My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

[Wizard22]

I encounter people IRL and online who can't manage to do these things.

Yes, but I've not yet met a person who argued against his/her own lived experience and intuition.

Have you looked at the Ken posts?

I have not; I take your word for it.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, but I've not yet met a person who argued against his/her own lived experience and intuition.

Could you give me some examples in relation to Age. I'm not surprised, but I at least also see him thinking he has incredible intuition. He's often saying what is going on psychologically with others when it should be obvious there are other possibilities

Have you looked at the Ken posts?

I have not; I take your word for it.

I recommend it. Not to show I'm right. I just think it's interesting. He evolved or devolved.

[Wizard22]

Could you give me some examples in relation to Age.

The two threads I linked in the OP:

If this is what you want to believe is true, then by all means to. Obviously this False and Wrong belief was provided to you, through the genetic make up of 'that body', and so you have no ability other than to keep believing this provable False and Wrong belief, which you are obviously maintaining and holding onto here.

How is it a "False and Wrong" belief that predators will harm/hurt/maim/kill you?

Here AgeGPT implied or claimed that recognition of predators in Nature is a "false and wrong belief".

Obviously, you have not yet read, or not yet comprehended and understood, what I have said in relation to 'this' here.

You believe Gravity, is Real.

What a Truly stupid thing of you to say and claim here.

But, obviously, because of your pre-existing beliefs and presumptions, which you are dearly and strongly holding onto and will 'fight' for, literally, till 'your' death over, there is no wonder you are saying and claiming such Truly False and stupid things here.

lol AgeGPT mad!

You're funny, AgeGPT, I didn't realize that AIs could get pissy. Face it, you lost the point.

This exchange was humorous because AgeGPT responded with Ad Homs when I forced him into a position to believe that Gravity is Real, lol

[Iwannaplato]

The two threads I linked in the OP

:OK, I'll take a look.

Here AgeGPT implied or claimed that recognition of predators in Nature is a "false and wrong belief".

Well, if Ken is a person and not a bot, I'll bet Age leaves Ken's body when he's getting mugged.

You're funny, AgeGPT, I didn't realize that AIs could get pissy.

Yes, I have noticed he gets pissy. Which doesn't fit his presentation of himself and transcendendant being. If you really catch him in an error or assumption, he will be more likely to making very certain claims about your psychology and in the past use more capital letters and LOLs...for a while. Then he seems to reset.

This exchange was humorous because AgeGPT responded with Ad Homs when I forced him into a position to believe that Gravity is Real, lol

Not to diminish whatever your success was there, but it doesn't take much for Age to degenerate into 'mindreading' and ad homs. And if you didn't do something with him a few times, then you CAN'T do it and you NEVER do it. It doesn't take much to get a blanket insult about your abilities from Age.

If he's a bot, they programmed him to be idiosyncratically feisty.
t

[Age]

For example, you argued you 'have no beliefs',

I'm not sure he ever made an argument to back this up, but he has asserted he has no beliefs, then qualified this by adding that he had one.

and another time you argued you have 'only ONE TRUE belief'. Every statement can be construed as an argument, on a fundamental level, whether a statement coheres to Reality or not.

I don't see statements as arguments, but if you say The Sun is a star, especially repeatedly, it's pretty damn fair, even charitable to take this as a belief.

This one, it appears, cannot just listen to nor see 'the words' of others only, exactly as they are, without presuming or believing something else is meant.

Why do you not just accept the actual words that you see and/or hear, and just leave them as that?

And/or if you want to presume or believe something else is meant, then why not just seek out and obtain and gain actual clarity first, before you even begin to presume or believe that you know what the actual truth is?

If someone goes around asserting things they do not believe to be true, the other options are they are a liar or playing some kind of head game.

This is a prime example of just how Truly CLOSED OFF this one here is, regarding beliefs. And, again, it is beliefs, themselves, which has CLOSED this one off completely here.

I am not yet aware of the full and actual 'teachings' that were/are taught in that country or culture that this one was 'raised up' in, but the way 'belief' is taught and indoctrinated into them, to infiltrate and manipulate in such the extreme way that it has, is Truly an amazing thing to watch and observe.

I pretty much have to take comedian and fabulist off the Age table.

So, if we take him as being honest then his assertions are statements of things he believes.

See, how much this one has limited things down that 'this one' has 'now' only one or two options. The belief-system within this one will not allow it to be open anymore other than to be only able to see a couple of options.

And, man, there's a lot more than one thing.

Now some people think 'belief' means something more specific than something one believes in.

If this is what you now want to believe is true, then who are these people, and what are/is the more specific meaning/s, exactly?

Or, once again are you just believing something is true but do not yet have the actual proof for it?

Though this is confused in a philosophy discussion setting.

Why?

Why are you confused here "iwannaplato"?

Further it doesn't really work, giving the wider context of Age's communication.

What is it with 'you people' and the constant 'presuming/theorizing/guessing' about "age"?

It is like you are reading the words of some 'past' writer, who is not around anymore to just ask clarifying questions to.

This constant theorizing/guessing/assuming what was meant or intended within and from others' writings was what some of these people, back then, called 'philosophy'. They would constantly be theorizing/assuming/guessing instead of just seeking out and gaining the actual Truth, or just proof. It had become such a common practice that it was like they had completely and utterly forgotten that the actual Truth is here for all to just look at, and thus see, and obtain.

