What "side" are you on?

[Iwannaplato]

That part within the human being, which is OPEN to ANY and EVERY 'thing', and which has enabled human beings to be able to learn, understand, and reason ANY and EVERY 'thing' and which continues to provide the ability to continue to keep learning, understanding, and reasoning ANY and EVERY 'thing'.

The ability of the (ALWAYS Truly OPEN) Mind is very closely related to 'intelligence', itself, AND which IS the EXACT SAME within EVERY human being.

Great, I can work with your definition of mind. I may want to ask for clarification at some point, but I think we have a good start. So, could you demonstrate that there are no individual minds.

Could you then, working from the above definition, prove that

there is ONLY One Mind, and NOT MANY minds,

[Dontaskme]

Can 'you', posters, here REALLY STILL NOT YET SEE that 'you' have ALL CHOSEN TO ONLY LOOK AT "one-side" of 'things' and thus are ONLY 'seeing' "one-side" or one perspective of 'things' here?

For the looker, there is only one side to look at. There is only the seen side of things. There is nothing showing on the other side of the seen side of things. If there is, what would the other side of the seen side of things look like to you Age?

Who or what is looking anyway? and can that be seen?
If you say I am looking, then that too is seen, and would be the only side there is. Just one side is all that can be seen Age. Any other side is simply sourced from within this one sided looking.

[Age]

Okay, but I DID emphasize 'exactly'.

Also, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here, ONCE MORE, 'you' did NOT ANSWER the two QUESTIONS posed, and ASKED, and 'you' DETRACTED, AGAIN.

Yes I saw that you keep using the word, and your claim that it has an extremely specific meaning that you happen to know and I don't, and that is dishonest in itself.

LOL 'you' have done 'it' ONCE AGAIN. That is; DETRACT, and DECEIVE.

SEE, I do NOT have a so-called 'extremely specific meaning', that you do NOT happen to KNOW. And, 'this' can be PROVEN ABSOLUTELY True.

It is also dishonest to claim that I detracted when I didn't. You are already attempting to NOT discuss the actual issue, but make this about ad homs, sophistry, lying.

But I was NOT dishonest, and you DID detract.

See, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here IS I ASKED 'you' two QUESTIONS, and 'you' did NOT ANSWER them, and JUST DETRACTED.

AND, 'TRYING TO' detail some 'thing', which is YET to be ESTABLISHED and VERIFIED as even being True, would be a complete and utter WASTE.

ALSO, WHEN some 'thing' IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED and VERIFIED, then the ACTUAL 'detail' and/or 'definition' of 'it' is, usually, also AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED,

OBVIOUSLY, the 'definition' of the 'mind' word, and the 'detail' of 'it', is NOT YET ESTABLISHED, and VERIFIED.

Yes, so then why did you once again ask me to do what is a complete and utter WASTE, to define 'mind' EXACTLY?

To SHOW 'your' how RIDICULOUS it is to CLAIM that THERE ARE some 'things' when one can NOT even 'define' and EXPLAIN, in 'detail', what 'those things' ARE EXACTLY, NOR even what 'those things' ARE SUPPOSED TO BE, EXACTLY.

BUT, the so-called 'dead tissue', inside the so-called 'living body', IS 'active', just like so-called 'dead human body' is ALSO 'active'.

What are 'neurons' ACTUALLY DOING when so-called 'not firing'?

Using your definition of 'active', absolutely everything in the universe is 'active'. So the word 'active' doesn't mean anything.

BUT I NEVER SAID that EVERY 'thing' IS 'active', NOR did I EVER MENTION absolutely ANY 'thing' about ANY 'definition' of the 'active' word.

So, HOW and WHY did 'you' MAKE THE ASSUMPTION, and JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION, that the 'active' word does NOT mean absolutely ANY 'thing' here?

Okay. BUT, ONCE MORE, 'you' did NOT ANSWER the (four) CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here, and just DEFLECTED, ONCE AGAIN.

I found the first question too detached to spend minutes trying to decode the sentences. Here, I'll try it:
1. I wasn't saying part of a part a part, not even part of a part.

This IS Correct. AND, I NEVER EVER even SAID what 'you' ARE 'TRYING TO' MAKE OUT and CLAIM here that I SAID, or was REFERRING TO.

