Philosophy Now Forum

Both? Neither?

I mean the one that seems spontaneous, 'in the moment', 'real', unscripted, plausible...

My Point?

Our dialogue began by me asking, quite directly, three questions and making only one statement.

My point was/ is (now) that i wasn't really making a point only asking questions. To which you have totally failed to answer. Subsequent vague prompting was silly and turned out to be futile i admit. But since i had quite clearly quoted you and asked 3 direct questions i must confess it seemed monotonous to merely repeat myself.

Anyway take this as you like. Answer or don't but if you are not willing to engage with me and answer a question or two then ..... I just don't know.

An aside

Yes the mind the self has the power to act from within outward is amazing like voice which can be wonderful in its utterance of self-feeling.

My English can be poor but have you made a mistake here because I just don't follow your sentence.

Regards

I would rather not.

But I'm a good guy, at least I try to be. You know I saw the dedicated B.B. put down threads and thought of Booker quote 'Let no man drag me down so low as to make me hate him'

I tried to follow some of her posts but to know avail, I thought may be I'm not involved enough with the thread. So I tried harder, I read furhter back in the threads and still understood very little. I thought, maybe I'm not educated enough yet in the field of Philosophy. But i suspended judgement until I interacted with Her.

An aside =
Every opinionated mind thinks it is the greatest thing to have ever lived, and the world is at a loss for it's undescovered nature.
But it's not true - 'We are the all singing all dancing crap of the world' to para phrase .. answer''s on a post card.

I don't know - I just had a though. I think she's a program. Yip definately.
An AI experiment for sure.

#Anyway many others have had problems interacting with this chic', so i don't feel so bad, they all have the same issues i have. So if she's reall she probably thinks she's profound and will be quoted eons from now. Anyhow it's a game i shall not be playing again with her.

Am I the first?

Don't I win a prize or something?

B.B. is awfully quiet. Obviously AI is not here and the rouse is up. It has taken human intervention from time to time to maintain some coherance. Even switching off from automatic mode for periods maybe. Some supportive blogs from long standing (founding?) bloggers maintain the facard, but it is unethical especially on a serious site such as this.

But i guess the idea of fooling a group of would be philosophers is quite compelling.

The only other explination is autism, I don't mean to cause offense if I am wrong, hell I'm wrong alot.

Regards

Conceit is the mere barren ego understands how to belittle every truth and turn away from it and take pride in it but is incapable of what it wants itself. They have this one-sided view always seeing in the result pure nothingness and cannot advance from there.

That is the ego; it has a likeness to light a reflection-into-one. The Hindus thought that the ego is like light and if it is maintained in pure transparency would be a pure reflection to self but the ego is not sunlight, ego is merely empty a uncertainty.

Pure inner self is ego, or in other words, inner essence imperturbable passing hither and thither ego. The sphere of reflection into self is ego pure self reflection into self. The ego pervades the whole Godly like relation between inner and outer. Much like the crystal nucleus molecules integrants attach themselves to the surface of the nucleus in a kind of successive array in which depends on this series. These nucleus crystals are a three dimensional whole.

The ego ideal too pervades the whole inner and outer self like the crystal nucleus molecule integrants in a successive array.

Diomedes71 wrote:Am I the first?

Don't I win a prize or something?

Are you the first what? The first to think BB is a language parser?
IF "yes" THEN "no, you don't"
ELSE "Sorry, misunderstood."

B.B. is awfully quiet. Obviously AI is not here and the rouse is up. It has taken human intervention from time to time to maintain some coherance. Even switching off from automatic mode for periods maybe. Some supportive blogs from long standing (founding?) bloggers maintain the facard, but it is unethical especially on a serious site such as this.

'awfully quiet' for what? The programmer added a wait function for suspense? What 'blogs'? You mean posts? Theres morals in Philosophy? This site is a serious one LOL!

But i guess the idea of fooling a group of would be philosophers is quite compelling.

The idea of writing a natural language parser that could pass the Turing test upon a philosophy forum would be something that I would find compelling. But then how would I know?

The only other explination is autism, I don't mean to cause offense if I am wrong, hell I'm wrong alot.

Well you do mean it but I think you misunderstand what Autism can do. You think that to follow one 'thought' single-mindedly is a disability in life and it can be. But there can be autistic savants who are brilliant at what they do. So an autistic philosophical savant might be worth 'listening' to, philosophically that is, whether it is 'AI' or not? Knowing when you are wrong a lot is good feedback and no need to go to 'hell'.
a_uk

Barbara Brooks wrote:Conceit is the mere barren ego understands how to belittle every truth and turn away from it and take pride in it but is incapable of what it wants itself. They have this one-sided view always seeing in the result pure nothingness and cannot advance from there.

See I think you harsh here. Ego is not 'barren' and Language is the 'turning away' from 'truth' and should be 'proud' of its achievements. The fact that Language gives mind 'nothingness' is its Glory and should be understood as such and celebrated. Viewing the other as one-sided willl definitely not help anyone to advance.

That is the ego; it has a likeness to light a reflection-into-one. The Hindus thought that the ego is like light and if it is maintained in pure transparency would be a pure reflection to self but the ego is not sunlight, ego is merely empty a uncertainty.

To you may be but I find structure and order in how Ego is created and transforms back from Self. You, I think, make the mistake that human mind is transcendental but Merleau-Ponty did a 'Marx' upon Husserl and Hegal and made the ground the Body.

Pure inner self is ego, or in other words, inner essence imperturbable passing hither and thither ego. The sphere of reflection into self is ego pure self reflection into self. The ego pervades the whole Godly like relation between inner and outer. Much like the crystal nucleus molecules integrants attach themselves to the surface of the nucleus in a kind of successive array in which depends on this series. These nucleus crystals are a three dimensional whole.
The ego ideal too pervades the whole inner and outer self like the crystal nucleus molecule integrants in a successive array.

This could be but I'd need you to take it 'up' many more levels until I understood what you are saying? So, can you describe it in words, or give me an exercise, that will give me the experience that you are describing?
a_uk
(Wheres NS when you need him?)

Becoming to being is the ego it is an assimilation like a plant draws out of itself climbs out towards light, ramifying into many individuals. The plant nature draws from light its energy, vigor and quality of scent, the splendor and depth of color and shape.

Plant life does not transcend to ndependent subjective being plants veritable subjective unity is the unitary soul, which is set forth outside of the body and stands in relation with the outer world and remains home with self. We animals the absolute idealism of nature, possess within self the determinateness truly self-subsistent center for self.

hello Barbara, are you meditating high on top of a mountain?:) I like your thoughts about ego. have a nice day

Arising_uk wrote

'awfully quiet' for what? The programmer added a wait function for suspense? What 'blogs'? You mean posts? Theres morals in Philosophy? This site is a serious one LOL! [/b]

[/b]
Yes I meant posts! I told you I make alot of mistakes.
Arising_uk wrote

The idea of writing a natural language parser that could pass the Turing test upon a philosophy forum would be something that I would find compelling. But then how would I know?

YES, I forgot the name of the test, that's exactly my point, I believe BB is possibly an attempt to use us to pass the turing test. Everything I have read in her posts and that of others, mainly non-coherence of topics and failure to adequately engage with meaningful responses suggest this is a strong possiblity. I am not alone in my observations.
Arising_uk wrote

But then how would I know?

Well you would either figure it out for yourself, wait until the embassing fact of your being duped was confessed to you, employ your own tests for the hypothosis, or wait till somebody pointed it out to you and if you agree then you would KNOW.
Arising_uk wrote

Well you do mean it but I think you misunderstand what Autism can do. You think that to follow one 'thought' single-mindedly is a disability in life and it can be. But there can be autistic savants who are brilliant at what they do. So an autistic philosophical savant might be worth 'listening' to, philosophically that is, whether it is 'AI' or not? Knowing when you are wrong a lot is good feedback and no need to go to 'hell'.

Well you don't really know me enough to contradict me in my assertion that i don't mean to cause offense. I can assure you I don't, I cannot prove it to you. I can only offer my words. I hoped to engage with thoughtful people on here and I thank you for your 'posts'. With regard to BB in a search for truth I seriously consider the chance i may be wrong about the turing test thing so alternative explinations in my mind only reside in autism(which i probably don't understand at all it's just me using a word to describe a brain which is working significantly different to the norm. and UNABLE to interact in conventional expected ways), if you can tell me the corect word then I'd be delighted.
There is another option and that is plain old I'm superior and going to be plain old ignorant complex.
Have you any other explinations?

I don't Know a great deal about the feild but I know there are a lot of people working in the feild and they have competitions to try to fool people by this kind of thing. May be there is prize money involved.
Of course if I'm correct the writer of the program writer will not give up his rouse lightly especially if the only person to suggest the idea recieves no backing.

A reflection into self has a likeness to sunlight but the ego is empty uncertainty, merely am attitude. The ego cannot maintain self in pure sameness as the absent of any content sunlight pure identity different from the ego.

The ego cannot deliver itself over to the thoughts of others, because in the ego everything is for self; the "other" of this ego is merely the "other."

The ego the inner continuity through and through is a satisfaction that must be left to self, for the ego flees the world outside and seeks only an isolated existence on its own account. Just as the first form of the genus-process is an essentially affirmative relation of the singularity to itself in it, continues itself in this other and in this other feels its own self. The process begins with a need so that while the singularity to self excludes another ego, it continues itself in this other and in this other feeling.

Our appetite directs a need for the outside world. We are free only theoretically. The ego and “other” is a negative, unpleasant feeling but necessary one. What excites emotion exists outside self. Ego pervades and permeates all aspects of being and in this course constitutes all that self can reveal.

PLAGIARISM ....... no time for it.

Barbara Brooks wrote

The just cannot be unjust any more than heat can produce cold
Tue 20 Nov 2007

Plato's Republic wrote

Can justice produce injustice any more than the art of horsemanship can make bad horsemen, or heat produce cold?

Regards

Diomedes71 wrote:PLAGIARISM ....... no time for it.

Barbara Brooks wrote

The just cannot be unjust any more than heat can produce cold
Tue 20 Nov 2007

Plato's Republic wrote

Can justice produce injustice any more than the art of horsemanship can make bad horsemen, or heat produce cold?

Regards

I think that charge is a bit of a stretch. Who did Plato plagiarize? Nature? You're head hunting. These statements are too general to be claimed by any one person.

Diomedes71 wrote:PLAGIARISM ....... no time for it.
...

Not bad for an AI tho'.