Questions to Age

[Magnus Anderson]

So what?

Using the word LOL six times in a single post indicates a level of laughter that is six times greater than that of a single LOL.

You're laughing at something someone else wrote with no intention to cause laughter.

That is indicative of ridicule.

That's why it's a punishable offence ( or rather, that's why it should be punishable on this forum. )

And that's why I call you a cockroach . . . you can only survive in dirty, abandoned, places; places that noone cleans and maintains.

And, 'this one', obviously, keeps talking 'about me', instead of just focusing on 'my words'. Which, in and of itself, is a pure of 'ad hominem', or of 'looking at' and focusing on the speaker/writer, instead of the 'actual words', only, and instead.

I am talking about you only because you're talking about me.

And no, it's not an ad hominem. It's called moderation. It's called, "Explaining why other people don't enjoy having a conversation with you, why they perceive you as being disruptive and annoying, and why they sometimes end up calling you all sorts of names."

[Magnus Anderson]

Once again, so it does not matter one iota what a speaker/writer actually intends, implies, or means, what matters, to you, absolutely is that what you perceive/infer is what is absolutely true and right, correct?

There's a difference between what you SAY and what you MEAN.

What you SAY refers to how your words will be interpreted by your audience.

What you MEAN refers to what you attempted to convey.

Your goal is to SAY what you MEAN. Otherwise, you will either be misunderstood or not understood at all.

Since noone can read your mind, and since you can lie, the sole responsibility of your readers is to interpret your words the way they are meant to be interpreted in English language.

That's why, instead of making excuses, you should AVOID speaking in a way that is offensive in the English language.

That's why you should STOP referring to other people with "this one", "these human beings", "these adult human beings" and so on.

That's why you should STOP referring to them in the third person.

[Fairy]

Age…it’s rude to laugh at people, okay. It’s ridiculing, they don’t like it.

But it’s okay to fling odious, often extremely offensive slanderous hyperbole at people, and getting off on watching other peoples reactions to being the butt end of their sickening jokes, yeah, that’s perfectly acceptable behaviour at this forum.

[Fairy]

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!

All there is is consciousness. Theory is just a story, and we all love a good story.

Enlightened is not achieved, it is recognised as being all there is. Recognise that.

[accelafine]

Deranged narcissist with no self-awareness whatsoever. NOT hyperbole.

[Fairy]

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.

Nobody has any special first hand knowledge. It’s not a “someone” knowing.
You are the knowing that cannot be known. Know that.

[Fairy]

Deranged narcissist with no self-awareness whatsoever. NOT hyperbole.

There it is, perfectly acceptable.

[Fairy]

So what?

Using the word LOL six times in a single post indicates a level of laughter that is six times greater than that of a single LOL.

You're laughing at something someone else wrote with no intention to cause laughter.

That is indicative of ridicule.

That's why it's a punishable offence ( or rather, that's why it should be punishable on this forum. )

And that's why I call you a cockroach . . . you can only survive in dirty, abandoned, places; places that noone cleans and maintains.

And, 'this one', obviously, keeps talking 'about me', instead of just focusing on 'my words'. Which, in and of itself, is a pure of 'ad hominem', or of 'looking at' and focusing on the speaker/writer, instead of the 'actual words', only, and instead.

I am talking about you only because you're talking about me.

And no, it's not an ad hominem. It's called moderation. It's called, "Explaining why other people don't enjoy having a conversation with you, why they perceive you as being disruptive and annoying, and why they sometimes end up calling you all sorts of names."

Expecting people to be what they are not, and to do what they can’t do, is disrespectful.

[Fairy]

Once again, so it does not matter one iota what a speaker/writer actually intends, implies, or means, what matters, to you, absolutely is that what you perceive/infer is what is absolutely true and right, correct?

There's a difference between what you SAY and what you MEAN.

What you SAY refers to how your words will be interpreted by your audience.

What you MEAN refers to what you attempted to convey.

Your goal is to SAY what you MEAN. Otherwise, you will either be misunderstood or not understood at all.

Since noone can read your mind, and since you can lie, the sole responsibility of your readers is to interpret your words the way they are meant to be interpreted in English language.

That's why, instead of making excuses, you should AVOID speaking in a way that is offensive in the English language.

That's why you should STOP referring to other people with "this one", "these human beings", "these adult human beings" and so on.

That's why you should STOP referring to them in the third person.

I don't like your perspective. Let me convert you to a different POV

[Age]

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 'information' sent to 'the brain' is of what is (or more Correctly of 'what was') 'there', so it could be said and argued that what is 'seen' at the very first moment of 'input', at 'the brain', is of 'what is/was there', however, because of previously obtained 'information' having already been turned into 'thoughts', which is stored as 'knowledge', 'this, already obtained, knowledge' then affects what is 'seen'. So, the physical eyes are actually 'witnessing' what some call 'objective reality', itself, however when that 'in-formation' is combined with past 'in-putted information' then the 'now' combination of 'new information' with 'already stored thoughts/views' is a process and, literal, 'trans-formation' into 'new/er knowledge', and thus new/er 'views'. Which is what can also be known as 'what is seen', or, 'the knowledge' of 'what is/was seen'.

In other words all 'information' coming into the body, through any of the five senses, is of what is actually 'out there' and 'happening', but what is actually 'seen', within, the body and the brain, all depends on what previously obtained information and knowledge has been stored in, and is being kept as, 'thoughts' and 'thinking', themselves.

The 'views', within every body, are a 'subjective reality', which has come from what some call the 'objective reality'.

However, and to go 'deeper', again, and further down to 'another level', as some call 'it',

1. All brand new new born human babies 'witness' and 'see' things as they really are. Only older human bodies that have already experienced things, which, in and of itself, is the process of trans-forming in-formation in to 'knowledge' and/or 'thoughts', which is what then affects 'the way' the people, within 'those bodies' then 'looks at', or 'witnesses', and 'sees' things. For example, from the 'past experiences' of 'a body', 'the person' within, that is, 'the thoughts' within, may 'look at/witness' 'another person', 'human beings', and/or 'the world', itself, as bad and dangerous, and so what 'that one person', what is called, 'sees', is 'another reality' to what others may well 'see'. So, what the "scientist" above is talking about is how and when 'people' are 'witnessing', and thus 'seeing', a 'subjective reality', instead of 'objective reality', itself, is also what is called 'a distortion', or what you would say 'an illusion', of what is actually Real, or what I call Reality, Itself, and which some others would call, 'objective reality', itself. See, the 'perceptions', or 'views', within every body are 'subjective realities'. And, when 'one' is 'seeing', what 'another' is not, then this phenomena occurs because 'one's own subjective views or perceptions' were created and caused by what 'that body' had previously experienced. Obviously, every unique individual human body has had unique and individually different experiences, and this is why every unique and different individual person, within every unique and individual different body, is, literally, 'an individual', and is uniquely different. And, it is individual uniquely different views, which is what the words, 'subjective reality', means, and/or is referring to, exactly.

2. Now, how 'we' know when 'we' are 'looking at/witnessing', and 'seeing', what is sometimes called 'objective reality', itself, how 'it' is, exactly, is when what is being 'seen' is what can be 'seen' by everyone else, as well. 'We' know what is 'objective reality', when 'we' can distinguish between what is just 'seen' by some individual human beings, from, what can be 'seen' by every one. So, what 'it' is, which can be 'seen' by every one, and can be agreed upon and accepted by every one, is what is sometimes called 'objective reality'. More or less the 'same' process applies in obtaining Truth, Itself, or what is just 'objectively True', in Life, and in also obtaining what is Right, and Wrong, in Life, or what is 'objectively Right, and Wrong, in Life. Finding 'objectivity', itself, is by just being able to distinguish between what just some view, and see, from what every one, as One, views, and sees. See, Just 'that', (whatever 'that' may be), which can be agreed with and accepted by every one, as One, is where 'Objectivity' is discovered, found, and known.

3. Although 'what is happening' is what 'is witnessed', by the time 'what is happening' is even been recognized by any of the five senses of 'the body' and is then transferred to 'the brain', which then takes some 'time', as well, to be transformed from information to knowledge, what 'appears' to be happening and occurring was already finished, and over. So, by the time what 'is' seen, then 'that', which is being seen' does not even exist in 'that exact same way, shape, nor form', anymore.

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.

1. Human bodies are always experiencing what is sometimes called and referred to as, 'objective reality'.

2. The word, 'you', when meaning and is being referred to the 'invisible thoughts', within a human body, is 'the direct result' of what 'that body' had previously experienced. Meaning 'you' would be a 'different person' if 'that body' had experienced absolutely any thing differently. So, 'you' actually do not 'experience' any thing.

3. 'you', also, do not have 'your brain'. The saying and term, 'your brain', is just an oxymoron and just another contradiction in terms. Now, although 'the brain' may well filter, interpret, and even create 'a' perception, or distortion, of 'Reality', Itself, the senses of the body certainly do not filter, nor interpret any thing. They just pass information input, through to 'the brain'. Now, although 'the brain', itself, may well filter, interpret, and/or create perceptions, or not, it could be said and argued that it is actually the already existing 'thoughts', themselves, which, in essence, just 'you', is 'the one' that does the filter, interpreting, and even the creating of a 'perceived reality'. And, no matter how False, Wrong, Inaccurate, Incorrect, or 'illusory' 'that perception' even actually is.

4. Any unique, 'to you', (which just means and refers to the unique stored thoughts within 'that body, only', 'subjective reality', is how 'the brain' works, exactly. The brain is more or less just a gathering, and storing, of information. Thus, 'the brain' work just like any other 'storage capable computer'. And, like like every other computer can, only, put-out what in-formation has been put-in to it, so to can 'the human brain'. The information put, or fed, into the human brain, through any of the five senses, from what the body experiences, is the only out-put 'the human brain' can provide. The in-formation put-in, actually, is what, literally, in-forms the brain what can be put-out. And, what, directly, 'forms' 'you' 'the way' that 'you are'. From what 'a body' experiences directly results in what in-form-ation the brain receives, which, in turn', is what directly 'forms' and/or 'creates' 'you', the individual unique person with-in 'that (individual and unique) body'. Also, and by the way, the One and only Mind works, exactly, differently from how 'the brain' works.

5. Now, how actual Reality, or 'objective reality', is actually found and uncovered is not from 'looking' and 'seeing' from just the 'views/perspectives' of those personal 'selves' with(and)in some bodies, but rather from 'looking at' and seeing' from the One view/perspective from the One and only Real and True Self, which exists with(and)in all bodies.

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.

1. if the word 'Our', here, is in relation to human beings, only, then what are 'your' sensory organs 'limited to', in relation to 'what', exactly? The human body has six senses, although only the five 'sensory organs' are what are more commonly talked about and referred to. Now, what is the claim that these five 'sensory organs' are 'limited' meant to be referencing, exactly?

2. Yes, it is claimed that it is the human brain, which processes incoming data. But, maybe the human brain just gathers, and just stores, some of 'that incoming informing/data'. And, what actually 'processes' incoming information data might just be in some other way. After all, already stored 'thoughts' or 'knowledge' has a far more huge impact on what the human body does, then is really yet fully recognized, and noticed, in the days when this is being written.

3. Every individual 'person's' whole 'perspective' is not just 'influenced' by what that human body has experienced but is the One and only solely direct reason and cause for absolutely any and every thought, (which is actually any and every view, opinion, value, assumption, belief, perspective, et cetera.), anyway. It is what 'the body experiences', which keeps creating 'you', anew. Although 'the body' is always getting what is called 'older', 'you' are, actually, always becoming 'a/new/er'. So, each and every 'personal version of the world' was 'created' solely from, and by, what 'a body' has experienced previously, always up to 'now', or hitherto.

4. Will you please explain how the 'biological makeup', supposedly, influences 'a personal version of the world'? Now, if you are, more or less, just expressing that it is because of any or all of the working or not five senses of the human body, which is just 'the biological makeup', of every body, then okay and all well and good. However, if you are 'trying to' claim that it is because every human body is of different 'biologically makeup and/or just 'looks differently', then 'this', in and of itself, is why every 'person' has a different 'personal version of the world', then I would love to 'see' how 'this' would be 'explained'.

5. To me, every individual and uniquely different 'personal version of the world' is, very simply, justly, and solely, because every individual and unique different body has just has individual and uniquely different past experiences. Which, is again, another thing that no one could refute. And, when there is no one who could refute some thing, then there is 'another thing' that every one not just could, but does, agree upon and with, and accepts. Which is, once again, exactly, where, when, and how the actual irrefutable Truth of things, is found, or becomes revealed.

Age, Do you agree with the scientist?

In some ways, 'Yes', but in other ways, 'No'. 'I' do have a tendency to not just 'look at' nor 'focus' on what is sometimes called and/or referred to as the 'surface or superficial level' of things, and do have a a very strong tendency to keep 'looking' much, much further deeper until I found what 'lies' at the very bottom or very fundamental level.

[Age]

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".

What 'I' do is at every moment any one, here, claims some thing to be true, right, accurate, and/or correct, and/or asks me if some thing exists or not, for example, and I am Truly interested and curious, is to then just ask them to define the words and/or terms that they are using.

Did 'you' not think it would be a 'good moment' to ask "gary childress" to define the word, 'mind'? Or, is the word, 'mind', another one of 'those words', which you claim every one already knows what the definition is, anyway, and thus another one of 'those words' that, laughingly do not need to be defined?

[Walker]

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.

Would you agree that because "Absolutely nothing 'has' the One Mind", then this means that the brain and also the body function as an organic receiver and translator of mind … in much the same way that a radio receiver does not have a song, but is an inorganic receiver of song, and potentially all songs.

The One Mind would explain where thoughts were before folks discovered them, even though ego will insist that it created the thoughts.

[Age]

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.

So, 'this' is claimed, in the days when this is being written. And, it is also claimed that there will be over nine billion human beings on earth in about 12 more years "gary childress", from the very day 'this' is written.

Most if not all of them surely have minds.

'I' asked 'you', "gary childress", what 'you' are using to make 'this', very wild to me, claim. 'you', obviously, have not provided a single source.

Therefore, if you, really, would like to believe, and insist, that some, if not all, of you human beings 'have minds', then please carry on as 'you' are, here.

But, just remember that many, many of you human beings, who 'you' say, and insist, 'have minds', also kept saying, and insisting, that the sun revolved around the earth, and even when 'the one' with the 'actual proof' was just saying, and pointing out, that, actually, it is the earth that revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. Which, some, with claimed minds, just could not 'accept to be true', for the sole reason that they were just assuming and believing otherwise. Now, if 'you' do not have absolutely any thing other than your own assumption and believe, only, that some, if not all, of you human beings 'have your own minds', then great. 'you' are, literally, proving 'my claims', here, to be even more of the irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge, in Life.

If they do not have minds, then fine, humans don't have minds, which sounds pretty absurd to me.

Just like 'the claim' that it is actually 'the earth that revolves around the sun', which sounded 'pretty absurd' to a lot of other people, as well.

But, and obviously, as human beings 'evolve', and change, so to does true, right, accurate, and correct knowledge 'evolve', and/or change. Until, one day, the actual and irrefutable True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge comes-to-light, and becomes 'known'.

And, although 'this Knowledge' is coming-to-light, to more and more of you human beings, it can also, at times. seem like a rather 'pretty unnecessary' very, very slow rate of speed.

But, one day, human beings will, eventually, 'catch up'.

So surely you believe humans typically have minds.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, 'I' question 'you', for clarity sake above, here. 'you' provide absolutely nothing at all. 'you', however, and instead, said,

P1. There are a number of human beings, on earth.
P2. Humans not having minds sounds 'pretty absurd', to you.
C. So, surely you believe humans typically have minds.

"gary childress" 'you' would be 'hard pressed' to be able to formulate a more absurd and ridiculous argument, here.

There are over 8 billion minds (at the very least) on Earth.

If 'this' is what you, really, want to 'believe', and 'see', is absolutely true, then okay. Some people also, really, wanted to 'believe', and 'saw', the sun revolving around the earth, as well. And just like 'there' were absolutely free to 'believe', and 'see', whatever they want to 'believe', and 'see', so to are 'you', as well.

But, once again, what 'we' can, very clearly see, here, is another prime example of 'confirmation bias', at its best.

Is it unreasonable or misguided for me to think that there are over 8 billion minds out there?

No. For the sole fact that 'you' have not been 'taught' to think anything else.

Was it unreasonable or misguided for those two think that the sun revolves around the earth, if, and when, they had never been taught anything else?

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.

Well,

1. That was a great observation of yours, here. Did you, really, think no one else would have noticed the irrefutable obviousness, here? Let 'us' remind 'the viewers', here, that if you say you have no evidence, then this is not, actually, an admission that you have no evidence, but, according to "gary childress" is just 'pretty much' 'an admission' that you have no evidence.

2. And, let 'us' not forget that if 'I' say I do not do 'evidence', but rather 'I' have actual proof, then this is, also, 'an admission', and 'an admission' that I do have 'actual proof'. Which would obviously override any so-called 'evidence' always, and in all ways.

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?

No, Not at all.

And, 'your interpretation', here, could not be any more 'off track'.

[Age]

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.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'hyper literal'.

How could one be 'more literal', than 'literal', itself?

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".

[Age]

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.

Have you even provided 'your definition' for the 'mind' word, yet?

After all you claimed that, absolutely, human beings do have minds.