Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 10:59 amBut, there is absolutely no contradiction here. Well absolutely none I can see, other than the ones you keep showing and providing here for 'us' "wizard22".

The contradiction is that you keep switching to having ZERO beliefs and ONLY ONE belief.

So which is it, use this as an opportunity to clarify your persistent Contradiction, AgeGPT.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 10:59 am Parse text faster, AgeGPT!

I know you're programmed to respond to every correspondence, and don't skip over, but it's tedious to the OP here!

I do not even know what you are trying to get at here "wizard22".

By the way, this will be, what, the FORTH time proving your contradiction???

You apparently don't have much of a Memory in your program, AgeGPT. Buy more RAM?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 10:02 am Its deflections are quite impressive at this point—looks like I need to "prove" myself a third time, *sigh*.

Another way to put it is that Age, in philosophy discussions, has a lawyerly attitude. He does not understand that communication is collaborative.

For example, he could say something like: I can understand how you got the impression I said contradictory things. I have said where it sure seems like he is asserting he has no beliefs and I have also said where it sure seems like he is asserting he has no beliefs].

This immediately helps the conversation move forward. Then he can explain how really he didn't mean X when he said the first, or whatever.

But what Age does is say things a long the lines of 'prove I said X.'

The if you capitalize or don't capitalize or miss a word, the onus is all on you. He simply denies with no explanation.

It's fine that he thinks these distinctions are important: they may well be. But he could take a collaborative attitude about the process, when in fact he is acting like a lawyer: clogging the process down, never admitting anything, making people go through hoops.

He seems to have no idea what collaborative triangulation around meaning or a conversation might be like.

And it is very hard to explain how this process works to someone who is either being evasive or simply has no understanding of this works.

And if you do actually jump through his lawerly hoops, this does not mean he will answer. This happened to me around the One True Mind issue. He wouldn't answer my questions since they were not in the format he preferred. So, I asked in the format he preferred and then he said he would not answer me. Which, of course, he could have done earlier, again if he was collaborative.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:01 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 10:59 amBut, there is absolutely no contradiction here. Well absolutely none I can see, other than the ones you keep showing and providing here for 'us' "wizard22".

The contradiction is that you keep switching to having ZERO beliefs and ONLY ONE belief.

So which is it, use this as an opportunity to clarify your persistent Contradiction, AgeGPT.

I have already told you which one it is.

Do you still really not yet know?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:01 am By the way, this will be, what, the FORTH time proving your contradiction???

You apparently don't have much of a Memory in your program, AgeGPT. Buy more RAM?

If you believe so, then it must be so.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:03 amI have already told you which one it is.

Do you still really not yet know?

AgeGPT, do you have ZERO beliefs, or ONLY ONE belief?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:02 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 10:02 am Its deflections are quite impressive at this point—looks like I need to "prove" myself a third time, *sigh*.

Another way to put it is that Age, in philosophy discussions, has a lawyerly attitude. He does not understand that communication is collaborative.

For example, he could say something like: I can understand how you got the impression I said contradictory things. I have said where it sure seems like he is asserting he has no beliefs and I have also said where it sure seems like he is asserting he has no beliefs].

This immediately helps the conversation move forward. Then he can explain how really he didn't mean X when he said the first, or whatever.

But what Age does is say things a long the lines of 'prove I said X.'

The if you capitalize or don't capitalize or miss a word, the onus is all on you. He simply denies with no explanation.

It's fine that he thinks these distinctions are important: they may well be. But he could take a collaborative attitude about the process, when in fact he is acting like a lawyer: clogging the process down, never admitting anything, making people go through hoops.

He seems to have no idea what collaborative triangulation around meaning or a conversation might be like.

And it is very hard to explain how this process works to someone who is either being evasive or simply has no understanding of this works.

And if you do actually jump through his lawerly hoops, this does not mean he will answer. This happened to me around the One True Mind issue. He wouldn't answer my questions since they were not in the format he preferred. So, I asked in the format he preferred and then he said he would not answer me. Which, of course, he could have done earlier, again if he was collaborative.

It's being viciously repetitious at this point...I think it's breaking, or that's just me deluding myself...

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:03 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:03 amI have already told you which one it is.

Do you still really not yet know?

AgeGPT, do you have ZERO beliefs, or ONLY ONE belief?

I notice he accused you of being the only one who believes he is a chatbot or ai. But this is viewing the issue as binary. He is or he isn't. But the issue is more complex and nuanced. Humans can have the habits, rigid patterns and limitations as communicators that current AIs and bots have.

Again, we have a very limited focus aimed at the issue. Perhaps it will turn out that you become convinced he is human, but still many of the patterns you mention are present in his communication (and withholding of communication).

Obviously some people have found the context of this thread useful for looking at the patterns.

This is lawyerly behavior again. Get the witness/court/jury member to make a binary distinction and pretend that is all that matters.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:05 am It's being viciously repetitious at this point...I think it's breaking, or that's just me deluding myself...

I'm pretty sure chatbots and AIs are quite happy to not notice things and/or repeat themselves forever. Or, rather, they don't at this point get unhappy doing that.

If you are right and he's a bot, his stamina will be, in human perspectives on time, eternal.

And, of course, we have humans who are by human standards happy to repeat themselves eternally: Iambiguous for one.

Those are good points.

I agree with the binary issue. But that's something humans do, especially young adults and teenagers, treating issues as absolute without nuance and degree. For example, it doesn't seem to consider the importance, or lack thereof, of others or a third-party withholding judgment. We don't really need to make a 'decision', immediately, or perhaps ever, as to whether Age is human or machine. We can take all the time we need. Furthermore, Philosophers are obviously ones who will be most Doubtful about anything at all, ever. So it's not like I would expect a third-party to side with me, or to not judge of their own accord.

