Do thoughts affect reality?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Terrapin Station »

bahman wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 11:32 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 11:06 pm
bahman wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 10:34 pm
Mind is needed for any change. I have an argument for that here. THe change is evident therefore there is a mind.
I responded in that thread, and you had no adequate response to my comments.
That is too late. What comment are you talking about?


All of the comments I made in that thread.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by AlexW »

Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:36 am Also, the proper and correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', to you, is the individual body-mind, correct?
"Proper"/conventional use of language is not the same as the "proper and correct answer" to a question.

As I stated before, the proper use of language is based on the common understanding/interpretation of a word or phrase - here the majority of people count, not if their understanding/interpretation is ultimately correct. It may well be incorrect, but this is beyond the point of using language in a conventionally correct way.

And, no, I do not think that the correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', is" "the individual body-mind" - but this does not really change the fact that some 99% of people believe this to be the correct answer.
Now you can argue that you have a better answer - and you also claim this to be true - but ultimately every answer (even your answer) is just another interpretation or perspective... yes, they are not more than a different belief.

The most dangerous belief is the one that is taken for absolute truth - do you believe that your answer to the question "Who am I?" is such an infallible truth?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by bahman »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 12:10 am
bahman wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 11:32 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 11:06 pm

I responded in that thread, and you had no adequate response to my comments.
That is too late. What comment are you talking about?


All of the comments I made in that thread.
Well, and all of the comments I made in that thread too.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Age »

AlexW wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 1:36 am
Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:36 am Also, the proper and correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', to you, is the individual body-mind, correct?
"Proper"/conventional use of language is not the same as the "proper and correct answer" to a question.
I KNOW.
AlexW wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 1:36 amAs I stated before, the proper use of language is based on the common understanding/interpretation of a word or phrase - here the majority of people count, not if their understanding/interpretation is ultimately correct. It may well be incorrect, but this is beyond the point of using language in a conventionally correct way.
'Conventional use of language' and 'proper use of language' are TWO VERY DIFFERENT things.

If a language used is common, (used by the majority), then this in NO WAY infers that that language is proper, NOR correct.
AlexW wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 1:36 am And, no, I do not think that the correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', is" "the individual body-mind" - but this does not really change the fact that some 99% of people believe this to be the correct answer.
LOL Where did you get this 99% from, EXACTLY?
AlexW wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 1:36 am Now you can argue that you have a better answer - and you also claim this to be true - but ultimately every answer (even your answer) is just another interpretation or perspective... yes, they are not more than a different belief.
BUT, a 'perspective' is VERY DIFFERENT from a 'belief'.
AlexW wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 1:36 am The most dangerous belief is the one that is taken for absolute truth - do you believe that your answer to the question "Who am I?" is such an infallible truth?
I do NOT 'believe' ANY thing.

And, how MANY TIMES does one have to repeat this BEFORE this is COMPREHENDED and UNDERSTOOD?

Also, I KNOW that thee answer I have is an absolute and irrefutable Answer, and Truth, by the way.

IF, and WHEN, 'you' are Truly CURIOS, then 'you' will also come to FULLY UNDERSTAND HOW this could ACTUALLY BE.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by AlexW »

Age wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 11:04 am BUT, a 'perspective' is VERY DIFFERENT from a 'belief'.
In which way are the different?

The dictionary definition of perspective: a particular, mental attitude towards or way of regarding something; a point of view.
The dictionary definition of belief: the conviction of something being true

As I see it, they are pretty similar - both are based on your unique and personal orientation, past conditioning, acquired knowledge etc etc...

So how do you think they differ?
Age wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 11:04 am I do NOT 'believe' ANY thing.

And, how MANY TIMES does one have to repeat this BEFORE this is COMPREHENDED and UNDERSTOOD?

Also, I KNOW that thee answer I have is an absolute and irrefutable Answer, and Truth, by the way.
I know you believe that :-)
But you only believe this to be the infallible truth, because you think that a perspective (or any other kind of "higher" knowledge) is different, superior and more truthful than a "common" belief.

I think this is a wrong and misguided assumption (as I said before: the most dangerous belief is the one that is taken for absolute truth).
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Age »

AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 5:27 am
Age wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 11:04 am BUT, a 'perspective' is VERY DIFFERENT from a 'belief'.
In which way are the different?
To me, 'perspective' refers to how one looks at and/or sees 'things'. Whereas, 'belief' is what one BELIEVES is true.
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 5:27 am The dictionary definition of perspective: a particular, mental attitude towards or way of regarding something; a point of view.
The dictionary definition of belief: the conviction of something being true
Are you aware that there is more than one dictionary?
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 5:27 am As I see it,


Therefore, 'your perspective', to me.
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 5:27 am they are pretty similar
Therefore, they are NOT the EXACT SAME, to you, correct?
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 5:27 am - both are based on your unique and personal orientation, past conditioning, acquired knowledge etc etc...
Okay.

But;

From 'your perspective' does something HAVE TO BE true?

From 'your belief' does something HAVE TO BE true?

In other words;

If you 'see' some 'thing', then does 'it' HAVE TO BE true?

If you 'believe' some 'thing', then does 'it' HAVE TO BE true?

Your Truly Honest answers would be much appreciated.
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 5:27 am So how do you think they differ?
As I said above: 'perspective' refers to how one looks at and/or sees 'things'. Whereas, 'belief' is what one BELIEVES is true.
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 5:27 am
Age wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 11:04 am I do NOT 'believe' ANY thing.

And, how MANY TIMES does one have to repeat this BEFORE this is COMPREHENDED and UNDERSTOOD?

Also, I KNOW that thee answer I have is an absolute and irrefutable Answer, and Truth, by the way.
I know you believe that :-)
But I do NOT 'believe that'. 'you' may be able to 'know' some things regarding 'that body' and its experiences. However, 'you' can ONLY know things regarding 'this body' and what it experiences if, and ONLY IF, this body TELLS or INFORMS 'you'.

I have INFORMED 'you' and TOLD 'you' that I do NOT believe ANY thing NOR do I disbelieve ANY thing. So, WHY do you CLAIM that I believe some thing, and, WHAT evidence and/or proof do you have for this CLAIM, of yours, here?
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 5:27 am But you only believe this to be the infallible truth, because you think that a perspective (or any other kind of "higher" knowledge) is different, superior and more truthful than a "common" belief.
WHAT are you on about now?

You just keep getting FURTHER and FURTHER away from what I am ACTUALLY saying AND meaning.

Also, you AGAIN went straight into CLAIMING that I "believe" some thing else AGAIN.
AlexW wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 5:27 am I think this is a wrong and misguided assumption (as I said before: the most dangerous belief is the one that is taken for absolute truth).
BUT I do NOT believe this. So, YOUR ASSUMPTION here is just COMPLETELY OFF TRACK, AGAIN.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by AlexW »

Age wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:25 pm Therefore, they are NOT the EXACT SAME, to you, correct?
Yes, they are very similar, but not the exact same (just like scarlet and crimson red are not the same, yet they are both a type of red).

I think, in this case, the difference lies in how strong a conviction is held. A perspective might change more easily than a belief.
One might have a perspective, or a point of view on how to interpret/judge a certain situation or statement while a belief is a more personal and emotional thing - a belief is more tightly knit into the conceptual fabric of the personal self than a perspective or point of view.

That's at least how I would interpret the difference between the two - but at the end, they both are a conceptual interpretation of something one has learned either from ones own direct experience or from others (parents, teachers, priests...), from books, the internet etc etc... both are always only a conceptual interpretation that is - at least for a certain time - held/believed to be true.

As such they are ultimately one and same (just more or less sticky).
Age wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:25 pm From 'your perspective' does something HAVE TO BE true?

From 'your belief' does something HAVE TO BE true?

In other words;

If you 'see' some 'thing', then does 'it' HAVE TO BE true?

If you 'believe' some 'thing', then does 'it' HAVE TO BE true?

Your Truly Honest answers would be much appreciated.
Not sure what you mean with "see" - are you referring to the direct experience of seeing (meaning the directly experienced field of color) or are you referring to an interpretation of what is seen?

As I understand it, the answer can only be "to an interpretation of what is seen" as the seeing itself - which is nothing but color - is neither true nor false - true and false only arise once an interpretation of direct experience arises via conceptual thought.

Whatever comes up as such a conceptual interpretation can only be true or false measured against the parameters of the conceptual framework itself - they might be believed to be (seen to be) true within your framework, but believed to be false in mine - there is no such thing as an absolute truth within an interpretation.

Absolute truth and conceptual interpretation are not compatible - the only absolute truth one has is direct experience itself (but never its interpretation).
Age wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:25 pm I have INFORMED 'you' and TOLD 'you' that I do NOT believe ANY thing NOR do I disbelieve ANY thing. So, WHY do you CLAIM that I believe some thing, and, WHAT evidence and/or proof do you have for this CLAIM, of yours, here?
You stated that your answer to the question "Who am I?" (as posted by you previously) is the infallible truth... But true and false only arise within conceptual interpretations, which again are something one has learned over time, its a conditioned perspective or belief - call it as you like, but believing that an answer to a question (no matter how elaborate) will ever be the absolute truth is a mistake.
It actually cannot be "absolute" or infallible within a system or framework that only works within the relative (and language is such a framework) - and it is, as such, not a truth but rather a belief (or currently held perspective).

Your answer has not always been here, right? You have figured it out over time, you have investigated, learned and tested things and then you came to this conclusion - to the answer that you provided.
But what if, tomorrow, something happens that completely invalidates this answer?
What if you find out that all of this is only a simulation (not that I believe this to be the case, but its still a possibility)... what then?
Was your previous answer to the question really an infallible truth?
Or was it just a belief that has been proven wrong?
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Age »

AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:16 am
Age wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:25 pm Therefore, they are NOT the EXACT SAME, to you, correct?
Yes, they are very similar, but not the exact same (just like scarlet and crimson red are not the same, yet they are both a type of red).
I think, in this case, the difference lies in how strong a conviction is held. A perspective might change more easily than a belief.
To me, 'perspectives' are changing frequently. This is because 'we' are looking at different things ALL THE TIME, and thus also SEEING different things, frequently.

Whereas, while one is 'believing' some thing is true, then they are NOT OPEN to ANY thing opposing NOR contrary. So, whilst one is BELIEVING some thing is true, then they are NOT able to change. But in saying this, SURE one can change their BELIEFS. But, again, while one is BELIEVING some thing is true, then they are NOT able to change that BELIEF. ONLY once one is Truly OPEN to being able to 'look at' and 'see' that the 'opposing' or 'contrary' 'view' could be true, right, or correct, then that one is then able to change, from the previous belief to a new belief.

BUT, this still leaves me questioning that one, 'WHY belief ANY thing?' Especially when what you are believing could be false, wrong, or incorrect, anyway?
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:16 am One might have a perspective, or a point of view on how to interpret/judge a certain situation or statement while a belief is a more personal and emotional thing - a belief is more tightly knit into the conceptual fabric of the personal self than a perspective or point of view.
Either way they are NOT the EXACT SAME and whilst one is in their BELIEF they are NOT OPEN to changing, but change is what can VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY happen when one just 'has' a 'perspective'.

That's at least how I would interpret the difference between the two - but at the end, they both are a conceptual interpretation of something one has learned either from ones own direct experience or from others (parents, teachers, priests...), from books, the internet etc etc... both are always only a conceptual interpretation that is - at least for a certain time - held/believed to be true.[/quote]

ALL views, perceptions, beliefs, values, interpretations, judgments, and concepts could ALL be said to fall under the category 'thoughts', or 'thinking'.

ALL 'thoughts', within a body, were gathered, or grasped, from the direct experiences of the body, through any or all of the five senses. What is learned from "others" (parents, teachers, priests, et cetera), from books, the internet, et cetera is INCLUDED in the 'direct experiences' of the body.

Therefore, ALL 'thoughts' derive from 'bodily experiences'.

Also, NOT ALL 'perspectives' are held to be true. Furthermore, if a 'perspective' is a 'conceptual interpretation' "believed to be true", then 'it' is NOT a 'perspective' anymore but is now a BELIEF.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:16 am As such they are ultimately one and same (just more or less sticky).
To me, one may be 'sticky' but the other one is 'STUCK'.

To me, a 'perspective' is just that - a perspective. Which, to me, means or refers to just one's perspective, which is OPEN to changing. For example, when I say, 'From my perspective, ...', I mean; This is just my perspective which may be right or wrong, true or false, or correct or incorrect.

Whereas, a 'belief' HAS TO BE TRUE, to the one with the belief. Therefore, if I was to say, "I believe ...", then, to me, I mean; This is true, and so anything opposing or contrary is NOT true.

Of course, I could say, "I believe ...", and mean; I ACTUALLY do NOT believe 'it' to be true, as a LOT of people ACTUALLY mean when they use that term. But, to me, I prefer to use words and terms in the, so called, 'correct usage'.

If one says, "I believe ...[something]", then either they believe that 'thing' to be true, or they do not. And, if they do not believe 'it' to be true, then WHY say, "I believe ..."?
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:16 am
Age wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:25 pm From 'your perspective' does something HAVE TO BE true?

From 'your belief' does something HAVE TO BE true?

In other words;

If you 'see' some 'thing', then does 'it' HAVE TO BE true?

If you 'believe' some 'thing', then does 'it' HAVE TO BE true?

Your Truly Honest answers would be much appreciated.
Not sure what you mean with "see" - are you referring to the direct experience of seeing (meaning the directly experienced field of color) or are you referring to an interpretation of what is seen?
It would not have made sense if I wrote, 'If you perspective some thing', so I used the word 'see' as a replacement for the word 'perspective', as we were discussing the difference between 'perspective' and 'belief'.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:16 am As I understand it, the answer can only be "to an interpretation of what is seen" as the seeing itself - which is nothing but color - is neither true nor false - true and false only arise once an interpretation of direct experience arises via conceptual thought.

Whatever comes up as such a conceptual interpretation can only be true or false measured against the parameters of the conceptual framework itself - they might be believed to be (seen to be) true within your framework, but believed to be false in mine - there is no such thing as an absolute truth within an interpretation.
But NOTHING can be believe to be (seen to be) true within "my" framework because I do NOT believe ANY thing.

Anyway I agree with you that there is no such thing as an absolute truth within personal interpretations. This is because of what thee absolute Truth ACTUALLY IS.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:16 am Absolute truth and conceptual interpretation are not compatible - the only absolute truth one has is direct experience itself (but never its interpretation).
Agreed, wholeheartedly. But, hopefully, since I have now cleared up what the word 'see' was in relation to EXACTLY you have already answered my previous clarifying questions above, before we get to far off track here.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:16 am
Age wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:25 pm I have INFORMED 'you' and TOLD 'you' that I do NOT believe ANY thing NOR do I disbelieve ANY thing. So, WHY do you CLAIM that I believe some thing, and, WHAT evidence and/or proof do you have for this CLAIM, of yours, here?
You stated that your answer to the question "Who am I?" (as posted by you previously) is the infallible truth...
Okay.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:16 am But true and false only arise within conceptual interpretations, which again are something one has learned over time, its a conditioned perspective or belief
But a 'conditioned perspective' is NOT necessarily a 'belief' AT ALL. As I can QUITE EASILY and QUITE SIMPLY express a 'conditioned perspective' without EVER 'believing' it to be true.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:16 am - call it as you like, but believing that an answer to a question (no matter how elaborate) will ever be the absolute truth is a mistake.
And this is WHY I NEVER 'believe' ANY thing. REMEMBER it is 'you' who has and holds BELIEFS here. NOT 'me'.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:16 am It actually cannot be "absolute" or infallible within a system or framework that only works within the relative (and language is such a framework) - and it is, as such, not a truth but rather a belief (or currently held perspective).
Look, you can express what you have learned from hearing or reading "other's" words. BUT, what 'you' have learned is NOT necessarily true, right, or correct AT ALL. Or, do you REALLY BELIEVE what you say here is true, or absolutely true?
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:16 am Your answer has not always been here, right?
Will you provide ANY examples?

Also, what do you mean or are referring to by the word 'here'?
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:16 am You have figured it out over time, you have investigated, learned and tested things and then you came to this conclusion - to the answer that you provided.
But what if, tomorrow, something happens that completely invalidates this answer?
I have LEARNED to NOT provide, so called, "answers" that COULD BE changed. If I did, then they would NOT be thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:16 am What if you find out that all of this is only a simulation (not that I believe this to be the case, but its still a possibility)... what then?
Then I would have found out that "all" of this is only a simulation. Also, I would NOT say some thing, which could be found out to be false, wrong, or incorrect. But, thee ACTUAL Truth IS that "all" of this could NEVER be a simulation ANYWAY. So, this is NOT a possibility AT ALL.

And, if ANY one is Truly CURIOS enough, then I could inform them WHY.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:16 am Was your previous answer to the question really an infallible truth?
This is a resounding YES. And this is because of what an 'infallible Truth' is made up of, EXACTLY.
AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:16 am Or was it just a belief that has been proven wrong?
OBVIOUSLY, it could NOT be a 'belief' BECAUSE I do NOT have ANY 'beliefs'.

So, AGAIN, WHY do you CLAIM that I believe some thing, and, WHAT evidence and/or proof do you have for this CLAIM, of yours, here?
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by AlexW »

Age wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 11:54 am BUT, this still leaves me questioning that one, 'WHY belief ANY thing?' Especially when what you are believing could be false, wrong, or incorrect, anyway?
As I see it, anything that can be expressed via language could be false, wrong, or incorrect and is as such only a perspective or belief (depends how strong such a conviction is held).
Age wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 11:54 am To me, one may be 'sticky' but the other one is 'STUCK'.
There is nothing that is completely "STUCK" - even the most firmly held belief may change if enough evidence is provided that the belief is based on false or incorrect information.

Of course the difference between "slightly sticky" perspectives and more solidified beliefs is not clearly defined - as I see it, there is no specific border where a perspective turns into a belief. Also, most (if not all) beliefs start out as a perspective - once the perspective becomes more integrated and the conviction that it is true increases it solidifies and turns into, what one might call a strongly held perspective or a belief.
A reversal of the process is equally possible, the stickiness of a perspective/belief might decrease over time and eventually it might not be sticky anymore at all - the belief drops away completely.

Many kids, when they are young, believe in Santa - after observing some unusual things over the years (Santa sounds very much like dad, or Santa wears dad's watch or whatever...) the solidly held belief starts to crumble, it disintegrates until - one day - it drops away completely.
Any belief can grow and vanish just like the belief in Santa - its more or less the same process, no matter what one believes.
Age wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 11:54 am If one says, "I believe ...[something]", then either they believe that 'thing' to be true, or they do not. And, if they do not believe 'it' to be true, then WHY say, "I believe ..."?
It's just language... one could say instead: "I think that... xyzzy... is true" - which would be more precise, but most people simply say "I believe that..." - doesn't mean that whatever they think might be the case is a strongly held - very sticky belief - it might as well be just a loosely held perspective.

By the way:
If the definition of belief is: "a perfectly STUCK perspective", then I also do not have any beliefs.
Based on this definition, maybe nobody has any beliefs, as any belief can be dropped as long as there is enough evidence that it is actually wrong.
Age wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 11:54 am I agree with you that there is no such thing as an absolute truth within personal interpretations. This is because of what thee absolute Truth ACTUALLY IS.
OK, good. I agree with you too.
Age wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 11:54 am But a 'conditioned perspective' is NOT necessarily a 'belief' AT ALL. As I can QUITE EASILY and QUITE SIMPLY express a 'conditioned perspective' without EVER 'believing' it to be true.
Well... you still need a certain conviction that what you are saying has some content of truth - otherwise why say anything at all?
If there were not the slightest shred of conviction that statement A has a higher truth content than statement B, all our conversations would just be gibberish.

Someone could say: Monkeys fly in rocket ships deep under the surface of the ocean to catch banana-shaped jellyfish.
I personally believe this statement to be false - I actually believe this quite strongly... but hey... one never knows... someday monkeys might actually do exactly that :-)
Age wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 11:54 am I have LEARNED to NOT provide, so called, "answers" that COULD BE changed. If I did, then they would NOT be thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
If that were so, then you should remain silent - as anything that can be expressed in language is ever only a perspective/point of view, but never absolute truth (at least thats my perspective on the matter).

You might ask: Why? Why do I believe that absolute truth can not be expressed conceptionally (which is: via language)?
My answer: As absolute truth is non conceptual - it has no opposite.
See, the word true only works together with its opposite: false. It there were no false, then true would equally be non existent - if there is no right, then there can be no left etc etc...
Meaning: to state that something is true and correct you need other statements to be incorrect - conceptual language can only express relative truths, but never absolute truths - language/thought works like that.
Absolute truth, as such, is not to be found in conceptual expressions/interpretations - it exists "before" language attempts to conceptualise it.
Truth is very simple: it is this direct experience, the sensation that we name *wind on skin*, *taste of coffee* or *color red*
*wind on skin* doesn't have any opposite. Even we believe that *no wind on skin* is its opposite, this is actually quite wrong - it is simply a different experience, but in no way the opposite to *wind on skin* - the same is true for every experience: *color green* is not the opposite of *color red* - its again simply a different experience, thats all - but whats important: The experience itself is always absolutely true - it IS - thats all that counts (it is not a conceptual interpretation - it is pure undiluted reality - by the way: so is thought, but not what the concepts/things that "arise out of thought" point at)
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Age »

AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:25 am
Age wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 11:54 am BUT, this still leaves me questioning that one, 'WHY belief ANY thing?' Especially when what you are believing could be false, wrong, or incorrect, anyway?
As I see it, anything that can be expressed via language could be false, wrong, or incorrect and is as such only a perspective or belief (depends how strong such a conviction is held).
Could the opposite, or what is contrary, to what you 'see' here be true? That is; could there be some thing that can be expressed via language be true, right, or correct, and therefore NOT be false, wrong, nor incorrect?

By the way, your response to my clarifying question did NOT clarify what I was actually asking and posing.
AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:25 am
Age wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 11:54 am To me, one may be 'sticky' but the other one is 'STUCK'.
There is nothing that is completely "STUCK" - even the most firmly held belief may change if enough evidence is provided that the belief is based on false or incorrect information.
You are STILL NOT understanding what I am actually meaning and pointing out. This could be because you are STUCK in a belief? We will just have to WAIT and SEE.
AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:25 am Of course the difference between "slightly sticky" perspectives and more solidified beliefs is not clearly defined - as I see it, there is no specific border where a perspective turns into a belief.
From what I have observed, and heard, it is VERY CLEAR when there is a CLEAR distinction between just a 'perspective' and a 'belief'.

If you can NOT YET SEE this CLEAR, specific border where a 'perspective' turns into a 'belief', then this is fine and understandable. The reason WHY you can NOT YET SEE this border is already well understood.
AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:25 am Also, most (if not all) beliefs start out as a perspective - once the perspective becomes more integrated and the conviction that it is true increases it solidifies and turns into, what one might call a strongly held perspective or a belief.
A reversal of the process is equally possible, the stickiness of a perspective/belief might decrease over time and eventually it might not be sticky anymore at all - the belief drops away completely.
WHY are you telling me what I have been POINTING OUT and SAYING?
AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:25 am Many kids, when they are young, believe in Santa - after observing some unusual things over the years (Santa sounds very much like dad, or Santa wears dad's watch or whatever...) the solidly held belief starts to crumble, it disintegrates until - one day - it drops away completely.
Any belief can grow and vanish just like the belief in Santa - its more or less the same process, no matter what one believes.
ONCE MORE, BUT WHAT BELIEVE ANY thing? Especially considering the FACT that what one is believing to be true could actually be false?
AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:25 am
Age wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 11:54 am If one says, "I believe ...[something]", then either they believe that 'thing' to be true, or they do not. And, if they do not believe 'it' to be true, then WHY say, "I believe ..."?
It's just language... one could say instead: "I think that... xyzzy... is true" - which would be more precise, but most people simply say "I believe that..." - doesn't mean that whatever they think might be the case is a strongly held - very sticky belief - it might as well be just a loosely held perspective.
THANK YOU.

You have just PROVIDED a PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY 'you', human beings, are NOT YET SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS.

By the way, the way 'you', human beings, say and use words, either internally or externally, has FAR MORE POWER of 'you' than 'you' realize yet, in the days when this is being written.
AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:25 am By the way:
If the definition of belief is: "a perfectly STUCK perspective", then I also do not have any beliefs.
Based on this definition, maybe nobody has any beliefs, as any belief can be dropped as long as there is enough evidence that it is actually wrong.
I think you might have MISSED a word I had been using, and that word was 'whilst'. That is; whilst one has a belief they are NOT OPEN, and the BELIEF can NOT be changed.

OF COURSE ANY belief can be, so called, "dropped". But a belief can only be "dropped" if the human being is, at least, somewhat OPEN to changing/"dropping". BUT, whilst a belief is being maintained and held onto, then that belief can NOT be "dropped" AT ALL.

There is NOT 'enough evidence', nor even proof, in the Universe that 'it' is actually wrong, to those who BELIEVE 'it' is right, or true.

Have you ever tried to provide or show ACTUAL PROOF, let alone just evidence, to one who BELIEVES the opposite?

The very reason WHY there are human beings who BELIEVE/D that the earth is flat, that the earth is the center of the Universe, or that the Universe began and/or is expanding, is because they were NOT OPEN to thee ACTUAL Truth of things. Even though the ACTUAL evidence and PROOF is HERE, for ALL to SEE, and UNDERSTAND.
AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:25 am
Age wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 11:54 am I agree with you that there is no such thing as an absolute truth within personal interpretations. This is because of what thee absolute Truth ACTUALLY IS.
OK, good. I agree with you too.
Age wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 11:54 am But a 'conditioned perspective' is NOT necessarily a 'belief' AT ALL. As I can QUITE EASILY and QUITE SIMPLY express a 'conditioned perspective' without EVER 'believing' it to be true.
Well... you still need a certain conviction that what you are saying has some content of truth - otherwise why say anything at all?
WHY say anything at all is to share what has been observed/experienced. And, what is personally observed/experienced is NOT necessarily thee Truth AT ALL.

Otherwise 'we' would ALL be STUCK believing that the earth is flat, and at the center of the Universe, as this is what is observed, and experienced.
AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:25 am If there were not the slightest shred of conviction that statement A has a higher truth content than statement B, all our conversations would just be gibberish.
You seem to be 'jumping' from one conclusion to another, without EVER actually UNDERSTANDING what I am saying and actually meaning. And, this is because you are NOT clarifying with 'me' in regards to what I am ACTUALLY talking about.
AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:25 am Someone could say: Monkeys fly in rocket ships deep under the surface of the ocean to catch banana-shaped jellyfish.
I personally believe this statement to be false - I actually believe this quite strongly... but hey... one never knows... someday monkeys might actually do exactly that :-)
So, WHY BELIEVE some thing IS FALSE, especially when it might be True?

Is it Truly a bad or wrong suggestion of mine to just become, and REMAIN, Truly OPEN?

Also, is just clarifying with "others" WHY they BELIEVE things, really a bad or wrong thing to do?
AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:25 am
Age wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 11:54 am I have LEARNED to NOT provide, so called, "answers" that COULD BE changed. If I did, then they would NOT be thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
If that were so, then you should remain silent - as anything that can be expressed in language is ever only a perspective/point of view, but never absolute truth (at least thats my perspective on the matter).
OF COURSE what is expressed is ever only a perspective/point of view. But that NEVER means that what is expressed could NEVER be thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

WHY do 'you' have the perspective that EVERY thing expressed could NEVER be an absolute truth?

It sounds here like 'you' are 'trying' your hardest to express an 'absolute truth', from your perspective.

I have mentioned this previously, but EVERY time one 'tries to' suggest that there can NEVER be an 'absolute truth' is, at that exact same moment', 'trying to' express an 'absolute truth'.
AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:25 am You might ask: Why? Why do I believe that absolute truth can not be expressed conceptionally (which is: via language)?
My answer: As absolute truth is non conceptual - it has no opposite.
See, the word true only works together with its opposite: false. It there were no false, then true would equally be non existent - if there is no right, then there can be no left etc etc...
Meaning: to state that something is true and correct you need other statements to be incorrect - conceptual language can only express relative truths, but never absolute truths - language/thought works like that.
I was NEVER going to ask such a question, this is because I ALREADY KNOW EXACTLY WHY you believe such a thing, so the rest of what you wrote here is just PLAIN MOOT.
AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:25 am Absolute truth, as such, is not to be found in conceptual expressions/interpretations - it exists "before" language attempts to conceptualise it.
But 'you' OBVIOUSLY do NOT YET KNOW what 'absolute truth' IS, EXACTLY.
AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:25 am Truth is very simple: it is this direct experience, the sensation that we name *wind on skin*, *taste of coffee* or *color red*
*wind on skin* doesn't have any opposite.
Does *no wind on skin* have an opposite?
AlexW wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:25 am Even we believe that *no wind on skin* is its opposite, this is actually quite wrong - it is simply a different experience, but in no way the opposite to *wind on skin* - the same is true for every experience: *color green* is not the opposite of *color red* - its again simply a different experience, thats all - but whats important: The experience itself is always absolutely true - it IS - thats all that counts (it is not a conceptual interpretation - it is pure undiluted reality - by the way: so is thought, but not what the concepts/things that "arise out of thought" point at)
So, who is this 'we' that believes that *no wind on skin* is the opposite?

And, AGAIN, WHY do 'you', human beings, BELIEVE ANY 'thing'?

Also, if you just expressed what is "always absolutely true" through and with and by 'conceptual language', then HOW and WHY do you express that 'conceptual language' can NEVER express 'absolute truths'?

OBVIOUSLY, what 'you' just expressed here, and absolutely EVERY thing 'you' will express going forward, could NEVER be 'absolutely true' AT ALL, EVER, correct?

By the way, you appear to be MISUNDERSTANDING what I am meaning.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by AlexW »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 9:41 am By the way, you appear to be MISUNDERSTANDING what I am meaning.
I think the misunderstanding is bidirectional - seems to be a common thread in most of your communications with "us human beings" :-)
Age wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 9:41 am And, AGAIN, WHY do 'you', human beings, BELIEVE ANY 'thing'?
And, again, "belief" is just a word, like "perspective" is just a word - both point to a conceptual framework that is, at least for some time, considered to be true and correct. Thats all. There is no need to get all worked up about the apparent difference between belief and perspective - condemning one and accepting the other is just a play with words (and a sad attempt of justifying your own, made up belief of: "I don't believe anything")
Age wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 9:41 am Does *no wind on skin* have an opposite?
You asking this questions makes it perfectly clear that you have not understood what has been said...
Is it so hard to see that every experience, wind or no wind on skin, is perfectly unique and without opposite?
Age wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 9:41 am Also, if you just expressed what is "always absolutely true" through and with and by 'conceptual language', then HOW and WHY do you express that 'conceptual language' can NEVER express 'absolute truths'?
Isn't it obvious that no conceptual description of the directly experienced *wind on skin* can ever be equally true/real than actual reality itself?

What one directly experiences is actually real, while any "conceptual interpretation" of an experience is only a pointer to a certain part of this directly experienced reality.
The concept is an abstraction, the experience is reality itself - now please tell me: How could an abstraction ever be absolutely true? It actually cannot be true/real - simply because only reality is real (which is the same as: absolutely true).

A quick formula to simplify things:
Direct experience = Reality = Absolute Truth
Conceptual thought = Abstraction/Interpretation = Relative Truth

The absolute is primary, the relative is a thought up dimension existing within the absolute (the relative cannot exist on its own - is as such not real -, while the absolute does not require the relative)
Any attempt to define absolute truth within the relative is deemed to fail as the "framework" itself is only a relativistic abstraction of reality, but not reality itself.

I will try to also explain in a slightly different way:
When people talk about "infinity" they often think about it as a very, very large number, even in mathematics certain functions f(x) are defined with the limit of f, as x approaches infinity, being a certain number L.
Now, while this seems to "work" in mathematics and people are happy to think of infinity as a really huge number, both interpretations are actually quite inaccurate.
Why? Simply because infinity is not a very large number, it is no number at all. If at all, one could state that zero (no number at all) = infinity
Its the same with conceptual interpretations and reality itself - no matter how "accurate" the description might be (how huge the number), it will never reach or even be infinity. Reality = no interpretation at all (just like infinity = zero (no number at all))
This is also why in Advaita ("Brahman" alone is ultimately real, the phenomenal world is an illusory appearance - maya - of Brahman) or Non-Duality the phrase "not two" is used (instead of ONE) - it points to the idea that one can only state what reality is not, but never what reality actually is (it is not two, but also not one, neither yellow nor not yellow, neither long nor short etc etc...)

Huang-Po (Zen master, died 850 AD) once said (who expressed this very well):
Buddhas and sentient beings both grow out of One Mind, and there is no other reality than this Mind. It has been in existence since the beginningless past; it knows neither birth nor death; it is neither blue nor yellow; it has neither shape nor form; it is beyond the category of being and non-being; it is not to be measured by age, old or new; it is neither long nor short; it is neither large nor small; for it transcends all limits, words, traces, and opposites. It must be taken just as it is in itself; when an attempt is made on our part to grasp it in our thoughts, it eludes. It is like space whose boundaries are altogether beyond measurement; no concepts are applicable here.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Age »

AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
Age wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 9:41 am By the way, you appear to be MISUNDERSTANDING what I am meaning.
I think the misunderstanding is bidirectional - seems to be a common thread in most of your communications with "us human beings" :-)
Some people accuse me of not understanding them, sometimes, however, if examples are not given, then we can NOT look at NOR discuss what the actual "accusation" is of, EXACTLY.
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
Age wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 9:41 am And, AGAIN, WHY do 'you', human beings, BELIEVE ANY 'thing'?
And, again, "belief" is just a word, like "perspective" is just a word
What do you mean by, "just a word"?

Do words have meaning/s? Are words given meaning/s, by 'you', human beings?
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am - both point to a conceptual framework that is, at least for some time, considered to be true and correct. Thats all.
So, when 'you' use the words, "I believe ...", then do 'you', at that moment, BELIEVE 'that thing' to be true or correct, or not?

Also your use of the "at least for some time" is the VERY REASON WHY I used the word 'whilst' in my CLAIM that 'whilst 'you' are BELIEVING some 'thing' to be true, then 'you' are NOT Truly OPEN to ANY thing opposing NOR contrary to that 'thing'.

Really, is there ANY thing that 'you' are 'trying to' dispute or refute in what I have just said, and meant, here?
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am There is no need to get all worked up about the apparent difference between belief and perspective
I have NEVER got "all worked up" about even the actual difference between belief and perspective let alone EVER getting "all worked up" about the "apparent difference" between those two words.

The FACT IS there is a difference. End of story.
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am - condemning one and accepting the other is just a play with words
I have NEVER "condemned" one. I ACCEPT them BOTH for how they are defined and what they ACTUALLY mean.
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am (and a sad attempt of justifying your own, made up belief of: "I don't believe anything")
Take about "one attempting to justify their own BELIEF" here.

And, I do NOT have a BELIEF that I believe anything.

I just NEITHER believe NOR disbelieve ANY thing. Again, this is just a FACT, which can NOT be refuted.

Is it really that HARD for 'you' to contemplate and consider that just maybe NOT ALL BELIEVE things.

Is it really IMPOSSIBLE for you to consider that one does NOT 'have to' BELIEVE things?
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
Age wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 9:41 am Does *no wind on skin* have an opposite?
You asking this questions makes it perfectly clear that you have not understood what has been said...
Could it have been asked in ANY other way?
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am Is it so hard to see that every experience, wind or no wind on skin, is perfectly unique and without opposite?
Is it so hard to see that what 'you' ARE is SOLELY due to the FACT that EVERY experience that that body has experienced is what has caused and CREATED 'you'? Thus, this is WHY 'you' are an unique and individual person?
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am
Age wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 9:41 am Also, if you just expressed what is "always absolutely true" through and with and by 'conceptual language', then HOW and WHY do you express that 'conceptual language' can NEVER express 'absolute truths'?
Isn't it obvious that no conceptual description of the directly experienced *wind on skin* can ever be equally true/real than actual reality itself?
But NOTHING can be equally true/real with SOME 'thing' nor with ANY 'thing' else. The word 'else' here makes this VERY CLEAR and OBVIOUS. That is; if there is SOME 'thing' or ANY 'thing' 'else', then that are NOT the SAME 'thing', and therefore could NEVER be equally true NOR real.

However, in expressing this CLEARLY OBVIOUS FACT a 'conceptual description' is as close as one can get, and, in fact, IS the ONLY True and REAL way to CLEARLY EXPRESS ANY and EVERY experience, on the body.

Conceptual descriptions, by the way, can and does CLEARLY EXPRESS thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am What one directly experiences is actually real, while any "conceptual interpretation" of an experience is only a pointer to a certain part of this directly experienced reality.
OF COURSE, WHY would 'you' even think otherwise?

A 'conceptual interpretation' can also express thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

Also, are 'you' able to express CLEARLY who and/or what this 'one' here IS that supposedly 'directly experiences', which 'you' are referring to?
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am The concept is an abstraction, the experience is reality itself - now please tell me: How could an abstraction ever be absolutely true?
How an 'abstraction' could ever be and IS ALWAYS absolutely true is when the abstraction is expressing an absolute Truth.

If one is NOT lying AT ALL, and is therefore EXPRESS thee Truth, thee WHOLE Truth, and NOTHING but thee Truth, then how could 'that', which is being expressed, by ANY thing other than thee 'absolutely true'?
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am It actually cannot be true/real - simply because only reality is real (which is the same as: absolutely true).
Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of BELIEF at work.

You ask "another" to tell you, HOW something could happen/take place, but you go straight into "it can NOT even happen/take place' NEVER response, without EVER listening to "another" let alone even give the "other" a chance to talk. Which CLEARLY SHOWS 'your' OWN strongly held onto and maintained BELIEF, which CLEARLY STOPS 'you' from being able to learn and SEE more nor anew, or even thee ACTUAL Truth of things, here.

But what 'you' are doing here is PROVING what I have been saying and CLAIMING. So, thank you.
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am A quick formula to simplify things:
Direct experience = Reality = Absolute Truth
Conceptual thought = Abstraction/Interpretation = Relative Truth
If you say and BELIEVE so, then this is what and how 'things' are, to you.

Also, and remember, that EVERY thing you say is NOT ACTUALLY True but is rather just a 'relative truth', to 'you' ONLY.
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am The absolute is primary, the relative is a thought up dimension existing within the absolute (the relative cannot exist on its own - is as such not real -, while the absolute does not require the relative)
Any attempt to define absolute truth within the relative is deemed to fail as the "framework" itself is only a relativistic abstraction of reality, but not reality itself.
Have 'you' FORGOTTEN ALREADY that 'we' HAVE ALREADY AGREED on this?

LOOK, what I am saying, and MEANING, will NEVER be understood by 'you', whilst 'you' continue to ASSUME and BELIEVE the things that you are here. Which, MOST OF, has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I have been saying, AND MEANING.
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am I will try to also explain in a slightly different way:
What is 'it', EXACTLY, which you think or believe I DO NOT UNDERSTAND?
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am When people talk about "infinity" they often think about it as a very, very large number, even in mathematics certain functions f(x) are defined with the limit of f, as x approaches infinity, being a certain number L.
Now, while this seems to "work" in mathematics and people are happy to think of infinity as a really huge number, both interpretations are actually quite inaccurate.
OF COURSE, 'infinite', by definition, is INFINITE, which MEANS NO number NOR NO amount NO matter how "huge", nor "small".
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am Why? Simply because infinity is not a very large number, it is no number at all.
You have gone SO FAR OFF TRACK now.

MANY people say MANY different things, but SO WHAT?
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am If at all, one could state that zero (no number at all) = infinity
Its the same with conceptual interpretations and reality itself - no matter how "accurate" the description might be (how huge the number), it will never reach or even be infinity. Reality = no interpretation at all (just like infinity = zero (no number at all))
THEREFORE, YOUR INTERPRETATION here IS NOT, and WILL NEVER BE, REAL NOR True either, CORRECT?

Your Truly Honest answer WILL BE MUCH APPRECIATED.
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am This is also why in Advaita ("Brahman" alone is ultimately real, the phenomenal world is an illusory appearance - maya - of Brahman) or Non-Duality the phrase "not two" is used (instead of ONE) - it points to the idea that one can only state what reality is not, but never what reality actually is (it is not two, but also not one, neither yellow nor not yellow, neither long nor short etc etc...)
BUT, there is EVER ONLY One, which is "separated" ONLY by 'you', which is just 'conceptual thoughts'.

Truth, and Reality, REALLY is this SIMPLE and this EASY to UNDERSTAND, FULLY.
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am Huang-Po (Zen master, died 850 AD) once said (who expressed this very well):
But NOT "well enough" to reach thee Truth of things correct?

If yes, therefore what that one expressed is NOT thee ACTUAL Truth of things. So, it does NOT matter how well or how bad 'you', human beings, express things, they will ALWAYS NEVER be thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

So, WHY are 'you' ALL wasting your time here 'trying' to tell each "other" what the truth is?
AlexW wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:10 am Buddhas and sentient beings both grow out of One Mind, and there is no other reality than this Mind. It has been in existence since the beginningless past; it knows neither birth nor death; it is neither blue nor yellow; it has neither shape nor form; it is beyond the category of being and non-being; it is not to be measured by age, old or new; it is neither long nor short; it is neither large nor small; for it transcends all limits, words, traces, and opposites. It must be taken just as it is in itself; when an attempt is made on our part to grasp it in our thoughts, it eludes. It is like space whose boundaries are altogether beyond measurement; no concepts are applicable here.
This is OBVIOUSLY NOT True AT ALL, and thus False, well according to 'your' OWN relative truth and "logic" that is.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by AlexW »

Age wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:26 pm So, when 'you' use the words, "I believe ...", then do 'you', at that moment, BELIEVE 'that thing' to be true or correct, or not?
Sure, otherwise I wouldn't say so.
Age wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:26 pm Also your use of the "at least for some time" is the VERY REASON WHY I used the word 'whilst' in my CLAIM that 'whilst 'you' are BELIEVING some 'thing' to be true, then 'you' are NOT Truly OPEN to ANY thing opposing NOR contrary to that 'thing'.
This might be the case for you, but as I see it, one can always be open for a new perspective if it is more reasonable than the old one (which might be believed to be true at the time).
Age wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:26 pm And, I do NOT have a BELIEF that I believe anything.

I just NEITHER believe NOR disbelieve ANY thing. Again, this is just a FACT, which can NOT be refuted.
The nor/neither thing only works for non-conceptual/absolute reality, not for thought-world - beliefs and perspectives are part of thought world, as such one cannot "NEITHER believe NOR disbelieve ANY thing".
You either believe something or you don't, but thought (the personal self) cannot do both - there is one other option: to be quiet and not make any statement at all, as otherwise you already display that you actually believe more in what you say than in its opposite.

Now, you seem to be attempting to "channel" or impersonate "thee ONE MIND", the absolute, God... whatever... and I guess this is why you talk to "us human beings" the way you do, its why, when you say "I" you actually mean: "thee ONE MIND" - but as I see it, this is utter nonsense.
"Thee ONE MIND" doesn't have a specific way of talking, it doesn't need to be impersonated nor should some personal self mix itself up with the absolute.
Age wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:26 pm A 'conceptual interpretation' can also express thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
No... Trying to express absolute truth using concepts is like trying to add up more and more numbers to reach infinity - its simply impossible.
Yes, one can express truths using concepts, but these truths are always only conceptual/relativistic/dualistic truths (even the idea that there is something like a "truth" is a concept - the absolute is neither true nor false, so what can one say about it that is true? Absolutely nothing.)
Age wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:26 pm THEREFORE, YOUR INTERPRETATION here IS NOT, and WILL NEVER BE, REAL NOR True either, CORRECT?
It will never be absolutely true - but it might hold a higher degree of (relative) truth compared to other interpretations (but at the end, all interpretations are infinitely far away from absolute truth)
Age wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:26 pm So, WHY are 'you' ALL wasting your time here 'trying' to tell each "other" what the truth is?
I don't know... why are you?
My guess is: just for fun :-)
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Age »

AlexW wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:58 am
Age wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:26 pm So, when 'you' use the words, "I believe ...", then do 'you', at that moment, BELIEVE 'that thing' to be true or correct, or not?
Sure, otherwise I wouldn't say so.
And, while you are BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, then are you OPEN to the opposite or contrary being true as well?

Your Truly Honest answer will be very much appreciated here, and everywhere else.
Age wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:26 pm Also your use of the "at least for some time" is the VERY REASON WHY I used the word 'whilst' in my CLAIM that 'whilst 'you' are BELIEVING some 'thing' to be true, then 'you' are NOT Truly OPEN to ANY thing opposing NOR contrary to that 'thing'.
This might be the case for you, but as I see it, one can always be open for a new perspective if it is more reasonable than the old one (which might be believed to be true at the time).[/quote]

BUT there is NO "old one" WHILST you are BELIEVING that 'thing' to be true.

There can ONLY be an "old one" if that BELIEF has ALREADY CHANGED. You appear to be completely MISUNDERSTANDING this FACT and POINT.
AlexW wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:58 am
Age wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:26 pm And, I do NOT have a BELIEF that I believe anything.

I just NEITHER believe NOR disbelieve ANY thing. Again, this is just a FACT, which can NOT be refuted.
The nor/neither thing only works for non-conceptual/absolute reality, not for thought-world - beliefs and perspectives are part of thought world, as such one cannot "NEITHER believe NOR disbelieve ANY thing".
So, are you NOW saying that there is NOTHING, in this Universe, which 'you' BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE.

Also, 'I' do NOT belong in the 'thought world'. That realm is SOLELY for 'you'. But to Truly UNDERSTAND this FACT is done by KNOWING who and what 'I' am - thy True Self.
AlexW wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:58 am You either believe something or you don't, but thought (the personal self) cannot do both - the is only one other options, to be quiet and no make any statement as otherwise you already display that you actually believe in what you say (at leat more than in the opposite of what you are saying).
You only BELIEVE that "another" is actually "believing" in what they say if 'you' CHOOSE to BELIEVE that this is true.

Do you BELIEVE that a new born human baby is BELIEVING in what they say, when they make noises?

Do you BELIEVE that a very young human child is BELIEVING in what they say, when they say their first words?

'you', human beings, ONLY BELIEVE some thing is true IF 'you' CHOOSE to BELIEVE that thing is true.

Some, like me, can say MANY and EVERY word without necessarily BELIEVING those words are true. This is the fourth option. I do this by CLEARLY EXPRESSING that these words that I am about to say are just 'my perspective' of things, which have come from just what I have observed and/or experienced, and which could be true or false, right or wrong, and/or correct or incorrect.

Contrary to YOUR, and popular, BELIEF it is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to CHOOSE to do BOTH, NEITHER believe nor disbelieve ANY thing.

I PURPOSELY CHOOSE to NEITHER BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE what I say BECAUSE I CHOOSE to REMAIN OPEN ALWAYS. As I found this is the BEST WAY to continue to learn more and anew.

BUT, if you WANT to CHOOSE to BELIEVE otherwise, then PLEASE do NOT let 'me' prevent 'you' from doing so.
AlexW wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:58 am Now, you seem to be attempting to "channel" or impersonate "thee ONE MIND", the absolute, God... whatever... and I guess this is why you talk to "us human beings" the way you do, its why when you say "I" you actually mean "thee ONE MIND", but this is utter nonsense.
You start CLAIM here that 'I' "seem to be attempting ... ]something]", but then finish with "but this is utter nonsense".

If you want to speak thee ACTUAL Truth of things, then CLEARLY say what you mean AND mean what you say.

And, HOW could 'one' "channel" or impersonate 'thee One Mind/God'? What is 'one', EXACTLY, and what is thee One Mind/God, EXACTLY?

Also, 'you' made the GUESS that this is why I talk to "us, human beings". I am NOT SURE HOW MANY TIMES it will be Truly and FULLY UNDERSTOOD that when I suggest if 'you', human beings, Truly want to UNDERSTAND each other BETTER, then it is BEST that 'you' NEVER ASSUME/GUESS and just ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, INSTEAD. That way 'you' can NEVER be as Wrong as 'you' are, and as OFTEN as 'you' are.

Now, 'what', EXACTLY, do 'you' propose there is "utter nonsense"?
AlexW wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:58 am "Thee ONE MIND" doesn't have a specific way of talking, it doesn't need to be impersonated nor should some personal self mix itself up with the absolute.
But there is NO "personal self" mixing itself up with thee absolute and ONLY One, in the words here under the label "age". This is because 'I' KNOW who and what which one IS.

It is 'you', human beings, who and what have been mixing things up, for thousands upon thousands of years. Which is WHY 'you' are STILL SO CONFUSED and STILL LOOKING FOR ANSWERS. Or, are 'you' now going to CLAIM that 'you' are NOT CONFUSED and are NOT LOOKING FOR ANSWERS?
AlexW wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:58 am
Age wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:26 pm A 'conceptual interpretation' can also express thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
No... Trying to express absolute truth using concepts is like trying to add up more and more numbers to reach infinity - its simply impossible.
And, LOL, is this an 'absolute truth? Because if it is NOT, then what IS?

But if what you just said and claimed here is the 'absolute truth', then 'you' are ONCE AGAIN 'contradicting' "your" 'self'. But 'you' doing this is just SO SIMPLE and SO EASY for 'you' BECAUSE 'you' STILL do NOT YET KNOW 'who' nor 'what' 'you' ARE.
AlexW wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:58 am Yes, can express truths using concepts, but these truths are always only conceptual/relativistic/dualistic truths (even the idea that there is something like a "truth" is a concept - the absolute is neither true not false, so what can one say about it that is true? Nothing.)
If this is what 'you' WANT to continue to CHOOSE to BELIEVE is true, then this is ONLY what you can, and will, SEE.

What you are doing and SHOWING here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of when a human being BELIEVES some 'thing' is true, and as such is NOT OPEN AT ALL to ANY thing else opposing or contrary to that BELIEF.

And what is ALSO OBVIOUS is that 'you' are MAINTAINING this BELIEF solely on the words of "others", which you have read or heard. I suggest LOOKING WITHIN for ANSWERS, and NOT LOOKING towards "others" for answers. They will only lead 'you' astray. As has been EVIDENCED and PROVEN from, and throughout, human history, itself.
AlexW wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:58 am
Age wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:26 pm THEREFORE, YOUR INTERPRETATION here IS NOT, and WILL NEVER BE, REAL NOR True either, CORRECT?
It will never be absolutely true - but it might hold a higher degree of (relative) truth compared to other interpretations (but at the end, all interpretations are infinitely far away from absolute truth)
This is WHY I do NOT do 'interpretation'. I ONLY LOOK AT and DISCUSS thee ACTUAL Truth ONLY. As can be EVIDENCED and PROVEN from, and throughout, 'my' writings and words.

Remember 'you' (relative) truth IS the actual (absolute) Truth can NEVER be known. Which, as can be clearly seen, is quite a CLAIM.

By the way, 'you' ONLY BELIEVE this to be true BECAUSE 'you' have just NOT YET learned HOW to discover, find, and SEE thee ACTUAL Truth of things. Which is TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE because ALL of 'you', human beings, forever throughout human history have ALWAYS DISBELIEVED 'things' are possible UNTIL they actually become REAL and ACTUALLY True. This is just how the human brain, with its BELIEF-system, works.

The human brain lays in DISBELIEF, UNTIL thee ACTUAL Truth becomes KNOWN to 'it'.
Age wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:26 pm So, WHY are 'you' ALL wasting your time here 'trying' to tell each "other" what the truth is?
I don't know... why are you?
My guess is: just for fun :-)
[/quote]

But 'I' am NOT trying to tell 'you', human beings, what the truth is. That is the EASY PART. As thee ACTUAL Truth speaks for Itself. 'I' am just learning how to express, clearly, to 'you', people, HOW 'you' can find and discover what thee ACTUAL Truth IS for, and by, "your" own "selves".

But 'I' can NOT teach NOR show ANY one, ANY thing, if they are NOT Truly OPEN or NOT Truly CURIOS to learning something new, nor more. For example, it is, literally, IMPOSSIBLE to teach or show someone how to find thee absolute Truth of things WHILST they BELIEVE that the absolute Truth of things can NOT be known, correct?

Or, do 'I' have this WRONG, also?
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do thoughts affect reality?

Post by Age »

AlexW wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:58 am
Age wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:26 pm So, WHY are 'you' ALL wasting your time here 'trying' to tell each "other" what the truth is?
I don't know... why are you?
My guess is: just for fun :-)
Oh, and by the way, do 'you' REALLY have that much, so called, 'fun' 'trying to' to teach or tell "each other" what the actual 'truth' is?

From what I have observed 'you', human beings, spent far more time 'bickering', 'disputing', 'fighting' and even 'killing' "each other" what 'you' ALL BELIEVE the actual truth is, instead of having 'fun'.

But that is just 'my' observation. 'Your' observations, OBVIOUSLY, might be completely different.
Post Reply