A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Age
Posts: 4099
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:07 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:02 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:46 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:16 am

So here you are saying it is the WORD that knows the experience of being a self aware entity....is that what you mean?

I'll answer all your other responses once we've sorted this one out first.

.
Why are some lucky to get challenged and asked clarifying questions like this but I get neither?

Because when you AGE are given the clarification you ask for, it's like if that clarification does not meet with your own personal approval, you will then ask for more clarification until it does, and this is what frustrates other people about how you personally communicate with others, your communication style is very often narcissistically one sided.
Well if what I am claiming is True about how 'I' KNOW HOW to fit ALL the pieces of the puzzle together, which forms a crystal clear picture of ALL-THERE-IS, then I am able to keep challenging and questioning "others", until thee Truth is REVEALED, NOT because I am necessarily "narcissistic" at all but just because I KNOW what IS actually True, Right, and Correct, and so also KNOW what EXACTLY to challenge, and what EXACT questions to ask.

As I have said before if people want to claim they KNOW the Truth, then I will ask clarifying questions and challenge them. Just like I LOVE to be challenged AND questioned on what I claim to be True.

The reason I am unfortunately challenged and questioned is because of the opposite. But thank you so much for answering my clarifying question Honestly here. It is Honestly very much appreciated.
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:02 pm
People just haven't got the time or energy to play that game.
What game? If some one makes a claim to KNOW the truth of some thing, then surely they would be able to be able to back it up BEFORE making such claim, true?

If yes, then there is NO game here. There is just a chance to learn, know and understand more. Or, in other words, there is just a chance to become wiser, and who would NOT take that chance when and if it becomes available?

If no, then really?
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:02 pm
No offense.
Absolutely NONE AT ALL taken.

As I say, I LOVE and RESPECT absolute FULL Honesty.
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:02 pm
Sometimes, people just instantly know what the other person means or is talking about without ever having to question it
Obviously this is the case WHEN this happens. But also obvious is some times what one is actually meaning and is 'trying to' say and explain is KNOWN, and also what is KNOWN is how it could just be explained in a much simpler, and much more easier to so that can be understood by EVERY one.

By the way I OBVIOUSLY would NOT question "another" if what they were actually saying was actually absolutely True, Right, and Correct, anyway.
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:02 pm
...it's called resonance and a silent mutual understanding.
Do I question absolutely EVERY thing 'you' say?

Or, do I some times just sit in silence?

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:02 pm
..the point is, we all have the truth within us, we know it because we are it.



.
So, WHY then are 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is written STILL disputing, disagreeing, and fighting with each "other", while still warring and killing each "other" over UNTRUTHS?

If 'you' are the truth, then what are all of 'you' truths disagreeing about exactly.

Also, how is it POSSIBLE for all of 'you' to have the truth within all of 'you', and 'you' know the truth because 'you' are the truth?

How is it even POSSIBLE to have 'you' (the truth) WITHIN 'you' (the truth).

It seems an absurd and contradictory statement for 'you' to be within 'you', and/or, the 'truth' to be within the 'truth'. Would not 'you' just be 'you', and, the 'truth' just be thee 'truth'?

I find there is absolutely NO need to confuse and make complex 'that' what IS essentially just thee Truth and which is also very easy and very simple to explain and understand.

Age
Posts: 4099
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:16 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:12 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:45 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:10 am


I agree with how you've explained this.

It's like what came first the chicken or the egg...and the answer is neither come first in that they both arise together in the same instant, namely NOW

.
But the Answer to what actually came first is very easy and very simple to work out.
Yes I know that. And so once the answer to a question is worked out, there is no more need to keep flogging like a dead horse what has already been worked out. It's wise to just leave it alone.

.
So, then wise one, if you already KNOW that the Answer to that question can be very easily and very simply worked out, which 'you' claim has already been worked out, then what IS the unambiguous, irrefutable Answer to what came first, the chicken or the egg?

While 'you' are Answering this very easy and simple question, then how about also explaining what the formula IS that is needed to very simply and very easily work out that question, which, in case 'you' were yet aware is the exact same formula used to work out the Answer to all the other questions, and which Solve all "problems" as well.

You have claimed some thing here, so let us see if 'you' are able to back up ANY of it.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7551
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:06 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:36 pm
Dontaskme wrote: So we are using a WORD when referring to the experience of being a body..we use a WORD to inform us that we are self-aware?

This is bascially what you are saying Arising_uk....is that correct?

.
Nope, we use language to communicate with each other. In the case of the word "mind" it is the word we use to express our experience of being a self-aware or self-conscious body. Now it is a word, like all words, open to various interpretations, as such there are various opinions as to what "mind" actually refers to in the nuance, is it the "mind" that thinks with the internal voice? Is it the "mind" that 'thinks' in thoughts, i.e. the sequenced complex of representations available to us from perception and retrieved by memory? Questions like this are what should be clarified when there are philosophical discussions about "mind" and they are pretty much the questions I've often asked you but with very little response.
Ok, I understand what you are saying, and will clarify for you in future, if that's what you want.

All I'm trying to do is be in agreement with you as to what it is that knows the experience of being self-aware.

Earlier you wrote ''...I'm saying the word "mind" is what we use to refer to the experience of being a body with self-awareness...''

So now all we have to do is work out what or who is this ''we'' that uses the ''mind'' which is a word, words being thoughts that make up a language as a means to express communication from one to another?

Once we understand that, we can move on.

.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12194
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:26 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:06 pm
Ok, I understand what you are saying, and will clarify for you in future, if that's what you want.

All I'm trying to do is be in agreement with you as to what it is that knows the experience of being self-aware. ...
There is no 'it' other than the being of a body that is self-aware or self-conscious.
Earlier you wrote ''...I'm saying the word "mind" is what we use to refer to the experience of being a body with self-awareness...''

So now all we have to do is work out what or who is this ''we'' that uses the ''mind'' which is a word, words being thoughts that make up a language as a means to express communication from one to another? ...
I'd have thought that obvious? The "we" are the other self-aware or self-conscious bodies.

I don't think words are exactly thoughts, they are the sounds we use to attempt to envoke or invoke thoughts in others, whether they do that in the way we wish when we use them depends upon a myriad of factors, not least being that we have carefully considered whether they fit the thoughts we wish to communicate but even if they do they may well not, and frequently don't, produce the same thoughts in others. This is why language is a two-way process of clarification, i.e. speak and listen to the response to see if it is the one expected, if not, try again but maybe with different words if necessary, rinse and repeat until result achieved. Basically a TOTE system, test-operate-test-exit.
Once we understand that, we can move on.
Can we now move on then? As I'd be interested in your answers to my other questions.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7551
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:35 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:26 pm
Can we now move on then? As I'd be interested in your answers to my other questions.
Ok, we can move on if that is your desire.

Here are your other questions .
Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:26 pm
For a supposed 'non-dualist' you appear to really want there to be a separate 'mind'? But yes, 'mind' is the word we apply to the experience of being a self-aware or self-conscious body.
I can't see how there can be a separate mind - as I see it, the use of words are the only way the idea of any separation becomes apparent. So it is knowledge itself that appears to separate you there from me here... ok?
And then if you think about it closely, the words are appearing out of nothingness, and we label this nothingness THE MIND
So in truth, there is no MIND, except the conception of it via the label no thing is placing on it.


DAM asked:But then, does the mind know how it knows it's having the experience of being a body?
Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:26 pm
By the experience of being a self-aware or self-conscious body.
To be aware of having an experience is to KNOW and to be able to inform yourself of having the experience via knowing which is knowledge informing via words and language that we call the mind. But you already ARE prior to any knowledge of yourself, so in truth, the knowledge of yourself is a fiction.


D: does the mind know how or why that experience of being a body disappears at the death of that body
Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:26 pm
Yes, it's because the body is dead so there is no 'mind' anymore.
D: and does it know how it reappears again in a new body?
Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:26 pm
It doesn't reappear in a new body.
It reappears every time a new baby becomes aware of itself via a knowledge IMPOSED upon it.
D: Can the mind know how or what or why it is ?
Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:26 pm
Yes, but you'd have to explain what you understand or would accept by 'know how', 'what' and 'why'?
There is no answer to the whys and hows..of what is mind really because like I said earlier, it's arising out of nothingness.
D:If NOT, then all known knowledge must be a pretence, right?
Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:26 pm
You'd have to explain what you understand by 'knowledge' here?
I'm referring to knowledge in the sense of what is known, can that which arises from nothingness be anything more than just a pretense in the sense that what is known is a conceptual fact or fiction, believed to be real and true by the nothingness from which it all arises.

I'm sorry that this might appear to sound like total woo woo...but this is what nonduality is. This is the reality of the world of beingness.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7551
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:03 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:26 pm

I don't think words are exactly thoughts, they are the sounds we use to attempt to envoke or invoke thoughts in others, whether they do that in the way we wish when we use them depends upon a myriad of factors, not least being that we have carefully considered whether they fit the thoughts we wish to communicate but even if they do they may well not, and frequently don't, produce the same thoughts in others.
But to express a thought would require to put that thought into words, so in essence words are frozen thoughts appearing as symbol/image that we can all relate to. Language is the divider and the connecter both.

Language is just sound heard as words with meaning, and sound appears out of nothingness. There is all sorts of sounds coming from the jungle creatures as nature attempts to communicate to itself.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7551
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:14 am

Age wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:16 pm

You have claimed some thing here, so let us see if 'you' are able to back up ANY of it.
There is no claimer.

That which 'appears' to make a claim comes from knowledge itself which only informs the illusory nature of reality in that there is no claimer except in this artificial conception as it appears in no one nor to one.

That which appears to make a claim NEVER MADE A CLAIM....as NOTHING belongs to us, me, you or them.

The thought of ''I'' ...IS merely an unfolding manifestation of the animating energy of Pure Awareness.

From this perspective, there is a sense that life is simply living, thinking, and acting through you and as you. Spontaneously happening/arising from nowhere now here.

"I live, yet not I, but Christ - the eternal Logos - liveth in me. " (Gal 2:20).

Age
Posts: 4099
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Sat Dec 07, 2019 11:44 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:14 am
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:16 pm

You have claimed some thing here, so let us see if 'you' are able to back up ANY of it.
There is no claimer.

That which 'appears' to make a claim comes from knowledge itself which only informs the illusory nature of reality in that there is no claimer except in this artificial conception as it appears in no one nor to one.

That which appears to make a claim NEVER MADE A CLAIM....as NOTHING belongs to us, me, you or them.

The thought of ''I'' ...IS merely an unfolding manifestation of the animating energy of Pure Awareness.

From this perspective, there is a sense that life is simply living, thinking, and acting through you and as you. Spontaneously happening/arising from nowhere now here.

"I live, yet not I, but Christ - the eternal Logos - liveth in me. " (Gal 2:20).
You claimed that you know that the Answer to what actually came first in regards to the chicken and the egg is very easy and very simple to work out.

I said let us see if 'you' are able to back up ANY of your claim here.

You have now SHOWN us that you were NOT able to back up ANY of your own claim.

Enough said.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7551
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Dec 07, 2019 2:04 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 11:44 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:14 am
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:16 pm

You have claimed some thing here, so let us see if 'you' are able to back up ANY of it.
There is no claimer.

That which 'appears' to make a claim comes from knowledge itself which only informs the illusory nature of reality in that there is no claimer except in this artificial conception as it appears in no one nor to one.

That which appears to make a claim NEVER MADE A CLAIM....as NOTHING belongs to us, me, you or them.

The thought of ''I'' ...IS merely an unfolding manifestation of the animating energy of Pure Awareness.

From this perspective, there is a sense that life is simply living, thinking, and acting through you and as you. Spontaneously happening/arising from nowhere now here.

"I live, yet not I, but Christ - the eternal Logos - liveth in me. " (Gal 2:20).
You claimed that you know that the Answer to what actually came first in regards to the chicken and the egg is very easy and very simple to work out.

I said let us see if 'you' are able to back up ANY of your claim here.

You have now SHOWN us that you were NOT able to back up ANY of your own claim.

Enough said.

I did show the back up to the claim.

You missed it as usual... like you do.

And so I'm not going to repeat it again for you, like I'm some sort of puppet of yours that you like to dangle the strings of.

I know the Answer to what actually came first in regards to the chicken and the egg and I explained it very simply and easy. It's just your problem if you can't be bothered to pay attention to other people.

.

Age
Posts: 4099
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Sun Dec 08, 2019 2:11 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 2:04 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 11:44 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:14 am


There is no claimer.

That which 'appears' to make a claim comes from knowledge itself which only informs the illusory nature of reality in that there is no claimer except in this artificial conception as it appears in no one nor to one.

That which appears to make a claim NEVER MADE A CLAIM....as NOTHING belongs to us, me, you or them.

The thought of ''I'' ...IS merely an unfolding manifestation of the animating energy of Pure Awareness.

From this perspective, there is a sense that life is simply living, thinking, and acting through you and as you. Spontaneously happening/arising from nowhere now here.

"I live, yet not I, but Christ - the eternal Logos - liveth in me. " (Gal 2:20).
You claimed that you know that the Answer to what actually came first in regards to the chicken and the egg is very easy and very simple to work out.

I said let us see if 'you' are able to back up ANY of your claim here.

You have now SHOWN us that you were NOT able to back up ANY of your own claim.

Enough said.

I did show the back up to the claim.

You missed it as usual... like you do.

And so I'm not going to repeat it again for you, like I'm some sort of puppet of yours that you like to dangle the strings of.

I know the Answer to what actually came first in regards to the chicken and the egg and I explained it very simply and easy. It's just your problem if you can't be bothered to pay attention to other people.

.
Here you are making another claim that you will NOT back up also. This time you make the claim that you provided the answer but then say that you will NOT repeat it, leading one to conclude that if you can not or will not repeat it, then this could infer that REALLY you did not even provide it in the first place. This can be EVIDENCED and PROVEN in and by your own words.

Where, in what you said here in bold is the answer to what came first, in regards to the chicken or the egg?

There is no claimer.

That which 'appears' to make a claim comes from knowledge itself which only informs the illusory nature of reality in that there is no claimer except in this artificial conception as it appears in no one nor to one.

That which appears to make a claim NEVER MADE A CLAIM....as NOTHING belongs to us, me, you or them.

The thought of ''I'' ...IS merely an unfolding manifestation of the animating energy of Pure Awareness.

From this perspective, there is a sense that life is simply living, thinking, and acting through you and as you. Spontaneously happening/arising from nowhere now here.


I can NOT see the answer, which you say I missed, as I supposedly usually do.

All you have done, from what i can see, which you regularly do when asked to clarify what you say or when asked to provide evidence for what you claim, is to say something similar to things can not be explained in words and/or there is no claimer.

Instead of just clarifying or just answering the actual question you come up with some excuse for why you can not be provided any thing, which is again EXACTLY what you have done here, which is EVIDENCED and PROVEN once again by your very OWN words.

Saying I missed it, even though it obviously is NOT even there, but then saying "you missed it, SO I am not going to repeat it" does not even logically follow by itself. Let alone that what it really does is hint to the fact the you NEVER actually provided said Answer at all.

You do not have to worry about you being some puppet of mine because you are NOT. Your worries, fears, and concerns are making you say things that are not true and preventing you from just providing the truth here.

I did NOT want you to repeat any thing, what I was doing was asking you a question. If you want to provide the answer to that question the FIRST time or not, then that is entirely up to you? You obviously did NOT provide an answer the FIRST time, after I asked you a question, therefore all your worries about you being my puppet were completely unnecessary. I just asked a Truly OPEN clarifying question, to what you claimed to KNOW. If you are able to answer that question or not is a whole other matter.

By the way you might have said some thing about what came first in regards to the chicken and egg BEFORE I ask you a clarifying question. Do you want me to read absolutely every thing you have written BEFORE I asked you a question to see if I can find it or not, or could it have been much simpler and much easier for both of us, with the use of less words, to just copy and paste that, or to at least just provide a link to it, then to go on about how, from your perspective, There is no claimer and other excuses for not just answering the actual question?

Obviously to claim that there is no claimer MEANS that there IS actually a claimer.

If some thing is claimed, then some thing did the claiming. The some thing that did the claiming was 'you'. 'you' are the thoughts within that body and when those thoughts, appearing as written words, are claiming some thing, then that means those thoughts are the claimer. Those thoughts in written words are the EVIDENCE and the PROOF of what I am saying (and claiming) here. Those 'thoughts' just being 'you', the one known here in this forum as "dontaskme".

Also, what I asked for is the Answer to; what IS the unambiguous, irrefutable Answer to what came first, the chicken or the egg?

As well as saying to you; While 'you' are Answering this very easy and simple question, then how about also explaining what the formula IS that is needed to very simply and very easily work out that question, which, in case 'you' were yet aware is the exact same formula used to work out the Answer to all the other questions, and which Solve all "problems" as well.

You said you KNOW that the Answer to what came first is very easy and very simple to work out, so provide us with the unambiguous, irrefutable Answer to what came first, in regards to the chicken and the egg, and then SHOW us HOW you worked it out, that is; SHOW the formula used.

If you want to make the CLAIM that you KNOW, then I would suggest having the EVIDENCE and the PROOF to back up and support that claim PRIOR to making said claim is VERY HELPFUL.

You now CLAIM that I have missed, as usual, your answer, which you supposedly have already given, so now back up this claim with a link to that answer, which would also be the EVIDENCE and PROOF needed for this now new claim of YOURS.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7551
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:28 am

Age wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 2:11 am
You said you KNOW that the Answer to what came first is very easy and very simple to work out, so provide us with the unambiguous, irrefutable Answer to what came first, in regards to the chicken and the egg, and then SHOW us HOW you worked it out, that is; SHOW the formula used.
Already done it. It's all written down on this thread for anyone who is interested to read it, it's all here in black and white. So like I said earlier, I'm not doing it again. You really need to learn the art of ''listening'' and pay more attention to what others are saying, instead of obsessively flapping your own gums at a million miles an hour because quite frankly, the sight of those huge snarly teeth are just getting too much to bear.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 2:11 am
Obviously to claim that there is no claimer MEANS that there IS actually a claimer.
I've already explained away the no claimer paradox right here on this thread, so not doing it again, sorry.

Have a great day.

.

Age
Posts: 4099
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:05 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:28 am
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 2:11 am
You said you KNOW that the Answer to what came first is very easy and very simple to work out, so provide us with the unambiguous, irrefutable Answer to what came first, in regards to the chicken and the egg, and then SHOW us HOW you worked it out, that is; SHOW the formula used.
Already done it. It's all written down on this thread for anyone who is interested to read it, it's all here in black and white.
But WHERE EXACTLY?

Are you AFRAID that much? Why do you not just SHOW it to us, instead of HIDING it like this?

What is IT exactly that you are really 'trying to' HIDE here?
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:28 am
So like I said earlier, I'm not doing it again.
WHY?

Because;
You are 'trying to' HIDE some thing?
There is NO answer?
You can not find it, yourself?
You are too lazy?
Of some thing else?
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:28 am
You really need to learn the art of ''listening'' and pay more attention to what others are saying, instead of obsessively flapping your own gums at a million miles an hour because quite frankly, the sight of those huge snarly teeth are just getting too much to bear.
Maybe you did NOT see and/or did NOT hear the actual words I wrote.

If you BELIEVE that have you have ALREADY provided the UNAMBIGUOUS, IRREFUTABLE Answer to what came first in regards to the chicken and the egg, then I am pretty SURE what will be found is YOUR Answer is just one of many AMBIGUOUS and REFUTABLE answers. If the answer, if you did provide earlier, BEFORE I asked you for clarification, is just that, then it is NOT the unambiguous, irrefutable Answer, which you claim to KNOW and HAVE, OBVIOUSLY.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:28 am
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 2:11 am
Obviously to claim that there is no claimer MEANS that there IS actually a claimer.
I've already explained away the no claimer paradox right here on this thread, so not doing it again, sorry.

Have a great day.

.
But you have NOT already explained it AWAY, in relation to the Truth of things.

You may have explained this, and other things, AWAY, to 'you', and 'you' ONLY, in that "head". But, what thee actual Truth of things IS is a WHOLE other matter, and a WHOLE lot bigger than that little 'you', which can NOT be "explained away".

For a 'THING' to CLAIM some thing like; There are NO things and NO claimer, then OBVIOUSLY this is just a 'self-refuting claim', which, by the way, is also just ANOTHER 'thing', of which there are MANY.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7551
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Dec 08, 2019 9:24 am

“Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.”
‭‭Psalms‬ ‭139:12‬ ‭

surreptitious57
Posts: 3838
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:31 am

Age wrote:
This time you make the claim that you provided the answer but then say that you will NOT repeat it leading one to conclude that if you can
not or will not repeat it then this could infer that REALLY you did not even provide it in the first place . This can be EVIDENCED and PROVEN
in and by your own words

Saying I missed it even though it obviously is NOT even there but then saying you missed it SO I am not going to repeat it does not even
logically follow by itself . Let alone that what it really does is hint to the fact the you NEVER actually provided said Answer at all

You now CLAIM that I have missed as usual your answer which you supposedly have already given so now back up this claim
with a link to that answer which would also be the EVIDENCE and PROOF needed for this now new claim of YOURS
In the time it took you to type all of this you could instead have looked for the actual quote which despite your claim is actually there

the answer is that neither come first in that they both arise in the same instant namely NOW

You have also used the words irrefutable and unambiguous but they are not her words but yours so that is a strawman
She simply gave an answer which you were apparently unable to find even though I managed to find it straight away

I have also given a different answer to the same question if you are interested
I also do not claim mine is irrefutable and unambiguous but I do think it is true

Unlike the mind and body the egg and chicken can actually be separated from each other and the egg came before the chicken
The simpler an organism is then the earlier it comes into existence where it can exist in complete isolation from anything else


Both of these quotes are in the last post on page 3 of this thread which had you actually looked for you would have found very easily
But you did not even bother to look for the quote in question because you did not think that it was there even though it obviously is

Age
Posts: 4099
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Sun Dec 08, 2019 1:43 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:31 am
Age wrote:
This time you make the claim that you provided the answer but then say that you will NOT repeat it leading one to conclude that if you can
not or will not repeat it then this could infer that REALLY you did not even provide it in the first place . This can be EVIDENCED and PROVEN
in and by your own words

Saying I missed it even though it obviously is NOT even there but then saying you missed it SO I am not going to repeat it does not even
logically follow by itself . Let alone that what it really does is hint to the fact the you NEVER actually provided said Answer at all

You now CLAIM that I have missed as usual your answer which you supposedly have already given so now back up this claim
with a link to that answer which would also be the EVIDENCE and PROOF needed for this now new claim of YOURS
In the time it took you to type all of this you could instead have looked for the actual quote which despite your claim is actually there
Here is ANOTHER ONE, who does NOT SEE and/or does NOT understand the actual words I use.

You claim I made a claim, which I SEE you KNOW, is ABSOLUTELY WRONG as well as being ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.

If you, people, READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I USE, then it can be SEEN you are so far mistaken, that it now becomes harder and harder to get it back ON TRACK.

I used the words "said Answer". Therefore, what I claim is ABSOLUTELY True, Right, and Correct, which makes your claim, False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

As you say there is an actual quote, but in that quote is just AN answer. It is NOT thee Answer I was asking for in my clarifying question. I KNOW you have NOT yet been able to see this, but there is an absolutely HUGE difference.

Hopefully, this is FINALLY understood and settled. But, on past experiences, I doubt it very much. And considering that there is to much FEAR in "others" to just clarify or challenge what I said AND meant, I can SEE the same just things just being re-repeated. That is; what is PRESUMED to be true, will be expressed as thought IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:31 am
the answer is that neither come first in that they both arise in the same instant namely NOW
Did you READ and UNDERSTAND the question that I asked to be clarified? I will answer for you because you are consistently "mentally", "out of energy". The answer is an OBVIOUS, No. If you had actually READ and UNDERSTOOD, then you would have SEEN that that answer provided previously, has NOTHING at all in regards to the actual question I posed, and thus thee Answer sort.

I KNEW all along the answer given by "dontaskme". I also KNEW that it was NOT the Answer I asked for.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:31 am
You have also used the words irrefutable and unambiguous but they are not her words but yours so that is a strawman
Of course they are NOT any one "else's" words, and ONLY my words. I am thee One asking the question, which the words were in, OBVIOUSLY.

So, when the claim is made that the answer to my question had already been given, then this is what I am disputing.

I used those words, BEFORE the claim was made that the Answer to that question, with those words, had already been answered.

Obviously, that answer given was NEVER any thing like the one I posed asking for.

Thee Truth IS this OBVIOUS.

Your "strawman" is, therefore, what you human beings call a "strawman" itself.

LOOK, I asked a question containing the words UNAMBIGUOUS and IRREFUTABLE, some one said they KNOW the answer. What the actual Truth is ALREADY EVIDENCED. Thee Answer to my question was NEVER given BEFORE nor AFTER I asked the question.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:31 am
She simply gave an answer which you were apparently unable to find even though I managed to find it straight away
I read and thus KNEW that exact answer PRIOR to my clarifying question. So, I NEVER had to "find" it. Therefore, there was NO need to even LOOK FOR IT.

IF what I had written was Truly UNDERSTOOD, OR just clarified FIRST, then ALL of the ASSUMPTIONS made PRIOR to clarification would NOT now be being exposed, for what they Truly ARE, and NON of the confusion, which 'you', human beings, are making here now would NOT have even taken place in the beginning.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:31 am
I have also given a different answer to the same question if you are interested
Is it an unambiguous, irrefutable Answer? The answer is No.

You are absolutely correct in that you gave 'a' answer. But just like the other answer WAS and IS 'a' answer, it is OBVIOUSLY, NOT thee Answer I asked for. So, I could have LOOKED FOR eternity, and have NEVER found thee Answer.

I KNOW what thee Answer IS, but I have NOT YET given It, therefore It does NOT exist anywhere in writing, YET, when this is written.

By the way I ALREADY KNEW you provided your own personal, subjective, and relative to you ONLY answer.

SEE, I KNOW what the unambiguous, irrefutable Answer IS. Where as 'you' and "other" do NOT. Even though one of you CLAIMS to KNOW It.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:31 am
I also do not claim mine is irrefutable and unambiguous but I do think it is true
LOL

Every one thinks that what they THINK, is true. OBVIOUSLY, they would NOT be thinking it.

Also, what do you mean when you write; "also". Obviously you do NOT claim your answer is irrefutable and unambiguous, but, this is the WHOLE point. The "other" person IS CLAIMING that they KNOW what the irrefutable and unambiguous Answer IS. And, that person also CLAIMED that they had provided thee irrefutable and unambiguous Answer, ALREADY, which was OBVIOUSLY absolutely NOT true at all.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:31 am
Unlike the mind and body the egg and chicken can actually be separated from each other and the egg came before the chicken
The simpler an organism is then the earlier it comes into existence where it can exist in complete isolation from anything else
So, what laid the egg, which produced a chicken? A donkey?

If a chicken did not lay the egg, from which a chicken hatched, then what did?

Just because the simpler an organism is, this has absolutely NO bearing on when exactly it comes into Existence. A fertilized egg, within a female human body, for example, is a much simpler organism than the human beings, which created it, but this in no way infers that that egg came into existence first before human beings did, obviously.

Also, and by the way, I could say some thing to CORRECT what is WRONG, and that is the Mind CAN be separated from the body, extremely easily and very simply, as well. But since I am NOT allowed to say absolutely any thing which could construed as "off topic", then I will not.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:31 am
Both of these quotes are in the last post on page 3 of this thread which had you actually looked for you would have found very easily
I KNOW and KNEW that they were here in this thread. I had ALREADY SEEN them and READ them, previously.

I do NOT care about any one's personal, subjective, thought to be true, relative to them only, answer, which to me are OBVIOUSLY wrong anyway. I just asked a clarifying question, with very specific words, for a very specific reason. But this was obviously MISSED.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:31 am
But you did not even bother to look for the quote in question because you did not think that it was there even though it obviously is
LOL How simply and how quickly things get completely WRONG, when ASSUMPTIONS are made BEFORE clarification is made FIRST.

Just IMAGINE what would occur if clarification was made FIRST, prior to ASSUMPTIONS being made up, and "CONCLUSIONS" are arrived at?

OBVIOUSLY, so many of these absolutely WRONG comments would NOT be continually being made. What would also occur is thee actual Truth of things could be, and would be, SEEN, as well as being KNOWN.

You were ABSOLUTELY WRONG about me "not thinking that that quote was there". But, in saying that, you were absolutely RIGHT and CORRECT in that I did not even bother to look for the quote. This is because I had ALREADY SEEN the quote, and therefore there was absolutely NO need for me to go looking for it again.

Therefore, your ASSUMPTION, which was completely WRONG, which let you completely ASTRAY, could NOT have been MORE WRONG, even you tried to make it more wrong, or even if you wanted it to be more wrong.

It seems that no matter how many times I say and use the words;
If you do NOT assume any thing, and do NOT believe any thing, then you can and will be far more open, and IF you are completely OPEN, then you can and will SEE the Truth of things

They just seem to BE MISSED and/or NOT UNDERSTOOD.

This thread is become a PRIME EXAMPLE of this FACT.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests