to grok free Will

[Sculptor]

Stop rattleing your chains

I understand the jealousy of the Plebian toward the Free-Willed. God I'm so thankful to be Absolutely Free.

Here's your media, Scalpy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igzNAzcXNBA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA8a2g6tTp0

https://i1.wp.com/www.informationlibera ... ailout.jpg

You are in a prison of your own making

[Sculptor]

You are missing the point I made

No I'm not. I agree that determinism does not obviate responsibility. However, I think the notion that all of our thoughts and actions are "determined" by (if we take your reductionism to its conclusion) sub-atomic particles swirling in space is utterly irrelevant to our use of the words "free" and "will".

Exacty - I did not say that.

Of course all our thoughts and actions are correlated to synapses firing in our brains. Nobody denies this. But does that affect our use of the words "free" and "will"? It doesn't. Perhaps it will in the future, as our understanding increases. But not now.

A card player says there is a 1/52 chance that he will get the ace of spades with the first card dealt. Of course he is wrong. The order of the cards has been determined by the shuffle. He is either certain to get the ace of spades or certain to get some other card. Still, from his perspective he is correct. Same with free will. Since we don't have certain knowledge about synapses, or other causes, we quite correctly ascribe decisions to "free choice". It's the way we use language, and it's the best we can currently do.

Please read other's comments properly

[Alexiev]

Please read other's comments properly

If you can't express yourself coherently, perhaps you should refrain from blaming the victim. Perhaps you should also refrain from lying about the recidivism rates in Scandanavian countries.

Your notion that we "determine" our actions based on our circumstances and personality is correct. Most people call that "free will". Why you don't remains unclear.

[Sculptor]

Please read other's comments properly

If you can't express yourself coherently, perhaps you should refrain from blaming the victim. Perhaps you should also refrain from lying about the recidivism rates in Scandanavian countries.

Your notion that we "determine" our actions based on our circumstances and personality is correct. Most people call that "free will". Why you don't remains unclear.

Go back to school

[Alexiev]

Go back to school

I don't need to. Unlike you, I am capable of googling "recidivism rates by country".

You simply make up statistics that you think (incorrectly) further your point. Your ignorance is made more obnoxious by your misguided conceit.

[Sculptor]

Go back to school

I don't need to. Unlike you, I am capable of googling "recidivism rates by country".

You simply make up statistics that you think (incorrectly) further your point. Your ignorance is made more obnoxious by your misguided conceit.

Being knowledgeable means far more than looking up out of date stats.
https://magazine.ucsf.edu/norways-human ... k-here-too

As many as 70% of Norwegians released from prison reoffended within two years – a recidivism rate now mirrored in the U.S. That changed in the 1990s, when Norway overhauled its prison system to prioritize rehabilitation and reintegration into society. This shift, which has slashed recidivism to about 20%, followed three basic principles.

Now fuck off back to school, idiot

[Alexiev]

Now fuck off back to school, idiot

You have not been rehabilitated from your trolling ways. Maybe you should move to Norway. Perhaps their penal system for trolls can prevent your recidivism. I doubt it, though.

[Sculptor]

Now fuck off back to school, idiot

You have not been rehabilitated from your trolling ways. Maybe you should move to Norway. Perhaps their penal system for trolls can prevent your recidivism. I doubt it, though.

From 70 -20%. That is how right I am.

[Alexiev]

Scandanavian recidivism rates after 2 years:

Norway 20% (one wonders where the prior 70%, which would be the highest in the world, comes from)

Sweden: 43%

Finland: 36%

U.S.: 36%

Now, any educated person (Sculptor is not included) knows that a large number of factors are involved in these stats. Common sense (and a knowledge of how statistics are gathered) suggests that prison reform is only one of these factors. Others include:

1: How arrests are made and who is arrested. In the U.S., for example, falling crime rate statistics are often the result of the police ignoring relatively minor crimes. It's easy to make crime rates drop (a goal of politicians) by simply reporting fewer crimes.

2; Providing better safety net programs. Released prisoners who can't find jobs may turn to crime, unless they are supported financially.

I'm not sure whence the 70% recidivism rate is derived (it's insanely high -- what were Norweigian prisons like in the past?) I know little about the subject -- but I still know far more than Sculptor.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

[Wizard22]

You are in a prison of your own making

Envy my Freedom.

[Sculptor]

You are in a prison of your own making

Envy my Freedom.

[Sculptor]

Scandanavian recidivism rates after 2 years:

Norway 20% (one wonders where the prior 70%, which would be the highest in the world, comes from)

Sweden: 43%

Finland: 36%

U.S.: 36%

Now, any educated person (Sculptor is not included) knows that a large number of factors are involved in these stats. Common sense (and a knowledge of how statistics are gathered) suggests that prison reform is only one of these factors.

The main reason for the apparently low rates in the US is that the police tend to shoot people so they never make it to court

[Age]

To me one CAN BE and IS SURE that 'that one' has 'reasoned' Correctly WHEN 'that one' KNOWS, FOR SURE, that absolutely EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT what has been 'reasoned'.

I notice you used the word 'COULD' here.

That is GREAT you noticed that word, I picked and used that word for a very specific reason. A LOT of words I USE, unfortunately, do NOT get noticed, and thus MISSED, or get MISUNDERSTOOD.

So, it is not that they do agree or have agreed, it is that the potential is there for them to agree.

Yes, Correct.

How do you know when you, Age, have reasoned that everyone could agree, despite their not having agreed, yet? That is if you have every been certain you have reasoned correctly.

Because if the sentence, statement, or thought is IRREFUTABLE, then EVERY one could agree with 'it', and accept 'it'.

NO. And I will REPEAT, I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE absolutely ANY 'thing'.

Fine. That sets you apart from Advocate.

I didn't say Age can't know. I didn't say one can't know. I was making a point related to his confidence in his conclusions given his set of beliefs.

but then this might well be in the context of your beliefs, not his.

