Questions to Age

[Magnus Anderson]

Finally some one comes out, and asks.

As if you weren't asked before, by the same person.

What an idiot.

[Gary Childress]

Now, again, what, exactly, is a 'mind', to you, "gary childress"?

Mind is where thoughts occur and reside.

[Magnus Anderson]

The word, 'Mind', references the ability within all human beings, since they were created, through evolution, to be able to be absolutely open, to any and every thing.

And, it is through this One, always Truly open, Mind, which exists within all human beings, exactly, how and why human beings, collectively and individually, can imagine, learn, and create, and thus can keep on moving and progressing forward, in Life, until 'the One goal', within every one, is created, achieved, and/or reached.

That's not what the word "mind" normally means. But even defined this way, it seems that everyone has a mind, since, as per your words, every person has "the ability to be absolutely open, to any and every thing". So why do you insist on saying there is only one mind?

[Age]

What?

I never ever told absolutely any one that they are 'slow learners'.

What I, obviously, said, and wrote, was, 'Once more for the very slow learners, here. ...'.

So, if there are none, then there are none. But, if there are, then 'they', obviously, already know who 'they' are, exactly.

Either you lack self-awareness or you're simply lying, neither of which is a good thing.

Here, 'we' have another prime example of a very common occurrence among the adult human being population, in the days when this was being written, and them, when making claims, providing absolutely nothing at all that backs up and supports their belief/s and/or claim/s.

As 'this one' will, again, quite nicely prove absolutely True, for me, once more.

So, you 'now' want to claim that 'I' either, lack self-awareness, or, 'I' am simply lying. So, which one is 'it', exactly?

If you do not know, then why do you believe, absolutely, that 'it' could only be one of these two things?

Also, provide the actual examples, which led you to believe, absolutely, what you have, here.

In other words have 'the courage', for once, to show 'the readers', here, what 'it' is, exactly, what you are, once more, 'just alluding to', and then provide the actual reasons why you ended up believing, absolutely, what you have, here.

I wonder how Fairy is going to defend this.

One could even wonder how you are even going to 'try to' attempt to defend what you just said, and claimed, here.

Not that you will even actually ever begin to.

When, exactly, do you believe that I have assumed some thing, before I sought out to obtain actual clarity first?

You do it all the time.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Which makes one wonder if 'this one' even knows what the words, 'all the time', even actually means, and/or even actually refers to, exactly.

And, once again, what can be very clearly seen, once more, no actual clarification was even attempted to be provided.

[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 '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.

Thank you for answering my question. There is no requirement for me to seek further assistance on what you’ve already presented here according to your own perception of my question. Your reply was received with clarity and understanding here. You have an extraordinary sense of self aware knowledge into the nature of the mind. Again, thanks for your generous cooperation.

[Age]

Once again, absolutely no answer, nor clarification, at all, provided.

As if you do that yourself . . .

You were asked to define the word "mind".

When and where, exactly?

You dodged the question.

Did I?

One only has to 'look back' over 'my writings' to see if 'this' is absolutely True, Right, Accurate, or Correct, or to see if 'this belief and claim' of yours, here, is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

And, obviously if 'it' is True and Right, then you will have absolutely no issue at all in providing the irrefutable proof for your belief and claim, here.

According to you, you have no mind -- you are mindless -- so I can understand why you can't see that.

If 'this' is what you can understand, then okay.

[Age]

Also, you spelt 'Mind' Wrong.

Nah, you don't get to dictate how words are spelled. The correct spelling is "mind".

LOL
LOL
LOL

But, you believe, absolutely, that you get to dictate 'the meaning' of any word, and that others should adopt 'the meaning' that you give words.

Oh, once more, the irony.

[Fairy]

Now, again, what, exactly, is a 'mind', to you, "gary childress"?

Mind is where thoughts occur and reside.

You’re doing well, keep going.

[Age]

Finally some one comes out, and asks.

As if you weren't asked before, by the same person.

Where, and when, exactly?

What an idiot.

[Gary Childress]

Now, again, what, exactly, is a 'mind', to you, "gary childress"?

Mind is where thoughts occur and reside.

You’re doing well, keep going.

Keep going where?

[Age]

Now, again, what, exactly, is a 'mind', to you, "gary childress"?

Mind is where thoughts occur and reside.

So, if we were to cut open a human body, where is 'this place', which you call 'mind', exactly, where 'thoughts', themselves, occur and reside?

And, is the whole purpose of the 'mind' thingy to be 'just a place' where 'thoughts' occur and reside, only?

[Age]

The word, 'Mind', references the ability within all human beings, since they were created, through evolution, to be able to be absolutely open, to any and every thing.

And, it is through this One, always Truly open, Mind, which exists within all human beings, exactly, how and why human beings, collectively and individually, can imagine, learn, and create, and thus can keep on moving and progressing forward, in Life, until 'the One goal', within every one, is created, achieved, and/or reached.

That's not what the word "mind" normally means.

And, in 'the world', in which you live and exist within, when this is being written, you adult human beings, still, do not yet know the, proper and Correct, answer to 'the question, 'Who am 'I'?' as well as being confused and in conflict over many, many other words. So, what words means to you, people, 'normally', in the 'olden days' when this is being written, is not some thing that would be best 'bragged about'.

Also, and let 'us' not forget, what the word, 'witch', once 'normally' meant was something else, which would be best not 'bragged about', either.

Now, does the word, 'mind', to you, "magnus anderson", mean, or 'normally mean', is 'the place' where thoughts occur and reside?

If no, then what does the word, 'mind', so-called, 'normally mean', to you, exactly?

But, if yes, then just say so, here.

But even defined this way, it seems that everyone has a mind, since, as per your words, every person has "the ability to be absolutely open, to any and every thing". So why do you insist on saying there is only one mind?

In case you were not yet aware the word, 'a', 'normally' refers to a/nother, or separate, one, and not to 'the' one and only One. Where the word, 'the', would mean One, only.

And, saying or claiming, 'everyone has a mind', implies that 'people', "themselves", 'have' 'a mind'. And, if, and when, 'you' come to, also, know absolutely and fully who and what you, people, are, exactly, then you will, also, see and understand how 'you' could never 'have' 'a mind'.

[Gary Childress]

Now, again, what, exactly, is a 'mind', to you, "gary childress"?

Mind is where thoughts occur and reside.

So, if we were to cut open a human body, where is 'this place', which you call 'mind', exactly, where 'thoughts', themselves, occur and reside?

And, is the whole purpose of the 'mind' thingy to be 'just a place' where 'thoughts' occur and reside, only?

I don't know.

[Fairy]

It’s rude to portion rudeness to people you’ve never met except as a character living rent free in your head.

Aren’t we dealing with ideas here, not actual human beings with feelings and emotions ?

You're trying too hard. Your advice should be given to people such as Age and Harbal, not me. Take a look at my thread "Basic Semiotics" and count how many times I talk about my interlocutors versus how many times Age does the same ( hint: he does it A LOT, as I've shown in this thread. ) And understand that I don't have to meet these people in person. I'm talking about their Internet interactions.

There’s no need to keep changing the subject. Diverting me to a thread where you boast about treating your binoculars with a sweet little angel pie demeanour.

Let’s just remind ourselves what You did here on this thread topic. You called Age a cockroach among other things, and you called Harbal a rude Gadfly.

Nice deflection though, I’ll give you that. Pot kettle black.

[Walker]

Do you feel the need to make that case, with the necessary clarifications?