Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:43 am
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:59 pm
How do objects know things?
Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 11:53 pmThey do NOT.
Only SOME 'things', like 'human beings', know things. Understood?
Object and 'things', like 'trees', and 'brick walls', do NOT know things. Understood?
Since you are now claiming that the 'thing' like the 'thing' (human being) is the knower of things...
It IS GREAT to SEE when 'you' USE the ACTUAL WORDS that I SAY and USE here.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:43 am
Then is this knower a tangible thing that can be pointed to as an actual physical object, and if not, then where exactly is this 'knower' that you claim is the 'thing' known as a human being actually located?
As I have been PREVIOUSLY CONTINUALLY STATING:
Human beings are made up of two parts; the visible part, which is just the physical body, which is what the 'human' word refers to, to me and, the invisible part, which is just the 'thoughts' and 'emotions' within the visible physical body, which is what the 'being' word refers to, to me.
The 'human' body part is OBVIOUSLY tangible as it can be 'touched', with another physical body part. The 'being' thought/emotion part is OBVIOUSLY NOT tangible, as it can NOT be 'touched', with another physical body part.
Now, to me, the word 'knower' refers to 'you', a 'person', or 'you', 'people', and as physical matter, itself, does NOT know things, then where, EXACTLY, is the 'knower', which is the 'thing' known as a 'human being', located IS WITHIN the human body existing as INVISIBLE 'thoughts'.
The, INVISIBLE, 'thoughts' located WITHIN a body is the 'knower', which is NOT tangible. (As I have been saying all along throughout this forum.)
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:43 am
Can you inform us the exact location of the 'knower' that is the known 'thing' known as a human being.
As I have just SAID the 'knower' is the INVISIBLE thoughts WITHIN a VISIBLE human body, of which BOTH make up the 'thing' KNOWN as the 'human being'.
Both the body (the human part) AND the thoughts (the being part) are NEEDED for A 'knower' to exist, that is; A 'person'. (Also, and by the way, this 'knower' is NOT to be CONFUSED with thee Knower, which is a whole OTHER 'matter', or 'Thing').
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:43 am
And can this knowing thing be touched like other objects can be touched?
As I have been CONTINUALLY INFORMING 'you', NO.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:43 am
All you are saying Age is that the KNOWER is a THING known as the human being, without knowing the knowers exact location.
1. This is NOT ALL I have been saying.
2. The KNOWER or Knower is VERY DIFFERENT from the knower.
3. ONLY the 'knower' is a human being. The 'Knower' is A VERY DIFFERENT Thing.
4. I HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN the EXACT LOCATION of the 'knower', as well as thee 'Knower' ALSO, by the way. So, this CLAIM of 'yours' here is False, Wrong, AND Incorrect ONCE AGAIN.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:43 am
You are just ASSUMING or believing that the 'thing' known as a human being is the KNOWER.
When one HAS IRREFUTABLE PROOF to back up and support A CLAIM, as I do here, then this is NOT ASSUMING. I ALSO neither BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE ANY thing. So, YOUR CLAIM here is, ONCE AGAIN, False, Wrong, AND Incorrect for THREE reasons. SEE, I HAVE ALSO NEVER EVER even THOUGHT, let alone ASSUMED, nor BELIEVED that the 'thing' known as a human being is the KNOWER.
To COMMUNICATE PROPERLY with 'Me' "dontaskme" 'you' REALLY do NOT to READ and FOLLOW the EXACT WAY I WRITE and USE WORDS here.
I SAY the 'thing' known as a 'human being' is the 'knower' here, which, AGAIN, is VERY DIFFERENT from who and what the 'Thing', 'Knower' (or KNOWER) IS.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:43 am
You cannot prove that....
'you' ONLY ASSUME or BELIEVE I can NOT prove 'that'. Or, do 'you' ALREADY have IRREFUTABLE PROOF that I could NEVER EVER prove 'that'?
If yes, then WHERE and WHAT IS that IRREFUTABLE PROOF, EXACTLY?
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:43 am
your conditioning has told you something you cannot prove to be true.
And 'you' base this CLAIM of 'yours' here on WHAT, EXACTLY?
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:43 am
If it is true then point to the exact location of the 'THING' ...YOU CLAIM TO BE THE KNOWER?
But 'you' have ONLY been previously asking for the EXACT LOCATION of the 'thing', 'knower', which I have ALREADY SUPPLIED.
Now, if 'you' WANT me to provide 'you' with the EXACT LOCATION of the 'THING', 'KNOWER', which is AGAIN DIFFERENT, then, by now, hopefully, 'you' ALREADY KNOW what is NEEDED for that.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:43 am
If you are going to make such a claim as knowing things can know things...then prove it, by telling us where this 'thing' that knows...
I ALREADY HAVE.
ALSO, I suggest if 'you' ASK for some 'thing' in A REPLY, then it is MORE WISE to WAIT, PATIENTLY, for THAT REPLY to be READ, and RESPONDED TO, BEFORE 'you' KEEP INSISTING on the EXACT SAME 'thing' in the EXACT SAME REPLY. It does NOT make SENSE to DEMAND some 'thing' that has NOT EVEN BEEN HEARD NOR READ YET.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:43 am
is actually located in the physical thing known as a human being...the 'thing' you claim knows, therefore must be a knower.
REPEATING, and DEMANDING, the EXACT SAME 'thing', in the EXACT SAME 'thread', will NOT and does NOT help 'you'.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:43 am
Truth is you cannot locate 'the knower' as a known physical object/thing.... can you?
I NEVER SAID I COULD.
Also, NOTICED, ONCE MORE, 'you' ATTEMPTING to CHANGE and TURN AROUND the ACTUAL WORDS that I SAY, WRITE, and USE here into WORDS of 'your' OWN MAKING, which, OBVIOUSLY and LOGICALLY, could NOT BE TRUE, ANYWAY, and then 'TRYING TO' USE those WORDS OF YOURS AGAINST 'Me'.
But, just to REMIND 'you' this WILL NEVER WORK.
AGAIN, I suggest 'you' LOOK AT and USE the ACTUAL WORDS that I USE, and, ONLY, LOOK AT and USE the WORDS that I ACTUALLY USE.
USING 'your' OWN WORDS in regards to what I SAY and CLAIM here WILL ONLY CONFUSE 'things' here, FURTHER for 'you'.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:43 am
All you can say is that 'the knower' is a 'thing'. But you cannot point to this 'thing'...and tell yourself this thing is the knower.
But I have ALREADY POINTED TO, and POINTED OUT, this 'thing', FOR 'you', "dontaskme", and FOR "others" of 'you', human beings.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:43 am
The knower is just an idea/thought which also cannot be seen as a physical tangible object that can be touched.
EXACTLY. 'you' have FINALLY GOT 'it' "dontaskme". The 'knower', which I have been TALKING ABOUT and REFERRING to here is, literally, just the 'thoughts' WITHIN a human body. That is; namely 'you', the 'person', WITHIN.
Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 11:53 pmOnly SOME 'things', like 'human beings', know things. Understood?
This comment is a FLAWED BELIEF.[/quote]
But just SAYING and CLAIMING that, 'This comment is a FLAWED BELIEF', WITHOUT absolutely ANY thing AT ALL to back up and support this CLAIM IS REALLY SAYING and CLAIMING absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.
Do 'you' have absolutely ANY thing to back up and support this CLAIM and BELIEF of 'yours' here "dontaskme"?
If yes, then WILL 'you' PROVIDE it?
if no, then WHY NOT?
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:43 am
If you have an argument opposed to this flawed belief that disproves it or refutes it...then lets hear it.
I have PROVIDED the PROOF for 'my' CLAIM. ALSO, as it STANDS what I CLAIMED is just IRREFUTABLE ANYWAY. SEE, ANY time ANY one of 'you', human beings, just 'TRIED TO' REFUTE the Fact that 'you', human beings, can NOT KNOW 'things', then 'you' will self-refute the CLAIM that I made.
Now, here it is 'you', "dontaskme", who has made the CLAIM that my comment is a FLAWED BELIEF, so now it is up to 'you' to back up and support 'it'. That is; IF 'you' CAN.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:43 am
Prove that a 'thing' can know things.
Is a 'human being' a 'thing'?
If yes, then can 'you', a human being know things?
If yes, then 'I', through 'you', have just PROVED that a 'thing' can know things.
However, if 'you', a human being wants to know claim that either a 'human being' is NOT a 'thing' and/or that the 'thing' human being can NOT know things, then 'you' would just be CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self', which, ULTIMATELY, MEANS that what I have SAID and CLAIMED here is PROVED True. AGAIN, by 'you'.
So, AGAIN, THANK 'you', "dontaskme", for HELPING 'Me' PROVE ABSOLUTELY True what 'I' have been SAYING and CLAIMING here.