From Newsgroup: sci.lang

On 13/01/2026 04:21, dart200 wrote:

On 1/12/26 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

The problem is it doesn't get a "self" input, and by its nature. it

i'm defining the algo, so i say it does

This is the god complex. While it's true that definition is a volition,
like transforming into a jupiter-sized victoria sponge it is not always
a free choice.

Also, people often use "define" to mean "define a constraint for", you
can define a constraint as freely as you can describe it without needing
the god complex but perhaps there is no definition of a solution for a
system of constraints that includes it.

I want to know the right terminology for what you did in your statement
"i'm defining the algo, so i say it does": you have one meaning for
"defining" in "i'm defining the algo" which is "defining a constraint
for", but a different meaning in a re-interpretation of the supposed
world that's referenced by "so" in "so i say it does" which is actual
defining.
--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2