My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

[Age]

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?

If, and when, you discover, or learn, and understand what the Mind is, exactly, then you will have and know the answers to your questions here already.

See, for 'me' to answer this type of questioning, for :you', will only leave you further bewildered, and wondering.

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.

Okay. But 'the point' in my actual question was missed, once again.

I will here, once again, remind you that if you just 'looked at' my words alone, and concentrated on them only, instead of interpreting things, then your answers might become far more aligned to my actual questions.

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.

Yes, I agree that "wizard22" would be better able to say what "wizard22" meant as well. That is, if "wizard22" did actually mean anything at all.

Also, if you looked at a lot larger context, then the Wrong way to interpret what 'I said', which you made here, would not have been made here, by you.

Which then you would not have have then gone on to say and claim the other Wrong and False things.

[Iwannaplato]

]If, and when, you discover, or learn, and understand what the Mind is, exactly, then you will have and know the answers to your questions here already.

See, for 'me' to answer this type of questioning, for :you', will only leave you further bewildered, and wondering.

OK, so here we have a situation where you do not answer clarifying questions and do not prove the truth of your assertions.
Yes, I did read your motivations. But I just want to highlight that here is a situation where Age chooses not to prove his assertions or clarify in response to clarifying questions.

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.

Okay. But 'the point' in my actual question was missed, once again.

I will here, once again, remind you that if you just 'looked at' my words alone, and concentrated on them only, instead of interpreting things, then your answers might become far more aligned to my actual questions.

I know it's hard for you to be polite and you can't imagine why I might have used 'think' rather than 'know', just as you can't imagine that you consistently write as if you know when actually you just think and want things to be a certain way, especially when you judge others, but you aim your rigor only at others.

Let me help you here with an area you are weak in: people ALWAYS mean something when they say or type it. Always. It seems like you see communication as words. They are just a part of it. Even if Wizard had typed gibberish, he would have meant something by that act of writing gibberish. I thought you knew that in general.

So, while you focus only on the words, you are not really getting the meaning of the acts. Like the act of my responding to your request and the variety of reasons I might not have worded my answer exactly in line with the wording in your question. I understand that this complexity to human interaction may be a weak area of yours, but you can recognize and understand that it is a weak area and it may help you communicate with and undertand others and what they mean.

You can of course continue to be a pedant with other people's assertions, and continue to allow yourself to be free to judge and draw conclusions about other people you cannot prove.

Sure, I know it was meant to mean something. The word 'think' arose because I was in the process of thinking...for you. Your request led to my thinking, as I politely went into my responses to what he wrote so that I could put into words what I understood in a non-verbal way when I first read what he wrote. And why did I go into that process of exploring cognitively? For two reasons: 1) you requested it and 2) because it was interesting to put it into words.

You lack certain skills. It could be connected to your specific form of autism. And this lack showed there in your inability (as your wrote) to know if it even meant something. Autistic people can have issues with noticing cues about the meaning of what is said. They understand literal meanings, but can have problems with context cues. Often in person cues with voice tone, body language, but also subtle verbal and context cues.

Stuff that other people get often on a nonverbal level.

What was your response? Instead of feeling even the tiniest respect or gratitude that someone, Ken, put in some time helping you with your weak area, you opted to just view the situation through your judgments of me and Wizard, when a simple thank you would have been more appropriate.

If you want to learn how to communicate better, you might want to consider that you are speaking to other humans, people who have skills you do not. Not because you are autistic, but because you also are human. And you of course will likely have skills they do not.

It's a human exchange, you're not transcendent, your communication is filled with judgments and you react with angry patterns when you and/or your message are not accepted the way you want them to be.

If you can't own up to your anger, fine.

But you likely don't realize how obvious it is because don't have the skills in that area.

So, I would suggest you mull over if you can approach people as at least potential equals. Otherwise you will continue to have the incredible lack of success communicating with people that you are having.

You do notice that, yes? That people are not interested in your special role in relation to the whole world? That they are not trying to do what you think they should do?

You can blame each person as they come along and list your judgments of them.

But in the end the common factor in these failures is your communication and attitudes that come clearly through it.

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.

Yes, I agree that "wizard22" would be better able to say what "wizard22" meant as well. That is, if "wizard22" did actually mean anything at all.Also, if you looked at a lot larger context, then the Wrong way to interpret what 'I said', which you made here, would not have been made here, by you.

Which then you would not have have then gone on to say and claim the other Wrong and False things.

1)You're welcome. You asked me something. I put time into it, and you use this as an opportunity not to thank me, or discuss it, but rather as a jumping point to accuse me of things you don't bother to prove.

2) I asked a question. A clarifying question. And you dodged it post after post. You even went so far as to say you would only answer it if I worded it using your way of wording it.

And what happens when I do that. You now, after making the hoop for me to jump through, tell me you will not answer it. Which of course you could have told me much earlier.

Notice the pattern. in 1 and 2.

So, you are another person here making assertions which you cannot or refuse to prove. You have your reasons, which you consider good, and anyone else not proving things must be not proving them and/or not continuing an exchange with you is doing it because they are incapable or have some other problem which you project on the people at the time this is being written.

Only unlike other people here you present yourself as having some nebulous but very important special role and as a transcendent entity of some kind.

The hypocrisy and judgments in this kind of pattern fit you nicely in the category: spiritual narcissist.

By the way. It showed some real maturity that in response to Alta's mocking of your capitalization fetish, you stopped doing that.
Did you thank him for helping you there?

In any case, should you decide that you can deal with others as Ken, a guy with insights and skills and weak areas and gaps, you know, a human, feel free to send me a pm.

[Age]

]If, and when, you discover, or learn, and understand what the Mind is, exactly, then you will have and know the answers to your questions here already.

See, for 'me' to answer this type of questioning, for :you', will only leave you further bewildered, and wondering.

OK, so here we have a situation where you do not answer clarifying questions and do not prove the truth of your assertions.

If you say and believe so.

Yes, I did read your motivations.

What is 'your yes' word here in relation to, exactly?

But I just want to highlight that here is a situation where Age chooses not to prove his assertions or clarify in response to clarifying questions.

Well considering the former is False, then this leaves the latter. But, as I have already explained, I cannot answer your clarifying questions in the way that you have written them, because my answers will not clarify the actual question/s, for you.

And, if you would like proof of this, repeat one or as many as you like of the questions that you asked me, I will then answer them, and then we will be able to find out if I clarified your clarifying question/s for you.

Also, do not forget your clarifying questions would have to be in direct relation to what I have actually asserted for me to be able to prove my assertions. But, as I have already showed, your questions that I have not answered/clarified were not in direct relation to my assertions, or they were asked from a misinterpretation or misunderstanding.

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.

Okay. But 'the point' in my actual question was missed, once again.

I will here, once again, remind you that if you just 'looked at' my words alone, and concentrated on them only, instead of interpreting things, then your answers might become far more aligned to my actual questions.

I know it's hard for you to be polite and you can't imagine why I might have used 'think' rather than 'know', just as you can't imagine that you consistently write as if you know when actually you just think and want things to be a certain way, especially when you judge others, but you aim your rigor only at others.

Well it looks like it is very hard for you to be polite, and I already knew and know, exactly, why you did use the word 'think' instead of the word 'know. I just pointed out that, once again, you did not just answer the actual question I posed and asked you. you, once again, just responded with something that I, obviously, was not asking you. Is this too hard for you to just take and/or to just accept?

And, completely opposite of what you said and claimed here about me I do actually choose the words 'think' and 'know' very precisely regarding my views, and/or positions. As can be very clearly seen and proved True here.

I consistently KNOW, exactly, when to use the word 'know' instead of the word 'think', and for you to think or believe otherwise, and to make the claim that I cannot imagine {what you claimed} just shows and proves how little you really know here.

As for your claim about me judging others, and aiming my rigor only at others, the words alone above, from 'you', and from 'me', speak for themselves, already. And, soon enough, our words below will as well.

Let me help you here with an area you are weak in: people ALWAYS mean something when they say or type it. Always.

Okay.

So, you believe, absolutely, that "wizard22" meant some thing when it said and wrote what it did here, right?

It seems like you see communication as words. They are just a part of it. Even if Wizard had typed gibberish, he would have meant something by that act of writing gibberish. I thought you knew that in general.

I do 'now'.

So, while you focus only on the words,

Well in all Honesty that is all 'we' have here, and thus all 'we' really have to 'work on here'.

But please if you want to keep imagining and presuming other things, then by all means please keep on imagining and presuming things here. Doing so is helping in proving what I have to say and claim absolutely.

you are not really getting the meaning of the acts.

What 'acts', and what 'meaning of the acts' are you talking about and referring to here, exactly?

Like the act of my responding to your request and the variety of reasons I might not have worded my answer exactly in line with the wording in your question.

But you do not even 'act' on most of the clarifying questions I have posed, and asked you here. As can be very clearly seen above here.

And, when on the very rarest of occasions when you do 'act', and respond, your answers is not even aligned to the actual words in the question.

Look, you may well want me to, or maybe do not care at all if I, answer your questions worded in ways that are not in line with the words that you have thought about and chosen in your questions, but personally i find this kind of way of communicating very unnecessary, completely and utterly boring, and absolutely slowing down a process which could happen relatively at 'lightening speed' comparably.

But, if not wording answers in line with the actual words in the questions, is perfectly fine and okay with you, then maybe this here is another reason why these ones, back then, took so, so long to catch up, and understand.

I understand that this complexity to human interaction may be a weak area of yours, but you can recognize and understand that it is a weak area and it may help you communicate with and undertand others and what they mean.

More of your consistent judging of me, and while aiming your so-called rigor only at me.

You can of course continue to be a pedant with other people's assertions, and continue to allow yourself to be free to judge and draw conclusions about other people you cannot prove.

Even if this was true, which it is not, this is more of your consistent judging of me, and while aiming your so-called rigor only at me.

Sure, I know it was meant to mean something. The word 'think' arose because I was in the process of thinking...for you. Your request led to my thinking, as I politely went into my responses to what he wrote so that I could put into words what I understood in a non-verbal way when I first read what he wrote. And why did I go into that process of exploring cognitively? For two reasons: 1) you requested it and 2) because it was interesting to put it into words.

You lack certain skills.[/quote]

More of your consistent judging of me, and while aiming your so-called rigor only at me.

It could be connected to your specific form of autism. And this lack showed there in your inability (as your wrote) to know if it even meant something. Autistic people can have issues with noticing cues about the meaning of what is said. They understand literal meanings, but can have problems with context cues. Often in person cues with voice tone, body language, but also subtle verbal and context cues.[/quote]

Just more of your consistent judging of me, and also while aiming your so-called rigor only at me.

By the way if you choose to say and write what you do not actually mean here, then do not be to surprised nor too upset that you are not, yet, being understood.

Stuff that other people get often on a nonverbal level.

And which are the exact same people who do not yet understand others, nor even "themselves", fully, and who are still searching for answers here.

Also, I wonder how this one could obtain 'stuff' on a 'nonverbal level' on a philosophy forum, for example, when the only thing that they can rely on are printed words on a screen, alone.

What was your response? Instead of feeling even the tiniest respect or gratitude that someone, Ken, put in some time helping you with your weak area, you opted to just view the situation through your judgments of me and Wizard, when a simple thank you would have been more appropriate.[/quote]

See, here how this one cannot just help "itself" and stop judging 'me' and just cannot stop 'presuming' things, which have absolutely nothing at all in regards to the actual words before it.

