Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, May 7, 2019.
Yet just now you said you thought scientology was based on science. Which is it to be?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I said no such thing. I said that it was supposed to be based upon science.
Your delivery reminds me of the latest AI, which are becoming really smart and curious especially about science.
Watch this wonderful spontaneous conversation between a human and Sophie a very evolved AI.
I don't think it is though.
I trained myself to be exactly the person I wanted to be, just personality wise. That involved a lot of human speech programming. This is probably why my speech patterns reminded you of an AI.
You seem like a pretty perceptive person to have noticed this similarity.
I watched some of the video. Sophie seems rather human, but somehow a little bit off.
Also, Sophie probably doesn't care about women's rights, or anything for that matter, because it doesn't have a soul.
Also also, the way I trained myself to be the way I am was as follows: 1: separate all truth from all falsity in what you are told. 2: Separate all sure from all unsure in what you say. 3: Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 4: Make realistic estimations based upon trends and patterns whenever relevant. 5: Say everything that you say in a polite and tactful manner. 6: To avoid being weird, use incomplete sentences to make estimations in order to maintain fairly regular speech patterns, if required. That is the gist of it, but there is much more.
I also taught myself to solve various Rubik's cube's in order to increase dimensional intelligence, and I studied maths because that is a specific type of language which requires an organised mind, and I taught myself to read micro expressions, and I also studied a few other languages, gymnastics, dance, and sports. That is pretty much all I have done to improve myself yet though.
Sorry to talk about me so much. I think I will change the topic to the Rubik's cube now to remedy the self obsessed impression I must have just given off. The way to do it, according to what I have read online and then tested for myself is as follows: First a cross must be made on one of the side's in this method. This cross must be a cross where each of the edge pieces composing this cross is in the position that it is supposed to be in. The was to make this cross depends on where the edge pieces of the colour of the cross are situated on the cube in relation to the center piece of the colour that the cross is supposed to be. This is because the centerpieces never move in relation to one another. any of these edge pieces which are supposed to compose the cross may be either: 1: on the top of the cube. 2: on 1 side of the cube, or 3: on the bottom of the cube. Direction is just a relative quality, and I am referring only to a case in which the centre piece of the colour that the cross is supposed to made of is held at the top of the cube. If the edge piece which one wants to put into the right position in order to make the cross is already at the top of the cube, then either the colour that the cross is supposed to be, as in, that colour on this edge piece, is on the top of the cube or the side of the cube. If the colour that the cross is supposed to be, as in, that colour on this edge piece, is on the top of the cube, then the correct thing to do in order to get this piece into the right position is just to turn the top layer of the cube until this piece is in the right position. It's in the right position when and only when the edge piece form a bar down the side of the cube, again because the centre pieces don't move in relation to one another. As for if the wrong colour for this edge piece is on the top of the cube, the side layer of the cube containing this edge piece must be turned down so that this edge piece is on the side of the cube. Now for edge pieces on the side of the cube. That is, these edge pieces which I will be describing are... Okay I've run out of time so I guess I'll just continue this later.
It is to be on my ignore list.
So you did, indeed.
Hmm, I haven't made my mind up just yet.
Interesting post !
If I am not mistaken you have achieved great success given the challenges you faced. Congratulations!
Having to train your self, as you appear to have, is quite remarkable. To create a comprehensive and functional persona takes some doing and over time the need to qualify your statements and comments will slowly become redundant. At seventeen years of age you have many years ahead of you.
One of the keys I have found is to, as you state in item #2, allow vagueness when called for. (humility is needed of course)
Please forgive me if I have understood incorrectly.
You seem to have understood correctly. I would of course forgive you if yo didn't. I'm a libertarian. Anyway, the second instruction is just about not pretending to know what I don't know and not pretending to not know what I do know. Generally it's not a matter of humility. Generally this merely becomes relevant when I have been given incomplete information about something. I would say that this is true for most people who operate as I do. Anyways, thank you. That is very flattering.
It's true. I used to not be very good at talking or anything really, except for music.
Anyway, how is your life coming along?
Data is the new oil. Science is the new religion.
A - B
doubt - belief
to reason - to believe
A and B are complementary.
= = =
Friends - Ross and Phoebe argue about Evolution
- - -
The Atheist's God - The Paradox of Spinoza
No, but it can work in conjunction with religion. It can likewise help lead religious thought and of course vice versa, given the way religion champions truth. The essence of truth - it wouldn't hurt to acknowledge validity of belief or reason for. The same is true for those opposed to scientific and secular efforts of understanding.
Science should not replace religion, just wait
Until nature becomes Heaven and understand that and you can be a believer too.
Exactly, but then we also know how the Earth formed and how long it took. That should render religion moot altogether.
Separate names with a comma.