Reincarnation

[Age]

Firstly, if you WANT 'me' to READ and/or REPLY to 'you', then I suggest 'you' quote 'me'. That is; IF the below is in relation to 'me', EXACTLY.

Aha, and this is your retort? That the "One Animal Self" is in the "arm or heart"? Why did you not suppose that it is in the brain, in the mind? Because that is the nature of (mystical) belief.

Here we have ANOTHER one who is completely and utterly TWISTING and DISTORTING what I ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE. 'This' MISCONSTRUED VERSION here, however, is SO UTTERLY TWISTED that 'it' is NOT even worthy of being ATTEMPTED to be responded to.

Yes animals and humans both have bodies.

But 'animals' and 'humans' do NOT 'have' bodies.

Now what ACTUALLY occurs IS when 'matter' AND 'space' is formed into PARTICULAR SHAPES, then SOME of 'those shapes' are REFERRED TO as 'animals' and/or 'humans'.

But only humans have 'beliefs', based on evolved systems of language, imagination, and postulation of alternate realities.

Okay.

Only the human has belief in this "One True Self" which is distinct from the body. That doesn't make it real.

But WHO here has BELIEF in thee One True Self, being distinct from 'the body'?

[Sculptor]

I've been thinking about the possibility of reincarnation, and after much deliberation (one minute and twenty three seconds) I have concluded the notion to be utterly bonkers, and that's that.

You said that when you were Will Hay, on your death bed!

[Age]

If the word 'we' here refers to 'human beings', then 'human beings' are made up human bodies, thoughts, and feelings/emotions, which to me, by the way, the 'human' word refers to the visible 'body part', and the 'thoughts' word refers to the invisible 'being part'.

Now, AFTER the 'human body part' has stopped breathing and pumping blood, the 'thoughts' FROM within, are still 'living' or 'existing on' 'through' "other human bodies", as well as what those 'human bodies parts' HAD created are also still 'living or existing on', in this One and ONLY 'world' or 'Universe'.

Just like 'your' mother and/or father are STILL, in a sense, 'living on WITHIN 'you' and 'that body', and WILL doing as long as there is 'someone' STILL 'remembering' 'them', in some way.

My thoughts and actions

When 'you' USE the 'my' word here are 'you' IMPLYING that there is some 'thing', which HAS or POSSESSES 'thoughts' and 'actions'?

If yes, then are you ABLE to INFORM 'us' of WHO and/or WHAT 'this one' IS, EXACTLY?

By the way, 'thoughts', here, exist WITHIN 'that human body', right? And, 'actions', here, are what are said to be done by 'that human body', right?

might have an influence after my death, but the thoughts and actions themselves no longer actually exist.

OF COURSE the 'thoughts' IN 'that body' STOP ARISING and OCCURRING, and JUST AS OBVIOUS is the Fact that OF COURSE the 'actions' OF 'that body' ALSO STOP OCCURRING, when 'that body' is what is generally called DEAD.

Now, as for 'the thoughts, themselves, NO LONGER ACTUALLY EXISTING CLAIM of 'yours' here, what ACTUALLY happens when AN ORIGINAL 'thought' FROM WITHIN 'one body' is passed on to the child/ren, for example, of 'that body', and then PASSED ON, AGAIN, and even AGAIN? Is 'that thought' STILL EXISTING WITHIN those "other bodies"? Or, is 'that thought' REALLY 'no longer actually existing', anymore?

By the way 'you' have USED the 'my' word once more again here. So, are 'you' here implying again that there is some 'thing', which HAS or POSSESSES some 'life'?

If yes, then are you ABLE to INFORM 'us', AND EXPLAIN, WHO and/or WHAT 'that thing', and/or 'this one', IS, EXACTLY?

Anyone to whom I have communicated my thoughts will incorporate them into their own thoughts, but they will only be copies of my thoughts,

'you' KEEP USING the 'my' word here.

So, WHO and/or WHAT is 'this thing', EXACTLY, which HAS, or POSSESSES 'thoughts', 'actions', and 'life'?

and not even exact copies.

Are you here implying that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the EXACT SAME 'thought' to EXIST WITHIN two DIFFERENT and SEPARATE bodies?

I would like to think someone will remember me after I'm gone, but a memory of me isn't me, or even a part of me.

That is WHY I have NOT talked ABOUT 'memory' IN 'this way'.

OBVIOUSLY 'a memory' in "another body" of 'you' IS NOT 'you'.

WHO and WHAT 'you' ARE, EXACTLY, IS NOT the 'memories' IN "other bodies".

Do 'you' even KNOW WHO and WHAT 'you' ARE, EXACTLY?

Let's change it to: "There has never been a known exception to that process."

'Known', by 'you', right?

Also, could 'things' ABOUT 'processes' be continually 'coming-to-light', and thus be-coming 'known', continually, and 'known' to 'some' BEFORE "others"?

Yes, things do sometimes come to light that force us to change our minds about that of which we once felt certainty.

Here 'you' are USING the 'our' word as though there is some 'thing', which HAS or POSSESSES some so-called 'mind' thingy.

So, WHO and/or WHAT IS 'this thing', which, supposedly, HAS or POSSESSES some 'mind thingy'?

By the way, IF and WHILE one is NOT BELIEVING that some 'thing' is true, AND ALSO NOT ASSUMING that some 'thing' is true, then 'that one' CAN CHANGE, VERY QUICKLY, VERY EASILY, and VERY SIMPLY to 'THAT' 'what COMES-TO-LIGHT. And therefore does NOT NEED to be FORCED, to CHANGE.

In Fact when and while one is Truly OPEN, then 'that one' can NOT NOT keep LEARNING, and SEEING, the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE of 'things', which KEEP 'coming-to-light', AUTOMATICALLY, WITHOUT FORCE, NOR of HAVING TO BE CONVINCED OF.

'Suffering', itself, is NOT some 'thing' that ANY one HAS TO 'endure', AT ALL nor EVER.

In the absense of an explanation of what you mean by that, my only response can be that I strongly disagree.

SEE here we have a GREAT example of the 'default position' of the 'adult human being', in the days when this is being written.

That is;
I do NOT CARE one iota even IF you HAVE IRREFUTABLE PROOF FOR 'your CLAIM', I BELIEVE otherwise, so I am just going to STICK with what I ALREADY BELIEVE is true'.

That is uncharacteristically unfair of you, Age. You made a comment about suffering that happens to conflict with my opinion, but you provided no explanation to justify the comment,

BUT, according to some "others" this IS VERY CHARACTERISTIC of 'me'.

And, I ALSO, PURPOSELY, do NOT, necessarily, PROVIDE 'explanations' for VERY SPECIFIC REASONS.

so you didn't even give me an opportunity to consider any irrefutable proof you might have to support your claim.

This is VERY True. And, as I continually STATE and SAY, I WAIT, patiently, for 'those' who ARE Truly CURIOS, and Truly INTERESTED.

[Age]

Wow looks like after years of trial and error, someone finally found the magic formula, it's "How so?"?

the 'thoughts' word refers to the invisible 'being part'.

How so?

Are 'you', "atla", here ASKING:

How so, ARE 'thoughts' INVISIBLE, to 'you'?

Or,

How so, ARE 'thoughts' INVISIBLE, in ACTUALITY?

Or,

How so, to some 'thing' ELSE?

Also, and by the way, WHO, supposedly found the so-called 'magic formula of How so'?

Was it 'you', "atla"?

[Atla]

.

How so, ARE 'thoughts' INVISIBLE, in ACTUALITY? I think they are visible on brain scans, in a very rudimentary way.

[seeds]

1. One can NOT get ANY 'deeper' than the very 'heart', or the very 'center', of ANY 'thing', AT ALL.

Well, when one (such as yourself) is afflicted with a form of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in which one is simply not conscious enough to realize that they are not conscious enough to realize that their understanding of reality is naïve and child-like,...

...then, naturally, one will mistakenly assume that they've gotten to the very "heart and center" of something when, in fact, they aren't even close.

Unfortunately, your "D-K E" affliction will continue to render you oblivious of your problem, and you will no doubt regale me with a barrage of your famous "LOLs" and substanceless retorts.

2. Once one GETS to 'that level', then there is NO use and NO reason to even 'try to' complicate what has ALWAYS BEEN and IS, ESSENTIALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY, JUST PURE SIMPLISTIC.

Again, the only thing that is "pure and simplistic" around here is your child-like understanding of reality,

'I' AM EXTREMELY HAPPY and PLEASE 'you' POINT 'this' OUT here.

By the way, 'child-like' LOGIC will ALWAYS OVER RIDE 'adult human beliefs'. For example,
Adult, 'God created everything'.

Child, 'Then who created God?'.

That kind of 'childhood-like' LOGIC will ALWAYS 'TREAD ALL OVER' 'adulthood' UNSUBSTANTIATED BELIEFS and CLAIMS.

Sorry, Age, but if you are simply going to resort to using worn-out cliché-ish questions,...

("...if God created everything, then who created God?...")

...then you are, once again, demonstrating your extremely naïve (and unoriginal) approach to these issues.

Now, on the other hand, if after asking that question, you would have (voluntarily) provided us with a truly logical and plausible explanation for "how and why" we and the universe exist, then perhaps you might be worth listening to.

So, how about it, Age? As a "clarifying question" that gives you the opportunity to show us the depth and degree of your knowledge:...

...what is your personal explanation for "how and why" we and the universe exist?

which, in turn (and here is where I myself become child-like), causes you to place entire threads at the bottom of your custom-made thunder pot...



...and then smother them beneath a merciless evacuation of your mental bowels.

I'm sorry, Age, but most of us simply have neither the time nor the patience to mother you...

(as in, yes, Age, the fire engine is red, and yes, Age, the cow goes moo)

...into the higher realms of metaphysics and philosophy.

Again, until you do something to ascend above your "D-K E" affliction, you are simply not ready to sit at the adult table of philosophical discourse.
_______

LOL "seeds". The 'IM/MATURE' SHOWN here speaks for itself.

'What' 'you' ADULTS DO AT 'YOUR' 'philosophical table' here IS just prefer to CONCENTRATE on the "other", and 'TRY TO' RIDICULE and HUMILIATE 'them', WHILE REFUSING TO just PRODUCE PROOF for 'your' OWN CLAIMS ABOUT "the other", while ALSO very rarely FOCUSING ON the ACTUAL words being SAID and STATED, INSTEAD.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED IRREFUTABLY True here by 'you', "SEEDS".

Like I said...

Unfortunately, your "D-K E" affliction will continue to render you oblivious of your problem, and you will no doubt regale me with a barrage of your famous "LOLs" and substanceless retorts.

_______

[Agent Smith]

What's the difference between Apple and Windows? I'm sure there's a funny answer to that question, but the funnier it gets the weirder it gets ... at least fer me.

[Age]

.

How so, ARE 'thoughts' INVISIBLE, in ACTUALITY? I think they are visible on brain scans, in a very rudimentary way.

Okay. If that is what 'you' 'think', then that is what 'you' 'think'.

What are the 'thoughts' OF, EXACTLY, which 'you' 'think' are visible on brain scans, in a very rudimentary way?

Also, are those 'brain scans' called 'brains scans' because they 'scan thoughts', or because they 'scan brains'?

[Age]

Well, when one (such as yourself) is afflicted with a form of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in which one is simply not conscious enough to realize that they are not conscious enough to realize that their understanding of reality is naïve and child-like,...

...then, naturally, one will mistakenly assume that they've gotten to the very "heart and center" of something when, in fact, they aren't even close.

Unfortunately, your "D-K E" affliction will continue to render you oblivious of your problem, and you will no doubt regale me with a barrage of your famous "LOLs" and substanceless retorts.


Again, the only thing that is "pure and simplistic" around here is your child-like understanding of reality,

'I' AM EXTREMELY HAPPY and PLEASE 'you' POINT 'this' OUT here.

By the way, 'child-like' LOGIC will ALWAYS OVER RIDE 'adult human beliefs'. For example,
Adult, 'God created everything'.

Child, 'Then who created God?'.

That kind of 'childhood-like' LOGIC will ALWAYS 'TREAD ALL OVER' 'adulthood' UNSUBSTANTIATED BELIEFS and CLAIMS.

Sorry, Age, but if you are simply going to resort to using worn-out cliché-ish questions,...

("...if God created everything, then who created God?...")

But I am NOT 'using' 'this question' here, for the SIMPLE Fact that I ALREADY KNOW what the IRREFUTABLE ANSWER IS, EXACTLY.

I WAS just SHOWING AN example of 'that question' to POINT OUT and SHOW just how SIMPLE 'child-hood LOGIC' can VERY QUICKLY, VERY EASILY, and VERY SIMPLY OVER RIDE 'adult-hood UNSUBSTANTIATED BELIEFS and CLAIMS', that was ALL.

.

.then you are, once again, demonstrating your extremely naïve (and unoriginal) approach to these issues.

'What ISSUE'?

I do NOT SEE ANY 'ISSUE' here AT ALL.

'you' just keep 'TRYING TO' CLAIM that 'I' am naive, as well as OTHER names.

'you' do 'this' BECAUSE 'you' FOCUS SO MUCH OF 'your' ATTENTION on 'me', rather than ON the ACTUAL WORDS BEFORE 'you'. BUT, 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE to LOOK AT and JUDGE 'me', in ABSOLUTELY ANY WAY 'you' LIKE. But some, INSTEAD, much rather to just LOOK AT and CONCENTRATE on THE WORDS being USED here, ONLY.

Now, on the other hand, if after asking that question, you would have (voluntarily) provided us with a truly logical and plausible explanation for "how and why" we and the universe exist, then perhaps you might be worth listening to.

ONCE AGAIN, I AM MORE THAN WILLING TO VOLUNTARY PROVIDE ANY one of 'you', human beings with Truly LOGICAL and ACTUAL explanations FOR HOW and WHY Everything/the Universe exists. That IS; WHENEVER ANY one BECOMES Truly CURIOS and INTEREST ENOUGH.

So, how about it, Age?

So, how about 'what', "seeds", WHAT is the 'it' word here REFERENCING, EXACTLY?

As a "clarifying question" that gives you the opportunity to show us the depth and degree of your knowledge:...

Are 'you' here, in some way, ASKING 'me' SOME 'thing'?

If yes, then WHY NOT just SPELL 'it' OUT, LITERALLY.

...what is your personal explanation for "how and why" we and the universe exist?

FINALLY.

Now, so 'this' does NOT take AGES, let us SAY that the 'we' word here refers to 'you', human beings, then HOW 'you', human beings, and the Universe exist IS BECAUSE of the EXACT SAME 'thing', or process. That is; The Universe, Itself, EXACTLY like 'you', is fundamentally made up of 'matter' AND 'space', ALONE.

Now, there can ONLY EVER BE three scenarios:

1. There is just 'singularity', which would just be a solitary piece of 'matter', infinite 'spatially' and eternal 'temporally'.

2. There is just 'space', in the sense of absolutely NO 'thing' AT ALL, again which would just be solitary also, as well as infinite 'spatially' and eternal 'temporally'.

Although 'spatial' and 'temporal' have NO ACTUAL 'meaning' here because neither solitary 'things' could be referenced to ANY OTHER 'thing'.

3. There IS 'what' exists HERE, NOW. That is; BOTH 'space' AND 'matter' co-existing TOGETHER. Which, by the way, have been infinitely AND eternally.

See, although 1. or 2. could exist, theoretically, they could NOT have, EVER, existed, and this is just BECAUSE 'one' could NOT CHANGE IN ANY way whatsoever. And 'we' KNOW that 3. DOES EXIST BECAUSE there IS, at least One 'Thing' here contemplating ALL-OF-THIS. Which then MEANS that BECAUSE there is SOME 'thing' BESIDES just INFINITE and ETERNAL 'space' OR INFINITE and ETERNAL 'matter', then 3. IS what ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY exists, and DOES SO FOREVER.

Now, some of 'you', human beings, may like to CLAIM that EITHER, there WAS absolutely NO 'thing', from which Everything CAME, or there WAS some 'thing', with some 'name' like 'God' or 'the big bang', from which Everything CAME. BUT, then 'we' ARE BACK to what EVERY child would PONDER and QUESTION now, 'WHERE did either of these two 'things' come from, EXACTLY, IF Everything BEGAN?'

Any so-called 'God', or 'thing', existing BEFORE Everything was created is just ABSURDITY in the ABSOLUTE EXTREME, for the CLEARLY OBVIOUS REASONS, that even EVERY child PICKS UP, on almost instantaneously. And, to CLAIM that Everything came FROM a so-called 'big bang', or 'singularity', then two 'things' here:

1. If some so-called 'big bang' created Everything, or was the cause of Everything, then BECAUSE of 'cause and effect', 'What CAUSED 'the big bang' to EXIST, prior to Everything, AND what caused 'whatever 'it' WAS' to go 'bang'?

2. Now, OF COURSE, what 'it' WAS, which went 'bang', could have been what is sometimes called and referred to as 'singularity', that is; an infinite compression of 'matter'. Which, OBVIOUSLY, could have been existing, and when off with 'a bang', which could of, also OBVIOUSLY, occurred. However, an 'infinite compression of matter', which means a piece of 'matter' WITHOUT ANY 'space', WITHIN 'it', which could OBVIOUSLY exist. For all 'we' KNOW ALL the 'matter' in the Universe could have been 'crunched together' into one singular piece of 'matter'. But, 'this piece of matter' could NOT expand unless there WAS 'space', or a distance of NO 'thing', in which 'it' could EXPAND.

So, OBVIOUSLY, for a 'single piece of infinitely compressed 'matter', that is; 'matter' with NO 'space' in 'it', TO EXPAND, then there HAD TO BE 'space' EXISTING outside of 'that matter' went of with 'a bang'. Which all to EASILY and SIMPLY could HAVE OCCURRED. However, BECAUSE there MUST of been SOME 'thing', that IS; 'a piece of matter' AND 'space', at that 'time' or moment, EXISTING, then either BOTH of those 'things' were EXISTING eternally BEFOREHAND, or ALL matter IS CONTINUALLY 'expanding' and 'contracting', ETERNALLY. BECAUSE there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that 'one piece of matter' COULD go off with 'a bang', ALL by itself. For ABSOLUTELY ANY and EVERY 'thing' to BE CREATED, there HAS TO BE at least TWO 'things' PRIOR, which CAME TOGETHER. For EVERY 'action' there IS a 'reaction', and for EVERY 'reaction', there IS CREATION as some 'thing' NEW IS CREATED.

And, OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW could be CREATED if just one solitary single piece of 'matter' EXISTED WITHIN the whole of what is sometimes called and referred to as 'space'.

SURE, 'matter' could be CONTINUALLY 'expanding' FROM a so-called 'big bang', AND then 'contracting' into one solitary singular piece of infinitely compressed 'matter', but what was called 'the big bang' might then just be 'one bang' out of countless 'bangs', and in relative terms might not even necessarily been that much of a 'big' bang, as it might have only been A PORTION of ALL the 'matter' in the Universe infinitely compressed together into just 'one' of MANY, then misnomered, 'singularities'.

Now, since the Universe IS, the way 'It' IS, that is; made up of 'space' AND 'matter' TOGETHER, which IS infinite AND eternal, in length, HOW ALL 'things', including the Universe, EXIST IS BECAUSE of HOW 'matter' AND 'space' CO-EXIST TOGETHER. There is NO OTHER way than 'this way', and WHAT HAPPENS and OCCURS 'this way' IS; 'matter', BECAUSE OF 'space' is ABLE to move about ABSOLUTELY FREELY, and when 'matter' IS MOVING ABOUT 'it' IS INTER-ACTING with itself, and coming together with itself, CAUSING the CREATION of new/er 'things' ALL the time. That IS; thee One 'Thing' here KNOWN AS the Universe, Itself, is just CONTINUALLY CHANGING in shape and form ALWAYS, and in ALL WAYS, some might say or suggest. This CONTINUAL CHANGE, which 'creates' EVERY 'thing' is just 'evolution', itself, by the way. The One Everything IS just CREATING, through EVOLUTION, ALL of the 'things', which are KNOWN, or thought ABOUT, by 'you', human beings.

By the way, it IS the 'friction' CAUSED by 'matter' INTERACTING with itself, which OCCURS BECAUSE of 'space' remember, which is WHAT CAUSES or CREATES 'energy', itself. The friction caused by matter 'bumping' into itself, which HAPPENS ETERNALLY, is WHY 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another'.

EVERY action CAUSES a reaction, and it is, literally, this never-beginning and never-ending One REACTION that IS CREATION, Itself. HOW EVERY 'thing' EXISTS IS BECAUSE this is HOW EVERY 'thing' IS CREATED, through a never-ending EVOLUTIONARY process.

Now, WHY does 'you', and the Universe, EXIST, IS to bear witness to WHAT I AM Creating HERE-NOW. AND BECAUSE there just could NOT be ANY OTHER WAY, as, partly, EXPLAINED above here.

Now, IF there is ANY 'thing' else that you are CURIOS and INTERESTED ABOUT, then just ASK me MORE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. 'They' ARE, after all, VERY REFRESHING to SEE, and by ASKED.

which, in turn (and here is where I myself become child-like), causes you to place entire threads at the bottom of your custom-made thunder pot...



...and then smother them beneath a merciless evacuation of your mental bowels.

I'm sorry, Age, but most of us simply have neither the time nor the patience to mother you...

(as in, yes, Age, the fire engine is red, and yes, Age, the cow goes moo)

...into the higher realms of metaphysics and philosophy.

Again, until you do something to ascend above your "D-K E" affliction, you are simply not ready to sit at the adult table of philosophical discourse.
_______

LOL "seeds". The 'IM/MATURE' SHOWN here speaks for itself.

'What' 'you' ADULTS DO AT 'YOUR' 'philosophical table' here IS just prefer to CONCENTRATE on the "other", and 'TRY TO' RIDICULE and HUMILIATE 'them', WHILE REFUSING TO just PRODUCE PROOF for 'your' OWN CLAIMS ABOUT "the other", while ALSO very rarely FOCUSING ON the ACTUAL words being SAID and STATED, INSTEAD.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED IRREFUTABLY True here by 'you', "SEEDS".

Like I said...

Unfortunately, your "D-K E" affliction will continue to render you oblivious of your problem, and you will no doubt regale me with a barrage of your famous "LOLs" and substanceless retorts.

_______

[/quote]

WHY did 'you' REPEAT 'this' here FOR "seeds"?

Also, did I DO some 'thing' above purposely, or did NOT REMOVE 'it', KNOWING that 'you' WOULD then 'think' "yourself" VERY CLEVER here?

[Harbal]

My thoughts and actions

When 'you' USE the 'my' word here are 'you' IMPLYING that there is some 'thing', which HAS or POSSESSES 'thoughts' and 'actions'?

If yes, then are you ABLE to INFORM 'us' of WHO and/or WHAT 'this one' IS, EXACTLY?

By the way, 'thoughts', here, exist WITHIN 'that human body', right? And, 'actions', here, are what are said to be done by 'that human body', right?

I suppose I think of thinking as something that happens within consciousness, and I think of consciousness as occuring in individual instances. When thoughts arise in the individual instance of consciousness that I sometimes regard as me, and sometimes as mine, I tend to regard the thoughts as being mine. Actions are a bit more tricky, because they require more than consciousness in order to happen. But they originate in consciousness, as they are usually the last stage in a process that begins as thought. I find standard language inadequate to describe exactly what I mean when I talk about "I" and "me"; "my" and "mine", but standard language is all I know, so you have to accept that I won't always use terms that conform to your scheme of things when I try to answer your questions.

I don't regard the answer to the question, "what is 'I'", to be as simple and straight forward as you do, which is probably why our interaction on the subject are usually troublesome.

Now, as for 'the thoughts, themselves, NO LONGER ACTUALLY EXISTING CLAIM of 'yours' here, what ACTUALLY happens when AN ORIGINAL 'thought' FROM WITHIN 'one body' is passed on to the child/ren, for example, of 'that body', and then PASSED ON, AGAIN, and even AGAIN? Is 'that thought' STILL EXISTING WITHIN those "other bodies"? Or, is 'that thought' REALLY 'no longer actually existing', anymore?

I don't think a thought can be passed on in the sense you seem to be implying. If I have a thought which someone else becomes aware of, then although they now have a thought similar to mine, it isn't actually my thought, it is their thought.

By the way 'you' have USED the 'my' word once more again here. So, are 'you' here implying again that there is some 'thing', which HAS or POSSESSES some 'life'?

If yes, then are you ABLE to INFORM 'us', AND EXPLAIN, WHO and/or WHAT 'that thing', and/or 'this one', IS, EXACTLY?

If my answer to your first question above doesn't explain it, then I am probably not able to inform you.

'you' KEEP USING the 'my' word here.

So, WHO and/or WHAT is 'this thing', EXACTLY, which HAS, or POSSESSES 'thoughts', 'actions', and 'life'?

Again, If my first answer above does not explain it, I don't think I can answer your question.

Are you here implying that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the EXACT SAME 'thought' to EXIST WITHIN two DIFFERENT and SEPARATE bodies?

They seem to be separate thoughts to me, even if they are identical. If each of two bodies have a thought, then that would amount to two thoughts.

Do 'you' even KNOW WHO and WHAT 'you' ARE, EXACTLY?

What I think of myself as being would vary according to context. I don't think there is a one thing that I am.

Here 'you' are USING the 'our' word as though there is some 'thing', which HAS or POSSESSES some so-called 'mind' thingy.

So, WHO and/or WHAT IS 'this thing', which, supposedly, HAS or POSSESSES some 'mind thingy'?

It seems to me that I have a choice of speaking in those terms, or not speaking at all. I can't think of a third option that is within my capability.

[Atla]

.

How so, ARE 'thoughts' INVISIBLE, in ACTUALITY? I think they are visible on brain scans, in a very rudimentary way.

Okay. If that is what 'you' 'think', then that is what 'you' 'think'.

What are the 'thoughts' OF, EXACTLY, which 'you' 'think' are visible on brain scans, in a very rudimentary way?

Also, are those 'brain scans' called 'brains scans' because they 'scan thoughts', or because they 'scan brains'?

Thoughts are probably part of the body, visible stuff like brain tissue plus stuff that can be made visible like EM fields. It's also possible that thoughts are also made of stuff that's invisible and also can't be made visible, not at all or at least not with today's technology. But at the very least, brain scans show roughly where thoughts are occuring.

Unless you can come up with a better explanation. How so, ARE 'thoughts' INVISIBLE, in ACTUALITY?

[Atla]

Now, so 'this' does NOT take AGES, let us SAY that the 'we' word here refers to 'you', human beings, then HOW 'you', human beings, and the Universe exist IS BECAUSE of the EXACT SAME 'thing', or process. That is; The Universe, Itself, EXACTLY like 'you', is fundamentally made up of 'matter' AND 'space', ALONE.

Now, there can ONLY EVER BE three scenarios:

1. There is just 'singularity', which would just be a solitary piece of 'matter', infinite 'spatially' and eternal 'temporally'.

2. There is just 'space', in the sense of absolutely NO 'thing' AT ALL, again which would just be solitary also, as well as infinite 'spatially' and eternal 'temporally'.

Although 'spatial' and 'temporal' have NO ACTUAL 'meaning' here because neither solitary 'things' could be referenced to ANY OTHER 'thing'.

3. There IS 'what' exists HERE, NOW. That is; BOTH 'space' AND 'matter' co-existing TOGETHER. Which, by the way, have been infinitely AND eternally.

See, although 1. or 2. could exist, theoretically, they could NOT have, EVER, existed, and this is just BECAUSE 'one' could NOT CHANGE IN ANY way whatsoever. And 'we' KNOW that 3. DOES EXIST BECAUSE there IS, at least One 'Thing' here contemplating ALL-OF-THIS. Which then MEANS that BECAUSE there is SOME 'thing' BESIDES just INFINITE and ETERNAL 'space' OR INFINITE and ETERNAL 'matter', then 3. IS what ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY exists, and DOES SO FOREVER.

Now, some of 'you', human beings, may like to CLAIM that EITHER, there WAS absolutely NO 'thing', from which Everything CAME, or there WAS some 'thing', with some 'name' like 'God' or 'the big bang', from which Everything CAME. BUT, then 'we' ARE BACK to what EVERY child would PONDER and QUESTION now, 'WHERE did either of these two 'things' come from, EXACTLY, IF Everything BEGAN?'

Any so-called 'God', or 'thing', existing BEFORE Everything was created is just ABSURDITY in the ABSOLUTE EXTREME, for the CLEARLY OBVIOUS REASONS, that even EVERY child PICKS UP, on almost instantaneously. And, to CLAIM that Everything came FROM a so-called 'big bang', or 'singularity', then two 'things' here:

1. If some so-called 'big bang' created Everything, or was the cause of Everything, then BECAUSE of 'cause and effect', 'What CAUSED 'the big bang' to EXIST, prior to Everything, AND what caused 'whatever 'it' WAS' to go 'bang'?

2. Now, OF COURSE, what 'it' WAS, which went 'bang', could have been what is sometimes called and referred to as 'singularity', that is; an infinite compression of 'matter'. Which, OBVIOUSLY, could have been existing, and when off with 'a bang', which could of, also OBVIOUSLY, occurred. However, an 'infinite compression of matter', which means a piece of 'matter' WITHOUT ANY 'space', WITHIN 'it', which could OBVIOUSLY exist. For all 'we' KNOW ALL the 'matter' in the Universe could have been 'crunched together' into one singular piece of 'matter'. But, 'this piece of matter' could NOT expand unless there WAS 'space', or a distance of NO 'thing', in which 'it' could EXPAND.

So, OBVIOUSLY, for a 'single piece of infinitely compressed 'matter', that is; 'matter' with NO 'space' in 'it', TO EXPAND, then there HAD TO BE 'space' EXISTING outside of 'that matter' went of with 'a bang'. Which all to EASILY and SIMPLY could HAVE OCCURRED. However, BECAUSE there MUST of been SOME 'thing', that IS; 'a piece of matter' AND 'space', at that 'time' or moment, EXISTING, then either BOTH of those 'things' were EXISTING eternally BEFOREHAND, or ALL matter IS CONTINUALLY 'expanding' and 'contracting', ETERNALLY. BECAUSE there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that 'one piece of matter' COULD go off with 'a bang', ALL by itself. For ABSOLUTELY ANY and EVERY 'thing' to BE CREATED, there HAS TO BE at least TWO 'things' PRIOR, which CAME TOGETHER. For EVERY 'action' there IS a 'reaction', and for EVERY 'reaction', there IS CREATION as some 'thing' NEW IS CREATED.

And, OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW could be CREATED if just one solitary single piece of 'matter' EXISTED WITHIN the whole of what is sometimes called and referred to as 'space'.

SURE, 'matter' could be CONTINUALLY 'expanding' FROM a so-called 'big bang', AND then 'contracting' into one solitary singular piece of infinitely compressed 'matter', but what was called 'the big bang' might then just be 'one bang' out of countless 'bangs', and in relative terms might not even necessarily been that much of a 'big' bang, as it might have only been A PORTION of ALL the 'matter' in the Universe infinitely compressed together into just 'one' of MANY, then misnomered, 'singularities'.

Now, since the Universe IS, the way 'It' IS, that is; made up of 'space' AND 'matter' TOGETHER, which IS infinite AND eternal, in length, HOW ALL 'things', including the Universe, EXIST IS BECAUSE of HOW 'matter' AND 'space' CO-EXIST TOGETHER. There is NO OTHER way than 'this way', and WHAT HAPPENS and OCCURS 'this way' IS; 'matter', BECAUSE OF 'space' is ABLE to move about ABSOLUTELY FREELY, and when 'matter' IS MOVING ABOUT 'it' IS INTER-ACTING with itself, and coming together with itself, CAUSING the CREATION of new/er 'things' ALL the time. That IS; thee One 'Thing' here KNOWN AS the Universe, Itself, is just CONTINUALLY CHANGING in shape and form ALWAYS, and in ALL WAYS, some might say or suggest. This CONTINUAL CHANGE, which 'creates' EVERY 'thing' is just 'evolution', itself, by the way. The One Everything IS just CREATING, through EVOLUTION, ALL of the 'things', which are KNOWN, or thought ABOUT, by 'you', human beings.

By the way, it IS the 'friction' CAUSED by 'matter' INTERACTING with itself, which OCCURS BECAUSE of 'space' remember, which is WHAT CAUSES or CREATES 'energy', itself. The friction caused by matter 'bumping' into itself, which HAPPENS ETERNALLY, is WHY 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another'.

EVERY action CAUSES a reaction, and it is, literally, this never-beginning and never-ending One REACTION that IS CREATION, Itself. HOW EVERY 'thing' EXISTS IS BECAUSE this is HOW EVERY 'thing' IS CREATED, through a never-ending EVOLUTIONARY process.

Now, WHY does 'you', and the Universe, EXIST, IS to bear witness to WHAT I AM Creating HERE-NOW. AND BECAUSE there just could NOT be ANY OTHER WAY, as, partly, EXPLAINED above here.

Now, IF there is ANY 'thing' else that you are CURIOS and INTERESTED ABOUT, then just ASK me MORE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. 'They' ARE, after all, VERY REFRESHING to SEE, and by ASKED.

You contradict yourself. It's true that the universe can logically only be infinite and eternal (although not quite in your childish Newtonian/Kantian absolute space and time sense, we've moved beyond that a century ago), but by the same logic, change is also impossible. So your explanation about creation and evolution is all wrong, all "change" has already happened.

[Age]

My thoughts and actions

When 'you' USE the 'my' word here are 'you' IMPLYING that there is some 'thing', which HAS or POSSESSES 'thoughts' and 'actions'?

If yes, then are you ABLE to INFORM 'us' of WHO and/or WHAT 'this one' IS, EXACTLY?

By the way, 'thoughts', here, exist WITHIN 'that human body', right? And, 'actions', here, are what are said to be done by 'that human body', right?

I suppose I think of thinking as something that happens within consciousness, and I think of consciousness as occuring in individual instances.

But, who or what is 'this' 'I' that is 'thinking' 'these things' here?

When thoughts arise in the individual instance of consciousness that I sometimes regard as me, and sometimes as mine,

This is GREAT that 'you' have acknowledged 'this' here.

I tend to regard the thoughts as being mine.

Which is ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE as 'this' IS EXACTLY what ALL children were TAUGHT, unconsciously and subconsciously, to ACCEPT and BELIEVE IS TRUE, in the days when this is being written.

Actions are a bit more tricky, because they require more than consciousness in order to happen.

When 'you' USE the 'consciousness' here, and above, what were/are you MEANING, or REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

If 'you' are implying or claiming how to UNDERSTAND or EXPLAIN 'actions', themselves, is a 'bit more tricky', than some other 'thing', then I will inform 'you' now, that 'they' ARE NOT.

But if 'you' were meaning some 'thing' else, then okay.

But they originate in consciousness, as they are usually the last stage in a process that begins as thought. I find standard language inadequate to describe exactly what I mean when I talk about "I" and "me"; "my" and "mine", but standard language is all I know, so you have to accept that I won't always use terms that conform to your scheme of things when I try to answer your questions.

Are 'you' SAYING and MEANING here:

1. That 'you' do ACTUALLY KNOW who and what 'I', 'me', 'my', and 'mine' ARE, EXACTLY, but just can NOT EXPLAIN 'these things' because of some so-called 'standard language'?

2. That 'you' do NOT YET ACTUALLY KNOW 'these things', EXACTLY, anyway, and are 'trying to' BLAME some so-called 'standard language' be INADEQUATE here?

3. Or, some 'thing' else?

I don't regard the answer to the question, "what is 'I'", to be as simple and straight forward as you do, which is probably why our interaction on the subject are usually troublesome.

I have NOT found our interactions here so-called 'troublesome' AT ALL.

FOR ALL of my FAILURES AT communicating here, I am LEARNING HOW TO COMMUNICATE, BETTER.

Now, as for 'the thoughts, themselves, NO LONGER ACTUALLY EXISTING CLAIM of 'yours' here, what ACTUALLY happens when AN ORIGINAL 'thought' FROM WITHIN 'one body' is passed on to the child/ren, for example, of 'that body', and then PASSED ON, AGAIN, and even AGAIN? Is 'that thought' STILL EXISTING WITHIN those "other bodies"? Or, is 'that thought' REALLY 'no longer actually existing', anymore?

I don't think a thought can be passed on in the sense you seem to be implying. If I have a thought which someone else becomes aware of, then although they now have a thought similar to mine, it isn't actually my thought, it is their thought.

But I do NOT SEE 'thoughts' as being OWNED NOR POSSESSED BY some 'thing'/some 'one'.

Also, maybe if 'you' SAW some examples, then 'you' MIGHT SEE 'things' somewhat DIFFERENTLY.

Also, NOT 'thinking' that a thought can be passed on, in the sense and way that I am implying here, is NOT that UNUSUAL AT ALL.

There are a LOT of 'things' that were NOT 'thought' ABOUT, but which, eventually, ARE.

By the way 'you' have USED the 'my' word once more again here. So, are 'you' here implying again that there is some 'thing', which HAS or POSSESSES some 'life'?

If yes, then are you ABLE to INFORM 'us', AND EXPLAIN, WHO and/or WHAT 'that thing', and/or 'this one', IS, EXACTLY?

If my answer to your first question above doesn't explain it, then I am probably not able to inform you.

Okay.

'you' KEEP USING the 'my' word here.

So, WHO and/or WHAT is 'this thing', EXACTLY, which HAS, or POSSESSES 'thoughts', 'actions', and 'life'?

Again, If my first answer above does not explain it, I don't think I can answer your question.

Okay, again.

Are you here implying that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the EXACT SAME 'thought' to EXIST WITHIN two DIFFERENT and SEPARATE bodies?

They seem to be separate thoughts to me, even if they are identical. If each of two bodies have a thought, then that would amount to two thoughts.

If the EXACT SAME 'thought' arises in the EXACT SAME 'body' on different occasions, then would that amount to two thoughts, as well?

Do 'you' even KNOW WHO and WHAT 'you' ARE, EXACTLY?

What I think of myself as being would vary according to context. I don't think there is a one thing that I am.

So, the Honest ANSWER is 'No', right?

Here 'you' are USING the 'our' word as though there is some 'thing', which HAS or POSSESSES some so-called 'mind' thingy.

So, WHO and/or WHAT IS 'this thing', which, supposedly, HAS or POSSESSES some 'mind thingy'?

It seems to me that I have a choice of speaking in those terms, or not speaking at all. I can't think of a third option that is within my capability.

IS there NOT the OPTION to just ASK INQUISITIVE QUESTIONS WITHIN 'your' (whoever or whatever 'that word' refers to, EXACTLY,) capability?

[Age]

How so, ARE 'thoughts' INVISIBLE, in ACTUALITY? I think they are visible on brain scans, in a very rudimentary way.

Okay. If that is what 'you' 'think', then that is what 'you' 'think'.

What are the 'thoughts' OF, EXACTLY, which 'you' 'think' are visible on brain scans, in a very rudimentary way?

Also, are those 'brain scans' called 'brains scans' because they 'scan thoughts', or because they 'scan brains'?

Thoughts are probably part of the body, visible stuff like brain tissue plus stuff that can be made visible like EM fields.

'Thoughts' ARE EXTREMELY 'visible', in A sense. But 'they' are ALSO ABSOLUTELY INVISIBLE, in ANOTHER sense.

It's also possible that thoughts are also made of stuff that's invisible and also can't be made visible, not at all or at least not with today's technology. But at the very least, brain scans show roughly where thoughts are occuring.

Would I be right that 'brain scans' show 'thoughts' occur within 'the brain'?

Unless you can come up with a better explanation. How so, ARE 'thoughts' INVISIBLE, in ACTUALITY?

IN ACTUALITY, ACTUAL 'thoughts' ARE INVISIBLE TO SEE with physical eyes. Just like 'emotions' ARE INVISIBLE TO SEE with physical eyes. Unless, OF COURSE, you have ACTUAL PROOF that 'emotions' CAN BE SEEN on maybe 'gut scans', 'ultrasounds', or even 'brain scans' AS WELL?

ALSO, REMEMBER, 'you' have NOT YET PROVEN that what IS SEEN on 'brain scans' ARE 'thoughts'.

[Atla]

Okay. If that is what 'you' 'think', then that is what 'you' 'think'.

What are the 'thoughts' OF, EXACTLY, which 'you' 'think' are visible on brain scans, in a very rudimentary way?

Also, are those 'brain scans' called 'brains scans' because they 'scan thoughts', or because they 'scan brains'?

Thoughts are probably part of the body, visible stuff like brain tissue plus stuff that can be made visible like EM fields.

'Thoughts' ARE EXTREMELY 'visible', in A sense. But 'they' are ALSO ABSOLUTELY INVISIBLE, in ANOTHER sense.

It's also possible that thoughts are also made of stuff that's invisible and also can't be made visible, not at all or at least not with today's technology. But at the very least, brain scans show roughly where thoughts are occuring.

Would I be right that 'brain scans' show 'thoughts' occur within 'the brain'?

Unless you can come up with a better explanation. How so, ARE 'thoughts' INVISIBLE, in ACTUALITY?

IN ACTUALITY, ACTUAL 'thoughts' ARE INVISIBLE TO SEE with physical eyes. Just like 'emotions' ARE INVISIBLE TO SEE with physical eyes. Unless, OF COURSE, you have ACTUAL PROOF that 'emotions' CAN BE SEEN on maybe 'gut scans', 'ultrasounds', or even 'brain scans' AS WELL?

ALSO, REMEMBER, 'you' have NOT YET PROVEN that what IS SEEN on 'brain scans' ARE 'thoughts'.

Of course emotions can be seen on brain scans too. It's already proven that what we see on the scans, is correlated with what people think and feel.