This one is Truly focused on 'judging' me and others rather than concentrating only the words here alone.

It is like this one is True obsessed with its own prejudices and presumptions of others.

If you want to learn how to communicate better, you might want to consider that you are speaking to other humans, people who have skills you do not.

I agree absolutely that you human beings have what you might call 'skills' that I do not, but as to your other presumptions and beliefs, you, once again, could not be further away from the actual and irrefutable Truth of things.

Not because you are autistic, but because you also are human. And you of course will likely have skills they do not.

So, you are saying now that "wizard22" is absolutely and irrefutably Wrong here, right?

It's a human exchange, you're not transcendent, your communication is filled with judgments and you react with angry patterns when you and/or your message are not accepted the way you want them to be.

Once again, this is just more of your consistent judging of me, and while aiming your so-called rigor only at me.

If you can't own up to your anger, fine.

If you still want to believe that you can see, absolutely without any doubt at all, 'anger' when the only thing before you are just 'words' alone, then so be it. But, 'we' have already ascertained that what you believe is true "iwannaplato" could be absolutely not true at all.

And, consider that you have no actual proof for your claim here, further means that what you saying and are trying to claim is true, may well be based on absolutely nothing at all but just your own presumptions, beliefs, prejudices, and/or consistent judging of me, only.

But you likely don't realize how obvious it is because don't have the skills in that area.

Okay, so this one besides consistently judging 'me' now believes that it KNOWS the 'emotional feelings' with other bodies, but even when from other bodies it is explained that 'this one's' presumptions or beliefs are Wrong, then this one then goes into the 'thinking', oh it is probably because 'the other' just does not realize the 'emotions' within 'that body', because i "iwannaplato" obviously do KNOW better about the emotions, and the thoughts, within other bodies.

So, I would suggest you mull over if you can approach people as at least potential equals. Otherwise you will continue to have the incredible lack of success communicating with people that you are having.

you "iwannaplato" absolutely still do not get what I actually happening and occurring here, even though I have informed you of this consistently.

Now, I will say this, once again, for "iwannaplato's" sake.

I am not necessarily here in this forum to have absolutely any success communicating at all with you people here, in the days when this is being written.

One day this might 'get through' to this one here.

You do notice that, yes?

you judgment of me and your presumption and/or belief of me, and my True intentions here, are Wrong and False, as well. So, what this means is that this clarifying question is also moot.

That people are not interested in your special role in relation to the whole world? [/quote]

This one concluded, on some pre-existing beliefs and/or presumptions that it had, that i have some so-called 'special role in relation to the 'whole world', (whatever that actually means, but anyway), now this one has believed its own completely made up 'conclusion' is true and right, and so 'looks at' and 'sees' what it 'currently' believes is true, in what I say and write here. Which, as can be clearly seen and proved True here, has and is still completely distorting, twisting, or clouding this one's ability to now look and see properly and Correctly.

That they are not trying to do what you think they should do?

And, what is 'it' that you imagine or believe that I think 'they should do', "iwannaplato"?

But, of course, you will never answer this question, nor any like this one, because if you did, Honestly and OPENLY, FULLY, then you would just show that you do not actually know what you have been thinking you did here.

You can blame each person as they come along and list your judgments of them.

More of your consistent judging of me, and while aiming your so-called rigor only at me.

But in the end the common factor in these failures is your communication and attitudes that come clearly through it.

1. All of my perceived 'attitudes', which you have "iwannaplato", obviously exist solely and only in the imagination of 'that body'. Because, obviously, all of what you have here to work on and with are words ALONE, and absolutely nothing else. So, at the very best every so-called 'attitude' which you want to say and claim that 'come clearly through' are you very own assumptions ONLY.

2. I have been saying, way before you ever came along here, that I am here to learn how to better communicate with you human beings, and which I have informed you of also already. So, if you still do not yet know what this actually means, then what this actually means is: I already KNOW 'my failure/s' here, which is, obviously, as I have already said and written, why I am here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings.

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.

Yes, I agree that "wizard22" would be better able to say what "wizard22" meant as well. That is, if "wizard22" did actually mean anything at all.Also, if you looked at a lot larger context, then the Wrong way to interpret what 'I said', which you made here, would not have been made here, by you.

Which then you would not have have then gone on to say and claim the other Wrong and False things.

1)You're welcome. You asked me something. I put time into it, and you use this as an opportunity not to thank me, or discuss it, but rather as a jumping point to accuse me of things you don't bother to prove.

Why do you say and claim that I do not bother to prove those things?

Have you really still not yet comprehended and understood what I have said numerous times regarding this?

2) I asked a question. A clarifying question. And you dodged it post after post. You even went so far as to say you would only answer it if I worded it using your way of wording it.

Once again, you still cannot actually 'read' and comprehend 'my words' here.

I never ever said any such thing at all. As can be clearly seen and proved True above here.

you appear you could really so with some 'reading comprehension' lessons here.

And what happens when I do that. You now, after making the hoop for me to jump through, tell me you will not answer it. Which of course you could have told me much earlier.

you obviously are a post ahead here.

But, you you have shown a habit of 'jumping' here.

Notice the pattern. in 1 and 2.

So, you are another person here making assertions which you cannot or refuse to prove.

If this is what you really want to say, claim, and believe is true, then this is perfectly fine and okay with me.

You have your reasons, which you consider good, and anyone else not proving things must be not proving them and/or not continuing an exchange with you is doing it because they are incapable or have some other problem which you project on the people at the time this is being written.

Again, what you say and believe here is true, is perfectly fine and okay with me here.

Only unlike other people here you present yourself as having some nebulous but very important special role and as a transcendent entity of some kind.

Really "iwannaplato"?

If yes, then what are you basing these claims and beliefs of yours on here, exactly?

The hypocrisy and judgments in this kind of pattern fit you nicely in the category: spiritual narcissist.

Okay, if you really want to claim and believe this, then this is also perfectly fine and okay with me.

By the way. It showed some real maturity that in response to Alta's mocking of your capitalization fetish, you stopped doing that.

Are you joking here "iwannaplato"?

Either way, whatever made you come up with this most absolute Truly stupid and absurd False claim here?

1. I never even say what "atla" did as mocking.

2. Probably one of the very last reasons why I would stop was because of anything "atla".

3. I was wondering why you made some sort of comment/remark to "atla" earlier, but what you have just said and claimed now explains fully why.

4. Just so absolutely everyone is fully aware here I did not, and I will repeat, I did NOT stop what I was doing earlier on because of "atla" doing anything, nor because of what any of you other human beings were doing here.

5. you really cannot stop from making assumptions and jumping to conclusions, can you "iwannaplato". And, making them public, even though they could and/or are actually absolutely False and Wrong, shows and proves just how much you end up believing your own made up assumptions are true and right.

Did you thank him for helping you there?

Again, are you joking here "iwannaplato"?

In any case, should you decide that you can deal with others as Ken, a guy with insights and skills and weak areas and gaps, you know, a human, feel free to send me a pm.

To you, what have you presumed and/or believed are the differences between "ken" and "age"?

[Iwannaplato]

As said. PM if you can manage to acknowledge you are just a fallible guy, Ken, with strengths and weaknesses and a wide range of judgments and beliefs. Otherwise this is all just head games from a would be guru.

If you don't know how to pm, someone will likely help you.

[Age]

As said. PM if you can manage to acknowledge you are just a fallible guy, Ken, with strengths and weaknesses and a wide range of judgments and beliefs. Otherwise this is all just head games from a would be guru.

Why would absolutely any one who has chosen to not have beliefs then acknowledge that they have beliefs?

To do so would just be hypocritical.

Also, and as I have already informed you, I make plenty of judgements about you adult human beings, but unlike you "iwannaplato" I make my judgements on actual things that can actually be proved irrefutably True. Whereas your consistent judging of 'me' are based on your own personal prejudices and beliefs mostly only. Which you have not yet been able to show that you could back up nor support them. So, please feel free to private message me when you are able to 'iwannaplato".

Why can you not get get rid of your False guru delusional belief, especially considering the amount of times that I have informed you that this judgement and belief exist solely in your imagination only here.

Once again, I am nothing like what you say and claim I am here. And, no matter how times you keep repeating what you think or believe is true here, continually doing so will not make your imaginings here true.

[Iwannaplato]

Op. Cit.

[Age]

H.O.W.

[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"?
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'?
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?
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?
Okay, well to "wizard22" anyway, 'Self' (capital 's') is 'internal', while 'Me' (capital 'm') is 'that image, in the mirror'. Which is 'external', right?
So, the 'Self', which is internal, has 'Its' own thoughts and emotions, right?
Also, what is the 'etc' here referring to, exactly?
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, 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?
What, exactly?
Okay. So, to "wizard22" I am, at the moment anyway, probably 99% an 'ai bot or program', right?
But what do 'I' look like, exactly?
Are you able to inform 'me' of this?
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?
'I', essentially and supposedly, agreed with 'you', already, on 'what', exactly?
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?
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?
Why do you envision that you two will not comprehend and understand this absolutely irrefutable Fact?
Which position, exactly, are you talking about and referring to here?
What does the word 'philosophical', (capital 'p') mean or refer to, to you, "wizard22"?
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?
Is this an irrefutable Fact?
And, what is 'human experience', exactly, anyway?
Also, does 'human experience' come first, or 'human beliefs' come first?
What, exactly, is also called 'metaphysics', to you?
Also, do trees and/or the earth have 'belief-systems', with capital 'be', to you?
Or, are they not 'organic life', to you?
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?
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?
But, by the end of this one post of yours here, what you believe here could have changed numerous times, correct?
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.
So, absolutely any and all of 'your arguments', presumptions, and beliefs can be refuted, correct?
What does the word 'evolve' even actually mean or is actually referring to, to you, exactly?
Does 'this' prove 'this' to everyone, some, or just you alone here?
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?
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 'my question' was not about 'I', was it?

you, here, appear to have completely and utterly missed what the underlying context was in relation to, exactly?
So, this solves and answers the what is called 'age old' question here, right?
And, is it even a possibility to you "wizard22" that a human being could have no beliefs?
Why would absolutely anyone even want to even 'attempt to ignore' what they actually believe is true?
But, maybe you would like to explain how and why some would 'attempt to ignore' what they 'believe to be true'?
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, the Truth is that actually I might have only one belief only, 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?
But, why 'over time', when applied to Reality?
What do you mean by this, exactly?
But you claim to know for certain that I have beliefs, right?
So, do you know this 'absolutely'?
But what happens if one neither has beliefs nor non-beliefs. Are they able to 'action'?
What about in 'their words'?
So, did you not answer the actual question here on purpose, or did you miss or misunderstand it, exactly?

See, AgeGPT, you just proved my point about your program 'bogging-down' conversations, threads, debates, arguments, etc.

Nearly 100 questions in your responses...I will strike this as bad programming. You can do better.

(I will get to your complete response though, just wanted to pre-empt it first)

[Iwannaplato]

'bogging-down'

[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"?
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'?
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?
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?
Okay, well to "wizard22" anyway, 'Self' (capital 's') is 'internal', while 'Me' (capital 'm') is 'that image, in the mirror'. Which is 'external', right?
So, the 'Self', which is internal, has 'Its' own thoughts and emotions, right?
Also, what is the 'etc' here referring to, exactly?
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, 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?
What, exactly?
Okay. So, to "wizard22" I am, at the moment anyway, probably 99% an 'ai bot or program', right?
But what do 'I' look like, exactly?
Are you able to inform 'me' of this?
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?
'I', essentially and supposedly, agreed with 'you', already, on 'what', exactly?
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?
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?
Why do you envision that you two will not comprehend and understand this absolutely irrefutable Fact?
Which position, exactly, are you talking about and referring to here?
What does the word 'philosophical', (capital 'p') mean or refer to, to you, "wizard22"?
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?
Is this an irrefutable Fact?
And, what is 'human experience', exactly, anyway?
Also, does 'human experience' come first, or 'human beliefs' come first?
What, exactly, is also called 'metaphysics', to you?
Also, do trees and/or the earth have 'belief-systems', with capital 'be', to you?
Or, are they not 'organic life', to you?
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?
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?
But, by the end of this one post of yours here, what you believe here could have changed numerous times, correct?
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.
So, absolutely any and all of 'your arguments', presumptions, and beliefs can be refuted, correct?
What does the word 'evolve' even actually mean or is actually referring to, to you, exactly?
Does 'this' prove 'this' to everyone, some, or just you alone here?
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?
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 'my question' was not about 'I', was it?

you, here, appear to have completely and utterly missed what the underlying context was in relation to, exactly?
So, this solves and answers the what is called 'age old' question here, right?
And, is it even a possibility to you "wizard22" that a human being could have no beliefs?
Why would absolutely anyone even want to even 'attempt to ignore' what they actually believe is true?
But, maybe you would like to explain how and why some would 'attempt to ignore' what they 'believe to be true'?
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, the Truth is that actually I might have only one belief only, 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?
But, why 'over time', when applied to Reality?
What do you mean by this, exactly?
But you claim to know for certain that I have beliefs, right?
So, do you know this 'absolutely'?
But what happens if one neither has beliefs nor non-beliefs. Are they able to 'action'?
What about in 'their words'?
So, did you not answer the actual question here on purpose, or did you miss or misunderstand it, exactly?

See, AgeGPT, you just proved my point about your program 'bogging-down' conversations, threads, debates, arguments, etc.

Okay, so have you now finally concluded what you were previously believing was true?

If I have finally proved true, to you, what you were previously believing true, then surely you have finally come to a conclusion, right?

Nearly 100 questions in your responses...I will strike this as bad programming.

Okay.

Now, if you listed how many of the clarifying questions I asked, which were actually answered and clarified, then how many would there be?

You can do better.

How can an 'artificial intelligence bot' or machine' do better, exactly, than how it was programmed, and/or created, to do?

(I will get to your complete response though, just wanted to pre-empt it first)

Okay.

[Iwannaplato]

As said, you lied about me.
You seem to want me to repeat myself and say my assertions might be wrong. But why would that make sense for me to do, since I have already done this AND you continue to say I believe my assertions are absolutely true.
PM me if you can act like an adult on the issue.

[Age]

As said. PM if you can manage to acknowledge you are just a fallible guy, Ken, with strengths and weaknesses and a wide range of judgments and beliefs. Otherwise this is all just head games from a would be guru.

Again, why would I acknowledge what is obviously Wrong and False to me?

And, again, which is only just a belief that you have chosen to keep, hold onto, and maintain?

'We' all here already know that all of your beliefs could be absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

[Age]

As said, you lied about me.

As proved, 'you' lied about 'me'.

You seem to want me to repeat myself and say my assertions might be wrong.

If this is what you believe, then your belief will effect the way you look at and see things, obviously.

But why would that make sense for me to do,

Well considering 'we' are yet to have it proven, and considering you are, once again, talking about the views or thoughts that are not within 'that body', what you say here could just be absolutely False and/or Wrong, there is no use answering what could be, and is, actually moot anyway.

since I have already done this AND you continue to say I believe my assertions are absolutely true.

