How do we think?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How do we think?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 9:42 pm
I am saying that the act of creation is impossible. There was however nothing but bare minds in the beginning.
What is the difference between a, so called, "bare mind", and let us say a "clothed mind"?
The clothed mind has a body.
Great response.

Now, is that just the human body, or the other animal bodies, as well?

And what about ALL of the other bodies in the Universe?

Could the body of the 'clothed Mind' just be the universal physical body known as thee Universe, Itself?

See, the deeper one LOOKS INTO this, the MORE of what I have been saying and CLAIMING becomes MORE OBVIOUSLY True.

bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm And, HOW and WHEN was this, supposed and alleged, "beginning"?
Big-Bang.
And WHAT did this, alleged and so called, "big bang" come from, EXACTLY?

Obviously, if it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for this 'bang' to have come from 'nothing', then it MUST OF come from some 'thing' else.

To me, the, so called, 'big bang' is just the non religious persons 'God', when they are confronted with the CLARIFYING; WHERE did ALL-OF-THIS come from then? question.

See, 'you', human beings will say and 'try' just about ANY thing to back up and support your currently held BELIEFS. Which in this case IS; "There was a beginning".

See, because 'you', adult human beings, have heard the words, "in the beginning", for so long, some of you actually BELIEVE that there was a beginning, to Everything.

Also, because 'you', adult human beings, literally, tend to anthropomorphize way to much, some of you actually BELIEVE that because 'you' began, therefore Everything else MUST OF as well.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm

How many of these, so called, "minds" where there BEFORE some alleged "beginning"?
At least two. I don't know how large that number could possibly be. Possibly infinite.
WHY at least 'two'?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm And, is that the EXACT same number existing at the moment 'you' are reading this sentence?
Yes. The mind cannot be created or destroyed.
So, WHATEVER number there were BEFORE EVERY thing else just "popped" into existence there is the EXACT SAME number of "minds" right 'now', correct?

But there HAS TO BE, at least, two "minds", also correct?

Also, WHY do you say here that 'the' "mind" cannot be created nor destroyed but also INSIST that there are two "minds"?

It would be MORE CORRECT to say, "The "minds" (with an 's') cannot be created nor destroyed, correct?

Obviously there can NOT also be two "minds" and they be the EXACT SAME 'thing'.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm Also, what are these "minds" made up of and out of, EXACTLY?
The mind is an irreducible substance. It is not made of anything. It is the basic.
Sounds, to 'me', like 'you' still have a LONG WAY to go here.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm

Why "No"?

Are you now saying that Everything starts from 'that beginning' is NOW logically possible?
That is another question.
So, what did you say, "No", to and for, EXACTLY?

This "other" question was made in attempt to understand what your "No" response was to, EXACTLY. Is this understood?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm Or, did you say, "No" because you say "minds" where existing before 'that beginning'? Or, did you say, "No", here because of some other reason?
Minds exist at the beginning. There is no before beginning by definition.
You OBVIOUSLY MISSED, ONCE AGAIN, what I was trying to CLARIFY.

Now, you say, "minds exist AT the beginning". BUT, if "minds" have ALWAYS existed because they can NOT be created NOR destroyed, then this infers and means that there was NO beginning, correct?

By the way, ALL-OF-THIS can be EXPLAINED FULLY, and PERFECTLY, and much MORE SIMPLY and EASILY than what you are attempting to do here.

But SADLY 'you' and "others" are NOT YET OPEN enough to ANY thing else other than what you and "them" currently ALREADY BELIEVE is true.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How do we think?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:40 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:01 pm
Yes, I am sure of the truthness of my arguments.
LOL Yes we can CLEARLY SEE that you BELIEVE that "YOUR OWN arguments" are irrefutably TRUE. In fact you have ACTUALLY CLARIFIED this as being absolutely true, to you.

Unfortunately though, YOUR "arguments" are NOT ACTUAL 'proofs' AT ALL, as I have CLEARLY SHOWN below.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 9:42 pm
Closed means that it does not exchange heat by anything else. The whole is infinite. It is the whole so there is nothing left to interact with. Therefore, it is closed.
Okay. So, WHY do you use the word 'close' INSTEAD?

Now, if this One and ONLY Universe is 'closed', then this does NOT mean that It will end AT ALL. This is because IF this Universe is infinite and eternal, then OBVIOUSLY It did NOT end and will NOT begin. This is OBVIOUSLY just PLAIN and SIMPLY irrefutably thee Truth of 'things'.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 9:42 pm
The whole is infinite. It is the whole so there is nothing left to interact with. Therefore, it is closed.
Okay. This now fits in PERFECTLY with my view of things.

And, also appears to be in DIRECT COMPETITION, CONFLICT, and CONTRADICTION of your views and writings.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 9:42 pm
I am not answering that because you laughed. So figure out.
WHERE is this PRESUMPTION that I am laughing coming from EXACTLY?

Also, this appears to be one of your typical responses of DEFLECTION when you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY STUCK.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 9:42 pm
You need to imagine it. I cannot do this for you.
Even with IMAGINATION it still REMAINS NONSENSICAL to me.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 9:42 pm
Figure out. I am sorry but I can help you. You need to use your own imagination.
But what is CLEARLY HAPPENING HERE is that 'you', "bahman", just BELIEVE that "there was a beginning", and so you are 'trying' just about absolutely ANY 'thing', which you HOPE and/or BELIEVE will support YOUR BELIEF.

What 'you' CLAIM are 'proofs' are SO FAR from 'proofs' that what 'you' write is ACTUALLY HELPING 'me' TREMENDOUSLY.
I think I answered all your questions properly.
Well you may have, from YOUR perspective. But you certainly DID NOT from the perspective of thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm You have a huge amount of work to do to figure out things.
LOL If you BELIEVE this is true, then this MUST BE true, correct?
KLewchuk
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:11 am

Re: How do we think?

Post by KLewchuk »

Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:14 pm
KLewchuk wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:01 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:29 am

Agreed, WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
Actually, it is very complex.
What EXACTLY is the 'it' here, which you think or believe is "very complex"?

And, how EXACTLY is 'it' "very complex", to you?
KLewchuk wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:01 pm There are concepts of dependent co-origination (e.g. just because something arises after something else doesn't mean it is "caused" by it.
VERY TRUE. For example; the sun sometimes arises after i wake up. But i certainly did NOT cause the sun to "arise". But NOTHING 'complex' yet nor so far.
KLewchuk wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:01 pm The cognitive science around how our minds create causation is also very interesting.
What I find would be FAR MORE INTERESTING is if 'you', human beings, came together to learn and understand what the 'Mind' ACTUALLY IS, FIRST, BEFORE 'you' start talking about 'It' as though 'you' know what 'you' are talking about.

I suggest that 'you', human beings, who "study" or who "work in" 'cognitive science', say what 'Mind' ACTUALLY IS, BEFORE 'you' start wondering how the, so called, "your minds" work.

Also, what, EXACTLY, do you find 'very interesting' in how "your mind", supposedly and allegedly, creates causation?

And, are you 'trying to' suggest here that 'causation' did NOT exist BEFORE 'you', human beings, came to exist?
KLewchuk wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:01 pm Snap your fingers; the sensation of the snapping, the sound of the snap, and the vision of the snapping appear to occur at the same time... but they actually arrive in your brain at different times... and then your brain puts them together.
This does NOT sound "very interesting" at all to me. As this WAS just PLAIN OBVIOUS, previously, anyway.

Also, if the brain within that head puts those things together, so that, to 'you', they appear to occur at the same time, to 'you', then just remember the brain within this head does NOT do, and did NOT necessarily do, what the brain within that head does.

But 'I' do tend to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' VERY DIFFERENT from 'you', human beings, NATURALLY anyway.

Also, the fact that absolutely EVERY thing registered within a human brain happened 'in the past', and at different moments', just PROVES that things occur NOT at the same, so called, "time", and thus your example was ALREADY CLEARLY KNOWN, well by 'me' anyway.
Age,

I will share my precious thoughts with you once you learn how to appropriately use the capital button on your computer. Let me know when you have figured that out.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How do we think?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:48 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
What is the difference between a, so called, "bare mind", and let us say a "clothed mind"?
The clothed mind has a body.
Great response.

Now, is that just the human body, or the other animal bodies, as well?

And what about ALL of the other bodies in the Universe?
Of course, animals also have minds. Even vegetables. Rocks. Etc.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:48 pm Could the body of the 'clothed Mind' just be the universal physical body known as thee Universe, Itself?

See, the deeper one LOOKS INTO this, the MORE of what I have been saying and CLAIMING becomes MORE OBVIOUSLY True.
Omnipresent. I don't think that there are omnipresent beings. That is because there was a beginning and the whole is exhaustive so you cannot be exposed to everything.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm And, HOW and WHEN was this, supposed and alleged, "beginning"?
Big-Bang.
And WHAT did this, alleged and so called, "big bang" come from, EXACTLY?

Obviously, if it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for this 'bang' to have come from 'nothing', then it MUST OF come from some 'thing' else.

To me, the, so called, 'big bang' is just the non religious persons 'God', when they are confronted with the CLARIFYING; WHERE did ALL-OF-THIS come from then? question.

See, 'you', human beings will say and 'try' just about ANY thing to back up and support your currently held BELIEFS. Which in this case IS; "There was a beginning".

See, because 'you', adult human beings, have heard the words, "in the beginning", for so long, some of you actually BELIEVE that there was a beginning, to Everything.

Also, because 'you', adult human beings, literally, tend to anthropomorphize way to much, some of you actually BELIEVE that because 'you' began, therefore Everything else MUST OF as well.
There are physical and minds right now. There was a moment that there was nothing but minds, the beginning. Minds were bare so they could not cause anything. There is no God (as I argued in another thread). Therefore, there was something besides minds after the beginning, so-called physical. Nothing to something is therefore possible as a matter of necessity.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm How many of these, so called, "minds" where there BEFORE some alleged "beginning"?
At least two. I don't know how large that number could possibly be. Possibly infinite.
WHY at least 'two'?
It could be me and another person who moves everything else.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm And, is that the EXACT same number existing at the moment 'you' are reading this sentence?
Yes. The mind cannot be created or destroyed.
So, WHATEVER number there were BEFORE EVERY thing else just "popped" into existence there is the EXACT SAME number of "minds" right 'now', correct?
No minds don't just pop into existence. It cannot be created or destroyed. It cannot be created therefore there is no process that can allow that minds pop up into existence.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm But there HAS TO BE, at least, two "minds", also correct?
No, it could be more.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm Also, WHY do you say here that 'the' "mind" cannot be created nor destroyed but also INSIST that there are two "minds"?
I didn't insist that there are two minds. I said that there are at least two minds because I have a justification for the existence of two minds but not more. I cannot go through the proof for why the mind cannot be created or destroyed. I can give you the threads that I discussed this topic there.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm It would be MORE CORRECT to say, "The "minds" (with an 's') cannot be created nor destroyed, correct?
Of course.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm Obviously there can NOT also be two "minds" and they be the EXACT SAME 'thing'.
Two minds cannot be the same things.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm Also, what are these "minds" made up of and out of, EXACTLY?
The mind is an irreducible substance. It is not made of anything. It is the basic.
Sounds, to 'me', like 'you' still have a LONG WAY to go here.
Yes, the story is long in here.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm Why "No"?

Are you now saying that Everything starts from 'that beginning' is NOW logically possible?
That is another question.
So, what did you say, "No", to and for, EXACTLY?

This "other" question was made in attempt to understand what your "No" response was to, EXACTLY. Is this understood?
Ok.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm Or, did you say, "No" because you say "minds" where existing before 'that beginning'? Or, did you say, "No", here because of some other reason?
Minds exist at the beginning. There is no before beginning by definition.
You OBVIOUSLY MISSED, ONCE AGAIN, what I was trying to CLARIFY.

Now, you say, "minds exist AT the beginning". BUT, if "minds" have ALWAYS existed because they can NOT be created NOR destroyed, then this infers and means that there was NO beginning, correct?

By the way, ALL-OF-THIS can be EXPLAINED FULLY, and PERFECTLY, and much MORE SIMPLY and EASILY than what you are attempting to do here.

But SADLY 'you' and "others" are NOT YET OPEN enough to ANY thing else other than what you and "them" currently ALREADY BELIEVE is true.
Minds have had existed since the beginning. That is the more precise.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How do we think?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:50 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:40 pm

LOL Yes we can CLEARLY SEE that you BELIEVE that "YOUR OWN arguments" are irrefutably TRUE. In fact you have ACTUALLY CLARIFIED this as being absolutely true, to you.

Unfortunately though, YOUR "arguments" are NOT ACTUAL 'proofs' AT ALL, as I have CLEARLY SHOWN below.



Okay. So, WHY do you use the word 'close' INSTEAD?

Now, if this One and ONLY Universe is 'closed', then this does NOT mean that It will end AT ALL. This is because IF this Universe is infinite and eternal, then OBVIOUSLY It did NOT end and will NOT begin. This is OBVIOUSLY just PLAIN and SIMPLY irrefutably thee Truth of 'things'.



Okay. This now fits in PERFECTLY with my view of things.

And, also appears to be in DIRECT COMPETITION, CONFLICT, and CONTRADICTION of your views and writings.



WHERE is this PRESUMPTION that I am laughing coming from EXACTLY?

Also, this appears to be one of your typical responses of DEFLECTION when you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY STUCK.



Even with IMAGINATION it still REMAINS NONSENSICAL to me.



But what is CLEARLY HAPPENING HERE is that 'you', "bahman", just BELIEVE that "there was a beginning", and so you are 'trying' just about absolutely ANY 'thing', which you HOPE and/or BELIEVE will support YOUR BELIEF.

What 'you' CLAIM are 'proofs' are SO FAR from 'proofs' that what 'you' write is ACTUALLY HELPING 'me' TREMENDOUSLY.
I think I answered all your questions properly.
Well you may have, from YOUR perspective. But you certainly DID NOT from the perspective of thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm You have a huge amount of work to do to figure out things.
LOL If you BELIEVE this is true, then this MUST BE true, correct?
I am telling you a part of the truth here.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How do we think?

Post by Age »

KLewchuk wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:05 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:14 pm
KLewchuk wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:01 pm

Actually, it is very complex.
What EXACTLY is the 'it' here, which you think or believe is "very complex"?

And, how EXACTLY is 'it' "very complex", to you?
KLewchuk wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:01 pm There are concepts of dependent co-origination (e.g. just because something arises after something else doesn't mean it is "caused" by it.
VERY TRUE. For example; the sun sometimes arises after i wake up. But i certainly did NOT cause the sun to "arise". But NOTHING 'complex' yet nor so far.
KLewchuk wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:01 pm The cognitive science around how our minds create causation is also very interesting.
What I find would be FAR MORE INTERESTING is if 'you', human beings, came together to learn and understand what the 'Mind' ACTUALLY IS, FIRST, BEFORE 'you' start talking about 'It' as though 'you' know what 'you' are talking about.

I suggest that 'you', human beings, who "study" or who "work in" 'cognitive science', say what 'Mind' ACTUALLY IS, BEFORE 'you' start wondering how the, so called, "your minds" work.

Also, what, EXACTLY, do you find 'very interesting' in how "your mind", supposedly and allegedly, creates causation?

And, are you 'trying to' suggest here that 'causation' did NOT exist BEFORE 'you', human beings, came to exist?
KLewchuk wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:01 pm Snap your fingers; the sensation of the snapping, the sound of the snap, and the vision of the snapping appear to occur at the same time... but they actually arrive in your brain at different times... and then your brain puts them together.
This does NOT sound "very interesting" at all to me. As this WAS just PLAIN OBVIOUS, previously, anyway.

Also, if the brain within that head puts those things together, so that, to 'you', they appear to occur at the same time, to 'you', then just remember the brain within this head does NOT do, and did NOT necessarily do, what the brain within that head does.

But 'I' do tend to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' VERY DIFFERENT from 'you', human beings, NATURALLY anyway.

Also, the fact that absolutely EVERY thing registered within a human brain happened 'in the past', and at different moments', just PROVES that things occur NOT at the same, so called, "time", and thus your example was ALREADY CLEARLY KNOWN, well by 'me' anyway.
Age,

I will share my precious thoughts with you once you learn how to appropriately use the capital button on your computer. Let me know when you have figured that out.
WHY do some of 'you' posters here make the ASSUMPTION that I use some 'capital button'?

What is the 'appropriately' word in relation to, EXACTLY? I OBVIOUSLY can NOT 'figure out' how to do ANY thing 'appropriately' if you NEVER share what 'appropriately' is in relation to.

And, if the sharing of your "precious thoughts" is reliant on the use of capital or small letters, then just maybe YOUR "precious thoughts" are NOT worthy of being shared anyway.

Also, some people will 'try' just about ANY excuse to 'try to' "justify" NOT being able to back up and support their CLAIMS when CHALLENGED or for NOT being able to CLARIFY what they ACTUALLY MEAN.

By the way, you have ALREADY 'shared' some thoughts. And, I have ALREADY CHALLENGED 'you', and QUESTIONED 'you', in regards to those ALREADY 'shared thoughts'.

If you can NOT or will NOT respond to 'that', then by all means just DO NOT.
KLewchuk
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:11 am

Re: How do we think?

Post by KLewchuk »

Age wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 2:01 am
KLewchuk wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:05 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:14 pm

What EXACTLY is the 'it' here, which you think or believe is "very complex"?

And, how EXACTLY is 'it' "very complex", to you?



VERY TRUE. For example; the sun sometimes arises after i wake up. But i certainly did NOT cause the sun to "arise". But NOTHING 'complex' yet nor so far.



What I find would be FAR MORE INTERESTING is if 'you', human beings, came together to learn and understand what the 'Mind' ACTUALLY IS, FIRST, BEFORE 'you' start talking about 'It' as though 'you' know what 'you' are talking about.

I suggest that 'you', human beings, who "study" or who "work in" 'cognitive science', say what 'Mind' ACTUALLY IS, BEFORE 'you' start wondering how the, so called, "your minds" work.

Also, what, EXACTLY, do you find 'very interesting' in how "your mind", supposedly and allegedly, creates causation?

And, are you 'trying to' suggest here that 'causation' did NOT exist BEFORE 'you', human beings, came to exist?



This does NOT sound "very interesting" at all to me. As this WAS just PLAIN OBVIOUS, previously, anyway.

Also, if the brain within that head puts those things together, so that, to 'you', they appear to occur at the same time, to 'you', then just remember the brain within this head does NOT do, and did NOT necessarily do, what the brain within that head does.

But 'I' do tend to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' VERY DIFFERENT from 'you', human beings, NATURALLY anyway.

Also, the fact that absolutely EVERY thing registered within a human brain happened 'in the past', and at different moments', just PROVES that things occur NOT at the same, so called, "time", and thus your example was ALREADY CLEARLY KNOWN, well by 'me' anyway.
Age,

I will share my precious thoughts with you once you learn how to appropriately use the capital button on your computer. Let me know when you have figured that out.
WHY do some of 'you' posters here make the ASSUMPTION that I use some 'capital button'?

What is the 'appropriately' word in relation to, EXACTLY? I OBVIOUSLY can NOT 'figure out' how to do ANY thing 'appropriately' if you NEVER share what 'appropriately' is in relation to.

And, if the sharing of your "precious thoughts" is reliant on the use of capital or small letters, then just maybe YOUR "precious thoughts" are NOT worthy of being shared anyway.

Also, some people will 'try' just about ANY excuse to 'try to' "justify" NOT being able to back up and support their CLAIMS when CHALLENGED or for NOT being able to CLARIFY what they ACTUALLY MEAN.

By the way, you have ALREADY 'shared' some thoughts. And, I have ALREADY CHALLENGED 'you', and QUESTIONED 'you', in regards to those ALREADY 'shared thoughts'.

If you can NOT or will NOT respond to 'that', then by all means just DO NOT.
YOU have NOT challenged me, RATHER, you have POSTED incoherent DRIVEL which is clearly not the WORK, of a PHILOSOPHER.

ROTFLMFAO
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How do we think?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:19 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:48 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
The clothed mind has a body.
Great response.

Now, is that just the human body, or the other animal bodies, as well?

And what about ALL of the other bodies in the Universe?
Of course, animals also have minds. Even vegetables. Rocks. Etc.
LOL "Of course".

So, IF animals, vegetables, AND rocks all "have minds", then WHY did you say there are at least two minds? There is at least three here just with your "animals, vegetables, AND rocks, et cetera".

Also, EVERY one of these 'things' is made up of many particles of matter. Does EVERY particle of matter have "its OWN mind"?

Either way, "at the beginning" was there ENOUGH "minds" for EVERY 'thing', which "has a mind", or do these "mind" 'things' just split and/or reproduce for EVERY new 'thing', which comes along and into existence?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:48 pm Could the body of the 'clothed Mind' just be the universal physical body known as thee Universe, Itself?

See, the deeper one LOOKS INTO this, the MORE of what I have been saying and CLAIMING becomes MORE OBVIOUSLY True.
Omnipresent. I don't think that there are omnipresent beings.
'We' WERE just talking about "minds", so WHY did 'you' just CHANGE here now?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm That is because there was a beginning and the whole is exhaustive so you cannot be exposed to everything.
What has " little old 'me' " got to do with EVERY 'thing' we WERE discussion here just now?

Also, what proof is there that "there was a beginning"? Or, is this just a BELIEF of YOURS, ONLY?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Big-Bang.
And WHAT did this, alleged and so called, "big bang" come from, EXACTLY?

Obviously, if it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for this 'bang' to have come from 'nothing', then it MUST OF come from some 'thing' else.

To me, the, so called, 'big bang' is just the non religious persons 'God', when they are confronted with the CLARIFYING; WHERE did ALL-OF-THIS come from then? question.

See, 'you', human beings will say and 'try' just about ANY thing to back up and support your currently held BELIEFS. Which in this case IS; "There was a beginning".

See, because 'you', adult human beings, have heard the words, "in the beginning", for so long, some of you actually BELIEVE that there was a beginning, to Everything.

Also, because 'you', adult human beings, literally, tend to anthropomorphize way to much, some of you actually BELIEVE that because 'you' began, therefore Everything else MUST OF as well.
There are physical and minds right now.
And what proof do you have for this? Or, is this just a BELIEF of YOURS?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm There was a moment that there was nothing but minds, the beginning.
Okay. Sounds logically and empirically IMPOSSIBLE. But each to their own.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm Minds were bare so they could not cause anything.
So, to you, "minds" can NOT cause ANY thing UNTIL some thing is caused, right?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm There is no God (as I argued in another thread).
So, WHY bring 'It' up then?

Why did you not also say, "There is no Unicorns"?

Have you also argued in another thread that there is NO 'tooth fairy', NO 'unicorns', and NO 'easter bunny'?

If yes, then WHERE?

But if no, then WHY NOT?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm Therefore, there was something besides minds after the beginning, so-called physical. Nothing to something is therefore possible as a matter of necessity.
So, now 'you' have CHANGED, AGAIN, and now state that, for some UNKNOWN reason to me, "nothing to something is therefore possible. Yet, nothing to something, to you, IS logically IMPOSSIBLE, correct?

I will, ONCE AGAIN, suggest, to 'you', that if you want to CLAIM some 'thing' as being true, then you have at least 'that' what can back up and support YOUR CLAIM BEFORE you make the CLAIM, itself.

As for you stating that, "nothing to something", supposedly, now "being possible", as well as now " being a matter of 'necessity' ", is just ANOTHER one of YOUR ways of 'trying to' "justify" your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS. But, sadly and unfortunately, for you, COMPLETELY CONTRADICT what you have previously said and stated was true.

bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
At least two. I don't know how large that number could possibly be. Possibly infinite.
WHY at least 'two'?
It could be me and another person who moves everything else.
LOL So are 'you' now 'trying to' suggest that 'you' and another 'person/human being' exist FOREVER?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Yes. The mind cannot be created or destroyed.
So, WHATEVER number there were BEFORE EVERY thing else just "popped" into existence there is the EXACT SAME number of "minds" right 'now', correct?
No minds don't just pop into existence.
I NEVER said, stated, suggested, alluded to, NOR even thought this. So, WHY did just say what you said here?

Are 'you' AGAIN just 'trying to' DEFLECT?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm It cannot be created or destroyed.
WHY do you use the 'it' word now, when you have CLEARLY STATED that there are at least TWO, which would MEAN 'they'?

Have 'you' heard of a 'freudian slip'?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm It cannot be created therefore there is no process that can allow that minds pop up into existence.
AGAIN, NO one that I KNOW of has said ANY 'thing' about "minds popping up into existence" BEFORE 'you', "bahman".
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm But there HAS TO BE, at least, two "minds", also correct?
No, it could be more.
Do you even KNOW what the term "at least" means or refers to? I even separated that term in between two commas for MORE CLARITY SAKE.

Your "No" response to the ACTUAL question I ask you CONTRADICTS what YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm Also, WHY do you say here that 'the' "mind" cannot be created nor destroyed but also INSIST that there are two "minds"?
I didn't insist that there are two minds.
GREAT OBSERVATION. I apologize PROFUSELY for neglecting to at the term, 'at least', in the above clarifying question posed to you.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm I said that there are at least two minds because I have a justification for the existence of two minds but not more.
Do you REALLY?

And, what is that, so called, "justification" for WHY there are 'two minds', to you, but no more?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm I cannot go through the proof for why the mind cannot be created or destroyed.
WHY NOT?

And, WHY do you, continue, to use the term " 'the' mind " IF there are, AT LEAST, "two minds", to you?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm I can give you the threads that I discussed this topic there.
Please do. Some of 'us', readers, would be VERY INTERESTED in SEEING just how DISTORTED your views ARE, or ARE NOT.

'We' would also be VERY INTERESTED in SEEING if what you say in those threads CONTRADICT and/or CONFLICT with what you are saying here now.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm It would be MORE CORRECT to say, "The "minds" (with an 's') cannot be created nor destroyed, correct?
Of course.
So, IF this is, another, "Of course", then WHY do you NOT do it?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm Obviously there can NOT also be two "minds" and they be the EXACT SAME 'thing'.
Two minds cannot be the same things.
Great. So, HOW, EXACTLY, are they DIFFERENT?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
The mind is an irreducible substance. It is not made of anything. It is the basic.
Sounds, to 'me', like 'you' still have a LONG WAY to go here.
Yes, the story is long in here.
And, the rate at which 'you' are proceeding here the body that 'you' are in will NOT be in a shape NOR in a form for 'you' to EVER come to KNOW the FULL STORY, which is KNOWN by some of 'us', ALREADY.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
That is another question.
So, what did you say, "No", to and for, EXACTLY?

This "other" question was made in attempt to understand what your "No" response was to, EXACTLY. Is this understood?
Ok.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Minds exist at the beginning. There is no before beginning by definition.
You OBVIOUSLY MISSED, ONCE AGAIN, what I was trying to CLARIFY.

Now, you say, "minds exist AT the beginning". BUT, if "minds" have ALWAYS existed because they can NOT be created NOR destroyed, then this infers and means that there was NO beginning, correct?

By the way, ALL-OF-THIS can be EXPLAINED FULLY, and PERFECTLY, and much MORE SIMPLY and EASILY than what you are attempting to do here.

But SADLY 'you' and "others" are NOT YET OPEN enough to ANY thing else other than what you and "them" currently ALREADY BELIEVE is true.
Minds have had existed since the beginning. That is the more precise.
Okay, to 'you', at least two "minds" have existed since the beginning.

And the point of INFORMING "others" of this is for 'what', EXACTLY?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How do we think?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:21 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:50 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
I think I answered all your questions properly.
Well you may have, from YOUR perspective. But you certainly DID NOT from the perspective of thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm You have a huge amount of work to do to figure out things.
LOL If you BELIEVE this is true, then this MUST BE true, correct?
I am telling you a part of the truth here.
But if you REALLY WANT to tell ONLY a part of the truth, then what you say NEEDS to conform to thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. And, a LOT of what you say OBVIOUSLY does NOT conform to thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', even closely, let alone AT ALL. As can be PROVEN True.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How do we think?

Post by Age »

KLewchuk wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 3:01 am
Age wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 2:01 am
KLewchuk wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:05 am

Age,

I will share my precious thoughts with you once you learn how to appropriately use the capital button on your computer. Let me know when you have figured that out.
WHY do some of 'you' posters here make the ASSUMPTION that I use some 'capital button'?

What is the 'appropriately' word in relation to, EXACTLY? I OBVIOUSLY can NOT 'figure out' how to do ANY thing 'appropriately' if you NEVER share what 'appropriately' is in relation to.

And, if the sharing of your "precious thoughts" is reliant on the use of capital or small letters, then just maybe YOUR "precious thoughts" are NOT worthy of being shared anyway.

Also, some people will 'try' just about ANY excuse to 'try to' "justify" NOT being able to back up and support their CLAIMS when CHALLENGED or for NOT being able to CLARIFY what they ACTUALLY MEAN.

By the way, you have ALREADY 'shared' some thoughts. And, I have ALREADY CHALLENGED 'you', and QUESTIONED 'you', in regards to those ALREADY 'shared thoughts'.

If you can NOT or will NOT respond to 'that', then by all means just DO NOT.
YOU have NOT challenged me, RATHER, you have POSTED incoherent DRIVEL which is clearly not the WORK, of a PHILOSOPHER.

ROTFLMFAO
WHERE did ANY PRESUMPTION come from, in the first place, that 'i' was supposed to be some sort of PHILOSOPHER?

Also, IF ROTFLMFAO means that 'you' are rolling on the floor laughing your fucking ass off, then WHY?

Furthermore, because 'you' just "shared your, so called "precious" thoughts" with 'me', does this suggest that I have ALREADY learned how to use "appropriately" the 'capital button' on my computer. You, after all, did say that you will share your "precious thoughts" with me once I learn how to appropriately use the capital button on my computer.

You also said, "Let me know when you have figured that out." But I have NOT YET let you know of this.

So, WHY EXACTLY, did you share your, so called, "precious thoughts" with 'me' here now?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How do we think?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 4:37 am
bahman wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:19 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:48 pm
Great response.

Now, is that just the human body, or the other animal bodies, as well?

And what about ALL of the other bodies in the Universe?
Of course, animals also have minds. Even vegetables. Rocks. Etc.
LOL "Of course".

So, IF animals, vegetables, AND rocks all "have minds", then WHY did you say there are at least two minds? There is at least three here just with your "animals, vegetables, AND rocks, et cetera".
I said I have an argument for at least two minds. Everything seems to have minds. But there could be only me and another Demon who control everything.
Age wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 4:37 am Also, EVERY one of these 'things' is made up of many particles of matter. Does EVERY particle of matter have "its OWN mind"?
A particle could have a mind but not all particles necessarily have a mind.
Age wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 4:37 am Either way, "at the beginning" was there ENOUGH "minds" for EVERY 'thing', which "has a mind", or do these "mind" 'things' just split and/or reproduce for EVERY new 'thing', which comes along and into existence?
Probably.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:48 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:48 pm Could the body of the 'clothed Mind' just be the universal physical body known as thee Universe, Itself?

See, the deeper one LOOKS INTO this, the MORE of what I have been saying and CLAIMING becomes MORE OBVIOUSLY True.
Omnipresent. I don't think that there are omnipresent beings.
'We' WERE just talking about "minds", so WHY did 'you' just CHANGE here now?
That was you if the mind could cloth the universal physical body known as the universe.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:48 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm That is because there was a beginning and the whole is exhaustive so you cannot be exposed to everything.
What has " little old 'me' " got to do with EVERY 'thing' we WERE discussion here just now?

Also, what proof is there that "there was a beginning"? Or, is this just a BELIEF of YOURS, ONLY?
What I said is obvious. There was a beginning and the whole is not exhaustive. Therefore you cannot be exposed to everything.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:48 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
And WHAT did this, alleged and so called, "big bang" come from, EXACTLY?

Obviously, if it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for this 'bang' to have come from 'nothing', then it MUST OF come from some 'thing' else.

To me, the, so called, 'big bang' is just the non religious persons 'God', when they are confronted with the CLARIFYING; WHERE did ALL-OF-THIS come from then? question.

See, 'you', human beings will say and 'try' just about ANY thing to back up and support your currently held BELIEFS. Which in this case IS; "There was a beginning".

See, because 'you', adult human beings, have heard the words, "in the beginning", for so long, some of you actually BELIEVE that there was a beginning, to Everything.

Also, because 'you', adult human beings, literally, tend to anthropomorphize way to much, some of you actually BELIEVE that because 'you' began, therefore Everything else MUST OF as well.
There are physical and minds right now.
And what proof do you have for this? Or, is this just a BELIEF of YOURS?
Physical is the stuff that changes and we are aware of it. Any change needs a mind though (I have an argument for this) so we have minds and physical.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm There was a moment that there was nothing but minds, the beginning.
Okay. Sounds logically and empirically IMPOSSIBLE. But each to their own.
It is what it is as a matter of necessity.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm Minds were bare so they could not cause anything.
So, to you, "minds" can NOT cause ANY thing UNTIL some thing is caused, right?
The mind can do nothing until it experiences something.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm There is no God (as I argued in another thread).
So, WHY bring 'It' up then?

Why did you not also say, "There is no Unicorns"?

Have you also argued in another thread that there is NO 'tooth fairy', NO 'unicorns', and NO 'easter bunny'?

If yes, then WHERE?

But if no, then WHY NOT?
Because you have to wait until the conclusion.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm Therefore, there was something besides minds after the beginning, so-called physical. Nothing to something is therefore possible as a matter of necessity.
So, now 'you' have CHANGED, AGAIN, and now state that, for some UNKNOWN reason to me, "nothing to something is therefore possible. Yet, nothing to something, to you, IS logically IMPOSSIBLE, correct?

I will, ONCE AGAIN, suggest, to 'you', that if you want to CLAIM some 'thing' as being true, then you have at least 'that' what can back up and support YOUR CLAIM BEFORE you make the CLAIM, itself.

As for you stating that, "nothing to something", supposedly, now "being possible", as well as now " being a matter of 'necessity' ", is just ANOTHER one of YOUR ways of 'trying to' "justify" your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS. But, sadly and unfortunately, for you, COMPLETELY CONTRADICT what you have previously said and stated was true.
I should have said no-physical to physical instead of nothing to something.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm

WHY at least 'two'?
It could be me and another person who moves everything else.
LOL So are 'you' now 'trying to' suggest that 'you' and another 'person/human being' exist FOREVER?
Not a human being but a Demon since the beginning of time.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm

So, WHATEVER number there were BEFORE EVERY thing else just "popped" into existence there is the EXACT SAME number of "minds" right 'now', correct?
No minds don't just pop into existence.
I NEVER said, stated, suggested, alluded to, NOR even thought this. So, WHY did just say what you said here?

Are 'you' AGAIN just 'trying to' DEFLECT?
Yes you are correct.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm It cannot be created or destroyed.
WHY do you use the 'it' word now, when you have CLEARLY STATED that there are at least TWO, which would MEAN 'they'?

Have 'you' heard of a 'freudian slip'?
I mean each mind cannot be destroyed.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm It cannot be created therefore there is no process that can allow that minds pop up into existence.
AGAIN, NO one that I KNOW of has said ANY 'thing' about "minds popping up into existence" BEFORE 'you', "bahman".
Ok.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm But there HAS TO BE, at least, two "minds", also correct?
No, it could be more.
Do you even KNOW what the term "at least" means or refers to? I even separated that term in between two commas for MORE CLARITY SAKE.

Your "No" response to the ACTUAL question I ask you CONTRADICTS what YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING
There is no contradiction. I have an argument for at least two. I have no argument for many.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm Also, WHY do you say here that 'the' "mind" cannot be created nor destroyed but also INSIST that there are two "minds"?
I didn't insist that there are two minds.
GREAT OBSERVATION. I apologize PROFUSELY for neglecting to at the term, 'at least', in the above clarifying question posed to you.
It is alright.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm I said that there are at least two minds because I have a justification for the existence of two minds but not more.
Do you REALLY?

And, what is that, so called, "justification" for WHY there are 'two minds', to you, but no more?
First please read the proof of the conscious mind here. You then realize that one conscious mind is needed for any change. It then follows that there are at least two minds. One is you who causes certain things. And another who causes the rest.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm I cannot go through the proof for why the mind cannot be created or destroyed.
WHY NOT?

And, WHY do you, continue, to use the term " 'the' mind " IF there are, AT LEAST, "two minds", to you?
So please read this thread for the proof that minds are immortal.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm I can give you the threads that I discussed this topic there.
Please do. Some of 'us', readers, would be VERY INTERESTED in SEEING just how DISTORTED your views ARE, or ARE NOT.

'We' would also be VERY INTERESTED in SEEING if what you say in those threads CONTRADICT and/or CONFLICT with what you are saying here now.
I already gave.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm It would be MORE CORRECT to say, "The "minds" (with an 's') cannot be created nor destroyed, correct?
Of course.
So, IF this is, another, "Of course", then WHY do you NOT do it?
Ok.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm Obviously there can NOT also be two "minds" and they be the EXACT SAME 'thing'.
Two minds cannot be the same things.
Great. So, HOW, EXACTLY, are they DIFFERENT?
They are similar but different substances. By similar I mean they have similar abilities.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
Sounds, to 'me', like 'you' still have a LONG WAY to go here.
Yes, the story is long in here.
And, the rate at which 'you' are proceeding here the body that 'you' are in will NOT be in a shape NOR in a form for 'you' to EVER come to KNOW the FULL STORY, which is KNOWN by some of 'us', ALREADY.
I have a long list of subjects that I open a thread for each sometime soon.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm So, what did you say, "No", to and for, EXACTLY?

This "other" question was made in attempt to understand what your "No" response was to, EXACTLY. Is this understood?
Ok.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm

You OBVIOUSLY MISSED, ONCE AGAIN, what I was trying to CLARIFY.

Now, you say, "minds exist AT the beginning". BUT, if "minds" have ALWAYS existed because they can NOT be created NOR destroyed, then this infers and means that there was NO beginning, correct?

By the way, ALL-OF-THIS can be EXPLAINED FULLY, and PERFECTLY, and much MORE SIMPLY and EASILY than what you are attempting to do here.

But SADLY 'you' and "others" are NOT YET OPEN enough to ANY thing else other than what you and "them" currently ALREADY BELIEVE is true.
Minds have had existed since the beginning. That is the more precise.
Okay, to 'you', at least two "minds" have existed since the beginning.
Yes.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm And the point of INFORMING "others" of this is for 'what', EXACTLY?
What do you mean?
KLewchuk
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:11 am

Re: How do we think?

Post by KLewchuk »

Age wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 5:13 am
KLewchuk wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 3:01 am
Age wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 2:01 am

WHY do some of 'you' posters here make the ASSUMPTION that I use some 'capital button'?

What is the 'appropriately' word in relation to, EXACTLY? I OBVIOUSLY can NOT 'figure out' how to do ANY thing 'appropriately' if you NEVER share what 'appropriately' is in relation to.

And, if the sharing of your "precious thoughts" is reliant on the use of capital or small letters, then just maybe YOUR "precious thoughts" are NOT worthy of being shared anyway.

Also, some people will 'try' just about ANY excuse to 'try to' "justify" NOT being able to back up and support their CLAIMS when CHALLENGED or for NOT being able to CLARIFY what they ACTUALLY MEAN.

By the way, you have ALREADY 'shared' some thoughts. And, I have ALREADY CHALLENGED 'you', and QUESTIONED 'you', in regards to those ALREADY 'shared thoughts'.

If you can NOT or will NOT respond to 'that', then by all means just DO NOT.
YOU have NOT challenged me, RATHER, you have POSTED incoherent DRIVEL which is clearly not the WORK, of a PHILOSOPHER.

ROTFLMFAO
WHERE did ANY PRESUMPTION come from, in the first place, that 'i' was supposed to be some sort of PHILOSOPHER?

Also, IF ROTFLMFAO means that 'you' are rolling on the floor laughing your fucking ass off, then WHY?

Furthermore, because 'you' just "shared your, so called "precious" thoughts" with 'me', does this suggest that I have ALREADY learned how to use "appropriately" the 'capital button' on my computer. You, after all, did say that you will share your "precious thoughts" with me once I learn how to appropriately use the capital button on my computer.

You also said, "Let me know when you have figured that out." But I have NOT YET let you know of this.

So, WHY EXACTLY, did you share your, so called, "precious thoughts" with 'me' here now?
At this point, nothing more than entertainment... kinda like watching Schitt's Creek.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How do we think?

Post by bahman »

KLewchuk wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 5:13 pm
Age wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 5:13 am
KLewchuk wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 3:01 am

YOU have NOT challenged me, RATHER, you have POSTED incoherent DRIVEL which is clearly not the WORK, of a PHILOSOPHER.

ROTFLMFAO
WHERE did ANY PRESUMPTION come from, in the first place, that 'i' was supposed to be some sort of PHILOSOPHER?

Also, IF ROTFLMFAO means that 'you' are rolling on the floor laughing your fucking ass off, then WHY?

Furthermore, because 'you' just "shared your, so called "precious" thoughts" with 'me', does this suggest that I have ALREADY learned how to use "appropriately" the 'capital button' on my computer. You, after all, did say that you will share your "precious thoughts" with me once I learn how to appropriately use the capital button on my computer.

You also said, "Let me know when you have figured that out." But I have NOT YET let you know of this.

So, WHY EXACTLY, did you share your, so called, "precious thoughts" with 'me' here now?
At this point, nothing more than entertainment... kinda like watching Schitt's Creek.
I haven't seen the movie. What is it about?
Post Reply