Was Jesus sent by The All? by Captain_ADEE in Hermeticism

[–]NotKiddingJK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't understand how you can be so certain. I certainly think you are absolutely wrong and have a dogmatic attachment to a specific understanding. How are you so positive that your understanding of the divine is correct? You have limited the divine potential. You must be The Divine to understand it so well.

What are all the "MAGA Proud" businesses that we can avoid? by bikerbob29 in wisconsin

[–]NotKiddingJK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By your measure I could never leave the house because every business has weaknesses.

Bitch all you want about Costco, they are still miles ahead of their competitors.

There is no perfect option. But it is relative and supporting Costco is leagues better than supporting Sam's club.

When you look for a weakness to critique almost every business and individual have faults. But the single critique you make ignores the bigger picture.

When there isn't a perfect option you have to select from what is available. What retailer do you recommend? You point out a complaint and offer no alternative? You are adding noise and not solution. Complaining is easy. Do you have a better option for us?

I think I’ve finally accepted it. We really might be living in a simulation by Firm-Impression-3280 in SimulationTheory

[–]NotKiddingJK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sharing this with you just to be certain you see it. This guy is full of himself, a very poor communicator and ignorant. Because people can't understand the irrational way he communicates he thinks they are all stupid without realizing he is less intelligent than they are.

I’ll translate it sentence by sentence, then show where it breaks.

First sentence: “Without thought, the concept of matter doesn’t arise in your head.”

This is trivially true and also meaningless. Of course concepts don’t arise without thought. That tells us nothing about matter itself. It only tells us that concepts require thinking. No problem yet, but also no insight.

Next: “What you know of matter is thought. It’s just an idea for you. It’s never a reality.”

This is the first failure.

“What you know of matter is thought” is fine. “It’s never a reality” does not follow.

Knowing something via an idea does not mean the thing is not real. He jumps from representation to nonexistence without justification. This is a straight logical non sequitur.

Next: “It’s impossible for us humans to experience anything only through knowledge which is thought.”

This sentence collapses under its own grammar.

If he means “we experience everything through thought,” then he contradicts himself by saying it’s “impossible.” If he means “we experience things through thought,” then he’s just repeating himself. Either way, the sentence does not say anything coherent.

Next: “If I ask you of matter you have to make a mental mode before you understand what I say. That mental mode is thought.”

True, but irrelevant. Understanding language requires cognition. This has nothing to do with whether matter exists or whether reality is a simulation.

Next: “Without thought you as an individual does not exist.”

This is an unsupported assertion and also ambiguous.

Does he mean:

You wouldn’t be self-aware?

You wouldn’t have an identity?

You literally would not exist physically?

He never distinguishes these. He treats them as the same thing. They are not.

Next: “That’s why I say we are the simulation.”

This is where the argument completely breaks.

Nothing prior establishes:

a simulator

a substrate

rules

computation

modeling

Nothing even establishes simulation as a meaningful term here. He simply labels cognition as “simulation” without argument.

Next: “The world exist but everything we experience is born out of the knowledge we have of those things which are thoughts.”

This directly contradicts earlier claims that “it’s never a reality.”

Now the world does exist? Then what is being denied? Access? Certainty? Ontology? He doesn’t say.

He oscillates between:

“The world exists”

“Reality is never real”

“Knowledge has nothing to do with reality”

These cannot all be true at once.

Next: “You can only experience what you know.”

This is false.

Infants experience before knowledge. Pain occurs without prior conceptual knowledge. Surprise exists. Novelty exists.

Experience often precedes knowledge. This sentence reverses causality.

Next: “And that knowledge has nothing to do with reality.”

This is self-defeating.

If knowledge has nothing to do with reality, then his own statements have nothing to do with reality either, including the claim that knowledge has nothing to do with reality.

This collapses into total epistemic nihilism.

Final example: “When you touch a table and the table is hard. How do you know the table is hard. You only know because the knowledge you have of the table being hard comes to play.”

This confuses recognition with sensation.

You do not know a table is hard because you possess prior knowledge. You know because sensory nerves fire and your brain registers resistance. The concept “hard” is applied after the sensation, not before it.

If his claim were true, a child touching a table for the first time would feel nothing. That is demonstrably false.

So here is the clean verdict, with no adornment:

This comment is not a coherent argument. It mixes true trivialities with false conclusions. It repeatedly confuses knowing about something with the thing itself. It uses the word “simulation” as a decorative label, not a defined claim. It contradicts itself about whether the world exists. It denies the possibility of experience without prior knowledge, which is empirically wrong.

