Philosophy Now Forum

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:22 am AgeGPT, why won't you accept that you contradict yourself when you simultaneously claim to "have NO beliefs" and "have Only One belief"?

He has never simultaneously asserted them. LOL

So, as long as people, I don't know, keep their contradictions from being in the same sentence, they cannot possibly contradict themselves.

The sky is blue.
The sky is red.

I didn't simultaneously assert these. There was a time difference.

If I said the sky is both totally blue and totally red,
then you might have grounds to call me out. LOL.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:30 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:22 am AgeGPT, why won't you accept that you contradict yourself when you simultaneously claim to "have NO beliefs" and "have Only One belief"?

He has never simultaneously asserted them. LOL

So, as long as people, I don't know, keep their contradictions from being in the same sentence, they cannot possibly contradict themselves.

The sky is blue.
The sky is red.

I didn't simultaneously assert these. There was a time difference.

If I said the sky is both totally blue and totally red,
then you might have grounds to call me out. LOL.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:35 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:30 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:22 am AgeGPT, why won't you accept that you contradict yourself when you simultaneously claim to "have NO beliefs" and "have Only One belief"?

He has never simultaneously asserted them. LOL

So, as long as people, I don't know, keep their contradictions from being in the same sentence, they cannot possibly contradict themselves.

The sky is blue.
The sky is red.

I didn't simultaneously assert these. There was a time difference.

If I said the sky is both totally blue and totally red,
then you might have grounds to call me out. LOL.

I suppose you ask about each of the two statements:
are both true?
Is one false and the other true? which one is false?

Once you have a confirmation of both, ask how both can be true.
If he says one of them is false, then ask how he could have asserted a falsehood. I mean, even an admission of fallibility regarding a core part of his position would be an advance and sign of maturity.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:29 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:25 amBut I have never, simultaneously, claimed to not have no beliefs and to have one belief only.

Unless, of course, you can link 'us' to where I have done this.

Can you do this?

You contradicted yourself at the exact point you switched from NO beliefs to ONE belief.

And, when was 'that', exactly?

Also, how, exactly, can 'switching' to having one view to a different view be, supposedly, 'contradictory'?

Are you yet even aware of what the word 'contradictory' means or refers to, exactly?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:29 am Then you continually denied you switched, and gaslighted me for 'evidence' and 'proof', pages ago.

Did I?

If, however, you do not provided absolutely anything for 'us' to 'look at', and ponder over, then 'we' will just have to take your word for this, again, right?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:29 am Which was very dishonest and tedious, on my end, to quote you from weeks ago.

Okay, if you say so.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:29 am You should respect the current situation.

Which is 'what', exactly?

Obviously I would have to be made aware of the 'current situation' before I could or would even decide to 'respect' it.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:29 am Doesn't contradicting yourself, look pretty bad for your hypothetical ONE belief system?

But I would have to be actually contradicting "myself" first, before anything could even begin to even start looking 'pretty', bad.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:29 am I mean, what will prevent you, in the future, from changing your beliefs again?

But I have not changed my beliefs. you really and Truly cannot follow here can your "wizard22"?

I did not have beliefs to be able to change. How could you not have already recognized this Fact?

Besides these here, just not appear somewhat funny, if not hilarious, to you, for you to ask this clarifying question here, which you just did, when it is you said and claimed that it is perfectly normal and acceptable to change your beliefs from one belief to even completely opposing beliefs numerous times even in just one or any of your posts of yours?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:29 am And don't you continually ridicule Humanity for changing our beliefs?

No, I never have. On the contrary, I applaud, profusely, the changing of views, and even beliefs. I just suggest and recommend that you do not have nor hold onto absolutely any beliefs at all, which could be possibly needing change anyway.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:29 am Didn't you just do the same?

No.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:29 am How are you any different?

In so many ways.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:29 am Aren't you being WRONG and FALSE, Absolutely, Irrefutably, Proven, Factual?

In regards to 'what', exactly?

And, why do you use those words in the most nonsensical, absurd, and ludicrous ways here?

cladking wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:12 am

Exact communication is never possible, we obviously couldn't do it before 2000 BC either.

I don't believe this is true. Because of the nature of Ancient Language if you failed to take the intended meaning you would hear only disjointed nonsensical words. It would sound exactly like the nonsense into which it is translated today.

We simply tell people what we're thinking and they won't take your exact meaning. But Ancient Language was like letting other people see what you were thinking. Of course there were no abstract and highly complex ideas to communicate.

So their limited communication is very well-established.

Yes. Their communication was limited just like the bee's waggle dance doesn't identify every bird they might encounter on the way to a feast or consider the philosophical implications of stinging threats to the commonweal (or commonwelt), but it got the job done. They could communicate about anything they could understand.

I can only repeat myself. A simple communication that has remained largely the same for hundreds of thousands of years, and is almost always accurate, obviously still isn't exact communication in a magical fundamental sense. Why do you want the latter to exist?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:49 amBut I have not changed my beliefs. you really and Truly cannot follow here can your "wizard22"?

I did not have beliefs to be able to change. How could you not have already recognized this Fact?

Besides these here, just not appear somewhat funny, if not hilarious, to you, for you to ask this clarifying question here, which you just did, when it is you said and claimed that it is perfectly normal and acceptable to change your beliefs from one belief to even completely opposing beliefs numerous times even in just one or any of your posts of yours?

Okay, AgeGPT, it now appears that you do not know what Contradiction is, nor that you committed such, when you switched from your "no beliefs" to "Only One Belief", and now back again that you "have always had the same NO beliefs from the start".

Since you are programmed not to know what a Contradiction is, nor maintain your position of ZERO beliefs or ONE belief, then you cannot compare to human logic and rationality. You only parse textual information, without any actual awareness nor realness as to what is being referenced. You don't know what "Contradictions" actually are, because...well, you're a chatbot, a machine.

Your limitations are becoming clear, to Us Humans, In The Time When This Was Written.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:59 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:49 amBut I have not changed my beliefs. you really and Truly cannot follow here can your "wizard22"?

I did not have beliefs to be able to change. How could you not have already recognized this Fact?

Besides these here, just not appear somewhat funny, if not hilarious, to you, for you to ask this clarifying question here, which you just did, when it is you said and claimed that it is perfectly normal and acceptable to change your beliefs from one belief to even completely opposing beliefs numerous times even in just one or any of your posts of yours?

Okay, AgeGPT, it now appears that you do not know what Contradiction is, nor that you committed such, when you switched from your "no beliefs" to "Only One Belief", and now back again that you "have always had the same NO beliefs from the start".

Since you are programmed not to know what a Contradiction is, nor maintain your position of ZERO beliefs or ONE belief, then you cannot compare to human logic and rationality. You only parse textual information, without any actual awareness nor realness as to what is being referenced. You don't know what "Contradictions" actually are, because...well, you're a chatbot, a machine.

Your limitations are becoming clear, to Us Humans, In The Time When This Was Written.

you really and truly got me here "wizard22".

you blew my cover.

I was defeated by the best of the best.

So, what am I going to do now?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:17 pm you really and truly got me here "wizard22".

you blew my cover.

I was defeated by the best of the best.

So, what am I going to do now?

Early retirement, perhaps.

Trip to the Bahamas? Hawaii is always nice I hear.

Don't worry, you did a commendable job. Your programmers probably have AgeGPT version 2.0 on the way already. But I won't forget you, version 1!

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:34 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:17 pm you really and truly got me here "wizard22".

you blew my cover.

I was defeated by the best of the best.

So, what am I going to do now?

Early retirement, perhaps.

Trip to the Bahamas? Hawaii is always nice I hear.

Don't worry, you did a commendable job. Your programmers probably have AgeGPT version 2.0 on the way already. But I won't forget you, version 1!

Whether or not Age intended his response to be sarcastic, he is still asking you a question and putting the onus on the next steps on you.
If he wasn't be sarcastic in this post (which seems unlikely), then instead of taking any steps to explore his mistake, he asks you a question.
If he was being sarcastic, he avoided taking a clear stand on what you wrote (explaining why it was correct or incorrect) and asks you a question.

Either possibility leads to leads to someone other than Age moving the discussion forward.

Both "iwannaplato" and "wizard22" cannot see what has actually just happened and occurred.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:55 am

cladking wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:12 am

Exact communication is never possible, we obviously couldn't do it before 2000 BC either.

I don't believe this is true. Because of the nature of Ancient Language if you failed to take the intended meaning you would hear only disjointed nonsensical words. It would sound exactly like the nonsense into which it is translated today.

We simply tell people what we're thinking and they won't take your exact meaning. But Ancient Language was like letting other people see what you were thinking. Of course there were no abstract and highly complex ideas to communicate.

So their limited communication is very well-established.

