You are the only one who is 'alive'.............

The entire argument it is based in the old paradigm of mind versus matter...when today all we can say is that neither the "I" nor the "Matter" exist...go figure what other property would there make matter more matter, or more real that is? "Solid" is just a rule of relation in information itself, like "Force" is...
Mind versus Matter then? Who's Mind where Matter?
Objects in the mind are Real objects in the mind, given the rules mind necessarilly establishes and computes for them, with no freedom at all, just as objects in the "world" obey the principles the world has...

You would have to quote to identify what it is you are referring to as an apparent misinterpretation.
We can agree to that in a way. It would depend on what context you put it in.
clap trap (to keep the name for 'snake oil' the same).
In relation to events : if you want to say that 'events' can't exist without us, rather than 'our version of events don't exist without us - then we have a differentiation.

Personally I think the whole problem is you've got caught up in philosophy's penchant to 'interpret yin and ignore yang', so to speak. The whole picture makes much more sense.

Generally : Event exists + mind interprets event = created world in the said mind.

Of course one of the great things about the mind is that it is also capable of creating from no event, an 'event'.

There is no 'mind interpreting event', you came before making the distinction of whether there even is a 'mind' being there or not(there isn't), and if I may be so bold I might even say that you came beofre anything you said. If you would like to continue 'running in circles' with your puffed up distraction in the direction of a 'put down' on what I'm sure you misinterpret as 'overthinking/delusional' philosophers that's fine, I'm not interested in running around that track with you.

What you would call 'life' is really very simple, actually it's before simple, and to be honest I think it is quite too simple for people to handle. ("Isn't there more to life? What's the point? What's it all for?, etc. etc.)

'You' exist totally and completely of your 'self', 'you' go on of your 'self' and for no reason other than the fact that you exist. The 'mistake' you might be making(ARE making) is that you keep making an arbitrary distinction between internal and external. What 'goes on' the 'inside' of you is also what is 'going on' the 'outside'. That is why 'language' forces you to make all these non-existent distinctions.('My' finger, 'my' mind, 'my' body, internal, external, you and me etc. etc.) This is also why there is only The Happening(Be-ing). In your 'daily life' take sometime to notice all the misconceptions you're making due to the possibility that you don't exist which was 'created' and purpetuated by the idea of 'others'. Once you realise that 'they' ARE you, and of course YOU are YOU, then you will see that there isn't anything that is NOT you. I believe there was a quote by some philosopher and it went like this, "God is conscioussness, and we are all God trying to reach our full potential."

Rubbish. If there wasn't your mind interpretting the 'event' of written words here, you would not be able to respond to the written words.

Fine by me - just walk through the next meathead you see and prove yourself correct. Otherwise you simply don't believe your own theory (no matter what you say).

I only find it bemusing that you can't see the absolutely basic flaw in your own theory - even you don't believe it - and that is because it is flat out flawed at the very root level, and 'you' (some part of your brain) know it.

That would also be why every argument you have will always contain flaws. It is only circular because you keep making leaps in 'logic' that simply don't exist.

I tried.

Just because you can't follow JPLosman's thinking doesn't make it wrong. The thinking is the important part, not the conclusions.

And just because 10,000,000 flies have parked their ass on a pile of **** doesn't make them right either.

Daesin, I don't 'not follow' his thinking. If you go back and look at what I said, I said 'it is incomplete', and that 'it ignores the other half of the equation'.

Technically, when limited in focus to the confined space of the mind only, he is correct on a number of levels - because our mind does create our world, and everything we experience in it. He is incorrect that our mind does not interpret the world (which is necessary to creation, and could well be called creation itself, as the distinction between the two is rather blurred). However, I see very little benefit in doing this (creating a limited focus theory of the mind), unless it is to assist developing a theory that is then tested against the whole picture. Given the whole picture, things exist outside of our mind (unless you want to get pedantic about what constitutes 'exist')

He calls it 'so simple', and yet at the simplest level of the whole picture, he won't walk through someone, and neither will you.

Now if he wanted to talk about how our mind creates everything that 'exists' in 'our world' (meaning within our mind), that would be a really interesting conversation.

Thinking is important, and for some, the reasons for thinking, and the usefulness of thinking are also important.

Yes but what is there to know outside the 'mind', when you would have to use it to discover whatever there would be without it?

If you were to realise phenomenologically speaking that functions can only operate between two ends or a "plural relation" you would n't have made that comment...

Instead of reporting that his thinking is incomplete, why don't you fill in the other side? Obviously if he had the ability to 'complete his thought' according to your specifications, he would have. Jump in and complete it. Make a contribution.

BTW - you don't have a mind. 'It' doesn't create your world. You don't even create your world. You live in the world and observe. You either open up possibilities by thinking or you close them down by coming to conclusions.

The dictionary defines Mind as:
“the element, part, substance or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.; i.e., "the processes of the human mind”

“the element, part, substance or process . . . .”
Element: one of the fundamental or irreducible components making up a whole
Part: a piece or portion of a whole
Substance: the tangible matter of which a thing consists
Process: a series of actions that produce a change or development

In the definition of element the word component appears.
Component: a constituent part; element; ingredient; a constituent part or aspect of something more complex;
In the definition of component the word aspect appears.
Aspects.: appearance to the eye; visual effect;

Element and Part both refer to “making up a whole” and being a “piece or portion of a whole”.
Substance refers to a “tangible matter”, measurable 'thing' (length, width, depth, locality, mass)
Process refers to “a series of actions that produce a change”.

Review the list of words above. All of those words (concepts) represent one word which is the word 'idea' (concept). We use Mind to define Mind and 'concepts' to validate 'concepts'. We never question what we are doing and never question the measurability (length, width, depth, locality, mass) of the 'concept' we are using. Take a moment to notice and you will see that all of the words used to define 'idea' are 'concepts', constructs, representations of Be-ing/living, they are not living, Be-ing.

Mind uses “the processes of the Mind” to define itself, Mental uses Mind to define itself, and Understanding uses Mind and Mental to define itself. Let's address the word 'Mind' first, it seems to be the linchpin that holds the flim-flam together.

Back to the dictionary's definition. The dictionary defines Mind as:
“the element, part, substance or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.; i.e., the processes of the human mind”

So, the first part of the definition of Mind using the plethora of definitions provided by the dictionary is: “a tangible, measurable 'thing' which is a constituent part of something more complex and is responsible for “a series of actions that produce a change”.

The first part of the definition is incredibly suspect. In over 3000 years man hasn't been able to locate a measurable 'thing' called Mind. Another thing I find very interesting is how the collection of words interact with each other. Notice how Element is defined by Component, Component is defined by Element, Component is defined by Constituent, and according to the dictionary Constituent is a Component. Talk about flim-flam, the whole collection of words and the way they are put together remind me of a group of 'good ol' boys' in a corporate or government “war room” scheming to sell the public a load of crap.

Seriously, doesn't it appear to you that Mind was purposefully designed to confuse the hell out of everybody? Does the presentation of the definitions above bolster your confidence in the existence of Mind or does it put the existence of Mind in doubt? The more important question is this, “Can you collect up all of the Elements, Parts, and Components listed above, come up with a tangible, measurable Substance capable of performing a Process (“a series of actions that produce a change”), and clearly communicate what Mind is? I don't think so. If you can't put all the pieces together and create Mind then there can only be 3 things that are wrong: 1) the definitions, 2) the source of the definitions, Mind, doesn't exist, or 3) focusing on the parts and not the 'whole' is the wrong strategy to use to attempt to resolve the question, “Who Am I?”.

Mind has morphed into an ethereal concept which struggles to define itself. It assumes that when we think, it has to come from somewhere, so mind is a representation of a container that stores 'thoughts'.

Mind has turned out to be a nefarious concoction of individual characteristics. When you put them all together to represent the whole, they only produce confusion and doubt as to who you are. Unless you are incredibly stubborn, it must be obvious by now that the Mind as we know it doesn't exist.

How and why did Mind enter into our language?

Sometime before 900 AD, Mind (noun) began as “gemynd” in Old English (O.E.). “Gemynd” referred to “memory, thinking, intention”. In Old Norse (O.N.) “minni” meant Mind. In German “minne” referred to “memory, loving memory”. In Proto-Indo European (PIE) “men” meant “think, remember, have one's mind aroused”. Why was Mind inserted into our language? I don't think we will ever know, but it doesn't make any sense that it represented all the definitions above.

Around the 1400s Mind (verb) meant “to remember”, “to remind”. In the 1690s Mind meant “to take care of”, “to look after”.

One other word we should pay some attention to is the word “thinking”, which is referred to in “gemynd” (above). In Parmenides' era they really didn't have a set of symbols (words) for “thinking” as we know it. The words which came closest to 'thinking' when properly translated meant: “Useful is the letting-lie-before-us also (the) taking-to-heart too . . .” from “What is Called Thinking” by Martin Heidegger.

According to history, the word Mind points to “memory”, “thinking”, “intention”,”loving memory”, “think”, “remember”, “have one's mind aroused”,”to remind”, “to take care of”, and “to look after”.

So, if we take into consideration everything that we discovered from the origins of Mind it's pretty clear that Mind is not a container with Elements, Parts, Substance (“a tangible, measurable 'thing”), Processes, Components, or Aspects.

From what I can tell Mind is all about 'you' Be-ing. 'You' are the only 'entity' capable of “Be-ing aroused” to “remind” one's 'self' “to remember” “to look after” one's “intention”.

Mind is that entity we have created which we hand over responsibility to when we don't want to be accountable.

I did. You just obviously haven’t comprehended it.

He has the ability

A bit has been left out there after the words 'world and observe'..
We agree
That's an ironic two statements, especially considering the vast research having gone into the 'mind' only over the last decade, and the obvious and already recognised problems in defining it.
That sounds like a personal philosophy, for I've never viewed it that way, and that view certainly isn't codified anywhere.

Again, oh slippery one, proving and knowing are not the same thing.

Just because I can't prove something to you according to your specifications dosn't mean you don't know it.

Slippery? That's an interesting concept considering all I've been doing is pointing out the very obvious flaws in 'You are the only one who is alive'. There is no evasion - the message and concepts have been the same from the start. I'd love for you to explain how you arrived at 'slippery'.

And who said anything about 'Proving' per se? What I said is that any theory should be tested against the whole (rather than just in isolation) - that is just common sense and also scientific principle. So you can keep calling it 'your specifications' all you want - but it would only be 'my specifications' (ie belonging solely to me) if the whole didn't obviously exist, and the concept of testing theories against the whole wasn't already based on sound principles (my request for him to test his theory by walking through another person being a combination of those two things).

I suggest you re-think 'common sense'. 'Common' means common to everyone, which means you are giving up 'you' to fit in. Cowards hide in the crowd.

'Common sense' is the leveling down of individuality and it's individuals that create the great things in this world. Obviously you don't like to stand out in a clearing by your self. Go ahead and hide in the crowd. Just know that the only one you're fooling is you.

We are at an impasse. I have nothing to say that you will listen to and you have already 'proven' to me who you are. I wish you all the best.

You are the only one who is 'alive'.............
being "alive" is possible within a definable reality
a reality is a set and can contain a potential amount of ones being alive.
define the reality to live in and you'll find what you're looking for.

It probably meant to be
You are the only one who 'is'................doesn't this relate to "one" being "you" and the space "one" contains.
As one can't directly observe itself and needs "you" to observe it becomes unprovable to "you" that "one" exists.
The observation only goes in one direction It means "one" can observe "you"containing space, but not itself within "you"
You can see "one" in its non linear aspects though.
But in the end he would be looking at itself all the time.

Wow, your post reeks of arrogance.

You couldn't justify your previous 'slippery' barb.

You obviously can't find anything wrong with applying a concept that is both 'common sense and scientific principle' to testing theories.

... and you then came up with the above (quoted)?

I love how you equated my preference/principle that we apply the previously stated test to that of "fooling yourself, hiding yourself in a crowd, and cowardice". (it seems the concept provided a stumbling block that you couldn't get over and so resorted to insults?).

I also love how you had to ignore the second half of the equation (that the concept I was talking about was both common sense and sound scientific principle) in order to be able to make your response even make a modicum of sense (which, in the context of this thread - it unsurprisingly doesn't sense against the whole)

And reading but disagreeing equates to 'not listenning'? Ummm...wow.

Then you have the hypocrisy to pretend to be polite/friendly (by wishing me all the best) when the tone of all of the lead up of your post suggests an entirely otherwise attitude...

What I am saying doesn't fit into your thinking (?). It will never fit.

I wasn't being polite, when I was "wishing you all the best". I was dismissing you as a waste of my time.

It takes a strong person to step away from the crowd and listen to him or her 'self'. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, and
Yes, it is an act of courage to realize that the crowd as nothing to offer you and to step away from it.

...by now it should be pretty obvious that concepts as "you " or "mind" and such like, can only refer, like everything else, to an integrated system of functions that has a contextual limited operational meaning, or a limited reasoned extension, and that in different circumstances, with a different systemic perspective can be fully described has something else, say, with other linguistic paradigms at hand, or other functional set goals, in which that, "what" it is, arises from the task it can fulfil in such and such context...
...nevertheless is important to clarify, once an for all, that such view does not impede in any way to assert the truthfulness or realness of their existence, given these functions are real operators "happening" in a Meta-System, or a System of systems in which all potential relations of meaning or the algorithmic operativeness are/is accounted given possible...or what else should be the meaning of "Real" then ?

...in that sense, with all the noise going on, the systemic rhetoric of "functions" in conflict ends up coming as a laugh just by watching such an "heated" debate in which one wishes to jump from "mind" to something like "you" or "be-ing", as I personally see no difference between them...actually just naive pretension and old school thinking...

Considering I've been on my own here, debating against two others who very much disagree, with one of them, yourself, resorting to insults...I'll take that as a compliment. Though your own standards appear to disagree with what you've resorted to calling me

Btw, the use of the term 'Common sense' does not always refer to what the crowd thinks, but to 'what should be so obvious anyone can see it'

2ndly - just because a thing is common sense, does not automatically render it senseless, wrong - though implying so is a wonderful diversion, creating it's own conversation.

3rdly - just because I view something as common sense, does not mean I haven't reached that conclusion for myself, nor tested the train of thought in numerous ways. A belief that this is the case would be self deceptive on your part.

Lastly, your issues against common sense, as previously mentioned are barely relevant to a concept (testing a theory against a whole) that is both common sense and sound scientific principle.

Given all that, I do notice that you still can't find anything wrong with the concept of testing the OP's theory against the whole....it appears you've had to attack a side thought, and at that, one you had to remove from context of the whole, in order for your attack to make any sort of sense (which I guess, isn't surprising, given your objections to testing against the whole)
......................................................................................................................
On another train of erroneous thought that you have :
it should read

That last statement was crystal clear appropriated to suit the moment...