Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[Logik]

But absolutely EVERY thing I say could be WRONG or partly WRONG.

Everything you say IS wrong. That's 100% certain. We aren't worried about that. We are only worried about the degree of "wrongness" and the consequences of your mistakes.

Some errors are inconsequential. Like spelling "sea" as "see".
Some errors are devestating. Like screwing up the design of the Boeing 737 MAX so badly that it has killed 300 people in 5 months.

All models are wrong. Some are useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

I have stated this many times already, here in this forum. I have also sought out that I be informed of WHEN I am WRONG, and especially and more so WHY I am WRONG. In fact I thrive on being SHOWN WHERE I am WRONG so that I can change.

OK. You have stated that "you have no beliefs".
In stating that it is pertinently obvious that you believe that you have no beliefs.

This is liar's paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

If you are telling the truth then "I have no beliefs" is a belief.
If you are lying then "I have no beliefs" is a lie so you have beliefs.

[Age]

OK. Different question. Are you consciousness?

Conceptually speaking.

Consciousness doesn't question whether it's consciousness or not. Consciousness just IS by being it.

Questions can only arise to the sense of a separate consciousness where there isn't one, except as a known conceptual mental construct an aspect of consciousness arising within itself, consciousness being the only knowing there is.

.

If Consciousness is the only knowing there is, and Consciousness just Is by being Consciousness, then WHY can Consciousness NOT know It is Consciousness?

I am aware that IF Consciousness is the only knowing, then that does NOT mean that It has to know every thing. But I am just curious as to WHY it is being proposed that this only knowing thing can NOT even know Its own Self?

Does Consciousness propose and say this, or is it some thing else that is proposing and saying this?

[surreptitious57]

Unicorns are so real they have economic impact on societies . Parents in USA buying unicorn toys for their kids made by workers in China

False equivalence : unicorns are not real but unicorn toys are
If unicorn toys didnt exist parents would just buy other toys for their children from China or elsewhere
So it is not unicorns that have economic impact on societies but toys [ most of which are non unicorn ]

[Logik]

False equivalence : unicorns are not real but unicorn toys are
If unicorn toys didnt exist parents would just buy other toys for their children from China or elsewhere
So it is not unicorns that have economic impact on societies but toys [ most of which are non unicorn ]

Unicorn is an IDEA.. The IDEA of a unicorn is real. The IDEA of a unicorn resulted in the creation of the toys.

If IDEAS are not real, how can they have empirical consequences on reality?

[surreptitious57]

You have stated that you have no beliefs
In stating that it is pertinently obvious that you believe that you have no beliefs

You can believe you have no beliefs
You can know you have no beliefs

So believing something and knowing something are not the same and they are actually mutually incompatible
As belief requires absolutely no proof or evidence while knowledge requires at least some proof or evidence

[Logik]

You have stated that you have no beliefs
In stating that it is pertinently obvious that you believe that you have no beliefs

You can believe you have no beliefs
You can know you have no beliefs

So believing something and knowing something are not the same and they are actually mutually incompatible
As belief requires absolutely no proof or evidence while knowledge requires at least some proof or evidence

I believe that I don't believe.
I don't know that I know.
I believe that I know.
I know that I believe.


They are just words . I can CHOOSE to say them so I do.
There needs be no intention behind those words beyond my own amusement.
Or there could be an intention behind my words - to prove a point.

What is so "incompatible" about it?
To whom must I prove what and why?

[surreptitious57]

If IDEAS are not real how can they have empirical consequences on reality ?

Ideas are limited by imagination not by reality so in that sense they are not real
I can think of something that isnt physically possible so it can never become real
While the thought itself is real the thing the thought is imagining is not real at all

[surreptitious57]

They are just words . I can CHOOSE to say them so I do

All words have meaning because meaning is what gives them their legitimacy
So it is wrong to say they are just words as they have a function beyond this

[Logik]

Ideas are limited by imagination not by reality so in that sense they are not real
I can think of something that isnt physically possible so it can never become real
While the thought itself is real the thing the thought is imagining is not real at all

But if I can manifest an idea into being then the limit you claim exists clearly doesn't.

I can think of something that isnt physically possible so it can never become real

Never? That's a BIG word. Maybe it's impossible (or just very hard?) now.

While the thought itself is real the thing the thought is imagining is not real at all

You are merely justifying your taxonomy.

[Logik]

All words have meaning

No they don't.

Falsifier: hoobedygoobedybloop

Tell me what it means.

[Age]

So naive. And I categorically state that I am God. Do you get what I mean by that

Just curious;

If I was to state 'I am ... (add any word here)', then if I want "others" to understand what I mean, then I would have to define what that word is. If, and only if, "others" agreed and accepted that definition for the word, then they would KNOW what I mean. Is this correct?

Not necessarily.

I have no idea how to define "happiness" or "love" or any of the other human emotions and values. They are things that are difficult to put in words, yet things that we all experience.

And so I have no idea how to define "God" for any definition is probably wrong. I merely used the word because I am 100% certain that nobody can define it.

I think you will find any (capable) person can can define any word. If, however, that definition is at all accurate and/or has any actual usefulness to any thing, is another matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology,[1] is a form of theological thinking and religious practice which attempts to approach God, the Divine, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God.

For all intents and purposes apophatic theology is epistemology.

Apophatically, all that I can say about knowledge is that I don't have any.
Cataphatically I can say: I know that I don't have any knowledge.

And I still don't know HOW to define knowledge but I am speaking ABOUT knowledge.

I found, from a certain age, HOW to define words was one of the more simpler tasks in Life, for most, in these current times when this is written.

Also, speaking ABOUT things but NOT really knowing their definition is about one of the most natural things of being 'a human being'. This 'not knowing the definitions of the words being used' happens because this is exactly HOW the brain works. The very ability of the human brain to grasp onto any "knowledge", and hold onto that, leads to NOT knowing HOW they are defining the words they use after. The human brain can expel, 'that' what has been obtained and withheld, without ever knowing HOW nor even WHY.

[Logik]

I think you will find any (capable) person can can define any word. If, however, that definition is at all accurate and/or has any actual usefulness to any thing, is another matter.

To separate these things is lunacy.

I hereby define the word anglegrok to mean hoobedy shmoop kek rofmpomter.

Of course, you made sure that you left your escape hatch open. So you can now call me "incapable"

I found, from a certain age, HOW to define words was one of the more simpler tasks in Life, for most, in these current times when this is written.

And from a certain age, I found, that those who insist on definitions are unable to see the big picture. The picture beyond the language.

I call this mental defect Logocentrism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism ).

I CHOOSE to use words and language smetaphorically rather than literally because painting a picture in your mind is far more effective in conveying emotion, context and information than using mere dictionary definitions.

[surreptitious57]

But if I can manifest an idea into being then the limit you claim exists clearly doesnt ?

Then you will have falsified my hypothesis and new knowledge will have been acquired
Are you planning on doing this or were you just demonstrating a flaw in my argument ?

Can you manifest every idea that you have ever had into being ?
Can you manifest an idea into being that cannot be manifested ?

[Logik]

But if I can manifest an idea into being then the limit you claim exists clearly doesnt ?

Then you will have falsified my hypothesis and new knowledge will have been acquired
Are you planning on doing this or were you just demonstrating a flaw in my argument ?

Can you manifest every idea that you have ever had into being ?
Can you manifest an idea into being that cannot be manifested ?

Your hypothesis is falsified. Unicorns were ideas first. Now they are toys.
So the physical limit for turning the idea into something "real" didn't exist.

That's precisely what I did with the "law" of non-contradiction. It was only an idea.
Then I manifested it on a computer.

[Age]

Thank you

Was the "thank you" comment, with some sort of face, meant to imply any thing whatsoever?

If it was, then would you care to share that with us. I, for one, have absolutely NO idea what it would be in reference to exactly. I just have a sense that you thanked me because you are grateful that I have proved you with some thing that I can NOT yet grasped. If you have any slightest thinking that there might be some kind of flaw in any thing I wrote, then I would love you to share it with us so that I could be given a chance to correct it or them.

that's exactly what i've been saying all along, you believe that the "True Self" communicates through all human bodies and it's saying absolutely 100% true and right things

What is it with YOUR INSISTENCE to KEEP using the 'BELIEVE' word in relation to me? WHY will you NOT accept what I say in relation to what I do or do NOT do, in regards to BELIEFS and BELIEVING?

The rest of what you wrote I accept that that is what I THINK occurs.

none of that is actually happening, you, the human being, is making all of this up

If i am, then so be it. But you would HAVE TO provide some sort of EVIDENCE first, if you want people to BELIEVE you.

Just saying some thing does NOT make it true. Without examples, proof, and/or evidence what you are saying is really NOTHING, but YOUR assumptions and beliefs only.

Now, I have previously asked you this before: Can the small self speak?

You have not yet answered it, but are you willing to answer that question this time?