One for the loons.

[Age]

How do you take from others if it is not on your own past experience

To me if you did not have some sort of past experience with another in one way or another then you could not take from them

ALL interaction with others that has happened through discussions - communication - reading - writing - speaking - listening is a past experience

You define past experiences different to how I would have before I actually read this but would still have understood what you meant though
But now that I have read it I agree with it but had you not explained it then I would be none the wiser with regard to what you originally said

For your information, I write a lot of things without actually making it clear what I am actually saying and meaning. Unless of course it is asked for, but even then u will leave more that could be questioned and clarified.

I do this purpisely for my own learning experience.

I know that if inquisitiveness, curiosity, and openness is returned and instilled back in to the adult human being like it is in ALL very young child human beings, then the flow on effect of learning and becoming much wiser for ALL human beings will be phenomenal and at a phenomenally exponential rate as well.

I do not know how to install these things back into adults, but if I can learn how to write in a way that does not let on to the actual truth nor answers that I am alluding to, but instead teases out or evokes the truly OPEN curious and inquisitive One within ALL, then I am achieving what I want to learn here, in this forum.

It is the Absolute One within ALL that I am 'asking' to speak and discuss with. (The word 'asking' came up although I was attempting to write 'seeking' instead, so I will just leave it for now) Anyhow, learning how to get past those stubborn ones who assume and believe that they already know what is true and right I was going to say is the hard part, but really it is the fun part, which is more correct, then I have achieved what I set out to do.

[surreptitious57]

I do not know how to install these things back into adults but if I can learn how to write in a way that does not let on to the actual
truth nor answers that I am alluding to but instead teases out or evokes the truly OPEN curious and inquisitive One within ALL then
I am achieving what I want to learn here in this forum

Why not simply tell adults that you want them to revert back to the state that they were in when they were born
The state that is at its most curious and inquisitive and is the most open one any human being will ever experience

Babies are not an absolutely blank slate however because certain traits they are born with such as fear of snakes for example

[Age]

My definition for the word 'meaning' here now is what is meant behind the use of a word

That's difficult to make sense of.

You forgot to add the words 'to you' to your sentence. That is; If you want to LOOK AT and express the actual and real Truth of things.

That was certainly not at all difficult to make sense of, to me.

So, the truth is it may be difficult for some to make sense of, like 'you're, but it is not difficult for ALL. In fact some, like 'me', might even say that it is not difficult at all to make sense of and in fact it is extremely easy to make sense of.

Now that that truth of things is out of the way, we can move onto the fact that some insist using the same word in the definition of the word being defined is circular and not the best way to define things/words, but if I did not do it, then what else would you be wanting to discuss now.

The dictionary says that 'meant' is the past tense of 'meaning'.

If you had said 'one' dictionary says..., then you would have been speaking more truth, which I could then more easily make sense of what you are actually meaning, or meant, here.

But I have absolutely NO clue nor idea about what 'the' dictionary is, which one it is, nor even where 'the' dictionary exists.

Are you trying to suggest that 'that' dictionary is the one and only true dictionary that should be followed and adhered to?

If yes, then why?
If no, then okay.

So you are using 'meaning' to define itself.

No I am NOT using the word 'meaning' to define itself. But what I did do, however, is use the word 'meant' in that definition for the word 'meaning' there.

If you like you can define the word 'meaning' and we can work with that definition. I am sure 'I' can work in with 'you' to reach an agreed upon and accepted definition for the word 'meaning', and I am sure it would not take long at all either.

Do you have another definition for 'meaning'?

How about what is being defined behind the use of a word? Are you happy now?

Or is that still to difficult to make sense of, for 'you'?

If yes, then like I said, If you like you can define the word 'meaning'. Either way I am happy.

By the way, I would prefer if we went back and you defined the word 'philosophy'. You did after all say that the saying; "I know that I don't know anything" sums up all of philosophy.

If you do not define the word 'philosophy', from your perspective, then I find it difficult to understand what you are saying AND meaning. From how I define the word 'philosophy' that saying in NO way somes up any of philosophy let alone ALL of philosophy.

Other words I would be interested in you defining are 'God', 'Mind', and 'love'. But no rush we could look at your definitions for these words any time in the future.

[Skepdick]

You forgot to add the words 'to you' to your sentence. That is; If you want to LOOK AT and express the actual and real Truth of things.

I didn't forget anything. I don't know what 'meaning' means to you. How am I supposed to know what 'Truth' means to you?

That was certainly not at all difficult to make sense of, to me.

Ok but, you didn't ask yourself what 'meaning' means to you. I asked you what 'meaning' means to you.

What 'meaning' means to you already makes sense to you. Now explain to me what 'meaning' means to you.

[Age]

These are your words:
Evidence is just evidence, it is not proof. which actually says nothing at all.

Well look, anything you see, hear, smell, taste or feel is evidence for something.

The word 'some' is the operative word here

Any thing can be (or is?) evidence for 'some' thing, but,contrary to your belief, it is NOT evidence for 'any' thing

Those experiences are unique to you.

I agree, but it is off topic

Even if someone else had exactly the same experiences, the chance of them interpreting it the same way is tiny.

Really?

So interpreting the same feeling experience of the sun's warmth the same way is tiny?

How exactly are you defining the word 'tiny' here?

We're all trying to make sense of the things that happen to us. From what I gather, you want to discover whether some people interpret their experience in the same way you have.

No. I ALREADY know the answer to that.

Some experiences are interpreted close enough to being relatively in the same way, while other experiences could not be interpreted in more opposing ways.

I'm sure that you could find like minded people,

To me, there is only one Mind, so there is NOT, in a sense, like minded people. Although this could be interpreted, in another sense, and ALL people are like Minded. But, without clarifying, from the perspective you are saying this, I just interpret it as human beings who, at times, have the same or similar thoughts, which I am also sure I could find. .

but to conclude that their agreement supports your own beliefs is called confirmation bias.

But I do NOT have any beliefs.

And, the agreement that supports YOUR beliefs is not necessarily "confirmation bias" as the agreement may be based upon actual and real evidence, which is proof what you believe is true.

If you cannot accept that your explanation of your experiences is just one of many possible explanations, you really need to grow up. Or seek help.

Is this intended to deflect away from the fact that you have not yet provided any so called "evidence", which you said that you were open to looking at and discussing, or did this just happen unintentionally.

Do you have a familar and common pattern of continually moving back to looking at me personally instead of the topic in question.

If you like we can look at and discuss red shift, which you say IS the "compelling evidence" that the Universe is getting bigger. That is, of course, you so wish to?

To me, evidence is what proves some thing true, which is contrary to your view that the thing with evidence is that it is evidence for any explanation that is consistent with it. Now this is what I call 'confirmation bias'. That is only looking for and/or only seeing 'that' which supports your already held assumptions and beliefs.

For example IF you already assume and/or believe that there already exist evidence for some thing, which you already now assume or believe is true, then you are going to look for more "evidence" to support that already confirmed biased view/assumption/belief.

[Age]

I do not know how to install these things back into adults but if I can learn how to write in a way that does not let on to the actual
truth nor answers that I am alluding to but instead teases out or evokes the truly OPEN curious and inquisitive One within ALL then
I am achieving what I want to learn here in this forum

Why not simply tell adults that you want them to revert back to the state that they were in when they were born

Because who cares what I 'want'?

'I' am literally nothing and no one to them, but just a few words on a screen.

The state that is at its most curious and inquisitive and is the most open one any human being will ever experience

Babies are not an absolutely blank slate however because certain traits they are born with such as fear of snakes for example

But if I put a one day old baby next to a snake would it really really be scared? What would it be fearful of exactly?

More adult male human beings hurt more human beings than any snakes have, or any other animal. If a human baby is born in a room with adult male human beings, then is that baby fearful?

If yes, then how do you know?
If no, then why not, and would a human baby born in a room with snakes be fearful?
If yes, then how do you know? And why are they fearful?
If no, then so be it.
If I do not know, then why do we not actually do it?

Also, is there any actual evidence that proves ALL human beings are born with a fear of snakes, or, is just an expression you have heard/read somewhere, which is assumed or believed to be true, by the writer/soeaker of that, and now that assumption or belief has been past on, from brain to brain, through thought, without any actual substance to it, other that it was obtained from a Past Experience.

It may well be a True Fact. It is just that I have NIT seen any actual evidence for, other than I have also heard the same accusation many times myself.

[Age]

You forgot to add the words 'to you' to your sentence. That is; If you want to LOOK AT and express the actual and real Truth of things.

I didn't forget anything. I don't know what 'meaning' means to you. How am I supposed to know what 'Truth' means to you?

That was certainly not at all difficult to make sense of, to me.

Ok but, you didn't ask yourself what 'meaning' means to you.

You have once again assumed WRONG.

I did do what you assumed and said I did not do.

I asked you what 'meaning' means to you.

I know. I read it.

And I provided my answer.

Did you read it?

What 'meaning' means to you already makes sense to you. Now explain to me what 'meaning' means to you.

I did already. Did you MISS it?

Also, are you trying to become forceful?

It sounds like you are telling me what to do.

What happens now if I do not again explain, to you, what the word 'meaning' means to me?

By the way, you might find it to difficult to make sense of anyway. So, it may be easier, for you, if I did not attempt to explain it to you, AGAIN.

[Skepdick]

It sounds like you are telling me what to do.

Of course I am telling you what to do! I am telling you to define things.

Do you know why I am telling you to define things?
Because asking you to define things doesn't work.

Could you define 'yes'?

Yes.

If you don't want me to tell you, and you don't want me to ask you - what do you want me to do?

[surreptitious57]

Why not simply tell adults that you want them to revert back to the state that they were in when they were born

I am literally nothing and no one to them but just a few words on a screen

Those few words on the screen are actually all that matters so you being literally no one to them should not actually be a problem
Since it is what you say that is important not who you are although if anyone does seriously listen to you they will respect you also
But if you never tell anyone and no one else has the same goal to return human beings to their most open state will it ever happen
If the answer to this question is yes then you have nothing to do but is there any evidence human beings will do it all by themselves

[uwot]

To me, there is only one Mind, so there is NOT, in a sense, like minded people.

For all I know, you're right; it's one way to interpret the evidence. But even if it is the case that there is only one mind, it is demonstrably the case that there are individual pockets of it which identify as people; me for example. So what makes you think you're right and I'm wrong?

[Age]

It sounds like you are telling me what to do.

Of course I am telling you what to do! I am telling you to define things.

Do you know why I am telling you to define things?
Because asking you to define things doesn't work.

If you know that 'asking' me to define things does not work, then why did you do what you know does not work?

Also, it does work, you asked, and I provided. Therefore, it did work and so thus does work.

Could you define 'yes'?

Yes.

If you don't want me to tell you, and you don't want me to ask you

But I do NOT care if you tell me to do any thing nor if you ask me any thing. Why did you assume otherwise?

- what do you want me to do?

I want you to do whatever it is that you, your self, wants to do. I give you the freedom to do absolutely any thing you want to do. So, enjoy.

[Age]

Why not simply tell adults that you want them to revert back to the state that they were in when they were born

I am literally nothing and no one to them but just a few words on a screen

Those few words on the screen are actually all that matters so you being literally no one to them should not actually be a problem

That is great that you could see and recognize exactly this.

Since it is what you say that is important not who you are although if anyone does seriously listen to you they will respect you also

I am not looking for respect. I just like to be shown what is wrong in my writings.

But if you never tell anyone and no one else has the same goal to return human beings to their most open state will it ever happen

If the answer to this question is yes then you have nothing to do but is there any evidence human beings will do it all by themselves

Both questions I could answer in many different ways, so I will just leave them for now.

[Age]

To me, there is only one Mind, so there is NOT, in a sense, like minded people.

For all I know, you're right; it's one way to interpret the evidence.

What "evidence"?

But even if it is the case that there is only one mind, it is demonstrably the case that there are individual pockets of it which identify as people; me for example. So what makes you think you're right and I'm wrong?

But who is thinking or even saying that I am right and you are wrong?

From what you just said here I totally agree with it.

[Skepdick]

If you know that 'asking' me to define things does not work, then why did you do what you know does not work?

When I figured out that it doesn't work I stopped asking you and started telling you.

Also, it does work, you asked, and I provided. Therefore, it did work and so thus does work.

I don't think so. You still have not given a non-circular definition of 'meaning'.

I want you to do whatever it is that you, your self, wants to do. I give you the freedom to do absolutely any thing you want to do. So, enjoy.

That's EXACTLY what I am doing. This is the second time you have explicitly given me permission to decide for you!

Remember?

YOU said that. You decided that on your lonesome.

You gave me permission to decide for you. So I did.

I agree to decide for you. There - we have agreement!

It is true.

[barbarianhorde]

There's a legend in western philosophy, one version of which has Socrates asking Pythia, the high priestess at Delphi, who the wisest person was. 'No one is wiser than Socrates' came the answer. 'Really?' says Socrates, 'But I know that I don't know anything.' 'Exactly.' says the priestess.
So...

Im positive that his didn't happen because Socrates despised religion and would never make the huge trip to Delphi.

Also it is obviously a contradiction "I know that I know nothing" - like "this statement is false".