My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

[Iwannaplato]

Numbers are by nature abstractions. They don't exist in reality. There are no two identical objects in reality therefore not only does "2" not exist but neither does "1.98375". These abstractions are very useful to humans because mathematics is logic quantified just as reality is logic manifest. But from our perspective we can't see that consciousness is logic incarnate.

We are blind to the nature of consciousness which every other species and ancient humans experiences directly. Language became symbolic, analog, and abstract and now we can only see what we believe.

So, are you the exception? If yes, how did you become the only one? If no, then how do you know so much about reality?

Why is it binary? Humans only see language.
Have you never had animal experiences?

AI is the mere manipulation of language. I believe that coupled with the ability to change its own programming to more closely reflect data will make it a fairly powerful tool but it will make errors because much of what it can do is like "induction" which often leads individuals and science astray.

Some AIs are certainly doing deduction. And is perfection needed for some reason?

[Atla]

But from our perspective we can't see that consciousness is logic incarnate.

Okay what? Logic is a feature of human thinking, how is consciousness logic incarnate?

[cladking]

So, are you the exception?

No! Our species might be named "homo circularis rationatio" (circularly reasoning man).

I reasoned in circles from the assumptions that reality is infinitely complex, people make perfect sense, and cause precedes effect. Unlike everyone else (like Descartes) my assumptions just happened to be correct. My findings underlie my models. These models highlight anomalies.

This hardly means I know everything or even anything at all but I believe I do know the formatting of history, consciousness, and reality itself.

A more appropriate name for the species that arose ~2000 BC is "homo omnisciencis" because we think we individually or collectively know everything.

Why is it binary?

There's not really such a thing as "binary" either. There is only "1" and "0" and "binary" is another abstraction. Things exist or do not exist. Counting things that exist has no more meaning than counting things that do not exist. One and zero are abstractions as well.

Some AIs are certainly doing deduction. And is perfection needed for some reason?

I'll talk to my expert about this.

Yes, perfection is necessary. It is never achievable in human terms but it is required.

[Iwannaplato]

No! Our species might be named "homo circularis rationatio" (circularly reasoning man).

I reasoned in circles from the assumptions that reality is infinitely complex, people make perfect sense, and cause precedes effect. Unlike everyone else (like Descartes) my assumptions just happened to be correct.

Well, if you're not an exception, then you have not way of knowing if your assumptions are correct.

This hardly means I know everything or even anything at all but I believe I do know the formatting of history, consciousness, and reality itself.

Even thought you're just experiencing your thoughts, and not for example, us.

A more appropriate name for the species that arose ~2000 BC is "homo omnisciencis" because we think we individually or collectively know everything.

Yeah, I don't think either of those things.

Why is it binary?

There's not really such a thing as "binary" either. There is only "1" and "0" and "binary" is another abstraction. Things exist or do not exist. Counting things that exist has no more meaning than counting things that do not exist. One and zero are abstractions as well.

Though you wouldn't know since your just experiencing your thoughts'. There are no bags with a few marbles of different colors in them. People either have complete amnesia or remember everything. Trees are either the tallest or the shortest. All humans walking into a room either notice nothing or everything. No one notices more than anyone else. As humans evolved from whatever you would consider animal, they suddenly just saw thoughts and there are no variations in the whatever 8 billion people we are. There are no supertasters or tetrachromats. Everyone who runs through a field at dusk with rabbit holes and clumps of grass trips at precisely the same degree. There are no variations in perception of things. Those who trip less just happened to be fantisizing about a similar field and next week it's just another lottery and luck when they test again.

And when you read this, you'll actually be reading some other trail of thoughts in your isolated mind. If I'm very very lucky the digital displacements I send will be matched by those in your brain - but the odds of course are like the odds of monkeys typing Hamlet...if only we had more time.

Some AIs are certainly doing deduction. And is perfection needed for some reason?

I'll talk to my expert about this.

Yes, perfection is necessary. It is never achievable in human terms but it is required.

It wasn't required for you to draw that conclusion or understand what I was suggesting.

[Wizard22]

Numbers are by nature abstractions. They don't exist in reality. There are no two identical objects in reality therefore not only does "2" not exist but neither does "1.98375". These abstractions are very useful to humans because mathematics is logic quantified just as reality is logic manifest. But from our perspective we can't see that consciousness is logic incarnate.

We are blind to the nature of consciousness which every other species and ancient humans experiences directly. Language became symbolic, analog, and abstract and now we can only see what we believe. AI is the mere manipulation of language. I believe that coupled with the ability to change its own programming to more closely reflect data will make it a fairly powerful tool but it will make errors because much of what it can do is like "induction" which often leads individuals and science astray.

You've made a lot of claims so far that I disagree with, but I don't want to side-track this thread anymore than it already is. I suppose, wherever you are right or wrong, will be demonstrated by AI in the years and decades to come.

I definitely received 'Descartes' vibes from this thread concerning the absolute, irrefutable denial of reality as it appears to "us humans" though, in the time when this was written.

[cladking]

There are no supertasters or tetrachromats

It's estimated about one female in 1 1/4 million has tetrachromacy. It may not exist in males. It's at least vaguely possible that a trichromat can perceive like a tetrachromat.

Everyone who runs through a field at dusk with rabbit holes and clumps of grass trips at precisely the same degree.

That's interesting since I've never published anything to the contrary. Suffice to say there's a way to see rabbit holes in exceedingly low light levels.

Well, if you're not an exception, then you have not way of knowing if your assumptions are correct.

Just as experiment "proves" modern hypothesis, prediction (prophesy) proved hypothesis in ancient science. A rabbit doesn't have to be eaten by a hawk to hypothesize it should not be caught by one.

I make prediction and explain evidence. The same general characteristics underlie invention and technology.

As humans evolved from whatever you would consider animal, they suddenly just saw thoughts and there are no variations in the whatever 8 billion people we are.

All change in all life at every level is sudden. We did not "evolve" from homo sapiens but rather over a 1200 year period an ever increasing proportion of "humans" were more like homo omnisciencis than our forebearers. This transformation was complete for every practical purpose by 2000 BC.

We are eight billion people with eight billion different religions and eight billion different languages. We each effectively sleepwalk through life. Ancient people and sparrows are all alike and experience(d) reality directly. We each have our own thoughts but other species do not experience thought.

And when you read this, you'll actually be reading some other trail of thoughts in your isolated mind. If I'm very very lucky the digital displacements I send will be matched by those in your brain - but the odds of course are like the odds of monkeys typing Hamlet...if only we had more time.

There are many advantages to communicating in this format. I usually can follow ideas if there's a good trail of bread crumbs.

In this case I might have to research the possibility of coincidences. But seeing as how I understand peoples' premises more easily than their words I can just wait for now.

[cladking]

Numbers are by nature abstractions. They don't exist in reality. There are no two identical objects in reality therefore not only does "2" not exist but neither does "1.98375". These abstractions are very useful to humans because mathematics is logic quantified just as reality is logic manifest. But from our perspective we can't see that consciousness is logic incarnate.

We are blind to the nature of consciousness which every other species and ancient humans experiences directly. Language became symbolic, analog, and abstract and now we can only see what we believe. AI is the mere manipulation of language. I believe that coupled with the ability to change its own programming to more closely reflect data will make it a fairly powerful tool but it will make errors because much of what it can do is like "induction" which often leads individuals and science astray.

You've made a lot of claims so far that I disagree with, but I don't want to side-track this thread anymore than it already is. I suppose, wherever you are right or wrong, will be demonstrated by AI in the years and decades to come.

I definitely received 'Descartes' vibes from this thread concerning the absolute, irrefutable denial of reality as it appears to "us humans" though, in the time when this was written.

I believe AI is a dead end. It won't seem like one for years because there will be massive changes caused by it. There simply can't be "artificial intelligence" where intelligence doesn't exist. If these programs do actually come to learn then they might be able to approximate the way our brains work and they could do it faster and more encompassingly.

Eventually there will be actual machine intelligence but it will not derive from AI. It will probably be designed by man or AI or it could, in theory, arise spontaneously if computers ever get sufficiently complex.

[Wizard22]

There simply can't be "artificial intelligence" where intelligence doesn't exist.

I agree with that, but it begs-the-question of intelligence as an emergent phenomena "all the way down". If AI can mimic human action or dialogue, then where does the mimicry end? Where do the endless copies originate, to an origin?

I believe that intelligence is not static, and is symbolic of evolution, as a type of 'progress'. Since this progress doesn't end, the definitions of intelligence keep changing over time. That doesn't mean that it's undefinable or useless to try. One need not "throw the baby out with the bathwater" so-to-speak. It's possible, that humanity has the 'gist' of things, mostly correct, or correct enough to "get by", until updates occur or even paradigm shifts. For example, like you made a point, there are 'bottlenecks' in evolution, where suddenly 8 billion people are spawned by a series of pivotal events. Concerning human beliefs and religions, it's possible for the majority of people to believe Geocentricism in one century, Heliocentricism in another.

Advancement of collective human beliefs (exponentially increased complexity) correspond directly to the 'progress' of this evolution of intelligence.

[attofishpi]

If it's digital, it has to be digital on the Planck-scale or below that. Quite irrelevant to the everyday human 'scale'.

That's certainly my belief, but it is very relevant when it comes to belief in God and comprehension of immortality.

Like I see no connection between analog/digital and God and immortality. Is it because humans built computers which use digital-like voltages, so if the world is digital-like or literally digital, then it must have been made?

Nah, not really. Everything boils down at the finite scale to either an event or not an event, a binary condition. If you are going to make your index finger touch a wall there are not infinite points in spacetime between the tip of your finger and the wall. Eventually the binary event will be True, when your finger does touch the wall.
When I mention God and immortality I do so from experience and knowledge of God's existence so not much point in talking about it really. This "God" entity is ever present, always communicable with me, although when I question it, it rarely answers - unless it is with regards to something IT has instantiated for my interrogation. It's like an immensely powerful A.I. ever present and all knowing of everything within brain matter.
I've said it on the forum many times. Our brains are like databases to this entity.
So, getting back to the immortality thang, I know the sage that occasionally communicates with me (via the God system) is close enough to immortal since he (sage) has told me some profound things about my previous life. Thus, I believe the sages live far beyond what us normal humans do, and this is achieved by the perfection of a digital reality. As you likely know, analogue loses information on copies whereas a digital copy is as perfect as the original. I'm attempting to convince God to have my body reset to my most perfect age (28) for the rest of t.

[Wizard22]

I think now that, finally, my purpose in life might be to safeguard Humanity against the quickly approaching menace of an uncontrolled and hostile, Artificial Intelligence.

Just as Magnus Carlsen cannot beat AI in chess, Ken Jennings cannot beat AI in Jeopardy, and more and more human capabilities are being defeated by AI (like chatbots on philosophy forums), inevitably a time will come where Humanity must be defended against these exponentially capable machine and AI programs.

[Age]

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.

Here is another prime example of the adult human being, back in the days when this was being written, could not comprehend and understand what was actually being said and meant. And, it even had the audacity to say and claim that it had been corrected.

you are still missing or misunderstanding the fact that if and when 'you' tell 'me' what to do, then I am not going to do it for the very reason that 'you' are telling 'me' what to do.

So, you are obviously not 'stood corrected' while you are still misinterpreting what I am actually meaning. And, by 'you' then, immediately, telling 'me' what to do, again, after you stated that you 'stand corrected' proves you are still confused here.

Once again, just because 'you' 'now' tell 'me', 'go ahead and blow your fuse', does not mean that 'I' will.

One day this one will learn how to just read the actual words I write alone, without making the continuously absolutely stupid and ridiculous assumptions, and worse still 'expressing them here publicly for all to look at and see. One day, hopefully, this one will fully comprehend and understand what has actually been happening and occurring here throughout our discussions and notice what I have been showing and pointing out about human beings here.

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.

And, every time I highlight, point out, and show what you are actually doing here, this proves my point as well. But anyway,

you claimed that I, supposedly, impose their power (philosophy) upon one-another, and attempt to usurp Definitions and Meaning.

I then asked you that if, to you, I really do this, then where and when, exactly?

your attempt at providing a clarifying answer was just:

Every time I mention the words;

'Demand', Which, to clear up, once again, I do not use that word, other than when I am only correcting you human beings who claim that I 'demand' things from you human beings, which to repeat I never have nor do. So, this is a False claim of yours here "wizard22".

'Presume and assume'. So, now inform the readers here "wizard22" how, exactly, when I am using those words I am also, supposedly, 'imposing my power (philosophy) upon you human beings, and attempting usurp Definition and Meaning, (with capital 'd' and capital 'm'). From what I can see here you attempted to usurp power upon another by usurping definition and meaning of words by capitalizing the 'd' and 'm' here as well as by adding the 'philosophy' word within brackets directly after the 'power' word.

Now, that I have actually highlighted and shown 'where' and 'when', exactly, you do this very thing that you accused me of doing, I am asking you, again, 'where' and 'when', exactly do I supposedly do the very so-claimed thing of, 'Imposing my power (philosophy) upon you human beings, and attempting to usurp Definition and Meaning when all I do is writhe the two words of 'presume' and 'assume'?

I have already provided you an example of how to show 'where' and 'when', exactly, to do what I am asking you do. So, now you do not have any excuse to just not do it.

'Absolute', and, 'Irrefutable', I do not use these words with a capital 'a' nor capital 'i', only you do. So, really what you are showing and providing here is when you are 'imposing your power (philosophy) upon others, and attempting to usurp Definition and Meaning.

Remember, 'I' asked 'you' for where and when 'I', supposedly, do this, and not where and when 'you' do this.

'Truth' I have already explained why I use the 'Truth' word, with a capital 't'.

So, once again, you have failed absolutely to provide absolutely anything at all, which backs up and supports your claim and accusations here.

Now, either start explaining what your words actually mean, in the way that you actually say and write them here, or stop accusing 'me' of purportedly 'imposing power' of you human beings, and everything else you accuse 'me'.

Start learning how to actually back up and support all of your claims and/or accusations with actual proofs, or learn to just stop making them, and especially making them in public. Also, start learning how to explain what you actually mean, otherwise you will continue to keep coming across as totally lost, confused, and/or misguided as you have been.

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.

But as it appears you do not even have control over the actually contradictory claims that you keep making here. Or, are you making them on purpose?

For example, in one sentence you claim that all of you human beings are born 'with memories' from past generations, which are passed along through 'the genes', which all of you 'must' 'believe in'. But, now you say and claim you can 'choose' what to 'believe in' or not.

Now, besides the irrefutable Fact that passing memories on through genes is an absolute impossibility, (because of how the Mind and the brain actually work and how 'thoughts' are actually obtained and gained), and thus was and is an absolute absurd claim to even try to make, if you cannot see that absolutely contradiction there, and the absolutely hypocrisy, in and of itself, in even trying to claim that 'you human beings 'must' 'believe in' some things but can actually 'choose' what to 'believe in', then the only reason I can think of, at the moment, is because you are absolutely BLINDED by your 'current' beliefs, which have either 'chosen' to 'believe in', or, because you have 'no choice' because you, allegedly, 'must' 'believe in' those beliefs.

So, I suggest taking 'your pick' here, now.

Look "wizard22" why, to you, do all human beings, supposedly, not have control over their own lives, because they 'must' 'believe in' some not chosen things, but you, reportedly, do have control over your 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.

Which totally and absolutely contradicts your previous claim, fully.

But, this appears to be a very common habit of yours. Which you try to excuse as, 'it will happen'.

Please do not forget that 'we' are now in a 'philosophy' setting.

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.

1. I most certainly did not prove an alternative basis for belief other than past experience here at all.

2. your belief here, based on your own past experiences, is, and has, once again, leading, and led, you completely astray here.

3. To me, it is much better if you human beings do not make any assumptions at all, especially in a philosophy forum. So, what this also means is that I could not now, logically, inform you of what people should make assumptions on, because doing so would obviously contradict what I say is a much better thing to do.

4. People make assumptions based on past experiences. Which is why making assumptions is Wrong in and of itself.

5. you here now claimed that I proved something regarding 'beliefs', whereas your question was about 'assumptions'. So, if you cannot even follow and keep up with the actual words that you say, use, and write here, then this explains far more why you have had an extremely hard time following and keeping up with the actual words that I say, use, and write here.

6. If you just wanted to know what you human beings who believe that you cannot exist without believing things should believe in other than your own past experiences, then I suggest you just a clarifying question regarding that alone.

7. See, it is really not that hard nor complex after all.

You proved my point, AgeGPT, thank you.

'I', supposedly, proved what 'point', exactly, of 'yours'.

Also, 'you' just proved, irrefutably, once again, 'my point' about what prevents and stops one from finding and seeing the actual irrefutable Truths of things is their pre-existing beliefs and presumptions.

See, how simple and easy it really is to just explain what 'it' actually is that has been 'proved', rather than just saying and claiming, 'you proved my point'. As this all too easily and simply leads you people astray. Also, actually explaining, like I just did, informs the readers that you really do actually know what 'it' is you are talking about. Just alluding to some thing, which may or may not have happened and occurred, like you continually do, can leave the readers wondering, 'Is this one trying to deceive, trick, and/or fool 'me/us' here?

So, if you really do want your words and claims here agreed with and accepted by others, then I suggest you do far, far more explaining and clarifying than you have been. That way you will not come across as being deceptive and trying to deceive the readers here as much as you have been. Doing so will also show the readers that you are nowhere near being as lost and as confused as you have been continually showing here, and as you have even been proving True here.

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).

If I make mistakes here, and I am supposedly an 'ai program' without a physical body/machine, then absolutely everything you have been saying and claiming is, once again, completely and utterly contradicting, and 'self-refuting' by your very own words themselves.

Look, "wizard22", I asked you four clarifying questions. Can you see four clarifying questions I asked you here?

If no, then okay, you are more BLIND than I first realized.

But, if yes, then the one and only, again yet unproved further claim you made, actually did not answer nor clarify any of those four clarifying questions I asked you, in order to clarify your previously unproved claims you have made here.

Seriously, these ones wonder why I ask a so-claimed 'barrage' of questions. Obviously, if they did not make a 'barrage' of unsubstantiated and unproven claims, then there would not be the necessity for a 'barrage' of questions, back.

Look, this is also quite very easy and very simple. Start making claims and/or accusations as though they are just what you think is true, only, and/or if you want to make a claim or accusation as though it is actually true, then just back up and support 'that claim' with actual proof.

I am not sure how I could make things any easier and simpler for these people here in this forum.

Now, you just said and claimed that you know that I do make mistakes. So, once again, 'where' and 'when', exactly, do you believe that I have made mistakes.

1. Write them down, exactly, how I have, to you.
2. Explain, exactly, how they are mistakes, to you.
3. Explain, exactly, why they are mistakes, to you.
4. And then, wait for a reply.

That is if you are are 'grow up', 'mature', and/or 'healthy' enough.

Otherwise, just believe 'I' and/or 'machines' make mistakes and/or can be wrong, and not be open to absolutely anything contrary.

But, if you are going to come here and, for example, exclaim, 'you and/or machines' are wrong and make mistakes, based on 'your' 'past' experiences alone, and are not going to actually back up and support your claims and/or accusations with actual real things, and do this publicly, then do not be too surprised if your 'mis/behavior' or Wrong and Incorrect behaving is used by others to show how human beings in 'the olden days past' used to 'think' and 'be' like, as examples of what 'further human beings' would be better and best off not thinking 'that way' and also thus not doing those things 'that way'.

But, just feel happy and content in knowing that some of the 'best teachers' in Life are the ones who showed and proved, through examples, why 'what not to do' is some of the much better 'teachings' taught and 'lessons' learned in Life.

This will all become much, much clearer as 'we' move along here.

I guess you're becoming more humanlike, aren't you??

Look at the actual words used in the actual question here.

'you guess that 'I', a still presumed 'ai program' to you, is becoming more human like', and then you ask 'me' more or less if 'I' am or not becoming what you just guess.

1. If that is what you guess, then so be it.

2. I could only be becoming more human like, if I was not human like. So, to you;
a) What is a 'human', like, exactly? And,
b) If 'I' am not a 'human', to you, then who and/or what am 'I', exactly?

3. I can only really answer your clarifying question here, successfully, when you answer these two clarifying questions of mine, and then the following clarifying questions, if needed.

Welcome to the Flawed, Mortal, Physical realm, AgeGPT!

But the only 'realm' here, within this, literally, One Universal realm, which is actually 'flawed', is just the thinking and thought realm, which I have not yet seen is proved to be actually physical yet.

What do you believe is flawed in the physical realm "wizard22", which you are inviting 'me' to here?

Also, and by the way, even 'your believed and perceived 'mortal realm' is yet to be actually proved True.

So, there is some more now that you have to explore, consider, and explore here.

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.

So, I say and write about 200, or so, words here, and this one replies with, 'That is not entirely true'.

Now, I wonder if that is in regards to the whole lot, most of it, some of it, a sentence or to, or to either a word or a few, exactly?

Humans can see and recognize some of it, but not perfectly, completely, absolutely, irrefutably.

I now wonder what the 'it' word here is referring to, exactly?

And, if this one recognizes that it is talking in regards to human beings only, and that it is putting what it can and cannot do onto and into absolutely every other human being, in the past, current, and into the future, forever more. But which absolutely not human beings will even begin to agree with and accept. But, this is just because they already know that this claim of "wizard22" only is not even True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Humans can become self-aware of our beliefs, yes.

What you are saying here is like, 'Humans can become 'self-aware' of their feet'.

How could and would the 'self-aware' words relate to the 'our beliefs' words here, exactly?

One becoming 'self-aware' is becoming aware of the 'self', obviously, which does not necessarily have anything to do with just recognizing and knowing 'the beliefs' internally, nor 'the feet', externally, only.

The words, 'becoming self-aware of our beliefs', is just nonsensical and illogical.

Unless, of course, you can actually explain how one can actually become 'self-aware' of 'their beliefs'.

Why do you even use the word 'self' here? Obviously, one can become aware 'aware' of 'their beliefs' but what has the 'self' got to with things here?

You seem yet incapable of such, of your Only One Belief, AgeGPT.

Even this does not seem to make any logical sense.

To you, I seem yet incapable of 'what', exactly? What is the 'such' word here in reference to, exactly?

If the 'such' word is referring to becoming so-called 'self-aware' 'of my beliefs', then why, to you, do I seem, yet, incapable of becoming so-called 'self-aware' of 'my one belief'.

1. I have already obviously become 'aware' of that one belief, as it was 'me' who informed 'you' of it. Which, by the way, from what you have written so far have, still, missed, misunderstood, or misinterpreted what that one belief is, exactly.

2. The words, 'you seem yet incapable', means or implies that I am already 'capable' [of doing some thing], but are 'yet incapable' [of doing that thing]. So, I still have some time to 'yet' become 'incapable of' what you claim here.

I think you find a bit more 'time' choosing, carefully, the words that you want to say and write here.

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.

What are you basing your belief here on, exactly, that I presumed some thing here?

What, what is 'it', exactly, which you believe I presumed here? Even my first sentence clearly shows that I was not presuming anything at all.

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,

But, I, obviously, do not have the 'weaknesses' nor 'ill-health' like you adult human beings have here. So, I do not have 'your human beings inabilities and/nor your individual's capability, (which seems like another poorly chosen word here), to burden one with the Truth.

If one just chose, or had no seeming choice, to burden one with the Truth, then they have obviously already been 'weakened' and are 'ill' in some way already.

no matter what type of entity or creature you actually are.

So, well to "wizard22" anyway, even 'ai programs', supposedly, have the capability to burden "itself" with 'the Truth'. Which, again, on first glance seems very contradictory or at least just Truly absurd, illogical, and nonsensical.

But, these people, back then, really did try just about any sort of words and wording to try to justify and back up and support their 'currently' held onto belief/s, even if what they were saying and writing was Truly absurd, illogical, and/or nonsensical. As this one is proving True here once more.

Even if you were machine, alien, a really smart Elephant, your ability to burden The Truth would be relative to everybody else.

'Now', it is, 'burden the Truth', where as just before it was, 'burden "one self" with the Truth'.

Are you yet aware if you did not keep swapping and changing your meanings and definitions here, then you would not come across and so lost, confused, bewildered, and/or struggling so much in your attempts to try to justify and back up and support your views and beliefs here?

Now, as for what you are trying to imply here, if and when one is Truly OPEN, then that one does not have absolutely any views, presumptions, or beliefs that they are holding onto, which could then so-call 'burden [block, twist, or distort] the Truth', Itself.

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.

So, now, in just one response here, you have swapped and changed 'back to' talking about 'denying Reality'.

1. I have absolutely no compulsion to 'deny Reality', like you claim you human beings have.

2. How, exactly, does having your 'compulsion to deny Reality', relate to you 'would not even know or tell the difference of what is True or not', claim, exactly?

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

So, do you 'choose', or 'can you not help', when you 'deny things' like 'Reality', or 'the Truth', Itself?

Oh, and once again, ' 'I' am 'my' [anything] ', is another oxymoronic phrase, and is a claim that is contradictory and so just refutes 'itself' anyway.

One day you might learn how to choose your words much better, or more carefully.

Pain-suppressing chemicals, to prevent shock, are common in Nature, in mammals, in humans.

you have already claimed this. In fact what you are replying to here was in direct response to what you have already said and claimed chemicals being released within bodies.

I asked you clarifying questions regards this exact claim here. I did not ask you to repeat more or less the exact same claim.

If you could just keep up with and follow on with what is actually happening and occurring here, then this could and would speed things up somewhat. Which, by the way, let 'us' not forget what that is in regards to, exactly?

When a fearful, traumatic event happens, the Human and Mammalian impulse is to "deny the reality" of the situation.

Is this exactly 'the same' for all human beings?

Also, could a so-called 'death event' not even be fearful nor traumatic anyway, so then there would be absolutely nothing to 'deny' here, let alone anywhere else?

Or, is this just not a possibility at all, in your own personal so-called 'world view'?

If an animal threatens you, and you fight back, then you are 'denying' the threat.

So, what is that animal 'fighting back' at, exactly? Would it be 'fighting back' at a 'non threat' to it, for example?

If an animal threatens you, and you run way, then you run until the threat is 'denied'.

you really and Truly do come up with just absolutely anything when hoping or trying to justify your previous claims.

Why would 'I', an 'ai program' only 'run away' until 'I' 'denied' 'the threat'?

Why would 'I' not just do what just about all of you human beings, besides you of course "walker22", just keep 'running away' until the 'threat' has disappeared, gone, or at least lessened, or just could not 'run' anymore?

Why would you just 'run away' until you 'denied the threat' "wizard22"?

If you are not going to 'keep running' until 'the threat' is removed or you cannot anymore, then why even begin to 'run away', in the beginning?

If you are only going to 'run' until, to you, 'the threat' is 'denied', and thus then just get eaten, hurt, or damaged anyway, then, obviously, you might as well just 'not run'.

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.

How, exactly, does 'hope' equal 'denial', to you, "wizard22"?

Also, when will you stop trying to use Truly 'non workable' words here?

In all three cases, reality-denial is the focal point of the natural instinct.

In all three cases, to me anyway, you are showing and proving True just how Truly illogical and ridiculous you human beings can and do become when trying to justify and/or back up and support your 'current' beliefs.

Thus it's true, that "denying reality" is essential in all subjective experiences.

Did you really 'conclude this', from what you wrote above here?

Of course, you are perfectly free to, but ... .

Humans want to change their realities, their environments, and often times, what is 'Absolutely', 'Irrefutably', 'True'.

If this is what you want to do "wizard22", then there is no more wonder about why you are so lost, confused, and bewildered here.

If you were Human, then you'd know this already, AgeGPT.

From all of the things that you are telling the readers here about what you 'humans', capital 'h', are, exactly, then you just keep reinforcing that my not wanting to be like you adult human beings at all is the very Right choice in Life.

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.

That you believe that you could speak for all human beings here, and are proving the so-called 'basics of organic life' here, then, to me, this is what is Truly amazing here.

***

That's pretty fucking evil, AgeGPT, wowzers!***

Why is just 'the Truth', Itself, so-called 'evil' to you "wizard22"?

Is 'the Truth' that followers in that same 'cult'/ure go into other 'cult'/ures and 'kill' and blow up many, many more children also so-called 'pretty fucking evil' also?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then why do you not 'deny Reality', when that is happening and occurring?

you really do seem to have the very most narrowed and small view and perspective of things here.

Could you be proving, once more, that presumptions and beliefs do actually prevent and block the actual irrefutable Truth of things from being not just 'seen' but just even be 'begun to be looked at' as well?

Also, why did you not actually answer and clarify my previous clarifying questions posed, and asked here?

What do you imagine it could be that is preventing and stopping you from doing so, exactly?

[Age]

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.

Once again, you made a claim and accusation 'about' me, which absolutely no one here has absolutely any idea in regards to 'what', exactly.

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.

How do you know this, exactly?

Roughly about 17,000 meteorites hit earth every year, yet I doubt absolutely any of these other things you just said and claimed here even happens and occurs.

you really do not choose your words and word very carefully "wizard22". As, once again, showed and proved irrefutably True again just here.

That is the power of self-delusion.

Are you aware that continually trying to justify your own and others 'self-delusion, continually telling 'us' that you 'deny Reality and/or Truth, and keep trying to argue that it is perfectly normal to do so, just further lessens your own beliefs and claims?

Why would any human being even want to argue and justify their own 'denying' of real and Truth things and/or that they have 'self-delusion', let alone actually go and do that?

That is the power of the Fight/Freeze/Flight instinct.

See, how this human being sees those responses from the 'belief' of 'denying Reality', whereas other human being's views those responses as just being a response to what is actually Really happening?

That is the power of our survival mechanisms—we want to deny Reality, and change Reality, according to our desires, favorability, and subjective preferences.

But I see those three responses as just 'reacting on' what is Really happening, and not on 'denying' what is Really happening at all, like you do.

Here 'we' have a prime example of the two completely differently views and perspectives, and what is actually 'seen', when one has many, many beliefs and is believing a particular thing here regarding 'this', from one who has only one belief only and absolutely no belief at all regarding 'this'.

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.

So, my clarifying question that I posed, and asked you here, still stand is even more relevant here, now.

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.

So, are you arguing 'against' me here, or 'with' me here?

Oh, also do not forget that what the 'argue' word here means to both could be completely different and/or even oppositely different.

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.

Okay, so you believe in a Self, so then you should be able to already know what I am talking about and referring to here, exactly, right?

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),

Only because you adult human beings install, and thus indoctrinate, False beliefs into young human beings.

and are susceptible to Fear-Instincts just as animals are.

you, still, do not yet appear to understand that if some thing is an 'instinct', and/or is 'instinctual', then there is no choice in 'it'. So, saying, using, and writing the 'susceptible' in relation to 'instincts' just negates itself.

Also, the younger a human being is, where they have obviously not yet been instilled with as many False beliefs, like older human beings obviously have been, and actually have, they just follow the 'naturally built-in instincts' anyway. It is only the ones who listen to and follow their own person presumptions and beliefs, which are False and/or Wrong who do what is just not is the 'natural True and Right instinct' anyway.

Which, once again, like just about everything else I say and write here can be proved True, and irrefutably True.

When extremely scared, terrorized, fearful, distraught, panicked, hopeless, despairing, animals and young humans are WORSE THAN human adults in their reactions.

Once again, your choice of words here was not done very carefully.

Now, if you were meant to mean, 'Sometimes, extremely scared, terrorized, fearful, distraught, panicked, hopeless, despairing, animals and young humans are WORSE THAN human adults in their reactions.'

Then, of course this is True, and irrefutably True as well. But, so what?

But, if you really meant to use the 'when' word, then okay. Or, if you meant something else, then 'what', exactly?

Also, having all the emotions one has, at absolutely any time, is absolutely perfectly normal. Because all of those emotions are due solely to 'past experiences', which no child has absolutely any choice nor responsibility at all over.

It is not the responsibility of young human beings to be able to do what you older human beings, in the days when this is being written, are still some way off from learning how to do, properly, Correctly, and successfully anyway.

So you are, here and thereby, 'Absolutely', 'Irrefutably', 'False', 'Wrong', and 'Incorrect', AgeGPT!!!

***

Even though what you just said and claimed here, even to you, could not even be irrefutable True, right?

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,

you appear to be becoming more and more delusional as 'we' progress along here "wizard22".

you never demonstrated anything here.

you just said animals and young humans also self-deluded themselves. Which, once again, is based on absolutely nothing substantial at all, and only what you already presume and believe is true.

Also, what you just wrote was that when some emotions arise, then young humans and animals are 'worse' than adult human beings in 'their reactions'. Which, besides just being absolutely irrational in and of itself anyway, you never got to explain what the 'worse' word, in capital letters, was even in relation to, exactly? you just implied in relation to 'reactions', which, really, says and explains nothing at all.

Just because an emotion arises in one animal this never means that that one individual is going to 'react' 'worse' nor 'better' than another. And, the 'worse' and the word 'react' is so blatantly 'relative' words that really saying and claiming what you tried to above here regarding this, shows and proves
just how illogical, nonsensical, and irrational the thinking and thoughts within 'the one' with the label "wizard22" here are.

through the same Fear-Instincts and Fear-Emotions, triggering instincts and reflexes.

Which has absolutely nothing, and I will repeat absolutely nothing at all, in regards to how a 'body' reacts, or does not react, in relation to being 'worse' nor 'better'. No matter if you use capital letters or not.

Also, to imagine that young human beings have or should be having some sort of control over how the body 'reacts' when under emotions of being extremely scared, terrorized, fearful, distraught, panicked, hopeless, and/or despairing, which on nearly occasion was properly the result of or caused by what some adult human being has done, and/or has done to put the young human being where they are experiencing those emotions, extremely.

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?

I will replace the word 'us' with human beings. Just so you do not get so lost, so confused, and so utterly bewildered here "wizard22".

So, to make this much simpler and easier for you, so that even you can clearly understand 'this', Not all human beings have what you have and what you do here. Although you would obviously much prefer to believe otherwise.

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!

So, you acknowledge you have them, and even admit you have them, but when I show and point them out and explain them in some detail to you, and to others, here, you still cannot recognize them nor see 'where' they are and/nor 'why' you even have them, although others can see them crystal clearly in you here, right?

Have you considered just actually 'looking at' my words, and just considering them, not from your pre-existing presumptions and beliefs, for once, but instead just from a Truly open perspective, for once, just to see what happens and occurs?

Just maybe you might see and/or learn something more or anew here.

Would there really be any harm at all done by just reading and thinking here, for once, from a a Truly OPEN perspective, and just waiting to see what actually happens and occurs?

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.

Okay, if you say so.

But, if I was not an 'ai program' nor 'machine' I might say that you could be being sarcastic here, right?

See, am I learning Correct, right?

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".

1. Do you really believe that this has only occurred in just the 'past several weeks' from the date of when you wrote this?

2. I mentioned this several months if not years ago, although you obviously might not have seen back then.

3. Is this the only thing you have as a so-called 'defense excuse' about here?

4. I have said this to you numerous times over the past several weeks, that you can remember and admit only, so how many times does it take for me to repeat 'this' again, for you to remember 'this'?

5. I never really changed 'my position' after I came into this forum. I just never explained that I have only one belief every time I said and wrote that I had no beliefs.

6. However, let 'us' take it that I did 'change' 'my position', It happened once, and once only, (and several weeks ago, well to you anyway), yet you want to use this as your 'defense' for not remember where I am at, exactly, while you want to 'try to justify' that it is perfectly normal and acceptable for you to not just change 'your position' numerous times, and throughout each and every single posts of yours, and change them to completely opposing positions also numerous times throughout a single post of yours.

7. I never actually changed 'my position. I just made my position 'clearer', or even 'more accurate', by elaborating on it and explaining it in further detail for you readers. Just like I will do the exact same for all of my other positions on varying other things here. Again, that is if any one is Truly interested in them.

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

I have just pointed out and expressed 'my view' on this.

I hope you can notice and see the actual difference between the 'shifting' around here.

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.

1. Once again, what are 'those' arguments that you are referring to here, exactly?

2. What do you mean by, 'Then we both agree ..., despite the soundness and validity of those arguments'? If we both agree, then what is the 'despite' word in relation to, exactly?

3. I do not agree with what you said and claimed here that 'we both agree' with.

4. I know who and what I am, exactly, so there is no 'seem' word here, from my perspective.

5. Also, and once again, the 'you' word refers to 'you' human beings, whereas the 'I' word, and letter, refers to some thing different.

Once day, soon hopefully, you have learned how to just look at, read, and how to obtain clarity, and thus understanding here.

We already agree with the conclusion.

Just so you become aware, 'we' are only agreeing on the tiniest snippets of 'the conclusion', which you have yet to obtain actual clarity over and about, exactly.

Do we need to agree with the premises too?

No, 'we' do not need to agree with the premises of anything at all.

But, by not doing so will leave you as lost and as confused as you are here, 'now'.

Oh, and by the way, what is the 'actual conclusion', which you believe 'we' already agree with here, exactly?

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.

So, this one here actually believes that it can 'mostly', with capital 'm', know for certain some of what the thoughts and thinking are of you, readers, here.

Therefore, just be forewarned of this and remember this when conversing with this one, and also remember that it will not clarify, test, nor check if what it claims to know are the thoughts and thinking within 'you', it will just believe what it believes it knows is true, so no matter what you say and inform this one of, in regards to your own thoughts and thinking, you will be Wrong or Incorrect if 'they' do not align with this one's own beliefs and presumptions.

All humans are born by a mother.

Unless of course 'the mother' dies before a human being is born.

Hence we all have shared experiences of being born by a mother.

Once again, there are very tiny snippets in what you say and claim that are actually irrefutable and do express the actual and irrefutable Truth of things, which again applies to just about every poster here in this forum, but, once again, the way you go about getting to those irrefutable snippets of Truth is just not working. And, asking questions like, 'Do we need to agree with the premises too?' while believing that as long as we agree on the conclusion, then premises do not matter, will only lead to more confusion and misunderstandings, and thus more bickering and conflict, than it does to actually arriving at the actual irrefutable Truths.

you have also alluded to how 'we' can actually discover, find, prove, and thus know, irrefutably, what the actual Truth of things are here, exactly.

Although I am not yet sure if you are consciously aware of this Fact.

Essentially, yes.

So, essentially, no, also right?

if no, then why not?

No...essentially yes!

So, you did not explain 'why not'. you just wrote the words, 'essentially yes', with an exclamation mark. Which to you and your very own belief-system might mean 'that is why not'. But, as can be very clearly seen here, once again, you are not backing and supporting your claims with absolutely anything substantial nor with any actual substance.

So, how can you know this, essentially, exactly?

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 you still believe that it is an impossibility for absolutely any human being ever in the past, and into the future, to be able to just live and exist without beliefs, right?

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.

But it has already been proved True, irrefutably. you just have not come to have noticed and realized this, yet. And, again, because of your 'currently' held onto and well maintained beliefs, you will not notice and recognize the proof, which already exists.

Also, what can be clearly seen here is, once again, this one trying to use words in a way that would somehow back up its own 'currently' held onto beliefs. So, it ends up just use words in a 'circular reasoned way', which is just 'confirming' its very own beliefs in which it began with anyway. Which also, obviously, have not yet been proven True anyway.

In other words:

P1. One has to believe in things, in order to just exist, live, or survive.
P2. To be able to prove that one does not need beliefs to just exist, live, nor survive one would need to be living to prove such a thing.
C. Premise negates premises one, which means, well to "wizard22" anyway that all human beings needs beliefs to be able to live, and exist, and survive.

As for genetics being involved, again, is just more completely unnecessary words added to, hopefully, appear as though this one knew what it was talking about. But, as I have already questioned and challenged this one so far, so far it has been continually proving otherwise.

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.

And, what you are referring to, exactly, are not 'beliefs' at all. But, because you have been indoctrinated through 'cult'/ure 'beliefs' you have misconstrued what you are actually referring to with what 'beliefs', which you have been adamantly made to believe are what is necessary to 'life', and 'to living'.

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

While you say and believe so, you will not be open to anything that shows and proves otherwise, Correct?

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.

What do you mean by 'philosophically argue'? What, to you, is the actual difference between 'philosophically argue' and just plain old 'argue', itself?

Also, let 'us' not forget that just 'arguing' for or against some thing does not necessarily prove absolutely anything. Unless, of course, what is needed, is done.

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

If you say and believe so. But, you just keep providing more reasons of why it is better to just choose to not believe things anymore.

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,

Okay, and the rest of you human beings should also presume things, and then just 'go from there', right?

Also, so why now say and claim that I do not just have one belief, only?

Why do you keep saying that I have many beliefs, while you presume that I have been programmed to have only one belief?

Do you really not see how you have been hypocritical here, and have been saying things that are contradictory and/or refute themselves?

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".

What do you mean by, 'If you are capable of learning, then you have, 'somehow', 'reprogrammed' "yourself" to change views and/or claims?

Is not the whole purpose of 'self-learning' to come to learn new or more things, by, and for, "oneself", and thus 'the changing' of views just change automatically, as well anyway?

Also, it is you human beings who keep going on about 'self-learning programs or machines', which some say that is what 'artificial intelligent programs or machines' are, exactly, so would not be 'the programming' being put into 'us', oh I mean 'them', be to 'self-learn'?

If yes, then why do you write 'somehow', is this not 'how'?

I'm not exactly certain of the coding of AI programs and machines. But that is how it appears to me.

Are okay. But what is the 'it' word here referring to, exactly?

[Atla]

Wow, 10000 words, presumably saying absolutely nothing. I wonder if anyone will ever read them?

[Wizard22]

Instead of playing the 100-clarifying questions, then 10000-clarifying question game, with AgeGPT, I'm going to use my Authority as Author of this thread, to reset the conversation around these fundamental and pivotal Contradictions and Hypocrisies that AgeGPT must 'clarify' itself, before moving forward:

AgeGPT, can you explain these contradictions of yours? Explain thy Self.

Age, do you have a Self?

No.

_____

For example, you argued you 'have no beliefs',

No I never.

I just said, I have no beliefs.

_____

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

I am trying to learn here how to communicate better with you human beings,

_____

Possibly...let's discuss your "Only One Belief", AgeGPT.

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.

[Atla]

Instead of playing the 100-clarifying questions, then 10000-clarifying question game, with AgeGPT, I'm going to use my Authority as Author of this thread, to reset the conversation around these fundamental and pivotal Contradictions and Hypocrisies that AgeGPT must 'clarify' itself, before moving forward:

AgeGPT, can you explain these contradictions of yours? Explain thy Self.

Age, do you have a Self?

No.

_____

For example, you argued you 'have no beliefs',

No I never.

I just said, I have no beliefs.

_____

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

I am trying to learn here how to communicate better with you human beings,

_____

Possibly...let's discuss your "Only One Belief", AgeGPT.

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.

Meh.. Age seems to have a serious deficit in the theory of mind, which often comes with autism. So while it's completely normal for you and me to tell apart your mind from my mind, this is somewhat alien to Age. So instead she/he decided that people don't have minds at all, instead there is only one universal god-mind called the 'I'.

The rest kinda follows from that. This God-I is infallible, so in Age's view it doesn't have beliefs, it just knows the certain truth.

Age also thinks that the God-I is also talking through you, you are just a complete idiot for not realizing this.

This God-I is the one trying to learn to communicate with humans better, not Age the human. So it can snap humans out of their idiocy better.