## Mind or minds

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: Mind or minds

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.
Forgetting any theorem for now, WHY can a Universal set, which obviously contains absolutely EVERY thing, (including ALL of those "forgotten" theorems), NOT exist?

A 'Universal set' is just as good a name as any for a 'set of ALL things'. And to make this even more simpler and easier, to shorten down a 'Universal set of ALL things' could just be called the 'Universe'.
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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.
So, then looking only from this very narrow field of view of things, this then would NOT be the best way to LOOK AT things if more is wanted to be discovered and understood, correct?
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.[/quote]

From a line between closed and open 0 being closed and 10 being open where in that do you think or believe you are, in relation to being open to see if there is another view point?
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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.
In the simplest explanation;
The interaction of ALL physical things IS how re-production happens.
How, the one and only Mind gets involved IS through Observing this one and only re-producing Creation happening.
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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.
But that does NOT necessarily follow at all.

First I would have to KNOW of some change that I am NOT responsible for.

I do NOT know of such a change.
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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.
If there is a change, then there is a Mind.
There is an obvious change.
Therefore, there is obviously A Mind.

Only one Mind is needed.

In fact it could be argued that there is only one Change, and therefore there could only be one Mind, (which is needed), anyway.
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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.

I do NOT see the connection between an obviously devised, from human beings, set of numbers and how that would nor could "indicate" that there could exist an entity with power larger than the set of absolutely EVERY thing together.
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
There could be another entity which its power could be larger than the first one, etc.
But if there is supposedly more than one entity then they both are a part of the one and only, Universal, Entity.
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
It is simply unbound. You need a bound in power in order to define supreme being, so called God.
The set of 'ALL things' is bound by Its own set (Self).
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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.
Why do you say that 'you' can NOT have a set of EVERY thing?

I say I already have A set of EVERY thing.
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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.
I can NOT yet agree on it because I do NOT yet understand it. I do not YET have any clue what all those symbols mean.

If I was to write;
A/E = r O.

Without clarification first you may not yet know what those symbols mean.
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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.
Again, I have yet to see why NOT.
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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.
Okay let us do this.
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
B also is either bound or unbound.
B is bound also.
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
If it is bounded then it is bounded with something else, let's call it B'. Etc. So the reality is unbound.
But that does not necessarily logically follow. To me, that is just a narrow way to LOOK AT it.

Let us call 'ALL-THERE-IS' A, and A is bounded by B, then B could be bounded by A, and, Reality IS an infinite boundlessness.

A + B = Reality.
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.[/quote]

I really do NEED this to be explained to me instead of just being said "it is so".

The earlier explanation with the unknown, to me, symbols really showed me nothing.
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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.
Changes can also be singled into one that was caused.
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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.
'Your' implies owner and/or before. Therefore the 'mind' in 'your mind' appears to be a created thought or and/an after thought.

All that needs to be done is to just rearrange words in to uniformed sense.
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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.
Are you absolutely sure 'you' were other thing or being in the past?

If you are, then WHAT were you before, 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.

There is only human beings struggling because each one of them THINKS they KNOW what is True and Right, even when they absolutely have NO idea what they are talking about.
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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.
So are you saying: ALL minds are equal but they obviously have to be very different also?
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.
[/quote]

Just for information; Most of the responses I gave this time are completely different from those that I was going to give last time, if I recall correctly.

bahman
Posts: 2049
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

### Re: Mind or minds

Age wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:17 pm
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 10:34 pm
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

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

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.
Forgetting any theorem for now, WHY can a Universal set, which obviously contains absolutely EVERY thing, (including ALL of those "forgotten" theorems), NOT exist?
Because the universal set cannot contain all sub-sets and still be a universal set. Why? Basically all sub-sets is bigger than the universal set. In another hand we assume that the universal set exists which mean it contains all sub-sets which this means that the universal set is bigger than all sub-sets. These two contradict each other therefore the universal set does not exist.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:17 pm
A 'Universal set' is just as good a name as any for a 'set of ALL things'. And to make this even more simpler and easier, to shorten down a 'Universal set of ALL things' could just be called the 'Universe'.
It is an abstract concepts so it applies to everything, such as the universe, God's power, etc.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:17 pm
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am

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

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.
So, then looking only from this very narrow field of view of things, this then would NOT be the best way to LOOK AT things if more is wanted to be discovered and understood, correct?
I meant if the model just applicable to human then it is very field of view of things. I think this model can explain reality very simply.
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

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.
From a line between closed and open 0 being closed and 10 being open where in that do you think or believe you are, in relation to being open to see if there is another view point?
10.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
But both of these things are extremely simple and easy to UNDERSTAND, SEE, and EXPLAIN.
In the simplest explanation;
The interaction of ALL physical things IS how re-production happens.
Science says that the reproduction is a local phenomena which is the result of mixing an egg and a sperm. It is this mixture which is important not all physical things.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
How, the one and only Mind gets involved IS through Observing this one and only re-producing Creation happening.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am

Okay I have done this.

Yes I have done this also.

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.
But that does NOT necessarily follow at all.

First I would have to KNOW of some change that I am NOT responsible for.

I do NOT know of such a change.
For example, what you are reading is the result of me typing the words.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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.
If there is a change, then there is a Mind.
There is an obvious change.
Therefore, there is obviously A Mind.

Only one Mind is needed.

In fact it could be argued that there is only one Change, and therefore there could only be one Mind, (which is needed), anyway.
Do you think that you have a mind? Or you are self-deriving ideas?
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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.

I do NOT see the connection between an obviously devised, from human beings, set of numbers and how that would nor could "indicate" that there could exist an entity with power larger than the set of absolutely EVERY thing together.

For this you need to understand the theorem. I gave it another shot and explaining things more simply.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
There could be another entity which its power could be larger than the first one, etc.
But if there is supposedly more than one entity then they both are a part of the one and only, Universal, Entity.

No, because there is always more than more.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
It is simply unbound. You need a bound in power in order to define supreme being, so called God.
The set of 'ALL things' is bound by Its own set (Self).
The set of all things is the universal set.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
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.
Why do you say that 'you' can NOT have a set of EVERY thing?

I say I already have A set of EVERY thing.
I already explained that you cannot have a set of everything. Let's see if my explanation works this time.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
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.
I can NOT yet agree on it because I do NOT yet understand it. I do not YET have any clue what all those symbols mean.

If I was to write;
A/E = r O.

Without clarification first you may not yet know what those symbols mean.
Please let me know which part you don't understand so I can explain it to you.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
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.
Okay let us do this.
Ok.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
B also is either bound or unbound.
B is bound also.
That is the only first case.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
If it is bounded then it is bounded with something else, let's call it B'. Etc. So the reality is unbound.
But that does not necessarily logically follow. To me, that is just a narrow way to LOOK AT it.

Let us call 'ALL-THERE-IS' A, and A is bounded by B, then B could be bounded by A, and, Reality IS an infinite boundlessness.

A + B = Reality.
It does follow. The reality is {A}+{B}+{B'}+{B''}+{B'''}+...+{A,B}+ ...=reality.
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

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.
I really do NEED this to be explained to me instead of just being said "it is so".

The earlier explanation with the unknown, to me, symbols really showed me nothing.
I did it in the beginning of this post.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
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
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.
Changes can also be singled into one that was caused.
Not, given the definition of mind. A mind only witness certain things and is responsible for change in certain things too.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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
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.
'Your' implies owner and/or before. Therefore the 'mind' in 'your mind' appears to be a created thought or and/an after thought.

All that needs to be done is to just rearrange words in to uniformed sense.
Ok, let's try again. I already explained everything for the next round.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
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.
Are you absolutely sure 'you' were other thing or being in the past?
Yes. You can in fact know that through meditation.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
If you are, then WHAT were you before, in the "past"?
A tree.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am

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.
So are you saying: ALL minds are equal but they obviously have to be very different also?
All minds are equal given the definition, the essence of an being with ability to experience, decide and cause. Minds however are connected with each other differently. That is why you are different than me.

AlexW
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

### Re: Mind or minds

Sorry I have to keep this short (new year and all) - will answer the other questions over the next days:
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:39 am
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?
I partially agree.
The way I see it, Truth is only true when it is absolute - relativistic truth is not actually Truth as it always depends on a range of assumptions made previously (it doesn't stand on its own, it lives on borrowed ground), it also lives from defining its opposite. Language and thought only ever work on the relativistic, objective, dualistic level - there is no word/phrase that can not be negated, one can always define an opposing term. This is true also for words like infinity or eternity. If one would logically follow the ramifications of infinity existing to its final conclusion it would be obvious that if there is such a "thing" as infinity it would, per definition, swallow all things, absorb it into itself and by doing so, remove all thing-ness from these apparent things. What is left is not nothing - what is left is no thing. This no thing has to include all (ideas of) things, it has to be without the slightest separation (besides ideas of such separation which leads to the idea of things existing in their own right).

Over time multiple mental pictures have been drawn to point at this fact. The waves on the ocean are just one. The waves are of course only ever ocean, but they seem to define a separate thing/existence as they seem to be able to define a perspective, a specific point of view. There seems to be a knower present at the location of the wave who knows the other waves as separate beings/things compared to its own locale of existence. When looking for this knower one will find - there is no separate knower - there is only knowing happening. Who knows... Well one could say the ocean knows itself as the waves are only ocean, but its also not really true as the ocean is knowing/being itself. Its nature IS knowing - its all there actually is...

Now we are looking at: If something can be "in agreement" between all. I would start with: Who actually are these beings that should be in agreement? In reality, there is no one to agree - everything is already in agreement as what is real is always already agreed on - its agreement is based/confirmed by its very existence (even it doesn't exist as a thing).
Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I see it you are trying to find universal agreement in the realm of ideas, in the arena of thought, in duality. I think, based on the nature of thought (as explained above), based on its very structure (it only works in opposites and is perfectly incapable to deal with limitless being/knowing) - it is forever impossible to find an agreement between all (all meaning all thought up individuals, all conditioned egos). An agreement can only be "found" once the individual is seen through and leaves the party - but once this happens no more spoken/thought-based agreements are needed as all is found to already be perfectly agreed on. What is Real is already agreed on, its existence here/now is this very agreement that all agree on (but only once all - as a collective of individuals - have seen through the illusion that separation actually is).
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:39 am
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?
Sure, we can call it "One" - I only tend to prefer words like being/absolute etc as "One", for me, has a touch of thing-ness to it which I think should be avoided.
Last edited by AlexW on Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Mind or minds

bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Because the universal set cannot contain all sub-sets and still be a universal set.
I am not sure this is the case? The universal set (a.k.a The Universe) contains all quarks, bosons, gluons, leptons. 10^120 or thereabout particles and however many quantum fields.

And that's all that it contains. It doesn't contain any sub-sets.

In the late 19th century I would've said "The Universal set contains 10^82 atoms".
That is the extent to which I am willing to commit myself to an ontology. Till the next revolution.

Age
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: Mind or minds

bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:17 pm
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm

I am not in position to say that Cantor's theorem is wrong. The idea is simple to understand, please read next comment.

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.

The theorem to the best of my understanding cannot be wrong. The universal set, what you call the universe, which contains everything cannot exist.
Forgetting any theorem for now, WHY can a Universal set, which obviously contains absolutely EVERY thing, (including ALL of those "forgotten" theorems), NOT exist?
Because the universal set cannot contain all sub-sets and still be a universal set. Why? Basically all sub-sets is bigger than the universal set. In another hand we assume that the universal set exists which mean it contains all sub-sets which this means that the universal set is bigger than all sub-sets. These two contradict each other therefore the universal set does not exist.
If there is a contradiction, (which, by the way, I do NOT see from my perspective), then, anyway, WHY is it that the 'universal set' does not have to exist? WHY is it NOT the case that the 'sub-set' is NOT necessarily bigger than the 'universal set'?

You and I must have a different comprehension and/or different definition of the word 'Universal'. The word 'Universal', to me, has or implies an ALL, or a NOTHING ELSE, connotation to It.

And, the word 'sub', to me, has a LESS THAN rather than a MORE THAN connotation to it. To me, by definition, a 'sub' set would be smaller than the Universal set. With numbers of course the 'SUB set' of numbers of 'A PARTICULAR set' of numbers may be longer in length, but that in no way, to me anyway, infers that 'THAT PARTICULAR set' of numbers is necessarily 'A Universal set' of numbers. The very fact that 'THAT SET' does NOT contain ALL numbers, to me, means that is NOT the actual 'Universal set'.

Whatever would you call 'A set' that contains absolutely EVERY thing? I would call this 'set' A 'Universal set'
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:17 pm
A 'Universal set' is just as good a name as any for a 'set of ALL things'. And to make this even more simpler and easier, to shorten down a 'Universal set of ALL things' could just be called the 'Universe'.
It is an abstract concepts so it applies to everything, such as the universe, God's power, etc.
It could be A 'set' in an abstract concept and It also could be A 'set' in an actual physical reality.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:17 pm
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm

No.

I would say that minds are everywhere.

My mind stays close to my body.

Yes.
So, then looking only from this very narrow field of view of things, this then would NOT be the best way to LOOK AT things if more is wanted to be discovered and understood, correct?
I meant if the model just applicable to human then it is very field of view of things.
Again, WHY make models and/or LOOK AT "models"?

WHY not just LOOK AT what IS, which IS the real Thing, instead?

I think this model can explain reality very simply.[/quote]

But this "model" so far has NOT explained "reality" very simply.

In fact the "model" you are SHOWING looks very confusing and contradictory, so far.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm

I am open to see if there is another view point.
From a line between closed and open 0 being closed and 10 being open where in that do you think or believe you are, in relation to being open to see if there is another view point?
10.
So, you can SEE that there is another view point that there is only one, One and only Mind, correct?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm

In the simplest explanation;
The interaction of ALL physical things IS how re-production happens.
Science says that the reproduction is a local phenomena which is the result of mixing an egg and a sperm.
Who cares what 'science' supposedly says.

Is science perfect? Has science ever "said" inaccurate things? Has what science "said", since science began, been always accurate and correct?

Also, this is a very narrow and small view that you are looking from here.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
It is this mixture which is important not all physical things.
What mixture is that? Is that the mixture of physical things together?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
How, the one and only Mind gets involved IS through Observing this one and only re-producing Creation happening.
WHAT is 'mind', to you?

WHAT observes 'things' occurring/happening?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm

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.
But that does NOT necessarily follow at all.

First I would have to KNOW of some change that I am NOT responsible for.

I do NOT know of such a change.
For example, what you are reading is the result of me typing the words.
What CAUSED you to type these words?

Are those words the result of you only, or the result of some thing that influenced you to type particular words in a particular order? Were the previously typed words, which you read and are replying to, WHAT caused 'you' to do some thing? In other words was I in charge and thus responsible for this whole change?

Could there possibly be just One who IS responsible for ALL of this change, which is observing/witnessing, deciding, and causing ALL of this change? And, if so could this One be doing ALL of this through different bodies, with some of these bodies being human beings?

Could you and me be actually causing the change that is happening through our writings, but actually there being another One Being that is observing, deciding, and causing ALL of this to happen, without us even realizing this is happening?

Could the 'mind' in 'your mind', as you put it, actually just be One Mind?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm

No. The argument says that there is a mind if there is a change.
If there is a change, then there is a Mind.
There is an obvious change.
Therefore, there is obviously A Mind.

Only one Mind is needed.

In fact it could be argued that there is only one Change, and therefore there could only be one Mind, (which is needed), anyway.
Do you think that you have a mind?
NO. But there is a 'me' and there is a 'Mind'.

Or you are self-deriving ideas?[/quote]

'Self-deriving ideas' is NOT 'Who 'me' is'. But 'self-deriving ideas' has provoked an idea that could possible help Me in better describing and thus communicating just how 'you' the brain functions in relation to how 'I' the Mind functions.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm

The fact that there exist a number bigger than infinity indicates that there could exist an entity which its power is larger than infinity.

I do NOT see the connection between an obviously devised, from human beings, set of numbers and how that would nor could "indicate" that there could exist an entity with power larger than the set of absolutely EVERY thing together.

For this you need to understand the theorem. I gave it another shot and explaining things more simply.
If the "theorem" states that there are some times more, or a longer list of, numbers of a group of 'sub set' numbers in relation to a very specific 'set' of other numbers, then that neither invalidates nor validates what I have been discussing. That just shows some thing, which on reflection is rather very obvious. However, if that is NOT what that "theorem" states, then I still do not understand that "theorem".
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
There could be another entity which its power could be larger than the first one, etc.
But if there is supposedly more than one entity then they both are a part of the one and only, Universal, Entity.

No, because there is always more than more.
But there is NOT more than ALL. By definition of ALL, how could there be more?

Surely this is NOT to hard to understand?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
It is simply unbound. You need a bound in power in order to define supreme being, so called God.
The set of 'ALL things' is bound by Its own set (Self).
The set of all things is the universal set.
That is what some would/could call the set of ALL things.

Do you call the 'set of ALL things' the 'universal set'?

If so, do you still insist that a 'Universal set' could NOT exist?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm

That is because the universal set does not exist. You cannot have a universe, in another word a universal set, which contains everything.
Why do you say that 'you' can NOT have a set of EVERY thing?

I say I already have A set of EVERY thing.
I already explained that you cannot have a set of everything. Let's see if my explanation works this time.
Are you talking about the explanation a fair way up this post?

If you are, then that "explanation" did NOT work in explaining how it is impossible to have a 'set of EVERY thing', did NOT work for me anyway.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm

I already discussed theorem in starting of this post so let's see if we could agree on it.
I can NOT yet agree on it because I do NOT yet understand it. I do not YET have any clue what all those symbols mean.

If I was to write;
A/E = r O.

Without clarification first you may not yet know what those symbols mean.
Please let me know which part you don't understand so I can explain it to you.
Let us just say absolutely EVERY symbol in that explanation of yours I do NOT understand. That way when you explain EACH and EVERY one of them, then it will be more clear to me.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm

Because if 'all there is' is bound then it is bounded with something else, let's call it B.
Okay let us do this.
Ok.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
B also is either bound or unbound.
B is bound also.
That is the only first case.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm
If it is bounded then it is bounded with something else, let's call it B'. Etc. So the reality is unbound.
But that does not necessarily logically follow. To me, that is just a narrow way to LOOK AT it.

Let us call 'ALL-THERE-IS' A, and A is bounded by B, then B could be bounded by A, and, Reality IS an infinite boundlessness.

A + B = Reality.
It does follow. The reality is {A}+{B}+{B'}+{B''}+{B'''}+...+{A,B}+ ...=reality.
But that is ONLY IF you want to LOOK AT it that way and want to follow it ONLY THAT WAY.

Are you able to LOOK AT this in any other way?

I said that it does not NECESSARILY logically follow, MEANING that if there is another LOGICAL way that provides a crystal clear possible ANSWER, then that way you are describing, which does NOT show an actual possible outcome, does therefore NOT NECESSARILY LOGICALLY FOLLOW.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:00 pm

The universal set does not exist.
I really do NEED this to be explained to me instead of just being said "it is so".

The earlier explanation with the unknown, to me, symbols really showed me nothing.
I did it in the beginning of this post.
That, to me, did NOT explain HOW a set of EVERY thing is an impossibility.

Using that formula ONLY then yes a 'set of EVERY thing' is an impossibility and therefore does NOT exist. But that formula is NOT necessarily THE Right nor Correct formula to use, in this instance.

bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm

No, by we I mean everything which has mind, can experience and can cause.

So I repeat again. Changes can be divided into what you cause and what something else caused. Therefore there are at least two minds.
Changes can also be singled into one that was caused.
Not, given the definition of mind.
Oh, I was unaware that there is A one and only, specific, definition of 'mind'. Can you share THAT definition of 'mind' with us here?

Maybe that will give clarity how there are MANY 'minds' or at least TWO 'minds'.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
A mind only witness certain things and is responsible for change in certain things too.
If I recall correctly I said just about the EXACT SAME thing further up this post.

This may be to subliminal to recognize on first glance and inspection. But on further LOOKS and at much greater depth and detail, with intro and retrospection, THINGS become much more CLEARER.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm

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.

Yourself and another persons. Your mind however cannot be created. This is subject of discussion in another thread.
'Your' implies owner and/or before. Therefore the 'mind' in 'your mind' appears to be a created thought or and/an after thought.

All that needs to be done is to just rearrange words in to uniformed sense.
Ok, let's try again. I already explained everything for the next round.
I think what will be found is NOT every thing has YET been explained, at all.

In fact, some might say that things are becoming MORE confusing as we move along this discussion.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm

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.
Are you absolutely sure 'you' were other thing or being in the past?
Yes. You can in fact know that through meditation.
Could there be any other explanation, of what REALLY happens? But your 'absolutely sure' response earlier implies that your answer could be a "No".
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
If you are, then WHAT were you before, in the "past"?
A tree.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:26 pm

I try to be more specific from now on.

We are different because of our bodies only. All minds are equal given the definition.
So are you saying: ALL minds are equal but they obviously have to be very different also?
All minds are equal given the definition, the essence of an being with ability to experience, decide and cause. Minds however are connected with each other differently. That is why you are different than me.
Remember that is YOUR definition, which to me does not at all work.

Age
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: Mind or minds

AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
Sorry I have to keep this short (new year and all) - will answer the other questions over the next days:
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:39 am
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?
I partially agree.
The way I see it, Truth is only true when it is absolute -
I do SEE what you mean, but do you recall I said that there was another higher step up from Truth, to the next level of absolute Truth?

I just wanted to move up these steps together.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
relativistic truth is not actually Truth as it always depends on a range of assumptions made previously (it doesn't stand on its own, it lives on borrowed ground),
At an instant thought, Truth does not always necessarily depend on a range of assumptions made previously. (So, Truth could stand on Its own, and NOT live on borrowed ground, as you would put it).

But I can dwell on this later.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
it also lives from defining its opposite.
This could be true to a certain extent.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
Language and thought only ever work on the relativistic, objective, dualistic level - there is no word/phrase that can not be negated, one can always define an opposing term.
Is this absolutely True?

I can think of a word that might NOT be able to be negated.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
This is true also for words like infinity or eternity. If one would logically follow the ramifications of infinity existing to its final conclusion it would be obvious that if there is such a "thing" as infinity it would, per definition, swallow all things, absorb it into itself and by doing so, remove all thing-ness from these apparent things.
Therefore, only being 'being-ness' correct?

What is left is not nothing - what is left is no thing. [/quote]

Or, Being?
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
This no thing has to include all (ideas of) things, it has to be without the slightest separation (besides ideas of such separation which leads to the idea of things existing in their own right).

Over time multiple mental pictures have been drawn to point at this fact. The waves on the ocean are just one. The waves are of course only ever ocean, but they seem to define a separate thing/existence as they seem to be able to define a perspective, a specific point of view. There seems to be a knower present at the location of the wave who knows the other waves as separate beings/things compared to its own locale of existence. When looking for this knower one will find - there is no separate knower - there is only knowing happening.
When it is written, "When looking for this 'knower' 'one' will find - ...", then what is being implied is that there is a 'knower' and a 'one'. If there is NO 'one', then it is best to NOT say that 'they' will find some thing, that is; 'no separate knower. If there is NO 'one', then there is NO 'one' (that could find any thing).

The absolute Truth is there is One, and this One is the Knower, which by definition KNOWS ALL OF THIS, already.

Of course there is NO 'separate' Knower, but there obviously has to be A Knower.

How do you think you KNOW what you know?
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
Who knows... Well one could say the ocean knows itself as the waves are only ocean, but its also not really true as the ocean is knowing/being itself. Its nature IS knowing - its all there actually is...
We can call this Knower, Nature, if we like. Whatever word works, works. But there has to be One.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
Now we are looking at: If something can be "in agreement" between all. I would start with: Who actually are these beings that should be in agreement?
I would say that that is a funny place to start. WHEN and HOW did the word 'should' become involved?

Also, AFTER just arguing that there is NO separate knower, but then asking the question; Who actually are these beings, with an s, could be inferred as being a contradiction.

Although I KNOW what you ARE saying, and are TRYING TO say, but when discussing this sort of thing ALL words, terms, explanations, definitions of the language being used has to be very precise and specific, in Nature.

But in saying that, how about the 'beings' that WOULD be involved firstly, WOULD be the 'human beings'. We can start from here if you like.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
In reality, there is no one to agree -
That 'reality' word is really very off putting. Using that word implies that YOU already KNOW what HAS TO BE in agreement with.

Is there absolutely NO one, existing, EVER. Full stop?

Could the collective of ALL beings grouped into One agreement and agreed on 'set of ALL', just be A, or One, 'Being'?

There would be NO one to agree, as it was the agreement Itself, in the first place, that formed this One absolute Being.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
everything is already in agreement as what is real is always already agreed on
This I can wholeheartedly agree on, and with.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
- its agreement is based/confirmed by its very existence (even it doesn't exist as a thing).
Sounds EXTREMELY contradictory, well to me anyway.

Do you mean 'its very existence' 'does not exist as a PHYSICAL thing', or, do you mean 'it' 'does not exist as absolutely ANY thing'?

From a perspective, the former could very well be easily seen as being True, while the latter NOT so true. That is; without further explanation.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I see it you are trying to find universal agreement in the realm of ideas, in the arena of thought, in duality.
This is NOT what I am trying to do at all. In fact the very opposite of this is True, and what I am saying. That is;
What IS in agreement by ALL is what the Truth IS.

You do not NEED to go looking for what IS, in agreement, this is just naturally already KNOWN.

It is NOT up to me to even give a hint, nor influence, to what that agreement might be, and/or will be.

Within EVERY body there is a KNOWING, of what IS, in agreement.

To KNOW if that KNOWING has been found/reached, an UNDERSTANDING, comes with IT, of HOW ALL KNOW THIS ALSO.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
I think, based on the nature of thought (as explained above), based on its very structure (it only works in opposites and is perfectly incapable to deal with limitless being/knowing).
Even by definition to KNOW and KNOWING is different from thought and thinking. The nature of thought can, does all to often, actually interfere with, distort, prevent, and STOP KNOWING from revealing ITSELF.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
- it is forever impossible to find an agreement between all (all meaning all thought up individuals, all conditioned egos).
Well that sounds like an absolute Truth if ever I have heard one.

Are you absolute 100% SURE that finding agreement between ALL is a FOREVER IMPOSSIBILITY?

If so, then that is spoken from a True 'human being' perspective of 'THINGS'.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
An agreement can only be "found" once the individual is seen through and leaves the party - but once this happens no more spoken/thought-based agreements are needed as all is found to already be perfectly agreed on.
Well explained like that, then this IS True. However, once this agreement is found and has happened, then do you think that KNOWING would NOT want to REVEAL Itself further.

Is there really any sense or purpose in just "sitting around" doing absolutely NOTHING, with that KNOWING?

I notice that you also have a somewhat NEED to be heard and understood. WHERE do you think that comes from?
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
What is Real is already agreed on, its existence here/now is this very agreement that all agree on (but only once all - as a collective of individuals - have seen through the illusion that separation actually is).
But some KNEW of this already agreed on KNOWING, BEFORE the actual full realization of full and True separation was discovered/revealed. If I recall correctly it was you that said people are on, or at, different levels of understanding.

Some understand some things more than others, and, vice-versa.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:39 am
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?
Sure, we can call it "One"
Okay, then that is great.
AlexW wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:05 am
- I only tend to prefer words like being/absolute etc as "One", for me, has a touch of things-ness to it which I think should be avoided at all cost as it hinders understanding.
Okay that is fair enough also.

We can use the word 'Being', capital B, if you prefer.

Is this Being able to OBSERVE, and KNOW, the agreed on?

bahman
Posts: 2049
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

### Re: Mind or minds

Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:17 pm

Forgetting any theorem for now, WHY can a Universal set, which obviously contains absolutely EVERY thing, (including ALL of those "forgotten" theorems), NOT exist?
Because the universal set cannot contain all sub-sets and still be a universal set. Why? Basically all sub-sets is bigger than the universal set. In another hand we assume that the universal set exists which mean it contains all sub-sets which this means that the universal set is bigger than all sub-sets. These two contradict each other therefore the universal set does not exist.
If there is a contradiction, (which, by the way, I do NOT see from my perspective), then, anyway, WHY is it that the 'universal set' does not have to exist? WHY is it NOT the case that the 'sub-set' is NOT necessarily bigger than the 'universal set'?

You and I must have a different comprehension and/or different definition of the word 'Universal'. The word 'Universal', to me, has or implies an ALL, or a NOTHING ELSE, connotation to It.

And, the word 'sub', to me, has a LESS THAN rather than a MORE THAN connotation to it. To me, by definition, a 'sub' set would be smaller than the Universal set. With numbers of course the 'SUB set' of numbers of 'A PARTICULAR set' of numbers may be longer in length, but that in no way, to me anyway, infers that 'THAT PARTICULAR set' of numbers is necessarily 'A Universal set' of numbers. The very fact that 'THAT SET' does NOT contain ALL numbers, to me, means that is NOT the actual 'Universal set'.

Whatever would you call 'A set' that contains absolutely EVERY thing? I would call this 'set' A 'Universal set'.
The sub-set has less elements than the set. The point is that there exist many sub-sets. For example, lets consider a set A={a,b}. It has two member so its size two. The set of all sub-sets however is B={empty-set, {a}, {b}, {a,b}} which clearly has size four. This applies to all set. Now if you consider that the A is a universal set then it must be bigger than B which is not therefore it is contrary to assume that the universal set exist since the set of all its sub-sets is bigger than the universal set.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
From a line between closed and open 0 being closed and 10 being open where in that do you think or believe you are, in relation to being open to see if there is another view point?
10.
So, you can SEE that there is another view point that there is only one, One and only Mind, correct?
I know of that model. I had a thread on the topic "why not only one Mind?" a long time ago. This model however has problems which we can discuss it if you wish.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
In the simplest explanation;
The interaction of ALL physical things IS how re-production happens.
Science says that the reproduction is a local phenomena which is the result of mixing an egg and a sperm.
Who cares what 'science' supposedly says.

Is science perfect? Has science ever "said" inaccurate things? Has what science "said", since science began, been always accurate and correct?

Also, this is a very narrow and small view that you are looking from here.
Ok. What is the other view?
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
It is this mixture which is important not all physical things.
What mixture is that? Is that the mixture of physical things together?
Yes. Mixture of egg and sperm.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
How, the one and only Mind gets involved IS through Observing this one and only re-producing Creation happening.
WHAT is 'mind', to you?
Mind to me is the essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and cause. What is mind to you?
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
WHAT observes 'things' occurring/happening?
All sort of things. Me typing. Me drinking coffee. etc.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
But that does NOT necessarily follow at all.

First I would have to KNOW of some change that I am NOT responsible for.

I do NOT know of such a change.
For example, what you are reading is the result of me typing the words.
What CAUSED you to type these words?
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Are those words the result of you only, or the result of some thing that influenced you to type particular words in a particular order?
It is the result of all my experiences most importantly what you wrote.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Were the previously typed words, which you read and are replying to, WHAT caused 'you' to do some thing?
I experienced them. I am however a free agent so I can decide to reply or reply not. I can decide how much thought I should put in my reply, etc.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
In other words was I in charge and thus responsible for this whole change?
Yes, you influenced me.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Could there possibly be just One who IS responsible for ALL of this change, which is observing/witnessing, deciding, and causing ALL of this change?
There are at least two who are in charge of the changes because I am replying to someone else otherwise I knew all I know and there was no communication.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
And, if so could this One be doing ALL of this through different bodies, with some of these bodies being human beings?
The question is why that Mind is not aware of everything which is happening inside different bodies. It is one mind in charge of all change, therefore that Mind should be aware of everything which is happening.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Could you and me be actually causing the change that is happening through our writings, but actually there being another One Being that is observing, deciding, and causing ALL of this to happen, without us even realizing this is happening?
What we are? We experience, decide and cause. Don't we?
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Could the 'mind' in 'your mind', as you put it, actually just be One Mind?
I don't think so. As I know there are changes that I don't experience and cause. These words that I am reading is your words not mine. And these words that you read are mine not yours. So there are at least two minds.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
If there is a change, then there is a Mind.
There is an obvious change.
Therefore, there is obviously A Mind.

Only one Mind is needed.

In fact it could be argued that there is only one Change, and therefore there could only be one Mind, (which is needed), anyway.
Do you think that you have a mind?
NO. But there is a 'me' and there is a 'Mind'.
How do you define Mind?
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Or you are self-deriving ideas?
'Self-deriving ideas' is NOT 'Who 'me' is'. But 'self-deriving ideas' has provoked an idea that could possible help Me in better describing and thus communicating just how 'you' the brain functions in relation to how 'I' the Mind functions.
So you are the Mind and I am the brain? How about the opposite?
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
I do NOT see the connection between an obviously devised, from human beings, set of numbers and how that would nor could "indicate" that there could exist an entity with power larger than the set of absolutely EVERY thing together.

For this you need to understand the theorem. I gave it another shot and explaining things more simply.
If the "theorem" states that there are some times more, or a longer list of, numbers of a group of 'sub set' numbers in relation to a very specific 'set' of other numbers, then that neither invalidates nor validates what I have been discussing. That just shows some thing, which on reflection is rather very obvious. However, if that is NOT what that "theorem" states, then I still do not understand that "theorem".
No, the theorem simply says that the sub-sets of any set is larger, has more members, than the set. The universal set, which contain everything presumably must contain everything and be biggest set yet it is smaller than its sub-sets.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
But if there is supposedly more than one entity then they both are a part of the one and only, Universal, Entity.

No, because there is always more than more.
But there is NOT more than ALL. By definition of ALL, how could there be more?

Surely this is NOT to hard to understand?
Consider there are just two shapes, a and b, which is all that exist, set E={a,b}. We have four sub-sets which is the result of different combination of a and b which is N={empty-set, {a}, {b}, {a,b}}. N is bigger than E.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
The set of 'ALL things' is bound by Its own set (Self).
The set of all things is the universal set.
That is what some would/could call the set of ALL things.

Do you call the 'set of ALL things' the 'universal set'?
Yes. All things is however unbound.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
If so, do you still insist that a 'Universal set' could NOT exist?
Yes. As soon as you say that the universal set exists then it means that it has a sub-sets which is bigger than the original set. So we are dealing with this contradiction.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
Why do you say that 'you' can NOT have a set of EVERY thing?

I say I already have A set of EVERY thing.
I already explained that you cannot have a set of everything. Let's see if my explanation works this time.
Are you talking about the explanation a fair way up this post?

If you are, then that "explanation" did NOT work in explaining how it is impossible to have a 'set of EVERY thing', did NOT work for me anyway.
I tried again. So let's see if this time things for for you.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
I can NOT yet agree on it because I do NOT yet understand it. I do not YET have any clue what all those symbols mean.

If I was to write;
A/E = r O.

Without clarification first you may not yet know what those symbols mean.
Please let me know which part you don't understand so I can explain it to you.
Let us just say absolutely EVERY symbol in that explanation of yours I do NOT understand. That way when you explain EACH and EVERY one of them, then it will be more clear to me.
Ok, lets consider that there are only an apple and an orange in the world. This we call it the universal set. The sub-sets of this set are, empty-set (when you have nothing), apple, orange and apple and orange. So you have four combination which means that the sub-sets is bigger than original set. Does that make sense?
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am

I really do NEED this to be explained to me instead of just being said "it is so".

The earlier explanation with the unknown, to me, symbols really showed me nothing.
I did it in the beginning of this post.
That, to me, did NOT explain HOW a set of EVERY thing is an impossibility.
Because the sub-sets of set of every thing is bigger than set of every thing. So you have to call the sub-sets as every thing.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
Changes can also be singled into one that was caused.
Not, given the definition of mind.
Oh, I was unaware that there is A one and only, specific, definition of 'mind'. Can you share THAT definition of 'mind' with us here?
Mind is essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and cause. What is your definition of Mind?
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
Maybe that will give clarity how there are MANY 'minds' or at least TWO 'minds'.
Yes, it will. You experience and cause certain changes. You are very aware that there are changes that is not due to you. Therefore there is at least one more mind.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2985
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Mind or minds

AGE wrote:
I KNOW it is a ridiculous clarifying question which if you answered Openly and Honestly then I would
NOT have to again suggest something like then HOW could something stretch out past ALL THERE IS ?

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

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

Also what could the physical Universe be supposedly limited by ?

The Universe is ALL THERE IS but it is also expanding and so the ALL THERE IS is increasing all the time
Although it is not actually expanding into anything but only expanding within itself [ balloon analogy ]

I do not know if the Universe is infinite in all directions or never ending only that it is ALL THERE IS

Abstract thought within human minds about mathematical infinity [ or anything at all including every single thought that every human has ever
had and will have ] is not more powerful than the Universe because human minds are merely an incredibly infinitesimal sub set of the Universe

The Universe is limited by the four fundamental forces [ gravity / electromagnetism / strong nuclear / weak nuclear ] and the laws of physics

AlexW
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

### Re: Mind or minds

Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:06 am
Is this absolutely True?

I can think of a word that might NOT be able to be negated.
No. The way I see it there is nothing that can be said that is "absolutely True".
What word are you thinking of that can not be negated? Even if we think about infinity, which, if it is True, can not be negated, we can still think about the limited which in turn negates the existence of the infinite... while infinity might be "absolutely True" thought is still able to put it into context and press it into a limited structure. Thus even infinity can not be "absolutely True" while, where the word infinity points to can still be absolute Truth.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:06 am
What is left is not nothing - what is left is no thing.

Or, Being?
Yes, being/knowing.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:06 am
The absolute Truth is there is One, and this One is the Knower, which by definition KNOWS ALL OF THIS, already.

Of course there is NO 'separate' Knower, but there obviously has to be A Knower.

How do you think you KNOW what you know?
I know because I am this being which is/exists as pure knowing (of itself).

Yes, you can say this being/knowing is the "One" - but this One is no limited thing, no entity as such. It simply is being/knowing.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:06 am
Could the collective of ALL beings grouped into One agreement and agreed on 'set of ALL', just be A, or One, 'Being'?

There would be NO one to agree, as it was the agreement Itself, in the first place, that formed this One absolute Being.
I find it very unusual (for how my mind works anyway) to use the term agreement in such a way... For me an agreement is more of an accordance in opinion, in the way we think about something... to use it as a synonym for being is an interesting approach...
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:06 am
Sounds EXTREMELY contradictory, well to me anyway.

Do you mean 'its very existence' 'does not exist as a PHYSICAL thing', or, do you mean 'it' 'does not exist as absolutely ANY thing'?
I mean it doesn't exist as "a PHYSICAL thing" - it exists as being/knowing.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:06 am
Even by definition to KNOW and KNOWING is different from thought and thinking. The nature of thought can, does all to often, actually interfere with, distort, prevent, and STOP KNOWING from revealing ITSELF.
Agree - the reason being that attention is mostly on thought-story and not on being/knowing itself - it is caught in interpretation instead of resting in its own nature.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:06 am
Well that sounds like an absolute Truth if ever I have heard one.

Are you absolute 100% SURE that finding agreement between ALL is a FOREVER IMPOSSIBILITY?

If so, then that is spoken from a True 'human being' perspective of 'THINGS'.
That's right - it is spoken from the human being perspective - and as such is can not be an "absolute Truth".
But, yes, I am pretty sure (not absolutely sure as thought can not provide this level of Truth)
Why am I sure? Because the agreement is already the case - if you already have something you can not find it by looking for it, right? The only thing that will work is to realise that you always already had it and that the whole search has been an exercise in futility.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:06 am
Is there really any sense or purpose in just "sitting around" doing absolutely NOTHING, with that KNOWING?

I notice that you also have a somewhat NEED to be heard and understood. WHERE do you think that comes from?
I think it is the nature of being/knowing to grow, to offer and extend itself to itself (I was often wondering if this might even be the reason why the universe seems to expand...) Love grows by giving itself - you only get more love by extending it, by offering it - the need to be understood comes from this love that Being has for itself.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:06 am
Is this Being able to OBSERVE, and KNOW, the agreed on?
It's actually all it ever can know - it does so by being it.
It cannot know what is not in agreement - which is: the conceptual content of thought.

Age
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: Mind or minds

bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm

Because the universal set cannot contain all sub-sets and still be a universal set. Why? Basically all sub-sets is bigger than the universal set. In another hand we assume that the universal set exists which mean it contains all sub-sets which this means that the universal set is bigger than all sub-sets. These two contradict each other therefore the universal set does not exist.
If there is a contradiction, (which, by the way, I do NOT see from my perspective), then, anyway, WHY is it that the 'universal set' does not have to exist? WHY is it NOT the case that the 'sub-set' is NOT necessarily bigger than the 'universal set'?

You and I must have a different comprehension and/or different definition of the word 'Universal'. The word 'Universal', to me, has or implies an ALL, or a NOTHING ELSE, connotation to It.

And, the word 'sub', to me, has a LESS THAN rather than a MORE THAN connotation to it. To me, by definition, a 'sub' set would be smaller than the Universal set. With numbers of course the 'SUB set' of numbers of 'A PARTICULAR set' of numbers may be longer in length, but that in no way, to me anyway, infers that 'THAT PARTICULAR set' of numbers is necessarily 'A Universal set' of numbers. The very fact that 'THAT SET' does NOT contain ALL numbers, to me, means that is NOT the actual 'Universal set'.

Whatever would you call 'A set' that contains absolutely EVERY thing? I would call this 'set' A 'Universal set'.
The sub-set has less elements than the set. The point is that there exist many sub-sets. For example, lets consider a set A={a,b}. It has two member so its size two. The set of all sub-sets however is B={empty-set, {a}, {b}, {a,b}} which clearly has size four. This applies to all set. Now if you consider that the A is a universal set
But why would any one CONSIDER the A is a 'universal set'?

That is the trouble with using words, sometimes. Words can APPEAR to be expressing a truth but, in Reality, they are NOT, really.

The trickery and deception is in the words being used. This is NOT to say that all participants are intentionally being tricky nor deceptive when using words, but that they, themselves, have been tricked and/or deceived into BELIEVING some thing that is NOT actually real and true anyway.

By definition, the word 'Universe' infers One whole set of absolutely EVERY thing. Therefore, to consider any thing as a 'Universal set', then that set MUST include absolutely EVERY thing. This EVERY thing would, obviously, also have to include absolutely EVERY sub set.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
then it must be bigger than B which is not therefore it is contrary to assume that the universal set exist since the set of all its sub-sets is bigger than the universal set.
That is ONLY, as I just pointed out, if any one CONSIDERED a SMALLER set as a 'universal set'. And, WHY any one would consider any set other than the set of EVERY thing, which obviously would be the biggest and largest set, a 'Universal set' I do NOT know?
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm

10.
So, you can SEE that there is another view point that there is only one, One and only Mind, correct?
I know of that model.
What do you mean by you know of THAT model?

Is there only ONE model about a one and only Mind?
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
I had a thread on the topic "why not only one Mind?" a long time ago. This model however has problems which we can discuss it if you wish.
To me a 'problem' is just a question posed for a solution/answer. So, if YOUR model has problems and you would like the solution/answer to those problems, then if you like I can sort them out for you. If, however, you consider this "model" to being less flawed than YOUR at least two mind "model", and them even being close to what IS actually True and Right in Life, then we will have to wait and SEE.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm

Science says that the reproduction is a local phenomena which is the result of mixing an egg and a sperm.
Who cares what 'science' supposedly says.

Is science perfect? Has science ever "said" inaccurate things? Has what science "said", since science began, been always accurate and correct?

Also, this is a very narrow and small view that you are looking from here.
Ok. What is the other view?
A much larger and completely OPEN view of things, producing a much bigger, brighter, clearer, and Truer picture perfect view of things.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
It is this mixture which is important not all physical things.
What mixture is that? Is that the mixture of physical things together?
Yes. Mixture of egg and sperm.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm

WHAT is 'mind', to you?
Mind to me is the essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and cause. What is mind to you?
'Mind' is THE Being/Thing, which is completely OPEN to create absolutely any thing, other than Its Self, has the ability to transcend absolutely any thing, and thus also has the ability to observe, experience, decide, and again cause/create absolutely any thing other than Its Self.

If, to you, a 'mind' is the essence of any being, then what is THE 'being' in 'any being'?
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
WHAT observes 'things' occurring/happening?
All sort of things.
What do you mean by 'all sort of things'? Can a 'shoe' observe 'things' occurring/happening? A shoe, after all, is a 'sort of thing'.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Me typing. Me drinking coffee. etc.
Who/what is 'me'?

Which brings us back to who/what am 'I', in the question Who am 'I'?
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm

For example, what you are reading is the result of me typing the words.
What CAUSED you to type these words?
Who/what is the 'I' which experienced?
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Are those words the result of you only, or the result of some thing that influenced you to type particular words in a particular order?
It is the result of all my experiences most importantly what you wrote.
How long is 'all of 'my' experiences'?
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Were the previously typed words, which you read and are replying to, WHAT caused 'you' to do some thing?
I experienced them. I am however a free agent
Who/what is, supposedly, a free agent?
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
so I can decide to reply or reply not. I can decide how much thought I should put in my reply, etc.
Are you going to suggest that this 'free agent', which you are talking about now, was not created?

bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
In other words was I in charge and thus responsible for this whole change?
Yes, you influenced me.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Could there possibly be just One who IS responsible for ALL of this change, which is observing/witnessing, deciding, and causing ALL of this change?
There are at least two who are in charge of the changes
Is this what you think is the case, or, what you BELIEVE is the case?
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
because I am replying to someone else otherwise I knew all I know and there was no communication.
Who/what you are, and, who/what you are replying to has to be KNOWN, before you will truly understand things.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
And, if so could this One be doing ALL of this through different bodies, with some of these bodies being human beings?
The question is why that Mind is not aware of everything which is happening inside different bodies.[/quote]

Who/what is the 'one' that is asking why the Mind is not aware of everything?

Why does that 'one' ASSUME such a ridiculous thing.

The Mind IS aware of EVERY thing, which is happening inside different bodies.

Some people, however, lie so much or so often that they even deceive their own self.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
It is one mind in charge of all change, therefore that Mind should be aware of everything which is happening.
Which is EXACTLY what thee one and only Mind does.

The Mind is aware of absolutely EVERY thing.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Could you and me be actually causing the change that is happening through our writings, but actually there being another One Being that is observing, deciding, and causing ALL of this to happen, without us even realizing this is happening?
What we are?
In this instance, 'we' are two people, existing within two human bodies.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
We experience, decide and cause. Don't we?
Yes, but in the scheme of things, 'we' only experience, decide, and cause a minuscule fraction of ALL-THERE-IS.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Could the 'mind' in 'your mind', as you put it, actually just be One Mind?
I don't think so. As I know there are changes that I don't experience and cause. [/quote]

Of course the 'you' does NOT experience and cause ALL change. But the 'you' is NOT the 'I'. The one and only 'I' IS the One that experiences and caused ALL change.

Who/what the 'you' actually IS, and how that thinking 'one' is related to the True KNOWING One that Who/What the 'I' actually IS, needs to be understood first.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Yes there are two 'you' here. That is; 'me', being one person, and the other person being the other 'me', sometimes referred to as 'you'. 'We' are thinking human beings. We do NOT have a mind. 'We' are neither the Mind. The Mind is the 'I' within 'us', the 'me's' within ALL bodies.

So, although there are two 'me's' writing different words, and replying to each other, there is, on a much deeper level, a much BIGGER and TRUER 'Me', or what could also be referred to as the 'I', in the question Who/What am 'I'? Who this 'I' is, IS the one and only Mind, which is Truly always OPEN, in order to be able to Create absolutely any thing. What this 'I' is, IS the WHOLE physical Universe, Itself. The interaction of ALL physical things is how 'I' am the Creator of ALL-THERE-IS.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
And these words that you read are mine not yours.
On the human being level agreed wholeheartedly. These words are coming through two different bodies, from two different people, from within those two different human bodies.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
So there are at least two minds.
If you have THE definition for 'mind' that when LOOKED AT, fits into THE BIG picture of Life (or ALL-THERE-IS) perfectly, and thus SHOWS a crystal clear image of WHAT IS TRUE AND RIGHT IN LIFE, of which there is NO distortions, NO ambiguity, and a JUST Truly FACTUAL representation that is NOT at all refutable, then great. Let us ALL SEE this definition. Until then, if 'I' was 'you' I would just remain OPEN to there might just be a more sufficient definition of and for 'Mind' then the one that you have now.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm

Do you think that you have a mind?
NO. But there is a 'me' and there is a 'Mind'.
How do you define Mind?
At the moment, A free source of Energy within EVERY thing and OPEN to absolutely ANY thing.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Or you are self-deriving ideas?
'Self-deriving ideas' is NOT 'Who 'me' is'. But 'self-deriving ideas' has provoked an idea that could possible help Me in better describing and thus communicating just how 'you' the brain functions in relation to how 'I' the Mind functions.
So you are the Mind and I am the brain? How about the opposite?
If 'you', that brain, so chooses to SEE it this way. If those definitions can work in EXPLAINING sufficiently enough about ALL-THERE-IS, then great. Let us use them.

Whatever works, WORKS. It is, after all, in agreement WHERE Truth lays, and is thus FOUND.

bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm

For this you need to understand the theorem. I gave it another shot and explaining things more simply.
If the "theorem" states that there are some times more, or a longer list of, numbers of a group of 'sub set' numbers in relation to a very specific 'set' of other numbers, then that neither invalidates nor validates what I have been discussing. That just shows some thing, which on reflection is rather very obvious. However, if that is NOT what that "theorem" states, then I still do not understand that "theorem".
No, the theorem simply says that the sub-sets of any set is larger, has more members, than the set.
THAT is WHAT I just SAID.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
The universal set, which contain everything presumably must contain everything and be biggest set yet it is smaller than its sub-sets.
To you maybe. But to me the 'Universal set', by definition, HAS to BE the one and only biggest and largest SET.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm

No, because there is always more than more.
But there is NOT more than ALL. By definition of ALL, how could there be more?

Surely this is NOT to hard to understand?
Consider there are just two shapes, a and b, which is all that exist, set E={a,b}. We have four sub-sets which is the result of different combination of a and b which is N={empty-set, {a}, {b}, {a,b}}. N is bigger than E.
So then N is obviously the 'Universal set'. BUT, if there is a larger SET, then that SET is the 'Universal SET'.

If some thing could be bigger, larger, or more than ALL-THERE-IS, then please tell me HOW?
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm

The set of all things is the universal set.
That is what some would/could call the set of ALL things.

Do you call the 'set of ALL things' the 'universal set'?
Yes. All things is however unbound.
According to who?
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
If so, do you still insist that a 'Universal set' could NOT exist?
Yes. As soon as you say that the universal set exists then it means that it has a sub-sets which is bigger than the original set. So we are dealing with this contradiction.
Okay, if we want to and are going to keep looking at this, like this, then what happens if we do NOT call ALL-THERE-IS, EVERY thing, the Universe, a "set" at all? And, instead, just called them for what they REALLY ARE?
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm

I already explained that you cannot have a set of everything. Let's see if my explanation works this time.
Are you talking about the explanation a fair way up this post?

If you are, then that "explanation" did NOT work in explaining how it is impossible to have a 'set of EVERY thing', did NOT work for me anyway.
I tried again. So let's see if this time things for for you.
If you do NOT accept that a 'set of EVERY thing' is possible, then do you at least accept that EVERY thing that exists is sometimes KNOWN as Everything?

If you can accept that, then can and/or do you accept that there exists an Everything?
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm

Please let me know which part you don't understand so I can explain it to you.
Let us just say absolutely EVERY symbol in that explanation of yours I do NOT understand. That way when you explain EACH and EVERY one of them, then it will be more clear to me.
Ok, lets consider that there are only an apple and an orange in the world. This we call it the universal set. The sub-sets of this set are, empty-set (when you have nothing), apple, orange and apple and orange. So you have four combination which means that the sub-sets is bigger than original set. Does that make sense?
Only if you are TRYING TO prove some thing. What is it that you are TRYING TO prove with this concept?
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm

I did it in the beginning of this post.
That, to me, did NOT explain HOW a set of EVERY thing is an impossibility.
Because the sub-sets of set of every thing is bigger than set of every thing. So you have to call the sub-sets as every thing.
What do you mean by 'So you HAVE TO call the sub-sets as every thing'?

I always WAS and always HAVE BEEN calling absolutely EVERY thing, Everything.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm

Not, given the definition of mind.
Oh, I was unaware that there is A one and only, specific, definition of 'mind'. Can you share THAT definition of 'mind' with us here?
Mind is essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and cause. What is your definition of Mind?
For now, same as above.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
Maybe that will give clarity how there are MANY 'minds' or at least TWO 'minds'.
Yes, it will. You experience and cause certain changes. You are very aware that there are changes that is not due to you. Therefore there is at least one more mind.
This is only depended upon A specific definition of 'mind' here.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2985
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Mind or minds

Can a human mind ever know absolute truth ? Certainly there are minds who claim such knowledge but there is however a difference between claiming and knowing and the distinction may not always be known to those minds making the claim. And when two or more of them then cite
their specific interpretation of absolute truth which contradict each other then they cannot all be right [ and maybe not even one of them is ]

Would a Mind [ not the same as a mind ] know what absolute truth is ? What is one exactly ? It could be God but for me if there is actually such
a thing independent of human thought it is just another word for Universe. It is ALL THERE IS [ AND HAS EVER BEEN AND EVER WILL BE ] It does
have other names too [ REALITY / EXISTENCE ] I prefer EXISTENCE myself since it is more self explanatory and is therefore easier to understand

One thing I think is true however is this : no matter what other name / names human minds choose to give the Universe they will never be able
to fully understand it as it is too complex for this. Its scale and capability is beyond human comprehension and most of it is not even accessible
to human minds. Which were not even in existence for the overwhelming majority of this Universes existence. That is KNOWN existence of this Universe. This says absolutely nothing about the UNKNOWN Universe or OTHER Universes which if they exist would also constitute the Universe

Age
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: Mind or minds

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:03 am
AGE wrote:
I KNOW it is a ridiculous clarifying question which if you answered Openly and Honestly then I would
NOT have to again suggest something like then HOW could something stretch out past ALL THERE IS ?

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

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

Also what could the physical Universe be supposedly limited by ?

The Universe is ALL THERE IS but it is also expanding and so the ALL THERE IS is increasing all the time
Although it is not actually expanding into anything but only expanding within itself [ balloon analogy ]
To even to begin to ASSUME that the Universe [ALL-THERE-IS] IS expanding one would NEED to be able to SEE ALL of the Universe. Human beings are only able to see a fraction of ALL-THERE-IS. So, there is NO actual evidence that the Universe is expanding.

Also, if we want to use and LOOK AT the 'balloon analogy', then whatever is on the other or out-side of the lining of the balloon, whether it be any thing or no thing THAT is still a part of ALL-THERE-IS. Therefore, the Universe, or ALL-THERE-IS can NOT be expanding nor increasing.

By definition ALL-THERE-IS could NOT get bigger.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:03 am
I do not know if the Universe is infinite in all directions or never ending only that it is ALL THERE IS
Which speaks for Itself. ALL-THERE-IS must go in ALL directions, for EVER, correct?

What could possible be at the so called "end" or "boundary"?

And, if there was an "end" or "boundary", then what do we call THAT on the, supposed, "other side"?

By the way, NO matter what "it" IS it MUST also be a part of ALL-THERE-IS. Therefore, once again ALL-THERE-IS must go in ALL directions, for EVER. That is; unless of course there is evidence or a sound, valid argument to show otherwise.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:03 am
Abstract thought within human minds about mathematical infinity [ or anything at all including every single thought that every human has ever
had and will have ] is not more powerful than the Universe because human minds are merely an incredibly infinitesimal sub set of the Universe
I agree, however, if as you say, there are 'human minds', then what are they? What do they do? And, how do they work?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:03 am
The Universe is limited by the four fundamental forces [ gravity / electromagnetism / strong nuclear / weak nuclear ] and the laws of physics
That is what is said in 2019 years after one human was born, and BELIEVED by some to be true.

Some, however, might suggested that there is a more fundamental level to the Universe, which is governed by some thing else.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2985
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Mind or minds

The Universe can be the set A [ ALL THAT EXISTS ] and this is absolutely everything that has ever existed and will ever exist and
includes other Universes too [ if they exist ] But it is still only a single set even though it is the largest possible set that there is

It can however be split into smaller sub sets which are greater than the number of the original set A
These sets however are only mathematical not physical so only exist as concepts within human kinds

So both before the existence of and after the extinction of such minds these sets will not exist because they cannot be conceived
The ONLY place that any concept can exist is inside a mind so when the mind can no longer function any concept ceases to be too

surreptitious57
Posts: 2985
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Mind or minds

AGE wrote:
To even to begin to ASSUME that the Universe [ ALL THERE IS ] IS expanding one would NEED to be able to SEE ALL of the Universe
Human beings only able to see a fraction of ALL THERE IS

Also if we want to use and LOOK AT the balloon analogy then whatever is on the other or out side
of the lining of the balloon whether it be any thing or no thing THAT is still a part of ALL THERE IS

By definition ALL THERE IS could NOT get bigger
When physicists say the Universe is expanding they only mean the observable Universe
They do not mean any unobservable part of this Universe and / or any other Universe

The definition ALL THERE IS includes this expanding Universe and if they exist other Universes also
So ALL THERE IS is simply what actually is at any point in the eternal never ending NOW of existence

It is therefore not the same for every instant of NOW but is in actual fact different for every single one

surreptitious57
Posts: 2985
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Mind or minds

AGE wrote:
you say there are human minds then what are they
Mind is the mental application of the physical organ known as the brain [ this is a very basic definition ]
When the brain dies then mind ceases to function although the brain carries on existing in matter form

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest