The Mind.

[Age]

Even your question here "iwannaplato" was not formed in a way that would elicit what "harbal" was, obviously, asking for and seeking. So, your question here "iwannaplato" would not have sufficed.

As you are obviously only just asking a 'Yes' or 'No' question. To which I would have answered, 'Yes'.

And, by the way, I have already partly, at least, done after I was asked to you by "harbal".

See, how Life, and/or living, really can be very simple and very easy, indeed.

And by the way. If someone says....
Could you please do x?
And you say Yes and then don't do it, you are being quite rude and in certain circumstances potentially hurting, inconveniencing, or causing someone problems

Could you please drive me to the airport now`?
Yes.

And then the person, after a bit just walks away and doesn't drive them to the airport, at minimum that person has not responded accurately to the request and possibly done the requester harm.

You were quite incorrect here.

I just responded to this, the last time you wrote this.

[Harbal]

Yes certainly "harbal". Well at least I will try to give a full explanation in one attempt here, but to give a really 'full explanation', might just take a bit longer and might need somethings clarified, which for and to each individual might be different, and before this is fully understood, and thus fully explained.

To me;

The word 'mind' refers to...

There are individual human brains, each of which is accessible to an individual instance of consciousness, and it is the interaction between the two (brain and consciousness) that results in what we call the mind.

Who and/or what is 'we' word here referring to, exactly?

And, from what I have observed I have yet to see just two of you human beings agree upon and accept any definition for the 'mind' word.

So, if you would like to present another human being who agrees with and accepts 'the somewhat definition' of and for the 'mind' word here, so 'we' could talk about and discuss 'this' here, then I would be very grateful.

That is (sort of) how it seems to me, anyway. Therefore, I am one of the many who assume the existence of many minds, rather than just one "Mind".

Which is perfectly fine and very normal, especially considering what 'you and that body' has, previously, experienced, so far.

Also, I am not yet aware of anyone assuming otherwise.

This is perhaps a simplistic account of what I think of the mind as being, and also a speculative one, as I don’t really know what consciousness is, or how it comes about.

Understanding what 'consciousness' and 'Consciousness' are, exactly, will come about after comprehending and understanding other things here, firstly.

I have read your explanation twice, but have not been able to identify the reasoning that points to one “Mind”, rather than many minds.

Okay. Thank you for letting me know.

Perhaps if you try to explain what is incorrect about my above description of the mind, it will help to make it clearer what you are trying explain in your description of the “Mind”.

you said and wrote here;
'There are individual human brains, each of which is accessible to an individual instance of consciousness, and it is the interaction between the two (brain and consciousness) that results in what we call the mind.'

1. I think there is no one who will try to refute that there are individual human brains. So, to me this is correct.

2. Brains are made up of atoms, which are made up of smaller particles of matter. Now, either particles of matter have the ability to be 'conscious' of things, which just means more or less they have 'the ability to be aware of things', individually, or when those individual particles of matter are grouped together, into and as 'one object', like a human brain. Now, if anyone has any backed up and support 'information' on whether 'matter', itself, is able to be 'conscious' or 'aware' of things, then by all means please present 'that' here. Until then I not yet become aware that it is already a proved Fact that human brains, themselves, are 'conscious' nor 'aware' of things.

3. I have no real understanding at all yet, of what you are meaning or referring to, by the words;
'it is the interaction between the two (brain and consciousness) that results in what we call the mind.'

What is 'it', exactly, which is 'conscious', 'aware', or 'consciousness', itself, which the, supposed, interaction of 'it' with 'a human brain', supposedly, results in what 'you' call 'the mind'?

Are you saying, more or less, that when some thing known as 'consciousness', itself, is just interacting with 'a human brain', itself, then it is just 'the interaction', itself, which is what the 'mind' word is meaning and/or referring to, exactly?

I cannot even begin to, successfully, explain what I see as, maybe, 'incorrect' until I get a much better understanding of what 'it' is, exactly, which you are trying to talk about and explain here.

And, if it is 'the interaction' between the two, [that is; the 'human brain', and, 'consciousness', themselves], that 'is or results in' what you call 'the mind', then is this like when 'two human brains' are interacting with 'each other', then this 'is or results in' what are sometimes called discussions or conversations, among other things?

