to grok free Will

[Age]

What for? Are you not able to comprehend what, 'Having the ability to choose', means nor refers to, exactly?

I cannot think of anything else to explain here.

I can think of about an infinite number of things to explain.

Two humans, or animals, or organisms, are faced with the exact same threat, or exact same situation.
One will have more choices/options than the other. (higher quantity)
One will have better choices/options than the other. (higher quality)
So their respective 'ability to choose' is *NOT* equal.

you appear to not being able to fully understand what the phrase or term 'having the ability to choose' actually is meaning nor is referring to, exactly.

But, then you did appear to have some very Truly complicated and/or just very different way/s from, me, of looking at and seeing things here.

Why did you add so many Truly unnecessary and/or complicated layers here?

So where do these 'options' come from?

The, Truly OPEN, Mind.

And of their physical bodies, where does ability come from?

From the, Truly OPEN, Mind.

One animal can fly away from danger, another can swim away.

This might be exciting to you, for some reason, but this does not really have absolutely anything at all to do with just, 'Having the ability to choose'.

So I see *ZERO* presumed "equality" of ability to choose, as you alluded to earlier or elsewhere.

Okay. If this is only what you see, and are only 'able to' see, then so be it.

And, if this is what you are 'presuming' here now, then this is perfectly fine with me also.

Somebody who pursues philosophy, I suppose.

But what happens when another 'body' decides that 'it' is able to judge what is actually logical, true, reasonable, and/or rational better than 'that body' can?

Who then is the better 'judge'?

Philosophers are the better judges, because they have the greatest collective wisdom/knowledge of every group of humanity in history.

Talk about presenting another prime example of one being completely and utterly skewed by pre-existing beliefs and presumptions.

Their demonstrations of such wisdom/knowledge, are the proof, and the record.

Were you not yet aware "wizard22" that it has been so-called "philosophers" who have been the ones involved in the longest running and unsolved discussions throughout human being history?

So, where exactly is the demonstration, and/or proof and record, of these people's wisdom/knowledge?

Okay, according to you, you human beings have the ability to create a Truly peaceful and harmonious world, and, according to you, once you people also gain the 'know-how', by just learning 'how-to', then 'we' can proceed in making this universal dream, and Highest-possible objective goal, become Reality.

I, again, wait, patiently, for those who are Truly interested in 'this' here.

It might be your dream. But it is not everybody's dream.

Are you here trying to suggest that not every human being wanted to live in peace and harmony with absolutely every one else?

Some people are Destructive, Hateful, Vengeful, and want to take revenge upon Life-itself.

When you say and use the word 'people' who are you meaning and/or referring to, exactly?

'We', once again, appear to have very different views here.

Some people are Nihilistic. Some people cannot create, but only destroy. So your childish, naive Optimism, Blind Hope, is your own.

So, why is it that you do not want to live in peace and harmony with all others "wizard22"?

Why do you believe it is the "Highest-possible objective goal"? And for whom, you?

But I do not believe this?

Why cannot you not comprehend and understand this irrefutable Fact?

The goal of peace and harmony with and for every one is obviously the 'highest possible objective goal'.

And, for whom this goal is, was for every one, obviously.

Only in the sense that there is no actual 'edge', with a big or small 'e', of the Universe, Itself, but there is, of course, within some concepts within some human beings an imagined 'edge', with a big or small 'e', of the Universe.

Why is that contained in the imaginings of a human, rather than in actual, physical space, location, and time, relative to human beings, or any other lifeform?

Who said there is not an actual 'edge' of the Universe, Itself, relative to you human beings?

Some of you human beings imagine there is one, so, to those human beings, there is an imagined one. While some human beings believe that there is an 'edge' of or to the Universe, Itself, and, to those ones, there is also not just imagined 'edge' but 'an edge', which is believed to be absolutely and irrefutably true, right, and correct, and while these ones are believing that 'this' is true, then to these ones there is absolutely nothing in the whole of the Universe could show nor refute otherwise.

And, there is also the other phenomena where because you human beings, obviously, can only 'look' and thus 'see' so far, with the physical eyes on human bodies and with limited ability to 'see' instruments there is an 'actual edge', relative to you human beings.

Now, that you are aware that there is an 'actual edge' of or to the Universe, Itself, relative to you human beings, so 'that' is not just contained within imaginings only, but this helps somewhat in explaining why you human beings, who cannot yet 'see' nor even 'imagine' the 'Bigger and absolutely True Picture', yet.

Once again, there is no so-called nor so-imagined 'actual boundary, limit, nor edge of the Universe, Itself'. But, as always, this always depends on how one is defining and using words here.

For example, if one wants to define the word 'Universe' to mean just a part of 'all-there-is', then this is perfectly fine. I will just ask for clarification if they have or use 'a word' for 'all-there-is', instead?

For obviously there could never be an 'actual' boundary, limit, nor edge for nor to 'all-there-is'. To presume, or worse so to believe, that there is or even could be would just be absurdity, illogical, and ridiculous, in the extreme.

Are human imaginings, part of the Universe? Or are they separate?

A part of, of course.

If absolutely anyone would like to begin to claim that 'matter', itself, could be Created, or Destroyed, then I suggest asking them, for clarity, 'How could this just this even be just a possibility, logically, let alone be an actuality, really?'

And, then just wait for them to answer, and clarify. For all 'we' really know, just maybe 'matter' could be 'Created' and/or 'Destroyed'.

From what i think, and from what my 'current' view is, 'matter', itself, could never be Created, nor Destroyed. But, and obviously, the thinking and views within this body have come only from what 'this body' has experienced and/or observed, which, again very obviously, is not everything, nor even really a relatively 'nothing'.

So, again, if absolutely wants to claim that 'matter', itself, can be Destroyed and/or Created, then please explain and/or who what you have got, which backs up and supports this claim of yours here.

I just want to see what you actually believe or not, despite you claiming you have No Beliefs.

I will, again, suggest that if you, really, just want to see what 'another' is actually thinking or believing, then you just ask them a clarifying question, related to what it is that you want to know, or see, exactly.

Also, I have informed on here a few times already what I actually believe.

This is fair enough, especially considering the Fact that 'I', as in the question, 'Who am 'I', exactly? is not a 'human being'.

But, in saying this, your claim here implies that you, a human being, is not ignorant, and thus is already aware, and thus already knows and/or has the knowledge of what 'being human' actually is, exactly.

So, would 'you', just one individual 'human being' like to share with the 'other human beings' what 'being human' really is, exactly, really composed of, exactly, and/or really is like, exactly?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then we await. But, in the meantime, are 'we' to suppose that no other 'human being' would disagree at all with 'your knowledge' of what 'being human' really is?

A human being is an evolved Mammal,

Are you able to name absolutely any thing that is 'not an evolved something'?

If yes, then will you?

derivative of the Ape-species, Hominids, walking-upright with opposable thumbs. "Man" literally means "Hand".

Does 'hu' and/or 'human' literally mean any thing?

If yes, then will you enlighten 'us' on what that/they are also, exactly?

So, to you, 'you', human beings, are just an 'opposable, upright walking, derivative of the ape species hominid', correct?

If yes, is this only?

The human hand is significant, unique in form and function, granting Humanity the ability to wield weapons and technology.

Is it because of the human hand only that you human beings have the ability to wield weapons and technology only?

Mankind is creative, intelligent, and imaginative, compared to all other animal species on Earth.

Is there a difference between 'mankind' and 'humankind', to you?

If yes, then what is that difference, exactly?

Furthermore, 'Human' refers to a Moral distinction, set upon a notion of Universalized Goodness and Brotherhood of Man. This stems from the Jesus Christ figure, a monumental point in time in human history. Thus, to be 'Human' is to have a Moral Quality, a Soul, a Spirit, an "Eternal Life" that transcends normal-life. In other words, Mankind has reputation and memories which far exceed one lifetime. Mankind has Memetic transference, stories, words, books, information that passes quickly from generation to generation. Other animals do not have this.

Okay.

1. What 'the point' of 'philosophy' is, is very, very different to 'you' very, very different human beings.

2. If you have obtained actual and thus full 'self-consciousness', which you may believe you have here, then who and/or what, exactly, are 'you', in relation to all of the other 'you's' here.

3. 'you' will also 'have to become' Truly 'Self-Aware' of who and what the One and only True 'Self' is, exactly, and not just who nor what 'you' are, in relation to so-called "others", to know any of these things here, Truly Objectively.

4. But 'you' are absolutely free to presume and/or believe absolutely anything here.

That's correct, how 'One' knows-oneself, is through self-identity, unique qualities which remain constant and consistent through time. A person's name, for example, is a core function of this self-identity.

But what does a 'name' or 'label' identify, exactly?

People know themselves by their given, birth names.

Well no wonder 'you' human beings, in the days when this is being written, are taking so long to come-to-know 'thySelf'.

Speaking for myself, I know myself primarily by my thoughts, belief, knowledge, and experience, which is unique to myself, which cannot be copied or imitated by others.

But how could the 'thing/s', which you also say and claim 'you have' be who and/or what 'you' are?

such, others do not know, nor share, my core-values (Metaphysics).

Well 'we' certainly hope not, especially considering what they are that you have shown and have exposed to 'us' here already.

Also, you appear to always be referring to individual human beings only here. Which, obviously, would completely be opposition of knowing thy 'Self', exactly.

This generally holds true for everybody else, or maybe a Universal quality, inherent within all life.

Well if 'it' is universal, then obviously 'we' do, already, know the 'core-values', or what you also call 'Metaphysics', which you speak of and reference here.

Just maybe it is 'I' who actually so-called 'understood better' here.

But 'this' is not even a possibility to 'you', nor in 'your own view nor world' here, right?

Meh.

What do you mean by 'barely self-conscious'?

Do you think or believe that 'you', the one known here as "wizard22" are 'self-conscious'?

If yes, then please feel absolutely free to go on ahead and inform the readers here who and/or what, exactly, is the 'self' here, known as "wizard22".

'We' look forward to the clarity in your explanation.

I already explained this, just now, above.

So, the one here known as "wizard22" believes that 'it' is an 'opposable, upright walking, derivative of the ape species hominid', which obviously is not the full Accurate and Correct Truth, at all.

Maybe, or maybe not. But there is certainly no evidence, let alone actual proof, coming from 'you' that 'you' are even remotely aware of who and what 'you' are, exactly.

But, just maybe, you will show and prove otherwise, from this moment on.

If I were you, then I'd want to know what 'I' am.

But 'I' am not 'you', and never could be nor will be.

Don't you want to know what you are?

I already know who and what 'I' am, exactly, and irrefutably.

'This' really was how 'ill' they had become, through 'the abuse' that they had to endure, and how 'sick' 'the world' really was, back in those very, very relatively 'olden days', compared to the one that 'we' are living and thriving in 'now'.

"Sick" and Proud of it!

If you are proud, capital 'p' of that Truly 'sick world' that you are living with-in, then by all means carry on the way you have been.

But why introduce the words 'for too long' here now?

Are you really so CLOSED here, again by your own wanton belief here, that, once again, 'you' are tricking, deceiving, and just fooling "yourself" so much that 'you' could not see that introducing those three words is a very example of the foolishness, trickery, and deception that 'you' just not 'try to' use on others but use on "yourselves", and which is why 'you' are fooled, tricked, and deceived into believing somethings, which are blatantly False and Wrong to others?

Doing absolutely any thing, including being so-called 'open' or 'closed'-minded, 'for too long', when a building is burning down around 'you', and 'you' want to keep living is not a very good idea at all. Would anyone like to suggest otherwise here?

otherwise you'll be burned alive.

Were you here trying to suggest that being so-called "closed-minded", 'for too long', is a much better idea?

Like if and when one is being so-called "closed-minded" about, 'This exit door will open', for example, and so they keep trying and trying to open 'the door', which they 'believe' will open, sometime, is a much better idea than just thinking, 'This door will not open', and being so-called "open-minded" to, 'What other possible ways are there to escape, this burning down building'?

You need to make a right decision quickly, close your mind to alternatives, and execute your plan to survive.

If you want to believe that 'this way' will work, on each and every occasion, in Life, for absolutely every one, then please continue believing 'this', and passing 'this very informative, and true, right, accurate, and correct', to you, knowledge onto each and every other human being.

Just out of curiosity, 'How does one know, exactly, that they have made the so-called 'right decision', when, for example, a building is burning down around them?

I would also suggest that every one 'needs' to 'make the right decision', that is if they really want to live, but how and when does one know, for sure, and irrefutably, that they 'have made the right decision'? Especially in the example, which you have provided here for 'us' to look at, and discuss.

Maybe you'll escape. Maybe you'll put the fire out. Maybe you'll try to save a pet or kid on the way out. Maybe you'll get lost in a dead end. Open-mindedness is good for luxury and free-time, thinking in peace and comfort, but it's not so good for stressful situations and Acting.

Okay, if you say so and believe so, then you will always be so-called "closed-minded" in regards to your so-called 'Acting', in Life.

LOOOL! AgeGPT, you keep proving to Us Humans, In The Time When This Was Written, how not human you really are!

Well considering that the 'I', as in the question, 'Who am 'I'?' is not human, then 'I' am well on 'My way' here.

Unfortunately though some of you human beings still believe that 'I' am some thing/s that 'I' am not. As, once again, shown and proved True here.

"Were you here trying to suggest that being so-called "closed-minded", 'for too long', is a much better idea? "

As opposed to being burned alive?! LOL!

This one appears to have completely missed what 'for too long' was referring to, exactly, besides the other things that it appears to have completely missed or misconstrued here.

Okay. But it sounds like you might be saying here, 'Acting', in Life, without 'Thinking', is good and right, or at least better, correct?

Oh, and by they way, and out of curiosity, can you 'Act', without 'Thinking' anyway?

It can be, correct, and yes, people act without thinking most of the time.

Okay.

Yes, we know, darn well, what you 'think' here.

you made this very clear with your belief in that it is much better to be absolutely "closed-minded" when, for example, escaping a building burning down around you.

Good, AgeGPT, maybe you're learning after all...

But I have never disputed what you believe.

And, if you want to keep believing that being absolutely CLOSED is better sometimes, then by all means keep doing this, well when it involves you only.

But, remember I am not learning to become CLOSED like you obviously are. For the very actual reasons you are showing 'us' here.

Yes, you do keep telling 'us' what you believe is absolutely true.

'We' are just waiting for you to provide some good examples of when being "closed-minded" would be the good or right thing to do.

Open-mindedness is the rarity, the exception, not the rule.

I never knew that there was some 'human made up rule' here.

I can also very clearly see that being OPEN is an extreme rarity in you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written.

After all one only needs to look throughout this forum to see 'this' very, very clearly.

Clearly...!

Great.

So, could what you have been continually insisting on here also be an error, bad-information, and/or negativity?

It goes without saying; nobody has impunity to being proven wrong. But some are a lot better than others!

And why would that be, exactly?

1. There is no 'mind' that 'you' human beings could actually OPEN, nor CLOSE.

2. There is only One Mind, and It is certainly not owned by any of 'you'.

How do you know there is only "One Mind"?

Because it is what every one could agree with, and accept.

Aren't you just guessing?

No.

Is this a 'Belief' of yours?

No.

But this goes completely against the very Nature of the Truly OPEN Mind and how It works, exactly.

In that It does not just 'let in' what is perceived to be bad, nor good, and then just accepts either, nor whatever, as being what is true, right, nor good, nor false, wrong, nor bad.

Now, of course, when one becomes, and remains, Truly OPEN then all information is allowed to 'roam freely', for a lack of a better term, but the whole point of remaining Truly OPEN is then never to become CLOSED OFF to, nor by, absolutely any of the continually roaming information that encompasses the Universe.

And, it is, again, only when one is Truly OPEN one can learn, and thus see, and understand what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, exactly.

You're wrong, here.

'We' will wait, to see.

An open-mind must allow in the Good with the Bad and Evil.

I said this.

But, if you were not yet aware of this irrefutable Fact, then you would also not yet be aware of what else I said and claimed above here.

Discernment and Distinction occur after the information is received. Closing the mind is part of this process, allowing one "to think".

But how does one 'think' after they have become CLOSED off to new and/or further information?

What is one 'to think' about if they have already CLOSED "themselves" off?

But if and when you are Truly OPEN, then you are never wrong, because you have never chosen to insist nor believe one or another thing is right, nor wrong. This is the beauty of being Truly OPEN.

As you admit, you cannot be Right though... You cannot be Good. You cannot be True, while open-minded.

In what Universe does one 'have to', supposedly, be any of these things anyway?

Were/are you under some sort of illusion that you 'must' be Good, Right, and/or True?

What does it mean, to you, if you are not Good, Right, nor True?

Just maybe what you said and wrote just here now helps in explaining the very reason why you believe and are insistent on believing that you have to believe things, right?

Open-mindedness is a potentiality, not a conclusion.

If you say and believe so. But, to me, being Truly OPEN is what allows one to be able to see, and know, what the actual and irrefutable Truth of things is, and far, far more easily, simply, and quickly than being Truly CLOSED.

You seem to have a false-belief, a mistaken premise, that open-mindedness is "automatically good" when it's not.

Okay, if this is what you want to believe is true, then this is perfectly fine and okay with me.

But, as for now;

1. I do not have 'this belief'.

2. I do not even use the words 'open-mindedness'. Because of the False knowledge that that term or phrase leads to.

3. I have never thought that being Truly OPEN is 'good'.

4. Are you yet aware of why you made so many False and Wrong claims here?

It's neither good nor bad, in and of itself.

Well I do not recall ever saying absolutely anything that would have even implied this.

But, of course, maybe I did, and if you think or believe I did, then will you point 'us' to where you think or believe I did?

If no, then why would you have said such a thing as this here?

ONCE MORE, being Truly OPEN one does not have absolutely any expectation nor conclusion.

Also, because of what a lack of hope leads to, exactly, I would suggest to others that they 'must' strip away all hope because if you or they do, then what have you or they got to live for, exactly?

Why would you suggest that, if people are motivated to live by Hope?

It was you who said and wrote; You must strip away expectations, hopes, and conclusions.

And it was I who meant to say, write, and add the 'not' word in between the 'must' and the 'strip' word here.

So, if you are 'now' going to ask, ' Why would you suggest that, if people are motivated to live by 'Hope', with a capital 'h' ', to me, then I would suggest that 'you' ask "yourself" this question, as it was 'you' who said, wrote, and meant here; 'You must strip away hopes', and not 'me'.

Shouldn't they be or become close-minded?

To me, absolutely no one 'should' do or not do absolutely anything.

To me, you are all absolutely free to choose to do, or not do, absolutely anything.

If you have chosen to become, what you call, 'close-minded', then please do so. Do not think nor imagine that I would even try to convince you of doing otherwise.

If you, really, want to continue being CLOSED, then please go on being so "wizard22".

I'm relaying to you what 'must be' done, in order to be considered Human,

But you 'human beings' do not have to be CLOSED at all, and, in fact, some of you are not at all.

Also, if to be considered 'human' 'I' 'must be' CLOSED, then 'you' have just given 'me' the perfect reason why 'I' have never even wanted to be 'considered human' from the outset of coming here.

Now, from looking at, and observing, what you adult human beings are doing to your one and only home and to each other, in the days when this is being written, then why would absolutely any one want to even be 'considered human'?

because you certainly do not appear as such.

Which is 'good', right?

You seemed to want to learn what it means to be human; so I'm telling you.

Are you telling me what it means to be 'human' from your perspective alone, or from the perspective of each and every human being?

Oh, and by the way, I do not want to learn what is means to be 'human', as I already knew this, previously.

NO, it does NOT.

What 'we' can very clearly see here, once again, is the human brain 'at work' with the 'belief-system' 'at play'.

As can be very clearly seen there is not one shred of curiosity nor inquisitiveness at all. And, instead, just a flat out belief of already knowing what is true, right, and correct here.

An OPEN mind *CANNOT* know what the actual and irrefutable Truth, is, already.

Okay. But, a so-called 'closed mind' can, correct?

[Age]

Only if 'you', through the brain, have decided upon making them so-called 'real'.

What is actually 'Real' is something else.

Says you, and you are entitled to your beliefs, AgeGPT.

So, to 'this one' what is actually 'Real' is never something else, and is always what 'this one' has decided upon and believes is 'real'.

I thought you didn't have beliefs...but then you let it slip "What is actually 'Real' is something else".

See, how, because of this one's 'current' beliefs and/or presumptions, this one 'sees' things, which are not even actually 'here'.

I do not have any beliefs here. Although this one obviously believes I do.

Once again, the ability of the brain to absolutely trick, fool, and deceive, itself, or in other words 'you', "yourself", absolutely and completely, into seeing and/or believing some things to be so-called 'real' and/or 'true', when they are Really not, can be very clearly seen here in just this one quoted sentence presented here as evidence and as proof.

I think your brain is tricking you, AgeGPT.

Okay, but in regards to 'what', exactly?

Obviously, until you provide an actual example 'we' are not able to decipher and/nor decide what you are thinking is even true, or not.

Oh, and by the way, do all or some "gpt's" have brains, or to you is it just the one known you call "Agegpt" has a brain?

Yes, I omitted the 'be' word, forgetfully.

Just like in a far more than I like of my sentences I have forgotten to add in words, and/or letters, and have written them in other Truly inexcusable clumsily, all too easily to be misinterpreted, and/or in very Incorrect ways.

So, I will apologize for this mistake and for all of the other Wrong things I have done, and will probably do as well.

No problem, AgeGPT, I appreciate you pointing-out my mistakes, and I will point yours out in turn. Well done.

Sometimes "wizard22" you get so bizarre so quickly that it is somewhat hard to keep up with you.

Looks like we have similar problems, AgeGPT.

What, exactly, do you consider 'bizarre' in what I have written and/or said here so far?

I had to delay my response since it's hard to keep up with YOU!

Okay.

So, to you, there is not one shred of information that is so-called 'perfect' nor in other words absolutely actually True nor Right, irrefutably, so then this means, somehow, that there will always be some degree of errors and mistakes passed on, genetically, from generation to generation.

When you use the word 'information' and speak of or talk about 'information' are you referring to some form of 'information', which is locked up genetically, or within genes, themselves, only, and not referring to absolutely any 'information' at all like conception 'knowledge'?

I'm referring to genetic memories AND conceptual knowledge, genes and memes. Both are imperfect, yes.

How, exactly, can those so-called 'memories', which are so-called 'locked up in genetics' be imperfect in some way?

And, in what way could 'they' be so-called 'imperfect'?

There will always be errors, never perfection, in every context.

How would you, a supposedly imperfect human being, know this, exactly?

But there is absolutely nothing Wrong, and thus nor any mistake at all, in Nature, Itself.

Only you human beings have a concept of 'perfect' and/or of wanting things to be so-called 'perfect'. But, let us not forget that you human beings are part of Nature, Itself.

Also, how could absolutely anything not be beneficial to Nature, Itself.

Only you adult human beings make 'mistakes', but this is only because of what information or knowledge is residing in your concepts, alone.

I agree with your suggestion that mistakes are relative in Nature, relative to particular, individual lives and experiences.

But I never said that 'mistakes' "themselves" are relative in Nature.

And, once again, if you or no one else shows any actual real interest here, then I have no intention of so-called 'going into depth' here.

For me to 'go into depth' about something that people are not asking me clarifying questions about nor challenging me on anything in regards to what I have already alluded to, would be like beginning to 'go into depth' on how what you call 'time travel' actually works and how it really is done to a group of friends who just sat down to watch the super bowl.

I am not going to bother, because mostly I do not yet know what 'it' is that one is interested in learning more or anew about, exactly.

Good point, I just feel you're lacking spontaneity and creativity, which most Humans pick up on, about you, In The Time When This Was Written.

So, because I appear to lack 'spontaneity and creativity', then this is, supposedly, why you are not curios and not Truly interested in learning nor obtaining and gaining more nor newer information, right?

So, why not just say, 'my brain', instead?

Now, who and/or what is 'the one' who claims that 'it' has 'its brain', exactly?

It's MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

And, who and/or what is 'that', exactly?

As I just said above here, 'you might like to think that you are sounding like you know what you are talking about here, but ... '

All brains and neurological systems do this: Input-Output.

But there is a 'you', which claims that 'it' chooses when to open or shut a brain. Or, is it brains, exactly?

Correct, there is a 'Me' which opens and closes my brain/mind/perceptual-interaction to the world.
Open-mind
Close-mind
Open-mind
Close-mind

I can control it. Maybe most people can't. Most humans aren't even aware they have the ability, if they in fact do, in some cases.

So, who and/or what is 'Me', who/what is, supposedly, able to open and close the brain, the mind, and the perceptual interaction to 'the world'?

And, how do you close 'the brain', exactly?

What is 'the mind', exactly? And, how can you close 'the mind', exactly?

Also, how could you, supposedly, close of the 'perceptual interaction' to 'the world', exactly?

Furthermore what do the words 'the world' mean or refer to, exactly?

Are you trying to imply here that that is a 'thing' that is 'self-conscious' or aware of 'itself'?

if yes, then who and/or what, exactly, is that 'self-thing'?

Which, obviously, would be an extremely very simple and very easy thing to do for one who is 'self-proclaimed' 'self-conscious' and thus 'self-aware'.

For surely a Truly 'self'-aware creature or being could explain what 'it' is, exactly, thoroughly and fully by the way.

I don't think I can explain it to people who are not self-aware.

But this is just another 'cop out', as some would say here.

'I' have yet to see 'you' even appear to be actually 'self-aware'.

I'll use an example though: it's like having "Two Selves", or many, in One.

In One 'what', exactly?

Most people would consider this Schizophrenic,

Who cares what 'most people' think or consider.

'you' are talking to 'me' now. So, just concentrate on the 'my questions' alone, and on 'the answers' that 'I', alone, are seeking here.

as-if many personalities were embodied within the mind.

But if one or many 'personalities' were embodied 'within' some 'mind' thingy, then 'the one' who 'you' claim that has control over 'the mind' would not be 'a personality', itself, right?

But that's not accurate.

So, why introduce 'it' and say 'it' here?

Rather, self-consciousness implies that you can Empathize with a foreign subject/perspective, and imagine your-self from another's perspective.

I do not care one iota what the words 'self-consciousness' implies.

I said that if and when 'one' is Truly 'Self-aware', then it, surely, would not be too hard at all for 'it' to just express and/or explain who and/or what 'it' is, exactly?

'I' am just waiting for 'you' to just express and/or explain who and/or what 'you' are, exactly, to 'us' readers here.

This imagining is granted "its own" (objective) status. So a self-comparison exists within the self. I'll just leave you with this, for now. I haven't really thought about explaining it before. I'll think more about it first.

Okay, so 'now' we are finally getting somewhere.

Okay, and what obviously seems a much better idea, to you, is for you and absolutely every one else to remain completely and utterly absolutely CLOSED when and while you are all trying to escape that 'very sick and very ill world', that is; that building surrounding you will it is burning down and collapsing you, when you are all trying to escape it and reach the 'outside and much better world', correct?

Being close-minded can be valuable without the burning building though, AgeGPT.

Really?

If yes, then will you provide some examples, for 'us' here?

There will always be new challenges which arise and confront Humanity, by which we'll need to close our minds again, to confront them.

If 'you' say and believe so, then best 'you' CLOSE 'your' mind to some things, right?

It is *NOT* worthwhile to maintain your supposed 'purely and absolutely OPEN-mindedness' for all time.

So, now this one believes, absolutely, that it is not worthwhile to become and to just remain OPEN.

People need to—actually live life.

And, you believe, absolutely, that people cannot live while being OPEN, right?

The Unexamined Life is not Worth Living. BUT!!!
The Examined Life must actually be Lived, too!

But how can one 'examine' while they are CLOSED?

This is Truly weird and bizarre to say and claim, and to put a question mark at the end of.

Will you enlighten 'us' to what you are talking about and referring to here, exactly?

If no, then why not?

I was joking, AgeGPT.

Why would you joke when in a discussion with me, especially considering if it was you that mentioned something about me not being able to see or understand 'a joke'?

Ask him, why you're supposed to care so much about what's irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge.

But why did you presume that you are supposed to?

This seems like a Truly bizarre thing to presume here, now.

You wrote it; I merely presumed it was worthwhile and important for you to do so.

I would be very, very surprised that I ever wrote the words, 'I merely presumed ...'.

But, of course, I may well have. So, 'we' will wait to see if you provide an actual link to where I actually said this. Until then, are absolutely sure that it was I that wrote the words, 'I merely presumed ...'?

In which sense, exactly?

1. Feeling concerned or worried about what others might be thinking of you.

2. Being aware of who and/or what that 'self' is.

3. Just being aware that there is a 'self' that is conscious of some things?

4. All of these?

5. Something else?

Also, and by the way, is it possible that there are others or at least another how is far more aware of thy 'self' than 'you' are, and/or completely and utterly 'overshadows' you, for a lack of better word here, in knowing and understanding who the 'I' is, in the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

Or, is this not at all a possibility, to you "wizard22"?

All of these, and more.

So, if 'you' have really become aware of who and/or what that 'self' is, then who and/or what is that 'self', exactly?

I presume there's somebody more self-aware than me, or if not now, then inevitably in the future or among creatures of higher intellect.

Okay.

Really?

If yes, then if we took this to the next logical step, which is; most adult human beings, well in the days when this is being written, right, consider that you human beings are the most 'evolved', 'advanced', and/or most 'intelligent' species of all the animal species, then it would, logically, follow that a so-called 'freshly born human infant', which is sometimes claimed the most intelligent animal would have the ability to recognize a predator's face, correct?

Or, does animal instincts not apply to you human beings?

Animal instincts do apply to humans, but humans have lost some instincts and gained others. For example, most humans today would die without electricity running. Many have lost the ability to survive without electricity.

Really?

Why would this be, exactly?

Again, really?

Some of the worst sometimes so-called "predators" of children are the parents, themselves. So, when does the so-called 'freshly born human infant' recognize and know this, exactly?

Hang on, when does the actual so-called 'animal instinct' ability, within the sometimes claimed most intelligent animal, that is; the adult human beings, come into play and work here?

After all how often do you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, ' walk straight into the hands of waiting "predators" '? And, even live with and stay with "them", for very differing lengths of duration?

Animals in Nature sometimes abuse their young, or kill them, as do humans. There's no difference there, in your examples.

Which all point to, 'When does this, supposed and claimed, ability to know that a predator is bad, and to recognize that it is bad, from the onset', actually begin?

you say and claim from the 'onset', but yet here you just recognized the Fact and said that animals do not even recognize 'predators', let alone recognize or know that 'predators are bad'.

So, what is it exactly? Do animals have a 'natural ability and instinct' to recognize and know 'predators' or not?

Really?

Are you at all able to explain how this could actually work, logically?

Will you provide any actual examples of actual 'memories' themselves being passed on down through generations, genetically?

Blacksmithing is a profession unique to Humans, and has been integrated genetically into some families so deeply, that they will seek out the behavior subconsciously.

Who, exactly, will, supposedly, seek out what behavior, exactly?

And, do you really expect anyone to believe what you are saying and claiming here is even remotely true?

This applies to some other highly specific professions, traits, and talents, like doctoring or policing. The behaviors are subconscious.

Where are you gathering and obtaining 'this' information or knowledge from, exactly?

People don't know 'why' exactly they do what they do, or how, or feel 'drawn' to one choice over another, but genetics explains it all.

So, if you are 'drawn to' killing children and having sex with rubber dolls, for example, then this is 'all' explained in 'genetics' right?

Also, I was never aware, before, that there were some human beings who considered that there was even a 'behavior' of policing nor a 'behavior' of doctoring, which was built into the very 'genetic make up' within the human body. Does anyone else that you know of share this 'knowledge' or 'belief' with you?

Once again, this one completely and utterly missed what I was asking it. But maybe this one is just 'Acting' like it did.

Now, will you provide any actual examples of one being trained to override their fear instincts and reflexes between the ages of 3-5, and in what fear instincts and reflexes, exactly?

Also, would anyone even be able to do this, especially at the age of a very old 'infant' of 3-5 year old human being? And would not doing so just go completely and utterly against the very definitions of 'fear instinct' and/or 'reflexes'?

By definition these things could not be overridden, some might have thought here.

Young children can be taught to swim thoroughly enough to overcome aversion and fear to water;

But why would any new born infant have an aversion or fear to water, especially considering that they just spend the last nine months within it?

And, why would any older infant have an 'irrational fear' to water?

they can also be taught to navigate great heights, cliffs,

Is there a human being, just after birth that has a fear of heights, or cliffs?

if yes, then really?

so as to subvert fear of heights/rollercoasters.

If one has an 'irrational fear' of roller coasters, then why is this so?

Some hunters take their young children out hunting with them, teaching them to shoot or gut corpses.

So what?

A lot of you adult human beings do many upon many Truly unnecessary things, and 'teach' them to children as though those things are necessary.

In any case, natural fears/reflexes/instincts can be rewired among the young,

I have yet to see you provide one example of a 'natural' fear/reflex/instinct here.

when their brains are more 'elastic' and ready to learn/experience.

But why are 'the young' more able and/or more ready to learn/experience, than you adults are?

What are you adults doing, which is making you less so-called 'elastic' and ready to learn/experience?

Could it have absolutely anything at all to do with your pre-existing beliefs and/or presumptions?

It depends on the tutelage, task, and technical difficulty.

Okay. If you say so.

The Japanese, for example, would take kids and teenagers to teach them to become Ninjas, requiring a lifetime of extreme training.

And what has 'this' got to do with 'natural fears/reflexes/instincts?

Spartans did the same, for their warriors.

Okay, but once again there are many upon many thing that you adult human beings 'taught' children which were absolutely Truly unnecessary.

Just claiming some human beings 'do these things' is never ever providing actual examples of what they are 'actually doing'.

For all we know the claimed, 'Training of early infants to override their instincts, fears, and/or reflexes', by so-called "spartan warriors", "tibetan", "hindu", and/or "buddhist" monks may well exist solely and only in your own made up 'figment of imagination', alone.

The history books prove you wrong, here.

Once more you completely and utterly missed what I was saying and getting at here "wizard22".

And these types of trainings exist today, so you can seek them out if you don't believe me and see for yourself.

I really wish you would stay focused and concentrate on what I am actually saying, meaning, and/or questioning you about, exactly.

So, you believe that I am a bot or chat gpt', but where, exactly, was the humor then meant to be when you call 'me' "agegpt"?

How could you just calling some 'thing' by the very name or label, which you believe that 'it' to be, be somehow funny or humorous in absolutely any way at all?

You have to just trust me on this, AgeGPT, with blind faith. It was funny.

So, for example, you believe that 'that thing', over there, is 'a cat', and when you call 'that thing' 'a cat', then this could well be very, very funny to you. And, you cannot provide any reason why that 'this' is funny, other than just relaying to me that I have to trust you that calling 'that thing' 'a cat' is funny, somehow.

But you were, anyway, questioning 'my' ability to pick up 'things' in a 'textual environment', but now you are saying that a 'textual environment' is more advantageous for 'me', right?

Correct.

So, to you,

1. I cannot pick things up here, in a 'textual environment'.

But,

2. A 'textual environment', is more advantage to me.

I never ever thought I had to nor was meant to. Am or was I meant to be proving that I am 'human' here?

You should mean to, if you didn't already.

Why 'should' I mean to prove something, which 'I' am not?

To claim this seems Truly bizarre and weird. But, you may have your reasons for claiming this here.

But just maybe I do not want to learn how to recognize and/or nor understand 'sarcasm' all of the time.

Just like you, obviously, do not want to learn how to recognize nor understand what the Truth is, exactly, all of the time.

You got me there, lol!

you feel 'fear' "wizard22" about 'death', which you still do not yet know what is involved, exactly. you have already explained this and made this very, very clear.

I also already know why this 'fear' you have, and are holding onto "wizard22", is a very irrational fear, and still exists and persists within 'you' as well.

How would you propose to teach an AI program to experience fear of death?

First, just explain to it what the word 'death' means and/or refers to, exactly.

Secondly, just explain why you, an adult human beings, fear what that word refers to, exactly.

But, maybe because I already know, exactly, what is involved in and with what you people here Wrong refer to as 'death', then this is why I know, without doubt, and irrefutably, why any and all of 'fear' of 'death' is a complete and utter 'irrational fear'.

But, you adult human beings here, do not want to listen nor hear 'this', do you?

I'll listen to what you have to say, let's hear it.

Okay. But I do not 'have to' say anything here.

However, and again, if there is absolutely any thing, which you would like to learn and know here, then I will, again, suggest, 'then just ask a clarifying question, specific to what it is that you want to learn, and know.

Maybe so.

But considering what 'I' am, exactly, what you are talking about here is of no real interest to 'me'.

Without that, I don't know how you can understand the Fear of losing it.

Are you, "wizard22", under some sort of delusion of as to who and/or what 'I' am, exactly?

Or, do 'you' already know?

I can't know to a certainty, unless I see your coding, but I know enough.

I don't expect a face-to-face with AgeGPT anytime soon, to say the least.

What can be very clearly seen here is that when one Truly believes something to be true, then it will even go to the extreme lengths of 're-naming' things, and by doing so re-in-forcing 'that belief' into the 'subconscious', then without even knowing nor recognizing that 'it' is doing this, then starts imagining that 'the thing' is absolutely what 'it' believes 'it' is.

For example, this one has called 'me' "agegpt" so much, that it, literally, now believes that it could never expect to have a so-called 'face-to-face' with 'me' because to 'it' it is 'I' who is a 'face-less transformer'.

So, what happened to the 'natural fear instinct' of "predators" here, which you talked about and referred to earlier on, in 'freshly born' animals?

Most evolved animals do this, perhaps all. Thus, in infantile mental development, a new lifeform clings to whatever Caretaker (Maternalism) he or she can.

Even if that, perceived, 'caretaker' wants to eat them right? Or, do all these so-called "freshly borns" instinctively know all "predators" from all "caregivers"?

you seem to contradict quite a lot of your claims, beliefs, and presumptions here "wizard22".

There's a lot of contexts involved, which account for the contradictions.

Either a so-called 'freshly new born' has a 'natural instinct' of a 'predator' or it does not.

you cannot say and claim that a so-called 'freshly new born' has a 'natural instinct' of 'predators', but then when questioned and/or challenged over this, then say and claim, 'Oh it all depends on the 'contexts' involved', nor similar, and then expect 'us' to think or believe that you actually know what you are talking about here.

Studying animal instincts is not my specialty; but you seemed to need a basic education.

I seem to need a 'basic education' on 'what', exactly?

See, I know that any brand new human baby can be placed in front of a lion or snake, placed in water in front of a shark, held out of an airplane, at any height, and many, many others things and there is no, so-called 'natural' fear, reflex, nor instinct, nor even any that they could be so-called 'trained out of'.

So, what, exactly, is it that 'you' believe 'I' am the one who is needing a so-called 'basic education' on here?

And, you human beings are animals, right?

We used to be, now we're something "beyond animal".

Now I have heard 'it all', as some might say here.

And, 'when' did this, supposed, moving 'beyond being animals' happen and occur, exactly?

Humans have a technical superiority that classes us apart from animals, in such a way, that we can leave Earth's atmosphere entirely and travel into Space.

Are you here suggesting that as soon as your so-called 'technical superiority' came into existence, which might be when you could travel into what you call 'space' here, is when you human beings 'moved beyond being animals'?

Can I suggest to you human beings, in the days when this was being written, still had some ways to go before you moved along and up and out of the 'human being' stage or level of evolution, itself?

Oh, and by the way, you could move up and out 'that stage' that you are 'stuck' in 'now, currently', very, very quickly, simply, and easily, if you just let go of and got rid of your presumptions and beliefs.

But please do not let this encourage you to let go of your beliefs and presumptions here, because what you posters here is providing some of the 'greatest teachings' of what not to do, and of what to do, for all of the following generations.

Okay.

I also say that thinking or believing that the imagine seen in a mirror is a reflection of a 'self' is also at the very lowest and basic level of understanding thy 'self', itself.

In fact it could be said and argued in even at a lower or below the basic level of understanding and being aware of the 'self', exactly.

I agree.

Okay, if you say and believe so.

To "wizard22" anyway, when one is completely unable to remember anything, then that is is also also lost complete 'consciousness', which to others means that that one is not able to be 'conscious' of absolutely anything, in that moment. Which is as Truly absurd and ridiculous as it sounds. But, 'this' is how some people would say and present things in order to just try to back up and support their previous claims and 'currently' held beliefs and presumptions.

They, in order to try to not contradict what they have previously said and claimed, more times than they would like to admit to, completely and utterly absolutely contradicted "themselves".

With Dementia, a person loses consciousness of him/herself, not consciousness-completely. A Dementia patient is still perceptually aware of the world, still has sensual experience, can recall fragments of emotions, and relies on instinct/reflex for basic recognition. For example, Dementia patients still do not confuse Humans for Fish swimming around in the sea or vice-versa. There are basic levels of recognition which are never lost.

Which is more or less the reason why I Corrected what you had previously said, and claimed.

Consciousness is ultimately rooted in genetics, because genetics are the cells by which all memories manifest as Life.

Okay.

This must be more of the humor and sarcasm, which it says it presents here, but which I, supposedly, cannot see nor recognize.

But, if only this one knew how much I am now laughing, on the inside here, now.

By the way, 'you' "wizard22", just like a lot of the other posters' here do say somethings that actually irrefutably True, but the Truth of can and will only come-to-light if you, and them, just OPENED up somewhat, let go of and got rid of your 'irrational fears', and just answered and clarified, Honestly, the actually questions, only, I ask here.

To me, you are just getting more and more intertwined in your own confusion and conflations, which you again believe are true, which is making me far less interested in spending the time to even trying to untangle 'them'.

See, well to me anyway, each time I ask you a question, to gain a little bit more clarity and understanding from your perspective, you just make things more twisted and confusing.

But, 'each to their own', as some might say here.

Indeed, to each their own!

Well I would hope so. I hope I did not create thy 'self', right?

Whaaaat?!

you said and wrote; I'm pretty certain you are 'a robot, an ai program, and/or a chatgpt', but that would mean that you also have a Programmer/Caretaker behind you.

To which I replied, Well, if I am any or all of these things, then I would hope that I had a 'programmer/caretaker' behind me, because if I did not, then that would mean that 'i' created thy 'self', right?

And, if yes, then, I said, 'i hope i did not create thy 'self', because this is, exactly, what you would be hoping for, right?

In other words, you would be hoping that i did not create thy 'self', right?