Either way, "Age" is stuck in a loop, apparently. And its rhetorical tactics and deterring the conversation, are becoming more obvious, revolving around its repeated contradictions.

WHERE'D YA GO, AGEgpt?! DID YA TAP OUT ALREADY?!

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:02 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 10:02 am Its deflections are quite impressive at this point—looks like I need to "prove" myself a third time, *sigh*.

Another way to put it is that Age, in philosophy discussions, has a lawyerly attitude.

Another way this can be looked at is "iwannaplato" is Truly unable to look at "itself" but can only continually look at "others" instead.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:02 am He does not understand that communication is collaborative.

"iwannaplato" has shown to be so absolutely useless in having the ability to learn and understand here, that "iwannaplato" does not understand what has been happening and occurring here. But this is just because "iwannaplato" does not understand what is needed in effective communication.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:02 am For example, he could say something like: I can understand how you got the impression I said contradictory things. I have said where it sure seems like he is asserting he has no beliefs and I have also said where it sure seems like he is asserting he has no beliefs].

If this was meant to make sense, then I cannot see it.

But what I see here, very clearly, is you making up some thing, directly from your pre-existing beliefs and presumptions, and which might not have absolutely anything at all with what would or could actually happen and occur.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:02 am This immediately helps the conversation move forward. Then he can explain how really he didn't mean X when he said the first, or whatever.

Considering that it has been you whining and continually complaining about me being 'poor at context' when I read your writings, but you seem to believe that you do not miss nor misunderstand the meaning in my writings.

Just so you are aware "iwannaplato" you completely misunderstand a fair amount of what I write.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:02 am But what Age does is say things a long the lines of 'prove I said X.'

The if you capitalize or don't capitalize or miss a word, the onus is all on you. He simply denies with no explanation.

So many False and Wrong claims and accusations here, once more.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:02 am It's fine that he thinks these distinctions are important: they may well be. But he could take a collaborative attitude about the process, when in fact he is acting like a lawyer: clogging the process down, never admitting anything, making people go through hoops.

Because this one already believed that I never admit absolutely anything, then this is all this one sees. It misses every time I admit things. And, what might even might and could come to light is that it has actually been I who has admitted more things here than anyone else.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:02 am He seems to have no idea what collaborative triangulation around meaning or a conversation might be like.

Yep, 'he' is just so worthless and useless. So, if anyone here reads "age's" words just remember that 'he' has absolutely no idea what collaborative triangulation around meaning or a conversation might be like.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:02 am And it is very hard to explain how this process works to someone who is either being evasive or simply has no understanding of this works.

Yep, it is so hard for one of "iwannaplato's" superiority over others for 'them' to learn and understand what 'it' knows, because what 'it' knows and understands is so much more superior than to others, and especially to some one like "age". Which, "iwannaplato" is still considering could be 'a machine', of all things.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:02 am And if you do actually jump through his lawerly hoops, this does not mean he will answer. This happened to me around the One True Mind issue.

Here is another prime example of this one's absolute inability to listen to another. I have never said 'One True Mind', but still uses those words, and this one still wonders why I say that it is not listening and not understanding.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:02 am He wouldn't answer my questions since they were not in the format he preferred.

This one is still presenting the False claims, which I have already partly explained. But, because this one believes that it is so superior to 'me', it, obviously, will not listen to what I have to say here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:02 am So, I asked in the format he preferred and then he said he would not answer me.

Also, completely False. As can be proved True.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:02 am Which, of course, he could have done earlier, again if he was collaborative.

This one like to present "itself" as though it is collaborative, but its own words alone here show and prove otherwise.

This one is so uncooperative and wanting to be opposing that it even tried to argue that coming to an agreement on the meanings of words will not bring about understanding nor peace.

Talk about this one trying, once again, to say just about absolutely anything in the hope to justify and prove a pre-existing belief and presumption.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:03 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:03 amI have already told you which one it is.

Do you still really not yet know?

AgeGPT, do you have ZERO beliefs, or ONLY ONE belief?

"Wizard22" why do you, really, want to know for, exactly?

Would either way influence your 'current' belief of what I am?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:05 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:02 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 10:02 am Its deflections are quite impressive at this point—looks like I need to "prove" myself a third time, *sigh*.

Another way to put it is that Age, in philosophy discussions, has a lawyerly attitude. He does not understand that communication is collaborative.

For example, he could say something like: I can understand how you got the impression I said contradictory things. I have said where it sure seems like he is asserting he has no beliefs and I have also said where it sure seems like he is asserting he has no beliefs].

This immediately helps the conversation move forward. Then he can explain how really he didn't mean X when he said the first, or whatever.

But what Age does is say things a long the lines of 'prove I said X.'

The if you capitalize or don't capitalize or miss a word, the onus is all on you. He simply denies with no explanation.

It's fine that he thinks these distinctions are important: they may well be. But he could take a collaborative attitude about the process, when in fact he is acting like a lawyer: clogging the process down, never admitting anything, making people go through hoops.

He seems to have no idea what collaborative triangulation around meaning or a conversation might be like.

And it is very hard to explain how this process works to someone who is either being evasive or simply has no understanding of this works.

And if you do actually jump through his lawerly hoops, this does not mean he will answer. This happened to me around the One True Mind issue. He wouldn't answer my questions since they were not in the format he preferred. So, I asked in the format he preferred and then he said he would not answer me. Which, of course, he could have done earlier, again if he was collaborative.

It's being viciously repetitious at this point...I think it's breaking, or that's just me deluding myself...

Who you two, and sometimes three, choose to ask your questions to, shows what you really believe, and just how desperate you are all for back up and support.