Mind or minds

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 3575
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:35 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
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
But if the Universe IS ALL-THERE-IS, which obviously must include EVERY thing, which would obviously also include ALL of the infinite set of integers and ALL of the infinite set of primes of integers and ALL of the EVERY other things, including ALL of maths, itself, then could there be ANY power larger than EVERYTHING or ALL-THERE-IS.

To me, it seems contradictory that there could be MORE than ALL. But maybe HOW this is POSSIBLE could be explained.

Does mathematical terms only exist because of human beings, who only exist because of the Universe? Or, does mathematical terms exist WITHIN the Universe, Itself, or separately, out of, and/or beyond, the Universe, Itself?

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

Re: Mind or minds

Post by AlexW » Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:41 am

Age wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:25 am
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.
Of course there never is a physical thing emerging - its always only ideas of things emerging. But when writing "ideas of things", people might think there are "ideas of things" and maybe "real things" emerging - like a unicorn and a peach. One only emerges as an idea whereas the other might truly arise... even both are only "ideas of things"
I thought that was obvious - sorry if this was misunderstood.
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:25 am
Is there a mind that can be quiet, or is there NO mind besides ideas of such a thing?
I stated that previously, that there is no mind besides the idea/thought of such, no?
So, no, there is no mind to be quiet, but there can be (the idea of) what is conventionally called "a quiet mind"
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:25 am
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'.
When I say "we" then I am referring to the billions of individuals, the people - or rather, to be precise: the idea of such individuals/people.
What are you referring to when you say "I"?
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:25 am
Also, Life IS very SIMPLE and EASY. Only you, human beings, make It seem COMPLEX and HARD.

Agree.
No sure if you a have to write in this way though... saying you are not a human being comes across as slightly weird ;-)

Age
Posts: 3575
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:43 pm

bahman wrote:
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.
I just replied to every one of these responses, except the last one, and was just about to finish up but somehow I hit a highlight button and deleted it all. I have done this a few times already, in other replies. Does any one know how to undo this mistake, like the undo button can do in microsoft word.

I could not be bothered responding to this again, now.

Age
Posts: 3575
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:52 pm

AlexW wrote:
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 -
Who is, supposedly, getting worked up?

There is NOTHING here at all to get worked up about.

Unless of course that is WHAT you are seeing.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:19 am
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.
AND, I just ask you clarifying questions. If you do NOT want to answer them or you can NOT answer them, then so be it.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:19 am
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 -
By "not really interested to go into this kind of discussion", do you mean that you do NOT want to answer any of my clarifying questions?

If no, then WHY NOT?
AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:19 am
if you would like to discuss in a more reasonable way, thats great, otherwise we better leave it with that.
WHAT is a "more reasonable way"?

Would it be some thing like 'I NEVER ask you to explain yourself'?

Age
Posts: 3575
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:30 pm

AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:41 am
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:25 am
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.
Of course there never is a physical thing emerging - its always only ideas of things emerging. But when writing "ideas of things", people might think there are "ideas of things" and maybe "real things" emerging - like a unicorn and a peach.
YOU, alexw, are the one that said, "all things emerge as ideas" and now you are saying "ONLY ideas of things emerging". This is WHY I pointed this out.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:41 am
One only emerges as an idea whereas the other might truly arise... even both are only "ideas of things"
But you have obviously still missed the point.

You now say, "One only emerges as an idea". The point is NOTHING can emerge, because according to you there is NO actual one real thing. Therefore there is NO one thing that can only emerge as an idea.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:41 am
I thought that was obvious - sorry if this was misunderstood.
SO, what is thee Truth?

'All things emerge as ideas' OR 'ideas of all things emerges'?

They are NOT the same thing, and if you were LOOKING AT THIS from the True perspective you could SEE this.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:41 am
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:25 am
Is there a mind that can be quiet, or is there NO mind besides ideas of such a thing?
I stated that previously, that there is no mind besides the idea/thought of such, no?
Yes you did, but then you contradicted this by stating that there is a mind that can be quiet.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:41 am
So, no, there is no mind to be quiet, but there can be (the idea of) what is conventionally called "a quiet mind"
You are the ONE who said, "once the mind is quiet".

So, which one is it?

Is there NO mind, or, is there a mind that can be quiet?

You even suggested that; "once the mind is quiet then the world gives up its thing-ness and reveals its being-ness".

Who/what is the "being-ness" that you talk about here. Some might even suggest that 'being-ness' could infer some sort of objective-ness, of which you say there are no such things as objects.

I would have thought if being-ness had REALLY been revealed to you, then you would NOT have written such a totally contradictory thing as this.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:41 am
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:25 am
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'.
When I say "we" then I am referring to the billions of individuals, the people - or rather, to be precise: the idea of such individuals/people.
What are you referring to when you say "I"?
You know that you are the very FIRST person to ever ask Me for clarification about this.

The capital 'I' as in the question Who am 'I'? is the Being, that you are TRYING TO speak of, but are NOT yet able to define.

Some might also refer to this, capital 'I' as Allah/God/Enlightenment/and such like, that is also what this, little, 'i' is referring to.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:41 am
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:25 am
Also, Life IS very SIMPLE and EASY. Only you, human beings, make It seem COMPLEX and HARD.

Agree.
No sure if you a have to write in this way though...
I obviously do NOT have to. But I am willing to give any thing a try to get you, human beings, to BEcome just a little bit more curious, then you are now.

AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:41 am
saying you are not a human being comes across as slightly weird ;-)
Of course it would, especially when ASSUMPTIONS are made first, and clarification is NOT asked for first.

Also, did I say that I am NOT a human being? Or, have I written in a way to MAKE you ASSUME some thing, and then I can say and/or suggest that it is much better if you did NOT assume any thing at all?

Some might have already noticed just how quickly human beings MAKE assumptions, without asking for clarification FIRST.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:08 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:43 pm
I just replied to every one of these responses, except the last one, and was just about to finish up but somehow I hit a highlight button and deleted it all. I have done this a few times already, in other replies. Does any one know how to undo this mistake, like the undo button can do in microsoft word.

I could not be bothered responding to this again, now.
I am so sorry to hear that. :-( But do not worry and take your time. You can always use an editor to compile your reply.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Dalek Prime » Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:41 pm

Yeah, I'm not into hive mind, nor do I buy into it. I lose nothing of my memories or experiences when others croak. And thankfully, I dont have to experience any of the world's woes once I'm done.

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

Re: Mind or minds

Post by AlexW » Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:42 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:30 pm
Also, did I say that I am NOT a human being? Or, have I written in a way to MAKE you ASSUME some thing, and then I can say and/or suggest that it is much better if you did NOT assume any thing at all?
It’s funny you say that, because yes, you did. When you say stuff like “...only you, human beings, make it...” you inferring that you are not a human being. At least that’s how I (and I guess most people that read this) interpret it. Maybe your meaning is different and that’s ok too... by the way, all that you do is assume that everybody else doesn’t get it, that only you have access to this magic wisdom. But as you stated before, its not hard, its the most simple “thing”, the only difficulty is to clothe it in words in such a way that the discussion participants might understand - you take the “my way or the highway “ approach which is not how I like to interact. It doesn’t help to shout at and intimidated people, if you want to make yourself heard you should change your style otherwise you will never be understood as people will think you are simply rude...

Age
Posts: 3575
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:30 am

AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:42 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:30 pm
Also, did I say that I am NOT a human being? Or, have I written in a way to MAKE you ASSUME some thing, and then I can say and/or suggest that it is much better if you did NOT assume any thing at all?
It’s funny you say that, because yes, you did. When you say stuff like “...only you, human beings, make it...” you inferring that you are not a human being.
But I NEVER stated that I am NOT a human being. However, yes of course I 'inferred' some thing. I am purposely 'inferring' some thing, but that is the whole point. I could 'infer' many things, (or I could 'infer' nothing), but only with and through clarifying questions is when what is being said and meant, by "another", fully KNOWN.

I am NOT in this forum to express what it is that I want to say, and have heard. I am just here to learn how to express better.

I also like to SHOW "future" readers, how the readers, of when this is written, react to My words.

Human beings have a tendency to TRY to decipher what was meant by authors, instead of just gaining clarification. Just look at how many different interpretations there are about religious texts, philosophical works, and works by so called "masters", AFTER these authors are not around anymore to clarify and explain what was/is TRULY meant in those writings. The disputing, disagreeing, arguing, fighting, and warring, with killing, still exists for thousands of years after some of these works have been written. With readers THINKING that they KNOW what the True and Right interpretation IS. Yet, how much proper clarification was actually done when the writers were/are alive? The writer, after all, is the ONLY one that KNOWS the Truth regarding this.

Even when writer's are still alive, some people still read completely different interpretations of their writings and dispute and argue about this, yet never even consider to ask the writer what was the actual Real and True intention, purpose, meaning, interpretation that was in, and or behind, the writing, itself.

I want to use this forum as a prime example of this behavior. Just look back through any discussion in here regarding "other" author's writings and just look at how many different interpretations there IS and can be, and also look at just how completely different and opposing some of those interpretations ARE and can be.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:42 pm
At least that’s how I (and I guess most people that read this) interpret it.
Yes you made an INTERPRETATION, which is just an ASSUMPTION, without one shred of clarification being made. You even made another GUESS, which is just another form of ASSUMING, about how many people read my writings. (And, with most of what human beings do, they like to ASSUME that MOST "other" human beings do things the same way that they, themselves, do. A trait of the human being is to not feel left out nor different.)
AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:42 pm
Maybe your meaning is different and that’s ok too...
Notice the NOT even wanting to clarify here. The thing that has lead human beings to discover, learn, and progress for thousands upon thousands of years has nearly died out completely within them. That 'thing' IS curiosity. Curiosity leads to clarification, clarification leads to understanding, and to thus learning more.

AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:42 pm
by the way, all that you do is assume that everybody else doesn’t get it, that only you have access to this magic wisdom.
But that is just another ASSUMPTION that you are making up.

I do NOT even know what the "it" is that you are referring to here.

What do you THINK/ASSUME that I am ASSUMING that everybody else does not get?

Also, I certainly do NOT think nor assume that only I have access to "magic" wisdom, nor to any other wisdom. In fact, I have been saying THE WISDOM is within EVERY human body. EVERY human being has access to THIS WISDOM. The human being writing this IS, and can be, far to often very simple, slow, and extremely stupid. So, the very beauty of this is that if this human beings has uncovered some wisdom, that WILL create what this writer KNOWS can be created, then, if this human being can obtain this wisdom, then that means absolutely any and EVERY human being CAN also.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:42 pm
But as you stated before, its not hard, its the most simple “thing”, the only difficulty is to clothe it in words in such a way that the discussion participants might understand - you take the “my way or the highway “ approach which is not how I like to interact.
If you are talking about Life/Living, then yes Life/Living is the most simplest and easiest thing to do, and, ONLY human beings make Life/Living SEEM complex and hard.

Finding the RIGHT words to use to SHOW how ALL of this could be easily understood is NOT hard. But finding the RIGHT participants is much harder.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:42 pm
It doesn’t help to shout at and intimidated people,
I am NOT sure when you think/assume that I am shouting or intimidating people, but maybe it might be because I use capital letters some times. If this is the case, then I am NOT necessarily shouting, but I am certainly wanting some words to be heard over other words and these words I would also like some more thought to go into what is actually being said than just what is assumed is being said.

I am also certainly NOT intending to be intimidating in any way whatsoever. That is NOT how I operate. But if that is how I come across like that, then thank you for expressing the Truth. Is this because of capital letters, also, or for some other reason?
AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:42 pm
if you want to make yourself heard you should change your style otherwise you will never be understood as people will think you are simply rude...
Again, thank you for the feedback.

Do you have any suggestions of how I should change my style, and to what style I should change to?

By the way my intention is NOT to even TRY TO be heard here, in this forum, as I have already discovered that it is just about completely useless to say things that oppose what "another" BELIEVES to be case.

So, my intention here, in this forum, is to TRY different ways of writing that will excite and bring alive again that curiosity that is sitting idle within a human being. I KNOW that when, and if, I am questioned, and challenged, fully, then that is when I WILL BE fully heard, and understood. Until then I just wait patiently to find the RIGHT intelligent enough person. Only through clarification can I be fully heard and understood.

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

Re: Mind or minds

Post by AlexW » Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:26 am

Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:30 am
Yes you made an INTERPRETATION, which is just an ASSUMPTION
Aren't all interpretations assumptions? We can only interpret what somebody else said based on the individual knowledge we have accumulated - our interpretations, assumption, yes, all our ways of explaining will as such never perfectly match.

And yes, this is exactly the reason why "The disputing, disagreeing, arguing, fighting, and warring, with killing, still exists for thousands of years after some of these works have been written"...

Its not possible to avoid misunderstanding, and yes, I agree, it is essential to thoroughly inquire into what another person meant when stating something one doesn't understand - but one cannot do this with every sentence that is being said. There has to be a certain degree of understanding otherwise communication breaks down very rapidly.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:30 am
But that is just another ASSUMPTION that you are making up
As I said, yes, sure it is, but all we do is making assumptions about what the other person meant when saying XYZ - its the same for you and for everyone else. You don't know what I meant when I wrote something - you interpret based on your ideas and knowledge, you assume, but you will never have the exactly same idea in your head as the person that wrote the words.

I guess (another assumption :-) ) we both point to the same truth - the absolute/self/god/what ever word fits - but the way we articulate this of course differs. No reason to go to war about words, interpretation and assumptions.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:30 am
Do you have any suggestions of how I should change my style, and to what style I should change to?
There is no one size fits all. There is a reason why people like Ramana or Nisargadatta speak very differently to people that are new to this idea vs to people that have a basic understating in this field (and that have done their own inquiry etc etc)
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:30 am
if this human being can obtain this wisdom, then that means absolutely any and EVERY human being CAN also.
Yes, I agree. But obtaining the wisdom and having a conceptional understanding is a very different thing to actually living it. Understanding is again only an interpretation, it doesn't do much to change anything substantial in the way one lives. If its not integrated into flesh and bone - if the machinery of thought still runs like crazy - then all understanding will not help. It actually might do more harm than good...

Age
Posts: 3575
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am

AlexW wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:26 am
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:30 am
Yes you made an INTERPRETATION, which is just an ASSUMPTION
Aren't all interpretations assumptions?
I thought I had answered this question already, when I said, "... INTERPRETATION, which is just an ASSUMPTION."

But just to clarify and be clear, to me, on further reflection, they are NOT the exact same thing, as the former involves the action of explaining, whereas, the latter has a tendency to accept as being true or certain to happen, without any actual clarification and/nor proof being sought firstly.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:26 am
We can only interpret what somebody else said based on the individual knowledge we have accumulated - our interpretations, assumption, yes, all our ways of explaining will as such never perfectly match.
But ALL of one's ways of explaining, what another has said can be matched, (perfectly? is another matter) AFTER clarification is sought AND obtained.

And yes, this is exactly the reason why "The disputing, disagreeing, arguing, fighting, and warring, with killing, still exists for thousands of years after some of these works have been written"...
AlexW wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:26 am
Its not possible to avoid misunderstanding,
But misunderstanding is avoidable WITH CLARIFICATION.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:26 am
and yes, I agree, it is essential to thoroughly inquire into what another person meant when stating something one doesn't understand - but one cannot do this with every sentence that is being said.
It can be. Just look back through my writings and look at how many actual clarifying open questions I ask to "others", when I am NOT 100% sure of what they are saying nor meaning. Of course you would NOT know where and when EXACTLY I am unsure, but you will be able to notice just how often I am uncertain and so ask for clarification, by the numbers of questions I have asked so far.

And, if you could really be bothered you will also notice just how often my questions are NOT answered. This is mostly because human beings have a tendency to think that when questions are being asked that they are NOT really OPEN questions but an expression of TRYING TO SHOW another point of view or even show an opposite point of view, or, SHOW another side or another perspective of things. The reason human beings think that is what "others" are doing IS because this is usually what "others" are actually doing. I, on the other hand, am NOT doing this, and, ALL that I am doing is just asking Truly OPEN questions for clarification.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:26 am
There has to be a certain degree of understanding otherwise communication breaks down very rapidly.
Yes I have noticed this, countless, times already. I find gaining absolute understanding, through clarifying question, the best way so that communication does NOT break down at all.

AlexW wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:26 am
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:30 am
But that is just another ASSUMPTION that you are making up
As I said, yes, sure it is, but all we do is making assumptions about what the other person meant when saying XYZ - its the same for you and for everyone else.
Hang on do NOT put Me into this mold. i admit that i some times do, accidentally and out of habit, make assumptions but i certainly TRY NOT to assume anything at all.

Unlike BELIEFS, where I can guarantee that I do NOT believe any thing, making assumptions is harder to NOT do, as they can so easy creep back in without even realizing. But if you, could even be bothered, you could look back through my writings and see that I have, at least, TRIED NOT to make assumptions anywhere.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:26 am
You don't know what I meant when I wrote something -
That is WHY I ask SO MANY clarifying questions in my writings.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:26 am
you interpret based on your ideas and knowledge, you assume,
Please do NOT tell me what i do, thank you.

You are free to say what you do, and you are actually able to speak for you, also.

But you can NOT accurately speak for me, nor for what I do.

Only I can.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:26 am
but you will never have the exactly same idea in your head as the person that wrote the words.
If I am unclear, then I will just ask for clarification. This is that simple, and easy.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:26 am
I guess (another assumption :-) ) we both point to the same truth
The EXACT SAME Truth is within us ALL, so we are ALL, in a way, attempting to point to the same Truth.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:26 am
- the absolute/self/god/what ever word fits - but the way we articulate this of course differs.
Yes totally agree, but the nature of the True Self/Absolute/God is there is an articulated language that does NOT differ. As it is WHAT 'we', all perceived different things, ALL agree on IS what the actual Real Truth IS.

The Truth is NOT what, appears to be or, is different, but what IS, the same/agreement.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:26 am
No reason to go to war about words, interpretation and assumptions.
Yes I agree there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to go to war about words, nor to go to war about absolutely any thing at all, in fact.

AlexW wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:26 am
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:30 am
Do you have any suggestions of how I should change my style, and to what style I should change to?
There is no one size fits all.
Agreed.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:26 am
There is a reason why people like Ramana or Nisargadatta speak very differently to people that are new to this idea vs to people that have a basic understating in this field (and that have done their own inquiry etc etc)
And what is this reason?

I thought if human beings would want to talk about some thing as Universal as thee One, Itself, then they speak in a way that would be for ALL, as it is, literally, for ALL as One.

A well defined language that speak to, and for, EVERY one, as One, seems, to me anyway, a far better thing to look for and learn rather than speaking to ALL people differently, because of the obvious fact that ALL people have a different understanding.

By the way NOT just those two people speak very differently to people. ALL people speak very differently to ALL people, because of the obvious fact that ALL people have a different understanding. Do you or did you speak to mom, cousins, work mates, lovers, friends, children, babies, elders, face-less forum writers, bosses, and "others" the exact same way, or differently?

The variance in differently, if that is what you do do, depends on the understanding that you have, of the understanding that they have.

So, trying to make out that these two people are more different or more special than any other person IS, does NOT work on Me.

EACH and EVERY person is as individually uniquely different, and thus SPECIAL, as EVERY "other" individually uniquely different person IS SPECIAL.

There is absolutely NO one that is more nor less SPECIAL than another. Just like there is NO one that is more nor less good nor bad than another IS.
AlexW wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:26 am
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:30 am
if this human being can obtain this wisdom, then that means absolutely any and EVERY human being CAN also.
Yes, I agree. But obtaining the wisdom and having a conceptional understanding is a very different thing to actually living it. Understanding is again only an interpretation, it doesn't do much to change anything substantial in the way one lives. If its not integrated into flesh and bone - if the machinery of thought still runs like crazy - then all understanding will not help. It actually might do more harm than good...
But when one has ALL understanding, then, obviously, thought does NOT still run like crazy. ALL understanding, obviously, includes ALL, which would obviously mean understanding ALL thought also, and how it works, too.

