Mind or minds

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:08 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:53 pm
The probability theory is exact in the limit when number of particles is infinite, otherwise you always have noise in your system. There are tricks to deal with infinite number of particles.
Yes, but there are no tricks to determine the distribution of particles at infinite scale. You are appealing to theory - the central limit theorem and assuming a uniform distribution, but in an infinite universe there are no guarantees of uniformity. Distributions need not be standard and the observable universe could well be an anthropic local phenomenon.

Small sample fallacy, or a Ludic fallacy...
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:07 pm
Either there was a Mind who caused everything or nothingness (absence of physical forms) was unstable in presence of many minds.
An uncaused first mind?
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:07 pm
Imagination or understanding are mental states experienced by mind. How are we able to produce such a state? That is the result of how minds are interacting with each other. We gain this power through evolution which this is the result of random mutation in the gene and survival capacity of new gene.
OK, but my point stands - heuristics are incomplete models. They sacrifice precision in favour of low latency results. A quick approximation now is better than precise answer in 50 years - diminishing returns and all that.

And real-world models of large, complex systems are somewhat entropic. So you are necessarily dealing with margins of error.

How do you decide which errors are significant and which aren't?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:26 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:08 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:53 pm
The probability theory is exact in the limit when number of particles is infinite, otherwise you always have noise in your system. There are tricks to deal with infinite number of particles.
Yes, but there are no tricks to determine the distribution of particles at infinite scale. You are appealing to theory - the central limit theorem and assuming a uniform distribution, but in an infinite universe there are no guarantees of uniformity. Distributions need not be standard and the observable universe could well be an anthropic local phenomenon.
Yes.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:08 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:07 pm
Either there was a Mind who caused everything or nothingness (absence of physical forms) was unstable in presence of many minds.
An uncaused first mind?
Mind (with capital M who created everything but minds) or minds are uncaused.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:08 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:07 pm
Imagination or understanding are mental states experienced by mind. How are we able to produce such a state? That is the result of how minds are interacting with each other. We gain this power through evolution which this is the result of random mutation in the gene and survival capacity of new gene.
OK, but my point stands - heuristics are incomplete models. They sacrifice precision in favour of low latency results. A quick approximation now is better than precise answer in 50 years - diminishing returns and all that.

And real-world models of large, complex systems are somewhat entropic. So you are necessarily dealing with margins of error.

How do you decide which errors are significant and which aren't?
we ignore an error when the error does not have any significant effect on behavior of a system. When the error becomes important? It depends on how precise a system should be. It is completely situational. If you want to make an engine which works with very high speed then you need more precision in size of its parts otherwise you could work with larger error.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:34 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:26 pm
we ignore an error when the error does not have any significant effect on behavior of a system. When the error becomes important? It depends on how precise a system should be. It is completely situational.
Utility theory teaches us that the significance of an event is probability*impact. If impact == death, then that's negative infinity in terms of utility.

If that's a heuristic to go by all critical models need to be perfect/precise.

AlexW
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by AlexW » Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am

Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
If as you propose that there are no things, then there is NO 'it' also.

If, as you propose, there are NO things, then there is absolutely NOTHING, which must also include " 'ideas' of things" also. Yet, and funnily enough, there are these strange shaped black things appearing, (some times called letters, which become what are some times known as words, which then form what are some times labelled as sentences, in response, to other strange shaped black things, (which are also same as above) on and about some thing, in front of some thing.
Things and also meaning are similar to a movie happening on a screen. There really is no movement happening on the screen, it is an illusion, an interpretation of a fast succession of perfectly still pictures (of arrangements of colours).
One thought cannot create things and even less meaning, it requires a fast succession of thoughts to create the illusion of separate things existing that have a certain meaning (or of events that hold meaning etc etc).
A thing (meaning: the idea of a thing, the illusion of things-ness) arises out of this web of thought that seems to possess a certain reality when thoughts happen in a fast enough succession. But it only seems so - just like movement on a screen is ultimately not real, this web of thought is all smoke and mirrors.
Your example of the "strange shaped black things" is pretty accurate - there are only "strange shaped black things" but once woven into a tapestry of thought meaning arises. A meaning that is an illusion/interpretation conjured up by fast moving thought, but that has no reality - there is no life in it.
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
2. The heard is simply sound or thought - the content can not be heard or seen it can only be inferred by chains of thought which seem to generate meaning, but these meanings are only an abstraction they are not "real" (they don't really exist - they are ideas only)
But, according to you there are NO things, therefore there are NO abstractions NOR ideas.

Also, you did say that meanings are only an abstraction, which are NOT "real" and do NOT really exist - they are ideas only. But, WHERE did the ideas come from, and WHERE do they arise?

And, if there is a 'heard', then WHERE did the heard come from, AND, WHERE/WHAT did the 'heard' arise in?
"Abstractions and ideas" are no things - as explained in the previous paragraph they arise out of an "optical illusion of thought".

"WHERE did the ideas come from, and WHERE do they arise?"
When you were born you had no ideas, no abstractions arose in your mind. There was only direct experience.
Soon you learn to identify certain combinations of color/shape/texture/sound as a certain thing - you are being told a label - you start connecting the dots. A picture arises out of a pattern matched experience - creating the illusion/interpretation of duality out of the non-dual stream of life.
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
See, if we state "I feel the wind on my skin" then this is an interpretation - chains of thought might state that "It" can really feel/know "wind" or "skin", but ultimately this is not true.
But WHY would a chain of thought state such a ridiculous thing?

I KNOW I certainly do NOT.

Of course chains of thoughts proclaim to KNOW such things, but that is just how thought, tricks itself into believing that it knows best.
Yet, you seem to state that "It" (you) can know things... How do you know a thing? What knows it (or rather: what creates it?)
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
"It" can only know what it IS.
Disagree.

'It' can, for example, KNOW other things like when thought/concept/ideas arise and when thoughts/concepts are WRONG.
No. As I tried to explain before, things/concepts/ideas never really arise - they are an illusion and as such never created/real. They are like a dream that is seen as perfectly unreal once being awake.
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
"It" knows the direct experience of "wind on skin", the real (no-)thing, but not the interpretation -
But It can KNOW the difference between interpretation AND real. It can also KNOW when interpretation is taking place. It, after all, KNOWS EVERY thing, therefore It can KNOW Itself, and also KNOW and point out how 'you', the thinking/interpreting one is just thinking/interpreting, instead of LOOKING AT that, what IS real.
You will have to find out what is actually real and thus can be known (as myself) and what is actually never even created (e.g. things).
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
"It" doesn't know any meanings - they are reserved for the map and for interpretative thought.
But the 'It', which is just thee one and only Mind, which does KNOW EVERY thing, does KNOW any and ALL meanings. Because 'It/Mind/I KNOWS ALL things, including interpretative thought.
Again, no. See above regarding what is real and as such can be known and what never actually arises.
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
Yes, "It" also knows thought, but it has nothing to do with the ideas/beliefs that seem to be formed by linking thoughts up into imaginary pictures (like "wind on skin" or a "human made world").
WHY would 'you', a no thing, THINK it KNOWS more than what It/Mind/I KNOW?
I don't understand your question...
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
This "human made world" exists only as an idea - even "world" is an idea, a concept that "It" can never know (yes, "It" knows the thought, but this thought has no meaning for "It").
It/Mind/ KNOWS ALL, so It can ALWAYS KNOW.
Yes true, it knows all - all that's real and it knows nothing of the imagined/unreal - how could you even know something that is not? It makes no sense at all...
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
and this "It" (=absolute reality) has nothing to do with them.
What do you mean has nothing to do with ALL of 'you', chain of thought, human beings?
It has nothing to do with whatever is conjured up by linking chains of thought into apparent "things" or "meaning"
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
The I/Mind/It has everything to do with you/thoughts. Absolutely EVERY thing has every thing to do with every thing. That is HOW the one and only Universe creates Itself.
You are mistaking the thought made, the conjured up "you" - with the real, absolute Self.

Age
Posts: 3572
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:33 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:30 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:24 pm
I am just SHOWING the readers how often and how much the human brain makes ASSUMPTIONS, and jumps to conclusions, without first gaining clarification.
But if I got to the right conclusion, it should be obvious that I didn't need further clarification?
But who said that you did get to the right conclusion?

I do NOT recall doing so.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:30 pm
Perhaps you are uncertain of my methods, even though it's is obvious that they work?
Is it really that OBVIOUS that YOUR method worked?

I have already pointed out how YOUR method did NOT work. But maybe that was NOT that OBVIOUS.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:30 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:24 pm
Who/what IS the 'self' that 'you' are referring to here?

This 'self' may or may NOT be the one that you are thinking of.

You will NEED to KNOW, become certain, of a lot more things before you could successfully say that you have arrived at the RIGHT conclusion.
The thing that you agreed to having a notion of.
And, WHAT is that 'thing' EXACTLY?

What is 'it' made up of and composed of?
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:30 pm
It doesn't matter what it is, or how it looks like or what it looks like.
Are you SURE?

If you are SURE, then just maybe we are talking about two very distinctly different things, of which you will become none the wiser.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:30 pm
So long as in your head it is a separate notion from the notion of "the universe".
But this is NOT the case at all. Because I have yet to gain clarity of what you are actually talking about and proposing as being separate.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:30 pm
You agreed that it is and so I am not uncertain when I say this: you draw distinction between "self" and "universe".
If that is what YOU are CERTAIN about, then so be it.

But just remember you have absolutely NO idea of what 'self' means to me. Nor even if that is even a Real Self?

In fact I would be rather surprised if you have ANY clue of what 'self' means to you, and your self.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:30 pm
I will call it True Knowledge until evidence to the contrary.
If you have DRAWN up and arrived at a CERTAIN conclusion and have an IDEA of some thing or other, then I do NOT see how any one could dispute that.

You have arrived at a conclusion that: I draw distinction between 'self' and 'universe', and, you call this True Knowledge (until evidence to the contrary).

So be it; that is the FACTS.

Now, what shall we do with this FACT?

Age
Posts: 3572
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:00 am

AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
If as you propose that there are no things, then there is NO 'it' also.

If, as you propose, there are NO things, then there is absolutely NOTHING, which must also include " 'ideas' of things" also. Yet, and funnily enough, there are these strange shaped black things appearing, (some times called letters, which become what are some times known as words, which then form what are some times labelled as sentences, in response, to other strange shaped black things, (which are also same as above) on and about some thing, in front of some thing.
Things and also meaning are similar to a movie happening on a screen. There really is no movement happening on the screen, it is an illusion, an interpretation of a fast succession of perfectly still pictures (of arrangements of colours).
One thought cannot create things and even less meaning, it requires a fast succession of thoughts to create the illusion of separate things existing that have a certain meaning (or of events that hold meaning etc etc).
Thoughts just arise within a human body.
Separateness is only an illusion.
Meaning is just another risen thought.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
A thing (meaning: the idea of a thing, the illusion of things-ness) arises out of this web of thought that seems to possess a certain reality when thoughts happen in a fast enough succession. But it only seems so - just like movement on a screen is ultimately not real, this web of thought is all smoke and mirrors.
But you said there are NO things, now you saying 'A thing' is 'the idea of a thing', 'the illusion of thing-ness'. So, that would mean there are NO 'ideas of things'.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
Your example of the "strange shaped black things" is pretty accurate - there are only "strange shaped black things" but once woven into a tapestry of thought meaning arises. A meaning that is an illusion/interpretation conjured up by fast moving thought, but that has no reality - there is no life in it.
Just because an interpretation is made that does NOT necessarily mean that THAT is an illusion, in and of itself.

Of course what is SEEN on the screen IS an illusion, has it has already gone and does NOT now exist in that exact same shape nor form, but it did exist in that shape and form, and thus WAS a thing.

You can NOT sufficiently say that 'things' are an illusion when quite obviously there once existed 'things' that has been seen, and interpreted in certain ways. How 'things' are interpreted IS Real.

Until you can EXPLAIN how ALL-OF-THIS works, and, Who/What is the 'Thing' that is observing ALL-OF-THIS, then just repeating what you have seen/heard and thus saying that there are NO things and it is just an illusion will NOT suffice.

You NEED to UNDERSTAND how this ALL works BEFORE you are able to EXPLAIN It sufficiently enough.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
2. The heard is simply sound or thought - the content can not be heard or seen it can only be inferred by chains of thought which seem to generate meaning, but these meanings are only an abstraction they are not "real" (they don't really exist - they are ideas only)
But, according to you there are NO things, therefore there are NO abstractions NOR ideas.

Also, you did say that meanings are only an abstraction, which are NOT "real" and do NOT really exist - they are ideas only. But, WHERE did the ideas come from, and WHERE do they arise?
"Abstractions and ideas" are no things - as explained in the previous paragraph they arise out of an "optical illusion of thought".
But the 'optical illusion of thought' is itself a 'thing'.

It is NOT correct to say that 'there are NO things' but then also say there is an 'optical illusion of thought'.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
When you were born you had no ideas, no abstractions arose in your mind.
But according to there 'there are NO things' logic there is also NO 'i' that could be born.

Also, when you are going to use the word 'mind' then I am wondering what do you mean when you use the word 'mind'? And, I wonder who/what are you actually referring to when you use the term 'your mind'? And, I wonder how do those two different definitions interact with each other, from YOUR perspective?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
There was only direct experience. Soon you learn to identify certain combinations of color/shape/texture/sound as a certain thing - you are being told a label - you start connecting the dots. A picture arises out of a pattern matched experience - creating the illusion/interpretation of duality out of the non-dual stream of life.
I agree with just about all you say. The difference is you get to a certain point then you say some thing like; Language will NOT suffice to EXPLAIN things. Whereas, I will disagree with this as I KNOW there is a way to use language so that ALL-OF-THIS can be explained and understood very easily and simply.

Age
Posts: 3572
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am

AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
See, if we state "I feel the wind on my skin" then this is an interpretation - chains of thought might state that "It" can really feel/know "wind" or "skin", but ultimately this is not true.
But WHY would a chain of thought state such a ridiculous thing?

I KNOW I certainly do NOT.

Of course chains of thoughts proclaim to KNOW such things, but that is just how thought, tricks itself into believing that it knows best.
Yet, you seem to state that "It" (you) can know things... How do you know a thing? What knows it (or rather: what creates it?)
But I have NEVER stated, NOR would I EVER state, that the 'you' can KNOW these things. The 'you', by definition, can NOT KNOW this KNOWING.

The CORRECT answer to the question Who am 'I'? has to be KNOWN before this is Truly understood.

How do you know a thing? What knows it (or rather: what creates it?)

The 'you' is just a THINKING self.
The 'I' IS the KNOWING Self.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
"It" can only know what it IS.
Disagree.

'It' can, for example, KNOW other things like when thought/concept/ideas arise and when thoughts/concepts are WRONG.
No. As I tried to explain before, things/concepts/ideas never really arise -
Are you saying that a thought/concept/idea NEVER arises within a human body?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
they are an illusion and as such never created/real.
You really do NEED to find better words, definitions, terms, and language if you want to be better understood.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
They are like a dream that is seen as perfectly unreal once being awake.
What the dream was OF might be perfectly unreal, but if the dream itself was perfectly real, therefore then it was a thing.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
"It" knows the direct experience of "wind on skin", the real (no-)thing, but not the interpretation -
But It can KNOW the difference between interpretation AND real. It can also KNOW when interpretation is taking place. It, after all, KNOWS EVERY thing, therefore It can KNOW Itself, and also KNOW and point out how 'you', the thinking/interpreting one is just thinking/interpreting, instead of LOOKING AT that, what IS real.
You will have to find out what is actually real
The 'I' has done this ALREADY. And, in fact, has always KNOWN this.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
and thus can be known (as myself) and what is actually never even created (e.g. things).
Let us SEE how the 'you' can TRY TO explain the 'myself'?

What IS Real and Who/What 'I' Really am IS ALREADY KNOWN.

How to explain this to 'you', thinking/believing human beings, in very simple and easy terms so that 'you' can UNDERSTAND IT ALL, just takes some time to learn, of which there is NO rush.

One Thing is NEVER actually created, but ALL other things are. If there are NO real created things then there would NOT be any thing heard nor seen.

You, the one known as alexw, may be closer than "others" are to seeing and understanding all-of-this, but you are just as prevented and thus stopped the same as they are from SEEING IT ALL, just like all adult human beings are, when this is written.

AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
"It" doesn't know any meanings - they are reserved for the map and for interpretative thought.
But the 'It', which is just thee one and only Mind, which does KNOW EVERY thing, does KNOW any and ALL meanings. Because 'It/Mind/I KNOWS ALL things, including interpretative thought.
Again, no. See above regarding what is real and as such can be known and what never actually arises.
But 'above' did NOT explain the FULL extent of things. If it did, then that would imply that 'you', the one known as alexw, KNOWS ALL THINGS.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
AlexW wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:53 pm
Yes, "It" also knows thought, but it has nothing to do with the ideas/beliefs that seem to be formed by linking thoughts up into imaginary pictures (like "wind on skin" or a "human made world").
WHY would 'you', a no thing, THINK it KNOWS more than what It/Mind/I KNOW?
I don't understand your question...
You, the thoughts/concepts/ideas within that body known here as alexw, come across as though you KNOW ALL the ANSWERS. You were saying there are NO things other than what IS Real. The 'you' is literally a thought/concept/idea of what IS Real but yet 'you' seem to THINK that 'you' KNOW more than the Real Self, Itself.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am


It/Mind/ KNOWS ALL, so It can ALWAYS KNOW.
Yes true, it knows all - all that's real and it knows nothing of the imagined/unreal - how could you even know something that is not? It makes no sense at all...
IF 'It' can KNOW ALL, which the thoughts known as "alexw' and "age" both agree that 'It' does, then ALL also would include KNOWING WHERE the difference between the imagined and the Real lies.

The 'you', "age", is only thinking it KNOWS. But the 'you' is NOT the 'I'. The 'I', 'It', KNOWS what IS, AND, what IS not. 'It' would HAVE TO because 'It' KNOWS ALL.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am


What do you mean has nothing to do with ALL of 'you', chain of thought, human beings?
It has nothing to do with whatever is conjured up by linking chains of thought into apparent "things" or "meaning"
Absolutely EVERY thing has some thing to do with absolutely EVERY thing else. For the Real Self to be Self-realized and to become Self-actualized It NEEDED the some times very intelligent human being to become aware of Its Self and to become Who It Really IS.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:52 am
The I/Mind/It has everything to do with you/thoughts. Absolutely EVERY thing has every thing to do with every thing. That is HOW the one and only Universe creates Itself.
You are mistaking the thought made, the conjured up "you" - with the real, absolute Self.
No I am NOT, nor would I EVER do such a thing. I actually have been hinting as to HOW the thinking/conjured up 'you' is NOT the Real Self at all.

AlexW
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by AlexW » Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am

I think there might be a "slight" difference in our definition of what constitutes a "thing".
I would define as thing as "an object distinct and separate from other objects"
Maybe your definition is completely different and thus we cannot agree on anything... :-)
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:00 am
Thoughts just arise within a human body.
Separateness is only an illusion.
Meaning is just another risen thought.
1: How do you know?
2: Agree
3: Agree
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
Absolutely EVERY thing has some thing to do with absolutely EVERY thing else
How can there be an "EVERY thing else" if there is no separation (see your statement no2 above)?
If you write it like that then it doesn't make any sense (to me)...

See, the reason why I state "there are no things" is exactly because there is no separation and all things just appear in this "dream of separation".
Now you say that this "dream" is a thing - whereas according to my definition it is not.
Yes, the dream, the thought is known, but the separation is NOT. Things are separation in action - they can as such never be real and also never known (by the true I).
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
How do you know a thing? What knows it (or rather: what creates it?)

The 'you' is just a THINKING self.
The 'I' IS the KNOWING Self.
1: There is no "THINKING self" - there are only thoughts arising belonging to no one.
2: Agree, I/Self is knowing/being.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
Are you saying that a thought/concept/idea NEVER arises within a human body?
A single thought arises / is known.
A concept/idea (chains of thought / understanding / belief) never really arises - it is like the movement on the screen - it seems to be real, but it really is only ever one thought, another, and another... one thought is like one word - it lacks the story-factor. The story never really arises as such, it is only another thought that says so...
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
You really do NEED to find better words, definitions, terms, and language if you want to be better understood.
I guess this is true for both of us :-)
Maybe the previous answer is clearer?
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
You will have to find out what is actually real

The 'I' has done this ALREADY. And, in fact, has always KNOWN this.
The "I" doesn't have to do anything to know. It is the knowing/being (of itself).
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
What IS Real and Who/What 'I' Really am IS ALREADY KNOWN.
Exactly
It is all that is ever known. Everything else could be called "understanding" - it is based on conceptual thought and as such not absolutely real.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
One Thing is NEVER actually created, but ALL other things are. If there are NO real created things then there would NOT be any thing heard nor seen.
No. Things are never really created (at least according to my definition of things). The "One", the "I", is not a thing at all - this is also why it can never be created (or destroyed). Seeing and hearing is not dependent on things existing - it only depends on "I" existing, on knowing/being.
You will never find things in pure seeing or hearing - things are only an interpretation added to direct experience by thought.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
You, the one known as alexw, may be closer than "others" are to seeing and understanding all-of-this, but you are just as prevented and thus stopped the same as they are from SEEING IT ALL, just like all adult human beings are, when this is written.
Aren't we lucky to have you to explain it to us...

By the way, alexw knows nothing. There are thoughts that find their way onto a screen, thats all - no alexw doing anything at all.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
But 'above' did NOT explain the FULL extent of things. If it did, then that would imply that 'you', the one known as alexw, KNOWS ALL THINGS.
...
You, the thoughts/concepts/ideas within that body known here as alexw, come across as though you KNOW ALL the ANSWERS.
I have never said that alexw "KNOWS ALL THINGS", have I?
To say it in your words: Maybe this is your interpretation, but I would NEVER, EVER, say such a thing!
I would much rather say that I (the real I) know no separate things at all!
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:00 am
Of course what is SEEN on the screen IS an illusion, as it has already gone and does NOT now exist in that exact same shape nor form, but it did exist in that shape and form, and thus WAS a thing.

You can NOT sufficiently say that 'things' are an illusion when quite obviously there once existed 'things' that has been seen, and interpreted in certain ways. How 'things' are interpreted IS Real.
Are you saying that time is responsible for something to be a real thing or an illusion?

You never, ever see a thing. All you can ever see is color (also color is already an interpretation, but its the closest we can get). Things (seem to) emerge from a palette of color once pattern matched and interpreted. There are no things before the mental process, before it has been thought into "existence". If you take some time to investigate you will find that it is the same for all sense impressions.

How can an interpretation ever be real/true? It is always based on conditioning, on acquired understanding, not on direct knowing.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
IF 'It' can KNOW ALL, which the thoughts known as "alexw' and "age" both agree that 'It' does, then ALL also would include KNOWING WHERE the difference between the imagined and the Real lies
No! It doesn't know this duality stuff that thought is jabbering on about. It only knows whats real! It doesn't know any separation (or anything that only exists once this idea is at work).
See, the "difference" that you refer to is perfectly alien to "It". It knows of no differences - its all "I".

Coming back to the screen analogy:
The "I" only ever knows the still pictures, it doesn't fall for (or even know) the moving content. It doesn't generate some thing - e.g. the illusion of movement - out of no thing. It remains in the non-dual arena of no thing (not nothing, but no thing) - its all it knows as its all it is.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
For the Real Self to be Self-realized and to become Self-actualized It NEEDED the some times very intelligent human being to become aware of Its Self and to become Who It Really IS.
If this were so "It" would be very weak - depending on human beings to know itself..? You seem to be taking the role of humanity way too seriously.
Just because thought seems to be able to understand that the real is non-dual it doesn't mean that it will ever know this directly. Mental understanding, thinking about it, is infinitely far away from the truth. Guess this is why we cannot come to an agreement on anything as there is no living Truth in any of our conceptual attempts of explaining the most simple of all.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3615
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:16 am

AGE wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mind is not a physical thing so it cannot be seen
Are you absolutely I00 per cent sure of this ?

Or are you just giving what you THINK is the case which could be partly or completely WRONG ?

Can thoughts and / or emotions been seen ? Are thoughts and / or emotions physical things ?

Also can the wind be seen ? Is the wind a physical thing ?
I am not I00 per cent sure of this because I do not like absolute certainty where it cannot be demonstrated
However I am as certain as I can be based on my current understanding of what I actually think the mind is

Thoughts and emotions cannot actually be seen but they can however be experienced
And as experience can be classified as physical then it would make them physical too

The wind is a physical thing because it can be experienced through the sense of touch

Xav
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:09 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Xav » Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:24 am

likely one mind, I have a post pending moderation explaining in detail why this is very possible.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3615
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:52 am

AGE wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
but instead it [ mind ] is a function of a physical thing namely the brain
Are you absolutely I00 per cent sure of this ?

Or are you just giving what you THINK is the case which could be partly or completely WRONG ?
I am not I00 per cent sure of this because I do not like absolute certainty where it cannot be demonstrated
However I am as certain as I can be based on my current understanding of what I actually think the mind is

surreptitious57
Posts: 3615
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:07 am

AGE wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
AGE wrote:
There is only One constant change eternally NOW

That is because there could NOT be any separation thus NO different NOWS
NOW is all that exists but there are many NOWS all existing at the same time

The NOW you are experiencing is different from the NOW I am experiencing because we occupy different points in spacetime
Are you absolutely I00 per cent sure of this ? Or could you be wrong or partly wrong ?

When you are able to answer properly and thus correctly the questions Who / What is the I ? and who / what is the you ? then you will understand
I am as close to being absolutely I00 per cent sure of this because it has actually been demonstrated
But I do accept that I could be either partly or wholly wrong just because I am not I00 per cent sure

I know for YOU who / what the I is and who / what the you is and what for YOU the distinction between them is and so therefore I do understand
But can YOU now show what the I and you are from YOUR perspective so that understanding of your position can be reached through clarification

Age
Posts: 3572
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:32 am

AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
I think there might be a "slight" difference in our definition of what constitutes a "thing".
I would define as thing as "an object distinct and separate from other objects"
Well we both, i am pretty sure, agree that there is NO distinction nor separation. Therefore, there is NO "other". Is that correct?

If you agree also, then i will know better how to continue in this discussion, and will have to discuss from the NO other perspective. If, however, you do NOT agree, then we will have to find where and what we are in agreement again, and then start again.

Also, if you do agree, then i like to still remain aware of NOT sounding to strange and weird, as most adult human beings can NOT see how there could NOT be 'objects distinct and separate from other objects'. The use of terms like 'you' also confuses this issue further.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Maybe your definition is completely different and thus we cannot agree on anything... :-)
Just because there are two completely different definitions on one word that, in and of itself, does NOT mean that the, apparent, two separate and distinct people having a discussion can NOT agree on any thing. In fact agreeing that each, seemingly different person, has a completely different definition for just one word means that there is SOME thing that the "we" is agreeing on.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:00 am
Thoughts just arise within a human body.
Separateness is only an illusion.
Meaning is just another risen thought.
1: How do you know?
2: Agree
3: Agree
1. If you are asking this from the perspective that i could be WRONG, then AGAIN, maybe it is just a case of us having two different definitions for THE word 'thought'. To me, 'thought', in relation to human beings, is the result of what a human body has experienced. Within a human body there is NO thought until that body experiences some thing. Through either or all of the five senses of that body, 'a thought will arise', for lack of a better term. Therefore, by definition for me anyway, thoughts just arise within a human body, that is; after that body has experienced some thing. What the word 'thought' means to you maybe some thing completely different.

Now, the only real thing that can be Truly KNOWN, for SURE, within the whole of EVERYTHING, is the thoughts, themselves, within A human body. The word 'thought' can, obviously, be defined in different ways, but thought can NOT be explained in, nor with, pictures, as thoughts, themselves, are obviously invisible to the human eye. What thoughts are made up of may NOT never be KNOWN, but what thoughts are, can be imagined as they arise/appear in every adult human body. With a general consensus of what thoughts actually are made up of thoughts might be better understood, but until then for me now, human thought arises within a human body.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
Absolutely EVERY thing has some thing to do with absolutely EVERY thing else
How can there be an "EVERY thing else" if there is no separation (see your statement no2 above)?
Because if we are going to have a discussion in the language that is generally used in this forum and with the words and terms that is generally used in this forum, then some times i am going to use terms that i have generally used, are familiar with, and are in a habit of using, which, at times, may sound contradictory.

To me the Truth is there is only One, which is made up of human devised separate and distinct parts. To me EVERY thing is those perceived by human beings distinct and separate parts of the One Everything.

i am NOT the first one to talk about there being non dual but then instantly using words, terms, and language that specifically means more than one straight after.

Obviously there is NOT a distinct and separate any thing 'else', but there are just as obviously human being devised words and terms that distinctly separate things into their own self and thus seemingly distinct and separate from any other human being devised label for any other apparent and seemingly distinctly different thing. It was these apparent different "things" that are only seemingly different because of the labels that have been put on them by human beings, which was what i was referring to when i said absolutely EVERY thing has some thing to do with absolutely EVERY thing "else". ALL the separately different and distinct labels that have been placed onto apparently separate different and distinct "things" is what i was referring to in regards to having some thing/interacting with.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
If you write it like that then it doesn't make any sense (to me)...
I TOTALLY understand. But are you capable, from now on, of ALWAYS writing in a way that will NEVER express a separation, nor express a thing as NOT being separate from any other thing else?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
See, the reason why I state "there are no things" is exactly because there is no separation and all things just appear in this "dream of separation".
Yes I KNOW and I totally agree, which I am pretty sure you also KNOW.

But to me there is One thing, called the Universe, Itself. It is one distinct separate object as there is NO other thing. When this Universe is LOOK AT, and then what is SEEN is depended upon the one who is doing the observing. HOW the Universe is LOOK AT will affect what IS thus SEEN.

What you SEE and SAY is depended upon HOW you are LOOKING and what I SEE and SAY is depended upon HOW I am LOOKING.

I SEE, and say there is, One thing, while you SEE, and say there are, NO things, am I right?

I just do NOT see how there could be NO things, when there is at least One thing doing the observing and/or One scene being LOOKED AT. The scene and the observer may be the exact same One thing. We will just have to wait and SEE.

Can you explain WHY this 'appearance' of "things" occurs?
Are you able to explain WHY there is NO separation?
Are you able to explain WHY there is A separation to some and WHY there is NO separation to "others"?
Are you able to explain WHY two distinct different observations are made when only the one exact same scene is being LOOKED AT?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Now you say that this "dream" is a thing - whereas according to my definition it is not.
WHAT is YOUR definition for the word 'dream'?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Yes, the dream, the thought is known, but the separation is NOT.
Why can you NOT SEE nor TELL exactly WHERE the separation lays?

If you are going to use a term like 'dream', then by definition in and of itself, you are giving 'dream' a separate distinction from "other" things.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Things are separation in action - they can as such never be real and also never known (by the true I).
Do you KNOW what the true I IS?

If so, then what IS 'It'?

If 'you', the human being labeled alexw, can KNOW what the real I KNOWS and/or could NEVER know, then how come you KNOW more than the real I does?

And, HOW and WHY do you KNOW that the real I can NEVER see nor know the distinction between the real and the imagined?

Is it because 'you' can NOT know the distinction between the real and the imagined, therefore the real I can also NEVER know this too?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
How do you know a thing? What knows it (or rather: what creates it?)

The 'you' is just a THINKING self.
The 'I' IS the KNOWING Self.
1: There is no "THINKING self" - there are only thoughts arising belonging to no one.
But who said that thoughts "belong" to any one?

The arising thoughts (and emotions) is the human being i/it-self, which is thinking/being.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
2: Agree, I/Self is knowing/being.
If the one labeled "alexw" is the I/Self, which is KNOWING/BEING, then all the "other" i's must NOT be the I/Self KNOWING/BEING.

There can NOT be one I/Self/Knowing/Being and there also be "other" I/Self/Knowing/Beings. That would just contradict itself and what 'you' are saying.

Who/What is the I/Self, which is the KNOWING/BEING?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
Are you saying that a thought/concept/idea NEVER arises within a human body?
A single thought arises / is known.
A concept/idea (chains of thought / understanding / belief) never really arises - it is like the movement on the screen - it seems to be real, but it really is only ever one thought, another, and another... one thought is like one word - it lacks the story-factor. The story never really arises as such, it is only another thought that says so...
But can there EVER really be "another" thought, because to use the word "another" implies a distinct separation, does it not?

Can there be just one thought, changing?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
You really do NEED to find better words, definitions, terms, and language if you want to be better understood.
I guess this is true for both of us :-)
Can there be a "both" of us, as the word "both" implies a clear distinct separation, does it not?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Maybe the previous answer is clearer?
Unfortunately no. But there is NOTHING you to have to clear up for Me, other than help me to learn how to better communicate. As I said previously the I already KNOWS. I am just using some human beings to learn how to communicate better with ALL them, so that they can learn HOW to find the KNOWING, True knowledge, that is within them and which is already, unconsciously, KNOWN.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
You will have to find out what is actually real

The 'I' has done this ALREADY. And, in fact, has always KNOWN this.
The "I" doesn't have to do anything to know. It is the knowing/being (of itself).
You are right the 'I' does NOT have to do any thing to KNOW. As I just said 'I' have always KNOWN, what IS actually Real.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
What IS Real and Who/What 'I' Really am IS ALREADY KNOWN.
Exactly
It is all that is ever known.
But I have KNOWN more also.

WHY do you insist that the 'I' can NOT know what human beings THINK they KNOW?

Also, Who/What is the 'I' really, which is already KNOWN?

Do 'you' really KNOW?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Everything else could be called "understanding" - it is based on conceptual thought and as such not absolutely real.
Using a specific distinct separate name, like; "understanding" implies that there is a distinct separation between that and other names that you use, does it NOT?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
One Thing is NEVER actually created, but ALL other things are. If there are NO real created things then there would NOT be any thing heard nor seen.
No. Things are never really created (at least according to my definition of things). The "One", the "I", is not a thing at all - this is also why it can never be created (or destroyed). Seeing and hearing is not dependent on things existing - it only depends on "I" existing, on knowing/being.
If the One existing 'I' is able to see and hear, then this would imply that 'It' has separate parts. If 'I/It' has separate parts that transmit a sound or vision that can be captured/sensed by other separate parts, then either these parts of the One 'I' have existed ALWAYS as the EXACT SAME and therefore could NOT change and therefore NOT be able to transmit sound nor vision, OR, ALL of the parts of the One 'I' ARE changing in shape and form, and therefore are in a factual sense really being created. The One 'I' is NOT in the exact same shape and form ALWAYS therefore at each given moment of NOW 'It' is in a NEW shape and form, thus is in a constant state of Creation.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
You will never find things in pure seeing or hearing - things are only an interpretation added to direct experience by thought.
I KNOW, you keep telling me this.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
You, the one known as alexw, may be closer than "others" are to seeing and understanding all-of-this, but you are just as prevented and thus stopped the same as they are from SEEING IT ALL, just like all adult human beings are, when this is written.
Aren't we lucky to have you to explain it to us...
This 'you' is about the most useless 'you' ever in explaining and communicating,, as has been proven throughout this forum.

i have yet to even learn how to just get people to stop looking from their own perception and to just consider to look from another more open perspective. I am continually ridiculed for even suggesting such a thing.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
By the way, alexw knows nothing.
age also actually KNOWS nothing. age only THINKS it KNOWS.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
There are thoughts that find their way onto a screen, thats all - no alexw doing anything at all.
There is an 'I' that is causing/creating ALL-OF-THIS. But this 'I' does it such a subliminal and/or subtle way that there is NO sense of controlling nor force anywhere. This 'I' that is causing/creating ALL-THERE-IS by just being a complexly free energy, or Life source, within EVERY, human labeled, thing.

alexw, like age, are just labels for these thoughts that are appearing on this screen, so yes alexw/age are NOT necessarily doing any thing. But behind these two sets of differing thoughts there is a KNOWING Observer, watching and influencing, but NEVER forcing. The reason this 'I' allows human beings to do WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO, through thought, is because only through mistakes AND learning do people become BETTER.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
But 'above' did NOT explain the FULL extent of things. If it did, then that would imply that 'you', the one known as alexw, KNOWS ALL THINGS.
...
You, the thoughts/concepts/ideas within that body known here as alexw, come across as though you KNOW ALL the ANSWERS.
I have never said that alexw "KNOWS ALL THINGS", have I?
CORRECT, no NEVER.

I have also NEVER said that alexw has said that you/alexw KNOWS ALL THINGS.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
To say it in your words: Maybe this is your interpretation, but I would NEVER, EVER, say such a thing!
Of course it was ONLY my interpretation. I even specifically said it, and spelt it out in written words, as it was ONLY my interpretation, which could be WRONG or partly WRONG. I did specifically use the words 'come across as ..." this SHOWS that it was ONLY an appearance, "on the screen", some might say, and NOT the real thing.

I was NEVER even suggesting that you would even suggest that you would know all the answers.

I was just stating that from this thought/perspective, you, the other thought/perspective COME ACROSS AS something.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
I would much rather say that I (the real I) know no separate things at all!
You are FREE to say and do WHATEVER YOU LIKE.

If you were to say this, then I would ask Who/What is the 'real I'?

By the way I would also say; I KNOW of no actual separate thing at all, also. I would, however, also acknowledge that I am able to explain WHY there is, to human beings, a seemingly appearance of separate things.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:00 am
Of course what is SEEN on the screen IS an illusion, as it has already gone and does NOT now exist in that exact same shape nor form, but it did exist in that shape and form, and thus WAS a thing.

You can NOT sufficiently say that 'things' are an illusion when quite obviously there once existed 'things' that has been seen, and interpreted in certain ways. How 'things' are interpreted IS Real.
Are you saying that time is responsible for something to be a real thing or an illusion?
No, there is NO such physical thing as 'time', so 'that' certainly could NOT be responsible for the illusion of separation.

The illusion of separation IS caused when what IS observed is LOOKED AT from the brain, or more specifically thoughts.

The view from the brain, or those particular thoughts at that moment, is ONLY based on previous views from that brain, and previous particular thoughts from other given moments. If LOOKING from this brain perspective only, which obviously began as a distorted view, then ALL that will EVER be SEEN is a distorted view of Reality or ALL-THERE-IS.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
You never, ever see a thing. All you can ever see is color (also color is already an interpretation, but its the closest we can get). Things (seem to) emerge from a palette of color once pattern matched and interpreted. There are no things before the mental process, before it has been thought into "existence". If you take some time to investigate you will find that it is the same for all sense impressions.
I have agreed with you all along, up to a certain point. That point being in YOUR insistence that there are NO things. To me, you using the word 'interpretation' is imply it is a "separate" 'thing', even if there were NO actual "other" things, the 'interpretation' word is a thing, therefore there are 'things', even if it is just one thing. Also, to suggest that i see color is to suggest that there is another thing.

By the way, and I probably should have asked this much earlier, is the Mind and/or a thought an object?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
How can an interpretation ever be real/true?
If the interpretation is in direct relation to what IS Real and True.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
It is always based on conditioning, on acquired understanding, not on direct knowing.
If an interpretation is NOT, and NEVER can be, 'on direct KNOWING', then what IS, and ALWAYS can BE, 'on direct KNOWING'?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
IF 'It' can KNOW ALL, which the thoughts known as "alexw' and "age" both agree that 'It' does, then ALL also would include KNOWING WHERE the difference between the imagined and the Real lies
No! It doesn't know this duality stuff that thought is jabbering on about.
HOW do 'you', the jabbering thoughts labeled as "alexw", KNOW this?

As I asked before, how do 'you', alexw, come across as though you KNOW more than what the real 'I' or 'It' does?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
It only knows whats real!
How do you KNOW this?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
It doesn't know any separation (or anything that only exists once this idea is at work).
How do you KNOW this?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
See, the "difference" that you refer to is perfectly alien to "It". It knows of no differences - its all "I".
AND, absolutely EVERYTHING is 'I' and absolutely EVERY part of 'I' IS 'I'. The human beings are a part of, the One, 'I'. Thoughts are a part of, the One, 'I'. The differences that only human beings make up and perceive are a part of, the One, 'I'. The 'I' KNOWS ALL-OF-THIS because the 'I' KNOW ALL-THERE-IS. The 'I' KNOWS Its Self, which is ALL-THERE-IS/Everything/the Universe, therefore the 'I' KNOWS absolutely EVERY thing.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Coming back to the screen analogy:
The "I" only ever knows the still pictures,
Are you sure you are NOT confusing this 'I' for the this 'i', which is just 'you', the human being, which THINKS it KNOWS more than it really does?

Also, is there one still picture (without the s) or is there still pictures (with an s) meaning there are more than just one picture?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
it doesn't fall for (or even know) the moving content.
Of course the real I would NOT fall for, nor be deceived about, any thing. But the 'I' can SEE ALL, therefore It can SEE the moving content for what it really IS.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
It doesn't generate some thing - e.g. the illusion of movement - out of no thing.
Only a human being would generate some thing out of no thing.

The 'I/It' also does NOT generate any thing as It only observes and thus just SEES what IS actually Real and True.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
It remains in the non-dual arena of no thing (not nothing, but no thing) - its all it knows as its all it is.
Okay you have repeated this enough times already, and I can SEE that you BELIEVE this wholeheartedly. Now, is it time that you explain HOW you KNOW this? Who told you this? Where did you get this information from? Could we read the exact same written words on pages of particular teaching/books?

What you are saying might appear to sound True, Right, and Correct, but if it does NOT fit into and with the 'scene' of ALL human beings, then just maybe it is just another illusion and deception. Explain what you have written here in a way that could be understood by ALL people, then I will KNOW if 'it' only KNOWS some, but NOT all.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
For the Real Self to be Self-realized and to become Self-actualized It NEEDED the some times very intelligent human being to become aware of Its Self and to become Who It Really IS.
If this were so "It" would be very weak - depending on human beings to know itself..?
Not necessarily so. 'Weak' or 'weakness' is in relation to power. Through the power of Creation human beings evolved and thus were created. So, 'i/It' was NOT very weak. But because of the make up of 'I/It' it was only through the power of Creating an intelligent enough species, which just happened to be the human being, that through human beings intelligence that the 'I/It' was able to recognize, SEE, and KNOW Its True Self.

Human beings are STILL TRYING TO work out who/what they are.

AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
You seem to be taking the role of humanity way too seriously.
Really?

Is there any other intelligent enough species as the human being, in the WHOLE of the Universe, that you KNOW of?

i also do not know if i am taking humanity way too seriously, because i am NOT sure of what that 'seriously' is in relation to, but i just LOOK in awe and in amazement at how Truly amazing the human animal IS. Just look at what the human animal has created and is capable of creating, now and in the future, to just understand how Truly intelligent it is.

But in saying that, just look at how STUPID the human animal can be ALSO.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Just because thought seems to be able to understand that the real is non-dual it doesn't mean that it will ever know this directly.
Thought can NOT even work out its own self, let alone much else. Thought, by definition, is only THINKING it KNOWS.

Whereas, WHAT KNOWS directly IS KNOWING, Itself.

KNOWING does NOT come from a thinking brain. But thoughts, however, do.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Mental understanding, thinking about it, is infinitely far away from the truth.
Yes, I agree.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
Guess this is why we cannot come to an agreement on anything as there is no living Truth in any of our conceptual attempts of explaining the most simple of all.
It is only through the use of the words, the definitions, the terms, and the languages that we use, and, from the BELIEF that our own "version" of the Truth is the living Truth that is the reason WHY we do NOT come to an agreement. The actual real and living Truth is in the form of and comes from THAT what IS in agreement. Only THAT what IS in agreement by ALL would be what IS actually thee Real Truth. The living Truth is living deep within EVERY one existing deep down, way past this pretentious self, and living with the Real and True ALWAYS existing living Self.

The most simple of ALL and the most simplest of Truth is deep within. Human beings just need to get past, and then get rid of, their BELIEF that there is any thing complex and hard.

Age
Posts: 3572
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:41 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:16 am
AGE wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mind is not a physical thing so it cannot be seen
Are you absolutely I00 per cent sure of this ?

Or are you just giving what you THINK is the case which could be partly or completely WRONG ?

Can thoughts and / or emotions been seen ? Are thoughts and / or emotions physical things ?

Also can the wind be seen ? Is the wind a physical thing ?
I am not I00 per cent sure of this because I do not like absolute certainty where it cannot be demonstrated
However I am as certain as I can be based on my current understanding of what I actually think the mind is
And, what is the mind thought to be?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:16 am
Thoughts and emotions cannot actually be seen but they can however be experienced
By who/what?

And, how?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:16 am
And as experience can be classified as physical then it would make them physical too
To you, is there any thing that can NOT be physical?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:16 am
The wind is a physical thing because it can be experienced through the sense of touch
What sense can thought and emotions be experienced through?

Age
Posts: 3572
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:01 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:07 am
AGE wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:

NOW is all that exists but there are many NOWS all existing at the same time

The NOW you are experiencing is different from the NOW I am experiencing because we occupy different points in spacetime
Are you absolutely I00 per cent sure of this ? Or could you be wrong or partly wrong ?

When you are able to answer properly and thus correctly the questions Who / What is the I ? and who / what is the you ? then you will understand
I am as close to being absolutely I00 per cent sure of this because it has actually been demonstrated
But I do accept that I could be either partly or wholly wrong just because I am not I00 per cent sure

I know for YOU who / what the I is and who / what the you is and what for YOU the distinction between them is and so therefore I do understand
But can YOU now show what the I and you are from YOUR perspective so that understanding of your position can be reached through clarification
Yes I can now show what the 'I' and the 'you' are from My perspective, and i am pretty sure that an understanding of my position can be reached through clarification. But this will all depend on HOW much clarification is asked for. If continual clarification is asked for them I am 100% CERTAIN that an understanding of my position can be reached.

There is an 'i', which is just a human being. A human being is made up of two parts; a visible human body part, and, an invisible (to the human eyes) part. The human body visible part is obvious. The other part is the invisible thoughts and emotions within a human body. i call this invisible part the person, or some times known as the personality. This is the 'you', of which the label "age" is one of 'you'.

Now, within EVERY one of these human beings lays a Truth, a True knowledge, or a Knowing, and with this Truth there is a Real and True 'I', which will be the answer to the question Who am 'I'? This Truth within is called a Knowing because It is the exact same within each and EVERY body.

i refer to this 'I' as the Mind, but some people refer to It as Allah/God/Enlightenment or other names.

From the perspective of the capital 'I' there is only one NOW.

But from the perspective of the little 'i', or the 'you' (of which age is also one), there are many different NOWs because of the reason you gave.

Absolutely EVERY thing depends on the observer, and from WHAT perspective one or One is LOOKING from.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest