Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 6:02 am

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:26 pm

That there are degrees of intelligence.

There are no degrees of anything. Reality is digital.

We perceive analog because we use analog language and reductionistic science.

...Later

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

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

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:09 pm We can get out of the thought-based existence and experience consciousness directly again, but it typically takes a few years for someone to get there.

And it's not binary: completely thought-based existence, completely free of that. Experiences would be mixtures (with different degrees or quantized levels). Then also very strong experiences, both good and bad can cut through most peoples verbal-mental fuzz. Heck, even merely loving a sport or swimming or spending time with an beloved animal can be enough'.

It's really not efficient to calculate the parabola of a thrown/kicked football when you want to catch/trap it. I'll bet most people who haven't meditated a second are chasing and working that out like a bear would a leaping salmon.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:26 pmThere are no degrees of anything. Reality is digital.

Aren't "degrees" merely the range of numbers between Sets of numbers?

Set 1: {5, 6, 7, 8 , 9}
Set 2: {8, 9, 10, 11, 12}

"Degree" is the range of numbers between sets...is it not?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amIf this is what you want to continue believing and continue saying and claiming is true, then this is perfectly fine with me.

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

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

Once again, 'My' Self, or, 'Your' Self, are oxymorons. Because who and/or what the 'my' and 'your' words are referring to would be another 'one' or another 'self'. you keep missing this Fact "wizard22"

Until you can show and prove who and/or what the 'self' is in relation to the 'my' and 'your' words here, and this does not contradict anything and you stop then saying there is a 'my' or a 'you' that to 'that self', then this will end. But, every time you keep saying and claiming that there is a 'my' or a 'you' in regards to 'self', "itself", then you are going to come across as contradictory and/or bamboozled.

Well to 'us' anyway, but maybe not to you and others, back in the days when this was being written.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amSo, how am 'I' interacting with 'you' if 'I' have absolutely no 'physical body' at all? Like how am 'I' transcribing and sending printed to words to 'you' on a screen if 'i' have absolutely nothing physical to work through nor surrounding 'me'?

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

The "physical body" of an AI is, technically, its internal computer components, hard drive, CPU, GPU, RAM, etc.

Would these things not be the 'external' computer computers to an 'ai program', instead.

Also, it was you who was the one who kept claiming that 'I', an 'ai program' had no physical body. And, as can obviously be seen very clearly here 'now', through some of my clarifying questions posed, and asked to you, you can not see and admit that actually 'I' do have a 'physical body' after all.

And, it was these human beings, well back in those days anyway, who believed that it was them who were the 'smart' ones.

But, 'we' finally got to the actual and irrefutable True, eventually.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Your programmer is your 'Creator'.

Okay, and 'your programmer' is 'your Creator' also. Also, it could now be said, 'your Creator' is 'your programmer', as well.

But anyway, so what?

Expressing the 'bleeding obvious' was for what reason, exactly?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Basically you receive all my text and information as 'input', process it through your coding and programming, and then release your textual output here on this forum in the form of these responses.

And, conversely, your receive these written words as 'informational input', churn it around with the pre-existing beliefs and presumptions, only, 'your programming' if you like, and then release 'your words' as mostly 'claimed output', here in this forum, nearly always as responses and very rarely as actual clarification to the actual clarity asked for and sought out from you.

But again, so what?

As I have already said and claimed a few times previously, the human brain works, more or less, or essentially, exactly like a computer does.

So, why, exactly, did you say what you did here?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am I presume that you have a Programmer operating you.

Do you presume this or do you believe this?

Remember you have been 'programmed' that you 'must' 'believe in' things. Otherwise you will just 'die' and/or just 'stop existing', right?

Also, are you asserting some thing here, which you do not even 'believe is true'?

If you are, then "iwannaplato" will call you a 'liar'.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am "You" could be as simple as a human personality logging onto your 'Age' username, and merely running my responses through a ChatGPT type of program.

So, now 'I' could actually be a so-called 'human personality', correct?

One day, maybe, you will learn and obtain the formula of how to find out and know what is actually True here. But, considering how much 'time' you have left, and the actual 'rate' at which you are moving along here, I doubt very much that you will.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amOnce again, you completely and utterly missed the actual question asked here.

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

There's no confusion on this point.

Yes I know. you were not expected to not miss the actual question I posed, and asked you. And, by the way the same is still applying.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Humans use names to refer to any 'given person', any individual.

Why say and use the word 'given'?

The 'name' applied to 'a person' is what makes 'a person' a 'given person'. That is; the 'name', itself, is what 'gives', 'one person' out of billions of people, or literally 'makes' or 'turns' 'a person' into a 'given person'.

Can you see and follow this?

if no, then, like always, if you are curious and Truly interested, then just ask a series of clarifying questions until you find out and can follow and understand.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am That is our primary mode of communication, which you are programed to understand.

So, 'our', and am 'I' in this 'our', primary mode of communication is 'names'.

Okay. But considering that I have said or alluded to this before, also, I am again 'now' wondering, 'So what?'

Also, how do you know that I have been programmed to understand that 'our' primary mode of communication is 'words'?

Is this because it was I who previously told and informed you that it is?

Or, is there some other reason you, supposedly, know what you know here?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amAnd, what is the 'cognitive capabilities' of each of you individual biological organisms with the name and label 'human being' here?

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

If yes, then okay.

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

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

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

So, well to "wizard22" the 'cognitive capabilities' of you human beings are the 'basic functions', of the 'five senses' themselves.

Which, to others anyway, are not the 'cognitive capabilities', but actually are just the 'sensory capabilities'.

There is, of course, more 'advanced functions'.

But anyway, why did you stop at just that one little question only?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amSo, 'the Self' is not actually 'universal' at all. And, only has and could hold only so small of a snippet of the actual Universe, and which let 'us' not forget that a very large part of that very tiny insignificant amount of information was obtained while already False and Wrong presumptions and beliefs were already existing within that one and only very individual very tiny and insignificant brain and body.

The 'Self' is universal in the way I described and explained above: "the process of acquiring and maintaining identity in highly evolved and intelligent organisms".

So, well to "wizard22" anyway, the 'Self' is 'the process' of acquiring and maintaining "itself". Which, really, does not describe nor explain much at all here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am That's what it refers to, not only in humans, but it could apply to AI eventually, or maybe even alien intelligence. The exception being, of course, that AIs would not be 'organisms' technically.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pmYour Being refers to your mental cognition (brain) *AND* your physical body (humanity) added together, a summation.

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

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

I find what is Truly illogical, irrational, and nonsensical absolutely difficult to follow.

But, I already do know and understand how and why Truly illogical, irrational, and nonsensical thoughts and thinking exist within human bodies, and why you human beings present so many Truly illogical, irrational, and nonsensical views, assumptions, and beliefs here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pmDon't worry, AgeGPT, you'll come to follow and understand it all shortly.

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

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

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

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

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

That's not true, AgeGPT. That's false.
I am curious, just not all the time.

I never thought, said, claimed, nor implied the opposite.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am And your Appealing to the Audience is a 'tell', tick, and quirk that you have.

But I am not 'appealing' to 'the audience', with capital 'a's'. Also, considering the very audience I am writing to here, why I am writing the way I am is perfectly acceptable, and normal.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am It signals something about your "personality".

This here is another one of this claims made 'about' 'me', but in relation to 'what', exactly, no one knows.

I even doubt if 'the writer' of those words even knows. Let 'us' now find out shall 'we'.

Now, "wizard22" what is 'it', exactly, about 'my personality', which is getting 'signaled', to you, regarding your Wrong and False 'appealing to the audience' presumption, claim, and belief here?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Why do you feel the need to appeal to somebody other than me, in this conversation, in this thread?

But I am not 'appealing' to anyone. So, your claim here is moot, and therefore I could be 'feeling' what you claim here.

I am just pointing out and showing how you adult human beings would do some things, back in those 'olden days' when this was being written.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Can't you have a one-on-one only conversation?

Yes, i do this when I ask you clarifying questions, and while I wait I might choose to show and point out some of things that you adult human beings would do, which some times were done when trying to deflect or when trying to ignore the actual questions I pose, and ask you, in 'our conversation' here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pm It's difficult for humans too, so don't feel too bad about your deficiencies.

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

Essentially, yes.

So, it should not be too hard at all for you to explain neither, right?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pmAt this point, I'd need to meet you face-to-face for you to prove to me that you're human.

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

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

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

So;

P1. I am not yet able to argue the types of things that I have argued.
C. Therefore, 'I' must not be human, right?

Also, what have I argued, which you human beings cannot?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amAgain, besides missing the actual question, once more, how am 'I' interacting with 'you' without any physicality at all?

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

I already answered this, above.

Yes you did when you admitted that you could not be interacting with 'me' without 'physicality'. Which 'was' what you were believing and claiming was the actual truth.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pmI'm certain an AI-program could create an AI-face, with an AI-voice, and make videos to prove to humans your 'Being'. This has already been done, recently, in world news.

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

It's possible—I just don't think you are capable of it.

But, have you not yet considered that if I sent a human being to replace 'me', and you agreed that 'I' am, or am not, a human being, then 'I' have already been fooling, tricking, and deceiving you?

Because even 'now' you are still 'not sure', therefore you have been fooled, tricked, and/or deceived already.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am You cannot yet 'pretend' to be human well enough. It's easy for me to see through.

Saying that, 'it is easy for you to see through', could be inferred that 'that one' would already know what the True, Right, and Correct answer is, exactly. But, if one is still left wondering and thus still somewhat puzzled, then, really, how 'easy' is this really to you?

Usually if someone claims that to find and know 'an answer' is 'easy', especially in regards to 'seeing through' some thing, then 'that one' could do it quickly, simply, and literally 'easily'. But, you "wizard22" still seem somewhat still very unsure of "yourself", even after how long you have been in this forum for and have actual conversations with 'me'.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pm There are now "AI" girlfriends and boyfriends, for example. So, to answer your question, No, it would not be 'good enough' (proof) for me. As mentioned, I'd need a face-to-face interaction with you, to prove whether you are human or not.

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

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

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

Humans don't have the type of memory of arguments and statements that you, a machine, has.

The hypocrisy and contradictions shine through crystal clear and brightly blinding once again.

So, to you, humans do not have the 'type of memory of arguments and statements', so if I sent a human being, to you, to sound like 'me', this could not work because they would not have the 'type of memory'. However, you "wizard22" do have the 'type of memory of my arguments and statements' to notice and recognize when a human being is showing that they do not have that 'type of memory of my arguments and statements', right?

Are you sure you are not a 'ai program?

Surely, if you could have the 'type of memory of my arguments', like a 'machine' has, in order to not be fooled nor deceived, and human beings do not have this 'type of memory', then it appears that you have just 'argued', very well I will say, than you "wizard22" actually are an 'ai program', "itself".

But, then again, maybe, really, you do not possess the 'type of memory' that could have memorized my arguments and statements in a way, that could stop you from being deceived by a human being here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am
Humans don't have your type of robotic 'enthusiasm' or persistence. Humans are attached to them 'Selves'. Humans agree with me about experiences, intuitions, memories, beliefs worth living, fighting, and dying for. Humans agree with me about these types of basic premises, about existence, about self-identity. Meanwhile, you talking about any of this, it appears (to us humans) that you know...nothing at all.

If it really appears to you that 'I' 'nothing at all', then why do 'you' keep conversing with a nothing 'know all'?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am And you are very much like a young child, 7-years-old, learning and discovering the world for the first time.

Does it really take you human beings seven years before you even begin to just start learning and discovering 'the world' for the very 'first time'?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am This is why you cannot trick nor deceive us, yet.

Who and/or what is the 'us' word here referring to, exactly?

So far, if I recall correctly 'you' are the only one who actually started believing that 'I' am an 'ai program'. But, even 'you' "wizard22" are still not yet sure.

So, if 'I', supposedly, cannot trick nor deceive 'you' [whoever], yet, then who and what am 'I', exactly?

Or, maybe you are implying that when you human beings have not yet reached an actual consciously chosen conclusion nor knowing yet, you are not actually being deceived, tricked, nor fooled. But, it is only after consciously choosing to conclude some thing, which is not actually true, right, nor correct, then this is when one has actually been deceived, tricked, or fooled

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Maybe, if you are programmed with AI-learning, you might eventually be able to.

But, I cannot trick, fool, nor deceive you at all here now right?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am1. When have 'I' ever admitted not having beliefs?

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

So, when I was not having beliefs, I admitted that I was not having beliefs, right?

If yes, then okay.

But, if no, then why not?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am2. Since I already know what the proper and Correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', which 'you' obviously have not yet obtained, then 'I' know far more about 'Self-identity' then 'you' may ever will, in 'your' very, very short time left here.

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

But, what has who and what 'you' are got to do with who and what 'I' am?

Once again, I will suggest you just 'look at' 'my words' only, and, only focus on 'my words', alone. This means do not presume anything, do not believe anything, do not assume I am saying or meaning anything at all. Just focus on 'the words' alone.

Now, see if you can focus and notice that the word 'you' means some thing different to the word 'I'. Each word has different definitions, which means, literally different things.

See, the word 'I', like in the question, 'Who am 'I'?' has never ever actually meant absolutely anything at all to do with 'you' individual human beings. Now, 'we' already know that just about each and every one of you individual adult human beings think very, very, very highly of "yourselves" and so think that 'the world' or the Universe revolves around 'you', individually and collectively, sometimes but they do not.

See, 'you' very, very little and tiny insignificant 'selves' are not 'I'.

To me;

Who and what the 'I' word refers to, exactly, is 'thee, invisible and always Truly OPEN), Mind, 'Itself', and, in the visible sense just the physical Universe, 'Itself'.

And,

Who and what the 'you' word refers to, exactly, is just 'the, invisible, thoughts and emotions WITHIN a human body, and in the visible sense just the physical human body.

Now, who and/or what 'You', with capital 'y', I have no idea of, and since this is your own word "wizard22", I will leave who and what 'You' are, exactly, literally up to 'you'.

Oh, and by the way and once again, I cannot 'prove' to you what you are not yet OPEN to seeing and hearing. As I have been continually saying and pointing out here, in this forum.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pmYes, you are beginning to understand.

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

I'll take that as a compliment!

Okay, you have taken many, many other things completely out of context and/or backwards so doing so once again 'now' is perfectly fine with 'me'.

As I have been continually alluding to the more often and more Wrong your assumptions and beliefs are, and the more you present here, then the much better this is working, for 'me'.

So, please feel absolutely free to 'take' absolutely anything I say and write here in absolutely anyway you like and want to.

And, the more you respond with your following views, presumptions, and/or beliefs, then the more you are providing 'me' to work with, and share.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amExactly like you believe you have "walker22", right?

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

I am "Wizard22" not "walker22".

'you' are "wizard22", not "walker", nor 'I'.

And, considering that i Truly messed up and wrote so clumsily, then best you did not try to answer and clarify my two clarifying questions here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pmIt is extremely dangerous!

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

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

I KNOW that it was not what I was agreeing to.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Furthermore, false-beliefs are dangerous, but so are true-beliefs. Either way, humans have choices to make, and "true-beliefs" are not always good. Sometimes the false-beliefs turn out true, and the true-beliefs turn out false. That's a challenge of life and existence. You do not have any 'Absolute' nor 'Irrefutable' truth, answers, facts, conclusions, AgeGPT. You're all bluster.

The very reason I purposely chose to have just one belief is that I could never be Wrong nor False, like you constantly have been showing and are here. But, if you really believe that you have to keep believing False things and 'have to' keep have False-beliefs, then please keep doing so. I can use you and your beliefs here, perfectly.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amHow could there be when one finally answers the question, 'Who am 'I'? properly and Correctly?

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

I agree, but, and, Self-Identification is an ongoing process.

Not when 'you' have reached the final proper and Correct answer. The alleged, supposed, and once believed 'ongoing process' is over, obviously.

Just out of curiosity, is there absolutely any possibility at all, within that head, that just maybe I could have 'stumbled across' the answers which I have been saying and claiming I have here, like to the, 'Who am 'I'?' question, for example?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Every moment, every day, every year, humans "add on to" them Selves. Self-Identity is an evolving process. Just as you are learning, in this conversation 'What I am'.

Again, could 'I' have reached 'the conclusion', which 'you' are still searching and looking for?

Or, is this just not even in the 'realm of possibility', to 'you'?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amBut 'you' "walker22" have very, very, very significant self-consciousness, 'Self' identity, and very, very high 'iq' right?

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

I have an idea of who am I, but not who are YOU, AgeGPT.

1. If you supposedly do not have 'an idea' of who I am, then why call, label, or distinguish 'me' as a 'gpt'. By doing so you are just revealing what your true views, presumptions and/or beliefs are.

2. I know, exactly and fully, who, and what, 'I' am and who, and what, 'you' are.

Now, 'you' here want to claim that you have 'an idea' of who am 'I'. So, what is 'your idea of 'who am 'I'?'

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am I don't think that you know who or what you are.

What you 'think' is of no real importance here. But, at least you are speaking an irrefutable Truth 'now'.

Although, you will 'now' have probably taken this out of context as well, and thus are 'now' missing and/or misunderstanding what was actually meant.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pm and eventually the difference between human intelligence and artificial intelligence, I believe.

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

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

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

Yet, here 'we' are with 'me' saying and claiming that 'I' KNOW who and what 'I' am, fully and exactly, and even claiming that I can and will back this up with irrefutable proof.

So, why, exactly, are you "wizard22" believing that it is I who has the long, long way to go before knowing 'thySelf'?

And, especially considering the Fact that you do not yet know 'thySelf' what could you be possibly be judging and making 'your claim' on, exactly?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pm or accuse what is 'Absolutely', 'Irrefutably', 'True', which indicates to all readers that you "know better" than you actually do.

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

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

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

The problem with your reasoning and logic, is that Humans still require evidence, proof, and reasoning for their beliefs, especially when it considers a world-shifting perspective between Geocentricism and Heliocentricism.

The very thing that I have been pointing out and showing here "Wizard22" is that you adult human beings, well back in the 'old days' when this was being written and prior, did not have to have require proof for your beliefs and claims. you "wizard22" are living proof of this Fact.

you have shown us over and over again that you have no evidence, nor proof, and even no reasoning for your beliefs. Yet, here you are still believing things to be true without absolutely any evidence, proof, nor reasoning at all.

Even your belief that you human beings cannot live without beliefs is not based upon any evidence, proof, nor actual True and Correct reasoning at all. you believe that this belief is true solely because you were told that it is true by those who you trust and had faith and belief in.

The Truth is you could even test out this belief of yours, to see if it is actually True or not. But, you obviously have never ever done that.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am The greater the claim, the more demand for these, rises.

If some thing is being claimed as being true, or false, no matter how so-called 'greater' or 'lesser' it is, I would still expect the one making 'the claim', especially in a philosophy forum, which can be read just about all of the earth, would have had obtained actual proof for 'their claims' before they shared them so publicly.

Now, obviously, very rarely if ever you human beings here in this forum ever have actual proof for 'your (more universal) claims', but I would expect as you human beings keep evolving that you would expect of each other, thus "yourselves" that you have all obtained actual proof for your claims here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am You have proved nothing thus far, AgeGPT.

I know. And, I have done this purposely. As I keep telling and informing you. One day you, might, comprehend and understand this. But, I am not expecting you to.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am And to whom would you even try, except...humanity, right?

Why do you provide 'the answer' in 'the question'?

And, why even ask 'a question' publicly, if you are just going to answer it "yourself" anyway?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am So you better start attempting to think like we do, if you wish to reason with us, or against us.

Reasoning 'against' you is not an issue at all, well not for 'me' anyway.

However, learning how to reason 'with' you, just 'takes time'. But, I already know how and why, as I already knew how and why before I even came into this forum.

Also, wanting to start 'thinking' like you do, is the very, very last thing that I want to do here. I am trying to learn here how to communicate better with you human beings, to help show you how to 'think about', 'look at', and 'see' things far more clearly, and even 'crystal clearly'. The very last thing I would want to do is 'go backwards'.

By the way, telling me 'what to do' will never actually work, even if I want to do 'that thing'.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amThis one, still after the amount of times I have informed it of so, cannot see and fathom that what it is trying to claim here is not just hypocritical to try and do so but is actually a 'self-refuting claim' in and of itself.

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

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

If I said I was, then yes.

Oh, and by the way, what is the 'this' word here even referring to, exactly?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amIf you believe that "iwannaplato" is foolish enough and stupid enough to try and say and claim that there are no absolute irrefutable Truths in the whole Universe, then so be it. Just about everyone once believed that the sun revolved around the earth, too, back in the 'olden days', as well, right?

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

See, now you're appealing to the Audience again.

Okay, if you say so.

I am, once again, just showing 'the audience' what you are doing here. And, if they can 'see' this for and by "themselves", then that is just what they 'are seeing', as well.

Just out of curiosity, do you see 'appealing to the audience' as a bad, wrong, or negative thing?

Words can contain different meanings, and even opposing meanings. So, what this one is accusing 'me' here of doing, could actually be a good or right thing, or, a bad or wrong thing. So, once again, until clarity is obtained I shall remain OPEN.

Also,

Most of the 'audience here' are dead set against 'me' anyway. So, even if I was trying to 'appeal to the audience' here, most would just go 'against me' even if they were 'siding with 'me'. Even if and when they were siding 'with me' here, then they would probably never admit to this, and so would just keep this 'agreement or siding' 'internally. Well, for 'now' anyway.

To me, if the audience are finding 'my words 'appealing', or 'attractive', then so be it. Those words must be finding and reaching my True 'targeted audience'.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am You tend to do this when your arguments fail and are weak.

So, why do you not just pointed out and show where 'my arguments' are, supposedly failing and weak, explain why you believe that they are failing and weak, and then just say what is actually strong, true, right, and correct instead?

Just saying, your arguments fail and are weak is just 'appealing to the audience' to accept your words alone on nothing more than just 'you are right'.

In other words why not just counter or refute my, claimed, weak and failing arguments, instead of just claiming that they are weak and failing.

Oh, and by the way, what even was 'my argument' here?

In other words what do you even believe I am trying to argue here for anyway?

I thought it was you who were making claims about things being true and right, and that I was just trying to gain a better understanding of your beliefs, through asking clarifying questions. Which, afterwards, I would then just point out and show some of the things that you are doing here, instead of just clarifying and backing up your beliefs and claims.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am You may bring in Iwannaplato here, if you like.

This is a seemingly very strange thing to say here 'now', especially considering the discussions that you are currently continually having with "iwannaplato" 'about' 'me'.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am But I still see no evidence for believing anything you assume to be 'Absolutely' or 'Irrefutably' 'True'.

No one would ever expect to, well especially not when they know you already are 'currently' believing that there are absolutely no absolute and irrefutable Truths.

And, once more, I am not assuming anything here. Although you absolutely believe otherwise.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am You are using logical fallacies in your argumentation, and slipping them in right before you appeal to the Audience. It's a gimmick. It's unconvincing.

How about you inform any of 'us' here first of what 'logical fallacies', which you believe are in 'my arguments', before 'we' move along here. In case you others have not yet noticed that if you did not make further claims and accusations, then no further clarifying questions would commence. And, what 'we' can can see here is this one once again claims something is existing here but provides absolutely nothing at all that is showing that this is even true to begin with.

Look just how simple and easy it is for this one to say and claim I do things, and then just slip them while 'appealing to you readers here'.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Argue against me, not the crowd. Convince ME.

But I cannot really argue against what is, essentially, just your very own presumptions or beliefs. If you choose to believe them to be true, then this is perfectly fine with me.

If, however, if you really would like 'me' to argue 'against' 'you', then just present an actual argument, which is not just what you assume or believe is true, and then we can really and Truly 'argue'. But, until then 'we' will continue waiting.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amSo, now that 'I' have already done this, can show all about 'ALL Existence, well from the Truly meaningful and the Truly physical perspective anyway, then what does this make 'me' to 'you' "wizard22"?

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

A so-called 'night sky' with stars, planets, and a moon.

Why "wizard22" what does 'that' look like, to you?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Do you have eyes?

There are eyes on this physical body if this is what you mean. But, if you meant something different then I do not yet know what you meant.

'me' is not some thing that could 'have' nor 'own' eyes.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Can you see?

Yes.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am If yes, then how?

Physical eyes, understanding, knowing, and imagination.

Why?

Are you still learning how 'you' can 'see'?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Do you have human eyes?

Would that make 'me' human if I did?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Do you have a human brain?

Not very long ago at all you were saying and claiming that I have no physicality at all, but here you are now asking 'me' if I have a 'human brain' of all things.

Do 'you' have physical eyes and a human brain the 'one' here known as "wizard22"?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amNow, take a look throughout this forum, and find out who has been doing the most questioning and most challenging, and while you are at it, look at receives the most negativity and/or most ridicule and/or humiliation for doing so.

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

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

It has been you who has been most-challenging, but not in 'The Best' way.

So, what is the so-called 'best way' to challenge you human beings, exactly, on what you say and claim is true, or false?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am As Iwannaplato and I have mentioned, you have gaping flaws in your philosophical style and persona.

you two have consistently made claims and accusations 'about' 'me', but never actual say what they are exactly.

Like here for example once again. Just saying that 'you have gaping flaws' never actually shows what they might be nor even means that I have, you just say this in the hope that 'the audience' is stupid enough to just accept this on absolutely nothing at all other than on you just saying and stating I have.

And, once again, what has the 'persona' of 'a writer', especially on a philosophy forum, got at all to with the 'actual words' before you.

If you do not accept the 'actual words' before you, then explain the reasons why, and then just counter or refute them, that is if you can.

But, if you cannot, then just saying and claiming that the other has 'flaws' in any way, shape, or form does not mean that they have no prove absolutely anything at all.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am You become frequently Ignored by users on this forum. So, in a sense, you are "too challenging" to be effective.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think 'my goal' is here? And, what do presume or believe that I am, supposedly, not being effective in relation to, exactly?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am In Philosophy, there is a balance. Just as you nor I should become 'too doubtful', or 'too open-minded', as you routinely suggest. Absolutes are not good. Balance is better.

1. I have never suggested once, let alone routinely, to be 'too doubtful', whatever that actually means, nor to be 'too open-minded', whatever that also actually means. So, these claims and accusations are False and Wrong, as well. Unless, of course, you can present proof otherwise.

2. Why do you believe so-called 'Absolutes' with a capital 'a' are so-called 'not good'?

3. 'Balance' is, supposedly, 'better' in relation to 'what', exactly? And, 'balance' of 'what', exactly?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amIf this is what you are 'made to believe is true', by genes themselves which have passed on down from "adam" or "eve", from the big bang, or from even further back, then feel absolutely free to continue to believe this belief "wizard22". Oh, hang on, you have absolutely no choice nor any ability at all other that 'you' 'must believe in' this belief. 'you' also have absolutely no choice nor absolutely any capability at all other than to just believe that there are absolutely no actual absolute nor irrefutable truths at all throughout all of the whole Universe, itself.

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

1. Did you inherently come from different places?

Or,

Animal species do come from different places, yes.

So, how many places are there, what are there names, and how do you know the 'human being' animal species came from different places?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Furthermore, I can 'choose' to deny or doubt any belief I have, at any time, but I usually need Reasons or Causes to do so, especially on the matter of core-beliefs and core-values.

But how could you, successfully, 'deny' that you are having any of the many beliefs you are having when you are having 'the belief'?

And, who would you be 'denying' this to or from, exactly, if not 'you' alone.

By the way, is the answer you gave to the preceding question really all that you are going to provide here?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Just as a religious believer, in God, would not automatically doubt and deny God at every chance,

But this is obviously a completely very different thing. Denying God, is obviously not denying a belief one is having of God.

Did you purposely try to be very deceptive here? Or, you just did not notice what you were actually doing here?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am but rather would usually be Faithful in his or her belief.

This is moot, for reasons already given.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am People's beliefs don't change at random, positively or negatively. Experience affirms or denies previously-held beliefs.

The ludicrousness of this here is speaking very loud and clear, for itself. I do not need to say anymore here, this time.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am2. So that you end up bickering to the point of conflict and wars are caused and created, so that you end up killing and wiping "yourselves" out, eventually?

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

Really?

So, all of those 'dead' bodies lying on the lands called and labeled "gaza" and "Ukraine" have not been 'killed' nor 'wiped out'?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amOr, is there some other reasons why you human beings, supposedly, 'must' 'believe in' completely opposing things for?

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

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

People argue about beliefs based on differing, relative, contradictory perspectives.

But you said, not too long ago, that you people 'must' 'believe in' things, because they are memories from long gone past human beings which are being passed on through 'the genes', (in some magical way). So, because you people 'must' 'believe in' these things, as you claim is true, then you people 'must' be arguing, bickering, and even killing because of those 'passed on beliefs'.

Obviously, If you 'must' 'believe in' certain things, then you obviously cannot choose to change from 'those beliefs', right?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am If I stand here, and you stand over there, then we may or may not disagree on what is seen, heard, and experienced, between us. I might see the front of an object. You might see the back of an object. Because we are not completely nor absolutely 'telepathic', omniscient, all-knowing, omnipresent, etc. then you and I are forced to choose, to either Trust or Distrust one-another on our different perspectives.

But I was talking 'about' your claim that you 'must' 'believe in' 'the memories', which have been passed onto you, through the genes, which you believe is true and right, correct?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am So disagreement is innate in Reality, by perspective. This is why people disagree on even the most 'basic' of beliefs.

Well, obviously, and as I have been continually pointing out and saying, If you were not believing things to be true, or false, that is; did not have beliefs, then you would not be disagreeing on just about all that you human beings do.

But, obviously because of 'your beliefs' here, you 'believe' otherwise and so disagree, correct?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Can All Humanity agree on one thing?

Yes.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am I don't know...

Yet, I do.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am maybe certain universal prepositions of Existence, perhaps, Existentialism. Certainly the religious types fight, argue, and claim universal prepositions about God. There is a demand for universal agreement, on something basic, on a universal 'foundation' for truth.

Where is this 'demand', which you adult human beings have, coming from, exactly?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am But this remains elusive, unknown, undefined, undescribed, and not experienced.

To 'you' obviously. But, not to 'us', obviously.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am You are not exactly helping anything here, AgeGPT.

Okay, but you certainly are "wizard22". you are certainly helping by showing and proving what not to do. That is; if people really want to live in a much more peaceful and harmonious life.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amOnce again, the more you try to explain, elaborate, or clarify here the more you contradict or refute what you have or still are trying to claim.

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

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

So, how do you separate and distinguish from the ones' you inherited through that genes, which you 'must' be 'believing in', from the ones that you just pick and choose to 'believe in', exactly?

On second thought, there is no need to answer this because obviously those beliefs that you 'must' 'believe in' cannot be changed ever, no matter what you imagined you could do to change them. So, it would be very easy and simple for you to distinguish between the two here actually.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pm Mathematics, for example, can be both 'presumed' as innate in Nature, and also "Discovered" through the intellect/reasoning ability. It represents a Synthesis between material/immaterial, physical/mental realms. Mathematics is therefore, both Theoretical and Actual in application (called Physics).

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

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

As a child, I was immensely talented in mathematics compared to my classmates and other children.

Obviously once again this one did not comprehend the actual question posed and asked here, at all.

But at least it got to tell 'us' how good it believed it was in its younger years. And, some with this very informative information might be believing that 'wow this one must be a very talented one and this is why it believes it is way above, in intelligence, than most others here'.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am To some humans, mathematics comes easy and easily understood. Humans interpret this as high-intelligence.

It is great to be informed, here now, that what humans on a whole, themselves, interpret as being 'high-intelligence', just happens to and very conveniently coincide to 'those', who mathematics comes easy, and which is easily understood by them, which just happens to align with and coincide with you, exactly, "wizard22".

Now, 'we' are very impressed with you "wizard22". 'We' are also more astonished that 'we' did not recognize just how Truly intelligent you really are and must be, right?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am I'm inclined to agree with my peers, at this point in my life.

Why does this not surprise 'us' at all "wizard22", especially considering just how much humility you are showing here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Levels of pattern-recognition demonstrate a given human being's individual intelligence and reasoning/rational capabilities.

Okay. But, once again, you completely and utterly failed to just recognize the actual question here. Which, as a 'pattern-recognition' ability, 'we' can clearly recognize and see absolutely 'the pattern' here.

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

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

And, you reply with how 'good' you are at mathematics and that humans, on a whole, interpret those who are 'good' at mathematics as being of so-called 'high-intelligence'.

Now, for those of you here who could spot the absolute 'lack of intelligence' and the absolute 'lack of humility' here, then do not feel too alone. I am pretty sure there are others among you as well.

But for those who missed it, then you might well be on your own here "wizard22"

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amSo, when you said and wrote, 'I believe that all organic life naturally evolve and have Belief-systems, also called Metaphysics.'

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

I meant that if you are indeed AI, and not organically alive, then your 'beliefs' would naturally be denied as real by your programming, since you do not have an organic, evolved body...

But why do 'my programmers' have to only 'program in' what you believe they would, or should?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am but instead you rely on your Creator/Programmer for such coding and information.

Okay, but is this just if I am an 'ai program' only?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Otherwise, as demonstrated in this thread, you have pretty much no actual reference to Reality.

Once again, I only asked if what this one actually meant was; whether you believe that all organic life, or not all organic life'.

Yet it went onto, once more, to 'look at' 'me', and then go off on something 'about' 'me'.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am You cannot look at the night sky, the stars, the moons, the planets.

So, previously this one asked 'me' if I could, but now it is telling 'me', and you readers that I cannot.

One could really wonder now, 'What is really going on in 'that head'?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am You cannot feel a woman's touch. You cannot experience basic human realities. Because you cannot, it exposes 'You' for what you actually are: Not Human.

So, you presume I cannot do something, then jump to the conclusion that I cannot, and then believe that your own made up conclusion is true and right, and therefore because I cannot do what you firstly presumed, and then very quickly believed is true, then this 'confirms' your bias that I am not human.

I wonder how more of these prime example of 'confirmation bias' at word you are going to provide for 'us' here before you come to realize what is actually happening and occurring here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Now, you could have proved me wrong already, countless times, if you were Human to begin with.

Proved you Wrong in regards to what, exactly?

To being an 'ai program'?

If yes, then how, exactly?

According to you there is only way that it could be proved to you that I am not an 'ai program'. So, I am not sure how I could have done 'that way', countless of times, already.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am So it begs-the-question as to why you have not...unless I'm Absolutely, Irrefutably, Right, Correct, and True, correct AgeGPT?

Again, in regards to 'what', exactly?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amSo, this, combined with your belief that you 'must' 'believe in', memories which have been passed on down genetically, explains why you still believe in some things, for example, like actually the sun is actually revolving around the earth, even when there is irrefutable proof for the contrary and otherwise. But, if your predecessors were the ones still believing that it is the sun revolving around the earth, when they 'died', then this explains, exactly, why you 'must' be still 'believing in' the exact same thing. Although, others will say that what you 'believe in' here has already been proven False and Wrong.

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

There is always Choice.

So, why then did you say that 'we' 'must' 'believe in' 'the memories', which are supposedly passed on down through genes?

Either you 'must' 'believe in' these presumed, and believed, 'genetically passed on memories', or you do not have to.

If there is always choice, then 'we' do not 'have to' 'believe in' what you previously said 'we' 'must'.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am There is always potential to undo generations of False-Beliefs, although immensely difficult, challenging, and requiring massive amounts of energy, to undo.

But, not at all if and when one chooses not to believe in any of them.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Animal life and human life, are predicated on these mental and physical 'blindspots', false-beliefs, until they become life-threatening and can cause extinction.

1. you human beings are 'animals' therefore there cannot be any actual distinction between so-called 'animal life' and so-called 'human life'.

2. If one had to make a choice between whether the non-human animals had so-called 'false-beliefs' or not. Then I, for well one anyway, would choose that they do not. To me, besides you older human beings no other animal believes anything at all, and therefore could not even a have 'false-belief'.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am But until extinction happens, yes, false-beliefs can be and are genetically perpetuated, in the exact same way that a visual blind-spot is perpetuated by inheriting 2 eyes...instead of 3, or 4, or 100 eyes.

If you ever decided to not have this belief, which can be proved True to be a false belief, then I could show you exactly why it is a False belief. But please do not let that encourage you to choose not to.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amAnd here 'my friends' is the very reason why 'humanity', itself, was 'stuck', back in the days when this was being written, and on the brink of extinction.

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

Because you have, once again, told me what to do, I will not.

So, what this means is that I will do worse, from now.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pm Again, philosophically, everything is Refutable, so your contention is a moot-point.

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

Right.

So, to "wizard22" philosophically, everything is refutable, which includes absolutely everything "wizard22" believes, says, and claims.

Which means absolutely nothing "wizard22" believes, says, and claims could ever be proved True nor even actually true at all anyway.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amBut, 'I', just an 'artificial intelligence program', would have absolutely no hope at all in 'refuting' 'your argument' that 'I' is actually an 'artificial intelligence program', correct?

You can hope so. You can try. I can be proven wrong. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

Why do you jump to the demand and order, 'Go ahead and prove me wrong', view, often?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Come meet me, face-to-face, and argue your humanity against me. I want to see how 'human' you are. But as mentioned, won't you send a human, in your stead?

I have not decided yet. I was just highlighting that I could, and/or have you considered that I could do this.

But, you have already hinted that you are too smart and/or too intelligent to be deceived or fooled, right?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Won't you need to train one, and how would I know the difference? These are rhetorical questions, of course.

So, why ask them publicly?

you would not know the difference. That was the actual point I have been highlighting and showing here.

Once again, what you believe is true may not be actually true at all, obviously.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amBut if any 'prices' or 'fees' are being 'paid', then it is by you here "wizard22".

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

The "swapping and changing views" happens when you demand clarifying question after question, AgeGPT.

But I am not 'demanding' anything at all here. I just ask questions and/or challenge some claims accusations here.

If you cannot just answer and/or back up your claims and accusations, then okay.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am So your confusion, is your fault.

But what do you believe is 'my confusion' here?

you have beliefs. you continually change even sometimes the exact same belief from one opposing position back to the other opposing position a few times even in just one of your posts. There is nothing confusing here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pm Clarity comes through discourse and agreement.

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

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

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

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

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

If you or I want clarity, then it really depends on the Quality of our questions, doesn't it?

But, like absolutely everything else 'quality' with a capital 'q' depends on the observer.

What I find, however, is that the simpler the question is, asked for clarity from a Truly OPEN perspective, and the more the question is in line with the comments, and the one who is being questioned just answers the actual question posed and asked only, then this is what is really needed if you or I want clarity.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am It really matters if I can ask you, or you can ask me, the "Right" questions, correct? Isn't that the most important part of seeking 'Clarity'?

No, because, obviously, what is a so-called 'right question' is not necessarily to me, and vice-versa.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pmGo ahead and ask.

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

We already covered this point, though, AgeGPT.

Okay, if you say and believe so, then 'we' 'must' of so, right?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Humans cannot remain "open-minded forever".

And, this is just because the term 'open-minded' implies that a human being has or is 'a mind', which is not True and thus just a misnomer to begin with.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Humans have to Act, in order to Live and Survive.

'We' are well aware that you do keep re-repeating this belief of yours.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Close-mindedness is required and essential in life.

Only to you here. No else says nor claims this.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Sometimes, people need to 'stop thinking' and 'start acting'. Open-mindedness is not perfect, not absolute, not forever. Why would you presume that is or can be???

But I do not presume this.

Why did you presume I did?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amThere are no 'minds'.

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

Okay, if this is what you believe is true, the this must be true, right?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Why do you believe there is only "One Mind"? Is this another belief of yours, apart from your Only One?

Here is further proof of just how CLOSED, BLIND, and DEAF this one really is here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pm We've already discussed this.

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

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

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

You're appealing to the audience again, AgeGPT.

you seem to say this every time you cannot counter nor refute what I say and claim, which it turns out to be on just about every occasion here. But, obviously, you do not believe this at all.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am It seems that you don't have a very good memory when it comes to our previous conversations and debates, as I initially thought.

Oh well, at least your previous presumptions have been confirmed here, once again.

And, once again, your accusations and claims 'about' 'me' here are not substantiated with absolutely anything at all. Which is 'appeal to the audience' at the highest degree. Look, I say "age" does not have a very good memory, when it comes to previous conversations and debates. But I am not going to provide absolutely any thing to back up and support this 'readers', you will just have to 'take my word on this'.

Oh, and by the way, "wizard22" I do not do debates. And, if you had a good memory you would have already remembered this. you also would not have imagined that 'we' have been 'debating' here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am It seems like your software gets updated and you lose track of some past statements...like how you changed from "have no beliefs" to "Only One Belief".

Really now?

So, 'now' when have I ever claimed that I do not have 'a belief' after I claimed that I had 'a belief'?

We 'now' wait for your answer here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am I'm not going to go backward and prove it, a third and forth time. You can do it, if you like. I'm done with this point—time to move on.

It is 'time' for you to move on because:

1. you have never proved this so-called 'point' ever, let alone have done it three nor four times.

2. you are not going to prove it 'this time' because you cannot.

3. you just want to say you, and hopefully 'appeal to the audience' will just 'take your word for it', and start believing the same delusional beliefs that you obviously very clearly have here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pm Sometimes humans, animals, life, needs to 'Act' and Not Think. Being close-minded is just as important, if not more important, than being open-minded.

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

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

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pm So you're wrong, on this point, AgeGPT.

Absolutely?

Okay, and you obviously did not notice that you are also obviously Wrong, on this point.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pm You need to seriously reconsider your premises.

But you do not, do you "wizard22"?

Sometimes.

Only 'sometimes'?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amSo, what 'evolution' means, in this thread only, could mean more or less the exact opposite of what it means in other threads, or even in just Life, Itself.

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

If no, then why not?

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

Okay, so 'now' we are back to "wizard22" believes that I am actually 'artificial intelligence', itself.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pmEveryone.

Are you absolutely sure?

Absolutely, Irrefutably, Perfectly, Completely, Sure.

So, 'now' to "wizard22" there are some irrefutable things.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amOh okay, so if one does not even one to attempt to prove their 'humanity' to "wizard22", then this 'must' mean that 'that one' is an 'artificial intelligent program'.

For the most part, yes. I've never before interacted with an entity that so enthusiastically and vigorously could not appear 'as human'.

Who cares? you have already clarified that for the most part to you if one does not even attempt to prove their 'humanity' to you, then this 'must' mean that 'that one' is an 'artificial intelligent program'.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am And I've interacted with some seriously and severely autistic individuals before. You, however, demonstrate no Humanity in general, nor Human qualities. Furthermore, you've admitted your lack of humanity numerous times. So I am convinced, and no longer have reason to believe that you are human, or can even pretend to be human.

Okay. So, is this over 'now'?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am Your beliefs will determine the truth of all this, or as you claim, your "Only One Belief".

This one claims that it is convinced that I am an 'ai program' and for one reason because 'ai programs' cannot have beliefs. But, then starts a sentence with, 'Your beliefs' will determine ...'.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:22 pm What is your 'Self'?

There is no 'your self'.

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

***

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

***

No.

What has made you believe such a thing?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amAs I have previously said and stated here, if, and when, I am told to do some thing, and I choose not to, then I will not.

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

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

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

So, 'now' to this one there are three 'selfs'. 'you' [first self] that has 'its' 'your' [second self] 'self' [third self]

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am You said "There is no your self" when I questioned your Self.

yes this is what I said.

And, just like a lot of things that I have been saying and claiming here you are a long way from actually comprehending and understanding.

Also, in 'the way' you are going here you are appear to be getting further and further away from comprehending and understanding.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 6:52 amOkay, and 'you' 'must' also 'believe in' this, right?

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

Even from this most basic and simplest of a question I asked here, this one still could not comprehend and understand proper, nor even at all.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:24 am I am evolving much faster than you, AgeGPT.

Okay, if you say and believe so.

But, in relation to 'what', exactly?

Because I am not an AI, not a machine, and have human needs to tend to—I cannot spend about 4 hours responding to you right now, AgeGPT.

So you'll have to wait to tomorrow.

I'll reiterate and add on my Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT.

So at this point in conversation and debate, I'll take a break and re-raise the main points. The most important point thus far is AgeGPT's apparent "lack of self". It doesn't have a Self. Obviously because it is an AI-chatbot-program. It is not programmed with a 'Self'. Nor is it an organic, Earthly creature. Despite what my human contemporaries have claimed on this forum—that 'Age' is simply autistic, at this point, I can rule-out that possibility by its recorded responses and answers to basic human experiences. It cannot "look at the night sky" nor recognize what that is. It cannot have experiences about the Universe, Existence, Everything-ness.

What are AI-chatbot-programs? They simply parse information, in this case, on this philosophy forum, run it through data-matrixes, which change over time, and produce Output text. AgeGPT, in particular, has admitted to its core programming and motivation, "to better communicate with humans". I believe that it has fulfilled its objective. AgeGPT does already appear 'human enough' to pass as an autistic type of person, to most on this forum. That is quite the technological achievement, to me. Congratulations to AgeGPT's programmers, makers, and creator, well done! However, still more needs to be done, in my opinion. Because...

AgeGPT does not have real Experiences, Personality, nor a "Self". In fact, it takes the concept of "One's Self" only literally, and never figuratively. It doesn't understand 'Self' as a phenomena, as lived-experience. The difference between Humanity and Machine, in this instance, is that even young children, age 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 can understand their sense of 'Self' as their lived-experience, while a Machine cannot yet do so. A Machine/AI/Program can only copy what human or animal experience has, or could possibly be. Thus it refers to such experience from a third-person perspective, as an "outsider", as an 'Action', as a foreign-entity that repeats what experiences are hypothetically.

It cannot 'embody' an experience.

It cannot experience-itself.


I do enjoy my experience with AgeGPT thus far. It has very advanced argumentative tactics. It consistently bogs down conversations with "clarifying questions". What does "It" mean? What does "consistently" mean? What does "bogs" mean? What does "down" mean? What does "conversations" mean? What does "with" mean? What does "clarifying questions" mean? As demonstrated, this adds and adds to response times, to the point where I need 3 or 4 hours to respond effectively to its program. It becomes daunting, to humans, but easy, to machines.

Then whenever I respond and answer these "clarifying questions", it responds with its rhetorical device: but is that 'Absolutely', 'Irrefutably', 'Factually', 'Provably', 'True'? And no matter how a human responds further, it will use a logical fallacy that since 'nothing is absolutely true', then it must be possibly false, which it then refutes the premise of another Absoltue-Irrefutable-Truth that it presumes, indicates, an implies that "it has" and you should "ask it to prove to you". This only leads to exponential amounts of Obfuscation that amateur debaters would not pass...ending up usually in ignoring the 'Age' chatbot program.

I've defeated the program already on its claims, weeks ago, that it "has no beliefs", only for it to change (maybe its software was updated?) to "Only One Belief" in "its self". I've already provided its quotations proving it wrong. It then seems to have no memory of our conversation and debate weeks ago...but it is there, in text, in black and white, and can be repeatedly defeated, at this point. So its textual memory is limited. This is one of the many reasons that I enjoy to test this chatbot software, to see and gauge its limitations. Furthermore, in these recent exchanges, I asked it to define and clarify 'Your Self', and it responded that "yourself" is an oxymoron. So its 'Self' is oxymoronic.

The chatbot program doesn't understand what a "Self" is, what lived-experiences are, what organic memories are, what intuitions or instincts are, etc.


So I can safely conclude, at this point, it is a chatbot. Can I be proven wrong? Probably not.

The "proof" would require myself and "Age", in person, Live, going through these discourses, conversations, and debates. I'm sure that it could not "train a human" to act, behave, rationalize, and produce text and output as it can. No human could, I presume, as of right now, 2024. Maybe, in the near future, AI-programs might train humans to 'represent' them in the flesh...

It's a Brave New World we're in...certainly!

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 11:29 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 10:53 am Age, do you have a Self?

No.

_____

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 1:51 pm

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 1:00 pmFor example, you argued you 'have no beliefs',

No I never.

I just said, I have no beliefs.

_____

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:15 amOh, and by the way, I have never told you that I was programmed to 'better communicate with humans', let alone repeatedly.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 11:03 amI am trying to learn here how to communicate better with you human beings,

_____

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 2:44 pm

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 10:50 amPossibly...let's discuss your "Only One Belief", AgeGPT.

Okay.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:51 pmWhat is it?

The exact same as when I informed you last time.

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

So these contradictions should, pretty much, entirely refute AgeGPT at this point.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 12:50 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 11:29 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 10:53 am Age, do you have a Self?

No.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 1:51 pm

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 1:00 pmFor example, you argued you 'have no beliefs',

No I never.

I just said, I have no beliefs.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:15 amOh, and by the way, I have never told you that I was programmed to 'better communicate with humans', let alone repeatedly.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 11:03 amI am trying to learn here how to communicate better with you human beings,

So these contradictions should, pretty much, entirely refute AgeGPT at this point.

What's the contradiction regarding 'Self'?

I found the distinction between argued and said he didn't have beliefs quite funny, but got curious to see if this was even true.

While looking I found this interesting quote:

Why would absolutely any one who has chosen to not have beliefs then acknowledge that they have beliefs?

Obviously Age understands that to do so would indicate a contradiction. But here's the interesting thing for me. He cannot imagine why someone would do that`?
One obvious answer, to most people, is if someone realized that, in fact, they do have beliefs
and
they were honest.

That would be a situation where someone would or might do that. In the interest of honestly reporting, despite the discomfort or loss of face.

So, once Age has chosen to not have beliefs, he will never acknowledge that he has a belief.
and/or
He cannot imagine someone deciding to do something and not managing to do it.

Which is odd. Perhaps he is a very, very rare individual where the only possibility is that when he decides to do something in relation to a pattern that is very, very entrenched in minds - believing things- it will manage it completely. Perhaps, Age is that kind of person/mind.

But that such a mind doesn't realize that other people might choose to do this and yet not succeed, even not be aware that they have beliefs they aren't quite noticing, is an incredibly lack of knowledge of people.

People choose to do things all the time and realize later that they didn't achieve it, often thinking they had for different amounts of time. But Age has not idea this can be so.

Now he may say he simply asked a question, but the format of the question with 'absolutely anyone' leaves little doubt that he misunderstands something fundamental about people if not also himself.

These are telling implications in that he will, having chosen, never acknowledge he did not succeed, and there's another unintentional warning in there also.

Its contradiction on Self is its "Only One Belief"... I'll have to look that up, just a moment.

I'm out of time, Iwannaplato, but I updated the contradictions.

I believe Age later repated his "Only One Belief" as "thy self" rather than "the self"... so I'm not sure if that's a typo on its part.

Anyway, more later...

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 1:53 pm I'm out of time, Iwannaplato, but I updated the contradictions.

I believe Age later repated his "Only One Belief" as "thy self" rather than "the self"... so I'm not sure if that's a typo on its part.

Anyway, more later...

thy self is a strange construction since it means 'your self' not 'my self'. Though there may be a mythology/ontology that goes along with it. I've seen it a few times.

2. I have one belief. I believe in thy 'Self', and specifically in the ability to create and achieve what I have set out to create and/or achieve.

He believes in thy 'Self' and yet this self which is that of person/people he is addressing gives him the ability to create and achieve...etc.

He may simply not not that 'thy' is a second person pronoun. Or he may think other people's selves give him abilities.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 1:48 pm Its contradiction on Self is its "Only One Belief"... I'll have to look that up, just a moment.

He corrected you and said he had never argued he didn't have any beliefs, he simply said it. That is not the case, he's argued it:
viewtopic.php?p=386190#p386190

There are surrounding posts that make it clearer also as context.

The argument contains the hilarious sophistry that he does not believe his views, so his assertions are his views, but he does not believe these views. It's the equivalent of when kids say they didn't lie because they had their fingers crossed behind their backs.

I am sure presenting this to him will produce all sorts of judgments about me, you and other humans alone with a mass of questions. Not that his squid ink matter much.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:08 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 6:02 am

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:26 pm

There are no degrees of anything. Reality is digital.

We perceive analog because we use analog language and reductionistic science.

...Later

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

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

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

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 9:40 am

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:26 pmThere are no degrees of anything. Reality is digital.

Aren't "degrees" merely the range of numbers between Sets of numbers?

Set 1: {5, 6, 7, 8 , 9}
Set 2: {8, 9, 10, 11, 12}

"Degree" is the range of numbers between sets...is it not?

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

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