What "side" are you on?

[Age]

LOL 'you' have done 'it' ONCE AGAIN. That is; DETRACT, and DECEIVE.

SEE, I do NOT have a so-called 'extremely specific meaning', that you do NOT happen to KNOW. And, 'this' can be PROVEN ABSOLUTELY True.

Then you wouldn't have asked if I'm even aware what the word refers to, dishonest one.

BUT, since I have ASKED 'it' 'you' have PROVEN to NOT YET KNOW "atla".

Do 'you' consider "yourself" a so-called 'honest one', "atla"?

Focus on the topic.

'This' could be construed as somewhat HYPOCRITICAL, or even VERY HYPOCRITICAL.

To SHOW 'your' how RIDICULOUS it is to CLAIM that THERE ARE some 'things' when one can NOT even 'define' and EXPLAIN, in 'detail', what 'those things' ARE EXACTLY, NOR even what 'those things' ARE SUPPOSED TO BE, EXACTLY.

Then you've proven that what you've asked me to do is ridiculous. So you've proven your own dishonesty. OBVIOUSLY.

BUT what 'you' SAID and WROTE here does NOT make sense, well to 'me' ANYWAY.

HOW, EXACTLY, WAS 'me' JUST ASKING 'you' to DEFINE or EXPLAIN what 'you' ACTUALLY MEANT' and/or ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, PROVE, to 'you' anyway, that what 'I' ASKED 'you' to do IS RIDICULOUS?

AND, WHY do 'you' CONTINUALLY RESORT BACK TO CALLING 'me' DISHONEST, when 'I" am JUST ASKING 'you' TO CLARIFY 'your' POSITIONS, VIEWS, and/or CLAIMS?

Furthermore, WHY does it ONLY COME to 'me' being, supposedly and allegedly, DISHONEST AFTER 'you' are NOT ABLE TO CLARIFY NOR EXPLAIN and back up and support 'your' OWN VIEWS and CLAIMS?

BUT I NEVER SAID that EVERY 'thing' IS 'active', NOR did I EVER MENTION absolutely ANY 'thing' about ANY 'definition' of the 'active' word.

So, HOW and WHY did 'you' MAKE THE ASSUMPTION, and JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION, that the 'active' word does NOT mean absolutely ANY 'thing' here?

Of course you have. If dead things are active, just like alive things are, then everything is active. OBVIOUSLY.

BUT 'this' IS what 'you' INFERRED.

And, AS I SAID, I NEVER SAID 'it'.

So,

1. These so-called 'individual minds' do NOT ACTUALLY 'evolve', as 'you' SAID and CLAIMED, BEFORE, BECAUSE 'now' 'you' are here SAYING and CLAIMING that it IS 'the brain', which CREATES 'the mind'?

No, I was just circumscribing that the mind is what the brain mainly evolved to do.

WOW, 'you' are now CIRCUMNAVIGATING, AGAIN.

SO, what is 'it', 'now', that 'the mind' IS, EXACTLY, which is, supposedly, what 'the brain', MAINLY, EVOLVED TO DO?

'We' seem to be getting FURTHER and FURTHER LOST and DEEPER and DEEPER INTO CONFUSION here. But 'this' maybe JUST 'Me', ALONE here.

2. HOW do 'you', SUPPOSEDLY, KNOW that 'the mind' is 'a part' of 'the brain', but, supposedly, now can NOT tell what percentage 'the mind' is, supposedly, 'a part' of 'the brain'?

Because everything we know in science, psychology etc. has localized the mind to the brain, but science can't establish an exact percentage yet. OBVIOUSLY.

BUT 'you' ALSO CLAIMED that 'these individual mind' 'thingies' are ALSO 'parts of' OTHER 'organs'.

So, HOW and WHY has, supposedly, EVERY 'thing' 'you', and some "others", KNOW (in science, psychology, and some OTHER 'thing/s'), have LOCALIZED 'the mind' TO 'the brain, 'now'?

3. IF 'the purpose' of 'the mind' is to, supposedly, 'coordinate the organism', on the inside, AND, 'the organism' USES 'the mind' to 'navigate the external world', then WHAT was 'coordinating' AND 'navigating' 'the organism' BEFORE 'the brain' CREATED 'the mind', EXACTLY?

Nothing was coordinating the wider organism before that.

Ah OKAY. So, 'the mind' is NOT NEEDED for the organism, named; 'human body', to 'coordinate' 'its' way around, NOR for 'its' survival neither, it 'now' appears.

4. HOW does 'a brain' CREATE a 'thing', which, supposedly, functions via 'biochemistry'? And,

The mind is a part of the biochemistric brain, it's not literally something else, something additional.

BUT, 'you' did SAY and CLAIM "atla" that 'the brain' CREATED 'the mind'. And, that 'the mind' functions via 'biochemistry'.

Which may make some WONDER, How ONE 'thing' COULD CREATE A 'part of' 'its own self'?

5. WHERE, EXACTLY, is the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF that there is A 'thing', called 'an individual mind', which functions via biochemistry?

There is no irrefutable proof,

Okay, so you just THINK and/or BELIEVE that there IS 'one', right?

but all the sciences and psychology and sociology are completely consistent with this.

WOW, REALLY?

Which seems REALLY RATHER CONTRADICTORY that the human beings who DO 'sciences', 'psychology', and/or 'sociology' are NOT AT ALL COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH 'THIS view' OF 'yours' here "atla", NOR ACTUALLY IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE WITH 'this view' NOR even WITH "each other's" VIEWS.

But, THEN AGAIN, 'you' MAY WELL list A textbook or two, which SHOW that 'they' AR CONSISTENT WITH 'your OWN views' here "atla"

BUT 'you' SAID, and CLAIMED, 'individual minds' EVOLVED, mainly, FOR 'survival PURPOSES', OBVIOUSLY'.

So, WHAT WAS CONTROLLING 'the SURVIVAL' of 'the organism' BEFORE 'these, alleged, individual minds' EVOLVED, or were CREATED?

Nothing was, they just reacted automatically to the environment without any higher processing, obviously.

SO, in ALL ACTUALITY 'these mind things' are NOT even NEEDED FOR 'survival' AT ALL, REALLY, and OBVIOUSLY, correct?

OBVIOUSLY, if the human body WAS SURVIVING BEFORE A 'thing', or 'things', then THAT 'thing' or THOSE 'things' ARE NOT REALLY NEEDED.

WHY do 'you' PRESUME that 'that' was a so-called 'simpler state'?

Because that's what science fairly consistently points toward, obviously.

'you' SPEAK and WRITE as though 'science', is some 'thing' ON 'its' OWN, and KNOWS what IS IRREFUTABLY True or NOT.

'you' do NOT seem to be FULLY AWARE that it is 'you', human beings, who DO 'science' and that 'you', human beings, and especially the older ones are ABSOLUTELY FALLIBLE creatures.

AND, even when NEARLY ALL OF 'you' ARE IN AGREEMENT, and even IN ACCEPTABLE of some 'thing', AS WELL, then 'that thing' can STILL BE False, Wrong, or Incorrect.

Are 'you' UNDER some sort of DELUSION that the Universe, Itself, is more 'complex' 'now' than 'It' was 'back then'?

No. Are you under some sort of delusion that the part of the universe that came from the Big Bang, must be the entire universe?

'This' here seems like a REALLY 'way out there' CLARIFYING QUESTION TO ASK here, now. Some might even be WONDERING if 'it' was ANOTHER DEFLECTION, and DECEPTIVE, TACTIC?

Anyway, to me, the entire Universe IS the entire Universe.

Now, BACK TO MY CLARIFYING QUESTION. So, 'you' are NOT UNDER some sort of DELUSION that the Universe, Itself, is more 'complex' 'now' that 'It' was PRIOR. Which is GREAT TO KNOW. Although 'it' appears to CONTRADICT 'your earlier CLAIM' that the Universe WAS 'simpler', PRIOR TO the days when this is being written.

WHAT WAY?

'The way' IS ALWAYS. 'The way' does NOT CHANGE 'in ways'.

'The way' the Universe IS NOW IS 'the way' the Universe ALWAYS IS (was AND will be).

'The way' the Universe IS HERE-NOW IS CONSTANT, in that 'It' IS ALWAYS CHANGING.

The Universe IS IN A state OF CONSTANT-CHANGE, ETERNALLY HERE, NOW.

'you' REALLY DO SPEAK and WRITE IN a VERY CONFUSED and LOST 'way' here sometimes"atla".

Again, the way from the Big bang to the present state world with humans in it. Which meant change. There is nothing confused about this; you are confused, obviously.

I am just GOING ON 'your words' ALONE here. Which were; A so-called and alleged 'previous state' was 'A SIMPLER STATE' than the 'current state', which 'you' are 'now' in "atla".

'you' seem to have MISSED the Fact that the Universe, Itself, has NEVER CHANGED in 'states'. As 'It' is ALWAYS IN the EXACT SAME STATE.

ALSO, 'you' here CLAIM that it is 'I' who IS, OBVIOUSLY, CONFUSED. So, what is 'it', EXACTLY, that 'you' BELIEVE I AM CONFUSED ABOUT, and which 'you' is, supposedly, OBVIOUS, TO 'you'?

So, although 'you' CLAIM that these, supposed, 'individual minds' EVOLVED 'mainly' for ONE reason, 'you' are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY UNABLE to INFORM 'us' of even IF there are ANY OTHER reasons, let alone of what they ACTUALLY ARE. So, 'you', ONCE AGAIN, just MAKE UP ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT what those reasons COULD BE, based SOLELY UPON your OTHER ASSUMPTION here ABOUT there being MAYBE MORE reasons than just the ONE reason, which 'you' have ALSO OBVIOUSLY just MADE UP, and THEN CLAIMED was FACTUAL.

You are obviously insane if you think that the entire body of scientific and psychological knowledge is "OBVIOUSLY MADE UP".

BUT I HAVE NEVER thought 'this'. So, WHY would 'you' even BEGIN to ASSUME 'this'?

I AM JUST POINTING OUT, SHOWING, and REVEALING the 'things' that 'you' MAKE UP, and then 'try to' CLAIM are REAL and TRUE here.

I suggest we ONLY LOOK AT at what the 'mind' word could MEAN, and be REFERRING TO, in relation to ALL of the other words and their definitions ALONE here.

Also, have 'you' even got ANY PROOF that 'mind' IS 'physical', like 'a virus' or 'a single-celled organism' IS?

