Do thoughts affect reality?

[Age]

Can you move the electrons of your brain?

What are you asking? When you move your head you move all the electrons in every atom of your head, including those in your brain.

"bahman" is NOT asking a question in the hope that someone will provide an answer to that question.

"bahman" is just asking a question, with the BELIEF that that question could NOT be answered, which then reaffirms, to "bahman", that what "bahman" ALREADY BELIEVES is true, is MORE true.

Perhaps you are asking how consciousness determines physical behavior, demanding some simple answer. There is an answer, but it is not simple,

But the answer is EXTREMELY SIMPLE. Just like Life, Itself, which IS EXTREMELY SIMPLE, Itself.

Also, what is that, supposed, "not simple" answer here?

but I will point out you are making a baseless assumption. You have no idea how anything moves any electron.

HOW do 'you' KNOW this?

So let me ask you a question. How does one electron repel another electron? No one knows.

Could it be like how the Universe, Itself? works. The answer to how thee Universe works, by the way, is EXTREMELY SIMPLE.

can only describe the phenomenon, in terms of, "fields," but what a field actually is, no one really knows. Since we don't know how electrons cause other electrons to move at the physical level, it's a bit of stretch to insist one explain how consciousness moves electrons, isn't it?

But that 'insistence', like I was saying, is only done because that one BELIEVES NO one can explain how consciousness moves electrons, and therefore, to that one, what they ALREADY BELIEVE is true, is now "more substantially true".

How does one mass cause another mass to move toward it? It is known masses attract one another and that behavior is called gravity, but what gravity is and how it works is not really known.

But, just like how one electron repels another electron, is ALREADY KNOWN, so to how one mass causes another mass to attract and move towards it, is ALREADY KNOW, as well. But, obviously, just NOT by 'you', YET.

we don't know how one mass makes another mass move.

When, and if, 'you', learn how thee Universe, Itself, works, then you will also understand, and know, how one mass makes another mass move.

Also, who, or what, does the 'we' word refer to here?

It is enough for science to simply accept it does what it does.

'Science', itself, does NOT accept, NOR reject, ANY thing. Only 'you', human beings, accept or reject things.

How does consciousness cause an electron, or atom, or anything else to move? Probably in some way analagous to gravity, electromagnetism, or electron charge, but like all of physics, it is enough to know it happens.

Once 'you' learn and understand WHAT 'consciousness' IS, then 'you' will be MUCH CLOSER to learning AND understanding HOW 'consciousness' works, and what 'it' can do, and achieve.

[Terrapin Station]

The way that the matter behaves.

So matter doesn't obey the laws of physics?

Matter behaves according to the laws of physics. Not all sorts of matter are conscious like you in materialism. So they follow instead of obeying.

Sure, "follow" instead of "obey." So we're back to whether what matter is following is itself--part of matter somehow, or whether it's something else, in which case we need to figure out what else.

[Age]

I didn’t go into the nature of the self/perceiver, and it’s relationship to all of this, because it tends to make things more complicated, but since you asked, I will elucidate as best I can.

The organism has awareness. This is as close as we can get to the subject. Awareness is not an entity. It is more of a faculty, or even facilitator.

Awareness is the common thread between all elements, known and unknown, between felt intentions, perceptions, and resulting behaviours, and indeed thoughts.

Awareness does not produce thoughts, nor intentions. Awareness, could be analogous to a “public accessway” for all information. It allows the transfer of information relating to perceptions, to systems involved in setting up behaviours. Not all information must pass through it to be used, some information can easily pass between perception and behaviour, if the perceptual information is predictable enough, and the required behaviours are simple enough. But, awareness is there ready and waiting to accept anything which goes beyond this simple stimulus response system. As such, awareness is the common feed to the rest of the system, especially the conceptual, and thus, thought.

But, again, awareness is passive in this respect, it allows broad communication.

Of course, because there is a need to represent the organism, both to itself, and in relation to the world, and other possible organisms, there must be a representation of the organism itself, as producer of action, as sufferer of pains, and seeker of pleasures, as producer of thoughts etc. This is a representation, but, awareness essentially “wears” this “self system”, and thus, takes on the role of agent, yet, it is purely symbolic. But, the self system is still effective in producing and limiting behaviours depending on the situation. The self system is very much tied up to the conceptual side of things, and takes on certain conceptual patterns, which might be called beliefs. The self system is not wholly self contained nor self generated, it exists as part of the broader system, and thus, all the controlling factors and limitations it imposes are determined and caused.

The self system also entails the bodily perception, and thus is strongly tied to the organism. Thus the self system aims to ensure the organism remains in favourable conditions.

The true knower of all knowledge, is itself the knowledge. There is no knower separate from the known. But, the self system assumes the role of knower, again, for purposes of working as a social being, to communicate concepts to others and to itself, that is, to its own conceptual system.

I would say, when a series of concepts arises, and becomes translated into thought, and thus knowledge, the self system recognises this knowledge, and assumes the role of knower, but it is a false knower of something which itself is knowing. Again, I explained prior why this is necessary.

I do agree with a lot you say (eg that "There is no knower separate from the known"), but your description seems very complicated...
It's a bit like someone asking you to describe a car - you can either simply state: "It has four wheels, seats, a motor and a steering wheel - one can use it to drive from A to B" - or you can go into all sorts of details about the technical makeup, its specific qualities and use cases etc etc... while the first explanation makes it clear what a car is good for, the second explanation might be interesting for a technician, but the average person might still have no clue what a car might even look like or what it can be used for...

I think – especially when discussing topics of awareness/consciousness, perception and thought - we tend to get lost in complicated theories rather than stating it in all its simplicity. Simplicity comes from describing what is actually directly experienced:
I do not experience a “public accessway” for all information. I simply experience color, sound, smell, taste, touch and thought - that's all. While I do experience thought, I do not experience what conceptual thought might be "creating" (eg: any sort of object or thing - including a self or other; any sort of division, border or separation).

But, yes, sure, a separate, personal self is something that seems necessary for social interaction - but when we look for this self in our own direct experience (or rather: when simply observing the flow of thought and perceptions)... it is nowhere to be found... (by the way: we could also call this silent witness: "awareness" - it "exists" (not as a thing) as long as there is experiencing happening)
Finding out that the separate self is actually not real (at least not based on directly experienced "reality") the question arises: Is this self really necessary for social interaction or is it only something we believe in and that we could do without? Something that is not more than a persistent thought stating "I like/dislike/love/hate/want..."?
What happens when we stop to believe? Will "we" die? Or will we actually live better once the belief is seen through...?

That’s fair enough. I do agree I sometimes go into detail. As far as if it’s too much, that depends on the person and what they want to know. For me, I dislike simplified answers which “gloss over” important technical complexities and interrelations. I think much of that detail is where the mystery hides, so to neglect it, is to essentially keep the mystery mysterious.

But just saying a lot of words is NOT necessarily expressing, NOR explaining, 'detail.

And sometimes, it’s in those mysterious, uninvestigated, undefined areas, that people lay their claims in regards to what’s true. But again, it depends on what you really want to know.

I want to know about our consciousness,

If 'you' REALLY want to know about 'our' consciousness, then 'you' have to first tell 'us', in detail, or just simply, who and/or what the 'our' refers to here?

So, who and/or what is the 'we' here?

and the way it interfaces with our organism.

Again, who and/or what is this 'our' who, or what, owns or has an organism?

To really know about those things, I think, requires us to both investigate, and possibly build new understandings, as we are not currently at a full understanding of these relationships.

Are 'you' including 'me' in this 'we'? Because if 'you' are, then let 'me' inform 'you' that 'I' ALREADY, or currently, have a FULL understanding of those relationships. Or, are 'you' just referring to 'you', "dimebag", and "alexw" here?

To do that, requires much fleshing out, much trial and of course error. It requires both the exploration of what we currently know, and the extending via creativity into the unknown, and then to test these ideas critically and sceptically.

Or, there is, of course the OTHER way.

[Age]

I'm sure you can't. That's because you assume the physical attributes of perceivable existence are all the possible natural attributes there are.

Dead wrong. I don't assume that at all.

You say, on the one hand, that consciousness is not supernatural, but a few sentences later, that there are consciousness properties that are not physical. How can you get both? It seems to me that if something is real-but-not-merely-physical, it's what we really mean definitionally by "super-natural." ...

I'm sorry I have no idea what you mean. If you say you don't assume at all that the physical attributes are all the possible natural attributes why couldn't anything that was, "not-merely-physical", (having non-physical attributes) not be perfectly natural?If you are not equating the meaning of the words, "natural," and, "physical," then I have no idea what your objection is.

All I'm saying is that the physical attributes are not the only attributes of the natural existence. What I mean is that there is a perfectly natural, ontological, or material existence independent of human knowledge or consciousness that has the attributes of the physical, life, and consciousness. The physical is all of that natural existence that can be directly consciously perceived and is studied by the physical sciences. Life and consciousness can only be known directly by those organisms with those attributes, but cannot be directly perceived or studied by the physical sciences. Thus, there is a hierarchy of ontological existence, physical entities (with all the physical properties), organisms (entities with all the physical properties and the additional property of life), and conscious organisms ( entities with all the physical and life properties, and the additional property of consciousness). All perfectly natural.

I cannot see how it can be insisted that either life or consciousness must be, "supernatural,"

The reason some people insist that either or both life and/or consciousness MUST BE "supernatural" is to 'try to' support their BELIEF that ALL things MUST BE 'physical'.

unless it is insisted the only natural properties of existence are the physical properties; which, of course, is exactly what a physicalist insists. If you insist it, you are a physicalist as well--at least in half your dualistic view of reality.

[Age]

I'm sorry I have no idea what you mean. If you say you don't assume at all that the physical attributes are all the possible natural attributes why couldn't anything that was, "not-merely-physical", (having non-physical attributes) not be perfectly natural?

I see the problem. You're using the word "natural" to mean "real." But the word "supernatural" does not imply "super-real." It means, "not-physical-but-real." (Or at least, " not physical but believed/claimed to be real.")

Is this the One and ONLY meaning of the word 'supernatural'?

Or, is this the meaning that 'you' use?

For example, Cambridge defines it as "caused by forces that cannot be explained by science." Oxford says, "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." (Notice the use of the word "nature" in the latter.) And "Naturalism" is the belief that there is no real thing that exists beyond such understandings and laws.

It appears you and I agree that there are things that materials and science cannot explain, but are nevertheless real.

Like 'what', exactly, for example?

That might sound necessarily spooky, at first, like belief in metaphysical beings; but not when we consider that it includes such things as rationality, choice, identity, consciousness, mind, logic, mathematical quantities, and abstractions....then we can understand your claim that such things are "natural," meaning no more than "they occur for everyone, automatically, as part of reality." And in that much, I would agree.

[RCSaunders]

Once 'you' learn and understand WHAT 'consciousness' IS, ...

I have never not known what consciousness is.

[Age]

Is there ANY evidence that ANY thing is supernatural? Remembering the fact that 'we' have NOT agreed upon and accepted a definition for the word 'supernatural', YET.

What you agree to is irrelevant.

To who?

If you choose to understand what I mean you will have to accept my definition of the words I use as I use them, however you choose to define them.

What do you mean by, "If you choose to understand what I mean"?

I just POINTED OUT the FACT that 'we' have NOT agreed upon and accepted A definition for the word 'supernatural', YET.

If 'we' WANT to have a discussion, then 'we' NEED to agree upon and accept THE definitions for the words 'we' are going to use.

Unless, OF COURSE, 'you' do NOT want to have a discussion and just prefer to talk and be heard, ONLY.

What I mean by, "supernatural," is any supposed thing (phenomenon) for which there is no evidence whatsoever, that must therefore just be, "assumed," or based on some supposed mystical source of knowledge requiring neither evidence or reason to learn.

So, for example, to 'you', 'thoughts' are "supernatural". This is because you make the claim that 'thoughts have no physical properties', for which you have NO evidence whatsoever for.

All that is called supernatural is fiction.

You claim that, "thoughts have NO physical properties" MUST BE 'supernatural' then, and thus fiction.

It exists only as imagined or invented things like centaurs, the phoenix, and Utopia.

'Thoughts have NO physical properties' exists only as imagined and assumed, and therefore, according to your own "logic" is supernatural.

The supernatural is that which does not exist at all except as concepts for these imaginary unreal things.

EXACTLY like the CLAIM that 'thoughts have NO physical properties', correct?

God's and spirits are the most common of these, "supernatural," fictions.

So, let us makes this VERY LOUD and VERY CLEAR here:

What 'you', "rcsaunders", mean by the word 'supernatural' is;
ANY supposed thing (phenomenon) for which there is no evidence whatsoever, that must therefore just be, "assumed," or based on some supposed mystical source of knowledge requiring neither evidence or reason to learn.

Which translates to;

What is 'supernatural' is what "rcsaunders" BELIEVES does NOT exist, and what is NOT 'supernatural' is what "rcsaunders" BELIEVES does exist. Is this true, right, and correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[RCSaunders]

What is 'supernatural' is what "rcsaunders" BELIEVES does NOT exist, and what is NOT 'supernatural' is what "rcsaunders" BELIEVES does exist. Is this true, right, and correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?

What I write is what I know.

[bahman]

So matter doesn't obey the laws of physics?

Matter behaves according to the laws of physics. Not all sorts of matter are conscious like you in materialism. So they follow instead of obeying.

Sure, "follow" instead of "obey." So we're back to whether what matter is following is itself--part of matter somehow, or whether it's something else, in which case we need to figure out what else.

Matter becomes like you, a conscious agent if what it does is according to its feeling. Otherwise, it is blind. Which one do you believe?

[bahman]

Once 'you' learn and understand WHAT 'consciousness' IS, ...

I have never not known what consciousness is.

Consciousness is the state of being aware.

[AlexW]

That’s fair enough. I do agree I sometimes go into detail. As far as if it’s too much, that depends on the person and what they want to know. For me, I dislike simplified answers which “gloss over” important technical complexities and interrelations. I think much of that detail is where the mystery hides, so to neglect it, is to essentially keep the mystery mysterious. And sometimes, it’s in those mysterious, uninvestigated, undefined areas, that people lay their claims in regards to what’s true. But again, it depends on what you really want to know.

Yes, sorry if I came across as unappreciative or even unfriendly - of course everyone should explain as they feel fit.

I want to know about our consciousness, and the way it interfaces with our organism. To really know about those things, I think, requires us to both investigate, and possibly build new understandings, as we are not currently at a full understanding of these relationships. To do that, requires much fleshing out, much trial and of course error. It requires both the exploration of what we currently know, and the extending via creativity into the unknown, and then to test these ideas critically and sceptically.

As I see it, all such investigation could be compared to a dream character investigating the dream for its origin - it's perfectly impossible to find this origin within the dream. All the dream character can "do" is analyse the dream and build a more or less complicated set of beliefs, ideas and theories about its workings (what we call physical laws based on scientific observations), but doing so the origin or foundation will forever be hidden from him. At least as long as he sees himself - and all other objects of the dream - as a separate individual who is the doer of actions, thinker of thoughts and holder of beliefs.
Only when the dream character realises that he itself is just a dreamt up illusion (not more than a stubborn belief) will the "mystery" be revealed, but not to him, as he himself - a misguided belief - is what made boundless reality appear as a mystery of separation.

[RCSaunders]

Consciousness is the state of being aware.

Of what?

[bahman]

Consciousness is the state of being aware.

Of what?

Surrounding.

[Age]

I do agree with a lot you say (eg that "There is no knower separate from the known"),

Although there is truth in this, there is still a LOT MORE to explain, and understand, in how this is ACTUALLY True. However, there is still a Knower, with a label, which VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY describes and explains this 'Thing', which KNOWS ALL, PERFECTLY.

but your description seems very complicated...
It's a bit like someone asking you to describe a car - you can either simply state: "It has four wheels, seats, a motor and a steering wheel - one can use it to drive from A to B" - or you can go into all sorts of details about the technical makeup, its specific qualities and use cases etc etc... while the first explanation makes it clear what a car is good for, the second explanation might be interesting for a technician, but the average person might still have no clue what a car might even look like or what it can be used for...

Here is a good reminder of how to obtain a description, or clarity, of some thing. Description, and clarity, can only be given, more accurately, AFTER people ask 'you' a specific question.

I think – especially when discussing topics of awareness/consciousness, perception and thought - we tend to get lost in complicated theories rather than stating it in all its simplicity. Simplicity comes from describing what is actually directly experienced:

Quite simply, WHY 'you', human beings, find it difficult and/or complicated to explain, describe, and/or understand topics of awareness/consciousness, perception and thought is because 'you' still do NOT YET FULLY KNOW who and what thee 'I' IS, which is what IS actually directly experiencing. Or, in other words, 'you' still do NOT YET KNOW who, and what, thee Awareness IS.

I do not experience a “public accessway” for all information. I simply experience color, sound, smell, taste, touch and thought - that's all. While I do experience thought, I do not experience what conceptual thought might be "creating" (eg: any sort of object or thing - including a self or other; any sort of division, border or separation).

Until who and what thee 'I' ACTUALLY IS is known and understood, FULLY, who and/or what, do 'you' think, creates, or causes, the behavior of the human body?

If conceptual thought is NOT creating an illusioned, or a real, perception of 'self', division, border, or separation, then WHY do 'you', human beings, INSIST that these 'things' ACTUALLY exist? Or, for those who do NOT insist these 'things' ACTUALLY exist, then WHY is the 'I' word used, like 'It' is a separate self?

But, yes, sure, a separate, personal self is something that seems necessary for social interaction - but when we look for this self in our own direct experience (or rather: when simply observing the flow of thought and perceptions)... it is nowhere to be found... (by the way: we could also call this silent witness: "awareness" - it "exists" (not as a thing) as long as there is experiencing happening)

If there is NOT 'experiencing happening', then does 'it' exist, (as a thing)?

Also, did 'you' notice 'you' have used the words 'we' and 'our own', which infers, or at least implies, there is a 'self'?

Finding out that the separate self is actually not real

Does saying, "Finding out that the separate self is actually not real", really make sense?

Saying, "Finding out that 'the separate self' ...", infers that there was a 'separate self' to begin with, which, obviously, there never is.

(at least not based on directly experienced "reality") the question arises: Is this self really necessary for social interaction or is it only something we believe in and that we could do without?

The reason 'you', human beings, believe there is a 'self', and separated ones at that, is because of, and due to, the exact same reason 'you' come to believe anything. 'you' were taught 'this', was true, during your past experiences.

And, when the word 'we' is used, like above, does that word refer to individual different and separate 'selves', thee One unified 'Self', or some thing 'else'?

By the way, once that 'self' has been gotten rid of, or let go of, then the sooner the better. 'We' can then move on progressively and sufficiently towards a much better existence.

Something that is not more than a persistent thought stating "I like/dislike/love/hate/want..."?
What happens when we stop to believe? Will "we" die? Or will we actually live better once the belief is seen through...?

WHY do 'you', adult human beings, even bother believing ANY thing?

@Age: I am not sure why you reply to this post... it wasn't directed at you.

So that you are sure, the reason why I replied to that post was so that my replies are here to be seen, and heard, and, literally, used for future reference.

By the way: The reason why "'we', human beings" use the words "I", "you" and "we", is because proper use of language dictates it

Considering the fact that language changes and evolves the word 'proper' in relation to 'language' is VERY relative, and subjective.

Also, considering the fact that 'you', human beings, in the days when this was written can NOT accurately and properly define 'Who 'I' am', nor 'who 'you' and 'we' are, then the term, 'proper usage', seems to be a very improper term here.

- otherwise we would all sound as if we didn't know how to use language properly (which is how you come across at times

I am very glad I do. This is because when 'you', adult human beings, begin to start learning how to LISTEN PROPERLY, then 'you' will SEE just how much improper use of words and definitions (language) you ALL do use.

For 1;

'you', human beings, have been asked for millennia for the proper and correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I''. YET, that answer is still UNKNOWN, to 'you'. Therefore, when ANY one of 'you' uses thee 'I' word, then it sounds EXACTLY like 'you' do NOT, YET, KNOW how to use language properly.

I still await clarity on who and what 'I' am, from the human being perspective.

you mentioned previously that you are here to "learn how to communicate more efficiently" ... well... using the words "I", "you" and "we" is an essential part of it)

It may well be. So, explain WHY 'you', human beings, in the days when this is written can NOT define 'Who 'I' am', YET?

By the way, some of what 'I' want to communicate more efficiently, with 'you', human beings, is EXACTLY who and what the 'I', the 'you', the 'we're IS, ACTUALLY.

Remember that it is 'you', human beings, who are still confused and still looking for the answers. I am just learning how to communicate HOW ALL of 'you' can find the answers by, and for, "yourselves", 'more efficiently'.

[Age]

There is only One who 'knows'. This One is thee Mind, of which there is only One, and One only.

How this One 'knows', for sure, is through agreement of ALL ("ourselves"). The word 'our-selves' refers to the collective of ALL, which is just this One's, (our), selves and, the word 'selves' just refers to all the illusioned, separated selfs, as discussed in nondualistic conversations. The separate 'selfs', (in the illusion) just refers to people, or human beings.

OK, agree - even I would use the word "consciousness" instead of "thee Mind" - but I guess "mind" is just equally valid.

Well considering the fact that in the year when this was written what the actual definitions were for the words 'mind' and 'consciousness' were still being "debated" and hotly contested, then being 'valid' or 'not valid' was still extremely relative.

Once what thee Mind IS, is actually worked out and understood, then how thee Mind and the brain actually work also becomes understood, and then what consciousness actually IS also becomes KNOWN.

Many Buddhist texts use three Sanskrit words: manas ('mental power' or 'mental faculty'), vijñāna ('consciousness faculty') and citta ('mind' or 'thought') - all together commonly translated into English as "mind"...

This is A reason and helps in explaining WHY human beings were still so confused and still in wonderment and looking for thee answers in the days when this was written.

I would also add that "this One 'knows'" not only through "people", but through everything that exists (animals, plants etc...) - simply because everything is it, there is nothing outside it.

Which is EXACTLY what I AGREE WITH and HAVE BEEN SAYING.

Contrary to popular belief, in the days when this was being written, there is NO human mind. There is just One Mind, which, gives human beings, the ability to learn, understand, and reason ANY and EVERY thing.

This Truly OPEN Mind is what allows human beings to continually imagine ANY thing, and thus also be able to create absolutely EVERY thing, hitherto. This (Truly OPEN) Mind is thee Creator, as well as being thee SEER, and KNOWER, of ALL things.

Agree, but I would add that, as a result, it is not really the "human being" who knows and creates - it is the "Mind"

I do NOT recall EVER, within this forum, saying that it is the 'human being' who knows. Unless this can be proven wrong and evidenced within the words under the label "age" here.

Also, how is what is KNOWN shared is just shared through human beings, and their multitude of different languages.

By the way, human beings do create. In fact EVERY thing created by human beings was created through and by human beings/bodies.

creating within itself and knowing only itself (and in the case of conceptual thought: in a dualistic "mirror/illusion of objectivity").

Have you heard me talk about how thee One and ONLy Universe is creating Its Self?

Furthermore, it is through thee One and ONLY Mind how the physical or visible Universe, which is continually changing/evolving, comes to KNOW Thy Self.

At this 'moment', through a continual evolutionary change a physical or visible species has evolved, which it calls itself, 'human being', to have the ability to be able to learn, understand, reason, and share what is INSTINCTIVELY KNOWN.

Thee Truly OPEN Mind is what allows human beings to be able to imagine absolutely ANY, and EVERY, thing, as well as allowing them to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY, and EVERY, thing.

Well, yes, in a way... but it seems to me, that as long as the "Truly OPEN Mind" uses concepts, based on language, in its attempt to "imagine absolutely ANY, and EVERY, thing", it will always come up short of real understanding, which is, to me, non verbal and non conceptual.

OF COURSE, so called, "real understanding" is non verbal and non conceptual to the one individual human being who goes by the name "alexw" in this forum, and this is because REAL UNDERSTANDING is NOT YET KNOWN by "alexw".

But this NEVER means nor even implies that 'you' cannot learn and understand REAL UNDERSTANDING in the future.

If, and when 'you' do 'conceptualize' or KNOW REAL UNDERSTANDING, only then can 'you' VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY verbalise 'IT'.

By the way thee Truly OPEN Mind does NOT "attempt to imagine ANY thing. Thee Truly OPEN Mind KNOWS ANY and EVERY thing, thee Truly OPEN Mind is also what ALLOWS 'you', human beings, to be able to imagine ANY thing.

Sure, this understanding/realisation can again be expressed and communicated using language (which is happening right here, right now), but no matter how well one explains the understanding, it can and will always be misinterpreted (simply because every "person" is really not more than a conditioned collection of memories, beliefs, likes and dislikes etc...

This is VERY TRUE, but only up to a certain point where NO human being 'has to' BELIEVE ANY thing, nor 'has to' like or dislike ANY thing. Of course, the human body, in a sense, likes and dislikes some things, but the human being does NOT necessarily 'have to'.

which color and warp every explanation - no matter how detailed - into something that fits into the person's conceptual framework...

And this is WHY it is ALWAYS much better to speak from thee Mind's perspective ONLY. That way the words/language can NEVER be False, Wrong, Inaccurate NOR Incorrect.

EVERY 'person', human being perspective/view, as you so rightly noted, is nothing more than a conditioned collection of memories. So, for a conditioned set of memories to be a 'perfect set', that is; NEVER be false, wrong, et cetera. then the memories created would have to be of a PERFECT EXISTENCE. Now, has ANY human being, up to the days when this was written, ever had or lived in a perfect existence?

if no, then within EVERY 'person's there will be IMPERFECT False, Wrong, ET cetera views/perspectives. Thus, another reason it is BETTER to NOT look, see, NOR speak, from this 'personal'perspective/view.

I think that the conventional use of language makes it impossible to avoid misunderstandings which again lead to arguments, strife and even war).

So, MAYBE it is TIME to have REALLY GOOD HARD LOOK AT the, so called, "conventional use of language"?

Also, if the "conventional use of language" makes it IMPOSSIBLE to avoid MISUNDERSTANDINGS, which lead to the things you noted, then compare this fact with your previous reply/message to me in regards to how you talked about the, so called, "proper use of language".

In one post you are implying the "proper usage of language" is the right way, but in another post that the "conventional usage of language" is the wrong way.

How do you propose one KNOWS the difference 'proper' and 'conventional' use of language?