Philosophy Now Forum

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:39 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:35 am You can NOT have it both ways, and choose which way you want to LOOK AT things, depending on what point you want to be RIGHT about, each time.

Yes, I can. And that's exactly what I am doing and will continue to do.

That is okay. But when you oppose one point of view one time but fight for that exact same view next time, this does NOT really help you.

So, depending on what topic you are discussing you will just pick a side and TRY TO fight for that side, even though you picked the exact opposite side, some other time, and TRIED TO fight for that side.

This picking sides even if it opposed the side that you were on last time, might be the result of you consistently using a coin to MAKE decisions for you.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:39 amI will look at things from as many perspectives as necessary till I find the perspective that suits me and my goals.

Suiting 'you' just means suiting your own already gained and strongly held BELIEFS.

What are your goals?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:39 amWhen you are looking to buy things do you not shop around for the best product? You should!

Drifting off and attempting to divert.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:39 amHumans can't define "right" and "wrong".

I agree with you that you, human beings, might NOT be able to, just yet, but that REASON for this is very OBVIOUS.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:39 am And I have told you that I am not here to be "right".

Saying things like: Let me convince you that NONE of you are classical logicians, does NOT come across as a person "not here to be right".

In fact those words come across as though the person who wrote them actually BELIEVES that they are RIGHT, and is very serious about TRYING TO 'convince' others of that "fact".

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:39 amThat's your ASSUMPTION and BELIEF.

Although I have told you many times that I neither have beliefs nor disbelief you are still unable to accept this. This is due to your own BELIEFS.

Also, if I have written some thing and posed it as an ASSUMPTION, then kindly directly me/us to it, so that I can then correct it. I certainly do NOT want to make any assumptions anywhere, but some times I unfortunately do make them.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:39 amYou are trying to win arguments, I am just trying to win.

What argument do you propose that I am trying to win?

And, what are you just trying to win exactly?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:50 am Yes because they are totally STUPID machines.

Of course they are stupid! They are made in our own image.

But they are consistent. That's why they are useful. They can perform millions of operations without making errors.

Which is why I trust self-driving cars more than human-driven cars.

Who cares?

We KNOW you LOVE computers more than humans.

We KNOW you THINK computers are a gift to humans.

We KNOW you THINK that you are superior to others because you program computers. But so WHAT?

What has all of this got to do with you being a computer logic "expert", but when attempting to write an extremely simple argument using "logic" you completely and utterly failed.

You attempted to use "logic" to "convince" others of some thing, but could NOT even do that properly and correctly.

You may be able to 'convince' a computer to "think" a certain, which after all is really a very simple and easy task to do, but were you able to 'convince' human beings of just one thing?

The question is WHY you could you NOT write an argument with true premises, and, why you could NOT convince others what you wanted to convince them of?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:50 am The reason human beings "progress" is because they are inconsistent, and the reason computers, by themselves, can NOT (yet) progress is because they are consistent, and consistently stupid things.

Except where inconsistencies in reasoning result in catastrophic errors in practice.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:50 am Are you absolutely sure of this?

I don't think in absolutes.

You consistently say this, but your words consistently SHOW otherwise.

You TELL me, and others, that I do not understand what consistency is and how it works.

So, if you do NOT think in absolutes, then you are NOT sure if this is even true or not, correct?

And, I do NOT care what percentage you want to use. The Truth is either you are absolutely sure that your statement is true or you are not sure if it is true or not. I just want you to clear this up for the readers here, okay?

If you consistently want to accuse me of some thing, then at least just once provide some evidence for this.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:50 am If yes, then what do you base your insightful knowledge of me on, exactly?

On 6 months of watching your incoherent ramblings.

Call my words whatever you want.

But would you like to explain WHY you even thought that your so called "argument" was going to convince people of some thing, which you BELIEVE is true?

You say you want to win. So, did you convince any one of what you wanted to convince us of?

Have you WON any thing, really?

How do you feel now? Have you really achieved any thing?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:23 am In the future there will be a hybrid of human / machine which will allow for emotional intelligence as well as logical intelligence
These androids will occupy the evolutionary stage between the totally biological human form and the totally logical machine form

We can only imagine these entities however because such phenomena will not be existing within our lifetime

I would argue that the future is now, but the change has been so gradual upon us that we cannot see the contrast.

Look at how our ways of communication have changed in 50 years. From books to multimedia and real-time global communication.
We are currently communicating and I know NOTHING about you. Name, age, face, race, nationality. NOTHING.

Look at how human knowledge has become accessible in seconds via the internet.
Humans with cochlear implants.
Blind people with digitised vision.
We have outsourced the safe operation of critical infrastructure/utilities to computers - power plants, water plants, air traffic control.

The way we think has shifted from "maintaining a body of knowledge in one's head" to "finding/using correct information".

I certainly don't exert any effort to "remember" things I don't need. Why bother? If I need any knowledge/information I can search for it at the time that I need it.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am That is okay. But when you oppose one point of view one time but fight for that exact same view next time, this does NOT really help you.

Am I doing that or is that just your BELIEFS.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am Suiting 'you' just means suiting your own already gained and strongly held BELIEFS.

No it doesn't mean that. Beliefs are about the past and present. Desire is about the future. I have strongly held desires to achieve my goals.

I am willing to be consistently inconsistent, inconsistently consistent, consistently consistent or inconsistently inconsistent as long as it gets me where I want to go.

In the game of Life I get to choose my strategy.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am What are your goals?

Betterment of humanity.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am Drifting off and attempting to divert.

Lying.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am I agree with you that you, human beings, might NOT be able to, just yet, but that REASON for this is very OBVIOUS.

No it's not. The reason for this is very complex and technical. Human brains have evolved to be very efficient at pattern recognition.

We don't know how our brains do the things they do.
The things that we DO know (logic/computation/deduction/induction) we have expressed in language (Mathematics) and we have turned the mathematics into machines (computers).

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am Saying things like: Let me convince you that NONE of you are classical logicians, does NOT come across as a person "not here to be right".

That's just your own interpretation. I am trying to give you a tool that I think is better. You are welcome to remain unconvinced.

I am trying to give you a tool in which you can say these three things without contradicting yourself.

Age is human. (A = C)
Logik is human. (B = C)
Age is not Logik (A != B)

Like this: https://repl.it/repls/EthicalStylishSquare

The choice is yours.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am In fact those words come across as though the person who wrote them actually BELIEVES that they are RIGHT, and is very serious about TRYING TO 'convince' others of that "fact".

That's just your belief.
Because you think in terms of "right" and "wrong".
I think in terms of "better" and "worse".

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am Although I have told you many times that I neither have beliefs nor disbelief you are still unable to accept this. This is due to your own BELIEFS.

That's impossible. You are making choices/assertions. You can't make any choices assertions without beliefs.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am Also, if I have written some thing and posed it as an ASSUMPTION, then kindly directly me/us to it, so that I can then correct it. I certainly do NOT want to make any assumptions anywhere, but some times I unfortunately do make them.

There are far too many of them. I don't have the time.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am What argument do you propose that I am trying to win?

Every argument in which you think it's about being "right" and "wrong".

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am And, what are you just trying to win exactly?

Everything.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:57 am Is 'john' human?

https://repl.it/repls/EthicalStylishSquare

You have put structure in place, so what?

You just showed how basic and simple a job you do, and that can do it and perform it.

That also shows what was being pointed out to you, that is; computers can NOT answer questions from a Truly logical perspective.

A Truly logical perspective SHOWS that the place name or label 'john' is just that - a place name or label.
Therefore, 'john' is NOT human.

From a Truly logical perspective 'A human' IS 'human', while a 'place name' or 'label' is a place name or a label, and NOT human.

If a computer SAYS otherwise, then either the computer is utterly STUPID or the human being who programmed the computer is utterly STUPID.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:57 am LOL

Where did this computer get its so called "super human powers" from?

From being able to perform millions of operations per second.

I do NOT recall you EVER understanding my questions. This is probably due to the fact that you make 8 interpretations of just one very simple, usually already discussed, type of question, let alone to my Truly OPEN questioning.

Okay, let us TRY again and see just how many questions it will take you to arrive at the actual answer to the question.

WHERE does the ability that a computer has to perform millions of operations per second come from?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 amWhere you can only do 5.

If you can only do five operations per second or not has NOTHING whatsoever to do with my question.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 amThey are just faster.

Your glowing pride of computers is glaringly obvious.

But honestly, you do NOT have to keep informing me of this. I KNOW how much you adore them, ALREADY.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:57 am Light years in the past type of thinking.

How the Mind and the brain work have already been worked out, some time ago.

Yes. You told us. And all of us, humans think you are an asshole for not telling us!

Perfect.

Thanks for informing me of this.

This is exactly the position I want to be in right now. (I am the asshole for NOT being informed of what it is exactly that you want to be told.)

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:57 am Again light years in the past thinking.

How emotions work exactly was very easy to work out.

Sure. You must be very intelligent if you have worked it out.

EVERY human being is as intelligent as each other. NO one is better nor more intelligent than another. Just some have had fortunate, or unfortunate which may be the case, prior experiences. NO human being is better than another but ALL have had different experiences.

It is those experiences that have lead people to learn and know what they know or do not (yet) know. People know what they know more so because of past experiences, not necessarily so because of intelligence, itself.

To be able to work any thing out just comes from being able to unblock THAT what gets in the way of that True intelligence, which is within ALL human beings. Once people learn HOW to unblock the stoppage of their True intelligence, then what has been seen as human progression in the last say 100,000 years will be relatively nothing to what is about to soon occur.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am It's a damn shame that you can't communicate your knowledge to us.

This is so VERY True. How I wish I had different prior experiences where I was able to be a part of other human beings lives and then I could have been able to learn how to communicate with them much earlier.

My whole objective has been to learn how to reignite the curiosity that once thrived in human beings so that they would just ask clarifying questions from a Truly OPEN perspective, so then the exact answers that they are searching for could be brought to light for them. Although I have learned a minute amount in this regard, here in this forum, and I have progressed somewhat in learning more in how to communicate this better, I am still years away from being able to do it fully/successfully.

And, learning how to communicate HOW to bring this curiosity back out was relatively straight forward compared to the other way of learning HOW to communicate through being Truly Honest, which is really the far quicker, simpler, and easier way to learn things and find answers for and by one's own Self.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:57 am Let me guess, according to you 'a computer' is more human, am I right?

Strawman.

It is NOT a 'strawman'. A 'strawman' is a 'strawman'.

I asked a question, and a question is plain and simply just a question, posed for an answer.

Either a computer is more human to you or it is not. Either I am right or I am wrong?

There is NO right or wrong answer to your own views. You either have a view one way, another way, or have no view on a matter.

Only I could be right or wrong in my guessing.

I NEVER intend for any thing to get so twisted away from the actual direct questions that I ask.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 amYou can't tell the difference between theory and practice.

Yes I can. If I am told the difference or if I read the difference.

Instead of accusing people of things, which you admit that you really are NOT sure of, why not just explain the difference?

Lambda calculus is THEORETICAL. It's a logical framework. It's written on paper. Lambda calculus is conceptual first!

Computers are the IMPLEMENTATION of HUMAN concepts using physical materials.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 amComputers are humanity's attempt to define itself through creation.

Some might say that language, itself, would be more of thorough form to use in defining humanity, than computers actually ever could be.

Through the creation of words and language human beings have been continually attempting to define things. This is after all the actual PURPOSE for words and language.

Unfortunately though clear distinct definitions of and between words has not been formulated, which has led to more confusion than clarity. Although, now that that has been cleared up, all there is left to do is to just define words clearly and distinctly, come to an agreement on what those definitions are, accept the agreed upon definitions, and then through this agreement clarity will prevail. However, what also will be created is peace in harmony. But I am not sure that to many people will be to concerned with that issue.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am We have created a mechanical mind that is better than our mind in some ways, and worse in others.

LOL

How do you define the word 'mind' here?

When the accurate definition for the word 'Mind' is KNOWN and how the Mind actually works is fully understood, then you will understand WHY I was laughing out loud just now.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:11 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:09 am Now, back to MY point. YOUR premises were NOT true to start with. So, WHERE does that leave in convincing US of some thing that you BELIEVE wholeheartedly is true, right, and correct?

The premises could be true, or they could be false.

How did you determine that the premises are not true?

Did you flip a coin?

No, I did NOT flip a coin.

I told you how I determined that 'john' is NOT human.

Here I will repeat if for you again. And, if you would like to dispute how I determined this, then it would be great if we just stick to that point. For all I KNOW, I could be totally and utterly WRONG and INCORRECT. But i will NEVER know if I am NOT told and shown so.

Now, to me', the word 'john' is just that - a word. It is name or a label used to differentiate between two similar things. Obviously if ALL human beings were called 'human', then that would lead to some sort of confusion when calling out to one particular one or discussing one in particular, with others.

So, 'john' is NOT human but rather a 'name'.
Therefore, the premises are NOT true.

I can also substantiate this because I KNOW a 'human' is 'human', and a 'name' is 'NOT human'. Unless of course you can show otherwise.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:48 am

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:57 am Is 'john' human?

https://repl.it/repls/EthicalStylishSquare

You have put structure in place, so what?

You just showed how basic and simple a job you do, and that can do it and perform it.

That also shows what was being pointed out to you, that is; computers can NOT answer questions from a Truly logical perspective.

A Truly logical perspective SHOWS that the place name or label 'john' is just that - a place name or label.
Therefore, 'john' is NOT human.

From a Truly logical perspective 'A human' IS 'human', while a 'place name' or 'label' is a place name or a label, and NOT human.

If a computer SAYS otherwise, then either the computer is utterly STUPID or the human being who programmed the computer is utterly STUPID.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:57 am LOL

Where did this computer get its so called "super human powers" from?

From being able to perform millions of operations per second.

I do NOT recall you EVER understanding my questions. This is probably due to the fact that you make 8 interpretations of just one very simple, usually already discussed, type of question, let alone to my Truly OPEN questioning.

Okay, let us TRY again and see just how many questions it will take you to arrive at the actual answer to the question.

WHERE does the ability that a computer has to perform millions of operations per second come from?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 amWhere you can only do 5.

If you can only do five operations per second or not has NOTHING whatsoever to do with my question.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 amThey are just faster.

Your glowing pride of computers is glaringly obvious.

But honestly, you do NOT have to keep informing me of this. I KNOW how much you adore them, ALREADY.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:57 am Light years in the past type of thinking.

How the Mind and the brain work have already been worked out, some time ago.

Yes. You told us. And all of us, humans think you are an asshole for not telling us!

Perfect.

Thanks for informing me of this.

This is exactly the position I want to be in right now. (I am the asshole for NOT being informed of what it is exactly that you want to be told.)

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:57 am Again light years in the past thinking.

How emotions work exactly was very easy to work out.

Sure. You must be very intelligent if you have worked it out.

EVERY human being is as intelligent as each other. NO one is better nor more intelligent than another. Just some have had fortunate, or unfortunate which may be the case, prior experiences. NO human being is better than another but ALL have had different experiences.

It is those experiences that have lead people to learn and know what they know or do not (yet) know. People know what they know more so because of past experiences, not necessarily so because of intelligence, itself.

To be able to work any thing out just comes from being able to unblock THAT what gets in the way of that True intelligence, which is within ALL human beings. Once people learn HOW to unblock the stoppage of their True intelligence, then what has been seen as human progression in the last say 100,000 years will be relatively nothing to what is about to soon occur.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am It's a damn shame that you can't communicate your knowledge to us.

This is so VERY True. How I wish I had different prior experiences where I was able to be a part of other human beings lives and then I could have been able to learn how to communicate with them much earlier.

My whole objective has been to learn how to reignite the curiosity that once thrived in human beings so that they would just ask clarifying questions from a Truly OPEN perspective, so then the exact answers that they are searching for could be brought to light for them. Although I have learned a minute amount in this regard, here in this forum, and I have progressed somewhat in learning more in how to communicate this better, I am still years away from being able to do it fully/successfully.

And, learning how to communicate HOW to bring this curiosity back out was relatively straight forward compared to the other way of learning HOW to communicate through being Truly Honest, which is really the far quicker, simpler, and easier way to learn things and find answers for and by one's own Self.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:57 am Let me guess, according to you 'a computer' is more human, am I right?

Strawman.

It is NOT a 'strawman'. A 'strawman' is a 'strawman'.

I asked a question, and a question is plain and simply just a question, posed for an answer.

Either a computer is more human to you or it is not. Either I am right or I am wrong?

There is NO right or wrong answer to your own views. You either have a view one way, another way, or have no view on a matter.

Only I could be right or wrong in my guessing.

I NEVER intend for any thing to get so twisted away from the actual direct questions that I ask.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 amYou can't tell the difference between theory and practice.

Yes I can. If I am told the difference or if I read the difference.

Instead of accusing people of things, which you admit that you really are NOT sure of, why not just explain the difference?

Lambda calculus is THEORETICAL. It's a logical framework. It's written on paper. Lambda calculus is conceptual first!

Computers are the IMPLEMENTATION of HUMAN concepts using physical materials.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 amComputers are humanity's attempt to define itself through creation.

Some might say that language, itself, would be more of thorough form to use in defining humanity, than computers actually ever could be.

Through the creation of words and language human beings have been continually attempting to define things. This is after all the actual PURPOSE for words and language.

Unfortunately though clear distinct definitions of and between words has not been formulated, which has led to more confusion than clarity. Although, now that that has been cleared up, all there is left to do is to just define words clearly and distinctly, come to an agreement on what those definitions are, accept the agreed upon definitions, and then through this agreement clarity will prevail. However, what also will be created is peace in harmony. But I am not sure that to many people will be to concerned with that issue.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am We have created a mechanical mind that is better than our mind in some ways, and worse in others.

LOL

How do you define the word 'mind' here?

When the accurate definition for the word 'Mind' is KNOWN and how the Mind actually works is fully understood, then you will understand WHY I was laughing out loud just now.

This is too idiotic to respond to.

Look at the program. https://repl.it/repls/EthicalStylishSquare

The ABSTRACT model of "Human" is defined.
Two INSTANCES of humans are created (Age and Logik)
The propositions are asserted:

Age is human asserts as true.
Logik is human asserts as true.
Age is not Logik asserts as true.

The computer is NOT producing an error, therefore the system is consistent. There are NO contradictions.

What is it that you don't understand?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:23 am

Logic wrote:
So while we have replicated our own ability to apply logic and do calculations into a machine and in that domain the computer has super human powers . There are other domains where we have not been able to figure out how our own brains work - so we have not been able to make the machine do the same things we can do

Yes - computers suck at pattern recognition and do not have emotion . Hell - we do not even know how emotions work exactly we ourselves
merely respond to them

But that is not the point at all . If computers are made to our own image ( which they are ) and Lambda calculus is a human invention
( which it is ) and Lambda calculus allows you to express ideas observations and patterns of thought that Classical logic does not express

Then which one is more human ?

In the future there will be a hybrid of human / machine which will allow for emotional intelligence as well as logical intelligence
These androids will occupy the evolutionary stage between the totally biological human form and the totally logical machine form

We can only imagine these entities however because such phenomena will not be existing within our lifetime

When you use words like;
"In the future THERE WILL BE ..."
"These androids WILL OCCUPY ..."
"We can only imagine ... because ... WILL NOT BE EXISTING within our lifetime"

Are you aware that you are coming across as though you KNOW, for sure, what the future holds?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:57 am How do you define the word 'mind' here?

The mind is a machine. A universal turing machine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am That is okay. But when you oppose one point of view one time but fight for that exact same view next time, this does NOT really help you.

Am I doing that or is that just your BELIEFS.

YOU DO THIS.

For example, when you are questioned to what exactly do you mean when you say some thing, then you reply that it does not matter and will not provide any clarity on your own meanings and definitions that you have given to words. But, when another person asks a question you expect them to provide as much meaning, definition, and clarity that they can give you, so that you are more aware of what it is that they are seeking.

Some times you say that that is just interpretations of words, which does not matter. Other times you insist that interpretations of words is of the upmost importance.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am Suiting 'you' just means suiting your own already gained and strongly held BELIEFS.

No it doesn't mean that. Beliefs are about the past and present. Desire is about the future. I have strongly held desires to achieve my goals.

I am willing to be consistently inconsistent, inconsistently consistent, consistently consistent or inconsistently inconsistent as long as it gets me where I want to go.

Which is EXACTLY what I meant when I say you will pick one particular view and fight for that, but pick another point of view, completely opposing the former one some times, and fight for that view at another time.

What you have just said reaffirms what I say you do do.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:54 amIn the game of Life I get to choose my strategy.

Of course you do, and I have often said that you are FREE to do that choosing.. I have just also said that that consistently changing sides and fighting for different sides will NOT help you.

Even though you do that changing because you want to WIN, (at all costs), there really is NOTHING you can win in the game of Life.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am What are your goals?

Betterment of humanity.

I would NOT dispute that this is your goal, because I can SEE this. But do you really BELIEVE that what you do in this forum and the way you are going now is really achieving the betterment of humanity?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am Drifting off and attempting to divert.

Lying.

WHERE exactly is the lying?

The topic is about you convincing us of some thing. I pointed out that YOUR argument does NOT have true premises. So, when you write things like: When you are looking to buy things do you not shop around for the best product? You should!

Asking me what i do when "shopping", of all things, I SEE as drifting off topic. And then, especially when TELLING ME that I SHOULD "shop" a particular way, then I SEE that as diverting from the particular point in question. That is; your argument is NOT sound NOR valid.

If that is HOW I SEE things, then that is NOT lying. That is; Just HOW I SEE this.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am I agree with you that you, human beings, might NOT be able to, just yet, but that REASON for this is very OBVIOUS.

No it's not. The reason for this is very complex and technical. Human brains have evolved to be very efficient at pattern recognition.

Once the WHOLE and FULL pattern of Life is recognized, then UNDERSTANDING how absolutely EVERY thing in and about Life is really very simple and easy IS KNOWN.

Just because you SEE things as being very complex and technical does NOT mean that they are. That just means that they are, TO YOU.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:54 amWe don't know how our brains do the things they do.

STOP trying to speak for EVERY one.

You can only Truly speak for YOU. If you do NOT know how your own brain works, then I will NOT dispute that at all.

I KNOW exactly how ALL human brains do the things they do. You first have to know WHAT they do before you will know HOW they do the things they do.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:54 amThe things that we DO know (logic/computation/deduction/induction) we have expressed in language (Mathematics) and we have turned the mathematics into machines (computers).

So what? (You really do LOVE to express and SHOW what 'you' have done. Are you at all able to speak without thinking of computers?)

If you want to SEE the Truth of things, then you have to SPEAK the Truth of things. The Truth is 'you' do KNOW some things and do NOT know some things. If you do NOT define who/what the 'we' is when you speak, then you are NOT speaking the Truth of things.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:54 am That's just your own interpretation.

Of course it is just MY OWN interpretation. But that is EXACTLY how you come across to me. If you do NOT want to LOOK AT this fact, then so be it.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:54 amI am trying to give you a tool that I think is better. You are welcome to remain unconvinced.

I am trying to give you a tool in which you can say these three things without contradicting yourself.

Age is human. (A = C)
Logik is human. (B = C)
Age is not Logik (A != B)

Like this: https://repl.it/repls/EthicalStylishSquare

But I would NEVER said such ridiculous and untrue things.

If there is any contradiction here, then it is of your OWN making.

The WHOLE argument is NOT worth looking at because it begins incorrectly, and thus FALSELY.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:54 amThe choice is yours.

WHAT choice are you referring to? And, the choice between WHAT exactly, are you referring to?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:54 am That's just your belief.

It is NOT a belief. It is an INTERPRETATION of how YOU come across to ME.

Because you think in terms of "right" and "wrong".
I think in terms of "better" and "worse".[/quote]

Now you have based YOUR own BELIEF, that that was a BELIEF on the ASSUMPTION that I think in terms of some thing or other.

When are you every going to ask for clarity about another BEFORE you make up an ASSUMPTION about them?

If you did that, then you would be "BETTER" off.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am Although I have told you many times that I neither have beliefs nor disbelief you are still unable to accept this. This is due to your own BELIEFS.

That's impossible. You are making choices/assertions. You can't make any choices assertions without beliefs.

LOL.

I thought you were WAY past veritas in being able to THINK on your own. But AFTER all this time, you are STILL stuck in this BELIEF trap.

You not to long ago in this thread wrote some thing like: "I don't think in absolutes". Yet here you are now saying, "That's impossible". Is there anything more absolute than THINKING; "That's impossible". Especially when it is in regards to another and how they THINK and VIEW things.You have just taken this to another whole level.

If you BELIEVE that it is IMPOSSIBLE to make a choice with BELIEFS, then so be it.

I have already admitted that I have yet to find a way that can infiltrate a BELIEF.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am Also, if I have written some thing and posed it as an ASSUMPTION, then kindly directly me/us to it, so that I can then correct it. I certainly do NOT want to make any assumptions anywhere, but some times I unfortunately do make them.

There are far too many of them. I don't have the time.

LOL

You are aware right that the more there is then the less time you would need to find them.

For an alleged "logic expert" YOUR "logic" really does NOT shape up to scrutiny at all.

Once again another human being accusing me of some thing yet totally incapable of providing any shred of evidence for the accusations, let alone just providing just one miserable example for us to take a LOOK AT.

Some might be questioning WHY these human beings who make accusations of me just do NOT provide any examples?

Those who are questioning might be what is the REAL reason NO examples/evidence is provided? Could the accusers REALLY have absolutely NOTHING at all but just accusations and ridicule to give out?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am What argument do you propose that I am trying to win?

Every argument in which you think it's about being "right" and "wrong".

Do you have ANY examples?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:24 am And, what are you just trying to win exactly?

Everything.

Fair enough.

Do you think that by you tying to win EVERYTHING is really going to help you achieve your goal of "betterment of humanity".

The two APPEAR to be extreme opposites and very contradictory in nature, to me.

By the way, How will you KNOW when you have WON, and, How will you KNOW when you have helped in the "betterment of humanity"?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm

Am I doing that or is that just your BELIEFS.

YOU DO THIS.

Are you 100% certain that you aren't mistaken?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm For example, when you are questioned to what exactly do you mean when you say some thing, then you reply that it does not matter and will not provide any clarity on your own meanings and definitions that you have given to words. But, when another person asks a question you expect them to provide as much meaning, definition, and clarity that they can give you, so that you are more aware of what it is that they are seeking.

Some times you say that that is just interpretations of words, which does not matter. Other times you insist that interpretations of words is of the upmost importance.

Yes. I am consistently inconsistent. What's your point?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Which is EXACTLY what I meant when I say you will pick one particular view and fight for that, but pick another point of view, completely opposing the former one some times, and fight for that view at another time.

Yes. I choose the view that is most likely to get me closer to my objective. Which is the betterment of humanity.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm What you have just said reaffirms what I say you do do.

Yes. That is how confirmation bias works. You also need to make an effort towards dis-confirming that which you already believe about me, because there is non-zero possibility that you are mistaken.

I won't help you here. You need to devise your own experiment to contradict yourself

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Of course you do, and I have often said that you are FREE to do that choosing.. I have just also said that that consistently changing sides and fighting for different sides will NOT help you.

It does help me. By arguing for a side I do not agree with - I get to see the perspective of people I do not agree with.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Even though you do that changing because you want to WIN, (at all costs), there really is NOTHING you can win in the game of Life.

Bettering humanity is winning.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm I would NOT dispute that this is your goal, because I can SEE this. But do you really BELIEVE that what you do in this forum and the way you are going now is really achieving the betterment of humanity?

I am bettering myself and I am human, so yes. I am bettering humanity.
In the process of bettering myself I am sharing what I have learned so others can benefit too.

And in the process of figuring out what works and what doesn't work in helping others with their philosophical journeys, I am hoping to be able to make philosophy more accessible to the more humans. My vehicle is computation/logic which is intricately connected to reason.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm WHERE exactly is the lying?

You said I was diverting. I wasn't.

I said exactly what I wanted to say to achieve my objective. My objective was not to divert.

The topic is about you convincing us of some thing. I pointed out that YOUR argument does NOT have true premises. So, when you write things like: When you are looking to buy things do you not shop around for the best product? You should!

Asking me what i do when "shopping", of all things, I SEE as drifting off topic. And then, especially when TELLING ME that I SHOULD "shop" a particular way, then I SEE that as diverting from the particular point in question. That is; your argument is NOT sound NOR valid.

If that is HOW I SEE things, then that is NOT lying. That is; Just HOW I SEE this.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Just because you SEE things as being very complex and technical does NOT mean that they are. That just means that they are, TO YOU.

Just because you SEE things as very simple it does not mean they aren't. That just means that they are, TO YOU.

I take it that you are about half my age, so I am guessing you lack experience to see why you are wrong.
I am not sure I can explain complexity to you - it's rather complex.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm STOP trying to speak for EVERY one.

STOP telling me how to speak.

WE don't know how the human brain works.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm You can only Truly speak for YOU. If you do NOT know how your own brain works, then I will NOT dispute that at all.
[/quite]
No. I am pretty certain I can speak for you too. YOU don't know how your brain works.

Prove me wrong by demonstrating knowledge.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm I KNOW exactly how ALL human brains do the things they do. You first have to know WHAT they do before you will know HOW they do the things they do.

No you don't.

If you knew exactly how human brains worked then you should have no problem creating a machine that does EXACTLY THE SAME THING as a human brain.

Build such a machine and show us.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm So what? (You really do LOVE to express and SHOW what 'you' have done. Are you at all able to speak without thinking of computers?)

No, you don't get it. I compute therefore I am. I am a computer. You are a computer too.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm If you want to SEE the Truth of things, then you have to SPEAK the Truth of things. The Truth is 'you' do KNOW some things and do NOT know some things. If you do NOT define who/what the 'we' is when you speak, then you are NOT speaking the Truth of things.

I do speak truth.
I do not have to define it.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Of course it is just MY OWN interpretation. But that is EXACTLY how you come across to me. If you do NOT want to LOOK AT this fact, then so be it.

And why should I concern myself with "how I come across" to you?

I don't know what facts are. I process information.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm But I would NEVER said such ridiculous and untrue things.

Which premise was not true?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm If there is any contradiction here, then it is of your OWN making.

The WHOLE argument is NOT worth looking at because it begins incorrectly, and thus FALSELY.

Very good. Tell me which proposition is false and I will fix it.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm It is NOT a belief. It is an INTERPRETATION of how YOU come across to ME.

I don't care to impress you.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Now you have based YOUR own BELIEF, that that was a BELIEF on the ASSUMPTION that I think in terms of some thing or other.

When are you every going to ask for clarity about another BEFORE you make up an ASSUMPTION about them?

If you did that, then you would be "BETTER" off.

It will all become clear to you. One day. Maybe.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm I thought you were WAY past veritas in being able to THINK on your own. But AFTER all this time, you are STILL stuck in this BELIEF trap.

What you fail to recognize is that you are in a trap and I am the one trying to pull you out.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm You not to long ago in this thread wrote some thing like: "I don't think in absolutes". Yet here you are now saying, "That's impossible". Is there anything more absolute than THINKING; "That's impossible". Especially when it is in regards to another and how they THINK and VIEW things.You have just taken this to another whole level.

Yes. I don't THINK in absolutes. I SPEAK in absolutes. That's not my fault. That's how language works.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm You are aware right that the more there is then the less time you would need to find them.

That is true.
It is also true that the more there are - the more I have to CHOOSE which mistake to try and address/correct first.

Having tried to help you once or twice before, now I choose to observe your mistakes and not address them.
Your loss.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm For an alleged "logic expert" YOUR "logic" really does NOT shape up to scrutiny at all.

Once again another human being accusing me of some thing yet totally incapable of providing any shred of evidence for the accusations, let alone just providing just one miserable example for us to take a LOOK AT.

You are lying. Here is my proof of my accusation:

My argument is public knowledge: https://repl.it/repls/EthicalStylishSquare

Scrutinize it.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Some might be questioning WHY these human beings who make accusations of me just do NOT provide any examples?

Because when you are given valid feedback you reject it. So people stop trying to help you.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Do you have ANY examples?

Yes.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Do you think that by you tying to win EVERYTHING is really going to help you achieve your goal of "betterment of humanity".

The two APPEAR to be extreme opposites and very contradictory in nature, to me.

They are not contradictory. If one day I recognize you as somebody who shares my values and is capable of good judgment then I will tell you.

For now, I will not let you frame the discussion.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm By the way, How will you KNOW when you have WON, and, How will you KNOW when you have helped in the "betterment of humanity"?

By observing it happen.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:57 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:48 am

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am
https://repl.it/repls/EthicalStylishSquare

You have put structure in place, so what?

You just showed how basic and simple a job you do, and that can do it and perform it.

That also shows what was being pointed out to you, that is; computers can NOT answer questions from a Truly logical perspective.

A Truly logical perspective SHOWS that the place name or label 'john' is just that - a place name or label.
Therefore, 'john' is NOT human.

From a Truly logical perspective 'A human' IS 'human', while a 'place name' or 'label' is a place name or a label, and NOT human.

If a computer SAYS otherwise, then either the computer is utterly STUPID or the human being who programmed the computer is utterly STUPID.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am From being able to perform millions of operations per second.

I do NOT recall you EVER understanding my questions. This is probably due to the fact that you make 8 interpretations of just one very simple, usually already discussed, type of question, let alone to my Truly OPEN questioning.

Okay, let us TRY again and see just how many questions it will take you to arrive at the actual answer to the question.

WHERE does the ability that a computer has to perform millions of operations per second come from?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 amWhere you can only do 5.

If you can only do five operations per second or not has NOTHING whatsoever to do with my question.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 amThey are just faster.

Your glowing pride of computers is glaringly obvious.

But honestly, you do NOT have to keep informing me of this. I KNOW how much you adore them, ALREADY.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am Yes. You told us. And all of us, humans think you are an asshole for not telling us!

Perfect.

Thanks for informing me of this.

This is exactly the position I want to be in right now. (I am the asshole for NOT being informed of what it is exactly that you want to be told.)

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am Sure. You must be very intelligent if you have worked it out.

EVERY human being is as intelligent as each other. NO one is better nor more intelligent than another. Just some have had fortunate, or unfortunate which may be the case, prior experiences. NO human being is better than another but ALL have had different experiences.

It is those experiences that have lead people to learn and know what they know or do not (yet) know. People know what they know more so because of past experiences, not necessarily so because of intelligence, itself.

To be able to work any thing out just comes from being able to unblock THAT what gets in the way of that True intelligence, which is within ALL human beings. Once people learn HOW to unblock the stoppage of their True intelligence, then what has been seen as human progression in the last say 100,000 years will be relatively nothing to what is about to soon occur.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am It's a damn shame that you can't communicate your knowledge to us.

This is so VERY True. How I wish I had different prior experiences where I was able to be a part of other human beings lives and then I could have been able to learn how to communicate with them much earlier.

My whole objective has been to learn how to reignite the curiosity that once thrived in human beings so that they would just ask clarifying questions from a Truly OPEN perspective, so then the exact answers that they are searching for could be brought to light for them. Although I have learned a minute amount in this regard, here in this forum, and I have progressed somewhat in learning more in how to communicate this better, I am still years away from being able to do it fully/successfully.

And, learning how to communicate HOW to bring this curiosity back out was relatively straight forward compared to the other way of learning HOW to communicate through being Truly Honest, which is really the far quicker, simpler, and easier way to learn things and find answers for and by one's own Self.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am Strawman.

It is NOT a 'strawman'. A 'strawman' is a 'strawman'.

I asked a question, and a question is plain and simply just a question, posed for an answer.

Either a computer is more human to you or it is not. Either I am right or I am wrong?

There is NO right or wrong answer to your own views. You either have a view one way, another way, or have no view on a matter.

Only I could be right or wrong in my guessing.

I NEVER intend for any thing to get so twisted away from the actual direct questions that I ask.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 amYou can't tell the difference between theory and practice.

Yes I can. If I am told the difference or if I read the difference.

Instead of accusing people of things, which you admit that you really are NOT sure of, why not just explain the difference?

Lambda calculus is THEORETICAL. It's a logical framework. It's written on paper. Lambda calculus is conceptual first!

Computers are the IMPLEMENTATION of HUMAN concepts using physical materials.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 amComputers are humanity's attempt to define itself through creation.

Some might say that language, itself, would be more of thorough form to use in defining humanity, than computers actually ever could be.

Through the creation of words and language human beings have been continually attempting to define things. This is after all the actual PURPOSE for words and language.

Unfortunately though clear distinct definitions of and between words has not been formulated, which has led to more confusion than clarity. Although, now that that has been cleared up, all there is left to do is to just define words clearly and distinctly, come to an agreement on what those definitions are, accept the agreed upon definitions, and then through this agreement clarity will prevail. However, what also will be created is peace in harmony. But I am not sure that to many people will be to concerned with that issue.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:06 am We have created a mechanical mind that is better than our mind in some ways, and worse in others.

LOL

How do you define the word 'mind' here?

When the accurate definition for the word 'Mind' is KNOWN and how the Mind actually works is fully understood, then you will understand WHY I was laughing out loud just now.

This is too idiotic to respond to.

LOL

OR, you just can NOT respond to it. You might be incapable to respond or for example you may just have absolutely NO idea how to define the word 'mind' so you will just divert away from this Truth and just say that it is ALL idiotic.

In fact you may FEAR the actual Truths within it.

Do NOT respond to. I really do NOT care.

Your inabilities to respond REVEAL the Truths that I was SHOWING anyway.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:57 amLook at the program. https://repl.it/repls/EthicalStylishSquare

Okay, I looked at it.

Absolutely nothing exciting nor amazing here, to me.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:57 amThe ABSTRACT model of "Human" is defined.

When you use the word 'ABSTRACT model' what do you actually MEAN?

WHERE did the so called 'ABSTRACT model' originate from?

Who/what defined 'human' here?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:57 amTwo INSTANCES of humans are created (Age and Logik)

So, you programmed a computer to acknowledge/say that 'age' and 'logik' are 'humans'. So WHAT?

What was "created" was done by human beings.

Any human being who has been taught the insignificant task of programming a computer can do create INSTANCES. These people can also make an 'ABSTACT model' of 'ABSOLUTELY ANY word' be defined, AND THEN associate that defined word with absolutely ANY other word so that the computer will give a corresponding "answer".

The logic used in computers is about one of the most basic things in existence. It has to be extremely basic because of the extremely basic way computers work.

The WHOLE issue has been the computer can NOT Truly logically answer questions. And, that human beings can program a computer to put out absolutely any answer that they want it to.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:57 amThe propositions are asserted:

Age is human asserts as true.
Logik is human asserts as true.
Age is not Logik asserts as true.

The computer is NOT producing an error, therefore the system is consistent. There are NO contradictions.

Agreed, the computer is NOT producing an error, because the computer can only do what it is told/programmed to do. It was programmed to assert THAT, what is FALSE. The computer will keep asserting this as long as it is working CORRECTLY. That is; the computer will keep producing the WRONG information for as long as it is working PROPERLY.

This really makes some people wonder.

Agreed, the system is consistent also and there are NO contradictions. The FALSE assertion just consistently keeps being created. The computer and its systems are being as STUPID as its human programmer IS.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:57 amWhat is it that you don't understand?

NOTHING.

I UNDERSTAND fully that you programmed a computer to assert THAT, what is clearly and obvious FALSE, to begin with.

I also UNDERSTAND that YOUR OWN argument is flawed as it is an unsound and invalid argument.

As I have said previously human beings can program a computer to assert absolutely anything and that is because computers are to completely and utterly a STUPID machine to recognize this. Computers can NOT recognize the difference between 'good' from 'bad', 'right' from 'wrong', and 'better' from 'worse'.

I UNDERSTAND too that just because you BELIEVE that john is human, and, jane is human also, and you have human created computers, which will assert the same, and thus back you up and support you here, YOUR so called "logic" is completely and utterly ILLOGICAL.

By the way, Do you KNOW what appears Truly IDIOTIC to me?

If you do NOT, then it is the "logic" that you TRIED TO use to convince others of some thing.

For a person who professes to be more logically superior to others, your use of so called "logic" failed before it even begun.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:06 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:57 am How do you define the word 'mind' here?

The mind is a machine. A universal turing machine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine

Okay. You are FREE to define ANY word ANY way you like.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm

Am I doing that or is that just your BELIEFS.

YOU DO THIS.

Are you 100% certain that you aren't mistaken?

Yes. I gave evidence for this. Both in the examples I provided and in the explanations attached to those examples

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm For example, when you are questioned to what exactly do you mean when you say some thing, then you reply that it does not matter and will not provide any clarity on your own meanings and definitions that you have given to words. But, when another person asks a question you expect them to provide as much meaning, definition, and clarity that they can give you, so that you are more aware of what it is that they are seeking.

Some times you say that that is just interpretations of words, which does not matter. Other times you insist that interpretations of words is of the upmost importance.

Yes. I am consistently inconsistent. What's your point?

Just about EVERY instance I have seen you have a discussion with someone you will disagree with them on their point of view. Even if you have agreed with the same point of view previously in order to disagree with some one else.

My point is the question that I have asked you; Does doing this help you?

I can see PERFECTLY how this changing points of views, and fighting for any view as long as it is in opposing of the person you are discussing with is, could help you in your WANT and DESIRE to WIN EVERYTHING perspective. But I am Truly curious how you think this could help you in your supposed "Betterment of humanity" goal, which you say you have?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Which is EXACTLY what I meant when I say you will pick one particular view and fight for that, but pick another point of view, completely opposing the former one some times, and fight for that view at another time.

Yes. I choose the view that is most likely to get me closer to my objective. Which is the betterment of humanity.

From my perspective, your WIN EVERYTHING attitude and desire overrides your betterment of humanity objective.

You have yet to disclose how DISAGREEING with people, and consistently taking discussions towards computer logic talk, helps in the betterment of humanity.

Are you at all able to elaborate how these things supposedly work together and help each other?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm What you have just said reaffirms what I say you do do.

Yes. That is how confirmation bias works.

But you were the ONE who disclosed what you yourself do. As i just said YOU reaffirmed what i said you do.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm You also need to make an effort towards dis-confirming that which you already believe about me, because there is non-zero possibility that you are mistaken.

But I NEVER believed any thing about you.

I just expressed how you come across to me. I then asked you OPEN clarifying questions. You clarified what you actually do do.

You agreed that you do what you appear to be doing to me.

I NEVER had a BELIEF and I still do NOT.

YOU, yourself, have ALREADY confirmed what you do.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pmI won't help you here. You need to devise your own experiment to contradict yourself

Some might say that the experiment has ALREADY been done, and the results are in.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Of course you do, and I have often said that you are FREE to do that choosing.. I have just also said that that consistently changing sides and fighting for different sides will NOT help you.

It does help me. By arguing for a side I do not agree with - I get to see the perspective of people I do not agree with.

WHAT are you on this forum for exactly?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Even though you do that changing because you want to WIN, (at all costs), there really is NOTHING you can win in the game of Life.

Bettering humanity is winning.

How do you think you are bettering humanity?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm I would NOT dispute that this is your goal, because I can SEE this. But do you really BELIEVE that what you do in this forum and the way you are going now is really achieving the betterment of humanity?

I am bettering myself and I am human, so yes. I am bettering humanity.

How exactly do you think that you are bettering yourself?

And, do you think that humanity revolves around 'you'?

Do you think that humanity will only become better if you better yourself?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pmIn the process of bettering myself I am sharing what I have learned so others can benefit too.

How many people in this forum do you think you have taught some thing to, which would actually benefit them?

Would you then care to name those people, if there are any, just so that we can confirm your thinking?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pmAnd in the process of figuring out what works and what doesn't work in helping others with their philosophical journeys, I am hoping to be able to make philosophy more accessible to the more humans. My vehicle is computation/logic which is intricately connected to reason.

Yet, if I recall correctly, you have already admitted that you are unable to reason out your OWN answers to questions. Is this right?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm WHERE exactly is the lying?

You said I was diverting. I wasn't.

I said exactly what I wanted to say to achieve my objective. My objective was not to divert.

The topic is about you convincing us of some thing. I pointed out that YOUR argument does NOT have true premises. So, when you write things like: When you are looking to buy things do you not shop around for the best product? You should!

Asking me what i do when "shopping", of all things, I SEE as drifting off topic. And then, especially when TELLING ME that I SHOULD "shop" a particular way, then I SEE that as diverting from the particular point in question. That is; your argument is NOT sound NOR valid.

If that is HOW I SEE things, then that is NOT lying. That is; Just HOW I SEE this.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Just because you SEE things as being very complex and technical does NOT mean that they are. That just means that they are, TO YOU.

Just because you SEE things as very simple it does not mean they aren't. That just means that they are, TO YOU.

EXACTLY.

So, WHY are some things complex and hard, FOR YOU, yet no thing is complex nor hard, FOR ME?

WHY is absolutely EVERY thing in Life simple and easy to and for Me, but NOT for you?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pmI take it that you are about half my age, so I am guessing you lack experience to see why you are wrong.

Wrong about WHAT exactly?

Once again, your write things to imply that some thing has taken place yet do NOT produce any thing to back up what you allege.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pmI am not sure I can explain complexity to you - it's rather complex.

There is absolutely NOTHING in Life that is complex. The only complexity that exists is the one that you, human beings, make up and SEE.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm STOP trying to speak for EVERY one.

STOP telling me how to speak.

I did NOT tell you how to speak.

I told you to stop TRYING to do some thing.

Either speak for EVERY one, which if you DID, then you would have to be pretty sure of yourself. Or, do NOT speak for EVERY one.

But TRYING TO speak for others is NOT working for you.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pmWE don't know how the human brain works.

I do.

So, WHY is that?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm You can only Truly speak for YOU. If you do NOT know how your own brain works, then I will NOT dispute that at all.

No. I am pretty certain I can speak for you too. YOU don't know how your brain works.

LOL

Coming from the one that supposedly does not think in absolutes, you sure speak in absolute terms.

The human brain, although a Truly amazing thing, works in the most basic and simplest of ways. Just like a computer does.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pmProve me wrong by demonstrating knowledge.

What do you MEAN by 'demonstrating knowledge'?

How do 'you' define the word 'knowledge'?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm I KNOW exactly how ALL human brains do the things they do. You first have to know WHAT they do before you will know HOW they do the things they do.

No you don't.

LOL.

The words of a True absolutist.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm If you knew exactly how human brains worked then you should have no problem creating a machine that does EXACTLY THE SAME THING as a human brain.

Lol

If only you KNEW the Truth.

By the way WHY would I want to do such a STUPID thing?

There are over 7 billion of them already. WHY would you want even more?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pmBuild such a machine and show us.

You are, once again, so far OFF TRACK.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm So what? (You really do LOVE to express and SHOW what 'you' have done. Are you at all able to speak without thinking of computers?)

No, you don't get it. I compute therefore I am. I am a computer. You are a computer too.

NO, I am NOT.

The human brain may work just like a computer does. But 'I' am NOT a human brain. 'you', however, is different.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm If you want to SEE the Truth of things, then you have to SPEAK the Truth of things. The Truth is 'you' do KNOW some things and do NOT know some things. If you do NOT define who/what the 'we' is when you speak, then you are NOT speaking the Truth of things.

I do speak truth.
I do not have to define it.

When you speak for 'we' and you have NOT defined it, then you are NOT speaking the Truth.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Of course it is just MY OWN interpretation. But that is EXACTLY how you come across to me. If you do NOT want to LOOK AT this fact, then so be it.

And why should I concern myself with "how I come across" to you?

If one was serious about bettering humanity, then that one would NOT ask such a self-centered question.

I don't know what facts are. I process information.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm But I would NEVER said such ridiculous and untrue things.

Which premise was not true?

The first two.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm If there is any contradiction here, then it is of your OWN making.

The WHOLE argument is NOT worth looking at because it begins incorrectly, and thus FALSELY.

Very good. Tell me which proposition is false and I will fix it.

The first two.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm It is NOT a belief. It is an INTERPRETATION of how YOU come across to ME.

I don't care to impress you.

Bettering yourself properly comes from other views.

Bettering yourself correctly will NEVER come from just one's own point of view of things.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Now you have based YOUR own BELIEF, that that was a BELIEF on the ASSUMPTION that I think in terms of some thing or other.

When are you every going to ask for clarity about another BEFORE you make up an ASSUMPTION about them?

If you did that, then you would be "BETTER" off.

It will all become clear to you. One day. Maybe.

Yes it might.

But WHAT are you referring to actually?

(Your non response here will SHOW some thing compared to your actual response here would.)

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm I thought you were WAY past veritas in being able to THINK on your own. But AFTER all this time, you are STILL stuck in this BELIEF trap.

What you fail to recognize is that you are in a trap and I am the one trying to pull you out.

Okay, then that is great. If that is what you are really trying to do, then it would best help if you explain WHAT trap you say that I am in and HOW are you trying to pull me out of it.

If you fail to explain both of these, then some might wonder what your True intentions really are.

By the way, how long have you recognized in this supposed trap, and how long have you been trying to supposedly pull me out of it?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm You not to long ago in this thread wrote some thing like: "I don't think in absolutes". Yet here you are now saying, "That's impossible". Is there anything more absolute than THINKING; "That's impossible". Especially when it is in regards to another and how they THINK and VIEW things.You have just taken this to another whole level.

Yes. I don't THINK in absolutes. I SPEAK in absolutes. That's not my fault. That's how language works.

The response of a true adult human being. "It is NOT my fault". "It is something else's fault for the way I act and behave".

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm You are aware right that the more there is then the less time you would need to find them.

That is true.
It is also true that the more there are - the more I have to CHOOSE which mistake to try and address/correct first.

I NEVER asked you to TRY TO correct it. I just asked you to provide one miserable example or evidence for what you allege I do.

As of now you still can NOT produce just one example.

The readers must really be wondering WHY by now.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pmHaving tried to help you once or twice before,

Once again, another allegation.

And, once again, without any actual evidence WHERE this supposedly took place, it is just you saying things.

If it was even remotely True, then you could and would provide some proof for it.

You consistently TRY TO come across as superior to others, but have NOT yet once provided any actual evidence for this.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm now I choose to observe your mistakes and not address them.
Your loss.

LOL

Your words here SHOW who and what you Truly are, and what your actual True intentions are here.

What I have been describing as how you come across to me is probably becoming much clearer and clearer all the time.

Do you actually joke and/or laugh when you write things like; I choose not to address you, therefore it is your loss? Or, do you actually BELIEVE these things?

As I read it, you actually come across as though you BELIEVE that you are superior to others, and that the betterment of humanity could only happen with, and because of, you.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm For an alleged "logic expert" YOUR "logic" really does NOT shape up to scrutiny at all.

Once again another human being accusing me of some thing yet totally incapable of providing any shred of evidence for the accusations, let alone just providing just one miserable example for us to take a LOOK AT.

You are lying. Here is my proof of my accusation:

My argument is public knowledge: https://repl.it/repls/EthicalStylishSquare

Scrutinize it.

I have.

My responses have been given.

I also did say your accusations of ME.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Some might be questioning WHY these human beings who make accusations of me just do NOT provide any examples?

Because when you are given valid feedback you reject it. So people stop trying to help you.

LOL

You have NOT given valid feedback to me.

Besides that fact, you have MISSED THE POINT once more.

The point is if you are going to accuse me of some thing, then provide the example of when I supposedly done it. Just saying i did some thing, without an example, has NO weight to it at all. Although you sub and/or unconsciously hope it will, it does NOT.

Also, STOP thinking that provide others with valid feedback. If you have, then there would be some evidence for this.

I just want you, when you accuse me of some thing, to provide the actual example of where I supposedly did the thing so that we ALL can take a good hard LOOK AT it. Then if you are CORRECT, then you will HAVE readers to back you up and support you.

But you have yet to provide one example. The reason for this some might be thinking is because you do NOT want others to SEE what I can SEE.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Do you have ANY examples?

Yes.

Will you provide them?

(non responses can reveal more than responses can)

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm Do you think that by you tying to win EVERYTHING is really going to help you achieve your goal of "betterment of humanity".

The two APPEAR to be extreme opposites and very contradictory in nature, to me.

They are not contradictory. If one day I recognize you as somebody who shares my values and is capable of good judgment then I will tell you.

For now, I will not let you frame the discussion.

Maybe it is the way you define 'bettering humanity' that is causing a very contradictory view from my perspective.

How do 'you' define 'bettering humanity'?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:55 pm By the way, How will you KNOW when you have WON, and, How will you KNOW when you have helped in the "betterment of humanity"?

By observing it happen.

Okay. So, as CLOSED as you are in being able to LOOK AT and SEE things from other's perspectives, you are just as CLOSED in sharing your own perspective and view of things also.

This is fair enough, and explains a lot really.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:02 pm

Are you 100% certain that you aren't mistaken?

Yes. I gave evidence for this. Both in the examples I provided and in the explanations attached to those examples

Well, if you are 100% that you can't be mistaken, then what point is there talking to you?

You don't even know the difference between deducive and abductive reasoning.