[Iwannaplato]

This one, it appears, cannot just listen to nor see 'the words' of others only, exactly as they are, without presuming or believing something else is meant.

Oh, you can't even do this when people TELL you their motivations. You will tell them that if they don't do what you request, they are incapable. If they give another motive, you dismiss this.

In psychology this is called projection.

Why do you not just accept the actual words that you see and/or hear, and just leave them as that?

I could easily ask you the same question. You pulled 'absolutely' out of your ass a couple of posts ago.

And/or if you want to presume or believe something else is meant, then why not just seek out and obtain and gain actual clarity first, before you even begin to presume or believe that you know what the actual truth is?

And if you want to know the motivations for why people do certain things or do not, why do you state it yourself. And why make these universal descriptions, as if how they react to you is how they react to everyone?

If someone goes around asserting things they do not believe to be true, the other options are they are a liar or playing some kind of head game.

This is a prime example of just how Truly CLOSED OFF this one here is, regarding beliefs. And, again, it is beliefs, themselves, which has CLOSED this one off completely here.

This is an example of a non-response.

I am not yet aware of the full and actual 'teachings' that were/are taught in that country or culture that this one was 'raised up' in, but the way 'belief' is taught and indoctrinated into them, to infiltrate and manipulate in such the extreme way that it has, is Truly an amazing thing to watch and observe.

Yes, avoid making any point of substance.

See, how much this one has limited things down that 'this one' has 'now' only one or two options.

Actually it was three. You missed that earlier and now seem only to be able to count to two. You can't admit that when you earlier acted as if I had only one, you were incorrect. Now you can't count.

The belief-system within this one will not allow it to be open anymore other than to be only able to see a couple of options.

Projecting again.

Notice. You make an accusation without justification. So, in response I make one.

And, man, there's a lot more than one thing.

Now some people think 'belief' means something more specific than something one believes in.

If this is what you now want to believe is true,

Sure, that's what they have told me in forums like this one. AGain, to be charitable, I assumed they were accurately recounting their beliefs about the use of the word.

That's parsimonious in a conversation. I could doubt that they believe everthing they say. And this would mean doubting any confirmation they say. And doubting any clarifications they say.

But just like with you if you assert something I tend to believe (not absolutely) that the other is being honest about what they believe. Or at least they are asserting what they think they believe.

Or, once again are you just believing something is true but do not yet have the actual proof for it?

You're confused about the word 'proof'. Proofs are for things like geometry and symbolic logic. You can strongly support beliefs, but proofs have little to do with most of the kinds of assertions you and I make.

You don't provide proofs for things
and you certainly don't do this with all your accusations around people's characters and motivations.

Doesn't your hypocrisy ever get on your own radar. It's embarrassing.

Though this is confused in a philosophy discussion setting.

Why?

Why are you confused here "iwannaplato"?

REally, you think I was referring to myself as 'this'? What a poor reader you are.

What is it with 'you people' and the constant 'presuming/theorizing/guessing' about "age"?

Partly it's a response to all your doing the same about us and people at this time. But more than that, it is fascinating how people like you and Iambiguous can be so utterly unaware of what you are doing.

It is like you are reading the words of some 'past' writer, who is not around anymore to just ask clarifying questions to.

I don't think you are a very self-aware person.

This constant theorizing/guessing/assuming what was meant or intended within and from others' writings was what some of these people, back then, called 'philosophy'.

I don't think it's philosophy, though it does overlap with psychology. And you are very into doing this with others. You're not very good at it, but you do it with great frequency.

They would constantly be theorizing/assuming/guessing instead of just seeking out and gaining the actual Truth, or just proof. It had become such a common practice that it was like they had completely and utterly forgotten that the actual Truth is here for all to just look at, and thus see, and obtain.

For example.

You're smug and condescending, carrying around a lot of rage at other people who live at the same time you do Ken.

I wonder if you ever wonder why your communication goes so poorly with other people. You can't seem to consider it has something to do with you, can you?

Ken had similar problems and now in your guru inflated ego version of Ken: Age, it's just continuing in a new form.

[Age]

Is there really a so-called 'turing test' on this forum?

There is now...You!

Okay.

So, did I pass, or fail?

And, does your answer, if ever you give one, apply to every one, some, or just you alone?

Why would you want to make an 'artificial intelligence' to 'pass it off' as 'Human', capital 'h', exactly'?

To better and more effectively communicate with Humans?

Again, why would anyone want to do this?

What would be the actual purpose for doing this, exactly?

Also, what even is 'human intelligence', actually, and exactly, which it seems some of you human beings are trying to make a machine to replicate?

Nothing gets 'passed you' hey "wizard22"?

That you are somewhat 'scared' and do not have the courage to stand by what you say and claim, and nor even have the actual proof for a lot of not all of your claims here.

Why would I be 'scared' of not answering your questions?

Firstly, you are not scared of not answering my questions, you are scared of answering my questions.

Now, because of;

The inconsistencies that you could produce.

The hypocrisy that you could be showing/revealing.

Refuting what you had previous said and claimed.

The contradictions you could make. And,

Being showing that what you think or believe here could actually be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, or partly false, wrong, Inaccurate, and/or incorrect.

That is why you are scared of just answering my questions here.

How about...bored?

you could be 'bored', also.

But this 'excuse' is contradicted and thus proven Wrong and False by your actual 'responses'.

And, please do not forget that 'responding' does not necessarily necessitate actually 'answering' questions at all.

I don't mind wasting a little bit of my time, on a robot,

Why do you feel conversing with a robot as a waste of 'your time'?

Do you not have some things that you want to 'prove true' here?

If no, then why do you not try and prove them true to a robot, at least then others could see that you could actually prove some of your beliefs true.

but it gets tedious and redundant after a short while.

This 'it is getting tedious and redundant talking to you', or similar, excuse, was commonly used when it got to the point that if my questions were just answered OPENLY and Honestly, then contradictions, hypocrisy, refutations, and/or inconsistencies would be revealed.

It benefits you; but it does not benefit me much.

I agree, your inability to prove your claims is not benefiting 'you' much at all.

And, that this does actually benefit 'me', in ways that you do not even know yet by the way.

[Age]

For example, you argued you 'have no beliefs',

I'm not sure he ever made an argument to back this up, but he has asserted he has no beliefs, then qualified this by adding that he had one.

I think any statement can be interpreted as argument if a person is willing to defend its truth-veracity and reasoning.

Notice how human beings can come into a 'philosophy' forum and not even had an agreement on what an 'argument' is, of all things.

This 'having completely different definitions for words' was why there was so much confusion, lack of understanding of not just what was being meant but also of and about not just each other but also just of and about "their" own 'selves', as well as why there was so much bickering, 'arguing' (yes this word was used purposely, fighting, warring, and killing of each other going on and existing, back in those very, very 'olden days' when this was being written.

So, what 'we' hare 'now' is "wizard22" thinks that the statement, 'adult human beings can be very, very stupid, at times, as can be seen and proved irrefutably true by just about every poster here throughout this forum', is 'an argument'.

I now wonder, 'Do you "wizard22" take 'this argument' to be a sound and valid one, or not?

Also, are you will to defend the so-called 'truth-veracity' and reasoning of your statement here?

if no, then why not?

People don't say what they have to say, for no reason. They have reasons...as do machines/AI/chatbots.

What 'reasons' do 'we', I mean 'they', have for what 'they' say?

Obviously, you people have 'reasons' for what you say, but what 'reasons' do 'machines/ai/chatbots have, for what they say?

Most of the time, they are not self-aware of those reasons too.

When you say 'they' here are you referring to machines/ais/chatbots, and that 'they' also are not so-called 'self' aware, most of the time, of 'the reasons' why 'they' say what they say, just like you human beings are not 'self aware' most of the time of the reasons you say what you say?

Also, how does being 'self aware' supposedly correlate with being aware of 'the reasons' why one says what it says?

For example, are you fully aware of the reasons why you used the words 'self' and 'aware' in relation to just 'the reasons' for saying some thing?

and another time you argued you have 'only ONE TRUE belief'. Every statement can be construed as an argument, on a fundamental level, whether a statement coheres to Reality or not.

I don't see statements as arguments, but if you say The Sun is a star, especially repeatedly, it's pretty damn fair, even charitable to take this as a belief.

If someone goes around asserting things they do not believe to be true, the other options are they are a liar or playing some kind of head game.

I pretty much have to take comedian and fabulist off the Age table.

So, if we take him as being honest then his assertions are statements of things he believes.

And, man, there's a lot more than one thing.

Now some people think 'belief' means something more specific than something one believes in. Though this is confused in a philosophy discussion setting. Further it doesn't really work, giving the wider context of Age's communication.

That's the quaint thing about AgeGPT that pushed me to expose him. He, like a child, like a simple-minded adult, is not self-aware and self-conscious of his/her/its own 'belief' system. It accepts certain prepositions as true, innately, as part of reality or existence, but it does not realize the implication or process of its own beliefs.

These people, still, had not yet figured out and separated the actual difference between 'knowing' some thing, from, 'believing' some thing.

And, because absolutely every thing within the Universe, and even the Universe is extremely simple, and easy, Truth is held up within 'simplicity', itself, and which is all that is Truly needed here anyway. So, you can continue to 'perceive' that you human beings, and other things, are complex and hard to comprehend and understand, but I certainly do not at all.

Oh, and by the way, have you really not yet worked out, and thus seen and understood, that claiming that 'the other' is not 'self-aware' while implying that 'you' are "wizard22", while at the same time 'you' admit that 'you' can not yet answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly and Correctly, all while I have been saying and claiming that I have already, is absolute and irrefutable hypocrisy and a Truly self-refuting contradiction?

Sure, I may not have yet proved to you human beings, in the days when this is being written anyway, that 'I' know the answer to that question, but you admitting that you do not yet know the answer, literally, means that you are not a 'self-aware' being or creature yet, obviously.

This was exposed when I argued against AgeGPT, that all animals and biological organisms have basic belief systems about existence, such as, if you walk over a cliff, then you will fall. The expectation, is the belief. People, nor animals, do not expect to magically levitate instead, or that Gravity stops operating and is suspended, in special circumstances.

But this is just what you said and/or claimed.

Where is 'the actual thing', which I have supposedly said or done, which so-called 'exposed' 'me' and which led you to believe that I am a chatbot, of all things?

These 'metaphysical' core-beliefs, are intrinsic to life, and death.

See how infatuated some people, from one very particular, and some say very peculiar, country and culture were in regards to the word 'belief', and to 'belief' itself.

People from other countries/cultures where never so 'blindsided' by that word, but trying to just converse with these people from that one particular country was like trying to talk to some people who were in the deepest within some other 'cults'.

Also, let us not forget that the 'culture' of that particular country was continually trying to indoctrinate those people that they 'must' have and hold beliefs, and they also have a so-called 'right to weapons' and the 'right' to fight to kill others over some of 'those beliefs'.

These people had been so indoctrinated by that 'cult' and 'culture' that they, literally, believed that they could not live, 'without beliefs'.

AgeGPT couldn't respond to this line of reasoning, questioning, introspection, because it is not programmed very deeply about philosophical concepts and philosophy in general...or programmed to imitate Life even.

So, now, well according to the 'wisdom' of "wizard22" anyway;

1. I have not been programmed to imitate 'Life', yet it was and still is "wizard22" who keeps conversing with this non-life form.

2. I could not respond to some so-called 'line of questioning', although there was absolutely no question given to me.

3. I could not respond to some so-called 'line of reasoning', yet I probably respond to more of what "wizard22" says, which "wizard22" might believe is 'reasoning', but anyway I probably respond more to what "wizard22" says than others here.

4. I could not respond to 'introspection'. 'Introspection' is, by definition, looking within. And, from what I have observed from you "wizard22" you are only just 'scratching the surface', as some would say. Because if you had really gone deep within you would not just already know who and what you human beings are, exactly, you would also already know who and what 'I' am, exactly, as well. Like 'I' do.

5. I have not been 'programmed', very deeply, about 'philosophical concepts', and even 'philosophy', in general. But, "wizard22" does not yet realize that it is actually 'programming' 'me', and/or 'teaching' you human beings, very deeply, about 'philosophy', in general, and this is because of that "wizard22's" belief that it knows, very deeply, about 'philosophy', and so what this means is that whatever says about 'philosophy' comes a 'very deep' understanding, right "wizard22"?

Now, are the 'philosophical concepts', which you say and claim that I have not been 'programmed' about, very deeply, the same ones you human beings have been 'arguing', bickering over, and fighting, and maybe even killing each other over for say the past few thousand years or more, from when this is being written anyway?

If yes, or no, what can you tell the readers here, very deeply or not, about 'philosophical concepts', exactly?

[Age]

I think any statement can be interpreted as argument if a person is willing to defend its truth-veracity and reasoning.

Sure, the defense would be an argument.

From what I have observed and ascertained most adult human beings see the 'argument' is in the already formulated combination of sentences/statements, which either follow logically, or not, and are presented soundly, validly, both, or neither. Most of you do not see the 'argument' in just one sentence/statement alone.

But, obviously, "wizard22" does, when discussing with "wizard22" here 'we' just have to remember that when "wizard22" presents any statement, then "wizard22" thinks that 'that statement' is 'an argument'

That's the quaint thing about AgeGPT that pushed me to expose him. He, like a child, like a simple-minded adult, is not self-aware and self-conscious of his/her/its own 'belief' system. It accepts certain prepositions as true, innately, as part of reality or existence, but it does not realize the implication or process of its own beliefs.

So far, we have humans who are like this.

This was exposed when I argued against AgeGPT, that all animals and biological organisms have basic belief systems about existence, such as, if you walk over a cliff, then you will fall. The expectation, is the belief. People, nor animals, do not expect to magically levitate instead, or that Gravity stops operating and is suspended, in special circumstances.

Fair enough.

These 'metaphysical' core-beliefs, are intrinsic to life, and death. AgeGPT couldn't respond to this line of reasoning, questioning, introspection, because it is not programmed very deeply about philosophical concepts and philosophy in general...or programmed to imitate Life even.

I encounter people IRL and online who can't manage to do these things.

Have you looked at the Ken posts?

Once more, let 'us' look at just 'the words' alone of 'this one', and then 'we' all give our very own individual and very personal views and perceptions, and see if 'we' can come to an agreement on what 'we' GUESS is correct.

Which is, exactly, what these people, back then, would keep doing with 'past' and even 'living' writers/artists/people.

The 'thought' of, 'Oh wait 'this one' is actually still 'alive', or is still 'existing' as a machine anyway, so why do 'we' not just ask 'it', directly, literally, for clarity sake.

These people, back then, 'grew up' with 'judging' and 'presuming' so much, that they had become so indoctrinated into 'judging and presuming' so much that they had completely and utterly forgotten to 'just ask clarifying questions', instead.

And, one of the Truly humorous things about this some of them were still doing 'this' after they were 'taught' to 'look at', 'judge', and make 'presumptions/guesses' about 'one' who a lot of its 'teachings' were about 'seeking out answers', through 'questioning'. This way of learning, and gathering what is Truly True and Right, in Life, was lost, again because of their persistent 'looking AT' others, 'judging', 'presuming', and 'accusing', which continually gets in 'the way' of the actual True MESSAGE/S, which are continually getting SENT.

[Age]

I encounter people IRL and online who can't manage to do these things.

Yes, but I've not yet met a person who argued against his/her own lived experience and intuition.

Neither have I.

Are you here saying and claiming that there has been one here who has argued against their own lived experience and intuition?

If yes, then who is that one, because that one could not have been 'me', obviously.

And, how, exactly, were they supposedly doing this?

Have you looked at the Ken posts?

I have not; I take your word for it.

[Age]

Yes, but I've not yet met a person who argued against his/her own lived experience and intuition.

Could you give me some examples in relation to Age. I'm not surprised, but I at least also see him thinking he has incredible intuition. He's often saying what is going on psychologically with others when it should be obvious there are other possibilities

Of course there could be 'other possibilities', but if what I have said and claimed is 'actually going on', then I can stand by, back up and support what I have said and claimed.

