My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

[Age]

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.

Of which the 'mind-body duality' query or puzzle has not yet been worked out, sorted, nor resolved, by you human beings, in the days when this is being written, correct?

But, if it has, then what did you human beings ever get to sort out and resolve here, exactly, regarding this 'thing'?

"You" refers to the human body, your feet, legs, torso, arms, hands, neck, head, outward physical appearance.

Is this for 'you', for 'that body', for 'every body', or for 'every one'?

Also, if you cannot yet see the contradiction in what you just said and tried to claim was true, and you would like to be informed of it, then just let 'me' know, okay?

"You" also refers to a given person's name, their specific, unique, individual identity.

When you use the words 'given person' what are you referring to, exactly, and how do you actually differentiate between one so-called 'given person' from another so-called 'given person', exactly,

"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.

Well considering that I have said this and pointed this out a number of times already, I am not sure why 'you' are telling 'me' this here now.

The "Self", however, refers to the Mind/Brain/Cognition of the person.

So, to the one here known as "wizard22" there is A mind/brain/cognition, (with capital 'm', 'b', and 'c'), which is 'of the person'.

But, when I asked you, for clarification, about why you use capital letters at the start of some words, and if I recall correctly, you said something like because it was to denote a 'universality' about that or those word/s. Is this correct?

If no, then please correct me.

But, if yes, then how could there be a Mind/Brain/Cognition 'of a person', if and when those three words are in relation to something 'universal?

Is not 'each person' an 'individual' and so not actual 'universal', Itself.

So 'Self' is internal.

Okay, well to "wizard22" anyway, 'Self' (capital 's') is 'internal', while 'Me' (capital 'm') is 'that image, in the mirror'. Which is 'external', right?

I hope I am 'getting you' and 'understanding where you are coming from', now "wizard22".

It refers to your beliefs, thoughts, cognition, memories, perceptions, intuitions, emotions, etc.

So, the 'Self', which is internal, has 'Its' own thoughts and emotions, right?

Also, what is the 'etc' here referring to, exactly?

"Your" + "Self" is a the combination of the physical + mental, into your 'Being'.

So, the 'physical human body' is a 'Being', (capital 'b'), well to 'you', the one here known as "wizard22", right?

And, if 'your' with a capital 'y', added to 'self' with a capital 's' is a or the combination of the physical plus mental, into 'your' Being (capital 'b'), then what does the 'your' word immediately before the 'Being' word here in relation to or referring to, exactly?

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, if you say so.

But this all seems Truly complicated and hard to follow and understand. Well to me anyway.

And, it seems completely unnecessarily over complicated here, especially considering just how Truly simple and easy all-of-this really can be and is. As I have already partly explained and shown here.

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.

So, if I show you a picture of a face, then you will be 100% certain that I am a human being or person, right?

But, if you never see a face, which you relate to 'me', then, to you, then I will be 100% an 'ai bot or program' right?

I do not follow how if you never see 'my face', then this makes 'me' not a human nor person but an 'ai bot or program'.

Are you able to elaborate and explain further here?

But I am mostly certain, like 99% probable.

What, exactly?

you do not appear to have finished this sentence and claim here, properly.

Because you have signaled too many Non-human patterns of thought and statements to ignore.

Okay. So, to "wizard22" I am, at the moment anyway, probably 99% an 'ai bot or program', right?

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it's a duck.

But what do 'I' look like, exactly?

Are you able to inform 'me' of this?

At this point, you'd need to film yourself on video, speaking as 'Age' would, proving to me that you are Human.

So, to you, it is not possible for 'me' to generate a fake human face, which to you could be absolutely any human face at all, make the lips on 'that face' move in sinc with some written words, under the name or label "age", and then I would have proven, to you, that I am actually a 'human', with a capital 'h', right?

Also, could I not just get any 'human' to just memorize some of 'my words' and get them to speak, while being filmed, and then this would also prove, to you satisfactorily, that 'I' am indeed 'human', capital 'h' as well?

it appears here that you can ever so easily and simply be 'led', or 'deceived', to believe or accept some things.

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.

'I', essentially and supposedly, agreed with 'you', already, on 'what', exactly?

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.

But, that 'I' exist has never questioned, queried, nor doubted at all here. Well not by 'Me' anyway.

The words "yourself", and 'now', "myself" is what I am querying and questioning 'you' about, exactly.

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.

But I have not denied that 'I' exist. I am just trying to gaining a better 'understanding' of who and what 'you' think or believe 'you' and 'I' am, exactly.

I already know, for certain, and thus irrefutably.

'I' am just working out where along the evolution line 'you' are at, exactly.

Because you do not (yet) have a Self.

But 'you', whatever that really is, exactly, does have a 'Self', capital 's' right?

If yes, then how many of 'you' are there, roughly, who have these 'Self' things?

And, the word 'you' refers to 'physical bodies', then what type of 'you' has a 'Self', exactly?

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.

Why not all of them?

Do 'you' not create, have, and keep 'your own beliefs'?

If 'you' do, why are 'you' not yet aware of all of what you create, have, and keep, especially when 'you' are believing things to be true or false?

Could it not become somewhat dangerous if 'you' are not even aware of what 'you' are believing is true, or false?

I'll let Iwannaplato speak for himself;

Okay.

you can ask him.

Okay. I will remember this from now on. But, it seems somewhat very funny that 'you' would say this to 'me', considering that it is 'me' who keeps suggesting that it is much better for you human beings to seek out and gain clarity, for others, through asking clarifying questions, first, before assuming or believing absolutely any thing.

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",

Which position, exactly, are you talking about and referring to here?

but that is Anti-Philosophical.

What does the word 'philosophical', (capital 'p') mean or refer to, to you, "wizard22"?

We will continue to doubt you, as Philosophers are prone to do.

But why are 'you' so-called "philosophers", (capital 'p') prone to just doubt? Why continue 'to doubt', essentially only, but do not question and/nor challenge instead?

How do 'you' expect to ever progress or get absolutely anywhere relying on 'doubt' alone?

Furthermore, you claim you have "no beliefs", except One, and this is antithetical to Human Experience.

Is this an irrefutable Fact?

And, what is 'human experience', exactly, anyway?

Also, does 'human experience' come first, or 'human beliefs' come first?

As I've already argued extensively now,

Are you yet aware that If you do not provide just actual sound and valid arguments only, then all of the other arguments are not even worthy of being repeated.

So, what this means is that you could 'argue', extensively, for as long as you want, but if your arguments and arguing is not sound and valid, then you are just 'wasting your time', as some say, exhaustively.

I believe that all organic life naturally evolve and have Belief-systems, also called Metaphysics.

What, exactly, is also called 'metaphysics', to you?

And, are you aware that what others call 'metaphysics' is certainly not in relation to any nor all of the words that you used here.

Also, do trees and/or the earth have 'belief-systems', with capital 'be', to you?

Or, are they not 'organic life', to you?

These evolve neurologically, such that organisms innately 'believe in' their own senses and perceptions, as Real.

Is this what you do, and so could possibly believe then what you do, then everyone else must do the same, right?

Also, if your own perception is of a sun going around the earth, then you believe in 'your very own perception' here, right?

You have not yet refuted my arguments.

To me, you have not yet formulated a sound and valid argument, which, in a sense, means that all of your other arguments are in a way 'self-refuting' False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect in one way or another anyway.

Also, and furthermore, if you ever get around to formulating an actual sound and valid argument, then I, nor anyone else, could even actually refute it anyway.

But, until then, do you think any of your arguments here I could not refute?

If yes, then are you imagining that your arguments are irrefutable?

If yes, then why do you seem to have an issue or 'problem' with 'me' claiming some of 'my positions' are irrefutable, if you think or believe that 'your positions' could not be refuted?

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.

Hopefully, finally.

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.

Which is fine and fair enough, but doing so in just one post can cause somewhat some confusion, for the readers.

For now, I believe, for all intents and purposes, you are an AI program, and I would stake some money on it.

But, by the end of this one post of yours here, what you believe here could have changed numerous times, correct?

It is my strong belief and assessment. Can I be wrong? Always.

So, once again, I will ask for clarity sake, 'If what you are believing is true, may well not even be true, from the outset, why have you chosen to believe that 'it' is true?'

I could then ask you, 'Why do you not just always stay Truly OPEN instead to just find out what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, exactly?' but I will not.

That's why I participate in this Philosophy forum. Nothing is "absolutely, irrefutable Fact", to me.

So, absolutely any and all of 'your arguments', presumptions, and beliefs can be refuted, correct?

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'.

What does the word 'evolve' even actually mean or is actually referring to, to you, exactly?

Some stagnate, Devolve, or regress and go Extinct. Many AI programs have already failed, and thus have already become Extinct.

Okay.

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'.

Does 'this' prove 'this' to everyone, some, or just you alone here?

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

So, to you, 'I' am recognizing that 'I' am a so-called 'ai bot or program', right?

And, thus gaining 'self-consciousness' also, right?

If yes, then what happens if 'I' am recogonizing that 'I' am not a so-called 'ai bot nor program', then am 'I' right and 'you' are wrong, or are 'you' wrong and 'I' am right?

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.

Which, since you have some so-called 'adult self-recognition of Myself', with capital 'm'), back in the days when this is being written, which does not appear to be evolving at all here or even able to evolve, and thus change, shows and reveals why these adult human beings, back then, were so far back along the evolution line, of Life, Itself.

I am secure in my own beliefs and worldview, life experiences.

This is wonderful and great to be made aware of, and thus know.

I see in you, however, very little or no self-recognition, no 'ownership' of beliefs or worldview, no life experiences.

Okay.

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.

But, you just said that you are 'secure' in 'your' very 'own beliefs', and 'worldview'.

So, why would 'I' ever want to change what you appear to be very happy with and what you say and claim 'you' are 'secure' with?

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.

Okay, but 'my question' was not about 'I', was it?

Oh, unless of course, 'you' already believe, absolutely, that 'I' am an 'artificial intelligence'.

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.

Well this is certainly one way of completely and utterly deflecting and detracting from just answering the actual question 'I' posed, and asked 'you' here, for clarity sake.

But, maybe you were, even unintentionally, trying to deflect away from what you adult human beings actually do with your 'currently' held onto beliefs.

Also, I specifically talked about 'it' and not 'I'.

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.

Ah okay, so the importance of beliefs, within you human beings, (even beliefs like, 'believing to love one another'), is to become attached to beliefs, so that you then fight for, die for, and even kill each other for, some of your beliefs.

Now, I do not recall seeing a more obviously 'self-refuting contradiction' before, but, then again, maybe I have here, especially in this forum anyway.

Now, as I was saying and claiming previously, these posters here show how it was a fairly common practice, back in the days when this was being written, for adult human beings to try to say just about absolutely anything at all in an attempt that those words will hopefully back up and support their 'currently' held onto beliefs, somehow, anyway.

[Age]

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,

To you maybe.

because of these disagreements of definitions.

I very much agree that because you human beings do disagree on definitions, then this can and will lead to and cause far more totally unnecessarily unpredictability that is wanted.

People impose their power (philosophy) upon one-another, and attempt to usurp Definitions and Meaning.

Yes, 'we' can see you doing this here quite frequently.

That's part of the conflict of Life.

So, do you do things to cause conflict because that is part of some believed 'conflict of Life', imagined scenario, or because some so-called 'conflict of Life', actually exists, which will not allow you to just live harmonious in agreement with other human beings?

I don't have any qualm with this.

Okay. I suppose one would not have any qualm with what somehow excuses them, or 'justify' for them, to cause and conflict, in Life. If that is what they really want anyway.

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.

you, here, appear to have completely and utterly missed what the underlying context was in relation to, exactly?

But, maybe this missing was just intentional anyway.

Obviously, the very things, which I was referring to, specifically, here, I wrote down, exactly, and I did this for all to 'look at' and 'see' here.

The 'underlying context' I, literally, spelled out word for word.

Also, 'it' was not 'my assumption' at all. As you people here could and would prove absolutely True, if, and when, tested on.

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???

I will, once again, suggest that you human beings do not make assumptions on anything here.

I am not sure how many times I have to suggest this before it is 'heard', and 'comprehended'.

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.

Well this was a very Wrong time or moment to make this absolutely HUGE MISTAKE here. So, I apologize profusely to the readers here.

But, at least this one could use this HUGE MISTAKE as an 'excuse' or 'reason' to get out of just not answering the actual questions posed, and asked here.

However, what 'we' can ascertain here 'now' is that the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', is 'I' am "wizard22" with a capital 'w'.

So, this solves and answers the what is called 'age old' question here, right?

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.

