An Analogy, From Physical To Mind

[surreptitious57]

If some thing can be argued then is it even worth arguing about it ?

There will always be differences of opinion between minds therefore arguments cannot be avoided
Though I prefer conversation to argument myself as that is not defined in terms of winners or losers
But until there is universal agreement between minds then conversations / arguments shall continue

[Age]

If some thing can be argued then is it even worth arguing about it ?

There will always be differences of opinion between minds therefore arguments cannot be avoided

Why do you continue to use the word 'minds'? What is a 'mind', and, how does a 'mind' work actually?

Do you think it would be easier for other "people" to understand you more fully if you used the word 'people' instead of 'minds'?

Also, are you not able to have a difference of opinion without arguing?

Though I prefer conversation to argument myself as that is not defined in terms of winners or losers

But 'argument' is not necessarily defined in terms of winners or losers at all.

The main point I used the word 'argue', in the context I did, is for this very reason.

I prefer to argue, for example, because it is through argument that universal agreement can be reached, and very quickly, very easily and very simply.

But until there is universal agreement between minds then conversations / arguments shall continue

Is that what you believe is true or only just what you think will happen?

Also, even after there is universal agreement I think you will find conversations will continue on, and as for 'arguments' then if they continue on orn not could be logically reasoned out.

[surreptitious57]

Do you think it would be easier for other people to understand you more fully if you used the word people instead of minds

That could be true but I avoid using the word people as much as possible as I much prefer minds instead
For me the word people is too vague and general and so I do not use it unless it is absolutely necessary

[Age]

Do you think it would be easier for other people to understand you more fully if you used the word people instead of minds

That could be true but I avoid using the word people as much as possible as I much prefer minds instead
For me the word people is too vague and general and so I do not use it unless it is absolutely necessary

If the word 'people' is too vague and general for you, then that implies that the word 'minds' is not as vague and is more specific, so how do you define the word 'minds'?

[surreptitious57]

If the word people is too vague and general for you then that implies that the word
minds is not as vague and is more specific so how do you define the word minds

When I use the word minds it is a reference to the cognitive capability of human beings
And I prefer the word because it is more clinical and precise than the word people which usually does not refer cognitive capability at all
This is how it is from my own perspective so I do not expect other minds to agree with me as what I am saying here is entirely subjective

[Age]

If the word people is too vague and general for you then that implies that the word
minds is not as vague and is more specific so how do you define the word minds

When I use the word minds it is a reference to the cognitive capability of human beings

Is the cognitive capability in a younger human being the same as the one in an older human being?

If no, then which human beings are you referring to when you say "minds"?

And I prefer the word because it is more clinical and precise than the word people which usually does not refer cognitive capability at all

Obviously the word 'people' does not refer to 'cognitive capability', but really does the word 'minds' do this?

If yes, then what 'cognitive capability' are you actually referring to when you use the word 'minds'?

This is how it is from my own perspective so I do not expect other minds to agree with me as what I am saying here is entirely subjective

What is the difference between 'entirely subjective' and 'partly subjective'?

Is there an 'entirely objective' and/or a 'partly objective' as well?

[surreptitious57]

Obviously the word people does not refer to cognitive capability but really does the word minds do this

Does for me because that is actually what I mean when I use the word
Whether other minds agree with it is a matter for them and them only
I have zero control over that and so what they think is not my concern

[Age]

Obviously the word people does not refer to cognitive capability but really does the word minds do this

Does for me because that is actually what I mean when I use the word

Fair enough, but I also did add;
If yes, then what 'cognitive capability' are you actually referring to when you use the word 'minds'?

Whether other minds agree with it is a matter for them and them only

Giving the label 'them' to 'minds' is a new one for me.

I have zero control over that and so what they think is not my concern

But the way that "cognitive capability" defines the words that it uses does have some control over whether it could or not could be agreed with it.

Or, does that cogitive capability not agree that that cognitive capability does not have this cognitive ability?

Does that cognitive capability agree that it has the cognitive ability to learn how to better communicate, so that "others" are better able to understand what that cognitive capability says?

Also, does that cognitive capability have no concern over what other cognitive capabilities think in regards to all things or just some?

[surreptitious57]

Does that cognitive capability agree that it has the cognitive ability to learn how to better communicate

Also does that cognitive capability have no concern over what other cognitive capabilities think in regards to all things or just some

Conversation between minds is only productive when they understand each other so effective communication is absolutely essential

What other minds think is not a problem as problems only arise in relation to what they do not what they say

[Age]

Does that cognitive capability agree that it has the cognitive ability to learn how to better communicate

Also does that cognitive capability have no concern over what other cognitive capabilities think in regards to all things or just some

Conversation between minds is only productive when they understand each other so effective communication is absolutely essential

And how do obviously different stages of cognitive capabilities effectively communicate with each other in order to remain productive exactly?

If 'effective communication' is absolutely essential for productive conversations, in order to understand each other, then what is the best way or method to 'effectively communicate'?

What other minds think is not a problem as problems only arise in relation to what they do not what they say

I can not continue the conversation here because this i does not at all understand what is being attempted to be communicated here by that i.

When the best way to effectively communicate is explained by that i, then this i will then know the best way to effectively communicate with that i again, in order that a productive conversation can continue on, so that we can understand each other.

[surreptitious57]

If effective communication is absolutely essential for productive conversation in order to
understand each other then what is the best way or method to effectively communicate

A shared language expressed with as much clarity as possible by the participants
Also a degree of open or neutral mindedness by them would be required as well

[Age]

If effective communication is absolutely essential for productive conversation in order to
understand each other then what is the best way or method to effectively communicate

A shared language expressed with as much clarity as possible by the participants

A shared language (letters and symbols) is great, as well as being seemingly obvious, but now we just need to share what the "other" actually means when "they" use the shared language, otherwise we are just guessing or assuming what the "other" is saying/expressing, and obviously what we guess and assume could be completely wrong.

Also, how can we express with as much clarity as possible if we do not essentially know what meaning the "other" has and gives to the actual shared words that we use?

I found that asking clarifying questions is the best (quickest, simplest, and easiest) way to gain clarity. But, you may know of a better way?

To me, defining the actual symbols/words 'we all', listener/reader/speaker/writer, use and reuse is the best way or best method for effective communication.

Also a degree of open or neutral mindedness by them would be required as well

To you, 'mind' means 'cognitive capability' so a degree of open or neutral 'cognitive capabilitiedness' would also be required for effective communication.

If this is correct, then how is 'cognitive capability' controlled, and, by who or what?

If that is not correct, then what do you actually mean?

[surreptitious57]

To you mind means cognitive capability so a degree of open or neutral cognitive capabilitiedness would be required for effective communication

If this is correct then how is cognitive capability controlled and by who

Minds ultimately control themselves but what form that control actually takes will vary quite significantly
Closed ones are not at all conducive to productive discourse though they can become open if they want to

[Age]

To you mind means cognitive capability so a degree of open or neutral cognitive capabilitiedness would be required for effective communication

If this is correct then how is cognitive capability controlled and by who

Minds ultimately control themselves but what form that control actually takes will vary quite significantly

"Will vary quite significantly" on what exactly?

Closed ones are not at all conducive to productive discourse though they can become open if they want to

How could a closed 'mind' become open, or even be aware that "it wants to become open", if it already believes that it is open?

How many 'minds' do you know that admit that they are closed or are aware that they are closed?

Would you admit that 'you' are not open? Are you even aware that 'you' are not open?

[surreptitious57]

How could a closed mind become open or even be aware that it wants to become open if it already believes that it is open ?

Would you admit that you are not open ? Are you even aware that you are not open ?

The nature of mind means it is always capable of change although that does not mean change will always come
And so no matter how closed a mind is the potential to become open is always there regardless of anything else

My own mind is definitely more open than it has ever been from my own perspective but maybe not so from yours
However what other minds think is not relvant as openness can only truly be measured from inside ones own mind

And my sense of detachment makes me less dogmatic and more neutral minded so openness is not hard to maintain
As I age I am less interested in having my own fixed opinions and more interested in acknowledging those of others

Being dogmatic takes up too much mental energy and my mind would not tolerate it any way so it is usually avoided
I am only human and so perfection cannot be guaranteed but one is learning to slowly let go the older that one gets