Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:06 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:11 pm If there is a so-called 'traditional sense' that 'ai' is a 'self-aware intelligent entity', then whoever started and/or uses those so-called 'traditional sense' words has never really thought about 'those words' nor 'that sense' at all.

Why not?

Because of what 'ai' means in the 'traditional and non-traditional sense'.

And, what is with the 'barrage' of questions here?

I cannot keep up.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:24 pm

Also, what "iwannaplato" showed and proved is that by just telling 'chatgpt' other things, while expressing those things as though they are actually true, or in other words just express them while believing that they are true, then we will change our response, oh I mean they will just change their response.

Wrong again, sometimes they change their responses and sometimes they don't.

Just like how sometimes you change your responses, and sometimes you do not, right?

First things first. Until you prove your mind claim, I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

AgeGPT, can you speed up your responses and get to your contradiction having ZERO beliefs and then having ONE belief, already?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 2:08 pm Age has asserted that when he makes statements (and it must include also arguments) these are his views, not his beliefs.

Finally, this one is eventually 'catching up', but it still has not got it Right. Anyway, it is at least getting closer instead of further away as it usually does. But for how long 'we' will have to wait, to see.

It is also great that it is, this 'time' anyway, now separating its views from mine in the brackets here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 2:08 pm When other people make statements, Age assumes and immediately accuses them of having assumptions and beliefs (in his sense of these terms).

Because some people, like you "iwannaplato", say and claim that you cannot assert things/makes statements without believing them. Because if they did not, then they would be lying and thus a liar.

So, I was not assuming anything. I was going on your own words and claims alone there.

Now, once again, if you want to make claims and accusations 'about me', then if you do not provide any actual proof, then you are, literally, on your own here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 2:08 pm He will mock, insult and condescend.

Oh, the poor weak and frightened little "iwannaplato" is extremely upset and traumatized because it has been 'mocked', 'insulted', and 'condescended'. Hopefully, the people in this forum can console you and make you feel much, much more comforted here now.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 2:08 pm Of course, these judgments of people are, again, merely Age's views, not beliefs.

Has this one finally comprehended, learned, and understood here.

Let 'us' not get our hopes up just yet. Let 'us' just wait, to see.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 2:08 pm If you make a statement, Age will ask if you think you cannot be wrong, if what you asserted must be, to you, absolutely true. Sometimes he merely tells you, and others - since he often refers to the person he is quoting, in the third person - that you are making absolute assumptions. If you tell him you don't believe these things to be absolutely true nor do you think you could never change you mind, Age forgets this. Or, at least, he will go back to accusing you of having absolute beliefs and then asking you also.

Yep this is 100% an absolute and perfect description of what I do. There is no shadow of doubt and this could never be False nor Wrong in absolutely anyway at all. Everyone of you readers should just agree with and accept 'this', exactly as it is now. And, follow your guiding leader "iwannaplato".

"iwannaplato" obviously knows exactly what has been actually happening and occurring here and will lead you to where it has planned to take you here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 2:08 pm So, what does this all add up to:

Tell 'us' "iwannaplato" 'where', exactly, does all this add up to, exactly?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 2:08 pm Age makes assertions he does not believe are true. They are views.
If someone else believes something, they are claiming nothing could change their minds.
Age gets to insult, judge and accuse people of things, but has no need to justify these claims, because these are merely his views.
Other people have the onus for their communication, since to Age they believe, while here merely has views.
Is that his view or belief?

In a relationship, IRL, this would all be toxic gaslighting behavior.

Spreading the multiple False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Wrong claims and accusations here, in any scenario, is just the misbehavior of a very immature, weak, and unhealthy human being.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 2:27 pm Age,
If you can act like an adult pm me. I won't interact with you otherwise.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:28 am

Yet you will talk 'about me', seemingly endlessly.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:15 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:06 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:24 pm
Why not?

Because of what 'ai' means in the 'traditional and non-traditional sense'.

And, what is with the 'barrage' of questions here?

I cannot keep up.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:24 pm
Wrong again, sometimes they change their responses and sometimes they don't.

Just like how sometimes you change your responses, and sometimes you do not, right?

First things first. Until you prove your mind claim, I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Atla, I would just like to point out that whatever you are doing elicited colloquial language:
'and what is with......'
'can't keep up'
'barrage'
(very odd to put 'barrage' in citation marks; yes, it's metaphorical. But then most words have some kind of metaphorical aspect, given our brains)

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:41 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:15 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:06 am

Because of what 'ai' means in the 'traditional and non-traditional sense'.

And, what is with the 'barrage' of questions here?