If yes, then WHERE IS 'that PROOF', EXACTLY?

We have like total evidence that the mind is physical.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'We have, LIKE TOTAL, 'evidence' that the mind is physical'.

1. WHO does the 'we' word here REFER TO, EXACTLY?

2. Some of 'these people' STILL DID NOT SEEM to UNDERSTAND and KNOW the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between just 'evidence' and actual 'proof'.

3. WHERE and WHAT IS the, supposed, so-called 'total evidence' that 'the mind' IS physical, EXACTLY?

All the proof is in the sciences, psychology, sociology.

'you' KEEP ALLUDING TO 'this'.

'We', however, have YET TO BE SHOWN 'this'.

Whenever the 'physical' is affected, the 'mind' is affected accordingly.

WELL OBVIOUSLY, IF, according to 'YOUR' CLAIM here "atla", that these 'individual mind' things', which 'you' CLAIM EXIST, ARE physical would it THEN go, WITHOUT SAYING, that 'they' ARE THEN ALSO, physically, AFFECTED, accordingly to what INTERACTION that 'they' have HAD with OTHER 'physical things'?

So, to 'you', these so-called 'individual mind' 'thingies' look like 'words on a screen', AS WELL AS 'individual minds' LOOK LIKE 'physical matter' AND 'invisible' AT the EXACT SAME 'moment'.

Just out of CURIOSITY "atla", do 'you' think 'you' are EXPLAIN "your" VIEWS CLEARLY here?

I am explaining myself clearly, but you are insane, which is the point.

Okay. I thought 'that' might be 'the case', TO 'you'.

You lack almost every basic insight that almost everyone else have known all their lives, obviously.

LOL "atla". 'all their lives'.

Also, 'you' USE the 'obviously' word a LOT MORE OFTEN here, now. Which IS GREAT TO SEE, and WILL BE VERY HELPFUL.

Oh, and by they way,

Your mind is everything you experience right now, not just the words on a screen, obviously.[/quote]

So, AGAIN, WHO AM 'I"? WHO IS, SUPPOSEDLY, EXPERIENCING 'things' RIGHT NOW, and WHO HAS this 'mind' 'thing', which IS, SUPPOSEDLY ALSO, ALL OF the ACTUAL 'things', themselves, which I am, SUPPOSEDLY, EXPERIENCING, RIGHT NOW.

Have 'you' SEEN 'them' with those physical eyes "atla"? Or, HEAR 'them', OR SMELT 'them', OR FELT 'them', OR TASTED 'them?

You were the one stupid enough to ask the question what it's like to see the insides of some else's head from the outside, while being unable to do so since it's inside their heads. And once you cut them open, they're already dead. The best you can do is take brain scans to have an outside perspective picture about some of the inner workings in there.

BUT, there IS A FAR BETTER, Truer, MORE Accurate, AND MORE Correct WAY.

However, 'you' appear to BELIEVE otherwise. So, I WILL LEAVE 'you' WITH 'that way'.

NAME AT LEAST TWO textbooks WHERE, MOST, of what you have been SAYING, and CLAIMING, here 'it is written'.

Any general neuroscience textbook, obviously.

Was it just TOO HARD and/or TOO COMPLEX FOR 'you' "atla" to JUST NAME TWO textbooks ONLY?

Or, was there some OTHER reason WHY you would or could NOT JUST DO IT?

BUT, 'I" am Truly NOT COMPETENT to HAVE 'a conversation' WITH 'you', CORRECT "atla"?

Correct

At least 'you' COME STRAIGHT OUT and ANSWER SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS I ASK 'you' here, "atla".

WOW SOME 'thing' here has REALLY 'triggered a nerve', as some might say.

Not really - I'm not very politically correct and think that sometimes you need to be reminded that you aren't fully human, and at least partially by choice, so it's at least partially your fault.

SO, to 'you', 'I' CHOSE TO NOT BE FULLY 'human', right?

So, to 'you', 'I' AM 'parts OF the organs WITHIN a 'human body', AND WITH A MASSIVE DELUSION.

Yes, obviously, and I already said many times.

So, 'this one' HAS CLARIFIED that 'you', are PARTS OF the organs WITHIN 'those human bodies'.

And, that the PARTS OF the organs of 'this body' HAS A MASSIVE DELUSION.

Now 'we' ARE ALL MUCH MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE and WISER now FOR HAVING 'this' CLEARED UP hey "atla"?

So, to be CLEAR, to "atla", ALL of 'you' ARE 'the individual minds', which are PARTS OF 'the organs' of 'human bodies', and which EVOLVED, MAINLY, FOR 'survival purposes', OBVIOUSLY, BUT, which ALSO 'the brains' WITHIN 'those bodies' ACTUALLY CREATED, ANYWAY. BUT, 'those minds', or 'you', ARE NOT VERY EFFICIENT AT ALL BECAUSE the SURVIVAL of 'those bodies', and thus 'you' is VERY SHORT LIVED, RELATIVELY, and REALLY.

Yes. Minus ideas about some actual magical creation of the mind by the brain.

BUT it WAS 'you', "atla", who SAID and STATED:

But creating the mind is the 'main' purpose of the brain .

SO WHY WOULD 'you' 'now' WANT TO MINUS 'this part'?

But this view is an obvious view, so WHY haven't you started from here?

WHY have I NOT STARTED 'what', from 'here'? And, WHERE is 'here', EXACTLY?

Just so 'we' are AGAIN CLEAR 'here now'. The MAIN purpose of 'the brain' is or is TO NOT CREATE 'the mind'?

And, 'the mind' did or DID NOT EVOLVE, for the MAIN purpose of 'the survival' OF 'the body', and thus 'the brain', itself, right?

So, ALTHOUGH the Universe, Itself, IS ETERNAL, one TINY, MINISCULE LITTLE 'speck', which exists for a relatively NOTHING 'period of time', EXPECTS that 'it' ALREADY KNOWS, and CAN TELL EVERY 'thing' ELSE, WHAT the ACTUAL Truth IS here.

WHICH, FROM thee Truly UNIVERSAL perspective of 'thing' is EVEN FAR MORE FUNNIER, than what HAS BEEN APPEARING hitherto here, in this forum.

But only YOU, age, the human mind, claims to be able to TELL EVERY 'thing' ELSE, WHAT the ACTUAL Truth IS here.

So, are 'you' here now SAYING and CLAIMING that 'you' do NOT YET KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS here, and so 'you' are REALLY NOT TELLING 'us' what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY?

Do 'you' STILL BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that there ARE 'human minds', EXISTING, "atla"?

Good that you're finally admitting how obviously insane your claim is.

AND 'what', EXACTLY, IS 'my claim', AGAIN here, "atla", which I AM, SUPPOSEDLY, FINALLY, ADMITTING HOW OBVIOUSLY INSANE 'it' IS?

[Age]

OK.

1. Why did you title this thread, "What 'side' are you on?"

Just to refer to how OFTEN 'you' adult human beings PICK A "side", and then MAINTAIN and 'fight for' "that side".

AND, also to ALLUDE TO the ACTUAL Fact there are NO ACTUAL "sides" in the Universe, Itself. "sides" ONLY exist in the IMAGINATIONS or MAKINGS of 'you', human beings.

2. Who is the word "you" referring to in the thread title?

The one, which IS the invisible 'thoughts' (and 'emotions') WITHIN the visible human bodies.

Then do nothing, Age.

WHY, EXACTLY?

What, EXACTLY, LED 'you' COME-TO 'this ADVICE' or 'INSTRUCTION'?

The living world is in danger and the one called "Age" thinks it's an illusion.

1. HOW could the so-called 'living world', itself, BE 'in danger'?

2. HOW BIG, or SMALL, IS 'the living world' to 'you', "gary childress"?

3. What made 'you' ASSUME that I thought the so-called 'living world being in danger' IS 'an illusion'?

Your words are marked for posterity Age. If you are right, I will have won. If you are wrong, I will have won. But winning isn't what is at stake. Mark my words, Age.

I do NOT even HAVE ANY CLUE NOR IDEA as to what 'it' IS here, which 'you' are talking ABOUT or REFERRING TO in regards to 'winning' NOR being 'wrong' ABOUT.

Would you like to SHARE with 'me' what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that 'you' ARE talking ABOUT and/or REFERRING TO here, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[Age]

@Age:

3. Are you a chatbot, Age?

WHY did 'you' NOT message 'me' DIRECTLY, or WITH A quote of mine so that I could FIND, and SEE, 'this' CLARIFYING QUESTION.

No.

Because I didn't think of doing so. We, humans, make mistakes accidentally sometimes. Are you human, Age?

AS I HAVE ALREADY INFORMED 'you'. The word 'you', to me, MEANS or REFERS TO the invisible 'thoughts' and 'emotions' WITHIN a 'human body'.

The word "age" is just ANOTHER name or label 'placed upon' the one that 'these writings' are coming from and/or through.

Oh, and by the way, can one make a 'mistake', 'on purpose' anyway?

[Gary Childress]

Would you like to SHARE with 'me' what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that 'you' ARE talking ABOUT and/or REFERRING TO here, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I'm talking about the end of life as we know it on Earth. I'm talking about escalating war between humans, and global environmental catastrophe.

[Age]

Well IF 'you' HAD ASKED, EARLIER, THEN 'you' could have, ALSO, BEGUN to have WORKED WITH 'my definition' EARLIER, AS WELL.

Sure.

Me: So, could you demonstrate that there are no individual minds.

This would be like ASKING, 'Could 'you', "iwannaplato", DEMONSTRATE that there are NO 'unicorns'?'

Now, I can NOT 'demonstrate' that there are NO 'unicorns'. However, I could SHOW 'you', through AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition' of the 'mind' word that there is ONLY One Mind, which would THEN MEAN, and thus KNOWN, that there are NO "other minds".

Well, I suggested in my previous post that we use your definition. The one from the previous post. I'll quote it again.

That part within the human being, which is OPEN to ANY and EVERY 'thing', and which has enabled human beings to be able to learn, understand, and reason ANY and EVERY 'thing' and which continues to provide the ability to continue to keep learning, understanding, and reasoning ANY and EVERY 'thing'.

The ability of the (ALWAYS Truly OPEN) Mind is very closely related to 'intelligence', itself, AND which IS the EXACT SAME within EVERY human being.

And showing me or proving it to me, either one is fine.

What is 'it' that 'you' WANT 'now', 'this time'?

For me, to demonstrate/show/prove 'you' that there are NO 'individual minds', OR, that there is ONLY One Mind?

[Gary Childress]

WHY did 'you' NOT message 'me' DIRECTLY, or WITH A quote of mine so that I could FIND, and SEE, 'this' CLARIFYING QUESTION.

No.

Because I didn't think of doing so. We, humans, make mistakes accidentally sometimes. Are you human, Age?

AS I HAVE ALREADY INFORMED 'you'. The word 'you', to me, MEANS or REFERS TO the invisible 'thoughts' and 'emotions' WITHIN a 'human body'.

The word "age" is just ANOTHER name or label 'placed upon' the one that 'these writings' are coming from and/or through.

Believe whatever fantasy you want. If you're sitting at a computer screen typing under the screen name "Age", then you're sitting at a computer screen typing under the screen name "Age". If you can't understand what I'm saying, then you've got bigger problems that no one can solve, nor should anyone want to.

[Age]

Would you like to SHARE with 'me' what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that 'you' ARE talking ABOUT and/or REFERRING TO here, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I'm talking about the end of life as we know it on Earth.

Which WOULD BE THE GREATEST 'thing' that EVER HAPPENED TO 'you', human beings, AND THE REST OF planet earth and EVERY 'thing' ELSE on earth.

BECAUSE 'the life' I KNOW OF, on earth, in the days when this was being written WAS a FAR MORE 'war-torn, pollution-riddled, and stressful life' than 'it' was NOT. So, with 'that life' ENDING and 'the Truly Peaceful, stress less, pollution-free, loving and harmonious life' beginning AFTER 'the DEATH' of 'that OLD life' would be GREAT TO SEE, and LIVE through.

I'm talking about escalating war between humans, and global environmental catastrophe.

'you' SPEAK, WRITE, and talk ABOUT 'these things' here as though it is NOT 'you', adult human beings, who are the ONES who ARE CAUSING and CREATING 'them'.

Are 'you' STILL NOT YET AWARE "gary childress" that the ONLY ONES CAUSING and CREATING 'those things' ARE 'you', ADULT human beings, SOLELY?

[Age]

Because I didn't think of doing so. We, humans, make mistakes accidentally sometimes. Are you human, Age?

AS I HAVE ALREADY INFORMED 'you'. The word 'you', to me, MEANS or REFERS TO the invisible 'thoughts' and 'emotions' WITHIN a 'human body'.

The word "age" is just ANOTHER name or label 'placed upon' the one that 'these writings' are coming from and/or through.

Believe whatever fantasy you want. If you're sitting at a computer screen typing under the screen name "Age", then you're sitting at a computer screen typing under the screen name "Age".

Which IS, MORE OR LESS, EXACTLY what I JUST SAID and MEANT.

Now, what IS 'this fantasy', which 'you' are talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO here, EXACTLY?

If you can't understand what I'm saying, then you've got bigger problems that no one can solve, nor should anyone want to.

WHY would 'you' even BEGIN to ASSUME that I could NOT UNDERSTAND what 'you' were SAYING?

Could 'you' NOT UNDERSTAND what I WAS/AM SAYING here?

Is 'this' what LED 'you' TO PROJECT ONTO me what is HAPPENING WITH 'you', and/or ASSUME I could NOT DO the 'thing' that 'you' could/can NOT do here now?

[Atla]

BUT, since I have ASKED 'it' 'you' have PROVEN to NOT YET KNOW "atla".

Do 'you' consider "yourself" a so-called 'honest one', "atla"?

Honest people don't start debates with implying that they have a special knowledge of commonly used words, while others are typically not there yet.

'This' could be construed as somewhat HYPOCRITICAL, or even VERY HYPOCRITICAL.

Maybe by you, but otherwise no.

BUT what 'you' SAID and WROTE here does NOT make sense, well to 'me' ANYWAY.

HOW, EXACTLY, WAS 'me' JUST ASKING 'you' to DEFINE or EXPLAIN what 'you' ACTUALLY MEANT' and/or ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, PROVE, to 'you' anyway, that what 'I' ASKED 'you' to do IS RIDICULOUS?

AND, WHY do 'you' CONTINUALLY RESORT BACK TO CALLING 'me' DISHONEST, when 'I" am JUST ASKING 'you' TO CLARIFY 'your' POSITIONS, VIEWS, and/or CLAIMS?

Furthermore, WHY does it ONLY COME to 'me' being, supposedly and allegedly, DISHONEST AFTER 'you' are NOT ABLE TO CLARIFY NOR EXPLAIN and back up and support 'your' OWN VIEWS and CLAIMS?

But that's not what you did at all, and now you're also lying about it.

BUT 'this' IS what 'you' INFERRED.

And, AS I SAID, I NEVER SAID 'it'.

That's what it means to divide the world into living and non-living, you don't have to say it.

WOW, 'you' are now CIRCUMNAVIGATING, AGAIN.

SO, what is 'it', 'now', that 'the mind' IS, EXACTLY, which is, supposedly, what 'the brain', MAINLY, EVOLVED TO DO?

'We' seem to be getting FURTHER and FURTHER LOST and DEEPER and DEEPER INTO CONFUSION here. But 'this' maybe JUST 'Me', ALONE here.

Now it is getting very clear here that you don't want to understand that which is very simple and commonly understood.

BUT 'you' ALSO CLAIMED that 'these individual mind' 'thingies' are ALSO 'parts of' OTHER 'organs'.

So, HOW and WHY has, supposedly, EVERY 'thing' 'you', and some "others", KNOW (in science, psychology, and some OTHER 'thing/s'), have LOCALIZED 'the mind' TO 'the brain, 'now'?

I said maybe also parts of other organs, and there's some scientific evidence for that too. Anyway this isn't important now, it's enough if we focus on the brain.

Ah OKAY. So, 'the mind' is NOT NEEDED for the organism, named; 'human body', to 'coordinate' 'its' way around, NOR for 'its' survival neither, it 'now' appears.

Depends on the organism, obviously. It is needed for humans.

Why are you lying?
WHY don't you know or pretend not to know about these ABSOLUTELY BASIC issues which are common knowledge?

BUT, 'you' did SAY and CLAIM "atla" that 'the brain' CREATED 'the mind'. And, that 'the mind' functions via 'biochemistry'.

Which may make some WONDER, How ONE 'thing' COULD CREATE A 'part of' 'its own self'?

You are blatantly lying here, deliberately.

Okay, so you just THINK and/or BELIEVE that there IS 'one', right?

No, you are a blatantly dishonest liar by once again accusing me of this.

WOW, REALLY?

Which seems REALLY RATHER CONTRADICTORY that the human beings who DO 'sciences', 'psychology', and/or 'sociology' are NOT AT ALL COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH 'THIS view' OF 'yours' here "atla", NOR ACTUALLY IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE WITH 'this view' NOR even WITH "each other's" VIEWS.

But, THEN AGAIN, 'you' MAY WELL list A textbook or two, which SHOW that 'they' AR CONSISTENT WITH 'your OWN views' here "atla"

Really, by and large only the philosophical interpretations differ, if we use any at all. Did you never go to school? Never watched any documentaries about brains? Never read a Wikipedia page? Never opened a book?

SO, in ALL ACTUALITY 'these mind things' are NOT even NEEDED FOR 'survival' AT ALL, REALLY, and OBVIOUSLY, correct?

OBVIOUSLY, if the human body WAS SURVIVING BEFORE A 'thing', or 'things', then THAT 'thing' or THOSE 'things' ARE NOT REALLY NEEDED.

Completely incorrect, you are blatantly lying here. Humans can't survive without minds. The only thing you can do without a mind is lie unresponsive in a bed, and machines will keep you alive.

'you' SPEAK and WRITE as though 'science', is some 'thing' ON 'its' OWN, and KNOWS what IS IRREFUTABLY True or NOT.

'you' do NOT seem to be FULLY AWARE that it is 'you', human beings, who DO 'science' and that 'you', human beings, and especially the older ones are ABSOLUTELY FALLIBLE creatures.

AND, even when NEARLY ALL OF 'you' ARE IN AGREEMENT, and even IN ACCEPTABLE of some 'thing', AS WELL, then 'that thing' can STILL BE False, Wrong, or Incorrect.

Another blatant lie: I don't speak as if scientific knowledge is irrefutably true.

'This' here seems like a REALLY 'way out there' CLARIFYING QUESTION TO ASK here, now. Some might even be WONDERING if 'it' was ANOTHER DEFLECTION, and DECEPTIVE, TACTIC?

Anyway, to me, the entire Universe IS the entire Universe.

Now, BACK TO MY CLARIFYING QUESTION. So, 'you' are NOT UNDER some sort of DELUSION that the Universe, Itself, is more 'complex' 'now' that 'It' was PRIOR. Which is GREAT TO KNOW. Although 'it' appears to CONTRADICT 'your earlier CLAIM' that the Universe WAS 'simpler', PRIOR TO the days when this is being written.

No, by the world with humans in it, I didn't mean the entire universe.

I am just GOING ON 'your words' ALONE here. Which were; A so-called and alleged 'previous state' was 'A SIMPLER STATE' than the 'current state', which 'you' are 'now' in "atla".

'you' seem to have MISSED the Fact that the Universe, Itself, has NEVER CHANGED in 'states'. As 'It' is ALWAYS IN the EXACT SAME STATE.

ALSO, 'you' here CLAIM that it is 'I' who IS, OBVIOUSLY, CONFUSED. So, what is 'it', EXACTLY, that 'you' BELIEVE I AM CONFUSED ABOUT, and which 'you' is, supposedly, OBVIOUS, TO 'you'?

Again, nowhere was I talking about the entire universe, obviously. That would be logically inconsistent.

BUT I HAVE NEVER thought 'this'. So, WHY would 'you' even BEGIN to ASSUME 'this'?

I AM JUST POINTING OUT, SHOWING, and REVEALING the 'things' that 'you' MAKE UP, and then 'try to' CLAIM are REAL and TRUE here.

You have yet to point out anything other than that you are addicted to your beliefs.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'We have, LIKE TOTAL, 'evidence' that the mind is physical'.

1. WHO does the 'we' word here REFER TO, EXACTLY?

2. Some of 'these people' STILL DID NOT SEEM to UNDERSTAND and KNOW the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between just 'evidence' and actual 'proof'.

3. WHERE and WHAT IS the, supposed, so-called 'total evidence' that 'the mind' IS physical, EXACTLY?

1. humanity in general
2. of course not
3. again, all of science and psychology is consistent with it, and it's still your job to somehow show otherwise

'you' KEEP ALLUDING TO 'this'.

'We', however, have YET TO BE SHOWN 'this'.

It's all publicly available knowledge. Thousands or millions of pages of evidence. You have yet to refute it.

WELL OBVIOUSLY, IF, according to 'YOUR' CLAIM here "atla", that these 'individual mind' things', which 'you' CLAIM EXIST, ARE physical would it THEN go, WITHOUT SAYING, that 'they' ARE THEN ALSO, physically, AFFECTED, accordingly to what INTERACTION that 'they' have HAD with OTHER 'physical things'?

Well of course, and we have all the evidence that they are.

So, AGAIN, WHO AM 'I"? WHO IS, SUPPOSEDLY, EXPERIENCING 'things' RIGHT NOW, and WHO HAS this 'mind' 'thing', which IS, SUPPOSEDLY ALSO, ALL OF the ACTUAL 'things', themselves, which I am, SUPPOSEDLY, EXPERIENCING, RIGHT NOW.

Again, you are a part of that human body.

BUT, there IS A FAR BETTER, Truer, MORE Accurate, AND MORE Correct WAY.

However, 'you' appear to BELIEVE otherwise. So, I WILL LEAVE 'you' WITH 'that way'.

So you can NOT do the one thing I asked: prove that 99%+ of adult human beings are wrong in thinking that they have individual minds. Pathetic.

Was it just TOO HARD and/or TOO COMPLEX FOR 'you' "atla" to JUST NAME TWO textbooks ONLY?

Or, was there some OTHER reason WHY you would or could NOT JUST DO IT?

Read any textbook or wikipedia page on neuroscience. Here are a few dozen
https://www.google.com/search?q=books+o ... uroscience

SO, to 'you', 'I' CHOSE TO NOT BE FULLY 'human', right?

Yes I think it's time to say that.

So, 'this one' HAS CLARIFIED that 'you', are PARTS OF the organs WITHIN 'those human bodies'.

And, that the PARTS OF the organs of 'this body' HAS A MASSIVE DELUSION.

Now 'we' ARE ALL MUCH MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE and WISER now FOR HAVING 'this' CLEARED UP hey "atla"?

And why did it take you like 5 years to understand this, even though it's completely basic and was said many times?

BUT it WAS 'you', "atla", who SAID and STATED:

But creating the mind is the 'main' purpose of the brain .

SO WHY WOULD 'you' 'now' WANT TO MINUS 'this part'?

Again you are blatantly lying about this.

WHY have I NOT STARTED 'what', from 'here'? And, WHERE is 'here', EXACTLY?

Just so 'we' are AGAIN CLEAR 'here now'. The MAIN purpose of 'the brain' is or is TO NOT CREATE 'the mind'?

And, 'the mind' did or DID NOT EVOLVE, for the MAIN purpose of 'the survival' OF 'the body', and thus 'the brain', itself, right?

Again you are just being blatantly dishonest by NOT wanting to understand.

So, are 'you' here now SAYING and CLAIMING that 'you' do NOT YET KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS here, and so 'you' are REALLY NOT TELLING 'us' what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY?

This is what I've always been saying, you are just being blatantly dishonest by saying 'now'.

Do 'you' STILL BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that there ARE 'human minds', EXISTING, "atla"?

Utter and total dishonesty, since you know that I never claimed to 'absolutely' believe anything, on the contrary.

AND 'what', EXACTLY, IS 'my claim', AGAIN here, "atla", which I AM, SUPPOSEDLY, FINALLY, ADMITTING HOW OBVIOUSLY INSANE 'it' IS?

Your claims to know the TRUTH are just delusional.

[Dontaskme]

JUST BECAUSE what IS 'on the so-called "other side", (or 'behind the curtain', so some call "the other-side" here), IS INVISIBLE to the physical eye/s of the physical human body, does NOT mean that 'It' can NOT bee SEEN (and) UNDERSTOOD.

The 'other-side' of looking can be understood to be unseeable,but not to be understood as seen.To imply the 'other-side' of the looker is an invisible place is meaningless. What is understood is that only the visible is seen, and that's all that can be known. There is no image of the looker, there is only the 'looked upon' that can be imaged.

The 'Mind', just like 'thought', IS INVISIBLE, TO the 'naked eye', ONLY. BUT these two 'things' can be SEEN, as in, UNDERSTOOD.

(Mind and Thought) are simply concepts known, never seen. Like gravity, it is never seen, only known through the physical experience of gravities effect on our body. That's all that can be known, this physical experience in this conception.

If there is, what would the other side of the seen side of things look like to you Age?

It is NOT ABOUT what it WOULD look like, but ABOUT what 'It' ACTUALLY IS, EXACTLY.

I already know that the 'other side' of the seen-side of looking is unknowable and unseen. So it doesn't make sense to me to ponder what it is. All I know can be known is the 'seen-side' of looking.

Who or what is looking anyway? and can that be seen?

WHO IS 'thee Mind'?

WHAT IS 'the Universe'?

Questions like WHO or WHAT can only be answered by more questions.

[seeds]

Could you then, working from the above definition, prove that

there is ONLY One Mind, and NOT MANY minds,

Yes, as just EXPLAINED, HOW.

Yes, Iwannaplato, he clearly explained it in precisely the same way he explains all of his arguments.

However, what Age failed to include in that "EXPLANATION" of his proof of there only being one mind, is that in order for you to ascertain the full scope of that proof, you will need to step into his custom-made thunder pot...



...and then feel around in the cesspool beneath his ample bottom where the clarifying answer to your question has been freshly evacuated from his mental bowels.

Why do you guys allow yourselves to be drawn into his labyrinthian mazes of nonsense that lead to nowhere?

Is it for kicks? Out of boredom? What?
_______

[Iwannaplato]

Why do you guys allow yourselves to be drawn into his labyrinthian mazes of nonsense that lead to nowhere?

Is it for kicks? Out of boredom? What?
_______

Wow. I've never had that depth of unpleasant experience with Age. Why did you allow whatever interaction you had with him to get that unpleasant?

In any case. I am asking Age questions.
And as you can see below (and above) this doesn't require so much writing, so far.

[Iwannaplato]

What is 'it' that 'you' WANT 'now', 'this time'?

For me, to demonstrate/show/prove 'you' that there are NO 'individual minds', OR, that there is ONLY One Mind?

What you said earlier: that

there is ONLY One Mind, and NOT MANY minds,

[Atla]

Why do you guys allow yourselves to be drawn into his labyrinthian mazes of nonsense that lead to nowhere?

Is it for kicks? Out of boredom? What?

I don't have any good reason. Then again, I don't have any good reason for being on a philosophy forum at all.

Interacting with Age is:
- slightly funny
- slightly good against boredom
- am slightly curious about the psychology. Age's mental structure seems to be one of the few that I haven't assimilated yet, mainly because I haven't fully figured it out yet. It's just so weird, so strange, so unusual. I rarely learn something new anymore, and this is kinda new.
- am slightly curious what Age has up her/his sleeve in the end, but we'll probably never get there which is also fine

[Age]

JUST BECAUSE what IS 'on the so-called "other side", (or 'behind the curtain', so some call "the other-side" here), IS INVISIBLE to the physical eye/s of the physical human body, does NOT mean that 'It' can NOT bee SEEN (and) UNDERSTOOD.

The 'other-side' of looking can be understood to be unseeable,but not to be understood as seen.

BUT there is NO ACTUAL "other-side".

To imply the 'other-side' of the looker is an invisible place is meaningless.

To imply that there is even an ACTUAL "other-side" is just PLAIN OLD False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, ANYWAY.

What is understood is that only the visible is seen, and that's all that can be known.

LOL
LOL
LOL

What a PERFECTLY example of just how SMALL, NARROWED, or CLOSED some views were, which some people HAD.

To 'this one' 'things' like wind, emotions, and thoughts can NOT be known.

There is no image of the looker, there is only the 'looked upon' that can be imaged.

So, what 'this' MEANS, well to 'this one' anyway, IS the human beings in which the physical eyes do NOT work can have NO 'image' AT ALL of ANY 'thing'.

'This one' APPEARS to NOT YET UNDERSTAND, nor KNOW, FULLY the ABILITY OF 'IMAGINATION', itself, and HOW 'image' can ACTUALLY BE CREATED.

The 'Mind', just like 'thought', IS INVISIBLE, TO the 'naked eye', ONLY. BUT these two 'things' can be SEEN, as in, UNDERSTOOD.

(Mind and Thought) are simply concepts known, never seen. Like gravity, it is never seen, only known through the physical experience of gravities effect on our body. That's all that can be known, this physical experience in this conception.

AFTER ALL OF these 'back and forth interactions' "dontaskme" 'you' STILL HAVE NOT YET SEEN/UNDERSTOOD what I have been talking ABOUT.

Do 'you' SEE what I MEAN?

If there is, what would the other side of the seen side of things look like to you Age?

It is NOT ABOUT what it WOULD look like, but ABOUT what 'It' ACTUALLY IS, EXACTLY.

I already know that the 'other side' of the seen-side of looking is unknowable and unseen. So it doesn't make sense to me to ponder what it is. All I know can be known is the 'seen-side' of looking.

YES, we ARE ALREADY FULLY AWARE of what 'you', the human being known as "dontaskme" BELIEVES IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE here.

That is, 'you' BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that there are some 'things' that 'you', human beings, can NEVER come-to-know.

'I', however, ALREADY KNOW, and have SEEN and UNDERSTOOD, 'those things', which, to 'you', 'you' WILL NEVER.

Who or what is looking anyway? and can that be seen?

WHO IS 'thee Mind'?

WHAT IS 'the Universe'?

Questions like WHO or WHAT can only be answered by more questions.

HOW, EXACTLY, are QUESTIONS ANSWERING QUESTIONS.

Now, the ANSWERS to 'your' NEW QUESTIONS here ARE:

'I', in the invisible sense, AM 'thee Mind'.

EVERY 'thing' is 'the Universe', (which it could be said includes 'thee Mind').

SEE, it ALL DEPENDS on HOW one WANTS to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' here.

JUST LIKE WHO and WHAT 'the human being' IS, EXACTLY, ALL DEPENDS ON HOW one WANTS to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' there, AS WELL.

And, this phenomenon exists BECAUSE absolutely EVERY 'thing' is relative TO 'the observer'.