Questions to Age

[Age]

If something acquires the ability to use and seemingly understand language, such as a computer (also often likened to a metal machine) do you think it has a mind?

Not at all.

Once more, even you human beings do not have minds, nor a mind.

Once again, there is only One Mind, only.

Or are you not sure if it has a mind or not?

There is only One Mind, and, again, absolutely nothing 'owns' nor 'has' this Mind.

Or do you think that computers aren't or can't be conscious?

I will suggest that if people are to ask questions, for clarity sake, about whether some thing exists, or not, then they are absolutely clear, "them" 'self', what the 'thing' is, exactly, which they are asking about.

For example, if I was to now ask you what is the 'mind', and, 'conscious', exactly, to you, are you absolutely clear about what 'these things' are, exactly?

If "consciousness" is the wrong word, then will "mind" do adequately instead?

1. Why did you say, '... is the wrong word, then ...'?

2. Did you not read my answer and clarification above, here?

3. you appear, once more, to have completely and utterly misconstrued and misunderstood what I actually said and meant above, here.

Do you believe that computers have "minds" if they can intelligently use language?

Did you not read my answer and clarification above, here, when I previously answered your more or less exact same question?

Once more,

1. I believe in one thing only, and it is certainly absolutely nothing, here.

2. To me, you human beings do not even have 'minds', let alone contraptions like computers having them.

3. To me there is One Mind, only.

4. Absolutely nothing 'has' the One Mind.

[Gary Childress]

Not at all.

Once more, even you human beings do not have minds, nor a mind.

Once again, there is only One Mind, only.


There is only One Mind, and, again, absolutely nothing 'owns' nor 'has' this Mind.


I will suggest that if people are to ask questions, for clarity sake, about whether some thing exists, or not, then they are absolutely clear, "them" 'self', what the 'thing' is, exactly, which they are asking about.

For example, if I was to now ask you what is the 'mind', and, 'conscious', exactly, to you, are you absolutely clear about what 'these things' are, exactly?

If "consciousness" is the wrong word, then will "mind" do adequately instead?

1. Why did you say, '... is the wrong word, then ...'?

2. Did you not read my answer and clarification above, here?

3. you appear, once more, to have completely and utterly misconstrued and misunderstood what I actually said and meant above, here.

Do you believe that computers have "minds" if they can intelligently use language?

Did you not read my answer and clarification above, here, when I previously answered your more or less exact same question?

Once more,

1. I believe in one thing only, and it is certainly absolutely nothing, here.

2. To me, you human beings do not even have 'minds', let alone contraptions like computers having them.

3. To me there is One Mind, only.

4. Absolutely nothing 'has' the One Mind.

It's pretty clear that there are many minds in the world. Every human has one, at the very least. How do you figure there is only one mind? What evidence suggests that?

[Fairy]

Another question for Age…

I hear a scientist say that what we see isn’t what is there. You aren’t witnessing objective reality from objective reality you are witnessing it from subjective reality.

The scientist is referring to the fact that your brain and senses filter, interpret, and even create your perception of reality, meaning you never experience "objective reality" directly but instead experience a "subjective reality" that is unique to you. Our sensory organs are limited, and our brains process incoming data, creating a personal version of the world that is influenced by our individual experiences and biological makeup.

Age, Do you agree with the scientist?

[Magnus Anderson]

It's pretty clear that there are many minds in the world. Every human has one, at the very least. How do you figure there is only one mind? What evidence suggests that?

It would be a good moment to ask him to define the word "mind".

[Gary Childress]

Fair enough.

[Gary Childress]

Not at all.

Once more, even you human beings do not have minds, nor a mind.

Once again, there is only One Mind, only.


There is only One Mind, and, again, absolutely nothing 'owns' nor 'has' this Mind.


I will suggest that if people are to ask questions, for clarity sake, about whether some thing exists, or not, then they are absolutely clear, "them" 'self', what the 'thing' is, exactly, which they are asking about.

For example, if I was to now ask you what is the 'mind', and, 'conscious', exactly, to you, are you absolutely clear about what 'these things' are, exactly?

If "consciousness" is the wrong word, then will "mind" do adequately instead?

1. Why did you say, '... is the wrong word, then ...'?

2. Did you not read my answer and clarification above, here?

3. you appear, once more, to have completely and utterly misconstrued and misunderstood what I actually said and meant above, here.

Do you believe that computers have "minds" if they can intelligently use language?

Did you not read my answer and clarification above, here, when I previously answered your more or less exact same question?

Once more,

1. I believe in one thing only, and it is certainly absolutely nothing, here.

2. To me, you human beings do not even have 'minds', let alone contraptions like computers having them.

3. To me there is One Mind, only.

4. Absolutely nothing 'has' the One Mind.

Age, what do you mean by the word "mind"?

[Age]

If "consciousness" is the wrong word, then will "mind" do adequately instead?

1. Why did you say, '... is the wrong word, then ...'?

2. Did you not read my answer and clarification above, here?

3. you appear, once more, to have completely and utterly misconstrued and misunderstood what I actually said and meant above, here.

Do you believe that computers have "minds" if they can intelligently use language?

Did you not read my answer and clarification above, here, when I previously answered your more or less exact same question?

Once more,

1. I believe in one thing only, and it is certainly absolutely nothing, here.

2. To me, you human beings do not even have 'minds', let alone contraptions like computers having them.

3. To me there is One Mind, only.

4. Absolutely nothing 'has' the One Mind.

It's pretty clear that there are many minds in the world.

Really?

What is 'it', exactly, which supposedly makes 'it' 'pretty clear', to you anyway, that there are many of these so-called 'mind' things?

Every human has one, at the very least.

Really?

If yes, then,

1. What even is a 'mind', exactly?

2. How, do every one of these 'human' things, supposedly, 'have' a 'mind', exactly?

3. What actual proof do you have that absolutely every human has at least one.mind?

How do you figure there is only one mind?

Because of how the 'Mind' is defined in 'a way', which 'fits in' with the G.U.T.O.E.

What evidence suggests that?

Once again,

1. I do not do 'evidence'.

2. I do not do 'evidence', as 'evidence', itself, only 'suggests' things, and thus is not actual 'proof' of, nor for, absolutely any thing.

3. I much prefer to do 'proof', instead.

4. Only when 'the definition' for the 'Mind' word is 'fitting in' with the G.U.T.O.E., then this is only when 'a definition' is True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life. When 'a definition' is on T.R.A.C.K., in Life, that is when every one could be in agreement and acceptance, then 'that definition' is a part of the Knowledge, which has and holds the irrefutable Facts, in Life, about Life, and living, Itself. So, once one obtains an irrefutable Fact, then they have 'the proof' necessary to back up and support 'a claim'. The proof I have that there is only One Mind is in 'the definition' for the 'Mind' word, which actually works.

5. When you human beings use the 'mind' word, then what actually comes to light, that is, only when you human beings are being Truly open, honest, and forthright, is that what you are actually referring to, usually, are just 'thoughts', themselves, instead.

[Gary Childress]

1. Why did you say, '... is the wrong word, then ...'?

2. Did you not read my answer and clarification above, here?

3. you appear, once more, to have completely and utterly misconstrued and misunderstood what I actually said and meant above, here.


Did you not read my answer and clarification above, here, when I previously answered your more or less exact same question?

Once more,

1. I believe in one thing only, and it is certainly absolutely nothing, here.

2. To me, you human beings do not even have 'minds', let alone contraptions like computers having them.

3. To me there is One Mind, only.

4. Absolutely nothing 'has' the One Mind.

It's pretty clear that there are many minds in the world.

Really?

What is 'it', exactly, which supposedly makes 'it' 'pretty clear', to you anyway, that there are many of these so-called 'mind' things?

Every human has one, at the very least.

Really?

If yes, then,

1. What even is a 'mind', exactly?

2. How, do every one of these 'human' things, supposedly, 'have' a 'mind', exactly?

3. What actual proof do you have that absolutely every human has at least one.mind?

How do you figure there is only one mind?

Because of how the 'Mind' is defined in 'a way', which 'fits in' with the G.U.T.O.E.

What evidence suggests that?

Once again,

1. I do not do 'evidence'.

2. I do not do 'evidence', as 'evidence', itself, only 'suggests' things, and thus is not actual 'proof' of, nor for, absolutely any thing.

3. I much prefer to do 'proof', instead.

4. Only when 'the definition' for the 'Mind' word is 'fitting in' with the G.U.T.O.E., then this is only when 'a definition' is True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life. When 'a definition' is on T.R.A.C.K., in Life, that is when every one could be in agreement and acceptance, then 'that definition' is a part of the Knowledge, which has and holds the irrefutable Facts, in Life, about Life, and living, Itself. So, once one obtains an irrefutable Fact, then they have 'the proof' necessary to back up and support 'a claim'. The proof I have that there is only One Mind is in 'the definition' for the 'Mind' word, which actually works.

5. When you human beings use the 'mind' word, then what actually comes to light, that is, only when you human beings are being Truly open, honest, and forthright, is that what you are actually referring to, usually, are just 'thoughts', themselves, instead.

So there are over 8 billion human beings on Earth, Age. Most if not all of them surely have minds. If they do not have minds, then fine, humans don't have minds, which sounds pretty absurd to me. So surely you believe humans typically have minds. I suspect there are over 8 billion minds (at the very least) on Earth. Is it unreasonable or misguided for me to think that there are over 8 billion minds out there?

And if you say you have no evidence to back up your claim, then that's pretty much an admission that you have no evidence. So your assumption, based on your subjective experience, is telling you to believe that no evidence is required to back up your statement. Is that correct?

[Magnus Anderson]

And if you say you have no evidence to back up your claim, then that's pretty much an admission that you have no evidence. So your assumption, based on your subjective experience, is telling you to believe that no evidence is required to back up your statement. Is that correct?

As usual, he's being hyper literal.

His claim is that he has no evidence. Instead, he has proof. And that proof is in the definition of the word "Mind", the one "that actually works".

[Gary Childress]

And if you say you have no evidence to back up your claim, then that's pretty much an admission that you have no evidence. So your assumption, based on your subjective experience, is telling you to believe that no evidence is required to back up your statement. Is that correct?

As usual, he's being hyper literal.

His claim is that he has no evidence. Instead, he has proof. And that proof is in the definition of the word "Mind", the one "that actually works".

Well like many words, mind also has a plural form. It's unfortunate, perhaps but it doesn't help his "proof" I wouldn't think.

[Magnus Anderson]

He didn't provide us with his proof that humans have no minds, that's most certainly the case.

[Gary Childress]

He didn't provide us with his proof that humans have no minds, that's most certainly the case.

My bad, I thought his comments about GUTOE (grand unified theory of everything) and his TRACK idea (have forgotten what his acronym stands for) were supposed to represent some kind of "proof". Otherwise, it didn't look much like proof to me. So maybe he still needs to provide his "proof".

Your "proof" Age?

[accelafine]

It's pretty clear that there are many minds in the world.

Really?

What is 'it', exactly, which supposedly makes 'it' 'pretty clear', to you anyway, that there are many of these so-called 'mind' things?

Every human has one, at the very least.

Really?

If yes, then,

1. What even is a 'mind', exactly?

2. How, do every one of these 'human' things, supposedly, 'have' a 'mind', exactly?

3. What actual proof do you have that absolutely every human has at least one.mind?

How do you figure there is only one mind?

Because of how the 'Mind' is defined in 'a way', which 'fits in' with the G.U.T.O.E.

What evidence suggests that?

Once again,

1. I do not do 'evidence'.

2. I do not do 'evidence', as 'evidence', itself, only 'suggests' things, and thus is not actual 'proof' of, nor for, absolutely any thing.

3. I much prefer to do 'proof', instead.

4. Only when 'the definition' for the 'Mind' word is 'fitting in' with the G.U.T.O.E., then this is only when 'a definition' is True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life. When 'a definition' is on T.R.A.C.K., in Life, that is when every one could be in agreement and acceptance, then 'that definition' is a part of the Knowledge, which has and holds the irrefutable Facts, in Life, about Life, and living, Itself. So, once one obtains an irrefutable Fact, then they have 'the proof' necessary to back up and support 'a claim'. The proof I have that there is only One Mind is in 'the definition' for the 'Mind' word, which actually works.

5. When you human beings use the 'mind' word, then what actually comes to light, that is, only when you human beings are being Truly open, honest, and forthright, is that what you are actually referring to, usually, are just 'thoughts', themselves, instead.

So there are over 8 billion human beings on Earth, Age. Most if not all of them surely have minds. If they do not have minds, then fine, humans don't have minds, which sounds pretty absurd to me. So surely you believe humans typically have minds. I suspect there are over 8 billion minds (at the very least) on Earth. Is it unreasonable or misguided for me to think that there are over 8 billion minds out there?

And if you say you have no evidence to back up your claim, then that's pretty much an admission that you have no evidence. So your assumption, based on your subjective experience, is telling you to believe that no evidence is required to back up your statement. Is that correct?

He obviously subscribes to the 'fundamental consciousness' theory. He certainly didn't come up with it although he tries to make out that he has some kind of 'special, first-hand knowledge' of it.

[Magnus Anderson]

In the meantime, I will continue exposing his antics.

1. Ad hominem #1

Also, and by the way, here, is another prime example of how and when these adult human beings would 'try' their very hardest to come across as though they were smart and/or intelligent, but in the actual process would just complicate 'that', which is, really, just pure simple, and actually simplicity in and of itself.

He's accusing "these adult human beings" of trying too hard to look smart and intelligent.

When he says "these adult human beings", of course, he's primarily talking about me.

That is an instance of a pscyhological ad hominem. He's addressing the author -- specifically, his motives -- rather than the ideas he's presenting.

I call it indirect because he's using "these adult human beings" instead of "Magnus Anderson".

2. Ad hominem #2

'These people', back when this was being written, had obtained beliefs and presumptions, which they dearly loved to hold onto, and in order to hold onto those beliefs and assumptions they would 'try to' find words, which they hoped would back up and support their beliefs and assumptions in some possible way.

He's accusing "these people" of being excessively defensive of their beliefs.

Again, when he says "these people", he's primarily referring to me.

This is another instance of a psychological ad hominem.

3. Lost in space

Also, LOL when did 'I' ever employ some so-called 'indirect ad hominem'?

He does not even recognize his own ad hominem attacks.

Of course, he can always try to defend himself by saying, "I did not say that! That's merely your misinterpretation!" But that's not a valid defense.

[Gary Childress]

Really?

What is 'it', exactly, which supposedly makes 'it' 'pretty clear', to you anyway, that there are many of these so-called 'mind' things?


Really?

If yes, then,

1. What even is a 'mind', exactly?

2. How, do every one of these 'human' things, supposedly, 'have' a 'mind', exactly?

3. What actual proof do you have that absolutely every human has at least one.mind?


Because of how the 'Mind' is defined in 'a way', which 'fits in' with the G.U.T.O.E.


Once again,

1. I do not do 'evidence'.

2. I do not do 'evidence', as 'evidence', itself, only 'suggests' things, and thus is not actual 'proof' of, nor for, absolutely any thing.

3. I much prefer to do 'proof', instead.

4. Only when 'the definition' for the 'Mind' word is 'fitting in' with the G.U.T.O.E., then this is only when 'a definition' is True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life. When 'a definition' is on T.R.A.C.K., in Life, that is when every one could be in agreement and acceptance, then 'that definition' is a part of the Knowledge, which has and holds the irrefutable Facts, in Life, about Life, and living, Itself. So, once one obtains an irrefutable Fact, then they have 'the proof' necessary to back up and support 'a claim'. The proof I have that there is only One Mind is in 'the definition' for the 'Mind' word, which actually works.

5. When you human beings use the 'mind' word, then what actually comes to light, that is, only when you human beings are being Truly open, honest, and forthright, is that what you are actually referring to, usually, are just 'thoughts', themselves, instead.

So there are over 8 billion human beings on Earth, Age. Most if not all of them surely have minds. If they do not have minds, then fine, humans don't have minds, which sounds pretty absurd to me. So surely you believe humans typically have minds. I suspect there are over 8 billion minds (at the very least) on Earth. Is it unreasonable or misguided for me to think that there are over 8 billion minds out there?

And if you say you have no evidence to back up your claim, then that's pretty much an admission that you have no evidence. So your assumption, based on your subjective experience, is telling you to believe that no evidence is required to back up your statement. Is that correct?

He obviously subscribes to the 'fundamental consciousness' theory. He certainly didn't come up with it although he tries to make out that he has some kind of 'special, first-hand knowledge' of it.

Sounds like it's more than a "theory" to him. He's achieved sage enlightenment!