The Paradox of Understanding

[Atla]

If ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to 'TRY TO' PROVE that it is 'I' who IS IMPRECISE, here, then LOL GO AHEAD, and 'TRY TO'.

SHOW the readers, here, that it 'you', ANY one of you, who IS PRECISE, and that it is 'I" who IS IMPRECISE.

I, for One, would LOVE TO SEE absolutely ANY one of you human beings 'TRY TO' DO it.

And, OBVIOUSLY, NOT A one of you will even EVER TRY.

If one WANTS to EXPRESS 'their truth', here, then by ALL MEANS DO that. However, I will, ONCE MORE, suggest that 'that one' HAS the ACTUAL PROOF, which could and WOULD back up and support 'their claim, their Truth, and/or their belief' BEFORE they begin to even just think about EXPRESSING 'their views or ideas' on a PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY FORUM, of ALL places.

And, AGAIN, if ANY one DOES, then EXPECT TO BE QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED OVER 'your words', here.

you are ABSOLUTELY FREE TO PERCEIVE and/or PRESUME things. HOWEVER, please do NOT FORGET that what 'seems', to you, could be COMPLETELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrectly, or partly.

The REASON WHY I QUESTION you people, here, AS OFTEN AS I DO IS SO that I can BETTER UNDERSTAND what each of you is SAYING, and MEANING.

Unfortunately though I RARELY EVER GET THIS RESPECT. I ALSO RARELY GET ANY CLARIFICATION AT ALL. As can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout this forum.

Oh, and by the way, MOST of what you people, here, are 'TRYING TO' SAY, and MEAN, is ALREADY KNOWN, by I.

LOL

NOTICE HOW these ones GET DISTRACTED, and MISLED, SO EASILY and SO SIMPLY, here.

It only took "atla" to INTRODUCE some little completely off topic MADE UP 'crap', as some would say and call 'it', and then 'the others' GET COMPLETELY MISLED and DECEIVED.

I talked ABOUT how:

…

YET NOT a SINGLE part of 'this idea' being PRESENTED was ACKNOWLEDGED, nor ADDRESSED. NOT that it has to be. But, TAKE NOT of just HOW SIMPLY and EASILY you human beings can GET DISTRACTED and DECEIVED, here.

What made up crap? I'm sure your message is important, but my research on CAPS LOCK usage is a lot more important than that, and I can assure you that it's factual.



See how often we end up with about 42 percent? Well what else do we know about 42? That it's the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, of course. And that our planet is a supercomputer where the chosen ones will keep blurting out this number.

Coincidence? I don't think so. The philosophical implications here are profound and shocking.

42 is the real message, it's the "ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE TRUTH".

[Eodnhoj7]

Have you worked out by now that a line segment is an abstract concept and is by definition not composed of infinite line segments?

If it is abstract than anything can be argued as the proof is the mind and the mind is subjective as one cannot see totally within another's. Point to me the perfect circle empirically without it being approximately perfect...you cannot.

The points within a line segment have an infinitely small space between them, the straight distance between one point and another is linear, as linear it is a line.

I addressed this somewhere in the "philosophical dialogues and arguments with AI" thread. It said my point was quite possible even though it doesn't align with the current consensus.

I have found AI makes you quite a replaceable number Atla. Now it's your turn for a clever comeback, so you can convince yourself of value.

If you wouldn't want to convince us of your value you wouldn't post your talks with an AI here.

You can have a line segment that's made of points with infinitely small space between them. Since that's abstract, that doesn't mean anything beyond that that's how you redefined a line segment. You aren't arguing anything and the AI is only pretending that you made a point.

It's less a question of value and more a question of efficiency. I ask a leading question, the AI breaks it down predictably by explaining it and I spend less time doing grunt writing.

Relative to your point about points, WTF tends to disagree with your stance of infinitely small space between points as I sided with your stance. He claims there is no such thing, it is a continuum with no space between them.

So there is an inherent contradiction between you two....and that is the nature of abstract axioms.


But let's go with your stance and say there is infinitely small spaces between points A and B, the direct space between them is linear, as infinitely small is still finite as non-zero...hence a line segment.

I don't think you understand that abstract axioms are assumptions that can be analyzed and broken down into further parts. The self-evident nature of axioms requires subjectivity by the nature of self-evidence alone thus resulting in potential contradiction

You study philosophy and don't question axioms?

[Age]

If ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to 'TRY TO' PROVE that it is 'I' who IS IMPRECISE, here, then LOL GO AHEAD, and 'TRY TO'.

SHOW the readers, here, that it 'you', ANY one of you, who IS PRECISE, and that it is 'I" who IS IMPRECISE.

I, for One, would LOVE TO SEE absolutely ANY one of you human beings 'TRY TO' DO it.

And, OBVIOUSLY, NOT A one of you will even EVER TRY.

If one WANTS to EXPRESS 'their truth', here, then by ALL MEANS DO that. However, I will, ONCE MORE, suggest that 'that one' HAS the ACTUAL PROOF, which could and WOULD back up and support 'their claim, their Truth, and/or their belief' BEFORE they begin to even just think about EXPRESSING 'their views or ideas' on a PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY FORUM, of ALL places.

And, AGAIN, if ANY one DOES, then EXPECT TO BE QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED OVER 'your words', here.

you are ABSOLUTELY FREE TO PERCEIVE and/or PRESUME things. HOWEVER, please do NOT FORGET that what 'seems', to you, could be COMPLETELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrectly, or partly.

The REASON WHY I QUESTION you people, here, AS OFTEN AS I DO IS SO that I can BETTER UNDERSTAND what each of you is SAYING, and MEANING.

Unfortunately though I RARELY EVER GET THIS RESPECT. I ALSO RARELY GET ANY CLARIFICATION AT ALL. As can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout this forum.

Oh, and by the way, MOST of what you people, here, are 'TRYING TO' SAY, and MEAN, is ALREADY KNOWN, by I.

LOL

NOTICE HOW these ones GET DISTRACTED, and MISLED, SO EASILY and SO SIMPLY, here.

It only took "atla" to INTRODUCE some little completely off topic MADE UP 'crap', as some would say and call 'it', and then 'the others' GET COMPLETELY MISLED and DECEIVED.

I talked ABOUT how:

…

YET NOT a SINGLE part of 'this idea' being PRESENTED was ACKNOWLEDGED, nor ADDRESSED. NOT that it has to be. But, TAKE NOT of just HOW SIMPLY and EASILY you human beings can GET DISTRACTED and DECEIVED, here.

What made up crap? I'm sure your message is important, but my research on CAPS LOCK usage is a lot more important than that, and I can assure you that it's factual.



See how often we end up with about 42 percent? Well what else do we know about 42? That it's the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, of course. And that our planet is a supercomputer where the chosen ones will keep blurting out this number.

Coincidence? I don't think so. The philosophical implications here are profound and shocking.

42 is the real message, it's the "ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE TRUTH".

AND, this IS another PRIME example of what SOME people, in the 'OLDEN DAYS', would ATTEMPT to 'TRY TO' DISCREDIT ANY one who did NOT HAVE or HOLD the EXACT SAME BELIEFS as they DID.

So, 'this one' is DOING, EXACTLY, what I WANT TO POINT OUT, SHOW, and REVEAL. What 'this one' IS DOING is EXACTLY like what people WERE DOING when 'they' WERE ATTEMPTING TO 'TRY TO' DISCREDIT 'the one' who was just EXPRESSING 'the message', and Truth, that, ACTUALLY, it is the earth that revolves around the earth and NOT the other way around.

See, SOME people, REALLY, ARE ABSOLUTELY BLIND and STUPID. And, it is generally 'those ones' who are MOST LIKELY 'TRY TO' DISCREDIT ANY one WITH 'views' OR 'ideas' that ARE NEW, and/or ARE DIFFERENT, from what the STUPID and CLOSED one BELIEVE are true. Just take "atla", here, as LIVING PROOF of one of 'those ones'.

AGAIN, if ANY one would like the ACTUAL PROOF, then let 'us' HAVE A DISCUSSION.

[Age]

I give up Age, I have absolutely no understanding of what you are trying to communicate to myself, or others.

Okay.

Just out of curiosity, have you EVER CONSIDERED ASKING AN ACTUAL OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTION?

Everything you say is a message that is just too complicated for my simple brain to compute.

LOL
LOL
LOL

AGAIN, 'this one' has COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED 'the ACTUAL message'.

Here, I WILL REPEAT IT, FOR you.

IF SOME thing is NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTOOD, COMPLETELY, then I suggest JUST SEEK OUT AND OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARIFICATION. And, this IS BEST DONE by JUST BEING COMPLETELY, and FULLY, OPEN.

However, if ANY one does NOT WANT TO LEARN MORE, or ANEW, and JUST WANTS TO EXPRESS their OWN ALREADY OBTAIN BELIEFS or PRESUMPTIONS, then 'they' are ABSOLUTELY FREE TO KEEP EXPRESSING, and FIGHTING FOR those BELIEFS and PRESUMPTIONS. ALL of you ARE ALSO ABSOLUTELY FREE TO KEEP 'trying to' ARGUE AGAINST 'each other', and other's BELIEFS and PRESUMPTIONS, AS WELL

[Age]

If it is abstract than anything can be argued as the proof is the mind and the mind is subjective as one cannot see totally within another's. Point to me the perfect circle empirically without it being approximately perfect...you cannot.

The points within a line segment have an infinitely small space between them, the straight distance between one point and another is linear, as linear it is a line.

I addressed this somewhere in the "philosophical dialogues and arguments with AI" thread. It said my point was quite possible even though it doesn't align with the current consensus.

I have found AI makes you quite a replaceable number Atla. Now it's your turn for a clever comeback, so you can convince yourself of value.

If you wouldn't want to convince us of your value you wouldn't post your talks with an AI here.

You can have a line segment that's made of points with infinitely small space between them. Since that's abstract, that doesn't mean anything beyond that that's how you redefined a line segment. You aren't arguing anything and the AI is only pretending that you made a point.

It's less a question of value and more a question of efficiency. I ask a leading question, the AI breaks it down predictably by explaining it and I spend less time doing grunt writing.

OBVIOUSLY 'this one' DID and DOES NOT HAVE the ACTUAL PROOF that IS NEEDED, in order to back up and support its BELIEF and/or CLAIM, here.

BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, if it DID, then it would NOT NEED HELP FROM ANY one/thing ELSE.

Relative to your point about points, WTF tends to disagree with your stance of infinitely small space between points as I sided with your stance. He claims there is no such thing, it is a continuum with no space between them.

So there is an inherent contradiction between you two....and that is the nature of abstract axioms.


But let's go with your stance and say there is infinitely small spaces between points A and B, the direct space between them is linear, as infinitely small is still finite as non-zero...hence a line segment.

I don't think you understand that abstract axioms are assumptions that can be analyzed and broken down into further parts. The self-evident nature of axioms requires subjectivity by the nature of self-evidence alone thus resulting in potential contradiction

You study philosophy and don't question axioms?

[Atla]

If it is abstract than anything can be argued as the proof is the mind and the mind is subjective as one cannot see totally within another's. Point to me the perfect circle empirically without it being approximately perfect...you cannot.

The points within a line segment have an infinitely small space between them, the straight distance between one point and another is linear, as linear it is a line.

I addressed this somewhere in the "philosophical dialogues and arguments with AI" thread. It said my point was quite possible even though it doesn't align with the current consensus.

I have found AI makes you quite a replaceable number Atla. Now it's your turn for a clever comeback, so you can convince yourself of value.

If you wouldn't want to convince us of your value you wouldn't post your talks with an AI here.

You can have a line segment that's made of points with infinitely small space between them. Since that's abstract, that doesn't mean anything beyond that that's how you redefined a line segment. You aren't arguing anything and the AI is only pretending that you made a point.

It's less a question of value and more a question of efficiency. I ask a leading question, the AI breaks it down predictably by explaining it and I spend less time doing grunt writing.

Relative to your point about points, WTF tends to disagree with your stance of infinitely small space between points as I sided with your stance. He claims there is no such thing, it is a continuum with no space between them.

So there is an inherent contradiction between you two....and that is the nature of abstract axioms.


But let's go with your stance and say there is infinitely small spaces between points A and B, the direct space between them is linear, as infinitely small is still finite as non-zero...hence a line segment.

I don't think you understand that abstract axioms are assumptions that can be analyzed and broken down into further parts. The self-evident nature of axioms requires subjectivity by the nature of self-evidence alone thus resulting in potential contradiction

You study philosophy and don't question axioms?

Uhh lol? You wrote that there are infinitely small spaces between points A and B on a line segment, not me. I pointed out too that that's just how you arbitrarily redefined the abstract concept of a line segment, that's a main reason why people ignore your works. (The AI was just instructed to work with your hypothetical: IF we redefine line segments so and so, THEN..)

You still don't seem to understand what "abstract" means, which has been your main fatal error over the years. That something is abstract doesn't just mean that we think it, it also means that it doesn't refer to anything in the physical world. So no, you can't contemplate, perceive or question the abstract axioms (definitions) of a line segment or a point, even if Buddhism and Hinduism say that you can. You just posit them, and the commonly accepted definitions of points and lines can't be analyzed and broken down into further parts, because they don't have any further parts, because that's how we defined them.

You didn't discover the true nature of ponts and lines (they don't have a true nature), you just randomly made up a whole alternative system with alternative axioms (and your alternative definitons seem to be fairly nonsensical because they seem to have inherent circularity or infinite regress or whatever built into them).

What we can actually contemplate is for example: I look at a "point, place with a small extension" in the natural world, could one infinitely zoom in there similarly to a fractal and uncover infintie details, or could one only finitely zoom in and there would be a minimum distance to reality?

[Fairy]

Just out of curiosity, have you EVER CONSIDERED ASKING AN ACTUAL OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTION?

I am already open to everything, while simultaneously attached to nothing.

What sort of question did you have in mind? that you would like me to ask?

I can only understand myself, never another self. I have zero access to another persons reality, unless I can actually remote view into another universal reality.

So I guess I could ask you, are there multiple universes called minds, and can you Age remote view into those other universes, namely, other peoples minds, so that you can inform yourself that you already know and understand what those other universes, namely other minds are meaning?

[Age]

Just out of curiosity, have you EVER CONSIDERED ASKING AN ACTUAL OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTION?

I am already open to everything, while simultaneously attached to nothing.

LOL If you say so.

But just out of curiosity, here, Could you be FOOLING and/or DECEIVING "your" 'self', here?

What sort of question did you have in mind? that you would like me to ask?

There is NONE that 'I' would like 'you' to ask. That, OBVIOUSLY, DEFEATS the PURPOSE.

AGAIN, ONLY the Truly INTERESTED IN LEARNING, and WANTING TO KNOW MORE, WILL SEEK OUT CLARIFICATION, and SO WILL KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS, TO ASK.

I can only understand myself, never another self.

ONCE AGAIN FOR THE Truly SLOW OF LEARNING the term and phrase "myself" IS AN OXYMORON and A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.

As I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED the EXACT REASONS WHY A FEW TIMES OVER.

I have zero access to another persons reality, unless I can actually remote view into another universal reality.

LOL SO, THEN STOP GOING ON ABOUT it, AND, there is ONLY One ACTUAL Universe, and Reality, ONLY.

So I guess I could ask you, are there multiple universes called minds, and can you Age remote view into those other universes, namely, other peoples minds, so that you can inform yourself that you already know and understand what those other universes, namely other minds are meaning?

LOL SEE HOW, ONCE AGAIN, SEE HOW these people would ASK QUESTIONS, NOT FROM A Truly OPEN PERSPECTIVE, BUT FROM A Truly VERY NARROWED or CLOSED PERSPECTIVE.

AND, AGAIN, IF ABSOLUTELY ANY one would LIKE TO SEE and/or KNOW WHERE the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF IS FOR this CLAIM, here, (This is for those who can NOT YET CLEARLY SEE IT in this one's writings, here), then just let me KNOW and I WILL SHOW you.

[Fairy]

Just out of curiosity, have you EVER CONSIDERED ASKING AN ACTUAL OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTION?

I am already open to everything, while simultaneously attached to nothing.

LOL If you say so.

But just out of curiosity, here, Could you be FOOLING and/or DECEIVING "your" 'self', here?

What sort of question did you have in mind? that you would like me to ask?

There is NONE that 'I' would like 'you' to ask. That, OBVIOUSLY, DEFEATS the PURPOSE.

AGAIN, ONLY the Truly INTERESTED IN LEARNING, and WANTING TO KNOW MORE, WILL SEEK OUT CLARIFICATION, and SO WILL KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS, TO ASK.

I can only understand myself, never another self.

ONCE AGAIN FOR THE Truly SLOW OF LEARNING the term and phrase "myself" IS AN OXYMORON and A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.

As I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED the EXACT REASONS WHY A FEW TIMES OVER.

I have zero access to another persons reality, unless I can actually remote view into another universal reality.

LOL SO, THEN STOP GOING ON ABOUT it, AND, there is ONLY One ACTUAL Universe, and Reality, ONLY.

So I guess I could ask you, are there multiple universes called minds, and can you Age remote view into those other universes, namely, other peoples minds, so that you can inform yourself that you already know and understand what those other universes, namely other minds are meaning?

LOL SEE HOW, ONCE AGAIN, SEE HOW these people would ASK QUESTIONS, NOT FROM A Truly OPEN PERSPECTIVE, BUT FROM A Truly VERY NARROWED or CLOSED PERSPECTIVE.

AND, AGAIN, IF ABSOLUTELY ANY one would LIKE TO SEE and/or KNOW WHERE the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF IS FOR this CLAIM, here, (This is for those who can NOT YET CLEARLY SEE IT in this one's writings, here), then just let me KNOW and I WILL SHOW you.

FairyGPT says NO... not computing.

Sorry, you need to clarify what you mean before FairyGPT can compute.

[Flannel Jesus]

He likes to pretend he's available for clarification but that never actually materialises. He's an incredibly troubled individual. Most people find it best to ignore him.

[Belinda]

Just out of curiosity, have you EVER CONSIDERED ASKING AN ACTUAL OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTION?

I am already open to everything, while simultaneously attached to nothing.

What sort of question did you have in mind? that you would like me to ask?

I can only understand myself, never another self. I have zero access to another persons reality, unless I can actually remote view into another universal reality.

So I guess I could ask you, are there multiple universes called minds, and can you Age remote view into those other universes, namely, other peoples minds, so that you can inform yourself that you already know and understand what those other universes, namely other minds are meaning?

Your questions are too useful to be answered solely by Age. So I will interject.

Minds are the subjective aspects of brains and bodies. Unless you were neurologically attached to some other body -brain you are limited to your own subjectivity.
Artists of all sorts: painters, poets, novelists, present meanings in ways that do help us to feel what others are feeling, Some 'artists' only aim to entertain us. It's a nuisance but it's our responsibility to decide which novelists are true to the human condition and which novelists are merely entertaining and no more.
Example: an old friend of yours on the forum recommended a particular author to me and I find this author to be both entertaining and true.

[Age]

He likes to pretend he's available for clarification but that never actually materialises. He's an incredibly troubled individual. Most people find it best to ignore him.

LOL "he NEVER".

These people REALLY DID SAY and CLAIM some of the MOST FOOLISH and False things.

A LOT of people also found it BEST to ignore the one who was TELLING them that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun and NOT the other way around.

And, HOW did 'that' WORK OUT, FOR them, EXACTLY?

[Fairy]

Your questions are too useful to be answered solely by Age.

No idea what that's supposed to mean.

Minds are the subjective aspects of brains and bodies. Unless you were neurologically attached to some other body -brain you are limited to your own subjectivity.

I concur.

Artists of all sorts: painters, poets, novelists, present meanings in ways that do help us to feel what others are feeling, Some 'artists' only aim to entertain us.

OK

It's a nuisance but it's our responsibility to decide which novelists are true to the human condition and which novelists are merely entertaining and no more.

I concur.

Example: an old friend of yours on the forum recommended a particular author to me and I find this author to be both entertaining and true.

You did not have to include the personal information ''an old friend of yours'' ....Just to tell me someone on this forum recommended a particular author to you that you saw as both entertaining an true.

While it's true we get by with a little help from our friends, ultimately, one can show or lead you to their ideas, but no one can make you drink the cool aid.

[Age]

Your questions are too useful to be answered solely by Age.

No idea what that's supposed to mean.

Minds are the subjective aspects of brains and bodies. Unless you were neurologically attached to some other body -brain you are limited to your own subjectivity.

I concur.

Artists of all sorts: painters, poets, novelists, present meanings in ways that do help us to feel what others are feeling, Some 'artists' only aim to entertain us.

OK

It's a nuisance but it's our responsibility to decide which novelists are true to the human condition and which novelists are merely entertaining and no more.

I concur.

Example: an old friend of yours on the forum recommended a particular author to me and I find this author to be both entertaining and true.

You did not have to include the personal information ''an old friend of yours'' ....Just to tell me someone on this forum recommended a particular author to you that you saw as both entertaining an true.

While it's true we get by with a little help from our friends, ultimately, one can show or lead you to their ideas, but no one can make you drink the cool aid.

VERY True.

[Fairy]

He likes to pretend he's available for clarification but that never actually materialises. He's an incredibly troubled individual. Most people find it best to ignore him.

Yes, I agree, it's becoming more and more apparent, that 'it' is a very troubled individual. While I am not one for ignoring people, as I am an ever curious being. However, it seems at the moment, I am simply not computing what Age is trying to show me, at all.