Do thoughts affect reality?

[AlexW]

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".

Proper use of language, meaning speaking to people in terms and phrases they might understand.
If you use the words I, me, you and we in a completely different way compared to how they are conventionally used (I or you referring to a body with a brain and thus an individual mind, we referring to multiple such organisms), then you will be misunderstood, no matter how LOUD YOU SHOUT.

[Terrapin Station]

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?

So you're saying that you think everything is conscious and that it obeys its own thought of physical law?

Re me, I'm a physicalist/materialist. Some matter is conscious--human brains, for example. Most is not.

[Age]

I've already said what I think. You don't have to agree.

What is it you think I'm, "arguing," for. It's not my intention. What I'm trying to do is explain what I know is the case, and why, not to convince anyone else. Although I think anyone who really understood what I was saying would see it is obviously true.

Until you provide actual PROOF that thoughts, consciousness, and/or life have NO physical properties AT ALL, then WHY would those who really do understand what you are JUST 'saying', then, supposedly suddenly, 'see' that what you are just saying is obviously true.

...

LOOK, to me, there is absolutely NOTHING that I have seen that shows me that thoughts, for example, have ANY physical properties AT ALL. So, to me, as far as I am aware and know thoughts are NOT physical. However, in saying that I have absolutely NO proof AT ALL for this, therefore I will just REMAIN OPEN.

Why would you or anyone feel they have to seriously consider anything for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Because 'I' or 'we' like to remain OPEN.

Why do you consider that there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that thoughts, consciousness, and/or life could have some physical properties?

Doesn't that leave you open to just anything anyone wants to claim for which there is evidence.

YES, that is the WHOLE POINT of remaining OPEN.

Isn't that the basis for every religion and superstition people embrace--"there's no proof magnets and sticking pins into people will not cure cancer."

But those religious and superstitious peopls have BELIEFS, correct?

All knowledge is always only in the context of that for which there is known evidence.

But even you admit that you have NO evidence whatsoever that thoughts, consciousness, and life have physical properties, correct?

There is always the possibility for the discovery of new evidence of things that have never before been encountered, though they have become much more rare. In light of all we do know there is no evidence that consciousness is physical, or any reason to want it to be.

There is also NO evidence that consciousness is not physical. Unless, of course, you do have some, which you would like to share with 'us'?

Why do so many so desperately want for consciousness to be physical?

But I do NOT know of ANY one who, supposedly, so desperately wants for that.

I think it's because the philosophers have made the mistake of insisting that whatever is not physical is supernatural, that, "physical," means the same as, "natural." But there is no principle that says nature cannot have any properties buy physical properties. As far as I'm concerned, the physicalists are attempting to evade evidence by ignoring their own life and consciousness.

Okay.

'you', "yourself", even wrote;
If someone asserts some phenomenon has some attribute or characteristic or works in some particular way without providing any evidence whatsoever for that assertion beyond one's guess or conjecture, there is no reason to accept that assertion, is there?

Except that I'm not asserting anything. If anything, I'm only denying what other's assert on the basis that there is no evidence for it.

WHAT?

Do you assert that thoughts, consciousness, and/or life have NO physical properties, or not?

[Age]

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".

Proper use of language, meaning speaking to people in terms and phrases they might understand.

So, just about ANY thing could be said, in terms and phrases, and it would be 'proper use of language' because it MIGHT be understood.

If you use the words I, me, you and we in a completely different way compared to how they are conventionally used (I or you referring to a body with a brain and thus an individual mind, we referring to multiple such organisms), then you will be misunderstood, no matter how LOUD YOU SHOUT.

BUT I DO NOT SHOUT, and this would ALREADY be KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD. if 'you', human beings, JUST made CLARIFICATIONS, BEFORE 'you' made ASSUMPTIONS.

Also, the words 'I' and 'you' does NOT refer to a body with a brain to ALL people. SO, what are you judging this, so called, "conventionally" on, EXACTLY?

Furthermore, even IF the word 'I' or the word 'you' referred to a body with a brain, to SOME people, then this does NOT necessarily follow that this body and brain has a individual mind at all. So, your use of the word "thus" here was NOT 'proper use', AT ALL.

By the way, if one uses the words earth, center, and Universe in a completely different way compared to how they are "conventionally used", then that one may not be understood, for quite some time, as a matter of fact. But this does NOT mean that the, so called, 'unconventional use' is wrong AT ALL. This just means that it takes some time for 'you', human beings, to catch up with what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct. As has ALREADY been PROVEN True.

[Age]

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

I have never not known what consciousness is.

So, when 'you' were three years old 'you' KNEW what 'consciousness' is, and when you were just about to come out of your mother 'you' KNEW what 'consciousness' is, and when 'you' were conceived 'you' KNEW what 'consciousness' is, correct?

If no, then what do 'you' MEAN?

Oh, and by the way, what is 'consciousness', to 'you'?

[Age]

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.

ALWAYS?

[Age]

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.

You say here that the dream character is just a dreamed up illusion, but you also claimed that the "I and you are a body, with a brain, and an individual mind".

Which, to 'me', is just MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF of just ANOTHER BELIEF, dreamed up by the, so called, "dream character".

What can be SEEN here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of ANOTHER 'one' just following and re-repeating MORE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. This one just goes by the name "nondual". Which, just like EVERY other religion, has SOME ACTUAL Truth to it, but which sadly gets DISTORTED by individual human BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

[Age]

Consciousness is the state of being aware.

Of what?

Would it matter?

[Age]

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?

So you're saying that you think everything is conscious and that it obeys its own thought of physical law?

Do 'you', "terrapin station", intentionally TWIST and DISTORT what "others" say into what they ACTUALLY DID NOT MEAN on purpose for some reason, or are you UNAWARE that you are doing this?

Re me, I'm a physicalist/materialist. Some matter is conscious--human brains, for example. Most is not.

WHEN does this 'conscious' begin, and HOW does this 'conscious' work?

The answer, by the way, is EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to KNOW and UNDERSTAND.

[RCSaunders]

Do you assert that thoughts, consciousness, and/or life have NO physical properties, or not?

Not only life and consciousness have not physical properties, but no psychogical (epistemological) existent has any physical properties. Life and consciousness are perfectly natural (ontological) attributes, just not physical ones, and they only pertain to those physical entities that have them, organisms.

[RCSaunders]

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

I have never not known what consciousness is.

So, when 'you' were three years old 'you' KNEW what 'consciousness' is, and when you were just about to come out of your mother 'you' KNEW what 'consciousness' is, and when 'you' were conceived 'you' KNEW what 'consciousness' is, correct?

If no, then what do 'you' MEAN?

Oh, and by the way, what is 'consciousness', to 'you'?

If you have some point you want to make, make it. I have no interest in answering the same questions over and over, since all your claims to, "openness," and willingness to learn something new are a lie.

Believe whatever you want about life and consciousness. I wish you well.

[Age]

Do you assert that thoughts, consciousness, and/or life have NO physical properties, or not?

Not only life and consciousness have not physical properties, but no psychogical (epistemological) existent has any physical properties.

SO, when 'you' write:
"Except that I'm not asserting anything. If anything, I'm only denying what other's assert on the basis that there is no evidence for it."

How does this relate to your NEW CLAIM and ASSERTION that you do ACTUALLY ASSERT something here, like for example, that not only "life and consciousness have not physical properties" but also other things as well?

Life and consciousness are perfectly natural (ontological) attributes, just not physical ones, and they only pertain to those physical entities that have them, organisms.

You seem to be MISSING THE POINT, or you are just 'trying to' DETRACT from the FACT that at one time you CLAIM, "Except that I'm not asserting anything", YET you go on to ASSERT something, like above.

[Age]

I have never not known what consciousness is.

So, when 'you' were three years old 'you' KNEW what 'consciousness' is, and when you were just about to come out of your mother 'you' KNEW what 'consciousness' is, and when 'you' were conceived 'you' KNEW what 'consciousness' is, correct?

If no, then what do 'you' MEAN?

Oh, and by the way, what is 'consciousness', to 'you'?

If you have some point you want to make, make it.

The POINT is; I am TRYING TO understand YOUR CLAIMS.

You made the CLAIM, very clearly I will add, that you have NEVER NOT KNOW what 'consciousness' is. SO, in order to TRY TO UNDERSTAND this CLAIM of YOURS I asked you just one very simple CLARIFYING QUESTION.

I have no interest in answering the same questions over and over,

LOL WHEN did I EVER ask you that question above PREVIOUSLY?

since all your claims to, "openness," and willingness to learn something new are a lie.

Are they?

On what ACTUAL BASIS are you now making this NEW CLAIM?

In other words, WHAT PROOF do you have for this NEW CLAIM here of YOURS?

Believe whatever you want about life and consciousness. I wish you well.

This is the TYPICAL BEHAVIOR of the people's in the days when this was written when I EXPOSE their False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect CLAIMS. And, all I had to do was just One VERY SIMPLE CLARIFYING QUESTION to REVEAL what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

[RCSaunders]

This is the TYPICAL BEHAVIOR of the people's in the days when this was written when I EXPOSE their False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect CLAIMS. And, all I had to do was just One VERY SIMPLE CLARIFYING QUESTION to REVEAL what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

Just out of curiosity, is, "thee actual truth, " different from, "the actual truth," and exactly what is the different between, "actual truth," and just plain old every-day, "truth?"

I hope you feel better!

[Age]

This is the TYPICAL BEHAVIOR of the people's in the days when this was written when I EXPOSE their False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect CLAIMS. And, all I had to do was just One VERY SIMPLE CLARIFYING QUESTION to REVEAL what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

Just out of curiosity, is, "thee actual truth, " different from, "the actual truth," and exactly what is the different between, "actual truth," and just plain old every-day, "truth?"

Did you REALLY NOT see NOR recognize the capital letters, which I CLEARLY USED and WROTE?

'ACTUAL Truth' is what IS irrefutable, which is what IS in agreement with, and accepted by, EVERY one.

So called, "plain old every-day truth", is that what is true to one or some but which is actually irrefutable and NOT in agreement with, NOR accepted by, ALL.

In other words, "plain old every-day truth" is just 'your truth", or just what 'you' believe is true.

I hope you feel better!

In regards, and in relation, to 'what, EXACTLY?