What 'beliefs' do 'you' ASSUME, PRESUME, or BELIEVE I have, EXACTLY?

I don't. Hence 'might.'

But you used the 'your' word here, directly in front of the 'beliefs' word.

Now, if, when you used the 'your' word above here, you were NOT referring to 'my beliefs', then will you please explain what that word was referring to, EXACTLY?

From what I have ASCERTAINED your use of the 'might' word was in relation to, or in context with, 'the point' I was making, which you were directly responding to, and NOT in relation to whether I had beliefs or not. What you actually wrote was; That is quite possible, but then this might well be in the context of your beliefs, not his.

So, if you were, REALLY, NOT ASSUMING, PRESUMING, or BELIEVING that 'I had beliefs', when you wrote 'that sentence', then PLEASE explain how.

Some might now be seeing and/or thinking that by only supplying a PART, which you have quoted above here, of your full sentence that you might be trying to mislead or trying to take out of context what you actually SAID, WROTE, and ACTUALLY MEANT here.

Also, how MANY TIMES does one have to INFORM "others" of the ACTUAL 'thoughts' EXISTING, BEFORE "those others" ACCEPT what IS being SAID, and CLAIMED?

OBVIOUSLY NOT A one of 'you' could KNOW the ACTUAL 'thoughts' EXISTING, within 'this head'. So, to PRESUME or, worse still, to BELIEVE that ANY one of 'you' DO is an ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY.

Now, if, within 'this head', there ARE NO BELIEFS, and there ARE ONLY 'thoughts' ABOUT what is/could be true, THEN THERE ARE NO BELIEFS. FULL STOP. Either ACCEPT 'this' AND MOVE ON, OR, BE STUCK BELIEVING that you KNOW otherwise, or better.

I am well aware of your position on yourself regarding beliefs.

Okay great, so from now on will you please refrain from using the two words 'your beliefs' when replying to, and/or when referring to, me?

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here IS that even WHEN 'this one', and even 'these people', back then, would even MENTION, publicly, the fact that, 'That would be something 'we' would NEED to find out', 'this one', and/or 'they', would STILL NEVER even CONSIDER to just ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION, which would THEN HAVE ALLOWED 'them' TO FIND OUT.

Hm. So, in these last posts I have never and asked a clarifying questions nor have I considered asking a clarifying question?
Interesting assertion.

What can now be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER example of one MAKING AN ASSUMPTION about what was being asserted, which I was NEVER asserting AT ALL. Also, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'this one' makes an ASSERTION/STATEMENT, and the adds a question mark at the end of 'it'. And, what else that can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'this one' HAD ALREADY JUMPED TO A CONCLUSION, based SOLELY on NOTHING MORE than 'its' VERY OWN, asserted, Wrong and Incorrect ASSUMPTION.

Now, as can be CLEARLY SEEN I have NEVER EVER asserted that you had NEVER EVER NOT ASKED CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, NOR that you have NOT EVER CONSIDERED ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION. RATHER, what I DID ASSERT ASSERT IS that EVEN WHEN you WRITE 'the words', 'That would be something we would need to find out', you STILL NEVER even CONSIDERED to just ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION, (in regards to directly what you considered that you, and "others", would NEED to find out). Now, OF COURSE, you may well have CONSIDERED to ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION regarding what you considered was NEED to be FOUND OUT, but, if you had, then you NEVER ASKED absolutely ANY CLARIFYING QUESTION here regarding the VERY 'thing', which you SAID and CLAIMED was 'something we needed to find out'. BECAUSE if you HAD CONSIDERED ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION and HAD DONE SO, then I WOULD HAVE CLARIFIED the VERY 'thing' that you SAID 'we' NEEDED to FIND OUT.

Hopefully, 'this' has now CLARIFIED 'that' UP.

If someone says something and it seems to entail X. I may point this out to the person. That their belief does or seems to entail X. And so we work from there. I don't know if you have the same way of looking at things as he does, so I have no idea if how you think entails X. I was communicating with him and in the context of what I think his belief and way of thinking is.

Okay. BUT, BEFORE I like to 'move on', or 'work from there', I, FIRST, like to DISCOVER and ASCERTAIN IF what one is SAYING and CLAIMING is what 'that one' BELIEVES is true or just THINKS is true, and then I would 'move on' and ASK CLARIFYING QUESTION/S regarding what, EXACTLY, 'their' BELIEF or THOUGHT ACTUALLY 'entails'.

That seems like a fair self-assessment.

I PREFER 'them' INFORMING 'me', rather than 'me' TELLING 'them', what 'their' OWN 'thoughts', 'presumptions', or 'beliefs' ENTAIL, EXACTLY.

It seems like you made an exception when telling me I never consider asking clarifying questions.

1. I NEVER TOLD 'you' that you NEVER consider asking clarifying questions, with an 's'.

2. I was talking TO a 'reading audience' ABOUT what people would DO, BACK, in the days when you wrote what you did here.

3. I SAID, WROTE, MEANT, and was POINTING OUT that even when you SAID and WROTE 'the words', That would be something 'we' would NEED to find out', NO ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTION IS PUT FORWARD. AGAIN, regarding the VERY 'thing' that was CLAIMED, NEEDED to be FOUND OUT.

Now, OF COURSE, you may well have ACTUALLY CONSIDERED ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION REGARDING 'that thing'. But you NEVER expressed one.

Aside from missing that I do in fact ask clarifying questions.

Let us NOT FORGET that you have either MISUNDERSTOOD what I ACTUALLY SAID, WROTE, and MEANT above, or just MISSED 'it'. So, 'we' are 'on the same page', as some might say here, I NEVER EVER even 'thought' that you do NOT ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, let alone SAID nor WROTE 'that' absolutely ANYWHERE.

But in any case you told me my thoughts.