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

Re: Mind or minds

Post by AlexW » Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am

Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am
But misunderstanding is avoidable WITH CLARIFICATION.
To a degree - yes - of course it also depends on the topic of discussion.
When talking about interpretations of sense impressions, e.g. when looking at the same object, then clarification is a lot easier than when discussing things that only exists in the mind (please, lets just use this language for now :-) )
When discussing a unicorn, or even worse, god/absolute, then even clarifications are mostly not enough to avoid a certain degree of misunderstanding - they are helpful, sure, but, one cant expect that the same understanding of these topics will be equally available to both minds.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am
And, if you could really be bothered you will also notice just how often my questions are NOT answered.
Yes, maybe I can't be bothered :-)
Maybe no one can... one can only eat as much vanilla ice-cream before you have to stop, otherwise you will be feeling unwell - its the same with too many questions...
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am
This is mostly because human beings have a tendency to think that when questions are being asked that they are NOT really OPEN questions but an expression of TRYING TO SHOW another point of view or even show an opposite point of view, or, SHOW another side or another perspective of things
Yes, fully agree.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am
I, on the other hand, am NOT doing this, and, ALL that I am doing is just asking Truly OPEN questions for clarification.
While this might be so it doesn't help you to communicate well with others, right?
Sometimes you will have to step onto the same platform of thought for others to understand you, and to actually enjoy talking to you. As long as you remain in your own world of perfect openness, including all its sometimes strange effects on human communication patterns, it will be difficult for you to reach others with what you have to say.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am
Please do NOT tell me what i do, thank you.
Why not? If I feel that you are doing a certain thing then I am allowed to point it out, no? Of course it is only my interpretation/assumption but ignoring what another has to say about the impact your "doing" has is not helpful. Its not something you should ignore by basically saying "no one is allowed to judge me" (even no one should do it, it happens - so deal with it)
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am
The Truth is NOT what, appears to be or, is different, but what IS, the same/agreement.
I "assume" I understand, but just to be perfectly clear, please elaborate or express in a different way - thanks.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am
There is absolutely NO one that is more nor less SPECIAL than another. Just like there is NO one that is more nor less good nor bad than another IS.
This is of course true in pure being-ness, but not in "the world of things". Here you will communicate with people that understand certain things better than others and you will have to adopt the style of concepts you use, the pictures you draw etc to actually be understood... but this kind of understanding, the one that comes from talking and thinking is not real understanding.
Real understanding comes from life itself. Its a bit like riding a bike - you cant think yourself into learning to ride a bike - yes one can understand all the details on how to hold balance etc, but this will only take you so far. It will actually be a hindrance if one continues to think about how to hold balance when sitting on a bike trying to actually ride it. The learning process will happen without thought intervening - its the same with real understanding, truth, being-ness - it doesn't come from understanding the topic and trying to apply it.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am
But when one has ALL understanding, then, obviously, thought does NOT still run like crazy. ALL understanding, obviously, includes ALL, which would obviously mean understanding ALL thought also, and how it works, too.
What exactly do you mean with "when one has ALL understanding"? Who has this understanding? What is the understanding? (I have told you what I mean with real - not thought based - understanding in the previous paragraph - is your understanding different?)

surreptitious57
Posts: 3615
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:52 am

AGE wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
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
But if the Universe IS ALL THERE IS which obviously must include EVERY thing which would obviously also include ALL of the infinite set of integers and ALL of the infinite set of primes of integers and ALL of the EVERY other things including ALL of maths itself then could there be ANY power larger than EVERYTHING or ALL THERE IS

To me it seems contradictory that there could be MORE than ALL . But maybe HOW this is POSSIBLE could be explained

Does mathematical terms only exist because of human beings who only exist because of the Universe ?
Or does mathematical terms exist WITHIN the Universe Itself or separately out of and / or beyond the Universe Itself ?
Unlike the Universe which is the singular ALL THERE IS [ AND EVER WAS AND EVER WILL BE ] there is more than one infinity
They have absolutely no limitation to them because they are never ending [ the number line is infinite in both directions ]
Maths is an abstract discipline and so is not limited in the same way that the physical Universe might be [ even if it is not ]

No one knows whether maths was invented or discovered but it does require the existence of minds for it to be understood

Age
Posts: 3575
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:39 am

AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am
But misunderstanding is avoidable WITH CLARIFICATION.
To a degree - yes - of course it also depends on the topic of discussion.
When talking about interpretations of sense impressions, e.g. when looking at the same object, then clarification is a lot easier than when discussing things that only exists in the mind (please, lets just use this language for now :-) )
Okay, but 'thought' works much BETTER.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
When discussing a unicorn, or even worse, god/absolute, then even clarifications are mostly not enough to avoid a certain degree of misunderstanding - they are helpful, sure, but, one cant expect that the same understanding of these topics will be equally available to both minds.
Here is a great example of WHERE understanding/misunderstanding comes from.

It would appear that you would like me to accept what you are saying here, yet the VERY WORDS that this topic is about 'Mind/minds' you just want me/us to accept that we have YOUR understanding of what this/these word/words mean. You even asked me, very nicely, to please, let us just use this language for now

Now i could have quite easily misinterpreted and thus then misunderstood what you meant by the word 'language' in that. I am wondering did they want me to just use the word 'mind' or use the language of some thing that was written. Because the word 'language' is sometimes/usually in reference to at least a few words or more, but the word 'word' is sometimes/usually in reference to just one word, like the word 'mind'.

That is just one example of how quickly misinterpretation and misunderstanding can happen. Yet another example of WHERE misunderstanding comes from is the very use of the word 'mind', it is just like the word 'god'. How can people be asked to just use or accept these words and TRY TO understand what I am saying as though it is even possible.

The word 'unicorn' is EXTREMELY easy to understand. One just has to draw a picture, through pen and paper, or through descriptive words, for others to grasp some sort of understanding of what "it" IS, that one is referring to. The word 'God' and 'Mind', however, could well be probably the two hardest words to understand, for one's self and for others. For starters HOW does one even begin to describe what these THINGS are. No amount of pen and paper nor descriptive words has worked so far.

The 'Mind' is said to be within the human body, the 'Mind' can NOT be seen when the human body is cut open. Even when cut up into the smallest of parts the 'Mind' can NOT be seen, not at least with the physical human eyes, anyway. Although the exact same phenomena happens with 'thoughts' (and 'emotions') at least with the word 'thoughts' and 'emotions' human being can grasp a sense of what these things ARE. But with the word 'Mind' this ability to grasp a sense of what 'It' IS or understand what 'It' IS is much harder.

Now, back to your point. Because I KNOW a specific language with specific definitions for the words and terms used that can and WILL cause non-confusion and thus NO misunderstanding at all, then I do NOT agree with you about; one cant expect that the same understanding of these topics will be equally available to both minds.

The very heart/center point of the matter here is the word 'Mind' and Its usage. (This is for a further discussion, much later on) But for the moment anyway, I KNOW that the EXACT SAME understanding of these topics will be EQUALLY available to ALL, human beings.

The EQUAL UNDERSTANDING comes from specific definitions for individual words, which by the way are not that to far removed from dictionary definitions in use now. From these specific definitions meaning is derived, from which when ALL seen together as one, illustrates a dare I say it "perfect" picture, of which ALL will be in agreement with and thus will also accept.

Although this may sound somewhat complex and hard to do or achieve, but really it is very, very SIMPLE and EASY.

By the way, if clarification from "another" can NOT be achieved, then that is NOT helpful at all, and thus all it really shows is the author/speaker does NOT really KNOW what they are TRYING TO talk about.

Also, I understand, accept, and agree, with you that there are just some things that a full understanding from "another's" perspective can NOT be obtained. For example, the color 'blue'. From two different human beings, WHAT the color 'blue' actually IS, could NEVER be fully understand and KNOWN. For all these two people KNOW the color of 'blue' could be the other person's color of 'red', but in knowing that the beauty of what is now KNOWN is that that does NOT matter. What really matters IS acceptance and agreement. If these two people accept that THIS 'color' (whatever it is) IS the EXACT same, and they agree on THIS, then that is all that really matters.

So, it does NOT matter how 'things' are defined nor what those 'things' really are, but what 'It' IS that is in agreement is what matters. Now, if what 'it' IS, is in agreement, and ALL of that agreement is accepted AND fitting together, to form a big and full picture of ALL-THERE-IS, then nothing else really matters.

The only way, that I know of anyway, to reach this UNDERSTANDING and agreement of IT is to gain clarification from EACH other. Just like we will NEVER know what the "true" color of 'blue' IS we ONLY gain an understanding of what it IS (or more Truthfully what it COULD BE) through clarification with and from each other [ALL-OF-US]. Only through peaceful clarifying questions am I able to ascertain what THIS color IS, from another's perspective. When agreement is reached, then AN understanding is also made.

So, a FULL understanding can be obtained THROUGH CLARIFICATION.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am
And, if you could really be bothered you will also notice just how often my questions are NOT answered.
Yes, maybe I can't be bothered :-)
Maybe no one can... one can only eat as much vanilla ice-cream before you have to stop, otherwise you will be feeling unwell - its the same with too many questions...
NOT REALLY. There is NO physical body that is affected by to many questions.

Personally I can NOT be asked enough questions, nor even be challenged enough. I actually THRIVE, and grow, on it.

The more I LEARN, and grow wiser, then the better and healthier i feel.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am
This is mostly because human beings have a tendency to think that when questions are being asked that they are NOT really OPEN questions but an expression of TRYING TO SHOW another point of view or even show an opposite point of view, or, SHOW another side or another perspective of things
Yes, fully agree.
But that is NOT what I am intentionally doing, when I ask questions.

I truly just ask questions only seeking truly open and honest answers only.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am
I, on the other hand, am NOT doing this, and, ALL that I am doing is just asking Truly OPEN questions for clarification.
While this might be so it doesn't help you to communicate well with others, right?
To a point you are absolutely correct.

Outside of this forum, however, i do NOT communicate with others this way.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
Sometimes you will have to step onto the same platform of thought for others to understand you, and to actually enjoy talking to you.
Totally agree. But that is HOW i have communicate, and usually communicate outside of this forum. Getting on their level of thought and thinking and just enjoying that type of talking. But if, as I see is correct, this platform is only on one side waiting for a train that is heading in one direction on a one way track, downhill to 'our', human beings', demise.

Turning this around and heading us ALL back, to WHERE we really belong, mostly for children's sake is all that I really want to do now. I KNOW that what will produced and the enjoyment from that completely overrides any short-term enjoyment now for me.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
As long as you remain in your own world of perfect openness, including all its sometimes strange effects on human communication patterns, it will be difficult for you to reach others with what you have to say.
I do NOT disagree with you at all here.

I do enjoy the talking with others, as some others do enjoy talking with me outside of this forum, but that also does NOT work in "reaching" others. So, i feel a whole life wasting away communicating that way.

There may be as many ways to "reach" others as there are 'others', but for single ole 'me' there is only one way that i learned and thus only one way that i KNOW of that works. I wish I KNEW of other ways but the only way I KNOW of is through absolute Honesty and Openness, and through clarification understanding is reached.

I will just have to continue TRYING different ways to communicate until I discover another way. The reason I chose a philosophy forum for this learning endeavor is because if any person can find fault in communication/language/word usage, then it surely would be from people who like arguing/logical reasoning. For example, you are now SHOWING me my errors and faults perfectly, from my perspective.

As I have eluded to before, this forum is NOT the place to reach others with what I WANT to say, but just a place WHERE to learn how to better communicate what it is that I WANT to say.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am
Please do NOT tell me what i do, thank you.
Why not? If I feel that you are doing a certain thing then I am allowed to point it out, no?
Of course you are allowed to point things out. I even want you to. But please just express it as, to you, this is how I come across or how I appear to be doing things.

Even better is asking the clarifying question; Are you making an assumption here, instead of just saying things like; you assume.

And, if you can SEE and obvious assumption that I am making/have made, then please point that out to me. I really do love to be SHOWN where I have done some thing, which I say is WRONG or NOT RIGHT.

I just do NOT like being told that I do some things, without the actual evidence for this.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
Of course it is only my interpretation/assumption but ignoring what another has to say about the impact your "doing" has is not helpful.
I certainly would NOT, intentionally, ignore what another says in regards to my lack of communication skills.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
Its not something you should ignore by basically saying "no one is allowed to judge me" (even no one should do it, it happens - so deal with it)
See that was NOT my intention and NOTHING like I was wanting to sound like, nor meant at all. I was certainly NOT saying any thing like this at all.

I just, literally, meant please do NOT tell me what I do, WITHOUT FIRST THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

SEE, how much I have to learn in order to communicate better. The main and most important bit I left out completely.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am
The Truth is NOT what, appears to be or, is different, but what IS, the same/agreement.
I "assume" I understand, but just to be perfectly clear, please elaborate or express in a different way - thanks.
This is again the PERFECT kind of discussion/communication that I have been looking for. A huge reason for misunderstanding between human beings, is 'we' ASSUME we understand what the other is saying or we ASSUME the other will understand what we are saying. One of the biggest causes of human beings disagreeing, disputing, arguing, fighting, and warring, i think that will be found, is just the misunderstanding of the definition of the words being used in the discussion. If clarification, agreement, and acceptance are sort first, then the above misunderstanding, and its causes, can and will be eradicated.

I have actually written something above, before I read this, in regards to agreement and Truth. But at its most fundamental level; the Truth is what IS in agreement with and by ALL. For the very fact that if no one/thing is disagreeing with some 'thing', then that 'thing', which is in agreement, would have to be the Truth. For who/what would be disputing It? In saying that there is another step higher of an absolute Truth, which we can look at now or leave that for later if you like.

What is important is if you agree with that definition/description for the word 'Truth' or not?

If that is NOT elaborated and/or NOT explained in a sufficient way, then please let me know and I will TRY again.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am
There is absolutely NO one that is more nor less SPECIAL than another. Just like there is NO one that is more nor less good nor bad than another IS.
This is of course true in pure being-ness, but not in "the world of things".
Well which ONE is the true and correct one, and which one is the perceived and illusioned one?

If the former one is the true and correct one, then what I said IS thee Truth. End of story. There is NO use in even looking at or even considering the made up and illusioned world.

But, if "the world of things" is the true and correct one, then do NOT take a word of what I said as true. Then let every one who has their own little perspective of truth live in and enjoy their own little worlds. This is of NO concern to Me.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
Here you will communicate with people that understand certain things better than others and you will have to adopt the style of concepts you use, the pictures you draw etc to actually be understood...[/quote]

Of course ALL people are at varying levels of understanding. If the Truth be KNOWN human babies have a far greater grasp of the True and Proper UNDERSTANDING than adult human beings, but that is a side issue. From the human being perceived "world of things" level generally the older have a greater understanding than the younger, and, there is a complete mixture of "understanding" mixed up throughout all of this.

But, what it is that I want to communicate WILL be understood from the youngest to the oldest equally and just as simply and easily for every one of them. Really there is NOT much at all that I want to say, that is NOT already KNOWN within EVERY one, already anyway. I just want to express HOW to find WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN.

The style that I am learning is FOR EVERY one and NOT just some.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
but this kind of understanding, the one that comes from talking and thinking is not real understanding.
As far as I am aware through, thinking, talking, writing, and illustrating this is the ONLY way that human beings can communicate.

New born human babies, who do have Real Understanding are, unfortunately, unable to communicate how to find/rediscover this KNOWLEDGE. Therefore, only older human beings will have to do this. And, the only way they can communicate this is, unfortunately, through THINKING first.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
Real understanding comes from life itself. Its a bit like riding a bike - you cant think yourself into learning to ride a bike - yes one can understand all the details on how to hold balance etc, but this will only take you so far. It will actually be a hindrance if one continues to think about how to hold balance when sitting on a bike trying to actually ride it. The learning process will happen without thought intervening - its the same with real understanding, truth, being-ness - it doesn't come from understanding the topic and trying to apply it.
You are using some of the, dare I say it, "magic" words here.

Thought/Thinking, (as in ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING) is a HUGE hindrance in (RE)DISCOVERING, LEARNING, SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING what is ALREADY KNOWN.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:23 am
But when one has ALL understanding, then, obviously, thought does NOT still run like crazy. ALL understanding, obviously, includes ALL, which would obviously mean understanding ALL thought also, and how it works, too.
What exactly do you mean with "when one has ALL understanding"?
But are you even open to there being a 'one'?

If I recall correctly you have already expressed that there is NO 'one', am I right?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
Who has this understanding?
The one and only One, which is the collective of ALL and which is the Observer of ALL things.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 am
What is the understanding? (I have told you what I mean with real - not thought based - understanding in the previous paragraph - is your understanding different?)
NOT really.

Understanding comes from KNOWING, not from learning. Learning triggers thoughts, and thoughts triggers thinking, thinking can very easily distort reality, or what is KNOWN. Thinking and Knowing are NOT the same thing, obviously.

For example, a human baby is born with real Understanding. This baby KNOWS what is NEEDED in order to live. Unfortunately along the way of this babies development into adulthood it LEARNS that other things are NEEDED, instead of just what is REALLY NEEDED, this older human being THINKS it NEEDS more things, which then distorts from SEEING what the actual and Real Truth IS. What it really NEEDS is still KNOWN within, but just lost within all that thought and thinking. But, fortunately ALL human beings have ALL experienced the EXACT SAME things, which through these common Life experiences agreement can be REACHED, and the True REALITY of Life can also be found and come into existence.

Age
Posts: 3575
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:00 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:52 am
AGE wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:

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
But if the Universe IS ALL THERE IS which obviously must include EVERY thing which would obviously also include ALL of the infinite set of integers and ALL of the infinite set of primes of integers and ALL of the EVERY other things including ALL of maths itself then could there be ANY power larger than EVERYTHING or ALL THERE IS

To me it seems contradictory that there could be MORE than ALL . But maybe HOW this is POSSIBLE could be explained

Does mathematical terms only exist because of human beings who only exist because of the Universe ?
Or does mathematical terms exist WITHIN the Universe Itself or separately out of and / or beyond the Universe Itself ?
Unlike the Universe which is the singular ALL THERE IS [ AND EVER WAS AND EVER WILL BE ] there is more than one infinity
In physicality or just in concept?

And, do these "other" infinities exist within ALL-THERE-IS, or outside of IT?

I KNOW it is a ridiculous clarifying question, which if you answered Openly and Honestly, then I would NOT have to again suggest some thing like; then HOW could some thing stretch out past ALL-THERE-IS?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:52 am
They have absolutely no limitation to them because they are never ending [ the number line is infinite in both directions ]
In physicality or in concept?

Is the Universe NOT infinite in ALL directions?

The Universe IS NEVER-ENDING, is it NOT?. The definition of 'ALL-THERE-IS' is NEVER-ENDING.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:52 am
Maths is an abstract discipline and so is not limited in the same way that the physical Universe might be [ even if it is not ]
But what has this to do with in relation to being more powerful than ALL-THERE-IS.

How can an abstract thought within any amount of human bodies, about any amount of numbers, be more powerful than the Whole physical Universe, Itself?

Also, what could the physical Universe be, supposedly, limited by?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:52 am
No one knows whether maths was invented or discovered but it does require the existence of minds for it to be understood
What is the point here?

Anyway, what does that actually mean when people say "maths was discovered"?

How is the word 'maths' being defined when this remark is proposed?
And, is the exact same definition for the word 'maths' used when the other remark "maths was invent" is said?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests