What "side" are you on?

[promethean75]

I have a question. How do u decide which words to capitalize, Age? I've been looking for some kind of pattern or algorithm to get some insight into how your brain processes language, but it all appears to be random.

[Age]

What is 'it' that 'you' WANT 'now', 'this time'?

For me, to demonstrate/show/prove 'you' that there are NO 'individual minds', OR, that there is ONLY One Mind?

What you said earlier: that

there is ONLY One Mind, and NOT MANY minds,

Okay, and as ALREADY EXPLAINED, but which appears to have been COMPLETELY MISSED, ONCE MORE;

Now, I can NOT 'demonstrate' that there are NO 'unicorns'. However, I could SHOW 'you', through AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition' of the 'mind' word that there is ONLY One Mind, which would THEN MEAN, and thus [be] KNOWN, that there are NO "other minds".

What 'you', people, KEEP MISSING here is that ONLY THROUGH and WITH AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE can 'things' be SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN. 'This' applies 'individually' AS WELL AS 'collectively'.

And, it is IN, THROUGH, and WITH TOTAL AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE WHERE 'objectivity' is ALSO FOUND, and LAYS.

Now, do 'you' or do 'you' NOT AGREE WITH and ACCEPT the definition of the 'mind' word, which I have ALREADY SUPPLIED?

The ANSWER to THIS QUESTION IS the MOST IMPORTANT PART here.

OBVIOUSLY 'we' can ONLY WORK TOGETHER WHEN 'we' COME-TO an AGREEMENT, right?

Also, I REALLY DO NOT, YET, KNOW if 'you', people, here are PURPOSELY MISSING the EXPLANATION I GAVE BEFORE, or if 'you' ARE MISSING 'it' BECAUSE of 'your' Truly NARROWED or CLOSED 'perspectives'.

'you', "iwannaplato" ASKED; So, could you demonstrate that there are no individual minds.

I SAID; This would be like ASKING, 'Could 'you', "iwannaplato", DEMONSTRATE that there are NO 'unicorns'?' And,
Now, I can NOT 'demonstrate' that there are NO 'unicorns'.

But, then I SAID; However, I could SHOW 'you', through AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition' of the 'mind' word that there is ONLY One Mind, which would THEN MEAN, and thus [be] KNOWN, that there are NO "other minds".

Now HOW did 'you', "seeds" and "iwannaplato", MISS 'THIS EXPLANATION' of HOW I COULD demonstrate, show, and/or prove that there IS ONLY One Mind?

Maybe if 'you', two, BOTH EXPLAIN TO 'me' HOW, EXACTLY, 'you' BOTH MISSED MY EXPLANATION of HOW to PROVE that there are NOT 'many minds' and that there IS ONLY ONE Mind, then 'this' might HELP 'me' here tremendously.

[promethean75]

So now you're ignoring me becuz I ignore u? That's not fair, Age.

[VVilliam]

There are no "Sides" that are real/cannot be bridged.

YES, 'this' is EXACTLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct.

That said, if the sides do see the other sides and in that, have the idea that sides do exist, the bridging has to do with how one can examine the differing positions/sides and come to the realization that there are similarities re mode of operations which give the impression one is observing a type of two-headed beast...something in "two minds" reacting with aggression to what is essentially/metaphorically a reflection each head does not realize, is an aspect of the same body.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xMd6pyyMbc

[Peter Kropotkin]

So now you're ignoring me becuz I ignore u? That's not fair, Age.

K: be grateful that AGE is ignoring you... he/she/it is a blithering idiot...
throwing magnetic words on a refrigerator would create more
intelligent answers... monkeys throwing shit at a wall would create
something more intelligent than anything AGE has written..

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

What is 'it' that 'you' WANT 'now', 'this time'?

For me, to demonstrate/show/prove 'you' that there are NO 'individual minds', OR, that there is ONLY One Mind?

What you said earlier: that

there is ONLY One Mind, and NOT MANY minds,

Okay, and as ALREADY EXPLAINED, but which appears to have been COMPLETELY MISSED, ONCE MORE;

Now, I can NOT 'demonstrate' that there are NO 'unicorns'. However, I could SHOW 'you', through AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition' of the 'mind' word that there is ONLY One Mind, which would THEN MEAN, and thus [be] KNOWN, that there are NO "other minds".

What 'you', people, KEEP MISSING here is that ONLY THROUGH and WITH AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE can 'things' be SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN. 'This' applies 'individually' AS WELL AS 'collectively'.

And, it is IN, THROUGH, and WITH TOTAL AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE WHERE 'objectivity' is ALSO FOUND, and LAYS.

Now, do 'you' or do 'you' NOT AGREE WITH and ACCEPT the definition of the 'mind' word, which I have ALREADY SUPPLIED?

The ANSWER to THIS QUESTION IS the MOST IMPORTANT PART here.

OBVIOUSLY 'we' can ONLY WORK TOGETHER WHEN 'we' COME-TO an AGREEMENT, right?

Also, I REALLY DO NOT, YET, KNOW if 'you', people, here are PURPOSELY MISSING the EXPLANATION I GAVE BEFORE, or if 'you' ARE MISSING 'it' BECAUSE of 'your' Truly NARROWED or CLOSED 'perspectives'.

'you', "iwannaplato" ASKED; So, could you demonstrate that there are no individual minds.

I SAID; This would be like ASKING, 'Could 'you', "iwannaplato", DEMONSTRATE that there are NO 'unicorns'?' And,
Now, I can NOT 'demonstrate' that there are NO 'unicorns'.

But, then I SAID; However, I could SHOW 'you', through AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition' of the 'mind' word that there is ONLY One Mind, which would THEN MEAN, and thus [be] KNOWN, that there are NO "other minds".

Now HOW did 'you', "seeds" and "iwannaplato", MISS 'THIS EXPLANATION' of HOW I COULD demonstrate, show, and/or prove that there IS ONLY One Mind?

Maybe if 'you', two, BOTH EXPLAIN TO 'me' HOW, EXACTLY, 'you' BOTH MISSED MY EXPLANATION of HOW to PROVE that there are NOT 'many minds' and that there IS ONLY ONE Mind, then 'this' might HELP 'me' here tremendously.

I have at least twice said that I accept your definition of mind. I quoted it in previous posts to make sure we both knew which one I was referring to. It's the one you mention above.

I'll now say it a third time. I accept your definition of mind. Could you please do what you say here:

I could SHOW 'you', through AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition' of the 'mind' word that there is ONLY One Mind, which would THEN MEAN, and thus [be] KNOWN, that there are NO "other minds".

[Age]

I have a question. How do u decide which words to capitalize, Age?

The SAME WAY HOW EVERY one 'decides', what 'they' do.

BUT, for those who were or are WONDERING WHY I CHOOSE the ACTUAL words, which I DO, TO capitalize, then the ANSWER IS 'those words' are based upon which words I WANT to EMPHASIZE, which comes FROM an internal KNOWING of what WILL ACTUALLY be MISSED, in the days when this was being written, but which will also MAKE FAR MORE SENSE to "others".

SEE, what I am ACTUALLY MEANING gets MISSED or LOST A LOT here, in the days when this is being written, but WHEN what I AM MEANING is GRASPED, and FULLY UNDERSTOOD, then 'those people' who HAVE, WILL SEE that even WHEN I was EMPHASIZING words, back then, 'you', people, in the so-called and relative 'olden days', were STILL MISSING the ACTUAL MEANING. And, the reason WHY 'you', people/posters, here VERY FREQUENTLY MISS the ACTUAL MEANING/S in the ACTUAL WORDS that I USE is BECAUSE of 'the way' that 'you', people, LOOK AT, and thus end up SEEING, 'things'.

BUT PLEASE 'carry on' THE WAY that 'you' ARE here. "others" ARE VERY INTERESTED in LEARNING what NOT TO DO.

I've been looking for some kind of pattern or algorithm to get some insight into how your brain processes language, but it all appears to be random.

Okay.

[Age]

BUT, since I have ASKED 'it' 'you' have PROVEN to NOT YET KNOW "atla".

Do 'you' consider "yourself" a so-called 'honest one', "atla"?

Honest people don't start debates with implying that they have a special knowledge of commonly used words, while others are typically not there yet.

Have I STARTED A DEBATE here?

If yes, WHEN and WHERE, EXACTLY?

Also, was the one who started expressing, 'Actually the earth revolves around the sun, and NOT the other way around', which could be said to be some kind of 'special knowledge' compared to the 'commonly used words', BACK in the days when that was being talked ABOUT and WRITTEN, an 'honest person' or a 'dishonest person', to 'you', "atla"?

'This' could be construed as somewhat HYPOCRITICAL, or even VERY HYPOCRITICAL.

Maybe by you, but otherwise no.

Maybe by 'you'.

BUT what 'you' SAID and WROTE here does NOT make sense, well to 'me' ANYWAY.

HOW, EXACTLY, WAS 'me' JUST ASKING 'you' to DEFINE or EXPLAIN what 'you' ACTUALLY MEANT' and/or ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, PROVE, to 'you' anyway, that what 'I' ASKED 'you' to do IS RIDICULOUS?

AND, WHY do 'you' CONTINUALLY RESORT BACK TO CALLING 'me' DISHONEST, when 'I" am JUST ASKING 'you' TO CLARIFY 'your' POSITIONS, VIEWS, and/or CLAIMS?

Furthermore, WHY does it ONLY COME to 'me' being, supposedly and allegedly, DISHONEST AFTER 'you' are NOT ABLE TO CLARIFY NOR EXPLAIN and back up and support 'your' OWN VIEWS and CLAIMS?

But that's not what you did at all, and now you're also lying about it.

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' FAIL ABSOLUTELY TO ELABORATE AND CLARIFY, and JUST RESORT BACK TO CALLING 'me' A LIAR.

BUT 'this' IS what 'you' INFERRED.

And, AS I SAID, I NEVER SAID 'it'.

That's what it means to divide the world into living and non-living, you don't have to say it.

What are the words 'that is' here REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

WOW, 'you' are now CIRCUMNAVIGATING, AGAIN.

SO, what is 'it', 'now', that 'the mind' IS, EXACTLY, which is, supposedly, what 'the brain', MAINLY, EVOLVED TO DO?

'We' seem to be getting FURTHER and FURTHER LOST and DEEPER and DEEPER INTO CONFUSION here. But 'this' maybe JUST 'Me', ALONE here.

Now it is getting very clear here that you don't want to understand that which is very simple and commonly understood.

BUT 'what' is, supposedly, VERY CLEAR there? That 'the mind' is A CREATION of 'the brain', or that 'the mind' JUST EVOLVED?

WHEN, and IF, 'you' EVER CLARIFY, then what 'you' ARE SAYING, and CLAIMING, CAN THEN, and ONLY THEN, be VERY CLEAR here.

BUT 'you' ALSO CLAIMED that 'these individual mind' 'thingies' are ALSO 'parts of' OTHER 'organs'.

So, HOW and WHY has, supposedly, EVERY 'thing' 'you', and some "others", KNOW (in science, psychology, and some OTHER 'thing/s'), have LOCALIZED 'the mind' TO 'the brain, 'now'?

I said maybe also parts of other organs, and there's some scientific evidence for that too. Anyway this isn't important now, it's enough if we focus on the brain.

WHERE, EXACTLY, IS the some so-called and alleged 'scientific evidence' that 'the mind' IS PARTS OF OTHER 'organs' AS WELL?

Ah OKAY. So, 'the mind' is NOT NEEDED for the organism, named; 'human body', to 'coordinate' 'its' way around, NOR for 'its' survival neither, it 'now' appears.

Depends on the organism, obviously. It is needed for humans.

BUT, HOW, EXACTLY?

'you' have ALREADY ADMITTED that 'the mind' came AFTER 'the human body' was ALREADY EXISTING, GROWING, AND SURVIVING.

SO, WHY 'you' CLAIM that 'the mind' IS NEEDED FOR 'the human body' to SURVIVE, "atla"?

Why are you lying?

ABOUT 'what' ALLEGEDLY AND SUPPOSEDLY?

AND, WHY do you ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT 'me' LYING and/or CLAIM THAT I AM LYING but do NOR go INTO DETAIL ABOUT what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which I am SUPPOSEDLY LYING ABOUT?

WHY don't you know or pretend not to know about these ABSOLUTELY BASIC issues which are common knowledge?

SEE HOW 'you' have DONE 'this' MAKING ACCUSATIONS and CLAIMS BUT NOT EXPLAINING WHAT 'it' IS that 'you' are even talking ABOUT, EXACTLY?

Also, what 'you' ARE SAYING and ASKING here would be like ASKING the one who IS TELLING THE REST ABOUT, HOW, ACTUALLY THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN', WHY don't you know or pretend not to know about these ABSOLUTELY BASIC issues, which are common knowledge, (that is; the sun revolves around the earth).

"atla" 'you' STILL seem to NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTAND and COMPREHEND that A LOT OF what WAS so-called 'common knowledge' ENDS UP BEING JUST PLAIN OLD False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

BUT, 'you' did SAY and CLAIM "atla" that 'the brain' CREATED 'the mind'. And, that 'the mind' functions via 'biochemistry'.

Which may make some WONDER, How ONE 'thing' COULD CREATE A 'part of' 'its own self'?

You are blatantly lying here, deliberately.

ABOUT 'what' EXACTLY?

'you' CLAIMS, LITERALLY, 'fall on DEAF ears', IF and WHEN 'you' do NOT ADD the NECESSARY DETAIL.

Okay, so you just THINK and/or BELIEVE that there IS 'one', right?

No, you are a blatantly dishonest liar by once again accusing me of this.

HOW COULD AN OPEN QUESTION, ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION, and CLARITY, BE:

1. A LIE?

2. A BLATANT DISHONEST LIE? And,

3. AN ACCUSATION?

'you' seem to be ABSOLUTELY Truly LOST and CONFUSED here sometimes "atla".

WOW, REALLY?

Which seems REALLY RATHER CONTRADICTORY that the human beings who DO 'sciences', 'psychology', and/or 'sociology' are NOT AT ALL COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH 'THIS view' OF 'yours' here "atla", NOR ACTUALLY IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE WITH 'this view' NOR even WITH "each other's" VIEWS.

But, THEN AGAIN, 'you' MAY WELL list A textbook or two, which SHOW that 'they' AR CONSISTENT WITH 'your OWN views' here "atla"

Really, by and large only the philosophical interpretations differ, if we use any at all. Did you never go to school? Never watched any documentaries about brains? Never read a Wikipedia page? Never opened a book?

As I SAID and MENTIONED EARLIER so-called 'common knowledge', at particular times throughout human history, CAN and DOES END UP BEING JUST Wrong.

BUT, to 'you', NONE of the so-called 'common knowledge', in the days when this is being written, could be Wrong, right "atla"?

ALSO, 'your' ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTION and DISTRACTION here, ONCE AGAIN, does NOT GO UNNOTICED.

MAYBE ONE DAY 'you' WILL PROVIDE the name of A textbook or two, which ALIGNS WITH 'your' OVER VERY SPECIFIC VIEWS here.

Which, by the way, 'you' STILL HAVE NOT YET CLARIFIED and STRAIGHTENED OUT.

SO, in ALL ACTUALITY 'these mind things' are NOT even NEEDED FOR 'survival' AT ALL, REALLY, and OBVIOUSLY, correct?

OBVIOUSLY, if the human body WAS SURVIVING BEFORE A 'thing', or 'things', then THAT 'thing' or THOSE 'things' ARE NOT REALLY NEEDED.

Completely incorrect, you are blatantly lying here.

What, EXACTLY, is SUPPOSEDLY, 'completely incorrect'? And, what am I, EXACTLY, SUPPOSEDLY, BLATANTLY LYING ABOUT here, THIS TIME?

Humans can't survive without minds.

YET it was the one KNOWN here as "atla" who MADE THE CLAIM that 'the brain' CREATED 'the mind'.

Which would OBVIOUSLY IMPLY that 'the body' AND thus 'the brain' EXISTED BEFORE 'these individual mind thingies'.

The only thing you can do without a mind is lie unresponsive in a bed, and machines will keep you alive.

WHO and/or what IS 'the you' here, EXACTLY?

'you' SPEAK and WRITE as though 'science', is some 'thing' ON 'its' OWN, and KNOWS what IS IRREFUTABLY True or NOT.

'you' do NOT seem to be FULLY AWARE that it is 'you', human beings, who DO 'science' and that 'you', human beings, and especially the older ones are ABSOLUTELY FALLIBLE creatures.

AND, even when NEARLY ALL OF 'you' ARE IN AGREEMENT, and even IN ACCEPTABLE of some 'thing', AS WELL, then 'that thing' can STILL BE False, Wrong, or Incorrect.

Another blatant lie: I don't speak as if scientific knowledge is irrefutably true.

LOL I, ONCE AGAIN, NEVER EVEN THOUGHT, LET ALONE SAID, IMPLIED, NOR WROTE, what 'you' thought or BELIEVED I did here.

I SUGGEST, ONCE AGAIN, 'you' ACTUALLY READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I ACTUALLY USED, WHILE LOOKING AT 'them' FROM A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, NEXT TIME.

I do NOT EXPECT 'you', posters, here to ALSO NOTICE the ACTUAL NUANCES in NOT just MY WORDS but ALSO IN 'your OWN words' here, YET. BUT, STILL BEING SO ABSOLUTELY CLOSED and BLIND I 'thought'/was hoping would have SOMEWHAT STARTED TO WEAR OFF, BY 'now'.

BUT, PLEASE KEEP LOOKING and SEEING 'the way' 'you' ARE and HAVE BEEN "atla".

'This' here seems like a REALLY 'way out there' CLARIFYING QUESTION TO ASK here, now. Some might even be WONDERING if 'it' was ANOTHER DEFLECTION, and DECEPTIVE, TACTIC?

Anyway, to me, the entire Universe IS the entire Universe.

Now, BACK TO MY CLARIFYING QUESTION. So, 'you' are NOT UNDER some sort of DELUSION that the Universe, Itself, is more 'complex' 'now' that 'It' was PRIOR. Which is GREAT TO KNOW. Although 'it' appears to CONTRADICT 'your earlier CLAIM' that the Universe WAS 'simpler', PRIOR TO the days when this is being written.

No, by the world with humans in it, I didn't mean the entire universe.

SO, HOW, EXACTLY, HAS the Universe, Itself, SUPPOSEDLY, BECOME MORE 'complex' 'now', with 'you', human beings, IN 'It'?

I am just GOING ON 'your words' ALONE here. Which were; A so-called and alleged 'previous state' was 'A SIMPLER STATE' than the 'current state', which 'you' are 'now' in "atla".

'you' seem to have MISSED the Fact that the Universe, Itself, has NEVER CHANGED in 'states'. As 'It' is ALWAYS IN the EXACT SAME STATE.

ALSO, 'you' here CLAIM that it is 'I' who IS, OBVIOUSLY, CONFUSED. So, what is 'it', EXACTLY, that 'you' BELIEVE I AM CONFUSED ABOUT, and which 'you' is, supposedly, OBVIOUS, TO 'you'?

Again, nowhere was I talking about the entire universe, obviously. That would be logically inconsistent.

SO, TO 'you', DIFFERENT PARTS OF the Universe ARE IN DIFFERENT STATES, AND AT DIFFERENT 'times' AS WELL, right?

BUT I HAVE NEVER thought 'this'. So, WHY would 'you' even BEGIN to ASSUME 'this'?

I AM JUST POINTING OUT, SHOWING, and REVEALING the 'things' that 'you' MAKE UP, and then 'try to' CLAIM are REAL and TRUE here.

You have yet to point out anything other than that you are addicted to your beliefs.

Okay. AND, SOME WOULD SAY that 'you' CLAIMING that 'I am addicted to my beliefs' is about one of the MOST PERFECT examples of what is commonly referred to as, 'PROJECTION', ITSELF, here.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'We have, LIKE TOTAL, 'evidence' that the mind is physical'.

1. WHO does the 'we' word here REFER TO, EXACTLY?

2. Some of 'these people' STILL DID NOT SEEM to UNDERSTAND and KNOW the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between just 'evidence' and actual 'proof'.

3. WHERE and WHAT IS the, supposed, so-called 'total evidence' that 'the mind' IS physical, EXACTLY?

1. humanity in general

WILL 'you' 'now' PROVIDE A, peer-reviewed, textbook that STATES, There is 'like total evidence' that 'the mind', itself, IS 'physical'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, 'that textbook' does NOT even have to include the 'like total' words, neither.

2. of course not

Oh, in case 'you' MISSED 'it', when I SAID, 'some of these people', I MEANT 'you', SPECIFICALLY, here "atla".

3. again, all of science and psychology is consistent with it, and it's still your job to somehow show otherwise

ARE 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE that ALL of 'science' AND 'psychology' IS 'consistent' WITH 'your' OWN MADE UP CLAIM here?

ALSO, 'science' AND 'psychology', ONCE MORE, and NOT 'things' in and of themselves that KNOW absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL. AS I WAS SAYING and EXPLAINING, EARLIER. ONLY 'you', human beings, DO 'science' AND 'psychology', AND 'you', older human beings, ARE OBVIOUSLY FALLIBLE.

'you' KEEP ALLUDING TO 'this'.

'We', however, have YET TO BE SHOWN 'this'.

It's all publicly available knowledge. Thousands or millions of pages of evidence. You have yet to refute it.

'you' ARE YET TO PROVIDE one SHRED OF 'evidence'. WHICH I WOULD OBVIOUSLY NEED BEFORE I EVEN BEGAN TO SEE IF 'it' WAS REFUTABLE, or NOT.

WELL OBVIOUSLY, IF, according to 'YOUR' CLAIM here "atla", that these 'individual mind' things', which 'you' CLAIM EXIST, ARE physical would it THEN go, WITHOUT SAYING, that 'they' ARE THEN ALSO, physically, AFFECTED, accordingly to what INTERACTION that 'they' have HAD with OTHER 'physical things'?

Well of course, and we have all the evidence that they are.

SO, WHERE IS, and WHAT IS, the 'evidence', which 'we' ALL, SUPPOSEDLY, HAVE, EXACTLY?

So, AGAIN, WHO AM 'I"? WHO IS, SUPPOSEDLY, EXPERIENCING 'things' RIGHT NOW, and WHO HAS this 'mind' 'thing', which IS, SUPPOSEDLY ALSO, ALL OF the ACTUAL 'things', themselves, which I am, SUPPOSEDLY, EXPERIENCING, RIGHT NOW.

Again, you are a part of that human body.

BUT what does the 'you' here word REFER TO, EXACTLY?

BUT, there IS A FAR BETTER, Truer, MORE Accurate, AND MORE Correct WAY.

However, 'you' appear to BELIEVE otherwise. So, I WILL LEAVE 'you' WITH 'that way'.

So you can NOT do the one thing I asked: prove that 99%+ of adult human beings are wrong in thinking that they have individual minds. Pathetic.

WHY do 'you' STILL HOLD 'this ASSUMPTION and BELIEF' of 'yours' here?

AND, WHY EXPRESS this BELIEF of 'yours' here 'now'?

I just MENTIONED and POINTED OUT that 'you' are NOT OPEN TO LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' in ANY OTHER WAY than 'the way' 'you' have been doing here, SO FAR.

Was it just TOO HARD and/or TOO COMPLEX FOR 'you' "atla" to JUST NAME TWO textbooks ONLY?

Or, was there some OTHER reason WHY you would or could NOT JUST DO IT?

Read any textbook or wikipedia page on neuroscience. Here are a few dozen
https://www.google.com/search?q=books+o ... uroscience

BUT IN NONE OF 'them' IS STATES that There IS 'evidence' that 'the mind' IS 'physical', NOT that 'the mind' EVOLVED, NOR that 'the mind' was CREATED by 'the brain', NOR that 'the mind' is PARTS OF a few organs of 'the human body', NOR that 'the human body' NEEDS 'the mind' FOR 'the human body's' survival. Well NOT that I could FIND and SEE.

Will 'you' DIRECT 'us' TO WHERE in ANY of 'those books' there ARE ABSOLUTELY ANY WORDS that SAY or STATE the 'things' that 'you' have been here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

SO, to 'you', 'I' CHOSE TO NOT BE FULLY 'human', right?

Yes I think it's time to say that.

But, 'you' have SAID 'this' at A PREVIOUS 'time' have 'you' NOT?

So, 'this one' HAS CLARIFIED that 'you', are PARTS OF the organs WITHIN 'those human bodies'.

And, that the PARTS OF the organs of 'this body' HAS A MASSIVE DELUSION.

Now 'we' ARE ALL MUCH MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE and WISER now FOR HAVING 'this' CLEARED UP hey "atla"?

And why did it take you like 5 years to understand this, even though it's completely basic and was said many times?

BECAUSE NONE OF 'it' MAKES SENSE, TO 'me'. Now that is WHY.

And, when 'you' continually SAY and STATE 'it's completely basic' does 'this' HELP 'you' in 'your' ATTEMPT TO 'try to' "justify" 'your very OWN BELIEFS' here?

BUT it WAS 'you', "atla", who SAID and STATED:

But creating the mind is the 'main' purpose of the brain .

SO WHY WOULD 'you' 'now' WANT TO MINUS 'this part'?

Again you are blatantly lying about this.

AGAIN, I AM, SUPPOSEDLY, BLATANTLY LYING ABOUT 'what', EXACTLY?

What 'you' ACTUALLY SAID and STATED here IS, OBVIOUSLY, WRITTEN ABOVE, literally, IN 'your OWN words'.

WHY have I NOT STARTED 'what', from 'here'? And, WHERE is 'here', EXACTLY?

Just so 'we' are AGAIN CLEAR 'here now'. The MAIN purpose of 'the brain' is or is TO NOT CREATE 'the mind'?

And, 'the mind' did or DID NOT EVOLVE, for the MAIN purpose of 'the survival' OF 'the body', and thus 'the brain', itself, right?

Again you are just being blatantly dishonest by NOT wanting to understand.

So, TO 'you';

1. ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS IS NOT WANTING TO UNDERSTAND. And,

2. What 'you' ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE IS above here IN 'this thread'. So, WHO IS ACTUALLY BEING Dishonest here IS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

So, are 'you' here now SAYING and CLAIMING that 'you' do NOT YET KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS here, and so 'you' are REALLY NOT TELLING 'us' what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY?

This is what I've always been saying, you are just being blatantly dishonest by saying 'now'.

AH OKAY.

SO, "atla" ACTUALLY DOES NOT YET KNOW 'what' the ACTUAL Truth IS here. Which, OBVIOUSLY, MEANS that what "atla" CALLS 'common knowledge' here COULD BE JUST False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, JUST LIKE the previous so-called 'common knowledge' that the sun revolves around the earth was ALSO JUST False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

Do 'you' STILL BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that there ARE 'human minds', EXISTING, "atla"?

Utter and total dishonesty, since you know that I never claimed to 'absolutely' believe anything, on the contrary.

Okay. BUT, AGAIN, HOW, EXACTLY could an OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTION EVERY BE Correctly PERCEIVED as being ANY sort of DISHONESTY, let alone UTTER and TOTAL DISHONESTY?

ALSO, I NEVER ASKED ABOUT 'absolutely believing', as can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED TRUE. I ASKED ABOUT, 'believing, absolutely'.

Which IS OBVIOUSLY VERY DIFFERENT. BUT, JUST AS OBVIOUS IS that SOME WILL NOT RECOGNIZE NOR NOTICE 'this nuance'.

As "atla" may well PROVE 'me' True, ONCE MORE here.

AND 'what', EXACTLY, IS 'my claim', AGAIN here, "atla", which I AM, SUPPOSEDLY, FINALLY, ADMITTING HOW OBVIOUSLY INSANE 'it' IS?

Your claims to know the TRUTH are just delusional.

BUT 'It' IS ALREADY KNOWN. Though, OBVIOUSLY, TO some, in the days when this was being written, 'It' WAS STILL JUST UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOWN.

[Age]

So now you're ignoring me becuz I ignore u? That's not fair, Age.

WHEN did I EVER, SUPPOSEDLY, 'ignore' 'you', "promthean75"?

[Age]

There are no "Sides" that are real/cannot be bridged.

YES, 'this' is EXACTLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct.

That said, if the sides do see the other sides

BUT there ARE NO "sides", in order to be able to SEE ANY "other ACTUAL side".

Where there IS, however, human beings who IMAGINE, and then sometimes ALSO BELIEVE, that there ARE "sides", to 'things'.

and in that, have the idea that sides do exist,

HAVING the IDEA that "sides" do exist, does NOT MEAN that "sides" ACTUALLY DO EXIST.

Just like HAVING the IDEA that the earth is flat, has the sun revolve around 'it', and/or that the Universe began and is expanding IS REAL, does NOT MEAN that these IDEAS, ONLY, ACTUALLY DO REALLY EXIST, PHYSICALLY.

the bridging has to do with how one can examine the differing positions/sides and come to the realization that there are similarities re mode of operations which give the impression one is observing a type of two-headed beast...something in "two minds" reacting with aggression to what is essentially/metaphorically a reflection each head does not realize, is an aspect of the same body.

I have ALREADY ALLUDED TO 'the way' TO LOOK AT and SEE 'things', which REMOVES ANY and ALL DISTORTIONS, or FUZZINESS, here. And which ONLY LEAVES A CRYSTAL CLEAR VIEW or VISION of what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xMd6pyyMbc

[Age]

So now you're ignoring me becuz I ignore u? That's not fair, Age.

K: be grateful that AGE is ignoring you...

BUT I NEVER 'ignored' "promethean75".

Some people just EXPECT to be LISTENED TO, and ACKNOWLEDGED, here 'right away', WITHOUT EVER ONCE considering that the "other" MIGHT JUST BE DOING SOME 'thing' ELSE.

he/she/it is a blithering idiot...

Okay. What 'we' have here is ANOTHER one who HAS 'me' AS A "BLITHERING IDIOT".

throwing magnetic words on a refrigerator would create more
intelligent answers... monkeys throwing shit at a wall would create
something more intelligent than anything AGE has written..

Kropotkin

'This' IS HOW some people SAW 'things' BACK THEN.

JUST LIKE HOW some people SAW 'the one' who was JUST SAYING that ACTUALLY it is the earth that revolves around the sun as being A "BLITHERING IDIOT", AS WELL.

[Age]

What you said earlier: that

Okay, and as ALREADY EXPLAINED, but which appears to have been COMPLETELY MISSED, ONCE MORE;

Now, I can NOT 'demonstrate' that there are NO 'unicorns'. However, I could SHOW 'you', through AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition' of the 'mind' word that there is ONLY One Mind, which would THEN MEAN, and thus [be] KNOWN, that there are NO "other minds".

What 'you', people, KEEP MISSING here is that ONLY THROUGH and WITH AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE can 'things' be SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN. 'This' applies 'individually' AS WELL AS 'collectively'.

And, it is IN, THROUGH, and WITH TOTAL AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE WHERE 'objectivity' is ALSO FOUND, and LAYS.

Now, do 'you' or do 'you' NOT AGREE WITH and ACCEPT the definition of the 'mind' word, which I have ALREADY SUPPLIED?

The ANSWER to THIS QUESTION IS the MOST IMPORTANT PART here.

OBVIOUSLY 'we' can ONLY WORK TOGETHER WHEN 'we' COME-TO an AGREEMENT, right?

Also, I REALLY DO NOT, YET, KNOW if 'you', people, here are PURPOSELY MISSING the EXPLANATION I GAVE BEFORE, or if 'you' ARE MISSING 'it' BECAUSE of 'your' Truly NARROWED or CLOSED 'perspectives'.

'you', "iwannaplato" ASKED; So, could you demonstrate that there are no individual minds.

I SAID; This would be like ASKING, 'Could 'you', "iwannaplato", DEMONSTRATE that there are NO 'unicorns'?' And,
Now, I can NOT 'demonstrate' that there are NO 'unicorns'.

But, then I SAID; However, I could SHOW 'you', through AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition' of the 'mind' word that there is ONLY One Mind, which would THEN MEAN, and thus [be] KNOWN, that there are NO "other minds".

Now HOW did 'you', "seeds" and "iwannaplato", MISS 'THIS EXPLANATION' of HOW I COULD demonstrate, show, and/or prove that there IS ONLY One Mind?

Maybe if 'you', two, BOTH EXPLAIN TO 'me' HOW, EXACTLY, 'you' BOTH MISSED MY EXPLANATION of HOW to PROVE that there are NOT 'many minds' and that there IS ONLY ONE Mind, then 'this' might HELP 'me' here tremendously.

I have at least twice said that I accept your definition of mind. I quoted it in previous posts to make sure we both knew which one I was referring to. It's the one you mention above.

I'll now say it a third time. I accept your definition of mind. Could you please do what you say here:

I could SHOW 'you', through AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition' of the 'mind' word that there is ONLY One Mind, which would THEN MEAN, and thus [be] KNOWN, that there are NO "other minds".

Have 'you' STILL NOT YET UNDERSTOOD FULLY what I HAVE SAID and WRITTEN here?

If 'we' USE and/or ACCEPT A 'definition', 'this' does NOT mean that 'we' ARE AGREEING WITH 'it', right?

For SURELY I could ACCEPT 'your definition', and/or even USE 'it', but IN NO WAY being AGREEING WITH 'it', correct?

'you' are now saying that 'you' ACCEPT 'my definition' of the 'mind' word, and have ASKED me;
'Could you then, working from the above definition, prove that
there is ONLY One Mind, and NOT MANY minds,'.

AND, I STILL SAY, Yes. I could SHOW 'you', through AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition' of the 'mind' word that there is ONLY One Mind, which would THEN MEAN, and thus [be] KNOWN, that there are NO "other minds". ('This', by the way, may be the third time I have SAID and WRITTEN 'this').

And, ONCE AGAIN, if 'you' EXPLAINED HOW and/or WHY 'you' ARE MISSING 'parts' here, THEN 'this' COULD and WOULD HELP, TREMENDOUSLY, here.

Or, MAYBE 'you' ARE BELIEVING that it is 'you' who is NOT MISSING ANY 'thing' here, right?

SEE, ONLY through and by AGREEMENT, and ACCEPTANCE, are 'things' THEN UNDERSTOOD and/or KNOWN. 'This' applies 'individually' AND 'collectively'.

[Atla]

Let's skip the dishonest (D) parts and/or the misunderstandings (M) you shouldn't have made. I'm more interested in the actual topic, not in the many ways you try to not discuss it and insult.

Have I STARTED A DEBATE here?

If yes, WHEN and WHERE, EXACTLY?

Misunderstanding

Also, was the one who started expressing, 'Actually the earth revolves around the sun, and NOT the other way around', which could be said to be some kind of 'special knowledge' compared to the 'commonly used words', BACK in the days when that was being talked ABOUT and WRITTEN, an 'honest person' or a 'dishonest person', to 'you', "atla"?

Dishonesty

Maybe by 'you'.

Dishonesty

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' FAIL ABSOLUTELY TO ELABORATE AND CLARIFY, and JUST RESORT BACK TO CALLING 'me' A LIAR.

Dishonesty

BUT 'what' is, supposedly, VERY CLEAR there? That 'the mind' is A CREATION of 'the brain', or that 'the mind' JUST EVOLVED?

WHEN, and IF, 'you' EVER CLARIFY, then what 'you' ARE SAYING, and CLAIMING, CAN THEN, and ONLY THEN, be VERY CLEAR here.

Dishonesty

BUT, HOW, EXACTLY?

'you' have ALREADY ADMITTED that 'the mind' came AFTER 'the human body' was ALREADY EXISTING, GROWING, AND SURVIVING.

D

ABOUT 'what' ALLEGEDLY AND SUPPOSEDLY?

AND, WHY do you ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT 'me' LYING and/or CLAIM THAT I AM LYING but do NOR go INTO DETAIL ABOUT what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which I am SUPPOSEDLY LYING ABOUT?

D

SEE HOW 'you' have DONE 'this' MAKING ACCUSATIONS and CLAIMS BUT NOT EXPLAINING WHAT 'it' IS that 'you' are even talking ABOUT, EXACTLY?

Also, what 'you' ARE SAYING and ASKING here would be like ASKING the one who IS TELLING THE REST ABOUT, HOW, ACTUALLY THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN', WHY don't you know or pretend not to know about these ABSOLUTELY BASIC issues, which are common knowledge, (that is; the sun revolves around the earth).

"atla" 'you' STILL seem to NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTAND and COMPREHEND that A LOT OF what WAS so-called 'common knowledge' ENDS UP BEING JUST PLAIN OLD False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

D

ABOUT 'what' EXACTLY?

'you' CLAIMS, LITERALLY, 'fall on DEAF ears', IF and WHEN 'you' do NOT ADD the NECESSARY DETAIL.

D

HOW COULD AN OPEN QUESTION, ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION, and CLARITY, BE:

1. A LIE?

2. A BLATANT DISHONEST LIE? And,

3. AN ACCUSATION?

'you' seem to be ABSOLUTELY Truly LOST and CONFUSED here sometimes "atla".

Misunderstanding, Dishonesty

As I SAID and MENTIONED EARLIER so-called 'common knowledge', at particular times throughout human history, CAN and DOES END UP BEING JUST Wrong.

BUT, to 'you', NONE of the so-called 'common knowledge', in the days when this is being written, could be Wrong, right "atla"?

D

ALSO, 'your' ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTION and DISTRACTION here, ONCE AGAIN, does NOT GO UNNOTICED.

D

MAYBE ONE DAY 'you' WILL PROVIDE the name of A textbook or two, which ALIGNS WITH 'your' OVER VERY SPECIFIC VIEWS here.

Which, by the way, 'you' STILL HAVE NOT YET CLARIFIED and STRAIGHTENED OUT.

D

What, EXACTLY, is SUPPOSEDLY, 'completely incorrect'? And, what am I, EXACTLY, SUPPOSEDLY, BLATANTLY LYING ABOUT here, THIS TIME?

D

YET it was the one KNOWN here as "atla" who MADE THE CLAIM that 'the brain' CREATED 'the mind'.

D

WHO and/or what IS 'the you' here, EXACTLY?

Finally something somewhat on topic, although you're still just asking me questions and not doing any of the refuting that you should be doing. Plus the answer to this one should be obvious too.
Here the 'you' was just refering to the human lying in a bed, without an active mind. So there isn't really anyone there in the mental sense, the 'you' was rather metaphorical.

LOL I, ONCE AGAIN, NEVER EVEN THOUGHT, LET ALONE SAID, IMPLIED, NOR WROTE, what 'you' thought or BELIEVED I did here.

I SUGGEST, ONCE AGAIN, 'you' ACTUALLY READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I ACTUALLY USED, WHILE LOOKING AT 'them' FROM A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, NEXT TIME.

I do NOT EXPECT 'you', posters, here to ALSO NOTICE the ACTUAL NUANCES in NOT just MY WORDS but ALSO IN 'your OWN words' here, YET. BUT, STILL BEING SO ABSOLUTELY CLOSED and BLIND I 'thought'/was hoping would have SOMEWHAT STARTED TO WEAR OFF, BY 'now'.

BUT, PLEASE KEEP LOOKING and SEEING 'the way' 'you' ARE and HAVE BEEN "atla".

D

SO, HOW, EXACTLY, HAS the Universe, Itself, SUPPOSEDLY, BECOME MORE 'complex' 'now', with 'you', human beings, IN 'It'?

M, D

SO, TO 'you', DIFFERENT PARTS OF the Universe ARE IN DIFFERENT STATES, AND AT DIFFERENT 'times' AS WELL, right?

Yes, although I think it's probable that the universe is ultimately indivisible in space and time. Depends on how we view it. Ultimately it's probably all one.

Okay. AND, SOME WOULD SAY that 'you' CLAIMING that 'I am addicted to my beliefs' is about one of the MOST PERFECT examples of what is commonly referred to as, 'PROJECTION', ITSELF, here.

D

WILL 'you' 'now' PROVIDE A, peer-reviewed, textbook that STATES, There is 'like total evidence' that 'the mind', itself, IS 'physical'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, 'that textbook' does NOT even have to include the 'like total' words, neither.

I won't because ALL the known evidence in science is about the mind being physical. It's your job to show that that's not the case somehow. I still have no idea how you intend to do it.

Oh, in case 'you' MISSED 'it', when I SAID, 'some of these people', I MEANT 'you', SPECIFICALLY, here "atla"

D

ARE 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE that ALL of 'science' AND 'psychology' IS 'consistent' WITH 'your' OWN MADE UP CLAIM here?

D

ALSO, 'science' AND 'psychology', ONCE MORE, and NOT 'things' in and of themselves that KNOW absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL. AS I WAS SAYING and EXPLAINING, EARLIER. ONLY 'you', human beings, DO 'science' AND 'psychology', AND 'you', older human beings, ARE OBVIOUSLY FALLIBLE.

D

'you' ARE YET TO PROVIDE one SHRED OF 'evidence'. WHICH I WOULD OBVIOUSLY NEED BEFORE I EVEN BEGAN TO SEE IF 'it' WAS REFUTABLE, or NOT.

D

SO, WHERE IS, and WHAT IS, the 'evidence', which 'we' ALL, SUPPOSEDLY, HAVE, EXACTLY?

D

BUT what does the 'you' here word REFER TO, EXACTLY?

you as that mind

WHY do 'you' STILL HOLD 'this ASSUMPTION and BELIEF' of 'yours' here?

AND, WHY EXPRESS this BELIEF of 'yours' here 'now'?

I just MENTIONED and POINTED OUT that 'you' are NOT OPEN TO LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' in ANY OTHER WAY than 'the way' 'you' have been doing here, SO FAR.

D

BUT IN NONE OF 'them' IS STATES that There IS 'evidence' that 'the mind' IS 'physical', NOT that 'the mind' EVOLVED, NOR that 'the mind' was CREATED by 'the brain', NOR that 'the mind' is PARTS OF a few organs of 'the human body', NOR that 'the human body' NEEDS 'the mind' FOR 'the human body's' survival. Well NOT that I could FIND and SEE.

Will 'you' DIRECT 'us' TO WHERE in ANY of 'those books' there ARE ABSOLUTELY ANY WORDS that SAY or STATE the 'things' that 'you' have been here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

D

But, 'you' have SAID 'this' at A PREVIOUS 'time' have 'you' NOT?

M

BECAUSE NONE OF 'it' MAKES SENSE, TO 'me'. Now that is WHY.

And, when 'you' continually SAY and STATE 'it's completely basic' does 'this' HELP 'you' in 'your' ATTEMPT TO 'try to' "justify" 'your very OWN BELIEFS' here?

D

AGAIN, I AM, SUPPOSEDLY, BLATANTLY LYING ABOUT 'what', EXACTLY?

What 'you' ACTUALLY SAID and STATED here IS, OBVIOUSLY, WRITTEN ABOVE, literally, IN 'your OWN words'.

D

So, TO 'you';

1. ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS IS NOT WANTING TO UNDERSTAND. And,

2. What 'you' ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE IS above here IN 'this thread'. So, WHO IS ACTUALLY BEING Dishonest here IS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

D

AH OKAY.

SO, "atla" ACTUALLY DOES NOT YET KNOW 'what' the ACTUAL Truth IS here. Which, OBVIOUSLY, MEANS that what "atla" CALLS 'common knowledge' here COULD BE JUST False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, JUST LIKE the previous so-called 'common knowledge' that the sun revolves around the earth was ALSO JUST False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

D

Okay. BUT, AGAIN, HOW, EXACTLY could an OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTION EVERY BE Correctly PERCEIVED as being ANY sort of DISHONESTY, let alone UTTER and TOTAL DISHONESTY?

D

ALSO, I NEVER ASKED ABOUT 'absolutely believing', as can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED TRUE. I ASKED ABOUT, 'believing, absolutely'.

Which IS OBVIOUSLY VERY DIFFERENT. BUT, JUST AS OBVIOUS IS that SOME WILL NOT RECOGNIZE NOR NOTICE 'this nuance'.

As "atla" may well PROVE 'me' True, ONCE MORE here.

D

BUT 'It' IS ALREADY KNOWN. Though, OBVIOUSLY, TO some, in the days when this was being written, 'It' WAS STILL JUST UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOWN.

D

Is that all? Where is your proof that humans don't have individual minds, which was the subject?

[Age]

Let's skip the dishonest (D) parts and/or the misunderstandings (M)

Okay.

you shouldn't have made. I'm more interested in the actual topic, not in the many ways you try to not discuss it and insult.

Have I STARTED A DEBATE here?

If yes, WHEN and WHERE, EXACTLY?

Misunderstanding

Also, was the one who started expressing, 'Actually the earth revolves around the sun, and NOT the other way around', which could be said to be some kind of 'special knowledge' compared to the 'commonly used words', BACK in the days when that was being talked ABOUT and WRITTEN, an 'honest person' or a 'dishonest person', to 'you', "atla"?

Dishonesty

Maybe by 'you'.

Dishonesty

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' FAIL ABSOLUTELY TO ELABORATE AND CLARIFY, and JUST RESORT BACK TO CALLING 'me' A LIAR.

Dishonesty

BUT 'what' is, supposedly, VERY CLEAR there? That 'the mind' is A CREATION of 'the brain', or that 'the mind' JUST EVOLVED?

WHEN, and IF, 'you' EVER CLARIFY, then what 'you' ARE SAYING, and CLAIMING, CAN THEN, and ONLY THEN, be VERY CLEAR here.

Dishonesty

BUT, HOW, EXACTLY?

'you' have ALREADY ADMITTED that 'the mind' came AFTER 'the human body' was ALREADY EXISTING, GROWING, AND SURVIVING.

D

ABOUT 'what' ALLEGEDLY AND SUPPOSEDLY?

AND, WHY do you ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT 'me' LYING and/or CLAIM THAT I AM LYING but do NOR go INTO DETAIL ABOUT what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which I am SUPPOSEDLY LYING ABOUT?

D

SEE HOW 'you' have DONE 'this' MAKING ACCUSATIONS and CLAIMS BUT NOT EXPLAINING WHAT 'it' IS that 'you' are even talking ABOUT, EXACTLY?

Also, what 'you' ARE SAYING and ASKING here would be like ASKING the one who IS TELLING THE REST ABOUT, HOW, ACTUALLY THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN', WHY don't you know or pretend not to know about these ABSOLUTELY BASIC issues, which are common knowledge, (that is; the sun revolves around the earth).

"atla" 'you' STILL seem to NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTAND and COMPREHEND that A LOT OF what WAS so-called 'common knowledge' ENDS UP BEING JUST PLAIN OLD False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

D

ABOUT 'what' EXACTLY?

'you' CLAIMS, LITERALLY, 'fall on DEAF ears', IF and WHEN 'you' do NOT ADD the NECESSARY DETAIL.

D

HOW COULD AN OPEN QUESTION, ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION, and CLARITY, BE:

1. A LIE?

2. A BLATANT DISHONEST LIE? And,

3. AN ACCUSATION?

'you' seem to be ABSOLUTELY Truly LOST and CONFUSED here sometimes "atla".

Misunderstanding, Dishonesty

As I SAID and MENTIONED EARLIER so-called 'common knowledge', at particular times throughout human history, CAN and DOES END UP BEING JUST Wrong.

BUT, to 'you', NONE of the so-called 'common knowledge', in the days when this is being written, could be Wrong, right "atla"?

D

ALSO, 'your' ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTION and DISTRACTION here, ONCE AGAIN, does NOT GO UNNOTICED.

D

MAYBE ONE DAY 'you' WILL PROVIDE the name of A textbook or two, which ALIGNS WITH 'your' OVER VERY SPECIFIC VIEWS here.

Which, by the way, 'you' STILL HAVE NOT YET CLARIFIED and STRAIGHTENED OUT.

D

What, EXACTLY, is SUPPOSEDLY, 'completely incorrect'? And, what am I, EXACTLY, SUPPOSEDLY, BLATANTLY LYING ABOUT here, THIS TIME?

D

YET it was the one KNOWN here as "atla" who MADE THE CLAIM that 'the brain' CREATED 'the mind'.

D

WHO and/or what IS 'the you' here, EXACTLY?

Finally something somewhat on topic, although you're still just asking me questions and not doing any of the refuting that you should be doing. Plus the answer to this one should be obvious too.
Here the 'you' was just refering to the human lying in a bed, without an active mind. So there isn't really anyone there in the mental sense, the 'you' was rather metaphorical.

LOL I, ONCE AGAIN, NEVER EVEN THOUGHT, LET ALONE SAID, IMPLIED, NOR WROTE, what 'you' thought or BELIEVED I did here.

I SUGGEST, ONCE AGAIN, 'you' ACTUALLY READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I ACTUALLY USED, WHILE LOOKING AT 'them' FROM A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, NEXT TIME.

I do NOT EXPECT 'you', posters, here to ALSO NOTICE the ACTUAL NUANCES in NOT just MY WORDS but ALSO IN 'your OWN words' here, YET. BUT, STILL BEING SO ABSOLUTELY CLOSED and BLIND I 'thought'/was hoping would have SOMEWHAT STARTED TO WEAR OFF, BY 'now'.

BUT, PLEASE KEEP LOOKING and SEEING 'the way' 'you' ARE and HAVE BEEN "atla".

D

SO, HOW, EXACTLY, HAS the Universe, Itself, SUPPOSEDLY, BECOME MORE 'complex' 'now', with 'you', human beings, IN 'It'?

M, D

SO, TO 'you', DIFFERENT PARTS OF the Universe ARE IN DIFFERENT STATES, AND AT DIFFERENT 'times' AS WELL, right?

Yes, although I think it's probable that the universe is ultimately indivisible in space and time. Depends on how we view it. Ultimately it's probably all one.

Okay. AND, SOME WOULD SAY that 'you' CLAIMING that 'I am addicted to my beliefs' is about one of the MOST PERFECT examples of what is commonly referred to as, 'PROJECTION', ITSELF, here.

D

WILL 'you' 'now' PROVIDE A, peer-reviewed, textbook that STATES, There is 'like total evidence' that 'the mind', itself, IS 'physical'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, 'that textbook' does NOT even have to include the 'like total' words, neither.

I won't because ALL the known evidence in science is about the mind being physical. It's your job to show that that's not the case somehow. I still have no idea how you intend to do it.

Oh, in case 'you' MISSED 'it', when I SAID, 'some of these people', I MEANT 'you', SPECIFICALLY, here "atla"

D

ARE 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE that ALL of 'science' AND 'psychology' IS 'consistent' WITH 'your' OWN MADE UP CLAIM here?

D

ALSO, 'science' AND 'psychology', ONCE MORE, and NOT 'things' in and of themselves that KNOW absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL. AS I WAS SAYING and EXPLAINING, EARLIER. ONLY 'you', human beings, DO 'science' AND 'psychology', AND 'you', older human beings, ARE OBVIOUSLY FALLIBLE.

D

'you' ARE YET TO PROVIDE one SHRED OF 'evidence'. WHICH I WOULD OBVIOUSLY NEED BEFORE I EVEN BEGAN TO SEE IF 'it' WAS REFUTABLE, or NOT.

D

SO, WHERE IS, and WHAT IS, the 'evidence', which 'we' ALL, SUPPOSEDLY, HAVE, EXACTLY?

D

BUT what does the 'you' here word REFER TO, EXACTLY?

you as that mind

WHY do 'you' STILL HOLD 'this ASSUMPTION and BELIEF' of 'yours' here?

AND, WHY EXPRESS this BELIEF of 'yours' here 'now'?

I just MENTIONED and POINTED OUT that 'you' are NOT OPEN TO LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' in ANY OTHER WAY than 'the way' 'you' have been doing here, SO FAR.

D

BUT IN NONE OF 'them' IS STATES that There IS 'evidence' that 'the mind' IS 'physical', NOT that 'the mind' EVOLVED, NOR that 'the mind' was CREATED by 'the brain', NOR that 'the mind' is PARTS OF a few organs of 'the human body', NOR that 'the human body' NEEDS 'the mind' FOR 'the human body's' survival. Well NOT that I could FIND and SEE.

Will 'you' DIRECT 'us' TO WHERE in ANY of 'those books' there ARE ABSOLUTELY ANY WORDS that SAY or STATE the 'things' that 'you' have been here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

D

But, 'you' have SAID 'this' at A PREVIOUS 'time' have 'you' NOT?

M

BECAUSE NONE OF 'it' MAKES SENSE, TO 'me'. Now that is WHY.

And, when 'you' continually SAY and STATE 'it's completely basic' does 'this' HELP 'you' in 'your' ATTEMPT TO 'try to' "justify" 'your very OWN BELIEFS' here?

D

AGAIN, I AM, SUPPOSEDLY, BLATANTLY LYING ABOUT 'what', EXACTLY?

What 'you' ACTUALLY SAID and STATED here IS, OBVIOUSLY, WRITTEN ABOVE, literally, IN 'your OWN words'.

D

So, TO 'you';

1. ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS IS NOT WANTING TO UNDERSTAND. And,

2. What 'you' ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE IS above here IN 'this thread'. So, WHO IS ACTUALLY BEING Dishonest here IS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

D

AH OKAY.

SO, "atla" ACTUALLY DOES NOT YET KNOW 'what' the ACTUAL Truth IS here. Which, OBVIOUSLY, MEANS that what "atla" CALLS 'common knowledge' here COULD BE JUST False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, JUST LIKE the previous so-called 'common knowledge' that the sun revolves around the earth was ALSO JUST False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

D

Okay. BUT, AGAIN, HOW, EXACTLY could an OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTION EVERY BE Correctly PERCEIVED as being ANY sort of DISHONESTY, let alone UTTER and TOTAL DISHONESTY?

D

ALSO, I NEVER ASKED ABOUT 'absolutely believing', as can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED TRUE. I ASKED ABOUT, 'believing, absolutely'.

Which IS OBVIOUSLY VERY DIFFERENT. BUT, JUST AS OBVIOUS IS that SOME WILL NOT RECOGNIZE NOR NOTICE 'this nuance'.

As "atla" may well PROVE 'me' True, ONCE MORE here.

D

BUT 'It' IS ALREADY KNOWN. Though, OBVIOUSLY, TO some, in the days when this was being written, 'It' WAS STILL JUST UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOWN.

D

Is that all? Where is your proof that humans don't have individual minds, which was the subject?

[Peter Kropotkin]

So now you're ignoring me becuz I ignore u? That's not fair, Age.

K: be grateful that AGE is ignoring you...

BUT I NEVER 'ignored' "promethean75".

Some people just EXPECT to be LISTENED TO, and ACKNOWLEDGED, here 'right away', WITHOUT EVER ONCE considering that the "other" MIGHT JUST BE DOING SOME 'thing' ELSE.

he/she/it is a blithering idiot...

Okay. What 'we' have here is ANOTHER one who HAS 'me' AS A "BLITHERING IDIOT".

throwing magnetic words on a refrigerator would create more
intelligent answers... monkeys throwing shit at a wall would create
something more intelligent than anything AGE has written..

Kropotkin

'This' IS HOW some people SAW 'things' BACK THEN.

JUST LIKE HOW some people SAW 'the one' who was JUST SAYING that ACTUALLY it is the earth that revolves around the sun as being A "BLITHERING IDIOT", AS WELL.

K: I love it when someone proves my point..

Kropotkin