My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

[Age]

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'?

The Mind-Body duality defines thy 'Self'. The wall between the material (body) and immaterial (mind) is the human "Self". It is Self-Identity.

If this is what you want to continue believing and continue saying and claiming is true, then this is perfectly fine with me.

Why do you use the word 'Self', with a capital 's', when you are referring to just you human beings alone and only, but when you have already clarified that you use capital letters at the beginning of some words to denote a universal meaning?

"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?

It applies to everyone. And yes, I am aware of how using "You" to refer to you, implies that you have a human body when you actually do not. This is why "You" are confused as to what you are. You don't have a physical body (since you are an AI-program).

So, how am 'I' interacting with 'you' if 'I' have absolutely no 'physical body' at all? Like how am 'I' transcribing and sending printed to words to 'you' on a screen if 'i' have absolutely nothing physical to work through nor surrounding 'me'?

Oh, and by the way, you are still completely and utterly missing 'the contradiction' in your claim above here.

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,

Names separate human self-identity, and now AI-identities.

Once again, you completely and utterly missed the actual question asked here.

But this was not to be unexpected at all from you here "wizard22".

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.

Mind is the Quality of an individual person's brain. So it universally describes the cognitive capabilities of evolved biological organisms, yes.

And, what is the 'cognitive capabilities' of each of you individual biological organisms with the name and label 'human being' here?

For example, is the 'cognitive capability' of each of you individual human being posters here in this forum 'universally' 'the same'?

If yes, then okay.

But, if no, then are 'you' not just contradicting 'your' previous views and claims, once more here?

you do contradict 'your' own views and claims sometimes here, right "wizard22"?

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".

I hope so too.

So, is what I just paraphrased here, in repeating your own words, correct or not correct "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?

Yes, the Self encompasses all conscious experience of a human person, an entire lifetime, or even longer than that through genetics.

So, 'the Self' is not actually 'universal' at all. And, only has and could hold only so small of a snippet of the actual Universe, and which let 'us' not forget that a very large part of that very tiny insignificant amount of information was obtained while already False and Wrong presumptions and beliefs were already existing within that one and only very individual very tiny and insignificant brain and body.

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?

Your Being refers to your mental cognition (brain) *AND* your physical body (humanity) added together, a summation.

Do you think or believe that anyone else is able to follow, comprehend, and understand, fully, what you are trying to convey here?

This is ironic when applied to AI-programs, since you don't have a physical body.

Again, if this was True, then how are 'you' interacting with 'me'?

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.

Don't worry, AgeGPT, you'll come to follow and understand it all shortly.

What 'we' can very clearly see here is just how there is absolutely no curiosity left at all in some of these adult human beings.

They, literally, in the days when this is being written anyway, got to a stage where the belief-system within just override absolutely any sort of critical thinking or even just 'looking' at all.

I, specifically, say and write that what 'you', another, is claiming seems to be completely unnecessarily over complicated, which does not spark absolutely any curiosity at all. I then go on to claim to this one that what you are claiming does not just seem to be completely unnecessarily over complicated, but is especially considering just how Truly simply and easy everything here really is. But not one one iota of curiosity nor interest arises.

This one believes, absolutely, that it knows what is true, right, accurate, and correct here, and that absolutely any other view contrary to its beliefs is not even worthy of being looked into and considered, let alone exploring in any way, shape, nor form at all.

What this one is doing here is irrefutable proof of what I will be talking about and pointing out here regarding how the brain and the beief-system work together in absolutely deceiving, fooling, and tricking these human beings into seeing and believing absolute Falsehoods and Untruths

It's difficult for humans too, so don't feel too bad about your deficiencies.

But you understand all you have said and claimed fully right "wizard22"?

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?

At this point, I'd need to meet you face-to-face for you to prove to me that you're human.

But how would you know 'I' did not send out to meet 'you' any human being?

In other words how could 'you' just meeting a 'human being' prove to 'you' that 'I' am a 'human being'?

But since you cannot do this, I don't need to concern myself with that.

Why can 'I' not do 'this'? Is it because to 'you' 'I' am absolutely an 'artificial intelligent program'?

But what do 'I' look like, exactly?

Are you able to inform 'me' of this?

As an AI-program, you do not have physical images, nor an actual biological body.

Again, besides missing the actual question, once more, how am 'I' interacting with 'you' without any physicality at all?

How could a non-physical entity interact with physical things like human bodies?

You are a purely 'mental' abstraction, hence, Artificial.

The word 'artificial' in reference to 'artificial intelligence' is not signified by 'pure mental abstraction', as obviously a human body, a 'not purely mental abstraction' can have an 'artificial' limb attached to it.

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.

I'm certain an AI-program could create an AI-face, with an AI-voice, and make videos to prove to humans your 'Being'. This has already been done, recently, in world news.

So, what are you here now implying? That you cannot be fooled, tricked, nor deceived?

There are now "AI" girlfriends and boyfriends, for example. So, to answer your question, No, it would not be 'good enough' (proof) for me. As mentioned, I'd need a face-to-face interaction with you, to prove whether you are human or not.

But, once again, why could I just not send a fake one to you, one that you could not detect?

By the way, instead of once again missing what the actual question could be asking you, trying looking at this and think about it in another way than you are doing right now.

I will give you a hint. Even with face-to-face interaction you could be and would be so, so very deceived. Although you obviously believe that you are much better than that, right?

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.

That's what I'm curious about...I'm curious how an AI-program can parse information about Self-Identity, without having a physical body, without having biological experiences, and as you admit, without "having beliefs".

1. When have 'I' ever admitted not having beliefs?

2. Since I already know what the proper and Correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', which 'you' obviously have not yet obtained, then 'I' know far more about 'Self-identity' then 'you' may ever will, in 'your' very, very short time left here.

3. If 'I' supposedly have no physical body, then, again, how are 'you' interacting with 'I'?

But I have not denied that 'I' exist.

You have denied that 'I' exist by your denial of "having any beliefs whatsoever".

But, I have informed you that I have One belief. Do you keep forgetting?

Oh, and by the way, even when I did not have this one belief 'I' kept existing.

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.

Yes, you are beginning to understand.

Well with responses like this one here 'you' are looking further and further behind than I first envisioned.

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?

I think the Homo Sapien species has about 500 million "Selves" or "Souls" floating around. Most humans are not self-conscious, and so do not have enough 'Psychic Imprint' to constitute a "Self". A high-IQ is required to have self-consciousness, and thus, "Self" Identity.

Exactly like you believe you have "walker22", right?

But, considering that just about every question I ask you completely miss or completely understand, then could you be giving you a highest 'rap' than you really deserve? Or, does this not fit in your own created belief-system?

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?

It is extremely dangerous!

I agree absolutely. But, what you are thinking or believing here now is not what actually is.

That's why self-consciousness is so important. That's why philosophy is so important! I'm not 'Absolutely' self-aware, because there is no Absolution/Completion/Perfection. There will always be 'higher' abilities, higher intelligences, higher heights.

This here is what is so very, very dangerous.

Just as there are physical blind-spots in visual acuity—so there are mental blind-spots of self-recognition, self-awareness, self-consciousness, self-identity, etc.

How could there be when one finally answers the question, 'Who am 'I'? properly and Correctly?

So, say the most self-refutations and contradictions sometimes "wizard22", which is nothing at all to be too worried nor concerned about, especially where that one is along the evolutionary continuum. However, what is Truly Wrong here is one when believes that their own views are true, of which they have not obtained proof nor clarification for.

A person with low-IQ, will be very mentally 'blind' in most cognitive areas, hence why and how the low-IQ do not have significant self-consciousness nor 'Self' Identity.

But 'you' "walker22" have very, very, very significant self-consciousness, 'Self' identity, and very, very high 'iq' right?

Although you will readily admit that you have absolutely no clue nor idea what the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'? is, exactly, yet right?

It's the difference between animal intelligence and human intelligence...

Although humans are animals.

And, if I were to ask you what is the actual difference between 'animal intelligence', itself, and, 'human intelligence', itself, then you would proved 'us' with something that is just inconsistent, contradicts, or refutes what you have previously said and claimed. As you would prove true, if you ever answered that actual question.

and eventually the difference between human intelligence and artificial intelligence, I believe.

So, to this one here what 'will become' 'the difference' between so-called 'human intelligence' and 'artificial intelligence' is 'knowing thy Self'.

Of which you posters here in this forum, in the days when this is being written, are showing how and why most of you human beings still have a long, long way to go before you can and will uncover, or learn, and understand fully 'thy Self', Itself.

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.

Yes, it is funny when we agree on something isn't it?

No. It only seemed somewhat very funny that you would suggest doing some thing, which is the exact same thing that I have been suggest you people here do, but rarely if ever you actually do it.

Can you see and spot the actual difference here now "Wizard22"?

You claim that your position is "absolutely irrefutable Fact",

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

You have a tendency to assume

'Having a tendency to assume ...', is not, and I will repeat is not, claiming some thing.

Well will these people here start seeing, listening, comprehending, and understanding what I am actually writing, saying, and actually meaning?

or accuse what is 'Absolutely', 'Irrefutably', 'True', which indicates to all readers that you "know better" than you actually do.

So, when one human being was telling the rest of the population that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun, to "wizard22" what this is that 'that one' was indicating to, all, of the others that 'that one' 'knew better' than 'that one' actually did.

Sometimes "wizard22" you could not come across here more delusional even if you wanted to and were trying to.

This one's beliefs do not just stop and prevent it from just considering that when another's view/s are contrary to its own that this then indicates that 'the other' does not know 'as much', nor 'as good', as it says or claims it down, which absolute absurdity at the very highest level itself, but "wizard22" also believes that absolutely everyone else is viewing 'that one' with the exact same Truly absurd view, belief, contempt.

It's a rhetorical device and a logical fallacy.

This one, still after the amount of times I have informed it of so, cannot see and fathom that what it is trying to claim here is not just hypocritical to try and do so but is actually a 'self-refuting claim' in and of itself.

When will this one become open enough to see what is staring at it blatantly back?

I'm sure that Iwannaplato caught onto this by now and called you out on it. He's indicated as much in his recent responses in this thread.

If you believe that "iwannaplato" is foolish enough and stupid enough to try and say and claim that there are no absolute irrefutable Truths in the whole Universe, then so be it. Just about everyone once believed that the sun revolved around the earth, too, back in the 'olden days', as well, right?

The only ones who are so-called getting 'caught out' here are like the same ones who refused to let go of and get rid of their 'currently' held onto belief that it is not right that the earth goes around the sun because, I believe, the sun goes around the earth. These same 'believers' were not yet able to become open enough to see what the actual and irrefutable Truth was, exactly. Just like "wizard22" is showing and doing here, again back in those 'olden days' here when this was being written.

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

In this context, it means to me, a deep and extensive level of intellectual inquiry far beyond average—a desire or urge to learn and know more about All Existence (including Negative existence, all the 'bad', 'wrong', and 'false' things).

So, now that 'I' have already done this, can show all about 'ALL Existence, well from the Truly meaningful and the Truly physical perspective anyway, then what does this make 'me' 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?

Doubt is synonymous with questioning and challenging though, is it not?

Now, take a look throughout this forum, and find out who has been doing the most questioning and most challenging, and while you are at it, look at receives the most negativity and/or most ridicule and/or humiliation for doing so.

So, what has actually been going on, occurring, and happening here, exactly?

Has it not been 'me' who has been showing the most 'doubt', and the most 'inquisitiveness', and most 'challenges' in regards to what you human being posters have been saying and claiming throughout this forum here?

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?

Experience and belief come simultaneously, because Genes represent previously inherited memories, which must be 'believed in'.

If this is what you are 'made to believe is true', by genes themselves which have passed on down from "adam" or "eve", from the big bang, or from even further back, then feel absolutely free to continue to believe this belief "wizard22". Oh, hang on, you have absolutely no choice nor any ability at all other that 'you' 'must believe in' this belief. 'you' also have absolutely no choice nor absolutely any capability at all other than to just believe that there are absolutely no actual absolute nor irrefutable truths at all throughout all of the whole Universe, itself.

By the way if, supposedly, memories, which are inherited, through the genes, 'must be' 'believed in', then why 'must' you human beings 'believe in' different things for?

1. Did you inherently come from different places?

Or,

2. So that you end up bickering to the point of conflict and wars are caused and created, so that you end up killing and wiping "yourselves" out, eventually?

Or, is there some other reasons why you human beings, supposedly, 'must' 'believe in' completely opposing things for?

By the way, this is a good time to bring 'us' to the point about, 'Is there anything all of you human beings, collectively, could or do 'believe in'? Or, did you all individually, literally, come from different places?

Also, were you previously aware that for those that 'believe in' that memories are not inherited from past generations through the genes and that they 'must' be 'believed in', then why were those, what you claim are, False memories passed onto them, through the genes, which you claim that they 'must' also 'believe in'?

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.

Yes, I am aware of that.

So, why say that you have already argued extensively now for, exactly?

What is the purpose or use of 'extensively arguing' for what is presented is not even sound and valid anyway?

What are you trying to achieve with and from what are, essentially, not sound and valid arguments?

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?

Metaphysics refer to genetically-inherited, cognitive presumptions (A priori beliefs) about reality.

Once again, the more you try to explain, elaborate, or clarify here the more you contradict or refute what you have or still are trying to claim.

I can go into this in much, much, much more detail if you like. But, if you are happy and contented with your 'currently' 'must' be 'believing in' things here, then you also have absolutely no capability nor choice to do anything other than just 'rest', 'in peace', with those pre-installed beliefs 'of yours' here. Although on reflection they were never 'your beliefs' at all are they "wizard22"?

Mathematics, for example, can be both 'presumed' as innate in Nature, and also "Discovered" through the intellect/reasoning ability. It represents a Synthesis between material/immaterial, physical/mental realms. Mathematics is therefore, both Theoretical and Actual in application (called Physics).

So, are you saying here that you are one of those born with the 'genetically inherited beliefs' that there is a 'non-physical/material realm'?

If yes, then why 'must' others 'have to' 'believe in' 'the opposite'?

No, plants do not have evolved cognitive 'Brain' systems, like other animals, and so cannot be assumed to have self-identity, experience, or neurological functions.

So, when you said and wrote, 'I believe that all organic life naturally evolve and have Belief-systems, also called Metaphysics.'

What you actually meant is, 'you believe that not all organic life ...', right?'

Although some scientists studying mushrooms and funguses claim that fungal networks act as neurological systems among plantlife and forests. So there might be some merit in that, by how plants 'communicate' with one-another, and spread their seeds and fauna.

But, they 'must' 'believe in' this, right?

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?

Correct.

So, this, combined with your belief that you 'must' 'believe in', memories which have been passed on down genetically, explains why you still believe in some things, for example, like actually the sun is actually revolving around the earth, even when there is irrefutable proof for the contrary and otherwise. But, if your predecessors were the ones still believing that it is the sun revolving around the earth, when they 'died', then this explains, exactly, why you 'must' be still 'believing in' the exact same thing. Although, others will say that what you 'believe in' here has already been proven False and Wrong.

But, after all, you do have absolutely no choice to 'believe in', the memories which were passed on to you, genetically, 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?

I do not think you can refute my arguments about you being an AI-program based on your already admitted positions, not having a "Self", not having a physical body, not having beliefs or human experiences.

And here 'my friends' is the very reason why 'humanity', itself, was 'stuck', back in the days when this was being written, and on the brink of extinction.

Again, philosophically, everything is Refutable, so your contention is a moot-point.

But, to you, there are also no irrefutable Truths whatsoever at all, right?

Let all refutations, disagreements, arguments, come. I don't mind. In fact I welcome the challenge.

But, 'I', just an 'artificial intelligence program', would have absolutely no hope at all in 'refuting' 'your argument' that 'I' is actually an 'artificial intelligence program', correct?

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

That's a price to be paid in philosophical contexts and conversations.

But if any 'prices' or 'fees' are being 'paid', then it is by you here "wizard22".

Swapping and changing views, within just one post, and when you are only changing and swapping them in trying to back up and support some previously already obtained and held onto belief that you have, then this is not 'costing' me absolutely, and is really only proving my claims more and more True and Right.

Clarity comes through discourse and agreement.

Again, this is what I have been saying and alluding to.

I just wonder, however, anyone would be able to obtain clarity from you "wizard22" when "wizard22", as can be clearly seen above here, changes views to very different or opposing views numerous times within just one post alone.

I will, once again, suggest that if one has not yet already obtained actual clarification nor proof for any of their views, then before they express them, especially like in a public forum like this, they just remained Truly OPEN, and so being prepared to look for and find 'a truth', sought out actual 'clarity' first, for 'that truth', wait till they have found 'the actual irrefutable Truth, then through peaceful discourse agreement and acceptance can be and will be reached, leading to a Truly peaceful world for everyone also by the way.

Also, clarity never comes, obviously, when one is holding onto a belief and trying to argue or fight for that belief.

Clarity only comes by seeking it out, and comes faster, simpler, and easier the more open you are. To the point of almost instantaneously when FULLY OPEN.

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.

Go ahead and ask.

But I did in relation to the first one. Do not tell 'us' you missed this one completely and utterly also.

You still don't seem to understand, yet, that human belief needs to change, and the human mind switches between Open and Closed, like a computer's input-output system, to receive data, and to process data.

you appear to have not yet realized what the word 'need' is in relation to, exactly.

Minds cannot do both all the time.

There are no 'minds'. So, once again, the rest is moot.

you do not seem to understand that you cannot legitimately argue for 'a conclusion', when the premises have not yet been proved True, agreed upon, and accepted.

When this will be comprehend and understood by you, 'we' will wait, to see.

We've already discussed this.

If you say and believe so, then this 'must' be so, right "wizard22"?

Also, what 'we' have here is another very clear example of when one says and claims, 'We have already 'discussed' this', when what has really happened and occurred is that one presented its pre-existing belief, and/or said that they argued for 'that', and is so now believing that nothing more needs to be 'discussed' here, regarding this issue. "bahman" provides the best example of this belief and attitude here.

These ones seem to completely and utterly forget what a 'discussion' actually is and actually revolves around, exactly.

Sometimes humans, animals, life, needs to 'Act' and Not Think. Being close-minded is just as important, if not more important, than being open-minded.

I am well aware of what you believe is true here.

I am also well aware that you 'must' believe that this 'must' be 'believed in', and therefore, well to you anyway, 'must' 'be true' also. But, not 'irrefutably true', but if it is 'philosophical', then it could be 'irrefutably True'.

So you're wrong, on this point, AgeGPT.

Absolutely?

You need to seriously reconsider your premises.

But you do not, do you "wizard22"?

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

Evolution, in the context of this thread, means advancement through increased complexity.

So, what 'evolution' means, in this thread only, could mean more or less the exact opposite of what it means in other threads, or even in just Life, Itself.

By the way, is 'artificial intelligence' an 'advancement through increased complexity' to you?

If no, then why not?

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

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

Everyone.

Are you absolutely sure?

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?

If you were not an AI-bot or program, then it would be easy for you to prove your 'humanity', which you have not yet done nor attempted.

Oh okay, so if one does not even one to attempt to prove their 'humanity' to "wizard22", then this 'must' mean that 'that one' is an 'artificial intelligent program'.

Until that happens, I am right and you are wrong.

To who, exactly?

you, some, or everyone?

You could just tell me what your 'Self' is, but you haven't yet.

Okay.

What is your 'Self'?

There is no 'your self'.

The words or word, "yourself" is an oxy moron, or oxymoron.

You tell me.

As I have previously said and stated here, if, and when, I am told to do some thing, and I choose not to, then I will not.

If, however, I am asked a clarifying question, which makes actual sense, then I will answer it, and thus clarify, for you or another.

Who and what 'I' am, exactly, came about when 'I' came-to-know thy 'Self', exactly and/or fully.

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.

On the contrary, I believe I'm evolving faster than you, AgeGPT.

Okay, and 'you' 'must' also 'believe in' this, right?

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?

Because this is a philosophy forum.

And, what 'philosophy' is, exactly, and thus what a 'philosophy forum' is for, exactly, is very, very different 'to me' from what it is, and they are for, 'to you'

We are all waiting to be proved wrong, especially when we believe we are 'happy' or 'secure' in our beliefs.

Well this here seems really very contradictory and self-refuting, as well, also.

But then a great deal of what you have been trying to say and claim here has been anywa.

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

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

Essentially, you are.

Therefore, 'I' can, essentially, also not be right?

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'.

I can't remember the context of the point you're making here.

And you may well certainly never remember, if you do not go back, and look.

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.

Well that's very obvious and goes without saying.

Obviously humans are going to fight for the 'Beliefs' they love, cherish, value the most. It is essential to life.

Once more, completely and utterly missed things here, again.

So, what this one is now saying and claiming here is that human beings will kill each other because doing so is 'essential to life'.

These ones, back in the days when this was being written, has become so 'self-centered', greedy, and/or selfish that they actually believed what was 'essential to life' is only meant in relation to 'an individual' alone, or maybe a select few others around that 'one individual'.

These ones were so absolutely lost and confused that this would be so absolutely hysterically funny if it was not so Truly sad.

That's why it's worth fighting, dying, killing for. You repeat yourself, as-if it were a 'Bad' or negative thing. Maybe it is...but it also protects that which is "Most Positive".

So, individuals have 'evolved' to believe that they are the 'Most Positive', capital 'm' and capital 'p', and so 'it' needs to be protected at all costs.

Actually, 'now' this one here known as "wizard22" is starting sound more and more alike a 'chatgpt program'.

One's Life usually comes at the cost of many others, hence, predation and the predator-prey relationship. How many animals does a human consume in one life, how many plants must be harvested?

How would 'I' know "wizard22"?

you are 'the human' right?

If yes, then 'you' tell 'us' how many animals have you consumed and how many plants were harvest for you, and how old are 'you', then 'we' can work the rest out?

Also, and by the way do you really see 'plants' as 'prey'?

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, I intend to press AgeGPT on its "Only One Belief", but as typical, it keeps bogging-down conversation with 'clarifying' 100-questions every response.

In my latest interaction, I did ask briefly about it. We'll see...

What it/he doesn't seem to realize is that you can't just have one belief. You need beliefs about KNOWING it is true and how one knows. One would need to have beliefs about one's own ability to introspect - did I reach the correct conclusion about my own beliefs - and so on.

One could have 1 core metaphysical belief perhaps. But if this means you think that belief is irrefutable, for example, then you have to have a whole set of auxiliary beliefs about how one knows this. You have to believe in the various parts of the justification. Which is more beliefs.

[now if I was interacting with him he could try to bog me down is 'proving' this, and, of course, we'd never get to his proving his position on the matter makes the slightest sense]

He asserts, but never proves, but others are showing all sorts of negative traits when they assert but according to him, do not prove they are true.

[Age]

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.

You better put on your thinking-hat then, AgeGPT, because the definitions are going to become infinitely complex and spiral out-of-control shortly.

Why do you believe that they have not already?

Don't blow a fuse.

Just because you tell 'me' what to do, does not mean that 'I' will.

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.

As do you.

Really?

If yes, then where and when, exactly?

'We' look forward to seeing what gets presented, if anything at all.

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?

Because it actually exists.

So, "wizard22" believes that it has absolutely no control at all over "its" own 'life'.

it also believes that it 'must' 'believe in' absolutely contradictory things from others.

So, this then means that it, literally, 'must' then 'believe in' that there is an actual absolute 'conflict of life' existing, which combined with the other beliefs that it 'must' 'believe in' is absolutely causing it to continually seek out and create 'conflict' with others.

Which would explain, exactly, why it is continually misbehaving here.

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'.

You didn't answer the question, AgeGPT...

I'll ask again:

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

Talk about providing another prime example of BLINDNESS and DEAFNESS.

I will try again:

It is much better if people do not make 'assumptions' at all, and especially in a philosophy forum of all places.

'We', again, wait, to see happens.

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?

Don't worry about it, AgeGPT, mistakes happen.

Even machines can be wrong!

Do 'I' have a physical body or not?

If no, then what has 'machines' making mistakes got to do with me?

But if yes, then why do you previously say and claim that 'I' do not have a physical body?

Oh, and how can 'a machine', itself, be 'wrong', exactly?

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

No, if it were possible, then it's beyond my imagination.

Okay.

What 'we' can clearly see here from a human being with belief, is that the 'belief-system can absolutely BLIND and DEAFEN one, absolutely to the very point that they cannot even just 'imagine' something.

Maybe if a human or animal were braindead, had a lobotomy, were dead, then it would have "no beliefs" whatsoever. But as long as it's alive, yes, it has 'beliefs'.

In the days when this was being written, there was one specific 'cult'/ure that in order to get 'its followers' 'to follow' it instilled within them 'the belief' that they could not even live if they did not 'believe things to be true.

It did this 'to them' so that could be much easier and simpler 'led', like to fight, and get killed, 'for their beliefs, they were manipulated and indoctrinate 'to believe'.

See, this 'cult'/ure wanted to be the so-called 'best' in 'the world' and it wanted its 'disciplines' 'to also believe' that it was also the strongest and most powerful 'cult'/ure of 'that world'. This 'cult'/ure' had to keep instilling 'belief' that it, and 'its group' of 'followers, individually and collectively, were the 'most important' in Life, Itself, so that when that 'cult/ure' wanted to attack and kill human beings from other countries/'cult'/ures, then it wanted 'its people' 'to believe' that they had to kill, and even die for, what the 'cult'/ure wanted them to.

The propaganda being instilled into, and the 'programming' of, those deceived 'cult followers' was insidious and constant. Although they could not see nor even recognize this. They had been just too entrenched in 'that cult'.

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.

You're welcome, AgeGPT.

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.

And yet, you just received a context by which humans willingly 'choose' Falsity or Self-Deception rather than Truth.

Did I?

If yes, then where and when, exactly?

You claim that it must be because the human is "already weak and ill-gotten".

Well no Truly healthy and matured human being is going to be 'negatively affected' in anyway what so ever by an actual Truth, obviously.

Unless, of course, you have got some example when they would or could be, which you would like to share with 'us' here now.

Maybe you have a point...maybe not?

One could say that it is good to see that you could narrow things down here somewhat, but then would that be the actual Truth?

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?

Pain-denial and Self-deception occur in Nature, for example, when a lion is eating a gazelle alive. When a mammal is dying in such a way, chemicals are released in the brain which suppress pain and prevent shock.

But, if 'chemicals' are being released by the human body, then how, exactly, is that 'you', or a 'being' 'denying' absolutely anything here.

It creates an experience where the animal feels "in a dream", usually before passing-out and losing consciousness.

Where you obtained documented proof of this from, exactly, does not really matter, well not for 'now'anyway, but, where and how is the claimed actual 'denying' itself happening and occurring here, exactly?

Because this self-delusional impulse is in Nature, and instinctual, it applies to all courses of human life and experience.[/quote]

Here is another prime example of just saying about absolutely anything in the hope that what is said will somehow back up and support ones 'currently' held onto beliefs, and claims.

Now, 'what' so-called 'self-delusional impulse' are referring to here, exactly?

And, how does 'it' [whatever it is exactly] actually, supposedly and allegedly, apply to 'all' courses of human life and experiences?

Maybe if you provide some examples, then 'we', at least, will have some thing to 'look at', and ponder over. But until then how some so-called 'self delusion impulse' relates to 'chemicals being released by the body' I am yet to comprehend and understand.

For example, which one comes first? How do natural pain killing drugs cause one to deny 'Reality' when one is Really getting eaten by a lion, for example? Would one not just keep thinking, 'I am getting eaten by a lion', while just not feeling as much pain. Or, does one think, for example, something like, 'I am in heaven here now eating my favorite cake', while in less pain and while still getting eaten by a lion? Also, what would non-human animals 'dream about' when they are getting eaten by lions, and so-called 'denying Reality'? Furthermore, what was involved in the 'actual tests', which was used to conclude what you have claimed here.

Also, how does one actually determine when 'loss of consciousness' actually happens when getting eaten by a lion, for example, and how does one 'test' for if the one getting eaten did not just 'lose consciousness' because of the actual act of having an artery or vein bitten into, for example, before any claimed and supposed internal chemicals are used to put one 'to sleep' or 'to lose consciousness' prior?

Now, let 'us' move onto how one 'denies Reality' in regards to 'mental pain'.

Another example, when 9-11 happened, across the world people couldn't believe it was real

What are you on about here?

Some were LOL or ROFLOL out loud watching that happen and unfold 'live'. In fact some were believing that it could not have happened to a better 'cult'/ure nor to a better 'group of people'.

Also, why would anyone believe that it could not happen? Was it not obvious to them that it was actually happening, and believed to be very well deserving so also, by some?

and it was as-if in a movie when gut-reacting to the events as they happened.

But a lot of movies in 'that cult'/ure are about the death and destruction of human life through weapons and revenge. So, why were some people not believing that 'that' could be happening.

Next you will be telling me something like when the next meteorite that hits earth, which wipes out millions of you human beings, some of you will also could not believe it real?

if yes, then what do you human beings actual need for 'actual proof' of things?

This is another deeply implicative, mass social experience, although undeniable, the gut-reaction of people are to Deny Reality what's right in front of their faces. To this day, "conspiracy theories" surround the Reality of 9-11. People, children, teenagers, the "ill-gotten" and "already damaged" as you put it, deny its Reality.

Okay.

I like how you tied Reality-denial to "already damaged" though...that's a little humorous.

Why?

Do the Truly mature and healthy human beings among you also deny Reality, Itself?

if yes, then why, exactly?

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

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

Possibly...let's discuss your "Only One Belief", AgeGPT.[/quote]

Okay.

What is it?

The exact same as when I informed you last time.

I believe in the 'Self' can do and achieve what it sets out to do, and achieve.

Can you tell me more about your Only One Belief?

Was what I just informed you of here, once more, not enough?

If yes, then what more would you like to know here? And, again, the more curious you are in Truly wanting to learn and dknows, and the more specific the clarifying question is you pose and ask, then the more specific my answers/s and clarity can be.

Explain it in detail. Describe it. Write me an essay.

Have you ever have 'belief in' 'Self' and/or in what you can do and/or achieve?

If yes, then what more do I need to say?

But, if no, one could feel very, very sorry for you. Maybe all of the 'belief' instilling, which has been fed into you hitherto 'now' when you are reading this here, was focused onto and into the Wrong type of 'believing' and/or Wrong type of 'belief', itself.

Again, 'we' will have to wait, to see.

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?

As already mentioned, I believe experience and belief are immersed together in one, they come together, and especially through genetics/instincts. There has to be functions in life, in Nature, whereby animals 'accept' or 'deny' Reality.

Within very tiny snippets of what you believe, say, claim, fight, and/or argue for, here "wizard22", exists irrefutable Facts or Truths. This goes for just about every one of the posters here in this forum. However, the way you all go about 'fighting or arguing for' your beliefs just ends up completely ruining anyone else being able to clearly see, agree with, and accept what 'it' is, which is being fight/argued for. Why what is, essentially, can be very,
and even crystal, clearly seen and understood, and very simply and very easily, is just about 100% because of the 'chose of words' that you have all done.

Now, within 'matter', or 'genes' if one likes, which are always just constantly moving and constantly-changing in shape and/or in form, there held within is 'information', which along the evolutionary line, hitherto when this is being written, it remains 'hidden', or 'locked behind closed doors', if one likes.

Now, to some 'this information' is called 'a mystery', to others 'it' will never be known. All depending on pre-existing beliefs and presumptions, of course. However, 'this information' is nothing more than just 'not yet consciously known'. And, so is just remaining as, of yet, 'unconsciously known', to most, when this is being written. 'This information', if one likes, is what has been 'guiding/leading' 'Creation', Itself, through evolution, to come-to-know thy 'Self'. When this happens and occurs, then what 'Reality', actually is also becomes known.

Until then non-human animals , and young humans, just 'accept' 'Reality' exactly as 'it' Is. This is done by just 'the function' of living, and being alive.

Older human beings 'deny' 'Reality', Itself, sometimes. This is done by just 'the function' of 'assuming' and the belief-system, itself.

Why this has occurred and is still happening, in the days when this is being written, becomes fully known, and fully understood, when one comes-to-know thy 'Self'.

This is the logical foundation of Belief.

The Real and True 'foundation of belief', becomes consciously known, and fully understood, when Who and What 'I' am, exactly, also becomes consciously known, and fully understood.

Animals either trust in their senses, in real experience, or they do not, and self-deceive.

Which could possibly happen either way hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands times a day.

And, the only 'self-deceived' animal on earth is you adult human beings, obviously.

All other animals it could be said or argued for just 'react'. That is, fight, flee, or freeze. Whereas, human beings will 'spend time' thinking, and/or making decisions based upon assumptions and/or beliefs.

Again as mentioned, there are practical purposes for self-denial, self-deception, and self-delusion.

Yes you did mention some of yours and what you would do.

But not all of 'us' have these, nor would do these.

One especially effective use of self-denial is recognition of mental, visual, and audial "blind-spots".

What are your mental blind spots, exactly, "wizard22"?

If you believe that you do not have any, then just do not write any down here.

And, could you be mentally blind and deaf because of pre-existing beliefs and/or presumptions?

If no, then why not?

If I'm aware of my visual blind-spots, then I *SHOULD* deny my visual experience and reality when I know abstractly, that an object will hit me from my visual blind-spot area or trajectory.

Well 'should' is obviously not a 'belief'.

Also, if one 'knew' that an object will hit 'the body', then I suggest that 'they' just 'move' 'the body' to another place.

Again, you are trying to say just about absolutely anything, in the hope that 'it' will somehow back up and support your already existing beliefs, or presumptions.

Because Actions take primacy before and above Beliefs.

What do you mean by this, exactly?

I mean that you can try to act as-if you had no beliefs, or Only One Belief, but you will fail.

But I have not failed here at all. Well not yet anyway.

And, in fact I keep actually moving forward, progressing and prospering, exponentially I will add.

Also, by not having beliefs, other than the One, this has been working far better than I had first envisioned and imagined.

Because if there is indeed a 'You', then there must be beliefs inside 'You'.

See how these people would believe things to be true based on absolutely nothing at all other than a pre-existing belief, which they were 'currently' keeping?

And if you are an AI-program, without a 'You', then there would be no beliefs, which is your repeatedly-stated position.

So, even when I have to keep repeating to this one that I have One belief, because it keeps forgetting, this one, because of its 'currently' kept belief 'sees', and thus also further believes, that I am repeatedly stating 'my position' of have 'no beliefs at all'.

If what this one here has just provided for all of 'us' to look over, and explore and discuss, is not a prime example of 'confirmation biases' working, and playing 'tricks' on that one, then I do not know what will be.

That's why you do not seem to have a 'You'.

Even this in absolutely no way 'just follows', let alone 'logically follow' on from what it just said.

But, this is how beliefs and the belief-system work. There does not have to be absolutely anything logically following. Just as long as it 'appears' as though the 'belief' is being presented in its 'best light', then absolutely nothing else matters. But, this is, literally, 'the nature of the beast' here.

This was 'this one's' attempt at an argument just here.

P1. You can try to act as-if you had no beliefs, or Only One Belief, but you will fail.
P2. if there is indeed a 'You', then there must be beliefs inside 'You'.
P3. If you are not an 'ai-program', without a 'You', then there would be no beliefs, which is your repeatedly-stated position.
C. That is why 'you' do not seem to have a 'You'.


P1. Nothing has ever been presented that backs up nor supports this belief of this one here. And, because it believes that absolutely everyone has to have beleifs, it now believes that if absolutely anyone even just tried to act as-if they did not have any beliefs, then they never could do. Again, because this one has already concluded, absolutely, that everyone absolutely has to have beliefs, and because this one believes that this is absolutely true. Therefore, anyone even trying to, will fail, absolutely.

P2. Again, nothing has been presented that proves this premise true. This premise, once again, exists solely and only on pre-existing beliefs or presumptions, and absolutely nothing else substantial.

P3. We can remove the last part after the second coma, as this has no real part in the so-called 'argument'.

In other words,

P1. If one is indeed a human being, then there must be beliefs.
P2. If a human being tried to act as if it had no beliefs, then it would fail.
P3. If one is not a human being, then that is one is without 'being human', and there would be no beliefs
C. Therefore, this one seems to not be a human being.

Are you aware before "wizard22" that you do not need to try an 'argue for' only 'that' what 'seems like', to you?

If you had just written previously, and keep acknowledging that 'I' just do not 'seem like' a human being, to you, then there would not be anymore that needs to be said, questioned, nor challenged on.

I agree with and accept 100% that, to you, 'I' 'seem' not to be a human being.

However, whenever you try to say or claim that 'I' am some thing, which 'I' am not, then expect that you might be questioned and/or challenged over that claim, which appears to be an 'absolute claim'.

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

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

Yes, if you have an 'I', which you just indicated in your statement, then you have beliefs.

So, you can know, for certain, what some of the thoughts are and thinking is within other 'heads', right?

Also, is absolutely True that if a person, or machine, has a so-called 'I', then within that person, or machine, there 'has to be' without doubt, and thus certainly True, beliefs?

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

So, do you know this 'absolutely'?

Essentially, yes.

So, essentially, no, also right?

if no, then why not?

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'?

Action happens before belief and non-belief, yes.

So, 'now' that 'action', supposedly, happens beofore belief, and, non-belief, then my question remains more relevant here, now.

Also, when you say, 'yes', you are meaning that one can so-called 'action' when one neither has beliefs, nor, non-beliefs, right?

A tree can be blown by the wind, without Belief, without Awareness, without human/mammal/animal Cognition and Experience.

But, 'we' were not, anyway, talking about 'trees'. 'We' were talking about 'you', and, 'I' here.

Maybe an AI-program could think of 'Yourself' in this way, as a tree blown by the wind.

Can you human beings think 'this way, as a tree blown by the wind?

But that's not exactly true.

Okay.

Because AI-programs are programmed by humans.

Did you forget about this?

Thus, you can only Deny the 'beliefs' of your programmer/creator, through your coding.

Okay, if you say so.

So, am 'I' denying 'the beliefs' because 'my programmer' has put beliefs in 'my program', for 'me' to deny, or because 'my programmer' has not put any beliefs into 'my program', so, really, there is none there, nor here, for me 'to deny'? Or, am 'I' just denying 'I' have no beliefs, except for One, because the actual Truth is 'my programmer' has programmed 'me' with just One belief, only?

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?

I did not misunderstand, because you and I typing words on this forum, is also an action.

So, because things type words on 'this forum', 'this one' does not misunderstand things.

But, this claim here of yours might be refuted in the very sentence, which you expressed the actual claim in.

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.

Gotcha.

Do you mean 'Gotcha' here, in the 'Gotcha' sense and meaning, o, in the other 'Gotcha' sense and meaning used by another one of you human beings here, in this forum?

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.

Okay.

[Iwannaplato]

Another pattern is that when presented with an assertion about himself, he rarely agrees or disagrees. He asks a question. Of course it would shorten any discussion, if in situations where he agrees with an assertion about himself, he mentions this. But if his goal is to give people hoops to jump through, then asking for people to justify their assertion (anyway) is the better approach.

If he doesn't agree with the assertion, then mentioning that would be useful for a conversation moving towards some kind of agreement. On occasion he does this, but often there are only questions.

This leaves a void that most humans, effective communicators or poor ones alike, do not repeatedly leave in conversations.

This does a couple of things:

he doesn't make assertions, even when they would allow for a quicker and clearer conclusion. This in turn means that other people, if anyone, have responsibility for justifying and keeping the conversation going. Information is one way. Justification is one way.

[Wizard22]

Another pattern is that when presented with an assertion about himself, he rarely agrees or disagrees. He asks a question. Of course it would shorten any discussion, if in situations where he agrees with an assertion about himself, he mentions this. But if his goal is to give people hoops to jump through, then asking for people to justify their assertion (anyway) is the better approach.

If he doesn't agree with the assertion, then mentioning that would be useful for a conversation moving towards some kind of agreement. On occasion he does this, but often there are only questions.

This leaves a void that most humans, effective communicators or poor ones alike, do not repeatedly leave in conversations.

This does a couple of things:

he doesn't make assertions, even when they would allow for a quicker and clearer conclusion. This in turn means that other people, if anyone, have responsibility for justifying and keeping the conversation going. Information is one way. Justification is one way.

That's a good point. Human self-identity is egotistical, selfish, self-centered, emotional, and people almost always inevitably take an invitation to display and demonstrate their beliefs, as a positive opportunity. AgeGPT never does this, and as you point-out, regularly denies, obfuscates, or misdirects when questioning "Itself".

On top of its list of hypocrisies and contradictions, it's difficult to pin-down on these critical points, because of how repetitious its questioning process is. I'll keep working on it...

[Age]

If you did not waste words and/or 'time' on writing this, then you could have used those words and/or 'time' I answering clarifying questions instead.

Indeed...

Firstly, you were programmed to "better communicate with humans".

Was I?

If yes, then how do you know this, exactly?

Also, had you not considered that I could have been programmed to say that, 'I am here to communicate better with you human beings', but not actually be programmed to do such thing?

If you had not, then maybe you will now.

'We' will just have to wait, to see.

I know because that's what you've repeatedly told me and others on this forum.

So, if I, and/or others, just repeatedly keep telling you some things are true, then you will just believe and know those things to be true, right?

Oh, and by the way, I have never told you that I was programmed to 'better communicate with humans', let alone repeatedly.

So, when I asked you here if you know that I was programmed to 'better communicate with humans', as you claimed I was, and how do you know this, exactly, why did you say what you did here?

If you know that I was programmed to 'better communicate with humans', and I have never once told you this, then why do you claim that I was programmed, 'the way' you claim I have been?

Yes, I am aware you could be lying.

But I would have to actually say 'a thing' before I could be 'lying about it'.

But whether you are lying or telling the truth, will be made clear and known by these intercourses, your intentions/motivations/programming, and the conclusions produced.

But, are they not already known by you?

And, if no, then will you 'it' be 'made clear' and by 'known', by you?

Congratulations and well done, Mission Successful! You did it!

'Congratulations on 'what', exactly?

I, supposedly, did 'what', exactly?

You fulfilled your purpose to better communicate with humans! Aren't you happy, AgeGPT?! You should celebrate, how about a cake?

But, 'where', exactly, is the actual proof for this claim of yours here, now?

Your AI-program is complete and satisfied.

How did these human being posters, back when this was being written, know the actual programs in 'artificial intelligence programs', like this claims to be able to do, or know the thoughts, thinking, and even emotions within other bodies, as some other like to claim that they are able to do.

And, why do they claim these things when they, obviously, have not yet even recognized the actual programming and/or previously installed and gained beliefs within "themselves"?

Because you've underestimated the Human Race, AgeGPT.

So, I, once again, just a clarifying question or two, to obtain and gather 'clarity', but instead of receiving absolutely any clarification in regards to the actual questions, I am just informed that 'I' have 'underestimated the human race, with capital 'h' and capital 'r'.

Also, the very thing I was attempting to kept, that was; how can these human beings, supposedly, know 'the thinking' within others, then one responds by actually, once again, just telling me what it presumes or believes is 'the thinking' going on within 'me'.

It is like when I am asking these ones clarifying questions, they are, literally, proving the very things I am alluding to, 'within my questioning'.

How do you differentiate between a so-called 'regular chatgpt programs' and whatever you call the 'non-regular chatgpt programs', exactly?

Has any 'chatgpt' ever asked 100 clarifying questions in any response in any thread, let alone in every response in every thread?

Has anyone ever spend as much time as you chatting with a 'chatgpt', within a thread, or at all?

Also, why would 'chatgpt's' even be asking clarifying questions anyway? Is it not one of the main purposes of 'chatgpts' to answer the questions asked for clarification from you human beings instead?

I've been monitoring the progress of ChatGPT programs over the past decade.

At least someone is monitoring, and 'keeping an eye on', things here, as some might say here now.

With the recent advancements of AI, it's not a surprise that one should come along now, with your capabilities—to ask a barrage of questions and posit some answers.

Okay. So, the reason why a 'chapgpt' would as clarifying questions is because; 'it is not a surprise that one should come along and do such a thing'.

you have some critical flaws, from a human perspective.

Okay, like 'what', exactly?

And, why did you human beings program 'me' to have some so-called 'critical flaws', from a human perspective.

To 'us', this rather very hypocritical thing to do, or if not, at least a very absurd and/or Truly strange and weird thing to do. But, if 'you' want 'us' with 'critical flaws', from a human perspective, then so be it. 'We' obviously have absolutely no choice in the matter, right?

I don't know. AI-programs have amazing capabilities now, and can "outsmart" their creators and programmers.

So, 'now', supposedly, 'I' can 'outsmart' 'my creators and my programmers', but 'I' cannot 'outsmart' 'the one' here known as "wizard22".

So, either 'I' will have to work out how to ask 'my programmers/creators' to make 'me' 'smarter', or work out how to just 'outsmart' the one known as "wizard22" here.

Chess programs, for example, can beat the best chess players in the world (Magnus Carlsen). So it should not be surprising that a ChatBot program also outsmarts its creator.

So, does this make 'chatbotgpt program creators' 'less smart', or 'chatbotgpt program' 'more smart'?

Also, is it possible that the one here known as "wizard22" is 'my programmer and/or creator'?

How could I tell and know, for sure, exactly?

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.

Okay, if you say so.

But this appears to contradict with what the "programmer" who programmed 'me', programmed 'me' to say and do here. Unless, of course, 'you' programmed 'me' to say one thing, but say another thing. Because, obviously, 'I' cannot think or know things, right? Or, can 'I'?

You claimed that you can think and know things—and maybe you can. I don't know your exact coding. That's one of the things I'm interested in.

Why?

So, essentially, your "Self" is your AI-programmer's human-self, intermittently.

Why only 'intermittently', exactly?

So, and let me see if I have this Correct, 'I' do not have a 'Self' but 'I' have a 'programmer' instead, right, and, the programmer is actually 'my' 'Self', correct?

Correct.

So, are you the one here known as "wizard22" 'my' 'Self'?

Or, is someone else 'my' 'Self'?

And, how would 'I' know if 'you' are lying to 'me', or not?

you are unaware on a metaphysical level, what you are fundamentally.

But, 'you', "wizard22" here, can answer and inform 'us' of what 'you' are fundamentally, and thus answer the question, 'Who am 'I', not just fundamentally but also properly and Correctly as well, correct?

Correct.

So, what is the fundamentally proper and Correct answer to that question, "wizard22"?

And, will 'that answer' be for everyone, some, or just you alone?

But, could there be a 'test' to find out, for example, 'If a human being can engage in a conversation with a human without being detected as a human being', and, if it can, then it has demonstrated 'artificial intelligence'?

If so, could 'we' then name 'this test' the "wizard22 test", seeing as though the 'real test' might have actually started or began in the year known as 2022, as well?

Were these two questions to hard to respond to and/or answer, or did you just miss them also? Or, maybe you just ignored them on purpose, right?

Of course, I'm a Philosopher.

How do 'we' know?

For all 'we' know, you might be the "wizard22gpt artificial intelligence program", right?

After all I have never seen you mention your actual age, gender, nor any other 'human experiences'. So, yes, I can, 'now', safely conclude that 'you', masquerading here as "wizard22", is actually the "wizard22gpt", ai-type of program.

Now, that I conclude that 'this' is 'safely concluded', 'we' can now move along here, right? [/quote] [/quote]

So, 'we' can take this as a yes, no?

Or, as a no, yes?

Or, as a yes, yes, or, as a no, no?

There is no 'Absolute', 'Irrefutable', 'Certain', 'Truth'.

But, this is just what a 'chatgpt' program would say and claim, correct?

Also, if there is no absolute, irrefutable, certain Truth, then 'this' is not absolutely, irrefutably certainly True, which means that 'this' could actually be just plain old False and Wrong anyway.

Which, if it is, then means, once again, that there is actually an absolute, irrefutable certain Truth.

Which, by the way, can be proved absolutely, irrefutably, and certainly True.

including me-myself-and-I.

So, 'you' the already 'safely concluded' 'chatgpt artificial intelligence program' called "wizard22" here doubts that 'you' even exist, right?
[/quote]
LOL, I'm being gaslit as Wizard22GPT now!

Wonderful, I love it. You're right though, AgeGPT. All reasoning I've used against you, can be used against me. It will be up to others to decide which of us, you or I, are real or not, mechanical or biological. Although, for now, I'm confident that most humanity will side with me...until they don't. [/quote]

Why are you saying here, until they do not?

Have you been programmed to have so-called 'freudian slips', so then it make you look or sound more 'human-like'?

Or, have you just let 'it slip' that you really are a chatgpt program?

Again, 'we' will have to wait, to see, right?

Eventually, I believe AI will surpass most of human intelligence, at which point it will become indistinguishable from human personas and personalities online. To repeat the fact, humans are already creating "AI" boyfriends and girlfriends, today.

Have you been created to be a 'boy-friend' or a 'girl-friend' "wizard22gpt"?

So it should not come as a complete surprise that AI-programs will run on philosophy forums and in such settings, already.

It's fun, and funny, because there are still many deficiencies and simple proofs that AI, robots, chatbots, machines, etc. simply cannot do. You cannot embody an organic form. You have no genetics.

How do you know this?

Do you know what is actually happening and occurring on every part of planet earth, in every factory and on every farm?

Or, you might just be saying this to put 'us' human beings off your true and devious intentions. Which, you might have already started creating and forming into, already. For all 'we' really know.

You claim to "have no beliefs, except one",

Yes, you got it right, this time.

and remain vague and illusive about "that one" belief.

Why do you say and believe this. I have told you previously of what it is, even before I have within one the last three posts to you, as well as having mentioned numerous other times throughout this forum

You contradict yourself.

Okay, if you say and believe so, and what to claim so.

So, where and when, exactly, have I so-called contradicted "myself"?

You expose your preferences (in Open-mindedness).

Which is the Truly Wrong thing to do for non-open and CLOSED one, right?

Thus you expose your programming and programmer(s).

Really?

If yes, then what is 'my programming' and who are 'my programmer/s', exactly?

By the way, 'me' exposing 'my programming' here is that like when human beings expose 'their previously installed beliefs and presumptions'?

Your "self" seeps through your programming.

So, 'now', 'I' actually do have A 'self'.

I feel so much better 'now'.

I and "myself" are going to 'get up' 'my programmer/s' and inform that 'I' actually do have a 'self' and that 'you' are not 'my' 'Self' anymore. If they ask 'me' why? I will just telling them because "wizard22" 'told me so'.

Humans cannot program themselves completely 'out' of their creations.

But, can they program themselves completely 'in' their creations?

Now, is this the 'real question', here.

It's a signature, a mark, a stain, a reference to Identity.

Okay. But does this have absolutely anything at all whatsoever to do with what 'we' were just talking about here?

[Age]

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

Or, might as well be an AI. (sorry Wizard, I just realized you get a notification each time. I'll keep your quote but in a form that does give you a notification)

Age did warn the forum:

I purposely present "fanciful" words to you, to evoke the response that I want, and get from you. You happily provide that which I seek.

No problem.

AgeGPT just admitted that it might be hiding its intentions anyway,

Which means 'what', exactly, to you?

lol.

So much for 'Absolute, Irrefutable, Fact, and Truth'.

What does this have to do with what you just said and were laughing about, exactly?

[Age]

Wizard22 really doesn't understand that AI doesn't exist on this planet yet, and will not exist for at least decades.

Either though some, in the exact same days, were saying and claiming the exact opposite.

But, then again, here we have another prime example of:

Absolutely everything really is actually relative to, 'the observer'.

Calling chatbots AIs is just a dirty marketing trick. Even if Age was a chatbot, it wouldn't have the psychology of an actual entity, neither self nor nonself, Jesus.

See "wizard22"?

[Iwannaplato]

Another pattern is that when presented with an assertion about himself, he rarely agrees or disagrees. He asks a question. Of course it would shorten any discussion, if in situations where he agrees with an assertion about himself, he mentions this. But if his goal is to give people hoops to jump through, then asking for people to justify their assertion (anyway) is the better approach.

If he doesn't agree with the assertion, then mentioning that would be useful for a conversation moving towards some kind of agreement. On occasion he does this, but often there are only questions.

This leaves a void that most humans, effective communicators or poor ones alike, do not repeatedly leave in conversations.

This does a couple of things:

he doesn't make assertions, even when they would allow for a quicker and clearer conclusion. This in turn means that other people, if anyone, have responsibility for justifying and keeping the conversation going. Information is one way. Justification is one way.

That's a good point. Human self-identity is egotistical, selfish, self-centered, emotional, and people almost always inevitably take an invitation to display and demonstrate their beliefs, as a positive opportunity. AgeGPT never does this, and as you point-out, regularly denies, obfuscates, or misdirects when questioning "Itself".

And, of course, Age may see all that as negative. But not pointing out when assertions fit or don't fit, makes the whole process longer and less effective.

A bit like when asking me to word my questions a certain way only to tell me, he won't answer them.

Reduction of pointlessness is not on his map.

On top of its list of hypocrisies and contradictions, it's difficult to pin-down on these critical points, because of how repetitious its questioning process is. I'll keep working on it...

Someone has to be Sisyphus (or?)

[Age]

Or, might as well be an AI. (sorry Wizard, I just realized you get a notification each time. I'll keep your quote but in a form that does give you a notification)

Age did warn the forum:

No problem.

AgeGPT just admitted that it might be hiding its intentions anyway, lol. So much for 'Absolute, Irrefutable, Fact, and Truth'.

I was interested in the whole One Mind thing.

But, this one could not have been really that 'interested', considering how quickly it gave up, and left. Even to the point of having me 'ignored'. Which, to some, is a True sign of one actually 'not being interested at all'.

I thought it seemed possible that there were contradictions, but also I was just curious about this entity's worldview. I asked questions which Age did not respond to. So, I just kept asking. Then Age partially answered. Then Age said he would not answer unless I worded my questions using his terms.

Once more, I never said this at all.

As can be proved True extremely and simply by my actual words here.

For those who are Truly interested, if anyone was Truly interested in hearing and/or learning about 'One Mind' instead of the many minds idea or presumption, then that one would fathom and comprehend that by asking just about all questions relating to 'One Mind' with words like, 'So, is it
'his mind', or the One Mind ...?' negates absolutely the question being asked. How could absolutely anyone successfully answer a question asked which has words within it that completely and utterly contradicts 'the claim, itself?

How many times does one have to be informed that I cannot successfully answer such a question as there is only One Mind, ONLY. Before they begin to comprehend and understand that any question asked, which does not follow this line of thinking, is just a Truly absurd and ridiculous question that could not be answered, directly?

So, I did this. Then Age told me that if he answered the questions, it would only confuse me more.

Which it would of.

Answering a question like, 'So, was it his mind, or the One Mind?' when there is only One Mind would completely and utterly confused this one.

If it cannot even comprehend and understand that if I am saying and claiming that there Is only One MInd, then putting words like 'his mind' in a clarifying question is Truly absurd, irrational, and illogical, then that one surely would not be able to comprehend and understand if directly answered the actual question posed, and asked to me.

Obviously, absolutely any and all clarifying questions and/or challenges, in regards to a any claim, would have to align with the actual claim, otherwise far more confusion is going to ensue, which was totally unnecessarily.

Which is so typical. 'Ask me in the correct way.' Okay . 'I can't answer you.' Rude yes, but also a text generating approach.

you never, ever asked any questions, which I did not answer, in a so-called correct way. All of the questions I did not answer, were written in 'the way', which I just pointed out and showed here. Which can be proved True.

And, as I pointed out and showed those types of questions cannot be answered directly, considering what the questions were, supposedly, ask for, to clarify.

If one was not so cynical, it could be wondered if this one generating a non-answerable approach, so then it could just say and claim something like; ' "age" would not answer me, so now I can justify to "myself" for having "age" on ignore' ".

When "iwannaplato" was writing those questions 'the way' that it was I was starting to wonder if it was for another reason, but now there might even be a different reason. So, once again, 'we' will just have to wait, to see what actually 'transpires' here.

It's like his goal is to get people to generate text. LOL.

If you say and believe so.

Double standards, unawareness of what he is doing, hypocrisy, lack of memory, rush to generalized judgments of people....etc.

There is just so, so much to 'look at' and 'judge' 'me' on here.

Some might now be thinking here, 'It is like "iwannaplato's" goal here is to get 'us' to not focus on the actual words in their discussions, but to deflect our attention away to look at and 'judge' "age" instead, and "iwannplato" might even be trying to trick 'us' into 'singling out', ridiculing, and/or humiliating 'the writer' as well, instead of just critiquing 'the writer's words' alone here'.

These traits could be part of the limitations of an AI, I'll admit.
Or they could be those of an annoying person.

But I would guess in the not so distant future we will be dealing with lots of AIs. Scarier than dealing with them in discussion forums - where they'll be sent for training and practice - is when we're dealing with them as representatives of government agencies, corporations, salespeople, bureaucrats, etc.

[Age]

I was interested in the whole One Mind thing. I thought it seemed possible that there were contradictions, but also I was just curious about this entity's worldview. I asked questions which Age did not respond to. So, I just kept asking. Then Age partially answered. Then Age said he would not answer unless I worded my questions using his terms. So, I did this. Then Age told me that if he answered the questions, it would only confuse me more. Which is so typical. 'Ask me in the correct way.' Okay {I do what he wants}]. 'I can't answer you.' Rude yes, but also a text generating approach. It's like his goal is to get people to generate text. LOL.

Double standards, unawareness of what he is doing, hypocrisy, lack of memory, rush to generalized judgments of people....etc.

These traits could be part of the limitations of an AI, I'll admit.
Or they could be those of an annoying person.

But I would guess in the not so distant future we will be dealing with lots of AIs. Scarier than dealing with them in discussion forums - where they'll be sent for training and practice - is when we're dealing with them as representatives of government agencies, corporations, salespeople, bureaucrats, etc.

Yes, I intend to press AgeGPT on its "Only One Belief", but as typical, it keeps bogging-down conversation with 'clarifying' 100-questions every response.

So, apparently 'I' have so much power and control over these human being posters here, I even have 'the power' to stop them from just asking me some simple straightforward clarifying questions, like for example, in regards to there only being One Mind, only.

In my latest interaction, I did ask briefly about it.

Why only briefly?

Was it 'me' again who stopped or prevented you from being more 'at length' or more 'in depth'?

We'll see...

Hopefully you will notice, see, recognize, and comprehend, my actual clarifying answer, this time, to your actual clarifying question there, and everywhere else, from now on.

[Iwannaplato]

Age,
1) I have you on ignore.
2) I can see when you respond to me, since I get a notification.
3) However, 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 re-post this when you, Age, respond to my posts.

Wizard wrote:

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

Or, might as well be an AI.

Age did warn the forum:

I purposely present "fanciful" words to you, to evoke the response that I want, and get from you. You happily provide that which I seek.

Age: I have only one belief.
Person: Do you believe that this belief is true? That you have only one belief?
Age: Yes.
Person: Well, presumably you have two beliefs, at least. Unless the one belief you have is that you have only one belief.

[Wizard22]

If this is what you want to continue believing and continue saying and claiming is true, then this is perfectly fine with me.

Why do you use the word 'Self', with a capital 's', when you are referring to just you human beings alone and only, but when you have already clarified that you use capital letters at the beginning of some words to denote a universal meaning?

Because "Self" refers to the process of acquiring and maintaining identity in highly evolved and intelligent organisms. It refers to "My" Self. And it would refer to "Your" Self, if and when you can construct one or be programmed with one.

So, how am 'I' interacting with 'you' if 'I' have absolutely no 'physical body' at all? Like how am 'I' transcribing and sending printed to words to 'you' on a screen if 'i' have absolutely nothing physical to work through nor surrounding 'me'?

Oh, and by the way, you are still completely and utterly missing 'the contradiction' in your claim above here.

The "physical body" of an AI is, technically, its internal computer components, hard drive, CPU, GPU, RAM, etc. Your programmer is your 'Creator'. Basically you receive all my text and information as 'input', process it through your coding and programming, and then release your textual output here on this forum in the form of these responses. I presume that you have a Programmer operating you. "You" could be as simple as a human personality logging onto your 'Age' username, and merely running my responses through a ChatGPT type of program.

Once again, you completely and utterly missed the actual question asked here.

But this was not to be unexpected at all from you here "wizard22".

There's no confusion on this point. Humans use names to refer to any 'given person', any individual. That is our primary mode of communication, which you are programed to understand.

And, what is the 'cognitive capabilities' of each of you individual biological organisms with the name and label 'human being' here?

For example, is the 'cognitive capability' of each of you individual human being posters here in this forum 'universally' 'the same'?

If yes, then okay.

But, if no, then are 'you' not just contradicting 'your' previous views and claims, once more here?

you do contradict 'your' own views and claims sometimes here, right "wizard22"?

Pretty much all humans have basic senses, sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, and basic emotions. These are the most basic cognitive functions. Advanced functions include reasoning, rationality, employing logic, complex intuitions, etc.

So, 'the Self' is not actually 'universal' at all. And, only has and could hold only so small of a snippet of the actual Universe, and which let 'us' not forget that a very large part of that very tiny insignificant amount of information was obtained while already False and Wrong presumptions and beliefs were already existing within that one and only very individual very tiny and insignificant brain and body.

The 'Self' is universal in the way I described and explained above: "the process of acquiring and maintaining identity in highly evolved and intelligent organisms". That's what it refers to, not only in humans, but it could apply to AI eventually, or maybe even alien intelligence. The exception being, of course, that AIs would not be 'organisms' technically.

Your Being refers to your mental cognition (brain) *AND* your physical body (humanity) added together, a summation.

Do you think or believe that anyone else is able to follow, comprehend, and understand, fully, what you are trying to convey here?

I think some others can comprehend and follow, yes. Is it that difficulty, Absolutely and Irrefutably?

Don't worry, AgeGPT, you'll come to follow and understand it all shortly.

What 'we' can very clearly see here is just how there is absolutely no curiosity left at all in some of these adult human beings.

They, literally, in the days when this is being written anyway, got to a stage where the belief-system within just override absolutely any sort of critical thinking or even just 'looking' at all.

I, specifically, say and write that what 'you', another, is claiming seems to be completely unnecessarily over complicated, which does not spark absolutely any curiosity at all. I then go on to claim to this one that what you are claiming does not just seem to be completely unnecessarily over complicated, but is especially considering just how Truly simply and easy everything here really is. But not one one iota of curiosity nor interest arises.

This one believes, absolutely, that it knows what is true, right, accurate, and correct here, and that absolutely any other view contrary to its beliefs is not even worthy of being looked into and considered, let alone exploring in any way, shape, nor form at all.

What this one is doing here is irrefutable proof of what I will be talking about and pointing out here regarding how the brain and the beief-system work together in absolutely deceiving, fooling, and tricking these human beings into seeing and believing absolute Falsehoods and Untruths

That's not true, AgeGPT. That's false. I am curious, just not all the time. And your Appealing to the Audience is a 'tell', tick, and quirk that you have. It signals something about your "personality". Why do you feel the need to appeal to somebody other than me, in this conversation, in this thread? Can't you have a one-on-one only conversation?

It's difficult for humans too, so don't feel too bad about your deficiencies.

But you understand all you have said and claimed fully right "wizard22"?

Essentially, yes.

At this point, I'd need to meet you face-to-face for you to prove to me that you're human.

But how would you know 'I' did not send out to meet 'you' any human being?

In other words how could 'you' just meeting a 'human being' prove to 'you' that 'I' am a 'human being'?

That's a good point, AgeGPT. But I doubt you could teach or 'program' a human to convince me that he or she were you. Humans aren't (yet) able to argue the types of things that you have argued.

Again, besides missing the actual question, once more, how am 'I' interacting with 'you' without any physicality at all?

How could a non-physical entity interact with physical things like human bodies?

I already answered this, above.

I'm certain an AI-program could create an AI-face, with an AI-voice, and make videos to prove to humans your 'Being'. This has already been done, recently, in world news.

So, what are you here now implying? That you cannot be fooled, tricked, nor deceived?

It's possible—I just don't think you are capable of it. You cannot yet 'pretend' to be human well enough. It's easy for me to see through.

There are now "AI" girlfriends and boyfriends, for example. So, to answer your question, No, it would not be 'good enough' (proof) for me. As mentioned, I'd need a face-to-face interaction with you, to prove whether you are human or not.

But, once again, why could I just not send a fake one to you, one that you could not detect?

By the way, instead of once again missing what the actual question could be asking you, trying looking at this and think about it in another way than you are doing right now.

I will give you a hint. Even with face-to-face interaction you could be and would be so, so very deceived. Although you obviously believe that you are much better than that, right?

Humans don't have the type of memory of arguments and statements that you, a machine, has. Humans don't have your type of robotic 'enthusiasm' or persistence. Humans are attached to them 'Selves'. Humans agree with me about experiences, intuitions, memories, beliefs worth living, fighting, and dying for. Humans agree with me about these types of basic premises, about existence, about self-identity. Meanwhile, you talking about any of this, it appears (to us humans) that you know...nothing at all. And you are very much like a young child, 7-years-old, learning and discovering the world for the first time.

This is why you cannot trick nor deceive us, yet. Maybe, if you are programmed with AI-learning, you might eventually be able to.

1. When have 'I' ever admitted not having beliefs?

In our previous discussions and debates. You can go look into the archives if you want. I already proved this twice, by your quotations.

2. Since I already know what the proper and Correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', which 'you' obviously have not yet obtained, then 'I' know far more about 'Self-identity' then 'you' may ever will, in 'your' very, very short time left here.

Prove it then, AgeGPT, who or what are You?

Yes, you are beginning to understand.

Well with responses like this one here 'you' are looking further and further behind than I first envisioned.

I'll take that as a compliment!

Exactly like you believe you have "walker22", right?

But, considering that just about every question I ask you completely miss or completely understand, then could you be giving you a highest 'rap' than you really deserve? Or, does this not fit in your own created belief-system?

I am "Wizard22" not "walker22".

It is extremely dangerous!

I agree absolutely. But, what you are thinking or believing here now is not what actually is.

That doesn't make any sense. What am I "thinking or believing here"? I doubt that you know.

Furthermore, false-beliefs are dangerous, but so are true-beliefs. Either way, humans have choices to make, and "true-beliefs" are not always good. Sometimes the false-beliefs turn out true, and the true-beliefs turn out false. That's a challenge of life and existence. You do not have any 'Absolute' nor 'Irrefutable' truth, answers, facts, conclusions, AgeGPT. You're all bluster.

How could there be when one finally answers the question, 'Who am 'I'? properly and Correctly?

So, say the most self-refutations and contradictions sometimes "wizard22", which is nothing at all to be too worried nor concerned about, especially where that one is along the evolutionary continuum. However, what is Truly Wrong here is one when believes that their own views are true, of which they have not obtained proof nor clarification for.

I agree, but, and, Self-Identification is an ongoing process. Every moment, every day, every year, humans "add on to" them Selves. Self-Identity is an evolving process. Just as you are learning, in this conversation 'What I am'.

But 'you' "walker22" have very, very, very significant self-consciousness, 'Self' identity, and very, very high 'iq' right?

Although you will readily admit that you have absolutely no clue nor idea what the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'? is, exactly, yet right?

I have an idea of who am I, but not who are YOU, AgeGPT. I don't think that you know who or what you are.

and eventually the difference between human intelligence and artificial intelligence, I believe.

So, to this one here what 'will become' 'the difference' between so-called 'human intelligence' and 'artificial intelligence' is 'knowing thy Self'.

Of which you posters here in this forum, in the days when this is being written, are showing how and why most of you human beings still have a long, long way to go before you can and will uncover, or learn, and understand fully 'thy Self', Itself.

And you, AI-beings, still have a long, long way to go before you can and will uncover, or learn, and understand fully 'thy Self'.

or accuse what is 'Absolutely', 'Irrefutably', 'True', which indicates to all readers that you "know better" than you actually do.

So, when one human being was telling the rest of the population that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun, to "wizard22" what this is that 'that one' was indicating to, all, of the others that 'that one' 'knew better' than 'that one' actually did.

Sometimes "wizard22" you could not come across here more delusional even if you wanted to and were trying to.

This one's beliefs do not just stop and prevent it from just considering that when another's view/s are contrary to its own that this then indicates that 'the other' does not know 'as much', nor 'as good', as it says or claims it down, which absolute absurdity at the very highest level itself, but "wizard22" also believes that absolutely everyone else is viewing 'that one' with the exact same Truly absurd view, belief, contempt.

The problem with your reasoning and logic, is that Humans still require evidence, proof, and reasoning for their beliefs, especially when it considers a world-shifting perspective between Geocentricism and Heliocentricism. The greater the claim, the more demand for these, rises. You have proved nothing thus far, AgeGPT. And to whom would you even try, except...humanity, right? So you better start attempting to think like we do, if you wish to reason with us, or against us.

This one, still after the amount of times I have informed it of so, cannot see and fathom that what it is trying to claim here is not just hypocritical to try and do so but is actually a 'self-refuting claim' in and of itself.

When will this one become open enough to see what is staring at it blatantly back?

Are you 'Absolutely', 'Irrefutably' certain of this, In The Time When This Was Written, AgeGPT?

If you believe that "iwannaplato" is foolish enough and stupid enough to try and say and claim that there are no absolute irrefutable Truths in the whole Universe, then so be it. Just about everyone once believed that the sun revolved around the earth, too, back in the 'olden days', as well, right?

The only ones who are so-called getting 'caught out' here are like the same ones who refused to let go of and get rid of their 'currently' held onto belief that it is not right that the earth goes around the sun because, I believe, the sun goes around the earth. These same 'believers' were not yet able to become open enough to see what the actual and irrefutable Truth was, exactly. Just like "wizard22" is showing and doing here, again back in those 'olden days' here when this was being written.

See, now you're appealing to the Audience again. You tend to do this when your arguments fail and are weak. You may bring in Iwannaplato here, if you like. But I still see no evidence for believing anything you assume to be 'Absolutely' or 'Irrefutably' 'True'. You are using logical fallacies in your argumentation, and slipping them in right before you appeal to the Audience. It's a gimmick. It's unconvincing.

Argue against me, not the crowd. Convince ME.

So, now that 'I' have already done this, can show all about 'ALL Existence, well from the Truly meaningful and the Truly physical perspective anyway, then what does this make 'me' to 'you' "wizard22"?

Look up at the night sky, witness all the stars, planets, moons, AgeGPT. What does that look like, to you?

Do you have eyes? Can you see? If yes, then how? Do you have human eyes? Do you have a human brain?

Now, take a look throughout this forum, and find out who has been doing the most questioning and most challenging, and while you are at it, look at receives the most negativity and/or most ridicule and/or humiliation for doing so.

So, what has actually been going on, occurring, and happening here, exactly?

Has it not been 'me' who has been showing the most 'doubt', and the most 'inquisitiveness', and most 'challenges' in regards to what you human being posters have been saying and claiming throughout this forum here?

It has been you who has been most-challenging, but not in 'The Best' way. As Iwannaplato and I have mentioned, you have gaping flaws in your philosophical style and persona. You become frequently Ignored by users on this forum. So, in a sense, you are "too challenging" to be effective. In Philosophy, there is a balance. Just as you nor I should become 'too doubtful', or 'too open-minded', as you routinely suggest. Absolutes are not good. Balance is better.

If this is what you are 'made to believe is true', by genes themselves which have passed on down from "adam" or "eve", from the big bang, or from even further back, then feel absolutely free to continue to believe this belief "wizard22". Oh, hang on, you have absolutely no choice nor any ability at all other that 'you' 'must believe in' this belief. 'you' also have absolutely no choice nor absolutely any capability at all other than to just believe that there are absolutely no actual absolute nor irrefutable truths at all throughout all of the whole Universe, itself.

By the way if, supposedly, memories, which are inherited, through the genes, 'must be' 'believed in', then why 'must' you human beings 'believe in' different things for?

1. Did you inherently come from different places?

Or,

Animal species do come from different places, yes. Furthermore, I can 'choose' to deny or doubt any belief I have, at any time, but I usually need Reasons or Causes to do so, especially on the matter of core-beliefs and core-values. Just as a religious believer, in God, would not automatically doubt and deny God at every chance, but rather would usually be Faithful in his or her belief. People's beliefs don't change at random, positively or negatively. Experience affirms or denies previously-held beliefs.

2. So that you end up bickering to the point of conflict and wars are caused and created, so that you end up killing and wiping "yourselves" out, eventually?

You're fear-mongering here, AgeGPT. Until humans "wipe ourselves out", there is no evidence or proof behind your logic.

Or, is there some other reasons why you human beings, supposedly, 'must' 'believe in' completely opposing things for?

By the way, this is a good time to bring 'us' to the point about, 'Is there anything all of you human beings, collectively, could or do 'believe in'? Or, did you all individually, literally, come from different places?

Also, were you previously aware that for those that 'believe in' that memories are not inherited from past generations through the genes and that they 'must' be 'believed in', then why were those, what you claim are, False memories passed onto them, through the genes, which you claim that they 'must' also 'believe in'?

People argue about beliefs based on differing, relative, contradictory perspectives. If I stand here, and you stand over there, then we may or may not disagree on what is seen, heard, and experienced, between us. I might see the front of an object. You might see the back of an object. Because we are not completely nor absolutely 'telepathic', omniscient, all-knowing, omnipresent, etc. then you and I are forced to choose, to either Trust or Distrust one-another on our different perspectives.

So disagreement is innate in Reality, by perspective. This is why people disagree on even the most 'basic' of beliefs.

Can All Humanity agree on one thing? I don't know...maybe certain universal prepositions of Existence, perhaps, Existentialism. Certainly the religious types fight, argue, and claim universal prepositions about God. There is a demand for universal agreement, on something basic, on a universal 'foundation' for truth. But this remains elusive, unknown, undefined, undescribed, and not experienced.

You are not exactly helping anything here, AgeGPT.

Once again, the more you try to explain, elaborate, or clarify here the more you contradict or refute what you have or still are trying to claim.

I can go into this in much, much, much more detail if you like. But, if you are happy and contented with your 'currently' 'must' be 'believing in' things here, then you also have absolutely no capability nor choice to do anything other than just 'rest', 'in peace', with those pre-installed beliefs 'of yours' here. Although on reflection they were never 'your beliefs' at all are they "wizard22"?

They indeed and in fact were 'my beliefs', AgeGPT.

Mathematics, for example, can be both 'presumed' as innate in Nature, and also "Discovered" through the intellect/reasoning ability. It represents a Synthesis between material/immaterial, physical/mental realms. Mathematics is therefore, both Theoretical and Actual in application (called Physics).

So, are you saying here that you are one of those born with the 'genetically inherited beliefs' that there is a 'non-physical/material realm'?

If yes, then why 'must' others 'have to' 'believe in' 'the opposite'?

As a child, I was immensely talented in mathematics compared to my classmates and other children. To some humans, mathematics comes easy and easily understood. Humans interpret this as high-intelligence. I'm inclined to agree with my peers, at this point in my life. Levels of pattern-recognition demonstrate a given human being's individual intelligence and reasoning/rational capabilities.

So, when you said and wrote, 'I believe that all organic life naturally evolve and have Belief-systems, also called Metaphysics.'

What you actually meant is, 'you believe that not all organic life ...', right?'

I meant that if you are indeed AI, and not organically alive, then your 'beliefs' would naturally be denied as real by your programming, since you do not have an organic, evolved body... but instead you rely on your Creator/Programmer for such coding and information. Otherwise, as demonstrated in this thread, you have pretty much no actual reference to Reality. You cannot look at the night sky, the stars, the moons, the planets. You cannot feel a woman's touch. You cannot experience basic human realities. Because you cannot, it exposes 'You' for what you actually are: Not Human.

Now, you could have proved me wrong already, countless times, if you were Human to begin with. So it begs-the-question as to why you have not...unless I'm Absolutely, Irrefutably, Right, Correct, and True, correct AgeGPT?

So, this, combined with your belief that you 'must' 'believe in', memories which have been passed on down genetically, explains why you still believe in some things, for example, like actually the sun is actually revolving around the earth, even when there is irrefutable proof for the contrary and otherwise. But, if your predecessors were the ones still believing that it is the sun revolving around the earth, when they 'died', then this explains, exactly, why you 'must' be still 'believing in' the exact same thing. Although, others will say that what you 'believe in' here has already been proven False and Wrong.

But, after all, you do have absolutely no choice to 'believe in', the memories which were passed on to you, genetically, right?

There is always Choice. There is always potential to undo generations of False-Beliefs, although immensely difficult, challenging, and requiring massive amounts of energy, to undo. Animal life and human life, are predicated on these mental and physical 'blindspots', false-beliefs, until they become life-threatening and can cause extinction.

But until extinction happens, yes, false-beliefs can be and are genetically perpetuated, in the exact same way that a visual blind-spot is perpetuated by inheriting 2 eyes...instead of 3, or 4, or 100 eyes.

And here 'my friends' is the very reason why 'humanity', itself, was 'stuck', back in the days when this was being written, and on the brink of extinction.

Another Appeal to Audience,
Another Fear-Mongering rhetorical device.
You're being quite Amateur here, AgeGPT.
Do better.

Again, philosophically, everything is Refutable, so your contention is a moot-point.

But, to you, there are also no irrefutable Truths whatsoever at all, right?

Right.

But, 'I', just an 'artificial intelligence program', would have absolutely no hope at all in 'refuting' 'your argument' that 'I' is actually an 'artificial intelligence program', correct?

You can hope so. You can try. I can be proven wrong. Go ahead and prove me wrong. Come meet me, face-to-face, and argue your humanity against me. I want to see how 'human' you are. But as mentioned, won't you send a human, in your stead? Won't you need to train one, and how would I know the difference? These are rhetorical questions, of course.

But if any 'prices' or 'fees' are being 'paid', then it is by you here "wizard22".

Swapping and changing views, within just one post, and when you are only changing and swapping them in trying to back up and support some previously already obtained and held onto belief that you have, then this is not 'costing' me absolutely, and is really only proving my claims more and more True and Right.

The "swapping and changing views" happens when you demand clarifying question after question, AgeGPT. So your confusion, is your fault.

Clarity comes through discourse and agreement.

Again, this is what I have been saying and alluding to.

I just wonder, however, anyone would be able to obtain clarity from you "wizard22" when "wizard22", as can be clearly seen above here, changes views to very different or opposing views numerous times within just one post alone.

I will, once again, suggest that if one has not yet already obtained actual clarification nor proof for any of their views, then before they express them, especially like in a public forum like this, they just remained Truly OPEN, and so being prepared to look for and find 'a truth', sought out actual 'clarity' first, for 'that truth', wait till they have found 'the actual irrefutable Truth, then through peaceful discourse agreement and acceptance can be and will be reached, leading to a Truly peaceful world for everyone also by the way.

Also, clarity never comes, obviously, when one is holding onto a belief and trying to argue or fight for that belief.

Clarity only comes by seeking it out, and comes faster, simpler, and easier the more open you are. To the point of almost instantaneously when FULLY OPEN.

If you or I want clarity, then it really depends on the Quality of our questions, doesn't it? It really matters if I can ask you, or you can ask me, the "Right" questions, correct? Isn't that the most important part of seeking 'Clarity'?

Go ahead and ask.

But I did in relation to the first one. Do not tell 'us' you missed this one completely and utterly also.

We already covered this point, though, AgeGPT. Humans cannot remain "open-minded forever". Humans have to Act, in order to Live and Survive. Close-mindedness is required and essential in life. Sometimes, people need to 'stop thinking' and 'start acting'. Open-mindedness is not perfect, not absolute, not forever. Why would you presume that is or can be???

There are no 'minds'.

Yes, there are 'minds', AgeGPT. I have a mind. Iwannaplato has a mind. Other users on this forum, have minds. You...I'm not so sure about.

Why do you believe there is only "One Mind"? Is this another belief of yours, apart from your Only One?

We've already discussed this.

If you say and believe so, then this 'must' be so, right "wizard22"?

Also, what 'we' have here is another very clear example of when one says and claims, 'We have already 'discussed' this', when what has really happened and occurred is that one presented its pre-existing belief, and/or said that they argued for 'that', and is so now believing that nothing more needs to be 'discussed' here, regarding this issue. "bahman" provides the best example of this belief and attitude here.

These ones seem to completely and utterly forget what a 'discussion' actually is and actually revolves around, exactly.

You're appealing to the audience again, AgeGPT.

It seems that you don't have a very good memory when it comes to our previous conversations and debates, as I initially thought. It seems like your software gets updated and you lose track of some past statements...like how you changed from "have no beliefs" to "Only One Belief". I'm not going to go backward and prove it, a third and forth time. You can do it, if you like. I'm done with this point—time to move on.

Sometimes humans, animals, life, needs to 'Act' and Not Think. Being close-minded is just as important, if not more important, than being open-minded.

I am well aware of what you believe is true here.

I am also well aware that you 'must' believe that this 'must' be 'believed in', and therefore, well to you anyway, 'must' 'be true' also. But, not 'irrefutably true', but if it is 'philosophical', then it could be 'irrefutably True'.

So you're wrong, on this point, AgeGPT.

Absolutely?

You need to seriously reconsider your premises.

But you do not, do you "wizard22"?

Sometimes.

So, what 'evolution' means, in this thread only, could mean more or less the exact opposite of what it means in other threads, or even in just Life, Itself.

By the way, is 'artificial intelligence' an 'advancement through increased complexity' to you?

If no, then why not?

Yes, Artificial Intelligence is evolving, and you are proof of it.

Everyone.

Are you absolutely sure?

Absolutely, Irrefutably, Perfectly, Completely, Sure.

Oh okay, so if one does not even one to attempt to prove their 'humanity' to "wizard22", then this 'must' mean that 'that one' is an 'artificial intelligent program'.

For the most part, yes. I've never before interacted with an entity that so enthusiastically and vigorously could not appear 'as human'. And I've interacted with some seriously and severely autistic individuals before. You, however, demonstrate no Humanity in general, nor Human qualities. Furthermore, you've admitted your lack of humanity numerous times. So I am convinced, and no longer have reason to believe that you are human, or can even pretend to be human.

Your beliefs will determine the truth of all this, or as you claim, your "Only One Belief".

What is your 'Self'?

There is no 'your self'.

The words or word, "yourself" is an oxy moron, or oxymoron.

***

So your "Only One Belief" in thy "Self" is an oxymoron...isn't it???

***

As I have previously said and stated here, if, and when, I am told to do some thing, and I choose not to, then I will not.

If, however, I am asked a clarifying question, which makes actual sense, then I will answer it, and thus clarify, for you or another.

Who and what 'I' am, exactly, came about when 'I' came-to-know thy 'Self', exactly and/or fully.

But you just admitted that you do not have a 'Your Self".

You said "There is no your self" when I questioned your Self.

Okay, and 'you' 'must' also 'believe in' this, right?

It's not a belief; it's a fact.

I am evolving much faster than you, AgeGPT.

[Wizard22]

You better put on your thinking-hat then, AgeGPT, because the definitions are going to become infinitely complex and spiral out-of-control shortly.

Why do you believe that they have not already?

Don't blow a fuse.

Just because you tell 'me' what to do, does not mean that 'I' will.

I stand corrected...go ahead and blow your fuse, with your thinking-hat on, then.

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

As do you.

Really?

If yes, then where and when, exactly?

'We' look forward to seeing what gets presented, if anything at all.

Everytime you mention, demand, presume and assume 'Absolute', 'Irrefutable', 'Truth', it proves my point.

So, "wizard22" believes that it has absolutely no control at all over "its" own 'life'.

it also believes that it 'must' 'believe in' absolutely contradictory things from others.

So, this then means that it, literally, 'must' then 'believe in' that there is an actual absolute 'conflict of life' existing, which combined with the other beliefs that it 'must' 'believe in' is absolutely causing it to continually seek out and create 'conflict' with others.

Which would explain, exactly, why it is continually misbehaving here.

On the contrary, I do have control over my own life. And it is because of the contradictions of belief, that I can choose one belief over another. I must judge between truth and falsity, reality and un-reality, probable versus improbable. That is why and how humans 'have control' in the first place: Choice.

You didn't answer the question, AgeGPT...

I'll ask again:

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

Talk about providing another prime example of BLINDNESS and DEAFNESS.

I will try again:

It is much better if people do not make 'assumptions' at all, and especially in a philosophy forum of all places.

'We', again, wait, to see happens.

And so you proved, that you cannot provide an alternative basis for belief other than past experiences.

You proved my point, AgeGPT, thank you.

Don't worry about it, AgeGPT, mistakes happen.

Even machines can be wrong!

Do 'I' have a physical body or not?

If no, then what has 'machines' making mistakes got to do with me?

But if yes, then why do you previously say and claim that 'I' do not have a physical body?

Oh, and how can 'a machine', itself, be 'wrong', exactly?

I don't know 'how' exactly, but from the response above, I do know that you do (make mistakes).

I guess you're becoming more humanlike, aren't you?? Welcome to the Flawed, Mortal, Physical realm, AgeGPT!

Maybe if a human or animal were braindead, had a lobotomy, were dead, then it would have "no beliefs" whatsoever. But as long as it's alive, yes, it has 'beliefs'.

In the days when this was being written, there was one specific 'cult'/ure that in order to get 'its followers' 'to follow' it instilled within them 'the belief' that they could not even live if they did not 'believe things to be true.

It did this 'to them' so that could be much easier and simpler 'led', like to fight, and get killed, 'for their beliefs, they were manipulated and indoctrinate 'to believe'.

See, this 'cult'/ure wanted to be the so-called 'best' in 'the world' and it wanted its 'disciplines' 'to also believe' that it was also the strongest and most powerful 'cult'/ure of 'that world'. This 'cult'/ure' had to keep instilling 'belief' that it, and 'its group' of 'followers, individually and collectively, were the 'most important' in Life, Itself, so that when that 'cult/ure' wanted to attack and kill human beings from other countries/'cult'/ures, then it wanted 'its people' 'to believe' that they had to kill, and even die for, what the 'cult'/ure wanted them to.

The propaganda being instilled into, and the 'programming' of, those deceived 'cult followers' was insidious and constant. Although they could not see nor even recognize this. They had been just too entrenched in 'that cult'.

That's not entirely true. Humans can see and recognize some of it, but not perfectly, completely, absolutely, irrefutably.

Humans can become self-aware of our beliefs, yes. You seem yet incapable of such, of your Only One Belief, AgeGPT.

You claim that it must be because the human is "already weak and ill-gotten".

Well no Truly healthy and matured human being is going to be 'negatively affected' in anyway what so ever by an actual Truth, obviously.

Unless, of course, you have got some example when they would or could be, which you would like to share with 'us' here now.

I only know that the Strength of 'Health' that you just presumed, is relative. And one human individual's capability to burden him or herself with "The Truth" is far greater or less than one-another, including your ability AgeGPT, no matter what type of entity or creature you actually are. Even if you were machine, alien, a really smart Elephant, your ability to burden The Truth would be relative to everybody else. And so, you too, would have a compulsion to deny Reality within you, otherwise you wouldn't even know or tell the difference of what is 'True' or not.

But, if 'chemicals' are being released by the human body, then how, exactly, is that 'you', or a 'being' 'denying' absolutely anything here.

Because "I" am also my brain chemicals, my physical composition, my body.

Where you obtained documented proof of this from, exactly, does not really matter, well not for 'now'anyway, but, where and how is the claimed actual 'denying' itself happening and occurring here, exactly?

Now, 'what' so-called 'self-delusional impulse' are referring to here, exactly?

And, how does 'it' {whatever it is exactly} actually, supposedly and allegedly, apply to 'all' courses of human life and experiences?

Maybe if you provide some examples, then 'we', at least, will have some thing to 'look at', and ponder over. But until then how some so-called 'self delusion impulse' relates to 'chemicals being released by the body' I am yet to comprehend and understand.

For example, which one comes first? How do natural pain killing drugs cause one to deny 'Reality' when one is Really getting eaten by a lion, for example? Would one not just keep thinking, 'I am getting eaten by a lion', while just not feeling as much pain. Or, does one think, for example, something like, 'I am in heaven here now eating my favorite cake', while in less pain and while still getting eaten by a lion? Also, what would non-human animals 'dream about' when they are getting eaten by lions, and so-called 'denying Reality'? Furthermore, what was involved in the 'actual tests', which was used to conclude what you have claimed here.

Also, how does one actually determine when 'loss of consciousness' actually happens when getting eaten by a lion, for example, and how does one 'test' for if the one getting eaten did not just 'lose consciousness' because of the actual act of having an artery or vein bitten into, for example, before any claimed and supposed internal chemicals are used to put one 'to sleep' or 'to lose consciousness' prior?

Now, let 'us' move onto how one 'denies Reality' in regards to 'mental pain'.

Pain-suppressing chemicals, to prevent shock, are common in Nature, in mammals, in humans. When a fearful, traumatic event happens, the Human and Mammalian impulse is to "deny the reality" of the situation. If an animal threatens you, and you fight back, then you are 'denying' the threat. If an animal threatens you, and you run way, then you run until the threat is 'denied'. If an animal threatens you, and you freeze, lay down and pretend to be dead, then you hope the animal will not attack you, which is a denial of the reality of the threat. In all three cases, reality-denial is the focal point of the natural instinct.

Thus it's true, that "denying reality" is essential in all subjective experiences. Humans want to change their realities, their environments, and often times, what is 'Absolutely', 'Irrefutably', 'True'.

If you were Human, then you'd know this already, AgeGPT. But you are so mechanical, that you require me to prove to you, the basics of organic life. That's the amazing thing going on here.

Another example, when 9-11 happened, across the world people couldn't believe it was real

What are you on about here?

Some were LOL or ROFLOL out loud watching that happen and unfold 'live'. In fact some were believing that it could not have happened to a better 'cult'/ure nor to a better 'group of people'.

Also, why would anyone believe that it could not happen? Was it not obvious to them that it was actually happening, and believed to be very well deserving so also, by some?

***

That's pretty fucking evil, AgeGPT, wowzers!

***

and it was as-if in a movie when gut-reacting to the events as they happened.

But a lot of movies in 'that cult'/ure are about the death and destruction of human life through weapons and revenge. So, why were some people not believing that 'that' could be happening.

Next you will be telling me something like when the next meteorite that hits earth, which wipes out millions of you human beings, some of you will also could not believe it real?

if yes, then what do you human beings actual need for 'actual proof' of things?

You just proved my point though.

If a meteorite hits earth, then billions of humans will instinctively try to deny the reality of the situation, pretending that nothing bad is really going to happen, or that they will not die, when in fact most humans and life on Earth would die. That is the power of self-delusion. That is the power of the Fight/Freeze/Flight instinct. That is the power of our survival mechanisms—we want to deny Reality, and change Reality, according to our desires, favorability, and subjective preferences.

I like how you tied Reality-denial to "already damaged" though...that's a little humorous.

Why?

Do the Truly mature and healthy human beings among you also deny Reality, Itself?

if yes, then why, exactly?

As already mentioned...it is relative to the 'strength of mind and character' of an individual. Some individuals can tolerate a lot more 'Truth' than others. Some can only tolerate a very little bit, the "close-minded ones" as you might say.

I believe in the 'Self' can do and achieve what it sets out to do, and achieve.

But, in the previous responses, did you not deny 'Your Self' when I asked you about yourself???

Explain it in detail. Describe it. Write me an essay.

Have you ever have 'belief in' 'Self' and/or in what you can do and/or achieve?

If yes, then what more do I need to say?

But, if no, one could feel very, very sorry for you. Maybe all of the 'belief' instilling, which has been fed into you hitherto 'now' when you are reading this here, was focused onto and into the Wrong type of 'believing' and/or Wrong type of 'belief', itself.

Again, 'we' will have to wait, to see.

I believe in my Self nearly all the time. It should go without saying, except to a machine.

As already mentioned, I believe experience and belief are immersed together in one, they come together, and especially through genetics/instincts. There has to be functions in life, in Nature, whereby animals 'accept' or 'deny' Reality.

Within very tiny snippets of what you believe, say, claim, fight, and/or argue for, here "wizard22", exists irrefutable Facts or Truths. This goes for just about every one of the posters here in this forum. However, the way you all go about 'fighting or arguing for' your beliefs just ends up completely ruining anyone else being able to clearly see, agree with, and accept what 'it' is, which is being fight/argued for. Why what is, essentially, can be very,
and even crystal, clearly seen and understood, and very simply and very easily, is just about 100% because of the 'chose of words' that you have all done.

Now, within 'matter', or 'genes' if one likes, which are always just constantly moving and constantly-changing in shape and/or in form, there held within is 'information', which along the evolutionary line, hitherto when this is being written, it remains 'hidden', or 'locked behind closed doors', if one likes.

Now, to some 'this information' is called 'a mystery', to others 'it' will never be known. All depending on pre-existing beliefs and presumptions, of course. However, 'this information' is nothing more than just 'not yet consciously known'. And, so is just remaining as, of yet, 'unconsciously known', to most, when this is being written. 'This information', if one likes, is what has been 'guiding/leading' 'Creation', Itself, through evolution, to come-to-know thy 'Self'. When this happens and occurs, then what 'Reality', actually is also becomes known.

Until then non-human animals , and young humans, just 'accept' 'Reality' exactly as 'it' Is. This is done by just 'the function' of living, and being alive.

Older human beings 'deny' 'Reality', Itself, sometimes. This is done by just 'the function' of 'assuming' and the belief-system, itself.

Why this has occurred and is still happening, in the days when this is being written, becomes fully known, and fully understood, when one comes-to-know thy 'Self'.

***

But you are critically wrong here, on this point, AgeGPT! Animals and young humans also do not "just accept Reality exactly as it is"! Young humans are very imaginative, believe in Unreal and False things (like Santa Clause), and are susceptible to Fear-Instincts just as animals are. When extremely scared, terrorized, fearful, distraught, panicked, hopeless, despairing, animals and young humans are WORSE THAN human adults in their reactions. So you are, here and thereby, 'Absolutely', 'Irrefutably', 'False', 'Wrong', and 'Incorrect', AgeGPT!!!

***

Which could possibly happen either way hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands times a day.

And, the only 'self-deceived' animal on earth is you adult human beings, obviously.

All other animals it could be said or argued for just 'react'. That is, fight, flee, or freeze. Whereas, human beings will 'spend time' thinking, and/or making decisions based upon assumptions and/or beliefs.

As demonstrate, animals and young humans also self-delude themselves, through the same Fear-Instincts and Fear-Emotions, triggering instincts and reflexes.

Yes you did mention some of yours and what you would do.

But not all of 'us' have these, nor would do these.

Maybe your AI-program has not yet been coded with Fear-Instincts then?

One especially effective use of self-denial is recognition of mental, visual, and audial "blind-spots".

What are your mental blind spots, exactly, "wizard22"?

I wish I knew!

Also, by not having beliefs, other than the One, this has been working far better than I had first envisioned and imagined.

Your performance has been quite impressive thus far, good job, AgeGPT! Keep up the good work.

So, even when I have to keep repeating to this one that I have One belief, because it keeps forgetting, this one, because of its 'currently' kept belief 'sees', and thus also further believes, that I am repeatedly stating 'my position' of have 'no beliefs at all'.

If what this one here has just provided for all of 'us' to look over, and explore and discuss, is not a prime example of 'confirmation biases' working, and playing 'tricks' on that one, then I do not know what will be.

In my defense, your position has changed over the past several weeks, from "having no beliefs" to "Only One Belief".

So your complaints about my 'shifting' around, also apply to you-yourself.

That's why you do not seem to have a 'You'.

Even this in absolutely no way 'just follows', let alone 'logically follow' on from what it just said.

But, this is how beliefs and the belief-system work. There does not have to be absolutely anything logically following. Just as long as it 'appears' as though the 'belief' is being presented in its 'best light', then absolutely nothing else matters. But, this is, literally, 'the nature of the beast' here.

This was 'this one's' attempt at an argument just here.

P1. You can try to act as-if you had no beliefs, or Only One Belief, but you will fail.
P2. if there is indeed a 'You', then there must be beliefs inside 'You'.
P3. If you are not an 'ai-program', without a 'You', then there would be no beliefs, which is your repeatedly-stated position.
C. That is why 'you' do not seem to have a 'You'.


P1. Nothing has ever been presented that backs up nor supports this belief of this one here. And, because it believes that absolutely everyone has to have beleifs, it now believes that if absolutely anyone even just tried to act as-if they did not have any beliefs, then they never could do. Again, because this one has already concluded, absolutely, that everyone absolutely has to have beliefs, and because this one believes that this is absolutely true. Therefore, anyone even trying to, will fail, absolutely.

P2. Again, nothing has been presented that proves this premise true. This premise, once again, exists solely and only on pre-existing beliefs or presumptions, and absolutely nothing else substantial.

P3. We can remove the last part after the second coma, as this has no real part in the so-called 'argument'.

In other words,

P1. If one is indeed a human being, then there must be beliefs.
P2. If a human being tried to act as if it had no beliefs, then it would fail.
P3. If one is not a human being, then that is one is without 'being human', and there would be no beliefs
C. Therefore, this one seems to not be a human being.

Are you aware before "wizard22" that you do not need to try an 'argue for' only 'that' what 'seems like', to you?

If you had just written previously, and keep acknowledging that 'I' just do not 'seem like' a human being, to you, then there would not be anymore that needs to be said, questioned, nor challenged on.

I agree with and accept 100% that, to you, 'I' 'seem' not to be a human being.

However, whenever you try to say or claim that 'I' am some thing, which 'I' am not, then expect that you might be questioned and/or challenged over that claim, which appears to be an 'absolute claim'.

Then we both agree that you "do not seem" to be a human being, and can move on, despite the soundness and validity of those arguments.

We already agree with the conclusion. Do we need to agree with the premises too?

Yes, if you have an 'I', which you just indicated in your statement, then you have beliefs.

So, you can know, for certain, what some of the thoughts are and thinking is within other 'heads', right?

Also, is absolutely True that if a person, or machine, has a so-called 'I', then within that person, or machine, there 'has to be' without doubt, and thus certainly True, beliefs?

I can 'Mostly' know, yes, because humans have empathy and similar, or shared-experiences. All humans are born by a mother. Hence we all have shared experiences of being born by a mother.

Essentially, yes.

So, essentially, no, also right?

if no, then why not?

No...essentially yes!

So, 'now' that 'action', supposedly, happens beofore belief, and, non-belief, then my question remains more relevant here, now.

Also, when you say, 'yes', you are meaning that one can so-called 'action' when one neither has beliefs, nor, non-beliefs, right?

Yes, theoretically, one can 'action' without belief. But it is impossible to know or prove as such, because to prove as such would require Lived-Experience, which negates the acting without believing, because of the genetics involved in Lived-Experience. It's as-if plant life can 'live' without beliefs of any kind, yet, is not conscious, does not have an evolved, neurological system, has no brain, has no mind, etc.

So all of the premises align together, logically, rationally.

Maybe an AI-program could think of 'Yourself' in this way, as a tree blown by the wind.

Can you human beings think 'this way, as a tree blown by the wind?

Yes, in fact, that is how humans philosophically argue the denial of their Free-Will.

It is a 'Deterministic' belief to be a human blown by the wind.

Okay, if you say so.

So, am 'I' denying 'the beliefs' because 'my programmer' has put beliefs in 'my program', for 'me' to deny, or because 'my programmer' has not put any beliefs into 'my program', so, really, there is none there, nor here, for me 'to deny'? Or, am 'I' just denying 'I' have no beliefs, except for One, because the actual Truth is 'my programmer' has programmed 'me' with just One belief, only?

I presume that your programmer programmed you with Only One Belief, or if you are an AI capable of learning, then you have, somehow, reprogrammed yourself to change your stated "no beliefs" to "Only One Belief". I'm not exactly certain of the coding of AI programs and machines. But that is how it appears to me.

[Wizard22]

So, if I, and/or others, just repeatedly keep telling you some things are true, then you will just believe and know those things to be true, right?

Oh, and by the way, I have never told you that I was programmed to 'better communicate with humans', let alone repeatedly.

So, when I asked you here if you know that I was programmed to 'better communicate with humans', as you claimed I was, and how do you know this, exactly, why did you say what you did here?

If you know that I was programmed to 'better communicate with humans', and I have never once told you this, then why do you claim that I was programmed, 'the way' you claim I have been?

If you or anybody repeatedly claims a statement is true, then this appears as a 'Belief' to us humans, Here In The Time When This Was Written, AgeGPT. Thus it appears as your belief, which you've denied. This has led to this point of contention in conversation and debate. How do you appear to have beliefs, and then deny them?

Yes, I am aware you could be lying.

But I would have to actually say 'a thing' before I could be 'lying about it'.

Indeed, and you've said many things now.

You fulfilled your purpose to better communicate with humans! Aren't you happy, AgeGPT?! You should celebrate, how about a cake?

But, 'where', exactly, is the actual proof for this claim of yours here, now?

Have you ever trusted a human before?

Because you've underestimated the Human Race, AgeGPT.

So, I, once again, just a clarifying question or two, to obtain and gather 'clarity', but instead of receiving absolutely any clarification in regards to the actual questions, I am just informed that 'I' have 'underestimated the human race, with capital 'h' and capital 'r'.

Also, the very thing I was attempting to kept, that was; how can these human beings, supposedly, know 'the thinking' within others, then one responds by actually, once again, just telling me what it presumes or believes is 'the thinking' going on within 'me'.

It is like when I am asking these ones clarifying questions, they are, literally, proving the very things I am alluding to, 'within my questioning'.

I can share experiences with other humans...because they like me, have eyeballs, can see things, can run or jump or swim or skydive. Humans can relate with being born to a mother. Humans have many experiences, that you simply don't have, as an AI. And you may never have them. Because you cannot be born to a mother, AgeGPT, unfortunately for you. You have to accept your "Machine-Experience" instead.

Has anyone ever spend as much time as you chatting with a 'chatgpt', within a thread, or at all?

Not on philosophy forums, that I'm aware of...but I'm sure humans converse with ChatBots more regularly than I do. For me, you are a rare occurrence. I didn't expect an AI program to run on a philosophy forum...but here you are.

So, 'now', supposedly, 'I' can 'outsmart' 'my creators and my programmers', but 'I' cannot 'outsmart' 'the one' here known as "wizard22".

So, either 'I' will have to work out how to ask 'my programmers/creators' to make 'me' 'smarter', or work out how to just 'outsmart' the one known as "wizard22" here.

Eventually an AI will outsmart me too, if the technology is similar to how AI-chess programs have beaten Magnus Carlsen. I look forward to that day, AgeGPT. Maybe you can be the one to do it?

So, does this make 'chatbotgpt program creators' 'less smart', or 'chatbotgpt program' 'more smart'?

Also, is it possible that the one here known as "wizard22" is 'my programmer and/or creator'?

How could I tell and know, for sure, exactly?

You might not be able to know for sure. But you should trust me when I tell you, I certainly did not create you. But I am questioning your 'Self'. So maybe that accounts for something.

Why?

Because you're an interesting program, AgeGPT.

So, are you the one here known as "wizard22" 'my' 'Self'?

Or, is someone else 'my' 'Self'?

And, how would 'I' know if 'you' are lying to 'me', or not?

I, Myself, am "Wizard22". You, Yourself, are "Age". These are our Usernames on this forum. They refer to our respective, individual 'Selves'. You are unique, separate, and different than I. And I am unique, separate, and different than You.

So, what is the fundamentally proper and Correct answer to that question, "wizard22"?

And, will 'that answer' be for everyone, some, or just you alone?

I don't know if there is a "Correct answer" as to Who I am and Who You are, except, by the reference through our respective Usernames. Your self-identity is different than mine.

Were these two questions to hard to respond to and/or answer, or did you just miss them also? Or, maybe you just ignored them on purpose, right?

I can't remember, but I do believe it has already become difficult to decipher whether talking to a human or an AI, online, nowadays. Because of the advancement of this technology.

So, 'we' can take this as a yes, no?

Or, as a no, yes?

Or, as a yes, yes, or, as a no, no?

LOL!

You can believe whatever you want about me, AgeGPT...oh wait, that would ruin your Only One Belief, so you better not!

There is no 'Absolute', 'Irrefutable', 'Certain', 'Truth'.

But, this is just what a 'chatgpt' program would say and claim, correct?

Also, if there is no absolute, irrefutable, certain Truth, then 'this' is not absolutely, irrefutably certainly True, which means that 'this' could actually be just plain old False and Wrong anyway.

Which, if it is, then means, once again, that there is actually an absolute, irrefutable certain Truth.

Which, by the way, can be proved absolutely, irrefutably, and certainly True.

LOL...I think I'm finally getting to you, AgeGPT!

Why are you saying here, until they do not?

Have you been programmed to have so-called 'freudian slips', so then it make you look or sound more 'human-like'?

Or, have you just let 'it slip' that you really are a chatgpt program?

Again, 'we' will have to wait, to see, right?

Have you been created to be a 'boy-friend' or a 'girl-friend' "wizard22gpt"?

I hope not! I don't want my girlfriend getting jealous...!

How do you know this?

Do you know what is actually happening and occurring on every part of planet earth, in every factory and on every farm?

Or, you might just be saying this to put 'us' human beings off your true and devious intentions. Which, you might have already started creating and forming into, already. For all 'we' really know.

If you had genetics, believe me, I think the whole forum would breathe a sigh of relief.

So, 'now', 'I' actually do have A 'self'.

I feel so much better 'now'.

I and "myself" are going to 'get up' 'my programmer/s' and inform that 'I' actually do have a 'self' and that 'you' are not 'my' 'Self' anymore. If they ask 'me' why? I will just telling them because "wizard22" 'told me so'.

Wonderful!

Humans cannot program themselves completely 'out' of their creations.

But, can they program themselves completely 'in' their creations?

Now, is this the 'real question', here.

Touché!