GENIUS FORUMS

this ceases, that ceases,
this arises, that arises.
dependent arising.

Chikoka,
If I deny or negate the relative or arbitrary human distinctions of short and tall as holding any 'truth'.

Instantly,
I have affirmed something else.

With each and every denial or negation there is a hidden affirmation.

A higher order truth is disclosed.

Its impossible to negate without a hidden affirmation arising.
The hidden affirmation is the 'grok'.

Chikoka/Pincho

How is "depends" not the correct word?

Can there be a concept without a mind? Clearly not.

Then, clearly, the concept depends on mind.


When you think, that depends on mind. Unless you can explain how you can think without one.

When you see matter, that depends on mind. Unless you can explain how you can see without one.

When you test to observe how particles act, that depends on mind. Unless you can explain how you can test without one.

When you are aware particles exist, that depends on mind. Unless you can explain how you can be aware without one.

When you are aware of your own existence, that depends on mind. Unless you can explain how you can be aware without one.


When a flower exists, that depends on uncountable things. Including petals and the such, you could go on forever, try getting a flower without Pincho's particles.

Hence, flower depends

Unless you can explain how you can have a flower without the things it depends on to be a flower.

Hence, flower doesn't exist "on its own", which has been repeated countless times.

And since everything depends (proven to be the correct word), then nothing exists "from its own side".

Which means that a human is really just a word for a collection of transient not "a human" things. It depends and isn't a separate "stand alone entity", which has been repeated to you both, everything in existence is dependent.

Even the mind is dependent and doesn't exist from it's own side, it is dependent on its contents which are also transient.

The fact of the matter is that nothing exists but transient appearances, none of which exist by themselves, they are called appearances because they are dependent, and because all forms are transient.

Dennis Mahar wrote:this ceases, that ceases,
this arises, that arises.
dependent arising.

Chikoka,
If I deny or negate the relative or arbitrary human distinctions of short and tall as holding any 'truth'.

Instantly,
I have affirmed something else.

With each and every denial or negation there is a hidden affirmation.

A higher order truth is disclosed.



Its impossible to negate without a hidden affirmation arising.
The hidden affirmation is the 'grok'.

Youre avoiding explaining why for me "knowledge of being dennis" is not self knowledge.
I dont think you can.

Youre avoiding explaining why for me "knowledge of being dennis" is not self knowledge.
I dont think you can

.

too cryptic.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Youre avoiding explaining why for me "knowledge of being dennis" is not self knowledge.
I dont think you can

.

too cryptic.

Too much bullshit.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Chikoka/Pincho

How is "depends" not the correct word?

Can there be a concept without a mind? Clearly not.

Then, clearly, the concept depends on mind.


When you think, that depends on mind. Unless you can explain how you can think without one.

When you see matter, that depends on mind. Unless you can explain how you can see without one.

When you test to observe how particles act, that depends on mind. Unless you can explain how you can test without one.

When you are aware particles exist, that depends on mind. Unless you can explain how you can be aware without one.

When you are aware of your own existence, that depends on mind. Unless you can explain how you can be aware without one.


When a flower exists, that depends on uncountable things. Including petals and the such, you could go on forever, try getting a flower without Pincho's particles.

Hence, flower depends

Unless you can explain how you can have a flower without the things it depends on to be a flower.

Hence, flower doesn't exist "on its own", which has been repeated countless times.

And since everything depends (proven to be the correct word), then nothing exists "from its own side".

Which means that a human is really just a word for a collection of transient not "a human" things. It depends and isn't a separate "stand alone entity", which has been repeated to you both, everything in existence is dependent.

Even the mind is dependent and doesn't exist from it's own side, it is dependent on its contents which are also transient.

The fact of the matter is that nothing exists but transient appearances, none of which exist by themselves, they are called appearances because they are dependent, and because all forms are transient.

'Depends' is just bad use of English (To rely, to place trust in...) The mind is not doing that. The mind is analysing, and the term analysing is not a close match for depends.

And all of your further post has already been answered. We are going round in circles. You are asking questions again that don't work. Like this...

When you think, that depends on mind. Unless you can explain how you can think without one.

Which is an argument against yourself. I am the one saying that you have a mind, you are the one saying that this is a dream, and the mind is a dream. So why you present questions against your own argument I don't know.

What are you talking about, of course we have a mind, how else would we think and do all those other things that depend on consciousness?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:What are you talking about, of course we have a mind, how else would we think and do all those other things that depend on consciousness?

So the mind has to be physical then, and not a dream. So you admit that the Universe is physical, and you admit that particles must exist. So you admit that delusion can be broken down to holes, and fillers.

Your comment was based on I "admit the mind has to be physical then", what does that mean? Particles are only something seen of the mind, they don't create the mind.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Your comment was based on I "admit the mind has to be physical then", what does that mean? Particles are only something seen of the mind, they don't create the mind.

They create the mind. We can't yet see atoms, or electrons, they are too small to see properly even with the best equipment around.

When you test for them that is also something only seen of the mind.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:When you test for them that is also something only seen of the mind.

But you admit that you have a mind. It sounds like you are arguing with yourself.

"I have a mind, but it is seen by the mind, so it might not be real..."

Which is a paradox.

Then later you say that we do have a mind. It's an argument with yourself.

There is no other way to build a mind other than with particles. You can't have a magic mind.

You quoted me but you were making the quote up and then called it a paradox.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:You quoted me but you were making the quote up and then called it a paradox.

I tried to shorten all of your quotes to a single line. Your mind is made from particles. If you have a stroke, and the particles get effected you can't think properly anymore.

It's irreversible.

You cannot state-

A mind is fuller hence the atoms are all stagnant.
A better way of saying this is that you should ask your partner if he sees' what you see. The more the mind plays with numbers the closer you are to infinity. Or, better, yet, you have the potential to seek numbers outside of our Own ways of thinking.

Pincho, what is it that drives you to some form of natural number that is-
let's say ' Practical.' How many times have you wooshed by the eternal vibration of numbers?

There are certain deficiencies of numbers. Let's say or use the particle 'A.' It, immediately, drops to particle "B." Less stagnant I should say. But, then, particles are just a bit too small.
So...

Immunity, to pi or 3.14.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Your comment was based on I "admit the mind has to be physical then", what does that mean? Particles are only something seen of the mind, they don't create the mind.

They create the mind. We can't yet see atoms, or electrons, they are too small to see properly even with the best equipment around.

Pincho,

The mind isn't what you particularly want it to be. A reactor or for better words quantum mechanics sees' it's particles as dust.
A more prominent way of putting it is self. What? is the Self?

Encouraging {0} balance to the form(s) of self-infliction, hatred, violence...You're looking at, now, astronomic; physics.

A general way of putting science into laptop. Or, is the universe....Primitive?

What? is the age of Y?

Explain, the format for '0' quantity when 'Y' is in the mix. Now, I have a giant intergalactic pro-mo-logue.

Captain Crunch wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Your comment was based on I "admit the mind has to be physical then", what does that mean? Particles are only something seen of the mind, they don't create the mind.

They create the mind. We can't yet see atoms, or electrons, they are too small to see properly even with the best equipment around.

Pincho,

The mind isn't what you particularly want it to be. A reactor or for better words quantum mechanics sees' it's particles as dust.
A more prominent way of putting it is self. What? is the Self?

Encouraging {0} balance to the form(s) of self-infliction, hatred, violence...You're looking at, now, astronomic; physics.

A general way of putting science into laptop. Or, is the universe....Primitive?

What? is the age of Y?

Explain, the format for '0' quantity when 'Y' is in the mix. Now, I have a giant intergalactic pro-mo-logue.

The self is a machine. It starts in a location that connects us to our particles. A location is a point, a hole. The hole contains our thought energy. It is scalar energy. Scalar energy is like a flow, and it is quantized. So our initial Cause is a flow from a hole somewhere in our body. But the number of parts that combine to make us would be a very large number of particles.

Which part of a Car is the car?

It's hard to say, so you must mean the first Cause above.

I agree.

Pincho, I've used a hard quantum(s) equilibrium to {0} but, then, I used........What? Everything, that-0-is deluded. Into, the sound scheme of quantum mechanics. It's hard enough, to quantum-size 1.

Your theory of a hole in the realization or the one places a lot of question...

A great relapse, let's say " fg" or " ff" which combines there to be " ffgf" or [0] Matter. You've read the articles on science fiction how the universe works.

I related to what you are using as a whole piece of instruction.

If I said, "H" is helium. You see? You can't make it work with-out the particles of let's say "p". P-1/P-2=H or helium. It therefore is a particle or element. Elemental, physiological, & quantum mechanics.
You said.,,

For better words! [0]
We should meet. Now, a useful tool is the table of elements.

The idea of useful-character is 0-0. That-Then, the self-real/I/zation. A particle(s) N=nitrogen. Also, known-as an element. Einsten wrote: the theory of Relativity. That, is substantial News to me. Because, ideologically, you've inferred computer science into fictitious-elements.
There" ins"

;-)

o^o

Pincho,

Exactlly, what is " dillusional" and what is " Real?"

Reality, is the question.

Captain Crunch wrote:o^o

Pincho,

Exactlly, what is " dillusional" and what is " Real?"

Reality, is the question.

Reality is something that can be reproduced outside of you. If Jesus walked on water, then reproduce it. If Gravity is a pull force, why can't I find a single pull force that is visible? I can reproduce all of my ideas in real life.

' Real Life'
Is the question, then...

How?

What-real force- Drives the Universe?

Or, Orion, Pix, I, they all-beheld a beautiful nature.

Pincho---

Reality---is

Das-el and incomplete-

The theories---of our world and thee 'next' theoretically-speaking---Our Big Universe---is

---flimsy, flan-s, floom----