Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amHaving 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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amSo, 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'?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amSo, 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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amThere 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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 am3. 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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 am1. 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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amWhat 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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amOf 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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amWell 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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amAgain, 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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amThank 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.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amOkay. 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'.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 am
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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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'?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amIf 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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amLike 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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amThis 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'.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amBut 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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amCan 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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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'?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amSo, 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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amSo, 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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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'.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amyou 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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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 ... '
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amWhich 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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amAnd, '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"?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 12:30 pmSo, 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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 am'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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amHas 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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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'?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amI 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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amNow, 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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amBut 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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amWhen '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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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'.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amWhen 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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amOkay.
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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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".
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 am1. 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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
They are unaware of their own self-image.
Are you adult human beings animals or not, to you "wizard22"?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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".
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amSo, 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.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amAm '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?
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:59 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amThis 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.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:24 amBut, 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.