I'm trying to avoid getting bogged down in a back and forth exchange about the clarification of every term, especially as very often what is being questioned is irrelevant. I have a limited knowledge of how brains work, and an even more sparse one about how consciousness works, or what it actually even is, so there is bound to be a good deal of vagueness about what I am trying to explain, but my conception of what the mind is, is that it is what emerges when the brain and consciousness interact. I imagine this interaction to take place in individual instances, and that is why I think of minds as being separate from each other, and there being many of them, as opposed to just one "Mind". Do you think I am incorrect in assuming that the mind is just a coalition between the brain and consciousness?

[Age]

There are individual human brains, each of which is accessible to an individual instance of consciousness, and it is the interaction between the two (brain and consciousness) that results in what we call the mind.

Who and/or what is 'we' word here referring to, exactly?

And, from what I have observed I have yet to see just two of you human beings agree upon and accept any definition for the 'mind' word.

So, if you would like to present another human being who agrees with and accepts 'the somewhat definition' of and for the 'mind' word here, so 'we' could talk about and discuss 'this' here, then I would be very grateful.

That is (sort of) how it seems to me, anyway. Therefore, I am one of the many who assume the existence of many minds, rather than just one "Mind".

Which is perfectly fine and very normal, especially considering what 'you and that body' has, previously, experienced, so far.

Also, I am not yet aware of anyone assuming otherwise.

This is perhaps a simplistic account of what I think of the mind as being, and also a speculative one, as I don’t really know what consciousness is, or how it comes about.

Understanding what 'consciousness' and 'Consciousness' are, exactly, will come about after comprehending and understanding other things here, firstly.

I have read your explanation twice, but have not been able to identify the reasoning that points to one “Mind”, rather than many minds.

Okay. Thank you for letting me know.

Perhaps if you try to explain what is incorrect about my above description of the mind, it will help to make it clearer what you are trying explain in your description of the “Mind”.

you said and wrote here;
'There are individual human brains, each of which is accessible to an individual instance of consciousness, and it is the interaction between the two (brain and consciousness) that results in what we call the mind.'

1. I think there is no one who will try to refute that there are individual human brains. So, to me this is correct.

2. Brains are made up of atoms, which are made up of smaller particles of matter. Now, either particles of matter have the ability to be 'conscious' of things, which just means more or less they have 'the ability to be aware of things', individually, or when those individual particles of matter are grouped together, into and as 'one object', like a human brain. Now, if anyone has any backed up and support 'information' on whether 'matter', itself, is able to be 'conscious' or 'aware' of things, then by all means please present 'that' here. Until then I not yet become aware that it is already a proved Fact that human brains, themselves, are 'conscious' nor 'aware' of things.

3. I have no real understanding at all yet, of what you are meaning or referring to, by the words;
'it is the interaction between the two (brain and consciousness) that results in what we call the mind.'

What is 'it', exactly, which is 'conscious', 'aware', or 'consciousness', itself, which the, supposed, interaction of 'it' with 'a human brain', supposedly, results in what 'you' call 'the mind'?

Are you saying, more or less, that when some thing known as 'consciousness', itself, is just interacting with 'a human brain', itself, then it is just 'the interaction', itself, which is what the 'mind' word is meaning and/or referring to, exactly?

I cannot even begin to, successfully, explain what I see as, maybe, 'incorrect' until I get a much better understanding of what 'it' is, exactly, which you are trying to talk about and explain here.

And, if it is 'the interaction' between the two, [that is; the 'human brain', and, 'consciousness', themselves], that 'is or results in' what you call 'the mind', then is this like when 'two human brains' are interacting with 'each other', then this 'is or results in' what are sometimes called discussions or conversations, among other things?

I'm trying to avoid getting bogged down in a back and forth exchange about the clarification of every term,

Okay.

especially as very often what is being questioned is irrelevant.

Maybe to you.

But, for example, if one is trying to explain to the other that actually there is one Mind only, while the other is trying to claim that there are actually many minds, then getting so-called 'bogged down' about clarifying what the term or word 'mind' is, and/or is referring to, exactly, would be relevant. Do you agree with this?

I have a limited knowledge of how brains work, and an even more sparse one about how consciousness works, or what it actually even is, so there is bound to be a good deal of vagueness about what I am trying to explain, but my conception of what the mind is, is that it is what emerges when the brain and consciousness interact.

Yes, I think I totally understood this already.

And, what this means is, and correct me if I am wrong or incorrect in anyway here, but what this means to you is the 'brain', (which you do not yet fully understand nor have full knowledge of how it works), and 'consciousness', (which you have less understanding and knowledge about) interact together, (that is if they even do, and if they do in whatever unknown way that they do), then what emerges from this, to you, is what the 'mind' word or term is meaning or referring to, correct?

If yes, then what is 'it', exactly, which, supposedly, 'emerges'?

Is 'it' at least physical, can 'it' be seen, heard, felt, smelt, or tasted?

Is there anything else that you can explain to me about 'that' is, which you say emerges, at 'the interaction'?

I imagine this interaction to take place in individual instances, and that is why I think of minds as being separate from each other, and there being many of them, as opposed to just one "Mind".

So, there, essentially, could be a new mind being created, or coming into being or existence, within a human body every individual second of every hour of every day, right?

Do you think I am incorrect in assuming that the mind is just a coalition between the brain and consciousness?

Yes.

[Atla]

you appear to not yet be fully aware of what the 'could' word means and refers to, exactly, to me.

But, this is not that surprising considering what you just said, wrote, and claimed here.

For example, if you asked me, 'Could you please drive this motor car?' I could say, 'Yes', but there is absolutely no obligation on my part to do so. I am just answering, and clarifying, the actual clarifying question asked.

I never said there was an obligation. I said it was a request and not a yes or no question. A yes or no question is only asking for the answer and this was, in addition a request.

However, if you asked me instead, 'Will you please drive this motor car?' And, if I say, 'Yes', then I would 'have to', that is; if I am true to 'my word'. As this is what the 'will' word here is meaning and referring to, exactly.

Sure, though that's not relevant here.

A yes, no question need not be a request.

As a form of politeness one phrases this request as a question, but it is a request.

Well it would not be a 'request' if it was not asked as a question. If one 'requests' some thing, which is not proposed as a question, then it would be a statement of 'demand', correct?

Sure. But it is not only a yes, no question.

And, in "english", to make the request Accurate and Correct one replaces the 'could' word with the 'will' word. That is; if one really wants another to do some thing.

No. Will you need not be a request. Will you go to work tomorrow? is very likely NOT request.

Will you prove that your statement above is a yes, or no question about what you will do. I may not even want you to do it, but I am curious about whether you will.

See, what one 'could' do, in no way means that that one 'will' do it.

Sure, but that's not relevant, nor are you correct about 'will' making it a request.

Also, in any language, at any time, people can and do use words in the not exact same way that words were intended to be used and were intended to mean and refer to, exactly.

Sure.

This is known to many but not all, obviously, at the time this is being written.

Oh, it was already known, well to me, that plenty of you adult human beings, for quite some time, have said and asked the question like for example, 'Could you please do ... {this or that]?' But, what is actually meant is, 'Will you please do ... [this or that]?'

The you were confused.

Much unnecessary pedantry elided.

In a forum where you have come to learn about how to communicate better you just spent some time telling someone who teaches English professionally a number of incorrect things, in two posts now, about English usage.

As you are obviously only just asking a 'Yes' or 'No' question. To which I would have answered, 'Yes'.

Notice how you said 'obviously only' asking a 'Yes' or 'No' question. This is false. It was not only that, it was a request. And note you say you would have answered, but you haven't.

But I am happy to adjust my question to the way you would like to idiosyncratically use language:
Will you prove that the following statement is true?:

There is only one 'Mind' and not many, as some might have first thought, or believed, there is.

If your answer is yes, I have a follow up question: When will you do this and where?

Thank you in advance for your answers, should they come.

And by the way. If someone says....
Could you please do x?
And you say Yes and then don't do it, you are being quite rude and in certain circumstances potentially hurting, inconveniencing, or causing someone problems

Could you please drive me to the airport now`?
Yes.

And then the person, after a bit just walks away and doesn't drive them to the airport, at minimum that person has not responded accurately to the request and possibly done the requester harm.

You were quite incorrect here.

Well Age can't help it, many autistics misunderstand the expression "could you". They don't process implications that a language like English is filled with.

[Harbal]

I have a limited knowledge of how brains work, and an even more sparse one about how consciousness works, or what it actually even is, so there is bound to be a good deal of vagueness about what I am trying to explain, but my conception of what the mind is, is that it is what emerges when the brain and consciousness interact.

Yes, I think I totally understood this already.

And, what this means is, and correct me if I am wrong or incorrect in anyway here, but what this means to you is the 'brain', (which you do not yet fully understand nor have full knowledge of how it works), and 'consciousness', (which you have less understanding and knowledge about) interact together, (that is if they even do, and if they do in whatever unknown way that they do), then what emerges from this, to you, is what the 'mind' word or term is meaning or referring to, correct?

Absolutely correct, yes.

I suppose you could say that is my definition of the word, "mind", when I use it.

If yes, then what is 'it', exactly, which, supposedly, 'emerges'?

I don't know what to call it other than an awareness of a unique collection of knowledge, information, memory and experience. All the things that make me me, or at least create a sense of me-ness.

Is 'it' at least physical, can 'it' be seen, heard, felt, smelt, or tasted?

My intuitive answer would be to say that the mind is nonphysical, but I would also say that it is brain dependant, so I'm afraid you'll have to work out the answer to your question yourself, as I don't know the answer.

Is there anything else that you can explain to me about 'that' is, which you say emerges, at 'the interaction'?

I can't think of anything at the moment.

I imagine this interaction to take place in individual instances, and that is why I think of minds as being separate from each other, and there being many of them, as opposed to just one "Mind".

So, there, essentially, could be a new mind being created, or coming into being or existence, within a human body every individual second of every hour of every day, right?

I don't know what you mean.

Do you think I am incorrect in assuming that the mind is just a coalition between the brain and consciousness?

Yes.

You could well be right.

[Iwannaplato]

Well Age can't help it, many autistics misunderstand the expression "could you". They don't process implications that a language like English is filled with.

Autism, some other issue, whatever.
He came here to learn how to communicate better, but is utterly resistant to learning how to do this to the point where he is condescending and dismissive when dealing with people significantly more fluent than he is.

Of course, I have assumed common notions of what 'learn' means.
Perhaps to Age 'learn' means 'resist and punish feedback'.
So, it could all really be my fault for assuming things.

And perhaps all he wanted to learn how to communicate better was his disdain for the people living at the time this was written.

My goodness, so many charitable assumptions on my part.

I should spend years getting him to clarify what he means by English words.

What does he mean by mean? clarify? one? there? is? only?

And then ask about the words in his clarifications - if he clarifies.

Could you please clarify what you mean by mind?

'Yes.' + lecture on how badly worded my request was.

I suspect we should get a clarification on the word 'yes''?

It seems Age means 'no' by 'yes' ....only you have to wait to find this out.

[Atla]

There is only one 'Mind' and not many, as some might have first thought, or believed, there is.

Will you give a full explanation of how there is only one mind, rather than many, as some of us first thought?

Yes certainly "harbal". Well at least I will try to give a full explanation in one attempt here, but to give a really 'full explanation', might just take a bit longer and might need somethings clarified, which for and to each individual might be different, and before this is fully understood, and thus fully explained.

To me;

The word 'mind' refers to 'the thing, from which one is able to learn, see, understand, reason, imagine, design, devise, make, build, and/or create absolutely any and all things.

Although many adult human beings use the word 'mind', on many occasions, to what is actually just the 'thoughts or thinking', themselves, within a body, the 'Mind', Itself, is actually something different. I also use the word 'Mind' instead of 'mind' word to emphasize that there is only one Mind, only, and not many.

From the moment human beings evolved into creation, were created into existence, and/or 'just existed' human beings have had the ability to keep learning absolutely any, and every, thing, and well as understand and reason any, and every, thing. This ability can also been seen and recognized in all, individually, from when they are 'born' to when what is called 'they die'. So, 'the ability' to continually keep learning more and more exists individually and collectively within all human beings.

While one is closed, however, they cannot learn some things.
But, while one is open, they cannot not learn things.
The ability to keep learning all of the more or newer things, to be learned and is being learned, can only happen while one is open.
The ability to be absolutely OPEN exists from and in Mind only, which exists as a Truly natural part of being human. (Just like the brain is, but the brain just works differently).

Within every human being, individually and/or collectively, there exists an ability to learn all more and newer things.

This 'ability' comes from a (Truly OPEN) Mind, of which there is only One, existing within all.

The Mind, Itself, is always Truly OPEN, and not CLOSED in any way whatsoever. Although, individually or collectively, any human being can close this OPENNESS and 'this ability' to learn absolutely and and/or everything, by just not being curios, not interested, not wanting to, and/or by just assuming or believing that they already know the truth of some thing, before they actually really have. These False beliefs, Wrong thinking and misbehaving, and/or lack of being a 'natural human being' is caused by, or because of, False and Wrong 'previous knowledge' have already being obtained and being held onto.

For a couple of examples of the (always Truly OPEN) Mind's ability, which allows human beings, individually and collectively, to just keep continually learning more and more, and anew, then just look at;

An individual, human being's 'ability' to 'be able to learn', and 'keep learning', one of the countless human languages in just one, two, or three after being born. From coming from seemingly and/or relatively 'next to nothing' at all only about nine months earlier, to being able to already be able to speak, understand, and 'know' something as complex and descriptively huge or wide as language, itself, in less than three years, then this 'ability' can be said to come from a Truly OPEN 'Mind', and of course the ability of the human being to be able to grasp, and hold onto or retain, all knowledge.

And,

The collective, human beings' 'ability' to 'be able to learn', and 'keep learning', more and more and more, and always continually 'newer things' can also said to come from the Truly OPEN 'Mind', as well.

Just look at the absolutely amazing 'ability' with human beings to 'be able to do' just these two of countless other things human beings have been able to make, create, reach, and achieve while just being Truly OPEN.

A 'mind' is said and claimed to be where, 'the ability to continually be able to keep learning new/er and more things, always', comes from, exactly.

This 'ability' exists with each human being individually and collectively, and exists equally, which I am aware is very contrary to popular belief obviously, in a particular period of human history. But, 'the ability to' learn, understand, and reason is equal within each and every being. Individual human beings just grew up wanting to learn different things. When this is looked into more fully individual human beings also grow up 'learning' to want to learn different things, and in different ways.

'The ability to' imagine is equally within every human being, individually and collectively, also. The 'ability' 'to imagine' and 'to be able to learn any and all things', happens and occurs in and what is said and claimed to be A (Truly OPEN) 'mind', again. These things are not said and claimed to come from A (CLOSED) 'mind'. But from an (OPEN) Mind, and when it is also found, or discovered, and understood that 'this ability' is within all equally, then what is also learned and understood is that there is actually only one Mind, and one Mind, only.

It is because 'the ability to' learn and/or imagine is the exact same for every one is why I say and claim there is only one Mind, and one Mind, only.

Now, how all human beings obtain 'knowledge', differently, is because of how the brain works, and not necessarily because of how the Mind works. 'The human brain', which is obviously individual, within every individual human body, works by its ability by just 'grasping', and being able retain, absolutely any of what an individual human body experiences, and hold 'that' in 'thought or thinking'. However, while an individual is 'looking at' and 'seeing' things through the (always Truly OPEN) Mind, instead of through the (already grasped thoughts/knowledge) brain, then what can be 'grasped' and thus further 'learned' is equal for absolutely every one.

Although this might not be a full explanation for you "harbal", and/nor others here, this is an explanation to start with, from which some might see it as a full enough explanation of how there, really, is only one Mind, and one Mind, only. While others might need more explanations

Looking and seeing things here, from the Mind, only and/or firstly, instead of from the brain, only and/or firstly, then what is being said and claimed can be grasped, learned, and understood much quicker, simpler, easier, and clearer. But, as always what I have said and/or claimed so far does not have to be agreed with nor accepted, but I know I can back up and support what I have said and claimed here so far, irrefutably.

Isn't the mind-body dualism nice? As long as we pretend that this insane idea is the truth, we can come up with a million different fantasies where we can attribute whatever we want to attribute to the mental component.

[Atla]

Well Age can't help it, many autistics misunderstand the expression "could you". They don't process implications that a language like English is filled with.

Autism, some other issue, whatever.
He came here to learn how to communicate better, but is utterly resistant to learning how to do this to the point where he is condescending and dismissive when dealing with people significantly more fluent than he is.

Of course, I have assumed common notions of what 'learn' means.
Perhaps to Age 'learn' means 'resist and punish feedback'.
So, it could all really be my fault for assuming things.

And perhaps all he wanted to learn how to communicate better was his disdain for the people living at the time this was written.

My goodness, so many charitable assumptions on my part.

I should spend years getting him to clarify what he means by English words.

What does he mean by mean? clarify? one? there? is? only?

And then ask about the words in his clarifications - if he clarifies.

Could you please clarify what you mean by mind?

'Yes.' + lecture on how badly worded my request was.

I suspect we should get a clarification on the word 'yes''?

It seems Age means 'no' by 'yes' ....only you have to wait to find this out.

Hm? God (Age) came here to better learn to communicate the irrefutable divine truth to humans. But that truth is autistic and God's communication is also autistic, God is unaware of this.

[Iwannaplato]

Hm? God (Age) came here to better learn to communicate the irrefutable divine truth to humans. But that truth is autistic and God's communication is also autistic, God is unaware of this.

You're assuming that any of the words he has used mean what native speakers mean by them.
I think we need to consider this a cryptography situation.
He hasn't meant a single thing he's said because none of the words, sentences or responses mean what they would mean from another speaker.
It's our fault Atla.
We thought he was trying to communicate.
Never assume anything.
Age is the Voynich Manuscript embodied.
It looks like some idiosyncratic attempts to communicate in English,
but actually he's trolling.
He may not know this, since even he thinks, consciously, that he's communicating in English.
When he says he doesn't make assumptions, he actually means he makes lots of assumptions.
We assumed negative statements were not positive ones.
We should have asked for clarification, but unfortunately clarification means obfuscation to Age and we assumed it meant clarification.
It's our fault.
I am right now slapping from left forearm to punish myself.
Bad me. Bad me.

[Atla]

Hm? God (Age) came here to better learn to communicate the irrefutable divine truth to humans. But that truth is autistic and God's communication is also autistic, God is unaware of this.

You're assuming that any of the words he has used mean what native speakers mean by them.
I think we need to consider this a cryptography situation.
He hasn't meant a single thing he's said because none of the words, sentences or responses mean what they would mean from another speaker.
It's our fault Atla.
We thought he was trying to communicate.
Never assume anything.
Age is the Voynich Manuscript embodied.
It looks like some idiosyncratic attempts to communicate in English,
but actually he's trolling.
He may not know this, since even he thinks, consciously, that he's communicating in English.
When he says he doesn't make assumptions, he actually means he makes lots of assumptions.
We assumed negative statements were not positive ones.
We should have asked for clarification, but unfortunately clarification means obfuscation to Age and we assumed it meant clarification.
It's our fault.
I am right now slapping from left forearm to punish myself.
Bad me. Bad me.

I figured out such things like 5 years ago. You're talking to a God-psychosis, not a human, get it?

[Harbal]

Isn't the mind-body dualism nice? As long as we pretend that this insane idea is the truth, we can come up with a million different fantasies where we can attribute whatever we want to attribute to the mental component.

It would be insane to pretend otherwise. Unless, of course, being able to function in the world we were designed for is of no interest to you.

[Atla]

Isn't the mind-body dualism nice? As long as we pretend that this insane idea is the truth, we can come up with a million different fantasies where we can attribute whatever we want to attribute to the mental component.

It would be insane to pretend otherwise. Unless, of course, being able to function in the world we were designed for is of no interest to you.

No idea what you're talking about..

[Harbal]

Isn't the mind-body dualism nice? As long as we pretend that this insane idea is the truth, we can come up with a million different fantasies where we can attribute whatever we want to attribute to the mental component.

It would be insane to pretend otherwise. Unless, of course, being able to function in the world we were designed for is of no interest to you.

No idea what you're talking about..

That's a coincidence. I have no idea what you are talking about, either. I assumed it was that none dualism nonsense.

[Atla]

It would be insane to pretend otherwise. Unless, of course, being able to function in the world we were designed for is of no interest to you.

No idea what you're talking about..

That's a coincidence. I have no idea what you are talking about, either. I assumed it was that none dualism nonsense.

Nondualism isn't nonsense, it's fact. Because the mind-body dualism and other similar dualisms have about as much evidence going for them as the invisible pink godfairy unicorn that dreamt up our world. You believe in something like that - your call.

Except a nondualist has maybe slightly more ability to function in the world than a dualist, not zero ability.

[Harbal]

No idea what you're talking about..

That's a coincidence. I have no idea what you are talking about, either. I assumed it was that none dualism nonsense.

Nondualism isn't nonsense, it's fact. Because the mind-body dualism and other similar dualisms have about as much evidence going for them as the invisible pink godfairy unicorn that dreamt up our world. You believe in something like that - your call.

Except a nondualist has maybe slightly more ability to function in the world than a dualist, not zero ability.

If you say so.