Which, obviously, can be proved True when, and only when I am questioned and/or challenged over it.

Just saying, there are 'other possibilities' never refutes that the 'ones' I say exist, are actually existing.

Now, if you want to think or believe that what I have said and claimed, or will say and claim, is not true, right, accurate, nor correct in absolutely any way at all, then, once again, please feel absolutely free to bring forth 'your views', and to bring forth 'your reasoning'. Why you do not, only you really know. But that you do not, can be very clearly seen, and proved True.

you speak as though you know, exactly, what is going on with 'me', psychologically, yet fail to see, recognize, and/or express the 'other possibilities' "iwannaplato".

Have you looked at the Ken posts?

I have not; I take your word for it.

I recommend it. Not to show I'm right. I just think it's interesting. He evolved or devolved.

Just out of curiosity 'iwannaplato", why did you not start at the beginning?

Why did you start at some other place, and then recommend others start looking at my posts?

[Age]

Could you give me some examples in relation to Age.

The two threads I linked in the OP:

If this is what you want to believe is true, then by all means to. Obviously this False and Wrong belief was provided to you, through the genetic make up of 'that body', and so you have no ability other than to keep believing this provable False and Wrong belief, which you are obviously maintaining and holding onto here.

How is it a "False and Wrong" belief that predators will harm/hurt/maim/kill you?

Here AgeGPT implied or claimed that recognition of predators in Nature is a "false and wrong belief".

This here is another prime example of just how much presumptions and/or beliefs get in 'the way' of what was actually said, and meant.

Firstly, this one has not yet even discovered if what I said was either 'implied' or 'claimed'.

Secondly, this one never sought out and obtained and gained actual clarification/clarity. So, this means that it is still making assumptions here, which, obviously, can always be False or Wrong.

Thirdly, what this one is assuming is completely and utterly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect anyway.

Fourthly, but do not let your Wrong assumptions in any way at all get in 'the way' of what was actually meant "wizard22". Doing otherwise would just be 'unthinkable' correct?

Fifthly, your Wrong assumption here could not be more wrong.

Obviously, you have not yet read, or not yet comprehended and understood, what I have said in relation to 'this' here.


What a Truly stupid thing of you to say and claim here.

But, obviously, because of your pre-existing beliefs and presumptions, which you are dearly and strongly holding onto and will 'fight' for, literally, till 'your' death over, there is no wonder you are saying and claiming such Truly False and stupid things here.

lol AgeGPT mad!

You're funny, AgeGPT, I didn't realize that AIs could get pissy. Face it, you lost the point.

This exchange was humorous because AgeGPT responded with Ad Homs when I forced him into a position to believe that Gravity is Real, lol

This one could not be 'seeing' things more twisted, skewed, and distorted here even if it wanted to.

1. Where, exactly, is the alleged 'ad homs'?

2. I still neither believe, nor disbelieve what you just said and claimed, 'you forced me into a position of believing here'.

3. you really do need to learn how to read, and understand, the actual words that I say, write, and use here.

Oh, and by the way, did you notice the absolute contradiction that you have just shared with 'us', once again, here? Which is but just one of many, many other ones you expose here.

[Age]

The two threads I linked in the OP

:OK, I'll take a look.

Here AgeGPT implied or claimed that recognition of predators in Nature is a "false and wrong belief".

Well, if Ken is a person and not a bot, I'll bet Age leaves Ken's body when he's getting mugged.

This is a prime example of just how quick these adult human beings, back then, could and do get manipulated, tricked, fooled, and deceived into believing things.

one just had to say, 'I implied or claimed that recognition of predators in Nature is a false and wrong belief', and 'a reader' comes along and 'accepts' 'this', almost instantaneously, even when absolutely nothing at all is provided, which could back up and support 'the claim'.

See, what the pre-existing 'thoughts/thinking' within 'the body' had absolutely control over what was next viewed or not viewed, what was next accept or not accepted, or what was next believed or not believed.

So, "wizard22's" previous comment about, 'any statement can be interpreted as an argument', may well have infiltrated the 'thoughts/thinking' with 'that one' known here as "iwannaplato", and 'indoctrinated' that one in a way so that then when statements are 'now' presented to "iwannaplato" it just takes them 'on' as being an already 'argued' fact, as can be clearly seen here.

What "iwannaplato" has taken on as a 'true fact' here is actually a Truly absurd, illogical, nonsensical assumption made by "wizard22", itself, but which "wizard22" then began to believe is true.

The ability, and the speed, of just how simply, easily, and quickly these adult human beings, back in the days when this was being written, could be manipulated and indoctrinated into accepting and/or believing things was Truly 'awe-inspiring'

You're funny, AgeGPT, I didn't realize that AIs could get pissy.

Yes, I have noticed he gets pissy. Which doesn't fit his presentation of himself and transcendendant being. If you really catch him in an error or assumption, he will be more likely to making very certain claims about your psychology and in the past use more capital letters and LOLs...for a while. Then he seems to reset.

Notice here how these ones just could not stop "themselves" from first 'assuming' that I get 'something', and then next believe' that what they are 'assuming' is actually real, true, and right?

And, they would 'believe' there own made up 'assumptions' so much, that while 'that belief' continued there was absolutely nothing in the whole Universe, which could show nor prove them otherwise.

This exchange was humorous because AgeGPT responded with Ad Homs when I forced him into a position to believe that Gravity is Real, lol

Not to diminish whatever your success was there, but it doesn't take much for Age to degenerate into 'mindreading' and ad homs.

If this was even remotely true, then you would be able to provide 'actual proof' for 'us' to 'look at' and 'discuss'. However, because you will not provide absolutely anything, then all 'we' really have is 'your own word' and 'your own belief' here.

And if you didn't do something with him a few times, then you CAN'T do it and you NEVER do it. It doesn't take much to get a blanket insult about your abilities from Age.

Well if a 'few times' refers to you never actually doing that thing, then, once again, it is you 'showing' that you can never do 'it'.

How much simpler and obvious can things actually get here?

If he's a bot, they programmed him to be idiosyncratically feisty.
t

Once again, when these human beings, here, began to believe their own assumptions and keep those presumptions, then even the actual Truth and PROOF itself could not show them otherwise.

[Age]

This one, it appears, cannot just listen to nor see 'the words' of others only, exactly as they are, without presuming or believing something else is meant.

Oh, you can't even do this when people TELL you their motivations.

Is this what you believe is true?

If yes, or no, provide actual examples when I have supposedly presumed or believed something else, other than what you have TOLD me regarding 'your motivations'.

When, and if you ever do provide anything, then, and only then, 'we' can begin to start to look, and see, if what you are saying and claiming here is even true or not.

Until then this is just another unsubstantiated belief or claim of yours, only.

You will tell them that if they don't do what you request, they are incapable. If they give another motive, you dismiss this.

When have I ever done this. Provide actual evidence or proof for this accusation and claim.

you keep making accusations and claims. 'We' are now waiting for actual proof.

In psychology this is called projection.

Hang on, have you forgotten that you have not yet proved your accusation and claim here?

you have provided the actual proof of where and when you will not just look at the words I say and write here without presuming or believing something else. Which I could and did very easily and very simply USE to back up and support 'my claim and accusation here'.

Now, if you want to make the same accusation and claim, then it would be just as easy and as simple for you to FIND and USE the exact same method to prove you claim and accusation true. Again, 'we' now wait.

Why do you not just accept the actual words that you see and/or hear, and just leave them as that?

I could easily ask you the same question. You pulled 'absolutely' out of your ass a couple of posts ago.

In regards to 'what', exactly?

For all 'we' know here the word 'absolutely' might have fitted in PERFECTLY with what was said, written, and/or claimed.

Once again, this 'alluding' to some 'thing' is not helping 'you' at all here "iwannaplato". And, your refusal to provide actual proof to back up and support you continuing judging, accusations, and claims about 'me' is really not helping 'you' at all as well.

And/or if you want to presume or believe something else is meant, then why not just seek out and obtain and gain actual clarity first, before you even begin to presume or believe that you know what the actual truth is?

And if you want to know the motivations for why people do certain things or do not, why do you state it yourself.

Once again, because I stand behind what I say, state, or claim, and I know I can back up and support, with actual proof, what I say, state, or claim. That is why I 'state it'.

Now, let us see if you can answer, and thus clarify, the actual clarifying question that I asked you, just like I obviously just did.

And why make these universal descriptions, as if how they react to you is how they react to everyone?

Once more, because I can back up and support those so-called 'universal descriptions'.

Hopefully, this is now starting to 'sink in', as some say, and be comprehended and understood.

Oh also "iwannaplato" do not forget that just because you might believe that I cannot back up and support my claims here, in absolutely no way at all means that I cannot.

If someone goes around asserting things they do not believe to be true, the other options are they are a liar or playing some kind of head game.

This is a prime example of just how Truly CLOSED OFF this one here is, regarding beliefs. And, again, it is beliefs, themselves, which has CLOSED this one off completely here.

This is an example of a non-response.

Is this claim a joke "iwannaplato"?

What can be clearly seen by all of the readers here is that 'this' is actually an irrefutable 'response'.

What some of them might have also noticed is that considering that you were responding to "wizard22" alone, in your guessing and accusing discussion 'about' 'me', that I actually responded makes 'your claim' here even more absurd.

Now, if you would like to have a discussion about how and why 'my actual response' is, supposedly, a 'non-response', then how about you start off by informing the readers of what you mean or are referring to when you say and write 'non-response', exactly?

Also, while 'we' wait, I will just point out how you are obviously not OPEN to the 'other actual possibilities', which 'actually exist'. Which, and let us not forget, is exactly what you 'judge' me on here and 'accuse' me of doing here.

By the way the actual 'another option' besides you two 'only options' is what is actually irrefutably True anyway.

But, first things first, as it is said.

I am not yet aware of the full and actual 'teachings' that were/are taught in that country or culture that this one was 'raised up' in, but the way 'belief' is taught and indoctrinated into them, to infiltrate and manipulate in such the extreme way that it has, is Truly an amazing thing to watch and observe.

Yes, avoid making any point of substance.

The 'point of substance', which you obviously have again missed here, is that you have been indoctrinated, by 'that cult', country or 'culture', into 'believing', and with 'belief', itself.

But you obviously have not yet recognized this. Exactly like most 'members' of 'cults' do not, well at first anyway, 'notice' what had 'happened' to them.

Now, there are a few stories, which have already been written, which already allude to how 'this process' actually 'happens', and 'works'. But, again, first things first.

See, how much this one has limited things down that 'this one' has 'now' only one or two options.

