Mind or minds

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:31 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:33 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 3:19 pm

We are talking about WHAT is Creating the Universe the way it is, right?
Yes.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 3:19 pm
If Mind or minds have/has existed forever, is within EVERY physical thing, has the ability to experience, decide, and cause, and also with KNOWLEDGE that comes from being able to experience, decide, and cause with and from EVERY physical thing, then sure this Mind or minds would be actually Creating the Universe, the way it is?
Yes.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am

Bounded by what exactly?
Bounded with what they know. That is the natural conclusion of boundlessness of knowledge. No matter how much a mind know there is always possible to know more.
BUT if there is one Mind that DOES KNOW ALL, that is; HAS ALL KNOWLEDGE, then IT ALREADY has that KNOWLEDGE.

If knowledge is unbound, then it would already exist, right? Otherwise, what is bounding knowledge?

And, if knowledge is unbounded, then WHERE is this KNOWLEDGE?

Of course, human beings will always learn and discover more, and thus know more. But remember we are talking about a Mind that already has the KNOWLEDGE to Create the Universe, the way It is.

If you want to still say that there are many minds, then I can show you HOW this one Mind exists. This is, of course, only if you are OPEN enough to the idea that there actually could be one Mind.
I should have said this before that there exist not a being/set which contains everything, everything be unbounded. This is known as Cantor's theorem which states that a universal set which contains all sets does not exist. You can read more about it in here.

I can give you a brief explanation if you wish.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:33 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
The very reason I use the term 'Mind' is because It can NOT be bounded. I also use the term 'thoughts', for the apparently different 'minds' because they are obviously bounded.
I know what you are talking about. Mind or God, if there is any, to me is merely the creator.
And, are we NOT talking about WHAT is Creating the Universe the way it is?

You did agree that we are, further up this post.
That is the part which is confusing and it is hard to explain at first. The universe is unbound which means that there is no being that could be in charge of all changes in the universe as it is discussed in previous comment. Mind however could be in charge of infinite amount of changes but everything which is unbound is bigger than infinity (Cantor's theorem).
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:33 pm
God's knowledge to me is bounded even if it is infinite since there always exists a value larger than infinite.
And what do you propose could be/is that 'value', which is, supposedly, larger than infinite?
2^infinity.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:33 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am

One reason human beings are still so confused on this issue is because they continually think, believe and/or say that human beings have their own minds. The actual Truth is there are 'thoughts,' within each and every human body, over a certain age. But, WHERE is the, so called, "human 'mind' "?
Human's mind is where s/he is.
And WHERE is that?
Mind is a dimensionless point. But it presents everywhere that experience and action happens. Basically I think that mind stays close to body.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
Do you think or believe that a 'he' or a 'she' could be/is a being, which is not made up of physical matter?
A person is made of mind and physical matter.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
There are many upon many other clarifying questions I could ask in relation to just this very few word statement.

We could go on forever with me asking clarifying questions and you responding to each and every one of them. But to speed things up, do you think or know that you already have ALL the answers, which when put together will form a perfect and clear picture of ALL-THERE-IS?
I have been working in philosophy of mind more than 6 years now. My understanding is not complete yet. For example I still don't know how reproduction happens? How mind get involved in the process of reproduction?
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:33 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
There is NO actual evidence for a "human" 'mind', BUT, there is a great deal of evidence of an unbounded, Truly OPEN, part or thing, within human beings that allows them to continually Create and Learn MORE and MORE.
I think I already provide an argument in another thread for existence of mind and causation whenever there is a change. I repeat it here for sake of clarity for the readers: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y takes place. Y however cannot comes out of nothingness (remember that there is nothing when X vanishes). Therefore there should exist a mind that experiences X and causes Y.
I UNDERSTOOD this argument first time around.

I also have stated that I accept it and agree with it. I, however, question about your later inference that there are many 'minds', especially since many minds can NOT experience ALL X, and cause ALL Y. But one Mind, however, can experience ALL X's and cause ALL Y's.

If you want to argue that, Therefore there should exist a "mind" that experiences X and causes Y, then the word 'a' infers one. BUT, if you want to insist that there are many minds, then YOUR conclusion should be, Therefore there should exist many minds that experiences X and causes Y.

If, and when, you do, however, I will then question WHY add the word "should"? If ALL the premises are accurate, then the conclusion WOULD just follow accurately, and thus there would NOT be a need for the word "should".

If, however, if YOUR conclusion follows with the words "many minds", then I will, most likely, do some further questioning.
Good to hear that we agree on the argument for existence of mind. I think I can show that there is at least two minds involved in changes, what I am aware of and responsible for it and the rest.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:33 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
I would like to see that. Especially as what I SEE now is that if there is an absolute power, which I am always SEEING by the way, then that power could be in relation to an absolute God. Also, if that absolute power, was in relation to an absolute God, then there would NOT be any higher god than that God.
The argument is as following:
P1. Power has some value and therefore can be discussed mathematically.
P2. There exists not any bound for any quality, such as power.
P3. Absolute power requires a bound (it is simply maximum in a quality).
C. Therefore absolute power does not exists.
P2. WHY do you say this is true? I SEE the quality that absolute power exerts already. I also SEE the boundaries for quality, such as power.
Think of all possible forms which exists which is unbound. Consider the universe which is unbound too. Each mind has capacity to have infinite amount of power but not unlimited power. There exist a power larger than infinity and more than that, etc.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
P3. Can you NOT SEE absolute power already?
No, to me that is contrary considering the Cantor's theorem.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
C. Can you name one thing more powerful than ALL-THERE-IS?
There problem is that all there is cannot be summed in a set. It is unbound. The concept of unbound is a little confusing at first place.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:33 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
Agreed.

Human beings have this freedom to decide. I call that free-will. However, and just as equally determinism plays a part in human beings. Human beings are TOTALLY FREE to decide between available options, these 'options' by the way are just thoughts, and it is these available options/thoughts that have been pre-determined from past experiences, (or pre-programmed), and thus also determine what can and actually WILL happen in the future.

Free-will and determinism EQUALLY cause what IS going to come and BE.
Yes.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am

I am just wondering do you have a picture of how EVERY thing fits together perfectly?

