Do thoughts affect reality?

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 7723
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Age »

AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:26 am
Age wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:14 am This, of course, obviously excludes all of those times when we say either "I believe ..." , or, "My belief is ..." but ACTUALLY MEAN 'I do NOT KNOW, for sure'. See, we can, hypocritically, say, "I believe ...", when ACTUALLY we do NOT 'believe 'it' AT ALL.
I am not seeing it like that at all... maybe this is because I am not a native English speaker (my mother tongue is German)...
Fair enough, and thank you for clearing this up. This explains a lot.
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:26 am but if I, for example, would state: "I believe the monkey has eaten the banana",
then my conviction behind the statement is not as strong as saying:
"The monkey has eaten the banana."
Thank you for this clarification as well.
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:26 am If I only assume or consider something being true, then this assumption or belief is more of an "educated guess" (meaning: an estimate based on experience or theoretical knowledge), but it's not a fact.
To me;

'to assume' some thing is to just make a guess, which, obviously, could be right or wrong, or, true or false. (By the way, ALL theories and hypotheses are just guesses/assumptions as well, which ALL of them could be right or wrong, or, correct or incorrect.

'to believe' some thing means that that 'thing', which is believed, can NOT be ANY 'other thing' than what is believed to be true, right, and/or correct.

And,

'a fact' is some thing that is ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct, or just thee ACTUAL Truth of things, which can NOT be refuted at all.
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:26 am When I say "I believe the monkey has eaten the banana" I would have not actually observed it eating the banana, but I would have observed the banana being in the monkeys hand, and, maybe a minute later, noticed the empty banana skin lying on the ground... whereas if I would have been continually watching the monkey actually eat the banana, only then would I say: "The monkey has eaten the banana."
And, again, fair enough. It is for this EXACT REASON WHY I have been continually suggesting people CLARIFY what is ACTUALLY True, BEFORE they ASSUME ANY thing. What has occurred here, now finally, is a PRIME EXAMPLE of what can happen when people CLARIFY, BEFORE ASSUMING. ALL disagreements can be reduced to zero, with absolute and FULL understanding also being able to be obtained.

SEE, EVERY person can put their own DIFFERENT meaning to ANY word, which then can cause disagreements and confusion, which could be avoided COMPLETELY.
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:26 am If I only believe the monkey has eaten the banana, someone who has actually observed the process of the monkey not eating the banana at all, but throwing it out of the cage to get rid of an annoying/unwanted visitor (or whatever else the monkey might have done), would be able to easily convince me of my assumption/belief being false...
Do you REALLY associate 'assumption' with 'belief' and them both meaning the same thing?
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:26 am As such, I don't see any hypocrisy in saying "I believe xyz" without actually being perfectly convinced about the truth of the statement
As I have acknowledged, EVERY one is FREE to see and/or believe absolutely ANY thing that they want to.

But I could say you could have replaced your "being perfectly convinced about" words here with the 'believing' word. So, your sentence would read, "I believe xyz" without actually believing the truth of the statement, and it would mean the EXACT SAME thing, to me. Which, to me, besides being totally absurd and ridiculous, it would also be hypocrisy.

But as we have ALREADY established and PROVE 'you' and 'I' here are just seeing things differently. Just like EVERY one can, and does.
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:26 am it would rather be hypocritical to say "I have seen XYZ" if I actually only believe that I have seen XYZ... but that's of course just my perspective on how to use the verb "to believe".
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:26 am Furthermore, one has to bear in mind, that any statement or assumption we make (or belief that we entertain about something) is ever only about a conceptual interpretation, but never about reality itself.
Okay, if this is how YOU SEE and BELIEVE things, then okay.

Now, are you able to define the word 'reality' with that definition EVER being about 'reality', itself?
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:26 am Saying that "The monkey has eaten the banana" is a statement about an interpretation of something that has been directly experienced - but we have to keep in mind that we never actually directly experience an "I" seeing a "monkey" eat a "banana", but all we actually ever directly experience visually is color (which is also a concept, but there is no way to verbally further reduce the direct experience of "seeing").
If this is YOUR "seeing", and you want to BELIEVE 'it' is true, then so be it. But, no matter what you say, this, by YOUR OWN LOGIC, will NEVER be about 'reality', itself. Which means that EVERY thing you say and tell us is NOT about 'reality', itself. Which, infers that EVERY thing you say and tell us is NOT the true, or just plain old 'False'.
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:26 am That this changing field of color in front of our eyes actually is "a monkey eating a banana" is an assumption (or even a "fact") about an interpretation we have come up with, which we have learned and acquired over the years (a baby, for example, has no idea that there is a monkey eating a banana, it only sees shapes of color, which have no deeper meaning at all), but these assumptions/facts can never state something absolutely true about reality itself.
If you even think assumption/facts mean the same thing, then I suggest looking in an ENGLISH dictionary.

Also, by your OWN LOGIC here, you will HAVE TO ADMIT, that YOUR CLAIM that, "a baby ONLY sees shapes of color", is just an ASSUMPTION, which can NEVER state something absolutely true about reality itself.

Now, are you going to ADMIT to this?

If yes, then great. I WAIT to see this.

But if no, then WHY NOT?
Atla
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Atla »

Age wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 11:13 am
Atla wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 4:35 am
Age wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:29 am

WHY can you ONLY call someone "a liar" but NEVER be able to PROVE that CLAIM?
You're lying about me doing that, in order to keep lying that you weren't lying.
Well if I am, SUPPOSEDLY, lying about you doing that, then PROVE your CLAIM here.

That is; PROVE just ONCE where I have, SUPPOSEDLY, lied.

If you do not, then it is 'you', "atla", who is LYING.
Already have, you're just pretending otherwise (lying)
AlexW
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by AlexW »

Age wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:42 pm Now, are you able to define the word 'reality' with that definition EVER being about 'reality', itself?
Sure, I can provide such a definition (even a few different ones, depending on the words and concepts employed), but again, it will only be a definition, a pointer towards reality, it will be a statement "about reality", but, just like a signpost reading "New York"... the sign is just a word/concept, it is not the city.
Age wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:42 pm AlexW wrote:
Saying that "The monkey has eaten the banana" is a statement about an interpretation of something that has been directly experienced - but we have to keep in mind that we never actually directly experience an "I" seeing a "monkey" eat a "banana", but all we actually ever directly experience visually is color (which is also a concept, but there is no way to verbally further reduce the direct experience of "seeing").


If this is YOUR "seeing", and you want to BELIEVE 'it' is true, then so be it. But, no matter what you say, this, by YOUR OWN LOGIC, will NEVER be about 'reality', itself. Which means that EVERY thing you say and tell us is NOT about 'reality', itself. Which, infers that EVERY thing you say and tell us is NOT the true, or just plain old 'False'.
Of course this is how I see it, and it is also what I believe/assume to be true.
What has been said is a statement about reality, but it is only a description/interpretation, and it is a statement that uses a dualistic "tool" called language (which is an expression of conceptual thought) which can only talk about reality using concepts. Concepts describe things, they "conjure up" a relativistic universe of separate objects existing independently of each other, but reality (meaning: this direct experience happening here/now) actually doesn't conform to this relativistic model.
If you investigate your own direct experience you can actually find this out for yourself - which is, by the way, how I came to the conclusion that every description one can provide about reality is actually not it - it is a pointer towards an apparent part of it, but in truth (which is simply: direct experience itself) there are no such separate parts at all.

Now, please tell me: if reality/direct experience is not made of separate things, then how could anyone express something that is absolutely true about this reality using a tool (language) which is all about duality and separation?
I think this is actually not possible.
This doesn't mean that it is impossible to state something about an interpretation of reality which might be considered true or false - but the truth content of the statement will always depend on, and be measured within, the conceptual framework that is employed to describe it.
Age wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:42 pm If you even think assumption/facts mean the same thing, then I suggest looking in an ENGLISH dictionary.

Also, by your OWN LOGIC here, you will HAVE TO ADMIT, that YOUR CLAIM that, "a baby ONLY sees shapes of color", is just an ASSUMPTION, which can NEVER state something absolutely true about reality itself.

Now, are you going to ADMIT to this?
Of course I understand the difference between assumptions and facts.
The point I was trying to make, and which you apparently missed, is that an assumption, as well as a fact, is always based and rooted in the conceptual framework one employs to describe reality (whatever is directly experienced). If you think you can express a fact without making use of the conceptual/conventional framework as well as the language that is used to express it, then please let me know.
I think it is not possible to do so, and, as a result, even "facts" - expressed in conceptual thought and language - are not the actual reality of direct experience but only a description/interpretation of reality - as such they are not absolutely true (as I see it: only reality is absolutely true) but only have a certain truth content when expressed within a certain conceptual framework (something one has learned since early childhood, but that wasn't there before one was able to name and talk about the "objects of the world").

Now, back to the baby: Does it see only color?
Of course it sees only color. Do you think you see something else?
The seeing itself hasn't changed since you were young. Well, maybe its less sharp and focussed depending how old you are, but you still only see color.
You might think that you see separate things, but if you actually investigate, you will find that "seeing" itself is never about things... there is no separation within this "field of color".
"Seeing" actually is "color" - just like hearing is sound, there is nothing in between the "two". They are one and the same, they are just different words, different concepts used differently so they work within our conventional way of communication.

So, do I admit that "a baby ONLY sees shapes of color" is just an assumption?
Sure, it is an assumption based on investigating my own direct experience. It is not an absolute truth - it is only a description pointing to direct experience expressed in as simple terms as possible when using the only tool we have to actually describe anything: this tool is conceptual thought and its verbal expression: language.
Age
Posts: 7723
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Age »

Atla wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 3:51 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 11:13 am
Atla wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 4:35 am
You're lying about me doing that, in order to keep lying that you weren't lying.
Well if I am, SUPPOSEDLY, lying about you doing that, then PROVE your CLAIM here.

That is; PROVE just ONCE where I have, SUPPOSEDLY, lied.

If you do not, then it is 'you', "atla", who is LYING.
Already have, you're just pretending otherwise (lying)
So, it can very easily and very simple be SEEN here, from your very words, that you do NOT even have the ability nor even the courage to put forward absolutely ANY evidence AT ALL, which you ACTUALLY you NEED to PROVE your CLAIMS.

Instead you will just continually call 'me' A LIAR, in the hope that this will DETRACT from your COMPLETELY OBVIOUS INABILITY to back up and support 'your' OWN "self" here.

You have ALREADY PROVEN TO BE A JOKE and A FAILURE, based on the very FACT that when I have asked you to back up, support, prove your claims, you reply with "already have". We, however, have SEEN otherwise.
Atla
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Atla »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:53 am
Atla wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 3:51 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 11:13 am

Well if I am, SUPPOSEDLY, lying about you doing that, then PROVE your CLAIM here.

That is; PROVE just ONCE where I have, SUPPOSEDLY, lied.

If you do not, then it is 'you', "atla", who is LYING.
Already have, you're just pretending otherwise (lying)
So, it can very easily and very simple be SEEN here, from your very words, that you do NOT even have the ability nor even the courage to put forward absolutely ANY evidence AT ALL, which you ACTUALLY you NEED to PROVE your CLAIMS.

Instead you will just continually call 'me' A LIAR, in the hope that this will DETRACT from your COMPLETELY OBVIOUS INABILITY to back up and support 'your' OWN "self" here.

You have ALREADY PROVEN TO BE A JOKE and A FAILURE, based on the very FACT that when I have asked you to back up, support, prove your claims, you reply with "already have". We, however, have SEEN otherwise.
And now you lie even more, as expected. Unfortunately for you everyone knows this about you by now.
Age
Posts: 7723
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Age »

Atla wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:51 am
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:53 am
Atla wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 3:51 pm
Already have, you're just pretending otherwise (lying)
So, it can very easily and very simple be SEEN here, from your very words, that you do NOT even have the ability nor even the courage to put forward absolutely ANY evidence AT ALL, which you ACTUALLY you NEED to PROVE your CLAIMS.

Instead you will just continually call 'me' A LIAR, in the hope that this will DETRACT from your COMPLETELY OBVIOUS INABILITY to back up and support 'your' OWN "self" here.

You have ALREADY PROVEN TO BE A JOKE and A FAILURE, based on the very FACT that when I have asked you to back up, support, prove your claims, you reply with "already have". We, however, have SEEN otherwise.
And now you lie even more, as expected. Unfortunately for you everyone knows this about you by now.
But NO one has YET seen you prove that I am lying ANYWHERE. Unless, OF COURSE, you can and will get someone "else" to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here, with PROOF. Until then you have NOT proven ANY such thing.

And, ONCE AGAIN, the ONLY thing you can and will do now is NOT prove your CLAIMS, but instead just claim and say something again like;

"And now you lie even more, as expected."
Age
Posts: 7723
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Age »

AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
Age wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:42 pm Now, are you able to define the word 'reality' with that definition EVER being about 'reality', itself?
Sure, I can provide such a definition (even a few different ones, depending on the words and concepts employed), but again, it will only be a definition, a pointer towards reality, it will be a statement "about reality", but, just like a signpost reading "New York"... the sign is just a word/concept, it is not the city.
So, in essence, what you have been arguing for is that one thing is not another thing, correct?

Also, to me this appears to completely contradict your other:
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am Furthermore, one has to bear in mind, that any statement or assumption we make (or belief that we entertain about something) is ever only about a conceptual interpretation, but never about reality itself.
How do you explain that one time you write and say;

Any statement is never about reality itself. BUT, another time you write and say;

A definition will be a statement about reality.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
Age wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:42 pm AlexW wrote:
Saying that "The monkey has eaten the banana" is a statement about an interpretation of something that has been directly experienced - but we have to keep in mind that we never actually directly experience an "I" seeing a "monkey" eat a "banana", but all we actually ever directly experience visually is color (which is also a concept, but there is no way to verbally further reduce the direct experience of "seeing").


If this is YOUR "seeing", and you want to BELIEVE 'it' is true, then so be it. But, no matter what you say, this, by YOUR OWN LOGIC, will NEVER be about 'reality', itself. Which means that EVERY thing you say and tell us is NOT about 'reality', itself. Which, infers that EVERY thing you say and tell us is NOT the true, or just plain old 'False'.
Of course this is how I see it, and it is also what I believe/assume to be true.
Of course it is what you believe/assume to be true. But my point was and still is that what you believe/assume could NEVER be about reality, thus NOR thee ACTUAL of things, correct?

Oh, and by the way, when, and IF, 'you' ever come to discover, or learn, and understand who and what this 'I' is that does SEE, then 'you' will also SEE and UNDERSTAND just how SIMPLE and EASY it REALLY IS to DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE this 'I'.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am What has been said is a statement about reality, but it is only a description/interpretation, and it is a statement that uses a dualistic "tool" called language (which is an expression of conceptual thought) which can only talk about reality using concepts. Concepts describe things, they "conjure up" a relativistic universe of separate objects existing independently of each other, but reality (meaning: this direct experience happening here/now) actually doesn't conform to this relativistic model.
If 'you' can ONLY "conjure up a relativistic universe of separate objects existing independently of each other, then this phenomena can be, again, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY explained AND understood, FULLY, and IRREFUTABLY by the way. Unless, OF COURSE, you believe/assume that there is nothing more than could be learned and understood.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am If you investigate your own direct experience you can actually find this out for yourself - which is, by the way, how I came to the conclusion that every description one can provide about reality is actually not it - it is a pointer towards an apparent part of it, but in truth (which is simply: direct experience itself) there are no such separate parts at all.
BUT just like you can 'point to' "new york", you can also go there, understand 'it', and then explain 'it' to "others" who have NOT YET gone there/directly experienced 'it'. This, however, can only happen if 'you' directly experience as 'it' REALLY IS, and NOT how 'you' think/believe/assume 'it' is.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am Now, please tell me: if reality/direct experience is not made of separate things, then how could anyone express something that is absolutely true about this reality using a tool (language) which is all about duality and separation?
1. To me, 'reality' is NOT 'direct experience', like how you imply or believe it is.

2. How ANY one could just express some thing that is ABSOLUTELY True about Reality, Itself, using the tool of language is a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY thing to do. If, however, "others" have evolved enough to be OPEN ENOUGH to HEARING and SEEING this is just another matter.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am I think this is actually not possible.
On deeper reflection you might actually find out and see that you actually BELIEVE this, instead.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am This doesn't mean that it is impossible to state something about an interpretation of reality which might be considered true or false - but the truth content of the statement will always depend on, and be measured within, the conceptual framework that is employed to describe it.
AND, the 'conceptual framework' is either 'relatively' or 'objectively'.

And, when this is LOOKED AT and DISCUSSED, then this can be UNDERSTOOD.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
Age wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:42 pm If you even think assumption/facts mean the same thing, then I suggest looking in an ENGLISH dictionary.

Also, by your OWN LOGIC here, you will HAVE TO ADMIT, that YOUR CLAIM that, "a baby ONLY sees shapes of color", is just an ASSUMPTION, which can NEVER state something absolutely true about reality itself.

Now, are you going to ADMIT to this?
Of course I understand the difference between assumptions and facts.
Well it did NOT appear this way to me when you wrote;
these assumptions/facts can never state something absolutely true about reality itself.

This is because, to me, 'facts' are absolutely, and irrefutably true. Whereas 'assumptions' are just a guess about what is or might be true.

So, I would NEVER write assumption/facts as though they are synonymous or the one and the same thing.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am The point I was trying to make, and which you apparently missed, is that an assumption, as well as a fact, is always based and rooted in the conceptual framework one employs to describe reality (whatever is directly experienced).
But if a 'fact' is a thing that is known or proved to be true, then that thing has to be in relation to, or rooted in, 'reality', itself.

While, an 'assumption' is jut a guess, which could be based and rooted in, well ANY thing really.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am If you think you can express a fact without making use of the conceptual/conventional framework as well as the language that is used to express it, then please let me know.
I will. BUT, considering I would NOT think a thing like that, there is NOTHING to let you know about here.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am I think it is not possible to do so, and, as a result, even "facts" - expressed in conceptual thought and language - are not the actual reality of direct experience but only a description/interpretation of reality -
If 'facts' are only a description/interpretation of reality but are not the actual reality, then what are 'facts' based on, or rooted in, EXACTLY, if not 'reality', itself?
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am as such they are not absolutely true (as I see it: only reality is absolutely true)
What is 'reality', to you?

Also, if a 'fact' is a thing that is proved true, but a 'fact' is not absolutely true, to you, then, how do you define the difference between 'absolutely true' and 'proved true'?

Or, do you defined 'fact' differently?

If yes, then how do you define the word 'fact'?
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am but only have a certain truth content when expressed within a certain conceptual framework (something one has learned since early childhood, but that wasn't there before one was able to name and talk about the "objects of the world").

Now, back to the baby: Does it see only color?
Of course it sees only color. Do you think you see something else?
The seeing itself hasn't changed since you were young. Well, maybe its less sharp and focussed depending how old you are, but you still only see color.
You might think that you see separate things, but if you actually investigate, you will find that "seeing" itself is never about things... there is no separation within this "field of color".
"Seeing" actually is "color" - just like hearing is sound, there is nothing in between the "two". They are one and the same, they are just different words, different concepts used differently so they work within our conventional way of communication.

So, do I admit that "a baby ONLY sees shapes of color" is just an assumption?
Sure, it is an assumption based on investigating my own direct experience. It is not an absolute truth - it is only a description pointing to direct experience expressed in as simple terms as possible when using the only tool we have to actually describe anything: this tool is conceptual thought and its verbal expression: language.
My point in getting you to REAFFIRM that a baby ONLY sees shapes of color was not only to get you to SHOW that that is just an ASSUMPTION, from the conceptual framework of just what that body has experienced, ONLY, and within the length of existence of that body ONLY, which is NOTHING REALLY, relatively speaking, but also to SHOW that you would NOT admit that that ASSUMPTION of "yours" could NEVER state absolutely ANY thing that is absolutely true about, or in regards to, 'reality', itself.

In other words, there is NOTHING you could say that would ever be close to being absolutely true about reality itself, correct?

Will you admit that you could NEVER say ANY thing absolutely true about reality, itself?
AlexW
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by AlexW »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm So, in essence, what you have been arguing for is that one thing is not another thing, correct?
Incorrect
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm Any statement is never about reality itself. BUT, another time you write and say;

A definition will be a statement about reality.
Context
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm my point was and still is that what you believe/assume could NEVER be about reality
Incorrect
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm Oh, and by the way, when, and IF, 'you' ever come to discover, or learn, and understand who and what this 'I' is that does SEE, then 'you' will also SEE and UNDERSTAND just how SIMPLE and EASY it REALLY IS to DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE this 'I'.
Incorrect
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm To me, 'reality' is NOT 'direct experience', like how you imply or believe it is.
What is it to you?
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm How ANY one could just express some thing that is ABSOLUTELY True about Reality, Itself, using the tool of language is a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY thing to do.
Incorrect
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm Well it did NOT appear this way to me when you wrote;
these assumptions/facts can never state something absolutely true about reality itself.
This is because you do not understand- or don’t want to understand- what I am saying.
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm This is because, to me, 'facts' are absolutely, and irrefutably true.
Tell me such an absolutely true fact.
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm If 'facts' are only a description/interpretation of reality but are not the actual reality, then what are 'facts' based on, or rooted in, EXACTLY, if not 'reality', itself?
Do I really have to explain it again?
Haven’t you read what has been written?
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm What is 'reality', to you?
You really don’t pay much attention of what is being said, do you?
Why would you ask this question?
I have stated multiple times that to me, reality is whatever can be directly experienced, and not what can only be imagined/thought of.

I recommend you attempt to concentrate and focus when reading a post, otherwise it’s not surprising you don’t understand what is being said. It is getting a bit tedious to explain the same thing over and over again…
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm In other words, there is NOTHING you could say that would ever be close to being absolutely true about reality itself, correct?
And again… why do you have to repeat yourself all the time?
Is it so hard to see that absolute truth can not be expressed using language?

Oh, and by the way, when, and IF, 'you' ever come to discover, or learn, and understand what 'absolute truth' actually is, then 'you' will also UNDERSTAND just how SIMPLE and EASY it REALLY IS to DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE this 'absolute truth'.
Last edited by AlexW on Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
Atla
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Atla »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:35 am
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:51 am
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:53 am

So, it can very easily and very simple be SEEN here, from your very words, that you do NOT even have the ability nor even the courage to put forward absolutely ANY evidence AT ALL, which you ACTUALLY you NEED to PROVE your CLAIMS.

Instead you will just continually call 'me' A LIAR, in the hope that this will DETRACT from your COMPLETELY OBVIOUS INABILITY to back up and support 'your' OWN "self" here.

You have ALREADY PROVEN TO BE A JOKE and A FAILURE, based on the very FACT that when I have asked you to back up, support, prove your claims, you reply with "already have". We, however, have SEEN otherwise.
And now you lie even more, as expected. Unfortunately for you everyone knows this about you by now.
But NO one has YET seen you prove that I am lying ANYWHERE. Unless, OF COURSE, you can and will get someone "else" to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here, with PROOF. Until then you have NOT proven ANY such thing.

And, ONCE AGAIN, the ONLY thing you can and will do now is NOT prove your CLAIMS, but instead just claim and say something again like;

"And now you lie even more, as expected."
Lie, some lies of yours have been noted by posters elsewhere. And you made this lie in order to try to get out of your lie about not having lied. You also lie about what I said and lie about what I can do. Plus it's also your lie that a lie which isn't acknowledged by enough people, doesn't count as a lie.
Age
Posts: 7723
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Age »

AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:53 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm So, in essence, what you have been arguing for is that one thing is not another thing, correct?
Incorrect
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm Any statement is never about reality itself. BUT, another time you write and say;

A definition will be a statement about reality.
Context
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm my point was and still is that what you believe/assume could NEVER be about reality
Incorrect
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm Oh, and by the way, when, and IF, 'you' ever come to discover, or learn, and understand who and what this 'I' is that does SEE, then 'you' will also SEE and UNDERSTAND just how SIMPLE and EASY it REALLY IS to DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE this 'I'.
Incorrect
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm To me, 'reality' is NOT 'direct experience', like how you imply or believe it is.
What is it to you?
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm How ANY one could just express some thing that is ABSOLUTELY True about Reality, Itself, using the tool of language is a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY thing to do.
Incorrect
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm Well it did NOT appear this way to me when you wrote;
these assumptions/facts can never state something absolutely true about reality itself.
This is because you do not understand- or don’t want to understand- what I am saying.
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm This is because, to me, 'facts' are absolutely, and irrefutably true.
Tell me such an absolutely true fact.
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm If 'facts' are only a description/interpretation of reality but are not the actual reality, then what are 'facts' based on, or rooted in, EXACTLY, if not 'reality', itself?
Do I really have to explain it again?
Haven’t you read what has been written?
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm What is 'reality', to you?
You really don’t pay much attention of what is being said, do you?
Why would you ask this question?
I have stated multiple times that to me, reality is whatever can be directly experienced, and not what can only be imagined/thought of.

I recommend you attempt to concentrate and focus when reading a post, otherwise it’s not surprising you don’t understand what is being said. It is getting a bit tedious to explain the same thing over and over again…
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:42 pm In other words, there is NOTHING you could say that would ever be close to being absolutely true about reality itself, correct?
And again… why do you have to repeat yourself all the time?
Is it so hard to see that absolute truth can not be expressed using language?

Oh, and by the way, when, and IF, 'you' ever come to discover, or learn, and understand what 'absolute truth' actually is, then 'you' will also UNDERSTAND just how SIMPLE and EASY it REALLY IS to DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE this 'absolute truth'.
'it' is a word used to refer to a thing

An 'absolutely true fact' is a thing that is known or proved to be true, and which is irrefutable. Like, for example, there are words before Me, or, I am observing words.

I would like you explain 'it' again. But you REALLY do NOT have to do ANY thing that you REALLY do NOT WANT TO.
I have been reading what has been written, but some of what has been written is VERY CONTRADICTORY to me.

I REALLY do pay much attention of what is being said, but, OBVIOUSLY, some of what is being said I do NOT YET UNDERSTAND from the "others" perspective. This is WHY I ask the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, sometimes.
WHY I asked this question is BECAUSE I want to KNOW.
So, to you, 'reality' is WHATEVER can be 'directly experienced', and NOT what can only be imagined/thought of.

I will try to recall this EVERY time I see you use the 'reality' word. But, for now, and just to CLARIFY, some people 'directly experience' a flat earth, the sun revolving around them/earth, and an expanding Universe, which also began, therefore, to you, this is 'reality', correct?

So, to you explaining the same things over and over again is a 'bit tedious', correct?

Yet now, you want to know why I have to repeat "myself", "all the time"?

1. I OBVIOUSLY could NOT repeat "myself" ALL the time.

2. BECAUSE you do NOT YET understand what I am saying.

You now ask;
Is it so hard to see that absolute truth can not be expressed using language?

'I' will now ask 'you',
Do you BELIEVE that the 'absolute truth' can not be expressed using language?

Your Honest answer would be very much appreciated here.

To me, a statement can be true, and if it is true, then it an absolutely true, or just thee Truth, which is just irrefutable. There are however, some people who BELIEVE some 'things' are absolutely or irrefutably true, like you here "alexw", who BELIEVES "the absolute truth can not be expressed using language".

This truth, which you BELIEVE is absolutely and irrefutably true, however, you have just expressed using language. Therefore, what you BELIEVE here is true is either absolutely and irrefutably true or it is NOT, And, if it is is NOT true, then it is false, or only partly true. So, to you, which one is it?

Oh, and by the way, could ANY of YOUR CLAIMS here above be false, wrong, or incorrect in ANY way, at all?
Age
Posts: 7723
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Age »

Atla wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:46 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:35 am
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:51 am
And now you lie even more, as expected. Unfortunately for you everyone knows this about you by now.
But NO one has YET seen you prove that I am lying ANYWHERE. Unless, OF COURSE, you can and will get someone "else" to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here, with PROOF. Until then you have NOT proven ANY such thing.

And, ONCE AGAIN, the ONLY thing you can and will do now is NOT prove your CLAIMS, but instead just claim and say something again like;

"And now you lie even more, as expected."
Lie, some lies of yours have been noted by posters elsewhere.
You do NOT seem to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND things here. I am asking you to PROVIDE PROOF for YOUR CLAIMS. For example, WHERE are these, SUPPOSED and ALLEGED, "some of my lies", which have SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY, "been noted by posters elsewhere"?

In other words, WHERE, EXACTLY, is this ELSEWHERE?

Until you PROVIDE ANY thing, then for all we know it could be 'you', "atla", who has been LYING all along here.

Also, what I said, which you have quoted here could NOT be a lie AT ALL. For the VERY SIMPLE REASON of the WAY I wrote.
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:46 pm And you made this lie in order to try to get out of your lie about not having lied.
But I have NOT made a lie here. As can be CLEARLY EVIDENCED and PROVEN by the way I wrote.

You are, LITERALLY, SEEING things that are NOT even there.

This, AGAIN, is because of those CURRENTLY HELD ONTO and WELL MAINTAINED BELIEFS, within that body there.
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:46 pm You also lie about what I said and lie about what I can do. Plus it's also your lie that a lie which isn't acknowledged by enough people, doesn't count as a lie.
Sounds like someone is going COMPLETELY CRAZY and INSANE. Based, SOLELY, upon those inner voices, or demons, within that body.

By the way, 'you', "atla", just PROVED, by doing, what 'I' CLAIMED you would ACTUALLY DO.

So, AGAIN, 'I' THANK 'YOU' profusely.

PLEASE keep doing what 'you' are doing, as what 'you' are doing is PROVIDING ALL of the ACTUAL evidence AND proof needed to back up and support MY CLAIM about how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY work.
Age
Posts: 7723
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Age »

AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:53 pm
Oh, and by the way, when, and IF, 'you' ever come to discover, or learn, and understand what 'absolute truth' actually is, then 'you' will also UNDERSTAND just how SIMPLE and EASY it REALLY IS to DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE this 'absolute truth'.
Now, what exactly is this 'absolute truth', which you speak of here, and which you CLAIM is SIMPLE and EASY to DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE?

And, is it at all possible that ANY one "else" or EVERY one can DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE this 'absolute truth' or is it ONLY 'you' who can DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE this 'absolute truth'?

Your Truly Honest answer would be VERY MUCH APPRECIATED here.
AlexW
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by AlexW »

Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:19 am An 'absolutely true fact' is a thing that is known or proved to be true, and which is irrefutable. Like, for example, there are words before Me, or, I am observing words.
How could "I am observing words" ever be an absolutely true fact?

For something to be "absolutely true" it has to stand on its own - meaning: it exists independently and not in relation to other things, statements or facts; it is, as such, not relative or comparative.

Your absolute truth of "I am observing words" neither stands on its own (as it requires concepts and language to be expressed) and it is also relative to other "facts", for example: "I am not observing words" etc etc...

To state that some thing is absolute, is already a step in the wrong direction - the absolute can not be further limited or dissected into absolute truth, absolute wrongs, absolute rights, depths, intelligence, love, hate or whatever else one can think about being "absolute".
It's like trying to add something on to "infinity" - if there were, for example, an infinite amount of apples, there could never be an infinite amount of pears - the universe would be all apples - no room for pears, bananas, grapes or anything else...

Now, the way you seem to see it, there are many other absolutely true facts besides the one absolutely true fact that you mentioned: "I am observing words".
As I see it - and this is also what the word "absolute" actually is meant to describe - there is only one absolute truth - and not as many as you can make up in your head based on whatever you might be currently experiencing.
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:53 am Now, what exactly is this 'absolute truth', which you speak of here, and which you CLAIM is SIMPLE and EASY to DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE?
Absolute truth = reality = direct experience
There is no way to experience anything else but reality - so, yes, it is extremely simple to directly experience absolute truth as it is this very direct experience itself.

Relative truth = conceptual thought = anything expressed in language (no matter if it is called a fact, belief, perspective or assumption)
There is no way to directly experience anything which is not reality, which is not absolutely true - there is always, only the direct experience of the absolute itself (the idea, or so called "fact", that there is an "I observing words" is not more than a relativistic description of a tiny fraction of this very reality - a description which can and will never be the direct experience - absolute truth - itself).
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:53 am And, is it at all possible that ANY one "else" or EVERY one can DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE this 'absolute truth' or is it ONLY 'you' who can DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE this 'absolute truth'?

Your Truly Honest answer would be VERY MUCH APPRECIATED here.
There is no "you" or "other/else" who would experience anything - the "you/me" exists only in relativistic descriptions of "facts" like your "I am observing words" example, but this separate "I/you/me" referred to in this "fact" can never be found in direct experience itself. It is not absolute truth - it is a conceptual interpretation of the absolute, of reality.
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:19 am 'I' will now ask 'you',
Do you BELIEVE that the 'absolute truth' can not be expressed using language?
As explained above:
Absolute truth can not be expressed using language.
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:19 am To me, a statement can be true, and if it is true, then it an absolutely true, or just thee Truth, which is just irrefutable. There are however, some people who BELIEVE some 'things' are absolutely or irrefutably true, like you here "alexw", who BELIEVES "the absolute truth can not be expressed using language".
Again, you misinterpret what "absolute" actually means - I tried to explain above, hope that helped?

Once, or rather if, you actually see and understand that stating "thee Absolute Truth" once, would mean that no other statement could ever be "thee Absolute Truth" as well, then you might understand what I am trying to explain.
If "I am observing words" would really be "thee Absolute Truth" then we would have found the one and absolute truth! This would be amazing! No more looking for answers... Humanity finally knows that "I am observing words" is the one absolute truth!
Last edited by AlexW on Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
Atla
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Atla »

Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:47 am
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:46 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:35 am

But NO one has YET seen you prove that I am lying ANYWHERE. Unless, OF COURSE, you can and will get someone "else" to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here, with PROOF. Until then you have NOT proven ANY such thing.

And, ONCE AGAIN, the ONLY thing you can and will do now is NOT prove your CLAIMS, but instead just claim and say something again like;

"And now you lie even more, as expected."
Lie, some lies of yours have been noted by posters elsewhere.
You do NOT seem to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND things here. I am asking you to PROVIDE PROOF for YOUR CLAIMS. For example, WHERE are these, SUPPOSED and ALLEGED, "some of my lies", which have SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY, "been noted by posters elsewhere"?

In other words, WHERE, EXACTLY, is this ELSEWHERE?

Until you PROVIDE ANY thing, then for all we know it could be 'you', "atla", who has been LYING all along here.

Also, what I said, which you have quoted here could NOT be a lie AT ALL. For the VERY SIMPLE REASON of the WAY I wrote.
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:46 pm And you made this lie in order to try to get out of your lie about not having lied.
But I have NOT made a lie here. As can be CLEARLY EVIDENCED and PROVEN by the way I wrote.

You are, LITERALLY, SEEING things that are NOT even there.

This, AGAIN, is because of those CURRENTLY HELD ONTO and WELL MAINTAINED BELIEFS, within that body there.
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:46 pm You also lie about what I said and lie about what I can do. Plus it's also your lie that a lie which isn't acknowledged by enough people, doesn't count as a lie.
Sounds like someone is going COMPLETELY CRAZY and INSANE. Based, SOLELY, upon those inner voices, or demons, within that body.

By the way, 'you', "atla", just PROVED, by doing, what 'I' CLAIMED you would ACTUALLY DO.

So, AGAIN, 'I' THANK 'YOU' profusely.

PLEASE keep doing what 'you' are doing, as what 'you' are doing is PROVIDING ALL of the ACTUAL evidence AND proof needed to back up and support MY CLAIM about how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY work.
More lies, willful amnesia, projecting, playing dumb, self-importance, comprehension disability, playing the victim, literal God complex, lack of awareness etc. you sure have a rare mix of pathologies in addition to being irrational dumb and ill willed, which I find slightly interesting
Age
Posts: 7723
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Age »

AlexW wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:52 am
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:19 am An 'absolutely true fact' is a thing that is known or proved to be true, and which is irrefutable. Like, for example, there are words before Me, or, I am observing words.
How could "I am observing words" ever be an absolutely true fact?

For something to be "absolutely true" it has to stand on its own - meaning: it exists independently and not in relation to other things, statements or facts; it is, as such, not relative or comparative.

Your absolute truth of "I am observing words" neither stands on its own (as it requires concepts and language to be expressed) and it is also relative to other "facts", for example: "I am not observing words" etc etc...

To state that some thing is absolute, is already a step in the wrong direction - the absolute can not be further limited or dissected into absolute truth, absolute wrongs, absolute rights, depths, intelligence, love, hate or whatever else one can think about being "absolute".
It's like trying to add something on to "infinity" - if there were, for example, an infinite amount of apples, there could never be an infinite amount of pears - the universe would be all apples - no room for pears, bananas, grapes or anything else...

Now, the way you seem to see it, there are many other absolutely true facts besides the one absolutely true fact that you mentioned: "I am observing words".
As I see it - and this is also what the word "absolute" actually is meant to describe - there is only one absolute truth - and not as many as you can make up in your head based on whatever you might be currently experiencing.
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:53 am Now, what exactly is this 'absolute truth', which you speak of here, and which you CLAIM is SIMPLE and EASY to DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE?
Absolute truth = reality = direct experience
There is no way to experience anything else but reality - so, yes, it is extremely simple to directly experience absolute truth as it is this very direct experience itself.

Relative truth = conceptual thought = anything expressed in language (no matter if it is called a fact, belief, perspective or assumption)
There is no way to directly experience anything which is not reality, which is not absolutely true - there is always, only the direct experience of the absolute itself (the idea, or so called "fact", that there is an "I observing words" is not more than a relativistic description of a tiny fraction of this very reality - a description which can and will never be the direct experience - absolute truth - itself).
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:53 am And, is it at all possible that ANY one "else" or EVERY one can DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE this 'absolute truth' or is it ONLY 'you' who can DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE this 'absolute truth'?

Your Truly Honest answer would be VERY MUCH APPRECIATED here.
There is no "you" or "other/else" who would experience anything - the "you/me" exists only in relativistic descriptions of "facts" like your "I am observing words" example, but this separate "I/you/me" referred to in this "fact" can never be found in direct experience itself. It is not absolute truth - it is a conceptual interpretation of the absolute, of reality.
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:19 am 'I' will now ask 'you',
Do you BELIEVE that the 'absolute truth' can not be expressed using language?
As explained above:
Absolute truth can not be expressed using language.
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:19 am To me, a statement can be true, and if it is true, then it an absolutely true, or just thee Truth, which is just irrefutable. There are however, some people who BELIEVE some 'things' are absolutely or irrefutably true, like you here "alexw", who BELIEVES "the absolute truth can not be expressed using language".
Again, you misinterpret what "absolute" actually means - I tried to explain above, hope that helped?

Once, or rather if, you actually see and understand that stating "thee Absolute Truth" once, would mean that no other statement could ever be "thee Absolute Truth" as well, then you might understand what I am trying to explain.
If "I am observing words" would really be "thee Absolute Truth" then we would have found the one and absolute truth! This would be amazing! No more looking for answers... Humanity finally knows that "I am observing words" is the one absolute truth!
I responded to all of what you have written here, but it got lost while this website is slow to load, and I could not be bothered repeating.

But, essentially, you have NOT been reading the ACTUAL WORDS that I have been writing, and this explains the reason WHY you are NOT YET understanding what I am ACTUALLY MEANING.
Post Reply