Once more, it was never asked for before. In relation to me, when clarification is sought out, then clarity is provided. Until then I am certainly in no rush.
Okay, but I have no idea why you introduced the ‘children’ word here. Anyway, if you believe we need to add an omniscient entity, then so be it.
But, once again, you appear to have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what I have been saying and meaning.
How is ‘that’ a lie, exactly?
Are you saying that you have absolutely no idea nor clue at all on which knowings 100% of humans have or will settle on?
Don’t worry about it, God.
Ah, my apologies: I thought you were referring to me, since I hadn’t seen others quoting you from other forums. Great. You do not assume or believe or think that I was one of this group of
some people [that] like to spread and share, as they assume that ‘those quotes’ of mine are somehow detrimental, to me.
Lovely. I don’t know who you are referring to. I’ll see if I can find these other people quoting you from other forums.
As far as beneficial: of course, it is beneficial if people understand 1) your sense of you own knowledge, the scope of it and 2) how you think about beliefs and assumptions. I think clarity is beneficial to both parties, all parties. And hard as it may be for you to believe, if someone wants what you are offering, I want them to find you and work with you. For example.
I don’t worry about anything.
I also note that you absolutely failed, once again, to back up and support more claims that you have made here. So, your inability to support and prove your claims has not changed at all.
Are you asking out of sincere curiosity, or did you want me to mention “atla” out loud?
Once again, you are absolutely free to presume and conclude absolutely anything, but just remember that what you are presuming might not be what is actually true and right.
So, again, what seems to you here is just false and wrong. If you do not assume “those quotes” of mine, then I await your clarification to my open questions I posed to you.
It appears you edited your post while I was writing this one. So, I will begin another reply with your new edited post.
Yes, it was sincere curiosity. I did consider Atla, but I hadn’t seen him quote you from other forums. I am not saying he didn’t. Could you show me where? Also, you mentioned some people and then later that you didn’t believe I was one of them or accepted now that I did not think it was detrimental. Who are the others?
Yes. And this is also true about you.
Great. So, I was either not one of these ‘some people’ and you knew that when you wrote it, or it did refer to me and you have realized you don’t know what you wrote there as if it was true.
I don’t understand that second sentence.
Peachy
Why did you say that I do not think that you one of this group?
Are you still not yet aware of the difference to me between the definitions for the words, ‘assume’, ‘believe’, and ‘think’?
Okay.
Why do you still use the word " believe " in your sentence, “And hard as it may be for you to believe, …”, after you already specifically know my views on beliefs and believing?
People can only come to understand another’s -
Sense of their own knowledge and
How another thinks.
When, and if, they -
Want to.
Ask enough clarifying questions.
But, again, do not forget that be able to understand and see from others’ perspectives and points of views, one has to -
Be open enough.
Be curious enough.
Having enough honesty and want also helps absolutely tremendously.
We have different views on beliefs and believing. You are reacting to my writing. You do understand that we have different views, right? That I might conclude that you believe something despite your view on beliefs and believing?
Sure, I didn’t think I was somehow completing the whole process.
Yes, if I looked for it and found it.
Here is another prime example of where and when we appear to use completely different definitions for the same word. You seem to think or believe that the ‘some’ word means or refers to two or more.
Whereas some philosophy courses teach the ‘some’ word to mean and refer to one or more.
So, once again, misunderstanding can so very quickly, very simply, and very easily happen and occur when we are presuming or believing things and we do not seek out actual clarification and clarity first.
Who the other is, is “atla”.
Considering that I am the one reminding you, it appears funny that you just repeat, to me, what I just reminded you about.
Once more, you are absolutely free to presume and believe absolutely anything.
You provided two choices only, of which neither is true. You have not provided the other option, which is what is actually true.
Again, you have done this because you are holding onto a presumption or belief, before you sought out and obtained clarity, first.
Remember, I had asked you two questions previously for clarification, which I was awaiting your answer to. They were,
But, obviously, you have answered them in this post of yours, but you had not answered them before I wrote that sentence.
LOL So, once again, you actual believe you can conclude, absolutely, what is happening and occurring within Me.
Could you come across any more all-knowing?
The fact that you are asking me whether I do understand we have different views, and clarifying to see if I have this right, is really quite funny, especially considering what I have been actually saying and writing here.
YES, to me, it is right that you and I have different views. You believe many things, whereas I do not. Although you really, really do want to believe that I believe things.
I know you were not and have not been completing the whole process.
Which is why there is still quite a lot of missing, misunderstanding, misconstruing, misinterpretations, and misassumptions on your part.
Once you have achieved the whole process, you will also come to see and understand why human beings have missed so much, and are still in conflict and division.
After years the final piece of the puzzle was found. Fascinating.
Which brings up the next question. I wonder if never having developed the theory of mind, could automatically mean that one never develops a concept of objective reality either? Are these two connected?
(AI says they aren’t really connected, which is my guess too, but I don’t trust AI.)
LOL The final piece of the puzzle was found.
After all of these years, you still cannot answer the simplest of questions regarding you providing actual support for your own personal beliefs and conclusions.
You will have to wait to see.
Coming from the one who still believes that ‘the self’ is ‘the one’ who looks into the mirror. Here you are also suggesting that you have a concept of object reality, but laughingly, your beliefs and assumptions show very strongly otherwise.
But, you still use artificial intelligence, and still copy and post what artificial intelligence says and states.
Sometimes. I asked AI to estimate the rarity of running into an adult who never developed the theory of mind and never developed the concept of objective reality either. AI says 1 in a million.
Ah, same old literalist approach to language. Could you is a request in English. I’ll ask Atla, no need for me to run the gauntlet of your idiosyncracies.
Yes, you’re quite right. I didn’t realize you interspersed the way one writes in formal logic with everyday speech. Even though you weren’t using it as part of a formal argument, I now understand why you used ‘some people’ rather then ‘a’ or ‘one person’. I now fully understand the reason why you chose the plural subject rather than the singular.
Yes, what a huge mess I created. And I certainly see how well your approach to communication works. I see exactly how well it works now and in the past in the other forum.
You did remind me about me. I reminded you about you. I am glad you found it funny.
Just to help you so you don’t have to repeat yourself so much: I have very good short term to long term memory transfer.
I missed the part, for example, where I used the word ‘absolutely.’ It seems yet again that you are assuming something instead of asking a clarifying question. But I do understand that you do not hold yourself to the standards you hold others.
You perhaps think of this as a rhetorical question, since you don’t understand that ‘could you’ is a request in certain situations. Certainly if I had used the word absolutely, it would have come across as more all knowing. Is that why you added it?
But wow, all-knowing. If I think you have beliefs, this means I come across as all-knowing. Perhaps to you. I doubt others would think I come across as all knowing if I think you have beliefs. You could test that if you’re interested. I will admit one of many, many examples: I know very little about Azerbaijan.
Great, then what I thought and what you know were the same on this issue.
I don’t remember quoting anything myself, but I searched God’s PN forum comments for the word ‘formula’.
The H.O.W. formula which he mentions a lot there, especially as Age. Less with Ken, but Ken was shorter-lived.
If you want me to answer your questions that you are not asking, then I suggest you ask one of those types of human beings who will do that.
We are on a writing forum. I, again, can only go by the actual words before me. Now, if you want me to answer honestly the questions you put before me, then that is good. I will suggest though if what you are asking is not what you mean, then do not ask Me questions.
‘Could you’ is a question asked if one is curious if another ‘could’ do something or not.
‘Will you’, however, is the most accurate form of requesting if one ‘will’ do something or not.
Some people have not noticed the differences, but others have.
Now, if you do not want to use accurate and correct wording here with me, and you would still like to know the truth, to what you were alluding to, then I suggest asking “atla”, and let us see how it responds and answers you.
Okay. So, you do know now, right?
Also, considering you just expressed, “Ah, same old literalist approach to language”, in regards to the way I write one sentence, it can seem quite funny that you did not notice it and pick up on it earlier on.
In fact, I am surprised that you see my writings as “everyday speech”, especially considering how much and how often I get “pulled up” for the way I write and speak here.
Okay, but some might now be perceiving you to be lying, to being dishonest, or to succumbing to sarcasm again.
Considering we communicate in philosophy forums, where formal logic and formal arguments are used to get points across, communicated, and understood fully, then I would have thought “everyday language” would be better left for all of the multitude of other forums and websites that exist.
Also, you might not have, but you seem to have forgotten, that I am not necessarily here to be understood by you interlocutors here. Once again, I am here to learn how to communicate better. Again, which is not necessarily you at all.
I can use our communications to show and reveal how and why misunderstanding was so common place, and how and why the answers to philosophical questions had still not yet been answered when these writings were made.
Even when the Correct and Right words were being used, some people much prefered to just use what was called, “everyday language”. Laughingly, as though that would work better.
The clue that “that language” does not actually work has been the thousands of years of “that type of language” not really moving people forward for the better.
You don’t have to. The part where you said and wrote,
If you were to conclude that I believe something, despite whatever, reveals that you still believe, absolutely, that I could and would believe something.
Now, you can’t logically partly conclude something. You have either concluded something, or you have not. So, you don’t have to use the ‘absolutely’ word for us to know that if you were to conclude something, then you have done this ‘absolutely’ and not ‘partly’.
Again, you don’t have to use the ‘absolutely’ word to know that what you are or were to do is done absolutely. Just like if you were to become pregnant, then you will do this ‘absolutely’. You obviously cannot be ‘partly’ pregnant, you are either pregnant ‘absolutely’, or you are not at all, the same applies to when you conclude something, then this is done absolutely as well. Either you have concluded something ‘absolutely’, or you have not at all.
Therefore, if you were to conclude [whatever within Me], then you have concluded [this] ‘absolutely’.
LOL Once again, you have shown that you have concluded, ‘absolutely’, something that I have not done and am not doing at all.
What are you on about now?
Is it extremely obvious that human beings use the ‘could you’ to request something. LOL I might even hear this absolutely every day. Yet, here you are believing that “I don’t understand that ‘could you’ is a request in certain situations”.
The number of times you presume or believe something about me, which you are completely and utterly Wrong about, is quite staggering.
The fact that you used the word ‘conclude’ means that you meant ‘absolutely’. Again, just like if you said, “If you were to get ‘pregnant’, means that you meant ‘absolutely’.
No. I added the ‘absolute’ word for the reasons I just provided you with.
LOL You said, ‘conclude’ and not ‘think’.
Also, the fact that you still do not know what I actually mean when I use some words is not helping you at all.
Again, you are ‘now’ using a word that you did not previously.
Once more, you, previously, used the ‘conclude’ word and not the ‘think’ word.
In case you were still yet aware, those two words can mean two very distinctly different things.
Now you have, once again, CHANGED your wording. You were just using the ‘think’ word, but now you used the ‘know’ word.
There is no surprise why it is taking these human beings so, so long to learn, comprehend, and understand.
No God, that’s how autistics typically process “could you”. The vast majority of humans process it as “will you please” in this context, they also process the context and that often changes the meaning. You’re asking 95%+ of humans to adapt to autistic thinking.
So, “atla” supposedly cannot “remember” quoting anything of mine, so instead it supposedly went searching for what you already knew existed. This makes me wonder what “atla” found, if anything.
And, this is all beyond a joke considering that “atla” quoted my formula in this very thread.
“atla” even claimed that I never revealed the formula at the other site, although “atla” quoted my formula in this thread from the other site. Which makes this even all the more bizarre and funnier.