2. I don't know. The mind is a part of the brain, but I can't tell what percentage it is. But creating the mind is the 'main' purpose of the brain .

So,

1. These so-called 'individual minds' do NOT ACTUALLY 'evolve', as 'you' SAID and CLAIMED, BEFORE, BECAUSE 'now' 'you' are here SAYING and CLAIMING that it IS 'the brain', which CREATES 'the mind'?

2. HOW do 'you', SUPPOSEDLY, KNOW that 'the mind' is 'a part' of 'the brain', but, supposedly, now can NOT tell what percentage 'the mind' is, supposedly, 'a part' of 'the brain'?

3. IF 'the purpose' of 'the mind' is to, supposedly, 'coordinate the organism', on the inside, AND, 'the organism' USES 'the mind' to 'navigate the external world', then WHAT was 'coordinating' AND 'navigating' 'the organism' BEFORE 'the brain' CREATED 'the mind', EXACTLY?

4. HOW does 'a brain' CREATE a 'thing', which, supposedly, functions via 'biochemistry'? And,

5. WHERE, EXACTLY, is the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF that there is A 'thing', called 'an individual mind', which functions via biochemistry?

3. let's go with 2.
4. let's go with 2.

So as to REFRESH 'the memory', what was 2, EXACTLY?

Ah okay. So, if 'this' was true, then before these so-called 'individual minds' evolved, then there was NO purpose NOR need 'to survive', right?

No, there's no reason to think that there is literally a metaphysical 'purpose' or 'need' ever.

BUT 'you' SAID, and CLAIMED, 'individual minds' EVOLVED, mainly, FOR 'survival PURPOSES', OBVIOUSLY'.

So, WHAT WAS CONTROLLING 'the SURVIVAL' of 'the organism' BEFORE 'these, alleged, individual minds' EVOLVED, or were CREATED?

Evolution was part of the way from a simpler state like the Big bang, to the current state of the world with humans.

WHY do 'you' PRESUME that 'that' was a so-called 'simpler state'?
Are 'you' UNDER some sort of DELUSION that the Universe, Itself, is more 'complex' 'now' than 'It' was 'back then'?

If yes, then HOW could 'that' even be, and WHY would 'that' even be?

Also, has NOT 'evolution' been ALWAYS?

The evolution of minds was simply part of that way.

WHAT WAY?

'The way' IS ALWAYS. 'The way' does NOT CHANGE 'in ways'.

'The way' the Universe IS NOW IS 'the way' the Universe ALWAYS IS (was AND will be).

'The way' the Universe IS HERE-NOW IS CONSTANT, in that 'It' IS ALWAYS CHANGING.

The Universe IS IN A state OF CONSTANT-CHANGE, ETERNALLY HERE, NOW.

'you' REALLY DO SPEAK and WRITE IN a VERY CONFUSED and LOST 'way' here sometimes"atla".

And, what are the other reason/s these so-called 'individual minds' evolved for, to 'you', "atla"?

If there are further 'reasons', then those reasons are probably that one or more humans are supposed to achieve something using their minds. Maybe there are further reasons, maybe not.

So, although 'you' CLAIM that these, supposed, 'individual minds' EVOLVED 'mainly' for ONE reason, 'you' are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY UNABLE to INFORM 'us' of even IF there are ANY OTHER reasons, let alone of what they ACTUALLY ARE. So, 'you', ONCE AGAIN, just MAKE UP ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT what those reasons COULD BE, based SOLELY UPON your OTHER ASSUMPTION here ABOUT there being MAYBE MORE reasons than just the ONE reason, which 'you' have ALSO OBVIOUSLY just MADE UP, and THEN CLAIMED was FACTUAL.

So, what came FIRST? The 'individual organism' or the 'individual mind'?

Depends on where you want to draw the line in your definiton.

BUT, 'we' are DISCUSSING YOUR 'definition' ALONE here.

Should we see the extremely simple functioning of a virus or a single-celled organism, to be a mind?

I suggest we ONLY LOOK AT at what the 'mind' word could MEAN, and be REFERRING TO, in relation to ALL of the other words and their definitions ALONE here.

Also, have 'you' even got ANY PROOF that 'mind' IS 'physical', like 'a virus' or 'a single-celled organism' IS?

If yes, then WHERE IS 'that PROOF', EXACTLY?

I tend to say no, I draw the line at least at nervous systems, so individual organisms came first. But it's really a matter of definition.

AND 'the definition' OF IS WHERE and WHEN I SAID 'this discussion' WOULD, REALLY, BEGIN'

Okay. So, what do these 'individual mind' 'thingies' look like, EXACTLY?

From the inside, they look like what you are experienceing right now. From the outside, they look like biological tissue and/or are invisible like EM fields.

So, to 'you', these so-called 'individual mind' 'thingies' look like 'words on a screen', AS WELL AS 'individual minds' LOOK LIKE 'physical matter' AND 'invisible' AT the EXACT SAME 'moment'.

Just out of CURIOSITY "atla", do 'you' think 'you' are EXPLAIN "your" VIEWS CLEARLY here?

And, WHERE are 'they' in the 'living organism' known as the 'human body', EXACTLY?

Theay are parts of the human organs, along with their EM fields and so on.

Have 'you' SEEN 'them' with those physical eyes "atla"? Or, HEAR 'them', OR SMELT 'them', OR FELT 'them', OR TASTED 'them?

Also, if 'you' were AT ALL 'trying to' IMPLY that 'you' were somehow TEACHING what 'these ASSUMED 'minds' ARE and WHAT 'they' REALLY DO, then 'you' are CERTAINLY NOT.

As EVERY one could ATTEST

Yes most of it is in the textbooks so I shouldn't have to write them down for you,

NAME AT LEAST TWO textbooks WHERE, MOST, of what you have been SAYING, and CLAIMING, here 'it is written'.

instead we should do the philosophical parts only. If you were competent enough to have a conversation with me.

BUT, 'I" am Truly NOT COMPETENT to HAVE 'a conversation' WITH 'you', CORRECT "atla"?

And EVERY one could attest? Once again you are patently lying you pathetic subhuman retard.

WOW SOME 'thing' here has REALLY 'triggered a nerve', as some might say.

So, 'Who am 'I'?' EXACTLY, which, SUPPOSEDLY, has ONE of these, so-called 'individual minds'?

And, to 'me', the 'experiences' of 'this body' are gained and obtained by ANOTHER particular 'thing', and are 'held' in some 'thing' ELSE.

But, each to their own, as some might say here, now.

You are the mind of a human being with the massive delusion that it's the universal "I" there.

So, to 'you', 'I' AM 'parts OF the organs WITHIN a 'human body', AND WITH A MASSIVE DELUSION.

But, AGAIN, 'Who am 'I', EXACTLY, which, supposedly, has A part and A perspective within the continual universal experience?

You are the mind of a human being with the massive delusion that it's the universal "I" there.

So, to be CLEAR, to "atla", ALL of 'you' ARE 'the individual minds', which are PARTS OF 'the organs' of 'human bodies', and which EVOLVED, MAINLY, FOR 'survival purposes', OBVIOUSLY, BUT, which ALSO 'the brains' WITHIN 'those bodies' ACTUALLY CREATED, ANYWAY. BUT, 'those minds', or 'you', ARE NOT VERY EFFICIENT AT ALL BECAUSE the SURVIVAL of 'those bodies', and thus 'you' is VERY SHORT LIVED, RELATIVELY, and REALLY.

AND, 'Who or what is HAVING the continual universal experience, EXACTLY?

Nothing is, the universe just exists. It is the universal experience itself.

So, ALTHOUGH the Universe, Itself, IS ETERNAL, one TINY, MINISCULE LITTLE 'speck', which exists for a relatively NOTHING 'period of time', EXPECTS that 'it' ALREADY KNOWS, and CAN TELL EVERY 'thing' ELSE, WHAT the ACTUAL Truth IS here.

WHICH, FROM thee Truly UNIVERSAL perspective of 'thing' is EVEN FAR MORE FUNNIER, than what HAS BEEN APPEARING hitherto here, in this forum.

[Age]

That part within the human being, which is OPEN to ANY and EVERY 'thing', and which has enabled human beings to be able to learn, understand, and reason ANY and EVERY 'thing' and which continues to provide the ability to continue to keep learning, understanding, and reasoning ANY and EVERY 'thing'.

The ability of the (ALWAYS Truly OPEN) Mind is very closely related to 'intelligence', itself, AND which IS the EXACT SAME within EVERY human being.

Great, I can work with your definition of mind.

Well IF 'you' HAD ASKED, EARLIER, THEN 'you' could have, ALSO, BEGUN to have WORKED WITH 'my definition' EARLIER, AS WELL.

I may want to ask for clarification at some point, but I think we have a good start.

I am HOPING 'you' WILL ASK MANY MORE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, and I SORT OF EXPECT 'you' to ASK FOR CLARIFICATION, as we proceed. Especially considering just HOW USELESS 'I' REALLY AM AT COMMUNICATING WITH 'you', human beings, here.

So, could you demonstrate that there are no individual minds.

This would be like ASKING, 'Could 'you', "iwannaplato", DEMONSTRATE that there are NO 'unicorns'?'

Now, I can NOT 'demonstrate' that there are NO 'unicorns'. However, I could SHOW 'you', through AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition' of the 'mind' word that there is ONLY One Mind, which would THEN MEAN, and thus KNOWN, that there are NO "other minds".

Could you then, working from the above definition, prove that

there is ONLY One Mind, and NOT MANY minds,

Yes, as just EXPLAINED, HOW.

[Gary Childress]

What IS ALSO CLEARLY VISIBLE here is 'these posters' PREFER TO talk ABOUT 'me' INSTEAD OF having discussions WITH 'me'.

What would you like to discuss, Age?

[Age]

Can 'you', posters, here REALLY STILL NOT YET SEE that 'you' have ALL CHOSEN TO ONLY LOOK AT "one-side" of 'things' and thus are ONLY 'seeing' "one-side" or one perspective of 'things' here?

For the looker, there is only one side to look at.

As NEARLY ALWAYS that is some, and a LOT OF 'truth' in 'this' here of 'yours' "dontaskme".

However, and OBVIOUSLY, WHEN 'thee Looker' is TOTALLY, FULLY, or ABSOLUTELY OPEN, then there IS NO 'side' FROM which to SEE, NOR LOOK AT even.

AND, HOW one CHOOSES TO 'LOOK', and thus then SEE 'things', is SOLELY DEPENDENT UPON and UP TO 'them'.

There is only the seen side of things. There is nothing showing on the other side of the seen side of things.

JUST BECAUSE what IS 'on the so-called "other side", (or 'behind the curtain', so some call "the other-side" here), IS INVISIBLE to the physical eye/s of the physical human body, does NOT mean that 'It' can NOT bee SEEN (and) UNDERSTOOD.

The 'Mind', just like 'thought', IS INVISIBLE, TO the 'naked eye', ONLY. BUT these two 'things' can be SEEN, as in, UNDERSTOOD.

Also, what we have here is ANOTHER PRIME example of just how ENTRENCHED 'these people' WERE, back then, on there BEING "sides" of 'things'.

If there is, what would the other side of the seen side of things look like to you Age?

It is NOT ABOUT what it WOULD look like, but ABOUT what 'It' ACTUALLY IS, EXACTLY.

Who or what is looking anyway? and can that be seen?

WHO IS 'thee Mind'?

WHAT IS 'the Universe'?

And, the physical Universe can be 'seen' WITH the physical body, through and from ANY of the fives senses of the human body. While, the Mind IS 'SEEN' through and from UNDERSTANDING, itself, which comes through and from Its (OWN) Self. That is; thee (Truly OPEN) Mind can and does SEE ANY and EVERY 'thing', INCLUDING Its (OWN) Self.

If you say I am looking, then that too is seen, and would be the only side there is. Just one side is all that can be seen Age. Any other side is simply sourced from within this one sided looking.

OKAY. IF 'this' is what 'you', one individual human being, has CHOSEN TO BELIEVE IS TRUE, then 'that' IS PERFECTLY FINE WITH 'Me'.

'I' AM NOT here to SHOW 'you' otherwise.

WHATEVER ANY one of 'you', human beings, have CHOSEN TO BELIEVE IS TRUE IS PERFECTLY FINE WITH 'Me'.

[Age]

What IS ALSO CLEARLY VISIBLE here is 'these posters' PREFER TO talk ABOUT 'me' INSTEAD OF having discussions WITH 'me'.

What would you like to discuss, Age?

ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', which 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY CURIOUS ABOUT.

[Gary Childress]

What IS ALSO CLEARLY VISIBLE here is 'these posters' PREFER TO talk ABOUT 'me' INSTEAD OF having discussions WITH 'me'.

What would you like to discuss, Age?

ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', which 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY CURIOUS ABOUT.

OK.

1. Why did you title this thread, "What 'side' are you on?"

2. Who is the word "you" referring to in the thread title?

[Gary Childress]

@Age:

3. Are you a chatbot, Age?

[Atla]

LOL 'you' have done 'it' ONCE AGAIN. That is; DETRACT, and DECEIVE.

SEE, I do NOT have a so-called 'extremely specific meaning', that you do NOT happen to KNOW. And, 'this' can be PROVEN ABSOLUTELY True.

Then you wouldn't have asked if I'm even aware what the word refers to, dishonest one. Focus on the topic.

To SHOW 'your' how RIDICULOUS it is to CLAIM that THERE ARE some 'things' when one can NOT even 'define' and EXPLAIN, in 'detail', what 'those things' ARE EXACTLY, NOR even what 'those things' ARE SUPPOSED TO BE, EXACTLY.

Then you've proven that what you've asked me to do is ridiculous. So you've proven your own dishonesty. OBVIOUSLY.

BUT I NEVER SAID that EVERY 'thing' IS 'active', NOR did I EVER MENTION absolutely ANY 'thing' about ANY 'definition' of the 'active' word.

So, HOW and WHY did 'you' MAKE THE ASSUMPTION, and JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION, that the 'active' word does NOT mean absolutely ANY 'thing' here?

Of course you have. If dead things are active, just like alive things are, then everything is active. OBVIOUSLY.

So,

1. These so-called 'individual minds' do NOT ACTUALLY 'evolve', as 'you' SAID and CLAIMED, BEFORE, BECAUSE 'now' 'you' are here SAYING and CLAIMING that it IS 'the brain', which CREATES 'the mind'?

No, I was just circumscribing that the mind is what the brain mainly evolved to do.

2. HOW do 'you', SUPPOSEDLY, KNOW that 'the mind' is 'a part' of 'the brain', but, supposedly, now can NOT tell what percentage 'the mind' is, supposedly, 'a part' of 'the brain'?

Because everything we know in science, psychology etc. has localized the mind to the brain, but science can't establish an exact percentage yet. OBVIOUSLY.

3. IF 'the purpose' of 'the mind' is to, supposedly, 'coordinate the organism', on the inside, AND, 'the organism' USES 'the mind' to 'navigate the external world', then WHAT was 'coordinating' AND 'navigating' 'the organism' BEFORE 'the brain' CREATED 'the mind', EXACTLY?

Nothing was coordinating the wider organism before that.

4. HOW does 'a brain' CREATE a 'thing', which, supposedly, functions via 'biochemistry'? And,

The mind is a part of the biochemistric brain, it's not literally something else, something additional.

5. WHERE, EXACTLY, is the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF that there is A 'thing', called 'an individual mind', which functions via biochemistry?

There is no irrefutable proof, but all the sciences and psychology and sociology are completely consistent with this.

BUT 'you' SAID, and CLAIMED, 'individual minds' EVOLVED, mainly, FOR 'survival PURPOSES', OBVIOUSLY'.

So, WHAT WAS CONTROLLING 'the SURVIVAL' of 'the organism' BEFORE 'these, alleged, individual minds' EVOLVED, or were CREATED?

Nothing was, they just reacted automatically to the environment without any higher processing, obviously.

WHY do 'you' PRESUME that 'that' was a so-called 'simpler state'?

Because that's what science fairly consistently points toward, obviously.

Are 'you' UNDER some sort of DELUSION that the Universe, Itself, is more 'complex' 'now' than 'It' was 'back then'?

No. Are you under some sort of delusion that the part of the universe that came from the Big Bang, must be the entire universe?

WHAT WAY?

'The way' IS ALWAYS. 'The way' does NOT CHANGE 'in ways'.

'The way' the Universe IS NOW IS 'the way' the Universe ALWAYS IS (was AND will be).

'The way' the Universe IS HERE-NOW IS CONSTANT, in that 'It' IS ALWAYS CHANGING.

The Universe IS IN A state OF CONSTANT-CHANGE, ETERNALLY HERE, NOW.

'you' REALLY DO SPEAK and WRITE IN a VERY CONFUSED and LOST 'way' here sometimes"atla".

Again, the way from the Big bang to the present state world with humans in it. Which meant change. There is nothing confused about this; you are confused, obviously.

So, although 'you' CLAIM that these, supposed, 'individual minds' EVOLVED 'mainly' for ONE reason, 'you' are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY UNABLE to INFORM 'us' of even IF there are ANY OTHER reasons, let alone of what they ACTUALLY ARE. So, 'you', ONCE AGAIN, just MAKE UP ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT what those reasons COULD BE, based SOLELY UPON your OTHER ASSUMPTION here ABOUT there being MAYBE MORE reasons than just the ONE reason, which 'you' have ALSO OBVIOUSLY just MADE UP, and THEN CLAIMED was FACTUAL.

You are obviously insane if you think that the entire body of scientific and psychological knowledge is "OBVIOUSLY MADE UP".

I suggest we ONLY LOOK AT at what the 'mind' word could MEAN, and be REFERRING TO, in relation to ALL of the other words and their definitions ALONE here.

Also, have 'you' even got ANY PROOF that 'mind' IS 'physical', like 'a virus' or 'a single-celled organism' IS?

If yes, then WHERE IS 'that PROOF', EXACTLY?

We have like total evidence that the mind is physical. All the proof is in the sciences, psychology, sociology. Whenever the 'physical' is affected, the 'mind' is affected accordingly.

So, to 'you', these so-called 'individual mind' 'thingies' look like 'words on a screen', AS WELL AS 'individual minds' LOOK LIKE 'physical matter' AND 'invisible' AT the EXACT SAME 'moment'.

Just out of CURIOSITY "atla", do 'you' think 'you' are EXPLAIN "your" VIEWS CLEARLY here?

I am explaining myself clearly, but you are insane, which is the point. You lack almost every basic insight that almost everyone else have known all their lives, obviously.

Your mind is everything you experience right now, not just the words on a screen, obviously.

Have 'you' SEEN 'them' with those physical eyes "atla"? Or, HEAR 'them', OR SMELT 'them', OR FELT 'them', OR TASTED 'them?

You were the one stupid enough to ask the question what it's like to see the insides of some else's head from the outside, while being unable to do so since it's inside their heads. And once you cut them open, they're already dead. The best you can do is take brain scans to have an outside perspective picture about some of the inner workings in there.

NAME AT LEAST TWO textbooks WHERE, MOST, of what you have been SAYING, and CLAIMING, here 'it is written'.

Any general neuroscience textbook, obviously.

BUT, 'I" am Truly NOT COMPETENT to HAVE 'a conversation' WITH 'you', CORRECT "atla"?

Correct

WOW SOME 'thing' here has REALLY 'triggered a nerve', as some might say.

Not really - I'm not very politically correct and think that sometimes you need to be reminded that you aren't fully human, and at least partially by choice, so it's at least partially your fault.

So, to 'you', 'I' AM 'parts OF the organs WITHIN a 'human body', AND WITH A MASSIVE DELUSION.

Yes, obviously, and I already said many times.

So, to be CLEAR, to "atla", ALL of 'you' ARE 'the individual minds', which are PARTS OF 'the organs' of 'human bodies', and which EVOLVED, MAINLY, FOR 'survival purposes', OBVIOUSLY, BUT, which ALSO 'the brains' WITHIN 'those bodies' ACTUALLY CREATED, ANYWAY. BUT, 'those minds', or 'you', ARE NOT VERY EFFICIENT AT ALL BECAUSE the SURVIVAL of 'those bodies', and thus 'you' is VERY SHORT LIVED, RELATIVELY, and REALLY.

Yes. Minus ideas about some actual magical creation of the mind by the brain.
But this view is an obvious view, so WHY haven't you started from here?

So, ALTHOUGH the Universe, Itself, IS ETERNAL, one TINY, MINISCULE LITTLE 'speck', which exists for a relatively NOTHING 'period of time', EXPECTS that 'it' ALREADY KNOWS, and CAN TELL EVERY 'thing' ELSE, WHAT the ACTUAL Truth IS here.

WHICH, FROM thee Truly UNIVERSAL perspective of 'thing' is EVEN FAR MORE FUNNIER, than what HAS BEEN APPEARING hitherto here, in this forum.

But only YOU, age, the human mind, claims to be able to TELL EVERY 'thing' ELSE, WHAT the ACTUAL Truth IS here.
Good that you're finally admitting how obviously insane your claim is.

[Age]

What would you like to discuss, Age?

ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', which 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY CURIOUS ABOUT.

OK.

1. Why did you title this thread, "What 'side' are you on?"

Just to refer to how OFTEN 'you' adult human beings PICK A "side", and then MAINTAIN and 'fight for' "that side".

AND, also to ALLUDE TO the ACTUAL Fact there are NO ACTUAL "sides" in the Universe, Itself. "sides" ONLY exist in the IMAGINATIONS or MAKINGS of 'you', human beings.

2. Who is the word "you" referring to in the thread title?

The one, which IS the invisible 'thoughts' (and 'emotions') WITHIN the visible human bodies.

[Age]

@Age:

3. Are you a chatbot, Age?

WHY did 'you' NOT message 'me' DIRECTLY, or WITH A quote of mine so that I could FIND, and SEE, 'this' CLARIFYING QUESTION.

No.

[Gary Childress]

ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', which 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY CURIOUS ABOUT.

OK.

1. Why did you title this thread, "What 'side' are you on?"

Just to refer to how OFTEN 'you' adult human beings PICK A "side", and then MAINTAIN and 'fight for' "that side".

AND, also to ALLUDE TO the ACTUAL Fact there are NO ACTUAL "sides" in the Universe, Itself. "sides" ONLY exist in the IMAGINATIONS or MAKINGS of 'you', human beings.

2. Who is the word "you" referring to in the thread title?

The one, which IS the invisible 'thoughts' (and 'emotions') WITHIN the visible human bodies.

Then do nothing, Age. The living world is in danger and the one called "Age" thinks it's an illusion. Your words are marked for posterity Age. If you are right, I will have won. If you are wrong, I will have won. But winning isn't what is at stake. Mark my words, Age.

[Gary Childress]

@Age:

3. Are you a chatbot, Age?

WHY did 'you' NOT message 'me' DIRECTLY, or WITH A quote of mine so that I could FIND, and SEE, 'this' CLARIFYING QUESTION.

No.

Because I didn't think of doing so. We, humans, make mistakes accidentally sometimes. Are you human, Age?

[Iwannaplato]

Well IF 'you' HAD ASKED, EARLIER, THEN 'you' could have, ALSO, BEGUN to have WORKED WITH 'my definition' EARLIER, AS WELL.

Sure.

Me: So, could you demonstrate that there are no individual minds.

This would be like ASKING, 'Could 'you', "iwannaplato", DEMONSTRATE that there are NO 'unicorns'?'

Now, I can NOT 'demonstrate' that there are NO 'unicorns'. However, I could SHOW 'you', through AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition' of the 'mind' word that there is ONLY One Mind, which would THEN MEAN, and thus KNOWN, that there are NO "other minds".

Well, I suggested in my previous post that we use your definition. The one from the previous post. I'll quote it again.

That part within the human being, which is OPEN to ANY and EVERY 'thing', and which has enabled human beings to be able to learn, understand, and reason ANY and EVERY 'thing' and which continues to provide the ability to continue to keep learning, understanding, and reasoning ANY and EVERY 'thing'.

The ability of the (ALWAYS Truly OPEN) Mind is very closely related to 'intelligence', itself, AND which IS the EXACT SAME within EVERY human being.

And showing me or proving it to me, either one is fine.