A World Without Men?

[Age]

It's sort of the point of beliefs that they aren't IrREfUTaBLY tRUe, so whatever argument you are trying to make there is guaranteed to fail.

LOL So the point of the BELIEFS that 'you', human beings, have, HOLD ONTO, and MAINTAIN is, now, supposedly, that what is being BELIEVED is NOT irrefutably true, anyway.

Therefore, the OBVIOUS question now is, WHY BELIEVE some thing that is NOT irrefutably true anyway?

It is true by virtue of simple logical necessity that if you expect future generations to want to read this web site in order to find out about some journey of yours to wisdom, then that is at least one belief that you hold about the desires of future persons.

Is this one of these things that you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY IS TRUE, but which can be just REFUTED anyway?

You have written of such an expectation. Therefore you hold the belief that it expresses.

If you say and BELiEVE SO, then it MUST BE SO, correct?

Also noticed, ONCE MORE, is your continual REFUSAL to answer ANY clarifying questions posed to you, but you do continue to coninually TELL us what you BELIEVE is the ACTUAL truth of things.

Are you not a human being too?

WHAT?

What are you basing this CLARIFYING QUESTION OFF of, EXACTLY?

Irrefutable truths aren't beliefs, they are knowledge.

To me;

'Irrefutable truths' ARE irrefutable truths.

'Beliefs' ARE beliefs. And,

'Knowledge' IS knowledge.

That's not a statement of belief, it's just a fact derived from the meaning of the words.

You forgot to add the words 'to me', on the end. BECAUSE it is NOT a fact derived from the meaning of the words, from "other's" perspectives.

AND, when I SAY, I do NOT believe [some thing], then that IS a FACT, which IS, OBVIOUSLY, IRREFUTABLY True, IRREFUTABLY Right, and IRREFUTABLY Correct.

Are you denying that you believe that future generations will want to read this site to find out more about you and your ideas?

YES.

LISTEN, and let us SEE, if you can HEAR this, this time.

I do NOT BELIEVE ANY thing. This also includes absolutely ANY thing that you say or CLAIM that I do. WHICH OBVIOUSLY INCLUDES that future generations will want to read this site to find out absolutely ANY thing.

What do you think (and believe) it even means when you do that "If you say and BELiEVE SO, then it MUST BE SO" thing? Because it means fuck all to anyone else.

FIRSTLY, I do NOT believe ANY thing, including what I wrote, and you SAY, here. Also, and VERY OBVIOUSLY, one can THINK some thing and NOT necessarily BELIEVE that thing.

SECONDLY, when I say 'If you say and BELIEVE SO, then it MUST BE SO', then what that ACTUALLY MEANS, from my perspective, IS; what you BELIEVE is true, then it MUST BE ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY TRUE, to you.

I say this because it would be ABSOLUTELY ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, and RIDICULOUS, for ANY one, to BELIEVE some thing is true but ALSO BELIEVE that it may NOT be true EITHER.

So, when you BELIEVE some thing is true, then EITHER you BELIEVE that thing is true, or you DO NOT. And, if you BELIEVE some thing is true, then what does this even mean, to you?

THIRDLY, if what I say "means fuck all", to ANY one, but they are CURIOS and REALLY DO WANT TO KNOW 'what it means', then I, AGAIN, suggest that they, or you, just pose and ask a CLARIFYING QUESTION, to me. VERY SIMPLE, REALLY.

[Age]

And I have ALREADY INFORMED you that if you are just going to CHANGE from one BELiEF to ANOTHER BELIEF, then you are NOT YET ready, and NOT one that I am looking for anyway.

I'm not crazy about the word 'belief' myself. For some people it means believing things for which there is no evidence; things like 'god exists' or 'the US 2020 election was stolen'. Since people who believe such things do so without evidence, they are impervious to evidence to the contrary and will not changed their beliefs without surgery. People who do not have shit for brains will believe things based on the best available evidence.

And as you say, and express, here for NOT using INTELLIGENCE I say, and express for ALL BELIEFS. That is; People who do not have "shit for brains" do NOT do BELIEF, which means that they do NOT believe things.

Implying and 'trying to' "justify" that you ONLY believe things, based on "the best available evidence" is to be holding onto AN EXTREMELY SMALL and NARROWED view of things.

If some one is BELIEVING some thing is true ALREADY, then OBVIOUSLY they would NOT WANT TO LOOK FOR nor SEE ANY opposing evidence.

Also, unless one is privy to ALL the evidence, which OBVIOUSLY one human being could NOT be, then using the EXCUSE word 'available' does NOT justify BELIEVING ANY particular thing AT ALL.

Using the 'available' word just CLOSES one off to one's OWN current VIEW, and 'world'. These ones can also, unintentionally or intentionally, REFUSE to LOOK AT ANY thing else, and just keep CLAIMING that they are basing their BELIEF off of "the best AVAILABLE evidence", which they currently have, and only really want to have. Which is all just a part of CONFIRMATION BIAS, ITSELF.

So, what you are bringing to light here is only really REAFFIRMING what I have been saying all along, anyway.

The best available evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that the universe is expanding.

And I will say it AGAIN, I AGREE. That is; the best available evidence for the HYPOTHESIS that the Universe is expanding is 'galactic red shift'.

And before we 'get ahead of ourselves' here let us NOT forget that you claimed that you had 'other evidence' for your claim that the Universe IS, in fact, EXPANDING, of which you have NOT YET PROVIDED.

I have not heard a better explanation, and until I do, I will tentatively believe that the universe is in fact expanding.

Although we have whittled this BELIEF down to a 'tentatively', we still do have some more to go.

Your continual False CLAIMS and attempts at ridicule also SHOW and PROVE that you have NOT YET been FULLY prepared and thus again NOT ready YET either?

What false claims would that be Age?

Those False claims are:

1. "after several years, it's beginning to sink in."

The Truth IS I ALREADY KNEW this BEFORE.

2. "As you have finally realised, the expanding universe is the hypothesis;"

The Truth IS, I ALREADY KNEW this BEFORE, AS WELL.

The ridicule is inevitable, you are perpetually ridiculous, for instance your complaint that I have not yet been fully prepared should be interpreted as your weakness as a preparer.

There is NO 'should' in the way 'you', human beings, think. Each one of 'you' is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY FREE to think absolutely ANY way 'you' want to. Oh, and by the way, when ALL is REVEALED then there is FAR MORE Truth in that interpretation of yours here, then there is at all even imagined, at your first writing of this.

When the proper AND correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' is KNOWN, then this will be FULLY UNDERSTOOD.

Also, do NOT forget how many times 'you', adult human beings, have attempted to ridicule 'those' just because "they" were NOT saying what 'you' BELIEVED, ALREADY, was true, which ended up being, OBVIOUSLY, False, later on?

A LOT of RIDICULE can be put on 'those' who ACTUALLY turn out to be just expressing and saying what was ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct, all along.

I have also been telling you that the red shift data is ACTUALLY evidence for the HYPOTHESIS only, but that the CLAIM that it is evidence that the Universe is expanding is only one INTERPRETATION, which is False, Wrong, Incorrect, and that there is a much better explanation. Which is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct.

Yes Age, I have been telling you in return that the red shift data is ACTUALLY evidence for the HYPOTHESIS only; that is not in dispute. I fully accept that my interpretation may be false, wrong and incorrect, and that there maybe a much better explanation which is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct, but I have only your word that you know what it is. You keep telling me not to believe things. Why should I believe you?

But I have OBVIOUSLY ALREADY been TELLING 'you' to NOT BELIEVE 'me' EITHER. In that I do NOT want you to BELIEVE me nor what i have to say, NOR DISBELIEVE me nor what i have to say.

I just SUGGEST that when 'you', people, are Truly OPEN, then 'you' can and WILL discover and SEE thee ACTUAL Truth of things FOR, and BY, "yourself".

Now, if you FULLY ACCEPT that YOUR INTERPRETATION may be False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, then you ALSO FULLY ACCEPT that red shift data may NOT be evidence AT ALL for an ACTUAL expanding Universe, correct?

[uwot]

Now, if you FULLY ACCEPT that YOUR INTERPRETATION may be False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, then you ALSO FULLY ACCEPT that red shift data may NOT be evidence AT ALL for an ACTUAL expanding Universe, correct?

What do you think my interpretation of the red shift data is?

[FlashDangerpants]

LOL So the point of the BELIEFS that 'you', human beings, have, HOLD ONTO, and MAINTAIN is, now, supposedly, that what is being BELIEVED is NOT irrefutably true, anyway.

Therefore, the OBVIOUS question now is, WHY BELIEVE some thing that is NOT irrefutably true anyway?



Is this one of these things that you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY IS TRUE, but which can be just REFUTED anyway?


If you say and BELiEVE SO, then it MUST BE SO, correct?

Also noticed, ONCE MORE, is your continual REFUSAL to answer ANY clarifying questions posed to you, but you do continue to coninually TELL us what you BELIEVE is the ACTUAL truth of things.

Are you not a human being too?

WHAT?

What are you basing this CLARIFYING QUESTION OFF of, EXACTLY?

Irrefutable truths aren't beliefs, they are knowledge.

To me;

'Irrefutable truths' ARE irrefutable truths.

'Beliefs' ARE beliefs. And,

'Knowledge' IS knowledge.

That's not a statement of belief, it's just a fact derived from the meaning of the words.

You forgot to add the words 'to me', on the end. BECAUSE it is NOT a fact derived from the meaning of the words, from "other's" perspectives.

AND, when I SAY, I do NOT believe [some thing], then that IS a FACT, which IS, OBVIOUSLY, IRREFUTABLY True, IRREFUTABLY Right, and IRREFUTABLY Correct.

That's insane. There's no world in which you adding "to me" makes any difference to what a word means.
"I do not believe in god" is not similar to "I do not have any beliefs at all" so that attempt is lame.

Are you denying that you believe that future generations will want to read this site to find out more about you and your ideas?

YES.

LISTEN, and let us SEE, if you can HEAR this, this time.

I do NOT BELIEVE ANY thing. This also includes absolutely ANY thing that you say or CLAIM that I do. WHICH OBVIOUSLY INCLUDES that future generations will want to read this site to find out absolutely ANY thing.

But the future generations are coming to this site to read about your journey to greatness aren't they? It's just not a "BeliEFfffff" presumably?
Or have you given up on that one entirely?

What do you think (and believe) it even means when you do that "If you say and BELiEVE SO, then it MUST BE SO" thing? Because it means fuck all to anyone else.

FIRSTLY, I do NOT believe ANY thing, including what I wrote, and you SAY, here. Also, and VERY OBVIOUSLY, one can THINK some thing and NOT necessarily BELIEVE that thing.

SECONDLY, when I say 'If you say and BELIEVE SO, then it MUST BE SO', then what that ACTUALLY MEANS, from my perspective, IS; what you BELIEVE is true, then it MUST BE ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY TRUE, to you.

I say this because it would be ABSOLUTELY ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, and RIDICULOUS, for ANY one, to BELIEVE some thing is true but ALSO BELIEVE that it may NOT be true EITHER.

So, when you BELIEVE some thing is true, then EITHER you BELIEVE that thing is true, or you DO NOT. And, if you BELIEVE some thing is true, then what does this even mean, to you?

THIRDLY, if what I say "means fuck all", to ANY one, but they are CURIOS and REALLY DO WANT TO KNOW 'what it means', then I, AGAIN, suggest that they, or you, just pose and ask a CLARIFYING QUESTION, to me. VERY SIMPLE, REALLY.

But ... it's normal to believe some things but also to believe they may not be true. Everybody knows that they hold some set of untrue beliefs, the tricky bit is working out which ones are incorrect. The entire point of beliefs is that they are not irrefutable.

It seems you have an incorrect belief about what "belief" means. Saying it means something else to you than it does to the rest of us won't get you out of that problem.

[Age]

Now, if you FULLY ACCEPT that YOUR INTERPRETATION may be False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, then you ALSO FULLY ACCEPT that red shift data may NOT be evidence AT ALL for an ACTUAL expanding Universe, correct?

What do you think my interpretation of the red shift data is?

What I think you interpretation of the red shift data is that 'it' is ACTUALLY evidence for the HYPOTHESIS that the Universe is expanding, only.

Is this correct?

If this is NOT correct, then what IS?

And this is going to be a Truly LONG PROCESS if you continue on with these DETRACTING and DEFLECTING strategies.

Why can you just NOT answer the actual clarifying questions I pose to you?

By the way, what I said above STILL STANDS. That is; you have already admitted and fully accept that 'your interpretation' may be false, wrong, and incorrect. So, if your interpretation' may be false, wrong, and incorrect, then you will also have to fully accept that you would also, if Truly Honest, that red shift data may NOT be evidence AT ALL for an ACTUAL expanding Universe. Is this correct?

Do you KNOW the difference between 'the HYPOTHESIS of an expanding Universe' from 'an ACTUAL expanding Universe'?

You seem to be in a somewhat confused state here, which would NOT be totally understandable considering that you still HOLD a BELIEF that the Universe IS EXPANDING.

[uwot]

...if your interpretation' may be false, wrong, and incorrect, then you will also have to fully accept that you would also, if Truly Honest, that red shift data may NOT be evidence AT ALL for an ACTUAL expanding Universe. Is this correct?

No Age, the red shift data is evidence for "an ACTUAL expanding Universe", whether or not there is an ACTUAL expanding Universe.

[Age]

Are you not a human being too?

WHAT?

What are you basing this CLARIFYING QUESTION OFF of, EXACTLY?

Irrefutable truths aren't beliefs, they are knowledge.

To me;

'Irrefutable truths' ARE irrefutable truths.

'Beliefs' ARE beliefs. And,

'Knowledge' IS knowledge.

That's not a statement of belief, it's just a fact derived from the meaning of the words.

You forgot to add the words 'to me', on the end. BECAUSE it is NOT a fact derived from the meaning of the words, from "other's" perspectives.

AND, when I SAY, I do NOT believe [some thing], then that IS a FACT, which IS, OBVIOUSLY, IRREFUTABLY True, IRREFUTABLY Right, and IRREFUTABLY Correct.

That's insane. There's no world in which you adding "to me" makes any difference to what a word means.

And here is an EXAMPLE of the very reason WHY human beings, in the days when this was written, were continually bickering, and 'arguing', over things as well NOT AS OF YET Truly understanding "each other".

Some, ACTUALLY, BELIEVED, like this one here, that there was ONLY ONE meaning for a word, and that the meaning, which those ones use, is thee one and only true, right, and correct meaning. And, if ANY one said otherwise, then there were RIDICULED and called things like "insane".

These ones even BELIEVE that it was "insane" for "another" to express when they did NOT BELIEVE things and thus WERE OPEN to "others" and that "others" have and see DIFFERENT meanings to and for the EXACT SAME word.

"I do not believe in god" is not similar to "I do not have any beliefs at all" so that attempt is lame.

Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of when some people were NOT YET able to COMPREHEND what "another" is saying, and MEANING.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN ALSO is that those people do NOT even ask a question to GAIN ACTUAL CLARITY and UNDERSTANDING and instead will just ASSUME some 'thing', and then just go with that, ONLY.

Also, I AGREE that saying; "I do not believe in God" is NOT similar, AT ALL, to saying; "I do not have any beliefs at all". So, WHY you would even mention this I have NO CLUE ABOUT, and REALLY do NOT care either.

Obviously, I have NEVER even alluded to those two sayings being similar, let alone said they were, so you saying that has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I have ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT, anywhere.

Are you denying that you believe that future generations will want to read this site to find out more about you and your ideas?

YES.

LISTEN, and let us SEE, if you can HEAR this, this time.

I do NOT BELIEVE ANY thing. This also includes absolutely ANY thing that you say or CLAIM that I do. WHICH OBVIOUSLY INCLUDES that future generations will want to read this site to find out absolutely ANY thing.

But the future generations are coming to this site to read about your journey to greatness aren't they?

Yes.

It's just not a "BeliEFfffff" presumably?

It OBVIOUSLY can be a BELIEF, to you, and that you have. But considering I do NOT BELIEVE ANY thing is true. That is CERTAINLY, and OBVIOUSLY, NOT a BELIEF I have.

Or have you given up on that one entirely?

Considering that the 'that' word could be in relation to just about ANY thing, I will NOT answer this question.

What do you think (and believe) it even means when you do that "If you say and BELiEVE SO, then it MUST BE SO" thing? Because it means fuck all to anyone else.

FIRSTLY, I do NOT believe ANY thing, including what I wrote, and you SAY, here. Also, and VERY OBVIOUSLY, one can THINK some thing and NOT necessarily BELIEVE that thing.

SECONDLY, when I say 'If you say and BELIEVE SO, then it MUST BE SO', then what that ACTUALLY MEANS, from my perspective, IS; what you BELIEVE is true, then it MUST BE ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY TRUE, to you.

I say this because it would be ABSOLUTELY ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, and RIDICULOUS, for ANY one, to BELIEVE some thing is true but ALSO BELIEVE that it may NOT be true EITHER.

So, when you BELIEVE some thing is true, then EITHER you BELIEVE that thing is true, or you DO NOT. And, if you BELIEVE some thing is true, then what does this even mean, to you?

THIRDLY, if what I say "means fuck all", to ANY one, but they are CURIOS and REALLY DO WANT TO KNOW 'what it means', then I, AGAIN, suggest that they, or you, just pose and ask a CLARIFYING QUESTION, to me. VERY SIMPLE, REALLY.

But ... it's normal to believe some things but also to believe they may not be true.

"normal" is an EXTREMELY RELATIVE word.

So, it is "normal" to who and what, EXACTLY?

Everybody knows that they hold some set of untrue beliefs,

So, human beings one and two million years ago KNEW 'this' here?

Very young children and new born babies KNOW 'this' here as well, correct?

The "insane", like 'me', KNOW 'this' here too, correct?

And, if EVERY body in the WHOLE Universe, supposedly, KNOWS that they "themselves" hold some set of 'untrue beliefs', then this MEANS that the one known as "flashdangerpants" here, in this forum, ALSO KNOWS that it HOLDS some 'untrue beliefs'. So, would 'you' like to SHARE what 'untrue beliefs' that 'you' are HOLDING ONTO, that is; if you do KNOW what those 'untrue beliefs'?

And, either way if you do or do NOT know what YOUR OWN 'untrue beliefs' ARE, EXACTLY, what are the reasons WHY you would continue to HOLD onto BELIEFS, especially considering the FACT that you have just ADMITTED that you are HOLDING ONTO BELIEFS, which are NOT even true ANYWAY?

Saying that you hold some set of 'untrue beliefs' helps in forming a valid and sound argument to NOT have, NOR hold, ANY BELIEFS AT ALL.

the tricky bit is working out which ones are incorrect. The entire point of beliefs is that they are not irrefutable.

I KNOW 'beliefs' are NOT irrefutable, and this is ANOTHER REASON WHY I do NOT do 'beliefs'.

Also, working out what is ACTUALLY True, Right, Correct, and GOOD from what is ACTUALLY False, Wrong, Incorrect, and BAD is an EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY thing to do. That is; once 'you' discover, or learn, and understand WHY the thoughts within a body exist, and, HOW the Mind and the brain work EXACTLY.

It seems you have an incorrect belief about what "belief" means.

And here is FURTHER PROOF that this one ACTUALLY BELIEVES that there is ONLY ONE meaning for words.

Also, because this one ACTUALLY BELIEVES that one can NOT live/exist, if they do NOT BELIEVE things, this BELIEF affects the way they LOOK AT and SEE things.

If you can NOT rid "yourself" of the Incorrect BELIEF that I MUST HAVE BELIEFS, then what SEEMS like, to you, here will OBVIOUSLY remain with, and for, you.

Saying it means something else to you than it does to the rest of us won't get you out of that problem.

What "problem"?

Are you under some ILLUSION that what some 'thing' means, to you, then that 'thing' means the EXACT SAME to ALL of humanity, itself?

[Age]

...if your interpretation' may be false, wrong, and incorrect, then you will also have to fully accept that you would also, if Truly Honest, that red shift data may NOT be evidence AT ALL for an ACTUAL expanding Universe. Is this correct?

No Age, the red shift data is evidence for "an ACTUAL expanding Universe", whether or not there is an ACTUAL expanding Universe.

LOL Okay, if this is what you BELIEVE is true, then this is PERFECTLY FINE with 'me'.

Now, can we move along?

If no, then okay.

But if yes. then what is this OTHER EVIDENCE for an ACTUAL expanding Universe, which you CLAIM you have.

And, if the red shift data is evidence for "an ACTUAL expanding Universe", as you CLAIM it is, then what is the blue shift data evidence for EXACTLY, to you?

[FlashDangerpants]

YES.

LISTEN, and let us SEE, if you can HEAR this, this time.

I do NOT BELIEVE ANY thing. This also includes absolutely ANY thing that you say or CLAIM that I do. WHICH OBVIOUSLY INCLUDES that future generations will want to read this site to find out absolutely ANY thing.

But the future generations are coming to this site to read about your journey to greatness aren't they?

Yes.

And what is that if not a belief that you hold about the future?

You don't know it's going to happen, you don't know the name of some guy who will read this post in the year 2357. So it's not an item of knowledge.
You don't recall the event of somebody in the distant future reading your words and saying "Wow, so wise!!!!" so it's not a memory.

You think it's going to happen, you believe it will come to pass.

[Walker]

In a world without men women couldn’t play the woman card.

For example, when her mouth made it happen …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6XHkth7Z-w

[Age]

But the future generations are coming to this site to read about your journey to greatness aren't they?

Yes.

And what is that if not a belief that you hold about the future?

That is a thinking or a knowing.

I do NOT believe, nor disbelieve, that it is going to happen.

You don't know it's going to happen, you don't know the name of some guy who will read this post in the year 2357. So it's not an item of knowledge.
You don't recall the event of somebody in the distant future reading your words and saying "Wow, so wise!!!!" so it's not a memory.

You think it's going to happen, you believe it will come to pass.

'Thinking' is OBVIOUSLY NOT necessarily 'believing' AT ALL.

[FlashDangerpants]

Yes.

And what is that if not a belief that you hold about the future?

That is a thinking or a knowing.

I do NOT believe, nor disbelieve, that it is going to happen.

But you said it will happen.
How is it a knowing? it hasn't happened yet and it may not happen at all.

You don't know it's going to happen, you don't know the name of some guy who will read this post in the year 2357. So it's not an item of knowledge.
You don't recall the event of somebody in the distant future reading your words and saying "Wow, so wise!!!!" so it's not a memory.

You think it's going to happen, you believe it will come to pass.

'Thinking' is OBVIOUSLY NOT necessarily 'believing' AT ALL.

But you think a thing will happen, without knowing that it will actually happen, and without being in the future where it has happened, so you can't remember it happening.

So ... you believe that future generations will visit this web site out of interest in you and your wisdom. Thare are lots of types of thinking that X is the case or X will become true. One of those types of thinking that X takes the form of a belief that X will be the case. If you "think that X is or will be the case" and you don't have direct memory experience, and you don't have proof, and you don't have knowledge, what's left over is a belief.

[Age]

And what is that if not a belief that you hold about the future?

That is a thinking or a knowing.

I do NOT believe, nor disbelieve, that it is going to happen.

But you said it will happen.
How is it a knowing? it hasn't happened yet and it may not happen at all.

You don't know it's going to happen, you don't know the name of some guy who will read this post in the year 2357. So it's not an item of knowledge.
You don't recall the event of somebody in the distant future reading your words and saying "Wow, so wise!!!!" so it's not a memory.

You think it's going to happen, you believe it will come to pass.

'Thinking' is OBVIOUSLY NOT necessarily 'believing' AT ALL.

But you think a thing will happen, without knowing that it will actually happen, and without being in the future where it has happened, so you can't remember it happening.

So ... you believe that future generations will visit this web site out of interest in you and your wisdom.

1. I do NOT believe ANY thing you wrote here.

2. Future generations will, and have ALREADY, read this website, out of CURIOSITY in 'things', which includes the 'me' and the 'you', and NOT necessarily in the 'your', so called, "wisdom" at all.

Thare are lots of types of thinking that X is the case or X will become true. One of those types of thinking that X takes the form of a belief that X will be the case. If you "think that X is or will be the case" and you don't have direct memory experience, and you don't have proof, and you don't have knowledge, what's left over is a belief.

And here we have an EXAMPLE of CONFIRMATION BIAS at work.

Is it REALLY IMPOSSIBLE, for you, to 'think' some thing COULD happen WITHOUT necessarily 'believing' that it WILL happen?

[FlashDangerpants]

That is a thinking or a knowing.

I do NOT believe, nor disbelieve, that it is going to happen.

But you said it will happen.
How is it a knowing? it hasn't happened yet and it may not happen at all.

'Thinking' is OBVIOUSLY NOT necessarily 'believing' AT ALL.

But you think a thing will happen, without knowing that it will actually happen, and without being in the future where it has happened, so you can't remember it happening.

So ... you believe that future generations will visit this web site out of interest in you and your wisdom.

1. I do NOT believe ANY thing you wrote here.

2. Future generations will, and have ALREADY, read this website, out of CURIOSITY in 'things', which includes the 'me' and the 'you', and NOT necessarily in the 'your', so called, "wisdom" at all.

Now categorise this information. You insist it isn't a belief. It obviously isn't a memory even if you are going to try and do something cute by pretending you transcend time. It isn't something you know by virtue of having a memory of the event.

So it's something you .... "know" will happen but which might not happen because possibly nobody will have any interest in you after you are dead?

Thare are lots of types of thinking that X is the case or X will become true. One of those types of thinking that X takes the form of a belief that X will be the case. If you "think that X is or will be the case" and you don't have direct memory experience, and you don't have proof, and you don't have knowledge, what's left over is a belief.

And here we have an EXAMPLE of CONFIRMATION BIAS at work.

Is it REALLY IMPOSSIBLE, for you, to 'think' some thing COULD happen WITHOUT necessarily 'believing' that it WILL happen?

I don't think it would be fair for me to lay a secret trap for you. So here's how this is going to play out...

Step 1 ... we establish that "you" the HUmaN BEiNg who calls "himself" Age have a special and incompatible personal definition of what "believe" means that is at odds with that of the rest of the world.

Step 2 ... then we discover that "you" the HUmaN BEiNg who calls "himself" Age also has a special and universally incompatible definition of what "think" means

Step 3 ... possibly a short dicussion of "quus" ... you won't get that, before or after the conversation, but it basically means that we will establish that in conversation with you, nobody ever knows what any word means, and if they did, they would have no particular guide to what it means the next time you use it. Any word in Kenglish could mean anything at any time.

Step 4 ... therefore there is never under any circumstances any correct way to interpret any word or phrase that "you" the HUmaN BEiNg who calls "himself" Age ever uses.

Step 5 ... Clarifying Questions can only result in new words to ask clarifying questions about, and there is never any possibility of resolving a definition of any word "to age" except by being age himself.

Step 6 ... Therefore age, by refusing to work in the framework of a public language with shared meanings, has locked himself in a prison of private language with personal meanings that are impossible to describe and useless for communication.

Step 7 ... I told you this would happen when you were still ken.

Step 8 ... There would be no need for most of those steps if you undestood what "quus" means. But I guess this problem goes both ways.

[Age]

But you said it will happen.
How is it a knowing? it hasn't happened yet and it may not happen at all.



But you think a thing will happen, without knowing that it will actually happen, and without being in the future where it has happened, so you can't remember it happening.

So ... you believe that future generations will visit this web site out of interest in you and your wisdom.

1. I do NOT believe ANY thing you wrote here.

2. Future generations will, and have ALREADY, read this website, out of CURIOSITY in 'things', which includes the 'me' and the 'you', and NOT necessarily in the 'your', so called, "wisdom" at all.

Now categorise this information.

What do you mean by "categorise this information"?

And what is 'this', in relation to 'this information?

You insist it isn't a belief.

What does 'it', refer to here?

And, I do NOT EVER recall insisting that 'it' is NOT a belief.

It obviously isn't a memory

What does the 'it' word refer to here?

even if you are going to try and do something cute by pretending you transcend time.

WHY would you call doing that "cute"?

And, 'it' could be a memory without "transcending time".

Also, what ACTUALLY is 'time', to you, EXACTLY?

It isn't something you know by virtue of having a memory of the event.

How would you KNOW?

Do 'you' KNOW EVERY 'event' 'I' have been?

Also, from what you are saying here, you are OBVIOUSLY MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, and thus PRESUMING 'things', BEFORE 'you' EVER asked 'me' a CLARIFYING QUESTION, regarding 'this', or 'that'.

So it's something you .... "know" will happen but which might not happen because possibly nobody will have any interest in you after you are dead?

'you' does NOT die.

What does "it's something" refer to, EXACTLY.

NOBODY is interest in 'me' now, and nor NEVER has, let alone in ANY time AFTER.

LOOK,'i' can NOT KNOW what will happen. So, 'you' are EXACTLY RIGHT, in that regards. But, because you MISSED the ACTUAL POINT that I was making, and what has ALREADY HAPPENED has EXPLAINED, what 'you' are EXACTLY RIGHT about here has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 'me'.

Thare are lots of types of thinking that X is the case or X will become true. One of those types of thinking that X takes the form of a belief that X will be the case. If you "think that X is or will be the case" and you don't have direct memory experience, and you don't have proof, and you don't have knowledge, what's left over is a belief.

And here we have an EXAMPLE of CONFIRMATION BIAS at work.

Is it REALLY IMPOSSIBLE, for you, to 'think' some thing COULD happen WITHOUT necessarily 'believing' that it WILL happen?

I don't think it would be fair for me to lay a secret trap for you. So here's how this is going to play out...

Step 1 ... we establish that "you" the HUmaN BEiNg who calls "himself" Age have a special and incompatible personal definition of what "believe" means that is at odds with that of the rest of the world.

Okay.

But we will just have to WAIT and SEE.

Step 2 ... then we discover that "you" the HUmaN BEiNg who calls "himself" Age also has a special and universally incompatible definition of what "think" means

"incompatible" relative to 'what', EXACTLY?

Step 3 ... possibly a short dicussion of "quus" ... you won't get that, before or after the conversation, but it basically means that we will establish that in conversation with you, nobody ever knows what any word means, and if they did, they would have no particular guide to what it means the next time you use it. Any word in Kenglish could mean anything at any time.

Step 4 ... therefore there is never under any circumstances any correct way to interpret any word or phrase that "you" the HUmaN BEiNg who calls "himself" Age ever uses.

Step 5 ... Clarifying Questions can only result in new words to ask clarifying questions about, and there is never any possibility of resolving a definition of any word "to age" except by being age himself.

Step 6 ... Therefore age, by refusing to work in the framework of a public language with shared meanings, has locked himself in a prison of private language with personal meanings that are impossible to describe and useless for communication.

Step 7 ... I told you this would happen when you were still ken.

Step 8 ... There would be no need for most of those steps if you undestood what "quus" means. But I guess this problem goes both ways.

But what 'you' have FAILED to RECOGNIZE and SEE is that 'I' am the One saying that through language and words, what thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth of things is can and will become KNOWN, and FULLY UNDERSTOOD. And that is BECAUSE OF and FROM using the RIGHT WORDS and the RIGHT DEFINITIONS for those words, which EVERY one can AGREE WITH and ACCEPT.

Also, HOW do 'you' KNOW 'what' is, supposedly, going to "play out", in the future?