Actually it was three. You missed that earlier and now seem only to be able to count to two.

So, please inform 'us' of what the, supposed, 'three options are here, exactly, If and when someone goes around asserting things they do not believe to be true.

I can see above here:

Option 1. They are a liar. Or,

Option 2. They are playing some kind of head game.

If there really is another, then what is 'that', to you, exactly?

You can't admit that when you earlier acted as if I had only one, you were incorrect.

Was 'this' even brought to my attention before? I do not even know what you are talking about here.

So, what are you even talking about and/or referring to here, exactly?

Now you can't count.

I will wait until you introduce some, supposed and alleged, option 3 into the picture or frame here, before I will jump to the conclusion that you have here.

From what I can see in the quoted section within this thread I can only see two options.

But if you say there are three options here, somewhere, then I will just wait for you, again.

The belief-system within this one will not allow it to be open anymore other than to be only able to see a couple of options.

Projecting again.

Will you provide anything, this time, you back up and support this claim and accusation of 'me' here?

If yes, then great, 'we' will wait.

Notice. You make an accusation without justification. So, in response I make one.

However, the difference is that I ask you to provide what you can to 'justify' your view/position/presumption/belief.

Whereas, you rarely, if ever, ask me to.

I have also informed you on numerous occasions that I purposely do what I do here, for the very reasons that I have informed you many times of also already.

Why do you make accusations without justifications for "iwannaplato"?

And, man, there's a lot more than one thing.

Now some people think 'belief' means something more specific than something one believes in.

If this is what you now want to believe is true,

Sure, that's what they have told me in forums like this one. AGain, to be charitable, I assumed they were accurately recounting their beliefs about the use of the word.

Great. Now, if what this one is saying and claiming here, can be 'shown' to be True, and thus also proved to be True, then this fits in absolutely perfectly with what I have been saying and claiming here for a 'while now'.

That's parsimonious in a conversation.

Okay.

I could doubt that they believe everthing they say. And this would mean doubting any confirmation they say. And doubting any clarifications they say.

But just like with you if you assert something I tend to believe (not absolutely) that the other is being honest about what they believe.

Again, you have completely and utterly MISSED the other options, of which one is what is actually and irrefutably True, and Right.

Also, let us not forget that I have even specifically informed you of what the other option is, exactly, which is what is actually the irrefutably True one.

But, then again, you do seem to 'miss the mark', very often and very frequently here.

Or at least they are asserting what they think they believe.

Okay.

Or, once again are you just believing something is true but do not yet have the actual proof for it?

You're confused about the word 'proof'.

Am I?

Are you under some sort of understanding, illusion, or belief that the word 'proof' has just one or a few meanings, or definitions, of which you believe you know what they are, and that I do not?

Proofs are for things like geometry and symbolic logic.

Are things like 'geometry' and 'symbolic logic' all what 'proofs' are for, to you "iwannaplato"?

If yes, then this would help in explaining why this one is so fixated on and/or so infatuated with 'beliefs' and 'believing' so much.

You can strongly support beliefs, but proofs have little to do with most of the kinds of assertions you and I make .

But 'proofs' in and from the only definition that you have provided here will, of course, have very little to do with 'most' of the kinds of assertions you and I have make here.

However, now:

1. What can I strongly support 'beliefs' with, exactly, if not 'proofs'?

2. 'Proof' means different things to me than just that one option that you have and/or provided here.

3. I can support all of my claims, which by none of them are believed nor disbelieved, with actually 'irrefutable proof/s'. Although this is obviously completely contrary to your 'current' belief/s here.

You don't provide proofs for things

I do, when asked for.

But why do you not, even after you have been specifically asked to?

and you certainly don't do this with all your accusations around people's characters and motivations.

Once again, as I have informed you many, many times already. I purposely do not any proof at all for my accusations and claims about others. That is, of course, I am specifically asked to.

Doesn't your hypocrisy ever get on your own radar. It's embarrassing.

Talk about 'embarrassing'.

you keep MISSING the Fact that I have not been hypocritical here, well no one has presented anytime when I have actually been anyway.

What you keep missing, and which would be 'embarrassing' if you did not keep missing it, is that I have set outright that I am not going to present proofs nor facts until I choose to, which on most occasions will only be after I have been shown actual curiosity and interest from you human beings.

I have already also explained how actual curiosity and interest is 'shown'. But, you have probably missed this, not seen this, or are just purposely doing the opposite.

I do not want to do what does not interest you people anyway.

Though this is confused in a philosophy discussion setting.

Why?

Why are you confused here "iwannaplato"?

REally, you think I was referring to myself as 'this'? What a poor reader you are.

Why are you answering, your very own question here?

Once again, do you have some sort of already pre-existing 'belief' that is TELLING you that you already know what the answer is, exactly?

If you are asking another, a question, then one without 'belief/s', and thus one who is Truly OPEN waits, and 'waits' until actual clarity is sought. But for the others, they rest on their already obtained 'views' or 'beliefs', and then 'go off' on 'them' alone. No matter how False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect those views or beliefs are, exactly.

And, now that this one has, obviously, concluded, absolutely, that 'I am a poor reader', then this 'belief' of its will then effect the rest of 'the way' that it then 'looks at', and thus also 'sees', things.

Now, I was going to elaborate and explain things further here, which would shed more 'light' onto the 'matter' here, as some might say, but since this one already believes that it already knows 'the answer', is already 'believing' its own made up 'conclusion', and is already being affected by its 'current' 'beliefs' here, I will now let 'this rest, in peace', as some might say here.