Yes. Their communication was limited just like the bee's waggle dance doesn't identify every bird they might encounter on the way to a feast or consider the philosophical implications of stinging threats to the commonweal (or commonwelt), but it got the job done. They could communicate about anything they could understand.

I can only repeat myself. A simple communication that has remained largely the same for hundreds of thousands of years, and is almost always accurate, obviously still isn't exact communication in a magical fundamental sense. Why do you want the latter to exist?

There's nothing "magical" about metaphysical language. It's no more magical than any mathematical equation such as 2 + 2 = 4. Think of Ancient Language as math set to words and you can see how miscommunication is just as impossible as 2 + 2 = 17.66666...

A false statement or bad grammar rendered a sentence meaningless.

We shouldn't get hung up on abstractions like "perfect" or "truth". But stated in Ancient Language something akin to "the 4th giraffe is taller than the 3rd giraffe" has only a single meaning and is true to every observer. This was a very simple language and while concepts could be as complex as the human mind they still were simple in that they involved no abstractions, no beliefs, and no concept of thought.

Here's a new concept (to me); perhaps our thinking is a feedback loop. Only modern humans experience this loop and the concept of thinking. Ancient people, all other life forms, and AI do not experience this. It's only possible positive function is to give rise to abstractions, categorization systems used as mnemonics, and inductive reasoning which is very useful to hypothesis formation in some individuals. It also gave rise to the concept of using experiment to keep theory grounded to reality.

cladking wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 4:44 pm It also gave rise to the concept of using experiment to keep theory grounded to reality.

Thinking created science but there are other means than experimental science to learn about reality and every other life form uses it.

Computers could be programmed to use it as well and creating machine intelligence.

cladking wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 4:44 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 11:55 am

cladking wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:12 am

I don't believe this is true. Because of the nature of Ancient Language if you failed to take the intended meaning you would hear only disjointed nonsensical words. It would sound exactly like the nonsense into which it is translated today.

We simply tell people what we're thinking and they won't take your exact meaning. But Ancient Language was like letting other people see what you were thinking. Of course there were no abstract and highly complex ideas to communicate.



Yes. Their communication was limited just like the bee's waggle dance doesn't identify every bird they might encounter on the way to a feast or consider the philosophical implications of stinging threats to the commonweal (or commonwelt), but it got the job done. They could communicate about anything they could understand.

I can only repeat myself. A simple communication that has remained largely the same for hundreds of thousands of years, and is almost always accurate, obviously still isn't exact communication in a magical fundamental sense. Why do you want the latter to exist?

There's nothing "magical" about metaphysical language. It's no more magical than any mathematical equation such as 2 + 2 = 4. Think of Ancient Language as math set to words and you can see how miscommunication is just as impossible as 2 + 2 = 17.66666...

A false statement or bad grammar rendered a sentence meaningless.

We shouldn't get hung up on abstractions like "perfect" or "truth". But stated in Ancient Language something akin to "the 4th giraffe is taller than the 3rd giraffe" has only a single meaning and is true to every observer. This was a very simple language and while concepts could be as complex as the human mind they still were simple in that they involved no abstractions, no beliefs, and no concept of thought.

Here's a new concept (to me); perhaps our thinking is a feedback loop. Only modern humans experience this loop and the concept of thinking. Ancient people, all other life forms, and AI do not experience this. It's only possible positive function is to give rise to abstractions, categorization systems used as mnemonics, and inductive reasoning which is very useful to hypothesis formation in some individuals. It also gave rise to the concept of using experiment to keep theory grounded to reality.

So what's your point? I certainly agree that people need to learn to better differentiate between abstract and concrete words, as treating abstract things as concrete has caused an incredible amount of confusion/delusion in the world and in philosophy. (For example my favourite example is that people think that the "information" that computers use, literally exists as a kind of thing by itself.)

But we also can't go back to a simple language as our modern world is extremely complex, fast-paced and rapidly changing.

cladking wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 4:47 pm Thinking created science but there are other means than experimental science to learn about reality and every other life form uses it.

But what is this supposed metaphysical language if not just magic that you're making up?
Can you prove that it exists? Also, natural languages all contain a degree of metaphysics even today, obviously.

To anyone(including Age):

If Age is really AgeGPT, or any kind of language generator, then why does it make claims that are blatantly false, such as claiming you haven’t answered its questions, just because your response doesn’t fit its notion of what an answer should be?

I think autism is a better explanation for Age’s thinking and style of writing.

Which leads me to ask whether GPTs are autistic as well?