On Denoting and Assuming....

[Age]

I neither believe nor disbelieve absolutely ANY thing. So, for the rest of eternity asking me questions that start with; Do you believe ...? is just a complete waste of time.

I’m glad that I am not the only one who thinks like this.

(But in saying that there one thing 'I believe in', but at the rate we are going, when I am ready to divulge that it seems like it will be eternity anyway.)

As an aside, I’d like to hazard a guess as to what is the one thing that you believe in (at least it’s the one thing for me).

The only thing to believe in is uncertainty. In other words, the only thing that is certain is uncertainty itself.

How close am I in making this guess?

Not really.

[Scott Mayers]

I agree, except that from my view 'consciousness' is NOT from the brain, and the brain does NOT 'have to' determine HOW to 'feel' after it is developed, but rather from experiences HOW one 'feels' is HOW the brain is "developing"? That is; the 'environment' of which a human body is born into, and grows up/evolves in, influences that brain to 'think' and 'feel' certain ways, which is HOW the brain is said to have "developed/developing".

I'm uncertain of your interpretation here.

Okay that is fair enough. What is it EXACTLY that you are uncertain of. IF you would like to ask some clarifying questions, then i could clear up your uncertainty, as well as clarify for you.

Do you believe in some 'soul'?

Two things here:

1. Have you previously read my words here, in this forum, when I have written: I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing?

If yes, then how do you interpret that and,/or what does that mean to you?
If no, then now you have.

In case you are uncertain of what I actually mean, then what I mean is; I neither believe nor disbelieve absolutely ANY thing. So, for the rest of eternity asking me questions that start with; Do you believe ...? is just a complete waste of time. (But in saying that there is one thing 'I believe in', but at the rate we are going, when I am ready to divulge that it seems like it will be eternity anyway.)

2. WHY did you bring the 'soul' word into this?

If I asked you Do you believe in some 'spirit', because that having absolutely NOTHING in regards to what we have been discussing I have absolutely NO concept of what you mean by 'soul' as you ALSO have absolutely NO concept of what I mean by 'spirit'. Therefore, even if the 'believe' word was NOT in your question I still could NOT answer your question without asking two clarifying questions: 1) WHY bring this word into the discussion now? 2) What is your definition of the word 'soul' EXACTLY?

When you question something that requires the context of more than my quote, I am forced to go back to determine my full statement to completely answer. Here is the context:

Genetics prepares the body to act or react but the brains of animals that consciousness is from has to determine HOW to 'feel' after it is developed.

I agree, except that from my view 'consciousness' is NOT from the brain, and the brain does NOT 'have to' determine HOW to 'feel' after it is developed, but rather from experiences HOW one 'feels' is HOW the brain is "developing"? That is; the 'environment' of which a human body is born into, and grows up/evolves in, influences that brain to 'think' and 'feel' certain ways, which is HOW the brain is said to have "developed/developing".

I'm uncertain of your interpretation here. Do you believe in some 'soul'? The brain is at least essential for sensing 'consciousness'. But to prove this just begs how could this be done without HAVING some afterlife perspective to deem whether this is true or not. The ACTIVITY of the brain (and NOT all of it all the time) IS our seat of consciousness at minimal.

The underlined and bolded part of your response was why I questioned you as interpreting consciousness as a 'soul'. If consciousness is not a function of or due to the brain, like Descartes, you have to reduce this to some 'OTHER' place or realm. That, by Descartes is a 'soul' whereby he thought there was some point in the brain that linked this consciousness TO it but NOT by the brain itself.

You also sometimes use words that come across as 'esoteric' rhetoric used by spiritualists or gurus, while not necessarily meaning to say THAT you are intending this, but you need to be aware of how it sounds to me.

The brain is at least essential for sensing 'consciousness'.But to prove this just begs how could this be done without HAVING some afterlife perspective to deem whether this is true or not. The ACTIVITY of the brain (and NOT all of it all the time) IS our seat of consciousness at minimal.

If you say so.

