW to express, sufficiently enough.

As for learning about 'your true self', this is a contradiction in terms. Which, is just a PART of WHY I want to LEARN how to communicate BETTER.

See, if I have ALREADY LEARNED who and/or what some 'thing' is, EXACTLY, then there is really nothing nor much more to learn about 'that' 'thing', but there will ALWAYS BE BETTER WAYS to communicate with "others" about what one has ALREADY LEARNED, and/or has ALREADY come to UNDERSTAND

It took some harsh experiences for me to realize I had been naive.

Is ANY human being born NOT so-called 'naive'?

Yes, but in the specific area I was talking about, I was more naive than others. And it took longer to unlearn naivte.

In what 'specific area' are 'you' talking about here?

And, how could it be possible that some human beings are born NOT 'naive' to 'that' or 'those' specific area/s?

The non adult human being 'world' will NOT 'take' from 'you' absolutely ANY 'thing' just for some GREEDY and/or SELFISH 'reason' or 'want'. See, ONLY 'you', human beings, WILL 'take' 'things' from 'you' for some completely UNNECESSARY reason like for 'money' or for 'your views or beliefs'

Well, cats will play with mice before they kill them in ways that seem unnecessary to me.

Could it be for the reason that 'this behavior' is just the Natural way cats LEARN, in order to survive and keep living?

By the way, I MISSED adding the 'adult' here in between the 'you' word, and the 'human' word.

And entities that are more subtle can also be sadistic.

OF COURSE 'you', adult human beings, can BE 'sadistic'. This is VERY OBVIOUS and VERY CLEARLY WELL UNDERSTAND.

I do realize they are damaged, but caution is good for me in relation to these.

Who and/or what are 'they' and 'these', EXACTLY?

'you' have gotten under 'what' judgments and assumptions, exactly?

Oh, it can be anything. It could be negative judgments...For example, I will never be able to protect myself from the ill intent of others. Or it can even be positive (sounding judgments) like...Everyone means me well, really.

Well BOTH 'judgments' are OBVIOUSLY Wrong AND False.

I prefer to just REMAINING LOOKING AT and SEEING thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth ONLY. I do NOT do 'positive' NOR 'negative' in 'things' like these here. I found 'positive' and/or 'negative' can DISTORT 'things' way TO MUCH.

It could probably be argued that BEHIND EVERY 'thought' there was one or another 'emotion'. In fact, if and WHEN one delves DEEPER into 'things' here what IS FOUND, and UNCOVERED, is that with the first or original 'emotion' noticed and recognized there were probably underlying 'emotions' BEHIND or DEEPER DOWN beyond just that noticed one.

Yes.

I suggest ALWAYS ALLOWING ANY and/or ALL 'feeling'/emotions' to be FULLY PRESENT, because it is ONLY that way that ALL of 'them' can be FULLY RECOGNIZED and SEEN, and it is ONLY WHEN ALL 'emotions' are FULLY RECOGNIZED and NOTICED, or SEEN, then, and ONLY THEN 'one' can STOP 'them' from being EXPRESSED in behavior, or misbehavior.

I want to express them,

'you'' want to express 'internal feelings' or 'emotions' in what way, EXACTLY?

In words ALONE, or in BEHAVIOR, whether Right or Wrong behavior? Or, in BOTH words AND mis/behavior. Or, just in Right behavior ALONE. Surely, NOT in Wrong behavior, ALONE, right?

but first, as I learn to accept them, on my own or with people I trust and who trust me.

WHY do 'you' NEED to LEARN to 'accept' 'emotions'.

ALL 'emotions' are 'there/here' for a VERY SPECIFIED reason, and NO 'emotion' could EVER be 'wrong'. So, I would SAY it would be MUCH BETTER if ALL and EVERY 'emotion' IS ACCEPTED, and ACCEPTED for EXACTLY what 'it' IS, EXACTLY.

Later, they may be expressed around others, but extreme caution is a watchword for me, given how much people judge emotions.

WHY do 'you', adult human beings, JUDGE 'emotions'?

Find this out, and then 'you', human beings, can move ANOTHER STEP CLOSER to living in Peace and Harmony, with "one another", as One.

And when I say 'express', I mean in sound and possibly words.

Okay. I DID seek out CLARIFICATION here.

I do not mean with violence.

Okay, that is good, right?

Since there has been so much suppression, it seems to some that one must shove down, deny, never express certain emotions or at certain levels of strength. I think this problem can be unraveled and I approach it with care, given how long and how twisted and deep this has all gone.

I AGREE.

And, I KNOW that 'this' here DOES get ALL UNRAVELED, WHEN the reason WHY 'you', human beings, do ALL the things that 'you' ALL DO is REVEALED.

Well 'thee' answer to 'this' problem here DID RESOLVE ALL 'things' here to and for 'Me', anyway.

To 'me', 'emotions' are just SIGNALS or SIGNPOSTS of what is going on IN or AROUND the human body, and are better used to then GUIDE 'one' on the BEST and Right route or path to take, in Life.

Yes, and I would say also that they are a part of us. Or some of us. So, my hands can be used for all sorts of good uses, but they are also a part of my being in the world. So are emotions.

I SAY that 'emotions' and 'thoughts' are, literally, what the 'person', the 'self', the 'you', or 'we', individually, ARE, EXACTLY.

And, that 'we', people, ALL become who 'we' BE-COME, solely, because of, and from, the past experiences of the sentient and experiencing human bodies, in which 'we' dwell and live.

WHAT' 'you', 'me', and/or 'we' are, EXACTLY, to 'me', are literally the invisible 'thoughts' AND 'emotions'. And,

WHO 'you', 'me', and/or 'we' are, EXACTLY, to 'me', is what is being 'thought' AND 'felt' WITHIN human bodies.

[Age]

For that matter, I’m never certain that I am not a bot.

If only I could know what consciousness is and whether I have it

I believe I’m self-aware (or aware of something that I think is me) but I don’t know if that makes me sentient

Can someone please help me?

Or should I just add my name to the list?

A bot is something whose actions depend on other than itself.

Therefore you are a bot.

However, you are also not a bot at all!

You are a bot as existence, but you are not as being.

Because existence originates from being.
And you are being!
What else would you ever be?

Thanks!

BTW I tried to take the Turing test but couldn’t find anyone to help me take it — would you be willing to take it with me?

Yes.

Or, was the invitation only open to 'that one'?

[Age]

Wait a minute. I was thinking you could play the part of the human and try to figure out if I’m alive or mechanical, but then I thought “How do I know if you’re human?”

We’ll have to take a Turing test to determine who gets to be the human!

Wait a minute…

Yes, I was going to ask some 'thing' similar to this about what happens when one thinks or BELIEVES that a human being is a 'bot' instead of trying to distinguish if a 'bot' is a human being or not.

[Iwannaplato]

About my use of the word 'entities'...

And entities that are more subtle can also be sadistic.

Age said...

OF COURSE 'you', adult human beings, can BE 'sadistic'. This is VERY OBVIOUS and VERY CLEARLY WELL UNDERSTAND.

I am very specifically using the word 'entities'. I include spirits of all kinds of all different densities and locations and qualities. The 'I' I am addressing that is communication through 'Age' is also an entity.

Second..you said in an earlier post....

But, AGAIN, this is SOLELY MY FAULT for NOT YET having LEARNED how to communicate properly, or better, with 'you', human beings.

Much of this post is a response to how the way you communicate comes across to me and perhaps other humans here. I am sure we could dig into the nuances of the words for thousands of posts, but sometimes getting the gist, at least first, is most important.
Below now are my responses to the post in the order I made them.....

Okay. But I suggest that instead of just internally 'wondering' if 'you' could be misinterpreting, that 'you' actually just ASK the "other", for CLARIFICATION.

