The Paradox of Understanding

[Age]

He likes to pretend he's available for clarification but that never actually materialises. He's an incredibly troubled individual. Most people find it best to ignore him.

Yes, I agree, it's becoming more and more apparent, that 'it' is a very troubled individual. While I am not one for ignoring people, as I am an ever curious being. However, it seems at the moment, I am simply not computing what Age is trying to show me, at all.

Have a 'LOOK AT' your ACTUAL question. It PROVES, by itself, that you are NOT curios AT ALL, here.

[Fairy]

Have a 'LOOK AT' your ACTUAL question. It PROVES, by itself, that you are NOT curios AT ALL, here.

Too vague. You'll have to be a bit more specific as to what it is you are trying to show me, I have no idea.

[Age]

So, there are two, here, who BELIEVE and/or CLAIM that there are 'minds', and that 'minds' are the subjective aspects of brains and bodies.

[Fairy]

So, there are two, here, who BELIEVE and/or CLAIM that there are 'minds', and that 'minds' are the subjective aspects of brains and bodies.

So

[Age]

Have a 'LOOK AT' your ACTUAL question. It PROVES, by itself, that you are NOT curios AT ALL, here.

Too vague. You'll have to be a bit more specific as to what it is you are trying to show me, I have no idea.

ONCE AGAIN I am NOT necessarily, here to show you posters ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL.

I AM, HOWEVER, SHOWING and REVEALING, TO A TARGETED AUDIENCE, HOW you posters, here, WILL JUST NOT SEEK OUT AND OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARIFICATION.

Which, as I have been SAYING, and SHOWING, in this forum, WAS A VERY COMMON TRAIT, among you adult human beings, back in the 'OLDEN DAYS' WHEN this was being written.

So, thank you AGAIN "fairy" for PROVING what I have been SAYING, and CLAIMING, here

[Age]

So, there are two, here, who BELIEVE and/or CLAIM that there are 'minds', and that 'minds' are the subjective aspects of brains and bodies.

So

There are other words that MEAN and/or REFER TO the EXACT SAME thing OF 'subjective aspects of brains and/or bodies'.

Which, by the way, ARE FAR MORE Accurate when SEEN in the light of, or in the perspective of, the G.U.T.O.E

[Fairy]

So, there are two, here, who BELIEVE and/or CLAIM that there are 'minds', and that 'minds' are the subjective aspects of brains and bodies.

So

There are other words that MEAN and/or REFER TO the EXACT SAME thing OF 'subjective aspects of brains and/or bodies'.

Which, by the way, ARE FAR MORE Accurate when SEEN in the light of, or in the perspective of, the G.U.T.O.E

So
Everyone lives in their own unique universe, their own head so to speak...What meaning means to someone is built on their own unique understanding, or interpretation, based on their personal past experiences, preferences and knowledge, while allowing meaning, the text to change them and their convictions at the same time.

We form a unique relationship with it that ultimately results in a unique interpretation. It's different that's all. Doesn't mean it's wrong or right in someone else's mind.

[Eodnhoj7]

If you wouldn't want to convince us of your value you wouldn't post your talks with an AI here.

You can have a line segment that's made of points with infinitely small space between them. Since that's abstract, that doesn't mean anything beyond that that's how you redefined a line segment. You aren't arguing anything and the AI is only pretending that you made a point.

It's less a question of value and more a question of efficiency. I ask a leading question, the AI breaks it down predictably by explaining it and I spend less time doing grunt writing.

Relative to your point about points, WTF tends to disagree with your stance of infinitely small space between points as I sided with your stance. He claims there is no such thing, it is a continuum with no space between them.

So there is an inherent contradiction between you two....and that is the nature of abstract axioms.


But let's go with your stance and say there is infinitely small spaces between points A and B, the direct space between them is linear, as infinitely small is still finite as non-zero...hence a line segment.

I don't think you understand that abstract axioms are assumptions that can be analyzed and broken down into further parts. The self-evident nature of axioms requires subjectivity by the nature of self-evidence alone thus resulting in potential contradiction

You study philosophy and don't question axioms?

Uhh lol? You wrote that there are infinitely small spaces between points A and B on a line segment, not me. I pointed out too that that's just how you arbitrarily redefined the abstract concept of a line segment, that's a main reason why people ignore your works. (The AI was just instructed to work with your hypothetical: IF we redefine line segments so and so, THEN..)

You still don't seem to understand what "abstract" means, which has been your main fatal error over the years. That something is abstract doesn't just mean that we think it, it also means that it doesn't refer to anything in the physical world. So no, you can't contemplate, perceive or question the abstract axioms (definitions) of a line segment or a point, even if Buddhism and Hinduism say that you can. You just posit them, and the commonly accepted definitions of points and lines can't be analyzed and broken down into further parts, because they don't have any further parts, because that's how we defined them.

You didn't discover the true nature of ponts and lines (they don't have a true nature), you just randomly made up a whole alternative system with alternative axioms (and your alternative definitons seem to be fairly nonsensical because they seem to have inherent circularity or infinite regress or whatever built into them).

What we can actually contemplate is for example: I look at a "point, place with a small extension" in the natural world, could one infinitely zoom in there similarly to a fractal and uncover infintie details, or could one only finitely zoom in and there would be a minimum distance to reality?

Questioning the current axioms shows them as paradoxical, if you want to argue they exist because of group acceptance than that is the bandwagon fallacy.

Applying there own nature to themselves is not random, it is a system, just like infinite progress from an axiom is a system.

Seperate the abstract from an experience of thought, it cannot be done.

If points and lines do not have a true nature, according to you, than you cannot argue for or against them without ending in falsity.

If points and lines are analyzed through points and lines they are thier own context. Infinite points between two points is a finite line segment, infinitely small space between points is a finite line segment.

The whole system is intended to be a paradox, don't you read? That is the title. Points and lines are their own paradox, you accused meaof being nonsensical, when the title already shows that as the conclusion, then while you claim I am nonsensical you claim they have no true nature which is even more nonsensical than saying they are a paradox, then you imply I must accept their nature based off of a created consensus.

You contradict yourself atla, you make no sense, I at least conclude they are a paradox.

[Atla]

It's less a question of value and more a question of efficiency. I ask a leading question, the AI breaks it down predictably by explaining it and I spend less time doing grunt writing.

Relative to your point about points, WTF tends to disagree with your stance of infinitely small space between points as I sided with your stance. He claims there is no such thing, it is a continuum with no space between them.

So there is an inherent contradiction between you two....and that is the nature of abstract axioms.


But let's go with your stance and say there is infinitely small spaces between points A and B, the direct space between them is linear, as infinitely small is still finite as non-zero...hence a line segment.

I don't think you understand that abstract axioms are assumptions that can be analyzed and broken down into further parts. The self-evident nature of axioms requires subjectivity by the nature of self-evidence alone thus resulting in potential contradiction

You study philosophy and don't question axioms?

Uhh lol? You wrote that there are infinitely small spaces between points A and B on a line segment, not me. I pointed out too that that's just how you arbitrarily redefined the abstract concept of a line segment, that's a main reason why people ignore your works. (The AI was just instructed to work with your hypothetical: IF we redefine line segments so and so, THEN..)

You still don't seem to understand what "abstract" means, which has been your main fatal error over the years. That something is abstract doesn't just mean that we think it, it also means that it doesn't refer to anything in the physical world. So no, you can't contemplate, perceive or question the abstract axioms (definitions) of a line segment or a point, even if Buddhism and Hinduism say that you can. You just posit them, and the commonly accepted definitions of points and lines can't be analyzed and broken down into further parts, because they don't have any further parts, because that's how we defined them.

You didn't discover the true nature of ponts and lines (they don't have a true nature), you just randomly made up a whole alternative system with alternative axioms (and your alternative definitons seem to be fairly nonsensical because they seem to have inherent circularity or infinite regress or whatever built into them).

What we can actually contemplate is for example: I look at a "point, place with a small extension" in the natural world, could one infinitely zoom in there similarly to a fractal and uncover infintie details, or could one only finitely zoom in and there would be a minimum distance to reality?

Questioning the current axioms shows them as paradoxical, if you want to argue they exist because of group acceptance than that is the bandwagon fallacy.

Applying there own nature to themselves is not random, it is a system, just like infinite progress from an axiom is a system.

Seperate the abstract from an experience of thought, it cannot be done.

If points and lines do not have a true nature, according to you, than you cannot argue for or against them without ending in falsity.

If points and lines are analyzed through points and lines they are thier own context. Infinite points between two points is a finite line segment, infinitely small space between points is a finite line segment.

The whole system is intended to be a paradox, don't you read? That is the title. Points and lines are their own paradox, you accused meaof being nonsensical, when the title already shows that as the conclusion, then while you claim I am nonsensical you claim they have no true nature which is even more nonsensical than saying they are a paradox, then you imply I must accept their nature based off of a created consensus.

You contradict yourself atla, you make no sense, I at least conclude they are a paradox.

I said your personal definition of points and lines is paradoxical. You created the paradox.

[Eodnhoj7]

If you wouldn't want to convince us of your value you wouldn't post your talks with an AI here.

You can have a line segment that's made of points with infinitely small space between them. Since that's abstract, that doesn't mean anything beyond that that's how you redefined a line segment. You aren't arguing anything and the AI is only pretending that you made a point.

It's less a question of value and more a question of efficiency. I ask a leading question, the AI breaks it down predictably by explaining it and I spend less time doing grunt writing.

Relative to your point about points, WTF tends to disagree with your stance of infinitely small space between points as I sided with your stance. He claims there is no such thing, it is a continuum with no space between them.

So there is an inherent contradiction between you two....and that is the nature of abstract axioms.


But let's go with your stance and say there is infinitely small spaces between points A and B, the direct space between them is linear, as infinitely small is still finite as non-zero...hence a line segment.

I don't think you understand that abstract axioms are assumptions that can be analyzed and broken down into further parts. The self-evident nature of axioms requires subjectivity by the nature of self-evidence alone thus resulting in potential contradiction

You study philosophy and don't question axioms?

Uhh lol? You wrote that there are infinitely small spaces between points A and B on a line segment, not me. I pointed out too that that's just how you arbitrarily redefined the abstract concept of a line segment, that's a main reason why people ignore your works. (The AI was just instructed to work with your hypothetical: IF we redefine line segments so and so, THEN..)

You still don't seem to understand what "abstract" means, which has been your main fatal error over the years. That something is abstract doesn't just mean that we think it, it also means that it doesn't refer to anything in the physical world. So no, you can't contemplate, perceive or question the abstract axioms (definitions) of a line segment or a point, even if Buddhism and Hinduism say that you can. You just posit them, and the commonly accepted definitions of points and lines can't be analyzed and broken down into further parts, because they don't have any further parts, because that's how we defined them.

You didn't discover the true nature of ponts and lines (they don't have a true nature), you just randomly made up a whole alternative system with alternative axioms (and your alternative definitons seem to be fairly nonsensical because they seem to have inherent circularity or infinite regress or whatever built into them).

What we can actually contemplate is for example: I look at a "point, place with a small extension" in the natural world, could one infinitely zoom in there similarly to a fractal and uncover infintie details, or could one only finitely zoom in and there would be a minimum distance to reality?

Post 6 in this thread you said there can be infinitely small spaces between points in a line segment, than said here you never said that.

[Atla]

It's less a question of value and more a question of efficiency. I ask a leading question, the AI breaks it down predictably by explaining it and I spend less time doing grunt writing.

Relative to your point about points, WTF tends to disagree with your stance of infinitely small space between points as I sided with your stance. He claims there is no such thing, it is a continuum with no space between them.

So there is an inherent contradiction between you two....and that is the nature of abstract axioms.


But let's go with your stance and say there is infinitely small spaces between points A and B, the direct space between them is linear, as infinitely small is still finite as non-zero...hence a line segment.

I don't think you understand that abstract axioms are assumptions that can be analyzed and broken down into further parts. The self-evident nature of axioms requires subjectivity by the nature of self-evidence alone thus resulting in potential contradiction

You study philosophy and don't question axioms?

Uhh lol? You wrote that there are infinitely small spaces between points A and B on a line segment, not me. I pointed out too that that's just how you arbitrarily redefined the abstract concept of a line segment, that's a main reason why people ignore your works. (The AI was just instructed to work with your hypothetical: IF we redefine line segments so and so, THEN..)

You still don't seem to understand what "abstract" means, which has been your main fatal error over the years. That something is abstract doesn't just mean that we think it, it also means that it doesn't refer to anything in the physical world. So no, you can't contemplate, perceive or question the abstract axioms (definitions) of a line segment or a point, even if Buddhism and Hinduism say that you can. You just posit them, and the commonly accepted definitions of points and lines can't be analyzed and broken down into further parts, because they don't have any further parts, because that's how we defined them.

You didn't discover the true nature of ponts and lines (they don't have a true nature), you just randomly made up a whole alternative system with alternative axioms (and your alternative definitons seem to be fairly nonsensical because they seem to have inherent circularity or infinite regress or whatever built into them).

What we can actually contemplate is for example: I look at a "point, place with a small extension" in the natural world, could one infinitely zoom in there similarly to a fractal and uncover infintie details, or could one only finitely zoom in and there would be a minimum distance to reality?

Post 6 in this thread you said there can be infinitely small spaces between points in a line segment, than said here you never said that.

I said you can redefine them that way if you really want to, since they are abstract concepts. Just don't expect others to accept your version.

[Eodnhoj7]

Uhh lol? You wrote that there are infinitely small spaces between points A and B on a line segment, not me. I pointed out too that that's just how you arbitrarily redefined the abstract concept of a line segment, that's a main reason why people ignore your works. (The AI was just instructed to work with your hypothetical: IF we redefine line segments so and so, THEN..)

You still don't seem to understand what "abstract" means, which has been your main fatal error over the years. That something is abstract doesn't just mean that we think it, it also means that it doesn't refer to anything in the physical world. So no, you can't contemplate, perceive or question the abstract axioms (definitions) of a line segment or a point, even if Buddhism and Hinduism say that you can. You just posit them, and the commonly accepted definitions of points and lines can't be analyzed and broken down into further parts, because they don't have any further parts, because that's how we defined them.

You didn't discover the true nature of ponts and lines (they don't have a true nature), you just randomly made up a whole alternative system with alternative axioms (and your alternative definitons seem to be fairly nonsensical because they seem to have inherent circularity or infinite regress or whatever built into them).

What we can actually contemplate is for example: I look at a "point, place with a small extension" in the natural world, could one infinitely zoom in there similarly to a fractal and uncover infintie details, or could one only finitely zoom in and there would be a minimum distance to reality?

Post 6 in this thread you said there can be infinitely small spaces between points in a line segment, than said here you never said that.

I said you can redefine them that way if you really want to, since they are abstract concepts. Just don't expect others to accept your version.

If it is all abstractions are subjectively oriented does anyone really accept eachother's axioms considering noone truly knows another's subjective experience?

Wtf tends to disagree from my experience, on regards to infinitely small spaces.

As to the rest:

They are not redefined, they are applied to themselves as their own context.

[Atla]

Applying there own nature to themselves is not random, it is a system, just like infinite progress from an axiom is a system.

Let's take a point, which by definition can't be divided. So I "apply" the indivisible point to the invisible point, and that somehow turns it into being infinitely divisible? How does that work?

[Eodnhoj7]

Applying there own nature to themselves is not random, it is a system, just like infinite progress from an axiom is a system.

Let's take a point, which by definition can't be divided. So I "apply" the indivisible point to the invisible point, and that somehow turns it into being infinitely divisible? How does that work?

A single point is divided by a line into two points. A single point alone is indistinct thus not a distinction. A point only occurs when it is individuated, simultaneously multiplied and divided by the act of the single point occurring as many.

[Atla]

Post 6 in this thread you said there can be infinitely small spaces between points in a line segment, than said here you never said that.

I said you can redefine them that way if you really want to, since they are abstract concepts. Just don't expect others to accept your version.

If it is all abstractions are subjectively oriented does anyone really accept eachother's axioms considering noone truly knows another's subjective experience?

Wtf tends to disagree from my experience, on regards to infinitely small spaces.

As to the rest:

They are not redefined, they are applied to themselves as their own context.

The world more or less agrees on mathematics even though it's abstract. You don't have to 100% know someone else's subjective experience for that, duh.