Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[Logik]

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?

Question: How would we go about convincing you that you are mistaken about "not having beliefs" ?

You ask us to show you your errors. We do. It leads you to cognitive dissonance.

And the piece of information you always discard is the corrective feedback showing you your errors, where you should be discarding your axiom.

How do we navigate around your religion in order to show you your errors?

[Age]

Our experiences of the universe are not made up
How we structure express and communicate those experiences is all made up

Not all experiences are real : dreams / hallucinations / transcendence for example

Correct me if I am wrong, but what I think "logik" was meaning is 'the actual act of experiencing' of the Universe is not made up at all. HOW we experience the Universe is 'how it IS'. At that moment of experiencing and WHAT we experience we have NO actual control over. If we EXPERIENCE the Universe in a certain way, then that is JUST, HOW IT IS, (unfortunately?).

If, however, what we actually experienced, is actually real or not, is another matter.

Our experiences of the Universe are real. What was experienced, itself, may not be real.

Again if at all WRONG, then just say so.

Thought is a biological function caused by the firing of neurons so it is not made up

And WHERE does this not made up 'thought' come from?

Our non made up 'experiences'? Or,
Some thing else?

Speech is a biological function caused by making sound through the lips / larynx so it is not made up
What is made up is language but without thought / speech there would be no such thing as language

On a side note; Without the made up 'language', would there be thought/speech?

[surreptitious57]

Your hypothesis is falsified . Unicorns were ideas first . Now they are toys

But you cannot manifest every single idea you have ever had into reality only some of them
Thoughts are limited by imagination but imagination is not limited by what is real or possible

[Logik]

But you cannot manifest every single idea you have ever had into reality only some of them
Thoughts are limited by imagination but imagination is not limited by what is real or possible

You are can't make any such claims

Maybe I can't manifest it because I lack knowledge, but if the next generation can manifest it then it was possible all along.

To say "you cannot manifest every idea into reality" is to say "I know the difference between possible and impossible". Do you?

Is it possible or impossible to cure cancer?

[surreptitious57]

To say you cannot manifest every idea into reality is to say I know the difference between possible and impossible

Can you manifest into reality the idea of the Universe never actually having existed ?
So that would require that this reality we are both experiencing to not be real at all

You have until I die to falsify this hypothesis
Failure to do so is all the evidence I require

[Logik]

Can you manifest into reality the idea of the Universe never actually having existed ?

Firstly - it's your idea. I don't know how to manifest your idea because I don't think I understand it.

Secondly: I have to ask you. Are you even sure that the universe exist?

Perhaps it doesn't and so your idea is already manifest.

TL;DR can you draw me any meaningful distinction between existence and non-existence?

[surreptitious57]

can you draw me any meaningful distinction between existence and non existence ?

Non existence cannot be experienced so if you can experience it then there must be existence
Even if you are a brain in a vat that constitutes some form of existence rather than none at all

If you absolutely dont exist [ even as a brain in a vat ] then who or what is writing all your posts here for you ?
I think it is statistically more than likely that it is you who is doing it as that is the most reasonable assumption

[Logik]

Non existence cannot be experienced so if you can experience it then there must be existence

What if what you are experiencing right now IS non-existence?

[Age]

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

Everything you say IS wrong. That's 100% certain.

If you say so, but can you SEE how that contradicts your own "Everything you say IS wrong" statement?

Or, is "logik" proposing that 'Everything "age" says IS wrong' but 'NOT everything "logik" says is wrong'? And, in fact what "logik" says can in fact be 100% certain of being Right?

We aren't worried about that. We are only worried about the degree of "wrongness" and the consequences of your mistakes.

Is there NO way that I can just express one of the VIEWS that are from within this body, without CORRECTLY reiterating that this VIEW is NOT stating any thing as being true, right, and/or correct but rather that this VIEW is only one of the many VIEWS, gained from what this body has experienced, and this VIEW is NOT stating any other than 'IT IS JUST AN OBTAINED VIEW', without this VIEW, HAVING TO BE WRONG in some degree?

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.

I think it might be found that it was not actually the design of the plane itself but rather the computer software or the the programming of that software and or computer, that was the consequence for those one or two mishaps.

(Remember absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.)

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

Can a VIEW be expressed without it necessarily HAVING TO BE a "model" of some thing or other?

To express some thing as though it is true, right, and/or correct would be to express a "model" as such. But if one is NOT expressing in such way, then HOW could they be WRONG, in any degree?

I am NOT sure if it is clear or NOT but I WANT to refrain from creating a "model" EVER. As I have continually said I much prefer to just LOOK AT what IS and SEE the actual and real Truth of things, instead of making up or TRYING TO make up any assumptions and/or models of any thing.

I agree wholeheartedly ALL models are wrong, that is WHY I like to stay completely away from ALL of them and ignore them ALL. I find just LOOKING AT what IS instead much more exciting, rewarding, fulfilling.

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.

But this 'OBVIOUSNESS' ALL depends solely on from what perspective one is LOOKING and SEEING from.

It is pertinently OBVIOUS, to me, that I do NOT believe this.

For example; I also state that I have NO elephants in my bedroom, but I still do not HAVE TO believe this is true. AND, I do NOT believe this is true. (I also do NOT believe that this is NOT true by the way.) Because IF I was to BELIEVE this, or any thing, then I would NOT be OPEN to any contrary EVIDENCE whatsoever being provided and shown. I want to REMAIN OPEN ALWAYS, so that I can SEE the Truth of ALL things, therefore that is the very reason WHY I do NOT believe any thing.

Now if any one does NOT believe that this is true, then they are FREE to BELIEVE or DISBELIEVE absolutely any thing that they may so choose to. But just because "they" or "you" BELIEVE any thing, that does NOT mean that I HAVE TO any thing also.

There is NO "rule book", which I am aware of anyway, that STATES that one MUST believe whatever they say they do or do NOT do.

If I or you do NOT do some thing, then that is just what it IS. If it is true, then it is a fact, and if some thing is a fact, then it is completely unnecessary to BELIEVE it. A 'fact' speaks for itself, without HAVING TO believe it is true.

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.

NO. It is NOT necessarily a belief. AND, it is NOT a belief from the definition of 'belief' that I have ALREADY provided.

If you or anyone else wants to say that the statement "I have no beliefs" is a belief, then you will have to provide a definition for the word 'belief'. But will "you" do that "logik"?

If you are lying then "I have no beliefs" is a lie so you have beliefs.

That is IF I am lying.

And, IF I am lying, then just prove it.

Also I am NOT sure if by telling a lie how that then translates to having beliefs. Can you elaborate on this?

How is a "lie" HAVING beliefs?

By the way; If "you" BELIEVE that the by stating "I have no beliefs" is a belief, then that in and of itself does NOT mean that it is a belief.

Just BELIEVING some thing does NOT make that thing either true, right, nor correct. Usually some sort of EVIDENCE is needed FIRST for a thing to be proven to be true, right, and/or correct. BELIEFS and BELIEVING are usually based only on what is ASSUMED to be true and NOT on what is ACTUALLY True.

To me, "you" appear to be making ASSUMPTIONS and jumping to CONCLUSIONS, before I am even given a chance to EXPLAIN ALL of what I have to say.

Just a reminder, "you" talked about the degree of "wrongness" in what is said, earlier on, and the consequences of those mistakes.

This now reminds me. You stated; We are only worried about the degree of "wrongness" and the consequences of your mistakes. Now, in YOUR statement; In stating that it is pertinently obvious that you believe that you have no beliefs. What do you think is the degree of "wrongness" in that statement?

From my perspective I SEE that it is completely WRONG. If, however, you had written instead; In stating that it is pertinently obvious, TO ME, that you believe that you have no beliefs. Then I would suggest that there is now NO degree of "wrongness" at all. I can SEE and KNOW that that is just YOUR VIEW, which obviously I could NOT dispute. A 'VIEW', in and of itself, can NOT be wrong, if expressed as being just a VIEW. BUT, the 'VIEW', itself, could be wrong, in degrees of "wrongness".

[Logik]

If you say so, but can you SEE how that contradicts your own "Everything you say IS wrong" statement?

No it doesn't. You can blame Aristotle's "laws" of logic for screwing with your mind.

Or, is "logik" proposing that 'Everything "age" says IS wrong' but 'NOT everything "logik" says is wrong'? And, in fact what "logik" says can in fact be 100% certain of being Right?

Strawman.

Everything Age says is wrong.
Everything Logik says is wrong.

You are stuck in a black-and-white thought pattern.

When you think on a continuum: Everything Logik says is less wrong than everything Age says.

This is probably the 10th time I am linking you to this article. Maybe you want to read it now.

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience ... fwrong.htm

[Atla]

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?

No idiot, you have to prove it. Of course there's no way you can, because it's not happening.
Nor would you want to, because it is the basis of your insanity, and you are not open to getting out of it.

[Age]

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?

You are free to choose to BELIEVE, but you do NOT have to BELIEVE.

Just repeating from "surreptituous57";
You can know some thing, without necessarily HAVING TO believe it.

You can also BELIEVE some thing without evidence, but can you KNOW some thing without evidence?

And, would you BELIEVE some thing if it was NOT true?

[surreptitious57]

What if what you are experiencing right now IS non existence ?

You cannot experience non existence [ not unless you are actually dead ]
Experience by definition has to be within that what pertains to existence

[Logik]

You cannot experience non existence [ not unless you are actually dead ]
Experience by definition has to be within that what pertains to existence

Ok, so you are necessarily claiming that what you are experiencing now IS existence. Naturally - this is an axiomatic, not an empirical claim.

I have a million counter-hypotheses for you. What you are experiencing right now is NOT existence.

Penal coolony Matrix style.
Purgatory.
Biblical Hell.

[surreptitious57]

What you are experiencing right now is NOT existence

Imaginary existence is not the same as non existence
Non existence by definition is the absence of everything including imagining what you think may be real
Non existence has no time or space or property or dimension to it at all and so it cannot possibly be real