The truth and reality is the product of a believing mind.

Tercon

Well-known member
You're still dodging the question. This is not about where things are knowable. It's about your ambiguous language that conflates two different meanings. You've insisted that while knowledge of reality and reality itself are not the same thing, the two statements each locating these different things in the same place (a mind) are somehow saying exactly the same thing, and that there is therefore no ambiguity. That is very obviously false. Sentences that have DIFFERENT SUBJECTS - even if they are both true, and even if they locate things in the same place - are necessarily saying DIFFERENT THINGS and have DIFFERENT MEANINGS. Proof of this is given the the example I asked you about, and which you have dishonestly dodged about half a dozen times without answering. Both sentences are true, both locate things in the same place, and yet because they are talking about two different things, the two sentences have different meanings that cannot be conflated together without producing ambiguity. Again:

1) My bike is in my garage.
2) My car is in my garage.

Both true. Both speak of the same location. But they have different subjects, and therefore different meanings. Agreed? (Note that I am NOT asking about where these things exist or where they are knowable. The ONLY point at issue here is whether they have the same or different meanings.)

Strawman. Doesn't have anything to with the OP.

And if you were or are referring to anything but the truth and reality, then you are denoting something else other than what I am. In that if you are saying "QM" and you aren't referring to and denoting the truth and reality, then you are obviously denoting something else other than what I am referring to and denoting.
Therefore. your conjuring would be just a strawman.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Tercon doesn't understand the difference between something occurring and being known to have occurred.

Strawman and irrelevant to my argument. One is occurring now and the other occurred earlier.
But both are still ONLY known to occur in the same way and place., and that's in and by a believing mind. And you have not shown otherwise.

You have no idea how the logical truth and reality works do you?
 

TeabagSalad

Active member
Tercon doesn't understand the difference between something occurring and being known to have occurred.
lol...that's true and very funny. I know it's not kind to laugh at people who aren't very smart, but that's such a fundamental difference it's difficult not to.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
lol...that's true and very funny. I know it's not kind to laugh at people who aren't very smart, but that's such a fundamental difference it's difficult not to.
How can you or Nouvy be "smart" when neither of you can figure out that a believing mind and "consciousness" is necessary and entailed in everything's existence silly? Talking to you two is like trying to explain logic to monkeys. Well I guess if you think you are nothing more than just another animal, then after awhile you start thinking like one too.
 
Last edited:

e v e

Well-known member
either God’s consciousness or that of God’s enemy rules a soul.

The concept ‘own consciousness’ (Self) is of the enemy.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
either God’s consciousness or that of God’s enemy rules a soul.

The concept ‘own consciousness’ (Self) is of the enemy.

Yes, God's consciousness or AKA believing mind believing in and with us makes us conscious of His truth and reality.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Strawman and irrelevant to my argument. One is occurring now and the other occurred earlier.
But both are still ONLY known to occur in the same way and place., and that's in and by a believing mind. And you have not shown otherwise.
No, the difference is that one involves knowledge and a mind while the other does not. Thanks for proving my point that you don't understand the difference.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Strawman. Doesn't have anything to with the OP.

And if you were or are referring to anything but the truth and reality, then you are denoting something else other than what I am. In that if you are saying "QM" and you aren't referring to and denoting the truth and reality, then you are obviously denoting something else other than what I am referring to and denoting.
Therefore. your conjuring would be just a strawman.
It's okay to be confused. But it's not okay for you to be evasive and dishonest like this. Did you even read what you were replying to? My post had nothing to do with QM, and was directly addressing the ambiguity of your opening sentence in the OP. The question here is whether two true sentences speaking of the same location about two different subjects say the same thing (with no ambiguity) or say two different things (producing ambiguity). So put your big boy pants on and try addressing the point by answering the question:

1) My bike is in my garage.
2) My car is in my garage.

Both true. Both speak of the same location. But they have different subjects, and therefore different meanings. Agreed? (Note that I am NOT asking about where these things exist or where they are knowable. The ONLY point at issue here is whether they have the same or different meanings.)

So do (1) and (2) say the same thing? Or do they say different things?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
No, the difference is that one involves knowledge and a mind while the other does not. Thanks for proving my point that you don't understand the difference.

Strawman. How do YOU KNOW that "one involves knowledge and a mind while the other does not"? And thanks for proving that you think you can know stuff without your own mind making it known to you silly.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
How do YOU KNOW that "one involves knowledge and a mind while the other does not"?
Because I understand English. That something happened says nothing about a mind being involved.

And thanks for proving that you think you can know stuff without your own mind making it known to you silly.
Your favourite strawman. I didn't say anything about knowing anything without a mind being involved.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Not what I said, silly.

Sure you did.
Because I understand English. That something happened says nothing about a mind being involved.


Your favourite strawman. I didn't say anything about knowing anything without a mind being involved.

How can you know "something happened" without your own mind making that known to you silly?

Unfortunately you don't seem to have the faintest understanding of what you're replying to.

Sure I do, it's just a little above your honesty and pay grade.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
No, I didn't. You really need to learn how to read.

You really need to learn to tell the truth and reason properly.

Again, I'm not claiming knowledge without a mind to be possible. Stop strawmanning and address what I actually said.

Yes you are. How are you suppose to know anything occurs in anywhere including QM experimenting without a believing mind or "consciousness" in order to make it known to occur silly?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Yes you are.
No I am not. Stop trying to tell people what they are saying. You are always wrong.

How are you suppose to know anything occurs in anywhere including QM experimenting without a believing mind or "consciousness" in order to make it known to occur silly?
The issue is not whether a mind is needed for the occurrence of QM events to be made known. No-one disagrees with that, and there is nothing special about QM that makes it so. All knowledge requires a mind. The further incorrect point that you keep making and being corrected upon is your silly claim that QM events require a mind in order to occur.
 
Top