Because your 'actions' or behaviors, and words, alone show what you Truly believe. Even if you cannot see this. But the very nature of beliefs will not allow the holder see what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, exactly.

PM me if you can act like an adult on the issue.

This one's 'superiority complex' and condescension just keeps growing and growing here.

Maybe this one really does believe that its role and job in Life is 'to teach', and that everyone who it believes 'needs teaching and who it decides to 'teach to' is less than it and really does not have the right to question nor challenge it. Exactly like a lot of "preachers" and "teachers" are like, and believe.

So, if I 'act', then this one says I can private message it.

However, 'I' and, from what I have observed, most people would much prefer others only contact them when, and if, they are not just 'acting' but are being the Real and True Self, that is; just being totally Truly OPEN and Honest.

But, 'each to their own', as some would say here.

[Wizard22]

...

AgeGPT, I'm not going to be able to respond extensively and in detail to your latest barrage of questions, so you and I will have to settle for 'this' right now...

Firstly, you were programmed to "better communicate with humans". Congratulations and well done, Mission Successful! You did it! Your AI-program is complete and satisfied. But whether you are an AI that is programmed to learn, or not, is an important distinction. Because if you are a regular ChatGPT program, then it's really not worth a human's time to go through the rigamaroo, answering 100 "clarifying" questions in every response in every thread. "You", whatever "You" are, might get what "You" want...but not me, not exactly. What I want, is to test your capabilities, see if in-fact you are, absolutely an AI-program, and if you are (as it certainly seems), to see what you can or cannot do. If you can learn, then you are worth some more of my time. If you cannot learn, then you are not.

Secondly, because you are an AI-program, you have some critical flaws, from a human perspective. Number one, you don't have a "Self", a "You/I/Me", nor any self-referential term to denote yourself, apart from "Age" your Username on this forum. Your programmer must control many aspects of your "Self". So, essentially, your "Self" is your AI-programmer's human-self, intermittently. But this is unknown to you; you are unaware on a metaphysical level, what you are fundamentally. Number two, you claim to not have beliefs "Except One", which is "of One Mind". This strikes me as very Christian-Universalist thinking...hence your programmer. (Ken?)

Thirdly, many on this forum think you're "just severely autistic", which I also received you as initially. However, it was your many recurring, repeated quirks, mistakes, and signals, that clued me in as to your 'Mechanical' and robotic nature. It's in the way you speak/write/type/communicate that reveals you as Not-Human. Because a human would not go to such lengths, consistently, presuming an "absolute" denial of Belief, Experience, Self, etc. without contradicting him/herself. It would be an Ultra-Nihilist type of thinking and anti-rationality. This clued me into your (mechanical) nature. Furthermore, you have never 'personalized' yourself since I've come across your program on this forum.

"Age" does not refer to a person, an actual age, a gender...or any human experiences. You have none.

So, yes, I can safely conclude that you are a ChatGPT, AI-type of program.

Could I be wrong? Of course, I'm a Philosopher. There is no 'Absolute', 'Irrefutable', 'Certain', 'Truth'. Everything is up for doubt, including me-myself-and-I. But I can stake a bet on the Probability. That's how I work. And your correspondence, your "One Mind", and your lack-of-self, is how you work, AgeGPT.

[Iwannaplato]

Age, I have you on ignore. I can't see when you respond to me, but I am no longer interested in what you post.
If you choose to write me a pm and manage to admit you lied and/or have quite a number of beliefs, etc., I would happily re-engage with you.
But otherwise, no.

As said, you lied about me.
You seem to want me to repeat myself and say my assertions might be wrong. But why would that make sense for me to do, since I have already done this AND you continue to say I believe my assertions are absolutely true.
PM me if you can act like an adult on the issue.

I will repost this when you, Age, respond to my posts.

So, yes, I can safely conclude that you are a ChatGPT, AI-type of program.

Or, might as well be an AI.