Which of these is Real and True?

[henry quirk]

You should come back to the land of farmers: the soil here is dark and rich, like my coffee, my women, my manure.

[commonsense]

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:01 am
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
.
...but we have no means at our disposal to actually prove it exists.

The problem I highlighted was about what happens to the apple when no one is looking.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:01 am
Considering 'you' are calling 'it' an "apple", implies or infers that 'it' remains an 'apple', even when there are no human beings looking at 'it', thee 'apple'.
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
.
I wrote the word “apple” as a (mistaken) matter of convenience.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:01 am
True, but 'you' could place a video camera there and record it, and then 'you' could see if it was there when 'you' were personally not looking at 'it'.
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
.
Interesting. However a Solopsist could claim that the camera and its images were imagined.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:01 am
you could also do other experiments to see and know if the thing known as an "apples" remains, or does some thing incomprehensible and/or magical, while 'you' are not looking at 'it'.
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
.
Honestly, I wonder if you have a few experiments in mind. If so, please share.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:01 am
WHY would any one even really care if it was there or not there when they are not looking at it, anyway?

Do 'you' care about all of the other uncountable things also, when 'you' are not looking at them as well?

What is the actual point of this type of discussion about this type of issue, anyway?

And, what is the actual 'problem' when 'you' look at some thing and prove to "yourself" ONLY that it is there while 'you' are looking.

Are you SURE 'you' can NOT prove any thing?
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
.
Each of these questions seems to be making a point rather than asking for an answer. Thank you for spicing up the discussion with rhetorical questions such as these.
My apologies for breaking up the format.
My apologies for breaking up the format.

Firstly, WHY did 'you' break up the format?

And, WHY did 'you' NOT fix the format?

If 'you', A human being, which mistakenly calls its self a "solopsist"?, can claim ABSOLUTELY ANY THING. But without PROOF and EVIDENCE, then what are 'you/they' really basing that claim on exactly?

If a so called "solopsist" claims that the camera and its images are imagined, then WHY are they imagining it? Also, while they are 'it', that is; pondering, how about they also Answer, properly AND correctly, who/what exactly IS this 'self' thing, which is the ONLY thing they supposedly KNOW or BELIEVE exists?

I have ALREADY explained EXACTLY HOW that one is the ONLY thing that can be Truly KNOWN, 100% for sure. So, how about Answering 'My' questions also?

Since there is some thing wondering what if "another" thing has a few experiments, then that in itself infers the first 'self' is recognizing and/or somewhat BELIEVING there is some thing "other" than itself, just to begin with. Otherwise WHY would that 'self' wonder what "another" has?

Could 'you' feel the apple, while 'you' are NOT looking at it, to SEE and KNOW if the apple still remains existing? That is One example of just one experiment, which could be done. I am sure if that thing, known as "self", WORKED WITH the "other" things, also known as "selfs, which 'you', "yourself", were wondering what those "selfs" have in mind, then surely ALL of 'you' 'selfs' could imagine AND devise up some more other experiments. What does that 'self' reckon?

Are 'you' basing the supposed KNOWING here that I am making a point rather than just asking OPEN clarifying questions on some thing factual or some thing learned, or some thing both?

Re format: I am working with a phone and a physical disability. After cut and paste erroneously I became too fatigued to fix. Btw, this post (3 sentences) took more time (> 3 minutes) to write, but only seconds to think up.

Will reply other in your post later.

If I would still believe that the existence of things were dependent on my imagination, I would make the statements that are marked by () in reply. The unmarked statements are still held by me currently.

() Something unreal happens when I am not experiencing an object in any way: it ceases to exist!

I am intrigued by the idea that things might disintegrate while they are not experienced by me in any way. Intrigue leads me to inquiry.

() I care about any/all objects un-existing absent my sensing then in some way—in theory. In practice, I don’t close my eyes and run full steam into a cement wall.

The point of this type of discussion on this type of topic is to enjoy the exploration of new and curious ideas.

() I am sure that I cannot prove anything about objects that are absent from my experience.

The statements demarcated by () were my thoughts at the time I originally composed them. They have been proved wrong since.

[Age]

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:01 am
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
.
...but we have no means at our disposal to actually prove it exists.

The problem I highlighted was about what happens to the apple when no one is looking.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:01 am
Considering 'you' are calling 'it' an "apple", implies or infers that 'it' remains an 'apple', even when there are no human beings looking at 'it', thee 'apple'.
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
.
I wrote the word “apple” as a (mistaken) matter of convenience.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:01 am
True, but 'you' could place a video camera there and record it, and then 'you' could see if it was there when 'you' were personally not looking at 'it'.
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
.
Interesting. However a Solopsist could claim that the camera and its images were imagined.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:01 am
you could also do other experiments to see and know if the thing known as an "apples" remains, or does some thing incomprehensible and/or magical, while 'you' are not looking at 'it'.
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
.
Honestly, I wonder if you have a few experiments in mind. If so, please share.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:01 am
WHY would any one even really care if it was there or not there when they are not looking at it, anyway?

Do 'you' care about all of the other uncountable things also, when 'you' are not looking at them as well?

What is the actual point of this type of discussion about this type of issue, anyway?

And, what is the actual 'problem' when 'you' look at some thing and prove to "yourself" ONLY that it is there while 'you' are looking.

Are you SURE 'you' can NOT prove any thing?
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
.
Each of these questions seems to be making a point rather than asking for an answer. Thank you for spicing up the discussion with rhetorical questions such as these.
My apologies for breaking up the format.
My apologies for breaking up the format.

Firstly, WHY did 'you' break up the format?

And, WHY did 'you' NOT fix the format?

If 'you', A human being, which mistakenly calls its self a "solopsist"?, can claim ABSOLUTELY ANY THING. But without PROOF and EVIDENCE, then what are 'you/they' really basing that claim on exactly?

If a so called "solopsist" claims that the camera and its images are imagined, then WHY are they imagining it? Also, while they are 'it', that is; pondering, how about they also Answer, properly AND correctly, who/what exactly IS this 'self' thing, which is the ONLY thing they supposedly KNOW or BELIEVE exists?

I have ALREADY explained EXACTLY HOW that one is the ONLY thing that can be Truly KNOWN, 100% for sure. So, how about Answering 'My' questions also?

Since there is some thing wondering what if "another" thing has a few experiments, then that in itself infers the first 'self' is recognizing and/or somewhat BELIEVING there is some thing "other" than itself, just to begin with. Otherwise WHY would that 'self' wonder what "another" has?

Could 'you' feel the apple, while 'you' are NOT looking at it, to SEE and KNOW if the apple still remains existing? That is One example of just one experiment, which could be done. I am sure if that thing, known as "self", WORKED WITH the "other" things, also known as "selfs, which 'you', "yourself", were wondering what those "selfs" have in mind, then surely ALL of 'you' 'selfs' could imagine AND devise up some more other experiments. What does that 'self' reckon?

Are 'you' basing the supposed KNOWING here that I am making a point rather than just asking OPEN clarifying questions on some thing factual or some thing learned, or some thing both?

Re format: I am working with a phone and a physical disability.

I know and feel your frustration.

Also, when I clicked on the quote button previously NOTHING that we wrote came up, so that is why I replied back formatted that way.

After cut and paste erroneously I became too fatigued to fix.

I totally understand.

Btw, this post (3 sentences) took more time (> 3 minutes) to write, but only seconds to think up.

If the Truth be KNOWN, the Truth of things is ALREADY KNOWN, but there just seems like there is not enough time to explain It, which would appear counter-intuitive. What is ALREADY KNOWN to and by some one, one would think could very easily and very simply be explained to them in seconds.

But even a split second of inspiration can also take a life time to explain.

What I also found is just keeping up with the thoughts within, is just about impossible, let alone ever being able to write them down in the sequence that they occur, or even in the same way that arose in.

Regularly for me the thought that arises, which seems to make PERFECT SENSE at the time, is completely LOST or TRANSCRIBED WRONGLY by the time it has just gotten to the fingers tips and from them typed on to the screen, which depending on the typing speed could literally be within just a few seconds.

Will reply other in your post later.

Okay.

[Age]

Human beings came to exist, or evolved into Existence, from other things.

Before human beings started existing there MUST OF been other things previously. (Unless, of course, 'you' BELIEVE otherwise.)

ALL 'things', by definition, are objects, so 'other things' also are objects.

Before human beings started existing obviously there were NO human beings experiencing and thinking.

Objects, therefore, MUST OF existed when NO human beings were yet experiencing or thinking, of ANY thing.

So, IF this is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, THEN an object exists even when NO human being experiences or thinks of it.

The above is so important that it merits re-posting.

The premise is a priori for most rational beings.

The steps are well ordered.

The argument is absolutely true, right, accurate and correct.

The conclusion is well supported.

I thank you again for providing what I was looking for.

Dare I believe that there is and never will be a cogent refutation?

Just to note on your last point, I NEVER believe (or disbelieve) any thing, because if I were to do that, then I would NOT be as OPEN as I could be to some thing else new or more coming along. For example, If I were to believe that there could never be a 'cogent refutation' (to any thing in fact), then I would NOT be as OPEN as you were here, when you could recognize and SEE some thing in what you wrote/re-posted, which 'you' previously just had NOT seen or had thought of before.

Even IF what was just re-posted, or any thing else, was agreed with by EVERY one, then that is NO reason to start BELIEVING it also. Although, for a time being, it may be some thing that can not be refuted, that in no way, to me, that it could never be refuted at all. But ONLY when I am OPEN could I be able to recognize and see a refutation if and when it came along.

[Age]

Firstly, WHY did 'you' break up the format?

And, WHY did 'you' NOT fix the format?

If 'you', A human being, which mistakenly calls its self a "solopsist"?, can claim ABSOLUTELY ANY THING. But without PROOF and EVIDENCE, then what are 'you/they' really basing that claim on exactly?

If a so called "solopsist" claims that the camera and its images are imagined, then WHY are they imagining it? Also, while they are 'it', that is; pondering, how about they also Answer, properly AND correctly, who/what exactly IS this 'self' thing, which is the ONLY thing they supposedly KNOW or BELIEVE exists?

I have ALREADY explained EXACTLY HOW that one is the ONLY thing that can be Truly KNOWN, 100% for sure. So, how about Answering 'My' questions also?

Since there is some thing wondering what if "another" thing has a few experiments, then that in itself infers the first 'self' is recognizing and/or somewhat BELIEVING there is some thing "other" than itself, just to begin with. Otherwise WHY would that 'self' wonder what "another" has?

Could 'you' feel the apple, while 'you' are NOT looking at it, to SEE and KNOW if the apple still remains existing? That is One example of just one experiment, which could be done. I am sure if that thing, known as "self", WORKED WITH the "other" things, also known as "selfs, which 'you', "yourself", were wondering what those "selfs" have in mind, then surely ALL of 'you' 'selfs' could imagine AND devise up some more other experiments. What does that 'self' reckon?

Are 'you' basing the supposed KNOWING here that I am making a point rather than just asking OPEN clarifying questions on some thing factual or some thing learned, or some thing both?

Re format: I am working with a phone and a physical disability. After cut and paste erroneously I became too fatigued to fix. Btw, this post (3 sentences) took more time (> 3 minutes) to write, but only seconds to think up.

Will reply other in your post later.

If I would still believe that the existence of things were dependent on my imagination, I would make the statements that are marked by () in reply. The unmarked statements are still held by me currently.

() Something unreal happens when I am not experiencing an object in any way: it ceases to exist!

I am intrigued by the idea that things might disintegrate while they are not experienced by me in any way. Intrigue leads me to inquiry.

() I care about any/all objects un-existing absent my sensing then in some way—in theory. In practice, I don’t close my eyes and run full steam into a cement wall.

The point of this type of discussion on this type of topic is to enjoy the exploration of new and curious ideas.

() I am sure that I cannot prove anything about objects that are absent from my experience.

The statements demarcated by () were my thoughts at the time I originally composed them. They have been proved wrong since.

Since 'you' can SEE what I was saying and because you do appear to be truly intrigued, curious, and exploring 'we' could take this to an even deeper and more meaningful level now if 'you' like, which, to inform 'you', might prove 'that' what was just proven wrong, was actually true and right, in and from a deeper and more meaningful level AND PERSPECTIVE?

See, in just about EVERY discussion human beings have disagreement over there is a Truth and a Falsehood in BOTH, perceived, "sides". Although there is NO actual different "sides" there is to be a perceived "side" of things. But discovering and finding what thee actual Truth IS, is found by LOOKING AT any thing, from ALL perspectives. Or, more simply, just LOOKING FROM the perspective of one individual human being perspective AS WELL AS from One collective of ALL perspectives, then what thee actual Truth is found.

() Something unreal happens when I am not experiencing an object in any way: it ceases to exist!

I am intrigued by the idea that things might disintegrate while they are not experienced by me in any way. Intrigue leads me to inquiry.

NEVER allow intrigue AND inquiry to disappear, this is the most natural part, and leads to the most fulfilling and rewarding part, of what living is all about.

Because of who and what thee True Self actually IS, the idea that things might disintegrate while they are not experienced, by that Me in any way, is actually a Truly GREAT idea. Imagine if things like disagreeing, fighting, warring, and/or killing by human beings were NOT being experienced by thee One True, collective, Self, that is; EVERY one, then that way of living would have just, literally, disintegrated away.

The reason WHY adult human being selves do cause these, unwanted, things is just because they grew up thinking that this is just "natural" part of life, a "normal" way to live, and a "natural" way for human beings to "behave". They even 'try to' "justify" this by saying, "we are just human", as though that somehow excuses the wrong that they do.

Now, imagine if a whole generation of children grew up in a "world" where EVERY one was just living peacefully and happily together. This is all they EXPERIENCE and so this is HOW they have LEARNED how to just "behave" this way, which is OBVIOUSLY far more NATURAL than the other way is. This is, literally, all they had EXPERIENCED, and therefore, all they, literally, KNEW. These children are NOT going to just go about hating and killing each other now. So, literally, what is EXPERIENCED by thee collective True Self is what, literally, exists, and conversely what is NOT experienced, literally, disintegrates.

If NO one is thinking of some thing, then that does NOT exist.

Now, WHY this may APPEAR to contradict, to some, what I just argued for before is because of the word 'thing'.

Although I provided an argument, which 'you' were asking for, about how physical OBJECTS exist, when they are NOT being observed, experienced nor thought of. The very way human beings LIVE, instead, is solely because of the way they IMAGINE, think and perceive, things to be.

If a human beings imagines the "world" is 'out to get them', for example, and so they MUST fight back, then that is the "world" that WILL BE Created, for them - that is a fighting, warring "world". The opposite is also true. If a human being IMAGINES, thinks and perceives, that things are (or more correctly COULD BE at the time of these writings) peaceful AND loving, and proceeded to just TRY THIS, then If it actually comes about, then that is what is EXPERIENCED, so then that 'exists', and ALL else disintegrates away.

So, what is PERCEIVED TO BE actually disintegrates away, when NOT being 'experienced or thought about'. But what ACTUALLY IS still exists, even if it is NOT being 'experienced or thought about'.

For example, the saying, "the world, as it is" is ONLY a PERCEPTION, and this is depended solely upon thoughts, the "world", the 'way of life' disintegrates or exists because of 'thought'. Whereas, the actual Universe and the earth, themselves do NOT disintegrate NOR come to exist just because of 'thought'.

How things actually ARE, at any given moments, IS how they REALLY ARE, no matter what is being 'thought'. And,
How things are perceived TO BE, at any given moment, IS just how are REALLY PERCEIVED to be. I know this is stating the OBVIOUS, but what is PERCEIVED TO BE, matters solely upon what is being 'thought'

The actual POWER, in and of, the WORDS we use out aloud to "each other", AND quietly WITHIN to our own "selves", is to be FULLY accepted AND appreciated, YET.

The "world" that we, literally, TELL OURSELVES - is the "world", which we, literally, live in, AND Create.


() I care about any/all objects un-existing absent my sensing then in some way—in theory. In practice, I don’t close my eyes and run full steam into a cement wall.

The point of this type of discussion on this type of topic is to enjoy the exploration of new and curious ideas.

The very reason why people say some things - in theory, but in practice will not 'try it' or do not accepted it, is because thee actual Truth is within AND KNOWN, but just NOT consciously KNOWN. Also, the part in 'theory', which is also actually True, and also KNOWN, but again just NOT consciously KNOWN, is just some thing, which one can NOT YET put "their finger on", as they say.

Enjoying the exploration of new and curious ideas, even if, at first glance, they CAN appear very contradictory and/or absurd, is what I Truly LOVE doing.

Discovering and finding thee Truth of things I found is done very simply and very easily just through peaceful and OPEN, logically reasoned discussions.

What I find more difficult is explaining things, to people. Especially when I do NOT know, for sure, what it is that they ALREADY KNOW, nor what it is that they do want to learn, know, and understand.

Hopefully, it is better understood now, HOW it is physical objects that exist and remain, without 'thought'. But it is perceived things, which appear or disappear, with 'thought'? If, this is NOT YET FULLY understood, then I can AND WILL explain it in a way that can be Truly UNDERSTOOD.

One reason I, annoyingly, write things like; Thee actual REAL Truth of things can be very easily be explained and understood, in very simple terms IS BECAUSE, if I 'thought' or perceived that it would be "impossible" or a "hard" thing to do, then I would make that "reality" come to exist.

I KNOW I CAN DO IT, so I am making that Reality EXIST, to be True.

When a clarifying question is posed, and one as specific as 'you' asked for, which I Truly thank you for, then I find Answering those questions EXTREMELY simple AND easy. The more specific a question posed to me is, which you Truly want to learn or know, then the simpler and easier it is for me to provide the ACTUAL ANSWER that 'you' are LOOKING FOR, and SEEKING.

() I am sure that I cannot prove anything about objects that are absent from my experience.

The statements demarcated by () were my thoughts at the time I originally composed them. They have been proved wrong since.

But there are still things WITHIN thoughts, at any time, that can be PROVEN True and Right.

I could now write on "forever" proving what I am saying. But just being asked clarifying questions and/or being challenged on what is WRONG in what I write, I now have the PROOF and the EVIDENCE that I have been LOOKING FOR, which SHOWS this two-way Truly OPEN type of discussing is a FAR MORE SUCCESSFUL formula for being able to be BETTER heard and understood.

[commonsense]

Btw, this post (3 sentences) took more time (> 3 minutes) to write, but only seconds to think up.

If the Truth be KNOWN, the Truth of things is ALREADY KNOWN, but there just seems like there is not enough time to explain It, which would appear counter-intuitive. What is ALREADY KNOWN to and by some one, one would think could very easily and very simply be explained to them in seconds.

But even a split second of inspiration can also take a life time to explain.

What I also found is just keeping up with the thoughts within, is just about impossible, let alone ever being able to write them down in the sequence that they occur, or even in the same way that arose in.

Regularly for me the thought that arises, which seems to make PERFECT SENSE at the time, is completely LOST or TRANSCRIBED WRONGLY by the time it has just gotten to the fingers tips and from them typed on to the screen, which depending on the typing speed could literally be within just a few seconds.

I meant to say that it took seconds to think of and over 3 minutes just to type it.

[commonsense]

Human beings came to exist, or evolved into Existence, from other things.

Before human beings started existing there MUST OF been other things previously. (Unless, of course, 'you' BELIEVE otherwise.)

ALL 'things', by definition, are objects, so 'other things' also are objects.

Before human beings started existing obviously there were NO human beings experiencing and thinking.

Objects, therefore, MUST OF existed when NO human beings were yet experiencing or thinking, of ANY thing.

So, IF this is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, THEN an object exists even when NO human being experiences or thinks of it.

The above is so important that it merits re-posting.

The premise is a priori for most rational beings.

The steps are well ordered.

The argument is absolutely true, right, accurate and correct.

The conclusion is well supported.

I thank you again for providing what I was looking for.

Dare I believe that there is and never will be a cogent refutation?

Just to note on your last point, I NEVER believe (or disbelieve) any thing, because if I were to do that, then I would NOT be as OPEN as I could be to some thing else new or more coming along. For example, If I were to believe that there could never be a 'cogent refutation' (to any thing in fact), then I would NOT be as OPEN as you were here, when you could recognize and SEE some thing in what you wrote/re-posted, which 'you' previously just had NOT seen or had thought of before.

Even IF what was just re-posted, or any thing else, was agreed with by EVERY one, then that is NO reason to start BELIEVING it also. Although, for a time being, it may be some thing that can not be refuted, that in no way, to me, that it could never be refuted at all. But ONLY when I am OPEN could I be able to recognize and see a refutation if and when it came along.

Good post.

[commonsense]

Re format: I am working with a phone and a physical disability. After cut and paste erroneously I became too fatigued to fix. Btw, this post (3 sentences) took more time (> 3 minutes) to write, but only seconds to think up.

Will reply other in your post later.

If I would still believe that the existence of things were dependent on my imagination, I would make the statements that are marked by () in reply. The unmarked statements are still held by me currently.

() Something unreal happens when I am not experiencing an object in any way: it ceases to exist!

I am intrigued by the idea that things might disintegrate while they are not experienced by me in any way. Intrigue leads me to inquiry.

() I care about any/all objects un-existing absent my sensing then in some way—in theory. In practice, I don’t close my eyes and run full steam into a cement wall.

The point of this type of discussion on this type of topic is to enjoy the exploration of new and curious ideas.

() I am sure that I cannot prove anything about objects that are absent from my experience.

The statements demarcated by () were my thoughts at the time I originally composed them. They have been proved wrong since.

Since 'you' can SEE what I was saying and because you do appear to be truly intrigued, curious, and exploring 'we' could take this to an even deeper and more meaningful level now if 'you' like, which, to inform 'you', might prove 'that' what was just proven wrong, was actually true and right, in and from a deeper and more meaningful level AND PERSPECTIVE?

See, in just about EVERY discussion human beings have disagreement over there is a Truth and a Falsehood in BOTH, perceived, "sides". Although there is NO actual different "sides" there is to be a perceived "side" of things. But discovering and finding what thee actual Truth IS, is found by LOOKING AT any thing, from ALL perspectives. Or, more simply, just LOOKING FROM the perspective of one individual human being perspective AS WELL AS from One collective of ALL perspectives, then what thee actual Truth is found.

() Something unreal happens when I am not experiencing an object in any way: it ceases to exist!

I am intrigued by the idea that things might disintegrate while they are not experienced by me in any way. Intrigue leads me to inquiry.

NEVER allow intrigue AND inquiry to disappear, this is the most natural part, and leads to the most fulfilling and rewarding part, of what living is all about.

Because of who and what thee True Self actually IS, the idea that things might disintegrate while they are not experienced, by that Me in any way, is actually a Truly GREAT idea. Imagine if things like disagreeing, fighting, warring, and/or killing by human beings were NOT being experienced by thee One True, collective, Self, that is; EVERY one, then that way of living would have just, literally, disintegrated away.

The reason WHY adult human being selves do cause these, unwanted, things is just because they grew up thinking that this is just "natural" part of life, a "normal" way to live, and a "natural" way for human beings to "behave". They even 'try to' "justify" this by saying, "we are just human", as though that somehow excuses the wrong that they do.

Now, imagine if a whole generation of children grew up in a "world" where EVERY one was just living peacefully and happily together. This is all they EXPERIENCE and so this is HOW they have LEARNED how to just "behave" this way, which is OBVIOUSLY far more NATURAL than the other way is. This is, literally, all they had EXPERIENCED, and therefore, all they, literally, KNEW. These children are NOT going to just go about hating and killing each other now. So, literally, what is EXPERIENCED by thee collective True Self is what, literally, exists, and conversely what is NOT experienced, literally, disintegrates.

If NO one is thinking of some thing, then that does NOT exist.

Now, WHY this may APPEAR to contradict, to some, what I just argued for before is because of the word 'thing'.

Although I provided an argument, which 'you' were asking for, about how physical OBJECTS exist, when they are NOT being observed, experienced nor thought of. The very way human beings LIVE, instead, is solely because of the way they IMAGINE, think and perceive, things to be.

If a human beings imagines the "world" is 'out to get them', for example, and so they MUST fight back, then that is the "world" that WILL BE Created, for them - that is a fighting, warring "world". The opposite is also true. If a human being IMAGINES, thinks and perceives, that things are (or more correctly COULD BE at the time of these writings) peaceful AND loving, and proceeded to just TRY THIS, then If it actually comes about, then that is what is EXPERIENCED, so then that 'exists', and ALL else disintegrates away.

So, what is PERCEIVED TO BE actually disintegrates away, when NOT being 'experienced or thought about'. But what ACTUALLY IS still exists, even if it is NOT being 'experienced or thought about'.

For example, the saying, "the world, as it is" is ONLY a PERCEPTION, and this is depended solely upon thoughts, the "world", the 'way of life' disintegrates or exists because of 'thought'. Whereas, the actual Universe and the earth, themselves do NOT disintegrate NOR come to exist just because of 'thought'.

How things actually ARE, at any given moments, IS how they REALLY ARE, no matter what is being 'thought'. And,
How things are perceived TO BE, at any given moment, IS just how are REALLY PERCEIVED to be. I know this is stating the OBVIOUS, but what is PERCEIVED TO BE, matters solely upon what is being 'thought'

The actual POWER, in and of, the WORDS we use out aloud to "each other", AND quietly WITHIN to our own "selves", is to be FULLY accepted AND appreciated, YET.

The "world" that we, literally, TELL OURSELVES - is the "world", which we, literally, live in, AND Create.


() I care about any/all objects un-existing absent my sensing then in some way—in theory. In practice, I don’t close my eyes and run full steam into a cement wall.

The point of this type of discussion on this type of topic is to enjoy the exploration of new and curious ideas.

The very reason why people say some things - in theory, but in practice will not 'try it' or do not accepted it, is because thee actual Truth is within AND KNOWN, but just NOT consciously KNOWN. Also, the part in 'theory', which is also actually True, and also KNOWN, but again just NOT consciously KNOWN, is just some thing, which one can NOT YET put "their finger on", as they say.

Enjoying the exploration of new and curious ideas, even if, at first glance, they CAN appear very contradictory and/or absurd, is what I Truly LOVE doing.

Discovering and finding thee Truth of things I found is done very simply and very easily just through peaceful and OPEN, logically reasoned discussions.

What I find more difficult is explaining things, to people. Especially when I do NOT know, for sure, what it is that they ALREADY KNOW, nor what it is that they do want to learn, know, and understand.

Hopefully, it is better understood now, HOW it is physical objects that exist and remain, without 'thought'. But it is perceived things, which appear or disappear, with 'thought'? If, this is NOT YET FULLY understood, then I can AND WILL explain it in a way that can be Truly UNDERSTOOD.

One reason I, annoyingly, write things like; Thee actual REAL Truth of things can be very easily be explained and understood, in very simple terms IS BECAUSE, if I 'thought' or perceived that it would be "impossible" or a "hard" thing to do, then I would make that "reality" come to exist.

I KNOW I CAN DO IT, so I am making that Reality EXIST, to be True.

When a clarifying question is posed, and one as specific as 'you' asked for, which I Truly thank you for, then I find Answering those questions EXTREMELY simple AND easy. The more specific a question posed to me is, which you Truly want to learn or know, then the simpler and easier it is for me to provide the ACTUAL ANSWER that 'you' are LOOKING FOR, and SEEKING.

() I am sure that I cannot prove anything about objects that are absent from my experience.

The statements demarcated by () were my thoughts at the time I originally composed them. They have been proved wrong since.

But there are still things WITHIN thoughts, at any time, that can be PROVEN True and Right.

I could now write on "forever" proving what I am saying. But just being asked clarifying questions and/or being challenged on what is WRONG in what I write, I now have the PROOF and the EVIDENCE that I have been LOOKING FOR, which SHOWS this two-way Truly OPEN type of discussing is a FAR MORE SUCCESSFUL formula for being able to be BETTER heard and understood.

Ditto.

[Age]

Btw, this post (3 sentences) took more time (> 3 minutes) to write, but only seconds to think up.

If the Truth be KNOWN, the Truth of things is ALREADY KNOWN, but there just seems like there is not enough time to explain It, which would appear counter-intuitive. What is ALREADY KNOWN to and by some one, one would think could very easily and very simply be explained to them in seconds.

But even a split second of inspiration can also take a life time to explain.

What I also found is just keeping up with the thoughts within, is just about impossible, let alone ever being able to write them down in the sequence that they occur, or even in the same way that arose in.

Regularly for me the thought that arises, which seems to make PERFECT SENSE at the time, is completely LOST or TRANSCRIBED WRONGLY by the time it has just gotten to the fingers tips and from them typed on to the screen, which depending on the typing speed could literally be within just a few seconds.

I meant to say that it took seconds to think of and over 3 minutes just to type it.

This is exactly what I thought you meant.

[ruchertora]

"The issue I featured was about what befalls the apple when nobody is looking. It's likely still there, yet I can't realize that it's as yet there except if I take a gander at it (or smell it, and so on.)"

This isn't an issue: the apple you place on the table exists. At the point when you go out for the day that apple stays there, forlorn, pinin' for the fjords. It doesn't show up and vanish. Your consideration isn't required. Trust me on this.

[commonsense]

"The issue I featured was about what befalls the apple when nobody is looking. It's likely still there, yet I can't realize that it's as yet there except if I take a gander at it (or smell it, and so on.)"

This isn't an issue: the apple you place on the table exists. At the point when you go out for the day that apple stays there, forlorn, pinin' for the fjords. It doesn't show up and vanish. Your consideration isn't required. Trust me on this.

By trusting you I would be relying on faith, or belief, without actual evidence. Are you not, without experiencing the apple in any way, taking it on blind faith that this apple continues to exist? If you were to do that, when would you need evidence for a claim of any sort?

[henry quirk]

"The issue I featured was about what befalls the apple when nobody is looking. It's likely still there, yet I can't realize that it's as yet there except if I take a gander at it (or smell it, and so on.)"

This isn't an issue: the apple you place on the table exists. At the point when you go out for the day that apple stays there, forlorn, pinin' for the fjords. It doesn't show up and vanish. Your consideration isn't required. Trust me on this.

The above seems familiar...almost like sumthin' I would write...ruchertora, are you my alter ego runnin' wild in the streets again...damn it, back to your cage!

[henry quirk]

"The issue I featured was about what befalls the apple when nobody is looking. It's likely still there, yet I can't realize that it's as yet there except if I take a gander at it (or smell it, and so on.)"

This isn't an issue: the apple you place on the table exists. At the point when you go out for the day that apple stays there, forlorn, pinin' for the fjords. It doesn't show up and vanish. Your consideration isn't required. Trust me on this.

By trusting you I would be relying on faith, or belief, without actual evidence. Are you not, without experiencing the apple in any way, taking it on blind faith that this apple continues to exist? If you were to do that, when would you need evidence for a claim of any sort?

Is a coherent experience just blind faith?

[commonsense]

Is a coherent experience just blind faith?

(Sorry for expressing the following in klumnsilly fashion, but after I read it out loud to myself with a mouthful of apple in my pie hole, it sounded perfectly clear.)

When an experience is experienced by an experiencer, that experience serves as evidence to the experiencer.

[commonsense]

and again:

There is NO such thing as 'time', so 'time' can not be observed. But what is observed and can be seen is change, and it is this change, itself, which is just referenced as 'time'.

What is observed and experienced is change only. So, only when change is experienced, so to is the referential framework commonly called "time' is also.