Reincarnation

[Age]

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.

GREAT.

I have been WAITING for someone to SHOW 'us' WHERE, and WHY?

It's true that the universe can logically only be infinite and eternal

Is this BECAUSE this is just what 'you' BELIEVE is true? Or because 'you' have some ACTUAL PROOF that the Universe can LOGICALLY ONLY BE infinite AND eternal?

If it is the latter, then WILL 'you' SHOW what ACTUAL 'thing' 'you' USE for 'this CLAIM' of 'yours' here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

(although not quite in your childish Newtonian/Kantian absolute space and time sense, we've moved beyond that a century ago),

I do NOT have ANY clue what these two 'things' 'absolute space and time sense' IS.

So, this means I have absolutely NO IDEA NOR CLUE what 'you' are talking ABOUT NOR REFERRING TO here AT ALL.

but by the same logic, change is also impossible.

What do 'you' mean here by, 'the same logic'?

'What', ACTUAL, 'logic' are 'you' talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO here? Besides, OF COURSE, the 'logic' that what you 'currently' BELIEVE is true, in the days when this is being written, MUST BE TRUE.

So your explanation about creation and evolution is all wrong, all "change" has already happened.

WHEN did ABSOLUTELY ALL 'change', ALREADY, HAPPEN?

JUST SAYING, 'your explanation about creation and evolution, (or about absolutely ANY 'thing' else for that matter), is all wrong', does NOT work.

1. POINT OUT and SHOW to ALL the readers here EXACTLY WHERE I SAID some 'thing'.

2. MAKE it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR the ACTUAL WORDS that I SAID, which 'you' think or BELIEVE is ALL wrong. And then,

3. EXPLAIN WHY what I ACTUALLY SAID and MEANT IS ALL wrong.

If 'you' do NOT do 'this', then I could just SAY, 'your thinking' is ALSO ALL wrong.

After all it appears, so far, that the ONLY 'thing' 'you' ARE USING to back up and support 'your' OWN CLAIM that what I SAID and MEANT IS ALL wrong IS absolutely NOTHING MORE than the 'thoughts', ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS in that 'solitary little head' there.

And by the way, WHERE, EXACTLY, did I, supposedly, CONTRADICT "myself" here?

[Age]

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.

Ah okay. Thus IT IS AN ALREADY PROVEN Fact that 'thoughts' AND 'feelings' CAN BE SEEN.

Can the 'Mind' also be SEEN with the physical eyes "atla"?

What ABOUT the 'wind', can 'that' ALSO BE SEEN with the physical eyes?

By the way do 'you' have ANY links to WHERE it WAS ALREADY PROVEN that 'you' can SEE on 'scans' ACTUAL 'thoughts' and ACTUAL 'feelings'?

What does the ACTUAL 'thought' of a cat, or a dog, for example, look like EXACTLY?

And, what does the ACTUAL 'emotion' of 'happiness', or of 'sorrow', for example, look like EXACTLY?

[Atla]

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


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


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.

Ah okay. Thus IT IS AN ALREADY PROVEN Fact that 'thoughts' AND 'feelings' CAN BE SEEN.

Can the 'Mind' also be SEEN with the physical eyes "atla"?

What ABOUT the 'wind', can 'that' ALSO BE SEEN with the physical eyes?

Mind is all the thoughts, feelings etc. put together, so again brain scans
For the wind you just use some instrument that can detect air molecules, although if there's enough smoke, you may not even need that

[Atla]

What does the ACTUAL 'thought' of a cat, or a dog, for example, look like EXACTLY?

And, what does the ACTUAL 'emotion' of 'happiness', or of 'sorrow', for example, look like EXACTLY?

Technology isn't there yet, although they can already reconstruct images from dreams for example with fairly good accuracy, simply by scanning the brain

[Atla]

And by the way, WHERE, EXACTLY, did I, supposedly, CONTRADICT "myself" here?

You rejected magical thinking such as: the universe began, space appeared out of nothing.
But you didn't reject the magical thinking of change: the past disappears into nothing, the future appears out of nothing.

[Belinda]

Has anyone here been a seventeenth century ship's rat?

As we know species are not immutable. Darwin The Origin of species By Natural Selection

[popeye1945]

Has anyone here been a seventeenth century ship's rat?

As we know species are not immutable. Darwin The Origin of species By Natural Selection

Belinda,

If all our historical genetic materials could be manipulated from now to the primordial pool, who knows the creatures we once were, and the powers that we incorporated back then, that still reside within?

[Harbal]

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

The best I can come up with in answer to that question is, consciousness. As far as I am aware, no one has yet been able to explain what consciousness actually is, so I don't suppose it's a very informative answer. I believe there are four forces known to physics; perhaps consciousness is a fifth.

Even though I can't tell you exactly what I mean by "I", I find it impossible to avoid using the word, so I fear you will be placing me in this position quite often.

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.

I think I was implying it was more tricky to explain how actions, or the results of them, could be thought of as being part of the "I" that initiated them.

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 think I'm trying to blame the inadequacy of language, but I am more than willing to blame something else if you have any suitable suggestions.

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?

I don't know.

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?

I have already said that I can't say exactly what "I" is, so, although there are various things that I could be, depending on the context in which I am referring to myself, I don't really know what any of them are.

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

If I identify such an option, I will pounce on it.

[Age]

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.

Ah okay. Thus IT IS AN ALREADY PROVEN Fact that 'thoughts' AND 'feelings' CAN BE SEEN.

Can the 'Mind' also be SEEN with the physical eyes "atla"?

What ABOUT the 'wind', can 'that' ALSO BE SEEN with the physical eyes?

Mind is all the thoughts, feelings etc. put together, so again brain scans

LOL
LOL
LOL okay.

For the wind you just use some instrument that can detect air molecules, although if there's enough smoke, you may not even need that

Did you even COMPREHEND the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed here and ASKED you?

[Age]

What does the ACTUAL 'thought' of a cat, or a dog, for example, look like EXACTLY?

And, what does the ACTUAL 'emotion' of 'happiness', or of 'sorrow', for example, look like EXACTLY?

Technology isn't there yet, although they can already reconstruct images from dreams for example with fairly good accuracy, simply by scanning the brain

Will you provide an ACTUAL link to this CLAIMED technology, which CAN ALREADY reconstruct images from dreams?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then WHY NOT?

[Atla]

Did you even COMPREHEND the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed here and ASKED you?

Air can be made visible to the naked eye using instruments. Everyone knows this, your question wasn't even relevant to the issue of mental phenomena.

[Age]

And by the way, WHERE, EXACTLY, did I, supposedly, CONTRADICT "myself" here?

You rejected magical thinking such as: the universe began, space appeared out of nothing.
But you didn't reject the magical thinking of change: the past disappears into nothing, the future appears out of nothing.

What are you even on about here?

[Atla]

Will you provide an ACTUAL link to this CLAIMED technology, which CAN ALREADY reconstruct images from dreams?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then WHY NOT?

I would say usually no, it's not my job to fill the many gaps in your knowledge. I'll make an exception

https://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/

[Atla]

And by the way, WHERE, EXACTLY, did I, supposedly, CONTRADICT "myself" here?

You rejected magical thinking such as: the universe began, space appeared out of nothing.
But you didn't reject the magical thinking of change: the past disappears into nothing, the future appears out of nothing.

What are you even on about here?

I said that, your entire claim about creation and evolution being central reasons for why we are here, can be as easily shown to be based on magical thinking, as the claim that the universe must have began. And then we didn't even look at the other magical claim of yours, that the future and the past should form an asymmetric world.

Past evolution is just a necessary route between a simpler state like a Big Bang, and humans. You've given no actual reason to think that evolution will be relevant anymore, nor any actual reason to think that there's anything to "creation".

[Age]

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

The best I can come up with in answer to that question is, consciousness. As far as I am aware, no one has yet been able to explain what consciousness actually is, so I don't suppose it's a very informative answer.

Okay. But what 'consciousness' and 'Consciousness' IS, EXACTLY, is ALREADY KNOWN, in case ANY one is interested.

I believe there are four forces known to physics; perhaps consciousness is a fifth.

Consciousness is ACTUALLY NOT a 'force' AT ALL but is more related to a 'sense', as in 'the sixth sense'.

Even though I can't tell you exactly what I mean by "I", I find it impossible to avoid using the word, so I fear you will be placing me in this position quite often.

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.

I think I was implying it was more tricky to explain how actions, or the results of them, could be thought of as being part of the "I" that initiated them.

ACTUALLY it is NOT, REALLY, well NOT to me anyway. And, in Fact, is a REALLY SIMPLE and REALLY EASY 'thing' TO DO.

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 think I'm trying to blame the inadequacy of language, but I am more than willing to blame something else if you have any suitable suggestions.

I found 'blame' NEVER ACTUALLY HELPFUL AT ALL. However, finding the ACTUAL REASONS WHY to be VERY HELPFUL INSTEAD.