Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

496

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (37).
[–] • 0 pt

You don't need to think?

Not what I meant. I was speaking purely in the context of your post and the what ifs you mentioned. My response should have indicated to you that I agreed with what you or Pat is saying. I've already considered those what ifs. And many many more beyond that. That's why I don't like that hole.

[–] • 0 pt

I'm pretty sure you mocked me before for "reading Q articles". I'm not sure how my assumption you didn't understand neural networks or why they matter is a fair comparison to you saying something like that. Yeah, I get it, I poked you in the beginning, but I made an assumption that is common of most people. You, on the other hand, don't appear to be using some gambit to make me think. Now, sure, I can admit you've surprised me so far, but I'm not sure my confusion has been unwarranted.

[–] • 0 pt

The Q reference wasn't a hit on your intelligence per say. More the quality of material you may have been referencing. I do not disavow Q, but I believe many just don't get it. They followed the path of believing "other peoples" interpretation of Q.

There would be no tactical reasoning behind trying to gain advantage in "this" conversation. If I'm not willing to try and understand your reality then there would be no point in trying to understand reality at all. We all have our own which makes up the whole.

If it is like Pat says, how would we be able to know? Are we not just a neural network ourselves? Wirelessly connected via frequencies/waves? Are we bots? Can we prove it either way whether to ourselves or others?