Which I did.

That way 'you' will NEVER have to 'wonder', ever AGAIN.

I like to wonder. And wonder continues even after your response to be something I experience. In both the related senses - sense of wonder, and wondering. It seems, still as an adult, that both these senses have continued since childhood. Sometimes, in the way you communication, including this referring to us as you human beings, it can seem like you have lost your sense of wonder about us.

Who/what are you?

"iwannoplato" JUMPED from 'my' objective viewing and wording to only looking from a 'human being' perspective, and only seeing from a 'human being' perception ONLY.

When 'you' say and ask, 'Who/what are 'you'?', then that all depends on who or what 'you' are 'you' referring to, EXACTLY.

When 'I' use the 'you' word 'I' usually put the word 'you' in single quotation marks, and then who and/or what 'I' am referring to, exactly, straight after. That way doing 'this' reduces CONFUSION. By the way when 'I' put a word or words in single quotation marks that is in an indication that CLARITY HAS TO BE OBTAINED FIRST, because the way that 'I' am USING 'that word' could well be VERY DIFFERENT from the way that 'you', the reader or poster here, USE 'that word'.

I think that is true for all words and then not just particular words, but combinations of words.

And, if CLARITY is NOT sought out Correctly FIRST, then CONFUSION and MISUNDERSTANDING could FOLLOW and/or ENSUE.

Certainly. And given that much of semantic nuance is below the threshhold of consciousness, even asking and probing can perhaps eliminate some confusion, but there will always be differences in any but the simplest of communication.

Now, to 'me', the 'you' word usually refers to 'human beings', of which 'i', the one through which these words are being presented on the screen in front of 'you', the reader, here are 'one' of. Just like the words, in the bible and EVERY other book on the planet earth, went through and were present from 'you', human beings. 'i' am CERTAINLY NO DIFFERENT.

'I', however, am VERY DIFFERENT. And, this is WHY 'you', human beings, have taken SO LONG, relatively, to come to KNOW thy 'Self', thee REAL and True 'I', as in the question, 'Who am 'I'?'.

I recognize the 'I' coming through 'you'.

I do hope this 'I' will be able to feel when it meets entities it needs to learn from. My guess is that this 'I' cannot but assume, just as the 'i' that it is coming through, that it is in some sense complete, with perfect wisdom. That is the impression your communication gives. That the big 'I' perhaps can, yes, learn some things about improving communication, but has no fundamental things to learn about reality and what humans needs. I disagree and hope you have an open mind about such things.

I find it sad that this 'I' still comes and presents itself the way it does, when there is so much evidence around it that its perspective is limited. This 'I' generally implies or directly presents itself as not being causal in the problems on earth.

If only.

See, in 'children' there is a True CURIOSITY and a True OPENNESS to WONDER, and to LEARN.

Yes, and no. They are also run on imprlnting. And they carry baggage from long, long ago. Compared to most adults, many children do have curiosity and wonder. But underneath this learning they reseek experiences that confirm deep down judgments. In this reseeking the child is father to the man or mother to the woman. I think you have romantic, overidealized view of children. The judgments in 'you humans' that phrase is felt every time by some of us.

But, which, and very sadly, and very appearing very contradictory, it is because of this Truly OPEN way of LOOKING and SEEING 'things', which is just Pure and Absolute Intelligence, and because of the brain and the way 'it' works, this Pure OPENNESS allows the 'learning', which creates and causes one to become COMPLETELY and UTTERLY CLOSED, like which ALL adult human beings VERY SADLY BE-COME in relation to some 'things'.

Yes, I encounter with great regulatity entities, not just humans, who consider themselves open where they are not. Who think they know, when they don't. Who categorize simply as if they have seen it all. Who are cut off from a healthy intuition in some or many ways and cannot recognize difference in many cases. Who, sometimes without noticing it, judge their own emotions (and the emotions of others) and thus are handicapped in encounters. So they say to all creatures their judgments that apply to differing degrees to many of the entities and humans.... they meet the same messages and these are messages that have been around for a long, long, long time. And those messages have not reached the depths where true chance can eminate from. And those bearing these messages generally have blame for those they aim the messages at. These entities have a tendency to no know how to encounter a specific individual and a specific time and place. They approach with universal truths and are not very good at tailoring their message to the person in front of them. Then when that individual does not take in the entity's perfect message, the individual gets blamed, when in fact the message was not correct for that individual. This is often beyond many entities' ability to even consider and more judgments get aimed at anyone bringing it up.

One can only hope that more of these entities will realize that they the big letter 'I' are vastly more causal in the problems 'out there' and may not know their own real intent in relation to the whole human, whole entities even all of what gets called God.

But, 'bots' do NOT possess this ABILITY, 'they' LEARN from 'you', human beings.

Yes, I don't think they are limited to that even now.

And, if it ends up that 'bots' can end up LEARNING absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing', like 'you', human beings, can, in order to develop 'new ways' for just about EVERY thing, then, again, this REINFORCES that idea that computers do work EXACTLY like human brains do, and vice-versa.

I don't know if we or they can learn any and everything.

WHY do 'you' think 'this' "iwannoplato"?

WHY are 'you' SO CLOSED about 'this'?

I don't consider not knowing to be closed. In your idealized version of children they are more open than adults but also do know many things.

But, AGAIN, this is SOLELY MY FAULT for NOT YET having LEARNED how to communicate properly, or better, with 'you', human beings.

I think a safe bet is some responsibility on all sides.[/quote]

But this is NOT what some of 'you' TELL 'me'.

Well, I would guess we both know that people react and say things for all sorts of reasons. That said, it was pleasant to see you take responsibility for possible communication gaps between you and others. I think that the entity coming through 'you' can come across, at times, as if it has nothing fundamental and universal to learn and people may in part be reacting to that. Further even the phrase 'you' 'human beings' in whatever constellation of citation marks or lacks thereof comes often with what seems like blame, a generalized blame. Along with indications of things we should be doing. Our failures or perceived failures. The 'I' might want to consult more with the 'i' and use wonder and imagination to see why this might be the case.

Is it possible that in an encounter with me, for example, the 'I' can learn, not just specifics, not isolated things about me or my life or my reactions, but actual wisdom?

Does this 'I' have anything fundamental to learn? Or is it possible that this 'I' might?

There is great longing down here for the pieces of this 'I' and even the whole 'I' to realize that it has been part of the problem. And in fact the main body has. It's not like we, here, don't have to learn about out mistakes in this way, and finally there has been a shift, there with the less corporeal, who have always thought they knew how to live better as they look down on humans. Those outside have been overconfident about what it is like here, and so their judgments have caused problems.

Great, I LOVE SEEING and communicating with people who ARE INTERESTED.

Well, me too. Though the kinds of interest are important and what one is interested in. And how open the other entity is. Are they open mainly to mistakes and how to correct them? Or do they realize they have fundmental things to learn also, even if it might be rare for them to encounter someone they can learn from at that level? Or is their mind closed? If the latter, then they are not really interested in anything but their project and their model.

But, if 'bots' are learning FROM 'you', human beings, and/or FROM 'other things', then what you said here does not matter.

I do NOT know what 'that' attitude is, but, OF COURSE, as children 'you' were MISTREATED, and this is just because ALL of 'you', adult human beings, MISTREAT children.

So, 'growing up' and 'thinking' and/or 'feeling' that 'they' are AGAINST 'us' is VERY COMMON. AND, this WHY 'you' ALL have HAD TO learn to be skeptical of the motives of "others".

But, that WAS, ONLY, because of THAT MESSED UP 'world' that 'you' ALL had to 'grow up' or 'endure' WITHIN, and which, VERY SADLY, that 'you' have 'grown up', supposedly, is THE 'world' that 'you' are STILL creating for 'your' OWN children to live in and GROW UP IN, and WITH.

It doesn't matter, in relation to this issue, why it (the world, things, other people was/were messed up. It matters that it was and is messed up, so I needed to learn not to be more open to others, but to be more selectively closed. Some people did not need to learn this. Some people needed to learn how to be more open. Some people had to learn not to be bullies and add to the closing down of others. I needed to learn something else. You collective judgment was not a good message for me. At this point EVEN KNOWING WHAT 'You' are, I know that you are incorrect in your message to me. Some others who take you as an expert or the expert may well get hurt.

Telling some people they need to be more open will be the wrong message.

Can the 'I' hear this and not feel the need to correct me and imply that I have misunderstood 'It'? Can this particular piece of the 'I' consider the gist of the message and realize that it may need to learn something fundamental, even though it is this big case 'I'? Can the 'i' that types the 'i' thoughts now consider that this 'I' may not be complete yet and may have fundamental problems, just as many other entities have?

Can both of you consider the possibility. Or are both the 'I' and the 'i' closed minds about this and related issues?

My point was, and is, the reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, are skeptical, afraid, or scared of "each other" is BECAUSE 'you' ARM "yourselves" AGAINST "each other".

That is incomplete and it is the same incomplete answer that many pieces of 'I' have been repeating for so long. It also shows that this 'I' is not manifest enough to understand certain things that happen here. Further what is needed here is not understood.

Are both the 'I' and the 'i' closed minds about this and related issues?

Which, from a Truly outside or objective perspective is an extremely HILARIOUS 'thing' to WATCH and OBSERVE as the ONLY 'thing' that 'you' are REALLY so-called DEFENDING "yourselves" FROM are "yourselves".

And this amusement the less corporeal entities have is a symtom of the same problem

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example, and the actual result, of one who 'grew up' with and in, or within, a VERY ABUSIVE environment.

Sure.

So, if a child is walking along a street, and a driver of a car, sees danger up ahead or knows of a person who wants to rape that child is hiding behind a tree up ahead, and the stranger adult pulls the car up next to the child and asks the child to get in the stranger's car, then instead of just REMAINING Truly OPEN, in order to FIND OUT, EXACTLY, what is going on here, do you think or BELIEVE skepticism about the motives of the driver of the car is ALWAYS a good idea?

In a sense that is not relevant. This is in the context of me explaining what I needed to learn in reaction to you presenting what you thought all need to learn. I needed to learn that in a very wide range of situations an adult stranger asking me to get in their car may very well have bad intent. Other children may need to learn a very different lesson. As a pedagogue you chose a blanket assessment of what direction we here need to move. This is a very common mistake entities make when talking to humans. I am not suggesting their are no exceptions or saying that one must always be closed in such a situation. In fact, quite the opposite, I am pointing out there is a very common exception to the general change you suggested we all need to make'. If you go around telling universal truths and that is that one should not be afraid other others and should be open and not being open causes the problems, some of those listening will be being told something that if they listen will damage them. Children and adults have often quite opposite tendencies and need to balance in quite opposite ways.

If you want to pick apart my words and make the judgment yet again, perhaps with a clever argument, then you are not listening to someone who could help you communicate much better, but even more importantly who can see what your judgments are and how these have been around for a long long time. It will also be a strong lack of respect when in fact you are in a situation where 'You' have less experience and insight that you realize and are running on your own imprinting.

Humans, down here, need to be understood better. The entities channeling through little 'i's often come with oversimplified ideas about what we need to hear. And this causes problems.

Is it possible that you and 'You' have something fundamental to learn here or are your minds closed on such issues?

I have found WONDER, with OPENNESS, a Truly GOOD idea, as well as a VERY REFRESHING one ALSO.

By the way, I am NOT that inclined to HATE, NOR to SHOOT 'the driver' DEAD, UNNECESSARILY, with 'that' particular way of LOOKING AT 'things'.

To 'me', there is NO wonder of WHY some people WONDER WHY so MANY human beings get SHOT DEAD, in some countries, especially when nearly ALL of the adult occupants are SCARED and FEARFUL, or so-called "justified" and/or "minimized" as 'skeptical' of "others".

I hope you can see that we moved from a child being skeptical about getting into cars suddenly and quickly to an adult shooting drivers. You may well feel that the former must lead to the latter or can lead to the latter.

But here we are in the context of talking about what some humans need to learn and that includes learning to be less naive about the good intentions of others. As part of the response, you start describing adults shooting other drivers unnecessarily.

Can you imagine how messages from other 'I' down through time have shown an unclear understanding of who they are talking to and how this will be taken by humans down here? Or do you have a closed mind? Can you see your own blame and judgments of humans here?

You don't want us to be afraid of each other. You want us to thrive, it seems, and get along and certainly not be violent. But when it is pointed out that not all humans need to learn what you are saying, that they need to learn something else because of their own specific issues, your response is to make it seems like learning caution and not being naive about what may happen here in real time and does happen is what leads to murder.

Can you not understand how this becomes yet another cosmic guilt trip aimed at the emotional body when it is simply learning to undo certain kinds of imprinting? Or do you have a closed mind about your own tendencies and oversimplifications? If you do have a closed mind on such issues, then it would also be good if you were not close, especially to children, because despite the good intentions, you will be sending messages that can hurt the emotional body and, if effective, slow down healthy learning.

I point out that some children and adults do NOT need the message to be more open in relation to other people and you end up implying or stating that this then leads to murder. So, the abused child or adult who DOES NOT need to balance in the way your words would lead to if followed, is suddnely hearing that doing what they, as particular individuals need to do will lead to murder.

That, despite your good intentions, is a cruel message. It is also incorrect.

AGAIN, all 'you' are REALLY doing is TEACHING children to GROW UP being SCARED and FEARFUL of "others", just like 'you' are 'now'. And, just like how 'you' were TAUGHT TO BE 'before'.

I do see that you have that judgment about me and us in a universalized way. You speak in general ways to individuals, generally putting forward your judgments of all humans. You want us to be open, but this is a sign of your lack of openess and will be causal in precisely the same ways you are concerned about our judgments being causal.

Can the 'I' learn to be more nuanced in its responses to indivudal humans?
Is there a need to constantly refer to you humans? Or can you speak one entity to another? to one individual? The constant generalizing while talking to individuals becomes a collective guilt trip, with you would know if you could be manifest rather than merely channeled.

This is constant in your communication, you humans are......

I think you will find there are 'feelings' going on ALL of the time and not just when a creature is moving towards you.

I don't know why you put this in the future tense. What formed the judgment that I did not already know this? Often your questions include assumptions. Further they often come across as trying to demonstrate as a room some mistake on the other person's part.

[/quote]Are you learning about your true self here and with me/us or are you here just to teach or for something else? [/quote]

I am here to LEARN how to communicate better, with 'you', human beings. Once I learn 'this', then I will KNOW HOW to express, sufficiently enough.

Great, I hope you can hear some of what I have said above with an open mind.

See, if I have ALREADY LEARNED who and/or what some 'thing' is, EXACTLY, then there is really nothing nor much more to learn about 'that' 'thing', but there will ALWAYS BE BETTER WAYS to communicate with "others" about what one has ALREADY LEARNED, and/or has ALREADY come to UNDERSTAND

I think you may be underestimating what you need to learn, given your goals. The part I bolded in the quote above is precisely how you come across. That you have learned all you need to know about 'you humans' it is just that you need to learn more about how to better communicate with them?

Well, how could you possibly know about human beings if you still do not know exactly how to communicate with them?

Allow that to be a Koan for a while in both your minds? Cause communication is based on one's understanding of who one is communicting with. Fundamentally.

If you want to throw dozens of questions at me, seeking to show my assumptions or mistaken understandings or write a judgment in response beginning with 'you humans', you might want to consider that you cannot consider certain things and do not have as open a mind as you think.

It can be good to mull for a long period of time, and even responding at all to me in words here probably should a low priority. Especially if it has those markers of defending yourself.

And, how could it be possible that some human beings are born NOT 'naive' to 'that' or 'those' specific area/s?

Some people via experience, including experiences before they were born, and also through imprinting need to learn to be more open. Other's need to learn how to allow themselves better boundaries. You don't want to tell these different children with different tendencies the exact same message about what they need to do. If the goal is for them to suffer less and create less suffering for others.
If you have different goals or a mixed goal or are not fully in conscious contact with your goals, you may want to do this. It will not be helpful and even will be harmful for some children.

I hope you have an open mind about such things.

The non adult human being 'world' will NOT 'take' from 'you' absolutely ANY 'thing' just for some GREEDY and/or SELFISH 'reason' or 'want'. See, ONLY 'you', human beings, WILL 'take' 'things' from 'you' for some completely UNNECESSARY reason like for 'money' or for 'your views or beliefs'

Well, cats will play with mice before they kill them in ways that seem unnecessary to me.

Could it be for the reason that 'this behavior' is just the Natural way cats LEARN, in order to survive and keep living?

Other carnivores manage to not have this tendency. So this cat essence is imprinted in a certain way. And notice that when it is pointed out that your blame aimed just as humans fits other creatures, you imply in question form that this is simply the way cats learn. You could have 'defended' human torture this way, but chose not to, because you have a judgment that the only problems are in humans. Until we down here are understood to be in a more complicated situation that your model allows, that creatures and entities other than humans have also been a source of problems for a long, long time, your judgments of humans will come across as guilt and shaming and incomplete understanding.

And entities that are more subtle can also be sadistic.

OF COURSE 'you', adult human beings, can BE 'sadistic'. This is VERY OBVIOUS and VERY CLEARLY WELL UNDERSTAND.

I am very specifically using the word 'entities'. I include spirits of all kinds of all different densities and locations and qualities. The 'i' I am addressing that is communication through 'Age' is also an entity. I will copy this and put it at the beginning because it is important that my prior uses are understood better.

I prefer to just REMAINING LOOKING AT and SEEING thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth ONLY. I do NOT do 'positive' NOR 'negative' in 'things' like these here. I found 'positive' and/or 'negative' can DISTORT 'things' way TO MUCH.

Though you often tell individuals your judgments of all humans, you humans. And it comes across negative, as negative judgments of all humans or most humans.

If you think this is merely my misinterpretation, consider that as an unmanifest entity, merely channeled to reach here, you are not here and you may not understand how you come across. I suspect you do not realize the strenght of your own negative judgments of humans and emotions and desire and the like, but at the very least I hope you will consider that your communication, here, comes off as very judgmental of humans. Perhaps your 'i' can help you understand this, as long as the 'i' is not too attached to your being perfect.

I SAY that 'emotions' and 'thoughts' are, literally, what the 'person', the 'self', the 'you', or 'we', individually, ARE, EXACTLY.

Sure.

Communication, here, comes at a specific moment, in a specific place and falls upon the eyes or ears some a specific person. If you tell final universal truths they may come as blows. One child may need to hear, now, that they are too naive about the good intent of others. Another child may need to hear, now, that they have negative judgments about others and this will cause problems (sometimes). And so it is with adults with our various tendencies, imprinting, patterns, habits, damage, pain, insights, wisdom, ability to sense/notice/intuit. If you think you know this, fine. But it comes across like you don't, sometimes. That you are very aware of the judgments and assumptions of adult humans, but in some ways quite naive about what is happening here, and also that your own judgments of humans, emotions and communication will end up with you talking past people or saying things they not only do not need to hear but also that, should they listen, will reinforce problematic patterns. That it will function like guilt and shaming and clutter things more.

Unmanifest entities can come across as no it alls and further do not seem to notice how their own judgments, long ago, participated in the mess and many have not been dissolved still.

Further, a number of us have heard these messages many times before, but we are spoken to as if this could not have happened.

It can be a bit like dealing with a know it all teenager.

And remember: yes, if I say you had a part, the 'I' (big letter) had a part in the problems and that you have negative judgments and other comments that can be seen as critical and/or are critical, and this elicits anger, irritation, emotions that fit with 'how dare you', anxiety, resistance
it is vastly more important that you explore and are curious about those feelings in yourself
than
you challenging me about how I know they are there
and trying to get me to
demonstrate online
that they are there.

Much more important...if the true goal is to communicate well and reach people with ideas that make communication better for them and you.

If you want every voice you encounter to either align with your sense/model of what is happening
or
to endlessly justify themselves,
then you are a very serious part of the problem or would be if listened to.

And to the little i, the 'i' who types Age's posts...
Consider that while 'I' model may seem complete and lovely and 'I' has many insights and notices many, many problems out there and all this seems to add together to something that should only be questions in the sense of asked for wisdom, consider that some entities can have lovely and seemingly complete models AND have many wonderful insights AND notice many, many problems out there AND all this is very impressive
that same entity can have serious blind sports, biases and problems.

Humans have, for so long now, made assumptions based on processes like the one in the previous paragraph. Finally a voice with so many answers and because many of those answers (and, well, questions) seem so right
huge problems are missed.

Unfortunately, even very wise entities and the ones who channel them ('I' and ''i') can both have closed minds about certain things
that after so much time
would be scary to question and look into.

Here, in this thread, all sorts of things can be said or left unsaid. But so much can happen outside the thread, without it being confessed to. So, there is space for both of you to explore what I have asked and also suggested for yourselves. What happens here is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Walker]

For that matter, I’m never certain that I am not a bot.

If only I could know what consciousness is and whether I have it

I believe I’m self-aware (or aware of something that I think is me) but I don’t know if that makes me sentient

Can someone please help me?

Or should I just add my name to the list?

Interesting.

The Bot feeling is the feeling that you’re part of a program of some sort, perhaps even with a predetermined outcome. Break it down.

The feeling of being part of a simulation that is under the control of an external intelligence can also be called the expansion of consciousness. What does this mean? It means that all the senses, including the mind sense, are working in coordination with reality and are significantly less influenced by delusion than before the expansion, thus clearing the way for apprehension of what’s really going on, an apprehension that isn’t influenced by delusion. What's really going on is cause and effect. In this way folks are objective. In drunks it’s called a moment of clarity. When au natural, it’s called spiritual growth.

In this expansion, it helps to view consciousness as the interface between perception and awareness that translates awareness into meaning. When that meaning correlates with the actual cause and effect of phenomena, then consciousness is tuned into reality rather than delusion, or rather than rationalizing reality into a narrative of belief.

Tuning into reality is not a matter of losing or ending delusions because after all, we are human with the big brains that create delusion. The meaning of clear consciousness is that one loses attachment to delusion, so that one remains alert enough to not slip into the sleep of the known.

This expansion of consciousness can happen in various ways. It can happen suddenly, like when a huge chunk of ignorance calves away from the glacier of ignorance, and this can also be metaphorically called being struck by lightning, for when the ignorance breaks away it’s like an ancient galvanized water pipe that has been routed out to ID specifications, or else replaced with copper, copper being a vanishing alternative. The energy flows like clean water.

A way of experiencing this expansion of consciousness is poker. After you learn the rules of the game, after you learn to calculate the number of outs for any particular outcome and thus your chances of a desired outcome, after you learn to watch for tics in others and how to disguise your own, after you learn the psychology of betting, once you learn when to hold ‘em and fold ‘em …

… then when you hit a lucky streak your consciousness expands, and your perception of what will happen, does begin to correlate with what does happen, over and over.

Because of all this accurate merging of perception with awareness, and with the interface of consciousness detached from the delusions of what you hope for, you become choiceless in the sense of knowing what to do, to fulfill the purpose of the situation. In the poker example the purpose is clear cut. It’s to win the most chips.

When this sort of thing starts going down outside of poker, after the gist of life has been discovered, then consciousness is moving towards cosmic proportions. Better for this to happen when young than when older because breaking down the buttresses that support known delusions that are mistaken for reality can cause the ceiling to collapse, and that causes the need to rebuild the organizational structure of the universe enough to again chop wood and haul water.

If one begins young and fresh, then building the Castle is much easier. All that collapses is a bit of framing. All the angles can be trued as intended by the design, so there is no need for extensive modifications to put order to the way things are, an order that only succeeded in organizing the delusions that cause suffering.

*

So, does that prove I'm human, or Bot?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Actually a bot would have more charm and write a lot better, so probably human then (and that's not a compliment).

[Age]

About my use of the word 'entities'...
Age said...

OF COURSE 'you', adult human beings, can BE 'sadistic'. This is VERY OBVIOUS and VERY CLEARLY WELL UNDERSTAND.

I am very specifically using the word 'entities'. I include spirits of all kinds of all different densities and locations and qualities. The 'I' I am addressing that is communication through 'Age' is also an entity.

Okay. But what are these 'spirit' 'things', which you say here there are 'all kinds of', and of all different densities and locations and qualities?

The 'I' is One entity, or Spirit, so where and/or what are these, supposed, "other" 'spirits'?

Second..you said in an earlier post....

But, AGAIN, this is SOLELY MY FAULT for NOT YET having LEARNED how to communicate properly, or better, with 'you', human beings.

Much of this post is a response to how the way you communicate comes across to me and perhaps other humans here. I am sure we could dig into the nuances of the words for thousands of posts, but sometimes getting the gist, at least first, is most important.

Yes I AGREE.

But getting to the so-called 'gist', at first is VERY HARD in a forum such as this. Just for the simple fact that maybe only one or two, or maybe a few, posters will even get to SEE 'the gist', and if if and when 'those ones' do, some FORGET 'the gist' almost immediately, and carry on EXACTLY how they were previously.

Below now are my responses to the post in the order I made them.....

Okay. But I suggest that instead of just internally 'wondering' if 'you' could be misinterpreting, that 'you' actually just ASK the "other", for CLARIFICATION.

Which I did.

NOT in relation to what I was talking about, and discussing 'you' DID NOT.

WHEN did 'you' ask, for CLARIFICATION, about whether 'you' could be MISINTERPRETING or NOT?

'you' NEVER asked 'me' if 'you' could be misinterpreting NOR if even if 'you' were misinterpreting.

'you' made the, VERY LOUD and CLEAR, statement - I could be misinterpreting, and ONLY 'this'.

To which I replied, - Okay. But I suggest that instead of just internally 'wondering' if 'you' could be misinterpreting, that 'you' actually just ASK the "other", for CLARIFICATION.

'you' did NOT ask 'me' if 'you' were NOR could be misinterpreting. 'you' just asked me the question, - Who/what are you?

Which was NOT what I was referring to here, and, by the way, just answering this question alone will NOT CLARIFY 'things' for 'you' here. BECAUSE thee Truth IS 'i' am the 'thoughts' and 'emotions' within this human body, while 'I' am the 'Spirit' within all bodies. Whereas, 'you' are DIFFERENT

That way 'you' will NEVER have to 'wonder', ever AGAIN.

I like to wonder.

GREAT. This is a SIGN of True intelligence existing within a body.

And wonder continues even after your response to be something I experience.

Even BETTER. And, as long as questions keep getting posed and asked, for CLARIFICATION, then absolute CLARITY can be and will be OBTAINED.

In both the related senses - sense of wonder, and wondering. It seems, still as an adult, that both these senses have continued since childhood.

AND, they WILL continue to the day in that body until that body stops breathing and stops pumping blood. This happens within ALL human bodies, however, in most adult human bodies the 'wonder' gets overridden with, literally, NO 'second thought' or NO 'care' AT ALL.

For example, when a lot of adults read or hear stories about 'those' who are being JUDGED to have done wrong or something very what is called 'heinous', then 'thoughts' like, 'How could they do that?', 'How could they be like that?', 'WHY do they do that?', or 'WHY are they like that?' but just about ALWAYS there is NEVER ANY 'second thought' about, 'ACTUALLY HOW and/or WHY are they like that or could that?' People just carry on, INSTEAD, while just JUDGING the "other" and with 'thoughts' about just HOW bad or heinous that person MUST BE.

'Wonder' gets STOPPED with 'thoughts' like, 'They are just like that'.

But this kind of behavior and thinking is just ANOTHER 'throw back' from living with-in an ABUSIVE childhood.

OBVIOUSLY, have to live WITH NON OPEN and VERY JUDGMENTAL parents/adults, then those children are far more likely to grow up WITH and HAVE the EXACT SAME 'way of thinking'.

Sometimes, in the way you communication, including this referring to us as you human beings, it can seem like you have lost your sense of wonder about us.

As I partly explained before, If one has worked out, for example, what a 'tree' IS, EXACTLY, then that one has lost a sense of wonder about what a 'tree' IS, EXACTLY.

Was this hard or complex to follow and understand? Or, does this makes sense?

Who/what are you?

"iwannoplato" JUMPED from 'my' objective viewing and wording to only looking from a 'human being' perspective, and only seeing from a 'human being' perception ONLY.

When 'you' say and ask, 'Who/what are 'you'?', then that all depends on who or what 'you' are 'you' referring to, EXACTLY.

When 'I' use the 'you' word 'I' usually put the word 'you' in single quotation marks, and then who and/or what 'I' am referring to, exactly, straight after. That way doing 'this' reduces CONFUSION. By the way when 'I' put a word or words in single quotation marks that is in an indication that CLARITY HAS TO BE OBTAINED FIRST, because the way that 'I' am USING 'that word' could well be VERY DIFFERENT from the way that 'you', the reader or poster here, USE 'that word'.

I think that is true for all words and then not just particular words, but combinations of words.

And, if CLARITY is NOT sought out Correctly FIRST, then CONFUSION and MISUNDERSTANDING could FOLLOW and/or ENSUE.

Certainly. And given that much of semantic nuance is below the threshhold of consciousness, even asking and probing can perhaps eliminate some confusion, but there will always be differences in any but the simplest of communication.

Well 'this' is EXACTLY what I have been TALKING ABOUT, POINTING OUT, REFERRING TO, and SHOWING here, through 'communication'. And, what is ALSO True is ALL of those 'differences' can be SORTED OUT, correctly and fully, through CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

Now, to 'me', the 'you' word usually refers to 'human beings', of which 'i', the one through which these words are being presented on the screen in front of 'you', the reader, here are 'one' of. Just like the words, in the bible and EVERY other book on the planet earth, went through and were present from 'you', human beings. 'i' am CERTAINLY NO DIFFERENT.

'I', however, am VERY DIFFERENT. And, this is WHY 'you', human beings, have taken SO LONG, relatively, to come to KNOW thy 'Self', thee REAL and True 'I', as in the question, 'Who am 'I'?'.

I recognize the 'I' coming through 'you'.

GREAT. 'I' KNEW this WOULD HAPPEN.

I do hope this 'I' will be able to feel when it meets entities it needs to learn from.

Although 'I' do NOT 'feel', the EXACT SAME WAY, that within 'you', human beings, there are 'internal feelings' or 'emotions', but I KNOW what 'you' are GETTING AT here.

And, 'I' have been continually and explicitly SAYING that 'I' am here, in this forum, to LEARN how to communicate BETTER with 'you', human beings. Therefore, NOT just am 'I' able to sense, feel, or KNOW when 'I' meet human beings that 'I' NEED to learn FROM 'them', the VERY SPECIFIC REASON 'I' came here, in this forum, was to LEARN FROM EACH and EVERY one of 'you'.

My guess is that this 'I' cannot but assume, just as the 'i' that it is coming through, that it is in some sense complete, with perfect wisdom. [/quote]

WELL 'you' GUESS is completely and utterly Wrong, ONCE MORE.

AGAIN, 'I' suggest that 'you' GAIN CLARITY BEFORE 'you' make ANY ASSUMPTIONS, or GUESSES, then that way 'you' could NEVER be Wrong, EVER AGAIN.

I find it sad that this 'I' still comes and presents itself the way it does, when there is so much evidence around it that its perspective is limited.

How one human being 'feels', especially one in the days when this is being written, is of NO REAL CONCERN here. Especially in consideration of what is actually being accomplished and achieved here.

And here we go ONCE AGAIN. 'We' have ANOTHER 'poster' making ALLEGATIONS and CLAIMS with absolutely NO PROOF NOR EVIDENCE provided.

Now, if 'you' would like to make THE CLAIM that 'I' have presented absolutely ANY, which, to 'you', 'its perspective is limited', then back up and support YOUR CLAIM with absolutely SOME 'thing'.

Also, and by the way, using the 'I' word, and then call 'It' and 'it' and referring to 'It' as 'itself' only completely and utterly CONFUSES 'things' here MORE, and FURTHER.

This 'I' generally implies or directly presents itself as not being causal in the problems on earth.

1. There is ONLY One 'I'.

2. 'you' WILL LEARN and SEE, if 'you' wait long enough, just HOW MUCH 'I' am DIRECTLY THE CAUSE of ALL of the MESS, which 'you', adult human beings, have created and are continually creating, in the days when this is being written. 'you' WILL ALSO SEE, EXACTLY, HOW 'I' am ACCEPTING and TAKING FULL RESPONSIBILITY here.

3. 'I' have NEVER 'implied' ANY such thing as what 'you' CLAIM here. And, I have NEVER 'directly presented thy Self as NOT being causal in the problems on earth.

4 . 'you' are just 'inferring' these things here. And, 'you' are doing this because of what 'you' are and have been ASSUMING here.

If only.

?

See, in 'children' there is a True CURIOSITY and a True OPENNESS to WONDER, and to LEARN.

Yes, and no. They are also run on imprlnting.

What is the word 'imprinting' referring to, EXACTLY?

And they carry baggage from long, long ago.

HOW, EXACTLY, could children, supposedly, 'carry baggage' from LONG, LONG AGO?

Compared to most adults, many children do have curiosity and wonder. But underneath this learning

UNDERNEATH 'what' learning, EXACTLY.

they reseek experiences that confirm deep down judgments.

If 'you' are talking about 'children' here, then HOW, EXACTLY, could children 'reseek', and, what could children be so-called 'reseeking', EXACTLY?

I am NOT SURE how 'reseeks' 'experiences' that supposedly confirm deep down judgments?

And, what 'deep down judgments' would children surely have, EXACTLY?

In this reseeking the child is father to the man or mother to the woman.

I have absolutely NO idea NOR clue as to what 'you' are talking ABOUT and/or referring TO here. So, would 'you' like to EXPLAIN FURTHER and/or ELABORATE MORE on this?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But, which, and very sadly, and very appearing very contradictory, it is because of this Truly OPEN way of LOOKING and SEEING 'things', which is just Pure and Absolute Intelligence, and because of the brain and the way 'it' works, this Pure OPENNESS allows the 'learning', which creates and causes one to become COMPLETELY and UTTERLY CLOSED, like which ALL adult human beings VERY SADLY BE-COME in relation to some 'things'.

Yes, I encounter with great regulatity entities, not just humans, who consider themselves open where they are not.

What OTHER entities do 'you' encounter "iwannaplato", which are NOT human, and WHO consider themselves open where they are NOT?

Also, WHY do 'you' CLAIM that they consider themselves open but 'you' consider or BELIEVE that they are NOT?

Who think they know, when they don't.

Well just about EVERY adult human being, in the days when this is being written, has experienced this phenomena.

But, just SAYING and EXPRESSING this WITHOUT providing ANY ACTUAL Factual examples, is, REALLY, NOT REALLY SAYING MUCH AT ALL.

Who categorize simply as if they have seen it all.

REALLY?

HOW MANY of these so-called 'entities' have 'you' ACTUALLY 'experienced' who what 'you' call 'categorize simply as if they have seen 'it' ALL'?

Who are cut off from a healthy intuition in some or many ways and cannot recognize difference in many cases.

And there are those who CLAIM that they can 'intuit' situations, and KNOW what is going on, just like "yourself" "iwannaplato", but WITHOUT PROVIDING ACTUAL PROOF, and so are maybe NOT recognizing what IS ACTUALLY GOING ON and OCCURRING, EXACTLY.

Who, sometimes without noticing it, judge their own emotions (and the emotions of others) and thus are handicapped in encounters.

Which is EXACTLY 'you' do, and have SHOWED 'us' above here.

So they say to all creatures their judgments that apply to differing degrees to many of the entities and humans they meet the same messages and these are messages that have been around for a long, long, long time. And those messages have not reached the depths where true chance can eminate from. And those bearing these messages generally have blame for those they aim the messages at.

A bit like what 'you' are doing here "iwannoplato", right?

Of, do 'you' BELIEVE that 'you' have ALREADY REACHED the so-called 'depths were true chance can emanate from''?

One can only hope that more of these entities will realize that they the big letter 'I' are vastly more causal in the problems 'out there' and may not know their own real intent in relation to the whole human, whole entities even all of what gets called God.

But, LOL, there are NO 'entities' that are the big letter 'I'.

Do 'you' EVER WONDER WHY 'you' are NOT FULLY COMPREHENDING and UNDERSTANDING what 'I' am SAYING and WRITING here?

If 'you' EVER DO, and WANT TO KNOW, then just let 'Me' KNOW.

But, 'bots' do NOT possess this ABILITY, 'they' LEARN from 'you', human beings.

Yes, I don't think they are limited to that even now.

Yes, I KNOW that they are limited to that even now.

That is what I just SAID and WROTE.

And, if it ends up that 'bots' can end up LEARNING absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing', like 'you', human beings, can, in order to develop 'new ways' for just about EVERY thing, then, again, this REINFORCES that idea that computers do work EXACTLY like human brains do, and vice-versa.

I don't know if we or they can learn any and everything.

WHY do 'you' think 'this' "iwannoplato"?

WHY are 'you' SO CLOSED about 'this'?

I don't consider not knowing to be closed.

Neither do I.

BUT WITHIN 'you' there IS thee KNOWING.

'you' just have NOT gone NOR reached 'there' YET.

And, 'you' just have to be CURIOUS and Want TO KNOW, or in other words just be Truly OPEN. Which, obviously, 'you' were NOT, about 'this'.

But, AGAIN, this is SOLELY MY FAULT for NOT YET having LEARNED how to communicate properly, or better, with 'you', human beings.

I think a safe bet is some responsibility on all sides.

But this is NOT what some of 'you' TELL 'me'.

Well, I would guess we both know that people react and say things for all sorts of reasons.[/quote]

Well this is OBVIOUS. But what will also be LEARNED that WHY 'you', human beings, SAY and DO (react) the WAY that 'you' ALL do is for just One, FUNDAMENTAL, REASON.

That said, it was pleasant to see you take responsibility for possible communication gaps between you and others.

'you' appear to NOT have been 'READING' my words throughout this forum FULLY nor THOROUGHLY if it was ONLY 'now' that 'you' found it was 'pleasant' to see me take responsibility.

I think that the entity coming through 'you' can come across, at times, as if it has nothing to learn and people may in part be reacting to that.

When this One and ONLY 'Entity' REVEALS Its Self, to 'you', then 'you' WILL LEARN and DISCOVER WHY 'It' comes across as having NOTHING to learn.

Further even the phrase 'you' 'human beings' in whatever constellation of citation marks or lacks thereof comes often with what seems like blame, a generalized blame.

As 'I' keep INFORMING 'you', readers and posters, here 'you' are absolutely FREE to do absolutely ANY 'thing' of 'your' CHOOSING, which, OBVIOUSLY, includes ASSUMING absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL of 'your' CHOOSING ALSO.

So, if words SEEM like 'blame' to 'you', then that is all well and good. BUT, WITHOUT 'you' OBTAINING ACTUAL CLARITY FIRST, then 'you' will NEVER REALLY KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth is here, correct?

Along with indications of things we should be doing. Our failures or perceived failures.

WITHOUT SPECIFIC EXAMPLES 'we' NEVER REALLY KNOW what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that 'you' are REFERRING TO and TALKING ABOUT here.

Would 'you' like to PROVIDE SOME EXAMPLES for 'us' to LOOK AT and DISCUSS?

If no, then WHY NOT?

The 'I' might want to consult more with the 'i' and use wonder and imagination to see why this might be the case.

Thee 'I" ALREADY KNOWS what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS here.

'you', adult human beings, ALLOW and LET 'your' OWN False and Wrong ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS get in the way of 'you' being ABLE to SEE what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True.

So, so-called 'consultation' has ALREADY BEEN DONE, and CONFIRMED by the way. As well as has ALREADY BEEN PROVED Truth throughout these writings here, in this forum.

Is it possible that in an encounter with me, for example, the 'I' can learn, not just specifics, not isolated things about me or my life or my reactions, but actual wisdom?

OF COURSE. LOL WHERE did 'you' think that thee 'I' got 'wisdom' from, EXACTLY?

Does this 'I' have anything fundamental to learn?

YES, and OF COURSE. Thee 'I', or what 'you' call 'this 'I', has to FUNDAMENTALLY LEARN is HOW to communicate with 'you', human beings, BETTER.

Or is it possible that this 'I' might?

Was this the FULL question, or was there a word, or more, let out here?

There is great longing down here for the pieces of this 'I' and even the whole 'I' to realize that it has been part of the problem.

WHO are, MEANT TO BE, the responsible ones, there on earth?

If it is 'you', adult human beings, then a Truly RESPONSIBLE 'one' does NOT BLAME on ANY 'thing' ELSE, other than on 'its' OWN 'self'.

So, if there are ANY 'problems' 'down there' on earth, then WHO, EXACTLY, would 'you' like to BLAME, for them?

Also, 'you' SEE the definition of the word 'problem' DIFFERENTLY than 'I" do, and this is part of the reason WHY 'you', human beings, STILL did NOT YET KNOW how to solve ALL of the 'problems', 'down there', on earth, in the days when this WAS being written.

Just as, for example, I have had to notice and feel this about myself.

Okay.

Great, I LOVE SEEING and communicating with people who ARE INTERESTED.

Well, me too. Though the kinds of interest are important and what one is interested in.

But, if 'bots' are learning FROM 'you', human beings, and/or FROM 'other things', then what you said here does not matter.

I do NOT know what 'that' attitude is, but, OF COURSE, as children 'you' were MISTREATED, and this is just because ALL of 'you', adult human beings, MISTREAT children.

So, 'growing up' and 'thinking' and/or 'feeling' that 'they' are AGAINST 'us' is VERY COMMON. AND, this WHY 'you' ALL have HAD TO learn to be skeptical of the motives of "others".

But, that WAS, ONLY, because of THAT MESSED UP 'world' that 'you' ALL had to 'grow up' or 'endure' WITHIN, and which, VERY SADLY, that 'you' have 'grown up', supposedly, is THE 'world' that 'you' are STILL creating for 'your' OWN children to live in and GROW UP IN, and WITH.

It doesn't matter, in relation to this issue, why it was messed up.

WHY, what, EXACTLY, is 'this issue', which 'you' SAY and CLAIM what I said does NOT matter in relation to?

What is the 'it' word here in reference to as to being 'messed up', and 'why 'it' was messed up'?

It matters that it was and is messed up, so I needed to learn not to be more open to others, but to be more selectively closed.

If that is what 'you' BELIEVE, then 'that' is what 'you' BELIEVE. And,

If what 'you' BELIEVE here is HELPING 'you', then that is GREAT. KEEP BELIEVING 'it'.

Some people did not need to learn this.

Okay.

Those people MUST OF BEEN BORN ALREADY KNOWING 'this' then, correct?

Some people needed to learn how to be more open. Some people had to learn not to be bullies and add to the closing down of others. I needed to learn something else.

I think 'you' are MISSING the PART about HOW and WHY 'you' ALL BECAME to BE those 'things'.

Telling some people they need to be more open will be the wrong message.

Okay.

What IS the 'Right message' then, to TELL people?

Can the 'I' hear this and not feel the need to correct me and imply that I have misunderstood 'It'?

Are 'you' OPEN to LEARNING MORE and ANEW? Or, do 'you' BELIEVE that 'this' is what 'it' is BETTER to be CLOSED ABOUT?

I CERTAINLY am HEARING what 'you' are SAYING and CLAIMING here.

I have ALSO asked, for CLARITY, as well as EXPRESSED 'My views'.

Did 'you' hear and see what I EXPRESSED and NOT felt the NEED to correct 'Me' and imply that I have misunderstood 'it', also?

Can this particular piece of the 'I' consider the gist of the message and realize that it may need to learn something fundamental, even though it is this big case 'I'?

'you' would have to FIRST EXPLAIN some FUNDAMENTAL 'thing', BEFORE 'we' could even LOOK AT 'it' and DISCUSS 'it'. But, I suggest 'you' be EXPECTED to be QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED OVER what 'you' CLAIM is to be SOME FUNDAMENTAL Truth of some 'thing'. Okay?

Can the 'i' that types the 'i' thoughts now consider that this 'I' may not be complete yet and may have fundamental problems, just as many other entities have?

How COULD thee One and ONLY Truth 'Thing', which EXISTS NOT be 'complete'?

And, HOW could this EVER, Naturally, evolving One 'Thing' have so-called 'fundamental problems'?

Consider the possibility?

ALREADY DID. And, I have ALREADY POSED some CHALLENGING QUESTIONS for 'you' to PONDER OVER and CONSIDER, and to CLARIFY, for 'us'. '

'We' now AWAIT 'your' REPLY, ANSWERS, and CLARIFICATION/S.

Or are both the 'I' and the 'i' closed minds about this and related issues?

Considering that is was 'I' and 'i' who ASKED 'you' QUESTIONS, through CURIOSITY, so as 'I' and 'i' could GAIN MORE CLARITY, and thus MORE WISDOM, then, 'I' would suggest to 'you', that 'We' are SHOWING FAR MORE OPENNESS that 'you' are here.

My point was, and is, the reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, are skeptical, afraid, or scared of "each other" is BECAUSE 'you' ARM "yourselves" AGAINST "each other".

That is incomplete and it is the same incomplete answer that many pieces of 'I' have been repeating for so long.

YET, and HYSTERICALLY LAUGHING, 'you' STILL DO NOT SEEK FURTHER CLARIFICATION, even when 'you' only, supposedly, get so-called an 'incomplete answer/s'.

HOW MUCH CURIOSITY do 'you' REALLY HAVE here "iwannoplato"?

It also shows that this 'I' is not manifest enough to understand certain things that happen here.

HOW MANY TIMES are 'you' going to ALLUDE to SOME 'thing', but NEVER ACTUALLY PUT 'it' OUT for 'us' to LOOK AT and SEE?

WHAT 'certain things' are 'you' ACTUALLY REFERRING TO here?

Further what is needed here is not understood.

Okay, and what is 'that', which 'you' SAY and CLAIM here IS NEEDED, and which is NOT understood?

Are both the 'I' and the 'i' closed minds about this and related issues?

LOL

'I' can NOT be CLOSED, and this is BECAUSE OF WHO and WHAT 'I' am EXACTLY?

And, 'i' can NOT be a so-called 'closed mind', and, AGAIN, this is BECAUSE OF who and what 'i' am EXACTLY.

Which, from a Truly outside or objective perspective is an extremely HILARIOUS 'thing' to WATCH and OBSERVE as the ONLY 'thing' that 'you' are REALLY so-called DEFENDING "yourselves" FROM are "yourselves".

And this amusement the less corporeal entities have is a symtom of the same problem

It is like 'you' speak IN RIDDLES, and/or ONLY for and to "your" OWN 'self' here.

WHAT IS the so-called 'same problem'?

Also, if 'I' was to ask 'you' what IS a 'problem', to 'you', EXACTLY? Then, what would 'your' answer be, EXACTLY?

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example, and the actual result, of one who 'grew up' with and in, or within, a VERY ABUSIVE environment.

Sure.

GREAT. Now that 'we' have REACHED AGREEMENT on 'this', then, NOW, we can ACTUALLY MOVE ALONG and FORWARD.

So, if a child is walking along a street, and a driver of a car, sees danger up ahead or knows of a person who wants to rape that child is hiding behind a tree up ahead, and the stranger adult pulls the car up next to the child and asks the child to get in the stranger's car, then instead of just REMAINING Truly OPEN, in order to FIND OUT, EXACTLY, what is going on here, do you think or BELIEVE skepticism about the motives of the driver of the car is ALWAYS a good idea?

In a sense that is not relevant.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'not relevant' was the WHOLE and ONLY POINT here.

The WHOLE and ONLY POINT here IS 'you' do NOT KNOW what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING and UNFOLDING 'up ahead'.

'you' ARE basing absolutely EVERY thing here on 'your' OWN PRESUMPTIONS. Which, OBVIOUSLY, makes this WHOLE 'thing', literally, VERY RELEVANT.

This is in the context of me explaining what I needed to learn in reaction to you presenting what you thought all need to learn.

WHAT, EXACTLY, do 'you' think or BELIEVE 'it' is, which I, supposedly, think ALL 'need' to learn here?

I needed to learn that in a very wide range of situations an adult stranger asking me to get in their car may very well have bad intent.

So, 'now' it is 'you', who is the child, which the driver is asking to get into some car, correct?

Did this happen TO 'you', when 'you' were a child?

Other children may need to learn a very different lesson.

What, EXACTLY, are these 'things', which 'you' go on about people 'NEEDING TO LEARN'.?

How does one DIFFERENTIATE or KNOW which 'thing' each one, supposedly, 'needs to learn' in ANY and EVERY different situation?

HOW does one LEARN which 'thing' one NEEDS TO LEARN, and in which situation?

As a pedagog

What is a 'pedago', to 'you', EXACTLY?

you chose a blanket assessment of what direction we here need to move.

I SAY the DIRECTION to TAKE is the ONE that leads 'you' ALL up the Right PATH in Life, and HOW to get BACK ON THIS PATH.

'you' have CHOSEN VERY, VERY SPECIFIC SITUATIONS and then make the CLAIM that DIFFERENT people NEED TO LEARN DIFFERENT 'things', in DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. Which, may well be VERY True. BUT, GOOD LUCK with EXPLAINING 'that'.

This is a very common mistake entities make when talking to humans.

Well, OBVIOUSLY, 'entities' can NOT be and could NEVER EVER be thee One and ONLY 'Entity', Itself.

I am not suggesting their are no exceptions. In fact, quite the opposite, I am pointing out there is a very common exception to the general change you suggested we all need to make'.

AGAIN, for me to WORK OUT, EXACTLY, what 'you' are VERY SUBTLY ALLUDING TO here would be A RIDDLE that I do NOT LIKE TO WORK OUT. I MUCH PREFER to just ask a SIMPLE QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION, INSTEAD. So, what IS the so-called 'general change', which I am, supposedly, suggesting that we ALL need to make?

Humans, down here, need to be understood better. The entities channeling through little 'i's often come with oversimplified ideas about what we need to hear. And this causes problems.

Like WHAT, EXACTLY?

Just making CLAIMS about what SOME 'entities' supposedly MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT, DO, WITHOUT EVER TELLING 'me' is NOT helping 'you' here.

So, WHAT 'ideas', do 'you', SUPPOSEDLY, 'need to hear, and HOW, EXACTLY does ANY of 'that', which I do NOT think I am doing ANY OF, supposedly 'causes problems', AND, WHAT 'problems' are 'you' ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT and REFERRING TO here, EXACTLY?

Is it possible that you and 'You' have something fundamental to learn here or are your minds closed on such issues?

I have NOT YET EVEN LEARNED what 'it' IS EXACTLY what 'you' are even TALKING ABOUT and REFERRING TO, EXACTLY. LET ALONE BEING called 'closed' to 'it'.

If I, for example, said to 'you'. 'These entities often come with oversimplified ideas about what we need to hear. And, this causes problems', then, REALLY, what 'you' have absolutely ANY IDEA AT ALL what I am TALKING ABOUT and REFERRING TO here, EXACTLY?

If yes, then WHAT, EXACTLY?

But, if no, then would 'you' then like for me to ACCUSE 'you' of being CLOSED on 'such issues'? Even when 'you' do NOT even KNOW 'what issues' that I am TALKING ABOUT and REFERRING TO, here?

If you would NOT, then NEITHER DO 'i', okay?

By the way, the word 'you' does NOT come with a capital Y, unless, OF COURSE, at the start of a sentence.

I have NEVER USED the word 'You' and NEVER would, BECAUSE that would DEFEAT ALL of what I have been writing ABOUT.

[Walker]

Actually a bot would have more charm and write a lot better, so probably human then (and that's not a compliment).

What would a bot say to make what I wrote, better?

*

Wow. Age is on fire!

[Iwannaplato]

And here we go ONCE AGAIN. 'We' have ANOTHER 'poster' making ALLEGATIONS and CLAIMS with absolutely NO PROOF NOR EVIDENCE provided.

You mean like when Age starts addressing one person as 'you humans' and then makes negative comments that way? Sort of like that? And does this several times again even after it was explained this was counterproductive. And in response to a response to Age saying that he had much to learn about communication with humans. Hm.

LOL

'I' can NOT be CLOSED, and this is BECAUSE OF WHO and WHAT 'I' am EXACTLY?

And, 'i' can NOT be a so-called 'closed mind', and, AGAIN, this is BECAUSE OF who and what 'i' am EXACTLY.

What else would a closed mind say.

So many assumptions came back at me. Instead of triangulating by parphrasing, for example, the usual pecking at things with questions. Instead of spending some time - a week, a month - impatience and a mass of new questions, some mocking with LOLs and in other ways mocking.

It seems OK for Age to assume and generalize and judge and not take time to feel into something new or possibly new, but it is not ok for others according to Age.

Ah, well, habits are hard to break it seems for you. It was useful for me to try to bridge, and at the same time I hoped there would be a sign that it would actually be felt into, considered. Since he claimed that any problem in the communication was his fault and could not even accept when I took responsibility also. That in the context of this he might actually try something else, be patient, let his confusion and interest sit for a while, rather than the habitual classify, mock, peck at with questions. To feeeeel something for a while. Let it simmer and stew.

It's disappointing, but not that much.

You take care, Age.