The Mind.

[Age]

There is only one 'Mind' and not many, as some might have first thought, or believed, there is.

[Harbal]

There is only one 'Mind' and not many, as some might have first thought, or believed, there is.

Will you give a full explanation of how there is only one mind, rather than many, as some of us first thought?

[Iwannaplato]

There is only one 'Mind' and not many, as some might have first thought, or believed, there is.

Just in case Harbal's wording is not in a form that would elict a proof or demonstration that your assertion is true:

Could you please prove that your assertion quoted above is true?

Thank you.

[Age]

There is only one 'Mind' and not many, as some might have first thought, or believed, there is.

Will you give a full explanation of how there is only one mind, rather than many, as some of us first thought?

Yes certainly "harbal". Well at least I will try to give a full explanation in one attempt here, but to give a really 'full explanation', might just take a bit longer and might need somethings clarified, which for and to each individual might be different, and before this is fully understood, and thus fully explained.

To me;

The word 'mind' refers to 'the thing, from which one is able to learn, see, understand, reason, imagine, design, devise, make, build, and/or create absolutely any and all things.

Although many adult human beings use the word 'mind', on many occasions, to what is actually just the 'thoughts or thinking', themselves, within a body, the 'Mind', Itself, is actually something different. I also use the word 'Mind' instead of 'mind' word to emphasize that there is only one Mind, only, and not many.

From the moment human beings evolved into creation, were created into existence, and/or 'just existed' human beings have had the ability to keep learning absolutely any, and every, thing, and well as understand and reason any, and every, thing. This ability can also been seen and recognized in all, individually, from when they are 'born' to when what is called 'they die'. So, 'the ability' to continually keep learning more and more exists individually and collectively within all human beings.

While one is closed, however, they cannot learn some things.
But, while one is open, they cannot not learn things.
The ability to keep learning all of the more or newer things, to be learned and is being learned, can only happen while one is open.
The ability to be absolutely OPEN exists from and in Mind only, which exists as a Truly natural part of being human. (Just like the brain is, but the brain just works differently).

Within every human being, individually and/or collectively, there exists an ability to learn all more and newer things.

This 'ability' comes from a (Truly OPEN) Mind, of which there is only One, existing within all.

The Mind, Itself, is always Truly OPEN, and not CLOSED in any way whatsoever. Although, individually or collectively, any human being can close this OPENNESS and 'this ability' to learn absolutely and and/or everything, by just not being curios, not interested, not wanting to, and/or by just assuming or believing that they already know the truth of some thing, before they actually really have. These False beliefs, Wrong thinking and misbehaving, and/or lack of being a 'natural human being' is caused by, or because of, False and Wrong 'previous knowledge' have already being obtained and being held onto.

For a couple of examples of the (always Truly OPEN) Mind's ability, which allows human beings, individually and collectively, to just keep continually learning more and more, and anew, then just look at;

An individual, human being's 'ability' to 'be able to learn', and 'keep learning', one of the countless human languages in just one, two, or three after being born. From coming from seemingly and/or relatively 'next to nothing' at all only about nine months earlier, to being able to already be able to speak, understand, and 'know' something as complex and descriptively huge or wide as language, itself, in less than three years, then this 'ability' can be said to come from a Truly OPEN 'Mind', and of course the ability of the human being to be able to grasp, and hold onto or retain, all knowledge.

And,

The collective, human beings' 'ability' to 'be able to learn', and 'keep learning', more and more and more, and always continually 'newer things' can also said to come from the Truly OPEN 'Mind', as well.

Just look at the absolutely amazing 'ability' with human beings to 'be able to do' just these two of countless other things human beings have been able to make, create, reach, and achieve while just being Truly OPEN.

A 'mind' is said and claimed to be where, 'the ability to continually be able to keep learning new/er and more things, always', comes from, exactly.

This 'ability' exists with each human being individually and collectively, and exists equally, which I am aware is very contrary to popular belief obviously, in a particular period of human history. But, 'the ability to' learn, understand, and reason is equal within each and every being. Individual human beings just grew up wanting to learn different things. When this is looked into more fully individual human beings also grow up 'learning' to want to learn different things, and in different ways.

