Are you using the word 'are' here, like this is the one and only absolute Truth?bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:22 pmEvery thing only. To me physical is caused by Mind/Minds/minds.
But before you said there is a Mind, Minds, or minds, which is the free agent/s, within EVERY thing.
Now, if EVERY thing has a free agent within it, then the chances of there being one free agent in this body and "another" separate but just one more free agent in absolutely EVERY other body, seems very highly unlikely, to me.
By the way, when you wrote: One who is you who cause certain things which you are aware you do. is NOT a free agent. This one [the 'you'], which is just a small 'i', who is 'me', IS just the thoughts and emotions, within this body. This one is NOT a free agent because 'i' only exist because of the body that 'i' am in, and, because of the past experiences that this body has experienced. 'i', therefore, am created, just like every thing else is, except for that what is NOT created, that is; the Free Agent, sometimes known as by the Mind, and, the Universe Itself.
The 'I', as in the question 'Who am 'I'?', is A Free Agent. This 'I', of which there is only One of, exists always, can NOT be created, and is a Truly Free Agent. This is the same One that exists within EVERY thing and which causes/creates EVERY thing, the way It is, through ALL physical matter, to me anyway.
Who's mind, supposedly, simply exists. And, why is this 'who' referred to as a 'he'?
Are you sure this is helping to clarify things here? Even with yourself?
There really is a much more simpler and easier way to explain ALL of this, and with precise clear language. However, you want to keep insisting and BELIEVING that there ARE at least two minds/free agents existing. So, I will leave you to this BELIEF.
The 'you' is NOT in charge ABSOLUTELY. The 'you' is in charge up to a certain point, and of only a VERY minuscule amount of things, if nothing really at all if in the scheme of things is looked at. The 'you' is only in charge of the behavior of the body that the 'you' is in, which in saying that does have a 'knock-on' effect with other bodies, but for precision the word 'you' I use for the person, who exists within A human body.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:22 pmI understand what you are saying. But I am sure that we can agree on the fact that you are in charge of certain changes.
As I had previously mentioned, when ALL the words are defined more precisely and accurately, which really is NOT much different at all from what the dictionaries already state, then EVERY thing falls into place together to form a crystal clear big picture of ALL-THERE-IS.
If this is how things SHOULD exist, then just SHOW us all HOW.
From what I SEE, want to share, and explain, just one Free Agent is suffice, and works much better, more easily and far more simply. But you might KNOW better and can better explain HOW at least two free agents cause and created the Universe, the way it is.
You TRIED this ASSUMED assumption before, and it did NOT work last time.
WHY does it have to be this ASSUMPTION or THERE SHOULD EXIST at least two free agents? Why can there NOT be other conclusions?
Also, your premise that THERE SHOULD EXIST, does NOT automatically logically lead to and conclude SO THERE IS AT LEAST TWO FREE AGENTS.
What is your evidence for at least two free agents.
From what I have SEEN, you are only TRYING TO back up and support an already held BELIEF, within that body.
You really will have to just pick one definition for things, and not keep changing them on the go, if you really want those ideas, views, thoughts, beliefs, et cetera accepted and agreed with.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:22 pm
There IS an actual very specific defined language that will demonstrate and SHOW what it is that you are TRYING TO show here.
As I have said I totally accept and agree that there is one Mind, within EVERY thing, but now I have to question who is this 'he' in the presupposition that has "his body"? I am also wonder WHY is it a 'he'?
Who is the 'we' you are referring to here?
And, when object X for example changes into object Y, and thus one mind MUST OF also changed into another mind or one mind died and another mind reemerged, then how can these minds, which would obviously NOT even KNOW of the long gone minds, be able to actually work together?
How are "our" brains structured?
Who/what is 'our'?
Who/what is 'we'?
Why when there are BELIEFS brains are NOT open and can be very much CLOSED?
Who is the 'your' that you are referring to here?bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:22 pmYour mind is not created.Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:33 pmYes, you defined 'mind' as the essence of 'me' and 'me' is the being/thing of EVERY object. There are therefore as many 'minds' as there are objects, and these 'minds' only come into existence when there is an object, which by the way ALL and EVERY object IS CREATED. Therefore, meaning EVERY 'me' IS also CREATED. Now, WHERE is the supposed 'free agent' that is supposedly NOT created?
The word 'your' also implies ownership, so who/what is or could be this owner of 'mind'?
How can the essence of 'me' be 'mind', which you say is how things are, but 'me' is, supposedly, created and 'mind' is not. Either there is one Mind in EVERY thing, which can be the essence of EVERY thing/being, or, if there are at least two different minds, as you propose there are, and each physical object is 'me' AND ALL objects come into existence and then fade away, then when these 'me's' come into existence and then exist so to must those different 'minds' of 'me's'?
Yes I agree, but you are the one saying there are different 'minds', which are separately attached or the different essence of different physical objects.
What is the way that 'minds' are supposedly connected together?bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:22 pmThe way that 'minds' are connected together make an object what it is.
Also, are you absolutely positively 100% sure that what you are saying about 'minds' IS True, Right, and Correct?
Why do you think or believe that 'absolute power' does NOT exist?
Your 'if/then' sentence does not logically follow.
We could define 'supreme' as the strongest who exists right NOW. 'NOW' being the eternal NOW.
This supreme One, with absolute power, exists eternally NOW. It is because of this One that the Universe IS Created the way It IS, eternally NOW.
So, 'me' is mind and body/physical, and, so is 'you' mind and body/physical, also.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:22 pmI already answer to all your questions in another thread. Let's hope that things work out.
No. There exist many 'me', such as me and you.
Now explain how 'we', me and you, are connected and working together here.
To Me, 'me' and 'you' appear to be having VERY DIFFERENT ideas about how many Mind/minds there are, and NOT really working together at all here.
My view is that I can explain very specifically and in great minute detail how there is only one Mind, which will also explain how the Mind and the brain work together, and through this working together then how a Truly peaceful harmonious world CAN BE created for everyone to live in together.
Whereas, your view is that there are more than one mind, but when I ask you clarify this so that EVERYONE could understand this view better, you appear, to me anyway, NOT to be clearing things up at all really.
Just for the moment let us disregard the word 'yourself', as this can be a very tricky word to understand fully. But anyway how i define 'being' can be in two ways;
1. There is 'being', small b, this is the word in the term 'human being' for example. I class the 'human' part of this as the physical human body, and the 'being' part as the thoughts and the emotions in that physical body. The thoughts and emotions are obviously invisible to the human physical eye, so they can be related to the 'being' part of a 'human being'. This 'being' is also the person, or personality, part. Or, also the self. This self is NOT who one really IS, but this self is who one THINKS they are. This self is individual and different and held within the individual and different brains.
2. There is 'Being', big B, this is the absolute and True Self. This is ultimate answer to the question Who am 'I'? question. The answer to this question IS KNOWN to be Right when absolutely EVERY thing is in agreement with thee answer. This Self is a collective of ALL-THERE-IS. This is what I refer to as thee One and only Mind.
Well there is NO use in us discussing any more.
From My perspective your definitions are NOT even close to being good enough, YET.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:22 pmYes, there has been always 'some things' who have witnessed things and had caused changes.
Sorry for that.
I see. I use single witness when I want to argue the argument about change, the argument that there is a mind because there is a change. We have witnesses, at least two, when it comes to the whole picture, in another word the universe.
I hope that we can reach to a conclusion that my definition is good enough.
But since you said that your definitions are unchangeable, then that is what they are, and so be it.
I KNOW what you are arguing for. My question remains WHY do you think or BELIEVE that there NEEDS to be at least two minds?bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:22 pmI think I should have been more specific and elaborated more.
So the whole picture as I should elaborated is like this. I first consider a change in a system and argue that a mind is needed for that change. I then argue that in the universe there are at least two minds because there are changes.
Two minds makes what you are TRYING TO argue for NOT sound, NOT valid, and NOT logical, at all, from my perspective.
Because why would 'i' be privileged enough to have one of these at least two minds, and EVERY one else has to share the other mind, AND, if there is one completely separate mind for each completely separate particle of matter, then that infers that each mind comes into existence and out of existence with each particle of matter, thus each of these minds MUST therefore be created also, with each created particle of matter.
If you do NOT want what your saying to sound so confusing, then at least clear this part up; How many minds are there?
(Also, on some very quick reflection I can now SEE how there could be as many minds as there are particles of matter. But you will still NEED some explaining to do).
Would you care to share this argument?
Would you care to elaborate?
Firstly, what is the, supposed, "problem" of free will? And, would you care to share that argument also?
Also, do ALL of your arguments fit together perfectly soundly and validly, and so that EVERY one CAN agree with them?
If no, then just maybe your arguments need some work done on them.
Are you aware that your arguments would have to sound, valid arguments, which if they were, then they would SHOW an unambiguous fact that could NOT be dispute, and thus could NOT be refuted by absolutely ANY thing, anyway. ALL you would be doing is just SHOWING thee Truth.
When you have those TYPES of arguments, then I would be VERY EXCITED to SEE them, as it is SHOWING HOW it is possible to FIND and SEE thee Truth, by thy self, that I am just learning how to express better. If you have those types of arguments, then I do NOT need to do anymore study in learning how to communicate better. I could just go and really enjoy Life/Living and just let you expose thee Truth in and with those irrefutable arguments.
So, is this ANY different from what I have been saying all along here, regarding this issue?
To me, this is EXACTLY what I have been saying. I just needed to ask you clarifying questions, so that in the end you will be SEEING and SAYING the EXACT SAME as I have been doing, from the outset. But, for those that did NOT notice, I did NOT have to influence this outcome to reach the same conclusion. I just needed to ask the right open clarifying questions in the right way, so that they could and would learn, discover, SEE, and UNDERSTAND things, for and by themselves.
Just asking the right OPEN questions allows another to FIND and SEE thee Truth for, and by, them self.