Anything which cannot be created cannot be annihilated too

[bahman]

Bahman wrote:

I think that reality is made of minds and matter.

I agree minds and matter exist. For instance you and I can think of what we say and do and we can also do what we say and do.

Do you think reality is the same as nature?

The behaviour is due to nature. Nature is due to how matter is structured.

[AlexW]

I already asked you whether you are a chain of ideas and your answer was no.

My answer was:
I am the "one" who observes this "stream of ideas" (which shouldn't imply that there is a separate "one" - there is no separate entity at all)
Also: The above shouldn't imply that there are no conditioned/acquired patterns of thought arising (which could be put into a box labelled "Alex") - the person is this box, but it is not a real, separate entity - it is only a collection of thoughts/memories (no memories - no person).

Other decisions that you think you don't make them are due to other minds.

How do you know?
This is not more than a belief - not a direct experience.

Thought are not just come and go. They become more coherent as time passes. This means that they are processed.

The same thought never arises twice, just like anything "in nature" doesn't arise twice - its all unique.
Thoughts don't get processed like a bushel of wheat, they are not milled into flour and baked into bread... (I hope you understand this metaphor )
This doesn't mean that ideas cannot grow - but a more specific idea is not a young thought that has grown old - it simply is a new thought.

This requires an agent who is free.

No, there is no baker.

Even if you made one decision in your life then it means that you are a mind.

But I - the conditioned person - have never made a decision.

Decisions are an idea that seem to work for a conceptualised, objective, dualistic universe - they are not required (or rather: perfectly useless) in reality.
The true I/self - pure consciousness - never makes decisions, there are no options to chose from - there is simply this unbroken, perfectly whole stream of consciousness - it is very simple - it has and needs no options (what could they be anyway if there is nothing but it?)

[bahman]

I already asked you whether you are a chain of ideas and your answer was no.

My answer was:
I am the "one" who observes this "stream of ideas" (which shouldn't imply that there is a separate "one" - there is no separate entity at all)
Also: The above shouldn't imply that there are no conditioned/acquired patterns of thought arising (which could be put into a box labelled "Alex") - the person is this box, but it is not a real, separate entity - it is only a collection of thoughts/memories (no memories - no person).

If you are the observer of the ideas but not ideas then you are something different. I think that is obvious.

Other decisions that you think you don't make them are due to other minds.

How do you know?
This is not more than a belief - not a direct experience.

It is not only a belief. It is a matter of necessity that other minds exist. You cannot deny my thoughts. Therefore, there is another mind.

Thought are not just come and go. They become more coherent as time passes. This means that they are processed.

The same thought never arises twice, just like anything "in nature" doesn't arise twice - its all unique.
Thoughts don't get processed like a bushel of wheat, they are not milled into flour and baked into bread... (I hope you understand this metaphor )
This doesn't mean that ideas cannot grow - but a more specific idea is not a young thought that has grown old - it simply is a new thought.

By process, I mean thinking. You think, don't you?

This requires an agent who is free.

No, there is no baker.

There is. I am baker of my thoughts.

Even if you made one decision in your life then it means that you are a mind.

But I - the conditioned person - have never made a decision.

Decisions are an idea that seem to work for a conceptualised, objective, dualistic universe - they are not required (or rather: perfectly useless) in reality.
The true I/self - pure consciousness - never makes decisions, there are no options to chose from - there is simply this unbroken, perfectly whole stream of consciousness - it is very simple - it has and needs no options (what could they be anyway if there is nothing but it?)

No, the decision are not concepts. There is the stuff that we experience, so-called ideas. We then decide. And then cause.

[AlexW]

If you are the observer of the ideas but not ideas then you are something different. I think that is obvious.

Its only obvious in the world of dualistic thought, not in reality.

Imagine - for a moment - that reality is non dual, that there is no separation, no things/objects - just unbroken conscious presence.
If this were so, then I cannot be something different (and there can be no separate observer - its much rather that there is only "observing" but no observer or observed).

It is not only a belief. It is a matter of necessity that other minds exist. You cannot deny my thoughts. Therefore, there is another mind.

To me, everything that cannot be directly experienced is a conceptual interpretation, which is – ultimately – not more than a belief.
As there is no direct experience of "mind" – or generally of any separate owner or creator of thought - but only of thought (without an owner or creator) the deduction that "I have a mind" is not more than a belief/idea you have acquired.

I guess you would agree with me if I said that you have learned that there is a sepearte you that owns/has a mind somewhen when you were a few years old, before you didn't know anything of "mind" - there were simply thoughts (even you didn't known that these are called "thoughts" in the early years either).
Now, everything that can only be known once you have acquired a certain conceptual understanding is - to me - just a belief, nothing else.

By process, I mean thinking. You think, don't you?

There are thoughts - doesn't mean that there is a separate "I" that owns them.

If there were such a controlling entity then you would be in full control of these thoughts - you would be able to stop and start them, only think happy thoughts, delete certain unwanted thoughts etc etc...

If I would ask you: "Don't think about monkeys!" - are you able to not think about monkeys?

There is. I am baker of my thoughts.

Tell the baker not to think about monkeys.

No, the decision are not concepts. There is the stuff that we experience, so-called ideas. We then decide. And then cause.

You keep on believing in it - as long as it makes you happy...

[Belinda]

If you are the observer of the ideas but not ideas then you are something different. I think that is obvious.

Its only obvious in the world of dualistic thought, not in reality.

Imagine - for a moment - that reality is non dual, that there is no separation, no things/objects - just unbroken conscious presence.
If this were so, then I cannot be something different (and there can be no separate observer - its much rather that there is only "observing" but no observer or observed).

It is not only a belief. It is a matter of necessity that other minds exist. You cannot deny my thoughts. Therefore, there is another mind.

To me, everything that cannot be directly experienced is a conceptual interpretation, which is – ultimately – not more than a belief.
As there is no direct experience of "mind" – or generally of any separate owner or creator of thought - but only of thought (without an owner or creator) the deduction that "I have a mind" is not more than a belief/idea you have acquired.

I guess you would agree with me if I said that you have learned that there is a sepearte you that owns/has a mind somewhen when you were a few years old, before you didn't know anything of "mind" - there were simply thoughts (even you didn't known that these are called "thoughts" in the early years either).
Now, everything that can only be known once you have acquired a certain conceptual understanding is - to me - just a belief, nothing else.

By process, I mean thinking. You think, don't you?

There are thoughts - doesn't mean that there is a separate "I" that owns them.

If there were such a controlling entity then you would be in full control of these thoughts - you would be able to stop and start them, only think happy thoughts, delete certain unwanted thoughts etc etc...

If I would ask you: "Don't think about monkeys!" - are you able to not think about monkeys?

There is. I am baker of my thoughts.

Tell the baker not to think about monkeys.

No, the decision are not concepts. There is the stuff that we experience, so-called ideas. We then decide. And then cause.

You keep on believing in it - as long as it makes you happy...

While Bahman might be misled by his use of dualistic language (e.g. "By process, I mean thinking. You think, don't you?" which is pure Cartesian)
Although, if I am not deaf, I must think about monkeys I can stop thinking about monkeys by focusing on some other thought. Some people find this difficult as perhaps they have not been taught to concentrate, or perhaps they are obsessed by thought of monkeys.Control of reactive thoughts and emotions is a prime objective of education.

[AlexW]

I can stop thinking about monkeys by focusing on some other thought. Some people find this difficult as perhaps they have not been taught to concentrate, or perhaps they are obsessed by thought of monkeys.Control of reactive thoughts and emotions is a prime objective of education.

The monkey is only a symbol for any kind of intrusive repetitive thought pattern.
Sure, you can lock the monkeys away for some time by concentrating on something else, watching a movie, reading a book, repeating a mantra, play chess... but they will show up again even you wish they wouldn’t... this is the point I was trying to get across : there is no real control, the monkeys will show up again, when you least expect it, no matter if you like it or not (actually: the less you like it the more they’ll show up)
The only way out is to leave the monkeys alone, don’t try to control them, let them come, don’t get too interested and they will leave... and one day... they’re gone for good.

[Dontaskme]

While Bahman might be misled by his use of dualistic language (e.g. "By process, I mean thinking. You think, don't you?" which is pure Cartesian)
Although, if I am not deaf, I must think about monkeys I can stop thinking about monkeys by focusing on some other thought. Some people find this difficult as perhaps they have not been taught to concentrate, or perhaps they are obsessed by thought of monkeys.Control of reactive thoughts and emotions is a prime objective of education.

Who educated the monkey ...to be a monkey be monkey do?

The actual point being made here is ...can the I stop thoughts from appearing at all? ..think about that...that should tell you everything you ever need to know about the one who is thought to be in control of thoughts... This knowledge needs to be taught to those who don't know that thoughts belong to no I ...

And that education is purely for making sense of the nothingness that you are in essense, but no one really ever talks about that aspect of being. Therefore, knowledge aka education can only inform the illusory nature of the thinker of thought.


.

[bahman]

If you are the observer of the ideas but not ideas then you are something different. I think that is obvious.

Its only obvious in the world of dualistic thought, not in reality.

Do you have any argument for your reality? Or this is just a belief like other beliefs.

Imagine - for a moment - that reality is non dual, that there is no separation, no things/objects - just unbroken conscious presence.
If this were so, then I cannot be something different (and there can be no separate observer - its much rather that there is only "observing" but no observer or observed).

I imagined that a long time before. The reality is not just experience. There is decision that allows us to affect reality too. There is causation too. You cannot have a coherent reality without these three. That is due to decision that our wants always lead to consistent causation. Your reality could be chaotic too instead is coherent always.

It is not only a belief. It is an matter of necessity that other minds exist. You cannot deny my thoughts. Therefore, there is another mind.

To me, everything that cannot be directly experienced is a conceptual interpretation, which is – ultimately – not more than a belief.
As there is no direct experience of "mind" – or generally of any separate owner or creator of thought - but only of thought (without an owner or creator) the deduction that "I have a mind" is not more than a belief/idea you have acquired.

I guess you would agree with me if I said that you have learned that there is a sepearte you that owns/has a mind somewhen when you were a few years old, before you didn't know anything of "mind" - there were simply thoughts (even you didn't known that these are called "thoughts" in the early years either).
Now, everything that can only be known once you have acquired a certain conceptual understanding is - to me - just a belief, nothing else.

So what you said is just a belief too.

By process, I mean thinking. You think, don't you?

There are thoughts - doesn't mean that there is a separate "I" that owns them.

There are not thoughts only in our reality. There is the creator of thoughts too, the one who thinks. Stop thinking and try to answer my post. Could you? Moreover, your thoughts are stored somewhere as memory. You can recall them whenever you want. There is decision too.

If there were such a controlling entity then you would be in full control of these thoughts - you would be able to stop and start them, only think happy thoughts, delete certain unwanted thoughts etc etc...

Thoughts do not happen by chance. You can decide to think about something specific. There is a moment that you realize that a chain of thoughts is ready to be typed. What comes out is related to what you have sent in though.

If I would ask you: "Don't think about monkeys!" - are you able to not think about monkeys?

Of course, I am able to deliberate and don't think about anything.

There is. I am baker of my thoughts.

Tell the baker not to think about monkeys.

Of course I can stop precieving any chain of thoughts.

No, the decision are not concepts. There is the stuff that we experience, so-called ideas. We then decide. And then cause.

You keep on believing in it - as long as it makes you happy...

What do you believe?

[bahman]

If you are the observer of the ideas but not ideas then you are something different. I think that is obvious.

Its only obvious in the world of dualistic thought, not in reality.

Imagine - for a moment - that reality is non dual, that there is no separation, no things/objects - just unbroken conscious presence.
If this were so, then I cannot be something different (and there can be no separate observer - its much rather that there is only "observing" but no observer or observed).

It is not only a belief. It is a matter of necessity that other minds exist. You cannot deny my thoughts. Therefore, there is another mind.

To me, everything that cannot be directly experienced is a conceptual interpretation, which is – ultimately – not more than a belief.
As there is no direct experience of "mind" – or generally of any separate owner or creator of thought - but only of thought (without an owner or creator) the deduction that "I have a mind" is not more than a belief/idea you have acquired.

I guess you would agree with me if I said that you have learned that there is a sepearte you that owns/has a mind somewhen when you were a few years old, before you didn't know anything of "mind" - there were simply thoughts (even you didn't known that these are called "thoughts" in the early years either).
Now, everything that can only be known once you have acquired a certain conceptual understanding is - to me - just a belief, nothing else.

By process, I mean thinking. You think, don't you?

There are thoughts - doesn't mean that there is a separate "I" that owns them.

If there were such a controlling entity then you would be in full control of these thoughts - you would be able to stop and start them, only think happy thoughts, delete certain unwanted thoughts etc etc...

If I would ask you: "Don't think about monkeys!" - are you able to not think about monkeys?

There is. I am baker of my thoughts.

Tell the baker not to think about monkeys.

No, the decision are not concepts. There is the stuff that we experience, so-called ideas. We then decide. And then cause.

You keep on believing in it - as long as it makes you happy...

While Bahman might be misled by his use of dualistic language (e.g. "By process, I mean thinking. You think, don't you?" which is pure Cartesian)
Although, if I am not deaf, I must think about monkeys I can stop thinking about monkeys by focusing on some other thought. Some people find this difficult as perhaps they have not been taught to concentrate, or perhaps they are obsessed by thought of monkeys. Control of reactive thoughts and emotions is a prime objective of education.

I also think that decision is made by mind. Moreover, all our experiences are stored inside our minds. We also think/process thoughts.

[AlexW]

What do you believe?

I believe that the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.

I believe that any conceptual interpretation of an experience is not the direct experience - the interpretation is not reality, it is only a finger pointing at reality - if you want to see the moon , look at the moon, don't get stuck analysing the finger...

I believe that the interpretation "I feel the wind on my skin" is not the actual experience of *wind on skin*
I believe that the interpretation "I taste a sweet apple" is not the actual experience of *taste of apple*
I believe that the interpretation "I am in control of my thoughts" is not the actual experience of *thought arising and vanishing*
I believe that most people get lost in the world of interpretations and mistake it for reality/truth.

Do you have any argument for your reality? Or this is just a belief like other beliefs.

Feel the wind on your skin - this is reality.
Taste an apple - this is reality.
Pinch the skin on your arm - this is reality.

Do you really need an argument for that?
Do you think the sensation itself is a belief? I don't...
I think the interpretation "I feel the wind on my skin" is a belief, but the reality of the sensation is not.

I imagined that a long time before. The reality is not just experience. There is decision that allows us to affect reality too.

There is no reality besides the one you know directly - reality is that which is left once you stop interpreting/conceptualising it.

So what you said is just a belief too.

As I see it, anything that can be expressed in language is dualistic in its very nature and thus only a conceptual interpretation - not reality - and thus, ultimately not more than a belief.

[bahman]

What do you believe?

I believe that the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.

I believe that any conceptual interpretation of an experience is not the direct experience - the interpretation is not reality, it is only a finger pointing at reality - if you want to see the moon , look at the moon, don't get stuck analysing the finger...

I believe that the interpretation "I feel the wind on my skin" is not the actual experience of *wind on skin*
I believe that the interpretation "I taste a sweet apple" is not the actual experience of *taste of apple*
I believe that the interpretation "I am in control of my thoughts" is not the actual experience of *thought arising and vanishing*
I believe that most people get lost in the world of interpretations and mistake it for reality/truth.

Do you have any argument for your reality? Or this is just a belief like other beliefs.

Feel the wind on your skin - this is reality.
Taste an apple - this is reality.
Pinch the skin on your arm - this is reality.

Do you really need an argument for that?
Do you think the sensation itself is a belief? I don't...
I think the interpretation "I feel the wind on my skin" is a belief, but the reality of the sensation is not.

I imagined that a long time before. The reality is not just experience. There is decision that allows us to affect reality too.

There is no reality besides the one you know directly - reality is that which is left once you stop interpreting/conceptualising it.

So what you said is just a belief too.

As I see it, anything that can be expressed in language is dualistic in its very nature and thus only a conceptual interpretation - not reality - and thus, ultimately not more than a belief.

How could you say that apple or its taste is real? According to you, that is a belief too. Your mind just interprets that there is an apple. In both case, whether you experience my thoughts or you taste an apple, you get informed.

[AlexW]

How could you say that apple or its taste is real? According to you, that is a belief too. Your mind just interprets that there is an apple. In both case, whether you experience my thoughts or you taste an apple, you get informed.

I am not sure if you are simply unable to understand what I am trying to explain or if you deliberately play dumb... which one is it?

[Belinda]

How could you say that apple or its taste is real? According to you, that is a belief too. Your mind just interprets that there is an apple. In both case, whether you experience my thoughts or you taste an apple, you get informed.

I am not sure if you are simply unable to understand what I am trying to explain or if you deliberately play dumb... which one is it?

I agree with Bahman the sensation and the cognition of the sensation are both real.

AlexW wrote:

As I see it, anything that can be expressed in language is dualistic in its very nature and thus only a conceptual interpretation - not reality - and thus, ultimately not more than a belief.

Do you intend to claim your preferred theory of existence is idealism (immaterialism) ? If so why is idealism better than Bahman's preference for neutral monism?

[bahman]

How could you say that apple or its taste is real? According to you, that is a belief too. Your mind just interprets that there is an apple. In both case, whether you experience my thoughts or you taste an apple, you get informed.

I am not sure if you are simply unable to understand what I am trying to explain or if you deliberately play dumb... which one is it?

Of course, I can understand what you are saying. What you are saying just doesn't make any sense, so I question it.

[AlexW]

I agree with Bahman the sensation and the cognition of the sensation are both real.

Let me be more precise:
What is "real" about the cognition is thought itself, but not what it points to.
There might be a thought arising ... "unicorn" ... the thought is real, the concept/thing that it attempts to create is not.
Now you might believe that this is only true for things like "unicorn" which are only imaginary, but, as I see it, this is true for all so called "things" (your own direct experience proves this).

Do you intend to claim your preferred theory of existence is idealism (immaterialism) ? If so why is idealism better than Bahman's preference for neutral monism?

I don't think that any theory is better or truer than another one. They are all simply theories, not more.
What I am trying to get across is that certain statements and beliefs simply don't match our direct experience.
Stating that there is an "I that has a mind" is simply pure fiction, it is not based on anything that can be experienced, it is all thought up - this is not bad, it allows us to communicate, but basing a theory of existence on it, leads to nowhere but confusion.