The Mind.

[Age]

If only these people knew.

[Age]

?

[Harbal]

I am just trying to get you to give us a full explanation of, or your answers to, how there are many minds, to you.

We think of individual people as having minds. The way in which the word, "mind", is commonly used certainly suggests that to me, at least. We (people/human beings) have brains that store and process information, and we are conscious/aware of at least some of that processing. It is that specific direct awareness of the activity of a specific brain that I would call the mind. In short, whenever there is a conscious brain, there is a mind, and I think it fair to say that there are many conscious brains.

I daresay that description of mind could have been worded better, but I think it was good enough to convey -at least in principle- my view of what a mind is. Now can you see why I think there are many minds?

I don't know what you mean.

Well you said, and again correct me if I have you wrong in any way here, that when 'consciousness' and the 'human brain' interact, then at this or those moments, then what emerges, which I 'now' think you mean is the 'me-ness', is also what the 'mind' word means or is referring to, well to you anyway.

And, if this is correct so far, then either 'the interaction' between 'consciousness' and the 'human brain' happened once, or happens at different times.

Now, if it is the latter, then, essentially, 'the interaction' could happen and occur multiple times a day, even every second of the day, and thus emerging many different 'minds' within the one human body or many different 'me-nesses'. Which could make sense in one particular way or from one particular perspective because it is said and alleged that the 'me-ness' that is those human bodies is not the exact same 'me-ness' that was before, at different times in the past.

It seems to me that the answer to that depends purely on how you look at the situation. I'm sorry, but I don't feel able to even attempt an answer to your question.

The Mind, Itself, is very necessary and plays a huge part in all things here. But, from what I am observing among you adult human beings there is more opposition, disunion, and disillusion than coalition between the human brain and 'Consciousness', Itself. However, this is only because the 'human brain' a lot of the time has been tricked, deceived, and fooled by the internal 'belief-system' and so a choice, and a very Wrong choice I will add, is made for these two to work along side together, which may well towards a 'common goal', but it is only a 'common goal' to those to or to only a very select few others.

I don't understand any of that.

All of this, however, becomes much, much clearer as we move along and proceed,

I wish I shared your optimism.

[Age]

I am just trying to get you to give us a full explanation of, or your answers to, how there are many minds, to you.

We think of individual people as having minds.

Who is 'we' here?

I obviously certainly do not think this, and this is just because I know that what the word 'Mind' is referring to, there is only one of, and only One.

The way in which the word, "mind", is commonly used certainly suggests that to me, at least. We (people/human beings) have brains that store and process information, and we are conscious/aware of at least some of that processing.

Again, 'you' are using the word 'we' here, as though 'you' already know what that word is referring to, exactly?

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

And, how can that 'we' 'have brains', and that 'we' 'be conscious/aware' of some of 'what processing', exactly?

I ask these clarifying questions to find out what you know, or think, here, and to show how people, even when they only think something 'might be true' they will still try and argue or fight for 'it', [whatever the 'it' might or might not even be].

Also, because I already know what is actually True here and what 'it' is, exactly, which all the words here are referring to, exactly, then this is why I go very, very in depth in questioning here.

Also, remember it was 'me' wanting to be questioned and challenged here. Thus, the reason for starting 'a thread', and 'this thread' here.

It is that specific direct awareness of the activity of a specific brain that I would call the mind.

So, it is 'awareness' now, and 'a specific awareness', which is what 'you' 'now' call 'the mind' or are saying what the 'mind' word is referring to, exactly?

By the way, what are the words, 'that specific awareness of the activity of a specific brain', even actual mean or are referring to, exactly?

In short, whenever there is a conscious brain, there is a mind, and I think it fair to say that there are many conscious brains.

But thee are many separated and different moments of 'specific direct awareness' within and/or from just one brain, itself. So, in this sense there could be many minds within one brain or one human being.

Also, when, exactly, or roughly, does 'a brain' become a 'conscious brain'?

I daresay that description of mind could have been worded better, but I think it was good enough to convey -at least in principle- my view of what a mind is. Now can you see why I think there are many minds?

I could see why you think there are many minds, before you even started explaining why you just think there are many minds.

In fact I knew and still know, exactly, why you thought previously that there are many minds and still think there are many minds.

I don't know what you mean.

Well you said, and again correct me if I have you wrong in any way here, that when 'consciousness' and the 'human brain' interact, then at this or those moments, then what emerges, which I 'now' think you mean is the 'me-ness', is also what the 'mind' word means or is referring to, well to you anyway.

And, if this is correct so far, then either 'the interaction' between 'consciousness' and the 'human brain' happened once, or happens at different times.

Now, if it is the latter, then, essentially, 'the interaction' could happen and occur multiple times a day, even every second of the day, and thus emerging many different 'minds' within the one human body or many different 'me-nesses'. Which could make sense in one particular way or from one particular perspective because it is said and alleged that the 'me-ness' that is those human bodies is not the exact same 'me-ness' that was before, at different times in the past.

It seems to me that the answer to that depends purely on how you look at the situation.

Does this not apply for absolutely every situation, ever?

Is not absolutely every thing/situation just relative to the observer, anyway?

For example, could all of those people who just kept continually trying to argue and fight for their position, belief, or for what they just thought was true in relation to, 'Is is the sun that revolves around the earth, and, not the earth which revolves around the sun', essentially, more or less solely just because it was depending on how they were looking at 'the situation'.

Obviously, if they had just 'stopped', and decided to 'listen' to 'the one' saying 'differently', and just 'looked at' 'the situation' 'differently', then 'those ones' could have come-to finding out and seeing what was actually 'the Truth' all along, and found out and known 'this' much earlier, and also much simpler and much easier as well be they way, correct?

I'm sorry, but I don't feel able to even attempt an answer to your question.

The Mind, Itself, is very necessary and plays a huge part in all things here. But, from what I am observing among you adult human beings there is more opposition, disunion, and disillusion than coalition between the human brain and 'Consciousness', Itself. However, this is only because the 'human brain' a lot of the time has been tricked, deceived, and fooled by the internal 'belief-system' and so a choice, and a very Wrong choice I will add, is made for these two to work along side together, which may well towards a 'common goal', but it is only a 'common goal' to those to or to only a very select few others.

I don't understand any of that.

Okay.

And this is, exactly, why I said and wrote the following sentence, directly after all of 'that'.

All of this, however, becomes much, much clearer as we move along and proceed,

I wish I shared your optimism.

If you already had the proof and already knew, for example, that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun, and not the other way around, which absolutely everyone else was believing or thinking was true, then you already know that 'all of what you are explaining' will become much, much clearer to everyone else as we move along and proceed.

'Optimism' like 'beliefs' are not things needed, nor even necessary, at all when you know some thing, and know that that 'knowledge' will come-to-light, and will also be fully understood, eventually.

[Harbal]

I am just trying to get you to give us a full explanation of, or your answers to, how there are many minds, to you.

We think of individual people as having minds.

Who is 'we' here?

I was just trying to explain what the word, "mind", means to me, and why I consider there are many of them, but I am not asking anybody else to share my view, or trying to present an argument in favour of it.

This is your thread, about your interpretation of what a mind is, so you are the one who needs to do the convincing, not I. And don't you dare ask me who is "I" here.

[Age]

We think of individual people as having minds.

Who is 'we' here?

I was just trying to explain what the word, "mind", means to me, and why I consider there are many of them, but I am not asking anybody else to share my view, or trying to present an argument in favour of it.

This is your thread, about your interpretation of what a mind is, so you are the one who needs to do the convincing, not I.

1 I am not trying to 'convince' anyone of anything here.

2. I will, however, just show and prove that there is only one Mind. That is; to those who are Truly curious and interested enough.

3. I was somewhat surprised when it appeared that you wanted to 'now' try to justify what you think are 'minds' here, especially considering what you initially asked for in your first post here in this thread.

4. I will not even begin to start explaining nor proving anything until 'it' is sought out and asked for.

5. Also, just starting a thread does not mean that I 'need' to do anything, like convincing others of anything. I can just start a thread, and wait to see if that sparks any actual 'interest' or 'curiosity' in some, or even anyone. If, however, it does not, then this will show and further prove other things I have to say and claim here. you "harbal", by the way, are the only one here who has shown absolutely any 'curiosity' and 'interest' at all.

And don't you dare ask me who is "I" here.

Okay.

The actual answer to 'that', by the way, is also far, far easier and simpler to reach and arrive at, than is imagined by you adult human beings here when this is being written, as well.

[Harbal]

3. I was somewhat surprised when it appeared that you wanted to 'now' try to justify what you think are 'minds' here, especially considering what you initially asked for in your first post here in this thread.

I wasn't trying to justify anything, I was just telling you what I thought a mind was, and why I thought they were many. I only did that to provide a comparison with whatever you think a mind is. I still don't know what your idea of a mind is, and I expect you either will or won't explain, and I either will or won't understand, if you do explain.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, and you appearing to me missing 'this' completely, if and when you make a request when you use the words to, essentially, ask me, 'Could you prove something?'

Except you are changing words.
Yes, could you prove X, could be answered yes or no. That certainly could be a question just trying to find out if you are capable of proving X.

Could you please is the beginning of a request
You conveniently left out the word please, which changes the meaning.

Could you please pass the salt?
Yes. [does nothing]
That is rude and a confused understanding of English at the time this is being written.

And will you could be just asking for information.
Will you sue me? Not a request.

But most importantly it is so important to you now not to 'lose' lol, even over something like this, that you took a word out of my question to 'make your argument'.

That's pathetic. You're back on ignore.

[Atla]

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

Prove it. (Don't ask me dozens of questions again about my take on the mind, like last time, and then prove nothing. Just prove it.)

[Age]

3. I was somewhat surprised when it appeared that you wanted to 'now' try to justify what you think are 'minds' here, especially considering what you initially asked for in your first post here in this thread.

I wasn't trying to justify anything, I was just telling you what I thought a mind was, and why I thought they were many. I only did that to provide a comparison with whatever you think a mind is.

1. I do not 'think' what 'a mind' is, as in there are or might be 'more than one mind'.

2. To me, there is 'one Mind', and One only, which I also already 'know' what It is, exactly.

3. What is happening and occurring here is, like for example, when one was saying, I found out and discovered, and thus now 'know', that what you people 'think' is a 'geocentric' universe (many minds) was and is in fact not what is true, and that what is actually true, and irrefutably True also, is a heliocentric Universe (one Mind).

4. Remember that the heliocentric Universe was not fully explained (proved true) in just a couple of back and forth discussions among a dozen or so people.

I still don't know what your idea of a mind is, and I expect you either will or won't explain, and I either will or won't understand, if you do explain.

So, in my first reply to here in this forum, to you, is there absolutely nothing at all which gives you any idea at all of what my idea is here in relation to the topic title of this thread?

[Harbal]

I still don't know what your idea of a mind is, and I expect you either will or won't explain, and I either will or won't understand, if you do explain.

So, in my first reply to here in this forum, to you, is there absolutely nothing at all which gives you any idea at all of what my idea is here in relation to the topic title of this thread?

I'm sorry, but no, I didn't understand your reply. And provided we are able to think, and you seem to acknowledge that we are, I don't see why that does not account for our ability to learn. So I can't even see what the question is that your account of "Mind" is the answer to.

[Age]

Well, and you appearing to me missing 'this' completely, if and when you make a request when you use the words to, essentially, ask me, 'Could you prove something?'

Except you are changing words.
Yes, could you prove X, could be answered yes or no. That certainly could be a question just trying to find out if you are capable of proving X.

Which was what I was just saying and just pointing out.

Could you please is the beginning of a request
You conveniently left out the word please, which changes the meaning.

you make a good point here. Which I had not considered before.

Adding the word 'please', on reflection. does add more of a connotation of being more of a request to do some thing. I was reading the word 'could', and then 'reacting' to that word before noticing the 'effect' of what adding the word 'please' does.

I had previously observed the word 'please' being frequently used in pretentious ways, like for example when one 'with power', for example, like "teachers", "parents", or "bosses" to try to cover up 'an order' over others, and so just use the 'please' word as though they have 'manners' and/or are a 'kind' person. For example, 'Pass the salt, please'.

To me,

When I am told to do something, like my example just here with the salt, even when the word 'please' is included, I have far less 'enthusiasm' to do what I am told to do. And, it does not matter one iota what 'role' or 'position' one thinks or believes that they have in Life, they have absolutely no position 'over' another one. Just to be clear this applies to absolutely every human being.

When the 'could' or even 'can' word is within a question form and asking for something to be don, then 'the request' for something is far less 'demanding', or of a 'demand' itself, 'over' another/others, and so I have more 'enthusiasm' to do what is being 'requested'. The 'please' word by the way is completely unnecessary, as in 'Could you please pass the salt?'. But, again, as you pointed out by adding the 'please' word in that 'clarifying question' changes the form from a 'clarifying question' to be more of a 'requesting question'.

When the word 'could' is replaced with the 'will' word, as in 'Will you pass the salt?' what there is now, is just a 'requesting question' only, which obviously no confusion nor misinterpretation could, and even would, ensue.

And, remember discussing the words 'could' and 'will' and how they work, exactly, was in relation to what I saw as being 'a request', 'a demand' and/or just 'a clarifying question' in the context of 'me' and what was or is being sought for or not, in this forum only.

See, literally all we have to work with here are words alone, and if share how we each individually look at, see, and use words, and their definitions, differently, then confusion and misunderstandings ensue and prevail. As the last few thousand years of human history, hitherto to the day when this is being written, is testament to.

Could you please pass the salt?
Yes. [does nothing]

But saying, 'Yes', still only answers the question. However, as you point out here, not passing the salt could be taken as being 'rude' to those people, who were expecting another to do that thing.

That is rude and a confused understanding of English at the time this is being written.

If you say and believe so, then okay.

Considering that absolutely everything is relative to the observer, what you say here is perfectly normal and understandable. Especially considering what you have had to grow up and live with here.

And will you could be just asking for information.
Will you sue me? Not a request.

Is one 'requesting' information when asking 'that question'?

It can be very helpful when, and if, one learns and thus knows 'the actual intention' of 'the other', before things ensue.

For example, finding out 'the reason' why interact with 'me' for, exactly, could be very helpful in 'me' helping 'you' to get whatever 'it' is that you obviously so desperately trying 'to get' from, or out of, 'me' here.

But most importantly it is so important to you now not to 'lose' lol,

What are you talking about here 'now'?

What are you using the 'lose' word here in relation to, exactly?

I have already informed the readers here what I am here for. What are you here for "iwannaplato"?

From the way you speak and write here, you appear to be thinking or maybe even believing that there is even something here that could be 'won' or 'lost' here. Is this right?

even over something like this, that you took a word out of my question to 'make your argument'.

'What argument' are you talking about or referring to here, now?

I was just expressing how a 'could question' is obviously different from a 'will question'. As explained what happens and occurs is a change from a 'clarifying question' to 'requesting question'. you then just pointed out and showed me, which I was missing, that by just adding the 'please' word into the 'clarifying could question' makes 'that question' come across as 'more of a requesting question' and thus 'less of clarifying question'. Which I have obviously already acknowledged. I also have just pointed out and showed how the 'will requesting question' leaves far less 'in doubt and/or confusion' than the 'could clarifying question posed, but asked as 'a request' instead, would and does.

To me, there is nothing to 'win' nor 'lose' here, and instead there is just clarity, clearer perspectives and views, and better understandings to be obtained and gained here. Which leads to being able to communicate better with each other.

I am still not sure what you human beings think there is to 'win' or 'lose' here, in this forum, outside of this forum, or even in Life, Itself. But, maybe you can help me better understand what there is to you people here.

That's pathetic.

If what I say and write here is 'pathetic', to you, then this is perfectly fine and absolutely okay, with me.

You're back on ignore.

It is Truly amazing when this one chooses to 'ignore' me, but then just somehow 'knows' when to not 'ignore' me.

It is like it had already known what I had already written, when it just, 'suddenly', decides when to 'not ignore' me, again.

Oh, and by the way, if this one has really chosen to 'ignore' me again 'now', then it would obviously never ever know how I have responded here, in this reply of mine here.

[Age]

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

Prove it. (Don't ask me dozens of questions again about my take on the mind, like last time, and then prove nothing. Just prove it.)

Every time you 'tell me what to do', you will not 'get it', literally.

[Age]

I still don't know what your idea of a mind is, and I expect you either will or won't explain, and I either will or won't understand, if you do explain.

So, in my first reply to here in this forum, to you, is there absolutely nothing at all which gives you any idea at all of what my idea is here in relation to the topic title of this thread?

I'm sorry, but no, I didn't understand your reply. And provided we are able to think, and you seem to acknowledge that we are, I don't see why that does not account for our ability to learn. So I can't even see what the question is that your account of "Mind" is the answer to.

I do not even know 'what question' is that you are referring to here, which you say that you cannot even 'see' here.

To me, the word 'mind' is just referring to 'that part' within all human beings, which is always open, and which is what has been and is still allowing all human beings, individually and collectively, to keep dreaming, imagining, devising, building, creating, and learning more and more newer and newer things, all of the time.

This part of and/or within all human beings, is 'exact same thing', and which, to me, is what the word 'mind' is referring to, exactly. And, as 'that thing', which is within everyone is 'the exact same', then there is only One of, and One, only.

Does this help in any way?

Now, also, absolutely any one can say and claim the word 'mind' refers to some other thing, and if so, then what do 'we' agree upon and accept as a word or term of 'that thing' that I am just saying and calling the 'Mind' here?

[Harbal]

To me, the word 'mind' is just referring to 'that part' within all human beings, which is always open, and which is what has been and is still allowing all human beings, individually and collectively, to keep dreaming, imagining, devising, building, creating, and learning more and more newer and newer things, all of the time.

This part of and/or within all human beings, is 'exact same thing', and which, to me, is what the word 'mind' is referring to, exactly. And, as 'that thing', which is within everyone is 'the exact same', then there is only One of, and One, only.

Does this help in any way?

It might to some extent. I can see what you are getting at, but I still don't understand why you look at it like that. If we all have minds, why not just leave it at that. We all have hearts that are all the same, or at least to the same extent that minds are all the same, so why not say there is only one Heart?

Now, also, absolutely any one can say and claim the word 'mind' refers to some other thing, and if so, then what do 'we' agree upon and accept as a word or term of 'that thing' that I am just saying and calling the 'Mind' here?

I suppose you could call it whatever you like, but I don't know how many people would agree that the thing it refers to exists. I suspect the vast majority prefer to think in terms of individual minds, and I have to say that I am one of them.