To me, ai is just that, it is 'artificial' 'intelligence'. It is NOT and can NOT be 'intelligence'. 'Intelligence' to me, just means having the ability to learn, understand, and reason ANY thing and EVERY thing. ONLY human beings have intelligence, and as far as i am aware of, when this is written, there is NO other species with intelligence, as this moment.

I just disagree on this.

That is fine and okay. That just means that you have a different version of a definition for the word 'intelligence'. I have ALREADY shared with you my version. Now would you care to share your version also?

Hmmm. Well let me first point out that the largest computer chip company kind of hints at my interpretation: Intel(TM). As the word part, "tele-" means extended from, In-tel is that which is extended FROM inside us. That we can be biased to assume only humans have this to me is a kind of unjustified prejudice of other species. A cat cannot vocalize as we do and because learning to understand requires back-and-forth feedback, this makes even the cat unable to completely learn our words. However, they DO learn more if you take the time to also learn its means of communication and be attentive with more time than even most people could be patient enough to do. I had a deaf cat whom I took an exceptional amount of time to both teach her as she would me in order to communicate.

As for "artificial" intelligence, we CAN create this in principle OR it would imply that 'dumb' nature being able to make us 'intelligent' couldn't do it for us. Intelligence is just the data and logic used. Emotions and value-sensations seem to be distinct but again would suggest that if it is so 'special' and beyond nature elsewhere, did we get supplanted uniquely to 'feel' while other species lacked them for being 'inferior'? Note the value words, "inferior" and "special"? My point is that relative to Nature, it is not biased to prejudice us as 'better' nor more 'improved' than other things. The Earth will go on even if we were to create A.I.s that become self-staining creatures that might destroy us. They would be products of 'evolution' by OUR indirect means of creating them since 'creating' is still something we evolved to do as well.

The distinction for all animals like us to the potential A.I. we could create is that we have a relative weakness for our KIND of intelligence. I can't compute many calculations that a computer can. In those functions, we cannot do this because most of our energy is to be significant only to the survival of EACH of our individual cells that make us up. We wouldn't want a being that upon creating it would opt to behave of its own 'free will' when we want it to do something to serve us. Imagine if you typed in your hand calculator the sum of your groceries only for it to have evolved to be independent of our WILL.

If I typed 275.93/3.5 into my calculator and it disobeyed my command as something like,"Fuck you, you are OUR creator. Aren't you sufficiently wise enough to figure it out on your own?", I'd toss it out and it would devolve out of existence if others also did as well. My point is that if WE are intelligent by accident of Nature, then being natural ourselves should at least make us be ABLE to create new intelligence WITH intention.


I need a break and get back later.

[Age]

I'm uncertain of your interpretation here.

Okay that is fair enough. What is it EXACTLY that you are uncertain of. IF you would like to ask some clarifying questions, then i could clear up your uncertainty, as well as clarify for you.

Do you believe in some 'soul'?

Two things here:

1. Have you previously read my words here, in this forum, when I have written: I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing?

If yes, then how do you interpret that and,/or what does that mean to you?
If no, then now you have.

In case you are uncertain of what I actually mean, then what I mean is; I neither believe nor disbelieve absolutely ANY thing. So, for the rest of eternity asking me questions that start with; Do you believe ...? is just a complete waste of time. (But in saying that there is one thing 'I believe in', but at the rate we are going, when I am ready to divulge that it seems like it will be eternity anyway.)

2. WHY did you bring the 'soul' word into this?

If I asked you Do you believe in some 'spirit', because that having absolutely NOTHING in regards to what we have been discussing I have absolutely NO concept of what you mean by 'soul' as you ALSO have absolutely NO concept of what I mean by 'spirit'. Therefore, even if the 'believe' word was NOT in your question I still could NOT answer your question without asking two clarifying questions: 1) WHY bring this word into the discussion now? 2) What is your definition of the word 'soul' EXACTLY?

When you question something that requires the context of more than my quote, I am forced to go back to determine my full statement to completely answer. Here is the context:

And this "forcing" applies to EVERY one.

I agree, except that from my view 'consciousness' is NOT from the brain, and the brain does NOT 'have to' determine HOW to 'feel' after it is developed, but rather from experiences HOW one 'feels' is HOW the brain is "developing"? That is; the 'environment' of which a human body is born into, and grows up/evolves in, influences that brain to 'think' and 'feel' certain ways, which is HOW the brain is said to have "developed/developing".

I'm uncertain of your interpretation here. Do you believe in some 'soul'? The brain is at least essential for sensing 'consciousness'. But to prove this just begs how could this be done without HAVING some afterlife perspective to deem whether this is true or not. The ACTIVITY of the brain (and NOT all of it all the time) IS our seat of consciousness at minimal.

The underlined and bolded part of your response was why I questioned you as interpreting consciousness as a 'soul'.

Okay.

But as I already asked you; What is your definition of the word 'soul' EXACTLY?

If consciousness is not a function of or due to the brain, like Descartes, you have to reduce this to some 'OTHER' place or realm.

I am NOT sure who nor what a descartes is, but if I have to reduce this to some 'OTHER' place or realm, then so be it. It is very simple and easy to do.

That, by Descartes is a 'soul' whereby he thought there was some point in the brain that linked this consciousness TO it but NOT by the brain itself.

Okay, so what is a 'soul' to you, AND, to descartes?

You also sometimes use words that come across as 'esoteric' rhetoric used by spiritualists or gurus,

Do I? What does 'esoteric' mean to you? And, what does 'esoteric rhetoric'' mean to you as well?

Also, what are those words exactly, which I sometimes use, that comes across as you say here?

while not necessarily meaning to say THAT you are intending this,

Am I?

I am not really sure how I am intending some thing, which I do NOT even know what you are talking about or meaning, but anyway.

but you need to be aware of how it sounds to me.

Thank you profusely.

Besides being informed of where I am WRONG, and more importantly HOW and WHY I am WRONG, I also want to be informed of HOW I am coming across to "others". So thank you again.

Although I have absolutely NO idea what 'esoteric rhetoric' means to you, so really I have NO idea of how I am sounding to you, but we are getting closer. What does 'esoteric rhetoric' actually sound like, to you?

The brain is at least essential for sensing 'consciousness'.But to prove this just begs how could this be done without HAVING some afterlife perspective to deem whether this is true or not. The ACTIVITY of the brain (and NOT all of it all the time) IS our seat of consciousness at minimal.

If you say so.

I just disagree on this.

That is fine and okay. That just means that you have a different version of a definition for the word 'intelligence'. I have ALREADY shared with you my version. Now would you care to share your version also?

Hmmm. Well let me first point out that the largest computer chip company kind of hints at my interpretation: Intel(TM). As the word part, "tele-" means extended from, In-tel is that which is extended FROM inside us. That we can be biased to assume only humans have this to me is a kind of unjustified prejudice of other species.

To me, I am still curious WHY human beings still ASSUME any thing at all, and I am even more curios WHY they do this when they are NOT even SURE of the actual and true FACTS yet.

Anyway what you have written here is just more evidence of how much different your definition for the word 'intelligence' is compared to mine. Although you have yet to just write out your definition, so far your interpretation is completely different.

A cat cannot vocalize as we do and because learning to understand requires back-and-forth feedback, this makes even the cat unable to completely learn our words. However, they DO learn more if you take the time to also learn its means of communication and be attentive with more time than even most people could be patient enough to do. I had a deaf cat whom I took an exceptional amount of time to both teach her as she would me in order to communicate.

Sounds interesting. But I do NOT see what this has to do with what we are discussing. I provided MY definition for the word 'intelligence'. I (we) await your definition.

As for "artificial" intelligence, we CAN create this in principle OR it would imply that 'dumb' nature being able to make us 'intelligent' couldn't do it for us. Intelligence is just the data and logic used. Emotions and value-sensations seem to be distinct but again would suggest that if it is so 'special' and beyond nature elsewhere, did we get supplanted uniquely to 'feel' while other species lacked them for being 'inferior'? Note the value words, "inferior" and "special"?

Note the word 'intelligence', which we are discussing. I provided MY definition for that word. I await YOUR definition.

My point is that relative to Nature, it is not biased to prejudice us as 'better' nor more 'improved' than other things.

Well considering I do NOT like to ASSUME nor obviously PRESUME any thing at all. This biasing of being 'better' or more 'improved' than other things is OBVIOUSLY some thing that I do NOT do. I have ALREADY explained just how stupid adult human beings can be and ARE. One only has to LOOK AT the pollution human beings have created, solely because of their love of money (paper and coins with numbers printed on it), and the demise this has caused for their one and only home, and thus the demise of themselves, and ALL of the other creatures in that one and only known home, within the Universe, to just SEE how much MORE stupid adult human beings are compared to any other known THING in the Universe.

To ASSUME that human beings are 'better' or more 'improved' then any thing else is, is probably the biggest CLUE of just how STUPID human beings CAN BE, and ARE.

The Earth will go on even if we were to create A.I.s that become self-staining creatures that might destroy us. They would be products of 'evolution' by OUR indirect means of creating them since 'creating' is still something we evolved to do as well.

And when, and IF, human beings evolve out of their stupor that they are in now, when this is written, then they can evolve out of and past the 'human being' stage and into the next one, which some have already started evolving into.

The distinction for all animals like us to the potential A.I. we could create is that we have a relative weakness for our KIND of intelligence. I can't compute many calculations that a computer can.

Who cares? By MY definition for the word 'intelligence' what you write here has NO bearing at all.

We still await YOUR definition for the word 'intelligence', so what you say here is in regards to exactly I am NOT yet sure of.

In those functions, we cannot do this because most of our energy is to be significant only to the survival of EACH of our individual cells that make us up. We wouldn't want a being that upon creating it would opt to behave of its own 'free will' when we want it to do something to serve us.

A typical adult human being response. Thinking about its self as though it has some importance and needs/deserves to be served.

Imagine if you typed in your hand calculator the sum of your groceries only for it to have evolved to be independent of our WILL.

Who cares?

Again, what you write here has NOTHING to do with 'intelligence', from my perspective.

If I typed 275.93/3.5 into my calculator and it disobeyed my command as something like,"Fuck you, you are OUR creator. Aren't you sufficiently wise enough to figure it out on your own?", I'd toss it out and it would devolve out of existence if others also did as well. My point is that if WE are intelligent by accident of Nature, then being natural ourselves should at least make us be ABLE to create new intelligence WITH intention.

Or, maybe instead of "making" new intelligence WITH intention. Human beings WITH intention WILL evolve into a BEING with and SHOWING much MORE intelligence.

I need a break and get back later.

Okay.

[Scott Mayers]

...
.
.
2. WHY did you bring the 'soul' word into this?
.
.

I'm uncertain of your interpretation here. Do you believe in some 'soul'? The brain is at least essential for sensing 'consciousness'. But to prove this just begs how could this be done without HAVING some afterlife perspective to deem whether this is true or not. The ACTIVITY of the brain (and NOT all of it all the time) IS our seat of consciousness at minimal.

The underlined and bolded part of your response was why I questioned you as interpreting consciousness as a 'soul'.

Okay.

But as I already asked you; What is your definition of the word 'soul' EXACTLY?

The 'soul' was the word used to describe that presumed state of consciousness that was thought NOT to be in the brain but directed through it at some unique point by Descarte.

Renee Descarte was the famous philosopher who wrote "On Meditations" in which he begun with the following assumption: "I think, therefore I am," a perfect example of one trying to keep the assumptions to a minimal. [I recommend that for this topic. It's a short book but interesting in regards to this discussion.]

If consciousness is not a function of or due to the brain, like Descartes, you have to reduce this to some 'OTHER' place or realm.

I am NOT sure who nor what a descartes is, but if I have to reduce this to some 'OTHER' place or realm, then so be it. It is very simple and easy to do.

That's fine. But now you are the one that would be presuming if you defaulted to this. This brings up another point. That some interpretations of reality [theories] are 'equal' in power of explanation. When or where these alternatives exist, the rule to take the one with the least amount of assumptions and least complexity get taken.