Even 'this' is TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, or just MISUNDERSTOOD.

I. I do even 'think' that 'you' have 'your thoughts'. This is BECAUSE of who and what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY. What can be CAN CLEARLY SEEN is that I USED single quotation marks around the 'their' word. Which, as I have EXPLAINED previously, but which, OBVIOUSLY, you may have MISSED, is that when words are surrounded by single quotation marks in the writings under the label 'age' here, then the ACTUAL MEANING, or what IS being REFERRED TO, of that word/s NEEDS to be FOUND OUT, and UNDERSTOOD, from 'my perspective', FIRST, for 'the rest' to be FULLY and/or WHOLLY UNDERSTOOD.

2. I NEVER even TOLD 'you' ANY such 'thing'. I was just INFORMING a 'reading audience' to TAKE NOTICE of what could be CLEARLY SEEN in 'your words' here. And, all 'that' really was was that although you wrote 'the words', 'That would be something we need to find out', you NEVER ACTUALLY ASKED A CLARIFYING QUESTION, which, if you did, then what was NEEDED to be FOUND OUT would have ALREADY BEEN FOUND OUT.

But I do see the word PREFER above. Perhaps you prefer not to do this, but can't help yourself sometimes.

PREFER, NOT to do 'what', EXACTLY?

I was, more or less, just INFORMING 'you' that I PREFER "others" to INFORM 'me' of the thoughts, assumptions, and beliefs within 'those bodies' INSTEAD of 'me' TELLING "them". So, I am UNAWARE of what the 'not' word in your sentence here is in relation TO, EXACTLY.

I don't know.

I will, AGAIN, suggest that if one does NOT YET KNOW some 'thing', but which "another" DOES or MIGHT KNOW, then 'that one' just ASKS A CLARIFYING QUESTION.

I can only see you via your words on a screen.

And, by ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, through words on a screen, you CAN and WILL GAIN KNOWLEDGE, ANSWERS, and/or SOLUTIONS.

Also, I was JUST POINTING OUT and SHOWING here that what 'you' SAID and CLAIMED could NOT be DONE, COULD ACTUALLY BE DONE. And, NOT MUCH MORE.

And I was pointing out that my statements had a context which means that the implications that you interpreted were not actually present.

From what I have ASCERTAINED so far here, your statements were SAYING and CLAIMING that some 'thing' could NOT be DONE, and I have JUST IMPLIED, and even CLAIMED, that ACTUALLY 'that thing' CAN, and WILL, be DONE, (and, on earth as it is in heaven, as some might add).

Now,

1. What IS 'the context', EXACTLY, in your statements?

2. What do you now CLAIM are 'the implications that I have interpreted', EXACTLY, which you also CLAIM were NOT ACTUALLY present in 'the context', in your statements?

Okay. What I was REFERRING TO was what "advocate" WROTE and SAID, which was;

There is no sense in which our will is free. Causality is infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever.

We exist in the ignorance gap between chaos and causality. To the extent we do not understand causality, we may feel free.

The word "Will" alone is sufficient to discuss the experience of freedom.

Now, what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS here, EXACTLY, is that what the word or phrase 'will' could ACTUALLY MEAN and/or BE REFERRING TO, which could FIT IN, PERFECTLY, WITH the word or phrase 'determinism', and 'its' definition/s, and which could FIT IN WITH EVERY 'thing' ELSE, PERFECTLY, making up the GUTOE VERIFIABLE, then "adovacates" OWN personal definition/s of the 'will' word will 'not work', does NOT 'make sense', and thus IS 'gibberish'.

Does 'this', now, 'make sense', to 'you', "iwannaplato"?

I don't understand what you meant here.

I would NOT be too concerned, as quite a LOT of what I am SAYING and WRITING, and MEANING, in the days when this was being written, was NOT YET UNDERSTOOD by a LOT of people. But 'this' is just ANOTHER PART of evolution, itself.

What does 'GUTOE' mean?

Grand Unified Theory Of Everything.

Perhaps if you explained what the word 'will' could actually mean and/be referring to, such that it does what you say it would. And perhaps if you rephrased the paragraphy I italicized above, I would understand what you mean. In any case those are areas where I didn't understand.

If you did NOT YET KNOW what 'GUTOE' MEANT, from my perspective, then it would be ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY REASONABLE that what you italicized above would NOT be UNDERSTOOD EITHER.

Now, what the 'will' word can actually mean and be referring to is, the faculty of deciding, which initiates behavior.

And, when combined with the 'free' word in discussions about 'free will' AND 'determinism', then what 'that word' could actually mean and/or be referring to could resolve, and thus finish, the hitherto ongoing discussion/debate, FINALLY.

For now I will NOT rephrase the italicized paragraph above as I have just EXPLAINED what the 'will' word could actually mean and/or be referring to and what 'GUTOE' means or stands for, from my perspective, and so I will just WAIT, to FIND OUT, and SEE what transpires.

[Iwannaplato]

Because if the sentence, statement, or thought is IRREFUTABLE, then EVERY one could agree with 'it', and accept 'it'.

Sure, but now you've used a kind of synonym for the earlier phrase 'that anyone could agree with'. It's not explaining how you know this. If there is a process through which you analyze this sentence of yours and determine 'yes, this is irrefutable.' How do you know you don't have some kind of bias, for example, in your evaluation? What are the criteria?

But you used the 'your' word here, directly in front of the 'beliefs' word.

Now, if, when you used the 'your' word above here, you were NOT referring to 'my beliefs', then will you please explain what that word was referring to, EXACTLY?

Again, you responded to my specifically responding to Advocate, as if I was making a generalization about everyone. Other people may be able to do things he can't. Other people may come to conclusions differently than he does. Even, other people may not have beliefs. In a sense it was as if when I respond to one person, I am telling everyone about themselves. Given that Advocate said X, I can then see what this entails, given that he said that. That is what I did. You responded as if I had said this was true for you. If you know that given does not apply to you, there is no reason to take my statement as applying to you. And I certainly do not consider Advocates beliefs or methodology universal. Nor did I mention your name. Nor are you the OP writers. So, from my perspective it was a false interpretation that I necessarily mean you.

