Is a human being Real?

[Fairy]

No wonder we are caught in a loop because you are blind-sighted by biasness.

No, conscious awareness is anything but blind, it is the pure Light that is aliveness.

Bias pertains only to a self. Aliveness has no self, does a tree have a self. Self is a nebulous concept that you are trying to fix as a fixed thing, nothing is fixed, because every thing is in constant flux, ever changing appearances in that which is changeless and never appears, or disappears.

Now, go to your scientific laboratory and create LIGHT from scratch. Be sure to come back with some photo evidence of the LIGHT you've created, so we can all get a good look at what LIGHT looks like. I for one am very curious to see what your self created LIGHT looks like.

[Fairy]

You are a human being - that is a fact.

But you insist, you are not an empirical real thing?
That is madness.
If you are a fake, anyone can get rid of you and throw into the trash can?

Death, you have never known death. If you know death, you'll have to wait until you die to be able to tell yourself you know death. Do you see how the idea of death is just a nebulous concept constructed by the mind?

Death, could be something entirely different than what is first believed, it could be a gift, for example, there's no life without death, and no death without life, but these are concepts, not actually real. So there's nothing to be scared about. Is Death actually Real?

Death is happening all the time, the cells of the body are constantly regenerating. This constant renewal of cells is crucial for maintaining bodily health. Maybe that's what death really means, renewal, it's not so much the end of the old, but the beginning of the new.
Where is the start of the sense of self, where is the end of the sense of self, where does the 'you' begin and end. Can you know that, except as words in this conception.

Of course for the sense of self, there's a fear of the end of self, and yet that same self is never the same self from one moment to the next. So which self are we talking about that is fearful? Fear is simply the false belief in losing something. Are you fearful of losing your childhood to make way for adulthood?

The Old is constantly being replaced by the New by the bodies own automatic intelligence that is the regeneration process.

VA, fear is the bodies response to losing itself, because the sense of self is of the body/mind mechanism, it's attachment to a 'thought' that's all. The body doesn't know what death is, it doesn't even know it's living. Those concepts belong to the mind, and even the mind doesn't know what it is. That's why there is so much fear, the fear is of the unknown, that's all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No wonder we are caught in a loop because you are blind-sighted by biasness.

No, conscious awareness is anything but blind, it is the pure Light that is aliveness.

Bias pertains only to a self. Aliveness has no self, does a tree have a self. Self is a nebulous concept that you are trying to fix as a fixed thing, nothing is fixed, because every thing is in constant flux, ever changing appearances in that which is changeless and never appears, or disappears.

Now, go to your scientific laboratory and create LIGHT from scratch. Be sure to come back with some photo evidence of the LIGHT you've created, so we can all get a good look at what LIGHT looks like. I for one am very curious to see what your self created LIGHT looks like.

Your challenge misunderstands both science and the structure of explanation.

The fact that I cannot “create light from scratch in a laboratory” has nothing to do with whether light requires a designer, nor does it support a watchmaker argument. Humans didn’t create gravity, space-time, quarks, or the second law of thermodynamics either—yet no one claims their existence proves a supernatural designer.

Science explains how light behaves, propagates, interacts with matter, and arises from electromagnetic fields. Explanation does not require manufacturing the phenomenon from nothing, any more than understanding rain requires creating a cloud ex nihilo.

Your demand confuses ontological origin with epistemic explanation.

We understand light through Maxwell’s equations.
We generate photons routinely (lasers, LEDs, particle accelerators).
What we don’t do is create the fundamental laws of nature themselves.

No scientist claims to create the fundamental entities of physics “from scratch,” and this has no bearing on whether they are designed or naturally occurring.

Paley’s watchmaker argument fails because it assumes that complexity implies intention, but natural systems show that complexity can arise from simple physical rules without any designer at all.

So the request to “go create LIGHT from scratch” is not an argument—just a category mistake.

(nb: above is AI assisted)

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are a human being - that is a fact.

But you insist, you are not an empirical real thing?
That is madness.
If you are a fake, anyone can get rid of you and throw into the trash can?

Death, you have never known death. If you know death, you'll have to wait until you die to be able to tell yourself you know death. Do you see how the idea of death is just a nebulous concept constructed by the mind?

Death, could be something entirely different than what is first believed, it could be a gift, for example, there's no life without death, and no death without life, but these are concepts, not actually real. So there's nothing to be scared about. Is Death actually Real?

Death is happening all the time, the cells of the body are constantly regenerating. This constant renewal of cells is crucial for maintaining bodily health. Maybe that's what death really means, renewal, it's not so much the end of the old, but the beginning of the new.
Where is the start of the sense of self, where is the end of the sense of self, where does the 'you' begin and end. Can you know that, except as words in this conception.

Of course for the sense of self, there's a fear of the end of self, and yet that same self is never the same self from one moment to the next. So which self are we talking about that is fearful? Fear is simply the false belief in losing something. Are you fearful of losing your childhood to make way for adulthood?

The Old is constantly being replaced by the New by the bodies own automatic intelligence that is the regeneration process.

VA, fear is the bodies response to losing itself, because the sense of self is of the body/mind mechanism, it's attachment to a 'thought' that's all. The body doesn't know what death is, it doesn't even know it's living. Those concepts belong to the mind, and even the mind doesn't know what it is. That's why there is so much fear, the fear is of the unknown, that's all.

You are changing topic:

Your original question.

A human being is a concept known. It's not an empirical real thing. It's actually a nebulous construct of the mind.
Where is the empirical mind that constructs empirical things? You will not be able to show it as an empirical thing.
Even the word/concept 'EMPIRICAL' is a mental construct, not an actual real objective thing.

You have no counter to my claim, a human being is not a concept but a real empirical thing.

VA, fear is the bodies response to losing itself, because the sense of self is of the body/mind mechanism, it's attachment to a 'thought' that's all. The body doesn't know what death is, it doesn't even know it's living. Those concepts belong to the mind, and even the mind doesn't know what it is. That's why there is so much fear, the fear is of the unknown, that's all.

Yes, fear, i.e. the most terrible primal fear is the mind and body response to losing itself because humans [human nature] are programmed not to lose itself [death] at all costs.
This is natural. Without this primal fear, the human species would have gone extinct rather than being 8 billion people at present.

Then, humans are also programmed with self-awareness for good reasons to progress. With self-awareness, the terrible primal fear is triggered into awareness, thus the generation of primal fears. This is the 'worm at the core' I mentioned earlier.

But to ensure there is no paralysis from the primal fears of inevitable death while alive, humans are programmed with inhibitor that suppressed such fears. But being human, these inhibitors are not perfect thus there is leakages which manifest as angst, dreads and death anxieties.

It is because of the existential very painful fears that drive humans into theism [an omnipotent God promising eternal life] which give immediate soothing of the existential pains. Believe, surrender and viola! one is saved. God is an invention of the mind, just as Santa Claus is an invention to comfort children and make money.

The clinging to a God is purely psychological as explained above.

Can you counter the above?

[Fairy]

No wonder we are caught in a loop because you are blind-sighted by biasness.

No, conscious awareness is anything but blind, it is the pure Light that is aliveness.

Bias pertains only to a self. Aliveness has no self, does a tree have a self. Self is a nebulous concept that you are trying to fix as a fixed thing, nothing is fixed, because every thing is in constant flux, ever changing appearances in that which is changeless and never appears, or disappears.

Now, go to your scientific laboratory and create LIGHT from scratch. Be sure to come back with some photo evidence of the LIGHT you've created, so we can all get a good look at what LIGHT looks like. I for one am very curious to see what your self created LIGHT looks like.

Your challenge misunderstands both science and the structure of explanation.

The fact that I cannot “create light from scratch in a laboratory” has nothing to do with whether light requires a designer, nor does it support a watchmaker argument. Humans didn’t create gravity, space-time, quarks, or the second law of thermodynamics either—yet no one claims their existence proves a supernatural designer.

Science explains how light behaves, propagates, interacts with matter, and arises from electromagnetic fields. Explanation does not require manufacturing the phenomenon from nothing, any more than understanding rain requires creating a cloud ex nihilo.

Your demand confuses ontological origin with epistemic explanation.

We understand light through Maxwell’s equations.
We generate photons routinely (lasers, LEDs, particle accelerators).
What we don’t do is create the fundamental laws of nature themselves.

No scientist claims to create the fundamental entities of physics “from scratch,” and this has no bearing on whether they are designed or naturally occurring.

Paley’s watchmaker argument fails because it assumes that complexity implies intention, but natural systems show that complexity can arise from simple physical rules without any designer at all.

So the request to “go create LIGHT from scratch” is not an argument—just a category mistake.

(nb: above is AI assisted)

I understand perfectly everything above. It's written all over the internet and many YouTube channels address the same information in many different ways. This is all common knowledge to anyone with a receptor to receive it.

I have no argument with science and it's discoveries. That's just all the universe being aware of itself and describing the infinite facets of itself to itself.

The universe is obviously LIGHT interacting with itself, to the degree that light has successfully reached a point of sophistication that is has become aware of itself as a conscious living being, as and through many physical biological organisms, each being a totally unique never to be repeated singular pattern of the same one LIGHT source.

The idea there's a designer of these singular biological organisms doesn't matter, because it's just self evidently observable in that there's some degree of organised order happening within each body so that it may function so precisely and effectively that it eventually becomes conscious of all it's coordinated working parts. The point is, it's no secret that LIGHT is in absolutely everything, and absolutely everything is in LIGHT, and lastly, there is only LIGHT.


What the human mind has recognised is that it's own sophisticated consciousness supersedes that of natures natural organic biological design, by that I mean how the bodies separate many parts have been assembled together to form a complete whole human body, by nature, not man.
And then man assembled by nature has developed the capacity to design it's own synthetic creations like A.I robots for example.

So you see, all I'm talking about here in this discussion is the idea of ideas presented to us in the form of CONCEPTS. which is just information informing itself as and through images and symbols that somehow make sense to the living organism that is the human brain.

If a human being can be a designer, which is real, who is able to design and assemble their designs into sophisticated wrist watches, already knowing that they are just one part of the absolute whole universe that is designing everything including the design of organic biological humans that can extend to then design synthetic things.
I'm not suggesting there is a supernatural designer that has an independent existence apart from it's designed things, I'm talking about design in a conceptual context.
There's biological design and there's synthetic design, and yet both are just an expression of the same one conscious living LIGHT

Conceptually, LIGHT can be called every conceivable concept, and it would only be Light conceiving itself as a concept. Ultimately every conceivable concept would owe it's source conception to LIGHT ... including the concept GOD

[Fairy]

No scientist claims to create the fundamental entities of physics “from scratch,” and this has no bearing on whether they are designed or naturally occurring.

Paley’s watchmaker argument fails because it assumes that complexity implies intention, but natural systems show that complexity can arise from simple physical rules without any designer at all.

So tell me, why human who is an integral not independent separate isolated being apart from the natural system that complexity can arise from simple physical rules without a designer, then proceed to claim they have designed a wrist-watch?

This is the point I'm trying to discuss here. Who is this human that claims it is a designer of a wrist-watch? Who is making that claim it is a designer, if like you say, there's just natural systems showing that complexity can arise from simple physical rules without a designer. Do you see what I mean by concepts?

The concept ''designer'' has entered the rule of natural systems, has it not...so is this concept DESIGNER real, or not?

Is the concept 'human being', a real fundamental entity, with intention and the capacity to design, or is it not?

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote: “You still have not proven your God or the self-in-itself [survives physical death] exists as real?”

———
Response to V A….. You are claiming it’s impossible for God to exist as real.

So my question to you is… does a human being exist for real?

Humans are real . An individual is real . Human nature however is not unilaterally defined.

If, by your question , you mean "do I exist?" then you would need to study a branch of metaphysics called 'ontology'.

[Fairy]

Veritas Aequitas wrote: “You still have not proven your God or the self-in-itself [survives physical death] exists as real?”

———
Response to V A….. You are claiming it’s impossible for God to exist as real.

So my question to you is… does a human being exist for real?

Humans are real . An individual is real . Human nature however is not unilaterally defined.

If, by your question , you mean "do I exist?" then you would need to study a branch of metaphysics called 'ontology'.

No I don’t mean what you think I mean. And probably best not to lecture me on what you think I should be studying, your gaslighting is getting worse.

We are known as human beings because we invented the label, but that’s just a pretentious term. In reality we’ve no idea what we are, let alone, are we real or not.
We could just as easily have called ourselves “baked beanies” and nothing would have changed, we identify with labels that we project to be real, because without the screen of consciousness where do I happen?

Consciousness is imageless light projecting shadows in the shadowland known as matter, which is made of light.

Btw B. I don’t like you. Maybe best you keep me on your foe list. The choice you made, not me, so the feelings are mutual. Just a reminder.

[Hudjefa]

Are you not a human being? Was Descartes not a human being?

[Fairy]

Are you not a human being? Was Descartes not a human being?

It’s an idea.. what is an idea? I’ve no idea.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Veritas Aequitas wrote: “You still have not proven your God or the self-in-itself [survives physical death] exists as real?”

———
Response to V A….. You are claiming it’s impossible for God to exist as real.

So my question to you is… does a human being exist for real?

Can a Human be proven to be real? Of course!
Can a god be proven to be real? Well certainly not as of yet.

[Fairy]

Veritas Aequitas wrote: “You still have not proven your God or the self-in-itself [survives physical death] exists as real?”

———
Response to V A….. You are claiming it’s impossible for God to exist as real.

So my question to you is… does a human being exist for real?

Can a Human be proven to be real? Of course!
Can a god be proven to be real? Well certainly not as of yet.

Category Error.

[Hudjefa]

Are you not a human being? Was Descartes not a human being?

It’s an idea.. what is an idea? I’ve no idea.

A human being is an idea just as a tree is. Can more be said? Hard to say.

[Phil8659]

Veritas Aequitas wrote: “You still have not proven your God or the self-in-itself [survives physical death] exists as real?”

———
Response to V A….. You are claiming it’s impossible for God to exist as real.

So my question to you is… does a human being exist for real?

If you actually studied a philosopher, even had the minimum IQ to comprehend Grammar, think about the convention of names required for any system of grammar.
Words, names, in of themselves, have absolutely no meaning. They are like indexes to memory. Memory is derived from perception. Which member of our grammar matrix is the only grammar which can prove everything? Common Grammar? Arithmetic? Algebra? Or Geometry.
Geometry is the only member of our grammar matrix which puts a one-to-one correspondence between the hand and the 2 elements of a thing.
Geometry has always been interactive, but only recently has that interaction become very refined and obvious due to the computer.
Geometry always gives an exact answer
Geometry always produces the output concurrent with the input.
Geometry is wholly metaphorical.
So, no, we do not nor can prove a thing using our logical systems of grammar. That can be done only with Geometry and to those who have sufficient intelligence who know how to use it.
You did not even bother to define your terms, i.e., provide the basis for naming convention, that is how primitive you are.
Nobody can talk anyone else into growing a brain.

[Fairy]

Are you not a human being? Was Descartes not a human being?

It’s an idea.. what is an idea? I’ve no idea.

A human being is an idea just as a tree is. Can more be said? Hard to say.

There’s nothing outside the text, that again, is just an idea, empty at it’s fundamental core.
I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think. Is what thinks in my place, then, another I

There’s an awareness of thought which simultaneously creates the sense of I or self as an intertwining phenomenon known also as the thought looping mechanism. Infinity

Noun is the perfect term for Emptiness because it's the closest thing to a substance that is possible.Forms are verbs, formlessness is a noun is just one way of looking at it.