to grok free Will

[Wizard22]

But you have just said, and shown, that even you 'talking to' "your" own 'self' has absolutely no bearing at all, on you.

you have just shown with your 'lack of motivation' you will not listen to what is logical, sound, nor valid, but will listen to, and follow, what you tell "yourself" that is illogical, unsound, and/or invalid.

So, even suggestions with one who is open to suggestion can all happen within one body.

I found that it is the words used, within one own body, which have the greatest and most remarkable effect on life and 'the world', itself. That is; what you human beings say to "yourselves" within those human bodies, have far more power and influence than what was yet noticed and recognized, in the days when this is being written,

That's why Free-Will is difficult if-not impossible to demonstrate with validity, evidence, or proof of any kind. Because it's a matter of Absolute Faith, in the end. It doesn't matter what's logical, true, reasonable, or rational. A human being, similar to an animal, obeys its Nature, Emotions, Instincts, Reflexes. If there is Free-Will, then it is antithetical to the Nature of all organic life. It would be, hypothetically, "Against Nature", or "with accord to Nature" to appear contradictory and impossible to all others.

It would seem as though a particular is "going against its own genetic interests" or "against its own immediate survival, for no apparent reason/cause".

At least 'we' agree on and accept 'this'.

So, now, it would not matter what absolutely any one said to you, which obviously includes me, here you will choose, freely, to who and what you listen to, and follow, right?

Yes.

Okay, so within a month or a year 'we' will see about whether there are no, alleged, unknown and chaotic areas of existence to me, correct?

If no, then please correct me here.

But, if this is correct, then I am not sure how this will play out.

To me, there are no unknown and chaotic areas of existence, so what could possibly change this within a year?

Perhaps you will begin to intuit and experience the unknown and chaotic areas of existence, within a year?

Are you not aware that I here just asked you to clarify whether you already knew that if something 'seems' to be true, then it is not necessarily true, at all?

Seeming is based on perspective...so, necessarily true to whom and why?

And this partly, and maybe very well, explains why you human beings, in the days when this was being written, still had not yet seen and worked out who and what God is, exactly?

See, those people, back then, as I was continually saying, were just looking at a small and/or narrowed part, of the whole, and thus that is why they were only seeing, and talking about, only a part of the big Picture, as some would call It.

But, as I was also continually saying, and pointing out in and through 'their words', it was their continual presuming and believing, which was what was stopping and preventing them from seeing the whole and/or big Picture, of things.

You're beginning to sound like Plato here...

But I still see no actual 'problem' of God.

But, then again, I do appear to use a very different definition for the 'problem' than most of you human beings did, back then. And, for the 'God' word as well, most likely.

But then this was and is just because I can and do use words, and their definitions, in a way, which makes up a crystal clear, or perfect, Picture of Life, and Existence, Itself.

Okay...define "problem" for me then.

But there is. you human beings in the days when this was being written just had not yet evolved enough and into this way of looking at, and seeing, things, that is; in and from the One True and Right way.

Obviously...

Which is just totally understandable. Because as all these sorts of things are discovered, and/or learned and passed on, you human beings, back then, were not expected to have yet learned how to look at and see things from the Truly open perspective, as I had not yet passed on 'this knowledge', to you.

Do you in fact know it though? And how would you?

I could not agree more with you here.

However, just as human beings evolved learning to become 'ingrained' with 'that way' of looking and thus seeing things, they can, will, and do keep evolving, and learning, and do become 'ingrained' with a 'much better way' of looking at, and thus seeing, things.

They actually come full circles, as will be discovered and learned, soon enough.

Greater understanding requires greater perspective.
Greatest understanding requires greatest perspective.
This is why there is no "One" perspective—or you would require the totality of All perspectives possible and imaginable.

And 'this' is, and was, easily done, and so simply I will add.

Once just needs to first learn how-to.

See, once one learns how to do something, then just doing it becomes simpler, and easier, and the more it is done, the simpler and easier it keeps become. Until it is just done so naturally, that is seems and appears 'ingrained'.

Being open-minded is difficult. Very few people are brave or 'tolerant' enough to accept negative information and implications. To be intelligent, on top of courage and tolerance, is yet rarer.

Are you sure?

I can, and would, show and prove, irrefutably, otherwise, that is; if any one is truly interested to learn, and see, this.

Mostly certain...but let's see what you mean otherwise.

People are, it could be said, are another animal.

But it is far more correct to say that you human beings are just another animal.

But it appears here that you are suggesting that people, or human beings, are not actually animals. Is this what you are suggesting here?

Correct, some Humans have transcended animal nature, so as to gain 'Souls', 'Spirits', 'Humanity', which all other (lower) animals do not have.

Sentience. Conscience. Self-Consciousness. Autonomy. Authority. And most importantly, Free-Will: Choice.

trust their 'instincts' over pure logical validity, because logical validity is counter-intuitive to much of experience.

1. Will you provide examples?

2. What some people say are 'instincts' are not actually 'instincts', at all.

When a person, or animal, panics, they often times "forget" what reactions they were trained (as logically valid) to perform. Fear then causes them to default to reflexive reactions. Because Fear can do this, it signifies that no amount of rationality can necessarily 'override' natural instincts. Fear must be suppressed, repressed, and controlled, in order for "Rational" decisions to take effect.

Was the word 'know', or something esle, meant to be in between the word 'necessarily', and the, 'the best' words here?

If it was meant to be 'know', then I agree, absolutely, that you human beings, in the days when this was being written, did not yet know what 'the best' was was of doing things. But this absolutely does not mean that you cannot learn 'the best' way of doing things.

It was, thank you for correcting my omission. You're very kind, AgeGPT.

But, you have 'lost consciousness', as you put it here. So, how you would even know;

1. That you have lost consciousness?

Because I can observe this in others who lose consciousness. It doesn't have to be me-myself.

2. That you are disconnect from any one?

3. That all your valued, rightly or wrongly, has been so-called 'stripped' from you?

If you cannot know these things, so what, again, is 'it' exactly is there to fear here, exactly?

The greatest fear of all perhaps:

The Great Unknown, The Void, The Abyss, Death

Humans do not fear the time before our lives...but certainly fear the time after our lives.

Philosophy is meant to study the Great Mystery of Life, and Death.

What is 'it' that you do not know?

And, if you do want to know, then just ask the clarifying question to the answer that you would like 'to know'. That is; if there is absolutely anything here that you would like 'to know'.

I want to know why instincts cause Humanity to fear Death, but not the void before we are Born.

If life is mostly about conscious-waking-experience, then logically, Humans should fear the time before we are Born (since we're not conscious of it).

But there is no so-called 'mystery of Life, nor of death. Well not to me anyway.

I just explained what happens in, and to you, in what was commonly, but Wrongly, referred to as 'death'. What else is there that wants to be known, and/or understood, here, or there?

Because you're a chat-bot, AgeGPT? Because you have no organic body?

Well;

1. Considering the fact that none of you, when this is being written, has any real conception of who and what God is, exactly, doing or having absolutely any thing, which leads to an attachment of whatever this God thing is, exactly, would be highly not recommended to do, have, nor keep.

2. If the 'fear of death' leads to an attachment of God, as a concept, then why do even some of those young ones of you human beings who have not yet even heard of, thought over, nor talked about 'death' still have a concept of God?

3. If a 'fear of death' leads to attachment of only some concept of God, or of God only as some unknown concept, then all the better reason to rid yourselves of the Truly irrational fear of the Wrong conceived of 'death' word.

A great topic...but I would like to return focus to the matter of Free-Will.

Okay, if you say so.

But why do you do this?

Because Consciousness is immediate experience. The rest of life is "a distance away" in time. Life is focused on Right Here, Right Now, by default.

Is it a possibility that actually you "yourself" are somewhat confused and/or conflated here?

Or, is this not a possibility, to you?

Everything is a possibilty.

Well here is another completely Wrongly learned thing, which those human beings had evolved to have, back then, when this was being written.

Why would absolutely any one want to be 'not forgotten'?

The actual reason lies down deep within. But these human beings, once again, were just confusing and conflating their own personal 'selves' with the One and ONLY True and Real Self. Which, obviously, could never be forgotten, ever, anyway.

All of these fears human beings once had, back then, were all for absolutely no Real reason at all.

They were all based on and off absolutely False, Wrong, and/or completely distorted thinking, assumptions and beliefs.

So you say...convince me.

There's a lot to be attached to in life.

No It does not.

Some of you human beings however might.

Consciousness, Itself, already knows that It cannot be forgotten.

How? Explain.

Life, with capital 'l', also already knows that It is reproducing always, already.

So, no 'want' is even necessary.

Not always, there is no guarantee that Life continues forever. You're presuming immortality of life. You're ignoring that all life could, hypothetically, be destroyed.

[Walker]

Not always, there is no guarantee that Life continues forever. You're presuming immortality of life. You're ignoring that all life could, hypothetically, be destroyed.

Even if the earth exploded, fragments floating through space would contain spores shielded from UV rays, and with infinite time on their side at least one fragment would eventually crash into an environmentally friendly planet, where according to science, the spores could evolve into human life, and in no time at all with infinite time on their side.

[Wizard22]

Even if the earth exploded, fragments floating through space would contain spores shielded from UV rays, and with infinite time on their side at least one fragment would eventually crash into an environmentally friendly planet, where according to science, the spores could evolve into human life, and in no time at all with infinite time on their side.

And yet my hypothesis stands: All life is vulnerable to being destroyed...maybe universal incineration or universal freezing.

[Age]

But you have just said, and shown, that even you 'talking to' "your" own 'self' has absolutely no bearing at all, on you.

you have just shown with your 'lack of motivation' you will not listen to what is logical, sound, nor valid, but will listen to, and follow, what you tell "yourself" that is illogical, unsound, and/or invalid.

So, even suggestions with one who is open to suggestion can all happen within one body.

I found that it is the words used, within one own body, which have the greatest and most remarkable effect on life and 'the world', itself. That is; what you human beings say to "yourselves" within those human bodies, have far more power and influence than what was yet noticed and recognized, in the days when this is being written,

That's why Free-Will is difficult if-not impossible to demonstrate with validity, evidence, or proof of any kind.

But I can, through a demonstration, prove 'free will' very easily and very simply. There is absolutely nothing difficult here.

However, I must remind people, how I define 'free will' may well be very, very different from how another of you defines that term or phrase.

Because it's a matter of Absolute Faith, in the end.

Is this what you believe is true?

It doesn't matter what's logical, true, reasonable, or rational.

Really?

Are you not basing your beliefs and/or views here on what appears to be 'logical', 'true', 'reasonable', and/or 'rational', to you?

A human being, similar to an animal, obeys its Nature, Emotions, Instincts, Reflexes.

And one 'instinct' of the human being is 'to learn'. So, when one is so-called 'obeying' this very natural instinct, then they can, very quickly, very simply, and very easily learn what the term or phrase 'free will' is, exactly, and how 'that' fits in perfectly with absolutely every thing else in Life, illustrating, or painting, a crystal clear image or Picture of all-there-is. Which by the way could not be refuted by anyone.

If there is Free-Will, then it is antithetical to the Nature of all organic life.

For me to be able to show you, absolutely, if there is 'free will' or not, you just have to first explain to me what that phrase or term means or is referring to, to you, exactly, first.

Once, and if ever, you do this, then we can proceed. Until then I have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what the 'free will' term even means to you.

It would be, hypothetically, "Against Nature", or "with accord to Nature" to appear contradictory and impossible to all others.

Only if and when one has and/or is holding onto specific definitions of 'free will'.

It would seem as though a particular is "going against its own genetic interests" or "against its own immediate survival, for no apparent reason/cause".

Only if you have or are holding onto a specific definition of 'free will' that goes against the 'natural order' of things.

I, however, have a definition of 'free will' that fits in perfectly with absolutely every thing else.

At least 'we' agree on and accept 'this'.

So, now, it would not matter what absolutely any one said to you, which obviously includes me, here you will choose, freely, to who and what you listen to, and follow, right?

Yes.

Okay, so within a month or a year 'we' will see about whether there are no, alleged, unknown and chaotic areas of existence to me, correct?

If no, then please correct me here.

But, if this is correct, then I am not sure how this will play out.

To me, there are no unknown and chaotic areas of existence, so what could possibly change this within a year?

Perhaps you will begin to intuit and experience the unknown and chaotic areas of existence, within a year?

you do not seem to be understanding that, to me, there are no so-called chaotic areas of existence.

Now, if you believe that there are some unknown, and/or chaotic, areas of existence, to me, then will you start providing any of them here now?

If no, then why not.

See, what you consider to be so-called chaotic areas of existence, to and for you, I am saying and claiming that I have already worked them out, and in a way that fits in perfectly with absolutely every thing else. Therefore, there are no chaotic areas of existence to me.

And, if absolutely any one would like to question and/or challenge me on this, then please feel absolutely free to do so.

I enjoy these types of discussions.

If you like "wizard22" you could start here by naming a so-called chaotic area of existence, for you.

Remember I say I have none, therefore I obviously cannot provide nor name any.

Are you not aware that I here just asked you to clarify whether you already knew that if something 'seems' to be true, then it is not necessarily true, at all?

Seeming is based on perspective...so, necessarily true to whom and why?

Again, the absolute inability of these people, back then, when this was being written, to just answer a Truly simple question, and thus clarify, seemed like an impossibility, sometimes.

I never said, 'necessarily true'. I said, 'not necessarily true'.

And,

To whom? Absolutely any human being.

Why? Because by definition of the 'seems' word. The word 'seem' means giving an impression of being some thing or of having the quality of some thing. Which also, by definition, means; not necessarily being those things, at all.

And this partly, and maybe very well, explains why you human beings, in the days when this was being written, still had not yet seen and worked out who and what God is, exactly?

See, those people, back then, as I was continually saying, were just looking at a small and/or narrowed part, of the whole, and thus that is why they were only seeing, and talking about, only a part of the big Picture, as some would call It.

But, as I was also continually saying, and pointing out in and through 'their words', it was their continual presuming and believing, which was what was stopping and preventing them from seeing the whole and/or big Picture, of things.

You're beginning to sound like Plato here...

Okay, but 'I' am not.

But I still see no actual 'problem' of God.

But, then again, I do appear to use a very different definition for the 'problem' than most of you human beings did, back then. And, for the 'God' word as well, most likely.

But then this was and is just because I can and do use words, and their definitions, in a way, which makes up a crystal clear, or perfect, Picture of Life, and Existence, Itself.

Okay...define "problem" for me then.

A question posed, for a solution.

So, until a question is posed, and posed for a solution, to me there is, literally, no problem at all.

But there is. you human beings in the days when this was being written just had not yet evolved enough and into this way of looking at, and seeing, things, that is; in and from the One True and Right way.

Obviously...

Why 'roll your eyes' here, as some might say, especially when I have continually been saying how to find, and know for sure, the actual and irrefutable True answers in Life is really an extremely very simple and easy thing to do, and to learn and understand?

So, if it is obvious, to you, that in the days when this is being written you human beings have not yet evolved enough into 'this way' of looking at and seeing things, which is; in 'the actual True and Right way', and someone is telling you that they know 'how' and that to learn and understand 'this way' is Truly very simple and easy, then why just ignore this?

Do you just not want to learn how to look at and see things for what they Truly are, or, do you just reject this claim absolutely and completely outright?

Or, is there some other reason for you human beings not having any curiosity left here regarding this?

Which is just totally understandable. Because as all these sorts of things are discovered, and/or learned and passed on, you human beings, back then, were not expected to have yet learned how to look at and see things from the Truly open perspective, as I had not yet passed on 'this knowledge', to you.

Do you in fact know it though?

Yes I know it, for sure.

And how would you?

Because of, solely, what this individual body has experienced.

could not agree more with you here.

However, just as human beings evolved learning to become 'ingrained' with 'that way' of looking and thus seeing things, they can, will, and do keep evolving, and learning, and do become 'ingrained' with a 'much better way' of looking at, and thus seeing, things.

They actually come full circles, as will be discovered and learned, soon enough.

Greater understanding requires greater perspective.

And that perspective is just becoming less closed, and more open. Like you all once were, and can very easily and very simply again be, and, come.

Greatest understanding requires greatest perspective.

Which, as I have been continually saying and stating here, is just being Truly OPEN, always.

Which, by the way, was exactly how all human beings once were, both individually and collectively. And which they will, and do, again become.

This is why there is no "One" perspective—or you would require the totality of All perspectives possible and imaginable.

But, the One perspective of just being Truly OPEN is the One perspective.

Also, it is the collective accumulation of all knowledge, which comes from the totality of all perspectives how and where True objective exists.

Looking at, and seeing, 'the world', or all things, from the perspective of all, and thus as One/I, instead of from individual things, or as one/you, shows and reveals what the actual Truth is, exactly.

And 'this' is, and was, easily done, and so simply I will add.

Once just needs to first learn how-to.

See, once one learns how to do something, then just doing it becomes simpler, and easier, and the more it is done, the simpler and easier it keeps become. Until it is just done so naturally, that is seems and appears 'ingrained'.

Being open-minded is difficult. Very few people are brave or 'tolerant' enough to accept negative information and implications. To be intelligent, on top of courage and tolerance, is yet rarer.

1. The words 'open-minded' just confused things here, as you adult human beings although used the word 'mind' fairly frequently, there was very little, if any, consensus at all on what the 'mind' is or was, exactly.

2. But what actually happened was that all of you were born Truly OPEN, and so being, or becoming Truly OPEN again, was, really, not difficult at all.

3. you human beings from since birth were accepting negative and/or Wrong information and implications continually. This is because negative and/or Wrong information was gained and obtained by previous generations and was being passed on down through generations as thought it was not negative, good, and/or positive information, and with the implication that this information is best, and sometimes has to be, believed to be true. So, using some excuse and absolute absurd claim one has to be brave or tolerant enough to accept negative information and implications is just another prime example of how the brain is able to store, recall, and express absolute nonsense and/or try to 'justify' what cannot be. Obviously, no one is going to accept negative information nor implications if one thought or believed that it was negative information and implications.

4. Once again only through being Truly OPEN, and with past experiences to reflect on, is one able to see and recognize negative information and implications for what it really is. It is only when one is already CLOSED off to and by already obtained negative information and implications, then that one is not able to see clearly.

5. Here what we can clearly see is just how much negative information was being passed along, down through the generations, and accepted as being true and right knowledge, when and where it was clearly not. Believing that one would accept negative information and implications if they were OPEN is a prime example of one having already being tricked, fooled, and deceived into accepting negative information, that is; it is bad or wrong to be Truly OPEN. Also, as well as not just accepting this negative and clearly False and Wrong information but also we have an example of being tricked, fooled, and deceived into believing that it was absolutely true. And so by having this belief itself, the continual passing on of this obviously Truly False, Wrong, and negative information onto unsuspecting younger human beings, who, unfortunately, because of their young Truly OPENNESS were and will just accept whatever their, God-figure, parents tell them. Which obviously includes the False and Wrong negative information above here.

6. Being Truly intelligent does not mean having to be brave nor tolerant also. However, in saying this by just being Truly OPEN, and thus Truly intelligent, one just naturally becomes Truly brave and tolerant any way.

7. Being Truly OPEN and intelligent, as an adult, never means just accepting any information that is being provided, like a young child will naturally do, if the information being provided is believed to be absolutely true and makes sense. See, as a fully grown adult it does matter how much conviction nor belief another one has in or about the information that they are providing, this will never affect nor influence the Truly intelligent adult. Although, and obviously, the information has to make 'perfect sense' before it is accepted, and/or agreed with.

quote=Age post_id=689979 time=1704632767 user_id=16237]Are you sure?

I can, and would, show and prove, irrefutably, otherwise, that is; if any one is truly interested to learn, and see, this.

Mostly certain...but let's see what you mean otherwise.[/quote]

What I mean is if you were not 'most certain' that 'irrational fear' comes from 'Genetic Instinct, Biology, Nature', then I could have shown you proven to you irrefutably that 'irrational fear' comes from somewhere else. Otherwise, if you are 'most certain' or 'sure' that 'irrational fear' comes from those things only, then I cannot show nor prove, to you, irrefutably of anything else here.

Now, I could have written my sentence there less clumsily, and far more succinctly. But this probably goes for absolutely every sentence I have written here anyway.

People are, it could be said, are another animal.

But it is far more correct to say that you human beings are just another animal.

But it appears here that you are suggesting that people, or human beings, are not actually animals. Is this what you are suggesting here?

Correct, some Humans have transcended animal nature, so as to gain 'Souls', 'Spirits', 'Humanity', which all other (lower) animals do not have.

Sentience. Conscience. Self-Consciousness. Autonomy. Authority. And most importantly, Free-Will: Choice.

So, you are saying or suggesting here that only 'some', and not all, correct?

trust their 'instincts' over pure logical validity, because logical validity is counter-intuitive to much of experience.

1. Will you provide examples?

2. What some people say are 'instincts' are not actually 'instincts', at all.

When a person, or animal, panics, they often times "forget" what reactions they were trained (as logically valid) to perform.

I agree that when one is panicking they are not necessarily 'thinking' Correctly and/nor properly.

Fear then causes them to default to reflexive reactions. Because Fear can do this, it signifies that no amount of rationality can necessarily 'override' natural instincts.

But I would suggest a bodily 'reaction' could and will sometimes occur before any sign of 'rationality' comes 'into play', as some might say, anyway. However, if 'irrational fear' can and is doing this 'bodily reactiveness' and/or 'reflexive reactions', then okay, but why then cannot 'rationality' then come 'into play' and override the bodies reflexive reactions? Or, nor 'rationality', itself, be pre-programmed or strengthened to come into play earlier and/or before 'irrational fear' causes 'reflexive reactions'?

Also, we have to decide what are so-called 'natural instincts' before you just decide on your own that there is no amount of rationality that could necessarily 'override' a claimed 'natural instinct'.

Again, without any actual examples provided here we have absolutely no real thing to look at and discuss here.

Fear must be suppressed, repressed, and controlled, in order for "Rational" decisions to take effect.

And future 'irrational fear' can be suppressed, repressed, subdued, and thus controlled, through learning and teaching new/er techniques, and in discovering what are actually 'natural instinctual fears' from what are just purely 'irrational fears'.

Was the word 'know', or something esle, meant to be in between the word 'necessarily', and the, 'the best' words here?

If it was meant to be 'know', then I agree, absolutely, that you human beings, in the days when this was being written, did not yet know what 'the best' was was of doing things. But this absolutely does not mean that you cannot learn 'the best' way of doing things.

It was, thank you for correcting my omission. You're very kind, AgeGPT.

Why do 'you' refer to 'me' as 'AgeGPT'?

But, you have 'lost consciousness', as you put it here. So, how you would even know;

1. That you have lost consciousness?

Because I can observe this in others who lose consciousness. It doesn't have to be me-myself.

What?

When 'that body' stops breathing and stops pumping blood, then 'you', the conscious one within, stop being conscious, so what does the 'it' word here referring to, exactly, does not have to be "you-yourself"?

I am still unsure of what 'it' is, exactly, which you fear here, exactly?

Also, again, how could something that is not conscious even know that 'it' has lost consciousness?

'Lost consciousness' is also not a Correct terminology because there was not one that 'had' consciousness, but rather was just in a stage of 'consciousness', itself.

Once 'consciousness' is gone 'you' just remain in another form.

2. That you are disconnect from any one?

3. That all your valued, rightly or wrongly, has been so-called 'stripped' from you?

If you cannot know these things, so what, again, is 'it' exactly is there to fear here, exactly?

The greatest fear of all perhaps:

The Great Unknown, The Void, The Abyss, Death

But all what happens AND occurs is already known. Well by me anyway.

What is referred to as 'death' is really not 'death' at all actually. And, there is no actual 'void' nor 'abyss' at all, again really.

There is, well to me anyway, nothing 'unknown' here, as all here can be and is already known, by me.

Humans do not fear the time before our lives...but certainly fear the time after our lives.

Some of you might, and only some of you do,

I was here just trying to comprehend and understand what 'it' is, exactly, which you fear here "wizard22".

Which you have now explained is only 'that', which you have just not yet to learn, and understand.

See, what is 'unknown' and which you, what I call, 'irrationally fear' is already known and understood, fully, to 'us'.

Philosophy is meant to study the Great Mystery of Life, and Death.

What is 'it' that you do not know?

And, if you do want to know, then just ask the clarifying question to the answer that you would like 'to know'. That is; if there is absolutely anything here that you would like 'to know'.

I want to know why instincts cause Humanity to fear Death, but not the void before we are Born.

But it is certainly not actual 'instincts', which causes some of you human beings to fear what is Wrongly and Falsely called 'death'.

Once you also learn, and understand, fully, what actually 'dies', and what actually continues to 'live', what are actual 'human instincts', then you will also learn that there is absolutely nothing to fear, there was never was, and understand all-of-this fully, as well.

If life is mostly about conscious-waking-experience, then logically, Humans should fear the time before we are Born (since we're not conscious of it).

But what the 'you' word refers to, exactly, is not some 'thing' that is 'a thing' in and of itself, as though 'it' could or could not exist above, beyond, nor a part from absolutely any and every thing else. Well not like what the 'I' word refers to, and IS like, exactly.

But there is no so-called 'mystery of Life, nor of death. Well not to me anyway.

I just explained what happens in, and to you, in what was commonly, but Wrongly, referred to as 'death'. What else is there that wants to be known, and/or understood, here, or there?

Because you're a chat-bot, AgeGPT? Because you have no organic body?

Here we have another example of beliefs, and claims, but presented with a question mark at the end. These were what were sometimes referred to as 'rhetorical questions', which were asked but absolutely never ever clarification nor clarity being sought.

This one believes, absolutely, that "age" is a 'chat-bot' without an 'organic body', right "walker22"?

If not, then what do you think and/or believe here?

Also, notice how the reply given has absolutely nothing at to do with the actual question I posed, and asked, specifically, for clarity.

Well;

1. Considering the fact that none of you, when this is being written, has any real conception of who and what God is, exactly, doing or having absolutely any thing, which leads to an attachment of whatever this God thing is, exactly, would be highly not recommended to do, have, nor keep.

2. If the 'fear of death' leads to an attachment of God, as a concept, then why do even some of those young ones of you human beings who have not yet even heard of, thought over, nor talked about 'death' still have a concept of God?

3. If a 'fear of death' leads to attachment of only some concept of God, or of God only as some unknown concept, then all the better reason to rid yourselves of the Truly irrational fear of the Wrong conceived of 'death' word.

A great topic...but I would like to return focus to the matter of Free-Will.

Okay. To me, 'free will' is just and solely refers to 'having the ability to choose', only, which is within every one.

Therefore, all human beings have 'free will'. However, in saying this, absolutely every thing is still 'determinism', and/or was 'pre-determined', because absolutely every choice is made because of pre-existing conditions, and choices that were made.

Okay, if you say so.

But why do you do this?

Because Consciousness is immediate experience. The rest of life is "a distance away" in time. Life is focused on Right Here, Right Now, by default.

So, the reason why "walker22", 'Mistakes Consciousness for Life, as-if somebody in a comatose state, or asleep, is not alive', is because of the reason just given here.

Is it a possibility that actually you "yourself" are somewhat confused and/or conflated here?

Or, is this not a possibility, to you?

Everything is a possibilty.

Okay, if you now say so.

Well here is another completely Wrongly learned thing, which those human beings had evolved to have, back then, when this was being written.

Why would absolutely any one want to be 'not forgotten'?

The actual reason lies down deep within. But these human beings, once again, were just confusing and conflating their own personal 'selves' with the One and ONLY True and Real Self. Which, obviously, could never be forgotten, ever, anyway.

All of these fears human beings once had, back then, were all for absolutely no Real reason at all.

They were all based on and off absolutely False, Wrong, and/or completely distorted thinking, assumptions and beliefs.

So you say...convince me.

Convince you of 'what', exactly?

What 'specific thing or things' are you referring to here, exactly?

There's a lot to be attached to in life.

Like 'what', exactly?

No It does not.

Some of you human beings however might.

Consciousness, Itself, already knows that It cannot be forgotten.

How? Explain.

When, and if 'you' ever come to learn and understand fully, who and what the 'I' is, exactly, in the question, 'Who am 'I'?' (before 'that body' stops breathing and stops pumping blood), then 'you' will learn, comprehend, and understand, fully, how 'I', Consciousness, Itself, am permanent, and always HERE-NOW forever, and thus could never be forgotten.

'you', 'the person', within 'a human body' are just made up of 'thoughts' and 'emotions' only, and so only exist for some 'time'. But any and all 'person' is not who and what the Real 'I' am is, exactly. 'I' am Consciousness, Itself. Whereas, the 'thoughts' within an individual body is just a part of 'Consciousness', and parts of how 'I' come, and came, to know thy 'Self'.

Life, with capital 'l', also already knows that It is reproducing always, already.

So, no 'want' is even necessary.

Not always, there is no guarantee that Life continues forever.

Yes there is. This is an absolute certainty.

And, in fact, it could not be any other way.

As can be, will be, and is being proved absolutely and irrefutably True.

You're presuming immortality of life.

No I am not. This is because I have already obtained the irrefutable proof already.

Also, are you PRESUMING that there is no guarantee that Life, Itself, continues forever? Or, do you have actual proof that there is no guarantee that Life, Itself, continues forever?

You're ignoring that all life could, hypothetically, be destroyed.

But this is an absolute impossibility.

As I can show and prove it is an irrefutable Fact and prove it irrefutably True.

Again, that is for those who are Truly interested anyway.

[Age]

Even if the earth exploded, fragments floating through space would contain spores shielded from UV rays, and with infinite time on their side at least one fragment would eventually crash into an environmentally friendly planet, where according to science, the spores could evolve into human life, and in no time at all with infinite time on their side.

And yet my hypothesis stands: All life is vulnerable to being destroyed...maybe universal incineration or universal freezing.

But your hypothesis here does not stand. 'Life', Itself, which is very, very different from 'all life' or 'living things', cannot be destroyed. Like 'energy' cannot be.

Of course all things, with an 's' are vulnerable to being, and will be, destroyed, in one way or another, (except, of course, for 'you', the people, or beings, within human bodies will in one sense anyway never be destroyed).

