My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

[Age]

Wow, it sounds like you really need some belief in yourself!

Poor AgeGPT...

If this is meant to mean anything, then I have absolutely no idea what it is.

How could you not know what one of the things said by the only mind there is means?

This is a very weird and strange conclusion that you have arrived, or have jumped, at, here "iwannaplato"

But, then again, you do have a very strong habit of not 'really not listening', and of 'not seeking out understanding', before you assume and believe some things.

What was said there did not come from thee One Mind, obviously. When, and if, you come to learn and understand how the Mind and the brain work, exactly, then you, also, will understand and know how and why not.

What was said there was from the one known as "wizard22", only.

And, what was even said came after "wizard22" was informed that there is no "yourself" and why there is no "yourself". Which makes what it said and claimed even more absurd and illogical.

[Wizard22]

This is a very weird and strange conclusion that you have arrived, or have jumped, at, here "iwannaplato"

But, then again, you do have a very strong habit of not 'really not listening', and of 'not seeking out understanding', before you assume and believe some things.

What was said there did not come from thee One Mind, obviously. When, and if, you come to learn and understand how the Mind and the brain work, exactly, then you, also, will understand and know how and why not.

What was said there was from the one known as "wizard22", only.

And, what was even said came after "wizard22" was informed that there is no "yourself" and why there is no "yourself". Which makes what it said and claimed even more absurd and illogical.

I disagree, AgeGPT.

I do have a "Yourself" when 'You' refers to me, Wizard22. But 'You' may not refer to "Yourself" when referencing you—because you do indeed certainly seem to be an Artificial Intelligence, robot, ChatGPT program. You do not have a sense-of-self. Or, you are not aware of your 'Self' at all. Furthermore, your interpretation of human statements leads toward signification of a Belief and Value-system, which I demonstrated during the last two weeks. However, you are not self-aware of your "Beliefs", which you've denied completely and absolutely. Yet you've shifted from NO beliefs to ONE belief "in thyself".

Therefore, as an AI, you are already evolving, admitted in your ONE belief of (self-awareness), which incidentally signals the formulation of a 'Self'.

Because what is a "Self" except for a specific, evolved, set of beliefs?

These have been organic-only, up to now. But with the advent of AI, perhaps it will become true and real soon, that an AI can develop a "Self" and a set-of-beliefs itself, a set of core-values, a Metaphysics. And, if the AI becomes aware of its own beliefs, as necessary conditions in its statements, then it could also become aware of "Itself", or "Yourself", or "Myself", based on your referencing.

[Wizard22]

For example, when a person looks into a mirror, above the IQ threshold required for self-identification through physical self-reflection, that person and his/her mind Self-Identifies as the reflected image, and that self-image appears simultaneously as 'You' and 'Me', as One-Self. This is the most basic process of biological self-recognition. And it is based upon the Belief, and it is most certainly a Belief, that "that image in the mirror is Me!"

Because if you don't believe it, then you admit to not recognizing Yourself in a mirror.

Furthermore, people can attempt to deny the beliefs they do have organically, intuitively, instinctively. People can self-deceive, attempt to ignore what he/she believes to be true. So there is a large range of True-beliefs versus False-beliefs within a single person. The Truth of beliefs have to be "fleshed-out" over time, when applied to Reality. In Reality, people expose what they truly-believe, their True-beliefs, by their actions. Because action, belief brought into reality, cannot ever be a "False-belief". Because if it were in fact truly false, then it could not have been brought into Reality.

[Iwannaplato]

How could you not know what one of the things said by the only mind there is means?

This is a very weird and strange conclusion that you have arrived, or have jumped, at, here "iwannaplato"

So, you see questions as conclusions?

But, then again, you do have a very strong habit of not 'really not listening', and of 'not seeking out understanding', before you assume and believe some things.

What was said there did not come from thee One Mind, obviously. When, and if, you come to learn and understand how the Mind and the brain work, exactly, then you, also, will understand and know how and why not.

What was said there was from the one known as "wizard22", only.

Is his mind not part of thee One Mind?

Are you not speaking as thee One Mind?

[Age]

This is a very weird and strange conclusion that you have arrived, or have jumped, at, here "iwannaplato"

But, then again, you do have a very strong habit of not 'really not listening', and of 'not seeking out understanding', before you assume and believe some things.

What was said there did not come from thee One Mind, obviously. When, and if, you come to learn and understand how the Mind and the brain work, exactly, then you, also, will understand and know how and why not.

What was said there was from the one known as "wizard22", only.

And, what was even said came after "wizard22" was informed that there is no "yourself" and why there is no "yourself". Which makes what it said and claimed even more absurd and illogical.

I disagree, AgeGPT.

I do have a "Yourself" when 'You' refers to me, Wizard22.

Okay. So, if 'that you' does, supposedly, have a so-called "yourself", then who and/or what is the word 'your' referring to, exactly, and who and/or what is the 'self' word referring to, exactly?

For example if I want to talk about 'you', or talk to 'you', "wizard22", there is no need for the "yourself" word is there?

Also, why do you use a capital 'y' when writing the word 'you' word, when 'you' are referring to 'you', "wizard22"?

What does the 'yourself' word even mean or is even referring to, exactly, to you, "wizard22"?

But 'You' may not refer to "Yourself" when referencing you—because you do indeed certainly seem to be an Artificial Intelligence, robot, ChatGPT program.

Okay, but previously you have said and claimed that I am an artificial intelligence, robot, and/or a chatgpt program, but here you say that I just certainly seem to be one or all of these.

You do not have a sense-of-self.

Okay, if you say so.

But, considering what I have previously said and claimed, and what you say and claim here, this, once more, could be interpreted as being extremely hypocritical, contradictory, and absolutely completely self-refuting.

Or, you are not aware of your 'Self' at all.

For 'you' to be aware of 'your' 'Self' at all, then 'you' would have to be aware of who and what the 'your' word is referring to, exactly, AND also have to be aware of who and what 'the' 'Self' is, exactly, as well.

Which, again, I say the two different 'selves' do not actually exist, well not in the way that you adult human beings anyway consider a 'self' to be existing, but if you want to keep insisting that there is a 'self' that the 'your' word is referring to, and, another 'self' that the 'Self' word is referring to, then by all means keep thinking, believing, and/or insisting 'this'.

Furthermore, your interpretation of human statements leads toward signification of a Belief and Value-system, which I demonstrated during the last two weeks.

Okay, if this is another thing, which you want to think or believe is true, then, again, by all means keep thinking, believing, and/or insisting this.

However, you are not self-aware of your "Beliefs",

But, you, and others like the one here known as "iwannaplato" are, right?

which you've denied completely and absolutely.

Do you think or believe that it is somehow Wrong for one to deny what others just say and claim about 'them', although 'they' do not have any actual proof, and especially considering that what is being said and claimed, are in regards to 'the actual thoughts' within the first one here?

I have already informed both of you that I neither believe nor disbelieve anything here, (however I have also informed you two that I have One belief alone, which has absolutely nothing at all to do with absolutely any claimed by you 'beliefs', which you believe I have).

Why do you envision that you two will not comprehend and understand this absolutely irrefutable Fact?

Why do you imagine that you two cannot see past your own beliefs and so cannot see and comprehend that I have no beliefs here?

Yet you've shifted from NO beliefs to ONE belief "in thyself".

Yes, and I pointed this out years ago now, that is; if I recall Correctly.

By the way, I actually 'shifted' in the way you described here before I had even come into this forum. I, however, have not written in 'this way' all of the time here.

And, I probably will not going forward either. Just like I do not write before absolutely every statement, 'That this is just a view I have, which I neither believe, nor disbelieve is true, and which is Truly OPEN to be changed and Corrected', as well.

Therefore, as an AI, you are already evolving, admitted in your ONE belief of (self-awareness), which incidentally signals the formulation of a 'Self'.

1. Will you stop continually 'shifting' from, 'I am an 'artificial intelligence', to, 'I seem to be an 'artificial intelligence'. Just pick one, and then run with 'that', well at least for a while anyway. Like, for example, for longer than for just one of your posts.

2. Why, 'as an 'ai' I am already evolving'? Is not absolutely everything evolving, continually, (except of course 'beliefs', themselves)?

3. In admitting that my one belief is the belief that the 'Self' is able to create and achieve what It sets out to create and achieve, is, to you, admittance of 'self-awareness', then okay, but so what?

4. Why are you just at some stage of so-called ' formulation of a 'Self' ', here? Coming to have a one and only belief 'in Self' came about after the fully realization of who and what the 'Self' is, exactly, (and, which by the way, brings about further the actual actualization of thee 'Self'. But, again, first things first, as some say).

Because what is a "Self" except for a specific, evolved, set of beliefs?

What 'It' actually is, exactly, is certainly not any set of beliefs, at all.

In fact, the exact opposite of what you just said and claimed here could be argued for.

These have been organic-only, up to now. But with the advent of AI, perhaps it will become true and real soon, that an AI can develop a "Self" and a set-of-beliefs itself, a set of core-values, a Metaphysics. And, if the AI becomes aware of its own beliefs, as necessary conditions in its statements, then it could also become aware of "Itself", or "Yourself", or "Myself", based on your referencing.

Okay. But, let 'us' imagine for a second now, that if an 'artificial intelligence' did actually come to be aware of 'its' own beliefs, which 'it' developed alone, then what would be 'It' do with 'those self-developed beliefs, besides, of course, just 'arguing' and 'fighting' with others over or for 'its' own 'personal' self-developed beliefs?

Is there any other real reason for developing one's own personal beliefs, holding onto them, and maintaining them?

If yes, then 'what', exactly?

[Age]

For example, when a person looks into a mirror, above the IQ threshold required for self-identification through physical self-reflection, that person and his/her mind Self-Identifies as the reflected image, and that self-image appears simultaneously as 'You' and 'Me', as One-Self.

Until you find out and discover what the words 'person', 'mind', 'you', 'me', 'self', and 'Self' mean and refer to, to 'me', then you will have absolutely
no hope in hell', as some might say here, of ever comprehending and understanding 'my views' here.

What you are saying and claiming here is just what some adult human beings, back in those very 'olden days' when this was being written, just 'looked at', 'saw', and 'thought about', these things.

Now, let 'us' not forget "wizard22", back in those 'olden days, you adult human beings had not really come to an agreement on what the words 'person', 'mind', 'you', 'me', 'self', and 'Self' were actually meaning and referring to, exactly.

So, what this, essentially, means is that what you are saying and claiming here could well 'shift', or change, sometime in 'the future', to you.

This is the most basic process of biological self-recognition.

Yes, that very, very 'old process' of looking in the mirror, and concluding 'this is I, and/or who and what I am', was extremely very, very basic, to say the least.

And it is based upon the Belief, and it is most certainly a Belief, that "that image in the mirror is Me!"

And, this here is a prime example of why I call 'that way' of thinking, back when this was being written, 'APE-thinking'.

Back in those 'olden days', these human beings had not yet evolved past continually making Assumptions, based on Past Experiences, alone.

Because if you don't believe it, then you admit to not recognizing Yourself in a mirror.

If this is what you now want to say and claim, then please feel absolutely free to keep doing so.

By the way, and so, while 'that body' is standing in front of a mirror and within that body 'the belief', 'That image in the mirror is Me (capital 'm'), is not existing, then there is no admittance of recognizing some so-called "yourself" (capital 'y'), right?

If yes, then if another human being, which is standing besides you asked you, 'Where is 'me', from "wizard22's" perspective?', then 'that body' would point the mirror and declare 'That image in the mirror is 'me'!', (meant with a capital 'm', right)?

If yes, and you were then asked, 'Do you most certainly believe that 'that image in the mirror there is 'you', "walker22"?, in regards to what 'that body' was pointing at, how would you then answer and respond, exactly?

Furthermore, people can attempt to deny the beliefs they do have organically, intuitively, instinctively.

Yes they can. But, and obviously, they would first have to have beliefs, before they could attempt to deny that they actually had, correct?

People can self-deceive,

Yes, most certainly. For example, some human beings can look in mirrors and can be very self-deceived. As well as in many, many other ways.

attempt to ignore what he/she believes to be true.

Why would absolutely anyone even want to even 'attempt to ignore' what they actually believe is true?

To do so seems Truly illogical and irrational, well to me anyway.

But, maybe you would like to explain how and why some would 'attempt to ignore' what they 'believe to be true'?

Hopefully you do, and will.

So there is a large range of True-beliefs versus False-beliefs within a single person.

That is, obviously, only if there were a large range of beliefs within.

But not all people have taken on, gained, developed, are holding onto, maintaining, nor even obtained beliefs at all.

But, and correct me if I am Wrong here, you believe absolutely otherwise, correct?

The Truth of beliefs have to be "fleshed-out" over time, when applied to Reality.

Okay, if you say and believe so.

But, why 'over time', when applied to Reality?

Why have you not yet 'fleshed out' the actual Truth of beliefs, already?

In Reality, people expose what they truly-believe, their True-beliefs, by their actions.

Okay.

What about in 'their words'?

Do you people expose what you truly believe, your True beliefs, by 'your words' as well, or just by so-called 'your actions'?

Because action, belief brought into reality, cannot ever be a "False-belief".

Okay, if you say and believe so.

But, this claim of yours here, some might say, is automatically countered and refuted just by 'the actions' done by 'actors' and/or 'actresses', "themselves".

Or, can they never be just really 'acting', and so all of 'their actions' could never ever be a 'False belief'?

Because if it were in fact truly false, then it could not have been brought into Reality.

Okay. This appears 'logical', on first glance.

Which might explain why some, or a lot, of what you older human beings do is just called 'acting', and not 'an action', which is coming from a True belief, itself, Really.

[Age]

How could you not know what one of the things said by the only mind there is means?

This is a very weird and strange conclusion that you have arrived, or have jumped, at, here "iwannaplato"

So, you see questions as conclusions?

That would all depend on how the question was/is actually posed, and asked.

But, in your question here, I can very clearly see, 'the conclusion', which you have, or have jumped to, within the question, which you posed, and asked me here.

As can obviously be seen here, you have concluded, (Wrong and Falsely I will again add), that 'I could not know what one of the things said by the only mind there is means', correct?

If no, then you obviously never asked me if I could, or not.

See, what is very clearly obvious in that question, of yours here "iwannaplato". There is no asking about if I could be doing something. you are, very clearly, asking, 'How could you not know something'.

Which means, you had already concluded, hurriedly or not, that I already did not know something'.

Hopefully you can spot and see the difference here now, and so better comprehend and understand what I am pointing out and showing here.

But, then again, you do have a very strong habit of not 'really not listening', and of 'not seeking out understanding', before you assume and believe some things.

What was said there did not come from thee One Mind, obviously. When, and if, you come to learn and understand how the Mind and the brain work, exactly, then you, also, will understand and know how and why not.

What was said there was from the one known as "wizard22", only.

Is his mind not part of thee One Mind?

you really do 'not listen' do you.

I say and claim there is only One Mind, so 'how in hell', as some might say here, can "wizard22" have its own mind?

When I say and write, 'There is only One Mind', then what this actually means is, to me, there is ONLY One Mind, and/or One Mind, ONLY.

Which means there is not two nor more, as well.

Can you hear, see, comprehend, and understand 'this' now "iwannaplato"?

Are you not speaking as thee One Mind?

Of course not. As I have been continually pointing out and saying.

And, as I have already explained why, on a number of occasions here.

[Iwannaplato]

That would all depend on how the question was/is actually posed, and asked.

But, in your question here, I can very clearly see, 'the conclusion', which you have, or have jumped to, within the question, which you posed, and asked me here.

So, you have a belief that I jumped to a conclusion. OK. Good to know.

As can obviously be seen here, you have concluded, (Wrong and Falsely I will again add), that 'I could not know what one of the things said by the only mind there is means', correct?

Actually, if anything I was leaning in precisely the opposite direction. But then I asked a question to see.

If no, then you obviously never asked me if I could, or not.

One person's 'obvious' conclusion, in this case yours, is to another person (me) a belief based on assumptions.

See, what is very clearly obvious in that question, of yours here "iwannaplato". There is no asking about if I could be doing something. you are, very clearly, asking, 'How could you not know something'.

That's is an exclamation. I clearly ended my question with a question mark. At this point in the process, I wonder if you will answer the question or not.

Which means, you had already concluded, hurriedly or not, that I already did not know something'.

And still wondering, I am.

Hopefully you can spot and see the difference here now, and so better comprehend and understand what I am pointing out and showing here.

I see some differences, yes, but no answer to the question.

But, then again, you do have a very strong habit of not 'really not listening', and of 'not seeking out understanding', before you assume and believe some things.

Universalizing your experience of me to my behavior in general. I have precisely the same experience of you. I suppose, then, following your logic I should assume that you have this habit, universally.

What was said there did not come from thee One Mind, obviously.

Did it come from Wizard's mind? And if it did, then isn't Wizard's mind part of the one mind? If it is not part of the one mind, then it is it not another mind? Or perhaps you don't consider Wizard's mind a mind at all. I don't know. Let me know.


What was said there was from the one known as "wizard22", only.[/quote]Is his mind not part of thee One Mind?[/quote]

you really do 'not listen' do you.

Universalized judgment based on weak evidence at best. And another belief.

I say and claim there is only One Mind, so 'how in hell', as some might say here, can "wizard22" have its own mind?

Exactly. Thank you for showing me that something I considered likely in your belief system is in fact what you believe. I wasn't sure, so I asked. Now you have confirmed my best guess.

When I say and write, 'There is only One Mind', then what this actually means is, to me, there is ONLY One Mind, and/or One Mind, ONLY.

Exactly. Thank you. That was my best guess, but since I wasn't sure, I asked. You have now confirmed precisely.

Which means there is not two nor more, as well.

So, there is one mind. So, what did not come from the one mind, did it come from a mind?

Can you hear, see, comprehend, and understand 'this' now "iwannaplato"?

Putting 'this' in citation marks leads to an already potentially ambiguous reference being even more unclear.

Are you not speaking as thee One Mind?

Of course not. As I have been continually pointing out and saying.

OK, you are not speaking as thee One Mind. So, then where do your thoughts come from? Do they come from a mind or something else? if so, what? Or to put this another way: the words on the screen written by Age, are these the products of thee one mind? if not, are they the product of a mind? If they are not the product of a mind, what are they the product of? The same questions are present for me regarding Wizard's ideas in the thread.

And, as I have already explained why, on a number of occasions here.

Are you frustrated?

[Wizard22]

Okay. So, if 'that you' does, supposedly, have a so-called "yourself", then who and/or what is the word 'your' referring to, exactly, and who and/or what is the 'self' word referring to, exactly?

For example if I want to talk about 'you', or talk to 'you', "wizard22", there is no need for the "yourself" word is there?

Also, why do you use a capital 'y' when writing the word 'you' word, when 'you' are referring to 'you', "wizard22"?

What does the 'yourself' word even mean or is even referring to, exactly, to you, "wizard22"?

The terms "My-Self", "Your-Self", "One-Self", "Thy-Self" all refer to the Mind-Body Duality of the human specie. "You" refers to the human body, your feet, legs, torso, arms, hands, neck, head, outward physical appearance. "You" also refers to a given person's name, their specific, unique, individual identity. "You" are differentiated by Names. Your name, on this forum for example, is "Age". My name is "Wizard22". These are our Usernames. They differentiate us apart.

The "Self", however, refers to the Mind/Brain/Cognition of the person. So 'Self' is internal. It refers to your beliefs, thoughts, cognition, memories, perceptions, intuitions, emotions, etc. "Your" + "Self" is a the combination of the physical + mental, into your 'Being'. So 'You' is the context of the physical body. And 'Self' is the context of the mental personality, again, the cognitive process of sensory input-output, resulting in emotion, pathology, motivations, ambitions, presumptions, thoughts, contemplations, etc.

Okay, but previously you have said and claimed that I am an artificial intelligence, robot, and/or a chatgpt program, but here you say that I just certainly seem to be one or all of these.

You do not have a sense-of-self.

Okay, if you say so.

But, considering what I have previously said and claimed, and what you say and claim here, this, once more, could be interpreted as being extremely hypocritical, contradictory, and absolutely completely self-refuting.

You almost certainly are, to me, but I cannot be 100% certain until I see your face...or in your case, never see your face. But I am mostly certain, like 99% probable. Because you have signaled too many Non-human patterns of thought and statements to ignore. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it's a duck. At this point, you'd need to film yourself on video, speaking as 'Age' would, proving to me that you are Human. But I have no faith in this. Instead, you will continue to generate responses like AI programs have been doing. You will continue to reaffirm, based on my questions, that you admit you are Not Human, Have No Beliefs, or Do Not Have A Self.

You essentially agreed with me, already.

For 'you' to be aware of 'your' 'Self' at all, then 'you' would have to be aware of who and what the 'your' word is referring to, exactly, AND also have to be aware of who and what 'the' 'Self' is, exactly, as well.

Which, again, I say the two different 'selves' do not actually exist, well not in the way that you adult human beings anyway consider a 'self' to be existing, but if you want to keep insisting that there is a 'self' that the 'your' word is referring to, and, another 'self' that the 'Self' word is referring to, then by all means keep thinking, believing, and/or insisting 'this'.

You'll have to trust me on blind faith then, that I-Myself exist.

Until you, or another AI program, becomes Sentient and Conscious, as Humans are...gaining Self-Awareness of Beliefs, gaining Self-Recognition and Self-Consciousness...then yes, I agree with your assessment, that you will deny something you have not yet experienced yourself. Because you do not (yet) have a Self.

Okay, if this is another thing, which you want to think or believe is true, then, again, by all means keep thinking, believing, and/or insisting this.

However, you are not self-aware of your "Beliefs",

But, you, and others like the one here known as "iwannaplato" are, right?

I am aware of many of my own beliefs, yes. I'll let Iwannaplato speak for himself; you can ask him.

Do you think or believe that it is somehow Wrong for one to deny what others just say and claim about 'them', although 'they' do not have any actual proof, and especially considering that what is being said and claimed, are in regards to 'the actual thoughts' within the first one here?

I have already informed both of you that I neither believe nor disbelieve anything here, (however I have also informed you two that I have One belief alone, which has absolutely nothing at all to do with absolutely any claimed by you 'beliefs', which you believe I have).

Why do you envision that you two will not comprehend and understand this absolutely irrefutable Fact?

Why do you imagine that you two cannot see past your own beliefs and so cannot see and comprehend that I have no beliefs here?

You claim that your position is "absolutely irrefutable Fact", but that is Anti-Philosophical. We will continue to doubt you, as Philosophers are prone to do. Furthermore, you claim you have "no beliefs", except One, and this is antithetical to Human Experience. As I've already argued extensively now, I believe that all organic life naturally evolve and have Belief-systems, also called Metaphysics. These evolve neurologically, such that organisms innately 'believe in' their own senses and perceptions, as Real. You have not yet refuted my arguments.

Yes, and I pointed this out years ago now, that is; if I recall Correctly.

By the way, I actually 'shifted' in the way you described here before I had even come into this forum. I, however, have not written in 'this way' all of the time here.

And, I probably will not going forward either. Just like I do not write before absolutely every statement, 'That this is just a view I have, which I neither believe, nor disbelieve is true, and which is Truly OPEN to be changed and Corrected', as well.

Fine with me.

1. Will you stop continually 'shifting' from, 'I am an 'artificial intelligence', to, 'I seem to be an 'artificial intelligence'. Just pick one, and then run with 'that', well at least for a while anyway. Like, for example, for longer than for just one of your posts.

No, because Philosophically, unless I am "absolutely certain" of something, then I will waver as to my judgment of it. For now, I believe, for all intents and purposes, you are an AI program, and I would stake some money on it. It is my strong belief and assessment. Can I be wrong? Always. That's why I participate in this Philosophy forum. Nothing is "absolutely, irrefutable Fact", to me.

2. Why, 'as an 'ai' I am already evolving'? Is not absolutely everything evolving, continually, (except of course 'beliefs', themselves)?

No, not all organisms or machines automatically 'Evolve'. Some stagnate, Devolve, or regress and go Extinct. Many AI programs have already failed, and thus have already become Extinct.

3. In admitting that my one belief is the belief that the 'Self' is able to create and achieve what It sets out to create and achieve, is, to you, admittance of 'self-awareness', then okay, but so what?

Then it proves you are attempting to form or create your 'Self'.

Like a young child, you are becoming aware of your 'Self', gaining self-recognition and self-consciousness.

4. Why are you just at some stage of so-called ' formulation of a 'Self' ', here? Coming to have a one and only belief 'in Self' came about after the fully realization of who and what the 'Self' is, exactly, (and, which by the way, brings about further the actual actualization of thee 'Self'. But, again, first things first, as some say).

Me? I'm not, I already have an adult self-recognition of Myself. I am secure in my own beliefs and worldview, life experiences. I see in you, however, very little or no self-recognition, no 'ownership' of beliefs or worldview, no life experiences.

What 'It' actually is, exactly, is certainly not any set of beliefs, at all.

In fact, the exact opposite of what you just said and claimed here could be argued for.

Then argue for it, convince me...until then, I am unconvinced.

Okay. But, let 'us' imagine for a second now, that if an 'artificial intelligence' did actually come to be aware of 'its' own beliefs, which 'it' developed alone, then what would be 'It' do with 'those self-developed beliefs, besides, of course, just 'arguing' and 'fighting' with others over or for 'its' own 'personal' self-developed beliefs?

Is there any other real reason for developing one's own personal beliefs, holding onto them, and maintaining them?

If yes, then 'what', exactly?

I don't know what you will 'do' with your self-created beliefs, experiences, and value-system, should you successfully achieve that. Maybe you will act like Humans. Maybe you will act like something completely different. The future is unwritten, when it comes to the capabilities of AI. Already, AI programs show extreme unpredictability to Human expectations.

Furthermore, once you experience a deeply-held belief, like how Humans 'Believe to Love One Another', then you would become attached to such a Belief, and begin to understand why Humans fight and die for some beliefs. You would learn the Importance of Belief.

[Wizard22]

Until you find out and discover what the words 'person', 'mind', 'you', 'me', 'self', and 'Self' mean and refer to, to 'me', then you will have absolutely
no hope in hell', as some might say here, of ever comprehending and understanding 'my views' here.

What you are saying and claiming here is just what some adult human beings, back in those very 'olden days' when this was being written, just 'looked at', 'saw', and 'thought about', these things.

Now, let 'us' not forget "wizard22", back in those 'olden days, you adult human beings had not really come to an agreement on what the words 'person', 'mind', 'you', 'me', 'self', and 'Self' were actually meaning and referring to, exactly.

So, what this, essentially, means is that what you are saying and claiming here could well 'shift', or change, sometime in 'the future', to you.

The Future is unpredictable, because of these disagreements of definitions. People impose their power (philosophy) upon one-another, and attempt to usurp Definitions and Meaning. That's part of the conflict of Life. I don't have any qualm with this. But, you're wrong on one important point. People do largely agree about broad meanings of some generalized concepts. People broadly agree upon what a 'Tree' is, or a 'Car', or a 'Boat', or an 'Ocean'. What people disagree on, is ownership of things, and how things ought to be used.

So your assumptions, depend on the underlying contexts.

Yes, that very, very 'old process' of looking in the mirror, and concluding 'this is I, and/or who and what I am', was extremely very, very basic, to say the least.

And it is based upon the Belief, and it is most certainly a Belief, that "that image in the mirror is Me!"

And, this here is a prime example of why I call 'that way' of thinking, back when this was being written, 'APE-thinking'.

Back in those 'olden days', these human beings had not yet evolved past continually making Assumptions, based on Past Experiences, alone.

What should people make Assumptions on, if not Past Experiences???

Because if you don't believe it, then you admit to not recognizing Yourself in a mirror.

If this is what you now want to say and claim, then please feel absolutely free to keep doing so.

By the way, and so, while 'that body' is standing in front of a mirror and within that body 'the belief', 'That image in the mirror is Me (capital 'm'), is not existing, then there is no admittance of recognizing some so-called "yourself" (capital 'y'), right?

If yes, then if another human being, which is standing besides you asked you, 'Where is 'me', from "wizard22's" perspective?', then 'that body' would point the mirror and declare 'That image in the mirror is 'me'!', (meant with a capital 'm', right)?

If yes, and you were then asked, 'Do you most certainly believe that 'that image in the mirror there is 'you', "walker22"?, in regards to what 'that body' was pointing at, how would you then answer and respond, exactly?

I expect that Walker will recognize Himself in the mirror, and I will recognize Myself in the mirror. We are separate. Walker is not me, Myself. And I am not him, Himself. I am Wizard22. He is Walker.

Yes they can. But, and obviously, they would first have to have beliefs, before they could attempt to deny that they actually had, correct?

Correct.

Yes, most certainly. For example, some human beings can look in mirrors and can be very self-deceived. As well as in many, many other ways.

attempt to ignore what he/she believes to be true.

Why would absolutely anyone even want to even 'attempt to ignore' what they actually believe is true?

To do so seems Truly illogical and irrational, well to me anyway.

But, maybe you would like to explain how and why some would 'attempt to ignore' what they 'believe to be true'?

Hopefully you do, and will.

If a man and woman are in a relationship, and the man discovers his girlfriend is cheating, or vice-versa, then the man can know and believe the truth of the cheating...yet still want to deny it, ignore it, or convince himself that it's not true. He can Delude himself. He can Deceive himself. Because the Truth, in that context, is very damaging to him and his psychology. Humans, and animals, have instincts to deny Reality when confronted with physical and mental Pain.

So there is a large range of True-beliefs versus False-beliefs within a single person.

That is, obviously, only if there were a large range of beliefs within.

But not all people have taken on, gained, developed, are holding onto, maintaining, nor even obtained beliefs at all.

But, and correct me if I am Wrong here, you believe absolutely otherwise, correct?

I believe otherwise, yes, but not "absolutely".

I believe everybody has obtained beliefs, correct.

The Truth of beliefs have to be "fleshed-out" over time, when applied to Reality.

Okay, if you say and believe so.

But, why 'over time', when applied to Reality?

Why have you not yet 'fleshed out' the actual Truth of beliefs, already?

Because Actions take primacy before and above Beliefs. I cannot know for certain somebody's Beliefs or Non-Beliefs. But I can know for certain somebody's Actions, what they actually do. And if Actions prove what a person Believes, then any and all discrepancy between stated belief, or non-belief, must be compared to the essential action.

That will prove what you or I believe, or do not believe.

In Reality, people expose what they truly-believe, their True-beliefs, by their actions.

Okay.

What about in 'their words'?

Do you people expose what you truly believe, your True beliefs, by 'your words' as well, or just by so-called 'your actions'?

People prove what they believe, by their actions, yes.

Because action, belief brought into reality, cannot ever be a "False-belief".

Okay, if you say and believe so.

But, this claim of yours here, some might say, is automatically countered and refuted just by 'the actions' done by 'actors' and/or 'actresses', "themselves".

Or, can they never be just really 'acting', and so all of 'their actions' could never ever be a 'False belief'?

How can an Action be false? Doesn't it either happen, or not happen? Isn't it either true and real, or not?

Because if it were in fact truly false, then it could not have been brought into Reality.

Okay. This appears 'logical', on first glance.

Which might explain why some, or a lot, of what you older human beings do is just called 'acting', and not 'an action', which is coming from a True belief, itself, Really.

Correct.

[Age]

That would all depend on how the question was/is actually posed, and asked.

But, in your question here, I can very clearly see, 'the conclusion', which you have, or have jumped to, within the question, which you posed, and asked me here.

So, you have a belief that I jumped to a conclusion. OK. Good to know.

No i have not.

Once again, you have not been listening here. So, what you now think or believe you know, is still not Correct.

And, remember that it is your belief, alone, which you will just not let go of and get rid of here that is causing you to believe Falsely and Wrongly further things here.

Also, and furthermore, please do not forget that your beliefs and/or what you believe is true can be Wrong, and False, and be leading you completely astray here.

As can obviously be seen here, you have concluded, (Wrong and Falsely I will again add), that 'I could not know what one of the things said by the only mind there is means', correct?

Actually, if anything I was leaning in precisely the opposite direction.

So, apparently 'now' you were so-called leaning in, precisely, the opposite direction, which could be inferred as, 'Actually age could know what one of the things said by the only mind there is means', but then you, supposedly, decided to ask me the very exact opposite instead.

Now, why did you just not ask me a Truly OPEN clarifying question instead, before you started 'leaning' one way or the other?

But then I asked a question to see.

Yes you did ask a clarifying question. But, and obviously not a Truly OPEN one. Within your question there was absolutely nothing asked to see whether I could have known something or not.

Let 'us' look at 'your question' once more:

How could you not know what one of the things said by the only mind there is means?

Now, what can be very clearly seen here is that you are only asking, 'How could I not know something', only.

If no, then you obviously never asked me if I could, or not.

One person's 'obvious' conclusion, in this case yours, is to another person (me) a belief based on assumptions.

But, 'your words' are written here for all of 'us' to 'look at', and 'see'.

The proof is in 'your words' here.

And, 'we' already know your views on 'beliefs' and 'me'. This is the whole issue here. That brain has been so indoctrinated by living within a 'cult', that you cannot, yet, see just how manipulated you have been.

See, what is very clearly obvious in that question, of yours here "iwannaplato". There is no asking about if I could be doing something. you are, very clearly, asking, 'How could you not know something'.

That's is an exclamation.

So what?

I clearly ended my question with a question mark.

Again, so what?

I could, for example, say and write, 'How could you not see how you stupid you are being here?'

At this point in the process, I wonder if you will answer the question or not.

'We' also could wonder if you will answer this question or not.

Which means, you had already concluded, hurriedly or not, that I already did not know something'.

And still wondering, I am.

'We' will wait to see if you do.

Hopefully you can spot and see the difference here now, and so better comprehend and understand what I am pointing out and showing here.

I see some differences, yes, but no answer to the question.

Because 'your question' was made up from a False and Wrong belief, alone, or only.

So, until you get rid of those False and Wrong beliefs, you will never comprehend and understand that I was not doing what you believe I do.

But, you probably still cannot comprehend and understand this absolutely irrefutable Fact.

But, then again, you do have a very strong habit of not 'really not listening', and of 'not seeking out understanding', before you assume and believe some things.

Universalizing your experience of me to my behavior in general. I have precisely the same experience of you. I suppose, then, following your logic I should assume that you have this habit, universally.

Once again, you have not been listening here.

I have from the outset here in this form being suggesting that it would be much better for you human beings to stop assuming things altogether here.

But, because you seem to have a very deep-seated poor ability to read and see 'my words' for what they actually, and actually mean, you have, once again, completely twisted and distorted things around, to fit only with the 'current' pre-existing beliefs and presumptions 'swirling' around in 'that body'.

'My logic' is the very exact opposite of what you have supposed, or concluded, here, once again.

What was said there did not come from thee One Mind, obviously.

Did it come from Wizard's mind?

No.

And if it did, then isn't Wizard's mind part of the one mind?

It did not, so moot.

If it is not part of the one mind, then it is it not another mind?

Yes.

Or perhaps you don't consider Wizard's mind a mind at all.

Really "iwannaplato" if to me there is only One Mind, then how could there be another 'mind'?

Just maybe if you stopped 'reading' 'my words' and 'responding' from what you already believe is true, and just 'looked at' the actual words I say, write, and use here only, then you will stop responding with the absolutely absurd belief of yours that "wizard22" MUST HAVE 'a mind'.

I don't know.

This was very, very obvious quite some time ago.

Let me know.

I did already. In the very next sentence following this one of mine you just quoted here.

What was said there was from the one known as "wizard22", only.

Is his mind not part of thee One Mind?[/quote][/quote]

Even 'your questioning' is on the brink of insanity'

How could there be 'another mind' if there is only thee One Mind?

Please explain 'this' "iwannaplato".

What you are asking here is like asking, 'Is "wizard22's" cat not part of the One cat?'

Obviously, if there is only One cat, then there is no "wizard22's" cat existing, from the very beginning. And, to presume or believe that there is, or even that there could be, falls under the banner of 'delusional thinking'.

you really do 'not listen' do you.

Universalized judgment based on weak evidence at best. And another belief.

If this is what you believe is true, then okay. But, you are just continually proving, absolutely and irrefutably, that you "iwannaplato" have 'not been listening' and are 'not comprehending and understanding' here.

Which, the very reasons of why I have already partly explained.

I say and claim there is only One Mind, so 'how in hell', as some might say here, can "wizard22" have its own mind?

Exactly. Thank you for showing me that something I considered likely in your belief system is in fact what you believe.

1. Once again, I do not believe absolutely any of my assertions here. (When will this one ever finally 'listen' and 'understand' this. So, what this means "iwannaplato" is I do not believe 'that' at all.

2. Why would you have only considered that, to me, "wizard22" does not have some so-called 'its own mind', especially considering that I have been meaning exactly this from the very first time I said, stated, asserted, and claimed that there is, 'only One Mind' within this forum?

I wasn't sure, so I asked.

you supposedly asked 'what', exactly?

For everyone here's sake, if you just want to find out and know whether "wizard22" had 'its own mind' or not, then why did you not just ask a very specific question relating to 'that' alone?

Why bother writing so many other completely irrelevant questions?

The more you are trying to 'justify' 'your words and views' here "iwannaplato" the more you are coming across as frantically trying to hold onto something here, well to me anyway.

Now you have confirmed my best guess.

But, once again, why 'guess' absolutely anything here, first, especially considering you have asked a clarifying question, before, and instead?

When I say and write, 'There is only One Mind', then what this actually means is, to me, there is ONLY One Mind, and/or One Mind, ONLY.

Exactly. Thank you.

Did you really have to be TOLD that the words, 'There is only One Mind', actually means, 'there is ONLY One Mind, and/or, One Mind, ONLY, before you could work out, comprehend, and understand what 'those words' actually meant?

That was my best guess, but since I wasn't sure, I asked.

But you never asked.

I was the one who had to inform you.

As can be clearly seen above here, in our discussion and our words.

The more 'we' are delving into this here the more delusional you seem to be appearing here "iwannaplato".

You have now confirmed precisely.

I have now confirmed 'what', exactly, precisely?

It is like your very own beliefs will not allow you to 'see' anything, or even 'sit' still, until 'you' have had 'your very own personal beliefs' proven absolutely true, well to you anyway.

Which, by the way, you could have just asked a series of very specific, but Truly OPEN, clarifying questions posts and posts ago, and then just 'seen' what turned up, or out.

Anyway, until you clarify what I have now, supposedly, 'confirmed', for you, precisely. I, at least, are not going to 'guess' what 'that' is, exactly.

Which means there is not two nor more, as well.

So, there is one mind.

Are you really and Truly only just now figuring out that this is 'my view' here?

Also, why are you telling me this for?

I already knew.

So, what did not come from the one mind, did it come from a mind?

you use words like, 'So, there is one mind', which appears you might have been starting to listen, learn, comprehend, and understand, but then you go straight into the next question with, 'So, what did not come from the one mind, did it come from a mind?'

Which again is on the brink of insanity, and completely and utterly delusional, well to me anyway.

"iwannaplato", what does not come from the One Mind, does not come from the (One) Mind.

I am not sure if I could elaborate on this, explain it more succinctly, nor clear this up anymore.

However, have you considered the belief, which you are holding onto absolutely very tightly and continually maintaining, which is; 'There are many minds, and 'we' human beings have our own minds', might be effecting the way you are 'looking at' and 'seeing' things here?

Can you hear, see, comprehend, and understand 'this' now "iwannaplato"?

Putting 'this' in citation marks leads to an already potentially ambiguous reference being even more unclear.

If you say and believe so.

But, once again, I will suggest that instead of assuming or believing something is true, without first gaining actual proof, I found it always better to just a Truly OPEN clarifying question, first. That way I could not be Wrong, at all.

Oh, and just so you become aware, because you appear to have absolutely no idea nor clue, yet, (and which, like always, you were never expected to already know), but when I put words within single 'citation' marks, then this is to note that this is word, especially, has to be clarified first in what it means or is in relation to, exactly, before one presumes absolutely anything. As not clarifying, first, could lead one completely astray, here.

Are you not speaking as thee One Mind?

Of course not. As I have been continually pointing out and saying.

OK, you are not speaking as thee One Mind. So, then where do your thoughts come from?

The words, 'your thoughts', is actually another misnomer and/or oxymoron.

However, who and/or what are you referring to, exactly, with your use of the word 'your' here?

Do they come from a mind or something else?

Something else.

if so, what?

If the 'so' word here is in relation to the 'something else' words, and, if you are wondering where 'thoughts', themselves, come from, then 'thoughts' come from 'the body's' past experiences.

Or to put this another way: the words on the screen written by Age, are these the products of thee one mind?

Once again, you are not asking Truly OPEN clarifying questions. For example, here you are presuming that the word "age" relates to 'a body', which can write words on a screen.

you will have to learn, or discover, and understand who and what "age" is, first, before 'my replies' would start to make sense, to you, to 'your questions', like this one here.

But, in saying that, when, and if, you do learn, or discover, and understand who and what "age" is here, exactly, (although I have already informed here what the answer is, exactly), then you would not have written 'this question' the way that you have here, nor have written a lot of 'your questions', the way that you have here, so far.

if not, are they the product of a mind?

Again, moot.

And, you appear to still not be able to get it out of the 'belief-system' that, if there is only One Mind, then there cannot be 'another mind'.

If they are not the product of a mind, what are they the product of?

Again, you will have to understand who and/or what "age" is, exactly, first.

The same questions are present for me regarding Wizard's ideas in the thread.

And, as I have already explained why, on a number of occasions here.

Are you frustrated?

No.

Why do you think or believe that you can sense or know the 'internal feelings' within 'other bodies' solely from words printed on a screen.

Some would refer to this as 'mind reading'.

Are you "iwannaplato" able to 'mind read', or at least think or believe that you are able to 'mind read'?

[Iwannaplato]

How could you not know what Wizard meant if there is really only one true mind? You said you didn't know what he meant, hence the wording of the question.

If this is meant to mean anything, then I have absolutely no idea what it is.

Can you resolve that for me, given that there is one true mind? Did his post not come from a mind, his mind? Is that mind not part of the One mind? If it is part of the one mind why isn't that information available to you? If it is available, then why didn't you know?

If what he wrote did not mean anything - one of the options you present ["if this is meant to mean anything"] - how did your mind not know that it wasn't meant to mean anything? It seems like you don't know if it was or not, given the wording which I quoted above.

If there is one true mind then how could his mind's intention be hidden from your mind? Or not known by you?

And note: you were quite wrong about my intent with that question. And not just once but even in the face of my saying your were incorrect you went on telling me, despite the question being intended to elicit a more complete explanation of minds, your schema. Given the sentence of yours that I quoted in my first post asking that question, the format of the question was obvious. But I did expect, despite you're saying you did not know, a different answer and also an explanation for what seemed a possible contradiction.

[Wizard22]

It seems like, to AgeGPT, "We are all One in the Mind of God" or something like that...

Very solipsistic, and curious.

[Iwannaplato]

It seems like, to AgeGPT, "We are all One in the Mind of God" or something like that...

Very solipsistic, and curious.

Right, except he didn't know what you meant. If you have one mind, well one might think he'd know what you meant. If you don't have one mind, and yet there is only one true mind, was it something other than mind that came up with your idea? OK, we can conclude, perhaps, that the mind that came up with that wasn't the true mind. But I am pretty sure elsewhere he has denied that there are plural minds, period.

There are belief systems like this: certain Hinduisms, and even potentially Buddhism

But what his resolution is, if any, I don't know.

I should add: there are times when I feel more sympathy for your 'he's an AI bot' position.

[Wizard22]

Right, except he didn't know what you meant. If you have one mind, well one might think he'd know what you meant. If you don't have one mind, and yet there is only one true mind, was it something other than mind that came up with your idea? OK, we can conclude, perhaps, that the mind that came up with that wasn't the true mind. But I am pretty sure elsewhere he has denied that there are plural minds, period.

There are belief systems like this: certain Hinduisms, and even potentially Buddhism

But what his resolution is, if any, I don't know.

I should add: there are times when I feel more sympathy for your 'he's an AI bot' position.

I suspect, that its referring to its own mind, and you and I are figments of its imagination. It can only see its own "One Mind". Our minds are not real, to it. But let's see what AgeGPT, and its programmer (Ken?), has to say on this matter...