If no, then what might help is;

There is a 'human being', which consists of a physical human body and a being within it. I call the being within a human body the 'person'. The 'person' just being the thoughts and emotions, which are by the way both invisible to the human eyes, like a soul or being IS.

There is, also, a 'God-being', which consists of absolutely EVERY physical object and a Being with them. I call the Being within EVERY physical object the 'God'. This 'God' just being thee Mind, which is by the way invisible to the human eyes, like a Spirit IS.

To me:
Thee Being is the invisible source of Energy, or as some might say the Life Force, behind EVERY physical thing, but this Being NEVER forces so It really is just Free Energy. This has NEVER been created as It just IS.
The being is the invisible thoughts and emotions that drive human beings to do what they do.

Human beings are absolutely FREE to choose whatever they want to do. The very reason WHY the God-Being allows this to happen will become much clearer and far more obvious, further "down the track".

And, what you have been calling "thing", and now generally for "object", is just what I call "physical matter".

Thee Being, or the being, is just the One, or the one, living within physical matter.

One KNOWS, and, the other one THINKS it KNOWS. I am sure you would KNOW which one is which here.
I see. I however think that we know without doubt that we are in charge of changes.
Now, 'we', you and I, are back to the beginning. Who/what is the 'we' that you are referring to here? You used the word 'we' twice in this sentence. Is who/what the 'we' is, the exact same in both usages?

Who/what is the 'we' that, supposedly, KNOWS without doubt, and, who/what is the 'we' that is, supposedly, in charge of changes?

I will await your response, before I continue here.
By we I means mind plus their bodies. I provided an argument for the existence of at least two minds in this post.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:33 pm
Therefore there exists minds that experience the situation, decide and cause. My argument stand unless you object that the very fact that we are in charge of changes is an illusion.
To me anyway, your argument does not YET stand, until I have a clear understanding of who/what these 'we's' are that you say ARE in charge of changes.

From one perspective, I think you are referring to one person.
From another perspective, I think you are referring to ALL human beings.
From another perspective, I think you are referring to ALL animal beings, including the human beings.
From another perspective, I think you are referring to ALL physical objects, things, and beings.
And there are a few other perspectives I am SEEING this from.

When the definitions of ALL of your words are clarified, fit together to form a clear and accurate True picture, then YOUR argument WILL stand. Until then I will just remain OPEN, and seek clarification, through questioning.

By the way there are other things in your argument that need clarification, other than just that one "illusion" proposal that you mention about in relation to objecting.

I KNOW your argument WILL stand, WILL be accepted, and WILL be agreed with, by EVERY one, but just not in its current form.
I am in charge of changes which I am aware of. The rest of changes can be done by another mind. So there is at least two minds. By we I mean all entities when I use that in "we are in charge of everything", otherwise "we" refers to me and you.

Age
Posts: 3065
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Tue Dec 25, 2018 10:34 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:31 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:33 pm

Yes.


Yes.


Bounded with what they know. That is the natural conclusion of boundlessness of knowledge. No matter how much a mind know there is always possible to know more.
BUT if there is one Mind that DOES KNOW ALL, that is; HAS ALL KNOWLEDGE, then IT ALREADY has that KNOWLEDGE.

If knowledge is unbound, then it would already exist, right? Otherwise, what is bounding knowledge?

And, if knowledge is unbounded, then WHERE is this KNOWLEDGE?

Of course, human beings will always learn and discover more, and thus know more. But remember we are talking about a Mind that already has the KNOWLEDGE to Create the Universe, the way It is.

If you want to still say that there are many minds, then I can show you HOW this one Mind exists. This is, of course, only if you are OPEN enough to the idea that there actually could be one Mind.
I should have said this before that there exist not a being/set which contains everything, everything be unbounded. This is known as Cantor's theorem which states that a universal set which contains all sets does not exist. You can read more about it in here.
But that is just a theorem. 'Theorem's' are NOT necessarily true, right, nor correct. What overrides theories is the Truth, or what IS.

There is obviously a set that contains EVERY thing. This set is sometimes KNOWN as ALL-THERE-IS, the Universe, or Everything.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
I can give you a brief explanation if you wish.
.

I would like that. The simpler, briefer, and clearer the explanation, the better.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:33 pm

I know what you are talking about. Mind or God, if there is any, to me is merely the creator.
And, are we NOT talking about WHAT is Creating the Universe the way it is?

You did agree that we are, further up this post.
That is the part which is confusing and it is hard to explain at first. The universe is unbound which means that there is no being that could be in charge of all changes in the universe as it is discussed in previous comment.
The very reason you find this part confusing is because of the way that you are LOOKING AT. You already have a preconceived idea, of what It is, which is affecting the way that you are SEEING things. Thus, the confusion, and, the seemingly hard to explain part.

Explaining this part is extremely easy and simple. Finding people who are OPEN enough to just looking at IT, from this particular perspective, is the only "hard" part.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Mind however could be in charge of infinite amount of changes but everything which is unbound is bigger than infinity (Cantor's theorem).
It is only a "theorem", which could be completely wrong or partly wrong. Only when LOOKED AT properly, from the Truly OPEN perspective, can and will what IS actually True to be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD.

Also, if you are looking at 'mind' as some limited, bound thing, then obviously this will also affect what you can see and understand.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:33 pm
God's knowledge to me is bounded even if it is infinite since there always exists a value larger than infinite.
And what do you propose could be/is that 'value', which is, supposedly, larger than infinite?
2^infinity.
That would be like saying that there is 2 of ALL-THERE-IS, or 2 Universes, or 2 Everything's. Is that even possible?
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:33 pm

Human's mind is where s/he is.
And WHERE is that?
Mind is a dimensionless point. But it presents everywhere that experience and action happens.
Do you think or see any place that experience and action does NOT happen?

If no, then Mind is EVERY where.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Basically I think that mind stays close to body.
Close to the body of WHAT exactly?

If it is only the human body, then that IS and WOULD produce only a very narrow field of view of things.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
Do you think or believe that a 'he' or a 'she' could be/is a being, which is not made up of physical matter?
A person is made of mind and physical matter.
Okay, but the reason you find WHAT is Creating the Universe, the way it is, confusing and hard to explain IS because of the definitions that you have, and give, for some of the words you are using - like above.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
There are many upon many other clarifying questions I could ask in relation to just this very few word statement.

We could go on forever with me asking clarifying questions and you responding to each and every one of them. But to speed things up, do you think or know that you already have ALL the answers, which when put together will form a perfect and clear picture of ALL-THERE-IS?
I have been working in philosophy of mind more than 6 years now. My understanding is not complete yet. For example I still don't know how reproduction happens? How mind get involved in the process of reproduction?
But both of these things are extremely simple and easy to UNDERSTAND, SEE, and EXPLAIN.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:33 pm

I think I already provide an argument in another thread for existence of mind and causation whenever there is a change. I repeat it here for sake of clarity for the readers: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y takes place. Y however cannot comes out of nothingness (remember that there is nothing when X vanishes). Therefore there should exist a mind that experiences X and causes Y.
I UNDERSTOOD this argument first time around.

I also have stated that I accept it and agree with it. I, however, question about your later inference that there are many 'minds', especially since many minds can NOT experience ALL X, and cause ALL Y. But one Mind, however, can experience ALL X's and cause ALL Y's.

If you want to argue that, Therefore there should exist a "mind" that experiences X and causes Y, then the word 'a' infers one. BUT, if you want to insist that there are many minds, then YOUR conclusion should be, Therefore there should exist many minds that experiences X and causes Y.

If, and when, you do, however, I will then question WHY add the word "should"? If ALL the premises are accurate, then the conclusion WOULD just follow accurately, and thus there would NOT be a need for the word "should".

If, however, if YOUR conclusion follows with the words "many minds", then I will, most likely, do some further questioning.
Good to hear that we agree on the argument for existence of mind. I think I can show that there is at least two minds involved in changes, what I am aware of and responsible for it and the rest.
I would like to SEE it.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:33 pm

The argument is as following:
P1. Power has some value and therefore can be discussed mathematically.
P2. There exists not any bound for any quality, such as power.
P3. Absolute power requires a bound (it is simply maximum in a quality).
C. Therefore absolute power does not exists.
P2. WHY do you say this is true? I SEE the quality that absolute power exerts already. I also SEE the boundaries for quality, such as power.
Think of all possible forms which exists which is unbound.
Okay I have done this.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Consider the universe which is unbound too.
Yes I have done this also.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Each mind has capacity to have infinite amount of power but not unlimited power.
But WHY does there have to be different minds and/or more than one mind?

Do you think that your argument will NOT work if there is only one Mind?

What do you propose could be the difference between 'infinite amount of power', and, 'unlimited power'?
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
There exist a power larger than infinity and more than that, etc.
HOW?

For example, the Universe could be infinite in size and/or shape, but could there be a power larger than the power of this one whole infinite Universe, Itself?
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
P3. Can you NOT SEE absolute power already?
No, to me that is contrary considering the Cantor's theorem.
Again, it is only a "theorem".

The set of EVERY thing, IS Everything. The sum of ALL of Its parts equals the whole, One. From what I SEE the whole One has absolute power, already. I do NOT, yet, see how there could be any thing bigger than the whole.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
C. Can you name one thing more powerful than ALL-THERE-IS?
There problem is that all there is cannot be summed in a set.
Why not?

To me, the set of 'all there is' IS ALL-THERE-IS, Everything, or Universe.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
It is unbound.
How can 'all there is' be unbound, if it is bound, through definition, into one set, like the 'Universe'. 'Uni-verse', literally, means One (bound set).
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
The concept of unbound is a little confusing at first place.
A 'little confusing' to who?

To me the Universe is obviously unbound, but can also be very easily bound up into the one defined set of ALL things.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:33 pm

Yes.


I see. I however think that we know without doubt that we are in charge of changes.
Now, 'we', you and I, are back to the beginning. Who/what is the 'we' that you are referring to here? You used the word 'we' twice in this sentence. Is who/what the 'we' is, the exact same in both usages?

Who/what is the 'we' that, supposedly, KNOWS without doubt, and, who/what is the 'we' that is, supposedly, in charge of changes?

I will await your response, before I continue here.
By we I means mind plus their bodies.
So, when you are using the word 'we' here, you are talking about things other than just human beings, am I right?

If this is right, then I think you might find it somewhat hard to explain to some people, and have them agree and accept, that the 'minds' of rocks, for example, KNOW without doubt, that they are in charge of changes.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
I provided an argument for the existence of at least two minds in this post.
I apologize. I must of missed it.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:33 pm
Therefore there exists minds that experience the situation, decide and cause. My argument stand unless you object that the very fact that we are in charge of changes is an illusion.
To me anyway, your argument does not YET stand, until I have a clear understanding of who/what these 'we's' are that you say ARE in charge of changes.

From one perspective, I think you are referring to one person.
From another perspective, I think you are referring to ALL human beings.
From another perspective, I think you are referring to ALL animal beings, including the human beings.
From another perspective, I think you are referring to ALL physical objects, things, and beings.
And there are a few other perspectives I am SEEING this from.

When the definitions of ALL of your words are clarified, fit together to form a clear and accurate True picture, then YOUR argument WILL stand. Until then I will just remain OPEN, and seek clarification, through questioning.

By the way there are other things in your argument that need clarification, other than just that one "illusion" proposal that you mention about in relation to objecting.

I KNOW your argument WILL stand, WILL be accepted, and WILL be agreed with, by EVERY one, but just not in its current form.
I am in charge of changes which I am aware of.
Okay I can accept this. However, what was in charge of changes that caused that 'I' to be created in the first place? In other words, what was in charge that caused that 'I' to evolve into being in charge of changes, which that, now, 'I' is aware of?

Is this 'I' the first and for most 'I' that exists, forever? Or, did this 'I' just come into being, let us say a relatively short, or long, few years ago? (depending on the perspective of that 'I' that is being referred to here).
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
The rest of changes can be done by another mind. So there is at least two minds.
Okay. So, we are back to 'mind' is the essence of 'me'. 'Me' is the being/thing of an object, with ALL of these different and separate objects having obviously different and separate 'minds', with the ability to, and do, experience, decide, and cause, different and separate worlds or universes.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
By we I mean all entities when I use that in "we are in charge of everything",
Imagine the struggles and fights that would occur when there are at least two, or many, different 'minds' all with the power to experience, decide and cause. Oh, you do NOT have to imagine, just LOOK, and you can SEE a world/universe that is very much struggling and fighting with its self.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
otherwise "we" refers to me and you.
When do I KNOW when you are using 'we' in this way, or in the other way?

Also, how are 'you' and 'me' different. If 'me' is the being/thing of an object, and, 'mind' is the essence of 'me', then who/what is the 'you'?

By the way, I already KNOW the ANSWERS to ALL of the clarifying questions I ask. I just ask them to SHOW the troubles 'you' have and are going to have to fully UNDERSTAND and EXPLAIN what it is that you are TRYING TO understand AND explain.

AlexW
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by AlexW » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:37 am

Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:39 pm
Is there any thing outside of memories of the past and projections into the future?
Yes, this directly experienced moment/now.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:39 pm
Are "you" absolutely sure of this?

What happens if, after who/what Mind actually IS is discovered, there are memories of What Mind actually IS?
Yes. Memories are not a problem, are they?
It is only a "problem" once we mistake memories of an experience with the experience itself.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:39 pm
AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Dec 24, 2018 11:54 am
So far no one has ever found a "mind" (or "time")
Are "you" absolutely sure of this, also?
See, the way we classify mind - or rather anything that seems to be discoverable as an object - is always "made by thought".

I am sure you'll ask: How do you know?
From direct experience.

The direct experience of this moment/now never ever contains an experience of an object. The experience is without separation, borderless and as such devoid of thingness. You might think your experience is different, that it is full of things, but this is an illusion - things only ever appear once thought has processed the direct experience and created a world of things.

"Mind" is like "peach". You might think you can find/experience such a thing as mind, and you can classify Mind as "every thought I have ever been thinking" (or whatever you prefer), but by doing so you don't really create a tangible/real object, you create an idea.
"Peach" (like any object) is also such an idea. You will never experience "peach" - you can only classify parts of an experience as "peach" - all you will ever experience is a certain texture, smell, taste... all of these direct experiences have nothing to do with your idea of an object "peach". The object is constructed - constructed out of many, many parts that have been pattern matched and extracted by a conditioned mind... In reality, in direct experience, there are no such parts - the experience is one whole. All cutting up, all separating, is a mental exercise - handy indeed, but not ultimately "true".
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:39 pm
Who/What is this "one" that all they will ever find is one thought happening now, and another thought happening now, and another...?
There is no "one" who could find anything. There is a reason ancient masters have coined the term "not two" (meaning also not one, as "one" has a certain flavour of "thingness", it seems to point to an object) - there is no word for it. You can only experience/be it.

See, I try to get as close to real, direct experience as possible pointing out the difference between reality and imagination/interpretation - I know this is only an attempt, a pointer - but its all we can do...
Last edited by AlexW on Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

AlexW
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by AlexW » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:47 am

bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:53 pm
I consider mind as something bigger than consciousness. Consciousness is where that experience happens. On top of experience we have decision and causation. That is what I use mind instead of consciousness since I couldn't find any better word for my purposes. We could stick to consciousness instead of mind if you prefer for sake of discussion. What do you think of the argument?
Ok... in this case I would answer in a similar way as I just did in the previous post:
There is neither one consciousness nor are there many consciousnesses.
There is a reason ancient masters have coined the term "not two" (meaning also not one, as "one" has a certain flavour of "thingness", it seems to point to an object) - there is no word for it.
Consciousness is not a thing - all things emerge as ideas manufactured by chains of conceptual thought (including the ideas of decision making, volition etc).
You can know this directly by diving into the direct experience of the moment - once the mind is quiet the world gives up its thing-ness and reveals its being-ness. Life/being is undivided - this is our direct experience, always - its just that we overlook it by living in the mind-made map, rather than in simple reality.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3443
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:07 am

bahman wrote:
The problem is that all there is cannot be summed in a set . The concept of unbound is a little confusing at first place
Infinite sets exist though : the set of integers is infinite / the set of primes is infinite / the set of irrationals is infinite
Something which is unbound is anything beyond human comprehension but it can still be represented mathematically
And so X could be the infinite set ALL THAT EXISTS [ AND HAS AND WILL EVER EXIST ] regardless of whether it is bound or unbound
Infinity is less of a problem in maths than in physics since it can be treated as an abstract concept rather than a physical quantity

surreptitious57
Posts: 3443
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:25 am

AGE wrote:
the Universe could be infinite in size and / or shape but could there be a power larger than the power of this one whole infinite Universe
In physical terms no but in mathemathical terms yes. This is because in maths there is more than one infinity. Rather confusingly they all vary in
size depending on the number of members they have [ the infinite set of integers for example is larger than the infinite set of primes as integers
occur more frequently on the number line ] And the total number of them is infinity itself as anyone of them can be mutiplied by infinity forever

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 10:34 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:31 pm


BUT if there is one Mind that DOES KNOW ALL, that is; HAS ALL KNOWLEDGE, then IT ALREADY has that KNOWLEDGE.

If knowledge is unbound, then it would already exist, right? Otherwise, what is bounding knowledge?

And, if knowledge is unbounded, then WHERE is this KNOWLEDGE?

Of course, human beings will always learn and discover more, and thus know more. But remember we are talking about a Mind that already has the KNOWLEDGE to Create the Universe, the way It is.

If you want to still say that there are many minds, then I can show you HOW this one Mind exists. This is, of course, only if you are OPEN enough to the idea that there actually could be one Mind.
I should have said this before that there exist not a being/set which contains everything, everything be unbounded. This is known as Cantor's theorem which states that a universal set which contains all sets does not exist. You can read more about it in here.
But that is just a theorem. 'Theorem's' are NOT necessarily true, right, nor correct. What overrides theories is the Truth, or what IS.

