Right, because I bet billions of people would agree with you.
Sure. All I will recommend is that you improve your ability to make contextual inferences for real life interactions. 
It depends on what you mean by understood.
You make a claim. Your claim does not follow from my definition. If you think it does, please provide an argument. Gosh…
That is a sentence, not an argument.
Sure, Einstein.
It doesn’t matter, just move on with your point, please. We’ll be here for months otherwise.
Sure.
Indeed. My past experiences that you in particular do not know. So keep your judgements to yourself, thanks.
Sure.
Sure.
Sure.
Brother I am not close-minded. I don’t hold on to things I baselessly label irrefutable. If you want to have a rational convo, go ahead and stop dragging it. But if you just want to share your spirituality, I am afraid 1. this is not the place. 2. you are doing this very poorly.
Sure.
Well, I don’t care about that. People’s opinions are (sometimes) trash and rooted in emotion and processes they don’t even understand.
Sure.
Roughly.
Here is the order of things:
-
- I observe as many definitions as I can
-
- I use all of them to try and find the average meaning
I don’t pick a definition I like, Einstein.
Of course I could be wrong. So what? My guess is honest. If you want to propose an alternative guess, go ahead. But If you do not think you can be wrong, please stop talking to me, because it renders conversation pointless.
You must not know what the word “average” means.
Shortcuts. Or fast subconscious processes rather than conscious detailed breakdowns.
Indeed that is what I believe.
My brain.
You’re funny!
Understand this:
What matters is not the label, but rather what the label describes. The word “reality” is a mere label that I use to describe a concept or idea. You have no right to tell me what I should want to talk about under my own post. I want to talk about a particular concept. If for brains like yours the relationship between a label and its attached idea is misunderstood enough that it creates a blockage, then forget about the label, and only focus on the concept / idea.
This is not rocket science.
The concept of “everything that exists” is not a belief. It’s just a concept.
Sure.
Sure.
This is certainly the impression you gave me.
Sure.
Sure.
Well, you already know what this thread is about for me. Reality. So you tell me what it is that you are talking about.
Sure.
What?
Look, if you want to make claims or bring in new ideas go ahead, but you phrase it as if this follows from what I said. Another non-sequitur aka it does not follow. When did I bring in peace, harmony, or heaven in this thread? These are your ideas.
…
I don’t know of anyone who claims that dinosaurs are alive in 2026. If they did, they’d have to show evidence for it. The true side is the side that best align with reality.
I literally just answered this question. Discussion is complicated with you.
Just an impression I guess.
Why does that matter to you?
They are all guesses. They are based more or less on things like intuition, reason, evidence, or supposed revelation. Either way, the beliefs or opinions that people hold are their best guess at specific facts about the world. If they did not perceive those beliefs or opinions as most likely to be true, they wouldn’t hold them. Doesn’t that make sense that you would naturally believe in what convinces or persuades you the most?
Of course, that does not apply to a hope. A hope is not necessarily a belief or an opinion.
Just an impression that you think like that.
Sure.
Yes, you:
You are literally claiming that “the set of everything that exists” does not and could not work, even though it doesn’t even have a truth value. “The set of everything that exists” is not even a statement.
Sure.
You seem to not be able to make the difference between a rational justified argument or piece of reasoning, and an opinion. You certainly have showed opinions, even if subtle. But you have shown 0 actual rational justified argument or piece of reasoning to refute or posit anything.
Clear enough for you now?
Sure.
This is laughable. You are trying to paint me as arrogant for having a guess that I admitted could be wrong? Alright Einstein.
Sure, Einstein. Great insight.
Is the artificial world a fictitious world then, existing within the real world?
This is not true. Other species are selfish, and create pollution. If they do not have the ability to move, they’ll actually use up all the nutrients, and die in their own toxic waste.
I really haven’t figured out how to distinguish one world from the other. Your principles don’t make sense to me.
OK, so this is the problem. Some aspects of the world are artificial, and some are natural. However, the two are so interwoven, that I do not see how one could possibly separate them into two distinct worlds. Take concrete for example. It’s made of stones, sand, cement, and water. The stones, sand, and water are natural, therefore part of the natural world, and the cement is artificial, therefore part of the manmade world. What’s the point in saying that concrete is a unity of two distinct world?
That’s exactly what I am doing. Are you not a fellow human being? You are actually the only fellow human being I have ever met who has talked about this concept of two distinct worlds, that’s why I’m asking you to describe it, and explain the purpose of this concept.
