Do thoughts affect reality?

[RCSaunders]

I hope you feel better!

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

Whatever makes you so bitter and unhappy.

[bahman]

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?

I think that is an option, that the matter experiences, too. How could you deny it?

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

I see.

[Terrapin Station]

I think that is an option, that the matter experiences, too. How could you deny it?

On the grounds that there's absolutely no good reason to believe it, and it doesn't gel with what we know about consciousness so far.

[AlexW]

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, please stick to one thread (the one between you and me) and don't cross post into other threads - I won't answer to your ramblings that are based on a concoction made up from different posts.

[bahman]

I think that is an option, that the matter experiences, too. How could you deny it?

On the grounds that there's absolutely no good reason to believe it, and it doesn't gel with what we know about consciousness so far.

I think you are mixing life with consciousness.

[AlexW]

BUT I DO NOT SHOUT

Using all capital letters in Internet forums is referring to as shouting.

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?

On the majority of people.
See, if 99.9% (if not more) of all people believe that the word I or me refers to the individual body-mind, then I would call this the conventional use of the word.

Now, if you decide to use it in a different way, then it would be beneficial to explain in detail as to why and how you are doing this before using it differently (otherwise you will always be misunderstood)

[Age]

I hope you feel better!

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

Whatever makes you so bitter and unhappy.

Okay.

I hope you will do better.

[Age]

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, please stick to one thread (the one between you and me) and don't cross post into other threads - I won't answer to your ramblings that are based on a concoction made up from different posts.

Whether my posts are made up of different posts of YOURS does NOT detract from the FACT that they are the words that you have said, wrote, and used.

If you write CONTRADICTIONS in different posts, then I can only SHOW and EXPOSE them CORRECTLY, MORE SIMPLY, and MORE EASILY, in ONE post.

If you do not want to, or will NOT, answer what I have REVEALED, then so be it. That is absolutely NO concern AT ALL, to me.

You wrote what you have. If you can NOT, or will NOT, CLEAR UP the OBVIOUS CONTRADICTIONS, then that is also perfectly fine with me.

[Age]

BUT I DO NOT SHOUT

Using all capital letters in Internet forums is referring to as shouting.

This may be what SOME people consider, but ONLY when 'you' CLARIFY with 'me' will 'you' KNOW thee Truth of 'things'.

SEE, I wrote in specific was and purposely so that I have thee ACTUAL PROOF/S to PROVE my point.

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?

On the majority of people.

UNLESS you have the PROOF, then 'majority' is ALSO a VERY RELATIVE WORD.

So, what evidence or proof do you have that the "majority" of people see or use the words 'I' and 'you' to refer to a body with a brain?

ALSO, could it be possible that the 'majority' of people are WRONG?

See, if 99.9% (if not more) of all people believe that the word I or me refers to the individual body-mind, then I would call this the conventional use of the word.

If that is what you call "the conventional use of the word", then what do you call 'it' when 99.8% of all people believe some 'thing'?

Also, the proper and correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', to you, is the individual body-mind, correct?

Now, if you decide to use it in a different way, then it would be beneficial to explain in detail as to why and how you are doing this before using it differently (otherwise you will always be misunderstood)

LOL You have OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED the point I have been making throughout this thread.

By the way, ALL 'misunderstandings' among 'you', human beings, is because of the ACTUAL POINT I have been continually making throughout this thread.

Furthermore, do NOT be concerned AT ALL if I am misunderstood by 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written. Again, I write in specific ways to PROVE some 'things'. Which will come out soon enough.

I also only explain, in detail, to those who are Truly CURIOUS.

[Terrapin Station]

I think that is an option, that the matter experiences, too. How could you deny it?

On the grounds that there's absolutely no good reason to believe it, and it doesn't gel with what we know about consciousness so far.

I think you are mixing life with consciousness.

In the sense that it's only a small subset of living things that we have any reason to believe are conscious, sure. I don't believe things when there's no good reason to believe them.

[bahman]

On the grounds that there's absolutely no good reason to believe it, and it doesn't gel with what we know about consciousness so far.

I think you are mixing life with consciousness.

In the sense that it's only a small subset of living things that we have any reason to believe are conscious, sure. I don't believe things when there's no good reason to believe them.

I have a reason, there is a change, any change requires a mind, therefore there is a mind.

[Terrapin Station]

I think you are mixing life with consciousness.

In the sense that it's only a small subset of living things that we have any reason to believe are conscious, sure. I don't believe things when there's no good reason to believe them.

I have a reason, there is a change, any change requires a mind, therefore there is a mind.

lol, no, change doesn't require a mind. That's not a good reason. You're forgetting the "good" part. There has to be evidence for the reason in question, it needs to be coherent/plausible, etc.

[bahman]

In the sense that it's only a small subset of living things that we have any reason to believe are conscious, sure. I don't believe things when there's no good reason to believe them.

I have a reason, there is a change, any change requires a mind, therefore there is a mind.

lol, no, change doesn't require a mind. That's not a good reason. You're forgetting the "good" part. There has to be evidence for the reason in question, it needs to be coherent/plausible, etc.

Mind is needed for any change. I have an argument for that here. THe change is evident therefore there is a mind.

[Terrapin Station]

I have a reason, there is a change, any change requires a mind, therefore there is a mind.

lol, no, change doesn't require a mind. That's not a good reason. You're forgetting the "good" part. There has to be evidence for the reason in question, it needs to be coherent/plausible, etc.

Mind is needed for any change. I have an argument for that here. THe change is evident therefore there is a mind.

I responded in that thread, and you had no adequate response to my comments.

[bahman]

lol, no, change doesn't require a mind. That's not a good reason. You're forgetting the "good" part. There has to be evidence for the reason in question, it needs to be coherent/plausible, etc.

Mind is needed for any change. I have an argument for that here. THe change is evident therefore there is a mind.

I responded in that thread, and you had no adequate response to my comments.

That is too late. What comment are you talking about?