Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 1:02 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2023 5:01 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2023 9:41 am Let assume for a moment your assessment of everyone here is correct. Everyone here only looks at one side of things and does not look at things through other perspectives.

Yes, one reaction you could have to all this is to post a general, judgmental, negative assessment of everyone - which is what you did here.

My guess is this will not change anything and will actually just go into the mix of conflicts and add a little more irritation, defensiveness, etc.
I could be wrong about that.

You, my friend have the patience of Job.

I admit I was a little curious if your addressing style specifically would be answered in a discussion of style or if it would be responded to in the (yawn) typical contrarian "the sky isn't blue" auto opposition technique.

Obviously, this exercise is an example of the "the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior" advice.

I applaud your attempt though. Kudos to you.

LOL

"iwannaplato" MADE THE CLAIM that I was REFERRING TO ABSOLUTELY EVERY one, which was ONE out of MANY CLAIMS. I SAY and WRITE, while DISCUSSING, that this is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, and which can be PROVED ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLE True by my PAST WRITINGS/BEHAVIOR here.

YET, 'this STYLE' or responding is SEEN here by "lucky", AGAIN FROM "one-side" ONLY, as being a so-called '(yawn) typical contrarian) and 'auto opposition technique', and with the MOST ABSURD and False CLAIM that it is like 'the sky isn't blue' response.

What we HAVE here is A PERFECT EXAMPLE and the VERY 'thing' the title of this thread IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY. This 'poster' here is SO "one-sided" 'it' has made up a Truly, and OBVIOUS, False CLAIM, and what makes 'this' WORSE is that 'it' ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'its' CLAIM IS TRUE.

What 'this one' IS DOING, and SHOWING, here is the VERY 'thing' being "one-side" CAUSES and CREATES.

But, then again, I have TENDED to SPEAK and WRITE in A WAY to these 'posters' here, previously, so that 'they' WOULD END UP CHOOSING to LOOKING AT and SEEING MY WORDS from a Truly "one-sided" perspective ONLY. So, that 'they' WOULD END UP, eventually, PROVIDING the ACTUAL examples of what I am, and have been, talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

What IS ALSO CLEARLY VISIBLE here is 'these posters' PREFER TO talk ABOUT 'me' INSTEAD OF having discussions WITH 'me'.

That is; 'they' like to MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT 'me' but WHEN I SHOW and PROVE the CLAIM False, Wrong, or Incorrect, then it IS 'me' who SPEAKS WRONGLY or that HAS a STYLE that is NOT good, right, NOR 'conducive' to 'productive discussions'. 'These people' are, literally, BLINDED BY "their" OWN "one-sided" views and perspectives of 'things' here.

Uummm... wasn't talking to you, dude.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 12:47 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 12:12 pm Are 'you' REALLY NOT YET AWARE "iwannaplato" that USING the 'ALL' word, AFTER the 'posters' words REFERS TO 'you', posters, ONLY. WHEREAS, the 'everyone' word, OBVIOUSLY, REFERS TO EVERY one. Which is OBVIOUSLY VERY FAR MORE than just 'you' relatively NOTHING number of 'posters' here.

Here's what I said....

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2023 9:41 am
Everyone here only looks at one side of things and does not look at things through other perspectives.

Everyone here. Referring to.....

Can 'you', posters, here[.......all..........

You made an assumption. You had a belief about what I said. It was incorrect.

YES, I WAS ASSUMING that 'you' were referring to EVERY one, and NOT to ONLY everyone 'here', ONLY. 'This' was my MISTAKE ONLY, and FULLY. So, I APOLOGIZE here now, PROFUSELY. 'This' is a GREAT example of just how QUICKLY, SIMPLY, and EASILY ASSUMING can and does LEAD TO CONFUSION, BICKERING, and/or FIGHTING. What can ALSO be CLEARLY SEEN here IS just how when one is BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, then 'this' STOPS and PREVENTS the ACTUAL Truth from COMING-TO-LIGHT, BEING SEEN, and KNOWN. If I was NOT believing some 'thing' here, then the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth could have been KNOWN MUCH EARLIER.

Now, have 'you' considered copying ONLY the ACTUAL WORDS that I WRITE and USE instead of WRITING and USING 'your' OWN words that I NEVER MEANT AT ALL? As, what can be CLEARLY SEEN above here in 'your OWN WORDS', when REFERENCING MINE, 'you' have and are completely DISTORTING and MISCONSTRUING what I ACTUALLY SAID, and are MEANING.

'your' whole sentence was COMPLETELY and UTTER SAYING and MEANING what I WAS NOT. I WAS talking ABOUT 'this' ALSO, and LOST SIGHT of that one 'here' word ONLY. Which is what 'you' appear to have been CONCENTRATING ON ONLY here.

Also, WHY is the 'time' you wrote down here NOT line up with the 'time' at my end? Did you COPY the EXACT SAME numbers? Or, have you WRITTEN and USED a DIFFERENT number here?

Furthermore, did you NOTICE that when you EXPLAINED, FULLY, what you were talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO, then I COULD SEE what 'it' was, EXACTLY, that you were MEANING? It made 'it' MUCH EASIER, SIMPLER, and QUICKER for 'me' to FULLY UNDERSTAND 'you' WHEN 'you' EXPLAINED in FULL DETAIL what 'you' had been PREVIOUSLY ONLY ALLUDING TO.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 12:47 pm It will slowly become a full-time job trying to help you understand the way you fail to communicate and do just what you accuse others of doing.

Okay. I KNOW the 'feeling', ALSO.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 12:47 pm Maybe Harbal will be kind to you again and indulge your burueacratic endlessness.

Okay.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 12:47 pm You may be content with not communicating well or reading well.

It is ALWAYS 'me' who does NOT communicate well NOR read well here, right?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 12:47 pm I believe you when you now assert that you don't want to change anyone here.

Thank you. As long as you are AWARE of what the 'here' word IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

Do 'you' KNOW what the 'here' word IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

And/or what, EXACTLY, did 'you' MEAN by the 'here' word here?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 12:47 pm I think your communication has been poor around this issue, recommending people change, and all, and how, for example, but that's fine.

BUT I HAVE NOT YET EXPLAINED HOW.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 12:47 pm I believe you. I thought you wanted to communicate better given other things you've said. I could be wrong about that also. You could have been communicating poorly about that. I don't know.

'you' USE a LOT of 'this' and 'that' words, which I have NO IDEA NOR CLUE what 'they' ARE REFERRING TO EXACTLY. The way 'you' communicate with 'your' other words 'you' are also ALLUDING TO and IMPLYING some 'things', which are STILL UNKNOWN and WILL REMAIN SO UNTIL CLARIFICATION IS SOUGHT OUT and OBTAINED by 'me'.

But 'this' has been a very consistent theme in 'your' communicating style here "iwannaplato".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 12:47 pm But regardless of whether you want to improve or not, you'll have to find someone else to help you.

I do NOT KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO SAY AND REPEAT 'this' BEFORE 'it' BECOMES Truly UNDERSTOOD. 'you', posters, here HAVE BEEN and ARE ALREADY HELPING 'me'. 'I' just do NOT SEEK OUT NOR WANT the 'help', which 'you' are IMAGINING here "iwannaplato".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 12:47 pm Oh, I don't assume you want help. I have no idea.

Okay.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 12:47 pm But if you want it, you'll have to find someone else with more patience than me and more free time.

BUT 'you' have ALREADY HELPED FAR MORE THAN 'you' REALIZE "iwannaplato".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 12:47 pm I wish you well whatever your wants and lacks thereof may be.

So, EVEN THOUGH I, EXPRESSLY, INFORMED 'you' OF WHAT I WANT here, 'you' have STILL FAILED TO COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND what 'that' IS, EXACTLY.

WHY do 'you' IMAGINE 'this' COULD BE "iwannaplato"?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 3:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 9:08 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 3:48 am

But unlike you, others know about the real world and the millions of pages of evidence for what I said

Okay, so are 'you' now ABLE TO INFORM 'us' of what the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE IS, EXACTLY, between what 'I', supposedly, SAY about the 'real world' and what "others", supposedly, KNOW about the 'real world'.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 3:48 am - literally almost everything related known to us ever.

Okay, if 'you' SAY and BELIEVE so.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 3:48 am So they know that the burden of proof is in you.

What is the 'burden of proof' on 'me' in regards TO here, EXACTLY?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 3:48 am And after years you've still provided exactly none. Good luck

This is BECAUSE I AM STILL WAITING FOR 'what' one WANTS PROOF FOR, EXACTLY?

For example: prove that 99%+ of adult human beings are wrong in thinking that they have individual minds.

BUT ALL of 'you', adult human beings, who think that 'you' have individual minds ARE Wrong, which IS NOT just 99% of 'you'.

Now, proving that there is ONLY One Mind, and NOT MANY minds, 'we' would have to first come to an agreement on what the word 'mind' means and refers to, exactly, and have that definition FITTING IN WITH other words and their definitions as well.

Do 'you' envision 'we' could do 'this'?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 3:27 pm You do realize that this claim of yours, if correct, would pretty much rewrite almost everything we know, right?

Yes, and 'that' would also only be the very 'tip of the iceberg', as some would say.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 10:53 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 1:02 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2023 5:01 pm

You, my friend have the patience of Job.

I admit I was a little curious if your addressing style specifically would be answered in a discussion of style or if it would be responded to in the (yawn) typical contrarian "the sky isn't blue" auto opposition technique.

Obviously, this exercise is an example of the "the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior" advice.

I applaud your attempt though. Kudos to you.

LOL

"iwannaplato" MADE THE CLAIM that I was REFERRING TO ABSOLUTELY EVERY one, which was ONE out of MANY CLAIMS. I SAY and WRITE, while DISCUSSING, that this is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, and which can be PROVED ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLE True by my PAST WRITINGS/BEHAVIOR here.

YET, 'this STYLE' or responding is SEEN here by "lucky", AGAIN FROM "one-side" ONLY, as being a so-called '(yawn) typical contrarian) and 'auto opposition technique', and with the MOST ABSURD and False CLAIM that it is like 'the sky isn't blue' response.

What we HAVE here is A PERFECT EXAMPLE and the VERY 'thing' the title of this thread IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY. This 'poster' here is SO "one-sided" 'it' has made up a Truly, and OBVIOUS, False CLAIM, and what makes 'this' WORSE is that 'it' ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'its' CLAIM IS TRUE.

What 'this one' IS DOING, and SHOWING, here is the VERY 'thing' being "one-side" CAUSES and CREATES.

But, then again, I have TENDED to SPEAK and WRITE in A WAY to these 'posters' here, previously, so that 'they' WOULD END UP CHOOSING to LOOKING AT and SEEING MY WORDS from a Truly "one-sided" perspective ONLY. So, that 'they' WOULD END UP, eventually, PROVIDING the ACTUAL examples of what I am, and have been, talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

What IS ALSO CLEARLY VISIBLE here is 'these posters' PREFER TO talk ABOUT 'me' INSTEAD OF having discussions WITH 'me'.

That is; 'they' like to MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT 'me' but WHEN I SHOW and PROVE the CLAIM False, Wrong, or Incorrect, then it IS 'me' who SPEAKS WRONGLY or that HAS a STYLE that is NOT good, right, NOR 'conducive' to 'productive discussions'. 'These people' are, literally, BLINDED BY "their" OWN "one-sided" views and perspectives of 'things' here.

Uummm... wasn't talking to you, dude.

Ummm, that was FAIRLY OBVIOUS.

And, what is ALSO OBVIOUS is the Fact that 'this forum' is a public forum in which one can SAY and WRITE 'things', exactly like I did.

Now, and OBVIOUSLY, if 'you' wanted to talk to someone here and NOT have absolutely ANY one "else" RESPOND, then I suggest 'you' keep 'your words' PRIVATE and message or talk TO 'them' in a private or a direct message, ONLY.

Now, considering the Fact that 'you' made a False and Wrong CLAIM ABOUT 'me', OPENLY and PUBLICLY, I, OBVIOUSLY, have a 'right of reply'. Which I DID, OPENLY and PUBLICLY, to Correct 'your' False, Wrong, AND Incorrect PUBLICLY MADE CLAIM.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 11:55 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 3:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 9:08 am

Okay, so are 'you' now ABLE TO INFORM 'us' of what the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE IS, EXACTLY, between what 'I', supposedly, SAY about the 'real world' and what "others", supposedly, KNOW about the 'real world'.


Okay, if 'you' SAY and BELIEVE so.


What is the 'burden of proof' on 'me' in regards TO here, EXACTLY?


This is BECAUSE I AM STILL WAITING FOR 'what' one WANTS PROOF FOR, EXACTLY?

For example: prove that 99%+ of adult human beings are wrong in thinking that they have individual minds.

BUT ALL of 'you', adult human beings, who think that 'you' have individual minds ARE Wrong, which IS NOT just 99% of 'you'.

Now, proving that there is ONLY One Mind, and NOT MANY minds, 'we' would have to first come to an agreement on what the word 'mind' means and refers to, exactly, and have that definition FITTING IN WITH other words and their definitions as well.

Do 'you' envision 'we' could do 'this'?

Of course 'we' could do this, but first 'we' will need convincing evidence that mind refers to something very different.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 11:55 pm For example: prove that 99%+ of adult human beings are wrong in thinking that they have individual minds.

BUT ALL of 'you', adult human beings, who think that 'you' have individual minds ARE Wrong, which IS NOT just 99% of 'you'.

He said 99%+. Note the + sign. IOW nearly everyone, but not everyone. Could be 99.999999% The vast majority. There are exceptions, of course depending on how one defines mind...
https://www.amazon.com/One-Mind-Individ ... 1401943772
https://www.hendrik-wintjen.info/consci ... -one-mind/
And if you throw in some versions of HInduism, it can be argued that some, with a very mystical bent in that set of religions, also believe there are no individual minds.

Now, proving that there is ONLY One Mind, and NOT MANY minds, 'we' would have to first come to an agreement on what the word 'mind' means and refers to, exactly, and have that definition FITTING IN WITH other words and their definitions as well.

Please start. What do you mean by 'mind'?

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 4:48 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 11:55 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 3:27 pm
For example: prove that 99%+ of adult human beings are wrong in thinking that they have individual minds.

BUT ALL of 'you', adult human beings, who think that 'you' have individual minds ARE Wrong, which IS NOT just 99% of 'you'.

Now, proving that there is ONLY One Mind, and NOT MANY minds, 'we' would have to first come to an agreement on what the word 'mind' means and refers to, exactly, and have that definition FITTING IN WITH other words and their definitions as well.

Do 'you' envision 'we' could do 'this'?

Of course 'we' could do this, but first 'we' will need convincing evidence that mind refers to something very different.

'Very different' from 'what', EXACTLY?

AND, what we WILL COME-TO-SEE, LEARN, UNCOVER, and DISCOVER is what "atla" WILL 'now' REVEAL.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 6:01 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 4:48 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 11:55 pm

BUT ALL of 'you', adult human beings, who think that 'you' have individual minds ARE Wrong, which IS NOT just 99% of 'you'.

Now, proving that there is ONLY One Mind, and NOT MANY minds, 'we' would have to first come to an agreement on what the word 'mind' means and refers to, exactly, and have that definition FITTING IN WITH other words and their definitions as well.

Do 'you' envision 'we' could do 'this'?

Of course 'we' could do this, but first 'we' will need convincing evidence that mind refers to something very different.

'Very different' from 'what', EXACTLY?

AND, what we WILL COME-TO-SEE, LEARN, UNCOVER, and DISCOVER is what "atla" WILL 'now' REVEAL.

Very different from the individual mind.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 7:26 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 11:55 pm For example: prove that 99%+ of adult human beings are wrong in thinking that they have individual minds.

BUT ALL of 'you', adult human beings, who think that 'you' have individual minds ARE Wrong, which IS NOT just 99% of 'you'.

He said 99%+. Note the + sign.

I do 'now', but I did NOT 'then'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 7:26 am IOW nearly everyone, but not everyone. Could be 99.999999% The vast majority. There are exceptions, of course depending on how one defines mind...
https://www.amazon.com/One-Mind-Individ ... 1401943772
https://www.hendrik-wintjen.info/consci ... -one-mind/
And if you throw in some versions of HInduism, it can be argued that some, with a very mystical bent in that set of religions, also believe there are no individual minds.

Okay.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 7:26 am

Now, proving that there is ONLY One Mind, and NOT MANY minds, 'we' would have to first come to an agreement on what the word 'mind' means and refers to, exactly, and have that definition FITTING IN WITH other words and their definitions as well.

Please start. What do you mean by 'mind'?

That part within the human being, which is OPEN to ANY and EVERY 'thing', and which has enabled human beings to be able to learn, understand, and reason ANY and EVERY 'thing' and which continues to provide the ability to continue to keep learning, understanding, and reasoning ANY and EVERY 'thing'.

The ability of the (ALWAYS Truly OPEN) Mind is very closely related to 'intelligence', itself, AND which IS the EXACT SAME within EVERY human being.

What do you mean by 'mind' "iwannaplato"?

And, if ANY one "else" would like to partake in defining their OWN definition of the 'mind' word and what 'it' means to them, THEN what will become VERY OBVIOUS is NO one, alone, has come up with A definition that WORKS IN WITH or FITS IN PERFECTLY WITH all the other words and their definitions, so far.

So, what would make one individual person's, or one group of people's, definition of the 'mind' word more true, more right, more accurate, and/or more correct, EXACTLY?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 6:10 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 6:01 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 4:48 am
Of course 'we' could do this, but first 'we' will need convincing evidence that mind refers to something very different.

'Very different' from 'what', EXACTLY?

AND, what we WILL COME-TO-SEE, LEARN, UNCOVER, and DISCOVER is what "atla" WILL 'now' REVEAL.

Very different from the individual mind.

AND, as I JUST SAID and POINTED OUT what we WILL COME-TO-SEE, LEARN, UNCOVER, and DISCOVER "atla" WILL 'now' REVEAL, and what 'that' IS, EXACTLY, IS the INABILITY of the one KNOWN here as "atla" in being ABLE TO define what the 'mind' IS, EXACTLY.

So, now "atla" 'you' STILL WANT TO CLAIM that there are 'INDIVIDUAL minds'. So, what are these so-called and alleged 'individual minds', EXACTLY, to 'you'?

How do 'you' define the word 'mind', EXACTLY, "alta"?

What does the 'mind' word MEAN to 'you', EXACTLY, "atla"?

And/or what does the 'mind' word REFER TO, to 'you', EXACTLY "atla"?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 6:16 am AND, as I JUST SAID and POINTED OUT what we WILL COME-TO-SEE, LEARN, UNCOVER, and DISCOVER "atla" WILL 'now' REVEAL, and what 'that' IS, EXACTLY, IS the INABILITY of the one KNOWN here as "atla" in being ABLE TO define what the 'mind' IS, EXACTLY.

So, now "atla" 'you' STILL WANT TO CLAIM that there are 'INDIVIDUAL minds'. So, what are these so-called and alleged 'individual minds', EXACTLY, to 'you'?

How do 'you' define the word 'mind', EXACTLY, "alta"?

What does the 'mind' word MEAN to 'you', EXACTLY, "atla"?

And/or what does the 'mind' word REFER TO, to 'you', EXACTLY "atla"?

You assume and claim that I'm unable to define the individual mind. You shouldn't make such idiotic assumptions and claims.

The individual mind is a part of the (nondual) reality, a part of existence. It is an active part of the nervous system of an organism. For example in humans, it's mainly a part of the living brain, and maybe to a lesser degree it's a part of some other living organs.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 6:28 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 6:16 am AND, as I JUST SAID and POINTED OUT what we WILL COME-TO-SEE, LEARN, UNCOVER, and DISCOVER "atla" WILL 'now' REVEAL, and what 'that' IS, EXACTLY, IS the INABILITY of the one KNOWN here as "atla" in being ABLE TO define what the 'mind' IS, EXACTLY.

So, now "atla" 'you' STILL WANT TO CLAIM that there are 'INDIVIDUAL minds'. So, what are these so-called and alleged 'individual minds', EXACTLY, to 'you'?

How do 'you' define the word 'mind', EXACTLY, "alta"?

What does the 'mind' word MEAN to 'you', EXACTLY, "atla"?

And/or what does the 'mind' word REFER TO, to 'you', EXACTLY "atla"?

You assume and claim that I'm unable to define the individual mind. You shouldn't make such idiotic assumptions and claims.

Did 'you' NOT NOTICE MY USE of the 'EXACTLY' word above here?

And, are 'you' even AWARE of what the 'EXACTLY' word MEANT and REFERS TO, here?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 6:28 am The individual mind is a part of the (nondual) reality, a part of existence.

Okay. But so IS ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' ELSE. BUT, what 'they' ALL ARE, EXACTLY, is YET TO BE DETERMINED, and DEFINED.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 6:28 am It is an active part of the nervous system of an organism.

Is there ANY 'thing' of 'the nervous system of an organism', which is NOT a so-called 'active part' of 'the nervous system of an organism'?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 6:28 am For example in humans, it's mainly a part of the living brain, and maybe to a lesser degree it's a part of some other living organs.

So, the MAIN 'part' of some 'active part of the nervous system of an organism' is a 'part' of the so-called 'living brain', right?

If no, then is 'the active part of the nervous system of an organism', which 'you', "atla", call 'the mind' here, the 'main part' of 'the living brain' to 'you'?

If it is neither, then what, EXACTLY, are 'you' SAYING, and MEANING, here?

Or, is 'mind' BOTH of the above here?

And, what OTHER 'living organs' do 'you' think or BELIEVE 'this mind' 'thing' MAYBE a 'part' of?

Also, what EXACT 'part' of those 'living organs' do 'you' think or KNOW would be the ACTUAL 'parts' of 'living organs'?

Furthermore, what IS the ACTUAL purpose OF these 'minds', which are 'you' SAY and CLAIM ARE 'individually DIFFERENT in EVERY human body?

AND, HOW do 'they' FUNCTION, EXACTLY, and WHAT do 'they' do, EXACTLY?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 7:57 amDid 'you' NOT NOTICE MY USE of the 'EXACTLY' word above here?

And, are 'you' even AWARE of what the 'EXACTLY' word MEANT and REFERS TO, here?

I don't know how close to being 'exact' we are talking about. The detailing of the individual mind could take up dozens or thousands or maybe millions of pages.

Is there ANY 'thing' of 'the nervous system of an organism', which is NOT a so-called 'active part' of 'the nervous system of an organism'?

I think so, yes. For example neurons that are not firing. Or for example dead tissue inside the living body.

So, the MAIN 'part' of some 'active part of the nervous system of an organism' is a 'part' of the so-called 'living brain', right?

If no, then is 'the active part of the nervous system of an organism', which 'you', "atla", call 'the mind' here, the 'main part' of 'the living brain' to 'you'?

If it is neither, then what, EXACTLY, are 'you' SAYING, and MEANING, here?

Or, is 'mind' BOTH of the above here?

Some organisms have active nervous systems, but don't seem to have a brain. It's a matter of definition, I tend towards viewing them as having rudimentary forms of minds too.
But it's also okay if we draw the line at having brains, only consider organisms with brains to have minds.

And, what OTHER 'living organs' do 'you' think or BELIEVE 'this mind' 'thing' MAYBE a 'part' of?

Spinal cord, gut, heart, maybe various EM fields of the body, maybe the entire nervous system.

Also, what EXACT 'part' of those 'living organs' do 'you' think or KNOW would be the ACTUAL 'parts' of 'living organs'?

I think you mistyped this question.

Furthermore, what IS the ACTUAL purpose OF these 'minds', which are 'you' SAY and CLAIM ARE 'individually DIFFERENT in EVERY human body?

The individual minds evolved mainly for survival purposes, obviously. The mind of the organism coordinates the organism on the inside. And using the mind, the organism navigates the external world.

AND, HOW do 'they' FUNCTION, EXACTLY, and WHAT do 'they' do, EXACTLY?

They function via biochemistry. What they mainly do is gather signals from inside the organism and via the senses from outside the organism, then process those signals, and then send back responses and other signals to other parts of the organism.

I feel like a textbook now..

In a more subjective sense, the mind is 'your experience' or in other words 'your part and perspective within the continuous universal experience'.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 7:57 amDid 'you' NOT NOTICE MY USE of the 'EXACTLY' word above here?

And, are 'you' even AWARE of what the 'EXACTLY' word MEANT and REFERS TO, here?

I don't know how close to being 'exact' we are talking about.

Okay, but I DID emphasize 'exactly'.

Also, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here, ONCE MORE, 'you' did NOT ANSWER the two QUESTIONS posed, and ASKED, and 'you' DETRACTED, AGAIN.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:23 am The detailing of the individual mind could take up dozens or thousands or maybe millions of pages.

AND, 'TRYING TO' detail some 'thing', which is YET to be ESTABLISHED and VERIFIED as even being True, would be a complete and utter WASTE.

ALSO, WHEN some 'thing' IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED and VERIFIED, then the ACTUAL 'detail' and/or 'definition' of 'it' is, usually, also AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED,

OBVIOUSLY, the 'definition' of the 'mind' word, and the 'detail' of 'it', is NOT YET ESTABLISHED, and VERIFIED.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:23 am

Is there ANY 'thing' of 'the nervous system of an organism', which is NOT a so-called 'active part' of 'the nervous system of an organism'?

I think so, yes. For example neurons that are not firing. Or for example dead tissue inside the living body.

BUT, the so-called 'dead tissue', inside the so-called 'living body', IS 'active', just like so-called 'dead human body' is ALSO 'active'.

What are 'neurons' ACTUALLY DOING when so-called 'not firing'?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:23 am

So, the MAIN 'part' of some 'active part of the nervous system of an organism' is a 'part' of the so-called 'living brain', right?

If no, then is 'the active part of the nervous system of an organism', which 'you', "atla", call 'the mind' here, the 'main part' of 'the living brain' to 'you'?

If it is neither, then what, EXACTLY, are 'you' SAYING, and MEANING, here?

Or, is 'mind' BOTH of the above here?

Some organisms have active nervous systems, but don't seem to have a brain. It's a matter of definition, I tend towards viewing them as having rudimentary forms of minds too.
But it's also okay if we draw the line at having brains, only consider organisms with brains to have minds.

Okay. BUT, ONCE MORE, 'you' did NOT ANSWER the (four) CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here, and just DEFLECTED, ONCE AGAIN.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:23 am

And, what OTHER 'living organs' do 'you' think or BELIEVE 'this mind' 'thing' MAYBE a 'part' of?

Spinal cord, gut, heart, maybe various EM fields of the body, maybe the entire nervous system.

Also, what EXACT 'part' of those 'living organs' do 'you' think or KNOW would be the ACTUAL 'parts' of 'living organs'?

I think you mistyped this question.

I did NOT, but now that I have REREAD your response I may have mistyped my QUESTION, in DIRECT response to your, maybe, mistyped example.

We will just have to WAIT TO SEE if 'you' CLEAR UP if 'you' MISTYPED or NOT.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:23 am

Furthermore, what IS the ACTUAL purpose OF these 'minds', which are 'you' SAY and CLAIM ARE 'individually DIFFERENT in EVERY human body?

The individual minds evolved mainly for survival purposes, obviously.

Ah okay. So, if 'this' was true, then before these so-called 'individual minds' evolved, then there was NO purpose NOR need 'to survive', right?

And, what are the other reason/s these so-called 'individual minds' evolved for, to 'you', "atla"?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:23 am The mind of the organism coordinates the organism on the inside.

So, what came FIRST? The 'individual organism' or the 'individual mind'?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:23 am And using the mind, the organism navigates the external world.

But, 'the organism' could NOT 'navigate the external world' BEFORE 'the individual minds', within, 'evolved' right?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:23 am

AND, HOW do 'they' FUNCTION, EXACTLY, and WHAT do 'they' do, EXACTLY?

They function via biochemistry.

Okay.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:23 am What they mainly do is gather signals from inside the organism and via the senses from outside the organism, then process those signals, and then send back responses and other signals to other parts of the organism.

Okay. So, what do these 'individual mind' 'thingies' look like, EXACTLY? And, WHERE are 'they' in the 'living organism' known as the 'human body', EXACTLY?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:23 am I feel like a textbook now..

Okay. But that is a VERY PECULIAR and SPECIFIC 'thing', especially FOR a 'human being'.

Also, if 'you' were AT ALL 'trying to' IMPLY that 'you' were somehow TEACHING what 'these ASSUMED 'minds' ARE and WHAT 'they' REALLY DO, then 'you' are CERTAINLY NOT.

As EVERY one could ATTEST

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:23 am In a more subjective sense, the mind is 'your experience'

So, 'Who am 'I'?' EXACTLY, which, SUPPOSEDLY, has ONE of these, so-called 'individual minds'?

And, to 'me', the 'experiences' of 'this body' are gained and obtained by ANOTHER particular 'thing', and are 'held' in some 'thing' ELSE.

But, each to their own, as some might say here, now.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:23 am or in other words 'your part and perspective within the continuous universal experience'.

But, AGAIN, 'Who am 'I', EXACTLY, which, supposedly, has A part and A perspective within the continual universal experience?

AND, 'Who or what is HAVING the continual universal experience, EXACTLY?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 10:13 amOkay, but I DID emphasize 'exactly'.

Also, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here, ONCE MORE, 'you' did NOT ANSWER the two QUESTIONS posed, and ASKED, and 'you' DETRACTED, AGAIN.

Yes I saw that you keep using the word, and your claim that it has an extremely specific meaning that you happen to know and I don't, and that is dishonest in itself. It is also dishonest to claim that I detracted when I didn't. You are already attempting to NOT discuss the actual issue, but make this about ad homs, sophistry, lying.

AND, 'TRYING TO' detail some 'thing', which is YET to be ESTABLISHED and VERIFIED as even being True, would be a complete and utter WASTE.

ALSO, WHEN some 'thing' IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED and VERIFIED, then the ACTUAL 'detail' and/or 'definition' of 'it' is, usually, also AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED,

OBVIOUSLY, the 'definition' of the 'mind' word, and the 'detail' of 'it', is NOT YET ESTABLISHED, and VERIFIED.

Yes, so then why did you once again ask me to do what is a complete and utter WASTE, to define 'mind' EXACTLY?

BUT, the so-called 'dead tissue', inside the so-called 'living body', IS 'active', just like so-called 'dead human body' is ALSO 'active'.

What are 'neurons' ACTUALLY DOING when so-called 'not firing'?

Using your definition of 'active', absolutely everything in the universe is 'active'. So the word 'active' doesn't mean anything.

Okay. BUT, ONCE MORE, 'you' did NOT ANSWER the (four) CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here, and just DEFLECTED, ONCE AGAIN.

I found the first question too detached to spend minutes trying to decode the sentences. Here, I'll try it:
1. I wasn't saying part of a part a part, not even part of a part.
2. I don't know. The mind is a part of the brain, but I can't tell what percentage it is. But creating the mind is the 'main' purpose of the brain .
3. let's go with 2.
4. let's go with 2.

Ah okay. So, if 'this' was true, then before these so-called 'individual minds' evolved, then there was NO purpose NOR need 'to survive', right?

No, there's no reason to think that there is literally a metaphysical 'purpose' or 'need' ever. Evolution was part of the way from a simpler state like the Big bang, to the current state of the world with humans. The evolution of minds was simply part of that way.

And, what are the other reason/s these so-called 'individual minds' evolved for, to 'you', "atla"?

If there are further 'reasons', then those reasons are probably that one or more humans are supposed to achieve something using their minds. Maybe there are further reasons, maybe not.

So, what came FIRST? The 'individual organism' or the 'individual mind'?

Depends on where you want to draw the line in your definiton. Should we see the extremely simple functioning of a virus or a single-celled organism, to be a mind?
I tend to say no, I draw the line at least at nervous systems, so individual organisms came first. But it's really a matter of definition.

Okay. So, what do these 'individual mind' 'thingies' look like, EXACTLY?

From the inside, they look like what you are experienceing right now. From the outside, they look like biological tissue and/or are invisible like EM fields.

And, WHERE are 'they' in the 'living organism' known as the 'human body', EXACTLY?

Theay are parts of the human organs, along with their EM fields and so on.

Also, if 'you' were AT ALL 'trying to' IMPLY that 'you' were somehow TEACHING what 'these ASSUMED 'minds' ARE and WHAT 'they' REALLY DO, then 'you' are CERTAINLY NOT.

As EVERY one could ATTEST

Yes most of it is in the textbooks so I shouldn't have to write them down for you, instead we should do the philosophical parts only. If you were competent enough to have a conversation with me.

So, 'Who am 'I'?' EXACTLY, which, SUPPOSEDLY, has ONE of these, so-called 'individual minds'?

And, to 'me', the 'experiences' of 'this body' are gained and obtained by ANOTHER particular 'thing', and are 'held' in some 'thing' ELSE.

But, each to their own, as some might say here, now.

You are the mind of a human being with the massive delusion that it's the universal "I" there.

But, AGAIN, 'Who am 'I', EXACTLY, which, supposedly, has A part and A perspective within the continual universal experience?

You are the mind of a human being with the massive delusion that it's the universal "I" there.

AND, 'Who or what is HAVING the continual universal experience, EXACTLY?

Nothing is, the universe just exists. It is the universal experience itself.