Nemra

The character development made sense. I loved that I couldn't predict the storyline, which made me totally immersed in it. The characters had believable justifications for their actions. I understood why they would lie and I had to be cautious to see through everyone's lies. There were a few characters I would never side with, but I would empathize with the other ones even though they were all corrupt. It was interesting that they all lost in their own way. I watched the whole series a few times, and each time I viewed the characters a bit differently.

I was thinking about how are people able to point to and be aware of things in your experience if their POV is imagined by you. How is it possible that it is imagined, yet what they say can happen to you? If they are aware of their experiences, then their experience must exist; yet, it doesn't. If it exists as a totally separate thing, then we have more than one instance of experience. However, if your experience is all there is, then the experience of another person should be all there is too. Interestingly, every person you meet will tell you that they are also having an experience. Paradoxically, every possible experience that there could be must be your experience otherwise you would limit yourself to only your lifetime's experience; however, they aren't happening to you as of the moment. What do you think is going to come into existence when you die? How can it be that you somehow came into existence to have your experience and then you die and vanish, but then another thing or even person (that is not you) comes into existence with their experience after you die? That's absurd. You cannot claim to be everything and then say the POV of another is not yours, even if it's not accessible to you. The implication of this is very tough to swallow, because you would be everyone you hate, not only in terms of appearance (i.e., those people who appear to you), but also in terms of experience, because you would literally go through everyone's experience.

I mean that the thing that identifies must be the same for anything that is being identified with. From my birth until I was some years old. I don't know what I was doing before my unconsciousness. I could have been some alien, I don't know.

Why should I describe it? It's about identification. Because I didn't have the ability to be conscious.

No. It is direct.

The same thing that can identify with thoughts.

You have the ability to know. If the I is already known, then you would have had to know it before not knowing it. However, you didn't know it in the beginning. Although, we can assume that we know things.

If I only were the thoughts, then I wouldn't exist when I didn't think. However, that's not the case.

When you don't think. My worldview is intact even when I'm not thinking or having thoughts.

You don't have to walk to be the walker. Likewise, you can be thoughtless while being the thinker, even though you are not thinking.

You are diverging from your main disagreement with me, which is the following: Let's not pointlessly argue. And frankly, your thoughts are too choppy, which confuses me.

Why, in the first place, were you able to identify with thoughts? Think about it.

Aren't you thinking, writing and walking?

I agree that the self can be built on top of constructions. But if you can know that something is a construction, then knowing itself would be beyond constructions. I don't know that when you never think, you would eventually be conscious of nothing. Maybe. However, thoughts can point to those things. We are using our thoughts now. If it's not experience, then the "nothing" never happened. So, you can't even say that you know what nothing is. I don't agree that thoughtlessness necessarily is equal to "nothing".

Then how do you know that thinking happens? Isn't that your mind? If that mind isn't yours, how do you know about it?

I don't know. Isn't knowing possible? Haven't you known something? However, the above is another matter. When you try not to think, you will have a thoughtless experience.

I don't understand how the stuff you said about "knower and known" is a proof that "thoughtless experience" is impossible.

And I didn't agree with you and wanted an additional explanation from you by asking you a question. We were talking about "thoughtless experience", if I remember. You brought up the "knower and known".

Firstly, why would it be conjoined as twoness if the knower and the known are united? Secondly, how is your post above connected to the below?

I don't understand why it can't be both.

Yes. We are sharing our thoughts. Why would it be impossible?

Yes, you do. If your thinking isn't self-reflective and you find understanding the underlying processes difficult, perhaps it might be better for you not to think.

Thoughtless experience. You are sharing your thoughts about it now.

@Ziran, I like it when non-duality pops up unintentionally.

Ugh. "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" was the first one I watched when I was a kid, and it's my favorite. The writing is better than the others.