Creation - Evolution

[Age]

Atla,

Age is saying that mere cause and effect automatically is creation and evolution. Like you randomly throw the pieces of a 1000-piece puzzle into the air, and all of them fall into the right place and create the picture.

I do not need you to tell me what Age is saying. I can figure it out for myself and do a better job of it.

And you're already talking about three things, mental physical and spiritual.

I certainly do not need you to explain what I am saying.

Just because you guys are pushing your self-serving ideas, doesn't mean that the problem is with others and their low intelligence / lack of holistic thinking.

This statement is just plain rude. If you have nothing of value to add to this thread, you could stop posting here. If you insist on posting here, but only wish to insult members, call people names, etc., then your posts have no value. So far in this thread, you have called Age a liar 67 times -- I counted -- and you repeated other insults. I have already reported your posts, and will not accept the abuse that you have heaped on Age. Why do you think that I stopped posting for 14 pages? I had hoped that some members would get bored of abusing other members and leave this thread, but you seem to think that abusing the original poster is how you make a point or how you are supposed to debate.

I may have to stop posting in this thread. If I really feel the need to communicate with Age, I can always use the PM system.

Gee

Ah yes you reported me because I handled the most destructive entity on this forum, who also is in fact a pathological liar, the way it should be handled.

Why do you believe that 'I' am a 'destructive entity' for "atla"? What is 'it', exactly, that you believe 'I' am seeking to 'destroy' here?

Also, if you had the courage to list the, supposed and alleged, 'liars' here, which I have, supposedly and allegedly, made, then 'we' would have something to 'look at' and 'discuss' here. But, until then, 'we', literally, have nothing at all.

You two narcissistic, dishonest, delusional fucks can court each other as much as you want, but just because you're broken, doesn't mean that others are bad thinkers.

Just because others 'look at', 'see', and say and write things differently from how you would, "atla", does not instantly nor automatically make them "narcissistic", "dishonest", and "delusional". However, if you want to keep choosing to believe that 'I' am these things, then please do so.

As for naming and labeling "gee" these things based on just the very few posts "gee" has written here, shows and reveals far more 'about you' than it ever does "gee".

you appear to keep forgetting that 'we' are in a 'philosophy forum', which, in one sense, is about 'sharing ideas and views', and working on or critiquing 'those ideas and views' alone.

[Atla]

I have no problem with any of the above and accept it as true and accurate.


I do have a problem here as I do not see matter and space as the 'fundamental' base. The problem is that neither matter nor space has any power to initiate creation or evolution. If matter has already been created, it can not evolve to create itself because it initially possesses no ability to be active -- no motion. This is the mistake that most people make, and then they find themselves looking for a "God" or intelligent designer or some other way to create intent to make a 'happening'.

The foundation of the universe is motion which sounds like an oxymoron. We think of a foundation as being solid, not moving, but motion creates matter and space, and then everything else follows. The motion/activity never quits, and intent is not even required. What feeds this constant motion? Energy. Itself.


The physical, the mental, and the spiritual ALL interact with themselves and each other. IMO


Yes. I fully agree with this. Consider that at the level below matter and space, where there is only motion/energy, there is no awareness. Awareness can not exist without matter, time and space. In order for awareness to exist two points are required. One point for something that is aware and one point that something is aware of, which means that matter is required for the points and space is required to separate them. Because space and time are interrelated, time would also come into existence with matter and space. This would allow for change to what is essentially eternity on the level of motion/energy. IMO


I also agree with this. Creation is not an event -- it is a process.



You have some interesting ideas, but I suspect that some of them are going to upset some of the members. It is clear to me that you are a holistic thinker, which means two things -- you are probably exceptionally bright and you see things from a perspective that few share. It is often a problem with holistic thinkers.

Gee

Age is saying that mere cause and effect automatically is creation and evolution.

Does this 'upset' you in some way "atla"?

Like you randomly throw the pieces of a 1000-piece puzzle into the air, and all of them fall into the right place and create the picture.

When did I ever imply 'this' "atla"?

However, to 'see' how all of the 'pieces of the puzzle' fit together perfectly, forming one perfectly crystal clear big and full Picture, then one, obviously, just needs to 'look at' and 'see' things from a different way that human beings have been doing hitherto to when this was written.

And you're already talking about three things, mental physical and spiritual.

Just because you guys are pushing your self-serving ideas, doesn't mean that the problem is with others and their low intelligence / lack of holistic thinking.

What 'problem'?

I do not see absolutely any 'problem' at all here.

Also, why are you under some sort of 'illusion' that these views/ideas are so-called 'self-serving', exactly?

What would be 'self-serving', exactly, in saying things that gets people like you to 'see' 'me' as a 'delusional liar, and nothing more but, with a multitude of other disorders'?

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential beliefs, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

[Atla]

Atla,


I do not need you to tell me what Age is saying. I can figure it out for myself and do a better job of it.


I certainly do not need you to explain what I am saying.


This statement is just plain rude. If you have nothing of value to add to this thread, you could stop posting here. If you insist on posting here, but only wish to insult members, call people names, etc., then your posts have no value. So far in this thread, you have called Age a liar 67 times -- I counted -- and you repeated other insults. I have already reported your posts, and will not accept the abuse that you have heaped on Age. Why do you think that I stopped posting for 14 pages? I had hoped that some members would get bored of abusing other members and leave this thread, but you seem to think that abusing the original poster is how you make a point or how you are supposed to debate.

I may have to stop posting in this thread. If I really feel the need to communicate with Age, I can always use the PM system.

Gee

Ah yes you reported me because I handled the most destructive entity on this forum, who also is in fact a pathological liar, the way it should be handled.

Why do you believe that 'I' am a 'destructive entity' for "atla"? What is 'it', exactly, that you believe 'I' am seeking to 'destroy' here?

Also, if you had the courage to list the, supposed and alleged, 'liars' here, which I have, supposedly and allegedly, made, then 'we' would have something to 'look at' and 'discuss' here. But, until then, 'we', literally, have nothing at all.

You two narcissistic, dishonest, delusional fucks can court each other as much as you want, but just because you're broken, doesn't mean that others are bad thinkers.

Just because others 'look at', 'see', and say and write things differently from how you would, "atla", does not instantly nor automatically make them "narcissistic", "dishonest", and "delusional". However, if you want to keep choosing to believe that 'I' am these things, then please do so.

As for naming and labeling "gee" these things based on just the very few posts "gee" has written here, shows and reveals far more 'about you' than it ever does "gee".

you appear to keep forgetting that 'we' are in a 'philosophy forum', which, in one sense, is about 'sharing ideas and views', and working on or critiquing 'those ideas and views' alone.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential beliefs, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

[Iwannaplato]

What the Universe is actually made up of and how the Universe actually works is very simple, everywhere and always.

Do you believe that? Is that your one belief? Could you ever change your mind about that?

[Iwannaplato]

Do you have some sort of fear of just expressing what the actual thing is, exactly, which you are referring and/or alluding to?

For, once again, I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to or alluding to here, which is somewhere in 'the thread'.

No, I don't have a fear around that. I discussed my issues around use the use of that word in many posts.

Now, if one was to assume that the words 'the thread' were referring to or alluding to 'this thread' here, and this was correct, then that one would be one step closer to finding out what you are referring to and alluding to here. However, instead of one looking back over this whole thread, reading all of this whole thread, and then just, still, assuming what 'it' is that you are talking about, referring to, and alluding to here, would it be possible if you just informed 'us', directly, what 'the reason' here is, exactly, why you would not use the 'creation' word here?

I would have thought you'd remember. It was in my first posts in the thread and was focused on the different ways you and Atla were framing causation.

Exactly like the words, 'In the beginning', have been spread among people with the connotation of 'a start', in the past, when it is 'imagined' all was 'created' all at once, with nothing prior or with an unknown and/or unexplained prior.

Also, an 'original Creation' can just mean one of only, and not 'the start', nor 'beginning' of some thing. See, the word 'Creation' does not have to be included, involved, nor connected with 'an event' nor 'an original event'. These two words have just detracted from what the 'Creation' word is meaning and referring to, exactly.

Yes, that's my point.

So, if you removed the False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect connotation that there was an 'original Creation event', in the past, as though there was a 'prior beginning' to all-there-is, then you will not be having nor holding a view/connotation that is stopping and preventing what the actual irrefutable Truth is, exactly, from being 'seen' and 'understood' here.

Sure, that's a solution. But given that people will have those connotations, I suggest not using that word.

If it is intended this way, then I'd want to see some explanation of the beginning. If not, I'd choose another word.

Why do you view that it is I who has to change words?

I don't see where I said you had to do something.

Do you not want to change your connotation? Do you want to stay rigid with your views, beliefs, perceptions, and/or connotations here?

Do you, Age, want to stay rigid with your views, beliefs, perceptions, and/or connotations here?

Notice that your question presumes that I have a view that you have to change your words. That is an assumption your made, a belief you had when you wrote this to me AND a belief no based on a good reading of my actual words. Why you ask why in a question like that, that kind of language includes assumptions about what is the case? If you inserted would, it might not have that assumption, but here the assumption is clear what you believe. I mention this since you have said you want to communicate better, but also have no beliefs or one belief. If that is really true, then you are using language very unclearly, especially how important it has seemed that others believe you have no beliefs or one belief.

Notice a similar issue arises when you ask: Do you want to stay rigid...etc.? When you use the word stay, you are communicating your belief that I am rigid in the ways you listed. IOW you are conveying another belief. If you do not have that belief, the sentence was worded incorrectly, even though it is a question.

The word 'Creation', by itself, holds no meaning, definition, nor connotation of some 'first nor original event'. Although people can be 'taught' and 'teach' that it has.

Connotations arise through use and what connotations humans associate with words. Especially with the capital C at the beginning connotations arise that seem not to fit your intentions. Words alone, not interacting with minds, may not have that connotation, but then, in a sense, they are not words, just ink on a page, for example. But Creation does have connotations of an event. Sometimes it can be an ongoing process, yes, but after an event/beginning. Of course one can try to change the connotations of a word. But I am suggesting that the use of other terms is likely to be better.

I have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what the words, 'Similar reaction', mean nor what they are referring to.

OK

A so-called 'global view' could be said or argued is a much smaller or narrow view compared to a 'universal view'.

Absolutely. But here I am not using it in relation to, for example the globe of the earth, say, but rather global rather than local.
Total.

So, the earlier discreteness seems to be part of a more global flow. And I think that's a better starting point: a global flow. I am not saying Age is talking about a global (universal) flow, but it sounds a bit more like that here and that connects with what I'd want to explore in relation to the earlier statements.

What I talk about and refer to here is for ALL things. So, this means from the smallest to the largest, and thus the whole.

I thought so. Or, I could say, I believed that is what you meant.

Matter being able to move about freely,

I don't know what is meant by freely.

And you never will if you never ask.

Hm, it seemed you were interested in having communication move quickly, from some of your earlier comments. It does seem clear that what you mean her may not be revealed to me unless you are asked a question. Though I have found there's no guarantee then either. Regardless you got some feedback about how people at the time this is being written may find parts of your communication unclear. And notice I did in fact ask the question below.

It sounds like the reactions are free somehow. Are they?

The part you quoted here talks about ' 'matter', being able to move about freely '.

So, what are you talking about when you say, 'the 'reactions' are free, somehow'?

I was talking about 'matter', whereas you are talking about, and asking about, 'reactions'.

To me, 'reactions' cannot be 'free', in the sense that they were, obviously, caused, or created, by something else, namely; the 'action' of at least two other things coming together.

See, I tried to triangulate. You got feedback from a reader about their interpretation, which was very tentative. Here's what it seemed to me to me, with a question. Instead of telling me what you did mean, you told me what was not implied/meant. If you want communication to be more effective/efficient, consider that you could have explained what you did mean. You did mention that you meant matter not reactions, but opted not to go into any more detail. I think the communication could be more collaborative that it is in the form you use now.

because of the distance or space between and around matter,

It seems like at the quantum level its not so clear what is space between and what is matter, with things sort of in many places, sort of nowhere, pinging in and out of existence, etc.

1. Why, at the quantum level, it is not clear, to you, what is space between and what is matter?

At the quantum level things can be in more than one place at once and even to different degrees.

2. What do you mean by, 'things sort of in many places'? What are the 'things' that you are talking about and referring to here, exactly?

I would suggesting looking into superposition and wave particle duality and how these affect the idea of emptiness or space between things being empty. There was a period of time I focused on qm to the degree that I might have felt comfortable explaining this, but I do not now. If you are interested google those terms and try to find scholarly articles aimed at lay people. If you're not interested, well, I'm sure you'll make the appropriate choice then. I think the way you wrote doesn't fit with current scientific theory and experimental results. If that leads to your interest in exploring further with experts or it doesn't is obviously up to you.

That's intuitive.

To you.

Obviously. I was owning the fact that it was intuitive and not something I can prove. I could explain it a bit more, but that would still fall short of a clear deduction, for example.

