bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
You are very welcome.
No problem. I am open to discuss things.
We have always existed as mind, mind being the essence of any being/thing with the ability to experience and cause.
When you use the word 'we' having always existed as 'mind', is that the collective 'we' as one, and that is also is the one Mind/Essence, right?
After all, 'always existed' implies an eternalness to it. And, 'we', individual, human beings, have not always existed.
Or, are there many 'minds' that have always existed?
That was my mistake. I should have written minds instead of mind.
I was hoping you were going to keep as the singular mind, but not to matter.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
Do you see/mean the 'we' as individuals, each with its own 'mind/essence'?
Yes.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
If so, then is this individual mind just a part of some Universal One Mind? Or, is there some thing else going on here?
We are separate minds.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
We just have a chance to interact with material as a form of human being now.We have been other things in the past.
Fair enough, but that does not explain HOW human beings did come to exist, if they are not caused/created.
Yes, that is completely another story. I believe that things have been evolving because of existence of minds.
I can accept and agree that within each and every smallest sub-atomic particle of matter there is, what I call 'Mind', and you would call 'minds', (correct me if i am wrong here), and within that Mind/minds there is a 'knowledge or knowing', embedded/encrypted in the dna, for lack of better wording, that causes/creates EVERY thing the way that IT is NOW. 'NOW' just being
any given moment. The natural law of cause and effect being this knowledge embedded deep within EVERY physical thing. The molecules are being bounced around, like snooker balls hitting each other, producing, causing, or creating the Universe the way that It is NOW.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
Let me give you a couple of examples to show what do I mean with the first premise. Think of a seed which turns into a tree. The causation is a at work at any moment of its development from one stage to another stage. Yet knowledge which is encrypted as DNA exists in the seed and it is necessary for the development of the seed. Now think of a cue ball which hits another ball. Again, the balls react upon collision based on their nature. Knowledge requires for causation since things should go somewhere, an end from a beginning.
The word 'knowledge' is what did not make sense to me, in your argument, and of which seemed incorrect, the first time i read it. But as explained the second time i read it, i could see that what you said expressed a truth. To me, a 'paradox' is just some thing which SEEMS absurd or contradictory but which ACTUALLY does express a truth.
How do you define the word 'knowledge'?
Knowledge is what is derived from the relation between concepts. Knowledge is something encrypted in any statement: We have concepts, "it", "raining", "is" and sum of them "it is raining". We know something when it is said that "it is raining".
But only human beings, as far as they know, have/hold knowledge, IF 'knowledge' is
something encrypted in any statement and only human beings make statements, (within the brain or within speech and/or writings) then some might suggest that your first premise; Causation requires knowledge would not be true, not right, and/or nor correct because they would see that causation was happening BEFORE human beings came into existence, and here you are saying that knowledge is something encrypted in any statement, and of which I am aware ONLY human beings make statements.
Again, please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.
However, if the definition of 'knowledge' was changed to something like; is something which is encrypted within the Mind of EVERY thing, then that could/would work better. By the way, I use the word Mind instead of minds because there being only One Mind, then It would be working in One way only, in unity and uniformly, whereas, minds could/would be working in all manner of different ways, which could/would cause separation and/or chaos, or just a plain 'mess'.
Obviously, at the point of NOW when this is written most human beings do see a very clear separation, and, chaos, but, relatively soon, the opposite will be SHOWN, and thus seen. A Theory of Everything is being created, which will show how EVERY thing is united as One.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
You did not need to give examples here because this is how i understood it, the second time around anyway. But I will say that with each perceived beginning there may be an, also perceived, end, however, there is no actual beginning as there was no actual end.
Yes. Beginning and end define a step of causality.
The defined step of causality is only an agreed upon terminology or conceptual step because I have yet to see how there could be an actual and real physical step of causality.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
This applies to the act of creation of mind if such a thing is possible.
But such a thing could not be possible as you have already stated, 'We have always existed as mind'. If 'we' (when who/what the 'we' actually is revealed/known, then that makes understanding ALL of this much easier), but anyway, if 'we' have ALWAYS EXISTED as 'mind', then there is, obviously, NO creation of mind.
I meant if mind is created then a knowledge related to such a act is required. I need to assume so and show that it leads to a contradiction. The opposite is then correct.[/quote]
Why do you NEED to assume so, (or assume any thing for that matter)?
Let us just continue to LOOK AT
what IS, instead?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
God should have specific knowledge in order to create a mind.
Again, how could God 'create' a 'mind', if 'mind' has ALWAYS existed?
I meant, if creation of mind was possible then the appropriate knowledge is required. We assume this and see that this leads to a contradiction, basically premises (1) and (4) contradict each other. (4) is true therefore (1) is wrong.
To me your argument is unnecessary complex.
Since 'God' has never REALLY been defined accurately. Let us just continue on saying that there is only one Mind, which is within EVERY physical thing and which Itself is encrypted with knowledge (this may appear circular from definition above but this can be clarified and cleared up later) that is causing/creating EVERY thing, the way It IS, then that Mind is the ALL-KNOWING Creator of EVERY thing. (However, if you insist that there are many minds, and not just one Mind, then this will need more explaining on your part).
One 'Mind' within EVERY thing, but many different 'thoughts' within every (human) body, for me anyway, SHOWS a much clearer picture of things. This by the way is just one minute detail that needs to be explained with many other things for the big and full picture to be SEEN and fully understood.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
You are very close to coming to understand this fully, but you can not and will not gain fully
understanding with a contradictory view like this one is.
I don't think if there is any contradiction in my understanding. This was just a misunderstanding.
Of course you do not think there is any contradiction in your understanding. If you did think there was, then your
understanding would instantly, and automatically, change. From birth until that body stops breathing and pumping blood understanding is not fixed and rigid.
Understanding is always movable and changing depending on what appears contradictory,wrong, true, right, et cetera.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
The first premise is in fact very general and the act of creation is one example of it.
I do not understand what you mean by 'the act of creation', nor that that act being 'one example of it'. What 'act of creation', and what is the 'it'?
Let's say the creation instead of act of creation. By it I meant the first premise.
I very much appreciate you answering EVERY and ALL of my questions. It is so rare in this day and age. You doing this also helps me so much in gaining a much better perspective of where you are ACTUALLY coming from, without me having to ASSUME any thing at all.
Although, and truthfully, I am NOT fully understanding your statement here, I think we can leave it for now. Unless, of course, you would like to elaborate further.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
I already explain what I think is true about our existence.
When did you? I must of missed it.
I mentioned that we have always existed. That is another conclusion of the argument: We have always existed if we could not be created.
I will have to clarify now; Who/what is the 'we' here?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
What is true about our existence?
That we have always existed.
I will wait for your definition of 'we'.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
How did you humans come into existence if they were not caused/created?
We have always existed therefore we were not created.
Some may find that hard to comprehend, or even an impossibility. But I can leave this for now, knowing that it can be very easily explained and cleared up later on.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
To me reality is very simple. It has two ingredient: 1) Minds and 2) The stuff created by minds.
How many 'minds' (with s) are there?
I guess infinite. I don't have any argument in favor of this claim though.
If you want to stick with using the word 'minds', then you could argue that there are as many 'minds' as there are particles of matter.
But I much prefer to use the word 'Mind' instead. Every thing else can and does follow on much easier then.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
If there was 'stuff' before human beings existed, then where else do you propose these 'minds' are, which creates stuff?
Another level of reality. I believe that reality has infinite levels. We just don't have access to higher level.
Human beings may not have that access. But the reasons WHY can be easily understood when other things are understood and KNOWN first.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
The first thing is very essence of us. The second, we experience, we live within, and we communicate by it, etc.
I do agree with you, up to a certain extent. But you will have to be able to answer the clarifying questions sufficiently and so show a uniformed picture. Answering the questions properly and correctly will show how this uniformed picture was formed. However, until then from what I see of Reality it is much simpler than how you are trying to explain it here. Although as I suggested previously you are far closer than any one else has been at understanding, and explaining this.
Thanks. There are several questions that I have no answer for them yet.
Totally understandable.
But just KNOW that those answers can be very easily answered and will be very simply.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmI am however ready to explain things that I have understood the best I can.
And you are doing that perfectly.
Again very much appreciated.
The only thing that I ask for is total honesty and openness, of which you are doing.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
The stuff that we experience is caused.
Are you able to explain who/what 'we' are/is?
We are simply minds embedded inside the stuff.
Perfect response, and thus perfect answer.
Although there is a little bit more to the actual True answer your theme follows and is consistent.
There is one thing though that I would like to point out. Before I asked you;
"How did you humans come into existence if they were not caused/created? And you replied;
"We have always existed therefore we were not created."
But now you are saying; " 'We' are simply minds ....".
Are you classing 'humans' as having a human body or just the, what you call, 'minds' within the human body?
Some might say this is just pedantic, but to get this 100% fully understood, then ALL of it needs to be 100% correctly explained fully.
By the way, are you able to consider that there is only One Mind, which is embedded inside the, or ALL, what you call "stuff".
I just call 'stuff',
physical things also, by the way. And, I call 'we', individuals, the 'person', which are the
thoughts and emotions, within a human body. Or, 'we', collective, either
ALL people, or ALL things, depending on the discussion.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
That is a little long.
I do not understand. What is a little long?
The explainaing of how we come to be in here.
The explaining has taken thousands of millenia, but relatively speaking it will not be much longer.
Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
To me minds existed at the beginning.
How many 'minds' existed at the "beginning", and when was that 'beginning'?
Beginning lies at eternal past. All mind existed at the beginning.[/quote]
What you call 'beginning' here I just call the 'NOW' (capital letters). To me, there is really only a NOW, which as you say lies at eternal past, and what I would add lies at eternal "future". At any given moment there is only a NOW, and this is the end, which is also just the beginning. What happens NOW creates (a perceived "future"), and, is the result (of a perceived "past").
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
There was nothing but minds and time (time cannot be created, I have an argument for that).
I would love to hear that argument, sometime.
Here is the argument: Time is fundamental variable of any dynamical theory. This means that time cannot be an emergent property of any dynamical theory otherwise we are dealing with a contradiction. Therefore time cannot be created/emergent.
What this arguments states is simply that you need time in first place, because time is fundamental variable, in order to create time and this a contradiction. Time could not be emergent either.
There is no such thing as actual time. But rather 'time' is just a concept, used to measure between perceived breaks and/or periods within the One Event. Clocks, or time pieces, are just tools used to make these measurements. I say there is no such thing as time because things are not not changed to fit in with these human being made measuring tools, (clocks, time pieces, watches, et cetera), instead, human beings change these measuring tools to fit in with that one star, called "the sun", that is closest to earth. Or, more correctly, clocks are changed in relation to light.
I also say there is no such actual thing as time because imagine placing one's self anywhere on earth, or for that matter anywhere in the Universe, and tell us what is (the) time? If you can not tell us what (the) time IS, then that infers that there is no such actual thing as time unless in relation to (rays of) light.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
So the beginning started either as a result of a Mind wishing to creating the stuff or as a result of nothingness being unstable could turns into all possible things.
Before you said, " 'minds' existed at the beginning", but now you are saying "the beginning started with 'a Mind' (or for some other reason). So, was there was one Mind, or, minds (with an s)?
I mean that stuff didn't exist.
Was there ever a period of NO 'stuff', or NO
physical things?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
A 'Mind', or 'minds', that always existed, without absolutely anything else existing, seems a bit far fetched. What seems more inconceivable that one "day" or at some point, this Mind or minds suddenly wished to create stuff. What also seems just as inconceivable is how 'nothingness' could become unstable, and then that turns into stuff.
There was either a Mind who created the stuff or the nothingness (no stuff) in presence of minds is unstable. We don't have any other option.
What about the option that there always exists 'stuff',
physical things, AND, Mind?
If that option is LOOKED AT, agreed upon, and accepted, then I KNOW ALL else falls into place, like a jigsaw puzzle, perfectly. Forming a crystal clear True picture of ALL-THERE-IS.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
There is a far quicker, very simply conceived, and more easily understood explanation of how ALL of this came to be.
What is that?
How much "time" do you have?
Also, asking clarifying questions to, and of, me to begin with, then gives me somewhere to start, for you. Every person is at different points of where to begin with this. Also, even though a philosophy forum is not the best place for this, I am willing to give it a go. I also much prefer if I am questioned, quizzed, critiqued, challenged, and SHOWN where, when and WHY I am WRONG as much as possible.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
The creation or the universe is eternal in the sense that its origin lays in infinite past since time cannot be created and it is eternal.
This is all well and good. But it is contradictory to say, "minds existed at the '
beginning' ", and then say, "The creation or the universe is, '
eternal' ". If some thing has a beginning, then it obviously could not be eternal, and vice-versa, if some thing is eternal, then it obviously could not have a beginning.
There is no contradiction in here if we can agree that the beginning lies at eternal past.
Yes we can totally agree here NOW. But I would still much prefer to use a phrase like, thee Mind exists NOW rather than 'minds'.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Also, again how many 'minds' do you propose was at this "beginning"?
All minds. Whatever number of minds exist now existed at the beginning.
Could we agree that there are as many 'minds',
thoughts 'existed at the beginning', or NOW, as there are people existing NOW?
To me, there is One Mind, but many people or thoughts existing at any given moment of NOW. I say, "existing at any given moment of NOW" because it is only through an intelligent animal like human beings that the One Mind can become conscious, and/or aware of Itself. So, it is only at that moment of NOW, when people/human beings are existing and have evolved enough that the phrase "existing at any given moment of NOW' would apply.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pmAge wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
Thank you.
Just a hint; one reason human beings have not yet unraveled the, so called, "mysteries" of the Universe, like what actually IS 'God' and so forth, yet, is because human beings think/believe that there are many "minds". Discovering and understanding what the one 'Mind' actually IS, and how It works, creates, and interacts in relation to, and with, the human brain, then the solution of HOW to solve ALL of those, past, "mysteries" starts being revealed,and becoming more obvious.
With this revealing knowledge, then comes the realization of how ALL of these answers are already KNOWN, but are, at the moment, to most human beings, just hidden. Part of this revealing knowledge contains HOW ALL of this 'knowledge' was being hidden, and more importantly, WHY it was being hidden, hitherto.
I agree with you.