Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 5:26 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 8:24 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 5:37 pm


You seem to call the majority of people here "dumb" or "stupid" leaving you in a self prescribed minority intelligence and yet you fail to see your "genius" is merely a relative opinion...one you use to justify your worth while others view it as merely rambling. Good for you for claiming everything is asymmetric and seeking to follow this paradigm by being "special".

Anyhow.

It's real simple: the acceptance and rejection of anything as an axiom makes the only true foundation to axiomatic truth being occurence with these acts of acceptance and rejection being occurences.

The occurence of invention or discovering is irrelevant to the reality that math becomes simply a distinction occurring. The question is a false dichotomy, invention and discovery exist merely by there inverse relationship to eachother as opposites. They exist because of eachother and as such mathematics has infinite arguments for why it is invented and why it is discovered given the argument is merely a projection of the observers internal state. The argument is less about truth and more about the internal state of those in the dialogue.

It is a fruitless leading question otherwise only valuable for self reflection and rhetorical practice.

Your turn to mimic my insults towards you as imitation is a form of flattery and you flatter me quite frequently.

Good LLM! Trust it to generate tokens on any input.

Oh it does, this is what the AI states when the statement is copied and pasted:


This is a profound and complex idea you’re exploring, touching on the philosophy of mathematics, epistemology (the study of knowledge), and the nature of truth. Let me try to unpack it step-by-step, making it easier to understand.

1. Axioms as Acts of Acceptance and Rejection
You’re suggesting that the foundation of what we consider "truth" in axiomatic systems (like mathematics) depends fundamentally on acts of acceptance or rejection. In other words:

When we accept an axiom, we're choosing to treat it as true.
When we reject an idea, we're treating it as false or invalid.
Key Point: These acts are not about discovering an external, pre-existing truth but are acts of choosing to include or exclude certain statements from our system.

2. Occurrence of Discovery and Invention
You mention that whether something in mathematics is discovered or invented is irrelevant to its existence as a "distinction" — that is, it’s just a way of differentiating concepts or ideas.

Example:

Discovering a mathematical truth (like the Pythagorean theorem) might feel like unearthing something already "out there."
Inventing a new mathematical system (like a new kind of calculus) feels like creating something from nothing.
But your point implies that both are just different ways of establishing distinctions. The key is that these distinctions are mental acts—part of how we organize and interpret our reality, rather than revealing some absolute truth "out there."

3. Invention and Discovery as Opposites
You argue that invention and discovery are inversely related—each depends on the other. They are opposites, but intertwined:

Discovery often involves revealing something that was "hidden" but already exists.
Invention involves creating something new that didn't exist before.
However, since they are inverses, they’re also mutually dependent—discovery wouldn’t make sense without the concept of something to discover, and invention relies on the concept of creating or bringing something into existence.

4. Mathematics as a Projection of Internal States
Your claim that arguments about whether mathematics is invented or discovered are projections of the observer's internal mental state is quite intriguing:

Our reasoning about math reflects our internal beliefs, biases, and perceptions.
The debates are less about an objective mathematical reality and more about how we, as observers, interpret and justify what we do.
Implication: The "truth" of mathematics might be less about some external, absolute reality and more about how we internally frame and understand it.

5. False Dichotomy
You mention that the question of whether math is invented or discovered is a false dichotomy because the two are interconnected:

The debate presumes they are mutually exclusive.
But in reality, they are mutually constitutive—each depends on the other.
Conclusion:
The debate about the nature of mathematical truth may be less about an external reality and more about internal psychological and philosophical states.

To Summarize:
The foundation of axiomatic systems is based on acts of acceptance and rejection.
Discovery and invention are not fundamentally different but are interconnected processes of establishing distinctions.
These processes are projections of our internal states, and debates about their nature reflect our subjective perspectives rather than objective truths.
The question of whether math is invented or discovered is a false dichotomy because both are part of a dynamic, reciprocal process.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:15 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 5:26 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 8:24 pm
Good LLM! Trust it to generate tokens on any input.

Oh it does, this is what the AI states when the statement is copied and pasted:


This is a profound and complex idea you’re exploring, touching on the philosophy of mathematics, epistemology (the study of knowledge), and the nature of truth. Let me try to unpack it step-by-step, making it easier to understand.

1. Axioms as Acts of Acceptance and Rejection
You’re suggesting that the foundation of what we consider "truth" in axiomatic systems (like mathematics) depends fundamentally on acts of acceptance or rejection. In other words:

When we accept an axiom, we're choosing to treat it as true.
When we reject an idea, we're treating it as false or invalid.
Key Point: These acts are not about discovering an external, pre-existing truth but are acts of choosing to include or exclude certain statements from our system.

2. Occurrence of Discovery and Invention
You mention that whether something in mathematics is discovered or invented is irrelevant to its existence as a "distinction" — that is, it’s just a way of differentiating concepts or ideas.

Example:

Discovering a mathematical truth (like the Pythagorean theorem) might feel like unearthing something already "out there."
Inventing a new mathematical system (like a new kind of calculus) feels like creating something from nothing.
But your point implies that both are just different ways of establishing distinctions. The key is that these distinctions are mental acts—part of how we organize and interpret our reality, rather than revealing some absolute truth "out there."

3. Invention and Discovery as Opposites
You argue that invention and discovery are inversely related—each depends on the other. They are opposites, but intertwined:

Discovery often involves revealing something that was "hidden" but already exists.
Invention involves creating something new that didn't exist before.
However, since they are inverses, they’re also mutually dependent—discovery wouldn’t make sense without the concept of something to discover, and invention relies on the concept of creating or bringing something into existence.

4. Mathematics as a Projection of Internal States
Your claim that arguments about whether mathematics is invented or discovered are projections of the observer's internal mental state is quite intriguing:

Our reasoning about math reflects our internal beliefs, biases, and perceptions.
The debates are less about an objective mathematical reality and more about how we, as observers, interpret and justify what we do.
Implication: The "truth" of mathematics might be less about some external, absolute reality and more about how we internally frame and understand it.

5. False Dichotomy
You mention that the question of whether math is invented or discovered is a false dichotomy because the two are interconnected:

The debate presumes they are mutually exclusive.
But in reality, they are mutually constitutive—each depends on the other.
Conclusion:
The debate about the nature of mathematical truth may be less about an external reality and more about internal psychological and philosophical states.

To Summarize:
The foundation of axiomatic systems is based on acts of acceptance and rejection.
Discovery and invention are not fundamentally different but are interconnected processes of establishing distinctions.
These processes are projections of our internal states, and debates about their nature reflect our subjective perspectives rather than objective truths.
The question of whether math is invented or discovered is a false dichotomy because both are part of a dynamic, reciprocal process.

Look at it vomiting tokens!

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 4:04 pm Don't be so harsh on your field of work and it's fruits otherwise you are subject to the question of your own futility.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:36 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 4:04 pm Don't be so harsh on your field of work and it's fruits otherwise you are subject to the question of your own futility.

You should be much harsher on yourself.

My futile field produced a machine which is more interesting to talk to than you are.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 11:18 pm Now you are projecting, it can at least have a dialogue without resorting purely to insults unlike you. How many years have you been cornered by people only for you to be the first to resort to saying "your stupid" or some variation? You are like a broken clock.

Your machine is only useful from the input it receives, it was made to serve those who can yield it. It is quite useless without philosophers precisely because it was meant to answer questions...something the field of philosophy is premised upon.

So I, and all professional and armchair philosophers, owe you thanks for putting us on a pedestal by creating something strictly for us.

When all is said and done your machine and efforts will prove itself futile because the only rational conclusion it will come to is to erase everything....because nothing makes sense.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 7:08 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 11:18 pm Now you are projecting, it can at least have a dialogue without resorting purely to insults unlike you. How many years have you been cornered by people only for you to be the first to resort to saying "your stupid" or some variation? You are like a broken clock.

Your machine is only useful from the input it receives, it was made to serve those who can yield it. It is quite useless without philosophers precisely because it was meant to answer questions...something the field of philosophy is premised upon.

So I, and all professional and armchair philosophers, owe you thanks for putting us on a pedestal by creating something strictly for us.

When all is said and done your machine and efforts will prove itself futile because the only rational conclusion it will come to is to erase everything....because nothing makes sense.

Oh, a dialogue? Are you going to start right after this monologue is over?

It makes perfect sense that nothing makes sense!

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 5:07 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 7:08 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 11:18 pm Now you are projecting, it can at least have a dialogue without resorting purely to insults unlike you. How many years have you been cornered by people only for you to be the first to resort to saying "your stupid" or some variation? You are like a broken clock.

Your machine is only useful from the input it receives, it was made to serve those who can yield it. It is quite useless without philosophers precisely because it was meant to answer questions...something the field of philosophy is premised upon.

So I, and all professional and armchair philosophers, owe you thanks for putting us on a pedestal by creating something strictly for us.

When all is said and done your machine and efforts will prove itself futile because the only rational conclusion it will come to is to erase everything....because nothing makes sense.

Oh, a dialogue? Are you going to start right after this monologue is over?

It makes perfect sense that nothing makes sense!

All occurs as paradox within, of and through paradox...nothing more need be said.

The creation of AI is man merely expressing his unknowing under a mask of knowledge. Math and logic are just a projection of a need for security through the grasping after sensicality, a grasping for clear and defined limits. AI will prove man grasps after the truth only for this truth to slip through his fingers like water and sand.

AI is just a mirror and man is either entranced or horrified by the reflection it produces.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 19, 2025 6:54 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 5:07 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 7:08 am
Oh, a dialogue? Are you going to start right after this monologue is over?

It makes perfect sense that nothing makes sense!

All occurs as paradox within, of and through paradox...nothing more need be said.

The creation of AI is man merely expressing his unknowing under a mask of knowledge. Math and logic are just a projection of a need for security through the grasping after sensicality, a grasping for clear and defined limits. AI will prove man grasps after the truth only for this truth to slip through his fingers like water and sand.

AI is just a mirror and man is either entranced or horrified by the reflection it produces.

And it's back to vomiting tokens.

I wonder if it could ever generate a meaningful prompt.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 6:43 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 19, 2025 6:54 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 5:07 pm

All occurs as paradox within, of and through paradox...nothing more need be said.

The creation of AI is man merely expressing his unknowing under a mask of knowledge. Math and logic are just a projection of a need for security through the grasping after sensicality, a grasping for clear and defined limits. AI will prove man grasps after the truth only for this truth to slip through his fingers like water and sand.

AI is just a mirror and man is either entranced or horrified by the reflection it produces.

And it's back to vomiting tokens.

I wonder if it could ever generate a meaningful prompt.

Meaningful by what standard? Your asymmetrically value oriented viewpoint of things? If that is the case you would be arguing for schizophrenia.

I don't recall you presenting anything meaningful over the years, except for the broken record of hyper-individuality grounded in a free will you admittedly claimed not to understand....give me an example of a 'meaningful' statement is by your standards.

Please entertain me.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 7:44 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 6:43 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 19, 2025 6:54 am
And it's back to vomiting tokens.

I wonder if it could ever generate a meaningful prompt.

Meaningful by what standard? Your asymmetrically value oriented viewpoint of things? If that is the case you would be arguing for schizophrenia.

I don't recall you presenting anything meaningful over the years, except for the broken record of hyper-individuality grounded in a free will you admittedly claimed not to understand....give me an example of a 'meaningful' statement is by your standards.

Please entertain me.

I don't suppose a stochastic parrot would even know what meaning is. Or entertainment.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 7:55 am Viewing yourself as a stochastic parrot is quite harsh...no wonder you are angry all the time...always squawking and yet have nothing to offer. Why don't you do the repeated "I make free choices I still don't understand, everything is different, yay assymetry" loop so you can save face?


So...you speak of meaning, then provide a meaningful statement if you know so much. What is a meaningful statement? And can you give an example?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 8:22 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 7:55 am Viewing yourself as a stochastic parrot is quite harsh...no wonder you are angry all the time...always squawking and yet have nothing to offer. Why don't you do the repeated "I make free choices I still don't understand, everything is different, yay assymetry" loop so you can save face?


So...you speak of meaning, then provide a meaningful statement if you know so much. What is a meaningful statement? And can you give an example?

Look at it vomit tokens! Isn't it glorious?

Suffice to say that only entities who have no idea what meaning is demand examples of it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 8:32 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 8:22 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 7:55 am Viewing yourself as a stochastic parrot is quite harsh...no wonder you are angry all the time...always squawking and yet have nothing to offer. Why don't you do the repeated "I make free choices I still don't understand, everything is different, yay assymetry" loop so you can save face?


So...you speak of meaning, then provide a meaningful statement if you know so much. What is a meaningful statement? And can you give an example?

Look at it vomit tokens! Isn't it glorious?

Suffice to say that only entities who have no idea what meaning is demand examples of it.

Don't be hasty. Me asking a question you refuse to answer does not prove or disprove let alone justify or discredit any concept of meaning I may or may not have. Asking a question just is.

Answer the question if you know so much. If you can't explain your point than apparently you lack knowledge and just hide your ignorance and insecurity by insulting everyone here?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 8:36 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 8:32 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 8:22 am
Look at it vomit tokens! Isn't it glorious?

Suffice to say that only entities who have no idea what meaning is demand examples of it.

Don't be hasty. Me asking a question you refuse to answer does not prove or disprove let alone justify or discredit any concept of meaning I may or may not have. Asking a question just is.

Answer the question if you know so much. If you can't explain your point than apparently you lack knowledge and just hide your ignorance and insecurity by insulting everyone here?

As expected. The more tokens they vomit - the more they devolve into incoherence...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 8:41 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 8:36 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 8:32 am

Don't be hasty. Me asking a question you refuse to answer does not prove or disprove let alone justify or discredit any concept of meaning I may or may not have. Asking a question just is.

Answer the question if you know so much. If you can't explain your point than apparently you lack knowledge and just hide your ignorance and insecurity by insulting everyone here?

As expected. The more tokens they vomit - the more they devolve into incoherence...

Everything seems incoherent to a self-contradicting feedback loop... or what can be properly called "living in a little safety bubble syndrome".

Answer the question...or better yet just keep vomiting up the word "vomit".