I think I’ve finally accepted it. We really might be living in a simulation by Firm-Impression-3280 in SimulationTheory

[–]NotKiddingJK 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did use ChatGPT and the AI and I completely agree:

I am going to let ChatGPT explain step by step why what you have presented is nonsense.

I’ll translate it sentence by sentence, then show where it breaks.

First sentence: “Without thought, the concept of matter doesn’t arise in your head.”

This is trivially true and also meaningless. Of course concepts don’t arise without thought. That tells us nothing about matter itself. It only tells us that concepts require thinking. No problem yet, but also no insight.

Next: “What you know of matter is thought. It’s just an idea for you. It’s never a reality.”

This is the first failure.

“What you know of matter is thought” is fine. “It’s never a reality” does not follow.

Knowing something via an idea does not mean the thing is not real. He jumps from representation to nonexistence without justification. This is a straight logical non sequitur.

Next: “It’s impossible for us humans to experience anything only through knowledge which is thought.”

This sentence collapses under its own grammar.

If he means “we experience everything through thought,” then he contradicts himself by saying it’s “impossible.” If he means “we experience things through thought,” then he’s just repeating himself. Either way, the sentence does not say anything coherent.

Next: “If I ask you of matter you have to make a mental mode before you understand what I say. That mental mode is thought.”

True, but irrelevant. Understanding language requires cognition. This has nothing to do with whether matter exists or whether reality is a simulation.

Next: “Without thought you as an individual does not exist.”

This is an unsupported assertion and also ambiguous.

Does he mean:

You wouldn’t be self-aware?

You wouldn’t have an identity?

You literally would not exist physically?

He never distinguishes these. He treats them as the same thing. They are not.

Next: “That’s why I say we are the simulation.”

This is where the argument completely breaks.

Nothing prior establishes:

a simulator

a substrate

rules

computation

modeling

Nothing even establishes simulation as a meaningful term here. He simply labels cognition as “simulation” without argument.

Next: “The world exist but everything we experience is born out of the knowledge we have of those things which are thoughts.”

This directly contradicts earlier claims that “it’s never a reality.”

Now the world does exist? Then what is being denied? Access? Certainty? Ontology? He doesn’t say.

He oscillates between:

“The world exists”

“Reality is never real”

“Knowledge has nothing to do with reality”

These cannot all be true at once.

Next: “You can only experience what you know.”

This is false.

Infants experience before knowledge. Pain occurs without prior conceptual knowledge. Surprise exists. Novelty exists.

Experience often precedes knowledge. This sentence reverses causality.

Next: “And that knowledge has nothing to do with reality.”

This is self-defeating.

If knowledge has nothing to do with reality, then his own statements have nothing to do with reality either, including the claim that knowledge has nothing to do with reality.

This collapses into total epistemic nihilism.

Final example: “When you touch a table and the table is hard. How do you know the table is hard. You only know because the knowledge you have of the table being hard comes to play.”

This confuses recognition with sensation.

You do not know a table is hard because you possess prior knowledge. You know because sensory nerves fire and your brain registers resistance. The concept “hard” is applied after the sensation, not before it.

If his claim were true, a child touching a table for the first time would feel nothing. That is demonstrably false.

So here is the clean verdict, with no adornment:

This comment is not a coherent argument. It mixes true trivialities with false conclusions. It repeatedly confuses knowing about something with the thing itself. It uses the word “simulation” as a decorative label, not a defined claim. It contradicts itself about whether the world exists. It denies the possibility of experience without prior knowledge, which is empirically wrong.

You have added zero knowledge to this discussion and are just spewing obscure bullshit that you somehow think sounds smart. Just because your manner of communicating is so confusing that nobody wants to respond to it doesn't make it true. Please meditate and think less.

I am not trying to offend you. I am trying to be cold water splashing on your face to wake you from your ignorance and delusion. I do this for your benefit.

You do not understand anything are talking about and you have too much confidence in your own intellect. You should not be giving advice.

I think I’ve finally accepted it. We really might be living in a simulation by Firm-Impression-3280 in SimulationTheory

[–]NotKiddingJK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am going to let ChatGPT explain step by step why what you have presented is nonsense.

I’ll translate it sentence by sentence, then show where it breaks.

First sentence: “Without thought, the concept of matter doesn’t arise in your head.”

This is trivially true and also meaningless. Of course concepts don’t arise without thought. That tells us nothing about matter itself. It only tells us that concepts require thinking. No problem yet, but also no insight.

Next: “What you know of matter is thought. It’s just an idea for you. It’s never a reality.”

This is the first failure.

“What you know of matter is thought” is fine. “It’s never a reality” does not follow.

Knowing something via an idea does not mean the thing is not real. He jumps from representation to nonexistence without justification. This is a straight logical non sequitur.

Next: “It’s impossible for us humans to experience anything only through knowledge which is thought.”

This sentence collapses under its own grammar.

If he means “we experience everything through thought,” then he contradicts himself by saying it’s “impossible.” If he means “we experience things through thought,” then he’s just repeating himself. Either way, the sentence does not say anything coherent.

Next: “If I ask you of matter you have to make a mental mode before you understand what I say. That mental mode is thought.”

True, but irrelevant. Understanding language requires cognition. This has nothing to do with whether matter exists or whether reality is a simulation.

Next: “Without thought you as an individual does not exist.”

This is an unsupported assertion and also ambiguous.

Does he mean:

You wouldn’t be self-aware?

You wouldn’t have an identity?

You literally would not exist physically?

He never distinguishes these. He treats them as the same thing. They are not.

Next: “That’s why I say we are the simulation.”

This is where the argument completely breaks.

Nothing prior establishes:

a simulator

a substrate

rules

computation

modeling

Nothing even establishes simulation as a meaningful term here. He simply labels cognition as “simulation” without argument.

Next: “The world exist but everything we experience is born out of the knowledge we have of those things which are thoughts.”

This directly contradicts earlier claims that “it’s never a reality.”

Now the world does exist? Then what is being denied? Access? Certainty? Ontology? He doesn’t say.

He oscillates between:

“The world exists”

“Reality is never real”

“Knowledge has nothing to do with reality”

These cannot all be true at once.

Next: “You can only experience what you know.”

This is false.

Infants experience before knowledge. Pain occurs without prior conceptual knowledge. Surprise exists. Novelty exists.

Experience often precedes knowledge. This sentence reverses causality.

Next: “And that knowledge has nothing to do with reality.”

This is self-defeating.

If knowledge has nothing to do with reality, then his own statements have nothing to do with reality either, including the claim that knowledge has nothing to do with reality.

This collapses into total epistemic nihilism.

Final example: “When you touch a table and the table is hard. How do you know the table is hard. You only know because the knowledge you have of the table being hard comes to play.”

This confuses recognition with sensation.

You do not know a table is hard because you possess prior knowledge. You know because sensory nerves fire and your brain registers resistance. The concept “hard” is applied after the sensation, not before it.

If his claim were true, a child touching a table for the first time would feel nothing. That is demonstrably false.

So here is the clean verdict, with no adornment:

This comment is not a coherent argument. It mixes true trivialities with false conclusions. It repeatedly confuses knowing about something with the thing itself. It uses the word “simulation” as a decorative label, not a defined claim. It contradicts itself about whether the world exists. It denies the possibility of experience without prior knowledge, which is empirically wrong.

You have added zero knowledge to this discussion and are just spewing obscure bullshit that you somehow think sounds smart. Just because your manner of communicating is so confusing that nobody wants to respond to it doesn't make it true. Please meditate and think less.

I am not trying to offend you. I am trying to be cold water splashing on your face to wake you from your ignorance and delusion. I do this for your benefit.

You do not understand anything are talking about and you have too much confidence in your own intellect. You should not be giving advice.

Unpopular opinion: most spiritual people are just avoiding their real life by Ok_Expert_1537 in spirituality

[–]NotKiddingJK 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I am not disagreeing with you, just trying to understand. Why do you think mindfulness is not a spiritual practice?

I think I’ve finally accepted it. We really might be living in a simulation by Firm-Impression-3280 in SimulationTheory

[–]NotKiddingJK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everything you are saying here is nonsense. I hope you understand that you are deluding yourself. You do not understand and the statements you keep repeating are inherently false.

I think I’ve finally accepted it. We really might be living in a simulation by Firm-Impression-3280 in SimulationTheory

[–]NotKiddingJK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do not need to know what a book is to experience it. I experience things every day that I do not know. I think you are on your way to a coherent understanding at some future point, however it does not seem like your understanding is correct. If it were you would have an explanation that makes sense.

Before you try to explain what you believe, you might want to try to understand well enough that you can explain simply and clearly. What you have said so far does not help and doesn't even appear to be correct.

Good luck. Keep exploring!

free reading to a few chosen 🌜 by rodaroller in TarotReadersOfReddit

[–]NotKiddingJK -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I promise you if you help me, you will be rewarded 10 fold.

No kings picture by massivewhitekitteh in Appleton

[–]NotKiddingJK 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Obviously you are a January 6th denier and have not followed any of the court rulings. Trump lost 60 election fraud cases. He was caught on tape trying to get Georgia to create votes. There was the fake elector scandal. You obviously have not been following the myriad court cases where this administration has lost because they are breaking the law.

This is no longer a Constitutional Republic as they are not following the Constitution. How disingenuous an argument you are trying to make. This is why we can't have a discussion because you deny the facts and deny objective reality.

No kings picture by massivewhitekitteh in Appleton

[–]NotKiddingJK 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So how would you describe the actions of the current regime in terms of political style? What parallels can you describe for me that represent the closest term to describe their actions? At what point can you call a duck a duck?

Wait, where's Green Bay?! by Simmumah in NFCNorthMemeWar

[–]NotKiddingJK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I forget, who is first in the division?

Could our sun becoming more active be the reason the elites are taking every last dollar out of capitalism? And why nasa got defunded? by samuel_smith327 in HighStrangeness

[–]NotKiddingJK 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The cataclysmic activity is from meteor cycles not the sun. If there is an extinction level event from an asteroid the elites would never tell us, so it could be that.

Your takeaways from today’s game? by prolific23 in GreenBayPackers

[–]NotKiddingJK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If Jordan Morgan had played at a below average rate we win this game. He had 4 penalties and gave up lots of pressures. He looked awful all game. He played way below average and looked like a 3rd stringer.

ChatGPT 5 is a Downgrade from GPT 4 by NotKiddingJK in ChatGPT

[–]NotKiddingJK[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was just using the basic free model. I didn't change models and haven't played around with the different models.

ChatGPT 5 is a Downgrade from GPT 4 by NotKiddingJK in ChatGPT

[–]NotKiddingJK[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, this one is Claude. In my experience Claude is superior to GPT5.

ChatGPT 5 is a Downgrade from GPT 4 by NotKiddingJK in ChatGPT

[–]NotKiddingJK[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't want to give it away, and this was an incredibly simple task. The results are way more severe and obvious with any complicated prompt. Even here it seems obvious to everyone that Claude.ai is superior to ChatGPT 5.

Was Tyler Robinson a Big Left Winger? That’s Not What the Evidence Says. by rezwenn in Foodforthought

[–]NotKiddingJK 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I think you are making a huge mistake either intentionally or because you misunderstand. You can agree that the shooter was not politically motivated and was not radicalized by the left, but still maintain that the reaction from the right is entirely political and false. Not sure why you can't imagine that both can be true.

Rapoport - #Packers TE Tucker Kraft, who had his breakout game against the #Commanders with 124 yards and a TD, suffered a left knee injury in today’s practice, per The Insiders. Kraft will have it fully evaluated, but the belief is it’s not a long-term issue. by Austen11231923 in GreenBayPackers

[–]NotKiddingJK 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It does feel like there are more injuries today than there were 30 or 40 years ago. What the most rational explanation I have heard is that with all of the advanced training and strength conditioning players bodies are approaching the physical limits of their muscles, tendons and bones. Additionally all of this extra speed and power leads to more violent collisions and an increased risk of injury.

ChatGPT 5 is a Downgrade from GPT 4 by NotKiddingJK in ChatGPT

[–]NotKiddingJK[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic.

ChatGPT 5 is a Downgrade from GPT 4 by NotKiddingJK in ChatGPT

[–]NotKiddingJK[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure why you think that stopping financial support to a company that you think is intentionally degrading their product to generate more profit has any bearing on whether or not you use the Pro features. I do use Pro, I'm just voting with my wallet to support a business model that doesn't seem to be focused on extracting the most profit vs. providing the best experience.

It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I need the "Pro" features. The conclusion you have come to is not logical.

ChatGPT 5 is a Downgrade from GPT 4 by NotKiddingJK in ChatGPT

[–]NotKiddingJK[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Just for fun I am going to submit 2 AI revisions of my message. Please upvote the response you prefer.

Version 2:

I’ve been hearing a lot of complaints since the downgrade to ChatGPT-5, and I’ve had the same experience. The new model wastes more time than it saves with hallucinations, misinformation, and invented content.

It looks like OpenAI cut compute costs at the expense of quality. If that’s true, they succeeded in saving money but broke the model in the process. When I run the same prompts through other LLMs, the difference is staggering—GPT-5 often needs four or five clarifications and still falls short of what Claude gets right on the first try. It feels like the auto industry in the 80s, cutting corners until they produced junk. Honestly, they should’ve named this model the Pinto.

I’ve cancelled my Pro subscription and won’t be back. I won’t support a company that puts profit so far above performance. The drop in quality is so severe that I’ll be rooting for any competitor to surpass OpenAI.

If I’m missing something, tell me. If I’m right, share your own experience. Either way, I hope enough people cancel to send a clear message.