Also, how MANY TIMES does one have to INFORM "others" of the ACTUAL 'thoughts' EXISTING, BEFORE "those others" ACCEPT what IS being SAID, and CLAIMED?

OBVIOUSLY NOT A one of 'you' could KNOW the ACTUAL 'thoughts' EXISTING, within 'this head'. So, to PRESUME or, worse still, to BELIEVE that ANY one of 'you' DO is an ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY.

Well, I suppose I can feel the same way when you entered the discussion that was clearly and specifically dealing with Advocate and his beliefs and assumed this was aimed at everyone, including aimed at you.

But then these kinds of things happen.

Okay great, so from now on will you please refrain from using the two words 'your beliefs' when replying to, and/or when referring to, me?

Sure, but only if you admit that you entered a discussion I had with Advocate and was clearly talking about his position on things, and managed to take this personally and universally. And that you will refrain from doing this in the future. It might be useful to read my first post, the one I was responding to that was his, and then your reponse to me.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here IS that even WHEN 'this one', and even 'these people', back then, would even MENTION, publicly, the fact that, 'That would be something 'we' would NEED to find out', 'this one', and/or 'they', would STILL NEVER even CONSIDER to just ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION, which would THEN HAVE ALLOWED 'them' TO FIND OUT.

Hm. So, in these last posts I have never and asked a clarifying questions nor have I considered asking a clarifying question?
Interesting assertion.

What can now be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER example of one MAKING AN ASSUMPTION about what was being asserted, which I was NEVER asserting AT ALL. Also, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'this one' makes an ASSERTION/STATEMENT, and the adds a question mark at the end of 'it'. And, what else that can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'this one' HAD ALREADY JUMPED TO A CONCLUSION, based SOLELY on NOTHING MORE than 'its' VERY OWN, asserted, Wrong and Incorrect ASSUMPTION.

Now, as can be CLEARLY SEEN I have NEVER EVER asserted that you had NEVER EVER NOT ASKED CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, NOR that you have NOT EVER CONSIDERED ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION. RATHER, what I DID ASSERT ASSERT IS that EVEN WHEN you WRITE 'the words', 'That would be something we would need to find out', you STILL NEVER even CONSIDERED to just ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION, (in regards to directly what you considered that you, and "others", would NEED to find out). Now, OF COURSE, you may well have CONSIDERED to ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION regarding what you considered was NEED to be FOUND OUT, but, if you had, then you NEVER ASKED absolutely ANY CLARIFYING QUESTION here regarding the VERY 'thing', which you SAID and CLAIMED was 'something we needed to find out'. BECAUSE if you HAD CONSIDERED ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION and HAD DONE SO, then I WOULD HAVE CLARIFIED the VERY 'thing' that you SAID 'we' NEEDED to FIND OUT.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. I have asked clarifying questions many times. I have considered doing it many times. Here was an example of you telling me about my thoughts, which is taboo in relation to you, but fine for you to do in relation to others,implicitly according to you. I'm not going to pretend this pile of mental gymnastics applies. You may have worded the sentence poorly and this led to my response. That's the most charitable explanation I can accept. That you really didn't mean what you said and you hadn't formulated it well. So, if you had said something like: Oh, I can see how what I wrote seemed to mean X. Let me be more clear. But no, as usual you blame others for anything that comes up in an interaction you think is problematic.

And this whole interaction is extremely passive aggessive.

You enter a discussion I have with Advocate. You take what I CLEARLY said was about what he had said and for some reason decide to react as if I made a universal statement. When I explain that I wasn't making a universal statement, you find more ways to be outraged. And as usual lump whoever you are speaking with with their entire time period. You don't seem to understand the way you are positioning yourself or what you are doing.

So much anger.

Okay. BUT, BEFORE I like to 'move on', or 'work from there', I, FIRST, like to DISCOVER and ASCERTAIN IF what one is SAYING and CLAIMING is what 'that one' BELIEVES is true or just THINKS is true, and then I would 'move on' and ASK CLARIFYING QUESTION/S regarding what, EXACTLY, 'their' BELIEF or THOUGHT ACTUALLY 'entails'.

That seems like a fair self-assessment.

1. I NEVER TOLD 'you' that you NEVER consider asking clarifying questions, with an 's'.

2. I was talking TO a 'reading audience' ABOUT what people would DO, BACK, in the days when you wrote what you did here.

3. I SAID, WROTE, MEANT, and was POINTING OUT that even when you SAID and WROTE 'the words', That would be something 'we' would NEED to find out', NO ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTION IS PUT FORWARD. AGAIN, regarding the VERY 'thing' that was CLAIMED, NEEDED to be FOUND OUT.

If so, it was poor communication.

Now, OF COURSE, you may well have ACTUALLY CONSIDERED ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION REGARDING 'that thing'. But you NEVER expressed one.

You said that the people of my time period don't consider asking clarifying questions. That's false. Not some of us.

Aside from missing that I do in fact ask clarifying questions.

Even 'this' is TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, or just MISUNDERSTOOD.

or your commicated poorly. Which you seem to understand is possible at a general, abstract level, but whenever in a specific instance someone does not understand what you WANTED to convey, you blame them. There may be exceptions to this, but I see this happening often as I have here.

I. I do even 'think' that 'you' have 'your thoughts'. This is BECAUSE of who and what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY. What can be CAN CLEARLY SEEN is that I USED single quotation marks around the 'their' word. Which, as I have EXPLAINED previously, but which, OBVIOUSLY, you may have MISSED, is that when words are surrounded by single quotation marks in the writings under the label 'age' here, then the ACTUAL MEANING, or what IS being REFERRED TO, of that word/s NEEDS to be FOUND OUT, and UNDERSTOOD, from 'my perspective', FIRST, for 'the rest' to be FULLY and/or WHOLLY UNDERSTOOD.

2. I NEVER even TOLD 'you' ANY such 'thing'. I was just INFORMING a 'reading audience' to TAKE NOTICE of what could be CLEARLY SEEN in 'your words' here. And, all 'that' really was was that although you wrote 'the words', 'That would be something we need to find out', you NEVER ACTUALLY ASKED A CLARIFYING QUESTION, which, if you did, then what was NEEDED to be FOUND OUT would have ALREADY BEEN FOUND OUT.

Uh huh.

From what I have ASCERTAINED so far here, your statements were SAYING and CLAIMING that some 'thing' could NOT be DONE, and I have JUST IMPLIED, and even CLAIMED, that ACTUALLY 'that thing' CAN, and WILL, be DONE, (and, on earth as it is in heaven, as some might add).

Now,

1. What IS 'the context', EXACTLY, in your statements?

I was respönding to Advocate. I quoted him. I responded to his statements, clearly, and showed him what I thought his beliefs entailed. Perhaps you don't understand how contexts are created by quoting, here, in this time. But there was nothing in my post to indicate, in any way, that I was telling everyone what they could not do or could do or were, etc.

And I have already explained this. Yet, I am to explain this again.

2. What do you now CLAIM are 'the implications that I have interpreted', EXACTLY, which you also CLAIM were NOT ACTUALLY present in 'the context', in your statements?

I have already said this. And your own responses above SHOW that you understand what I meant, since you precisely deny you ever meant it.

You seem quite angry and looking for a fight. It's like you ran between two people and took a statement clearly meant to indicate the other person, and decided to take it to mean you.

I don't think you realize how much your behavior is dominance and position behavior, coupled with passive aggressiveness. So, it generallly is rather pointless to communicate with you, unless someone truly doesn't care that this passive aggressiveness will be aimed at them. You get to make, in the sense that you allow yourself to, make statements about other people, that you are outraged by when you think you are on the receiving end of similar points. I do believe you don't notice this. I could be wrong, but that's the charitable interpretation.

You created conflict in this thread. And want to continue with this conflict despite my repeatedly saying I wasn't talking about you or people in general.

You have judgments of the people of this time, and this leads to a confirmation bias. And you seem to think you or 'you' have transcended this time or never were a part of it.

You're unique in many ways, but you're just another guy creating conflict. And if you think you are not, I would suggest you read back over the dialogues you have had with other people and see what happens.

Notice how right now you are taking this personally and getting pissed off. I realize the internet allows you to present yourself in all sorts of ways. But while you can present yourself in any way you like, you are sitting there now and know yourself what you are feeling.

And if you go back to your first response to me in this thread, you can see how you created a me-judging-you and people in general context, out of nothing. And dove into being aghast at this.

Why would someone do that? What are you carrying around in judgments and needs that leads to this sort of thing?

Just mull that. I'm not interested in what you will present here in the utter control one can have over presentation of self in an online forum. If we lived near each other fine. I could listen, because then we could meet face to face and all the body language, voice tone, hesitations,e tc. would be present. And it would not so easy to put up this front of not being like other people in this time. Which you will find out if you try this kind of dynamic on people in person, when they can see your face, hear your voice, see the state of your fingernails and all the other possible manifestations of you in the moment to moment.

There's a pattern. I wish you could see it. I'm responding to it. If you can't see or feel it, well, that's the situation now.

[Age]

Because if the sentence, statement, or thought is IRREFUTABLE, then EVERY one could agree with 'it', and accept 'it'.

Sure, but now you've used a kind of synonym for the earlier phrase 'that anyone could agree with'. It's not explaining how you know this. If there is a process through which you analyze this sentence of yours and determine 'yes, this is irrefutable.' How do you know you don't have some kind of bias, for example, in your evaluation? What are the criteria?

This will appear as 'circular reasoning', however when one reaches a FINALITY of KNOWING, and/or UNDERSTANDING, then a form of 'circularity' is EXACTLY HOW the Universe, Itself, WORKS, and/or IS UNDERSTOOD, but how I ANALYZE a sentence and determine, or form, the OPINION, 'Yes, this sentence IS IRREFUTABLE' is by KNOWING that 'EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT that sentence'.

Now, how I KNOW that I do NOT have ANY kind of bias, even in my evaluation, is by KNOWING that because EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT 'a sentence', then I am NOT just basing, nor evaluating, 'that sentence' on 'my' OWN 'opinions/thoughts' ONLY.

The ONLY process that I KNOW OF to COME TO, FIND, and/or KNOW the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' is by JUST KNOWING that EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT. See, if EVERY one IS AGREEING ON some 'thing', then there is NO one DISAGREEING. And, if NO one IS NOR COULD DISAGREE, then 'we' have ARRIVED AT the ABSOLUTE Truth. And, please NO one bring up the 'argumentum ad populum fallacy' BEFORE LOOKING AT and READING the ACTUAL WORDS that I have PUT FORWARD here.

So, 'the criteria' if you like, is JUST ' Putting one's self in the shoes of "others" ', as some might refer to the process/criteria, and USING KNOWING instead of thinking.

And just on a further note, What IS the ACTUAL Truth in Life is what EVERY one could or does AGREE WITH and ACCEPTS, and, What IS ACTUALLY Right in Life is what EVERY one could or does AGREE WITH and ACCEPTS in regards to what 'one' would want done to 'them' if 'they' were "the other". AGAIN, if ANY one is INTEREST in 'this', then 'we' could delve INTO 'it' MUCH FURTHER.

But you used the 'your' word here, directly in front of the 'beliefs' word.

Now, if, when you used the 'your' word above here, you were NOT referring to 'my beliefs', then will you please explain what that word was referring to, EXACTLY?

Again, you responded to my specifically responding to Advocate, as if I was making a generalization about everyone. Other people may be able to do things he can't. Other people may come to conclusions differently than he does. Even, other people may not have beliefs. In a sense it was as if when I respond to one person, I am telling everyone about themselves. Given that Advocate said X, I can then see what this entails, given that he said that. That is what I did. You responded as if I had said this was true for you. If you know that given does not apply to you, there is no reason to take my statement as applying to you. And I certainly do not consider Advocates beliefs or methodology universal. Nor did I mention your name. Nor are you the OP writers. So, from my perspective it was a false interpretation that I necessarily mean you.

you seem to be MISSING the WHOLE POINT here.

When you RESPONDED TO me you SAID TO me, 'in the context of YOUR beliefs'.

Then, all I did was just ASK the CLARIFYING QUESTION, 'What 'beliefs' do 'you' ASSUME, PRESUME, or BELIEVE I have, EXACTLY?'

If you came to realize after you made your CLAIM ABOUT 'my beliefs' that actually I do NOT have ANY beliefs here, then so be it. All well and good. But DETRACTING or MISCONSTRUING what ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE is NOT helping us here.

Also, how MANY TIMES does one have to INFORM "others" of the ACTUAL 'thoughts' EXISTING, BEFORE "those others" ACCEPT what IS being SAID, and CLAIMED?

OBVIOUSLY NOT A one of 'you' could KNOW the ACTUAL 'thoughts' EXISTING, within 'this head'. So, to PRESUME or, worse still, to BELIEVE that ANY one of 'you' DO is an ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY.

Well, I suppose I can feel the same way when you entered the discussion that was clearly and specifically dealing with Advocate and his beliefs and assumed this was aimed at everyone, including aimed at you.

I do NOT recall mentioning ANY 'thing' about 'this' being aimed at 'me'. I NEVER even ASSUMED that 'this' was being at 'me' NOR even EVERY one.

What I recall is I was just INFORMING you that what you CLAIMED "advocate" can NOT know IS ALREADY KNOWN, and if one CAN KNOW, then "advocate" and "others" CAN ALSO KNOW, AS WELL.

Maybe if you LOSE your PRESUMPTION that what you were talking TO "advocate" ABOUT I was ASSUMING was being aimed at "others" then you might SEE and UNDERSTAND what I have been ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING here.

But then these kinds of things happen.

Okay great, so from now on will you please refrain from using the two words 'your beliefs' when replying to, and/or when referring to, me?

Sure, but only if you admit that you entered a discussion I had with Advocate and was clearly talking about his position on things, and managed to take this personally and universally.

This seems like a VERY STRANGE 'thing' for me TO DO in order for you to ONLY THEN refrain SAYING and CLAIMING that I HAVE BELIEFS.

Now, I ADMIT I entered into a discussion that 'you', "iwannaplato", were having with "advocate" in regards to "advocate's" position here on 'things', which I NEVER EVER took personally NOR universally.

AGAIN, I WAS and STILL AM just POINTING OUT that what you CLAIM "advocate" can NOT KNOW IS ALREADY KNOWN, KNOWN by me, and that if I can come to KNOW 'that thing', then so to CAN ALL OF you.

And that you will refrain from doing this in the future.

BUT, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, I have NEVER been doing what you have been ASSUMING I been doing.

It might be useful to read my first post, the one I was responding to that was his, and then your reponse to me.

I could SAY the SAME 'thing'.

Hm. So, in these last posts I have never and asked a clarifying questions nor have I considered asking a clarifying question?
Interesting assertion.

What can now be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER example of one MAKING AN ASSUMPTION about what was being asserted, which I was NEVER asserting AT ALL. Also, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'this one' makes an ASSERTION/STATEMENT, and the adds a question mark at the end of 'it'. And, what else that can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'this one' HAD ALREADY JUMPED TO A CONCLUSION, based SOLELY on NOTHING MORE than 'its' VERY OWN, asserted, Wrong and Incorrect ASSUMPTION.

Now, as can be CLEARLY SEEN I have NEVER EVER asserted that you had NEVER EVER NOT ASKED CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, NOR that you have NOT EVER CONSIDERED ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION. RATHER, what I DID ASSERT ASSERT IS that EVEN WHEN you WRITE 'the words', 'That would be something we would need to find out', you STILL NEVER even CONSIDERED to just ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION, (in regards to directly what you considered that you, and "others", would NEED to find out). Now, OF COURSE, you may well have CONSIDERED to ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION regarding what you considered was NEED to be FOUND OUT, but, if you had, then you NEVER ASKED absolutely ANY CLARIFYING QUESTION here regarding the VERY 'thing', which you SAID and CLAIMED was 'something we needed to find out'. BECAUSE if you HAD CONSIDERED ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION and HAD DONE SO, then I WOULD HAVE CLARIFIED the VERY 'thing' that you SAID 'we' NEEDED to FIND OUT.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. I have asked clarifying questions many times.

'Many' IS A VERY RELATIVE TERM and PHRASE.

AND, I have NEVER suggested absolutely ANYWHERE that you have NOT ASKED CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

I have considered doing it many times. Here was an example of you telling me about my thoughts, which is taboo in relation to you, but fine for you to do in relation to others,implicitly according to you.

I was just POINTING OUT that even IF you HAD CONSIDERED ASKING me A CLARIFYING QUESTION, in regards to what you CLAIMED 'we' NEEDED to FIND OUT, then you did NOT GO AHEAD and ASK ANY CLARIFYING QUESTION, regarding THAT 'thing'.

I'm not going to pretend this pile of mental gymnastics applies. You may have worded the sentence poorly and this led to my response.

'This' may well be EXACTLY what HAPPENED.

