Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2025 12:57 am**

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 12:39 am
Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 12:25 am
accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm

I'm well aware of what I write, ditzy dip-head (carefully cultivated).
Yet you, still, expressed the contradiction, and your hypocrisy, here.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm Obviously it can get some things right and all it has done is put into words what the rest of us already know (except for you of course, who loves to crawl up Kenny's arse).
LOL
LOL
LOL

Once again, when 'another' says and expresses what 'one' already believes is true, then this is when 'the other', laughingly, gets 'it', so-called, 'right'.

Here, 'we' just have another prime example of 'confirmation biases', and of when one can only 'see' what it 'wants to see'.

LOL It is like 'these people', here, back when this was being written, still, had not yet noticed that depending on 'the way' 'artificial intelligence' is asked questions, that 'it' will just about express and 'say', exactly, what 'it' is that 'the questioner' just 'wanted to hear', anyway.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm It isn't a case of doing the 'thinking' for others, it just has a lot more patience to set it out (endless actually). Magnus was obviously simply asking it to analyse a 'debate' word by word-- words that humans had already written.
LOL 'These ones', still, could not see that 'a debate' was never even taking place, anyway, nor literally in any way.
accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm Everyone knows that google AI is woke as fuck.
'Everyone'?
accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm Magnus wasn't asking it about anything controversial or wokey.
Maybe not. But, what did "magnus anderson" ask 'it', exactly?

Literally, what were 'the prompts', exactly, which got an 'artificial intelligent contraption' to express and write what 'it' did?

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm Oh why bother. You are insane and as thick as pigshit. There's no point.
Here, 'we' have another example of a typical response by 'one' who when it very slightly just started to think about what was actually 'taking place', and how it had been actually responding.
Anyone is capable of saying something that is true,

Okay.

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 12:39 am American fuckturd.

When I first came into this forum I wrote in a 'particular way' to show and prove just how simply and how easily people can be tricked, fooled, and deceived when they have and hold pre-existing beliefs and presumptions. And, even when they were tricked and fooled, 'way back then', they can remain deceived even up to 'now', when 'this quote' was written.

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 12:39 am That's what you thicko yanks can't get through your thicko heads.

And, that the 'only one' that 'this one' keeps fooling and deceiving, here, is "its" own 'self', continues.

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:00 am**

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 12:53 am
Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 12:51 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 12:01 am

See how the conversation was directed at you about you and about him and he directly perceives only himself?

Even the previously mentioned AI analysis referenced him as causing debates and trolling.
LOL

Any one who is open can very clearly see that 'I' was not 'debating' absolutely any thing.

And, if absolutely any one, still, would like to claim that 'I' was debating some thing, then just inform the readers, here, of what 'it' is, exactly, that 'I' was, supposedly, 'debating'.

And, if no one does provide 'this', then any claim that 'I' was 'debating' exists in 'their own imagination', only. Including in so-called 'artificial intelligence'.

And, if any one even thinks, let alone, believes that 'the answer' of 'questions' is 'the one' 'trolling', then talk about another example of 'one' 'living in their own imagination' as well.

'Trolling', in forums, is done by 'the one' who 'casts out' 'questions', or 'provocative statements', in the hope of 'catching' and 'reeling in' someone else, for a 'got you' moment, and for a 'look at me' and at what 'i caught'.

The only reason some of 'you' 'see me', here, as a so-called 'troublemaker' is, and was, because 'I' could not be 'caught', here.

And, 'I', on the other hand, 'unlike "magnus anderson", obviously were not seeking 'to catch' any thing, here.

What is the, exact, 'actual reason', again, "magnus anderson" that 'you' wanted 'me' to answer the question,
'What is the common meaning for the 'definition' word?

Now, could 'that' be an actual example of what is called and classed as, 'trolling'?
You are a troll.

If 'this' is what you really want to believe is absolutely true, then 'this' is perfectly fine and okay, with me.

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 12:53 am Go and have a shower you revolting smelly pile of untoned blubber.

Again, this was how 'some people' spoke, and wrote, in a 'philosophy forum', of all places, so you can only imagine how they, and others, spoke outside and/or in other forums.

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:05 am**

Oh fuck off you conceited little nobody.

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:10 am**

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 11:40 pm And, the very beauty of not believing, and not presuming, "one's" own thoughts to be true is:

Firstly, you are always open, and when you are always open you cannot not learn. So, you will can and will always be discovering more and/or new/er things.

Secondly, you are then actually able to discover if "your" thoughts align with 'Reality', or not. So, even if those thoughts were actually Wrong you are, again, continually learning, and discovering, more and anew.

An extremely closed-minded person giving a very banal and vacuous lecture on how to be open-minded.

Gotta love an expert at things he knows absolutely nothing about.

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:20 am**

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 11:54 pm1. Would it have been easier, and simpler, if you just asked your 'artificially intelligent friend' for 'the answer' that 'you' were seeking and wanting, here?

Why would I want to ask AI that question?

Aren't you presuming my motives? Aren't you the guy who pretends to be an expert at avoiding presumptions? Aren't you the guy who gives other people lectures on how to do that?

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 11:54 pm2. Did 'you' ever get around to clarifying what the actual purpose was in 'you' wanting 'me' to inform 'you' of what, the 'common' meaning of the word, 'definition' is?'

Do I have to do that? The thread is, "Questions to Age". People ask you questions. You answer them. Suddenly, you're demanding that they explain WHY they are asking questions. That's fine with me, but be honest with yourself, that's something you started doing only recently. You had no problem answering my initial question without asking for a 'Why?'

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 11:54 pm3. Just maybe if 'you' informed 'the readers' of what 'the purpose' is for, exactly, then, just maybe, 'I' might have 'answered differently', which may then have fulfilled what 'it' is, exactly, that you are after, and wanting, here.

Are you admitting that you did NOT provide a valid answer to my question?

Are you FINALLY conceding that "It means whatever the speaker wants it to mean" is not a valid answer to the question "What does the word definition mean?"

Or are you going to continue down the route of a stubborn misreader?

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:27 am**

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 11:54 pm As can be clearly seen, here, once more, in the days when this was being written, 'this' is what adult human beings had eventually evolved into and resorted to do. That is, they stopped using 'real intelligence' and so ceased seeking answers from the 'real intelligence', and instead started using 'artificial intelligence' and seeking answers from 'artificial intelligence'.

Having seen how deaf you are to the words spoken by "us human beings", I decided to bring in a neutral third party in the form of an artificial intelligence with the aim to see how you'd respond. Of course, I wasn't hoping to see you change your mind. Such pathological stubbornness is difficult to overcome. Pretty much every single AI, and every single person, is against you. Yet, you're not bothered by that one bit.

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:35 am**

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 11:54 pm 2. Please provide 'me' with the exact prompt that 'you' gave that one, of many, 'artificial intelligence' contraptions.

No problem.

Code: Select all

Can you analyze the following discussion in terms of who's the troublemaker?

Note that Age's first response is a reference to something Magnus told him in another thread, namely, that the meaning of the word is determined by its speaker.

Write the response in a phpBB format so that it can be posted on forums.

MAGNUS: What does the word "definition" mean?

AGE: According to 'you', and 'your logic', whatever 'i', 'the writer', want 'that word' to mean, correct?

MAGNUS: Why are you doding the question?

AGE: But I am not dodging the question, at all, the word 'definition', just like all words, mean whatever one, the speaker/listener/writer/reader, wants it/them to mean.

MAGNUS: I am asking about the common definition though. So you're not really answering my question.

You are also free to tell us how you're using the word.

Everything except for, "It means whatever it means to you". That's not an answer.

AGE: Well, absolutely obviously, you never asked about the so-called 'common definition', anywhere. So, once again, 'this one', once more' asked for and said some thing that it did not even mean. Therefore, I will, again, reiterate, say and write what you actually mean, and, mean what you actually say and write, and then there will not be so much confusion and misunderstandings, here. And, in regards to asking questions, if you want a particular specific answer, then just ask the actual specific question, which you want a specific answer for.

There is absolutely no use at all if, for example, you ask for the definition of a word when what you actually wanted was a specific type of definition for a word. Again, just ask for exactly what 'it' is that you want, here.

How much simpler and easier could things get, here?

Now, if you are asking about some so-claimed 'common definition', then, like always, that would be relative to 'the observer'. Unless, of course, you have some particular numbers that show and prove, on its own, the 'commonness' of 'a definition'.

Now, 'I' will remind 'this one' that what is so-called 'common' all depends on not just the 'year/s', but also on the 'time', when the question is asked, as well on the culture, and country, and also on the group of people being referenced.

As can be easily sent, here, there are quite a number of differing variables that need to be taken into account, first. That is, if 'this one' really does want the true, and right, answer, here

So, obviously what is 'common' in my point of reference and from my perspective might well not be to you. And, then what are 'we' going to do, exactly? Fight over who's view and who's words are 'right' and who's are not?

MAGNUS: I asked you for the common definition of the word "definition". I got a response with 374 words in it that do not answer the question AT ALL. Just more of your usual mindless blabbering.

As for your claim that you're not doding the question -- yes you are. I asked what the word means. You said, "It means whatever it means." It's an idiotic non-answer.

AGE: Now, let 'us' 'look at' what the actual Truth is, here, exactly.

you first asked, 'What does the word "definition" mean?'ONLY.

you then claimed, 'I am asking about the common definition though'.

So, you never, ever asked for the common definition of the word, 'definition', AT ALL.

you can 'now' keep 'trying to' deceive, here. But, you are certainly not helping "your" 'self' in any way at all, here.

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2025 2:19 am**

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:20 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 11:54 pm1. Would it have been easier, and simpler, if you just asked your 'artificially intelligent friend' for 'the answer' that 'you' were seeking and wanting, here?
Why would I want to ask AI that question?

Why, exactly, did 'you' want to ask 'me' 'that question'?

Let 'us' see if you will answer, and clarify, 'this question'.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:20 am Aren't you presuming my motives?

No.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:20 am Aren't you the guy who pretends to be an expert at avoiding presumptions?

Once again, 'the way' you ask 'this question' shows and reveals that you have not been listening, and following, here.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:20 am Aren't you the guy who gives other people lectures on how to do that?

On 'what', exactly?

On how to 'pretend' to do things? Is 'this' what you actually meant?

If no, then what did you actually mean, exactly?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:20 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 11:54 pm2. Did 'you' ever get around to clarifying what the actual purpose was in 'you' wanting 'me' to inform 'you' of what, the 'common' meaning of the word, 'definition' is?'
Do I have to do that?

No.

As I continually keep informing you human beings, here, you are absolutely free to do absolutely any thing of your choosing.

So, you, obviously, do not have to answer nor clarify any thing, if that is what you do not want to do, here.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:20 am The thread is, "Questions to Age".

LOL

'This one', obviously, did not listen, and comprehend, last time.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:20 am People ask you questions. You answer them.

Wow, 'you' really are more blind and more deaf than I first recognized and noticed.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:20 am Suddenly, you're demanding that they explain WHY they are asking questions.

If 'this' is what you see, and believe, I am doing, here, then there is absolutely nothing that can show, and prove, to you, otherwise.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:20 am That's fine with me, but be honest with yourself, that's something you started doing only recently.

If you say and believe so, then okay.

Also, 'recently', exactly like absolutely everything else, is relative, to 'the observer'.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:20 am You had no problem answering my initial question without asking for a 'Why?'

If you say so, then okay.

Noted you also did not answer 'the question'.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:20 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 11:54 pm3. Just maybe if 'you' informed 'the readers' of what 'the purpose' is for, exactly, then, just maybe, 'I' might have 'answered differently', which may then have fulfilled what 'it' is, exactly, that you are after, and wanting, here.
Are you admitting that you did NOT provide a valid answer to my question?

No.

Did you presume and/or believe I was?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:20 am Are you FINALLY conceding that "It means whatever the speaker wants it to mean" is not a valid answer to the question "What does the word definition mean?"

No.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:20 am Or are you going to continue down the route of a stubborn misreader?

Again, your own made up presumptions and beliefs continue to lead you astray, here.

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2025 2:22 am**

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 2:19 am Let 'us' see if you will answer, and clarify, 'this question'.

You don't even want to acknowledge that you did not answer my question, yet you want me to answer yours?

You really are a crazy person.

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2025 2:24 am**

And there is more debate....

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2025 2:27 am**

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:27 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 11:54 pm As can be clearly seen, here, once more, in the days when this was being written, 'this' is what adult human beings had eventually evolved into and resorted to do. That is, they stopped using 'real intelligence' and so ceased seeking answers from the 'real intelligence', and instead started using 'artificial intelligence' and seeking answers from 'artificial intelligence'.
Having seen how deaf you are to the words spoken by "us human beings", I decided to bring in a neutral third party in the form of an artificial intelligence with the aim to see how you'd respond.

LOL A so-called 'neutral third party', which is based up and on nothing more than you human beings own writings, and in-put.

LOL 'This human being' picked and chose the 'very thing', which just copies and follows 'human beings' and 'their writing', and calls 'it' a, laughingly, 'neutral third party' of all things.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:27 am Of course, I wasn't hoping to see you change your mind.

Once more for the extremely very slow of learners, there is no such thing as 'your mind', so 'you' could not and never see any so-called 'you change your mind'.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:27 am Such pathological stubbornness is difficult to overcome. Pretty much every single AI, and every single person, is against you.

Great. Pretty much every single 'artificial intelligence', and every single person, were also against 'those' with varying different views, as well.

But, some of 'us' are just not 'easily led', and not 'just followers'.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:27 am Yet, you're not bothered by that one bit.

At least 'you' are Right, Accurate, and True, here.

'I' am, absolutely, not bothered at all.

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2025 2:32 am**

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 2:22 am
Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 2:19 am Let 'us' see if you will answer, and clarify, 'this question'.
You don't even want to acknowledge that you did not answer my question, yet you want me to answer yours?

You really are a crazy person.

Once again,

1. 'I answered' 'your question', as can be clearly seen by 'my answer', which 'you' inputted into to some 'artificially intelligent machine'.

2. Why are 'you' 'trying to' dodge 'answering' 'my question', here?

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2025 2:34 am**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 2:24 am And there is more debate....

LOL Once again 'this one' claims there is not just 'a debate', here, but, 'now', that there is 'more debate'. Yet, when it was questioned and challenged over 'this' it provided absolutely nothing at all.

So, I noted and pointed out, earlier, if no one presents any actual proof of 'a debate', here, then 'any debate' exists in 'their imagination' only.

Now, what is also actually being shown, and proved, here, as well, is that whatever 'these people' think or believe 'a word' means, then 'that' is all they end up 'seeing', and 'believing'.

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2025 4:37 am**

....and more debate...

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2025 4:40 am**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 4:37 am ....and more debate...

Thus, 'my point' is proved, more.

Philosophy Now Forum

Questions to Age

Re: Questions to Age

Re: Questions to Age

Re: Questions to Age

Re: Questions to Age

Re: Questions to Age

Re: Questions to Age

Re: Questions to Age

Re: Questions to Age

Re: Questions to Age

Re: Questions to Age

Re: Questions to Age

Re: Questions to Age

Re: Questions to Age

Re: Questions to Age

Re: Questions to Age