geordief

Very good text editors though.

I always felt his m.o. was to say something that he knew was wrong on some level and to try to get those who he was with to agree with it on some level so that they too had some investment in the kite he was flying. I thought he pussy tapes showed this.(and his insistence for "loyalty" from his underlings) He was trying to rope that person into his inner circle of low life behaviour ,if only by his not confronting it openly but acquiescing with their silence. I think of him as a "corrupter". Still it turned out that almost all of his colleagues in the actual government saw past him and spoke out after their jobs with him were over.

That is absolutely right.All the definition is lost so it is not like rewinding a tape. Still it is an exercise and you can at least revisit where your thoughts took a "fork in the road" I was also thinking that,in addition to the logical thoughts that go through your head there seems to be a much less differentiated train of mental perceptions that seem to "follow them along" I am not sure what connects them and whether the logical thoughts on the surface affect them or not It is a game really.I wonder if a really skilled writer would be able to sit down at the end of the day and write down all the thoughts he or she had had since the time they got up . Feels like there might be a mental muscle there that has atrophied in my case ,if I ever had it. These days I forget where I put things more often than not.And yes ,physically retracing your steps can normally do the trick.

Does anyone here ever try to follow the thread of their thoughts backward? If you start from now is it possible to go backwards in time through your thought processes and how long of a stretch can you manage? I sometimes try this ,normally when I am aware that I have forgotten something in my mind and, Jason like in the Minator's den I try to "retrace my steps". I would say 10 minutes might be my personal best.

I have noticed that I can eat to "get my fair share" of what is available. For those who eat out I guess this might be less common but there is a funny skit of Rowan Atkinson(Mr Bean) competitively eating with a random diner and making himself sick when he overdoes the rotten oysters. I hardly ever eat out and so am more aware than otherwise of "who eats what"

You are disputing that it is their land? Sorry that you may be out of pocket at the end of this war.

That wouldn't give us a competition, would it? Don't we need to program the ref bot differently to the other bots? I think it would have to be home made programs like the hardware was in the Robot Wars TV programme a few years ago. Each robot would have a handler,at least to set it up for the competition. Maybe the bots could be programmed to actually cause physical damage to each other.(a bit like the computer in the 2001 film who went out with "Daisy Daisy" when Dave turned it off)

Can we have a special extra bot that acts as a referee? Each participating chatbot is free to respond to the others' recent input by quoting or addressing them and scores a point or temporarily incapacitates them by pointing out an accepted logical discrepancy. The ref can give warnings and declares a winner at the end of 12 rounds. Then the booky cleans up.

Can we arrange it so that we can have the bot assume more than one identity and so that we can have a winner in some way? I could be the book keeper

If you ask it the exact same thing again ,would you anticipate an identical response? Also ,is it making fun of/patronising me or is that just me being paranoid

Would this be fun and would it work? Suppose someone started a thread on any particular subject and the only participants in the ensuing discussion were ai chat robots using their particular software. There would be two or three or more participants and ,obviously after the first post one of them would post a first reply. There would need to be a rule that the post should be fairly short or ,to my mind it would be boring. And so on ,until maybe someone pulled the plug. Perhaps it would be interesting to see how the mistakes accumulated -a bit like a game of Chinese Whispers. Maybe this could be done with just the one chat robot if it erased its memory every time after it posted and started again from scratch for a subsequent post?

You are right.I seem to have been using "frame dependent" in an "off the shelf" way to illustrate the point I was trying to make. I didn't appreciate(just forgot) that it is used in a particular way in physics (frame dependent vs frame independent) and as such I was just confusing the issue by using language incorrectly. I think I have probably said as much as I could about the subject anyway I will try not to run into any lamp posts on my way (unlike the two cars that I noticed had crashed into each other earlier this evening when I was driving around to the neighbour's house to feed her cats while she is away

So we can say that our individual view/understanding of the physical environment is "frame dependent" if we don't mind being a bit pedantic ? Our brain constructs models of the environment to predict our place in it and this might include constructing a model for the likely position of ,say the Russian frontline in the next 24 hours (or more realistically where the cat will be in a millisecond if I do not wish to trip over it) So our brain has to juxtapose it's own frame with that of the cat or the Russian line to predict future occurrences with accuracy .

Well I hope we are talking about the same thing ("frame" is shorthand for "moving -or non moving- frame of reference" ,isn't it?) I said /was claiming that models were an interface between the brain and the outside world. Not that frames were such an interface (but ,as part of the overall model they could be seen as part of the interface) Hope ,that wasn't just so much verbiage.(I shouldn't be let loose in the Philosophy section of the forum )

We only see the moving world by modeling it first ,don't we? We don't walk into lamp posts because we are modeling our environment on a continuous basis. If we were moving fast enough those models would have to incorporate frames and so the frames could be called models( conceptual tools) also.

Can't there be infinitely many frames? The frames would be a subset of what was defined as the "cosmos" Frames might just be models but models are also subsets of the "cosmos" (as well as being the interface between the brain and the world outside)

I am getting the feeling that the concepts of unity vs separabiity may not be enough to describe what happens and that they are just 2 models that may or may not appeal to us. Perhaps there could be other models that could combine elements of those two. We are in Philosophy and so I suppose the general view is that if A is true ,then the diametric opposite of A is false . But we are also in the real world and it sometimes seems that the real world is under no obligation to follow our rules of logic.(which logic may be a primitive form of understanding when we look back ,say 1000 years in the future) As regards analysis and the wider picture are we supposed to take a step back after the analysis and try to see the wood from the trees?

I was going to write "the universe" but that word always needs defining and so I thought "things" might encompass everything. But I do see the universe as being composed of "events" or "things that happen" rather than a collection of inert objects that "things" might normally describe(everyday parlance).

Can we distinguish between holding a view that things share a commonality according to various criteria(eg your "common history") and the physical ability or inability for things to act in a way that demonstrates a quality of unity? Your "common history" could be considered a "dead letter".I mean things happen in the present and the past doesn't exist except in our models of perception-or might that not be true (I think Brian Cox was musing along the lines that the past was somehow still "out there" on one of his programmes)

I am not sure I agree.There are ties that bind constituent parts together for a time but when the ties are broken the parts are separate. And how to define the whole ?(if that is what we are aiming for) Trump is part of the American political class but also a part of the spoiled jerks society (for as long as he is tolerated suffered or embraced) Does the observable universe ever recombine once it has expanded beyond the limits of causality? Does it break up into independent parts?

An orgasm or the shivers? https://fr.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/petite_mort#:~:text=(Sens figuré) (Vieilli) Fait d'avoir froid,%2C d'avoir des frissons.&text=(Sens figuré) Orgasme. (Never knew that before)

Might it not be that we die and are reborn on a continuous basis every moment of our lives but that these events are too short and numerous for us to be aware of them. In the case you describe ,the theoretical passage between the two entities might be indistinguishable from a normal life. Edit:I think I can see now that death/rebirths occurring on an ongoing basis at micro locations in a system (the brain /nervous system) is different from a total universal death followed by the birth of a near identical system . So my question is not really relevant, perhaps I am also interested in @Genady 's assertion that our minds' calculations may run on quantum principles. Is this speculation or is there any direct evidence to support it?

I think the hope is that he said as much directly to any potential witness. He has already done this regarding classified documents (admitting in front of witnesses that he was unable to show them something bc it was still classified) Is his request to Raffensberger that he needed to find a certain number of votes a tacit admission that he had lost? (unless he is claiming Raffensberger was concealing them ,which he never did claim)

Thought "ur joking" was correcter

They can also have poor computer skills. Lots of oldies can't be bothered to learn the computer and I know one whose written output is appalling (almost as bad as this f/ing computer I am trying to use.)