That's the most charitable explanation I can accept.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here, ONCE MORE, is A CLOSED perspective AGAIN coming from CONFIRMATION BIAS.

That you really didn't mean what you said and you hadn't formulated it well. So, if you had said something like: Oh, I can see how what I wrote seemed to mean X. Let me be more clear. But no, as usual you blame others for anything that comes up in an interaction you think is problematic.

Did you, or did you not, just BLAME 'me' SOLELY and WHOLLY 'just now' for what LED TO YOUR RESPONSE?

And this whole interaction is extremely passive aggessive.

Is 'this' to EVERY one, MANY people, SOME, or just you ALONE?

You enter a discussion I have with Advocate. You take what I CLEARLY said was about what he had said and for some reason decide to react as if I made a universal statement.

you CLAIMED "advocate" can NOT KNOW some 'thing'. I just INFORMED 'the readers' that what you CLAIMED "advocate" could NOT KNOW, IS ALREADY KNOWN. AND, that if one ALREADY KNOWS, then "advocate", and "others", ACTUALLY CAN KNOW 'that thing' ALSO.

SIMPLE, REALLY.

When I explain that I wasn't making a universal statement, you find more ways to be outraged.

I JUST INFORMED 'you' AND "others" that I NEVER even 'thought' you were making a 'universal statement', IN THE BEGINNING.

WHY when I just CLARIFY and CLEAR 'things' UP, CALMLY, by just EXPRESSING and SHOWING the ACTUAL Truth through written words here you ASSUME and/or JUMP to some CONCLUSION that I AM OUTRAGED?

And as usual lump whoever you are speaking with with their entire time period. You don't seem to understand the way you are positioning yourself or what you are doing.

BUT I KNOW EXACTLY 'the way' I AM POSITIONING 'me' here, AND, what I AM DOING.

WHY do you PRESUME otherwise?

So much anger.

Is there MUCH 'anger' ON "your side" or FROM 'you' "iwannaplato"?

If no, then WHY write, 'So much anger'?

There is CERTAINLY ABSOLUTELY NO 'anger' ON nor FROM "this side" of 'things', HERE.

Okay. BUT, BEFORE I like to 'move on', or 'work from there', I, FIRST, like to DISCOVER and ASCERTAIN IF what one is SAYING and CLAIMING is what 'that one' BELIEVES is true or just THINKS is true, and then I would 'move on' and ASK CLARIFYING QUESTION/S regarding what, EXACTLY, 'their' BELIEF or THOUGHT ACTUALLY 'entails'.

That seems like a fair self-assessment.

1. I NEVER TOLD 'you' that you NEVER consider asking clarifying questions, with an 's'.

2. I was talking TO a 'reading audience' ABOUT what people would DO, BACK, in the days when you wrote what you did here.

3. I SAID, WROTE, MEANT, and was POINTING OUT that even when you SAID and WROTE 'the words', That would be something 'we' would NEED to find out', NO ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTION IS PUT FORWARD. AGAIN, regarding the VERY 'thing' that was CLAIMED, NEEDED to be FOUND OUT.

If so, it was poor communication.

ON 'my part' ALONE, and/or ONLY?

ALSO, I have repeatedly mentioned that I am here, in the forum, to LEARN how to communicate BETTER, (with 'you', human beings).

Now, OF COURSE, you may well have ACTUALLY CONSIDERED ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION REGARDING 'that thing'. But you NEVER expressed one.

You said that the people of my time period don't consider asking clarifying questions. That's false. Not some of us.

BUT I NEVER SAID 'this' AT ALL. What I, INSTEAD, ACTUALLY SAID IS 'this':
What can be CLEARLY SEEN here IS that even WHEN 'this one', and even 'these people', back then, would even MENTION, publicly, the fact that, 'That would be something 'we' would NEED to find out', 'this one', and/or 'they', would STILL NEVER even CONSIDER to just ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION, which would THEN HAVE ALLOWED 'them' TO FIND OUT.

Now, you are ABSOLUTELY FREE to INTERPRET what 'this' MEANS in ABSOLUTELY ANY WAY you like, BUT 'this' IS what I ACTUALLY SAID.

Aside from missing that I do in fact ask clarifying questions.

Even 'this' is TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, or just MISUNDERSTOOD.

or your commicated poorly. [/quote]

Did you PURPOSELY MISSPELL the 'communicate' word here?

And, I would NEVER DISAGREE that I communicate POORLY. OBVIOUSLY, if MY WORDS are being TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, and/or just being MISUNDERSTOOD, then, CLEARLY, I could have communicated BETTER.

Which you seem to understand is possible at a general, abstract level, but whenever in a specific instance someone does not understand what you WANTED to convey, you blame them. There may be exceptions to this, but I see this happening often as I have here.

How, EXACTLY, did I, SUPPOSEDLY, BLAME ANY one ELSE here?

Just SAYING that 'this' is TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, or just MISUNDERSTOOD, is NOT NECESSARILY BLAMING "the other" AT ALL.

I. I do even 'think' that 'you' have 'your thoughts'. This is BECAUSE of who and what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY. What can be CAN CLEARLY SEEN is that I USED single quotation marks around the 'their' word. Which, as I have EXPLAINED previously, but which, OBVIOUSLY, you may have MISSED, is that when words are surrounded by single quotation marks in the writings under the label 'age' here, then the ACTUAL MEANING, or what IS being REFERRED TO, of that word/s NEEDS to be FOUND OUT, and UNDERSTOOD, from 'my perspective', FIRST, for 'the rest' to be FULLY and/or WHOLLY UNDERSTOOD.

2. I NEVER even TOLD 'you' ANY such 'thing'. I was just INFORMING a 'reading audience' to TAKE NOTICE of what could be CLEARLY SEEN in 'your words' here. And, all 'that' really was was that although you wrote 'the words', 'That would be something we need to find out', you NEVER ACTUALLY ASKED A CLARIFYING QUESTION, which, if you did, then what was NEEDED to be FOUND OUT would have ALREADY BEEN FOUND OUT.

Uh huh.

From what I have ASCERTAINED so far here, your statements were SAYING and CLAIMING that some 'thing' could NOT be DONE, and I have JUST IMPLIED, and even CLAIMED, that ACTUALLY 'that thing' CAN, and WILL, be DONE, (and, on earth as it is in heaven, as some might add).

Now,

1. What IS 'the context', EXACTLY, in your statements?

I was respönding to Advocate. I quoted him. I responded to his statements, clearly, and showed him what I thought his beliefs entailed.

OBVIOUSLY you were responding to "advocate", BUT 'this' is NOT what I ASKED you TO CLARIFY.

Perhaps you don't understand how contexts are created by quoting, here, in this time. But there was nothing in my post to indicate, in any way, that I was telling everyone what they could not do or could do or were, etc.

you appear to STILL NOT YET BE READY TO LET GO OF THIS COMPLETELY Wrong and Incorrect ASSUMPTION here, of YOURS.

And I have already explained this. Yet, I am to explain this again.

If you say so. However, what you have ACTUALLY SAID is WRITTEN in 'your words' above here.

2. What do you now CLAIM are 'the implications that I have interpreted', EXACTLY, which you also CLAIM were NOT ACTUALLY present in 'the context', in your statements?

I have already said this. And your own responses above SHOW that you understand what I meant, since you precisely deny you ever meant it.

Okay, but I just wanted to SEE what you REALLY MEANT, IN 'your OWN words'.

You seem quite angry and looking for a fight.

Well 'this' is the EXACT OPPOSITE from what IS ACTUALLY OCCURRING and HAPPENING here, from my perspective anyway.

It's like you ran between two people and took a statement clearly meant to indicate the other person, and decided to take it to mean you.

And 'this' IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE FROM what I have ACTUALLY been DOING. As can be CLEARLY SEEN IN my WRITINGS above here.

I don't think you realize how much your behavior is dominance and position behavior, coupled with passive aggressiveness.

Could your INTERPRETATION/S and ASSUMPTION/S here be WRONG or INCORRECT in ANY WAY?

So, it generallly is rather pointless to communicate with you, unless someone truly doesn't care that this passive aggressiveness will be aimed at them. You get to make, in the sense that you allow yourself to, make statements about other people, that you are outraged by when you think you are on the receiving end of similar points. I do believe you don't notice this. I could be wrong, but that's the charitable interpretation.

WHY 'charitable', supposedly?

Also, could it be POSSIBLE that I am, supposedly, NOT NOTICING 'this', BECAUSE I am ACTUALLY NOT DOING 'this', and, in fact, you are just MAKING Wrong ASSUMPTIONS here?

You created conflict in this thread. And want to continue with this conflict despite my repeatedly saying I wasn't talking about you or people in general.

AND, I HAVE CONTINUALLY Corrected your Wrong PRESUMPTION here. That is; I STILL have NOT SAID nor even SUGGESTED that you were even talking ABOUT 'me' NOR 'people in general'.

You have judgments of the people of this time, and this leads to a confirmation bias.

'This' does NOT necessarily even logically follow.

If one has 'judgments', of people, and about what 'those people' ACTUALLY WERE DOING, then how, EXACTLY, does 'this', supposedly, 'lead to a confirmation bias'?

And you seem to think you or 'you' have transcended this time or never were a part of it.

You're unique in many ways, but you're just another guy creating conflict.

WHY is it 'me' who is, supposedly, CREATING CONFLICT?

And, it is ONLY 'me' who is, supposedly, CREATING CONFLICT here?

And if you think you are not, I would suggest you read back over the dialogues you have had with other people and see what happens.

Okay.

Notice how right now you are taking this personally and getting pissed off.

Are you SERIOUS, or, are you JOKING, here now?

I realize the internet allows you to present yourself in all sorts of ways. But while you can present yourself in any way you like, you are sitting there now and know yourself what you are feeling.

AND I AM CERTAINLY NOT so-called 'pissed off' AT ALL.

In fact I am finding 'this' here now rather VERY AMUSING, and FUNNY.

And if you go back to your first response to me in this thread, you can see how you created a me-judging-you and people in general context, out of nothing. And dove into being aghast at this.

WHY are you PRESUMING that there is ANY 'aghast' AT ALL here in relation to 'me'?

Why would someone do that? What are you carrying around in judgments and needs that leads to this sort of thing?

WHY are you STILL 'trying to' DEFLECT FROM what I ACTUALLY ONLY DID, which was; JUST POINT OUT that what you CLAIMED and ACCUSED "advocate" of NOT being able TO KNOW, ACTUALLY CAN BE KNOWN, AND, IS ALREADY KNOWN anyway?

Just mull that. I'm not interested in what you will present here in the utter control one can have over presentation of self in an online forum. If we lived near each other fine.

How do you KNOW that 'we' do NOT live near "each other"?

And, how far is 'near', to you?

I could listen, because then we could meet face to face and all the body language, voice tone, hesitations,e tc. would be present. And it would not so easy to put up this front of not being like other people in this time. Which you will find out if you try this kind of dynamic on people in person, when they can see your face, hear your voice, see the state of your fingernails and all the other possible manifestations of you in the moment to moment.

There's a pattern. I wish you could see it. I'm responding to it. If you can't see or feel it, well, that's the situation now.

PLEASE DO NOT FORGET that 'you' ARE NOT necessarily MY INTENDED AUDIENCE anyway.

ONCE 'those' who COME TO SEE and UNDERSTAND what I have been POINTING OUT, SHOWING, and MEANING here WILL ALSO SEE and UNDERSTAND WHY I WROTE, and/or WRITE, 'the way' that I DO, here.

And 'this' IS the situation, HERE-NOW.