My epitaph

[VVilliam]

Yes, necessarily. But if 'that' is what 'you' don't think or BELIEVE in regards to "?", then so be it.

Also, CERTAINLY the LESS 'you', non-people, TALK and WRITE, then the MORE PROOF 'you', non- people, AREN"T PROVIDING, which backs up and supports what "?" have not been SAYING, or CLAIMING here ABOUT non-human beings in the days when this is being written.

Okay, if you say so.

For now I say so but my mind can be changed.

My thoughts are that if folk are correct that "age is GOD" then...maybe it is best to go along with that idea until otherwise told.

Seems that his words have the power to tip individuals with existing mental health issues into seeking help.

Even so, the "victim" appears no worse for wear and if anything, appears to be stronger.

Of course, if age is GOD then god knows how language can be limiting especially when used in a manner which is meant to create barriers.

Perhaps GOD is saying that we might want to take a deeper look into that.

While I remember- I think age is saying something a lot of folk can relate to. Like some "voice" which has been "heard" before...

In taking his words and applying an "opposite" to some of them and mucking around like that, I am attempting to see if anything understandable can be made known.

Saturn resolves around the Sol too...

[Age]

How high over the earth, like are they walking on the earth or are they (much) higher than that?

The bodies are moving about 'on' earth mostly. But how 'high', or 'low', the 'thoughts' are all depends on how 'right', or 'wrong', 'they' are.

What happens when the 'thoughts' are completely right?

Then 'they' ARE, absolutely, Right, and/or have reached a level of Knowing, and NOT just down at the 'thinking' levels.

Or, in 'scripture terms' 'they' have transcended to 'thee Spirit' level, and thus 'that one' has been UP-LIFTED to the LEVEL as be sitting WITH God, as One.

(Being 'seated at the 'right hand' of God', as 'it' is sometimes referred to and called, is just referring to the "right-side" of 'things' or being JUST and/or COMPLETELY 'right', which is also associated with how the Mind and the brain, ACTUALLY, work, which has gotten convoluted with talk about the 'right' and 'left' "side" of 'the brain'. BUT 'these things' are STILL somewhat some way of being LEARNED, and FULLY UNDERSTOOD, BY 'you', people, in the days when this is being written.)

Or, 'that one/they' are NOT weighed down by UNKNOWING nor CONFUSION, ANYMORE, and thus are EN-LIGHTEN-ED SO MUCH that 'that one/they' have become 'Spirit', with the ABILITY TO 'TRAN-Spire' FROM WITH-IN, which is sometimes known as IN-SPIRATION, as well, and which BECOME the WORDS, themselves, that are sometimes said to have been IN-Spired. At the threshold at Spirit-level is also IN-TUITION, as 'thee Tutor IS WITH-IN Guiding, and Teaching, 'human beings' to what IS ACTUALLY True AND Right, IN Life.

[Atla]

The bodies are moving about 'on' earth mostly. But how 'high', or 'low', the 'thoughts' are all depends on how 'right', or 'wrong', 'they' are.

What happens when the 'thoughts' are completely right?

Then 'they' ARE, absolutely, Right, and/or have reached a level of Knowing, and NOT just down at the 'thinking' levels.

Or, in 'scripture terms' 'they' have transcended to 'thee Spirit' level, and thus 'that one' has been UP-LIFTED to the LEVEL as be sitting WITH God, as One.

(Being 'seated at the 'right hand' of God', as 'it' is sometimes referred to and called, is just referring to the "right-side" of 'things' or being JUST and/or COMPLETELY 'right', which is also associated with how the Mind and the brain, ACTUALLY, work, which has gotten convoluted with talk about the 'right' and 'left' "side" of 'the brain'. BUT 'these things' are STILL somewhat some way of being LEARNED, and FULLY UNDERSTOOD, BY 'you', people, in the days when this is being written.)

Or, 'that one/they' are NOT weighed down by UNKNOWING nor CONFUSION, ANYMORE, and thus are EN-LIGHTEN-ED SO MUCH that 'that one/they' have become 'Spirit', with the ABILITY TO 'TRAN-Spire' FROM WITH-IN, which is sometimes known as IN-SPIRATION, as well, and which BECOME the WORDS, themselves, that are sometimes said to have been IN-Spired. At the threshold at Spirit-level is also IN-TUITION, as 'thee Tutor IS WITH-IN Guiding, and Teaching, 'human beings' to what IS ACTUALLY True AND Right, IN Life.

How do 'you' explain that only 'you' age can hear these 'thoughts' that are above human bodies?

[Age]

Yes, necessarily. But if 'that' is what 'you' don't think or BELIEVE in regards to "?", then so be it.

Also, CERTAINLY the LESS 'you', non-people, TALK and WRITE, then the MORE PROOF 'you', non- people, AREN"T PROVIDING, which backs up and supports what "?" have not been SAYING, or CLAIMING here ABOUT non-human beings in the days when this is being written.

Okay, if you say so.

For now I say so but my mind can be changed.

WHO IS 'this one' who SUPPOSEDLY, HAS 'a mind', which, SUPPOSEDLY, can be CHANGED?

Also, just out of CURIOSITY WHY do 'you' SAY 'things', WITH CERTAINTY', which could be False or Wrong to begin with, and thus WOULD NEED CHANGING ANYWAY?

In other words, WHY do 'you' even KEEP a 'mind' that could NEED CHANGING?

If 'you' OWN 'a mind', then WHY NOT just GET 'one' that does NOT NEED CHANGING?

'These QUESTIONS here, just being ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION, are FOR ANY of 'you' here to ANSWER ALSO, by the way.

My thoughts are that if folk are correct that "age is GOD" then...maybe it is best to go along with that idea until otherwise told.

IF ABSOLUTELY ANY one even began to just start THINKING that "age" is God, then 'that one' or 'they' NEEDS SOME VERY SERIOUS HELP, IMMEDIATELY.

Also, IF ABSOLUTELY ANY one even began to just start THINKING that ABSOLUTELY ANY one here IS SAYING or ALLEGING that "age" is God, then 'they' ALSO NEED THE EXACT SAME IMMEDIATE HELP.

Seems that his words have the power to tip individuals with existing mental health issues into seeking help.

We WILL have to WAIT, to SEE, if 'this' ACTUALLY BECOMES True, or NOT.

Even so, the "victim" appears no worse for wear and if anything, appears to be stronger.

Of course, if age is GOD then god knows how language can be limiting especially when used in a manner which is meant to create barriers.

Perhaps GOD is saying that we might want to take a deeper look into that.

Could DOING 'this' BE A REALLY 'bad thing' in ANY WAY?

SURE, DOING SO may well 'hurt' in some ways, but I ASSURE that 'pain' is VERY, VERY SHORT LIVED, and will, as some say 'NOT kill you' and WILL INSTEAD REALLY ONLY MAKE one FAR STRONGER, and FAR WISER AS WELL.

While I remember- I think age is saying something a lot of folk can relate to. Like some "voice" which has been "heard" before...

In taking his words and applying an "opposite" to some of them and mucking around like that, I am attempting to see if anything understandable can be made known.

one could DO 'this', just like one could MAKE 'assumptions' ALSO, in ATTEMPTING to SEE if absolutely ANY 'thing' being SAID and WRITTEN here IS or COULD BE UNDERSTANDABLE, and/or MADE KNOWN.

But, as I have REPEATEDLY SAID here, There IS a MUCH BETTER, SIMPLY, EASIER, and QUICKER WAY, and 'that way' even VERIFIES FOR ONCE and FOR ALL, ABSOLUTELY and FOR SURE.

Saturn resolves around the Sol too...