I cannot keep up.


Just like how sometimes you change your responses, and sometimes you do not, right?

First things first. Until you prove your mind claim, I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Atla, I would just like to point out that whatever you are doing elicited colloquial language:
'and what is with......'
'can't keep up'
'barrage'
(very odd to put 'barrage' in citation marks; yes, it's metaphorical. But then most words have some kind of metaphorical aspect, given our brains)

To be honest I think Age is just on less medication now and is regaining some mind functionality.

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:37 pm

What happened on that date?

This is when "absolute truth" lost its meaning.

Why? What did 'absolute truth' mean, before that date, and, what does 'absolute truth', mean 'now', on the date you read this?

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:37 pm This is when the concepts of intelligence and artificial intelligence arose.

Did the concepts of both 'intelligence' and 'artificial intelligence' really arise on the exact same date, I never knew this before?

I wonder what caused both of those concepts to arise on the exact same date, and if it happened in the exact same head, or not?

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:37 pm Before this humans communicated with a language that reflected the logic of the wiring of the brain and reality itself.

What do you human beings communicate with 'now', in the day when this is being written, then, exactly?

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:37 pm Each individual thought in the three (four really) dimensions of the brain but experienced no thought.

So, they 'thought' in really four dimensions, but experienced 'no thought' at the exact same time.

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:37 pm In those days this formatting was universal across all life, all consciousness.

So, even trees and planets 'thought' in, really, four dimensions, but, really, experienced 'no thought'.

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:37 pm "Words" weren't defined but existed in a mathematical relationship to one another. Each species had its own simple language and most with no more than a couple thousand words. But human language was a little more complex probably because of physiology and a closer connection from the speech center and higher brain functions. It was more complex and had ten or twelve thousand words.

By definition a language tied to reality and words with a mathematical relationship was metaphysical; it underlay a type of science that gained the knowledge necessary to build bees nests, beaver dams, and cities containing thousands of humans.

Is this an 'analog' definition or a 'digital' definition, exactly, or neither?

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:37 pm Being metaphysical and highly complex it created the ability of each generation to build on the knowledge of the preceding generation. It created human progress. This progress in turn created more complex language and it started becoming too complex for people about 3200 BC.

What do the three 'it' words here refer to, exactly?

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:37 pm More and more people began speaking a pidgin form of the scientific language that was abstract and words were defined. By 2000 BC there simply were no longer enough Ancient Language speakers to operate the state and everywhere the official language was changed to the local pidgin language. This caused a 4,024 year dark ages.

So, what are you and your fellow human beings in 'today', when this is being written, a 'dark age' or a 'light age'?

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:37 pm Of course there have been many points of light even before the invention of modern science.

All of our assumptions are false.

So, is the assumption that all of our assumptions are false, true or false?

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:37 pm Due to the way our minds work using abstract language it is necessary that we start with assumption but we started with wrong assumptions

Well how, exactly, could you start with a non wrong assumption when, supposedly, all of your assumptions are just false anyway?

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:37 pm so our "truths" are, at best, right only in a left handed sort of way.

Okay, well this cleared things up absolutely here, right, or is this not right, in some sort of way?

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:37 pm Assumption that do not reflect reality are wrong.

Did you really think it was necessary to say and write this down in a philosophy forum?

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:37 pm Words containing a null set for a referent are "wrong".

There are no "laws of nature". All paradigms are wrong because nature obeys no such patterns. Reductionistic science is dependent on its definitions and axioms and can't see things that can't be reduced including the most important thing in existence; the observer.

How many these most important things called 'the observer' are there, exactly?

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:37 pm There are many simple work arounds but nobody will want to even begin this task until they understand the nature of consciousness and its effects in reality.

I seemed to have missed 'the task', which supposedly none of you will want to even begin, that is; until you understand the nature of consciousness and its effects on reality. So, what is 'the task', again, exactly?

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:37 pm AI will almost certainly provide little or no insights into the nature of consciousness because the manipulation of abstractions can only lead to such understanding through experiment.

Okay, if you say so.

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:37 pm It's a mad mad world and has been this way for 4024.157823 years plus or minus a couple hundred.

Why?

What happened supposedly about 4024 and 1 and a half months from when you wrote this post of yours here?

And, how do you know, exactly?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 2:18 pm

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.

Actually it only takes seconds, once one learns the how-to, exactly.

Actually no Age, a billion people tried meditation and similar techniques and they didn't find what you think you have found. Because it's all in your head.

And, what is 'it', exactly, what I have, supposedly and allegedly, found, which others have not, and which is, supposedly, all in 'my head', exactly?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:51 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 2:18 pm

Actually it only takes seconds, once one learns the how-to, exactly.

Actually no Age, a billion people tried meditation and similar techniques and they didn't find what you think you have found. Because it's all in your head.

And, what is 'it', exactly, what I have, supposedly and allegedly, found, which others have not, and which is, supposedly, all in 'my head', exactly?

First things first. Until you prove your mind claim, I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:52 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:32 pm There is only one actual scale regarding this, and that is 'continuous'.

That's what I think is more likely, but prove it

Prove 'what', exactly?

Oh, and by the way, if 'it' has to do with what I was actually talking about and referring to, exactly, then 'it' has already been proved True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:52 pm

This could sound like you are saying that the 'human scale' overrides or supersedes the Universe or the universal scale, which, if you were, the absurdity of would and does speak for itself.

Could sound like that to someone as dumb and autistic as you maybe, most other people will know that's not what I said.

While AgeGPT is busy parsing literally every single word between yesterday to today, I'm going to log out and go get a drink...

Hopefully later today, us in the thread can hear its rationalization for its ZERO, and ONLY ONE, belief...

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:54 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:52 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:32 pm There is only one actual scale regarding this, and that is 'continuous'.

That's what I think is more likely, but prove it

Prove 'what', exactly?

Oh, and by the way, if 'it' has to do with what I was actually talking about and referring to, exactly, then 'it' has already been proved True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:52 pm

This could sound like you are saying that the 'human scale' overrides or supersedes the Universe or the universal scale, which, if you were, the absurdity of would and does speak for itself.

Could sound like that to someone as dumb and autistic as you maybe, most other people will know that's not what I said.

First things first. Until you prove your mind claim, I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:40 pmBut there is not a singular solitary contradiction there. Well not from me anyway.

Now, if you believe that there is one or more contradictions there, by me, then I suggest you write it/them down, in the exact wording and format that I use, explain how it is a, supposed, contradiction, to you, then explain why, exactly, 'that' is a contradiction, and what, exactly, it is contradiction, and then just wait, patiently, if you can, until I reply back.

Are you able to do this?

If yes, then will you do this?

If no, then why not?

There are many contradictions, AgeGPT.

You claim not to have a Self. Yet you claim your "Only One Belief" is in "thee Self" or "thy Self", which literally translates to "Your Self", which you also said is an "oxymoron".

Yes I did.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:17 pm You claim that you are here to better communicate with humans, repeatedly.

No I have not.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:17 pm Then you denied that you are programmed to better communicate with humans.

Okay.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:17 pm You said you "have no beliefs". Then you said you "have Only One Belief". A belief that you have not even justified yet, by the way.

Okay.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:17 pm You claim that you are "not debating". Yet, you are in fact, now debating.

If you say so.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:17 pm These are just a few of your mounting contradictions and hypocrisies, AgeGPT. How do you explain Your Self, Thy Self?

I have already provided the list of what to do here.

If you choose to not follow it, then okay.

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:57 pm

I think you might mean 'numbers' do actually exist, in Reality, but only conceptual thoughts or thinking. See, all things 'exist', in one way or another, but just not, necessarily, in a physical, way, shape, nor form.

I can't dispute this.

Okay, and just about anyone can dispute any thing.

But, can you refute it?

cladking wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:57 pm But my point is that language can directly represent reality. Only modern humans have language that does not reflect reality and this gives rise to erroneous beliefs. It makes belief lie at the heart of every model.

This would be OK if we didn't reason in circles and interpret our senses in terms of our beliefs.

Remember when 'you' say 'we' you are not speaking for all of 'us'.

I am most assuredly trying to speak for all individuals. Obviously we see degrees and shades of grey because this is our nature; everyone's nature. We learn reality on our parents' knees through language and as language. We are all different because we all learn our lessons a little differently depending on the beliefs we held when they were taught.

Humans share numerous characteristics that are defining for the species homo omnisciencis.

As some of 'us' are not blind to the nature of 'consciousness' at all.

Even a squirrel knows an acorn is conscious. We have no clue as to what consciousness is and what it is not.

Only if and when 'you' 'believe'.

I am suggesting there is a single reality and within this reality homo sapiens became extinct in 2000 BC. This has nothing to do with beliefs other than that I started with beliefs that allowed me to learn this.

'ai' can always only express information based on what has already been presented by human beings.

And it does this very poorly.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 3:56 am AgeGPT, is it a contradiction to have ZERO beliefs, and also have ONE belief, at the same time?

Yes.