I don’t know what “world” means in this context. I am asking you about your concept of two distinct worlds, so this is for you to explain what “world” means in this context.
1 Like
What do ‘you’ mean by ‘contextual inferences’, exactly?
I also recommend that, instead of ‘you’ inferring and assuming what ‘I’ am saying and meaning’, you’ actually seek out and obtain clarification and clarity; then ‘you’ will stop being as wrong and as often as you are here.
If you had already improved your ability to make contextual inferences enough for this real life interaction, then you would already know, correct?
What do you believe is ‘my claim’, exactly, which followed from ‘your definition’?
WHY do you believe ‘my claim’ does not follow from ‘your definition’, exactly?
Am ‘I’ under some sort of obligation of having to present an ‘argument’ here?
By the way, that is also a Fact, backed up and supported by proof.
If you believe otherwise, then will you explain to the readers here what a ‘mind’ is, exactly, where it exists, and/or how the ‘mind’ works, exactly?
If no, then why not, exactly?
LOL So, ‘you’ ask ‘me’ a question, supposdedly for an answer and clarity, but when ‘you’ are asked what ‘your question’ is even in relation to, exactly, ‘you’ come back with, “It doesn’t matter”.
‘We’ will be here for years at this rate.
Thank you for accepting and agreeing here.
‘you’ asked ‘me’, WHY ‘you’ reply here in ‘the way’ that ‘you’ do. ‘I’ just informed ‘you’ with the answer as to the exact, fundamental, and irrefutable reason of WHY ‘you’ do.
So, your welcome. ‘you’ do not have to thank ‘me’ for just answering and providing clarity for ‘your question’ here.
Again, thank ‘you’ for these ‘sure’s’. Since ‘you’ cannot provide an Accurate description for ‘your belief’ here about ‘minds’, this proves that all ‘you’ can really do here is just agree and say, ‘Sure’.
I KNOW, and this is because I ALREADY KNOW that there is NO such thing as a mind that could even be closed.
So what?
Look “jkem33” ‘you’ are ‘the one’ claiming that ‘reality’ is “everything that exists”. Full stop.
Now, do ‘you’ have the ability to explain to the readers here what is the ‘Nature’ of “everything that exists” exactly, or not?
If you can, then will you do that here?
Very True. Just like the claim that ‘reality’ is “everything that exists”, also.
So, what is ‘smoothly’, exactly?
LOL “average meaning”.
But ‘I’ do not like to do ‘guess’.
Just like I do not like to do assumption, belief, theory, nor evidence and debate as well, if you are interested.
Okay. So, if ‘you’ are only ‘guessing’ ‘reality’ is “everything that exists”, what brought ‘you’ to make ‘this guess’, out of all of the other possible guesses that exist?
‘I’ could say that ‘you’ must know that the word ‘average’ is illogical and nonsensical. But ‘I’ do not like to assume things.
So, do you think or believe that when people do not take “shortcuts” or had conscious detailed breakdowns, then they will not disagree with?
‘you’ are coming across here as though ‘you’ believe that ‘your conclusions’ are what is true and right in Life.
‘I’ KNEW it would not be long at all before ‘you’ contradicted “your” own ‘self’ here.
Which is WHY people like ‘this one’ were so overconfident, had so many beliefs, and made so many False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect claims.
I KNOW. And, this is partly WHY ‘I’ wanted to gain ‘your definition and understanding’ of what the label ‘reality’ describes, to you, exactly.
Well, if ‘you’ want to talk about, and/or start a thread about the ‘Nature of Reality’, then ‘you’ have to introduce a definition of the label and word ‘Reality’ that aligns with ‘Reality’, and/or the ‘Truth’, fully and exactly.
So, if ‘you’ do NOT YET KNOW what that ‘label’ describes EXACTLY and FULLY, first, then there is NO use in even ‘trying to’ discuss ‘the Nature of’ what ‘you’ DO NOT YET KNOW.
Well, ‘I’ suggest that ‘you’ be Open and Honest from the outset, and NOT provide a misleading topic title.
Now, if ‘your’ personal particular ‘concept’ of and for the word/label ‘Reality’ is “everything that exists”. Then what else is there to even talk about, exactly?
Obviously, this is ‘your own personal description and definition’ for that word/label. So, there is nothing else to say nor talk about here.
Firstly, just like there is NO ‘your mind’, there is NO ‘your brain’ either.
Now, the relationship between the label ‘reality’, and ‘the idea’ that ‘you’ have personally attached to ‘that label’ is very simple and easy to understand enough. So, there is NO ‘blockage’ here, well not on my part anyway.
Considering ‘the name’ of this thread’s title, telling others to forget about ‘the label’, ‘Reality’, and ONLY focus on your own personal definition/concept/idea, only, is really rather ridiculous.
If ‘you’ want to stand by your advice here, then it might have been better, and more honest, if you named the topic title here, "The Nature of “everything that exists”, instead.
you are Right. Knowing and understanding ‘Reality’, and the ‘Nature of Reality’ is much simpler and easier than knowing and understanding “rocket science”.
Once again, this example here is more irrefutable proof of WHY it is always better to seek out and gain clarification until clarity is obtained before one pre/assumes or infers something. Again, you will not be as wrong as you are as often as you if you did.
Thank you for the acknowledgement.
To you,
What ‘artificial world’, exactly?
And, what is the ‘real world’, exactly?
Which ones, exactly?
And which species do not have the ability to move, and then die in their own waste, exactly?
So, when you see or hear the words ‘the world’, what is ‘it’, exactly, that you envision or imagine?
What do you mean by ‘my principles’ here, exactly?
What, exactly, is ‘the problem’?
What is the ‘this’ referring to, exactly?
And, what does the word ‘problem’ even mean, to you, exactly?
What do you mean and refer to, exactly, when you said and wrote the words ‘the world’ here?
And, ‘what aspects’ are ‘artificial’ and ‘which aspects’ are natural, exactly?
Well ‘I’ CERTAINLY WAS NOT. So, WHY ‘you’ introduced ‘this’ here only ‘you’ would know right?
Take concrete for ‘example’ of ‘what’, exactly?
What do you mean ‘cement is artificial’? Where, exactly, do you imagine or envision ‘cement’ comes from, exactly?
Cannot “women” mix sand and cement and stones together and make concrete?
Also, WHY do you believe that if something is made by “man”, then ‘that’ means that ‘that’ is ‘artificial’?
What do you mean by ‘artificial’, exactly?
‘you’ are SO FAR OFF TRACK here, and have MISSED and/or MISUNDERSTOOD things here SO MUCH ‘I’ am NOT SURE HOW to bring ‘you’ back on track.
I said and used the words, ‘stress’, ‘pollution’, ‘greed’, ‘selfish’, and ‘wars’ and for some reason you have introduced the word ‘concrete’ and somehow believe that ‘this’ has something to do with what I have been saying and pointing out here.
I will try again. Are you aware that when people say and use the words, ‘the world’, they are somtimes referring to,
The Universe.
The earth. And,
This way of life, and living, adult human beings have created and are crearing?
So, it ALL depends on what ‘the one’ that uses the words ‘the world’ is meaning and/or referring to, exactly.
Human beings create 'this world (the life), which happens and occurs here on ‘this world’ (the earth) in ‘this world’ (the Universe).
Let ‘us’ take one thing at a time here.
Now, have ‘you’ heard human beings use the words ‘the world’?
Okay. ‘I’ may well be the first one that ‘you’ have ever met who has ‘talked about’ how there are different concepts for the words, ‘the world’. But, honestly, have ever time you have heard the words ‘the world’ have you EVERY time thought that ‘the one’ who said or wrote those words was ALWAYS talking about and referring to the EXACT SAME concept EVERY time?
I suggest STOP presuming or believing that I am talking about some artificial world.
Now, can you envision that when some people use the words ‘the world’ they are referring to ‘this way of life’ human beings are living in. Like, for example, when people say, “This world is cruel”, or “The world is polluted”. Now, sometimes the people who use the word ‘world’ here is referring ONLY ‘the world’ that was created by human beings ONLY. And, they are NOT referring to ‘the Universe’ at all. Which is what some people some times are referring to when they say and use ‘the world’ words.
Surely ‘this’ is NOT that too hard NOR too complex to comprehend and understand.
‘The purpose’ of ‘this concept’, which, let ‘us’ NOT FORGET, is what ‘other people’ have created is ‘the SAME purpose’ every other concept is for. So, that, what is being thought in ‘one human body’, can be comprehended and understood by ‘another person’.
What did you think ‘the purpose of concept’ was for, exactly?
What do you mean by “this context”, exactly?
‘you’ were ‘the one’ WHO wrote and used the word ‘world’. AGAIN, in that prior post, of yours, you wrote the word ‘world’. So, ‘the context’ would be HOW ‘you used that word’. Therefore, again, what were ‘you’ meaning when ‘you’ wrote and used the word ‘world’?
AND, ‘I’ am asking ‘you’ to explain what ‘world’ means in ‘the context’ that ‘you’ use it.
MY VERY POINT HERE IS PEOPLE USE THE WORD ‘world’ IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS. And, anyone can ‘see’ that I was pointing out this very Fact.
Now, and again, when ‘you’ see or hear the word ‘world’, what ‘context’ do you have or hold ‘in thought’?
When philosophers start to drill down, they (we) often find that things we have all taken for granted, aren’t as clear-cut as we thought. “Mind” is one of them, but there are many other disparate examples: truth, gravity, love, QM or beauty, the list goes on. But that’s not the point. The point is that, as for many other things, we know what a mind is because we all have one, and also have the experience of using one, extensively, for all of our lives. We might say that “mind” is ‘defined’ empirically, by possession, familiarity and use.
Your request for an exact location seems strange to me, though. The mind, being an immaterial thing, has no meaningful physical location: it is not physical, so it doesn’t have a location.
As for how the mind works, well, that’s quite a challenge… 
In case you haven’t noticed, philosophy is not an exact science. Therefore I have no answers for your questions.
1 Like
EXACTLY.
And, ‘this’ is WHY I so-call “drill down” with and by ‘the questions’ I ask.
‘We’ have ALL ‘grown up’ saying and writing things, but when ‘we’ actually ‘look into’ what ‘the words’ actually mean, exactly, what ‘we’ had been previously assuming can be completely and utterly different.
Among all of the other ones, like, for example,
Love.
Time.
Space.
I.
Me.
Self.
Consciousness. Along with the other ones.
Sorry I replied before reading this.
But, what can be seen here is that ‘we’ agree
Really?
Maybe ‘you’ would like to ‘now’ explain to ‘the readers’ here WHAT a ‘mind’ is, exactly, WHERE it exists, exactly, and HOW the ‘mind’ works, exactly?
If you would not like to, then why not?
‘you’ just said and claimed that ‘you’, and others, KNOW what a ‘mind’ is. ‘you’ also made the claim that ‘you’ have a ‘mind’.
GREAT. If ‘this’ is True, then, surely, ‘you’ will have NO difficulty AT ALL in explaining and answering here. After all, ‘you’ have been using ‘your mind’ ALL of ‘your life’, apparently.
‘you’ are absolutely free to say absolutely anything. So, ‘you’ might say absolutely anything.
WHY? ‘you’ are so confident ‘you’ KNOW ‘your mind’.
Also, if you notice, I did use the ‘or’ word.
HOW do ‘you’ KNOW with absolute certainty that the ‘mind’ is immaterial?
WHY?
HOW the Mind and the brain work, exactly, was a very simple and easy thing to uncover and understand.
‘you’ HAVE answers. ‘you’ just do NOT want to reveal them here.
‘Philosophy’ means different things to different people. To me, ‘philosophy’ is NOT what ‘you’ think or believe it is.
After reading your reply, I have identified the following misunderstanding:
The way I understood this was the following: “Reality doesn’t truly exist.”
By the understanding above, I naturally disagreed. And I blame you for phrasing it like that, as it is a confusing way to word it.
After reading it again, and using contextual inference, I think all you did was say that what we experience is not happening in the moment where we experience it. And sure, that may be true, but you just rephrased your point. Let’s refer to your point as point 1.
Whether it can still be described as “existent” or not depends on the definition one adopts. You are just forcing your definition on us by inferring that what “exists” is only what is happening “now.” And some people would disagree.
Now for the rest, here is what I will say:
- What does point 1 imply for you?
- I don’t know what you mean by mind. What I mean by mind is the process at play behind my thoughts and decisions.
- My “sure” was ironic. You made an assertion without argument, evidence, or clarification about what you meant. “There is nothing before matter as it exists eternally” for instance. Eternal existence does not imply that the object of eternal existence is the smallest conceivable unit. That is what I meant. Smallest conceivable unit. If that is not what you mean by “before,” then you misunderstood me. If not, then as I pointed out, your statement does not follow from matter being eternal, which is another point someone might reject in the first place. Until you decide to back up what you say properly, no one will believe anything you say.
Next:
- Can the word “average” be confusing in context? Absolutely, since it typically applies to numbers. Yet, is there a way to understand it in context? Absolutely. Especially since when explaining, I also rephrased using words like “common.”
- There is nothing arrogant about my “guess” at what reality boils down to for humans. I have already stated that I could be wrong about what the “average” meaning of the word is. Are you displeased with anything? If so, why? There is nothing to be displeased with here.
- If I did, then it is by mere confusion about how you phrased your question.
- I will follow this up by saying that if you care more about being right or winning this conversation, then it is a pointless conversation, as someone who cares about winning or being right will never admit to anything that does not serve that goal.
- You use your brain as well to think, whether you recognize it or not. There is nothing overconfident about simply recognizing that, and you know it.
- Let’s suppose that I am wrong, inaccurate and claiming false things. Why does it hurt you so much? What are you trying to achieve by potentially correcting me? Does it emotionally trigger you? If so, there is room to grow. The path to wisdom is long and harsh.
- You are basically saying that no one can talk about anything if they do not already know the full truth about the label. That is false, and you know it. The label means nothing on its own. There is no full truth about the word “reality.” There is no wrong definition. But there is a truth about what me mean by it. And people are free to discuss what they mean by it.
- My title is not misleading, and you know it. If you reject that reality could mean anything else than what YOU think it should mean, then I have one question for you: Who do you think you are?
Lastly:
- I am unsure what your purpose in this thread is. I don’t know what you believe, or why, and I certainly don’t know what you are doing here.
- If you believe you cannot be wrong, or that you are somehow above others, then please say so. That way, I will stop this conversation so as to not waste my time any further.
Process, not a thing, being exactly what I said everything is.
I don’t know what I am supposed to reply to that. I don’t have any context from you Chelydra.
1 Like
I thought I already answered this:
*********************
I know almost nothing “with absolute certainty”. That’s the thing about certainty — it is a lot rarer than our words often seem to imply.
Oh, we have lots of theories, but I wasn’t aware we’d reached the point you describe, yet…
So, it was ‘you’ that had/have the ‘misunderstanding’ here.
So, once again, ‘your misunderstanding’ is ALL ‘my fault’. Well, according to ‘you’ anyway.
I had to rephrase ‘my point’ so that ‘you’ could understand ‘the point’ I was making, since ‘you’ were misunderstanding ‘my point’.
Whether absolutely anything can still be described as ‘anything’ ALWAYS depends on ‘the definition’ that one adopts, has, and uses, OBVIOUSLY.
- I am NOT forcing absolutely anything at all.
- If ‘my definition’ cannot be countered nor refuted, then that is NOT me ‘forcing’ absolutely anything on to anyone.
- you CLEARLY still MISSED and/or MISUNDERSTOOD ‘my point’.
- My whole point was NOT anything about “what “exists” is only what is happening now”.
- What might be helpful to you is to work out HOW and WHY you are STILL completely ‘misunderstanding’ things here.
Of course. Some adults have learned to disagree, just for the sake of disagreeing. Obviously, doing so helps them feel better about “themselves”. Again, for reasons that I have already partly explained.
That ‘you’ are STILL ‘misunderstanding’ here. And, in fact, it might even be the case there ‘you’ are misunderstaning even more ‘now’.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay. So, ‘you’ come to a philosophy forum and do NOT say what ‘you’ mean, and/or mean what ‘you’ do NOT say.
Now that ‘we’ have this understood, let ‘us’ proceed.
So what?
Am ‘I’ under sort of obligation to do so? After all, you asserted that ‘reality’ is “everything that exists” without argument, evidence, or clarification about what you meant, too.
Well, NO one can refute this. Full stop. And, if ANY one wants an argument, evidence, and/or clarification of what ‘I’ meant, then OBVIOUSLY they WILL ask for it.
If NO one asks for any, then, clearly, there is NO one here who is really seeking any, again OBVIOUSLY.
If ‘this’ is what you really want to assert, (without argument, evidence, nor clarification about what you meant), then okay.
When, exactly?
Without reference nor relation to something I am unsure what you are talking about here.
‘That’ is not what I mean by ‘before’. If ‘this’ is what you thought or believed I meant, then you misunderstood me.
WHEN and HOW did you, reportedly, point out ‘my statement does not follow’, other than ‘you’ just stating and claiming, “your statement does not follow”?
Which, by the way, absolutely ANY one here can very clearly see that ‘my statement’ did literally follow.
Again, absolutely anyone might reject anything, in the first or last place. Just like someone might reject what ‘you’ are saying and asserting here, in the first place, also. But what has ‘this’ got to do with anything here?
Look, the Universe is eternal.
What the Universe is fundamentally made up of is ‘matter’ and ‘space’.
These two things exist as long as the Universe exists.
Therefore, ‘matter’ exists eternally.
Which means there is NO ‘before’ ‘matter’.
Now, ‘you’ can either agree with and accept this Fact, or ‘you’ can choose not to agree with this Fact.
‘you’ are absolutely free to choose to do whatever ‘you’ want now.
- ‘I’ do NOT care one iota if ‘you’ or anyone else believes what ‘I’ say and claim or do not.
- ‘you’ just made another assertion without argument, evidence, nor clarification about what ‘you’ meant.
- If ‘you’ really want to believe and claim, publicly, that NO will believe absolutely ANY thing ‘I’ say, ‘until’ ‘I’ decide to back up what ‘I’ say properly, then okay.
Can ‘you’ back up 'your unsubstantiated belief and assertion here that absolutely NO one will believe absolutely ANY thing ‘I’ say until ‘I’ decide to back up what ‘I’ say ‘properly’?
After all, ‘you’ have obviously NOT YET decided to back up, properly, what ‘you’ just said, and claimed, here “yourself”.
So, ‘we’ now wait until ‘you’ decide to back up and support, properly, what ‘you’ said and claimed here.
‘you’ have also not yet decided to back up what ‘you’ said, properly, as well.
No.
See, ‘we’ agree again.
Okay. So, again, it is ‘my fault’, alone, solely, and fully, once more. Well, again, according to “jkem33’s logic” anyway.
Well, since ‘I’ do not care about what ‘you’ said here, what ‘you’ said here is moot.
And, ‘you’ can ‘take what ‘I’ just said’ here in ANY way ‘you’ like.
But, if, and when, ‘you’ misunderstand here, then this will also be all ‘my fault’, correct?
But ‘that’ was NOT what ‘I’ was referring to.
- ‘you’ claiming False things certainly does NOT ‘hurt me’ AT ALL, let alone ‘so much’.
- Does it ‘hurt you’ when ‘you’ claim False things?
To get the Truth out.
‘I’ have not been ‘focusing on’ emotions here. But, as of ‘now’ ‘I’ have not recognised any emotions that were triggered.
‘I’ am not sure that ‘you’ presenting ‘your beliefs and assertions’ here would really trigger ‘me’, emotionally, as this forum was partly set up for people, like “yourself”, to present ‘your beliefs and make assertions’, so if being triggered, emotionally, was of any concern at all to ‘me’, then ‘i’ would not have entered a forum like this one.
But, on the contrary, ‘I’ found the path to wisdom the most simplest and easist path to follow, and even be ‘led down’.
Obviously, ‘I’ just had to first have the Knowledge of HOW TO find ‘the path to wisdom’ be revealed to ‘me’ first. But once ‘that Knowledge’ was fully understood and known, the rest is really quite simple and easy to follow.
WHY are ‘you’ finding the path to wisdom so long and harsh, exactly?
‘This’ is NOT what ‘I’ am saying AT ALL, nor even ‘basically’.
What ‘I’ am, actually, saying is that if one wants to talk about the ‘Nature of [something]’, then they have to introduce a definition of the [something] that actually aligns with ‘it’, fully and exactly.
Can ‘you’ ‘now’ spot the difference, and understand what ‘I’ am, actually, saying and meaning?
I KNOW ‘that’ is False, because;
- I did NOT say ‘that’.
- ‘you’ said ‘that’ to ‘try to’ to make out that ‘that’ is what ‘I’ was, basically, saying, so that ‘you’ could refute ‘that’ and say not just ‘that’ is false but also that ‘I’ know that ‘that’ is false.
Just like this sentence ‘you’ just said and wrote here means nothing on its own as well, correct?
Is ‘this sentence’ a full factual truth?
Is it a ‘full truth’ that “There is no full truth about the word ‘reality’”?
So, to “jkem33”, the definition of the word and label ‘reality’, which counters and refutes “jkem33’s” own personal definition of the ‘reality’ word and label is NOT wrong.
Can ‘your truth’ about what ‘you’ mean by the word and label ‘reality’ be wrong?
Again, ‘we’ agree.
‘you’ have discussed what ‘you’ personally mean by the word and label ‘reality’. What ‘you’ mean is “everything that exists”.
Again, ‘I’ have already acknowledged this, and even said, “okay”.
Is there something else that ‘you’ actually want to get to and point out here?
Again, ‘you’ have said, “…, and you know it”, when ‘you’ say and claim something that ‘I’ NEVER have.
OF COURSE the title, ‘The Nature of Reality’, just for the simple Fact that it could NOT be misleading.
‘I’ was just pointing out what ‘I’ actually did. And, it was OBVIOUSLY NOT that ‘the title’ here is misleading at all.
Again, ‘I’ do NOT reject this. So, ONCE MORE, ‘you’ have introduced something that ‘I’ have NEVER even thought, let alone said or written absolutely anywhere.
‘you’ have a very common habit of introducing things that ‘I’ have NEVER even said nor written, and then ‘you’ “argue against” your OWN introduced wording and ideas.
Do ‘you’ think or believe that ‘you’ doing this once, let alone a number of times, is really a good thing to do in a philosophy forum of all places?
Oh, and by the way, could the word ‘reality’ mean something else other than what ‘you’ think it should mean; that is, “Everything that exists”?
‘I’ am very interested in ‘your answer’ and reply here.
Also, ‘Who do ‘you’ think ‘you’ are?’
‘I’ am also very interested in ‘your answer’ and reply here as well, in case ‘you’ were interested.
Okay. There is one very quick, simple, easy, and most efficient way to find out. Again, that is, if ‘you’ are really interested.
Again, okay.
Okay.
A very good response.
What ‘they’ are meaning is that what the word ‘you’ is meaning or referring to is that ‘you’ are NOT a ‘physical thing’, like a tree is for example, but ‘you’ are ‘a process’, instead.
Which, by the way, refers to HOW ‘you’ are always evolving and be-coming.
However, coming-to-be ‘who and/or what’, exactly, might be ‘a question’ some here are ‘now’ wondering?
Maybe ‘I’ was not clear enough. ‘I’ meant from ‘your perspective’ only.
Guessing what ‘we’ might say that ‘mind’ is defined in [this or that way] is not really explaining to the readers here what the ‘mind’ is, to you, exactly.
But, this is ‘my fault’ because I did not add the words, ‘to you’, in the clarifying question.
Great. So, do ‘we’ ‘now’ agree and accept that ‘we’ do not know whether the ‘Mind’ is material or not?
When this was being written, most people were not.
Here is what I will say:
- One more time, what is the reason you mentioned point 1 under this post? Or what is the point you are trying to make?
- I’d like to point out that despite assuring me that if I ask a question I will get an answer, you have failed to reply to this question when I asked it.
- I insisted that you back-up things I understood as claims. If the misunderstanding was clarified, and they were not claims, or they were claims, but trivial ones, then no need to provide anything else. Unless you are displeased with anything?
- Following the above, a proposed definition is not the same as a claim. You advocating that I back up a definition to a concept I have yet to make any real claim about is childish, as it only aims to get back at me for asking you to back-up things I understood as non-trivial claims. If they were not non-trivial claim, I sure hope you can move on. Unless, again, you are displeased with something?
- You are trying to get the truth out on a random philosophy forum…? Are you displeased with the truth not being out?
- By the flow of this conversation, it appears to me that you are far from having reached the end of the path of wisdom.
- You are the one who started this conversation. Is how I define reality all you wanted to know?
And the most important bullet point of them all:
- You seem to think that I am the sole source of misunderstandings in the conversation. But if you were indeed wise, you would know that a misunderstanding is a two-way road. Of course I bear some responsibility in it. And you do as well.
I will be kind to provide you with an example of confusion you created:
So first, you imply that my “topic title” “misleading.” And then, when I reply that it is not “misleading,” you reply that you have never claimed it? That’s a bit of a coward move don’t you think? If you are going to imply it this heavily, you might as well say it don’t you think? Even if you did not mean to claim it, can you not see how it very easily seems like you do?
I will say this again, misunderstanding is a two-way road.
Let’s see if you are wise enough to at least ackowledge that.
If you wanted to tell me, you would have already.