[VVilliam]

WHO IS 'this one' who SUPPOSEDLY, HAS 'a mind', which, SUPPOSEDLY, can be CHANGED?

What does that matter?

Also, just out of CURIOSITY WHY do 'you' SAY 'things', WITH CERTAINTY', which could be False or Wrong to begin with, and thus WOULD NEED CHANGING ANYWAY?

Because I am interested and interesting.

In other words, WHY do 'you' even KEEP a 'mind' that could NEED CHANGING?

I did not write that I "keep" a mind. Perhaps you saw some inference?

If 'you' OWN 'a mind', then WHY NOT just GET 'one' that does NOT NEED CHANGING?

I did not write that I "owned" a mind. Perhaps you saw some inference?

'These QUESTIONS here, just being ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION, are FOR ANY of 'you' here to ANSWER ALSO, by the way.

Thanks for that.

"Changing one's mind" is simply a "saying" which can be understood in that context.

The mind I am referring to is the one I am developing as a human personality. I am not that mind, but I am a mind.

IF ABSOLUTELY ANY one even began to just start THINKING that "age" is God, then 'that one' or 'they' NEEDS SOME VERY SERIOUS HELP, IMMEDIATELY.

Okay. Based on your information, I now change the human personality's mind.

Also, IF ABSOLUTELY ANY one even began to just start THINKING that ABSOLUTELY ANY one here IS SAYING or ALLEGING that "age" is God, then 'they' ALSO NEED THE EXACT SAME IMMEDIATE HELP.

Hopefully they will read this and adjust accordingly.

god knows how language can be limiting especially when used in a manner which is meant to create barriers.

Could DOING 'this' BE A REALLY 'bad thing' in ANY WAY?

But, as I have REPEATEDLY SAID here, There IS a MUCH BETTER, SIMPLY, EASIER, and QUICKER WAY, and 'that way' even VERIFIES FOR ONCE and FOR ALL, ABSOLUTELY and FOR SURE.

Repeating something often does not always amount to anything worthwhile.

Sometimes "easier" is better, and sometimes it isn't.
Verification requires having something to verify.

And the way the age writes does sound god-like so I can see why folk would be confused/mystified.

Saturn resolves around the Sol too...

[VVilliam]

EDIT: No longer relevant

Great. Morphing on.

[Age]

What happens when the 'thoughts' are completely right?

Then 'they' ARE, absolutely, Right, and/or have reached a level of Knowing, and NOT just down at the 'thinking' levels.

Or, in 'scripture terms' 'they' have transcended to 'thee Spirit' level, and thus 'that one' has been UP-LIFTED to the LEVEL as be sitting WITH God, as One.

(Being 'seated at the 'right hand' of God', as 'it' is sometimes referred to and called, is just referring to the "right-side" of 'things' or being JUST and/or COMPLETELY 'right', which is also associated with how the Mind and the brain, ACTUALLY, work, which has gotten convoluted with talk about the 'right' and 'left' "side" of 'the brain'. BUT 'these things' are STILL somewhat some way of being LEARNED, and FULLY UNDERSTOOD, BY 'you', people, in the days when this is being written.)

Or, 'that one/they' are NOT weighed down by UNKNOWING nor CONFUSION, ANYMORE, and thus are EN-LIGHTEN-ED SO MUCH that 'that one/they' have become 'Spirit', with the ABILITY TO 'TRAN-Spire' FROM WITH-IN, which is sometimes known as IN-SPIRATION, as well, and which BECOME the WORDS, themselves, that are sometimes said to have been IN-Spired. At the threshold at Spirit-level is also IN-TUITION, as 'thee Tutor IS WITH-IN Guiding, and Teaching, 'human beings' to what IS ACTUALLY True AND Right, IN Life.

How do 'you' explain that only 'you' age can hear these 'thoughts' that are above human bodies?

'Thoughts' ARE WITHIN human bodies.

It IS 'KNOWING', which although IS ALSO WITHIN, IS what IS, figuratively speaking, ABOVE 'human bodies', 'ALL other matter', and even ABOVE just what 'thinking' AND 'thought' IS 'itself', which is; just the UNKNOWING. And, this WHY 'It' is called 'KNOWING' and NOT just 'thinking'.


Now, ABSOLUTELY EVERY human being CAN hear 'the IRREFUTABLE KNOWLEDGE', or 'the KNOWING', FROM WITHIN, but which is said here to be 'above human bodies'. In fact 'KNOWING' is so INTRICATELY INTERTWINED INTO the 'dna matter' of the 'human body' and INTO the VERY 'being' of the 'human being' that 'It' is NOT just 'heard' but 'It' is ABOVE the five senses and KNOWN WITH and BY the 'sixth sense', which IS just the Mind by the way.

ALL human beings are NOT just born HEARING 'this KNOWING' but 'they' ALL ARE ACTUALLY LISTEN TO 'It' AS WELL.

Whereas what HAS HAPPENED with the 'older' or 'more seasoned' 'human bodies' the LISTENING SLOWS DOWN UNTIL 'it' can COMPLETELY STOP, and thus so to, OBVIOUSLY, DOES the HEARING. That is; although the EXACT SAME, ETERNAL, 'KNOWING' is ALWAYS CONTINUALLY BEING SAID/EXPRESSED/KNOWN, WITHIN EVERY body, that 'It' is getting RECOGNIZED IS NOT.

And, the VERY REASON WHY 'thee ETERNAL, or UNIVERSAL, KNOWING' is NOT being HEARD, and RECOGNIZED, IS BECAUSE as at least one here in this forum 'puts it', one's OWN 'chatter' or 'noise' is BLOCKING OUT 'the ACTUAL Truth, and KNOWING', which IS DONE, as I have been SAYING, if ANY one has been LISTENING, and HEARING, IS through and by ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

'one's' OWN, individual, BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT what is true and right IS WHAT BLOCKS OUT, STOPS, and PREVENTS 'the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth' from being HEARD, SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN.

So, ASSUMING that ONLY "age" HEARS the 'KNOWING' or 'the ACTUAL Truth' is JUST PLAIN OLD False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect, ONCE MORE.

Also, what 'you' ARE DOING, and SHOWING, here "atla", that is; ASKING QUESTIONS FROM, or based upon, ASSUMPTIONS IS the VERY 'thing' that STOPS and PREVENTS 'people' FROM HEARING, FINDING, SEEING, and DISCOVERING the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

That i have FOUND, been BROUGHT-TO, or COME-TO HEAR 'this KNOWING' BEFORE "other human beings", might have, was the result of a COMPLETE ACCIDENT, what I WAS DOING, and of a somewhat DIFFERENT 'upbringing'. Which is NOT UNLIKE a LOT OF "others" who FOUND, were BROUGHT TO, or COME-TO HEAR 'things' BEFORE "others" was just the result of ACCIDENTS, what 'they' WERE DOING, and of a somewhat DIFFERENT 'upbringing'.

ABSOLUTELY NO 'one' is MORE 'special' NOR MORE 'intelligent' than absolutely ANY one "else" IS. ALL are JUST (and) DIFFERENT.

Furthermore, HOW-TO VERIFY, ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY, WHEN 'one' IS ACTUALLY HEARING 'ACTUAL KNOWING' IS ALSO A VERY EASY and SIMPLE process, by the way,

[Age]

WHO IS 'this one' who SUPPOSEDLY, HAS 'a mind', which, SUPPOSEDLY, can be CHANGED?

What does that matter?

WHY 'that' matters IS so that "readers" here CAN SEE whether 'you' KNOW WHO is 'the one' who, SUPPOSEDLY, HAS 'a mind' or NOT.

See, TO CLAIM that 'one' HAS 'a mind', then 'that one' MUST SURELY KNOW HOW 'it' HAS 'a mind', EXACTLY. And, TO KNOW such A 'thing', 'one' would HAVE TO KNOW BOTH, 'WHO IS 'that one', AND, WHAT IS 'the mind', which 'that one', SUPPOSEDLY, HAS, right?

And, WHEN people MAKE CLAIMS, especially in a philosophy forum, then, SOME, "readers" like to SEE the ACTUAL PROOF/SOUND and VALID ARGUMENT FOR SAID CLAIM. So, that IS WHY does 'that' MATTER.

Also, just out of CURIOSITY WHY do 'you' SAY 'things', WITH CERTAINTY', which could be False or Wrong to begin with, and thus WOULD NEED CHANGING ANYWAY?

Because I am interested and interesting.

Okay.

In other words, WHY do 'you' even KEEP a 'mind' that could NEED CHANGING?

I did not write that I "keep" a mind. Perhaps you saw some inference?

'you', 'vvilliam", USED the words 'my mind'.

Now, I INFER, WHEN one USES the 'my' word that 'that one' IS IMPLYING that 'they' HAVE, OWN, or are KEEPING, the next of following word after the 'my' word, 'at the moment' of when SAYING, WRITING, and USING those words together.

Now, it is Correct that 'you' did NOT USE the 'keep' word in relation to 'your mind', BUT 'you' did SAY and WRITE, 'my mind'. So, would 'you' 'now' like to ELABORATE ON, what those two words when USED together like 'you' DID, ACTUALLY MEANS or is REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

If 'you' OWN 'a mind', then WHY NOT just GET 'one' that does NOT NEED CHANGING?

I did not write that I "owned" a mind. Perhaps you saw some inference?

My reply here would be more or less the EXACT SAME 'as above', but just change out the 'keep' word WITH the 'owned' here now, as 'it' will suffice, for now.

'These QUESTIONS here, just being ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION, are FOR ANY of 'you' here to ANSWER ALSO, by the way.

Thanks for that.

"Changing one's mind" is simply a "saying" which can be understood in that context.

AND, what IS 'that context', EXACTLY?

I am ONLY ASKING these QUESTIONS to just SHOW and REVEAL HOW OFTEN 'the people', in the days when this is being written, would SAY 'things' that 'they' did NOT ACTUALLY MEAN, AND, MEAN 'things' that 'they' did NOT ACTUALLY SAY.

And, one of the reasons WHY 'they' and 'you' DO, and DID, 'this' IS BECAUSE there WAS, and IS, STILL MORE TO LEARN and UNDERSTAND, and that 'you' and 'they' WERE USING words that THE DEFINITION/S OF 'you' and 'they' HAD NOT YET COME-TO LEARN, and KNOW.

The mind I am referring to is the one I am developing as a human personality.

So, WHO am 'I' here, EXACTLY, which is, SUPPOSEDLY, 'developing' as a 'human personality'?

I am not that mind, but I am a mind.

So, IF that 'I' is NOT YET A 'human personality', then WHO and/or WHAT IS 'that' 'I', EXACTLY?

IF ABSOLUTELY ANY one even began to just start THINKING that "age" is God, then 'that one' or 'they' NEEDS SOME VERY SERIOUS HELP, IMMEDIATELY.

Okay. Based on your information, I now change the human personality's mind.

Okay.

Also, IF ABSOLUTELY ANY one even began to just start THINKING that ABSOLUTELY ANY one here IS SAYING or ALLEGING that "age" is God, then 'they' ALSO NEED THE EXACT SAME IMMEDIATE HELP.

Hopefully they will read this and adjust accordingly.

god knows how language can be limiting especially when used in a manner which is meant to create barriers.

Could DOING 'this' BE A REALLY 'bad thing' in ANY WAY?

But, as I have REPEATEDLY SAID here, There IS a MUCH BETTER, SIMPLY, EASIER, and QUICKER WAY, and 'that way' even VERIFIES FOR ONCE and FOR ALL, ABSOLUTELY and FOR SURE.

Repeating something often does not always amount to anything worthwhile.

NOT being INTERESTED in LEARNING nor in UNDERSTANDING MORE, conversely, does NOT always amount to ANY 'thing' worthwhile.

Sometimes "easier" is better, and sometimes it isn't.

But combined with SIMPLER and QUICKER, EASIER also ADDS TO VERY USUALLY being BETTER.

Also, will 'you' provide ANY examples of when 'easier' is some times NOT 'better'?

And, do ANY of those examples have absolutely ANY 'thing', AT ALL, to do WITH what I was ACTUALLY talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO regarding EASIER, in relation to WAYS OF LEARNING HOW-TO FIND, SEE, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truths, ANYWAY?

Verification requires having something to verify.

Which CLAIMS and CLAIMED Truths USUALLY ALWAYS are some 'things' TO verify, if NOT ALWAYS.

And the way the age writes does sound god-like so I can see why folk would be confused/mystified.

How, EXACTLY, does God SOUND-LIKE?

Or, in what WAY, EXACTLY, sounds God-like?

Saturn resolves around the Sol too...

[Atla]

Then 'they' ARE, absolutely, Right, and/or have reached a level of Knowing, and NOT just down at the 'thinking' levels.

Or, in 'scripture terms' 'they' have transcended to 'thee Spirit' level, and thus 'that one' has been UP-LIFTED to the LEVEL as be sitting WITH God, as One.

(Being 'seated at the 'right hand' of God', as 'it' is sometimes referred to and called, is just referring to the "right-side" of 'things' or being JUST and/or COMPLETELY 'right', which is also associated with how the Mind and the brain, ACTUALLY, work, which has gotten convoluted with talk about the 'right' and 'left' "side" of 'the brain'. BUT 'these things' are STILL somewhat some way of being LEARNED, and FULLY UNDERSTOOD, BY 'you', people, in the days when this is being written.)

Or, 'that one/they' are NOT weighed down by UNKNOWING nor CONFUSION, ANYMORE, and thus are EN-LIGHTEN-ED SO MUCH that 'that one/they' have become 'Spirit', with the ABILITY TO 'TRAN-Spire' FROM WITH-IN, which is sometimes known as IN-SPIRATION, as well, and which BECOME the WORDS, themselves, that are sometimes said to have been IN-Spired. At the threshold at Spirit-level is also IN-TUITION, as 'thee Tutor IS WITH-IN Guiding, and Teaching, 'human beings' to what IS ACTUALLY True AND Right, IN Life.

How do 'you' explain that only 'you' age can hear these 'thoughts' that are above human bodies?

'Thoughts' ARE WITHIN human bodies.

It IS 'KNOWING', which although IS ALSO WITHIN, IS what IS, figuratively speaking, ABOVE 'human bodies', 'ALL other matter', and even ABOVE just what 'thinking' AND 'thought' IS 'itself', which is; just the UNKNOWING. And, this WHY 'It' is called 'KNOWING' and NOT just 'thinking'.


Now, ABSOLUTELY EVERY human being CAN hear 'the IRREFUTABLE KNOWLEDGE', or 'the KNOWING', FROM WITHIN, but which is said here to be 'above human bodies'. In fact 'KNOWING' is so INTRICATELY INTERTWINED INTO the 'dna matter' of the 'human body' and INTO the VERY 'being' of the 'human being' that 'It' is NOT just 'heard' but 'It' is ABOVE the five senses and KNOWN WITH and BY the 'sixth sense', which IS just the Mind by the way.

ALL human beings are NOT just born HEARING 'this KNOWING' but 'they' ALL ARE ACTUALLY LISTEN TO 'It' AS WELL.

