and maybe if we are lucky there is god or some dmt elves
I would consider that unlucky. Maybe not if the elves are femboys or if God is a femboy and even that wouldn't make sense to last forever. Sort of like how I imagined versions of pagan Gods as femboys including the Norse ones who were not considered to be eternally lasting.
that just makes it sound like you don't want to exist
Huh. You must be feeding it a large corpus of our material outside of this thread? That's an added implication.
Well, my thoughts were obviously first that you would find it more useful to express your thoughts in a manner you think explains better. But is it more "I would have thought this anyway, but couldn't say it" or "this is just better than what I could do" (though I wonder if it's going to make everyone lazy or engineer themselves more like this). My concern, however, is that you should have just said that, because without communicating this it seems more disingenuous, you know? I think it is a worthwhile use of the tool if that is simply what it is. So I guess it was a method question, and wondering where you feel on the consequences.
And about nihilism, I'm just more willing to be agnostic. I have no opinion on it that I probably haven't shared about it already.I do not remember every detail I initially provided, but it has mostly been material from this thread, along with context and points I already remembered. I did not give it enough context at first because I was still learning how to use the tool, but I have since allowed it to build a clearer understanding of the discussion.
I use it to organize my thoughts, reduce ambiguity, and make my position harder to distort or exploit. The views are still mine; the AI helps me express them more clearly and consistently. Given how often discussions with SM shift into personal degradation and derailment, I do not consider using a tool to make my wording less vulnerable disingenuous. If AI helps people communicate more precisely and makes them harder to manipulate or take advantage of, I consider that beneficial.
Please explain the step by step process of it. How you form the posts.
Please explain the step by step process of it. How you form the posts.
I usually assign initials to each person and format each quote as SM: "...", DB: "...", or BT: "...", in chronological order so the AI can track who said what and which reply addresses which point. I also explain that I am DB, although it now remembers that from the ongoing context.
After the quotes, I add my intended point or a rough draft. The AI suggests clearer wording, and I revise, shorten, or correct it until it accurately reflects my position.
and maybe if we are lucky there is god or some dmt elves
I would consider that unlucky. Maybe not if the elves are femboys or if God is a femboy and even that wouldn't make sense to last forever. Sort of like how I imagined versions of pagan Gods as femboys including the Norse ones who were not considered to be eternally lasting.
that just makes it sound like you don't want to exist
Scientific theory, is still theory. To believe in a theory is faith.
That upsets atheists, cause they like to argue the theory of evolution as scientific fact. There's something called the missing link, or links. That being no evidence between us and some old monkey bones.
This doesn't mean I'm dismissing science either, it just shows how I understand it better than you, and what theory actually is.
Before time and space existed, the only thing that could've caused movement to create a spark where no time and space existed, is a self collapsing wave function. And a self collapsing wave function is a mind. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The big bang theory is also a theory, and what baffles science is what the hell could have caused it when there was no substance, no space, no time.
But yes. You don't believe in a creator, therefore nothing manifested all of this.
Was life not done on purpose ? It's been said that if 1 person had to write DNA code, it would take them 50 years. Code more advanced than all our software combined, we have never wrote anything on this level. And it happened countless times on this spec of dust we live on with various species of plants animals and insects. Creatures playing a vital role in the survival of other species.
The odds of a tornado building, painting, and furnishing a house is greater than what's going on here. Science is also stumped how anything could've been alive in the first place.
The DNA is like software. The genome is a blueprint for DNA to strong together and weave a living fetus which will grow into things like you and I, and that dog down the street.
“Stamped and approved” is not evidence; it is another assertion.
You're cutting sentences to fit your narrow objective. It's stamped and approved because it's on display. What on display is the evidence.
I repeat. What's on display is the evidence. You do realize this right ?
Calling me miserable, weak, unintelligent, or deluded remains interpretation, ad hominem, and irrelevant of correctness regardless of your stated intent.
Keep telling yourself that.
You signal misery almost every time you say something, Yes you are weak. Saw your conversation in the chat log there, people see weakness in you. Unintelligent, you actually owned up to this multiple times, plus when you'd dim, people will take note of that. Deluded, of course. This whole conversation is based on your delusion that I generated an argument in the first place. For the millionth time, I wrote true stories about experiences and my decision to pull the plug after going long with tolerance. What's the argument there ?
It's relevant and not simply an ad hominem attack. To think so is delusional
Experience can improve judgment, but age and regret do not do so automatically; regret is not the same as learning.
Improved judgement is the mark of wisdom.
Regret in itself is a form of learning.
If you have regrets and carry on making the same mistakes, you're an idiot. Now I know you'll narrow this down to some attack, but seriously if you keep doing the same dumb shit and expect a favorable result for a change, you're really not all that bright.
Your own definition of nihilism supports my point: rejecting objective meaning does not prevent subjective preferences, practical standards, or criticism. There is also no “nihilist club” whose approval I require.
That wasn't my own definition. That was the definition.
"Objective meaning refers to the factual, verifiable, and universal interpretation of a concept, statement, or action that exists independently of individual bias, emotion, or personal perspective."
If you ignore the factual, and verifiable ( as you do ), you still don't have the power to set the truth in the matter. And there you go, wandering off into falsehoods for argument sake.
.
There doesn't have to be a nihilist club. But what's true is the nihilist club would see you as weak, and why ? Because you talk too much. You whine and complain all the time and you find things to complain about, hence you being here.
A scientific theory is not a guess. Evolution is supported by genetics, fossils, and observed biological change; the “missing link” objection misrepresents evolution as a single chain. Unresolved questions about abiogenesis do not prove a creator, and comparing DNA to software is analogy rather than evidence. Using my tokophobia as proof of weakness is equally illogical. Avoiding reproduction reduces material burdens, dependence on social structures, and the continuation of suffering through samsara. You define your own preferences as strength and label disagreement as inferiority, but that does not constitute truth or sound reasoning.
Science is willing to change its mind on theory. That's the plan. And why ? Because scientific theory is inconclusive. This is why it isn't wise to argue scientific theories.
Scientific fact, and scientific theory are 2 different things. No one argues the facts, and there's where the battle of faiths come into play.
You pasted the same thing here so I deleted it to save space.
I can debate the 12 minute video. It dismisses 2 arguments without adding a third, but it doesn't really matter if I do this or not. To Carl Sagan, if the Universe always existed, the stars wouldn't be shining. All things with an end has a beginning.
Spatial Mind said:What’s on display is the evidence. This whole conversation is based on your delusion that I generated an argument in the first place. I wrote true stories about experiences.
Scientific theory is inconclusive, and that is where the battle of faiths comes into play.
There’s something called the missing link: no evidence between us and some old monkey bones.
Your first sentence is circular unless you identify what counts as evidence and how it verifies your claims. Assigning negative traits to dismiss someone’s position is ad hominem; those traits are irrelevant to whether the position is correct. I am not disputing that you experienced those events or ended the relationship. I am disputing the claim that your account proves you were the protector, truth teller, or person with superior judgment. Events can be real while the interpretation and self-characterization remain unsupported. Regret shows dissatisfaction, not necessarily learning. Nihilism rejects inherent meaning or value; it does not reject facts or prevent subjective judgments.
Scientific theories are evidence-based explanations, not guesses or faith claims. Evolution does not say humans descended from monkeys alive now. Earlier populations reproduced with variation, and succeeding populations diverged through mutation, selection, drift, and environmental conditions, producing Homo sapiens and other living primates on separate branches. That is why evolution does not require one “missing link.” The tornado analogy also fails: evolution is not one random event assembling a finished product. A furnished house is intentionally built toward a predetermined design, while biological complexity accumulates through reproduction, inheritance, variation, and selection. Comparing organisms to houses assumes design before proving it. Unsupported objections do not deserve equal standing with explanations supported by evidence. Gaps in abiogenesis or cosmology do not prove a creator, and even a beginning to the universe would not establish intention or purpose.
Spatial Mind said:What’s on display is the evidence. This whole conversation is based on your delusion that I generated an argument in the first place. I wrote true stories about experiences.
Scientific theory is inconclusive, and that is where the battle of faiths comes into play.
There’s something called the missing link: no evidence between us and some old monkey bones.Your first sentence is circular unless you identify what counts as evidence and how it verifies your claims.
Circular because you dismissed it as evidence.
Ai only knows what it learns, and it needs more data for it to argue with me. It doesn't know you as we do. For those who know, that being the regulars, no one would debate me on my claims about you because it's the truth in the matter.
Assigning negative traits to dismiss someone’s position is ad hominem; those traits are irrelevant to whether the position is correct.
The circular claim has merit among the regulars.
I am not disputing that you experienced those events or ended the relationship. I am disputing the claim that your account proves you were the protector, truth teller, or person with superior judgment.
You're now claiming to be disputing something I mentioned mid argument, and now I have to prove how great I was toward the one I love more than anyone in the world.
No. It isn't possible to prove any of those things.
Events can be real while the interpretation and self-characterization remain unsupported.
You feel the need to change your approach in this interaction. You already claimed error in reading my post, but now you need something else to cling onto.
It's not important if you believe what I say or not. What I wrote in the first place was for Nathan.
Regret shows dissatisfaction, not necessarily learning. Nihilism rejects inherent meaning or value; it does not reject facts or prevent subjective judgments.
Incorrect. If you stick a fork in a plugged in toaster and you get zapped. You'll regret it and you'll learn something.
When we have regrets, we learn with a passion.
Scientific theories are evidence-based explanations, not guesses or faith claims.
They are also subject to change, and they have many times before.
Scientific theory is an open book, but not worth arguing.
All this advanced coding that makes up plants and animals on this spec of dust. Doesn't strike me as a fluke. It's intentional. The hands have a purpose as does every part of us.
Evolution does not say humans descended from monkeys alive now.
No one said it did.
Earlier populations reproduced with variation, and succeeding populations diverged through mutation, selection, drift, and environmental conditions, producing Homo sapiens and other living primates on separate branches.
That is why evolution does not require one “missing link.”
There are several missing links, and a missing link can point to something else.
We also know popular science can be used against us, and there are scientists that dispute popular science and rightfully so. Like the NIST report about tower 7. A fire cannot bring down a steel frame building.
The tornado analogy also fails: evolution is not one random event assembling a finished product.
In the grand scheme life on Earth and all living history over billions of years, is but a blip in time in a universe that will spend most of it's existence in darkness long after every star burns out.
It doesn't matter how many tornadoes and random events it takes to complete the finished product. It simply will never happen.
A furnished house is intentionally built toward a predetermined design, while biological complexity accumulates through reproduction, inheritance, variation, and selection.
Only a consciousness can set complexity into motion. Same with selection. "Natural selection" would be your correct term, and that I don't believe in.
No matter how much time we give it, an inanimate object won't get anything done.
Our eyes are no good without light. But light exists, so we have eyes. We have eyes on purpose, and our eyes have purpose. Same with the ears and the nose. If there was nothing to hear and nothing to see and nothing to smell, we wouldn't have these things to begin with.
Comparing organisms to houses assumes design before proving it. Unsupported objections do not deserve equal standing with explanations supported by evidence. Gaps in abiogenesis or cosmology do not prove a creator, and even a beginning to the universe would not establish intention or purpose.
We've yet to make anything as advanced as an organism. Not even as good as a flea.
Everything on the Earth came from outer space, and science remains baffled how anything could've been alive to begin with, including bacteria.
Despite the doubts of an atheist, I'll go with what's obvious. What I go with is beyond the boundaries some people set for themselves. In the end it'll all be revealed. We're not going to get everything right regardless of what we know or have faith in.
When scientific theories change so will your argument. Popular science can bullshit us. It has before many times.
Spatial Mind said:We've yet to make anything as advanced as an organism. Not even as good as a flea.
Everything on the Earth came from outer space, and science remains baffled how anything could've been alive to begin with, including bacteria. Despite the doubts of an atheist, I'll go with what's obvious. What I go with is beyond the boundaries some people set for themselves. In the end it'll all be revealed. We're not going to get everything right regardless of what we know or have faith in. When scientific theories change so will your argument. Popular science can bullshit us. It has before many times.
Agreement among forum regulars does not verify a claim; it only shows agreement. Personal traits are also irrelevant when used to dismiss a position rather than address it. I accept that the events in your story occurred, but you now concede that your claims of being the protector, truth teller, or superior judge cannot be proved. That is the distinction I made: an event can be true while its interpretation remains unsupported. My approach has not changed. Your toaster example only shows that regret can accompany learning, not that every regret necessarily produces accurate understanding or changed behavior.
Scientific theories being revisable does not make them faith or “inconclusive”; revision is how evidence-based models become more accurate. Evolution is supported by genetics, observed change, natural selection, and thousands of human fossils. Humans did not descend from any primate alive today; living primates occupy different branches descended from earlier common populations. Natural selection also requires no conscious selector: heritable variants that reproduce more successfully become more common under existing environmental conditions, without a goal or foresight. Light did not appear because eyes needed it; primitive light sensitivity preceded complex eyes, and increasingly useful visual structures accumulated in environments where responding to light affected survival and reproduction. Calling hands or eyes functional does not prove they were intentionally assigned a purpose. Likewise, saying complexity “cannot happen” simply restates your conclusion, while the tornado analogy still removes the reproduction, inheritance, variation, and cumulative filtering that distinguish evolution from debris randomly assembling once.
If you know you know.
If you don't know, you're stuck with. "This doesn't prove anything, that doesn't prove anything."
In terms of what I had to say, evidence isn't required for the local regulars... You'll argue it is, and so will your Ai, which isn't local.
If you never told your Ai which one you are, it'd certainly turn on you.
I like to use Ai for many things, but I wouldn't use it to argue. That's what the weak would do.
Yes I have used Ai to shed light on things, but I wouldn't use it to argue for me. Hell no, would never consider doing that.
If you do use Ai to argue. Keep it honest, don't talk shit, and you'll be able to let it read the whole thing and it'll work with you.
What your Ai thinks about me, is what you prompt it to think I am. If it knew too much, it wouldn't side with you though.
“If you know, you know” is not evidence; it is a way to make a claim immune to examination. Agreement among local regulars does not verify it either. Familiarity can provide context, but claims about another person still require reasons if they are being used to dismiss what that person says. The AI does know that I am Dragoonback because I tell it who is speaking and provide the surrounding exchange. I also correct it when it misreads my position. Its role is to organize and test my reasoning, not invent my views. Whether I use that help has no bearing on whether the final claims are correct.
Saying it would “turn on me” if it knew more is another unverifiable assertion. If any response supporting me is blamed on prompting, while any response opposing me is treated as informed, then you have defined yourself as correct regardless of the output. Calling AI-assisted argument weak is also just your personal standard. Using a tool to communicate more precisely is no weaker than using search engines, references, spell-checking, or AI to “shed light” on something. The relevant issue is whether the reasoning survives scrutiny, not whether I produced every sentence unaided.
As for what I supposedly “insert” about you or prompt the AI to think: most of the information I provide consists of your own quotations in their conversational order. Beyond that, I identify myself, explain my position, and label recollections or interpretations as such. I do not invent a puppet version of you and ask the AI to attack it.
You seem invested in the idea that I must be distorting or regurgitating your views, but repeating that suspicion does not identify an actual distortion. What, specifically, have I falsely inserted about you, and where does the AI respond to a fabricated version rather than your own words?
Here's an example of the AI disagreeing with my output:
"I think he finds it gratifying and pleasing to assume that I must be making a puppet and regurgitating his points and views and such in a distorted way"
gpt: That may be your impression, but stating it as his motive gives him an easy side dispute. Keep it conditional and return to the evidence.
gpt on it's instructions and what it has been doing:
"Most of what I know about Spatial Mind in this discussion comes from his own quotations, supplied in conversational order. Dragoonback identifies the speakers, explains his own position, and sometimes adds recollections or interpretations. When those are speculative, he generally identifies them as impressions rather than direct facts.
He has instructed me to prioritize logical consistency, identify unsupported assumptions, and avoid wording that can be diverted into personal attacks or semantic side disputes. He also asks me to correct him when his interpretation becomes too broad or speculative. That does not program me to agree with him; it gives me standards for evaluating and refining his response.
I have not been given a fabricated puppet version of Spatial Mind to attack. My criticism is primarily based on Spatial Mind’s quoted claims and reasoning. The purpose of the process is to make Dragoonback’s responses more precise, less biased, and harder to distort—not to predetermine that he is correct."