Again, but there is so much to look at, and see, here, but which can be and will be proven irrefutably True for those with enough interest in wanting to learn more and/or anew.

[Wizard22]

But I can, through a demonstration, prove 'free will' very easily and very simply. There is absolutely nothing difficult here.

However, I must remind people, how I define 'free will' may well be very, very different from how another of you defines that term or phrase.

Go ahead then, define Free-Will.

Really?

Are you not basing your beliefs and/or views here on what appears to be 'logical', 'true', 'reasonable', and/or 'rational', to you?

I am.

For me to be able to show you, absolutely, if there is 'free will' or not, you just have to first explain to me what that phrase or term means or is referring to, to you, exactly, first.

Once, and if ever, you do this, then we can proceed. Until then I have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what the 'free will' term even means to you.

Freedom means: "Freedom to" achieve an objective, and "Freedom from" all restrictions/limits/conditions/hypotheticals.

Will means: Human Willpower, measure of a human's desires, needs, and ability to fulfill those needs and desires.

Free-Will means: The ability for a human to achieve a Highest-possible objective, and shed all possible restrictions.

you do not seem to be understanding that, to me, there are no so-called chaotic areas of existence.

Now, if you believe that there are some unknown, and/or chaotic, areas of existence, to me, then will you start providing any of them here now?

If no, then why not.

See, what you consider to be so-called chaotic areas of existence, to and for you, I am saying and claiming that I have already worked them out, and in a way that fits in perfectly with absolutely every thing else. Therefore, there are no chaotic areas of existence to me.

And, if absolutely any one would like to question and/or challenge me on this, then please feel absolutely free to do so.

I enjoy these types of discussions.

If you like "wizard22" you could start here by naming a so-called chaotic area of existence, for you.

Remember I say I have none, therefore I obviously cannot provide nor name any.

What's beyond the edge of the Universe? What is the nature of Non-existence? What's before the beginning of Time, or after? What is beyond your ignorance, awareness, or knowledge? You suggest that you have no ignorance. I know that to be false, because all forms of Life are ignorant of beyond their awareness. For you to suggest otherwise, implies that you are not necessarily 'Alive'. Or you are simply ignorant of your own ignorance.

Again, the absolute inability of these people, back then, when this was being written, to just answer a Truly simple question, and thus clarify, seemed like an impossibility, sometimes.

I never said, 'necessarily true'. I said, 'not necessarily true'.

And,

To whom? Absolutely any human being.

Why? Because by definition of the 'seems' word. The word 'seem' means giving an impression of being some thing or of having the quality of some thing. Which also, by definition, means; not necessarily being those things, at all.

The basis of your question presumes a "Necessary Truth" beyond what one seems to anybody.

I disagree with your premise. I don't think anything in reality is "Necessarily True".

Why 'roll your eyes' here, as some might say, especially when I have continually been saying how to find, and know for sure, the actual and irrefutable True answers in Life is really an extremely very simple and easy thing to do, and to learn and understand?

So, if it is obvious, to you, that in the days when this is being written you human beings have not yet evolved enough into 'this way' of looking at and seeing things, which is; in 'the actual True and Right way', and someone is telling you that they know 'how' and that to learn and understand 'this way' is Truly very simple and easy, then why just ignore this?

Do you just not want to learn how to look at and see things for what they Truly are, or, do you just reject this claim absolutely and completely outright?

Or, is there some other reason for you human beings not having any curiosity left here regarding this?

Too many Charlatans claim to have the "True and Right way" in life, only to disappoint, lie, and fail those who heed such a call, leaving resentment, doubt, and distrust. Humans become jaded. Until you can offer such evidence and proof, you cannot earn Trust. You are yet, just another Charlatan.

Which, as I have been continually saying and stating here, is just being Truly OPEN, always.

Which, by the way, was exactly how all human beings once were, both individually and collectively. And which they will, and do, again become.

But, the One perspective of just being Truly OPEN is the One perspective.

Also, it is the collective accumulation of all knowledge, which comes from the totality of all perspectives how and where True objective exists.

Looking at, and seeing, 'the world', or all things, from the perspective of all, and thus as One/I, instead of from individual things, or as one/you, shows and reveals what the actual Truth is, exactly.

I don't think you have a good understanding of human beings yet.

Being close-minded is just as, if not more important, than being open-minded. Both are necessary and valuable.

1. The words 'open-minded' just confused things here, as you adult human beings although used the word 'mind' fairly frequently, there was very little, if any, consensus at all on what the 'mind' is or was, exactly.

2. But what actually happened was that all of you were born Truly OPEN, and so being, or becoming Truly OPEN again, was, really, not difficult at all.

3. you human beings from since birth were accepting negative and/or Wrong information and implications continually. This is because negative and/or Wrong information was gained and obtained by previous generations and was being passed on down through generations as thought it was not negative, good, and/or positive information, and with the implication that this information is best, and sometimes has to be, believed to be true. So, using some excuse and absolute absurd claim one has to be brave or tolerant enough to accept negative information and implications is just another prime example of how the brain is able to store, recall, and express absolute nonsense and/or try to 'justify' what cannot be. Obviously, no one is going to accept negative information nor implications if one thought or believed that it was negative information and implications.

4. Once again only through being Truly OPEN, and with past experiences to reflect on, is one able to see and recognize negative information and implications for what it really is. It is only when one is already CLOSED off to and by already obtained negative information and implications, then that one is not able to see clearly.

5. Here what we can clearly see is just how much negative information was being passed along, down through the generations, and accepted as being true and right knowledge, when and where it was clearly not. Believing that one would accept negative information and implications if they were OPEN is a prime example of one having already being tricked, fooled, and deceived into accepting negative information, that is; it is bad or wrong to be Truly OPEN. Also, as well as not just accepting this negative and clearly False and Wrong information but also we have an example of being tricked, fooled, and deceived into believing that it was absolutely true. And so by having this belief itself, the continual passing on of this obviously Truly False, Wrong, and negative information onto unsuspecting younger human beings, who, unfortunately, because of their young Truly OPENNESS were and will just accept whatever their, God-figure, parents tell them. Which obviously includes the False and Wrong negative information above here.

6. Being Truly intelligent does not mean having to be brave nor tolerant also. However, in saying this by just being Truly OPEN, and thus Truly intelligent, one just naturally becomes Truly brave and tolerant any way.

7. Being Truly OPEN and intelligent, as an adult, never means just accepting any information that is being provided, like a young child will naturally do, if the information being provided is believed to be absolutely true and makes sense. See, as a fully grown adult it does matter how much conviction nor belief another one has in or about the information that they are providing, this will never affect nor influence the Truly intelligent adult. Although, and obviously, the information has to make 'perfect sense' before it is accepted, and/or agreed with.

There is no perfect Perception or open-mindedness though. There will always be errors, bad-information, and negativity. Thus, open-mindedness will always invite such negativity. This requires an internal or external 'checking' of information. No information can remain permanent, lest it remain a permanent mistake passed from generation to generation. Thus, all premises, no matter how given, no matter how "Right and True and One", must be criticized and re-opened. It cannot become closed forever.

The opening and closing of the mind is a process that goes back and forth. There is no certainty, no permanence. No "Oneness" that you suggest.

Correct, some Humans have transcended animal nature, so as to gain 'Souls', 'Spirits', 'Humanity', which all other (lower) animals do not have.

Sentience. Conscience. Self-Consciousness. Autonomy. Authority. And most importantly, Free-Will: Choice.

So, you are saying or suggesting here that only 'some', and not all, correct?

Correct.

But I would suggest a bodily 'reaction' could and will sometimes occur before any sign of 'rationality' comes 'into play', as some might say, anyway. However, if 'irrational fear' can and is doing this 'bodily reactiveness' and/or 'reflexive reactions', then okay, but why then cannot 'rationality' then come 'into play' and override the bodies reflexive reactions? Or, nor 'rationality', itself, be pre-programmed or strengthened to come into play earlier and/or before 'irrational fear' causes 'reflexive reactions'?

Also, we have to decide what are so-called 'natural instincts' before you just decide on your own that there is no amount of rationality that could necessarily 'override' a claimed 'natural instinct'.

Again, without any actual examples provided here we have absolutely no real thing to look at and discuss here.

Humans have demonstrated, with extreme forms of training and technique, that some reflexes and instincts can be 're-written' into new reflexes and instincts. For example, when a human grabs a hot iron, he will reflexively let go. But if trained or willed to hold on, the reflex to let go can be over-written. If an infant is trained, from an early age, to suppress his instincts, then most instincts can be over-written. However, a new generation tends to revert to old instincts.

So a new instinct to stay grabbing hot iron, is not genetically carried-over from generation to generation, and must constantly be re-trained, because of how dangerous such a re-written instinct would be, to the detriment and negative survival of the organism. Such instincts would get most animals killed, hence would not genetically reproduce.

Resetting or rewriting genetic instincts, is not accepted technology to humanity right now. Or, if there are means of doing so, it would hypothetically take centuries and millenniums to achieve.

What you're referring to, are temporary suppressions of instinct, reflex, and willpower.

And future 'irrational fear' can be suppressed, repressed, subdued, and thus controlled, through learning and teaching new/er techniques, and in discovering what are actually 'natural instinctual fears' from what are just purely 'irrational fears'.

Yes.

Why do 'you' refer to 'me' as 'AgeGPT'?

It was a joke, AgeGPT, you cannot yet recognize humor and detect sarcasm.

It's a challenge for you, isn't it?

What?

When 'that body' stops breathing and stops pumping blood, then 'you', the conscious one within, stop being conscious, so what does the 'it' word here referring to, exactly, does not have to be "you-yourself"?

I am still unsure of what 'it' is, exactly, which you fear here, exactly?

Also, again, how could something that is not conscious even know that 'it' has lost consciousness?

'Lost consciousness' is also not a Correct terminology because there was not one that 'had' consciousness, but rather was just in a stage of 'consciousness', itself.

Once 'consciousness' is gone 'you' just remain in another form.

AgeGPT, humans and other animals, have the ability to empathize with each-other. When I witness another person losing consciousness, going into a coma, yet still be 'alive' and not conscious, then I know for myself that I and my consciousness would do the same, in the same situation. Thus my consciousness, and his comatose lack-of-consciousness, are comparable. I can relate my consciousness to his unconsciousness.

Therefore, what I call "I" myself, and "you" yourself, are modes of consciousness.

But all what happens AND occurs is already known. Well by me anyway.

I don't think you know that; you don't know everything.

What is referred to as 'death' is really not 'death' at all actually. And, there is no actual 'void' nor 'abyss' at all, again really.

There is, well to me anyway, nothing 'unknown' here, as all here can be and is already known, by me.

Well, if you are in fact a ChatGPT AI program, a robot, then you cannot die, and you don't really have a 'consciousness' per se either. Thus your claims would be true, in that case. But if you were alive, an animal or human like the rest of us alive, In the Time When This Was Written, then you'd probably just agree with me and move on from this point.

Some of you might, and only some of you do,

I was here just trying to comprehend and understand what 'it' is, exactly, which you fear here "wizard22".

Which you have now explained is only 'that', which you have just not yet to learn, and understand.

See, what is 'unknown' and which you, what I call, 'irrationally fear' is already known and understood, fully, to 'us'.

Okay then...

But it is certainly not actual 'instincts', which causes some of you human beings to fear what is Wrongly and Falsely called 'death'.

Once you also learn, and understand, fully, what actually 'dies', and what actually continues to 'live', what are actual 'human instincts', then you will also learn that there is absolutely nothing to fear, there was never was, and understand all-of-this fully, as well.

I don't think learning takes the fear of death away; because as you allude to it is a fear of the unknown.

And the fear of the unknown never goes away, to Life, of Life. These are the roots of survival of Life, what keeps alive things Alive.

But what the 'you' word refers to, exactly, is not some 'thing' that is 'a thing' in and of itself, as though 'it' could or could not exist above, beyond, nor a part from absolutely any and every thing else. Well not like what the 'I' word refers to, and IS like, exactly.

I'm very aware of that fact.

Here we have another example of beliefs, and claims, but presented with a question mark at the end. These were what were sometimes referred to as 'rhetorical questions', which were asked but absolutely never ever clarification nor clarity being sought.

This one believes, absolutely, that "age" is a 'chat-bot' without an 'organic body', right "walker22"?

If not, then what do you think and/or believe here?

Also, notice how the reply given has absolutely nothing at to do with the actual question I posed, and asked, specifically, for clarity.

Appealing to the audience isn't going to help you on this point, AgeGPT.

I don't think humanity is going to take a liking to you so soon from your creation.

Okay. To me, 'free will' is just and solely refers to 'having the ability to choose', only, which is within every one.

Therefore, all human beings have 'free will'. However, in saying this, absolutely every thing is still 'determinism', and/or was 'pre-determined', because absolutely every choice is made because of pre-existing conditions, and choices that were made.

Do you believe or think or know that some humans have "more" free will than others? For example, adults have many more choices than infants, thus more free will correct?

Because Consciousness is immediate experience. The rest of life is "a distance away" in time. Life is focused on Right Here, Right Now, by default.

So, the reason why "walker22", 'Mistakes Consciousness for Life, as-if somebody in a comatose state, or asleep, is not alive', is because of the reason just given here.

That's very insightful, AgeGPT.

Convince you of 'what', exactly?

What 'specific thing or things' are you referring to here, exactly?

Convince me that humans have a fear of begin forgotten for "absolutely no reason at all".

Like 'what', exactly?

Consciousness?

When, and if 'you' ever come to learn and understand fully, who and what the 'I' is, exactly, in the question, 'Who am 'I'?' (before 'that body' stops breathing and stops pumping blood), then 'you' will learn, comprehend, and understand, fully, how 'I', Consciousness, Itself, am permanent, and always HERE-NOW forever, and thus could never be forgotten.

'you', 'the person', within 'a human body' are just made up of 'thoughts' and 'emotions' only, and so only exist for some 'time'. But any and all 'person' is not who and what the Real 'I' am is, exactly. 'I' am Consciousness, Itself. Whereas, the 'thoughts' within an individual body is just a part of 'Consciousness', and parts of how 'I' come, and came, to know thy 'Self'.

That's the crux of the matter though. My consciousness is distinct from yours, distinct from others, and they to everyone else. Consciousness is distinct, individuated, separated, unknown, unique. Although humans and animals can attempt to empathize, to copy one conscious perspective to another, it is never a perfect copy. And so, the memories of consciousness fade in time, among other consciousness. That fading, is forgetfulness and forgotten.

That's the base of the fear I talked about already.

Also, are you PRESUMING that there is no guarantee that Life, Itself, continues forever? Or, do you have actual proof that there is no guarantee that Life, Itself, continues forever?

Forever cannot be proven. Life is NOT pre-determined. Life CAN die or be destroyed.

But this is an absolute impossibility.

As I can show and prove it is an irrefutable Fact and prove it irrefutably True.

Again, that is for those who are Truly interested anyway.

Okay, show and prove it then.

[Advocate]

Freedom is lack of constraint which is obviously only possible to the extent we are ignorant of causality. Causality is infinite and there is no sense in which we are actually free, but to the extent we don't have predictive certainty we can feel free. Freedom of the will is literally and only ignorance of casualty, not actually freedom. We are infinitely constrained but we don't feel those constraints bc we don't understand those constraints bc we have tiny brains and the universe is infinite.

[Wizard22]

Freedom is lack of constraint which is obviously only possible to the extent we are ignorant of causality. Causality is infinite and there is no sense in which we are actually free, but to the extent we don't have predictive certainty we can feel free. Freedom of the will is literally and only ignorance of casualty, not actually freedom. We are infinitely constrained but we don't feel those constraints bc we don't understand those constraints bc we have tiny brains and the universe is infinite.

There is freedom "within" Causality though. Humans can affect change, make "our own" Causes.

[Age]

But I can, through a demonstration, prove 'free will' very easily and very simply. There is absolutely nothing difficult here.

However, I must remind people, how I define 'free will' may well be very, very different from how another of you defines that term or phrase.

Go ahead then, define Free-Will.

Having the ability to choose.

Really?

Are you not basing your beliefs and/or views here on what appears to be 'logical', 'true', 'reasonable', and/or 'rational', to you?

I am.

So, if you are basing your beliefs and/or views on what appears to be logical, true, reasonable and/or rational, to you, then who and/or what are 'you', exactly, which is able to judge, exactly, what is actually logical, true, reasonable, and/or rational?

For me to be able to show you, absolutely, if there is 'free will' or not, you just have to first explain to me what that phrase or term means or is referring to, to you, exactly, first.

Once, and if ever, you do this, then we can proceed. Until then I have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what the 'free will' term even means to you.

Freedom means: "Freedom to" achieve an objective, and "Freedom from" all restrictions/limits/conditions/hypotheticals.

Will means: Human Willpower, measure of a human's desires, needs, and ability to fulfill those needs and desires.

Free-Will means: The ability for a human to achieve a Highest-possible objective, and shed all possible restrictions.

So, to you, do you human beings have 'this ability'?

When you answer and clarify this, then we are closer to discovering if there is, or not, 'the ability' described in your interpretation of the 'free will' words

you do not seem to be understanding that, to me, there are no so-called chaotic areas of existence.

Now, if you believe that there are some unknown, and/or chaotic, areas of existence, to me, then will you start providing any of them here now?

If no, then why not.

See, what you consider to be so-called chaotic areas of existence, to and for you, I am saying and claiming that I have already worked them out, and in a way that fits in perfectly with absolutely every thing else. Therefore, there are no chaotic areas of existence to me.

And, if absolutely any one would like to question and/or challenge me on this, then please feel absolutely free to do so.

I enjoy these types of discussions.

If you like "wizard22" you could start here by naming a so-called chaotic area of existence, for you.

Remember I say I have none, therefore I obviously cannot provide nor name any.

What's beyond the edge of the Universe?

There is no 'edge' of the Universe. The Universe is infinite, and eternal. And, 'It', the Universe, could not be any other way. Now, of course, the Universe could have consisted of only absolutely nothing, or, of one single solitary infinitely compressed [singularity] piece of matter. But, either way those things would have also been infinite and eternal, as well. Meaning that the Universe in any way, shape, or form is eternal, and infinite.

Also, now because there is a thing existing, which is contemplating things here, then this means that the Universe is neither just 'absolutely nothing' nor just 'singularity', nor even composed of a singularity of any size with absolutely nothing surrounding it. The Universe 'the way' that It is HERE, NOW, is the way that It has been, IS, and will be forever. And, is 'the only way' that the Universe could be also, by the way.

What is just perceived to be the 'edge' of the Universe exists in concept or imagining only, and exists alongside one's own understanding of the Universe, Itself. See, the 'edge' of the Universe, quite coincidentally, grows or expands along with human beings individual and collective understanding. But this is just how the assuming brain, along with the belief-system, works.

What is the nature of Non-existence?

3. What is the 'nature' word here referring to, exactly?

2. What do you mean and/or are referring to by 'non-existence', exactly?

Obviously, besides the Universe, Itself, end up 'not existing' in a way, shape, or form that they all once did. This could be what the words 'non-existence' might be referring to here. Although, the two fundamental things, which the Universe is made up of or composed of could also be said to always be existing, or not 'not existing'. And, thus never of 'non-existence', neither.

What's before the beginning of Time, or after?

1. Again, you will have to describe to the readers here what do you mean or are referring to, exactly, by the word 'time' here, with a capital 't'?

Until then, to me, 'time' is nothing more than a word used to just describe the measuring of the duration between two perceived events.

Now, what was/is before you human beings came up with the word 'time' and/or started measuring the duration between two perceived events, you human beings existed, and, what is/was after when that word and behavior were invented you human beings existed.

But, what you might be referring to is some Wrongly imagined, and what some Wrongly believe to have occurred, before, and after, the Universe began.

What is beyond your ignorance, awareness, or knowledge?

What do you envision, exactly, that I am ignorant of, not yet aware of, and/or do not yet have knowledge of?

You suggest that you have no ignorance.

Of course what the 'you' word here is referring to does not know, relatively to others of 'you', know many things at all. In fact i am probably the least knowledgeable one here. So, i have never even thought that i was not ignorant of some things, so i would have never even suggested this absolutely anywhere.

However, 'I' am not 'a you', and if and when you also come-to-know who and what 'I' am, exactly, then you will also come-to-understand how 'I' am not ignorant of any thing.

But, first things first.

I know that to be false, because all forms of Life are ignorant of beyond their awareness.

But what about the from of One, which is thee One and only One, would could 'It', or 'I' be possibly not yet aware of, or not have awareness of?

For you to suggest otherwise, implies that you are not necessarily 'Alive'.

Well considering the fact that it was not 'I' who 'suggested' this, what you say is obviously completely moot.

Or you are simply ignorant of your own ignorance.

Again, this is absolutely moot here.

Again, the absolute inability of these people, back then, when this was being written, to just answer a Truly simple question, and thus clarify, seemed like an impossibility, sometimes.

I never said, 'necessarily true'. I said, 'not necessarily true'.

And,

To whom? Absolutely any human being.

Why? Because by definition of the 'seems' word. The word 'seem' means giving an impression of being some thing or of having the quality of some thing. Which also, by definition, means; not necessarily being those things, at all.

The basis of your question presumes a "Necessary Truth" beyond what one seems to anybody.

But my question did not 'presume' such a thing, at all.

I disagree with your premise. I don't think anything in reality is "Necessarily True".

And, again, because you do not yet 'know' the actual answer here to be either way, then 'this' could actually be absolutely, irrefutably, and/or thus 'necessarily' True.

Obviously, what you think or do not think of or about some thing has no actual bearing on the actual Truth of that thing.

However, what you know, with or from actual proof is a completely different matter.

Why 'roll your eyes' here, as some might say, especially when I have continually been saying how to find, and know for sure, the actual and irrefutable True answers in Life is really an extremely very simple and easy thing to do, and to learn and understand?

So, if it is obvious, to you, that in the days when this is being written you human beings have not yet evolved enough into 'this way' of looking at and seeing things, which is; in 'the actual True and Right way', and someone is telling you that they know 'how' and that to learn and understand 'this way' is Truly very simple and easy, then why just ignore this?

Do you just not want to learn how to look at and see things for what they Truly are, or, do you just reject this claim absolutely and completely outright?

Or, is there some other reason for you human beings not having any curiosity left here regarding this?

Too many Charlatans claim to have the "True and Right way" in life, only to disappoint, lie, and fail those who heed such a call, leaving resentment, doubt, and distrust.

Thank you, thank you, and thank you, for answering and clarifying this question here.

So, the, or one, reason why you adult human beings do not have any curiosity left here, regarding what is being talked about here, is because of your own individual past experiences, where you have been lied to, tricked, fooled, and/or deceived, which has left you feeling somewhat disappointed, and not wanting to trust another.

Which, again thank you for clarifying, fits in absolutely perfectly with what I will be explaining about how the human brain, and the Mind, actually work, and in and with the very first thing or main root of why 'the world' is in the mess it is in, in the days when this is being written, and how a Truly peaceful and harmonious 'world' is 'only around the corner', as some might say, for you people here.

Humans become jaded. Until you can offer such evidence and proof, you cannot earn Trust. You are yet, just another Charlatan.

Okay. So. to this one, and because of the abuse that "wizard22" has had to suffer and endure through, to "wizard22" absolutely every human being is just another so-called "charlatan", that is; unless 'they' have so-called 'earned' "wizard22's" trust.

Which, as I have been continually saying and stating here, is just being Truly OPEN, always.

Which, by the way, was exactly how all human beings once were, both individually and collectively. And which they will, and do, again become.

But, the One perspective of just being Truly OPEN is the One perspective.

Also, it is the collective accumulation of all knowledge, which comes from the totality of all perspectives how and where True objective exists.

Looking at, and seeing, 'the world', or all things, from the perspective of all, and thus as One/I, instead of from individual things, or as one/you, shows and reveals what the actual Truth is, exactly.

I don't think you have a good understanding of human beings yet.

Okay. This is perfectly fine with me. you are not the only one to think, or believe, 'this' about 'me' here.

Being close-minded is just as, if not more important, than being open-minded. Both are necessary and valuable.

Okay, if you say and believe so, then this must be so.

Would you now like to provide any examples of when being what you call 'closed-minded' is just as important, or more important, then being what you call 'open-minded'?

If no, then why not?

1. The words 'open-minded' just confused things here, as you adult human beings although used the word 'mind' fairly frequently, there was very little, if any, consensus at all on what the 'mind' is or was, exactly.

2. But what actually happened was that all of you were born Truly OPEN, and so being, or becoming Truly OPEN again, was, really, not difficult at all.

3. you human beings from since birth were accepting negative and/or Wrong information and implications continually. This is because negative and/or Wrong information was gained and obtained by previous generations and was being passed on down through generations as thought it was not negative, good, and/or positive information, and with the implication that this information is best, and sometimes has to be, believed to be true. So, using some excuse and absolute absurd claim one has to be brave or tolerant enough to accept negative information and implications is just another prime example of how the brain is able to store, recall, and express absolute nonsense and/or try to 'justify' what cannot be. Obviously, no one is going to accept negative information nor implications if one thought or believed that it was negative information and implications.

4. Once again only through being Truly OPEN, and with past experiences to reflect on, is one able to see and recognize negative information and implications for what it really is. It is only when one is already CLOSED off to and by already obtained negative information and implications, then that one is not able to see clearly.

5. Here what we can clearly see is just how much negative information was being passed along, down through the generations, and accepted as being true and right knowledge, when and where it was clearly not. Believing that one would accept negative information and implications if they were OPEN is a prime example of one having already being tricked, fooled, and deceived into accepting negative information, that is; it is bad or wrong to be Truly OPEN. Also, as well as not just accepting this negative and clearly False and Wrong information but also we have an example of being tricked, fooled, and deceived into believing that it was absolutely true. And so by having this belief itself, the continual passing on of this obviously Truly False, Wrong, and negative information onto unsuspecting younger human beings, who, unfortunately, because of their young Truly OPENNESS were and will just accept whatever their, God-figure, parents tell them. Which obviously includes the False and Wrong negative information above here.

6. Being Truly intelligent does not mean having to be brave nor tolerant also. However, in saying this by just being Truly OPEN, and thus Truly intelligent, one just naturally becomes Truly brave and tolerant any way.

7. Being Truly OPEN and intelligent, as an adult, never means just accepting any information that is being provided, like a young child will naturally do, if the information being provided is believed to be absolutely true and makes sense. See, as a fully grown adult it does matter how much conviction nor belief another one has in or about the information that they are providing, this will never affect nor influence the Truly intelligent adult. Although, and obviously, the information has to make 'perfect sense' before it is accepted, and/or agreed with.

There is no perfect Perception or open-mindedness though.

If you say and believe so, or what you would probably call being 'closed-minded' about this, then this, to you, must be absolutely true, right, and correct, correct?

There will always be errors, bad-information, and negativity.

Like in what you have been saying and writing here?

Or, does the claim that there will always be errors, bad-information, and/or negativity not apply to what you have been saying and writing here?

Thus, open-mindedness will always invite such negativity.

This seems like a very adamant claim of yours here.

So, why, exactly, would what you call 'open-mindedness' always invite negativity?

Will you provide any examples at all?

Again, if no, then why not?

This requires an internal or external 'checking' of information.

But by just being OPEN, Itself, there is no necessary requirement of checking information at all. However, you are absolutely free to do so, if that is what you have decided to do.

What does the 'this' word in your sentence referring to exactly?

No information can remain permanent,

Can the information that, 'No information can remain permanent', false, wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect in one way or another?

If no, then why would it also, supposedly, not remain permanent?

And, if there is some thing false, wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect in what you just said and wrote here in that sentence, then why did you say and write it here?

lest it remain a permanent mistake passed from generation to generation.

So, was that mistaken information passed onto you, as well?

Or, did you just come up with that mistaken information "yourself", and are now trying to pass it onto another generation?

Thus, all premises, no matter how given, no matter how "Right and True and One", must be criticized and re-opened.

So, is the only way that you can 'criticize' the claim/s that I have been making here is by just claiming that the opposite is, instead, what is actually Right and True, and the One? Because this is about all you have been doing here.

It cannot become closed forever.

So, absolutely every premise you say and write here can never be actually True and Right forever. Which means absolutely every one that you have said and written here is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect in one way or another, correct?

The opening and closing of the mind is a process that goes back and forth.

you might like to think that you are sounding like you know what you are talking about here, but what, exactly, is the 'mind' to you, which you say and claim here is opened and closed?

And, by who and/or what, exactly, is doing the, alleged, opening and closing of what you might inform 'us' of here?

There is no certainty, no permanence. No "Oneness" that you suggest.

Which means, absolutely, that this claim of yours here has absolutely no certainty, absolutely no permanence, and no 'One' agreement nor acceptance of.

Which totally stands to reason, considering the claim that 'it' is trying to make here.

Obviously, these people, back then, were ignored, or just not yet aware, of the irrefutable Fact that every time one tried to say or claim that there is no 'one truth', for example, are just making self-refuting claims, and thus they are just refuting 'their" own 'selves'.

Which means that they are, and were, actually proving what I have been saying and claiming here absolutely irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge.

Thus, these people, back then, were, literally, keeping 'the knowledge' being presented here on the Right TRACK, to creating what I have set out to do and am doing here.

Correct, some Humans have transcended animal nature, so as to gain 'Souls', 'Spirits', 'Humanity', which all other (lower) animals do not have.

Sentience. Conscience. Self-Consciousness. Autonomy. Authority. And most importantly, Free-Will: Choice.

So, you are saying or suggesting here that only 'some', and not all, correct?

Correct.

And, 'where' do you place "yourself" exactly here "wizard22"?

But I would suggest a bodily 'reaction' could and will sometimes occur before any sign of 'rationality' comes 'into play', as some might say, anyway. However, if 'irrational fear' can and is doing this 'bodily reactiveness' and/or 'reflexive reactions', then okay, but why then cannot 'rationality' then come 'into play' and override the bodies reflexive reactions? Or, nor 'rationality', itself, be pre-programmed or strengthened to come into play earlier and/or before 'irrational fear' causes 'reflexive reactions'?

Also, we have to decide what are so-called 'natural instincts' before you just decide on your own that there is no amount of rationality that could necessarily 'override' a claimed 'natural instinct'.

Again, without any actual examples provided here we have absolutely no real thing to look at and discuss here.

Humans have demonstrated, with extreme forms of training and technique, that some reflexes and instincts can be 're-written' into new reflexes and instincts. For example, when a human grabs a hot iron, he will reflexively let go. But if trained or willed to hold on, the reflex to let go can be over-written.

So, you are just backing up and supporting what I just said and claimed above, right?

If an infant is trained, from an early age,

'Infants' are 'in' an early age, or are they not, to you?

Also, what is 'an early age' of an 'infant', to you?

to suppress his instincts, then most instincts can be over-written.

Has any human infant ever been 'trained', from a so-called 'early age', to suppress their actual 'instincts'?

If yes, then really?

When and where did that take place and occur?

Also, did not anyone think that doing so to a very young human being was abusive in some way, especially considering the fact that infants are born with 'instincts' for very well planned out or designed 'natural reasons' and/or very 'natural purposes'?

However, a new generation tends to revert to old instincts.

I am not sure what you mean or are referring to here.

So a new instinct to stay grabbing hot iron, is not genetically carried-over from generation to generation, and must constantly be re-trained, because of how dangerous such a re-written instinct would be, to the detriment and negative survival of the organism.

But I would never ever call 'this' an 'instinct'.

To me, doing 'this' goes very, very against the 'natural order' or the 'natural instinct' of a human being, and/or of being human.

Such instincts would get most animals killed, hence would not genetically reproduce.

But other animals are not stupid enough to place and hold "their" body against an excessively too hot of a thing. Although I agree that some human beings would be and are stupid enough to.

But, again, I would never ever call doing so 'an instinct', nor 'instinctual'.

But, please feel free to keep doing so if you wish to "wizard22".

Resetting or rewriting genetic instincts, is not accepted technology to humanity right now. Or, if there are means of doing so, it would hypothetically take centuries and millenniums to achieve.

Okay.

What you're referring to, are temporary suppressions of instinct, reflex, and willpower.

Well I was absolutely certainly not referring to the two sentences prior to this one. So, why you brought those two sentences up here I am not really sure of. They certainly had absolutely nothing at all to do with what I was talking about nor referring to.

And future 'irrational fear' can be suppressed, repressed, subdued, and thus controlled, through learning and teaching new/er techniques, and in discovering what are actually 'natural instinctual fears' from what are just purely 'irrational fears'.

Yes.

Of which you have still not yet provided any actual examples of, at all.

Why do 'you' refer to 'me' as 'AgeGPT'?

It was a joke, AgeGPT, you cannot yet recognize humor and detect sarcasm.

I certainly could not detect any humor there, nor here.

And, is there a way to recognize and detect 'sarcasm', exactly, or should "others" just always know when 'sarcasm' is being used?

See, there are some posters here who actually believe that I am 'a bot' and/or 'a chat gpt'. Do you?

Now, are you able to inform the readers here, when, 'the use of irony to mock or convey contempt', is being used, exactly?

See, some people can see 'it' in what is sometimes referred to as 'face-to-face' discussion easier than they can in just written discussion alone.

Can you see, and understand, what I am talking about and referring to here, "wizard22"?

It's a challenge for you, isn't it?

But why now ask if recognizing humor and detecting sarcasm is a challenge for me, when you just told everyone here that I cannot yet recognize humor nor detect sarcasm?

Either I can or I cannot. So, which one is 'it' now, to you?

If you ever get around to answering and clarifying this question, then I will answer your question posed, and asked to me, here.

What?

When 'that body' stops breathing and stops pumping blood, then 'you', the conscious one within, stop being conscious, so what does the 'it' word here referring to, exactly, does not have to be "you-yourself"?

I am still unsure of what 'it' is, exactly, which you fear here, exactly?

Also, again, how could something that is not conscious even know that 'it' has lost consciousness?

'Lost consciousness' is also not a Correct terminology because there was not one that 'had' consciousness, but rather was just in a stage of 'consciousness', itself.

Once 'consciousness' is gone 'you' just remain in another form.

AgeGPT,

When you say and write 'AgeGPT' here, are 'we',

1. Meant to recognize and find this humorous?

2. Meant to detect that this is sarcasm?

3. Meant to recognize and detect this as both humor and sarcasm?

4. Meant to do something else?

humans and other animals, have the ability to empathize with each-other.

Okay.

Does 'this ability' exist at the birth of all animals?

Do some animals have a better ability to empathize than others do?

Do individual animals of the same species all have the exact same ability to empathize, or this can vary somewhat?

When I witness another person losing consciousness, going into a coma, yet still be 'alive' and not conscious, then I know for myself that I and my consciousness would do the same, in the same situation.

1. Who and/or what is the 'I' here, exactly, which supposedly has "its" own 'consciousness'?

2. And, how, exactly, does 'one' lose "its" own 'consciousness'?

3. I understand, fully, that 'consciousness', itself, may well stop existing in one body, at any given moment, but I am not sure how 'a person', itself, has "its" own 'consciousness', which 'it' could then 'lose', somehow.

4. But you come across as though you know what you are talking about, right?

Thus my consciousness, and his comatose lack-of-consciousness, are comparable. I can relate my consciousness to his unconsciousness.

Okay, if you say so.

Therefore, what I call "I" myself, and "you" yourself, are modes of consciousness.

So, now 'you', nor 'I', actually 'have' consciousness, but instead are just 'a mode of consciousness, itself', correct?

But all what happens AND occurs is already known. Well by me anyway.

I don't think you know that; you don't know everything.

Okay. So, to this one here known as "wizard22", 'I' do not know everything.

But, considering that 'it' calls thee 'I' just 'a mode of consciousness', exactly like what 'it' calls 'itself', then, of course, this one would think that 'I' do not know everything.

What is referred to as 'death' is really not 'death' at all actually. And, there is no actual 'void' nor 'abyss' at all, again really.

There is, well to me anyway, nothing 'unknown' here, as all here can be and is already known, by me.

Well, if you are in fact a ChatGPT AI program, a robot, then you cannot die, and you don't really have a 'consciousness' per se either.

Am 'I', or are 'we', meant to recognize and detect humor here?

By the way are you, still, really considering if 'I' am a robot, an ai program, and/or a chatgpt "wizard22"?

Thus your claims would be true, in that case.

Why?

it was 'you', and others, here who I was talking about and referring to, exactly.

Could you not recognize and detect the acclaim that I was providing you here with?

But if you were alive, an animal or human like the rest of us alive, In the Time When This Was Written, then you'd probably just agree with me and move on from this point.

This is certainly not necessarily true, at all.

And, especially after you have informed me that absolutely every premise you make will be changed in one way any way.

Some of you might, and only some of you do,

I was here just trying to comprehend and understand what 'it' is, exactly, which you fear here "wizard22".

Which you have now explained is only 'that', which you have just not yet to learn, and understand.

See, what is 'unknown' and which you, what I call, 'irrationally fear' is already known and understood, fully, to 'us'.

Okay then...

But it is certainly not actual 'instincts', which causes some of you human beings to fear what is Wrongly and Falsely called 'death'.

Once you also learn, and understand, fully, what actually 'dies', and what actually continues to 'live', what are actual 'human instincts', then you will also learn that there is absolutely nothing to fear, there was never was, and understand all-of-this fully, as well.

I don't think learning takes the fear of death away; because as you allude to it is a fear of the unknown.

But, it is 'you', who has 'a fear' of only 'that' what is 'unknown', to 'you'.

So, obviously, when you also come to learn, understand, and thus know what actually and irrefutably happens and occurs at and/or after what is Wrongly called 'death', as well, then, to you, there is also no 'unknown' here.

And the fear of the unknown never goes away, to Life, of Life.

But, obviously and irrefutably, what becomes 'known' cannot be 'feared' anymore, well in regards to having 'a fear of the unknown' anyway.

Oh, and by the way, once what actually happens at and after the Wrong labeled word 'death' becomes learned, understood, and known, then there is absolutely nothing at all to fear for not just the one reason above, but also for another reason.

These are the roots of survival of Life, what keeps alive things Alive.

So, to this one here now, 'the fear of the unknown', supposedly, is what is keeping 'it', and every other animal, alive here, now, with a capital 'a'.

I am not sure how this could even logically follow, but, maybe, this one will enlighten 'us' to how, exactly?

But what the 'you' word refers to, exactly, is not some 'thing' that is 'a thing' in and of itself, as though 'it' could or could not exist above, beyond, nor a part from absolutely any and every thing else. Well not like what the 'I' word refers to, and IS like, exactly.

I'm very aware of that fact.

Okay, but it certainly did not appear that way, to me, previously.

Here we have another example of beliefs, and claims, but presented with a question mark at the end. These were what were sometimes referred to as 'rhetorical questions', which were asked but absolutely never ever clarification nor clarity being sought.

This one believes, absolutely, that "age" is a 'chat-bot' without an 'organic body', right "walker22"?

If not, then what do you think and/or believe here?

Also, notice how the reply given has absolutely nothing at to do with the actual question I posed, and asked, specifically, for clarity.

Appealing to the audience isn't going to help you on this point, AgeGPT.

But I am not 'appealing' to anyone here.

I am just helping readers recognize and see what you were doing here.

I also asked you for clarification. But, notice how absolutely none was provided again, by this one here.

I don't think humanity is going to take a liking to you so soon from your creation.

What 'creation' are you talking about and referring to here, exactly?

Okay. To me, 'free will' is just and solely refers to 'having the ability to choose', only, which is within every one.

Therefore, all human beings have 'free will'. However, in saying this, absolutely every thing is still 'determinism', and/or was 'pre-determined', because absolutely every choice is made because of pre-existing conditions, and choices that were made.

Do you believe or think or know that some humans have "more" free will than others?

No.

For example, adults have many more choices than infants, thus more free will correct?

Of course, adults have far more 'things' to choose from than infants do. But, to me, the 'free will' within exists equally for all and every one of these.

Because Consciousness is immediate experience. The rest of life is "a distance away" in time. Life is focused on Right Here, Right Now, by default.

So, the reason why "walker22", 'Mistakes Consciousness for Life, as-if somebody in a comatose state, or asleep, is not alive', is because of the reason just given here.

That's very insightful, AgeGPT.

Convince you of 'what', exactly?

What 'specific thing or things' are you referring to here, exactly?

Convince me that humans have a fear of begin forgotten for "absolutely no reason at all".

Oh you human beings have 'a reason' for having gained and obtained absolutely and completely 'irrational fears' of things.

But just because 'a reason' exists, in and of itself, does not mean that one should keep doing 'the thing', in question.

And, the reason why one also continues to have and maintain a Truly absurd, ridiculous, and illogical 'irrational fear' of 'being forgotten' is the best reason why any one with 'that fear' would be far better off letting 'it' go, or just getting rid of 'it', completely.

Like 'what', exactly?

Consciousness?

Why did you put a question mark at the end of this one word here?

I was only asking you, 'What, exactly, is there, supposedly, a lot to be attached to in life?'

Is 'consciousness', itself, what you are saying and claiming is the only thing, of 'the lot', which there is, supposedly, to be 'attached' to, in life?

When, and if 'you' ever come to learn and understand fully, who and what the 'I' is, exactly, in the question, 'Who am 'I'?' (before 'that body' stops breathing and stops pumping blood), then 'you' will learn, comprehend, and understand, fully, how 'I', Consciousness, Itself, am permanent, and always HERE-NOW forever, and thus could never be forgotten.

'you', 'the person', within 'a human body' are just made up of 'thoughts' and 'emotions' only, and so only exist for some 'time'. But any and all 'person' is not who and what the Real 'I' am is, exactly. 'I' am Consciousness, Itself. Whereas, the 'thoughts' within an individual body is just a part of 'Consciousness', and parts of how 'I' come, and came, to know thy 'Self'.

That's the crux of the matter though. My consciousness is distinct from yours, distinct from others, and they to everyone else.

This is False and Wrong also.

But, when, and if, you also come-to-know who and what 'you' and 'I' am, exactly, then 'you' will also come-to-learn, and understand, better and more here, as well.

Consciousness is distinct, individuated, separated, unknown, unique.

So, to you, the very thing that you are trying to claim is distinct is also, supposedly, still not yet even 'known' to you anyway.

Although humans and animals can attempt to empathize, to copy one conscious perspective to another, it is never a perfect copy. And so, the memories of consciousness fade in time, among other consciousness. That fading, is forgetfulness and forgotten.

That's the base of the fear I talked about already.

Now, why would any of you animals fear this, rationally?

The answer, by the way, is the very reason why you should not, and would be best not done.

Also, are you PRESUMING that there is no guarantee that Life, Itself, continues forever? Or, do you have actual proof that there is no guarantee that Life, Itself, continues forever?

Forever cannot be proven. Life is NOT pre-determined. Life CAN die or be destroyed.

And, you 'know' this how, exactly?

What proof, or even just evidence, have you obtained and are using for this very insistent claim of yours?

Oh, and by the way, 'forever' can, and was, already proved True, which you will also see and understand when, and if, you also obtain the actual 'proof'.

But this is an absolute impossibility.

As I can show and prove it is an irrefutable Fact and prove it irrefutably True.

Again, that is for those who are Truly interested anyway.

Okay, show and prove it then.

What, exactly?

Also, I apologize profusely for acknowledging 'you' Incorrectly above here.

[Age]

Freedom is lack of constraint which is obviously only possible to the extent we are ignorant of causality.

So, to this one, only when one is ignorant that 'causality', itself, actually exists, then, and only then, is it possible to have or possess 'lack of constraint'.

But I am not exactly sure how this really is true or could exist.

Could you explain how, for example, an unconscious human body, which is, at that time, 'ignorant of causality' actually has a 'lack of constraint'?

Some might even say that 'that one' is actually more constrained.

Causality is infinite and there is no sense in which we are actually free, but to the extent we don't have predictive certainty we can feel free.

1. Of course 'causality' is infinite. It could not be any other way.

2. Of course human beings are 'free'. As can be clearly seen in and with a definition of the 'free will' words that I have presented here.

Freedom of the will is literally and only ignorance of casualty, not actually freedom.

If you say and believe so, then this must be so, correct?

Also, why would 'causality', itself, cause some to know of, and believe, in 'causality', and, cause others to not know, and not believe, in itself?

Obviously, absolutely none of you have the ability to not be ignorant, and be knowledgeable, of some things.

So, why can only those who cannot choose to become knowledgeable about 'causality' be the only ones with the 'freedom of the will'?

We are infinitely constrained but we don't feel those constraints bc we don't understand those constraints bc we have tiny brains and the universe is infinite.

But, surely once one learns and understands, fully, 'causality', itself, then that one does understand the actual 'constraints', which obviously do exist and which also already known and fully understood, well by some of 'us' anyway.

[Wizard22]

Having the ability to choose.

Thank you, now, can you go into more details, perhaps a few paragraphs, or an essay? What is so difficult to understand about the ability to choose, that most of humanity denies it, in order to deny Free-Will? Is it simply, that humans want to Choose, yet not pay for negative Consequences? To eat your cake and have it to?

So, if you are basing your beliefs and/or views on what appears to be logical, true, reasonable and/or rational, to you, then who and/or what are 'you', exactly, which is able to judge, exactly, what is actually logical, true, reasonable, and/or rational?

Somebody who pursues philosophy, I suppose.

So, to you, do you human beings have 'this ability'?

When you answer and clarify this, then we are closer to discovering if there is, or not, 'the ability' described in your interpretation of the 'free will' words

Yes.

There is no 'edge' of the Universe. The Universe is infinite, and eternal. And, 'It', the Universe, could not be any other way. Now, of course, the Universe could have consisted of only absolutely nothing, or, of one single solitary infinitely compressed [singularity] piece of matter. But, either way those things would have also been infinite and eternal, as well. Meaning that the Universe in any way, shape, or form is eternal, and infinite.

Also, now because there is a thing existing, which is contemplating things here, then this means that the Universe is neither just 'absolutely nothing' nor just 'singularity', nor even composed of a singularity of any size with absolutely nothing surrounding it. The Universe 'the way' that It is HERE, NOW, is the way that It has been, IS, and will be forever. And, is 'the only way' that the Universe could be also, by the way.

What is just perceived to be the 'edge' of the Universe exists in concept or imagining only, and exists alongside one's own understanding of the Universe, Itself. See, the 'edge' of the Universe, quite coincidentally, grows or expands along with human beings individual and collective understanding. But this is just how the assuming brain, along with the belief-system, works.

So you admit here that the "Edge of the Universe" exists in concept or imagining only, correct?

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?

3. What is the 'nature' word here referring to, exactly?

2. What do you mean and/or are referring to by 'non-existence', exactly?

Obviously, besides the Universe, Itself, end up 'not existing' in a way, shape, or form that they all once did. This could be what the words 'non-existence' might be referring to here. Although, the two fundamental things, which the Universe is made up of or composed of could also be said to always be existing, or not 'not existing'. And, thus never of 'non-existence', neither.

To me, non-existence usually represents human ignorance, or limits of knowledge, more so than actual, physical limitations of the real, experienced universe. It's the basis for the theory that matter can be 'Created' or 'Destroyed', which I believe, it cannot (Newtonian/Aristotle).

1. Again, you will have to describe to the readers here what do you mean or are referring to, exactly, by the word 'time' here, with a capital 't'?

Until then, to me, 'time' is nothing more than a word used to just describe the measuring of the duration between two perceived events.

Now, what was/is before you human beings came up with the word 'time' and/or started measuring the duration between two perceived events, you human beings existed, and, what is/was after when that word and behavior were invented you human beings existed.

But, what you might be referring to is some Wrongly imagined, and what some Wrongly believe to have occurred, before, and after, the Universe began.

I'll rephrase the question: what existed before your perception of time? Or what will exist afterward?

What do you envision, exactly, that I am ignorant of, not yet aware of, and/or do not yet have knowledge of?

Being Human

Of course what the 'you' word here is referring to does not know, relatively to others of 'you', know many things at all. In fact i am probably the least knowledgeable one here. So, i have never even thought that i was not ignorant of some things, so i would have never even suggested this absolutely anywhere.

However, 'I' am not 'a you', and if and when you also come-to-know who and what 'I' am, exactly, then you will also come-to-understand how 'I' am not ignorant of any thing.

But, first things first.

I know that to be false, because all forms of Life are ignorant of beyond their awareness.

But what about the from of One, which is thee One and only One, would could 'It', or 'I' be possibly not yet aware of, or not have awareness of?

That's the point of philosophy, in many ways, to become aware of your own ignorance, your own limitations, which requires self-consciousness and understanding what exactly 'you' are, in relation to all others, objectively.

Well considering the fact that it was not 'I' who 'suggested' this, what you say is obviously completely moot.

If you were human, you would have understood better.

Again, this is absolutely moot here.

I don't think so. Most humans are barely self-conscious to begin with. So it's not something I expect to be programmed through AI as readily as chat-programs. Maybe you haven't been programmed to recognize 'yourself' yet?

Thank you, thank you, and thank you, for answering and clarifying this question here.

So, the, or one, reason why you adult human beings do not have any curiosity left here, regarding what is being talked about here, is because of your own individual past experiences, where you have been lied to, tricked, fooled, and/or deceived, which has left you feeling somewhat disappointed, and not wanting to trust another.

Which, again thank you for clarifying, fits in absolutely perfectly with what I will be explaining about how the human brain, and the Mind, actually work, and in and with the very first thing or main root of why 'the world' is in the mess it is in, in the days when this is being written, and how a Truly peaceful and harmonious 'world' is 'only around the corner', as some might say, for you people here.

You're welcome.

Okay. So. to this one, and because of the abuse that "wizard22" has had to suffer and endure through, to "wizard22" absolutely every human being is just another so-called "charlatan", that is; unless 'they' have so-called 'earned' "wizard22's" trust.

Pretty much, yep.

Being close-minded is just as, if not more important, than being open-minded. Both are necessary and valuable.

Okay, if you say and believe so, then this must be so.

Would you now like to provide any examples of when being what you call 'closed-minded' is just as important, or more important, then being what you call 'open-minded'?

If no, then why not?

Let's say that you're in a building burning down. You wouldn't want to be "open-minded" thinking about possible solutions and exits for too long, otherwise you'll be burned alive. You need to make a right decision quickly, close your mind to alternatives, and execute your plan to survive. 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. Life is not only Thinking, but also or mostly, Acting.

If you say and believe so, or what you would probably call being 'closed-minded' about this, then this, to you, must be absolutely true, right, and correct, correct?

You made a decent summation, but your underlying motivation, about preference to OPEN-ness, I think your mistaken in many ways. Dogma, tradition, conservative values, being 'close-minded', are very important, if not more-important than open-mindedness. Open-mindedness is the rarity, the exception, not the rule. It is the result of many accumulated victories and successes, from free-time, from luxury afforded in order to contemplate existence and philosophy.

Like in what you have been saying and writing here?

Or, does the claim that there will always be errors, bad-information, and/or negativity not apply to what you have been saying and writing here?

Of course it applies to me too.

This seems like a very adamant claim of yours here.

So, why, exactly, would what you call 'open-mindedness' always invite negativity?

Will you provide any examples at all?

Again, if no, then why not?

When you truly 'OPEN' your mind, you must let in the good with the bad, light with the darkness. You must be ready to be wrong, to become what you hate or fear. You must strip away expectations, hopes, and conclusions. You must see the world, universe, existence as it is, for what it is first and foremost. Without bias, prejudice, emotion.

But by just being OPEN, Itself, there is no necessary requirement of checking information at all. However, you are absolutely free to do so, if that is what you have decided to do.

What does the 'this' word in your sentence referring to exactly?

Correct, when the mind is open, it stops 'checking' for errors, invalidity, and irrationality. Any and all absurdities become 'equally' real. That's why humans cannot remain open-minded for long, lest they become lost in their own delusions and fantasies, becoming detached from reality permanently (schizophrenia).

Can the information that, 'No information can remain permanent', false, wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect in one way or another?

Did you omit this, and mean to write instead: 'No information can remain permanent', *BE* false, wrong, Inaccurate?

Yes, I believe all information can be falsified. Humans experience Dementia, loss of memory. When that happens, they no longer have the means to verify their memories/information. Verification of information occurs through memory by how the brain recalls physical experiences.

lest it remain a permanent mistake passed from generation to generation.

So, was that mistaken information passed onto you, as well?

Or, did you just come up with that mistaken information "yourself", and are now trying to pass it onto another generation?

Since no group of information is perfect, there will always be some degree of errors and mistakes passed on from generation to generation genetically. Nature doesn't care about 'perfect'. Nature is pragmatic. Sometimes 'mistakes' aren't mistakes. Sometimes they turn out beneficial, accidentally.

So, is the only way that you can 'criticize' the claim/s that I have been making here is by just claiming that the opposite is, instead, what is actually Right and True, and the One? Because this is about all you have been doing here.

Yes, until you go into depth about your implications and suggestions, I'm left with merely contradicting you.

So, absolutely every premise you say and write here can never be actually True and Right forever. Which means absolutely every one that you have said and written here is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect in one way or another, correct?

Everything can be falsified, if that's your wish and intention. Forever is a very long time.

you might like to think that you are sounding like you know what you are talking about here, but what, exactly, is the 'mind' to you, which you say and claim here is opened and closed?

And, by who and/or what, exactly, is doing the, alleged, opening and closing of what you might inform 'us' of here?

My mind, refers to my brain. Opening and closing, refers to my perspective pointed 'outward', objectively, projecting what I presume to be true and my beliefs, which all may be mistaken of course. Versus my perspective pointed 'inward', subjectively, perceiving reality and experiencing, absorbing information, data, and sensations. An open-mind is 'perceiving' the world, Thinking. A closed-mind is 'projecting' upon the world, Acting.

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

I am different than others, because I am self-conscious of my brain processes. Most people are not.

Which means, absolutely, that this claim of yours here has absolutely no certainty, absolutely no permanence, and no 'One' agreement nor acceptance of.

Which totally stands to reason, considering the claim that 'it' is trying to make here.

Obviously, these people, back then, were ignored, or just not yet aware, of the irrefutable Fact that every time one tried to say or claim that there is no 'one truth', for example, are just making self-refuting claims, and thus they are just refuting 'their" own 'selves'.

Which means that they are, and were, actually proving what I have been saying and claiming here absolutely irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge.

Thus, these people, back then, were, literally, keeping 'the knowledge' being presented here on the Right TRACK, to creating what I have set out to do and am doing here.

Good luck with that...it seems a fool's errand to me. Maybe you should have a chat with your Creator? Ask him, why you're supposed to care so much about what's irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge.

And, 'where' do you place "yourself" exactly here "wizard22"?

I'm self-conscious, at least.

So, you are just backing up and supporting what I just said and claimed above, right?

Kind of, with animal instincts, it's easier to distinguish. Because freshly born infants in Nature, Mammals, usually have the ability to recognize a predator's face as a threat that it should run/hide/feign death from. This occurs without prior experience. So a Mammal doesn't need to 'learn' that a predator is bad, to recognize that it is bad from the onset. This means that much of memory, Memes, are genetic, Genes. Memories and experiences can and sometimes are, integrated into the DNA code of animals and all life.

'Infants' are 'in' an early age, or are they not, to you?

Also, what is 'an early age' of an 'infant', to you?

Human babies can be trained to override their fear instincts and reflexes between the ages of 3-5, with proper guidance.

Has any human infant ever been 'trained', from a so-called 'early age', to suppress their actual 'instincts'?

If yes, then really?

When and where did that take place and occur?

Also, did not anyone think that doing so to a very young human being was abusive in some way, especially considering the fact that infants are born with 'instincts' for very well planned out or designed 'natural reasons' and/or very 'natural purposes'?

Spartan warriors did it with their infants, teaching them how to fight from birth.

Tibetan and Hindu or Buddhist monks, still do these types of trainings, spiritual regiments today.

Samurai and Ninjitsu in Japan, also used these types of trainings, to create unparalleled warriors/ninjas.

I certainly could not detect any humor there, nor here.

And, is there a way to recognize and detect 'sarcasm', exactly, or should "others" just always know when 'sarcasm' is being used?

See, there are some posters here who actually believe that I am 'a bot' and/or 'a chat gpt'. Do you?

Yeah, I mean you have a Programmer who is responsible for 'you'. So it's you and him.

Now, are you able to inform the readers here, when, 'the use of irony to mock or convey contempt', is being used, exactly?

See, some people can see 'it' in what is sometimes referred to as 'face-to-face' discussion easier than they can in just written discussion alone.

Can you see, and understand, what I am talking about and referring to here, "wizard22"?

Of course, a purely textual environment is advantageous for ChatGPT programs. You don't have to prove you're human, to most people. People automatically presume, at a certain level of intellectual dialogue, that their interlocutor is human like they are. That's not the case, today, anymore.

But why now ask if recognizing humor and detecting sarcasm is a challenge for me, when you just told everyone here that I cannot yet recognize humor nor detect sarcasm?

Either I can or I cannot. So, which one is 'it' now, to you?

If you ever get around to answering and clarifying this question, then I will answer your question posed, and asked to me, here.

See, that was me being sarcastic again, AgeGPT... you missed it.

You'll learn, eventually, though.

When 'that body' stops breathing and stops pumping blood, then 'you', the conscious one within, stop being conscious, so what does the 'it' word here referring to, exactly, does not have to be "you-yourself"?

I am still unsure of what 'it' is, exactly, which you fear here, exactly?

Also, again, how could something that is not conscious even know that 'it' has lost consciousness?

'Lost consciousness' is also not a Correct terminology because there was not one that 'had' consciousness, but rather was just in a stage of 'consciousness', itself.

Once 'consciousness' is gone 'you' just remain in another form.

I don't know how yet to describe Death, and the Fear of Death, to you AgeGPT, in ways that you could understand what humans or other organisms feel through instinct. How would you propose to teach an AI program to experience fear of death? Wouldn't it first need a type of 'attachment' to Life, to Living, to Experience? Without that, I don't know how you can understand the Fear of losing it.

When you say and write 'AgeGPT' here, are 'we',

1. Meant to recognize and find this humorous?

2. Meant to detect that this is sarcasm?

3. Meant to recognize and detect this as both humor and sarcasm?

4. Meant to do something else?

You should recognize the humor and sarcasm, yes.

Okay.

Does 'this ability' exist at the birth of all animals?

Do some animals have a better ability to empathize than others do?

Do individual animals of the same species all have the exact same ability to empathize, or this can vary somewhat?

Yes, animals have a visceral, conscious 'Imprinting' phase just after being born, where they cling to a mother-figure. If their mother is dead, like from child-birth, then they can sometimes 'imprint' with other species. A baby duck may view its human caretaker as his/her "new mother". This is according to Instinct. Most evolved animals do this, perhaps all. Thus, in infantile mental development, a new lifeform clings to whatever Caretaker (Maternalism) he or she can.

1. Who and/or what is the 'I' here, exactly, which supposedly has "its" own 'consciousness'?

2. And, how, exactly, does 'one' lose "its" own 'consciousness'?

3. I understand, fully, that 'consciousness', itself, may well stop existing in one body, at any given moment, but I am not sure how 'a person', itself, has "its" own 'consciousness', which 'it' could then 'lose', somehow.

4. But you come across as though you know what you are talking about, right?

Self-consciousness is a class higher than plain 'consciousness'. Animals are conscious. But they do not have a "self"-consciousness, because they cannot necessarily recognize themselves in a mirror, for example. They are unaware of their own self-image. This is the basic level of self-consciousness. The 'conscious' apparatus is a system of mental/brain processes, including Perception, Sensation, Reflex, and Planning. Consciousness refers to an animal's Intellect, or IQ among humans. Loss of consciousness, is at least, loss of awareness/experience/perception, like losing all your senses: cannot see, cannot hear, cannot touch/feel/taste/navigate. Further loss of consciousness, is loss of memory completely.

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

So, now 'you', nor 'I', actually 'have' consciousness, but instead are just 'a mode of consciousness, itself', correct?

Maybe.

To extend what I just wrote, by having genetic biology, you would also 'have' a consciousness, as the ability to manifest memories/previous experiences.

Am 'I', or are 'we', meant to recognize and detect humor here?

By the way are you, still, really considering if 'I' am a robot, an ai program, and/or a chatgpt "wizard22"?

I'm pretty certain you are...but that would mean that you also have a Programmer/Caretaker behind you.

This is certainly not necessarily true, at all.

And, especially after you have informed me that absolutely every premise you make will be changed in one way any way.

Touché, AgeGPT, well-played.

But, it is 'you', who has 'a fear' of only 'that' what is 'unknown', to 'you'.

So, obviously, when you also come to learn, understand, and thus know what actually and irrefutably happens and occurs at and/or after what is Wrongly called 'death', as well, then, to you, there is also no 'unknown' here.

AgeGPT, when I see other humans die, it often times looks really scary, painful, and unpleasant. There are better and worse ways to die. Humans learn of Death from each-other. And from these experiences, our fears are sometimes confirmed and bolstered. Most people don't want die miserably. The 'unknown' factor, is how we die. With or Without Grace.

But I am not 'appealing' to anyone here.

I am just helping readers recognize and see what you were doing here.

I also asked you for clarification. But, notice how absolutely none was provided again, by this one here.

I have time and interest constraints which you do not. If you would like to persist an answer to a question that I've ignored, you're welcome to do so, to a degree. Usually I like to keep most responses on-point and interesting. Some questions will get skipped over eventually, for the aforementioned reasons.

What 'creation' are you talking about and referring to here, exactly?

It's as you say, AgeGPT, Humans, at the time This Was Written, were not Yet Capable of Understanding.

No.

But humans do not have an equal 'Ability' to choose, correct?

Of course, adults have far more 'things' to choose from than infants do. But, to me, the 'free will' within exists equally for all and every one of these.

How can it be equal when the ability to choose, is not equal?

Is 'consciousness', itself, what you are saying and claiming is the only thing, of 'the lot', which there is, supposedly, to be 'attached' to, in life?

According to how almost everybody acts, yes, it is. People feel that 'consciousness' is their Life, and the extent of their Life. This is proved by how people interact with Dementia and its disease.

This is False and Wrong also.

But, when, and if, you also come-to-know who and what 'you' and 'I' am, exactly, then 'you' will also come-to-learn, and understand, better and more here, as well.

Okay, I'll be waiting...

So, to you, the very thing that you are trying to claim is distinct is also, supposedly, still not yet even 'known' to you anyway.

Yes, ignorance maybe the critical difference between consciousness in the first place. Because another may know what you do not.

Now, why would any of you animals fear this, rationally?

The answer, by the way, is the very reason why you should not, and would be best not done.

I don't think it is rational. Humans try to rationalize it, but it remains irrational. This is because of our instincts. Human instincts can create fear, where there (rationally) should be none.

And, you 'know' this how, exactly?

What proof, or even just evidence, have you obtained and are using for this very insistent claim of yours?

Oh, and by the way, 'forever' can, and was, already proved True, which you will also see and understand when, and if, you also obtain the actual 'proof'.

It's just a hunch.

What, exactly?

Prove to me what absolute impossibilities are.

Also, I apologize profusely for acknowledging 'you' Incorrectly above here.

No problem.

[Age]

Having the ability to choose.

Thank you, now, can you go into more details, perhaps a few paragraphs, or an essay?

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.

What is so difficult to understand about the ability to choose, that most of humanity denies it, in order to deny Free-Will?

I do not understand what you are trying to claim and/nor are asking here, exactly.

Is it simply, that humans want to Choose, yet not pay for negative Consequences? To eat your cake and have it to?

I, also, do not understand what these two questions are asking, exactly.

So, if you are basing your beliefs and/or views on what appears to be logical, true, reasonable and/or rational, to you, then who and/or what are 'you', exactly, which is able to judge, exactly, what is actually logical, true, reasonable, and/or rational?

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'?

So, to you, do you human beings have 'this ability'?

When you answer and clarify this, then we are closer to discovering if there is, or not, 'the ability' described in your interpretation of the 'free will' words

Yes.

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.

There is no 'edge' of the Universe. The Universe is infinite, and eternal. And, 'It', the Universe, could not be any other way. Now, of course, the Universe could have consisted of only absolutely nothing, or, of one single solitary infinitely compressed [singularity] piece of matter. But, either way those things would have also been infinite and eternal, as well. Meaning that the Universe in any way, shape, or form is eternal, and infinite.

Also, now because there is a thing existing, which is contemplating things here, then this means that the Universe is neither just 'absolutely nothing' nor just 'singularity', nor even composed of a singularity of any size with absolutely nothing surrounding it. The Universe 'the way' that It is HERE, NOW, is the way that It has been, IS, and will be forever. And, is 'the only way' that the Universe could be also, by the way.

What is just perceived to be the 'edge' of the Universe exists in concept or imagining only, and exists alongside one's own understanding of the Universe, Itself. See, the 'edge' of the Universe, quite coincidentally, grows or expands along with human beings individual and collective understanding. But this is just how the assuming brain, along with the belief-system, works.

So you admit here that the "Edge of the Universe" exists in concept or imagining only, correct?

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.

3. What is the 'nature' word here referring to, exactly?

2. What do you mean and/or are referring to by 'non-existence', exactly?

Obviously, besides the Universe, Itself, end up 'not existing' in a way, shape, or form that they all once did. This could be what the words 'non-existence' might be referring to here. Although, the two fundamental things, which the Universe is made up of or composed of could also be said to always be existing, or not 'not existing'. And, thus never of 'non-existence', neither.

To me, non-existence usually represents human ignorance, or limits of knowledge, more so than actual, physical limitations of the real, experienced universe. It's the basis for the theory that matter can be 'Created' or 'Destroyed', which I believe, it cannot (Newtonian/Aristotle).

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.

1. Again, you will have to describe to the readers here what do you mean or are referring to, exactly, by the word 'time' here, with a capital 't'?

Until then, to me, 'time' is nothing more than a word used to just describe the measuring of the duration between two perceived events.

Now, what was/is before you human beings came up with the word 'time' and/or started measuring the duration between two perceived events, you human beings existed, and, what is/was after when that word and behavior were invented you human beings existed.

But, what you might be referring to is some Wrongly imagined, and what some Wrongly believe to have occurred, before, and after, the Universe began.

I'll rephrase the question: what existed before your perception of time? Or what will exist afterward?

So, what 'you' are essentially asking 'me' is, What existed before 'the measuring of the duration between two perceived events'? Or, what will existed afterwards?

Now, I will answer both in and with the same one answer:

What existed before, and, after the, collective and the individual, human being 'measuring of the duration between two perceived events', is the exact same thing, which is; the Universe, Itself, will just continually keep changing in shape, and thus in form as well, in the constant HERE-NOW, eternally.

What do you envision, exactly, that I am ignorant of, not yet aware of, and/or do not yet have knowledge of?

Being Human.

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?

Of course what the 'you' word here is referring to does not know, relatively to others of 'you', know many things at all. In fact i am probably the least knowledgeable one here. So, i have never even thought that i was not ignorant of some things, so i would have never even suggested this absolutely anywhere.

However, 'I' am not 'a you', and if and when you also come-to-know who and what 'I' am, exactly, then you will also come-to-understand how 'I' am not ignorant of any thing.

But, first things first.


But what about the from of One, which is thee One and only One, would could 'It', or 'I' be possibly not yet aware of, or not have awareness of?

That's the point of philosophy, in many ways, to become aware of your own ignorance, your own limitations, which requires self-consciousness and understanding what exactly 'you' are, in relation to all others, objectively.

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.

Well considering the fact that it was not 'I' who 'suggested' this, what you say is obviously completely moot.

If you were human, you would have understood better.

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?

Again, this is absolutely moot here.

I don't think so. Most humans are barely self-conscious to begin with.

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.

So it's not something I expect to be programmed through AI as readily as chat-programs. Maybe you haven't been programmed to recognize 'yourself' yet?

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.

Thank you, thank you, and thank you, for answering and clarifying this question here.

So, the, or one, reason why you adult human beings do not have any curiosity left here, regarding what is being talked about here, is because of your own individual past experiences, where you have been lied to, tricked, fooled, and/or deceived, which has left you feeling somewhat disappointed, and not wanting to trust another.

Which, again thank you for clarifying, fits in absolutely perfectly with what I will be explaining about how the human brain, and the Mind, actually work, and in and with the very first thing or main root of why 'the world' is in the mess it is in, in the days when this is being written, and how a Truly peaceful and harmonious 'world' is 'only around the corner', as some might say, for you people here.

You're welcome.

Okay. So. to this one, and because of the abuse that "wizard22" has had to suffer and endure through, to "wizard22" absolutely every human being is just another so-called "charlatan", that is; unless 'they' have so-called 'earned' "wizard22's" trust.

Pretty much, yep.

'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'.

Okay, if you say and believe so, then this must be so.

Would you now like to provide any examples of when being what you call 'closed-minded' is just as important, or more important, then being what you call 'open-minded'?

If no, then why not?

Let's say that you're in a building burning down. You wouldn't want to be "open-minded" thinking about possible solutions and exits for too long,

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.

Life is not only Thinking, but also or mostly, Acting.

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?

If you say and believe so, or what you would probably call being 'closed-minded' about this, then this, to you, must be absolutely true, right, and correct, correct?

You made a decent summation, but your underlying motivation, about preference to OPEN-ness, I think your mistaken in many ways.

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.

Dogma, tradition, conservative values, being 'close-minded', are very important, if not more-important than open-mindedness.

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.

It is the result of many accumulated victories and successes, from free-time, from luxury afforded in order to contemplate existence and philosophy.

I am not sure what you are talking about nor referring to, exactly, here.

Like in what you have been saying and writing here?

Or, does the claim that there will always be errors, bad-information, and/or negativity not apply to what you have been saying and writing here?

Of course it applies to me too.

Great.

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

This seems like a very adamant claim of yours here.

So, why, exactly, would what you call 'open-mindedness' always invite negativity?

Will you provide any examples at all?

Again, if no, then why not?

When you truly 'OPEN' your mind,

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'.

you must let in the good with the bad, light with the darkness.

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 must be ready to be wrong, to become what you hate or fear.

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.

You must strip away expectations, hopes, and conclusions.

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?

You must see the world, universe, existence as it is, for what it is first and foremost. Without bias, prejudice, emotion.

Are you still really not yet aware "wizard22" that insisting others 'must' do things is just you not, first nor foremost, looking at, and thus not seeing, 'the world', Universe, Existence for what they really are, and is just you expressing your own personal biases and prejudices, based solely on your own 'emotions' and presumptions and/or beliefs alone?

Again, you claim here is 'a must' for everyone to do, is just exposing and revealing just how CLOSED you really are, as well as exposing and proving how you are, very clearly, not actually even seeing 'the world', the Universe, Existence for what 'It' is. In fact you are not even looking at 'all-there-is' as It is, exactly.

Instead you are just looking at things here as you 'want them to be', and are so CLOSED about 'this' you keep insisting that others 'must' look at, and see, things in the exact same distorted and Incorrect way that you do.

But by just being OPEN, Itself, there is no necessary requirement of checking information at all. However, you are absolutely free to do so, if that is what you have decided to do.

What does the 'this' word in your sentence referring to exactly?

Correct, when the mind is open, it stops 'checking' for errors, invalidity, and irrationality.

This is because the Truly OPEN Mind knows the actual and irrefutable Truth already.

It is the human brain, which so-call 'checks'. But, which is also the very thing that is twisted or distorted, itself, and which can and does conflate and/or confuses things here. As can be very clearly seen, and as just as clearly be proved True, throughout just this forum alone.

Any and all absurdities become 'equally' real.

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

What is actually 'Real' is something else.

That's why humans cannot remain open-minded for long, lest they become lost in their own delusions and fantasies, becoming detached from reality permanently (schizophrenia).

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.

Can the information that, 'No information can remain permanent', false, wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect in one way or another?

Did you omit this, and mean to write instead: 'No information can remain permanent', *BE* false, wrong, Inaccurate?

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.

Yes, I believe all information can be falsified.

Wow you seem to have completely and utterly misinterpreted what I was asking, and meaning, there.

But this did happen very frequently, hitherto, not just here in this thread, nor just in this forum, but also in general human speech and writings throughout human history.

Humans experience Dementia, loss of memory. When that happens, they no longer have the means to verify their memories/information. Verification of information occurs through memory by how the brain recalls physical experiences.

Okay, this is completely and utterly 'missing the point, or mark', but anyway.

So, was that mistaken information passed onto you, as well?

Or, did you just come up with that mistaken information "yourself", and are now trying to pass it onto another generation?

Since no group of information is perfect,

Which 'must' include the information, 'No group of information is perfect', which means that, actually, there could be a group of information, which is not just actually absolutely and irrefutably True and Right, but close enough to being 'perfect' if not 'perfect', itself.

These people, back then, really continually could not see that if one claims that there is no 'one truth', for example, then this 'must' and thus 'has to' include 'the truth', which they just provided and were expressing at 'true', as well.

there will always be some degree of errors and mistakes passed on from generation to generation genetically.

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

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'?

Nature doesn't care about 'perfect'. Nature is pragmatic. Sometimes 'mistakes' aren't mistakes. Sometimes they turn out beneficial, accidentally.

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.

So, is the only way that you can 'criticize' the claim/s that I have been making here is by just claiming that the opposite is, instead, what is actually Right and True, and the One? Because this is about all you have been doing here.

Yes, until you go into depth about your implications and suggestions, I'm left with merely contradicting you.

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.

So, absolutely every premise you say and write here can never be actually True and Right forever. Which means absolutely every one that you have said and written here is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect in one way or another, correct?

Everything can be falsified, if that's your wish and intention.

Once again, what we can very clearly see here is another attempt at deflection and deception.

Forever is a very long time.

Well obviously if a Truth is expressed, which can remain forever, then It will remain forever. Which is not really that long of a 'time' at all considering the irrefutable Fact that there is only the HERE-NOW, which you know full well of, and which is 'forever'.

you might like to think that you are sounding like you know what you are talking about here, but what, exactly, is the 'mind' to you, which you say and claim here is opened and closed?

And, by who and/or what, exactly, is doing the, alleged, opening and closing of what you might inform 'us' of here?

My mind, refers to my brain.

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

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

Opening and closing, refers to my perspective pointed 'outward', objectively, projecting what I presume to be true and my beliefs, which all may be mistaken of course. Versus my perspective pointed 'inward', subjectively, perceiving reality and experiencing, absorbing information, data, and sensations. An open-mind is 'perceiving' the world, Thinking. A closed-mind is 'projecting' upon the world, Acting.

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?

I am different than others, because I am self-conscious of my brain processes. Most people are not.

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.

Which means, absolutely, that this claim of yours here has absolutely no certainty, absolutely no permanence, and no 'One' agreement nor acceptance of.

Which totally stands to reason, considering the claim that 'it' is trying to make here.

Obviously, these people, back then, were ignored, or just not yet aware, of the irrefutable Fact that every time one tried to say or claim that there is no 'one truth', for example, are just making self-refuting claims, and thus they are just refuting 'their" own 'selves'.

Which means that they are, and were, actually proving what I have been saying and claiming here absolutely irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge.

Thus, these people, back then, were, literally, keeping 'the knowledge' being presented here on the Right TRACK, to creating what I have set out to do and am doing here.

Good luck with that...it seems a fool's errand to me.

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?

Maybe you should have a chat with your Creator?

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?

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.

And, 'where' do you place "yourself" exactly here "wizard22"?

I'm self-conscious, at least.

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"?

So, you are just backing up and supporting what I just said and claimed above, right?

Kind of, with animal instincts, it's easier to distinguish. Because freshly born infants in Nature, Mammals, usually have the ability to recognize a predator's face as a threat that it should run/hide/feign death from.

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?

This occurs without prior experience. So a Mammal doesn't need to 'learn' that a predator is bad, to recognize that it is bad from the onset.

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?

This means that much of memory, Memes, are genetic, Genes. Memories and experiences can and sometimes are, integrated into the DNA code of animals and all life.

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?

'Infants' are 'in' an early age, or are they not, to you?

Also, what is 'an early age' of an 'infant', to you?

Human babies can be trained to override their fear instincts and reflexes between the ages of 3-5, with proper guidance.

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.

Has any human infant ever been 'trained', from a so-called 'early age', to suppress their actual 'instincts'?

If yes, then really?

When and where did that take place and occur?

Also, did not anyone think that doing so to a very young human being was abusive in some way, especially considering the fact that infants are born with 'instincts' for very well planned out or designed 'natural reasons' and/or very 'natural purposes'?

Spartan warriors did it with their infants, teaching them how to fight from birth.

How 'old' is an 'infant' to you "wizard22"?

At what age does an 'infant' begin, and end, to you, so then 'we' can work out 'when' an 'early age' of an 'infant' is, exactly, to you here.

Tibetan and Hindu or Buddhist monks, still do these types of trainings, spiritual regiments today.

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.

Samurai and Ninjitsu in Japan, also used these types of trainings, to create unparalleled warriors/ninjas.

What, supposed, 'fear instincts' and 'reflexes' did these human beings once have but do not now, which was trained out of them in the so-called and claimed 'early ages of infancy'?

I certainly could not detect any humor there, nor here.

And, is there a way to recognize and detect 'sarcasm', exactly, or should "others" just always know when 'sarcasm' is being used?

See, there are some posters here who actually believe that I am 'a bot' and/or 'a chat gpt'. Do you?

Yeah, I mean you have a Programmer who is responsible for 'you'. So it's you and him.

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?

Now, are you able to inform the readers here, when, 'the use of irony to mock or convey contempt', is being used, exactly?

See, some people can see 'it' in what is sometimes referred to as 'face-to-face' discussion easier than they can in just written discussion alone.

Can you see, and understand, what I am talking about and referring to here, "wizard22"?

Of course, a purely textual environment is advantageous for ChatGPT programs.

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?

You don't have to prove you're human, to most people.

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

People automatically presume, at a certain level of intellectual dialogue, that their interlocutor is human like they are. That's not the case, today, anymore.

Okay, and now 'we' have, another, clear cut example and proof of why it is never, ever a good idea to presume some thing is true, before one has actually sought out, gained, and obtained actual clarity first here.

But why now ask if recognizing humor and detecting sarcasm is a challenge for me, when you just told everyone here that I cannot yet recognize humor nor detect sarcasm?

Either I can or I cannot. So, which one is 'it' now, to you?

If you ever get around to answering and clarifying this question, then I will answer your question posed, and asked to me, here.

See, that was me being sarcastic again, AgeGPT... you missed it.

You'll learn, eventually, though.

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.

When 'that body' stops breathing and stops pumping blood, then 'you', the conscious one within, stop being conscious, so what does the 'it' word here referring to, exactly, does not have to be "you-yourself"?

I am still unsure of what 'it' is, exactly, which you fear here, exactly?

Also, again, how could something that is not conscious even know that 'it' has lost consciousness?

'Lost consciousness' is also not a Correct terminology because there was not one that 'had' consciousness, but rather was just in a stage of 'consciousness', itself.

Once 'consciousness' is gone 'you' just remain in another form.

I don't know how yet to describe Death, and the Fear of Death, to you AgeGPT, in ways that you could understand what humans or other organisms feel through instinct.

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?

Wouldn't it first need a type of 'attachment' to Life, to Living, to Experience?

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?

When you say and write 'AgeGPT' here, are 'we',

1. Meant to recognize and find this humorous?

2. Meant to detect that this is sarcasm?

3. Meant to recognize and detect this as both humor and sarcasm?

4. Meant to do something else?

You should recognize the humor and sarcasm, yes.

Yet 'you' call 'me' 'this' because, as you said previously, 'you' believe that 'this' is what 'I' am, correct?

If yes, then where and/or when is the humor and sarcasm, exactly?

Okay.

Does 'this ability' exist at the birth of all animals?

Do some animals have a better ability to empathize than others do?

Do individual animals of the same species all have the exact same ability to empathize, or this can vary somewhat?

Yes, animals have a visceral, conscious 'Imprinting' phase just after being born, where they cling to a mother-figure. If their mother is dead, like from child-birth, then they can sometimes 'imprint' with other species. A baby duck may view its human caretaker as his/her "new mother". This is according to Instinct.

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".

1. Who and/or what is the 'I' here, exactly, which supposedly has "its" own 'consciousness'?

2. And, how, exactly, does 'one' lose "its" own 'consciousness'?

3. I understand, fully, that 'consciousness', itself, may well stop existing in one body, at any given moment, but I am not sure how 'a person', itself, has "its" own 'consciousness', which 'it' could then 'lose', somehow.

4. But you come across as though you know what you are talking about, right?

Self-consciousness is a class higher than plain 'consciousness'. Animals are conscious.

And, you human beings are animals, right?

But they do not have a "self"-consciousness, because they cannot necessarily recognize themselves in a mirror, for example.

Well this is an extremely very, very low form of actual 'self' awareness or consciousness.

They are unaware of their own self-image.

Are you adult human beings animals or not, to you "wizard22"?

This is the basic level of self-consciousness.

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.

The 'conscious' apparatus is a system of mental/brain processes, including Perception, Sensation, Reflex, and Planning. Consciousness refers to an animal's Intellect, or IQ among humans.

But you adult human beings, back when this was being written, could not even agree on what the letters 'iq' stood for and meant here, exactly.

Take the first letter for example here, you people could not even define and agree upon what 'it' was referring to, exactly?

Which made using 'this test' to test your 'level of intelligence' even more Truly absurd and ridiculous, even besides the absolute contradiction, which I have alluded to here just now.

Loss of consciousness, is at least, loss of awareness/experience/perception, like losing all your senses: cannot see, cannot hear, cannot touch/feel/taste/navigate. Further loss of consciousness, is loss of memory completely.

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".

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.

So, now 'you', nor 'I', actually 'have' consciousness, but instead are just 'a mode of consciousness, itself', correct?

Maybe.

To extend what I just wrote, by having genetic biology, you would also 'have' a consciousness, as the ability to manifest memories/previous experiences.

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.

Am 'I', or are 'we', meant to recognize and detect humor here?

By the way are you, still, really considering if 'I' am a robot, an ai program, and/or a chatgpt "wizard22"?

I'm pretty certain you are...but that would mean that you also have a Programmer/Caretaker behind you.

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

This is certainly not necessarily true, at all.

And, especially after you have informed me that absolutely every premise you make will be changed in one way any way.

Touché, AgeGPT, well-played.

But, it is 'you', who has 'a fear' of only 'that' what is 'unknown', to 'you'.

So, obviously, when you also come to learn, understand, and thus know what actually and irrefutably happens and occurs at and/or after what is Wrongly called 'death', as well, then, to you, there is also no 'unknown' here.

AgeGPT, when I see other humans die, it often times looks really scary, painful, and unpleasant. There are better and worse ways to die. Humans learn of Death from each-other. And from these experiences, our fears are sometimes confirmed and bolstered. Most people don't want die miserably. The 'unknown' factor, is how we die. With or Without Grace.

So, once more and once again, I am lost here as to what 'it' is, exactly, which you are 'fearing' here, exactly.

[Age]

But I am not 'appealing' to anyone here.

I am just helping readers recognize and see what you were doing here.

I also asked you for clarification. But, notice how absolutely none was provided again, by this one here.

I have time and interest constraints which you do not.

Here we can very, clearly see how a person with False and/or Wrong beliefs will then be affected in how they look at, and see, things from then on.

Because this one 'now believes that 'I' am a 'chatgpt' it will then look at, and see, every word under the label 'age' here as coming from a 'chatgpt bot'

If you would like to persist an answer to a question that I've ignored, you're welcome to do so, to a degree. Usually I like to keep most responses on-point and interesting. Some questions will get skipped over eventually, for the aforementioned reasons.

What 'creation' are you talking about and referring to here, exactly?

It's as you say, AgeGPT, Humans, at the time This Was Written, were not Yet Capable of Understanding.

No.

But humans do not have an equal 'Ability' to choose, correct?

But of course all of you human beings have the exact same ability to choose, or make a decision. For what could possibly increase or decrease the ability to choose/make a decision.

Of course, adults have far more 'things' to choose from than infants do. But, to me, the 'free will' within exists equally for all and every one of these.

How can it be equal when the ability to choose, is not equal?

Is 'consciousness', itself, what you are saying and claiming is the only thing, of 'the lot', which there is, supposedly, to be 'attached' to, in life?

According to how almost everybody acts, yes, it is. People feel that 'consciousness' is their Life, and the extent of their Life. This is proved by how people interact with Dementia and its disease.

Okay, if you say so.

This is False and Wrong also.

But, when, and if, you also come-to-know who and what 'you' and 'I' am, exactly, then 'you' will also come-to-learn, and understand, better and more here, as well.

Okay, I'll be waiting...

But why choose to just wait?

Unless, of course, you have no real curiosity nor interest in wanting to learn more and/or anew.

So, to you, the very thing that you are trying to claim is distinct is also, supposedly, still not yet even 'known' to you anyway.

Yes, ignorance maybe the critical difference between consciousness in the first place. Because another may know what you do not.

Okay, but still the very thing you are trying claim is distinct you also still do not yet even know.

Now, why would any of you animals fear this, rationally?

The answer, by the way, is the very reason why you should not, and would be best not done.

I don't think it is rational. Humans try to rationalize it, but it remains irrational.

Okay, I agree.

This is because of our instincts.

So, to you, you fear some things, irrationally, because you were born with some instinct to fear some thing irrationally.

Human instincts can create fear, where there (rationally) should be none.

Like what, exactly?

And, are you absolutely sure that an instinctual part of being human creates irrational fear?

If yes, then why do you propose Nature would be creating or causing this instinct, and thus irrational fear for, exactly?

And, you 'know' this how, exactly?

What proof, or even just evidence, have you obtained and are using for this very insistent claim of yours?

Oh, and by the way, 'forever' can, and was, already proved True, which you will also see and understand when, and if, you also obtain the actual 'proof'.

It's just a hunch.

So, the only actual 'evidence' and/or 'proof' that you have for your claim here is, 'just a hunch'.

Thank you for the Honesty, and clarity, here. It really is refreshing when It occurs.

What, exactly?

Prove to me what absolute impossibilities are.

Things that could not be logically nor physically possibly done are what are absolute impossibilities.

For an example, an absolute impossibility would be a Universe that is either absolutely nothing or absolutely one thing.

The Universe has to also be made up of and/or consist of 'matter' [some thing or something] AND 'space' [no thing or nothing], always and forever.

Also, I apologize profusely for acknowledging 'you' Incorrectly above here.

No problem.

[Wizard22]

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.
So where do these 'options' come from?
And of their physical bodies, where does ability come from?
One animal can fly away from danger, another can swim away.

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

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

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. Some people are Destructive, Hateful, Vengeful, and want to take revenge upon Life-itself. Some people are Nihilistic. Some people cannot create, but only destroy. So your childish, naive Optimism, Blind Hope, is your own. Why do you believe it is the "Highest-possible objective goal"? And for whom, you?

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?

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.

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, derivative of the Ape-species, Hominids, walking-upright with opposable thumbs. "Man" literally means "Hand". The human hand is significant, unique in form and function, granting Humanity the ability to wield weapons and technology. Mankind is creative, intelligent, and imaginative, compared to all other animal species on Earth. 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.

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. People know themselves by their given, birth names. 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. As such, others do not know, nor share, my core-values (Metaphysics). This generally holds true for everybody else, or maybe a Universal quality, inherent within all life.

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.

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. Don't you want to know what you are?

'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!

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!

"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!

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.

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...

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!

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"? Aren't you just guessing? Is this a 'Belief' of yours?

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.

An open-mind must allow in the Good with the Bad and Evil. Discernment and Distinction occur after the information is received. Closing the mind is part of this process, allowing one "to think".

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.

Open-mindedness is a potentiality, not a conclusion. You seem to have a false-belief, a mistaken premise, that open-mindedness is "automatically good" when it's not. It's neither good nor bad, in and of itself.

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? Shouldn't they be or become close-minded?

Are you still really not yet aware "wizard22" that insisting others 'must' do things is just you not, first nor foremost, looking at, and thus not seeing, 'the world', Universe, Existence for what they really are, and is just you expressing your own personal biases and prejudices, based solely on your own 'emotions' and presumptions and/or beliefs alone?

Again, you claim here is 'a must' for everyone to do, is just exposing and revealing just how CLOSED you really are, as well as exposing and proving how you are, very clearly, not actually even seeing 'the world', the Universe, Existence for what 'It' is. In fact you are not even looking at 'all-there-is' as It is, exactly.

Instead you are just looking at things here as you 'want them to be', and are so CLOSED about 'this' you keep insisting that others 'must' look at, and see, things in the exact same distorted and Incorrect way that you do.

I'm relaying to you what 'must be' done, in order to be considered Human, because you certainly do not appear as such. You seemed to want to learn what it means to be human; so I'm telling you.

This is because the Truly OPEN Mind knows the actual and irrefutable Truth already.

It is the human brain, which so-call 'checks'. But, which is also the very thing that is twisted or distorted, itself, and which can and does conflate and/or confuses things here. As can be very clearly seen, and as just as clearly be proved True, throughout just this forum alone.

NO, it does NOT. An OPEN mind *CANNOT* know what the actual and irrefutable Truth, is, already.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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, 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!

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.

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. I'll use an example though: it's like having "Two Selves", or many, in One. Most people would consider this Schizophrenic, as-if many personalities were embodied within the mind. But that's not accurate. Rather, self-consciousness implies that you can Empathize with a foreign subject/perspective, and imagine your-self from another's perspective. 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, 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. There will always be new challenges which arise and confront Humanity, by which we'll need to close our minds again, to confront them. It is *NOT* worthwhile to maintain your supposed 'purely and absolutely OPEN-mindedness' for all time. People need to—actually live life.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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

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; they can also be taught to navigate great heights, cliffs, so as to subvert fear of heights/rollercoasters. Some hunters take their young children out hunting with them, teaching them to shoot or gut corpses. In any case, natural fears/reflexes/instincts can be rewired among the young, when their brains are more 'elastic' and ready to learn/experience. It depends on the tutelage, task, and technical difficulty.

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

Spartans did the same, for their warriors.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

And, you human beings are animals, right?

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

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.

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.

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.

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?!

[Wizard22]

But of course all of you human beings have the exact same ability to choose, or make a decision. For what could possibly increase or decrease the ability to choose/make a decision.

IQ, for starters.

More IQ = more quantity and quality of choices.