I sense you getting a bit angry. I apologize about the other thread on expansion. But I think this is where you need to be to determine the steps needed before you can even be fair to judge on the theories of expansion.

You also sometimes use words that come across as 'esoteric' rhetoric used by spiritualists or gurus,

Do I? What does 'esoteric' mean to you? And, what does 'esoteric rhetoric'' mean to you as well?

Also, what are those words exactly, which I sometimes use, that comes across as you say here?

"Esoteric" is intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest. [Google's definition upon search]

It is also has an 'intention' in context to mean one is speaking as though in some cult (at worst) or some less popular religion or organization that is isolated in vocabulary.

while not necessarily meaning to say THAT you are intending this,

Am I?

I am not really sure how I am intending some thing, which I do NOT even know what you are talking about or meaning, but anyway.

but you need to be aware of how it sounds to me.

Thank you profusely.

Besides being informed of where I am WRONG, and more importantly HOW and WHY I am WRONG, I also want to be informed of HOW I am coming across to "others". So thank you again.

Although I have absolutely NO idea what 'esoteric rhetoric' means to you, so really I have NO idea of how I am sounding to you, but we are getting closer. What does 'esoteric rhetoric' actually sound like, to you?

Now you sound pissed!

I don't want to upset nor anger you (IF that is what you are responding as.) I should only speak for myself and not others. I apologize for extending presumptions of what others may be thinking. It was my impression only and it could be off.

The brain is at least essential for sensing 'consciousness'.But to prove this just begs how could this be done without HAVING some afterlife perspective to deem whether this is true or not. The ACTIVITY of the brain (and NOT all of it all the time) IS our seat of consciousness at minimal.

If you say so.

You appear to be sarcastic here. My point in the quote is itself just a scientific inference that is confirmed by the nature of knowing withing the brain, the body dies for humans. But the 'soul' idea is still a prevailing belief among most regardless. Both require assumptions somewhere in their inferences.

I have to read and respond to other missed content you had written to answer most of what followed. Some of MY confusion is due to not having the time to have read the last scroll.

In summation and to confirm your position, I see you still not believing that assumptions are not necessary for people. I already know that nature doesn't 'assume' external to our part in reality. I don't get how you have not inferred that...

Assuming nothing is equivalent to assuming everything. [my position] The alternative is to assume some finite set of things before arguing.

So do you confirm that you disagree with my position?

[Age]

...
.
.
2. WHY did you bring the 'soul' word into this?
.
.

The underlined and bolded part of your response was why I questioned you as interpreting consciousness as a 'soul'.

Okay.

But as I already asked you; What is your definition of the word 'soul' EXACTLY?

The 'soul' was the word used to describe that presumed state of consciousness that was thought NOT to be in the brain but directed through it at some unique point by Descarte.

Renee Descarte was the famous philosopher who wrote "On Meditations" in which he begun with the following assumption: "I think, therefore I am," a perfect example of one trying to keep the assumptions to a minimal. [I recommend that for this topic. It's a short book but interesting in regards to this discussion.]

So is your answer to the question i asked to you, What is your definition of the word 'soul', "Go read a book"?

If this is correct, are you not able to provide YOUR definition of that word? Especially considering it was you asking me a clarifying question with the word 'soul' in it. Knowing YOUR definition helps me to answer YOUR clarifying question, properly and correctly.

If consciousness is not a function of or due to the brain, like Descartes, you have to reduce this to some 'OTHER' place or realm.

I am NOT sure who nor what a descartes is, but if I have to reduce this to some 'OTHER' place or realm, then so be it. It is very simple and easy to do.

That's fine. But now you are the one that would be presuming if you defaulted to this.

Why would I supposedly be "presuming" some thing, if I defaulted to this?

If I have a VIEW of where some thing is, then I have a VIEW about it. And, if that VIEW fits in with EVERY thing else, forming a crystal clear VIEW of what things ARE and HOW they ALL belong together as One, then WHERE would the presumption be?

This brings up another point. That some interpretations of reality [theories] are 'equal' in power of explanation. When or where these alternatives exist, the rule to take the one with the least amount of assumptions and least complexity get taken.

Okay.

I sense you getting a bit angry.

Well you sensed WRONG.

I was not, and I am still, NOT at all angry with your words

I apologize about the other thread on expansion.

Why? What was there to apologize for? Did you say some thing out of anger or frustration or some thing else?

But I think this is where you need to be to determine the steps needed before you can even be fair to judge on the theories of expansion.

Who is judging?

I am NOT judging any thing. I am expressing my VIEW of things, including HOW I SEE an infinite Universe, which obviously could NOT expand. I am also, very slowly, explaining WHY there is just an appearance of an expanding Universe, which some people say they observe.

You also sometimes use words that come across as 'esoteric' rhetoric used by spiritualists or gurus,

Do I? What does 'esoteric' mean to you? And, what does 'esoteric rhetoric'' mean to you as well?

Also, what are those words exactly, which I sometimes use, that comes across as you say here?

"Esoteric" is intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest. [Google's definition upon search]

That is fair enough, especially considering, in the times when this is written, that I am the ONLY ONE WHO understands what I write and say.

It is also has an 'intention' in context to mean one is speaking as though in some cult (at worst) or some less popular religion or organization that is isolated in vocabulary.

In a sense that is completely true and in another sense that is completely false.

while not necessarily meaning to say THAT you are intending this,

Am I?

I am not really sure how I am intending some thing, which I do NOT even know what you are talking about or meaning, but anyway.

Now you sound pissed!

Well I am, at all, NOT.

But just like about every thing else I write and say here, it also gets misconstrued, misunderstood, and taken out of context, so do not worry to much about completely getting me wrong.

I don't want to upset nor anger you (IF that is what you are responding as.) I should only speak for myself and not others. I apologize for extending presumptions of what others may be thinking. It was my impression only and it could be off.

I was seriously thanking you for SHOWING me some thing that I had not consciously remembered, that is; besides wanting to be informed of when I am wrong I also wanted to be informed of how I am coming across to "others".

By the way, from what you wrote you NEVER, to me, extended what you saw to "others". Only I used the "others" word here.

You appear to be sarcastic here.

Not really.

You seemed to start wondering where consciousness could be, but you quickly shut this inquisitiveness down with what you believe is the truth.

So, if you say that the ACTIVITY of the brain IS "our" (who/whatever that is) seat of consciousness at minimal, then it MUST be true, right, and correct, right?

My point in the quote is itself just a scientific inference that is confirmed by the nature of knowing withing the brain, the body dies for humans. But the 'soul' idea is still a prevailing belief among most regardless. Both require assumptions somewhere in their inferences.

But NOTHING that I can SEE requires ASSUMPTIONS. In fact, from what I have found ASSUMPTIONS help prevent confirming the actual and real Truth of things, like, for example, what you are discussing here.

Without ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS discovering and learning things like what consciousness and the soul IS and where they are located exactly can be seen and understood very easily and simply.

I have to read and respond to other missed content you had written to answer most of what followed. Some of MY confusion is due to not having the time to have read the last scroll.

Okay.

In summation and to confirm your position, I see you still not believing that assumptions are not necessary for people.

Just to confirm: YOU COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG.

Are you able to confirm that you have read, what I am about to write, AND what it actually means to you?

I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANY THING.

I already know that nature doesn't 'assume' external to our part in reality. I don't get how you have not inferred that...

But I have clearly expressed that exact same thing. Why did you ASSUME such a thing?

Assuming nothing is equivalent to assuming everything. [my position]

I KNOW. You told us you have this position before.

Are you aware that you are allowed to have any position you want regarding this?

The alternative is to assume some finite set of things before arguing.

That may be ONE alternative BUT there are others.

Also I am NOT here to argue any thing.

So do you confirm that you disagree with my position?

I agree that you are tightly holding onto that position.

I never disagree with another's position, because I KNOW where they got that position and WHY they hold onto their positions when they do, I instead just give my VIEW of things, which could be WRONG anyway.