There is obviously a set that contains EVERY thing. This set is sometimes KNOWN as ALL-THERE-IS, the Universe, or Everything.
I am not in position to say that Cantor's theorem is wrong. The idea is simple to understand, please read next comment.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 10:34 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
I can give you a brief explanation if you wish.
I would like that. The simpler, briefer, and clearer the explanation, the better.
Consider a set A which has n member. The number of all subsets, lets call it power set P(A), of A is 2^n. 2^n>n for all positive integers. The theorem then can be represented as |P(A)|>|A|. Now consider a universal set, V, which contains all sets. V contains all set including P(V). This means that |P(V)|<|V| which is contrary to Cantor's theorem. Therefore a universal set cannot exist.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 10:34 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Mind however could be in charge of infinite amount of changes but everything which is unbound is bigger than infinity (Cantor's theorem).
It is only a "theorem", which could be completely wrong or partly wrong. Only when LOOKED AT properly, from the Truly OPEN perspective, can and will what IS actually True to be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD.

Also, if you are looking at 'mind' as some limited, bound thing, then obviously this will also affect what you can see and understand.
The theorem to the best of my understanding cannot be wrong. The universal set, what you call the universe, which contains everything cannot exist.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
And WHERE is that?
Mind is a dimensionless point. But it presents everywhere that experience and action happens.
Do you think or see any place that experience and action does NOT happen?
No.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
If no, then Mind is EVERY where.
I would say that minds are everywhere.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Basically I think that mind stays close to body.
Close to the body of WHAT exactly?
My mind stays close to my body.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
If it is only the human body, then that IS and WOULD produce only a very narrow field of view of things.
Yes.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
Do you think or believe that a 'he' or a 'she' could be/is a being, which is not made up of physical matter?
A person is made of mind and physical matter.
Okay, but the reason you find WHAT is Creating the Universe, the way it is, confusing and hard to explain IS because of the definitions that you have, and give, for some of the words you are using - like above.
I am open to see if there is another view point.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
There are many upon many other clarifying questions I could ask in relation to just this very few word statement.

We could go on forever with me asking clarifying questions and you responding to each and every one of them. But to speed things up, do you think or know that you already have ALL the answers, which when put together will form a perfect and clear picture of ALL-THERE-IS?
I have been working in philosophy of mind more than 6 years now. My understanding is not complete yet. For example I still don't know how reproduction happens? How mind get involved in the process of reproduction?
But both of these things are extremely simple and easy to UNDERSTAND, SEE, and EXPLAIN.
Could you please explain?
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am

P2. WHY do you say this is true? I SEE the quality that absolute power exerts already. I also SEE the boundaries for quality, such as power.
Think of all possible forms which exists which is unbound.
Okay I have done this.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Consider the universe which is unbound too.
Yes I have done this also.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Each mind has capacity to have infinite amount of power but not unlimited power.
But WHY does there have to be different minds and/or more than one mind?
Because there are changes that you know that you are not responsible for it. So if we accept that there is a mind when there is a change then it follows that there is at least one another mind rather than yours.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
Do you think that your argument will NOT work if there is only one Mind?
No. The argument says that there is a mind if there is a change.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
What do you propose could be the difference between 'infinite amount of power', and, 'unlimited power'?
The fact that there exist a number bigger than infinity indicates that there could exist an entity which its power is larger than infinity. There could be another entity which its power could be larger than the first one, etc. It is simply unbound. You need a bound in power in order to define supreme being, so called God.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
There exist a power larger than infinity and more than that, etc.
HOW?

For example, the Universe could be infinite in size and/or shape, but could there be a power larger than the power of this one whole infinite Universe, Itself?
That is because the universal set does not exist. You cannot have a universe, in another word a universal set, which contains everything.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
P3. Can you NOT SEE absolute power already?
No, to me that is contrary considering the Cantor's theorem.
Again, it is only a "theorem".

The set of EVERY thing, IS Everything. The sum of ALL of Its parts equals the whole, One. From what I SEE the whole One has absolute power, already. I do NOT, yet, see how there could be any thing bigger than the whole.
I already discussed theorem in starting of this post so let's see if we could agree on it.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
C. Can you name one thing more powerful than ALL-THERE-IS?
There problem is that all there is cannot be summed in a set.
Why not?

To me, the set of 'all there is' IS ALL-THERE-IS, Everything, or Universe.
But the set, the universal set, which contains everything cannot exist.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
It is unbound.
How can 'all there is' be unbound, if it is bound, through definition, into one set, like the 'Universe'. 'Uni-verse', literally, means One (bound set).
Because if 'all there is' is bound then it is bounded with something else, let's call it B. B also is either bound or unbound. If it is bounded then it is bounded with something else, let's call it B'. Etc. So the reality is unbound.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
The concept of unbound is a little confusing at first place.
A 'little confusing' to who?

To me the Universe is obviously unbound, but can also be very easily bound up into the one defined set of ALL things.
The universal set does not exist.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
Now, 'we', you and I, are back to the beginning. Who/what is the 'we' that you are referring to here? You used the word 'we' twice in this sentence. Is who/what the 'we' is, the exact same in both usages?

Who/what is the 'we' that, supposedly, KNOWS without doubt, and, who/what is the 'we' that is, supposedly, in charge of changes?

I will await your response, before I continue here.
By we I means mind plus their bodies.
So, when you are using the word 'we' here, you are talking about things other than just human beings, am I right?

If this is right, then I think you might find it somewhat hard to explain to some people, and have them agree and accept, that the 'minds' of rocks, for example, KNOW without doubt, that they are in charge of changes.
No, by we I mean everything which has mind, can experience and can cause.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
I provided an argument for the existence of at least two minds in this post.
I apologize. I must of missed it.
So I repeat again. Changes can be divided into what you cause and what something else caused. Therefore there are at least two minds.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
To me anyway, your argument does not YET stand, until I have a clear understanding of who/what these 'we's' are that you say ARE in charge of changes.

From one perspective, I think you are referring to one person.
From another perspective, I think you are referring to ALL human beings.
From another perspective, I think you are referring to ALL animal beings, including the human beings.
From another perspective, I think you are referring to ALL physical objects, things, and beings.
And there are a few other perspectives I am SEEING this from.

When the definitions of ALL of your words are clarified, fit together to form a clear and accurate True picture, then YOUR argument WILL stand. Until then I will just remain OPEN, and seek clarification, through questioning.

By the way there are other things in your argument that need clarification, other than just that one "illusion" proposal that you mention about in relation to objecting.

I KNOW your argument WILL stand, WILL be accepted, and WILL be agreed with, by EVERY one, but just not in its current form.
By one person, I mean a being/thing which has physical body and a mind. That could be a human with human's body and a mind. An animal with animal's body and a mind. An electron with electron's body and a mind.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
I am in charge of changes which I am aware of.
Okay I can accept this. However, what was in charge of changes that caused that 'I' to be created in the first place? In other words, what was in charge that caused that 'I' to evolve into being in charge of changes, which that, now, 'I' is aware of?
Yourself and another persons. Your mind however cannot be created. This is subject of discussion in another thread.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
Is this 'I' the first and for most 'I' that exists, forever? Or, did this 'I' just come into being, let us say a relatively short, or long, few years ago? (depending on the perspective of that 'I' that is being referred to here).
Your mind exists forever. You as a human being die and turn into other being or thing. You were other thing or being in the past.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
The rest of changes can be done by another mind. So there is at least two minds.
Okay. So, we are back to 'mind' is the essence of 'me'. 'Me' is the being/thing of an object, with ALL of these different and separate objects having obviously different and separate 'minds', with the ability to, and do, experience, decide, and cause, different and separate worlds or universes.
Yes.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm

By we I mean all entities when I use that in "we are in charge of everything",
Imagine the struggles and fights that would occur when there are at least two, or many, different 'minds' all with the power to experience, decide and cause. Oh, you do NOT have to imagine, just LOOK, and you can SEE a world/universe that is very much struggling and fighting with its self.
Yes. What is your point?
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm
otherwise "we" refers to me and you.
When do I KNOW when you are using 'we' in this way, or in the other way?
I try to be more specific from now on.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
Also, how are 'you' and 'me' different. If 'me' is the being/thing of an object, and, 'mind' is the essence of 'me', then who/what is the 'you'?
We are different because of our bodies only. All minds are equal given the definition.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
By the way, I already KNOW the ANSWERS to ALL of the clarifying questions I ask. I just ask them to SHOW the troubles 'you' have and are going to have to fully UNDERSTAND and EXPLAIN what it is that you are TRYING TO understand AND explain.
Yes. I am not a philosopher and not good at explaining things.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:53 pm

AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:47 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:53 pm
I consider mind as something bigger than consciousness. Consciousness is where that experience happens. On top of experience we have decision and causation. That is what I use mind instead of consciousness since I couldn't find any better word for my purposes. We could stick to consciousness instead of mind if you prefer for sake of discussion. What do you think of the argument?
Ok... in this case I would answer in a similar way as I just did in the previous post:
There is neither one consciousness nor are there many consciousnesses.
There is a reason ancient masters have coined the term "not two" (meaning also not one, as "one" has a certain flavour of "thingness", it seems to point to an object) - there is no word for it.
Consciousness is not a thing - all things emerge as ideas manufactured by chains of conceptual thought (including the ideas of decision making, volition etc).
But what is thought? How it could persist to exist and evolve if it is not a thing?
AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:47 am
You can know this directly by diving into the direct experience of the moment - once the mind is quiet the world gives up its thing-ness and reveals its being-ness. Life/being is undivided - this is our direct experience, always - its just that we overlook it by living in the mind-made map, rather than in simple reality.
I have never meditate deeply. I once made a sense that everything is connected. I cannot make that sense anymore.
Last edited by bahman on Wed Dec 26, 2018 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:57 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:07 am
bahman wrote: The problem is that all there is cannot be summed in a set . The concept of unbound is a little confusing at first place
Infinite sets exist though : the set of integers is infinite / the set of primes is infinite / the set of irrationals is infinite
Something which is unbound is anything beyond human comprehension but it can still be represented mathematically
And so X could be the infinite set ALL THAT EXISTS [ AND HAS AND WILL EVER EXIST ] regardless of whether it is bound or unbound
Infinity is less of a problem in maths than in physics since it can be treated as an abstract concept rather than a physical quantity
I mean that the universal set does not exist when I say that 'all there is' cannot be summed in a set.

AlexW
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by AlexW » Thu Dec 27, 2018 12:52 am

bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:53 pm
But what is thought? How it could persist to exist and evolve if it is not a thing?
To say what something is, it first has to be(come) a thing - to create a thing you have to interpret part of "thing-less" consciousness and artificially turn it into an object. Now you can say "thought is a form of energy" (or whatever) but you have not really defined thought, you have defined an interpretation of a (random) part of consciousness as thought...
How can it persist to exist...? I have no idea... consciousness/being does whatever it does, it moves/flows spontaneously - who knows if there is evolution or simply random movement...

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:40 pm

AlexW wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 12:52 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:53 pm
But what is thought? How it could persist to exist and evolve if it is not a thing?
To say what something is, it first has to be(come) a thing - to create a thing you have to interpret part of "thing-less" consciousness and artificially turn it into an object. Now you can say "thought is a form of energy" (or whatever) but you have not really defined thought, you have defined an interpretation of a (random) part of consciousness as thought...
How can it persist to exist...? I have no idea... consciousness/being does whatever it does, it moves/flows spontaneously - who knows if there is evolution or simply random movement...
Do you have control over your thoughts? Could you stop thinking or concentrate to think about certain thing?

AlexW
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by AlexW » Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:12 am

bahman wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:40 pm
Do you have control over your thoughts? Could you stop thinking or concentrate to think about certain thing?
No. Thought has to come into a natural, healthy rhythm on its own.
All that can be “done” is to observe thought as much as possible, see when you have again been lost in thought world, notice it, and return to pure noticing awareness. Thought arises in this noticing, it is what is always there no matter if there is thought happening or not. The rest happens on its own (actually it all does, thought just doesn’t want to believe/accept it) :)

Age
Posts: 3065
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:50 am

AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:37 am
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:39 pm
Is there any thing outside of memories of the past and projections into the future?
Yes, this directly experienced moment/now.
And WHERE is this directly experienced moment/now BEING EXPERIENCED?

