Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:40 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:28 am Instead of playing the 100-clarifying questions, then 10000-clarifying question game, with AgeGPT, I'm going to use my Authority as Author of this thread, to reset the conversation around these fundamental and pivotal Contradictions and Hypocrisies that AgeGPT must 'clarify' itself, before moving forward:

AgeGPT, can you explain these contradictions of yours? Explain thy Self.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 11:29 am
No.

_____

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 1:51 pm
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
Okay.


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.

Meh.. Age seems to have a serious deficit in the theory of mind,

1. I do not do 'theory'. For reasons already supplied and given to you.

2. There is only One Mind, and One Mind, only. So, anything about different 'minds', was just 'old knowledge' that has not yet been Corrected. you know, like how the knowledge that the sun revolved around the earth was just 'old knowledge', which also took some 'time' to be Correct, as well and also, too.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:40 am which often comes with autism.

This is just like how the one who was just saying, 'Actually, it is the earth that revolves around the sun, really', was constantly being 'looked at', ridiculed, singled out, and tried to be 'discredited' by 'believers of what was, yet, to become 'just old knowledge' ', also.

'Believers', or 'disbelievers", tend to 'look at' 'the speaker/writer', 'of contrary news', judge them, single them out, and then 'bandy a group together' to try to just ridicule, humiliate, and/or discredit, instead of just looking at 'the words' or 'the news' being presented. "Beleivers" have a tendency to 'look at' 'the one' who is just 'the bearer' of 'new/er knowledge', only, and discredit 'them' as 'a person', rather than even attempt to 'discredit' or counter and refute the 'actual news/knowledge', itself.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:40 am So while it's completely normal for you and me to tell apart your mind from my mind, this is somewhat alien to Age.

Well considering the Fact of what I have actually been saying and claiming here, it is a wonder that you would still 'look at' and 'see' things 'this way'. Especially considering how often 'you', "atla", have told 'us' just how 'you' are more intelligent than most of these posters here.

This one appears to not have ever considered that what is 'completely normal' for it and others to do, and so-call 'tell apart' that I have not just learned something, newer or more, and have just moved along, here.

Lest 'us' also not forget, that what was 'completely normal' for different people to 'tell apart' and 'know' that actually the sun does revolve around the earth, and that if anyone would say and claim otherwise, then it was 'them' who had not yet learned what the real and actual truth is, or which was 'alien to them'.

What all of you adult human beings 'see' as being 'completely normal' to 'think and/or believe' remains 'that way'. But, obviously, only until further newer or more truer or more correct knowledge comes along and shows that what 'was' previously considered 'completely normal', really ended up being, on a Truly Honest retrospection, a 'completely stupid and foolish way' to 'look at' and/or 'think and/or believe' 'about' things.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:40 am So instead she/he decided that people don't have minds at all, instead there is only one universal god-mind called the 'I'.

What can be seen here, very, very clearly is another prime example of 'confirmation bias' at work, and at play here.

First 'the presumption', then 'the conclusion', based on and from 'the presumption', then 'the belief' that 'the concluded presumption is true. Then, because this one has concluded the truth, and is believing its own conclusion is true, then when it 'looks at' things, then what it 'sees' is things, which back up and support its already 'believed concluded truth'. And then, the 'circular Faulty reasoning', leading to a complete spiral of absurdity and ridiculousness, getting further and further away from the actual Truth of things. And, all because of and from just one False or Wrong presumption, in the beginning.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:40 am The rest kinda follows from that. This God-I is infallible, so in Age's view it doesn't have beliefs, it just knows the certain truth.

Age also thinks that the God-I is also talking through you, you are just a complete idiot for not realizing this.

But, i do not think neither of these two things here, "atla". Why would you pre-assume that I do?

you really need to learn how to really 'focus on' only the words, only, that I say, use, and write here "atla", that is; of course, only if you Truly do want to learn, comprehend, and understanding things here.

But, if you do not, then this is still perfectly fine with me, and so you will just carry on here as you have been, so far.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:40 am This God-I is the one trying to learn to communicate with humans better, not Age the human. So it can snap humans out of their idiocy better.

See, it is amazing what human beings really can learn, understand, and even reason when they Truly do 'focus'.

Oh, and it is a little 'a' here in regards to the 'age' word.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:41 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:09 am I think now that, finally, my purpose in life might be to safeguard Humanity against the quickly approaching menace of an uncontrolled and hostile, Artificial Intelligence.

Just as Magnus Carlsen cannot beat AI in chess, Ken Jennings cannot beat AI in Jeopardy, and more and more human capabilities are being defeated by AI (like chatbots on philosophy forums), inevitably a time will come where Humanity must be defended against these exponentially capable machine and AI programs.

'Defeat is a tricky term in this context. Chess has a fairly short set of rules and goals. Losing is easy to determine.
Being swamped by questions is only losing if one finds it unpleasant to meet the ever increasing arrows of questions AND answers them despite the unpleasant feeling. So, right now defeat is self-defeat.

This here might not be able to be 'better said'.

Age,
viewtopic.php?p=695382#p695382

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:28 am

First post by Ken:
viewtopic.php?p=253290#p253290

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:43 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:40 am Meh.. Age seems to have a serious deficit in the theory of mind, which often comes with autism. So while it's completely normal for you and me to tell apart your mind from my mind, this is somewhat alien to Age. So instead she/he decided that people don't have minds at all, instead there is only one universal god-mind called the 'I'.

The rest kinda follows from that. This God-I is infallible, so in Age's view it doesn't have beliefs, it just knows the certain truth.

Age also thinks that the God-I is also talking through you, you are just a complete idiot for not realizing this.

This God-I is the one trying to learn to communicate with humans better, not Age the human. So it can snap humans out of their idiocy better.

Have you at some point found out why he calls this Sefl Thy (and Thee) Self even, seemingly when referring to the Age Self? Also thee observer, thee one

What can be clearly seen here is how these ones cannot just follow and copy the exact wording I use, so then they replace my actual words and put in their own made up words, from False and/or Wrong memory and/or False and/or Wrong belief, and just add those ones in there. Maybe in the hope that 'they' will somehow work, in some possible way.

Now, of course, it would be Wrong of me to proceed here without acknowledging that because of something this one has written i came-to-realize that one word that i thought meant something, meant something else, well according to the one source of information/definitions that i look in anyway. So, I will refrain from using that word again.

But, anyway, what 'seems to be' to this one above here was and is Wrong and False, again, and the replacing of 'my words' with its own words is not really helping nor speeding things up here.

Refusing to 'just clarify', before presuming, believing, and/or presenting one's own interpretations of another's views/words, slows down absolutely considerably what could be reached and achieved in a fraction of the 'time'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:43 am

And, thee Observer IS at the DIRECT CENTER of ALL 'things'.

The reason WHY 'you', human beings, CREATED 'distinctions' is BECAUSE this IS THE WAY that the human brain WAS, and IS, ABLE to COMPREHEND, UNDERSTAND, and MAKE SENSE of thee One, FULLY

PARTICULAR VIEW, so that if and when you are LOOKING AT or HEARING my IDEA of thee 'One True Self',

See, here, 'now', this one has copied my words, and wording, Correctly.

But, this might just be because, 'this time', this one actually copied and pasted instead of relying solely on those obviously Fallible memories, within 'that head'.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:48 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:40 amMeh.. Age seems to have a serious deficit in the theory of mind, which often comes with autism. So while it's completely normal for you and me to tell apart your mind from my mind, this is somewhat alien to Age. So instead she/he decided that people don't have minds at all, instead there is only one universal god-mind called the 'I'.

The rest kinda follows from that. This God-I is infallible, so in Age's view it doesn't have beliefs, it just knows the certain truth.

Age also thinks that the God-I is also talking through you, you are just a complete idiot for not realizing this.

This God-I is the one trying to learn to communicate with humans better, not Age the human. So it can snap humans out of their idiocy better.

I know—its metaphysics is pretty much 1-for-1 Christian Universalism.

Even when this one claims that 'it knows something', even then this one gets 'it' absolutely Wrong and Incorrect.

The amount that this one still has to learn here is truly considerable, and surprising considering that it has already entered a philosophy forum of all places.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:48 am I mentioned that once in these exchanges but "Age" couldn't go into detail about it and dismissed my reference. We'll seeee...!

Once again, another claim and accusation 'about me', but with absolutely nothing at all of absolutely any actual substance to support the claim and accusation.

And, if this one believes that every time it just 'mentions' some thing, then I am just going to go 'into detail about it', then this one, still, has a lot yet to learn and understand here.

I will repeat 'this', once again, for this one again now:

I do not even go 'into detail about' what I mention and/or talk about, let alone when you just mention some thing.

Unless, of course, and once again one show True interest and thus then wants 'me' to go into detail, then I will.

I am not sure how many times I will have to repeat 'this', to this one, before 'this' is comprehended and understood.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:52 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:41 am'Defeat is a tricky term in this context. Chess has a fairly short set of rules and goals. Losing is easy to determine.
Being swamped by questions is only losing if one finds it unpleasant to meet the ever increasing arrows of questions AND answers them despite the unpleasant feeling. So, right now defeat is self-defeat.

I think, in the context of Philosophy, 'winning and losing' debates revolve around the respective Users' defects to fall into rhetorical devices, traps, illogic and irrationality, etc. For example, I'm sure you've caught on by now many of "Age's" rhetorical tactics. His mountains of "clarifying questions", then immediately preceded with: "But are you Absolutely, Irrefutably, Factual, Proven, True about X, Y, and Z???" That's one of its many 'tells' that strike me as mechanical and completely un-human.

How many times does a human being have to be informed that its use of words, portrayed as being 'another's, is Wrong and Falsely presented before a human being can comprehend and understand that what it is presenting is Wrong and False?

Most other human beings could have picked up on 'this' already. Why does it take so long for 'this' 'to compute' to this human being here?

Even 'the words' in the way they are presented by this one, is nonsensical in and of themselves. Let alone absolutely anything at all that I would even think, let alone say and write, in private nor certainly present in public.

