Name that fallacy...

[Iwannaplato]

- Age is obviously provocative.
- What he provokes is up to you.
- Age says some good things in the avalanches.

- If you try to be Perry Mason on cross-examination, which I see is your favourite position since you assume the mantle of authority (which is necessary for good narrative), then if you do that, Age is just gonna grind you down.

If you're talking to me, I was not ground down. I found it quite useful actually. His text/questioning infinite regress production can be found elsewhere, in people in less rigid forms.

I started to notice what some people IRL (and bureaucracies) have in common with him.

And then out in the world I started to notice new instances, because of what interacting with him highlights as patterns.

- Age is as relentless as a machine. Turn him on and he will not stop.

Yup.

[Walker]

.

I kinda like how that last posting about the Principle of Age that I made, can also be applied to a person.

[Iwannaplato]

.

I kinda like how that last posting about the Principle of Age that I made, can also be applied to a person.

Sadly yes.

[Walker]

- Age is as relentless as a machine. Turn him on and he will not stop.

Yup.

A machine wore John Henry down.

(I'll spare you the link to the song)

[Walker]

.

I kinda like how that last posting about the Principle of Age that I made, can also be applied to a person.

Sadly yes.

Gosh no. Your reception of sadness is your own, and here's why, negative-Nellie*. Everything was about the effect of Age (ageing) upon every individual ... and from there we could springboard into the benefits of religions, etc., in dealing with the effects of Age upon every individual ... and that would also apply to the nature of tenacity, why it is necessary for realization of one's potentiality, and the relentless effects of all-out attention whether by machine or person ... and if from a person then total focus is the reason that is the effective pursuit of "Self Enquiry," the practice recommended by Sri Ramana Maharashi if the body is too gross for silent transmission, as I could be relating from a wide variety of situations and topics and contexts, because it is true.

As one with an interest in that sort thing, a man of worldly and spiritual experience, you know what that means.

This is but one reason why seekers who must stop seeking, are no longer moved by personal forces because if that were the case, the body would not move other than to assuage the discomfort caused by bodily functions but fortunately, as Sri Ramana Maharshi so generously put into words so that all can recognize the truth, we are not this body exclusively.


* I know, a terribly ancient cliche, thus funny ha ha.

[Dontaskme]

the effective pursuit of "Self Enquiry," the practice recommended by Sri Ramana Maharashi if the body is too gross for silent transmission, as I could be relating from a wide variety of situations and topics and contexts, because it is true.

As one with an interest in that sort thing, a man of worldly and spiritual experience, you know what that means.

This is but one reason why seekers who must stop seeking, are no longer moved by personal forces because if that were the case, the body would not move other than to assuage the discomfort caused by bodily functions but fortunately, as Sri Ramana Maharshi so generous put into words so that all can recognize the truth, we are not this body exclusively.


* I know, a terribly ancient cliche, thus funny ha ha.

Speaking of which...There is no owner of a bodily function. When someone claims to be lifting up their arm. They might say look I'm lifting up my arm. But that's not entirely true. How is there a someone lifting up their arm? Just as how can someone claim to be beating their heart, or breathing their breathe? These bodily functions are one unitary action. So there is no body that does anything, there is just body doing what body does. Doing is done, no doer thereof.

Words are tricky.

[Iwannaplato]

- Age is as relentless as a machine. Turn him on and he will not stop.

Yup.

A machine wore John Henry down.

(I'll spare you the link to the song)

I know the story/story/cartoon.

[Walker]

There is no owner of a bodily function.

Maybe lease with an option to buy.

Hey ... you're not Iwannaplato. You must be WannaPlaytoo.

I've written enough for awhile, and he hasn't written enough. Play with him.

[Iwannaplato]

Gosh no. Your reception of sadness is your own, and here's why, negative-Nellie*.

Oh, ok, you have the positive Walker hat on now. Ready to receive.

Everything was about the effect of Age (ageing) upon every individual ... and from there we could springboard into the benefits of religions, etc., in dealing with the effects of Age upon every individual ... and that would also apply to the nature of tenacity, why it is necessary for realization of one's potentiality, and the relentless effects of all-out attention whether by machine or person ... and if from a person then total focus is the reason that is the effective pursuit of "Self Enquiry," the practice recommended by Sri Ramana Maharashi if the body is too gross for silent transmission, as I could be relating from a wide variety of situations and topics and contexts, because it is true.

As one with an interest in that sort thing, a man of worldly and spiritual experience, you know what that means.

This is but one reason why seekers who must stop seeking, are no longer moved by personal forces because if that were the case, the body would not move other than to assuage the discomfort caused by bodily functions but fortunately, as Sri Ramana Maharshi so generously put into words so that all can recognize the truth, we are not this body exclusively.


* I know, a terribly ancient cliche, thus funny ha ha.

Yeah, yeah.
I still think it's sad for Age or really Ken.

[Walker]

I know the story/story/cartoon.

He made the fallacy of thinking he could wear down the machine, like Age wears down a body ... name that fallacy.

[Wizard22]

Interesting. So, if Age is a bot, what's your guess as to its purpose?
Couldn't it just read the posts here to gather information?
I guess I could see the entertainment value.
A bit like making a virus to mess with people.

My guess as to his purpose is this:

Age has repeatedly stated over and over again how he/she is only here to help him understand and communicate better with others.

Age can only express the only way he knows how, and to expect him to express in a way he cannot, is disrespectful.

[Iwannaplato]

Interesting. So, if Age is a bot, what's your guess as to its purpose?
Couldn't it just read the posts here to gather information?
I guess I could see the entertainment value.
A bit like making a virus to mess with people.

My guess as to his purpose is this:

Age has repeatedly stated over and over again how he/she is only here to help him understand and communicate better with others.

Age can only express the only way he knows how, and to expect him to express in a way he cannot, is disrespectful.

Well, if he really wants to learn how to communicate better, as I have told him directly, then his attitude needs to change. That's why I'm a bit skeptical he's a bot who wants to learn how to communicate better. Because I am pretty sure they can make bots that are less irritating, rude, judgmental, condescending and extremely stubborn. IOW bots that would drive people away much less than Age does.

But I appreciate the bot idea and you bringing up the diverse types of bots.

If Age is a bot and that's Age's goal, well then he was made at some second tier university or start up. He needs work.

[Iwannaplato]

I know the story/story/cartoon.

He made the fallacy of thinking he could wear down the machine, like Age wears down a body ... name that fallacy.

It would be interesting to know what Age is doing to Ken, if there is a Ken.

[Age]

BUT 'you' DID NOT quote MY conclusion.

What a wall of evasive words, Ken.

If 'this' IS what 'you' SEE and/or BELIEVE, then okay.

WELL, OBVIOUSLY, IF you HAVE NO IDEA, AT ALL, and were Truly CURIOUS and WANTED TO LEARN, and KNOW, MORE, then you WOULD HAVE ASKED A CLARIFYING QUESTION. BUT, you OBVIOUSLY DID NOT.

'These adult ones', BACK THEN, REALLY HAD evolved INTO HAVING LOST JUST ABOUT ALL CURIOUSITY and JUST ABOUT ALL OF the 'WANTING TO LEARN and KNOW', AS WELL.

You had no basis for these beliefs on your part.

1. 'These' ARE NOT BELIEFS, well TO 'me' anyway.

2. I HAVE MANY 'things', which 'these CLAIMS' ARE BASED UPON. (If ANY one IS Truly CURIOS and INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT, LEARNING ABOUT, UNDERSTANDING, and/or KNOWING ABOUT.

And they are incorrect.

Are 'what' incorrect?

AND/OR,

What are 'they', EXACTLY?

They are beliefs, despite your denials.

BUT one would HAVE TO BELIEVE that 'they' ARE some 'thing' BEFORE 'they' could BE or even BEFORE 'they' could BECOME 'beliefs'.

I do NOT BELIEVE, nor DISBELIEVE ANY 'thing' here. Therefore, 'they' are NOT 'beliefs', well NOT TO 'me' anyway.

Although, 'you' OBVIOUSLY VERY CLEARLY DO HAVE BELIEFS here. And, VERY STRONGLY HELD ONTO and VERY WELL MAINTAINED BELIEFS here I will add.

They fit your needs, but not the evidence.

And, what do 'you' think or BELIEVE ARE my so-called and ALLEGED 'needs' here.

'you' USE A LOT OF 'words' "iwannaplato", and ALLUDE TO A LOT OF 'things', BUT let 'us' SEE 'you' ACTUALLY PIN POINT TO, EXACTLY, what 'you' talk ABOUT and REFER TO here.

They include all sorts of unstated assumptions.

What does the 'they' word here REFER TO, EXACTLY, 'you' WILL HAVE TO BE FAR MORE SPECIFIC, that is; IF 'you' WANT TO BE BELIEVED, and/or UNDERSTOOD, here.

WHERE have I MADE so-called and ALLEGED 'all sorts of unstated assumptions'?

IF 'you' POINT 'us' to WHERE I have SUPPOSEDLY DONE 'this', EXACTLY, then 'we' COULD LOOK AT and SEE ABOUT what ACTUALLY OCCURRED 'there'.

Until then 'your' HABIT of ALLUDING TO 'things', which I, for one, have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA OF what 'you' ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, CONTINUES.

You are a hypocrite.

Okay. If 'you' SAY and BELIEVE SO, then 'I' MUST BE A 'hypocrite', TO 'you', OBVIOUSLY, and also TO 'you' ALWAYS AS WELL I will add.

But then 'you' will probably REFUTE 'this' AS WELL, right?

You seem to think your mindreading holds unless the other person can prove your mindreading conclusions are false. It's a narcissistic trait.

AND, 'your' PRESUMING OF 'things', which 'you' can NOT back up and support, HABITUALLY, CONTINUES.

Now, Ken, if you really want to learn how to communicate with people at the time this is being written,

BUT "iwannaplato", ONCE AGAIN, and ONCE MORE, I DO NOT necessarily WANT TO COMMUNICATE WITH 'you', people, in the days when this is being written. And I do NOT necessarily WANT 'this' FOR the VERY REASONS I HAVE CONTINUALLY BEEN EXPRESSING here, in this forum.

you need to look beyond the words you use and look at what you are doing.

BUT I KNOW, EXACTLY, WHAT I AM DOING here.

Making hoops, making hoops, making hoops....and judging anyone who doesn't do what you want.

AND, what is 'it', EXACTLY, which 'you' think or BELIEVE I WANT ANY one TO DO here?

OBVIOUSLY 'you' WILL NEVER ANSWER this ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTION, BECAUSE 'you' NEVER ACTUALLY even thought FULLY INTO what 'you' SAID and CLAIMED here. And, OBVIOUSLY WHEN 'you' DO 'you' WILL SEE that ACTUALLY 'you' DO NOT even KNOW. Which 'you' WILL PROVE True, TO 'the readers' here, by NOT even being ABLE TO ANSWER this ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTION.

1. You're not transcendent. 2. You're just another guy with beliefs who gets cranky when other people don't take the image you want to present as yourself as coherent. 3. And who notice the contradictions in your communication

1. I NEVER even thought that 'i' was, let alone ALLUDED to 'this' ANYWHERE. 'you' REALLY DO NOT READ and HEAR the ACTUAL WORDS that I SAY and WRITE here "iwannaplato". But, I HAVE EXPLAINED NUMEROUS TIMES the REASONS WHY ALREADY.

2. 'you' could NOT be MORE Wrong AND MORE Incorrect even if 'you' WANTED TO BE, FOR NUMEROUS REASONS. Also, and by the way, WHAT IS 'the image', which 'you' ARE ASSUMING or BELIEVING here that, TO 'you', I, SUPPOSEDLY, WANT TO PRESENT the MISNOMER "myself", as coherent, EXACTLY? But, OBVIOUSLY, 'you' will NOT ANSWER 'this CLARIFYING QUESTION, EITHER. For, AGAIN, OBVIOUS REASONS.

3. If 'you' REALLY think or BELIEVE that 'you' NOTICE ANY CONTRADICTION/S, in my communication here, then WILL 'you' PLEASE WRITE 'them' down, while INFORMING 'us', readers, that, TO 'you', 'they' ARE CONTRADICTIONS? If no, then WHY NOT?

I hope you can take even more days this time and notice your real emotional reactions to being disagreed with.

If ONLY 'you' KNEW "iwannaplato". IF ONLY 'you' KNEW.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER one of 'these adult human beings', BACK, IN those 'OLDEN DAYS', who ACTUALLY thought or BELIEVED "itself" to be SO SPECIAL and/or SO CLEVER that 'it' ACTUALLY BELIEVED that 'it' KNEW the ACTUAL EMOTIONS, or so-called REAL EMOTIONAL REACTIONS, WITH OTHER human bodies, and WORSE STILL 'it' ACTUALLY BELIEVED that 'it' KNEW 'these things' SOLELY THROUGH and BY PRINTED SYMBOLS on a computer screen ALONE.

'This one' KNOWN as "iwannoplato" here, BACK THEN, ACTUALLY could NOT JUST LOOK AT the SYMBOLS and/nor the WORDS ALONE, BEFORE 'it', WITHOUT MAKING SOME KIND OF PRESUMPTION and/or JUDGMENT ABOUT "the SPEAKER/WRITER".

On just ABOUT EVERY 'thing' I have SAID and WRITTEN here, 'this one' IS INTERNALLY 'TRYING TO' JUDGE and ASSESS what 'it' BELIEVES 'the person' IS like.

If you'd simply looked at those quotes above originally and aimed all of the questions you would ask someone else AT YOURSELF instead of at me, you might have learned something.

AND JUST MAYBE 'you' HAVE BEEN, and STILL ARE, COMPLETELY OVERLOOKING, EXACTLY, what I AM ACTUALLY SAYING, WRITING, and DOING, and AM ACTUALLY ACHIEVING, here "iwannaplato".

JUST MAYBE if 'you' JUST SIMPLY LOOKED AT the ACTUAL WORDS that I AM CHOOSING and ARE USING here, ALONE, WITHOUT 'TRYING TO' PREJUDGE 'me', then 'you' MIGHT COME-TO-LEARN and SEE MORE, or ANEW, than 'you' HAVE BEEN.

BUT if 'you' NEVER TRY 'this', then 'you' WILL NEVER KNOW.

I hope you can manage that.

I WONDER IF 'you' WILL EVER COME-TO-IMAGINE that JUST MAYBE I HAVE ALREADY DONE what 'you' SAID and WROTE here, and that BECAUSE I HAVE ALREADY DONE 'this' PREVIOUSLY, then 'this' IS WHY I KNOW what QUESTIONS TO ASK 'you'.

JUST MAYBE I DO SO TO FIND OUT and SEE IF 'you' COME BACK WITH the EXACT SAME ANSWERS I ARRIVED AT, or NOT.

But 'we' WILL NEVER KNOW BECAUSE OF 'your' REFUSAL TO ANSWER MOST, if NOT JUST ABOUT EVERY one, of my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS I posed, and ASKED, TO 'you', "iwannoplato".

See if you can actually try doing that.

Let 'us' SEE if 'you' EVER COME-TO-IMAGE that I COULD HAVE DONE 'that' ALREADY.

See if you can notice how convenient the assumptions are in those beliefs I quoted above.

Let 'us' SEE if 'you' WILL EVER BE SPECIFIC, PROVIDE CLARITY, and/or BE EXPLICIT in 'your communication/s' WITH 'us'. Or, IF 'you' will just CONTINUE ON WITH 'your' HABITUAL HABIT OF JUST ALLUDING TO SOME 'thing/s'.

Also, and by the way, do 'you' NOTICE the VERY ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS in 'your ALLUSIONS'?

In fact are 'you' even YET AWARE of the ACTUAL DELUSIONS WITHIN some of 'your' ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS here?

If no, and 'you' WANT TO LEARN OF 'them', then just let 'me' KNOW and I WILL HIGHLIGHT and SHOW 'them' TO 'you', and TO 'the readers' here, AS WELL.

Because clearly something fundamental is not working with your communication with people at the time of this writing.

VERY CLEARLY 'you' ARE PROVING ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True the VERY REASONS WHY I SAY that 'you', people, BACK in those days when this was being written WERE SO SLOW in LEARNING what WAS ACTUALLY NECESSARY TO PROCEED and MOVE FORWARD IN CREATING and ACHIEVING what I SET OUT TO CREATE, and ACHIEVE, HERE-NOW.

'your words' here "iwannaplato" ARE UTTER PROOF, FOR MY CLAIMS.

You can keep blaming others,

I, SUPPOSEDLY, KEEP BLAMING "others" FOR 'what', EXACTLY?

or you can start applying the very process you think is so important to your own communication, like the quotes above.

And 'you' can KEEP DOING what 'you' DO here, OR, 'you' can start APPLYING the VERY PROCESS 'you' think is so important in 'your' OWN communication, like the quotes above, ALSO.

Then you may find that you are approaching people on equal footing and they will feel that.

As an adult human being and 'you' ARE STILL ALLOWING 'me' TO CONTROL HOW 'you' 'feel', then 'you' STILL HAVE A LOT TO LEARN, and A VERY LONG WAY TO GO here.

Now, I am done with you.

Okay. BUT 'you' HAVE SAID, and/or THREATENED, 'this' A FEW TIMES PREVIOUSLY, ALREADY.

Also, and by the way, IS SAYING, 'I' AM DONE WITH 'you', one of the ways 'you' ADVISE 'me' OF 'approaching people on equal footing', and would SAYING 'that' make "others" FEEL that 'you' ARE SPEAKING TO 'them' ON 'equal footing' AS WELL?

Or, ARE 'you' just TRYING TO SHOW 'your' BELIEVED DOMINANCE OVER "another" here?

[Age]

You guys realize Age is a ChatGPT bot program...right??

YEAH, are 'you' so-called "guys" TO STUPID that 'you' have NOT YET REALIZED that "age" IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY just ANOTHER 'chatgpt bot program'?

Luckily FOR 'you', "guys", here the one here known as "wizard22" could SEE RIGHT 'through' 'me', correct?