'The ability to' imagine is equally within every human being, individually and collectively, also. The 'ability' 'to imagine' and 'to be able to learn any and all things', happens and occurs in and what is said and claimed to be A (Truly OPEN) 'mind', again. These things are not said and claimed to come from A (CLOSED) 'mind'. But from an (OPEN) Mind, and when it is also found, or discovered, and understood that 'this ability' is within all equally, then what is also learned and understood is that there is actually only one Mind, and one Mind, only.

It is because 'the ability to' learn and/or imagine is the exact same for every one is why I say and claim there is only one Mind, and one Mind, only.

Now, how all human beings obtain 'knowledge', differently, is because of how the brain works, and not necessarily because of how the Mind works. 'The human brain', which is obviously individual, within every individual human body, works by its ability by just 'grasping', and being able retain, absolutely any of what an individual human body experiences, and hold 'that' in 'thought or thinking'. However, while an individual is 'looking at' and 'seeing' things through the (always Truly OPEN) Mind, instead of through the (already grasped thoughts/knowledge) brain, then what can be 'grasped' and thus further 'learned' is equal for absolutely every one.

Although this might not be a full explanation for you "harbal", and/nor others here, this is an explanation to start with, from which some might see it as a full enough explanation of how there, really, is only one Mind, and one Mind, only. While others might need more explanations

Looking and seeing things here, from the Mind, only and/or firstly, instead of from the brain, only and/or firstly, then what is being said and claimed can be grasped, learned, and understood much quicker, simpler, easier, and clearer. But, as always what I have said and/or claimed so far does not have to be agreed with nor accepted, but I know I can back up and support what I have said and claimed here so far, irrefutably.

[Age]

There is only one 'Mind' and not many, as some might have first thought, or believed, there is.

Just in case Harbal's wording is not in a form that would elict a proof or demonstration that your assertion is true:

Could you please prove that your assertion quoted above is true?

Thank you.

Even your question here "iwannaplato" was not formed in a way that would elicit what "harbal" was, obviously, asking for and seeking. So, your question here "iwannaplato" would not have sufficed.

As you are obviously only just asking a 'Yes' or 'No' question. To which I would have answered, 'Yes'.

And, by the way, I have already partly, at least, done after I was asked to you by "harbal".

See, how Life, and/or living, really can be very simple and very easy, indeed.

[Wizard22]

That's not true because a large function of "The Mind" is Discrimination.

This means, the human brain, from when and where the mind originates, "separates itself" from others. That means: my mind is not your mind. And your mind is not my mind. Furthermore it means: your self is not my self. And my self is not your self. Or, my experience is not your experience. And your experience is not my experience. Apply this to perception, common sense, thought, belief, any mental function.

Therefore "The Mind" might refer to the general or universal commonalities of the human brain functions, which are shared by all humans...but these do not belong to "Only One Mind". They belong to both any selection of collective "minds", and also to all individuals "minds".

So, basically, you're clearly wrong on this matter, AgeGPT.


Now...AgeGPT, do you have ZERO beliefs or ONLY ONE belief?

[Iwannaplato]

Even your question here "iwannaplato" was not formed in a way that would elicit what "harbal" was, obviously, asking for and seeking. So, your question here "iwannaplato" would not have sufficed.

As you are obviously only just asking a 'Yes' or 'No' question. To which I would have answered, 'Yes'.

Actually, when someone, in English at the time this is being written, uses the phrase Could you please and this is followed by a verb it is a polite request, not a yes, no question. As a form of politeness one phrases this request as a question, but it is a request. This is known to many but not all, obviously, at the time this is being written. If you would care to re-evaluate and respond to that request, that would be lovely. One thing that Harbal did not ask for was proof that it was the case.

I will of course read your responses to Harbal.

[Age]

Even your question here "iwannaplato" was not formed in a way that would elicit what "harbal" was, obviously, asking for and seeking. So, your question here "iwannaplato" would not have sufficed.

As you are obviously only just asking a 'Yes' or 'No' question. To which I would have answered, 'Yes'.

Actually, when someone, in English at the time this is being written, uses the phrase Could you please and this is followed by a verb it is a polite request, not a yes, no question.

you appear to not yet be fully aware of what the 'could' word means and refers to, exactly, to me.

But, this is not that surprising considering what you just said, wrote, and claimed here.

For example, if you asked me, 'Could you please drive this motor car?' I could say, 'Yes', but there is absolutely no obligation on my part to do so. I am just answering, and clarifying, the actual clarifying question asked.

However, if you asked me instead, 'Will you please drive this motor car?' And, if I say, 'Yes', then I would 'have to', that is; if I am true to 'my word'. As this is what the 'will' word here is meaning and referring to, exactly.

As a form of politeness one phrases this request as a question, but it is a request.

Well it would not be a 'request' if it was not asked as a question. If one 'requests' some thing, which is not proposed as a question, then it would be a statement of 'demand', correct?

And, in "english", to make the request Accurate and Correct one replaces the 'could' word with the 'will' word. That is; if one really wants another to do some thing.

See, what one 'could' do, in no way means that that one 'will' do it.

Also, in any language, at any time, people can and do use words in the not exact same way that words were intended to be used and were intended to mean and refer to, exactly.

This is known to many but not all, obviously, at the time this is being written.

Oh, it was already known, well to me, that plenty of you adult human beings, for quite some time, have said and asked the question like for example, 'Could you please do ... {this or that]?' But, what is actually meant is, 'Will you please do ... [this or that]?'

And, like you say and point out here, this is known to some, but not all, and some would say 'obviously', also, at the exact time when this is being written.

Also, saying things in places outside of a 'philosophy forum' there is a much more relaxed attitude to words and their meanings. However, in 'philosophical discussions', especially when, literally, 'the, actual, meaning/s of' things is being sought after and/or searched for, then saying things that are not what is actually meant, and/or meaning things which are not actually being said and written, as precisely as needed to be during 'philosophical discussions or explanations', then more confusion and more misunderstanding could ensue and/or prevail.

See, to understand the actual irrefutable Truth of things, only what is actually, exactly, True, Right, Accurate, and Correct can be expressed, said and/or written. Anything else can just all to quickly, simply, and easily lead to more confusion and/or more and further misunderstanding/s.

If you would care to re-evaluate and respond to that request, that would be lovely.

As I have already said and explained to you, I have already partly explained, after I was asked to you by "harbal", which was in relation to a 'full explanation'. Which also means, but not previously expressed, that 'the proof' that 'my assertion' here, in the opening post, 'is true', will come-to-light during the 'full explanation'. Which is what you were essentially requesting for, from me, here, right?

And, as I have already mentioned and explained, previously, while one is believing some thing is true, then there is absolutely nothing in the Universe that could prove that that belief is not true, well not to that one anyway.

So, although I could prove my assertion is true, to, and for, some of the people. I cannot, necessarily, prove this true to, and for, all of the people.

One thing that Harbal did not ask for was proof that it was the case.

This is true, right, accurate, and correct.

But, within a 'full explanation' of how there is only one 'mind', which is what "harbal" requested for, and Correctly, to and for me, there will and does exist proof that there is only the one Mind.

It stands to reason, for well some or most, that a 'full explanation' of how there is some thing, then that means that there is proof for that thing, within the 'full explanation'.

For, if there was not a full explanation, then only then could there be no proof, but conversely, if there is a full explanation, then the proof has to be contained within, because if there is no proof contained within an explanation, then it is not, yet, a full explanation, right?

I will of course read your responses to Harbal.

Yet, you are, supposedly, meant to have 'me' on 'ignore', correct?

[Harbal]

There is only one 'Mind' and not many, as some might have first thought, or believed, there is.

Will you give a full explanation of how there is only one mind, rather than many, as some of us first thought?

Yes certainly "harbal". Well at least I will try to give a full explanation in one attempt here, but to give a really 'full explanation', might just take a bit longer and might need somethings clarified, which for and to each individual might be different, and before this is fully understood, and thus fully explained.

To me;

The word 'mind' refers to...

There are individual human brains, each of which is accessible to an individual instance of consciousness, and it is the interaction between the two (brain and consciousness) that results in what we call the mind. That is (sort of) how it seems to me, anyway. Therefore, I am one of the many who assume the existence of many minds, rather than just one "Mind". This is perhaps a simplistic account of what I think of the mind as being, and also a speculative one, as I don’t really know what consciousness is, or how it comes about.

I have read your explanation twice, but have not been able to identify the reasoning that points to one “Mind”, rather than many minds. Perhaps if you try to explain what is incorrect about my above description of the mind, it will help to make it clearer what you are trying explain in your description of the “Mind”.

[Age]

That's not true because a large function of "The Mind" is Discrimination.

'What', exactly, is, supposedly, 'not true'.

By the way, if you do quote 'me', then I do not get a notification that you are responding to some thing I have said and written, which you then might claim I am not responding to you, correct?

But, then again, what you are even saying and claiming here is 'not true', might not even be in relation to absolutely any thing that I have said or claimed here, right?

This means, the human brain, from when and where the mind originates, "separates itself" from others. That means: my mind is not your mind. And your mind is not my mind. Furthermore it means: your self is not my self. And my self is not your self. Or, my experience is not your experience. And your experience is not my experience. Apply this to perception, common sense, thought, belief, any mental function.

Therefore "The Mind" might refer to the general or universal commonalities of the human brain functions, which are shared by all humans...but these do not belong to "Only One Mind". They belong to both any selection of collective "minds", and also to all individuals "minds".

So, basically, you're clearly wrong on this matter, AgeGPT.

Okay, well this appears to be finally settled, well to "wizard22", once and for all, and thus, literally, for absolutely everyone, forever more, right "wizard22"?

Now...AgeGPT, do you have ZERO beliefs or ONLY ONE belief?

What would matter to you, and, why would you even want to know?

[Iwannaplato]

you appear to not yet be fully aware of what the 'could' word means and refers to, exactly, to me.

But, this is not that surprising considering what you just said, wrote, and claimed here.

For example, if you asked me, 'Could you please drive this motor car?' I could say, 'Yes', but there is absolutely no obligation on my part to do so. I am just answering, and clarifying, the actual clarifying question asked.

I never said there was an obligation. I said it was a request and not a yes or no question. A yes or no question is only asking for the answer and this was, in addition a request.

However, if you asked me instead, 'Will you please drive this motor car?' And, if I say, 'Yes', then I would 'have to', that is; if I am true to 'my word'. As this is what the 'will' word here is meaning and referring to, exactly.

Sure, though that's not relevant here.

A yes, no question need not be a request.

As a form of politeness one phrases this request as a question, but it is a request.

Well it would not be a 'request' if it was not asked as a question. If one 'requests' some thing, which is not proposed as a question, then it would be a statement of 'demand', correct?

Sure. But it is not only a yes, no question.

And, in "english", to make the request Accurate and Correct one replaces the 'could' word with the 'will' word. That is; if one really wants another to do some thing.

No. Will you need not be a request. Will you go to work tomorrow? is very likely NOT request.

Will you prove that your statement above is a yes, or no question about what you will do. I may not even want you to do it, but I am curious about whether you will.

See, what one 'could' do, in no way means that that one 'will' do it.

Sure, but that's not relevant, nor are you correct about 'will' making it a request.

Also, in any language, at any time, people can and do use words in the not exact same way that words were intended to be used and were intended to mean and refer to, exactly.

Sure.

This is known to many but not all, obviously, at the time this is being written.

Oh, it was already known, well to me, that plenty of you adult human beings, for quite some time, have said and asked the question like for example, 'Could you please do ... {this or that]?' But, what is actually meant is, 'Will you please do ... [this or that]?'

The you were confused.

Much unnecessary pedantry elided.

In a forum where you have come to learn about how to communicate better you just spent some time telling someone who teaches English professionally a number of incorrect things, in two posts now, about English usage.

As you are obviously only just asking a 'Yes' or 'No' question. To which I would have answered, 'Yes'.

Notice how you said 'obviously only' asking a 'Yes' or 'No' question. This is false. It was not only that, it was a request. And note you say you would have answered, but you haven't.

But I am happy to adjust my question to the way you would like to idiosyncratically use language:
Will you prove that the following statement is true?:

There is only one 'Mind' and not many, as some might have first thought, or believed, there is.

If your answer is yes, I have a follow up question: When will you do this and where?

Thank you in advance for your answers, should they come.

And by the way. If someone says....
Could you please do x?
And you say Yes and then don't do it, you are being quite rude and in certain circumstances potentially hurting, inconveniencing, or causing someone problems

Could you please drive me to the airport now`?
Yes.

And then the person, after a bit just walks away and doesn't drive them to the airport, at minimum that person has not responded accurately to the request and possibly done the requester harm.

You were quite incorrect here.

[Age]

Will you give a full explanation of how there is only one mind, rather than many, as some of us first thought?

Yes certainly "harbal". Well at least I will try to give a full explanation in one attempt here, but to give a really 'full explanation', might just take a bit longer and might need somethings clarified, which for and to each individual might be different, and before this is fully understood, and thus fully explained.

To me;

The word 'mind' refers to...

There are individual human brains, each of which is accessible to an individual instance of consciousness, and it is the interaction between the two (brain and consciousness) that results in what we call the mind.

Who and/or what is 'we' word here referring to, exactly?

And, from what I have observed I have yet to see just two of you human beings agree upon and accept any definition for the 'mind' word.

So, if you would like to present another human being who agrees with and accepts 'the somewhat definition' of and for the 'mind' word here, so 'we' could talk about and discuss 'this' here, then I would be very grateful.

That is (sort of) how it seems to me, anyway. Therefore, I am one of the many who assume the existence of many minds, rather than just one "Mind".

Which is perfectly fine and very normal, especially considering what 'you and that body' has, previously, experienced, so far.

Also, I am not yet aware of anyone assuming otherwise.

This is perhaps a simplistic account of what I think of the mind as being, and also a speculative one, as I don’t really know what consciousness is, or how it comes about.

Understanding what 'consciousness' and 'Consciousness' are, exactly, will come about after comprehending and understanding other things here, firstly.

I have read your explanation twice, but have not been able to identify the reasoning that points to one “Mind”, rather than many minds.

Okay. Thank you for letting me know.

Perhaps if you try to explain what is incorrect about my above description of the mind, it will help to make it clearer what you are trying explain in your description of the “Mind”.

you said and wrote here;
'There are individual human brains, each of which is accessible to an individual instance of consciousness, and it is the interaction between the two (brain and consciousness) that results in what we call the mind.'

1. I think there is no one who will try to refute that there are individual human brains. So, to me this is correct.

2. Brains are made up of atoms, which are made up of smaller particles of matter. Now, either particles of matter have the ability to be 'conscious' of things, which just means more or less they have 'the ability to be aware of things', individually, or when those individual particles of matter are grouped together, into and as 'one object', like a human brain. Now, if anyone has any backed up and support 'information' on whether 'matter', itself, is able to be 'conscious' or 'aware' of things, then by all means please present 'that' here. Until then I not yet become aware that it is already a proved Fact that human brains, themselves, are 'conscious' nor 'aware' of things.

3. I have no real understanding at all yet, of what you are meaning or referring to, by the words;
'it is the interaction between the two (brain and consciousness) that results in what we call the mind.'

What is 'it', exactly, which is 'conscious', 'aware', or 'consciousness', itself, which the, supposed, interaction of 'it' with 'a human brain', supposedly, results in what 'you' call 'the mind'?

Are you saying, more or less, that when some thing known as 'consciousness', itself, is just interacting with 'a human brain', itself, then it is just 'the interaction', itself, which is what the 'mind' word is meaning and/or referring to, exactly?

I cannot even begin to, successfully, explain what I see as, maybe, 'incorrect' until I get a much better understanding of what 'it' is, exactly, which you are trying to talk about and explain here.

And, if it is 'the interaction' between the two, [that is; the 'human brain', and, 'consciousness', themselves], that 'is or results in' what you call 'the mind', then is this like when 'two human brains' are interacting with 'each other', then this 'is or results in' what are sometimes called discussions or conversations, among other things?

[Iwannaplato]

Even your question here "iwannaplato" was not formed in a way that would elicit what "harbal" was, obviously, asking for and seeking. So, your question here "iwannaplato" would not have sufficed.

As you are obviously only just asking a 'Yes' or 'No' question. To which I would have answered, 'Yes'.

And, by the way, I have already partly, at least, done after I was asked to you by "harbal".

See, how Life, and/or living, really can be very simple and very easy, indeed.