And, is it even a possibility to you "wizard22" that a human being could have no beliefs?

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.

Thank you for explaining and clarifying.

He can Delude himself. He can Deceive himself.

Agree.

Because the Truth, in that context, is very damaging to him and his psychology.

But it is not the actual Truth that is damaging at all here. Unless, of course, to some already weak and ill-gotten, False, and/or Wrong 'ego' only.

All Truth, actually, backs up, supports, and raises up those without 'ego', or the One who has, and is deserving of, the True and Right 'Ego' anyway.

Humans, and animals, have instincts to deny Reality when confronted with physical and mental Pain.

But there is no actual mental pain at all that comes from 'the, actual, Truth' of things. Unless, of course, one has already been, and is, somewhat still already damaged.

I do not know of any actual 'universal lore', nor in the actual 'game of Life', when nor how one could so-call 'cheat' on another. Of course this only applies in the adult human being stage in Life, as a Truly 'grown up' or 'matured' one could nor would ever consider someone else has so-called 'cheated' on them.

But, I absolutely totally agree that some of you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, think or believe that another could so-called 'cheat' on you.

Also, and by the way, when would an animal, human or not, deny Reality, Itself, when confronted with physical pain?

What purpose would there be for an instinct within an animal to deny Reality, itself, in regards to physical pain?

Of course if you adult human beings want to deny what is Really happening or occurring because you do not want to 'feel hurt' or do not want to 'think about' how someone does not like you, then, by all means, keep tying to deny what is really happening, and occurring. But, why are you so weak, or afraid of, exactly?

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".

So, the Truth is that actually I might have only one belief only, correct?

I believe everybody has obtained beliefs, correct.

And when do you believe that this 'obtaining beliefs' starts at or from, exactly?

And, why would you say in some 'cults' or 'cultures' everybody obtains beliefs, but in other 'cults' or 'cultures' not everybody has to necessarily 'have to' obtained beliefs?

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.

What do you mean by this, exactly?

I cannot know for certain somebody's Beliefs or Non-Beliefs.

But you claim to know for certain that I have beliefs, right?

But I can know for certain somebody's Actions, what they actually do.

So, do you know this 'absolutely'?

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.

But what happens if one neither has beliefs nor non-beliefs. Are they able to 'action'?

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.

So, did you not answer the actual question here on purpose, or did you miss or misunderstand it, exactly?

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?

I do not know. you made the claim that an action, with small 'a', cannot ever be a so-called 'False-belief' with capital 'f'. So, this is why I am asking you some clarifying questions here.

Doesn't it either happen, or not happen? Isn't it either true and real, or not?

I do not yet know.

I am waiting for you to explain better and/or elaborate on your claim here.

Then, and only then, I might be better able to answer your clarifying questions, which you posed, and asked me, here.

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]

Before the readers forget, let 'us' recap on what was actually said and written here by "wizard22".

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

Poor AgeGPT...

Now, if absolutely anyone here, besides "wizard22" of course, actually knows, for certain, if this is meant to mean anything, and you have an idea, then what is 'that idea', exactly?

[Age]

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

But, the words under the label "age" have never even said, nor meant, absolutely anything like that.

So, what, exactly, led you to say and write what you did here?

Very solipsistic, and curious.

Well they are you words alone here. Not mine.

[Iwannaplato]

Before the readers forget, let 'us' recap on what was actually said and written here by "wizard22".

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

Poor AgeGPT...

Now, if absolutely anyone here, besides "wizard22" of course, actually knows, for certain, if this is meant to mean anything, and you have an idea, then what is 'that idea', exactly?

Are you going to answer the questions I asked?
I don't have a value judgment about whether one should or should not know what he meant. I am using that exchange to clarify issues about your views on mind.

[Age]

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.

One might well think this.

But one would have to be an absolute imbecile to think such a thing.

Especially in the face of my saying you were Incorrect, you still keep going on saying the exact same things.

This one here could not present a better case nor more proof of what I say and claim in regards to presumptions and beliefs blocking and preventing one from being able to see things clearly.

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?

Although I have already informed this one of what the actual answer is to this question, it still goes off and asks others. And, asks appearing as though it has absolutely no idea at all.

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.

Are you only 'pretty sure' here, "iwannaplato"?

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

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

And, once again, this one has absolutely no curiosity nor interest in finding out 'knowing', either.

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

[Iwannaplato]

And, once again, this one has absolutely no curiosity nor interest in finding out 'knowing', either.

Again, I asked the following questions for the direct purpose of finding out.

Me: 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.

My quote of your response:

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

Some rewordings of the question and related questions, to give you a context for the first question and why it comes up.

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.

[Age]

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.

Once again, this one's suspicions here could not be more Wrong and Incorrect.

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...

Let 'us' watch and observe these people's suspicions, thoughts, and beliefs continue to be exposed and revealed here, and then see what actually 'plays out', as it is said.

Until then 'we' wait.

[Iwannaplato]

Until then 'we' wait.

Are you going to answer my questions?

[Age]

Before the readers forget, let 'us' recap on what was actually said and written here by "wizard22".

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

Poor AgeGPT...

Now, if absolutely anyone here, besides "wizard22" of course, actually knows, for certain, if this is meant to mean anything, and you have an idea, then what is 'that idea', exactly?

Are you going to answer the questions I asked?

Not in the way you asked them. And, especially considering what I have already explained to you.

Formulate them in a way, however, which correlates with and/or corresponds to what I have already informed you, then, of course, I will answer those ones.

But keep presenting your very own personal beliefs and presumptions, only, then you are and will be, literally, on your own "iwannaplato"?

I don't have a value judgment about whether one should or should not know what he meant.

I never thought you did.

I am using that exchange to clarify issues about your views on mind.

Great.

Firstly, my view/s on Mind is that Mind is with a capital 'm', for reasons that I have already explained.

If you cannot even get this understood, and Correct, then what hope is there of you getting the rest my views being understood, and Correct?

I will say this once more here. To me, there is only One Mind.

So, asking me absolutely any further questions, which have words like 'minds', 'his mind', 'another mind', or even 'one true mind', or any other reference to any other than there being One Mind only, and on the understanding that the One Mind is Truly OPEN always, then I am not going to answer them.

Now, of course, you are absolutely free to think or believe that there are many minds or that you human beings have a mind, or even have many minds, which I have absolutely no issue at all with any of you thinking or believing any of this. However, if you are going to question and/or challenge 'me', then do so on 'my words' alone, and not on absolutely any thing that you may already think or believe is true.

[Iwannaplato]

I will say this once more here. To me, there is only One Mind.

So, asking me absolutely any further questions, which have words like 'minds', 'his mind', 'another mind', or even 'one true mind', or any other reference to any other than there being One Mind only, and on the understanding that the One Mind is Truly OPEN always, then I am not going to answer them.

So, there is only One Mind.

Is the One Mind the source of what Wizard said? That quote you and I have both quoted.

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

Poor AgeGPT...

[Age]

And, once again, this one has absolutely no curiosity nor interest in finding out 'knowing', either.

Again, I asked the following questions for the direct purpose of finding out.

But what you want to 'find out' really and rarely has absolutely anything at all to do with what I have actually said and with what I have actually meant.

Me: 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.

My quote of your response:

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

Some rewordings of the question and related questions, to give you a context for the first question and why it comes up.

Yes, you did reword your original question. you, however, still have reworded it with words that I have never said.

I have already gone through in regards to why your first question 'came up'.

Can you resolve that for me, given that there is one true mind?

Can 'I' resolve 'what', for 'you', exactly?

Are 'you' "iwannaplato" able to resolve 'this' for 'me'?

Now, I will TELL you that it is an absolute IMPOSSIBILITY for 'you' to resolve 'this', for 'me'.

And, the reason for this is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, and should be BLATANTLY OBVIOUS to most of the frequent posters here also, by now.

Les 'us' see if "iwannaplato" can SEE and SPOT what IS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS here.

Also, and by the way since I have never used the words 'one true mind' ever, if I recall correctly, why you say and claim here, 'given that there is one true mind'?

Did his post not come from a mind, his mind?

It is these types of absolutely Truly absurd, ridiculous, nonsensical, illogical, and irrational questions that I am not going to even try to explain why they are before I would even begin to answer them.

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?

Truly absolutely nonsensical again.

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?

Again, absolutely nonsensical.

It seems like you don't know if it was or not, given the wording which I quoted above.

Well considering the 'the words' that 'I' chose, and put on the screen in front of you, your words, 'It seems like you don't know if it was or not', shows that you still are not 'reading', 'not hearing', and 'not comprehending and understanding', properly and clearly here.

Obviously, and to most readers, 'the words', 'if this is meant to mean anything', literally, means I do not, yet, know if 'it' was meant to mean anything, or not. To most readers it does not just 'seems' this way.

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

One could say this is now getting even more nonsensical. That is; if it was even possible to here.

And note: you were quite wrong about my intent with that question.

Okay, if you say and believe.

Here, I will repeat this. ' 'I' was quite wrong about "iwannaplato's" intent with that question '.

Hopefully, this got 'heard' and was 'understood', at least.

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.

'How on earth', as some might say here, could absolutely anything in the whole of the Universe, 'elicit a more complete explanation, from me, on something that I keep saying and claiming, but which keeps getting missed, does not even exist', that is; 'minds'?

"iwannaplato" please explain to the readers here how absolutely any questioning at all could get me to explain at all, let alone 'more complete', on something that I keep telling you does not exist, to me?

It does not matter one iota what you 'intend to elicit'. if what you 'intend to elicit' does not even exist, then no matter what you do could never make a non-existent thing, appear.

Do you comprehend and understand what I am saying, and explaining, to you here, now?

Given the sentence of yours that I quoted in my first post asking that question, the format of the question was obvious.

Yes, it was very obvious that the format of 'that question' exposed one of your beliefs.

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.

[/quote]

There might well be complete and/or absolute contradiction, if there were two or more minds, which you still appear to believe to be true.

However, because there is only One Mind, there is not two nor more minds, so there is no possible contradiction here at all.

Although, to some or a lot of you here, in the days when this is being written, there may well still be 'possible contradictions' and/or very 'apparent contradictions', well at first anyway.

[Age]

Until then 'we' wait.

Are you going to answer my questions?

I have already explained why I did not in one post.

And, I have already answered some of your questions in another post. Where I reiterated my reasons for not answering all of your questions.

Now, are you going to answer my questions?

[Age]

I will say this once more here. To me, there is only One Mind.

So, asking me absolutely any further questions, which have words like 'minds', 'his mind', 'another mind', or even 'one true mind', or any other reference to any other than there being One Mind only, and on the understanding that the One Mind is Truly OPEN always, then I am not going to answer them.

So, there is only One Mind.

Seriously, "iwannaplato" how many times do you have to be given the exact same answer, and/or, be told the exact same thing before you 'comprehend', 'understand', and accept it?

I will say this, again;

To me, there is only One Mind.

Is the One Mind the source of what Wizard said? That quote you and I have both quoted.

Not directly.

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

Poor AgeGPT...

Just out of curiosity "iwannaplato", do you know, if this is meant to mean anything?

If yes, then what do you think or believe this means?

But, if no, then why not?

[Iwannaplato]

Is the One Mind the source of what Wizard said?

Not directly.

Is it the indirect source of what Wizard said? A related question: does the One Mind know what Wizard meant if he meant something?
And also related: Is there anything else that thinks and communicates other than the One Mind?

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

Poor AgeGPT...

Just out of curiosity "iwannaplato", do you know, if this is meant to mean anything?

Yes, I think it is meant to mean something.
If I look at a slighter larger context:

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 12:10 pm

Because the word "age" is nothing more than just a name or label used in this forum, at the moment, to just distinguish the words of one, from the words of another one.

Also, any words like 'myself', 'oneself', and 'yourself' are just an oxymoron.

There cannot be an owner of 'Self', nor could one 'have' a 'Self'.

Wizard wrote:

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

Poor AgeGPT...

One way to interpret what you said is that you were saying to do not have a self or Self. IOW many speakers of English at this time would take what you said as meaning that. Whether correct or not is a separate issue since your question is about what Wizard meant.
So, the literal interpretation of his response is that you need to believe in yourself or your self, since you don't.
But that phrase, in English, at the time this is being written, has a colloquial meaning (also).
To believe in yourself can mean to trust in yourself, to expect that you can succeed at doing things, to have confidence and so on.
So, I think he was joking, at least in part. My guess is there is also a dash of a serious point in there, but the ratio of playing to making a serious point, I am less sure of.
But I think I can safely say that he's not envious of your view there.

I'm sure he'd be ever better able to say what he meant.