Whereas what HAS HAPPENED with the 'older' or 'more seasoned' 'human bodies' the LISTENING SLOWS DOWN UNTIL 'it' can COMPLETELY STOP, and thus so to, OBVIOUSLY, DOES the HEARING. That is; although the EXACT SAME, ETERNAL, 'KNOWING' is ALWAYS CONTINUALLY BEING SAID/EXPRESSED/KNOWN, WITHIN EVERY body, that 'It' is getting RECOGNIZED IS NOT.

And, the VERY REASON WHY 'thee ETERNAL, or UNIVERSAL, KNOWING' is NOT being HEARD, and RECOGNIZED, IS BECAUSE as at least one here in this forum 'puts it', one's OWN 'chatter' or 'noise' is BLOCKING OUT 'the ACTUAL Truth, and KNOWING', which IS DONE, as I have been SAYING, if ANY one has been LISTENING, and HEARING, IS through and by ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

'one's' OWN, individual, BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT what is true and right IS WHAT BLOCKS OUT, STOPS, and PREVENTS 'the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth' from being HEARD, SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN.

So, ASSUMING that ONLY "age" HEARS the 'KNOWING' or 'the ACTUAL Truth' is JUST PLAIN OLD False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect, ONCE MORE.

Also, what 'you' ARE DOING, and SHOWING, here "atla", that is; ASKING QUESTIONS FROM, or based upon, ASSUMPTIONS IS the VERY 'thing' that STOPS and PREVENTS 'people' FROM HEARING, FINDING, SEEING, and DISCOVERING the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

That i have FOUND, been BROUGHT-TO, or COME-TO HEAR 'this KNOWING' BEFORE "other human beings", might have, was the result of a COMPLETE ACCIDENT, what I WAS DOING, and of a somewhat DIFFERENT 'upbringing'. Which is NOT UNLIKE a LOT OF "others" who FOUND, were BROUGHT TO, or COME-TO HEAR 'things' BEFORE "others" was just the result of ACCIDENTS, what 'they' WERE DOING, and of a somewhat DIFFERENT 'upbringing'.

ABSOLUTELY NO 'one' is MORE 'special' NOR MORE 'intelligent' than absolutely ANY one "else" IS. ALL are JUST (and) DIFFERENT.

Furthermore, HOW-TO VERIFY, ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY, WHEN 'one' IS ACTUALLY HEARING 'ACTUAL KNOWING' IS ALSO A VERY EASY and SIMPLE process, by the way,

It's called a psychosis, w/e

[VVilliam]

For now I say so but my mind can be changed.

WHO IS 'this one' who SUPPOSEDLY, HAS 'a mind', which, SUPPOSEDLY, can be CHANGED?

What does that matter?

WHY 'that' matters IS so that "readers" here CAN SEE whether 'you' KNOW WHO is 'the one' who, SUPPOSEDLY, HAS 'a mind' or NOT.

Why would the readers think I do not know me?

In other words, WHY do 'you' even KEEP a 'mind' that could NEED CHANGING?

I did not write that I "keep" a mind. Perhaps you saw some inference?

'you', 'vvilliam", USED the words 'my mind'.

Now, I INFER, WHEN one USES the 'my' word that 'that one' IS IMPLYING that 'they' HAVE, OWN, or are KEEPING, the next of following word after the 'my' word, 'at the moment' of when SAYING, WRITING, and USING those words together.

Now, it is Correct that 'you' did NOT USE the 'keep' word in relation to 'your mind', BUT 'you' did SAY and WRITE, 'my mind'. So, would 'you' 'now' like to ELABORATE ON, what those two words when USED together like 'you' DID, ACTUALLY MEANS or is REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I used the word "mind" rather than the word "foot" (or some other word) because of the general understanding that when someone "changes their mind" they are reorganizing their thoughts to suit the information being processed by the mind.
Perhaps you are of the opinion that a mind that is changed is somehow a literal thing one can do. For example, if one does not "like" the mind that they "have", they can swap it for another mind?

Rather, this is not what is being said in the expression.

Is there a particular reason you wish to pursue this? Do you think that minds can literally be swapped over?
Or is it just a case that you think I used an inappropriate phrasing, and if so, what is the better phrasing one could use?

The mind I am referring to is the one I am developing as a human personality.

So, WHO am 'I' here, EXACTLY, which is, SUPPOSEDLY, 'developing' as a 'human personality'?

I cannot answer your question because you want an "exact" whereas the developing is ongoing and one cannot exactly say "who", while the developing is happening.

"Changing one's mind" is simply a "saying" which can be understood in that context.

AND, what IS 'that context', EXACTLY?

The context of a developing mind.

I am ONLY ASKING these QUESTIONS to just SHOW and REVEAL HOW OFTEN 'the people', in the days when this is being written, would SAY 'things' that 'they' did NOT ACTUALLY MEAN, AND, MEAN 'things' that 'they' did NOT ACTUALLY SAY.

Is that to say that you think/claim that I am not saying what I mean or meaning what I say?

And, one of the reasons WHY 'they' and 'you' DO, and DID, 'this' IS BECAUSE there WAS, and IS, STILL MORE TO LEARN and UNDERSTAND, and that 'you' and 'they' WERE USING words that THE DEFINITION/S OF 'you' and 'they' HAD NOT YET COME-TO LEARN, and KNOW.

This does sound like the process/development of a thing. One cannot always pinpoint exactly what stage of development a thing is currently at, therefore another asking for an exactness, is an unrealistic expectation.
However, the one asking for exactness may indeed have knowledge which allows for such a request to be asked, but until that knowledge is forth-coming, it is better not to presume one way or the other re that ones knowledge.

I am not that mind, but I am a mind.

So, IF that 'I' is NOT YET A 'human personality', then WHO and/or WHAT IS 'that' 'I', EXACTLY?

Where was it written "not yet" a human personality?

But, as I have REPEATEDLY SAID here, There IS a MUCH BETTER, SIMPLY, EASIER, and QUICKER WAY, and 'that way' even VERIFIES FOR ONCE and FOR ALL, ABSOLUTELY and FOR SURE.

Repeating something often does not always amount to anything worthwhile.

NOT being INTERESTED in LEARNING nor in UNDERSTANDING MORE, conversely, does NOT always amount to ANY 'thing' worthwhile.

If someone asks, does one not think interest is being shown, that one might then offer explanation as to what one is referring to?

Sometimes "easier" is better, and sometimes it isn't.

But combined with SIMPLER and QUICKER, EASIER also ADDS TO VERY USUALLY being BETTER.

But not in any absolute manner.

Also, will 'you' provide ANY examples of when 'easier' is some times NOT 'better'?

It is easier if I simply ask a machine to do this for me.

Me: Please provide some examples of when 'easier' is some times NOT 'better'

GPT: "Easier" is not always "better" in various situations. Here are some examples to illustrate this:

Health and Fitness:

Exercise: While taking the elevator may be easier, taking the stairs is often better for your health.
Diet: Fast food is easier to grab on the go, but it's generally not as healthy as cooking a balanced meal at home.
Learning and Education:

Cramming for Exams: It might be easier to cram all the information at the last minute, but spaced, consistent learning is often a more effective way to retain knowledge.
Avoiding Challenging Subjects: It's easier to stick with subjects you're already good at, but tackling more challenging ones can lead to personal growth and a broader skill set.
Relationships:

Avoiding Conflict: It's easier to avoid difficult conversations and conflicts, but addressing them is usually better for maintaining healthy relationships in the long term.
Superficial Friendships: Superficial, low-effort friendships might be easier to maintain, but deeper, more meaningful connections are often more satisfying and fulfilling.
Environmental Sustainability:

Single-Use Plastics: Using single-use plastics is easier, but reducing or eliminating them is better for the environment.
Short Drives: Driving short distances may be easier, but walking, cycling, or using public transportation is often better for reducing carbon emissions.
Career and Personal Growth:

Staying in Your Comfort Zone: Staying in a comfortable job or situation is easier, but taking on new challenges and risks can lead to personal and professional growth.
Procrastination: Procrastinating tasks may be easier in the short term, but it can lead to stress, missed opportunities, and lower-quality work in the long run.
Technology and Privacy:

Convenience vs. Privacy: Using services that collect extensive personal data for convenience might be easier, but it can compromise your privacy.
Financial Decisions:

Impulse Spending: It's easier to make impulse purchases, but saving and making well-thought-out financial decisions is better for long-term financial stability.
Parenting:

Giving in to Kids' Demands: It might be easier to give in to your child's demands, but setting appropriate boundaries and rules is better for their development.
Quality vs. Quantity:

Producing More vs. Producing Better: It's easier to produce more of something quickly, but taking the time to produce a higher-quality product can lead to better results and customer satisfaction.
Ethical Considerations:

Unethical Practices: Participating in unethical practices for short-term gains may be easier, but it can have long-term negative consequences on your reputation and the well-being of others.
In many cases, "easier" choices provide immediate gratification or convenience, but "better" choices often lead to long-term benefits, personal growth, improved well-being, and a more positive impact on the world around us.

And, do ANY of those examples have absolutely ANY 'thing', AT ALL, to do WITH what I was ACTUALLY talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO regarding EASIER, in relation to WAYS OF LEARNING HOW-TO FIND, SEE, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truths, ANYWAY?

One would not know, as one has not yet said.

And the way the age writes does sound god-like so I can see why folk would be confused/mystified.

How, EXACTLY, does God SOUND-LIKE?

I did not mention any exactness. I mentioned an approximation. What one would expect to hear a god say if a god was to say it.

Or, in what WAY, EXACTLY, sounds God-like?

Expressions of confidences in ones ability to make claims which are generally not regarded as being humanly possible.



Saturn resolves around the Sol too...

[Age]

How do 'you' explain that only 'you' age can hear these 'thoughts' that are above human bodies?

'Thoughts' ARE WITHIN human bodies.

It IS 'KNOWING', which although IS ALSO WITHIN, IS what IS, figuratively speaking, ABOVE 'human bodies', 'ALL other matter', and even ABOVE just what 'thinking' AND 'thought' IS 'itself', which is; just the UNKNOWING. And, this WHY 'It' is called 'KNOWING' and NOT just 'thinking'.


Now, ABSOLUTELY EVERY human being CAN hear 'the IRREFUTABLE KNOWLEDGE', or 'the KNOWING', FROM WITHIN, but which is said here to be 'above human bodies'. In fact 'KNOWING' is so INTRICATELY INTERTWINED INTO the 'dna matter' of the 'human body' and INTO the VERY 'being' of the 'human being' that 'It' is NOT just 'heard' but 'It' is ABOVE the five senses and KNOWN WITH and BY the 'sixth sense', which IS just the Mind by the way.

ALL human beings are NOT just born HEARING 'this KNOWING' but 'they' ALL ARE ACTUALLY LISTEN TO 'It' AS WELL.

Whereas what HAS HAPPENED with the 'older' or 'more seasoned' 'human bodies' the LISTENING SLOWS DOWN UNTIL 'it' can COMPLETELY STOP, and thus so to, OBVIOUSLY, DOES the HEARING. That is; although the EXACT SAME, ETERNAL, 'KNOWING' is ALWAYS CONTINUALLY BEING SAID/EXPRESSED/KNOWN, WITHIN EVERY body, that 'It' is getting RECOGNIZED IS NOT.

And, the VERY REASON WHY 'thee ETERNAL, or UNIVERSAL, KNOWING' is NOT being HEARD, and RECOGNIZED, IS BECAUSE as at least one here in this forum 'puts it', one's OWN 'chatter' or 'noise' is BLOCKING OUT 'the ACTUAL Truth, and KNOWING', which IS DONE, as I have been SAYING, if ANY one has been LISTENING, and HEARING, IS through and by ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

'one's' OWN, individual, BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT what is true and right IS WHAT BLOCKS OUT, STOPS, and PREVENTS 'the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth' from being HEARD, SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN.

So, ASSUMING that ONLY "age" HEARS the 'KNOWING' or 'the ACTUAL Truth' is JUST PLAIN OLD False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect, ONCE MORE.

Also, what 'you' ARE DOING, and SHOWING, here "atla", that is; ASKING QUESTIONS FROM, or based upon, ASSUMPTIONS IS the VERY 'thing' that STOPS and PREVENTS 'people' FROM HEARING, FINDING, SEEING, and DISCOVERING the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

That i have FOUND, been BROUGHT-TO, or COME-TO HEAR 'this KNOWING' BEFORE "other human beings", might have, was the result of a COMPLETE ACCIDENT, what I WAS DOING, and of a somewhat DIFFERENT 'upbringing'. Which is NOT UNLIKE a LOT OF "others" who FOUND, were BROUGHT TO, or COME-TO HEAR 'things' BEFORE "others" was just the result of ACCIDENTS, what 'they' WERE DOING, and of a somewhat DIFFERENT 'upbringing'.

ABSOLUTELY NO 'one' is MORE 'special' NOR MORE 'intelligent' than absolutely ANY one "else" IS. ALL are JUST (and) DIFFERENT.

Furthermore, HOW-TO VERIFY, ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY, WHEN 'one' IS ACTUALLY HEARING 'ACTUAL KNOWING' IS ALSO A VERY EASY and SIMPLE process, by the way,

It's called a psychosis, w/e

What, EXACTLY, is supposedly called a 'psychosis' here?

And, what does 'w/e' here MEAN or is REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, "atla"?

[Age]

For now I say so but my mind can be changed.

What does that matter?

WHY 'that' matters IS so that "readers" here CAN SEE whether 'you' KNOW WHO is 'the one' who, SUPPOSEDLY, HAS 'a mind' or NOT.

Why would the readers think I do not know me?

Just about all of the 'readers', in the days when this was written, would NOT have even CONTEMPLATED whether 'you' KNOW you, or NOT. And, a LOT of 'those readers' would NOT have even THOUGHT about 'this' BEFORE.

Now, OBVIOUSLY, if 'you' can NOT YET ANSWER the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?' properly AND correctly, then 'you' do NOT, YET, KNOW 'I'.

And, WHO and WHAT 'me' IS, EXACTLY, FROM 'your' perspective, is probably just as well NOT YET KNOWN, NEITHER, right?

When it is FULLY UNDERSTOOD how 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, do NOT YET KNOW WHO nor WHAT 'you', and 'I', AM, EXACTLY, then this will LEAD ONTO CONSIDERING whether HOW THEN could 'I', or 'me', even KNOW, FOR SURE, that 'I', or 'me', do ACTUALLY HAVE 'my OWN mind', or NOT.

And, this is WITHOUT even QUERYING 'you', human beings, OVER, 'What does the 'mind' word even MEAN? What IS 'the mind'? And/or 'What is the 'mind' word even REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

In other words, WHY do 'you' even KEEP a 'mind' that could NEED CHANGING?

I did not write that I "keep" a mind. Perhaps you saw some inference?

'you', 'vvilliam", USED the words 'my mind'.

Now, I INFER, WHEN one USES the 'my' word that 'that one' IS IMPLYING that 'they' HAVE, OWN, or are KEEPING, the next of following word after the 'my' word, 'at the moment' of when SAYING, WRITING, and USING those words together.

Now, it is Correct that 'you' did NOT USE the 'keep' word in relation to 'your mind', BUT 'you' did SAY and WRITE, 'my mind'. So, would 'you' 'now' like to ELABORATE ON, what those two words when USED together like 'you' DID, ACTUALLY MEANS or is REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I used the word "mind" rather than the word "foot" (or some other word) because of the general understanding that when someone "changes their mind" they are reorganizing their thoughts to suit the information being processed by the mind.

What we have here IS a VERY CLEAR CASE of NOT READING and SEEING and/or MISSING the POINT, COMPLETELY.

I talked ABOUT and was REFERRING TO the 'my' word. I even EMPHASIZED the 'my' word. BUT, ONCE AGAIN, what I talk ABOUT gets COMPLETELY and UTTERLY OVERLOOKED, and MISSED.

Perhaps you are of the opinion that a mind that is changed is somehow a literal thing one can do. For example, if one does not "like" the mind that they "have", they can swap it for another mind?

I WAS talking ABOUT the 'my' word AND what that word MEANS and REFERS TO here, EXACTLY. As can be CLEARLY SEEN I was RESPONDING TO AND ANSWERING the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTION that 'you' posed, and ASKED 'me', which WAS;
Perhaps you saw some inference? In regards to the 'keep' word.

And 'this' is WHY I spoke OF and ABOUT 'your' USAGE of the 'my' word above here.

Oh, and by the way, there is NOT even such a 'thing' AS so-called 'my mind', to BEGIN WITH.

Rather, this is not what is being said in the expression.

I KNOW. And,

If 'you' DID NOT PRESUME what 'my opinion' MIGHT BE, in the beginning, THEN 'you' would NOT have ENDED UP SO FAR ASTRAY, as 'you' HAVE, here, now.

Is there a particular reason you wish to pursue this?

YES.

Do you think that minds can literally be swapped over?

NO.

Do 'you' think that there are 'minds'?

Or is it just a case that you think I used an inappropriate phrasing, and if so, what is the better phrasing one could use?

'you' USED the 'my' word, as though 'you', an individual human being, as 'its' OWN 'mind', which is just a Wrong, and an INAPPROPRIATE, phrase.

A much truer and thus better phrasing is 'my thoughts'. Which, although is STILL NOT True, Right, Accurate, NOR Correct phrase, that phrase is far MORE accurate than 'my mind' is.

But first 'things' first, as there are still quite a few MORE steps that need to be LEARNED and UNDERSTOOD, FIRST.

The mind I am referring to is the one I am developing as a human personality.

So, WHO am 'I' here, EXACTLY, which is, SUPPOSEDLY, 'developing' as a 'human personality'?

I cannot answer your question because you want an "exact" whereas the developing is ongoing and one cannot exactly say "who", while the developing is happening.

Okay, fair enough.

And, thank you GREATLY for ADMITTING that 'you' do NOT YET KNOW who nor what 'the one' NOR 'the I' IS, EXACTLY, which is said to have 'its mind'.

Once 'things' here are FAR BETTER UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN, then WHY I SPEAK, WRITE, and QUESTION 'the way' I DO here will ALL COME-TO-LIGHT, and BE REVEALED.

"Changing one's mind" is simply a "saying" which can be understood in that context.

AND, what IS 'that context', EXACTLY?

The context of a developing mind.

So, 'you' are CLAIMING that the saying, 'Changing one's mind', can be UNDERSTOOD in the context of that 'a mind' IS 'developing', right?

Either way, to 'me', the saying, 'Changing one's mind' implies that there IS 'one', who HAS CONTROL OVER 'a mind', and thus WOULD BE 'the one' who is ACTUALLY 'creating' or 'developing' 'that mind', itself. Rather than WAITING for 'a mind' to be 'developed' BEFORE 'that one' could FIND OUT and ANSWER who and/or what 'they' ARE, EXACTLY.

ALL WILL BE REVEALED, eventually. But I just need to LEARN how-to BETTER communicate, or re-communicate, with 'you', human beings, by BY-PASSING 'your' ALREADY in USE, MISUSE of words, and definitions, which have become habitually USED, in the days when this is being written.

I am ONLY ASKING these QUESTIONS to just SHOW and REVEAL HOW OFTEN 'the people', in the days when this is being written, would SAY 'things' that 'they' did NOT ACTUALLY MEAN, AND, MEAN 'things' that 'they' did NOT ACTUALLY SAY.

Is that to say that you think/claim that I am not saying what I mean or meaning what I say?

Yes.

And, one of the reasons WHY 'they' and 'you' DO, and DID, 'this' IS BECAUSE there WAS, and IS, STILL MORE TO LEARN and UNDERSTAND, and that 'you' and 'they' WERE USING words that THE DEFINITION/S OF 'you' and 'they' HAD NOT YET COME-TO LEARN, and KNOW.

This does sound like the process/development of a thing.

Yes, VERY MUCH SO.

Even 'your' USE of the phrase 'developing mind' FITS IN PERFECTLY here, in regards to DEVELOPING the Right 'language' so that ALL-OF-THIS CAN and DOES BECOME FULLY UNDERSTOOD BY EVERY one. As SO MUCH OF what 'you', posters, DO SAY, and WRITE, here, IS VERY MUCH HELPING in the DEVELOPING of the Correct WORDING.

One cannot always pinpoint exactly what stage of development a thing is currently at, therefore another asking for an exactness, is an unrealistic expectation.

But there WAS NO 'expectation' AT ALL.

I just ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here, in this forum, FROM a Truly OPEN perspective, to just ASCERTAIN, and SHOW, whereabouts 'you', human beings, ARE/WERE, EXACTLY, on the 'evolutionary continuum' in regarding to the Universe/Life/Consciousness, Itself, COMING-TO-KNOW It/thy Self.

However, the one asking for exactness may indeed have knowledge which allows for such a request to be asked, but until that knowledge is forth-coming, it is better not to presume one way or the other re that ones knowledge.

VERY True AND Correct in regards to BETTER NOT TO PRESUME 'one way or the other', regarding ANY 'one's' knowledge.

Also, ALL of 'my', learned along 'the way' and gathered, knowledge IS EXTREMELY 'forth-coming'.

I just WAIT for 'those' who ARE Truly INTERESTED, OPEN, and CURIOS.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here, in this forum, when EVERY time I express absolutely ANY idea or view, which appears 'new', 'ridiculous', or 'not consistent with popular nor 'current' belief', then 'it' IS 'I' who gets ACCUSED OF, or ATTACKED FOR, being AUTISTIC, INSANE, or of HAVING some sort of OTHER 'mental disorder'.

I have been 'forth-coming' and have brought knowledge forward, ALREADY. I am ALSO CONTINUALLY ASKING to be QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED OVER absolutely EVERY 'thing' I SAY, and WRITE, here. So, 'this knowledge' is ALWAYS 'forth-coming'.

I am not that mind, but I am a mind.

So, IF that 'I' is NOT YET A 'human personality', then WHO and/or WHAT IS 'that' 'I', EXACTLY?

Where was it written "not yet" a human personality?

'you' SAID that, 'The mind that 'you' are referring to is the one that 'you' ARE developing as a human personality.'

So, if it IS 'you', who, supposedly, HAS 'a mind', which 'you' ARE 'developing', as a 'human personality', then that MEANS that 'you', or 'that i', is NOT YET a 'human personality', so that is WHERE 'it' WAS WRITTEN 'not yet' 'a human personality'. Well, to 'me', anyway.

But, as I have REPEATEDLY SAID here, There IS a MUCH BETTER, SIMPLY, EASIER, and QUICKER WAY, and 'that way' even VERIFIES FOR ONCE and FOR ALL, ABSOLUTELY and FOR SURE.

Repeating something often does not always amount to anything worthwhile.

NOT being INTERESTED in LEARNING nor in UNDERSTANDING MORE, conversely, does NOT always amount to ANY 'thing' worthwhile.

If someone asks, does one not think interest is being shown, that one might then offer explanation as to what one is referring to?

Are 'you' AWARE that 'you' a statement here, but then just added a question mark onto the end of 'it'?

Sometimes "easier" is better, and sometimes it isn't.

But combined with SIMPLER and QUICKER, EASIER also ADDS TO VERY USUALLY being BETTER.

But not in any absolute manner.

Also, will 'you' provide ANY examples of when 'easier' is some times NOT 'better'?

It is easier if I simply ask a machine to do this for me.

Me: Please provide some examples of when 'easier' is some times NOT 'better'

GPT: "Easier" is not always "better" in various situations. Here are some examples to illustrate this:

Health and Fitness:

Exercise: While taking the elevator may be easier, taking the stairs is often better for your health.
Diet: Fast food is easier to grab on the go, but it's generally not as healthy as cooking a balanced meal at home.
Learning and Education:

Cramming for Exams: It might be easier to cram all the information at the last minute, but spaced, consistent learning is often a more effective way to retain knowledge.
Avoiding Challenging Subjects: It's easier to stick with subjects you're already good at, but tackling more challenging ones can lead to personal growth and a broader skill set.
Relationships:

Avoiding Conflict: It's easier to avoid difficult conversations and conflicts, but addressing them is usually better for maintaining healthy relationships in the long term.
Superficial Friendships: Superficial, low-effort friendships might be easier to maintain, but deeper, more meaningful connections are often more satisfying and fulfilling.
Environmental Sustainability:

Single-Use Plastics: Using single-use plastics is easier, but reducing or eliminating them is better for the environment.
Short Drives: Driving short distances may be easier, but walking, cycling, or using public transportation is often better for reducing carbon emissions.
Career and Personal Growth:

Staying in Your Comfort Zone: Staying in a comfortable job or situation is easier, but taking on new challenges and risks can lead to personal and professional growth.
Procrastination: Procrastinating tasks may be easier in the short term, but it can lead to stress, missed opportunities, and lower-quality work in the long run.
Technology and Privacy:

Convenience vs. Privacy: Using services that collect extensive personal data for convenience might be easier, but it can compromise your privacy.
Financial Decisions:

Impulse Spending: It's easier to make impulse purchases, but saving and making well-thought-out financial decisions is better for long-term financial stability.
Parenting:

Giving in to Kids' Demands: It might be easier to give in to your child's demands, but setting appropriate boundaries and rules is better for their development.
Quality vs. Quantity:

Producing More vs. Producing Better: It's easier to produce more of something quickly, but taking the time to produce a higher-quality product can lead to better results and customer satisfaction.
Ethical Considerations:

Unethical Practices: Participating in unethical practices for short-term gains may be easier, but it can have long-term negative consequences on your reputation and the well-being of others.
In many cases, "easier" choices provide immediate gratification or convenience, but "better" choices often lead to long-term benefits, personal growth, improved well-being, and a more positive impact on the world around us.

And, do ANY of those examples have absolutely ANY 'thing', AT ALL, to do WITH what I was ACTUALLY talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO regarding EASIER, in relation to WAYS OF LEARNING HOW-TO FIND, SEE, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truths, ANYWAY?

One would not know, as one has not yet said.

As can be SEEN here, I have been and WAS talking ABOUT in relation TO 'ways of' 'thinking' ABOUT 'things' and/or the 'knowing' OF 'things'. But, like a LOT of times throughout this forum 'MY ACTUAL WORDS' GET MISSED, MISINTERPRETED, or JUST MISUNDERSTOOD'. And, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here LOOK AT just how MUCH EFFORT went into WRITING ALL of the examples above here, which I think will be FOUND have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to DO WITH what I was talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

And the way the age writes does sound god-like so I can see why folk would be confused/mystified.

How, EXACTLY, does God SOUND-LIKE?

I did not mention any exactness.

I NEVER SAID 'you' DID.

I JUST ASKED FOR EXACTNESS. If 'you' do NOT HAVE ANY or do NOT KNOW OF ANY, then that is ALL well AND good.

I mentioned an approximation. What one would expect to hear a god say if a god was to say it.

EXACTLY what 'It' DOES SAY, and/or WRITES.

Or, in what WAY, EXACTLY, sounds God-like?

Expressions of confidences in ones ability to make claims which are generally not regarded as being humanly possible.

And, as I CONTINUALLY SAY I STAND BEHIND absolutely EVERY 'thing' I SAY, and WRITE, here, and WILL back up and support what I SAY, and WRITE, here. That is; IF absolutely ANY one would like to QUESTION and/or CHALLENGE 'Me' OVER absolutely ANY 'thing' I SAY, and WRITE, here.

Saturn resolves around the Sol too...

[VVilliam]

Why would the readers think I do not know me?

Just about all of the 'readers', in the days when this was written, would NOT have even CONTEMPLATED whether 'you' KNOW you, or NOT. And, a LOT of 'those readers' would NOT have even THOUGHT about 'this' BEFORE.

How do you KNOW this and is it a TRUE statement.

Now, OBVIOUSLY, if 'you' can NOT YET ANSWER the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?' properly AND correctly, then 'you' do NOT, YET, KNOW 'I'.

This might be the case.
It may also be the case that "knowing" who I Am is an ongoing process occurring as more "Data of Experience" is uncovered through said ongoing process.

In association with that, it may also be that I "keep" a lot of that knowledge "to myself".
This would also align with the "idea" that such knowledge is "owed" since it is not shared.
However, since I also experience that the knowledge is obtained through something that I have not always understood as "me" - I cannot lay claim to the knowledge as something I "own" or can own, yet the knowledge has become part of my "self" identification and the appearance of "ownership" along with it.

And, WHO and WHAT 'me' IS, EXACTLY, FROM 'your' perspective, is probably just as well NOT YET KNOWN, NEITHER, right?

Not "Exactly" but certainly "Enough" to make some Presumptions and then Test those.

When it is FULLY UNDERSTOOD how 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, do NOT YET KNOW WHO nor WHAT 'you', and 'I', AM, EXACTLY, then this will LEAD ONTO CONSIDERING whether HOW THEN could 'I', or 'me', even KNOW, FOR SURE, that 'I', or 'me', do ACTUALLY HAVE 'my OWN mind', or NOT.

Perhaps, but not necessarily the Actual Case.

For example, as a Human Personality which has been Growing for 62 years on This Planet, in a certain Region of said Planet, and in order for the Human Experience to occur - Mind has to be involved.
The Mind comes from a Blank Slate State which allows for a genuine Human Experience to occur.

That is the Mind that I - The Human Personality - "Am". Self Identifications begins from that Blank Slate State.

In this sense a Human Personality does "have" "its own mind". Whether this is the Correct/Exact truth, the Human Personality as its General default position is "Born" unaware regardless of any other Truth.

And, this is WITHOUT even QUERYING 'you', human beings, OVER, 'What does the 'mind' word even MEAN? What IS 'the mind'? And/or 'What is the 'mind' word even REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

Individual Human Personalities have a variety of theories, and these often seek one another out which results in Groups.
This is a Natural Process because Individual Minds Working Together Build The Machinery.
Human's have been doing this throughout their epoch.
These Group Minds are themselves Entities.

What we have here IS a VERY CLEAR CASE of NOT READING and SEEING and/or MISSING the POINT, COMPLETELY.

I talked ABOUT and was REFERRING TO the 'my' word. I even EMPHASIZED the 'my' word. BUT, ONCE AGAIN, what I talk ABOUT gets COMPLETELY and UTTERLY OVERLOOKED, and MISSED.

Not at all. Clearly there are Two Minds Attempting to Understand each Other and this is a Work In Progress.

And 'this' is WHY I spoke OF and ABOUT 'your' USAGE of the 'my' word above here.

In relationship to the Idea of Ownership, which You appear to interpret as what "My" " is supposed to "mean".
I might ask Myself "How" can One "Own" Ones Self (?) and I might reply to My Question that I am Responsible for the Personality I am becoming...so I "Own" the Responsibility. Thus "My Mind".

Oh, and by the way, there is NOT even such a 'thing' AS so-called 'my mind', to BEGIN WITH.

Yes. I made that point re the Blank Slate State.
Even so, which "Beginning" are you talking about?

Rather, this is not what is being said in the expression.

I KNOW.

Okay.

And,

If 'you' DID NOT PRESUME what 'my opinion' MIGHT BE, in the beginning, THEN 'you' would NOT have ENDED UP SO FAR ASTRAY, as 'you' HAVE, here, now.

What has you Thinking or Believing that I have drifted from the course?

Is there a particular reason you wish to pursue this?

YES.

Okay.

Do you think that minds can literally be swapped over?

NO.

Do 'you' think that there are 'minds'?

Yes.

Or is it just a case that you think I used an inappropriate phrasing, and if so, what is the better phrasing one could use?

'you' USED the 'my' word, as though 'you', an individual human being, as 'its' OWN 'mind', which is just a Wrong, and an INAPPROPRIATE, phrase.

What is the Better Phrasing one could use?

A much truer and thus better phrasing is 'my thoughts'. Which, although is STILL NOT True, Right, Accurate, NOR Correct phrase, that phrase is far MORE accurate than 'my mind' is.

What would be the True Phrase one can use, rather than the less accurate one suggested?

But first 'things' first, as there are still quite a few MORE steps that need to be LEARNED and UNDERSTOOD, FIRST.

Okay.

I cannot answer your question because you want an "exact" whereas the developing is ongoing and one cannot exactly say "who", while the developing is happening.

Okay, fair enough.

And, thank you GREATLY for ADMITTING that 'you' do NOT YET KNOW who nor what 'the one' NOR 'the I' IS, EXACTLY, which is said to have 'its mind'.

Rather, I am Clarifying my Understanding of Self. "Admitting" is normally associated with righting a wrong.
As clarified, most of what I Know re Self - I Keep to Self.

Once 'things' here are FAR BETTER UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN, then WHY I SPEAK, WRITE, and QUESTION 'the way' I DO here will ALL COME-TO-LIGHT, and BE REVEALED.

Okay.

So, 'you' are CLAIMING that the saying, 'Changing one's mind', can be UNDERSTOOD in the context of that 'a mind' IS 'developing', right?

Not entirely.

Either way, to 'me', the saying, 'Changing one's mind' implies that there IS 'one', who HAS CONTROL OVER 'a mind', and thus WOULD BE 'the one' who is ACTUALLY 'creating' or 'developing' 'that mind', itself. Rather than WAITING for 'a mind' to be 'developed' BEFORE 'that one' could FIND OUT and ANSWER who and/or what 'they' ARE, EXACTLY.

Perhaps You might Think about Changing One's Mind re the Saying.

I Understand The Mind as being all encompassing. The Repository of All That Is. Including the Minds of Growing Personalities (Human and Otherwise).

ALL WILL BE REVEALED, eventually. But I just need to LEARN how-to BETTER communicate, or re-communicate, with 'you', human beings, by BY-PASSING 'your' ALREADY in USE, MISUSE of words, and definitions, which have become habitually USED, in the days when this is being written.

Okay.

Is that to say that you think/claim that I am not saying what I mean or meaning what I say?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, VERY MUCH SO.

Even 'your' USE of the phrase 'developing mind' FITS IN PERFECTLY here, in regards to DEVELOPING the Right 'language' so that ALL-OF-THIS CAN and DOES BECOME FULLY UNDERSTOOD BY EVERY one. As SO MUCH OF what 'you', posters, DO SAY, and WRITE, here, IS VERY MUCH HELPING in the DEVELOPING of the Correct WORDING.

I find the Language interesting. What is the Write Way to Right Something?

One cannot always pinpoint exactly what stage of development a thing is currently at, therefore another asking for an exactness, is an unrealistic expectation.

But there WAS NO 'expectation' AT ALL.

You did not ask?

I just ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here, in this forum, FROM a Truly OPEN perspective, to just ASCERTAIN, and SHOW, whereabouts 'you', human beings, ARE/WERE, EXACTLY, on the 'evolutionary continuum' in regarding to the Universe/Life/Consciousness, Itself, COMING-TO-KNOW It/thy Self.

Okay.

VERY True AND Correct in regards to BETTER NOT TO PRESUME 'one way or the other', regarding ANY 'one's' knowledge.

Also, ALL of 'my', learned along 'the way' and gathered, knowledge IS EXTREMELY 'forth-coming'.

I just WAIT for 'those' who ARE Truly INTERESTED, OPEN, and CURIOS.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here, in this forum, when EVERY time I express absolutely ANY idea or view, which appears 'new', 'ridiculous', or 'not consistent with popular nor 'current' belief', then 'it' IS 'I' who gets ACCUSED OF, or ATTACKED FOR, being AUTISTIC, INSANE, or of HAVING some sort of OTHER 'mental disorder'.

I have been 'forth-coming' and have brought knowledge forward, ALREADY. I am ALSO CONTINUALLY ASKING to be QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED OVER absolutely EVERY 'thing' I SAY, and WRITE, here. So, 'this knowledge' is ALWAYS 'forth-coming'.

Okay.

Where was it written "not yet" a human personality?

'you' SAID that, 'The mind that 'you' are referring to is the one that 'you' ARE developing as a human personality.'
So, if it IS 'you', who, supposedly, HAS 'a mind', which 'you' ARE 'developing', as a 'human personality', then that MEANS that 'you', or 'that i', is NOT YET a 'human personality', so that is WHERE 'it' WAS WRITTEN 'not yet' 'a human personality'. Well, to 'me', anyway.

Okay. To You. It appears to be that way, from what I have written.

As can be SEEN here, I have been and WAS talking ABOUT in relation TO 'ways of' 'thinking' ABOUT 'things' and/or the 'knowing' OF 'things'. But, like a LOT of times throughout this forum 'MY ACTUAL WORDS' GET MISSED, MISINTERPRETED, or JUST MISUNDERSTOOD'. And, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here LOOK AT just how MUCH EFFORT went into WRITING ALL of the examples above here, which I think will be FOUND have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to DO WITH what I was talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

Chat GPT gave those examples and that took about 3 seconds plus a couple more for me to copy and paste.

Or, in what WAY, EXACTLY, sounds God-like?

Expressions of confidences in ones ability to make claims which are generally not regarded as being humanly possible.

And, as I CONTINUALLY SAY I STAND BEHIND absolutely EVERY 'thing' I SAY, and WRITE, here, and WILL back up and support what I SAY, and WRITE, here. That is; IF absolutely ANY one would like to QUESTION and/or CHALLENGE 'Me' OVER absolutely ANY 'thing' I SAY, and WRITE, here.

Okay...


Saturn resolves around the Sol too...

[Atla]

Are you guys both channeling God, but somehow disagree on a lot of stuff?

Which one of you channels God better?

[VVilliam]

Are you guys both channeling God, but somehow disagree on a lot of stuff?

Hard to say. What does "channeling God" mean and is disagreement occurring?

Which one of you channels God better?