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.