Anything which cannot be created cannot be annihilated too

[AlexW]

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

I don't know whats not making sense...
All I am saying is: pinch your arm - feel that? Thats reality.
All you can say about this sensation is not reality (while, of course, yes, the thought is also real - but not the things it attempts to create - see my post above to Belinda)

[bahman]

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

I don't know whats not making sense...
All I am saying is: pinch your arm - feel that? Thats reality.
All you can say about this sensation is not reality (while, of course, yes, the thought is also real - but not the things it attempts to create - see my post above to Belinda)

I don't want to repeat myself but you need to explain these things as well to explain the reality as it is, memory, experience (what do you stress), decision, causation, and thinking (the process of what you perceive). I said that I experience the self once. Your system of belief lacks these things.

[AlexW]

I don't want to repeat myself but you need to explain these things as well to explain the reality as it is, memory, experience (what do you stress), decision, causation, and thinking (the process of what you perceive). I said that I experience the self once. Your system of belief lacks these things.

What I am trying to communicate is not a belief system that has conceptual answers for imaginary (purely thought based) things.

But, you like explanations, so here we go:
Reality: Look, hear, smell, taste, feel - minus what you think you see, hear, smell, taste, feel - this is reality.
Memory: A conceptual thought appearing now referencing an - apparently - previously formed concept (or experience)
Direct experience = Reality
Decision: A conceptual thought appearing now referencing an - apparent - choice between different options (which are again only concepts)
Causation: : A conceptual thought appearing now referencing an - apparent - cause (which is again only a concept) for a thought or experience
(Process of) Thinking: A conceptual definition/theory for thoughts appearing now attempting to link them into a "logical chain" of thought (which is again only a concept)

Yes, you said you experienced the "self" once.
I say that I experience it all the time - why?
Because there is only the self (as the self is nothing but reality itself - minus all the ideas and theories you might have about it).
As such I don't need a theory about the self, about reality, as it is perfectly clear and obvious here and now - and every theory you might have only veils it, it hides it behind a curtain of concepts. Now you can add more and more conceptual layers and explain stuff that is purely imaginary or you can look and see.
To thought this might sound absurd - and if you live in thought-world, actually applying this way of being might be the end of "you", but this "end" is actually the place where real life - life in and as reality - starts.

[Belinda]

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.

I agree "that is true for all true things".
I am not sure what you mean by " "I that has a mind" is pure fiction ". I'd interpret " I that has a mind" as Cartesian dualism. However I suspect Bahman simply has not studied and compared the several theories of existence and his ideas are therefore inconsistent.Sometimes he talks like a monist and sometimes like a substance dualist

[bahman]

I don't want to repeat myself but you need to explain these things as well to explain the reality as it is, memory, experience (what do you stress), decision, causation, and thinking (the process of what you perceive). I said that I experience the self once. Your system of belief lacks these things.

What I am trying to communicate is not a belief system that has conceptual answers for imaginary (purely thought based) things.

But, you like explanations, so here we go:
Reality: Look, hear, smell, taste, feel - minus what you think you see, hear, smell, taste, feel - this is reality.
Memory: A conceptual thought appearing now referencing an - apparently - previously formed concept (or experience)

No. Memory is all you have experienced in your life which resides as a form in your mind, whatever the mind is, and you can recall it whenever you wish.

Direct experience = Reality

No. It lacks other things, memory, decision, etc.

Decision: A conceptual thought appearing now referencing an - apparent - choice between different options (which are again only concepts)

No. Decision is an act. It allows us to choose one option among other options when there is a conflict of interest.

Causation: : A conceptual thought appearing now referencing an - apparent - cause (which is again only a concept) for a thought or experience

No. Causation is our ability to change reality according to decision.

(Process of) Thinking: A conceptual definition/theory for thoughts appearing now attempting to link them into a "logical chain" of thought (which is again only a concept)

No. Thinking is our ability to create links between concepts. We have this ability to fill the gap between question and answer by referring to the previous concepts which reside in mind, memory. You find the answer when there is enough material inside your memory otherwise you fail.

Yes, you said you experienced the "self" once.
I say that I experience it all the time - why?
Because there is only the self (as the self is nothing but reality itself - minus all the ideas and theories you might have about it).

You experience all sorts of things but self all the time but self. If what you said is true about you and other people, then everybody would be substance dualist. Why? Because there is you. And there is the stuff that you experience.

As such I don't need a theory about the self, about reality, as it is perfectly clear and obvious here and now - and every theory you might have only veils it, it hides it behind a curtain of concepts. Now you can add more and more conceptual layers and explain stuff that is purely imaginary or you can look and see.
To thought this might sound absurd - and if you live in thought-world, actually applying this way of being might be the end of "you", but this "end" is actually the place where real life - life in and as reality - starts.

I disagree.

[bahman]

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.

I agree "that is true for all true things".
I am not sure what you mean by " "I that has a mind" is pure fiction ". I'd interpret " I that has a mind" as Cartesian dualism. However I suspect Bahman simply has not studied and compared the several theories of existence and his ideas are therefore inconsistent.Sometimes he talks like a monist and sometimes like a substance dualist

I am a substance dualist. I can clarify any issue if you refer me to it.

[Belinda]

Thanks Bahman that is helpful.

[AlexW]

I disagree.

Lets agree to disagree

[Belinda]

Bahman, you have confirmed you are a substance dualist. You wrote (27 April)

I have another proof for mind which shows it cannot be created.

You say "mind". Do you mean minds (plural ) can't be created ?

[Dontaskme]

I am a substance dualist.

Ok

I can clarify any issue if you refer me to it.

Ok then, clarify the idea ''I am a substance dualist''.. for us ?

[bahman]

I disagree.

Lets agree to disagree

It is all cool.

[bahman]

Bahman, you have confirmed you are a substance dualist. You wrote (27 April)

I have another proof for mind which shows it cannot be created.

You say "mind". Do you mean minds (plural ) can't be created ?

Yes. If that resolves the issue monist.

[bahman]

I am a substance dualist.

Ok

I can clarify any issue if you refer me to it.

Ok then, clarify the idea ''I am a substance dualist''.. for us ?

There are ideas. You cannot doubt this. Ideas without a mind cannot be coherent. For coherence you need, a memory, ability to experience, to decide, to cause, to process what has been experienced (in case of human thinking).

[Belinda]

Bahman, you have confirmed you are a substance dualist. You wrote (27 April)

I have another proof for mind which shows it cannot be created.

You say "mind". Do you mean minds (plural ) can't be created ?

Yes. If that resolves the issue monist.

Thanks but not quite. You have not said what cannot create minds. You see, I'd say nature created minds . I'd also say human beings can't create minds.

[Dontaskme]

I am a substance dualist.

Ok

I can clarify any issue if you refer me to it.

Ok then, clarify the idea ''I am a substance dualist''.. for us ?

There are ideas. You cannot doubt this. Ideas without a mind cannot be coherent. For coherence you need, a memory, ability to experience, to decide, to cause, to process what has been experienced (in case of human thinking).

Thanks for the clarification.

And yes, nothing is known without a knower. But the knower and known can only arise together they are mutually arising in the instant. Any apparent split of subject and object, screen(mind) and picture (knowledge) = separation is an illusion.

To be aware of memory is to artificially bring to life what is actually dead.

Awareness is the LIGHT which animates the film (memory / imprint) as if it's a living continuous movie appearing on the screen of mind. In reality, it's just a movie show made of light and sound being projected by it's own LIGHT source. There is no ''character'' upon the screen separate from the screen on which is it being projected, it's all the play of the ONE LIGHT...which is just another word for Consciousness.

Conscious awareness is neither dead nor alive, it just IS...UNCREATED AND UNDYING.

That's my defintion of clarity.

.