Because, here, in our corner of the universe,

Are there, really, 'corners', 'of the Universe, Itself'?

Perhaps you haven't heard that phrase. It's language that is openly metaphorical. Though even a phrase like the one you used 'To you' is metaphorical, but it's a fully dead metaphor, so we don't notice it. In the preposition to, there is a metaphor we no longer notice.

towards complexity in self-relation.

There have been many 'trends', which are not necessarily true, right, nor correct.

Also, what do you even mean by 'complexity in self-relation'?

Life forms have this complexity of self-relation - this shows in homeostasis, the incredibly complex ways that brains/minds interact and self-interact. As examples.

Who and what people, human beings, and the Self is, exactly, is not complex, and there is absolutely nothing towards complexity in self-relation, well to me anyway, other than the Truly unnecessary 'complexity' that adult human beings make and create, and maybe more so do in 'the days when this is being written'.

I think there is more complexity in, for example, the human mind even without words contemplating a loved one then what is happening in a red Lego piece.

And that seems like it still has a long way to go.

When you say and write 'it' here, then what do you mean by, 'it still has a long way to go'?

What, exactly, supposedly, has a 'long way to go'?

That it can get even more complex.

you were talking about, 'pinging in and out of existence', 'if the Universe is eternal and evolving always, then, to you, there must be cycles', and of something about some 'trend towards complexity in self-relation', and then 'now' you talk about, how 'that seems' '[some thing] still has a long way to go'.

If the universe is eternal AND there are trends towards the formation of more complexity of self-relation or complexity in general, then why haven't we already arrived at the most possible complex life forms? Or perhaps we have but where are they. This is exploratory.

Are you able to express "yourself" more clearly here, stop using words that just allude to some things, and instead just say what those things are, exactly?

This added nothing to the process.

At least in the last 13 billion or whatever is not posited from when things were fairly simple locally at least.

See, even here I have absolutely no idea nor clue about what 'it' is that you are talking about and referring to, at all.

There is no 'locally' in the Universe, and there is nothing complex, nor hard, anywhere, nor at any 'time', in the Universe, Itself.

There may be no 'locally', but there are local places, things, phenomena. That is, without the citation marks.

Going back to the beginning of this post, it seems to me that if we focus on tiny discrete 'parts', one acting on the other and then the other reacts, it leads to this kind of discreteness that seems misleading to me.

What 'kind of discreteness' are you talking about, exactly, that seems 'misleading', to you?

So you become aware, there is no actual 'discreteness' nor actual 'discrete' things anywhere. There is, however, an appearance of 'separate things' as this is the way the human brain can makes sense of, comprehend, and understand the one and only 'Thing'.

It seems like you understood what I meant.

Those parts now reaction also had momentum or something 'going' already and probably affected what affected them. And then all these 'contacts' would be happening in the being touched by the effects of other things less nearby with with affecting fields of different kinds. I am not saying the premises in the beginning are denying this way of looking at it, but I think it's misleading to start with them.

I find the way you speak and write here somewhat hard to comprehend and understand, and so much so I do not even know where to begin to start asking you to clarify things here. Are you able to say and write what you did here in a different way? [/quote]I think you got the idea below.

I think it's better to start with this whole things flow, rather than a reductionist sort-of particle view of things.

Thank you for this. This might work much better.

You're welcome.

To start with the whole Universe flowing, as one Thing, I would still need to show and prove how the Universe, Itself, is eternal, and thus has no beginning, nor ending.

The way I came to understand this was by 'seeing' what the Universe is fundamentally made up of.

OK

Either way, all, perceived, 'things', of all sizes, impact 'each other', in one way or another.

By the way, I do not see any difference at all between how the Universe works in 'particle' or 'object' sized 'things'.

I assumed that.

I am going to leave this here. I am interested to see if anyone else responds to my previous post - as you did here. I am glad at least part of my response was understood by you.

Yes, I could go on to further clarify. But going on my intuition, I think it's best to view this as a small success of communication between us and to let time pass before interacting anymore. There was a smattering of explicit and implicit ad hom on your part, but generally it was a polite interaction on both our parts.

[Age]

What the Universe is actually made up of and how the Universe actually works is very simple, everywhere and always.

Do you believe that?

I am not sure how many times that you need to be told and informed of some thing before you are able to learn, comprehend, and understand that thing.

I neither believe nor disbelieve 'that'.

Is that your one belief?

I have already explained what I have a belief in. And, very obviously it was and is not 'that'.

Could you ever change your mind about that?

One would have to first 'have a mind' to be able to 'change their mind'. 'I', for one, certainly do not 'have a mind'.

Why do you ask questions that I have already informed you of what the answers are, exactly, and already?

Now, if what you human beings are made up of, actually, for example, is already 'known', and is also very simply already known, then one could change their views a million times if they like, but this will never ever change what you human beings are actually very simply made up of.

Also, if one has the actual irrefutable proof of some thing, then, again, one could change their views a million times as well, but doing so would be rather pointless. As the actual proof already exists.

Now, the actual proof already exists for what the Universe is actually made up of and for how the Universe actually works, as well, and what they are and how It works is already very simple known, and well understood.

So, your questions here, having already been explained, are also really rather pointless. As what you human beings believe, and change your beliefs about and to, will never ever change what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, exactly, anyway.

[Iwannaplato]

I neither believe nor disbelieve 'that'.

One would have to first 'have a mind' to be able to 'change their mind'. 'I', for one, certainly do not 'have a mind'.

Why do you ask questions that I have already informed you of what the answers are, exactly, and already?

Now, if what you human beings are made up of, actually, for example, is already 'known', and is also very simply already known, then one could change their views a million times if they like, but this will never ever change what you human beings are actually very simply made up of.

Also, if one has the actual irrefutable proof of some thing, then, again, one could change their views a million times as well, but doing so would be rather pointless. As the actual proof already exists.

Now, the actual proof already exists for what the Universe is actually made up of and for how the Universe actually works, as well, and what they are and how It works is already very simple known, and well understood.

So, your questions here, having already been explained, are also really rather pointless. As what you human beings believe, and change your beliefs about and to, will never ever change what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, exactly, anyway.

So, this is an oracular situation.

You mention that you do not have a mind. You do have one belief and this was not it. Is it possible you would ever change your mind about that one belief? I assume this means that one belief you have is not like whatever these assertions above are'.

It seems also as if when something is proven and you notice that it is proven one does not believe in it. And there is no word for the relation. IOW you clearly say you do not believe or disbelieve them above. But there is no other verb for your relation with the idea. It is proven or has been proved. You do have a belief, but that wasn't it. So you have the relation of belief to your one belief. But you don't say what your relation is to these things that are proven to you. You don't for example say you know them to be true. Or you recognize their truth. Is there any word for your relationship to these things that have been proven?

[Iwannaplato]

It strikes me that another example of a dead metaphor might be useful.
evolve comes from to unroll, roll out, roll forth, unfold. We make terms out of our local, time-bound experience and build from these. It may seem like corner of the universe is metaphorical and evolve is literal, but actually humans make these terms up based on how they experience some things and project these onto others. And given that we are time bound, nor for example, see all times at once, and having, in any moment limited perspective on objects, our language is filled with tropes posing as literal. The good thing about open metaphors, like corner of the universe, is that we know they are metaphors and will not, generally, if we are familiar with the language at this time, take them literally. But metaphors that get called dead metaphors affect our thinking in ways we are less conscious of and take for granted assumptions we may not even be aware of as one possible way of seeing things.

[Age]

Do you have some sort of fear of just expressing what the actual thing is, exactly, which you are referring and/or alluding to?

For, once again, I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to or alluding to here, which is somewhere in 'the thread'.

No, I don't have a fear around that. I discussed my issues around use the use of that word in many posts.

See, even here this one does not say what it is actually referring to, exactly, but, instead, just refers to some thing, which others have to start 'assuming' what this one is even talking about and referring to.

I have also discussed 'my issues' around the use of 'that word' in many posts as well "iwannaplato". So, let 'us' see 'you' talk about 'them' and 'it' now.

Now, if one was to assume that the words 'the thread' were referring to or alluding to 'this thread' here, and this was correct, then that one would be one step closer to finding out what you are referring to and alluding to here. However, instead of one looking back over this whole thread, reading all of this whole thread, and then just, still, assuming what 'it' is that you are talking about, referring to, and alluding to here, would it be possible if you just informed 'us', directly, what 'the reason' here is, exactly, why you would not use the 'creation' word here?

I would have thought you'd remember. It was in my first posts in the thread and was focused on the different ways you and Atla were framing causation.

Well considering that you cannot remember some things that I have repeated to you many times over, why would you expect or assume that I would remember everything that you have said and/or claimed?

Is it not more productive in communication, to you, to just say what the 'actual thing' is, exactly, that you are talking about and/or referring to, instead of just alluding to 'it'?

Exactly like the words, 'In the beginning', have been spread among people with the connotation of 'a start', in the past, when it is 'imagined' all was 'created' all at once, with nothing prior or with an unknown and/or unexplained prior.

Also, an 'original Creation' can just mean one of only, and not 'the start', nor 'beginning' of some thing. See, the word 'Creation' does not have to be included, involved, nor connected with 'an event' nor 'an original event'. These two words have just detracted from what the 'Creation' word is meaning and referring to, exactly.

Yes, that's my point.

And that is my point. So, then you agree with me here, right?

So, if you removed the False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect connotation that there was an 'original Creation event', in the past, as though there was a 'prior beginning' to all-there-is, then you will not be having nor holding a view/connotation that is stopping and preventing what the actual irrefutable Truth is, exactly, from being 'seen' and 'understood' here.

Sure, that's a solution. But given that people will have those connotations, I suggest not using that word.

So, you are here more or less suggesting that you people just keep your False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect connotations, views, beliefs, assumptions, misinterpretations, and/or perspectives and just keep sharing, teaching, and learning those False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect versions, as though they are True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct.

I instead, and however, prefer to show and reveal what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, exactly, while also showing and revealing how and why you human beings, hitherto when this is being written, have been missing what the actual Truth is, exactly.

If it is intended this way, then I'd want to see some explanation of the beginning. If not, I'd choose another word.

Why do you view that it is I who has to change words?

I don't see where I said you had to do something.[/quote]

you said that if 'it' is intended 'this way', then you would want to see, from me, some explanation, of the beginning. But, if 'it' was not intended 'that way', you would choose another word.

Now, 'it' was not intended 'that way', obviously. So, if you are not implying here that I need to choose another word, just so you can then begin to comprehend and understand here, then what are you implying here, exactly, by your choice of words about you would choose another word here?

Do you not want to change your connotation? Do you want to stay rigid with your views, beliefs, perceptions, and/or connotations here?

Do you, Age, want to stay rigid with your views, beliefs, perceptions, and/or connotations here?

If the earth revolves around the sun, for example, has already been proved True to me, then, 'Yes I want to stay right with that view and perception.

Now, if you do not want to learn something new nor more, to you, then by all means keep your 'current' presumptions and beliefs. I do not care. But, what you are actually doing here, for me, is also proving True how the Mind and the brain actually work.

The proof of what the Universe is actually and fundamentally made up of, and how the Universe actually works, already exists.

For those that would like to 'know' and 'see' 'that proof' as well, then they just have to 'let go' of their pre-existing beliefs, connotations, presumptions and just start wanting to learn and understand more, and anew, here.

Notice that your question presumes that I have a view that you have to change your words.

Notice the way you speak and write here. I have 'now' asked you to clarify. 'We' 'now' wait.

That is an assumption your made, a belief you had when you wrote this to me AND a belief no based on a good reading of my actual words.

OF COURSE it was an assumption. Just like OF COURSE it was not necessarily a belief, at all. Although you believe otherwise here, right?

Why you ask why in a question like that, that kind of language includes assumptions about what is the case?

Who cares?

you speak and write here, like it is some sort of a 'moral sin' to make an assumption, or that making assumptions is something that you never do.

If you inserted would, it might not have that assumption, but here the assumption is clear what you believe.

But it is not and never was what I believed. Only a True fool would believe otherwise here.

Also, if 'my assumption' was wrong and incorrect, then you will clarify this in, when, and if you clarify my clarifying question posed, and asked to you, about this very thing here now.

But, if you do not clarify, then the readers will, once again, wonder why you have so much to hide here.

See, just maybe 'my assumption' here was and is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct. Which then, if I felt like it, I could then just saying that it was not 'an assumption' because I already 'knew' what you were actually meaning.

But, if 'my assumption' was and is actually False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Correct, then I, for one, look forward to seeing what the actual Truth is here, exactly.

I mention this since you have said you want to communicate better, but also have no beliefs or one belief.

Have you noticed how many times you keep claiming and accusing me of 'having beliefs' here?

Notice how I cannot even communicate 'to you' and make you comprehend and understand whether I have one, none, or many beliefs. Such is my lacking in ability to communicate just this one sole thing here, to you.

If that is really true, then you are using language very unclearly, especially how important it has seemed that others believe you have no beliefs or one belief.

After how many days, and how many posts, and you still appear to have absolutely no idea nor clue about 'me' and 'beliefs'.

And, notice how this one, still, does not ask one clarifying question regarding 'me' and 'beliefs', that is; in any way where actual clarification is sought out and really wanted.

This one would much prefer to let the readers here know that it is 'me' alone who is very unclear in communicating my views about 'beliefs' here. And, let 'us' not forget that 'we' are in a thread about 'creation' and 'evolution' here.

Notice a similar issue arises when you ask: Do you want to stay rigid...etc.? When you use the word stay, you are communicating your belief that I am rigid in the ways you listed.

But it is not a 'belief', as you have already proven absolutely True that you are 'rigid' and want to 'stay' with 'your connotations' and 'beliefs' here. This can be clearly 'seen' and proved true in and by the way you speak and write here.

IOW you are conveying another belief.

This is your belief alone here. Which, let 'us' not forget, you arrived at and concluded after you presumed that I was doing something here, which I was not.

If you do not have that belief, the sentence was worded incorrectly, even though it is a question.

Could your views or beliefs here be 'incorrect'? Or, does it have to be 'my sentences' that are 'worded incorrectly' here?

For example, could you be presuming or believing things that just did not even exist here? Or, is this an impossibility from your perspective or point of view here?

The word 'Creation', by itself, holds no meaning, definition, nor connotation of some 'first nor original event'. Although people can be 'taught' and 'teach' that it has.

Connotations arise through use and what connotations humans associate with words.

Okay. But did you think that there would be anyone here who did not already know this?

Especially with the capital C at the beginning connotations arise that seem not to fit your intentions.

And, what are 'my intentions' here, exactly?

Words alone, not interacting with minds, may not have that connotation, but then, in a sense, they are not words, just ink on a page, for example.

When you claim that there are 'minds', do you have to prove this, first? Or, are 'we' just to accept the connotation that there is more than One?

But Creation does have connotations of an event.

If you want to have 'that connotation'.

Also, are you aware the word 'Creation' has other connotations, to other human beings, as well?

Sometimes it can be an ongoing process, yes, but after an event/beginning.

And, there is only One event/beginning, of all-there-is.

One, however, just needs to learn, understand, and thus know when this One event/beginning really is, exactly.

Of course one can try to change the connotations of a word.

you do seem to believe that 'the connotation' of a word/s is the one and only one/s, and if others use 'other connotations', then it is them who 'can try to change the connotations' of a word/s.

Also, if 'the connotation' of a word/s is not fitting into a picture, puzzle, nor unified theory, of all-there-is, then just maybe 'the connotation' is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, and no matter how long 'that connotation' has been in existence for.

But I am suggesting that the use of other terms is likely to be better.

Have you suggested any actual 'other terms'?

If no, then why not?

I have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what the words, 'Similar reaction', mean nor what they are referring to.

OK

A so-called 'global view' could be said or argued is a much smaller or narrow view compared to a 'universal view'.

Absolutely. But here I am not using it in relation to, for example the globe of the earth, say, but rather global rather than local.
Total.

Okay. So, you are using the 'global' word in relation to 'global' rather than 'local'.

I was just pointing out that a 'global' view or perspective is bigger than a 'local' one but can still also be smaller than a 'universal' one.

So, the earlier discreteness seems to be part of a more global flow. And I think that's a better starting point: a global flow. I am not saying Age is talking about a global (universal) flow, but it sounds a bit more like that here and that connects with what I'd want to explore in relation to the earlier statements.

What I talk about and refer to here is for ALL things. So, this means from the smallest to the largest, and thus the whole.

I thought so. Or, I could say, I believed that is what you meant.

Matter being able to move about freely,

I don't know what is meant by freely.

And you never will if you never ask.

Hm, it seemed you were interested in having communication move quickly, from some of your earlier comments. It does seem clear that what you mean her may not be revealed to me unless you are asked a question.

Well it is only through being asked questions where and when people show interest.

For if they do not, then they are satisfied with what they already know, or think or believe they know.

Though I have found there's no guarantee then either.

you have already been informed of how what you were actually doing failed, absolutely.

And, since you left 'that', there, then this shows to me that you were satisfied where 'that' was left off.

Regardless you got some feedback about how people at the time this is being written may find parts of your communication unclear. And notice I did in fact ask the question below.

It sounds like the reactions are free somehow. Are they?

The part you quoted here talks about ' 'matter', being able to move about freely '.

So, what are you talking about when you say, 'the 'reactions' are free, somehow'?

I was talking about 'matter', whereas you are talking about, and asking about, 'reactions'.

To me, 'reactions' cannot be 'free', in the sense that they were, obviously, caused, or created, by something else, namely; the 'action' of at least two other things coming together.

See, I tried to triangulate.

And, see how I tried to gain clarity and clarification, from you.

But, again this did not work.

You got feedback from a reader about their interpretation, which was very tentative. Here's what it seemed to me to me, with a question. Instead of telling me what you did mean, you told me what was not implied/meant.

I just, more or less, pointed out that you 'changed' my 'matter' word to your introduced 'reaction' word, which then totally skewed, twisted, distorted, deflected, and/or took away from what I was actually saying, pointing out, and meaning.

your attempt at 'triangulation' only ruined what I was actually saying, and meaning, and so your attempt at asking for clarification was asking for or about absolutely nothing at all that I said, and meant, here.

Now, either you did, and keep doing this, on purpose, or, you need to learn how to read and comprehend the actual words that I say, and use, here alone. Which means without you putting your own presumptions nor beliefs onto my words.

If you want communication to be more effective/efficient, consider that you could have explained what you did mean.

Now, considering that it was I who pointed out the very reason for your lack of ability to communicate clearly, in the post that you are replying to here now, it could be now said that if you want to communicate more effective or efficiently here, then just stop alluding to things and just start saying what you actually mean and start meaning what you actually say.

You did mention that you meant matter not reactions, but opted not to go into any more detail.

I do not have to. I only talked about 'matter', and for reasons to yet be explained you introduced the 'reactions' word, which has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I actually said, and meant. Would you like to go into any detail about why you introduced the 'reactions' word here, and questioned me about 'reactions' when I was talking about 'matter' only?

If no, then why not?

I think the communication could be more collaborative that it is in the form you use now.

Okay.

And, I think you could not deflect much further than you have already.

because of the distance or space between and around matter,

It seems like at the quantum level its not so clear what is space between and what is matter, with things sort of in many places, sort of nowhere, pinging in and out of existence, etc.

1. Why, at the quantum level, it is not clear, to you, what is space between and what is matter?

At the quantum level things can be in more than one place at once and even to different degrees.

Having or holding this view is like saying, 'things can be in more than one place, at once, and even to different degrees', in the Universe. But, if absolutely any one thinks or believes that it is the 'exact same thing', 'in more than one place, at once/same time, and/or in different degrees', then they are Truly delusional.

It would be like saying or suggesting, that because 'things can be in more than one place at once and even to different degrees', exactly like how there are 'things being in more than one place at once and even to different degrees', in the Universe, that 'those things' are the 'exact same thing'. This, obviously, is Truly absurd and delusional.

There are 'things', like stars, planets, and meteorites in more than one place, at once, and even to different degrees', in the Universe, at the so-called 'classical level', just like there are 'things', like protons, neutrons, and electrons in more than one place, at once, and even to different degrees', again in the Universe, at the so-called 'quantum level', but, obviously, there is never even the 'exact same thing' in more than place, at once, at any different degree, in the Universe, at 'any level'.

2. What do you mean by, 'things sort of in many places'? What are the 'things' that you are talking about and referring to here, exactly?

I would suggesting looking into superposition and wave particle duality and how these affect the idea of emptiness or space between things being empty.

But, why suggest to me that I do something, when you said or claimed something, and I just asked you to clarify your view or claim here?

There was a period of time I focused on qm to the degree that I might have felt comfortable explaining this, but I do not now.

Okay. This explains enough here now.

If you are interested google those terms and try to find scholarly articles aimed at lay people.

So, if someone does not feel comfortable explaining something, which is very simple and easy to explain, then that one might not actually know that much about that thing.

If you're not interested, well, I'm sure you'll make the appropriate choice then. I think the way you wrote doesn't fit with current scientific theory and experimental results.

There is not that much that I write here that you fits in with what you adult human beings 'currently', when this is being written, say and claim is true.

If that leads to your interest in exploring further with experts or it doesn't is obviously up to you.

And, let 'us' not forget that it is 'I' who is talking about the unifying those things that the people of the days when this is being written could not unify. And, it is 'I' who knows not just what they have been and are missing but also how and why they keep missing, misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and are just misconceiving here.

That's intuitive.

To you.

Obviously. I was owning the fact that it was intuitive and not something I can prove. I could explain it a bit more, but that would still fall short of a clear deduction, for example.

Okay, so as long as it is clear that it 'that' is 'intuitive' to 'you' "iwannaplato" here, and not necessarily anyone else.

Because, here, in our corner of the universe,

Are there, really, 'corners', 'of the Universe, Itself'?

Perhaps you haven't heard that phrase. It's language that is openly metaphorical. Though even a phrase like the one you used 'To you' is metaphorical, but it's a fully dead metaphor, so we don't notice it.

Why?

Obviously, 'that' is 'intuitive' 'to you' here, unless, of course, you were lying.

Why do you think that 'to you' there was 'metaphorical' and 'not actually'?

In the preposition to, there is a metaphor we no longer notice.

Either there are, to you, 'corners' 'of the Universe', or there are not?

Why does 'clarifying' seem like it is a Truly hard thing for you to just do "iwannaplato"?

towards complexity in self-relation.

There have been many 'trends', which are not necessarily true, right, nor correct.

Also, what do you even mean by 'complexity in self-relation'?

Life forms have this complexity of self-relation - this shows in homeostasis, the incredibly complex ways that brains/minds interact and self-interact.

But, when, and if, you also learn, comprehend, and understand how the Mind and the brain work, exactly, and how the Universe works, exactly, as well, then you will also 'see' and 'know' how there is absolutely nothing complex about any thing in the whole Universe, including the whole Universe, Itself?

As examples.

Who and what people, human beings, and the Self is, exactly, is not complex, and there is absolutely nothing towards complexity in self-relation, well to me anyway, other than the Truly unnecessary 'complexity' that adult human beings make and create, and maybe more so do in 'the days when this is being written'.

I think there is more complexity in, for example, the human mind even without words contemplating a loved one then what is happening in a red Lego piece.

Okay. But, considering the irrefutable Fact that there is no actual 'human mind', what you think here is and was just moot, from the start and beginning anyway.

And that seems like it still has a long way to go.

When you say and write 'it' here, then what do you mean by, 'it still has a long way to go'?

What, exactly, supposedly, has a 'long way to go'?

That it can get even more complex.

So, the word 'it' here could be absolutely any thing.

Anyway, and by the way, once what has already been discovered, and learned, and understood here, then things do not get any more complex at all. In fact things get 'seen' and understood for what they Truly are, and for just how Truly simple all things are, exactly, and really.

Like, for example, what the Universe is made up of, exactly, is just 'matter', and, 'space', alone or fundamentally. From these two most simplest of things, every thing else is created, and all things evolve.

you were talking about, 'pinging in and out of existence', 'if the Universe is eternal and evolving always, then, to you, there must be cycles', and of something about some 'trend towards complexity in self-relation', and then 'now' you talk about, how 'that seems' '[some thing] still has a long way to go'.

If the universe is eternal AND there are trends towards the formation of more complexity of self-relation or complexity in general, then why haven't we already arrived at the most possible complex life forms?

But, there are no 'trends' 'towards the formation of more complexity'.

In fact, the exact opposite is actually, really, starting and beginning HERE-NOW. That is; the True simplicity of 'Life', living, and all things is coming to be understood, known, and revealed, to "others" as well.

The Truth is the so-called 'most complex life form' is actually, literally, 'purely simple', like all so-called 'life forms'.

And, the 'Truly simple' was reached, and achieved, when the 'I' evolved out of and past from 'you', human beings.

Or perhaps we have but where are they.

'They' are 'you' adult human beings.

Nothing else makes 'the simple', 'complex', and, nothing else makes 'the easy', 'hard', besides, of course, you adult human beings.

Making 'complex' and 'hard', what is not, only a 'confused and bewildered', or 'complex' 'life form' would do. And, obviously, only the adult human being is the only and/or most 'confused and bewildered' thing, existing. Well known to them anyway.

This is exploratory.

Is there anything that is not?

And, especially in a philosophy forum.

Are you able to express "yourself" more clearly here, stop using words that just allude to some things, and instead just say what those things are, exactly?

This added nothing to the process.

When you do not answer and clarify, then yes, this obviously added nothing to 'the process' here.

At least in the last 13 billion or whatever is not posited from when things were fairly simple locally at least.

See, even here I have absolutely no idea nor clue about what 'it' is that you are talking about and referring to, at all.

There is no 'locally' in the Universe, and there is nothing complex, nor hard, anywhere, nor at any 'time', in the Universe, Itself.

There may be no 'locally', but there are local places, things, phenomena. That is, without the citation marks.

That, obviously, depends on 'the observer', and if, and how, narrow their field of view is, exactly.

Going back to the beginning of this post, it seems to me that if we focus on tiny discrete 'parts', one acting on the other and then the other reacts, it leads to this kind of discreteness that seems misleading to me.

What 'kind of discreteness' are you talking about, exactly, that seems 'misleading', to you?

So you become aware, there is no actual 'discreteness' nor actual 'discrete' things anywhere. There is, however, an appearance of 'separate things' as this is the way the human brain can makes sense of, comprehend, and understand the one and only 'Thing'.

It seems like you understood what I meant.

Okay. But just so you become aware, I did not.

Those parts now reaction also had momentum or something 'going' already and probably affected what affected them. And then all these 'contacts' would be happening in the being touched by the effects of other things less nearby with with affecting fields of different kinds. I am not saying the premises in the beginning are denying this way of looking at it, but I think it's misleading to start with them.

I find the way you speak and write here somewhat hard to comprehend and understand, and so much so I do not even know where to begin to start asking you to clarify things here. Are you able to say and write what you did here in a different way?

I think you got the idea below.

Okay.

I think it's better to start with this whole things flow, rather than a reductionist sort-of particle view of things.

Thank you for this. This might work much better.

You're welcome.

To start with the whole Universe flowing, as one Thing, I would still need to show and prove how the Universe, Itself, is eternal, and thus has no beginning, nor ending.

The way I came to understand this was by 'seeing' what the Universe is fundamentally made up of.

OK

Either way, all, perceived, 'things', of all sizes, impact 'each other', in one way or another.

By the way, I do not see any difference at all between how the Universe works in 'particle' or 'object' sized 'things'.

I assumed that.

I am going to leave this here. I am interested to see if anyone else responds to my previous post - as you did here. I am glad at least part of my response was understood by you.

Yes, I could go on to further clarify. But going on my intuition, I think it's best to view this as a small success of communication between us and to let time pass before interacting anymore. There was a smattering of explicit and implicit ad hom on your part, but generally it was a polite interaction on both our parts.

I only want to discuss here how the Universe is just One Thing, only, which is infinite, eternal and which is creating Itself, through evolution, continually HERE-NOW, always.

But, if others want to talk 'about me', then, if I want to respond 'to that', then I will.

[Iwannaplato]

Do you have some sort of fear of just expressing what the actual thing is, exactly, which you are referring and/or alluding to?

For, once again, I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to or alluding to here, which is somewhere in 'the thread'.

No, I don't have a fear around that. I discussed my issues around use the use of that word in many posts. [/quote]

See, even here this one does not say what it is actually referring to, exactly, but, instead, just refers to some thing, which others have to start 'assuming' what this one is even talking about and referring to.

I have also discussed 'my issues' around the use of 'that word' in many posts as well "iwannaplato". So, let 'us' see 'you' talk about 'them' and 'it' now.

1) At the time this is being written, it is generally rude to refer to someone as 'this one', especially when responding to the person you are referring to that way. You may or may not intend to be rude.
2) You had a very strong negative reaction to the part of the thread where I talked about it earlier, so I would have thought you'd remember.
3) But, the odd thing here is you write this response even though a line or two later I do tell you where I wrote it. And even when you quote this, you still react as if I have not told you.
4) It is false to assert that others have to start 'assuming'. They do not need to assume. If they do not know the posts I am referring to as my first posts, they can simply continue not to know and realize they do not know. There is no causal forcing of them to do this, nor is a moral compulsion to do that. If you felt you had to start assuming things, and you assumed things, it might be best not to universal your reaction. But it would be very odd if you did start assuming, since you claim not to assume things, so I find it odd that you universalized something that doesn't even apply to you.

Again, I think it's best that on the general reaction I had to the OP, I wait and see if others respond. So, I will not respond to that line, at least for some time.

[Age]

I neither believe nor disbelieve 'that'.

One would have to first 'have a mind' to be able to 'change their mind'. 'I', for one, certainly do not 'have a mind'.

Why do you ask questions that I have already informed you of what the answers are, exactly, and already?

Now, if what you human beings are made up of, actually, for example, is already 'known', and is also very simply already known, then one could change their views a million times if they like, but this will never ever change what you human beings are actually very simply made up of.

Also, if one has the actual irrefutable proof of some thing, then, again, one could change their views a million times as well, but doing so would be rather pointless. As the actual proof already exists.

Now, the actual proof already exists for what the Universe is actually made up of and for how the Universe actually works, as well, and what they are and how It works is already very simple known, and well understood.

So, your questions here, having already been explained, are also really rather pointless. As what you human beings believe, and change your beliefs about and to, will never ever change what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, exactly, anyway.

So, this is an oracular situation.

Why do you believe this assertion of yours here?

You mention that you do not have a mind.

I more than just mention this.

You do have one belief and this was not it.

If you say so.

Is it possible you would ever change your mind about that one belief?

One would have to have 'a mind' before they could change 'their mind'. I do not have 'a mind' so there is 'no mind' here, to change.

I assume this means that one belief you have is not like whatever these assertions above are'.

Why do you keep 'assuming' things, when just asking for clarification is so much simpler, quicker, and easier?

It seems also as if when something is proven and you notice that it is proven one does not believe in it.

What seems to you here is also not Right and not True.

And there is no word for the relation. IOW you clearly say you do not believe or disbelieve them above. But there is no other verb for your relation with the idea.

But, there is and are. Which, by the way, I have clearly expressed.

It is proven or has been proved. You do have a belief, but that wasn't it.

I am not sure where you are trying to deflect to here, but you seem to be completely going down another Wrong tangent and track.

However, what you are deflecting away from appears very obvious.

So you have the relation of belief to your one belief.

If you say and believe so, then okay.

But you don't say what your relation is to these things that are proven to you.

But, I do, and have on numerous occasions.

You don't for example say you know them to be true.

Are you absolutely sure that I do not do this?

Or you recognize their truth. Is there any word for your relationship to these things that have been proven?

Yes.

And, as I have explained previously it relates to what the word 'prove' means and refers to, to me, exactly.

[Age]

It strikes me that another example of a dead metaphor might be useful.
evolve comes from to unroll, roll out, roll forth, unfold. We make terms out of our local, time-bound experience and build from these. It may seem like corner of the universe is metaphorical and evolve is literal, but actually humans make these terms up based on how they experience some things and project these onto others.

Okay. But, I thought this was rather very obvious anyway.

And given that we are time bound, nor for example, see all times at once, and having, in any moment limited perspective on objects, our language is filled with tropes posing as literal. The good thing about open metaphors, like corner of the universe, is that we know they are metaphors and will not, generally, if we are familiar with the language at this time, take them literally.

Okay. So, again, why say things that you do not, literally, mean, and especially so in a philosophy forum of all places?

But metaphors that get called dead metaphors affect our thinking in ways we are less conscious of and take for granted assumptions we may not even be aware of as one possible way of seeing things.

Is that any word or thing that does not, literally, affect 'your thinking'?

If yes, then will you list 'those words or things'?

[Age]

Do you have some sort of fear of just expressing what the actual thing is, exactly, which you are referring and/or alluding to?

For, once again, I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to or alluding to here, which is somewhere in 'the thread'.

No, I don't have a fear around that. I discussed my issues around use the use of that word in many posts.

See, even here this one does not say what it is actually referring to, exactly, but, instead, just refers to some thing, which others have to start 'assuming' what this one is even talking about and referring to.

I have also discussed 'my issues' around the use of 'that word' in many posts as well "iwannaplato". So, let 'us' see 'you' talk about 'them' and 'it' now.

1) At the time this is being written, it is generally rude to refer to someone as 'this one', especially when responding to the person you are referring to that way. You may or may not intend to be rude.
2) You had a very strong negative reaction to the part of the thread where I talked about it earlier, so I would have thought you'd remember.
3) But, the odd thing here is you write this response even though a line or two later I do tell you where I wrote it. And even when you quote this, you still react as if I have not told you.
4) It is false to assert that others have to start 'assuming'. They do not need to assume. If they do not know the posts I am referring to as my first posts, they can simply continue not to know and realize they do not know. There is no causal forcing of them to do this, nor is a moral compulsion to do that. If you felt you had to start assuming things, and you assumed things, it might be best not to universal your reaction. But it would be very odd if you did start assuming, since you claim not to assume things, so I find it odd that you universalized something that doesn't even apply to you.

Again, I think it's best that on the general reaction I had to the OP, I wait and see if others respond. So, I will not respond to that line, at least for some time.
[/quote]

But, absolutely none of this is what I was talking about.

Also, more of what you believe here is not True nor Right as well.

[Iwannaplato]

Why do you believe this assertion of yours here?

You are relaying a truth that you neither believe nor disbelieve.

You do have one belief and this was not it.

If you say so.

Oh, is that statement not correct?

Is it possible you would ever change your mind about that one belief?

One would have to have 'a mind' before they could change 'their mind'. I do not have 'a mind' so there is 'no mind' here, to change.

I assume this means that one belief you have is not like whatever these assertions above are'.

Why do you keep 'assuming' things, when just asking for clarification is so much simpler, quicker, and easier?

To show you what your elicits. Is it not like these assertions here. There is the one thing you believe. You have a belief in that. Here you neither believe or disbelieve these other assertions you make. Is you belief open to revision? Might you no longer believe it at some point? Is it not proven?

It seems also as if when something is proven and you notice that it is proven one does not believe in it.

What seems to you here is also not Right and not True.

You do not believe those assertions that you consider proven. You said you neither believe them, nor disbelieve them. You also say they have been proven or proved. Does your sense they have been proven mean that they are in a category you do not believe or disbelieve the members of?

And there is no word for the relation. IOW you clearly say you do not believe or disbelieve them above. But there is no other verb for your relation with the idea.

But, there is and are. Which, by the way, I have clearly expressed.

What is that verb for the relation to those statements you said have been proved and can be proved to be correct but which you neither believe nor disbelieve?

So you have the relation of belief to your one belief.

If you say and believe so, then okay.

What is your relation to your one belief? Do you believe it to be true?

But you don't say what your relation is to these things that are proven to you.

But, I do, and have on numerous occasions.

Great: what verb would you use? Or if it is a description of the relation without verbs, what is that?

Or you recognize their truth. Is there any word for your relationship to these things that have been proven?

Yes.

And, as I have explained previously it relates to what the word 'prove' means and refers to, to me, exactly.

And what is that word or words?

[Iwannaplato]

Okay. So, again, why say things that you do not, literally, mean, and especially so in a philosophy forum of all places?

My point in that post and when I mentioned the metaphorical aspect of 'to' in a previous post was to point out that we are all using metaphorical language. There is a big misconception that there is some distinct line between trope-based language and literal language. Even the word literal is a metaphor in this context, ironically. It means to take exactly as written in the original text. But here we are not writing about texts. We now use this metaphor for direct quoting as a metaphor for not speaking about something through something else. But that process is being spoken about through a metaphor

But metaphors that get called dead metaphors affect our thinking in ways we are less conscious of and take for granted assumptions we may not even be aware of as one possible way of seeing things.

Is that any word or thing that does not, literally, affect 'your thinking'?

If yes, then will you list 'those words or things'?

It depends what you mean by literally. Any word I hear and read affects my thinking - taken in the broad sense of 'affects my cognitive processes'. But does it affect them literally or some other way? I would say that given that our words and even grammar have been created out of our particular way of interacting with and experiencing the universe, that is via human sensory systems, human experience of time in sequence, human experience of being in one place and not all places, and that we co-opted the motor cortext when we started making words ALL communication has trope aspects. Not all of it is metaphorical, since that is a specific type of trope. But they do not match the connotations in intended in literal - again, itself, a metaphor. If one actually tracks what happens when one reads/listens, one finds something other than the representational or correspondence theories of truth going on. That's a huge topic. I don't know if you have ever studied the various models for truth or engaged in the phenomenology of language with both openly trope based language compared to what is called literal language, but which is in fact dead metaphors and also inherently tropic because it is built through a specific kind of mind brain that made its language out of tropes and subjectivity.

I'm not sure exactly what you meant by 'Is that any word....' that full sentence. I am guessing that you meant 'Is there any word or thing...etc.' If that's what you were asking and you also meant 'any word that I take literally', then my answer is 'not in its entirety.' Since any word is focused on facets of what it referring to or even the phenomenon of my experience of it. Which is not literally what it labels. The moment we have sentences, which have grammar, there is a whole other category of tropish communication going on: reifications, subject object splits of specific kinds, all the dead metaphoric nuances in prepositions, for example, and even articles, and so on.

It's a huge topic. If you're interested I could recommend some works to look at. If not, fine, of course.

I'm not interested enough to explain it here, now. But I can help, if you are geniunely interested, lead you to works that explain these things and are the products of careful thinking and editing.