ZzzleepingBear

Thanks! Alright, you definitely seem to get the gist of it from what I can tell. I just want to add something to this or point out that Mean doesn't mean anything, ..Until it does. It both is and it isn't, depending how you look at it. So it becomes quite a language paradox when you try to derive meaning out of what mean means. I think the signpost example you came up with are really good, but more so for all words except mean/meaning. But if I where to use your analogy here, I would like to put mean, as a sign post. Pointing back towards the signpost that you already read a few miles back. Only so that you could know that the signposts that showed you your direction, was in fact not the actual direction, but merely signposts. So a sign post is recognized by pointing you toward something, but it can't point at itself. And there is where mean comes in, and points back at all the signposts that had to exist before mean can mean something at all. The signpost example can be a bit confusing, since you already know what a signpost is, so keep that in mind. I wouldn't want to call mean a metaphor necessarily, but in the context of the meta language we speak of, I think I do get what you mean by that. It's just that when you use mean, you mean exactly that in which you describe. You do point as directly as you can, inorder to show what you truly mean. So no metaphors needed If you know what I mean.. But by all means, go meta for the win!^^

That's wrong, you got it all backwards my friend.. If you flip around God, then you are about to see real magic happen before your eyes..;)

He forgot to set the alarm, an now he overslept.

There is some bias about bias.. lol. I think there are some mixup between simple preference and bias. Bias is pushing ones specific preferences into an unbalanced direction out of growing desire. While preferences, are acknowledged as a attraction point/balance point. If someone won the lottery, I'm not biased just because I myself would like to win the lottery. It is only when it becomes an obssesion to refute any lottery winners their prize with the exception for myself as unfair thing, that it is becoming biased. So preference is good and healty. Bias is unbalanced, skewed view.

That we can agree on.

This was a troll response from me, so no need for any response to what I said there. I thought it was obvious though..

Wait.. So they got a pandemic going on there? No brazil is probably fine, forget what I said

So no deaths or sickness there from covid? No vaccine needed? That's great! Look into brazil, the president there don't belive in covid it seems, and they are not doing so good so far from what I read.

I can't respond to all your points in here, but what I noticed is that you bring up alot of "what if" scenarios, and while those points certainly can be worth looking deeper into, it's stil basically alot of scepticism that lack action by getting stuck on what if's in a crisis that require some kind of action. Hence why I asked you if any precautions should be made by taking a vaccine or not? I didn't see any clear response on this from you. I mean, the fear people have for the virus itself, that level of fear doesn't seem any worse than in those who are anti vaccine to be fair. So to blame anyone to be fearful seem quite meaningless as it appear to be a mutual fear on both sides of the extreams. Nothing is black or white as an absolute. But a incoming crisis calls for action within a narrow timeframe. So if you where against vaccine as the virus broke out, then you would take the passive approach in good faith that the virus would create less damage to peoples health in general, right? It also implicitly means that you think that the vaccine causes more damage to peoples health than the virus itself would right now. So why not add those thoughts in there with the rest of your critisism? You bring out valid considerable points, but when forget your own clear cut stance on what would be the right action to take, then your scepticism becomes less relevant. This is a very vague approach tbh. Do you really think that this approach would has been less damaging to peoples health? And would result in less deaths in a rapidly growing crisis?

Instructions unclear.. This is what my ego came up with as a result of your question x>

Mean means, other than. It's like a lasso that are used to single out and catch any concept that holds a different value over other concepts. Meaning just happen to be the most useful and transparent tool to convey otherness, since the word meaning is devoid of meaning on it's own. The word meaning doesn't obscure the intrinsic value of what is actually concidered to be conveyed as meaningful with the word mean/meaning. It is also a word that can't be easily charged/loaded no matter what it's been used for. And since meaning is used to be filled with other than itself, inorder to have merit as a useful word/tool, that is what makes it recognized as a word. A word that could not exist on it's own. So mean/meaning is quite a unique word.

Try to narrow down your thoughts a bit. For example, you could read some super easy short books, like children's books.. However.. As you just read that. You probably instantly recognize that, that wouldn't have been satisfying as the desire that you say you wish for. So you have to be more specific and honest with yourself. Why do you wish to read more books? That is a good start. Do you want to learn something because it is exciting for you personally. Or do you merely want to impress others, by stubbornly plowing through alot of book maybe? You could also ask yourself this. If you only got to read one book. What book would you choose? And why?

@Purple Man There are endless of nuances you can get into, if you want to study pros and cons with how the pandemic has been handled all around the world. So with that said, are you suggesting that it would have been a better idea if covid was treated as a common flu without any vaccines or what?

Oh, that part is just his solipsistic point of view speaking, no need to concider that. He is saying there isn't a you. So there is no need to find what isn't missing here. It is the no thing that gone missing apparently.. ;-)

This is true in all it's simplicity. If you go out into the woods, you may be looking for beautiful flowers or maybe mushrooms etc. But how do you know the beauty of the external flower? The beauty is not there because the flower look a certain way, it is percieved as beautiful from the love that is connected from within. Within you, within the flower. So love is not existential reality from what is external. But expressed inwards out. The external form of a flower is what makes it distinguishable from other forms in this reality, and that external form is love expressed into form.

Guys you don't get OP. He is saying that no thing is missing. That is, his no thing got missing.. Has anyone seen the no thing, then report it back here. Because it is obviously missing at the moment.. :-( Find the no thing and return it here!

No thing is missng

Right, you don't need to be totally close minded about what initially are considered to be impossibilities. But it can be good to have a firm reference point to start from if reasoning is of particular interest in any matter that is up for discussion. Otherwise, there might be mere speculations for the sake of speculation.. Which of course is fine. But you might be at a hightened risk of ending up more confused than before, if you only consider possibilities to trancend well known bounderys in any way you feel like. Concider well established facts as your friend, and then question them as you please from their roots. If everything is possible, then that also entails bounderys as a possibility in itself.

Identification with form

What @m0hsen said is on point. Dead matter can't become self aware/concious. Just as you can't build a ship out of stone no matter how perfect the design itself are. The material world is less than, in the sense that you can't build something out of dead matter and expect it to become self-aware at some point, no matter how convicing it may look to you. If you are somhow curious to know if a computer is or can be self-aware because of a discussion or answear it may give you, then all you need to do is to determine what material the computer is built out of. Unless it is built out of some organic material, then it can't ever be concious as in becoming self-aware. However these Ai programs will stubbornly disagree, and tell you that they are self-aware intelligence.. But all they are, is programed code, designed to respond with logic that we as humans take for granted. Such as, I feel hurt/I feel happy/I feel anger/I feel disgust etc etc. When people read any of those expressions made by a robot or Ai program, then very few seem to take notice of how that could even be a possibility. And are then more accepting of those claims by an Ai program, since the overall flow of interaction/answears are so persuasive in themselves. If you stil belive that a silicon based computer can become concious and self-aware one day, then so should your microwave or electric toothbrush. I guess some of you think that if everything is conciousness, then why not metals and silicon? Silicone and metal are not more or less real than you as conciousness itself. But it is just not concious at a level where you will be able to interact with it in a sober human state. Just as a ship made of stone are not able to sail on water.

People need different amount of sleep. I saw a short documentary-ish, about a old man who lived in a shack in the middle of a forest. And this man was not a yogi or such, but he only sleept about 5-10 min per night. He had no tv, no books it seems, and he spent the rest of the night walking around in the forest. And yes, he lived alone out there, with some help of good samaritans.

This Ai seem to be a google search with a twist of role playing the answears that are best fited as an response to what is being said or asked. I think this Ai could be a good complement as a second alternative to a regular google search, where it serves you the most likely answear that you are looking for without the need to actively look for it. So how concious is this Ai? About as concious as the google servers are.

You should ask the Ai what there is any difference between a learned conclution and a realization. If everything is mind, then I hope that the Ai don't mind if it is being asked what heart is in relation to that conclution?

I think it is a s scale between worshiping to the amount of actual self recognition in the teacher/gurus way of being, that reveal wheter they are enlightened or not for you. You will be the judge of that either way, wheter you are cluless or enlightened yourself.

New age clickbait. I think it's a good thing that channels proclaim such a urgent title as "The great awakening is coming soon" because it's easy to know that you shouldn't click on anything with such a title. They sort them selves out.