Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:50 pm
Logic wrote:
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
If ideas are coming from imagination, then I am NOT sure how they could be limited at all.
surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:50 pmI can think of something that isnt physically possible so it can never become real
Do you mean that what you THINK is not physically possible, when this is written, you also THINK can "never" become real.

If, and when, so called "time travel" begins, then really would there be any thing that is physically impossible?
surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:50 pmWhile the thought itself is real the thing the thought is imagining is not real at all
This all depends. For example if the thing the thought is imagining is of a real physical thing, then the thing the thought is imagining is of a real thing, correct?

But when it is stated that one is 'imagining' then a common concept (imagined) is of a thing that is not real.

The definition of the word 'imagining' needs to be known first in order for the statement to be true, not true, or partly true.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Logik »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:48 pm 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
Look! You are talking about definitions again :)

I don't care about defining/labeling things. Things are what they are.

I am simply asking you the question. IF you claim that you are able to tell the difference between "existence" and "non-existence"
Then convince me why this is not "non-existence".

Explain the difference.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Logic wrote:
Explain the difference
I have explained the difference very simply and precisely but you reject my explanation
And you cannot ask me to explain it again because it will be exactly the same as before
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Logik »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:00 pm
Logic wrote:
Explain the difference
I have explained the difference very simply and precisely but you reject my explanation
And you cannot ask me to explain it again because it will be exactly the same as before
Your explanation is insufficient.

You cannot offer an experiment such that we can DETERMINE whether we are in the existning or non-existing universe.

Thus - your definition is a truism. it does not meet the bar for verification.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Logic wrote:
I dont care about defining / labeling things
Communication would be useless without commonly accepted definitions / meanings
And so you should care otherwise it is a waste of time us exchanging opinions / facts
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Logik »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:06 pm Communication would be useless without commonly accepted definitions / meanings
And so you should care otherwise it is a waste of time us exchanging opinions / facts
I can't for the life of me fathom a context, or a practical scenario in which you would ever want to exchange the fact "the universe exists" with me.

Or "X is real".
Or "Y is logical"

Perhaps as a futile attempt at convincing me to sway to your way of thinking....

But none of those are testable/verifiable/falsifiable claims. They are just frameworks for thought.
Age
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age »

Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:59 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:57 pm 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.
IF I and/or "others" agree on, and accept its accuracy, then that is what it IS. This procedure we both just did now is HOW ALL words and their definitions came, and continue to come, into existence, for lack of a better word.

Now, if I and/or "others" find any actual usefulness in that "new" word, with its "new" definition, that you just made up, that this is a completely other matter, has I have already stated.
Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:59 pmOf course, you made sure that you left your escape hatch open. So you can now call me "incapable" ;)
That is CERTAINLY NOT anything of the sort that I was thinking about when I used that word.

What I was actually thinking about, when I used that word, was the people who are in comas, asleep, or just to young to be able to define any word. Obviously these people are incapable of defining any word. The escape hatch" was for "them" and NOT at all for "you". There was nothing more than that in the use of that word. I KNEW "you" could define ANY word, and you literally proved that for us HERE, in this post.

I am NOT sure if you have noticed this before but I have explained that making ASSUMPTIONS can some times lead to distorting the actual Truth of things. I have also stated that if and when BELIEVING things that are NOT yet proven to be true, this CAN very easily block a person completely from SEEING the actual and real Truth of things also.
Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:59 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:57 pm 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.
Can you able to illustrate and SHOW this "big picture", which you are implying here that you CAN already SEE?
Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:59 pmI 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.
Well that is GREAT. You would be MORE capable of painting a picture, in imagination, then "others" are who just prefer to use dictionary definitions. So, now I, for one, would LOVE to SEE this "big picture" that you imply you can SEE.

Also, even words used metaphorically HAVE definitions to them. It does NOT matter if words a used metaphorically or not, a perception of what the word means is NEEDED. If using metaphorically without definitions, then they WOULD convey the exact same painted picture that YOUR "new" word, and its "new" definition above, for that word, painted above.

The very picture that you were WANTING to paint above, for us, which was illustrated without already agreed upon and accepted definitions for the words we use, SHOWS that NOTHING can be SEEN nor UNDERSTOOD.

Dictionary definitions are NEEDED for ALL words used, metaphorically and/or literally, if any thing is to be UNDERSTOOD.

By the way, you started by inferring that what I said was "lunacy" and ended by finding "another" "mental defect" in "me/others".

Now, some could suggest that there is a pattern here, while some might suggest that what they find is a better way to learn and discover new things is to just concentrate on and LOOK AT one's own self instead of LOOKING AT and on "others" only.
Age
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age »

Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:17 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:12 pm 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" ?
Very easily.

Just SHOW some EVIDENCE that I have beliefs, then that will SPEAK FOR ITSELF.

I do NOT need to be "convinced" of some thing. Just SHOW some EVIDENCE. If it is True or NOT, then that can be very easily SEEN.

Just saying "You have beliefs" is NOT evidence, and does NOT prove any thing, other than it is "you" who has BELIEFS.

You ask us to show you your errors. We do. It leads you to cognitive dissonance.[/quote]

But you do NOT show ANY errors at all. ALL you are SHOWING is YOUR OWN BELIEFS.

Just SAYING "You believe such and such" is NOT showing "errors".

To be able to SHOW errors, you would have to SEE it in MY WRITINGS, and then all you have to do is just PROVIDE those examples. As of now, this has NOT yet been done.

Besides the fact that you are only TRYING TO tell "another" what they are doing (or NOT doing as may be the case) I find this completely unacceptable, especially considering that what you are saying "another" human being is doing, is actually happening (or NOT happening) WITHIN the actual body of the "other human".

HOW can one accurately KNOW what is happening (or NOT happening) within another body, especially when what is happening (or not) is in regards to an actual invisible thing?

By the way, now you are accusing me of "cognitive dissonance". So, once again, WHERE is the PROOF and EVIDENCE for this. And, once again. the only place you could have obtained this ASSUMPTION and jumped to this CONCLUSION from, is from MY WRITINGS. So, how much easier could I have made it for you to provide examples of PROOF and EVIDENCE, for you?

If I am doing what you ALLEGE I am doing, then it has to be HERE in my writings. How about I ask EVERY one reading this to find in MY WRITINGS what "logik" is alleging here and to just REWRITE THEM, or just quote them, EXACTLY. Will that help you in PROVING that YOUR BELIEFS are true, "logik"?
Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:17 pmAnd the piece of information you always discard is the corrective feedback showing you your errors, where you should be discarding your axiom.
WHERE is the so called "corrective feedback" which you allege is showing me my errors?

WHERE is this "information" that SHOWS that I have a BELIEF?

ICan any one help "logik" out here?

The higher the number of people who AGREE with you "logik", and the more "information" and "corrective feedback" that is provide which SHOWS that i actually do have a BELIEF, then the MORE stupider I will LOOK.

If I can NOT see the so called "information and corrective feedback", especially in consideration of what I have said all along, then I will LOOK totally, completely, and utterly FOOLISH and STUPID.

But it HAS TO BE presented FIRST, before I could see it.
Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:17 pmHow do we navigate around your religion in order to show you your errors?
As I have already stated: WITH EVIDENCE.

NOW SHOW THIS SO CALLED "CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK", and gain as much support and back up from as many readers as you can, and then you will have EVIDENCE that I am NOT looking at your alleged "corrective feedback".

You are aware that you HAVE TO provide some thing FIRST, before it could even be DISCARDED in the first place. "REMIND" the readers WHAT "piece of information" that you ALLEGE I have "discarded".

I have seen NONE and I am sure the readers would LOVE to SEE it also.

I am more than happy for you to gain as many people as you like to point out to me "that information" which you say I have "discarded".

As I keep saying YOUR BELIEFS are preventing YOU from SEEING the actual Truth of things. You BELIEVE I have beliefs. All you have to do is point out by saying the BELIEF that you BELIEVE I HAVE, and then just EXPOSING that with the EVIDENCE that you could very EASY obtain from my writings. If you can NOT do this, then that SHOWS more about YOUR OWN BELIEFS and how they are distorting "you" from the SEEING the actual Truth of things here, than it ever shows any thing about me.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Logik »

Age wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:05 pm
Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:17 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:12 pm 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" ?
Very easily.

Just SHOW some EVIDENCE that I have beliefs, then that will SPEAK FOR ITSELF.
All the evidence that has been shown to you , you have rejected.

It speaks for itself indeed. So everybody except Age knows that Age has beliefs.
AlexW
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by AlexW »

Isn’t this whole discussion about having beliefs or not getting a bit tiresome?

Maybe first try to find the one that is meant to have a belief - what exactly is this thing called “Age” that has (no) beliefs?

The body? No, a body can’t have beliefs, right?

The mind. Yes! Maybe? Don’t know? So... Does the mind (whatever thought arises right now) belong to someone called “Age”?
Does “Logik” have a mind? Do any of you own a thought, decide to think a thought? Only if you can own/control thought, and if you can find this owner/thinker of thought can you have a belief.
Otherwise thoughts labelled as “belief “ simply arise, but they don’t belong to anyone...

So, yes, Age is correct in stating “I don’t have any beliefs “ but who is saying that? There is no entity “Age” to say that...
Age
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age »

Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:51 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:05 pm
Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:17 pm
Question: How would we go about convincing you that you are mistaken about "not having beliefs" ?
Very easily.

Just SHOW some EVIDENCE that I have beliefs, then that will SPEAK FOR ITSELF.
All the evidence that has been shown to you , you have rejected.
I have NOT even seen any thing yet, to reject. I can NOT reject 'that' what I have NOT yet seen.

NO evidence has been shown. You just keep saying it has, without ever actually producing any.

How much more obvious can this get.

If you want to PROVE me one, THEN just SHOW one of the ALLEGEDLY previously shown pieces of "evidence".

Why do you NOT just settle this matter once and for ALL?
Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:51 pmIt speaks for itself indeed.
NOT without evidence it does NOT.

Or, maybe providing NO evidence whatsoever actually speaks more LOUDLY and CLEARLY than words do in fact.
Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:51 pm So everybody except Age knows that Age has beliefs.
I know of one other that agrees with this. And I know of one that disagrees with this. As for ALL the others, I do NOT know what they think.

Do you really expect anyone to BELIEVE your statement here that "everybody" except me knows that i have beliefs? "EVERYbody" is quite some number.

You could have RE-SHOWN over and over again the alleged pieces of information and/or "evidence" quite a few times already by now, instead of all the time and effort you are putting in TRYING TO deflect away from the issue.

It is EASIER to just copy and paste, what you have allegedly already written and "provided", then it is to write new and more stuff all the time, about how you have "supposedly" already done some thing.

Seriously, WHY do you NOT just copy and paste what you allege you have already provided here?
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Logik »

Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:51 pm All the evidence that has been shown to you , you have rejected
Age wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:47 am I have NOT even seen any thing yet, to reject. I can NOT reject 'that' what I have NOT yet seen.
NO evidence has been shown. You just keep saying it has, without ever actually producing any.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Q.E.D
Age
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age »

Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:31 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:29 pm If you say so, but can you SEE how that contradicts your own "Everything you say IS wrong" statement?
No it doesn't.
To me "it" does. But because you very rarely if ever provide the "it", that is being referenced, then by doing this the readers, if interested, would find remembering exactly what the "it" is by now so much harder. Your continual omission of texts and quotes, especially in relation to what we are talking about, does not help people to SEE the actual and full Truth of things going on here.

You stated that 'Everything I say IS wrong', and, 'That is 100% certain'. Now, that '100% certain' comment implies, to me, anyway that "logic" can NOT be wrong. Maths informs us that '100% certain' means that there is NO wrong whatsoever. Therefore, that MEANS that what "logic" says here about 'Everything I say IS wrong' is in NO way wrong itself. Conclusion, there two statements together contradict themselves or "logic" can NOT be wrong in any way, shape, nor form. So, which one is it "logic"? If it is the latter, then you are FREE to BELIEVE whatever you want to BELIEVE, or, if it is the former, then "it" being the statements together DO contradict themselves. Your choice of which one it will be.

Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:31 pmYou can blame Aristotle's "laws" of logic for screwing with your mind.
This is so far OFF TRACK from the actual Truth, that to many words would be needed to bring it back on track, which I will NOT do at this moment.
Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:31 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:29 pm 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.
Okay. So now "logik" proposes that "Everything logik says is wrong also", therefore the statement "Everything age says is wrong" MUST be WRONG also. So, the contradiction worsens. But now if "Everything logik says is wrong" is true, then when "logik" stated: "That is 100% certain' in regards to 'logik's" Everything is age says is wrong" statement MUST be wrong as well. So, even though the first statement is WRONG, by itself, the second statement making a '100% certain' claim MUST be DOUBLY WRONG, in both itself and in relation to other things.
Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:31 pmYou are stuck in a black-and-white thought pattern.
Are you SURE of this. I think you will find, from my writings here, that it is YOUR own WRONG ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS that leads you to conclude such completely WRONG things.
Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:31 pmWhen you think on a continuum: Everything Logik says is less wrong than everything Age says.
According to WHO?

This is probably the 10th time I am linking you to this article. Maybe you want to read it now.
Just maybe you want to READ what I actually WRITE, and STOP making up WRONG ASSUMPTIONS.

You are, once again, missing the whole point. This may be because you only read some things, which could explain WHY you continually miss quoting the actual points that I reply to, and which you are responding to. Or, you are deliberately missing my points, (maybe because of what they highlight?), and then also deliberately NOT adding those quotes in YOUR responses. You did state:

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

Now if you are going to make such a claim, but when I ask you if you can SEE the contradiction, and then you state:

No it doesn't

THEN, if you do NOT think that that is a contradiction, then I will explain, which I would NOT have to if you were NOT so closed to what I was referring to.

Either you are 100% certain what you say here is RIGHT, and therefore you could NOT be WRONG at all, or, there is a contradiction.

Now, if you can NOT SEE it, and/or could NOT even be bothered to LOOK AT this and make some clarification in regards to it, but instead just INSIST that 'It is NOT a contradiction', then that strongly infers that you BELIEVE that only what I say is WRONG and that what you say is not just RIGHT but 100% certainly RIGHT.

If you are still missing any thing here, then just let me know. I can explain this further and in more detail in other ways if you like.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Logik »

Age wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:22 am
Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:31 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:29 pm If you say so, but can you SEE how that contradicts your own "Everything you say IS wrong" statement?
No it doesn't.
To me "it" does.
So you believe that I have contradicted myself. When, in fact, I haven't.

Is this evidence that you have beliefs?
Age
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

Post by Age »

Atla wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:36 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:12 pm
Atla wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:53 pm
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.
Atla wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:53 pmnone 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.
Of course I could NOT prove "it", to you, because you BELIEVE that it is NOT possible to. I can NOT SHOW any contrary to a BELIEF, let alone SHOWING any thing that PROVES the BELIEF is WRONG.

And, you would NEVER believe any thing if it were NOT 100% absolutely True, Right, and Correct, would you?
Atla wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:36 pmNor would you want to, because it is the basis of your insanity, and you are not open to getting out of it.
We KNOW you BELIEVE that this is the case ALREADY. But we will have to wait and SEE.

Now, AGAIN, you have NOT answered, and appear will NOT answer, the question: Can the small self speak?

Do "you" have some thing to HIDE?
Post Reply