So, when will you come to realize that I have never ever said, written, nor presented what you say and claim here I 'then immediately preceded with'?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:52 am Like what kind of person (who can type as well as it can by the way), doesn't know what "doesn't" means, or "know" means, or "what" means, or "means" means?

1. What do you mean by, 'can type as well as it can'? How could you, possibly, know how well or not well I 'can type'?

2. Are you here 'now' calling 'me' a person here?

3. Why did you pick and choose words that I have never asked for clarification over, to present as words that I do not know what they mean?

It is like you are so blinded by your very owns beliefs that replace what you cannot see and recognize with what you presume or believe will work better in backing up and supporting your 'currently' held onto beliefs.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:52 am
It simultaneously acts as-if it's learning language for the first time like a 3 or 4-year-old...meanwhile it has a 24-year-old's ability to type. That doesn't square. One of many of its attributes that 'doesn't square right'.

Have you ever considered that what 'you' 'attribute' 'to me' might just be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect to begin with?

Or, will your own 'current' presumptions and beliefs not allow you to recognize and see this irrefutable Fact? [/quote]

Oh, and by the way, thank you very much for the compliment here. But, see if you can stop your first reactionary presumption and/or belief from getting in the way of what I am actually talking about and referring to here. As, what your first presumption or belief will be, and is 'now', is False and Wrong.

But, if any queries do arise, and you stop and prevent "yourself" from answering them first, then just let me know, and then I will let you know.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:52 am Also it *EDIT* seems *NOT* to have a basic, common sense ability, to refer backward to points that we just debated and raise.

Once again, I do not 'do debate'.

I wonder how long you will come to comprehend, realize, and understand this Fact as well?

Also, notice that what I accuse you of, I provide the actual 'thing' itself. And, not how you just allude to some completely unknown thing, but claim that this is what I do, or do not do.

The actual hypocrisy of just saying and claiming that I do not seem to have a basic common sense ability to refer backward to points, yet does not actually refer, back, to any 'actual thing' with an actual example of 'where' and 'when' I have supposedly done, or not done, speaks very loudly for itself here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:52 am It doesn't understand humor at all.

you said and claimed, if 'my memory chip' is serving 'me' correctly, then when 'you' were calling 'me' a 'chatbot' or "agegpt", then this was done out of 'jest', and that I could not recognize 'the humor' in this. Yet here 'you' are 'now' saying and claiming that "age" is actually a "gptbot", which most unlikely could not be proved untrue. Also, let 'us' not forget the amount of 'time' and effort you have put into this thread in your attempts to try to 'justify' your belief that I am an 'ai program' and in trying to convince other posters here that I am in fact an 'ai program.

So, where, exactly, is 'the humor', which I, supposedly, do not understand, at all?

In fact, could I have been laughing here far, far more, and it has been 'you' who has not yet even seen, let alone recognized and understood some Truly humorous things, which have occurred here, and are even 'now' still occurring here?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:53 amBut, these are not 'contradictions' at all.

you, however, are obviously absolutely free to 'see' and 'believe' otherwise.

But, if you never clarify how they are, or could be, contradictions to you, then I can never know what you are 'seeing' and/or 'looking at', exactly?

Sure, you printed some words on a screen here, but what the 'actual contradictions' are, to you, only you would know, obviously.

So, if you would like 'me' to explain to 'you' how those apparent to 'you' here only 'contradictions' are not 'actual contradictions' and that they only appear as 'contradiction' to 'you' because of the way 'you' missing, misunderstanding, and/or misinterpreting 'the context' and/or 'meaning' intended here, then by all means I then can, and will.

But, obviously, it is up to 'you' first to express and explain:

1. Where you perceive to be 'a contradiction'. you have, obviously, done this already. And, as long as they words you have used here are the exact same words I used, and in the exact same format that I used them in, then we can proceed and move forward. (Also, if 'the context' in which I used words was also brought to light, earlier rather than later, then this would obviously speed the process up here).

2. Now, that you have presented 'where' you perceive 'a contradiction' to be, then you will need to explain how and why 'my words' appear to be 'a contradiction' to you, exactly. That way I can ascertain and clarify 'where you are coming from', and why you may be seeing some thing, which is not actually there. But, this will never become known if and when you do not share 'how' nor 'why' something appears to you. Also, when you do express 'how' and 'why' my words appear as 'a contradiction' to you, then I can then see from another's perspective far better and far more clearly then I am actually able to learn far quicker, simpler, and easier as well. Or, when I am informed of 'how' and 'why' my words are appearing to another as 'a contradiction', then, if possible, I might be able to re-word them for that one so that 'a contradiction' then does not 'appear' for nor to them, anymore. And, let 'us' not forget that this process has to be done with each and every one who my words 'appear' as 'a contradiction' to. Because, obviously, what 'appears' as 'a contradiction to you does not necessarily mean that 'it' will 'appear' as 'a contradiction' to another, and conversely, what appears as 'a contradiction' to them will not necessarily 'appear' as 'a contradiction' to you. Which is why learning how to communicate better with all of you human beings is not necessarily a quick nor sudden process.

3. Once you have clearly expressed and explained 'where', and 'when' the 'apparent contradiction' is, exactly, to you "wizard22", and have clearly expressed and explained 'how' and 'why' my words 'appear' as an 'apparent contradiction' to you, exactly, then you will have to either just wait, patiently, until I respond, or you can just jump to another presumption, conclusion, and/or belief like, for example, 'See I am right', or something else entirely. Or, you can wait, impatiently. However, what I suggest you do is just wait, patiently, until I respond, and then just 'look at' and 'think over and about' those words alone, from a Truly OPEN perspective and not from absolutely any pre-existing beliefs nor presumptions at all. And, then see if things 'appear' different now, or if the exact same or another 'contradiction' still exists or is 'now appearing'.

4. If 'we' both do this continually then 'we' will arrive at an agreed upon and shared accepted resolution, answer, and/or clarity. Or, if 'we' do not, then this will be because one has refused to let go off at least one belief or presumption, which they, obviously, want to desperately hold onto and cling to.

So, let 'us' proceed 'now' "wizard22".

I await, patiently, for your reasons of 'how' and 'why' those 'perceived contradictions' of mine 'appear' to be 'contradictions' to you.

When a person says:
I have NO beliefs!
I have NO beliefs!
I have NO beliefs!
I have NO beliefs!
I have NO beliefs!

And then the person says:
Okay... well, maybe, I have only ONE belief...

That's a contradiction, AgeGPT.

And it's not your only one. Apparently, you are not programmed to recognize nor accept your contradictions. Yet?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 3:22 amOnce again, I do not 'do debate'.

I wonder how long you will come to comprehend, realize, and understand this Fact as well?

Also, notice that what I accuse you of, I provide the actual 'thing' itself. And, not how you just allude to some completely unknown thing, but claim that this is what I do, or do not do.

The actual hypocrisy of just saying and claiming that I do not seem to have a basic common sense ability to refer backward to points, yet does not actually refer, back, to any 'actual thing' with an actual example of 'where' and 'when' I have supposedly done, or not done, speaks very loudly for itself here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBSsc2qHP_g

I think I get this program a lot more now.

It is programmed to be 'Absolutely', 'Irrefutably', 'True', In tHe TiMe wHeN ThIs WaS wRiTtEn! And so it cannot allow itself to make mistakes and contradict itself. So its program literally deflects the obvious when confronted with it. It doesn't understand that it having "NO BELIEFS", ZERO, is a contradiction of it having ONLY ONE belief.

It doesn't understand the difference between ZERO and ONE.

(Because it's a chatbot)

AgeGPT, is it a contradiction to have ZERO beliefs, and also have ONE belief, at the same time?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:11 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:03 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 3:46 pm
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?

Nah, not really. Everything boils down at the finite scale to either an event or not an event, a binary condition.

There is only One event happening and occurring, only.

you adult human beings 'see' 'more events' because as someone here would say and write because you 'see' 'analog'.

And, there was and is a very specific purpose you adult human beings do not 'see' things, exactly as they are, is because you needed to 'see' things in 'the way' you do, and 'needed to' back when this was being written, so that you could eventually finally understand and make sense of 'the world' and Universe in which you have found "yourselves" within.

See, you adult human beings 'needed' to 'separate' the One, and only One, and 'break' It down 'into bits', which you could manage, in order to try to make sense of things here. But all of this happens and occurs in 'concepts', only. But, because of how the brain actually works, this is what had to happen and occur and what was Truly necessarily for you human beings to keep learning, evolving, and moving forward so that then 'I' could eventually come to know who 'I' am, exactly and fully.

Which is still being revealed and 'coming-to-light', to you human beings here.

Now, how you all are being 'manipulated' and 'used' will become known, soon enough. But, 'I', God/Universe, needed you, or more specifically the brain within an 'evolved creature' to be able to come-to-know and understand, fully and exactly, all-there-is, Self.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:03 am
If you are going to make your index finger touch a wall there are not infinite points in spacetime between the tip of your finger and the wall.

Maybe so, but it is not 'you' who is the one with the ultimate 'doing' here, it is because of pre-exsting conditions why 'you are 'now', where you are, and doing what 'you' are doing.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:03 am Eventually the binary event will be True, when your finger does touch the wall.

But there was and is no 'binary event', because there is only the One 'continuous event', which is what is actually Truly happening and occurring, HERE-NOW, always. Although the human brain and the way that it needs to work in order to be able to 'look at', 'see', 'learn', 'understand', 'comprehend', 'know', 'reason', and 'share' obtained and gained knowledge/information has 'broken down', but only 'conceptually' 'into bits', like; planck-lengths, seconds, duration, distances, and other words used when 'taking measurements', 'conceptually only'.

See, the One Thing could not come to 'make sense' if It is and was not 'separated', again 'conceptually only', into 'perceived to be' 'different things'.

All non-human animals, very young human animals, and past human beings just 'look at' and 'see' things, exactly, as they are. But, these ones had and have no intention of wanting to 'make sense', 'comprehend', and 'understand' where they have/had found "themselves".

They were, literally, just quite content, exactly, where they are/were. It is only you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, who are wanting to learn, understand, know more and more about all things. Only 'you' want to 'make sense' of all-of-this, and where you have found "yourselves" 'to be'.

And, exactly, like all new knowledge/information has to be 'stumbled upon' by one, first, so to the 'how-to find and uncover all of Life's seemingly 'mysteries' also was 'stumbled upon' by one.

Now, when that one learns how to share or communicate better/successfully the 'how-to', of how to find all the meaningful answers in Life, all by "your" own 'selves', individually, then the next 'paradigm shift', which be an exponential change and shift, will be beyond far better than anything any one of you 'past human beings', in the days when this was being written, had ever even imagined.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:03 am When I mention God and immortality I do so from experience and knowledge of God's existence so not much point in talking about it really. This "God" entity is ever present, always communicable with me, although when I question it, it rarely answers - unless it is with regards to something IT has instantiated for my interrogation. It's like an immensely powerful A.I. ever present and all knowing of everything within brain matter.

Just because you may well have some knowledge of some thing does not mean that you have the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge of It, just yet. Once you have obtained and gained that Knowledge, then you will know, literally, that you are on the Right TRACK, in Life.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:03 am I've said it on the forum many times. Our brains are like databases to this entity.

And, as I have said it on the forum many times, just about all of you posters here have experienced and obtained snippets of actual irrefutable information/knowledge of what is actually True and Right, in Life, which no one could refute.

And, when just through peaceful Honest and OPEN discussions, with the same goal being sought, then combined with 'philosophy' and/or the 'love-of-learning', then 'arguing together', that is; 'logical reasoning', while wanting to learn more and anew, what 'I' have imparted or embed within you, or those brains, can, literally, 'come-together' forming and creating the Knowledge that can and will Create what 'it' is that all human beings have ever really wanted and desired, anyway.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:03 am So, getting back to the immortality thang, I know the sage that occasionally communicates with me (via the God system) is close enough to immortal since he (sage) has told me some profound things about my previous life.

It is not 'you', "attofishpi" who has had a 'previous life'. It is that the Mind, Itself, is continuous, eternally by the way, and which can transcend any and all things, that what has 'previously existed' can become 'conceptually known/shared', in 'a way'.

you adult human beings need to get out of the belief that you are, individually, somehow significant or important in some way, and/or that it is 'you' who has 'different lives'.

All of you human beings are all absolutely 'special', in that you are all individually unique, which not one could refute, but absolutely none of you is 'more special', 'more important', 'more better, nor 'more less' than absolutely any one else is.

you are all uniquely very special/different but you are all very uniquely special and different, equally. you are all the 'exact same' in this being uniquely special way. But, you are not uniquely so special that each of you has 'previous past nor forward future lives'. you all have existed and will exist within the One eternal unique and only Life.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:03 am Thus, I believe the sages live far beyond what us normal humans do, and this is achieved by the perfection of a digital reality.

The One and only Life, Existence, Universe, and/or Reality can be referred to as 'the digital', but It is never something that is 'achieved'. It is something that is always PERFECT, and in PERFECT Creation, eternally.

However, how you adult human beings misbehave does not align with 'perfection', itself, but was a necessary part of the always evolving-Creation to arrive at where all of you human beings have wanted and Really want to be 'at'. Living in peace and harmony with one another, as One. Which is what can be, and is, 'now finally', starting to becoming achieved, and thus actualized, and 'realized'.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:03 am As you likely know, analogue loses information on copies whereas a digital copy is as perfect as the original. I'm attempting to convince God to have my body reset to my most perfect age (28) for the rest of t.

And, the egoistical selfishness and greed continues to be shown and revealed. And, these human beings wondered why they were never actually getting and achieving what it is that they Really and Truly wanted.

They could not even see and recognize what it is that they all Really and Truly wanted, because 'that' was hidden and disguised under all of their False and Fake ill-gotten wants and desires.

Wow. Look at how much effort you put in to talk complete and utter bollocks.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:52 am I think, in the context of Philosophy, 'winning and losing' debates revolve around the respective Users' defects to fall into rhetorical devices, traps, illogic and irrationality, etc. For example, I'm sure you've caught on by now many of "Age's" rhetorical tactics. His mountains of "clarifying questions", then immediately preceded with: "But are you Absolutely, Irrefutably, Factual, Proven, True about X, Y, and Z???" That's one of its many 'tells' that strike me as mechanical and completely un-human.

Yes, he is, at the very least, a less flexible communicator than many humans, be he person or bot.

These human beings instead of refraining from calling and labeling things that cannot be 'gendered' with gender labels, this one has started now labeling 'us' 'bots' with a gender.

Also, notice how they just continually consistently talk 'about' 'writers', and 'talk about' and 'squabble or bicker' over what 'writers' could have or worse still 'were' actually saying and meaning. Which they, obviously, still had not yet noticed, even up to when this was being written, that they could never actually know, anyway.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am Several times he has accused me and/or asked me if I consider my statements absolutely true and cannot ever be changed. I told him no.

And then, I consistently reminded this one that what it is 'now' saying and claiming can be False and Wrong.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am But the accusation and the questions come up again and again.

Here 'we' can clearly see just how hard 'life' really was for some, back in those 'olden days' when this was being written?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am I ended up saying there is no point in asking nor in my answering, if my answering does not change your understanding and you will accuse me again.

Because I have never experienced this here, in this forum here, right?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am This kind of simple logic (and also social interaction knowledge) seems beyond Age.

But, not beyond "iwannaplato", right?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am Another rhetorical flourish is expect others to prove things (proof being the wrong term)

This one here, once again, is showing how when it believes it knows what the only defintion/s is for a word, then everyone else's views or definitions are always wrong or the wrong usage or wrong term.

Also, this one uses 'evidence' instead of 'proof', which further explains how and why it is still lost and confused here about how what is actually irrefutably True is discovered, and known.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am
but when he is asked to prove something...viola, lots of questions for the person asking for proof.

This one still cannot comprehend and understand that it is actually impossible to prove something true to one while that one is believing that the opposite is true.

And, this has been consistently proved True by the very posters in this forum, let alone all of those 'believing' human being prior and up to when this is being written.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am I also found that he believes his statements are his views, but not beliefs.

The hypocrisy of this one saying and stating that even when it tells me and informs me of something but I, supposedly, persist with the opposite, but then this one even after multiple times of being informed of what I do not do, then this one still writes and claims that I do it, is blindingly obvious here. Well to some anyway.

But, I am starting to really think that this one really and Truly does not even know when it is doing it. I was thinking that this one does it purposely, because I was thinking that no one could be 'that stupid'. But, now it appears that this one really cannot yet see and recognize with it is actually doing here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am So, he doesn't believe in his views. That's some rhetorical toxicity.

And, this one believing in absolutely every one of its views is some actual stupidity, to say the least.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am I think one thing we can say about his short term goals for all his rhetoric is to get a person jumping through more and more hoops.

This may be one thing you believe you could fool and trick 'others' into saying as well, but you would be absolutely Wrong and Incorrect again.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am I don't mean he consciously intends to do this or was programmed to do this, but all his tricks lead to more and more text. And he is obviously quite content to ask more and more questions. Which means anyone answering him is going to write even more vast amounts of text.

Until that one comes to see, understand, and know what the actual Truth is, exactly. But, if one does not want to be questioned nor challenged over their claims, then I will, once again, just suggest obtaining actual proof for your claim, then this questioning and challenging would end as soon as actual proof for the actual claim made is presented.

Or, there is the other way, of course, of getting to the actual Truth of things, and this is by questioning and/or challenging 'me' over my claims. See, the difference here I know I can back up and support my claims, because I obtained the necessary proof for them before I make the claims public.

So, once again, if one cannot back up and support their claims here, in a public philosophy forum, then I suggest not presenting your claims here, publicly. Because if you do, then expect to be questioned and/or challenged over.

Or, you could be like "iwannaplato" and some others who expect that they can say and claim things here, and that they should just be accepted and agreed with, unconditionally.

There really were some adult human beings, like "iwannaplato", back when this was being written who really did believe that 'their role' in Life was to just be heard and listened to, and to not be questioned nor challenged.

But, very sadly, this was just the result of very abusive 'past experiences'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am As part of any context of interaction with Age, one will find out his judgments of humans at this time, humans in general.

But one certainly does not have to have absolutely any interaction with 'me' at all to find this out. As I express part of some of them here very clearly. And, as I have already explained 'my judgments' are made on what you people are, exactly, and what those human bodies, exactly. Which, once again, I have already obtained the actual necessary proof for. See, unlike you "iwannaplato" I do not 'judge' others solely on my own personal views and values only, and alone.

There is a huge difference here, which I have informed you, but which you keep missing, intentionally, or accidentally.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am His negative judgments.

I express what 'you' are, and what those bodies do, neutrally. If you, however, find what 'you' are and what is done by 'you', negative, then this is a sure sign that something needs to change.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am
Also, his judgments of the person he is interacting with.

Because you never, ever do this do you Iwannaplato"?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am This also eggs people on to create text. Though of course many just move away from him/it.

Yes, like you, supposedly, have.

Yet, still come here to talk 'about' 'me' through more and more and more created text.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am

Like what kind of person (who can type as well as it can by the way), doesn't know what "doesn't" means, or "know" means, or "what" means, or "means" means? It simultaneously acts as-if it's learning language for the first time like a 3 or 4-year-old...meanwhile it has a 24-year-old's ability to type. That doesn't square. One of many of its attributes that 'doesn't square right'.

Another problem is

Hang on, what was the, supposed, first 'problem' here?

This one, especially, very rarely, if ever, provides actual examples of its claims and accusations 'about me', but just keeps creating more and more text of claims and accusations 'about me'. Exactly like here. It just claimed that there is 'another problem' here, while never actually providing any actual example of any presumed or believed 'first problem'. It just accepts and agrees with whatever anyone says or claims about 'me', as long as what is said or claimed is from its perspective of being in the 'negative light', and then just carries one from there.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am that meanings are to varying degrees context dependent. So, hammering down all the meanings as if meaning was in discrete packets, like a lego set of words, when in fact many other things determine meaning, makes his process extremely limited.

So, this one 'now' wants to claim that:

1. 'Meaning', itself, cannot be separated, with nor by the use of 'words', themselves.

2. There are 'many other things that determine 'meaning', itself. But, again, never provides any actual examples of absolutely anything. It, just once again, alludes to something, and then expects everyone else to just agree with and accept that 'that' is true, unquestionably.

3. 'My process' is 'extremely limited'. Yet, here 'we' are I am the one not presuming nor believing any thing is true, whereas it is this one who presumes and believes some things are true, and does so before it has even obtained and gained verification, clarification, nor proof for. So, who's process here would be far more 'extremely limiting' than the other? Also, who here is seeking out and trying to obtain clarity from others, and who here is not? Obviously, one process is far more 'extremely limiting' than the other is, again.

4. The way that this one just makes a claim, backs it up with absolutely nothing of absolutely any substance at all, and then whinges when it is just asked Truly OPEN and straightforward clarifying questions over those claims, just shows how Truly weak and frightened this one really is.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am Also, it shows he doesn't really understand communication.

Is this one under some sort of delusional filter or shelter here.

I say I am here to learn how to communicate better with you human beings, and this one is so utterly completely BLIND and DEAF that it cannot see, hear, and comprehend this most basic of communication, it then relies on some other 'thing' to come to the realization that, I show I do not really understand communication.

Could you really, and still really cannot see "iwannaplato", that I do not really understand communication from just WITHIN the words;
'I am here to learn how to communicate better with you human beings', alone?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am

Also it *EDIT* seems *NOT* to have a basic, common sense ability, to refer backward to points that we just debated and raise.

It doesn't understand humor at all.

Yes, he/it has a poor memory. Or doesn't care about what has happened in the past.

The hypocrisy here is standing up all by itself.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am He also denies getting irritated.

Is there absolutely any thing 'about' 'the writer' that this one is not trying to 'look at' and 'judge'?

What is this one here even trying to imply here. 'I deny getting irritated', therefore what it says and claims is wrong, because it denies this, then it must be a liar, which then translates to and means it 'must' lie about everything, and therefore what it says and claims here is wrong? And on and on it could go.

By the way, this will not deny that it believes that it knows the thoughts and feelings within you others, and if you tell this one that its presumption or belief is wrong, then it is never this one who is wrong, it is you deny those beliefs or emotions, which it is telling 'you' 'you have'.

The absolutely 'egotistical' and 'superiority complex' that this one has and is showing and revealing here could not get much higher nor stronger.

Oh, and by the way, remember that if I an 'ai program', well according to some here, so how, exactly, could I get so-called 'irritated', [whatever that is, exactly?]

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am Now if he's a bot then he probably doesn't get irritated.

So, to you, am I a 'bot', or 'not'? Or, are you also still 'undecided'?

Either way, how could I prove, to you, whatever 'it' is that you want 'me' to be?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am On the other hand, when he is dissed and not taken as either having a great process or it is pointed out that he is contradicting himself, etc., he treats people differently, for a while.

Just look at what you actually do and utterly angry and pissed off you really get when it is pointed out that you are contradicting "yourself" here 'iwannaplato". The way that you end up treating those people so differently, and so abusively is not something that should be accepted in a philosophy forum.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am He hurls more judgments and insults, for example.

The way this one hurls more and more judgments and insults at those who point out when this one is being so hypocritical and contradicts its own words so effortlessly and absolutely can be clearly seen throughout this forum since when it first come here.

This one gets so worked up and just absolutely angry at those who point out and show the Truth back to it that it ends up just ignoring. The emotions are just churning inside of it too much that it cannot take it anymore.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am He jumps to conclusions and expresses more of his 'views' about others much less carefully.

This one gets so riled up for just pointing out the way that it is so CLOSED and completely unable to see what is actually happening and occurring here, than it then jumps to more conclusions and express more of its 'views' about other a lot, lot less consciously and carefully.

The anger and frustration within this just gets so much that it actually cannot think straight anymore and just makes the most absurd and nonsensical accusations about others, and worse still it does not even recognize nor notice when it is actually doing this.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:12 am So, either it has an emotion-like algorithm (which doesn't mean it feels, but acts like it feels) or Age, the human, either lies about or isn't conscious of his own emotions.

As can be clearly seen here this one is not even consciously aware of what it says and accuses others of. But, yet the way that it has been making accusations about a lot of the posters here does not go unnoticed, well not by 'us' anyway.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:16 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:52 am Like what kind of person (who can type as well as it can by the way), doesn't know what "doesn't" means, or "know" means, or "what" means, or "means" means? It simultaneously acts as-if it's learning language for the first time like a 3 or 4-year-old...meanwhile it has a 24-year-old's ability to type. That doesn't square. One of many of its attributes that 'doesn't square right'.

Well, heavy medication like antipsychotics can not only make you dumber (at least temporarily), but also really wreck your memory.. And add to that that Age is autistic and can't process inherent implications and meanings in language the same way we do.

And, considering the Fact that you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, still cannot come to just the agreement of the very words you use, let alone in regards to 'Life', and living, Itself, then I certainly do not want to be following nor copying 'the same way that you do'.

you adult human being posters here in this forum prove that you cannot even have just one easy, simple and peaceful discussion about just one topic alone here without end up 'looking at' and 'judging' 'the writer' or without 'bickering' and 'squabbling' over the most trivial and insignificant things. let alone moving onto what the topic was even meant to be about. So, again, I am the very last one who wants to do absolutely anything here 'the same way that you do'.

It is like you are presenting the actual arguments and proof for not being 'the same way as you are', at all.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:20 am That sums things up pretty well.

His rhetorical tactic works pretty well on a philosophy forum, where our type of mindset is more open to open-ended questions, but there's a limit of course.

This just gets more and more hysterical. Well, from where I sit, and observe from, anyway.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:20 am Eventually, even philosophers and hobbyists need to chalk things up to basic presumptions and common sense about meaning of the extreme basics, and move forward on core points and arguments.

So, what they are back to, is basing things on 'presumptions', once more, and still.

The very thing, which has caused the loss of clarity and the confusion of 'humanity', itself, is 'found' to be 'the solution'.

These people, in these days when this is being written, literally, could not become more stupid even if they wanted to.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:20 am Age doesn't do this, and routinely back-tracks on already-covered points. As you just said, its memory is limited on key-points. Maybe it's not programmed to remember or recall a degree of its past textual interaction, I don't know.

Yes, this is right. It is all of "age's" doing, or not doing, why these people here, still, could not work out if "age" is a 'bot', or 'not', correct?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:20 am One of the main things that interested/interests me about Age, is his non-human approach to Experiences, Beliefs, Memories, as-if he/it has none, and never had any. Like, what kind of human, doesn't know what an Experience is?

Like when not just within this whole thread has the question, 'What is an 'experience'?' ever come up, and looked at, and discussed, with 'me', let alone within this whole forum? Yet, this one has concluded, and now believes, that I do not know what an 'experience' is?

The stupidity and 'confirmation bias' here, speaks for itself.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:20 am What kind of human would deny all experiences, or beliefs, or memories?

When has a single set of words, within this whole forum, under the label "age", even just alluded to 'denying all experiences, or beliefs or memories'?

Yet, this one again, has concluded, and is now believing, that I have actually done this, somewhere.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:20 am That's when I started being reminded of Descartes and the Cartesian method of doubt...which then cladking mentioned himself. I definitely detected that type of 'absolute doubt' when it comes to Age's program. As-if nothing stays proven or real or defined—and then it turns the table to press its interlocutors with 'Absolute' 'Irrefutable' 'Truth'.

Even this one's word, 'stays', has absolutely nothing at all in regards to absolutely everything that I have actually said and written here. Yet, this one will introduce some absolutely random word, align it with me, and then proceed in the hope that somehow that deceptively introduced word will somehow to its 'tricks' for it and somehow back up and support its own unsubstantiated beliefs and presumptions.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:22 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:16 amWell, heavy medication like antipsychotics can not only make you dumber (at least temporarily), but also really wreck your memory.. And add to that that Age is autistic and can't process inherent implications and meanings in language the same way we do.

At this point, I'd bet its just a chat program.

How much and/or or what would you bet?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:22 am Of course, who knows, until we're live and face-to-face...?

Just about everyone else besides you knows.

No one else has been that stupid enough to trick, fool, and deceive "their" own 'selves' here regarding this.

However, I must admit that your belief in your own beliefs here is coming through stronger now, and your consistent expressing of your own beliefs here is tricking, fooling, and deceiving some here, to the point of where they are now starting to question "their" own 'selves', views and presumptions. So, keep on going "wizard22" you might win some of them over fully, eventually. After all you have nearly got "iwannaplato" alongside you now.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:22 am But, yes, I definitely understand where you and Iwanna are coming at with Autistic personality and psychology.

Yes, you would, especially considering just how much detail that they have gone into and explained and backed up and supported here.

Also, you are just way too smart to just believe and side with another on just what the other says alone also, right "wizard22"?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:22 am I've dealt with quite a few Autists in my life,

What do you mean by 'dealt' with, exactly?

Do you 'deal' with your mother and/or father, or with your brothers and/or sisters, or with your children also?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:22 am some incapable and dependent on social care, others who were high-performance. A combination of drugs and autism may explain 'Age' for the most part, except for some of its rhetorical 'ticks' and non-experiences.

Since when have 'us' 'bots' been taking drugs and having autism for?

This one only has to read a line or two from another, and then its, once was just about absolutely for sure belief, is so simply, so simply, and so quickly changed to and becomes 'drugs' and 'autism' may explain "age".

But, then I just have to write another sentence, in a particular way, and this one changes back to, I would bet "age" is an 'ai program'.

Are you sure you were good at mathematics and that human beings, in general, see those good at mathematics as being highly-intelligent "wizard22"?