And by the way. If someone says....
Could you please do x?
And you say Yes and then don't do it, you are being quite rude and in certain circumstances potentially hurting, inconveniencing, or causing someone problems

Could you please drive me to the airport now`?
Yes.

And then the person, after a bit just walks away and doesn't drive them to the airport, at minimum that person has not responded accurately to the request and possibly done the requester harm.

You were quite incorrect here.

[Age]

you appear to not yet be fully aware of what the 'could' word means and refers to, exactly, to me.

But, this is not that surprising considering what you just said, wrote, and claimed here.

For example, if you asked me, 'Could you please drive this motor car?' I could say, 'Yes', but there is absolutely no obligation on my part to do so. I am just answering, and clarifying, the actual clarifying question asked.

I never said there was an obligation. I said it was a request and not a yes or no question. A yes or no question is only asking for the answer and this was, in addition a request.

Well, and you appearing to me missing 'this' completely, if and when you make a request when you use the words to, essentially, ask me, 'Could you prove something?'

And, if I am OPEN and Honest, then I will reply to you with the words, 'Yes', or, 'No', depending on 'the thing', of course.

If you cannot comprehend and understand what will ensue, exactly, then okay.

However, if you asked me instead, 'Will you please drive this motor car?' And, if I say, 'Yes', then I would 'have to', that is; if I am true to 'my word'. As this is what the 'will' word here is meaning and referring to, exactly.

Sure, though that's not relevant here.

Talk about providing an another example of being absolutely BLIND and DEAF here.

A yes, no question need not be a request.

I never ever thought so, let alone have I said absolutely anything that would lead anyone to think this, as well.

As a form of politeness one phrases this request as a question, but it is a request.

Well it would not be a 'request' if it was not asked as a question. If one 'requests' some thing, which is not proposed as a question, then it would be a statement of 'demand', correct?

Sure. But it is not only a yes, no question.

Not from your internal perspective of course it is not.

But, from an external perspective and from your chose of words and wording, it could be.

And, in "english", to make the request Accurate and Correct one replaces the 'could' word with the 'will' word. That is; if one really wants another to do some thing.

No. Will you need not be a request. Will you go to work tomorrow? is very likely NOT request.

But 'we' were only talking about 'the request'. Why have you now decided to introduce some thing that I was not talking about nor referring to, at all?

Will you prove that your statement above is a yes, or no question about what you will do.

If this here was asked in a Correct question form, for clarification, then I would have answered it.

I may not even want you to do it, but I am curious about whether you will.

If you are really curious about, 'whether I will', then I suggest you ask in Correct form here, and, include which exact statement you are referring to.

Or, did you want me to just pick from absolutely any statement 'above' here?

See, what one 'could' do, in no way means that that one 'will' do it.

Sure, but that's not relevant, nor are you correct about 'will' making it a request.

Okay, if you say and believe so, then this 'must' be true and correct, to you, right?

And, this one has to be absolutely joking if it thinks or believes that the words 'will' and 'could' are not relevant to it asking me if I 'could' do something, and whether I 'will' do that thing or not.

Also, in any language, at any time, people can and do use words in the not exact same way that words were intended to be used and were intended to mean and refer to, exactly.

Sure.

This is known to many but not all, obviously, at the time this is being written.

Oh, it was already known, well to me, that plenty of you adult human beings, for quite some time, have said and asked the question like for example, 'Could you please do ... {this or that]?' But, what is actually meant is, 'Will you please do ... [this or that]?'

The you were confused.

I am confused about what this here is meant to mean.

Much unnecessary pedantry elided.

If this is how you are seeing, and now saying, things, then okay.

But, just maybe you are contradicting "yourself" here.

In a forum where you have come to learn about how to communicate better you just spent some time telling someone who teaches English professionally a number of incorrect things, in two posts now, about English usage.

And, this here is the prime example of, exactly, what I have been saying and claiming about this one believing that it is the "teacher" and other are the "students", and how I have been explaining why I have also been saying and pointing out about this one believing that others are not entitled to question nor challenge what it says and claims, because this one, literally, believes that it is the "teacher", and that its role' and/or job in Life is 'to teach', only.

What is just said here also explains why it never asks clarifying questions to others, for clarification purposes, because it 'looks at', 'sees' and believes that others are just "students" who are not here 'to learn' anything from.

And, what makes what this one just said and claimed here more funny, is that if this one really is a teacher of "english", of all things, but it cannot recognize and see the actual difference between asking;

'Can you do something for me?'

From,

'Will you do something for me?'

One is a straight out seeks a 'Yes', or' 'No' answer only, while the other does not.

I will allow the readers to decide whatever they want here.

Also, the one asking the two questions could be meaning and/or intending the 'exact same thing'. But, the actual words, themselves, are not saying, nor meaning, the exact same thing.

I will, once again, suggest to "iwannaplato" to concentrate and focus only on the actual words I use alone, and stop trying to 'presume' what I am saying, and meaning. That way you will not be so Wrong, so often.

Also, you will get out of your, presumed and believed, "teacher" role' and job in Life, and so lessen the chances of you continually 'judging' others, on nothing but your own 'superiority complex', which I have talked about and mentioned before.

Also, you "iwannaplato" being someone who, supposedly, 'teaches english' could help in explaining something about why the decrease in "language proficiency' within "english" speaking schools and classrooms around 'the world', continues.

I was probably the least intellectual, and the most inept and/or incompetent when I came here into this forum in communicating skills, and may well still be, but at least can spot, and see and recognize, the difference between 'could' and 'will' when put in question form.

you spend 'time' and effort into trying to 'defend' "yourself" here, instead of just 'looking at', recognizing, admitting and/or just acknowledging things.

As you are obviously only just asking a 'Yes' or 'No' question. To which I would have answered, 'Yes'.

Notice how you said 'obviously only' asking a 'Yes' or 'No' question.

Yes.

And I chose that word specifically.

This is false.

But, this is not false. That is false though, however.

It was not only that, it was a request.

From maybe within your own internal perspective, only.

But, from my perspective, it was certainly not, a request for anything other than a 'Yes', or, 'No', answer and/or clarification.

Maybe, if you considered how others 'look at' and 'see' things, then you might change your choice of words and/or wording here.

And note you say you would have answered, but you haven't.

But I did, Did you not see the, 'Yes', word, directly after the, 'To which I would have answered,' words?

But I am happy to adjust my question to the way you would like to idiosyncratically use language:

Okay.

If you would like to change your questions in a way from how you 'idiosyncratically use language', then this will help things move along much smoother quicker, simpler, and easier here, as well.

Will you prove that the following statement is true?:

There is only one 'Mind' and not many, as some might have first thought, or believed, there is.

Yes, and as can be clearly seen above here, I have already started doing so.

But, please do not forget that while one is believing something is true, to prove the opposite to them is impossible.

If your answer is yes, I have a follow up question: When will you do this and where?

I have started doing this here.

When will I do this will depend on how much curiosity and interest is within 'the other', among with how much openness is 'currently' existing.

What you are asking here would be like asking 'the one' who was saying and claiming that actually the actual Truth is that it is the earth that revolves around the sun, and not what all of you had first thought, or believed, to be true.

Asking that one, 'When will you prove this and where?' is not something anyone can guarantee for sure. As, obviously, all of you adult human beings are different, with many varying different views, beliefs, presumptions, and with all being at different points along a spectrum from being Truly OPEN to being Fully CLOSED, and at where one is, exactly, along that spectrum is continually changing all of the time.

So, when and where proving any statement true depends on the actual 'receiving' and their pre-existing beliefs, presumptions, views, and/or thoughts and thinking is at, exactly.

For some when this will happen and occur will be, relatively, 'very soon', and where this happens and occurs could be in this very forum, or even very thread. But, I am certainly not expect that his could be the case.

Thank you in advance for your answers, should they come.

you are welcome.

And, thank you for, finally, being honest about reading 'my words and writings' here.

I find it Truly refreshing and so much better when you human beings are being Truly Honest and Truly OPEN, and seriously Wanting to find and obtain answers, solutions, and/or clarity.

[Age]

you appear to not yet be fully aware of what the 'could' word means and refers to, exactly, to me.

But, this is not that surprising considering what you just said, wrote, and claimed here.

For example, if you asked me, 'Could you please drive this motor car?' I could say, 'Yes', but there is absolutely no obligation on my part to do so. I am just answering, and clarifying, the actual clarifying question asked.

I never said there was an obligation. I said it was a request and not a yes or no question. A yes or no question is only asking for the answer and this was, in addition a request.

However, if you asked me instead, 'Will you please drive this motor car?' And, if I say, 'Yes', then I would 'have to', that is; if I am true to 'my word'. As this is what the 'will' word here is meaning and referring to, exactly.

Sure, though that's not relevant here.

A yes, no question need not be a request.

As a form of politeness one phrases this request as a question, but it is a request.

Well it would not be a 'request' if it was not asked as a question. If one 'requests' some thing, which is not proposed as a question, then it would be a statement of 'demand', correct?

Sure. But it is not only a yes, no question.

And, in "english", to make the request Accurate and Correct one replaces the 'could' word with the 'will' word. That is; if one really wants another to do some thing.

No. Will you need not be a request. Will you go to work tomorrow? is very likely NOT request.

Will you prove that your statement above is a yes, or no question about what you will do. I may not even want you to do it, but I am curious about whether you will.

See, what one 'could' do, in no way means that that one 'will' do it.

Sure, but that's not relevant, nor are you correct about 'will' making it a request.

Also, in any language, at any time, people can and do use words in the not exact same way that words were intended to be used and were intended to mean and refer to, exactly.

Sure.

This is known to many but not all, obviously, at the time this is being written.

Oh, it was already known, well to me, that plenty of you adult human beings, for quite some time, have said and asked the question like for example, 'Could you please do ... {this or that]?' But, what is actually meant is, 'Will you please do ... [this or that]?'

The you were confused.

Much unnecessary pedantry elided.

In a forum where you have come to learn about how to communicate better you just spent some time telling someone who teaches English professionally a number of incorrect things, in two posts now, about English usage.

As you are obviously only just asking a 'Yes' or 'No' question. To which I would have answered, 'Yes'.

Notice how you said 'obviously only' asking a 'Yes' or 'No' question. This is false. It was not only that, it was a request. And note you say you would have answered, but you haven't.

But I am happy to adjust my question to the way you would like to idiosyncratically use language:
Will you prove that the following statement is true?:

There is only one 'Mind' and not many, as some might have first thought, or believed, there is.

If your answer is yes, I have a follow up question: When will you do this and where?

Thank you in advance for your answers, should they come.

And by the way. If someone says....
Could you please do x?
And you say Yes and then don't do it, you are being quite rude and in certain circumstances potentially hurting, inconveniencing, or causing someone problems

Well this is, obviously, from your perspective only.

And, obviously, only a Truly weak or ill adult human being would consider that just answering the actual clarifying question asked, as being so-called 'quite rude'.

I wonder if this one realizes just how much of a "teacher" it sounds like here.

What it just said and implied here sounds, exactly, like how a "teacher" or "parent" sounds like, and what "they" would say when "they" feel like "they" are losing 'their power' over another, or others.

And, if absolutely any adult human being felt hurt, inconvenienced, or was causing someone so-called 'problems', just for answering 'Yes', only to a 'Could you do something?' question, then that one is a Truly very weak, ill, or sick individual.

Could you please drive me to the airport now`?
Yes.

While that one is 'waiting', and they 'mulled over' what they actually asked, and what the actual answer was, then they might realize that they could have been 'more polite', as doing so seems to be something that you want to portray is so important to you here, 'now', and more correct to have actually 'now' ask, 'Will you please drive me to the airport now?'

Which the same answer could be given, but yet could mean a completely different thing, obviously.

Again, only 'after' clarification has been made, or proof' been obtained, can the actual Truth of things become known.

And then the person, after a bit just walks away and doesn't drive them to the airport, at minimum that person has not responded accurately to the request and possibly done the requester harm.

Oh, "the poor requester" has been, supposedly, 'harmed'.

Now, obviously, if the so-called "requester" requested for what it actually wanted, and not something else, then "responder" would not have 'had to' assume nor presume anything here.

You were quite incorrect here.

As always, it is always 'me' who was 'quite incorrect' here.

Notice how not the slightest bit of recognition, awareness, responsibility, acknowledgement, nor admittance of what this one has, obviously, done here.

But, to this one, it is 'me,' again, who was not just 'incorrect' here, but 'quite incorrect' here.