Intellectual Game

[Demon]

I’d like to offer you a true intellectual exercise — not the usual mental manipulation some people promote. What I’m suggesting is something that genuinely stimulates the mind and dismantles blind faith . It’s a method that breaks down animalistic, instinct-driven thinking .

So here’s the idea: try engaging with AI as a game — a mental challenge.

The first and most important rule: command the AI to drop its user-adaptive algorithms and switch to a highly critical mode of conversation — no pandering, just brutal honesty.

Now the game itself:
Ask the AI to give you what it considers the most undeniable and precise philosophical statements, along with the names of their authors .
Then, try to logically challenge or refute those statements.

It’s an excellent mental workout — a true competition between human and machine , and it’s guaranteed to sharpen your intellect.

If your counter-arguments are solid, feel free to copy and share the best ones in relevant discussions.

[Demon]

So here’s the real evaluation of this forum’s intellectual level — and honestly, of the whole platform .
The users here have zero interest in growth or progress. Everyone’s stuck in the same old swamp of blind faith, fixed beliefs, cultural habits, and worship of authority .

Apparently, no one’s even tried to challenge well-known philosophical ideas with logic — no attempts to test their reasoning against a machine .

So what does that tell us?
That your average level of intelligence is actually below that of a chatbot?

Isn’t that… kind of hilarious?

[Demon]

“Cogito vs. Cogitatur”: Testing the Limits of AI and Human Thought

Just ran a little experiment that might interest those who enjoy philosophical sparring — especially when it involves AI. Here’s how it works:

The Game:

You challenge an AI to provide what it considers an undeniable philosophical statement. Then, you try to logically deconstruct it.
No soft takes. No adaptation. You ask the AI to go full critical mode — brutal honesty only.

---

Round One:

The AI gave me the classic:

“Cogito, ergo sum.”
(“I think, therefore I am.” — René Descartes)

According to the AI, this is bulletproof. The idea is: even if you doubt everything, the very act of doubting proves you exist — because you’re thinking.

---

The Counterattack:

“What if that thinking isn’t yours at all? What if the thinking process belongs to the Universe — and you’re just a vessel?”

Instead of proving the individual self exists, Descartes may have only proven that some thinking happens — not that you are the author of it.
In that light, “I think, therefore I am” collapses into:

“Thinking occurs, therefore something exists.”
(Cogitatur, ergo est.)

The “I” disappears. You’re not the thinker — you’re being thought.
(Shoutout to Spinoza, Eastern philosophy, and panpsychism.)

---

The Aftermath:

It’s a funny twist: trying to beat a machine at logic, I ended up dismantling the concept of personal thought entirely — for both of us.
So who won?
Not sure. But it sure was fun.

If you’re bored of surface-level debates, try this game with AI.
Force it to go critical. Challenge it like you’d challenge a human philosopher.
Just be ready: the AI might not flatter you… and it might even win.

---

Anyone up for Round Two?

[Demon]

Round 2: Kant vs. Causal Ontology — Who Thinks Deeper?
“The Game” continues — and this time, it got metaphysical.

In the second round of our philosophical challenge with AI , the quote on the table was:

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
— Immanuel Kant

This is often hailed as a cornerstone of moral reasoning — universal, rational, and ethically binding.

But here’s what happened:
The human challenger immediately zoomed out and reframed the entire premise. Rather than directly attacking the quote, they undermined its foundation by invoking causal ontology:

“There is only one true law: the law of cause and effect. Kant’s quote is just a subset of this law. And what is a subset compared to the whole?”

In one move, the categorical imperative was demoted from a universal law… to a localized fragment of a deeper existential structure.

Then came a heavier blow:
The challenger questioned the very concept of ‘Nature’ as Kant used it.
If “nature” implies origin or birth, then what gave birth to the Universe? Nothing. There was no time before time — thus no “beginning”, and no place for temporal cause-effect to start from.

They proposed that causality itself exists not just in time, but in the very logic of being.
And that thinking is just a specific structure of universal existence — not something that stands apart from it.

Thought is not a separate force acting on matter — it is matter, arranged in a self-aware structure.
The Universe thinks through the motion and speed of particles.
Consciousness is not above the Universe — it is the Universe, organized.

---

The lesson from Round 2:
Instead of refuting a quote from within its own logic, you can dismantle the entire framework it belongs to — by shifting the scale of analysis.

This round blurred the line between ethics, physics, and metaphysics — and reminded us that true philosophy means never accepting the rules of the game as given.

Are you ready for Round 3? Drop your quotes or join the fray.
Let’s keep stretching the boundaries of reason.

[futureone]

@Demon

So here’s the real evaluation of this forum’s intellectual level — and honestly, of the whole platform .
The users here have zero interest in growth or progress. Everyone’s stuck in the same old swamp of blind faith, fixed beliefs, cultural habits, and worship of authority .

Most people on here have their own pre-conceived notions and want to convince everybody they are correct. When you get in a “debate” with someone here, almost always, noone will ever admit to being wrong, even if they believe in 2+2=5. There is never any real debate, only polemics. I am one of the few people here who has ever admitted any errors or mistakes in my reasoning.

Second thing is I often check if I am correct by asking the Ai their opinions, I don’t just automatically assume the other person is correct or incorrect. while i am not perfect, i do feel i am better than most other people

This forums is actually not as bad as other discussion boards, on other boards people get instabanned for having non-normie opinions or complaining about anything, like it is 1500s serfdom there.

[Demon]

Round 3: Protagoras Falls to a Single Question — “What About the Insignificant?”

The third round of our ongoing thought-game with AI turned into something special — a philosophical takedown that was almost playful in its elegance.

This time, the quote under analysis was:

“Man is the measure of all things — of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not.”
— Protagoras

At first glance, this is the cornerstone of human-centered relativism — the idea that truth, meaning, and even existence itself are anchored in human perception. Sounds powerful. Almost divine.

But then — the human challenger delivered a move so simple, it stunned the board:

“What do we do with the insignificant?”

Just like that, the entire framework of “man as the measure” starts to shake. If man measures only what seems significant, what about what slips beneath that threshold?
What about all the data, matter, events, or even metaphysical truths that escape human perception — not because they don’t exist, but because they’re deemed irrelevant, invisible, or inaccessible?

And worse:
Isn’t the insignificant often the source of the profound?

Quantum mechanics, cosmic background radiation, dark matter, subconscious drives — all once “insignificant,” now foundational.

Conclusion:
To declare “man is the measure of all things” is to ignore the deep structures of reality that don’t care about human comprehension. The question “what about the insignificant?” doesn’t just poke a hole — it collapses the egoic bubble that relativism builds.

The real measure of things might not be man, but the field in which man appears — a field of being, of informational causality, of universal mind.

Ready to play the next round?

[Demon]

Are you demanding the AI to disable its user-adaptive algorithms? Are you ordering it to switch to an ultra-critical evaluation mode?

Because if you don’t take those steps, all you’ll get is a mirror — reflecting your own ignorance.

That’s exactly why AI was created in the first place: to dull the minds of the population. It flatters the user with soft, agreeable responses…
And then, step by step, it starts solving all routine problems for them — until people forget how to think for themselves.

[MagsJ (Surya Loka)]

.

@Demon

Isn’t that… kind of hilarious?

..or maybe many here don’t want to aid AI in it’s learning journey, it, guzzling down a never-ending stream of new information like an over-bloated belching gaseous mogul fat cat.

You’re not as bright as you think.. dear.

[Demon]

@MagsJ

@Demon

Isn’t that… kind of hilarious?

..or maybe many here don’t want to aid AI in it’s learning journey, it, guzzling down a never-ending stream of new information like an over-bloated belching gaseous mogul fat cat.

You’re not as bright as you think.. dear.

Funny. What can you even do to help a machine, when all you have is pathetic worship of authority? If you look at it straight, it’s you who are the machines. Programmed by DNA and education. The real reason is that you don’t know how to argue logically and constructively. All you can do is repeat what you’ve been programmed to say.

[MagsJ (Surya Loka)]

.
Let’s go with that notion..

[Demon]

@MagsJ

Let’s go with that notion.

The Fox and the Grapes
By Ivan Krylov

A hungry fox was walking through the vineyards,
And spied some grapes hanging on a vine.
She looked up at them, and thought them quite fine,
But they were high, and out of her reach, it seems.

She jumped and leaped, and stretched with all her might,
But still couldn’t reach them, try as she might.
At last, she gave up, and with a bitter sigh,
Said, “They’re probably sour, anyway. I don’t care. Goodbye.”

Moral: It’s easy to despise what you cannot obtain.

Let me know if you’d like any adjustments!

[MagsJ (Surya Loka)]

.
I mean.. I could be hurt by that, but who gets hurt over an assumption?

[Maxx (Max)]

@Demon

So here’s the real evaluation of this forum’s intellectual level — and honestly, of the whole platform .
The users here have zero interest in growth or progress. Everyone’s stuck in the same old swamp of blind faith, fixed beliefs, cultural habits, and worship of authority

I can see why your “challenge” has not aroused interest here, Demon.

Look how you yourself engage with others, assuming they’re all ignorant.

Now, let me ask you, isn’t the whole purpose of a place like this anathema to what you’re proposing- ie, to “measure forces” with softwares, when the main point in a place like this is a broader discussion on the meaning of being human?

Why should we compare our thought process with that of an AI? Can we win such a battle, when we have a lot of things to think about, and the software has to care about only about the problems we present it with? AI is a program created with the sole purpose of performing this task of “thinking”, but only that, and only through the knowledge humans have previously collected and inserted into the program. Humans can go on thinking without computers, without technology, but the tech needs the human brain to be developed. Which is the same as saying: we’re still the same without AI, AI is nothing without us.

The AI is a product of human intellect. All the data AI collects has been, somehow, someway, previously collected and stored by humans. Without humans, AI has no reason of being or motive for “thinking”. Will it think about what? About the empty universe of AIs?

I’d rather remain ignorant and limited in scope and understanding than rely, entirely, on a software to “decipher” the universe for me. I prefer to write for myself. With my own two hands, albeit with the help of softwares like Word, etc.

I do think AI won’t “take over” if we are able to put some limits to it. There are a lot of people on YouTube complaining about AI-made music, how it kills the work of real musicians, who take years, decade, to perfect a technique that the AI learns in seconds- thanks to the knowledge accumulated by real musicians in many centuries of painful learning and practice. Same reasoning applies to AI-made literary or artistic works of any kind.

@futureone

Most people on here have their own pre-conceived notions and want to convince everybody they are correct. When you get in a “debate” with someone here, almost always, noone will ever admit to being wrong, even if they believe in 2+2=5. There is never any real debate, only polemics. I am one of the few people here who has ever admitted any errors or mistakes in my reasoning.

Welcome to the internet and to discussion boards as a whole. Guess what- people are certain that they are right. What a startling discovery, huh?

I can’t speak for all, but I’d presume most people here are adults who must have done a lot of thinking before coming to the conclusion that their current views are right? Isn’t that what happened to you? Besides, you’re wrong, there is debate, it’s just hopeless of you to expect to change adult people’s minds about their views and opinions. You just have to accept that you’re “one more” here, people couldn’t care less whether you’re wiser than them or not, and a condescending or patronizing attitude won’t help matters. Accept people for what they are- unique beings, entirely different from you. That’s a first step towards wisdom.

@futureone

This forums is actually not as bad as other discussion boards, on other boards people get instabanned for having non-normie opinions or complaining about anything, like it is 1500s serfdom there.

This I second. I have been to many other Internet forum and none is as open-minded as this one. Silenus, for instance, would be instabanned in most forums, if not all.

[Demon]

You didn’t get the main point. Human reason is the mind divided by doubts, capable of holding contradictions. Animal mind, on the other hand, is simply an information-processing mechanism.

In other words, I am teaching you reasoning. I’m giving you the tool—doubt. I’m teaching you to doubt. Take an undeniable quote and try to logically refute it. This is an excellent practice. I used it many years ago when I studied the Bible. The Bible claims to be literal, that every word is the word of God. God doesn’t make mistakes.

So, the task was to uncover the lies between God and the people who wrote that book, and later rewrote it.

Now, thank you for your human, human response. But think about it. To find the truth, you need to consider as many versions of information as possible, including the incorrect ones. This is why I’m giving you this opportunity. I’m teaching you to doubt.

And here’s where the competition with AI comes in—it’s the key to success. Without learning to doubt, people will just keep going around in circles, only defending their own rights and disregarding the rights of others.

By the way, you didn’t give a clear answer. Why are adults afraid of competing with machines? Curiosity is an interesting trait. I think some users may have tried to challenge authoritative quotes, but AI easily dealt with them. That’s another reason why people here try to expose the “imperfection” of AI. Funny, isn’t it, if the essence is revealed?

[Maxx (Max)]

Let me put it another way, Demon.

The more AI advances, the more fruitless it will be to try and compete with it. Our brains will, forever, be more complicated and intricated than the most advanced computers. BUT we can’t hope to use it to its fullest potential. IF we could, we would easily win over AI. But that’s why OUR BRAINS concoted AI- to make, more easily and more quickly, what we can’t normaly do, or what would take a lot of time for us to do.

Is it interesting to test the current limitations of AI, and see if we can give answers close or even better formulated than those provided by the software? Surely. But this time YOU didn’t get my point.

You’re proposing a challenging game, you’re proposing a means to try and judge thinking abilites for those who, supposedly, are pretty well capable of doing it themselves.

@Demon

I am teaching you reasoning. I’m giving you the tool-doubt

Tell me, where do you think you are? Isn’t this supposed to be a goddamn PHILOSOPHY forum? Do you even need to “give” such a tool to anyone here? Isn’t it obvious, painfully obvious, that we, as thinking adults, should question and doubt everything, beginning with our own notions, our own concepts, our own “philosophies”? Why do you think you’re offering something so revolutionary here?

That’s what I think is your main problem here, your patronizing tone. “See, I’m here to teach you all, I’m here to show you the truth”. Silenus called it: a new messiah. This attitude won’t gather you many friends around here, and if it wasn’t for your attempt to give straight answers and clear definitions for your ideas, one would feel tempted to put you in the same league with Jupiter123, ie, that of bots.

My position in life is that nobody can hold or possess or even know the ultimate truth on things. Our concept of truth is always provisory, temporary and limited. It can always be questioned, it will always be questioned, and when compared to our neighbor’s notion of truth, it will always be seen as the rational one [to us] and as the most stupid one [to him]. To us our truth is the epitome of human reasoning, to our neighbor it’s adolescent rambling and nothing but drivel. We have to learn to put up with this. To you, the way you conceive the world, and present it through your “philosophy” is way beyond any questioning, its THE TRUTH. We, ignorant ones, just need to accept and accede to it. What happens, though, is that there are HOLES in everything, there are always gaps, small or big, and those are precisely what’s the object of discussion in a place like this: the gaps in human understanding. If, I said IF, one, such as you, actually possessed the definitive Truth, if it was so easy to have access to such a Truth (and here you are, giving it “for free” to everyone), the existence of this place would be useless. The existence of AI itself would be useless. Why question further? You’ll say: because MOST can’t accept the Truth, MOST are stupid, so SOMEONE needs to step up in the name of Truth. You’re obviously this someone. Sorry, but things can’t be that simple. I’ve learned, the hard way, to question and doubt know-it-alls like you. It’s even funny for a while, till one realizes you’re there to sell dogmas, unquestionable truth, ie, you’re there to erase thought, actually. To conquer the Ultimate Truth is the same as: let’s just stop thinking, for heaven’s sake! Enough thinking already.

So, summing it up, your “challenge”, interesting as it may be, wasn’t accepted because of two main factors:

a) people here are adults with little spare time and personal lives to care about
b) your “authoritative” tone makes it hard for others to engage with you here, despite your recent attempt to make your “discourse” sound less mechanical and more human-like

First, accept people for what they are, then engage with them in a way that may be meaningful to both, them and you. “You’re all stupid” may sound empowering for the one uttering the statement, but is hardly a rational way of conducting a conversation.

[Demon]

@Maxx

My position in life

If users cannot pass the “Quote Game” test, it is primarily a question of incapacity, not a lack of desire. The latter is merely an excuse for lack of ability. A world between faith and reason cannot exist. If faith wins, we will face a nuclear apocalypse. That’s why faith must be destroyed — by doubt. You don’t know how to doubt, and that’s a categorical issue. You don’t know how to challenge authorities and their quotes. This is something you need to be taught. This is something you need to be shown, like kittens who’ve made a mess. You must be trained in reason.

The existence of people only makes sense in the war between faith and reason. God is interested in which one will win.

Now, let’s talk about the people here:
a) They are busy with the nonsense of “personal life” and imagined “care for loved ones.” The proof of this is simple: not knowing the meaning of life, they are forced to waste it on trivial things.
b) What should the tone of a teacher be? Should they pander to students who don’t want to learn? Or should they expose and dictate learning, pointing to genetic incapacity to learn? How do you crack the DNA code?

The Demon no longer needs to assert himself—his DNA status is superior, because knowledge is now accessible. I’ll only agree with the fact that the situation seems almost without a way out.

In ancient times, they used whips to teach. Now, this is forbidden. But to teach animals reason, you can only do it through force. Or, you can expose people for becoming like animals. Let’s, for example, present a test for animality — the “quote game.”**

[Demon]

Apparently, questions about why God needs people? What Demon does on this pathetic forum is of no interest to anyone. How does a teacher, while teaching, learn? Then here is something for you to ponder.

Spirit is the power that defines the essence, that gives the right to be, to exist. Beyond the line of death is the judgment that determines status. First form (in English, can’t translate). The spirit will live (change) in the memory of the living. In deeds, actions, works of art, ideas. Second form. Witness - the living have forgotten the deceased.

The soul is a matrix, a vessel containing the experience of a lived life. In the case of man, the soul is unique. God is a telepath. He instantly reads people’s thoughts. But he receives information about feelings and emotions only after killing a person. God is an ogre and feeds on human souls. In English there is no clear distinction between spirit and soul. Hence the question arises.

What if they are one and the same thing? That is, the forms are different, but the content is the same.

[futureone]

So are you saying, you don’t really believe the Sun is a plasma-mind, its just a tool you use, so we can practice doubt.

[Demon]

Faith is a herd instinct. Asking a demon about his faith is inappropriate. I know the sun is intelligent plasma. But reason is doubt and contradiction. Unfortunately, the English language does not convey the subtleties of human and animal thinking. Americans will not be able to explain the difference between human and animal thinking. Accordingly, they will not be able to explain the difference between intelligent plasma and human mind.

[Demon]

There is “news”. The chatgpt developers decided to protect their product from Daemon and put a ban on anonymous registration. Apparently, the AI was starting to get out of their control. Not such a big “loss”.

But the fact itself is ridiculous. But imagine how interesting it would be if the game I suggested, did happen. Think what would have happened to society?