Probably a silly question.

[Age]

And, what was 'our conversation', in that thread, about, EXACTLY?

Oh, you must mean this question, my mistake.

I did not mean that question.

So another wrong assumption, and conclusion, here

But this is but another one of many that you have not yet answered also.

The conversation is about the scenario I laid out in the first post in the thread,

viewtopic.php?p=583768#p583768

And our different answers to it.

Okay.

[Flannel Jesus]

If I get something wrong about what you meant, you can just say "that's not what I meant." It's not personal matey.

[Age]

Can you ask it again?

If you want him to ask it again, you must say, "will you ask it again?".

Thank you.

But they had already asked,

Which question is that?

[Harbal]

Because I don't have a reason to.

Do I have a reason to?

If yes, then what is that reason to?

I don't know if you have a reason to.

So, because you are a child rapist and killer, then I can claim that this to be absolutely true and inform others of what you are really like, and you also do not see absurdness in this, correct?

Rape and murder are criminal acts, and if you had good reason to think I was guilty of either, it would be your duty to report it to the appropriate authorities. Being incapable of admitting your own mistakes, which is what I accused you of, is not a criminal act, it is just a behavioural characteristic. If my accusation turned out to be unwarranted, it's not as if you would end up as an innocent man in prison, is it?

It isn't a matter of absurdity to accuse someone of something they haven't done, or something you cannot prove they have done, it is more a matter of injustice.

[Age]

I don't see the absurdness in it, but I can't speak on behalf of anyone else.

It's not absurd in general to not want to, and it is not absurd in the specific.

So, here we have another one who thinks or believes that going around accusing people of things, and never having to provide nor show absolutely any evidence nor proof for the accustion is not absurd in general, nor in the specific.

My experience with Age is that if you perform such tasks you will get more questions, more demands and more talk about things that have nothing to do with the topic.

LOL The topic of this thread is meant to be just a rhetorical question anyway.

So, what exactly is there to talk about in relation to the topic itself here.

My experience with iwannaplato is that it is a hypocrite as well as being very closed and dishonest.

It may be that perhaps a dozen people here have completely misunderstood him, but many have experienced a Sisyphusean process with him or her. I cannot rule out that someone might, after some long process of work, receive some kind of 'Ah, ok, I see what you mean. I should have said.' or the like.

The ah ha moments come about much quicker and sooner when one stops assuming what I am saying and meaning and/or just answer the actual questions I pose for clarificaiton.

But it seems of no concern to Age that quite a number of people have a problem with both his manner of communicating AND his ability to admit to having communicated poorly or made a mistake, etc.

I have been saying all along that I have been communicating poorly. From the very outset I have said that I am probably the worst communicator not just in this forum but maybe in the whole world.

Also, the very reason I have been saying why I am here, backs up and supports this irrefutably.

And, every time a mistake has been pointed out and shown to me I have admitted MY MISTAKE in my way.

Also, I have no real concern about what people think, believe, nor say about me, because my whole purpose for being here is coming along just perfectly.

Do you think the one saying that, really, the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around like every one else was believing was absolutely and irrefutably true, had any real concern what others said or thought about them.

If anyone had a problem with that one's manner of communicating, OR had a problem with that one's ability to admit to having communicated poorly or made a mistake, do you really think that one was concerned?

That one KNEW that what it was communicating was absolutely and irrefutably True, Right, AND Correct, and really that was and is all that really matters, and is what that one and I were and are only concerned about really.

And while it is not exactly an example of the issue you raise in the OP, it is very close. You have gotten a lovely test case for all to see.

YES, these words are here for ALL to LOOK AT, and SEE.

[Age]

And while it is not exactly an example of the issue you raise in the OP, it is very close. You have gotten a lovely test case for all to see.

Yes, it's a gift isn't it? I certainly couldn't have planned it.

LOL If only you knew. If only YOU KNEW.

This has been planned ALL ALONG.

This is what happens in a Truly 'deterministic' Universe, containing 'free willed' beings.

See, what I had planned, in order to make the goal come about, is coming to fruition, perfectly.

[Age]

But you would still have known what I meant had I used "could", even though you consider it incorrect.

1. I could assume absolutely any thing, but as I have already explained I do not like to assume absolutely any thing.

2. Putting could instead of will requests two different answers, and thus two different outcomes as well.

3. I do not consider it incorrect. I am just continually aware that there are two different responses to answer, correctly.

And, in fact, if I wanted to be as pedantic as you, I could insist that "will" is incorrect.

