Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

[Ichthus77]

Detection of design does not equal paranoia.

Or do you have good reason to be anxious that the design is against you?

That requires good evidence that a) it is about you, and b) you stand to lose something.

[Meno_]

Late at night can’t sleep, patterns came to my mind coincidentally apart from where this is shifting, but basically the shift from ‘it’ to ‘whom’ and identification always keeps popping up repeatedly.

In my opinion that entails loss of objectivity, and that is kind of a game played, between good and bad , like friends of old, yet appearing to mock each other so as to exirbitate the challenge.

Not necessarily to seek to dramatize a contentiously framed matter, where the distinction between what is contained per
rules are contested , for reasons of shifting toward the underlying rules, so as to avoid the embarrassment of avoiding having to face the stark limitations which may curtail total discovery of facts.

The challenge is self prescribed in a forum designated as such, other sources have been recalled to support adjudication as suggested, so what’s the problem?

Perhaps the limits of apprehension are beginning to glimmer through, as such like a general approach to limits always ends up as is the closer it gets to it, the more it violated the aesthetic rule discussed above on several occasions here and elesewhere: that is the pointillistic objectivity of finding formal recognitions of a basic outline is lost among myriad holes, like suggested full of it.

That is one way to get out of it, and perhaps I am not adequately sure of wether this loss of focus , as it might be called, creates an illusive back and forth reflective effect, stuck in the level of basic contradiction.

We are playing this as a game, but I, I suppose we. Can not allow ourself to be able to connect with the now commonly held games befitting think tanks, and I am sure this here game, as well, may loose the ficus in depth which is necessary.

I again suggest a proposition that echoes sentiments that a draw be accepted, since it may have become impossible to fathom a focus which falls away from it’s motive, and that is evident by the very expressions put out as to why the slipping objective’s facts which probably are many fold, turn that need for objectivity into an undesired eternal quest for identifying the causes, as they loose that objectivity.

Swavellis pointed to the dynamic of how it wirks, we need merely observe their effects.

So in my opinion although there is no going back and deny it, and it can not shift into a nihilized and denied responsibility by inquiring into textual meaning, as to what’s real and what is not, we have to call a draw, of another card at least lacking in a clear message trough perplexity, and perhaps it is not a pro po to call it a version of Meno’s paradox a sublet of a higher form of paradox whose name escapes me but will certainly try to recall today.

[Meno_]

Detection of design does not equal paranoia.

Or do you have good reason to be anxious that the design is against you?

That requires good evidence that a) it is about you, and b) you stand to lose something.

Well certainly, it can be said that if there is smoke there is fire, but it is merely provisional here to find a room for this sutuation, or and turn it into a situational room. Awareness does help, to clear the air of the smoke of diffuse environment effects that smart the eye, but the brain may disconnect the brain as a result and work against it’s self as a consequence to treat it’s self wholistically . as a full minded unity.

[Meno_]

_
When da paranoia hits ^^^

and hit it does, but looking at it on the productive sude, it does expose the severe limitations that any fact finding analysis seeking it’s dearth can be used, as if there was nothing to fear but it’s self.

Wonder who said that, rings a bell.


Better to go back to sleep, and forget the incessant call for sleepers awake.

I feel Marx’ dictum regarding loosing apportioned value , without realizing the exact words, another thing needed upon a later reawakening.

See, Ichthus how AI progressively relieves man of concern for every bit, hole lost, which unavoidably becomes far more then just a mild irritation.

It can cause all kinds of myopia building up where the trees can not be seen for the forest, no it’ s the other way around, .

So let’s not any longer beat around the burning bush, and pretend , and I am strictly speaking for myself here, that falling down suddenly will not do as much damage to perceptions as coming up, with the effect of getting the bends. We can not identify the rate of change either way, without a change of perception.

The deal is not off the table ,but personal cognoscenti of limits goes a long way to form the level of generality that can withstand obvious illusive characterization/caricaturization for calls to fold.

[Ichthus77]

*draws card*

On one side it reads:

Women’s Intuition

On the other side it reads:

Women’s Prerogative

so. either way I play it…

…no matter what the game is…

…game over.

Either everybody wins, or everybody loses.

Two can play, Menose. Two. Can. Play.

[Meno_]

Ok win win. gotta sleep and be satisfied the losses were within allowable limit. night.







Thought of it - Marx, diminishing returns now Morpheus




& Michael polanyi’s paradox via meno’s paradox.

[MagsJ]

Detection of design does not equal paranoia.

Or do you have good reason to be anxious that the design is against you?

That requires good evidence that a) it is about you, and b) you stand to lose something.

..all that ^^^

..for this:

Or make a couple more a sock puppets to peer pressure me. Yeah that’ll work.

So if you are aware of that, why do you continue to persist?

Not the most difficult exchange to comprehend and follow.

[Ichthus77]

Methinks you have an inside scoop.

[Meno_]

Fact checking mobeus recycling - step by step upward and downward skipping some at times a flight toward the sun, seeking The Son.

[Meno_]

Fact checking mobeus recycling - step by step upward and downward skipping some at times a flight toward the sun, seeking The Son.

The absolute boggles the mind: proof - the alternative returns diminished by repeatedly futile tests of certainty- resulting in probable credibility.

[MagsJ]

Methinks you have an inside scoop.

..on Meno_? the original, or the copy?

[MagsJ]

Fact checking mobeus recycling - step by step upward and downward skipping some at times a flight toward the sun, seeking The Son.

Icarus much! ..if only they’d known.

I plan to make a klein-bottle model, and test it.. apparently it’s 4d, and 4d is well, you know..

A 3D world, in a 4d space.. who’d have thunk it. 4d is cray, brar.. conjures up all manner of things, ergo.. real-time reality. What’s not to love. : p

[Ichthus77]

Sorry.
https://youtu.be/PA6HYvaXdHU

[MagsJ]

_
This ^^^ is why we can’t have nice things.

..moving on, from the crass..

Fact checking mobeus recycling - step by step upward and downward skipping some at times a flight toward the sun, seeking The Son.

Icarus much! ..if only they’d known.

I plan to make a klein-bottle model, and test it.. apparently it’s 4d, and 4d is well, you know..

A 3D world, in a 4d space.. who’d have thunk it. 4d is cray, brar.. conjures up all manner of things, ergo.. real-time reality. What’s not to love. : p

[Meno_]

Now you know my favorite tune is ;’Nobody knows the trouble I’ve been, nobody knows but Jesus’


I’m cutting (gutting )
self referential Stu(( out. Thinking? The universality of personal experience is expansive, learned that in my budding would/could have published, finally satisfied in becoming a professional reader. Like in Tennesse Williams’ play ‘Suddenly Last Summer, the character only writes one poem per summer, indicating he knows…..