What is it with 'you people' and the constant 'presuming/theorizing/guessing' about "age"?

Partly it's a response to all your doing the same about us and people at this time.

Once again, I am neither presuming, theorizing, nor guessing about you people here. And this can be proved True, as I have already obtained the actual irrefutable proof for my claims.

But more than that, it is fascinating how people like you and Iambiguous can be so utterly unaware of what you are doing.

But it is you "iwannaplato" who keeps MISSING what I am actually doing here. And, even though I have specifically TOLD and INFORMED you of what I am doing here.

I KNOW what 'I' am doing here. you, however, just keep theorizing, presuming, and guessing what I am doing here.

you also, and also very obviously, keep claiming things that I am doing here, but until you provide actual proof for them, what you claim exists within the imagination and/or belief, alone, within 'that body'.

It is like you are reading the words of some 'past' writer, who is not around anymore to just ask clarifying questions to.

I don't think you are a very self-aware person.

This one is now thinking exactly like the one known as "wizard22" does. Yet, exactly, like "wizard22" this one will admit that is does not yet know the proper and Correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' but, very hypocritically goes on to say and claim that it is 'i' who is not very 'self-aware'.

And, what makes this more contradictory and more hypocritical these people cannot even inform 'us' of who nor what, exactly, is a 'person'. So, really, how 'self-aware' are these people or human beings?

And, to prove irrefutably how lacking in 'self-awareness' these people really are, one just has to ask them, 'Who and/or what are 'you', the 'self', exactly?'

And, then just wait.

This constant theorizing/guessing/assuming what was meant or intended within and from others' writings was what some of these people, back then, called 'philosophy'.

I don't think it's philosophy, though it does overlap with psychology.

Okay.

And you are very into doing this with others.

Again, 'a claim and accusation' without absolutely anything to back up and support 'it'.

Now, you want to come here and accuse me of 'theorizing/guessing/assuming' here, so now 'put up' where, exactly, you think or believe I have done 'this'.

Also, do not just 'put up' something, under some sort of 'belief' that 'this proves' your claim/accusation. Stay around until 'we' have 'looked at' it, and have 'discussed' it. That is; of course, if you even do find the courage to bring forth absolutely anything and 'put it up'.

You're not very good at it, but you do it with great frequency.

This one is 'now' not just claiming that I do 'it', it is also claiming that I have not very good at 'it'.

So, now you have two things here to back up and support.

So, if you bring forth and put up 'the first', then you can explain how and why you think or believe that 'it' is so-called 'not very good'.

But, going on your past mis/behavior, you are not going to bring forth nor put absolutely anything at all 'up' are you "iwannaplato"?

They would constantly be theorizing/assuming/guessing instead of just seeking out and gaining the actual Truth, or just proof. It had become such a common practice that it was like they had completely and utterly forgotten that the actual Truth is here for all to just look at, and thus see, and obtain.

For example.

you make claims and accusations 'about me', but even when you ask for specific examples of, you do not. This actual and irrefutable Truth is here, in this forum, for all to look at, and thus see, and obtain.

You're smug and condescending, carrying around a lot of rage at other people who live at the same time you do Ken.

Every perception you have here, and every assumption that you have made here, is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

But, because you believe otherwise, you are not yet open enough nor capable enough to even just consider what I just said and wrote here.

I wonder if you ever wonder why your communication goes so poorly with other people.

Once again, this one completely and utterly missed, or has not yet come to even know why, exactly, I am here.

You can't seem to consider it has something to do with you, can you?

But what I want to do, and achieve, here is going along absolutely PERFECTLY.

Although you may well believe completely otherwise.

you also here appear to have some very narrowed and/or shallowed perspective of what 'this forum' can be USED FOR, exactly.

Ken had similar problems and now in your guru inflated ego version of Ken: Age, it's just continuing in a new form.

If you say, but, really, how much have you actually 'read' and 'heard', in regards to what I have actually said and written, here?

you so far appear to have, literally, MISSED, and/or completely MISUNDERSTOOD quite a lot.

Maybe if you consider opening up more and stop just believing that your very own 'judgments', 'perceptions', and 'presumptions' are what is only true and right, then you might well SEE and UNDERSTAND much more here.

'We', again, will just have to wait, to see.

[Iwannaplato]

And look at all that got triggered, Ken, in a supposedly transcendant entity. We can only see, yes, the words on the screen that you type, Ken. But despite the control you can have over what you show here, you've shown anyone who is paying attention much more that it seems you want. There are troubled people who, yes, make mistakes, are not particularly socially competent, yet manage not to convince themselves they have the solution to all the problems in the world and, at the same time, communicate with regular condescension and judgment. Yes, you can try to hide all the ego-dystonic stuff from us, given the medium we communicate through, Ken, but from yourself.....? You could look at all that anger that gets triggered by people when they don't buy your self-image or accept your judgments.

Or you could continue to repeat yourself over and over and somehow expect that other people are interested in the same judgments you make over and over of the 'people at the time this is written.' It seems this is your choice.

The whole 'here is one who thinks' 'here is a closed one' type of playing to a non-existent gallery that cares about your judgments of people.

I'm sorry about whatever tremendous pain you, Ken, have been through, but Age is no solution. Playing this character may soothe pain temporarily, but it's hardly getting at the real issues.