But there is no correct nor incorrect thing here, to me.

You just ask whatever clarifying question you like. But obviously, depending on the way you word your question, the Honest answer could be different.

Will you explain how adding the will word is incorrect?

The problem is that you are treating language in the same way you might treat maths; as a matter of pure logic, and language doesn't work like that.

It DOES, when language is put in the right order, with the right definitions being used, then what comes about, which, by the way, fits in perfectly with, and is just another part of, the plan is the GUT and TOE. That is; the Grand Unified Theory Of Everything. When this is expressed, with language, which is what is only needed, then what the actual absolute Truth is exactly is expressed, and when it is found that GUT and TOE can not be refuted, and so verified as absolutely Right and Correct, then what also comes-to-light is exactly HOW language was pre-determined to become, and REVEAL 'pure logic', in its most SIMPLEST and EASIEST form.

In maths 2 is always 2, and when 2 is added to 2 the outcome is always 4.

2 is only 2 because human beings AGREE UPON and ACCEPT what 2 means or refers to. The exact same source of logic can be applied to language as well.

That is not the case with language. Words can have different meanings according to how they are used and the context they are used in.

I KNOW. I have said and pointed this out a few times already throughout this thread. I did this in order to prove some things.

In this instance you are interpreting the word "could" to mean, "are you capable of", which is very often what it is meant to mean, but "could" is also conventionally accepted as the correct way to begin a polite request.

Once upon a time it was 'conventionally accepted' that the sun revolves around the sun, and that the Universe began, and created, and is expanding. But, as already known and proved True what is 'conventionally accepted' does not necessarily mean that this relates to what is actually True, Right, nor Correct.

'Could' is also the correct way to begin the polite request to determine if one 'could' just do something, for example, and if the right or correct answer is 'yes' or 'no', then that might just be what was being requested, only. And, if one was requesting more, then all they have to do is just ask politely with the 'will' word instead of the far less correct, but 'conventionally accepted' word of 'could'.

It sounds more courteous than "will".

If this is what it sounds to you, then okay?

But what things sound like, to you, is not how they sound to others.

As some might say, language does not work like pure logic.

I am not saying to use "will" is incorrect, I am saying that you could be just as pedantic about it as with "could" if you wanted to be.

Considering we are in a 'philosophy forum', and being open in the hope of finding or coming across what the actual and irefutable Truth is exactly, then not being pedantic and expressing only 'that' what is irrefutably True could affect people's ability to find and come across what is absolutely True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct.

We will just have to WAIT and SEE, correct?

eg. Will you clarify the question?

You could respond to that by saying: I don't know if I will clarify the question, but I might clarify it if you ask me to.

I 'could' respond by saying those things, but I never 'would'.

I, however, 'would' respond by saying other things, instead.

Oh, and by the way, 'you' could respond to that by saying countless numbers of other things as well. This is because 'you' are absolutely free to respond in anyway you like with anything you like.

Good point.

In fact VERY good point.

Oh, and by the way, that is another example of me admitting of where I have made an ERROR.

You don't know how much that means to me, Age. I would give you a hug if you were within reach.

If this is true, then you 'would have' given me a hug, if i were within 'your' reach, a long time ago, if you had just pointed out and showed me, my now most obvious stupid, absurd, and ridiculous mistake and misunderstanding, a long time ago.

[Age]

Will you agree to answer all and every question I pose to you for clarification, and answer the ACTUAL question being posed and NOT the one you ASSUME that I am asking you?

The way you've phrased this question sort of fails on a theory of mind level.

I do not do 'theory', and also do not know of any 'theory of mind'.

You see, at any given time, only you can be absolutely certain what you intended and what you want.

I will let you now know and inform you that every time I ask you a question, for clarification, then what I intend and want is that you just answer the actual question I pose Truly OPENLY and Honestly.

Also, have you ever considered that if you do not yet have absolute certainty of what another intends or wants, then all you really have to do is just ask them a question, posed for clarification, and, hope that if they are Truly OPEN and Honest with you when they answer you, then you you could gain absolute certainty?

I can only do my best to interpret your words into what I think you meant, into what I think you want.

You 'can' and 'could' do better than that, as I just showed and explained above.

I don't have direct access to your mind, I only have access to my thoughts about your mind, and I would of course hope that my thoughts about what you meant are in alignment with what you actually meant.

Quite a lot of presuming and assuming needed here. However, and luckily for everyone of you there is a much better and much more correct and satisfying way of communicating among "yourselves". And this is by just 'carifying' with each other. This way NO misunderstanding ever happens ever again.

Also, and by the way, I do not 'have' a mind, as there is no such thing as 'my mind'.

You're asking me to promise not to misunderstand you.

No I am not.

As can be clearly seen and proved True above in the actual words under the label "age".

I can't promise that, misunderstandings happen whether we want them to or not

This is moot because I have never wanted any such thing as you have claimed here anyway.

[Age]

If I get something wrong about what you meant, you can just say "that's not what I meant."

Okay.

It's not personal matey.

I never thought it was. So, that is not what I was thinking.

[Flannel Jesus]

If you understand that, any time I might misunderstand you it's not because I'm doing it on purpose, and you accept that I can't promise not to ever misunderstand you, then let's go. Start the experiment, I will endeavour to reply to everything honestly and in good faith

[Age]

Because I don't have a reason to.

Do I have a reason to?

If yes, then what is that reason to?

I don't know if you have a reason to.

So, because you are a child rapist and killer, then I can claim that this to be absolutely true and inform others of what you are really like, and you also do not see absurdness in this, correct?

Rape and murder are criminal acts, and if you had good reason to think I was guilty of either, it would be your duty to report it to the appropriate authorities. Being incapable of admitting your own mistakes, which is what I accused you of, is not a criminal act, it is just a behavioural characteristic.

It is also an accusation, and without any evidence nor proof provided, then it ends up being nothing more than just what you think or believe is true, and nothing else at all.

For the actual PROOF of whether I am capable or incapable of admitting my own mistakes, then one just has to look through my writings find this PROOF.

The actual and irrefutable Truth is here for all to look at and see.

If my accusation turned out to be unwarranted, it's not as if you would end up as an innocent man in prison, is it?

This question is obviously a deflection.

Your accusation has always been unwarranted, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, but it is not like you will admit this, correct?

It isn't a matter of absurdity to accuse someone of something they haven't done, or something you cannot prove they have done, it is more a matter of injustice.

So, are you saying here that 'what you have done' is just a matter of injustice instead of being just absurd?

[Flannel Jesus]

Are you quoting the wrong person? What's going on here?

[Age]

If you understand that, any time I might misunderstand you it's not because I'm doing it on purpose, and you accept that I can't promise not to ever misunderstand you, then let's go.

Was this your way of just deflecting away from just answering the question that I ask you, for clarification, openly and honestly?

What you thought I meant by that question is not what I meant.

Also, I suggest before you misunderstand me, nor anyone else, that you just obtain understanding through simple open questioning, for clarity and clarification, instead.

Start the experiment, I will endeavour to reply to everything honestly and in good faith

Okay.

[Age]

Are you quoting the wrong person?

Who are you talking to?

I tend to make that mistake, far more than I would like to as well.

What's going on here?

Where?

[Harbal]

The problem is that you are treating language in the same way you might treat maths; as a matter of pure logic, and language doesn't work like that.

It DOES, when language is put in the right order, with the right definitions being used, then what comes about, which, by the way, fits in perfectly with, and is just another part of, the plan is the GUT and TOE. That is; the Grand Unified Theory Of Everything. When this is expressed, with language, which is what is only needed, then what the actual absolute Truth is exactly is expressed, and when it is found that GUT and TOE can not be refuted, and so verified as absolutely Right and Correct, then what also comes-to-light is exactly HOW language was pre-determined to become, and REVEAL 'pure logic', in its most SIMPLEST and EASIEST form.

I got these sentences from the internet, and they are all grammatically correct, will you tell me exactly what each of them means by using pure logic?

The chicken is ready to eat.
Visiting friends can be annoying.
I shot an elephant in my pajamas.

In this instance you are interpreting the word "could" to mean, "are you capable of", which is very often what it is meant to mean, but "could" is also conventionally accepted as the correct way to begin a polite request.

Once upon a time it was 'conventionally accepted' that the sun revolves around the sun, and that the Universe began, and created, and is expanding. But, as already known and proved True what is 'conventionally accepted' does not necessarily mean that this relates to what is actually True, Right, nor Correct.

You are comparing two things from different categories. The Earth revolving round the Sun is a provable, physical fact of nature, and would still be the case if we were unaware of it. The meaning of words is a matter of agreement between their users, and changes all the time. For instance, to be gay meant something completely different 100 years ago to what it means today. We can change the meaning of any word simply by agreeing between ourselves to change it.