After thousands upon thousands of years, you, human beings, with your so called "masters" about non-duality surely would have moved somewhat forward in your thinking and understanding, by now in 2018 so called years after one human being was born.

You, human beings, love to profess to KNOWING things, yet when asked for clarification, the best answer you can come up with and provide is language can NOT explain ALL things, especially with those with the non-duality position.

The ANSWERS and LANGUAGE is POSSIBLE, and has already been FOUND.

Let us SEE if you actually KNOW what you are talking about, OR, just copying and repeating from human beings BEFORE you.

Who/What is directly experiencing this moment/now?
AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:37 am
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:39 pm
Are "you" absolutely sure of this?

What happens if, after who/what Mind actually IS is discovered, there are memories of What Mind actually IS?
Yes. Memories are not a problem, are they?
You either purposely missed my clarifying questions, or you misinterpreted them completely. I will try again;

You said; there is no mind besides ideas of such things.
I questioned you; Are "you" absolutely sure of this?

Your answer will either be;
"Yes", which means that you are absolutely 100% sure that there is NO mind besides ideas of such things. Or, your answer will be;
"No", which means that you are OPEN, or, probably more likely only somewhat open, depending on what other memories are existing in that body .

I then asked you, in relation to memories;
If, after, who/what the 'Mind' actually IS, is discovered?

The obvious point being IF who/what the 'Mind' actually IS is discovered, then there WILL exist memories of who/what the 'Mind' actually IS. Of which, then YOU/memories would be able to repeat what HAS ALREADY BEEN discovered BEFORE those moment/now memories exist.

AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:37 am
It is only a "problem" once we mistake memories of an experience with the experience itself.
A discussion is much easier if we stay on the same track.

What your view is on 'memories' and 'experiences' has nothing to do with what you said, and of WHAT I questioned you about.

If YOU mistake memories of an experience with the experience itself, then that is an issue for YOU.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:37 am
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:39 pm
AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Dec 24, 2018 11:54 am
So far no one has ever found a "mind" (or "time")

Are "you" absolutely sure of this, also?
See, the way we classify mind - or rather anything that seems to be discoverable as an object - is always "made by thought".
NO, I do NOT see how YOU classify 'mind'. How do YOU classify 'mind'?

To you, nothing can be discovered as an object, right?

When you LEARN how to explain HOW the perceivable separate objects are NOT really here/there, then you will move things forward. But until then, you, human beings, will be stuck in the same position that you have been for thousands of years now, that is; left confused and bewildered.

You wrote; So far no one has ever found a "mind"
I wrote; Are "you" absolutely sure of this?

Your answer will either be;
"Yes", which means that you are absolutely sure that so far no has ever found a "mind". Which would then mean that you KNOW, for sure, from absolutely EVERY thing's perspective, what has been found and what has not be found, in relation to 'mind'. Or, your answer will either be;
"No", which means that you are NOT absolutely sure that so far no one has ever found a "mind". Which would then mean that some thing may have actually discovered what the 'Mind' actually IS.

So, what is your answer going to be? Yes or No?

Things really are this SIMPLE and EASY.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:37 am
I am sure you'll ask: How do you know?
It would be FAR BETTER if you did NOT make any ASSUMPTIONS at all, especially ridiculous ones like this one.

I would NEVER ask a question like that, in regards to this because How do you KNOW any thing, and, How do you THINK you KNOW any thing, I already KNOW.

There is only One thing that can be KNOWN, for sure, by the way, which is very EASY to KNOW also.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:37 am
From direct experience.

The direct experience of this moment/now never ever contains an experience of an object.


How do you explain this 'direct experience', to those memories that BELIEVE there are countless objects?

You speak as though you KNOW thee Truth, but are you able to explain the Truth?

WHERE is this 'direct experience' experienced?
Who/What directly experiences this 'direct experience'?

How do you overcome the object that objects are actually experienced?
AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:37 am
The experience is without separation, borderless and as such devoid of thingness.
You, human beings with non-dualist views/beliefs, come across as though you KNOW it all.

Although what you are saying here might be 100% True and Correct, the way you express it clearly SHOWS that you have a LOT MORE to learn and understand here.

I ask clarifying questions, which when answered honestly will SHOW just how much you do KNOW, and do NOT KNOW.

The ANSWERS that those of you human being's who look from a non-dualist perspective say are NOT possible to KNOW, have, by the way, already been found, uncovered, and are already KNOWN.

AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:37 am
You might think your experience is different, that it is full of things, but this is an illusion - things only ever appear once thought has processed the direct experience and created a world of things.
And YOUR ASSUMPTIONS will NEVER help you in learning, discovering, understanding, and KNOWING MORE.

By the way who/what is the 'you' here?

Do "you" think EVERY "you" has the exact same experience, or do "you's" have different experiences?
AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:37 am
"Mind" is like "peach". You might think you can find/experience such a thing as mind, and you can classify Mind as "every thought I have ever been thinking" (or whatever you prefer), but by doing so you don't really create a tangible/real object, you create an idea.
Would you not be better off trying to explain that "mind" is like "any other perceived object or thing". TRYING TO explain that a non-visible to the human eye is like a visible to the human eye thing, would not and does NOT really help you. Or does it?

Have you found that explaining a perceived non-visible thing to a perceived visible thing through analogy helpful?

AND, you really appear to LOVE to make ASSUMPTIONS, which by the way are based upon PAST EXPERIENCES. Unless ALL of your past experiences where of correct knowledge, which obviously they were NOT, then you will continue to LOOK AT things, from those memories stored within that body, and whilst those memories continue to make up ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEVE that "IT" is correct, then you will continue to misinterpret or purposely miss my open clarifying questions, and continue providing the WRONG or out-of-context answers that you have been.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:37 am
"Peach" (like any object) is also such an idea. You will never experience "peach" - you can only classify parts of an experience as "peach" - all you will ever experience is a certain texture, smell, taste... all of these direct experiences have nothing to do with your idea of an object "peach". The object is constructed - constructed out of many, many parts that have been pattern matched and extracted by a conditioned mind...
WHAT???

Before you were saying that THERE IS NO MIND, but now you are saying that an object is constructed and extracted by a conditioned MIND. How can there, supposedly, be NO mind but there also be a conditioned mind?

This appears very contradictory.

Also, you say that there is a directly experienced moment/now, so what happens if during this directly experience moment/now there is being experienced an object, which is generally known by the name "peach"?

Was there a directly experienced moment/now, at that moment?

If yes, then that must of been of an object called "peach".
If no, then does that mean that there really is NO directly experienced moment/now?
AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:37 am
In reality, in direct experience, there are no such parts - the experience is one whole. All cutting up, all separating, is a mental exercise - handy indeed, but not ultimately "true".
How on, you can not use the 'reality' word here, because 'reality' infers an object, and you can NOT logically say at one moment/now that there is only an IDEA of an object as well as there being an object of 'reality'.

Also, why do you even think or believe that this needs to be explained. Of course there is only a whole with NO separation into different object. "Things" are only compartmentalized, into parts, by human brains.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:37 am
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:39 pm
Who/What is this "one" that all they will ever find is one thought happening now, and another thought happening now, and another...?
There is no "one" who could find anything.
This appears a very contradictory answer, again.

One moment you write; all ONE will ever find is one thought happening now but when I question you about who/what this ONE is, you then reply back that There is no "ONE".

WHY do you imply that there is ONE, which you said who will find some thing, but then, at a seemingly different moment/now say that there is NO ONE who could find any thing?
AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:37 am
There is a reason ancient masters have coined the term "not two" (meaning also not one, as "one" has a certain flavour of "thingness", it seems to point to an object) - there is no word for it. You can only experience/be it.
But 'it' does have a word. The very reason you, human beings, separate and compartmentalize things, and provide these apparently different things, with given separate and different names/words is so that you can better understand things.

It is just a pity that you then BELIEVE that you KNOW what the Truth IS, instead of just learning HOW to LOOK AT and SEE what the actual Truth IS, for what It actually IS.


WHY does it seem that there are objects?
WHY do objects appear to be real and true, but are NOT?
AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:37 am
See, I try to get as close to real, direct experience as possible pointing out the difference between reality and imagination/interpretation - I know this is only an attempt, a pointer - but its all we can do...
But you, human beings, CAN DO much more and much better.

Human beings, with non-dualist beliefs, explanation for what they do not YET know and thus can not explain, is there is NO language for "it" and it is all we can do, which is like human beings, with religious beliefs, when asked what IS God or what created God, and they reply back with, there are some things that we are not meant to know.

Only when you, human beings, start to be Truly OPEN and Honest, then that is when you will start finding and SEEING what the actual Truth of things IS.

But you are right when you say that you TRY TO get some where and that it is only an attempt. Because obviously you have NOT yet been truly Honest and you are just repeating what you call "masters" have already said.

By the way how can there be a DIFFERENCE between 'reality' and 'imagination/interpretation', especially considering you insist that there are NO objects. If there is only a directly experience moment/now and you were truly AWAKENED and CONSCIOUS of It, then you would already SEE and KNOW the contradictory nature of what you said HERE/NOW.

AlexW
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by AlexW » Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:19 am

Age wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:50 am
Let us SEE if you actually KNOW what you are talking about, OR, just copying and repeating from human beings BEFORE you.
You have been busy... a lot of arguments, questions and SHOUTING :-)
There really is no reason to get so worked up about it all - it's just another discussion where different points of view are being described.
I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am not questioning your knowledge of things, the mind and whatever else you know - I just attempt to put my experience of "the world" into words. There is no problem if it doesn't gel with yours - its perfectly fine with me if you interpret your experience in a million different ways.
I am not really interested to go into this kind of discussion with you - if you would like to discuss in a more reasonable way, thats great, otherwise we better leave it with that.

Age
Posts: 3065
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:25 am

AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:47 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:53 pm
I consider mind as something bigger than consciousness. Consciousness is where that experience happens. On top of experience we have decision and causation. That is what I use mind instead of consciousness since I couldn't find any better word for my purposes. We could stick to consciousness instead of mind if you prefer for sake of discussion. What do you think of the argument?
Ok... in this case I would answer in a similar way as I just did in the previous post:
There is neither one consciousness nor are there many consciousnesses.
There is a reason ancient masters have coined the term "not two" (meaning also not one, as "one" has a certain flavour of "thingness", it seems to point to an object) - there is no word for it.
But the word One does NOT necessarily have a certain any thing of "thingness" to it, from My perspective. But maybe that is, literally, the way thy Self SEES "things".
AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:47 am
Consciousness is not a thing - all things emerge as ideas manufactured by chains of conceptual thought (including the ideas of decision making, volition etc).
Why do you write 'all things' emerge as ideas, when what you are trying to say is that only ideas of things emerge? Of course correct me if I am wrong.

To you, there are NO things, am I right?

If this is correct, then NO thing could emerge as ideas or any thing because NO thing literally means nothing. If there is nothing, then NO thing could emerge as idea nor any thing else. But what can happen is ideas of things could emerge. But then 'idea' would also be a thing. And, if 'ideas' are things, then there is a "thingness"?

You will have to help me out here, is an 'idea', of a thing a thing, itself?
AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:47 am
You can know this directly by diving into the direct experience of the moment - once the mind is quiet the world gives up its thing-ness and reveals its being-ness.
But you can NOT say that there is NO mind besides ideas of such a thing. and then correctly say that once the mind is quiet?

If you want to explain things correctly and have them understood fully, then you have to explain Truthfully.

Is there a mind that can be quiet, or is there NO mind besides ideas of such a thing?
AlexW wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:47 am
Life/being is undivided - this is our direct experience, always - its just that we overlook it by living in the mind-made map, rather than in simple reality.
When you use the word 'we' here, who/what are you referring to?

I certainly do NOT look, nor live, the way you describe 'we' do here. But, then again, maybe I am NOT a part of this 'we'. We will just have to wait and 'SEE'.

I certainly do NOT see any division any where. But I certainly do OBSERVE you, human beings, being very divisive.

Also, Life IS very SIMPLE and EASY. Only you, human beings, make It seem COMPLEX and HARD.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests