I am only reminding you
I won’t say “I can not believe that you call Bertrand Russell a philosopher” because that will bring difficulties in understanding the meaning of “belief”.
But I can say “Oh, my God!” and that will change nothing.
I don’t like seriousness and in support of my statement I’ll say – it sucks.
Now imagine that I’m the serious Bertrand Russell and I say: “human beings may have an explicit “belief ” that the shade is pleasanter”, which will make you BELIEVE that this is the truth about belief.
Now, that sucks.
Because your belief will be put on Bertrand Russell’s authority in philosophy and that will prove Bertrand Russell wrong in his understanding about “belief”.
Do you understand what I’m saying?
Well, let me explain myself.
Belief has very little to do with behavior and your belief that Bertrand Russell is right, is not a behavior, neither it leads to behavior.
Then what is it?
It is a strong positivity in your uncertainty.
Your positive believe that Russell is an authority to trust, is most likely to be true in your uncertainty.
Unfortunately the belief does not always reflects the truth.
But let us start with the Knowledge before explaining the Belief.
What “knowledge” is?
There are few types of knowledge.
“Can human beings know anything, and if so, what and how? This question is really the most essentially philosophical of all questions.” – Bertrand Russell
Not being offensive to Bertrand Russell’s logic I’d like to mark his question as illogical.
Such question should not be uttered if it puts in doubt the ability to know, assuming that we don’t know and we will never know [any answer].
It is also illogical to utter it if we assume that we have knowledge to the extent of having this question.
“I know” is a wrong statement in absolute sense.
“I create knowledge” is the right statement.
As long as we observe we will create knowledge.
All things are already known to us.
We can not observe something out of our five senses; therefore we can not create knowledge out of “the five”. In this Universe there is nothing unknown to us. The details are unimportant because they come from our knowledge.
We know what knowledge are we missing, only if we already have the knowledge about the subject? Not knowing what knowledge are we missing, is an ignorance.
The above said may sound “non sense” if one does not know the meaning of “knowledge”.
Have Bertrand Russell really explained what is “knowledge”?
The self-awareness does not use words and meanings for itself. (How can you explain you, being you?)
Meanings and concepts are created and put in words after the self-awareness observes something different than its own self.
“Motion, object, something different than myself.”
We have just created knowledge by creating the concept of something which is not “me”. The same way we create all possible knowledge.
Read more… »
An existence is claimed only after observation.
Existence is state of presence in observation.
The mind changes the concept by applying “existence” to the object, forgetting that the “existence” derived from (and actually is) awareness about presence.
Awareness is needed in order to make the existence valid.
We work with “existence” more like a meaning (concept), but after it was created by the awareness the mind deceivingly is applying it to the object.
Actually the existence is applicable to the awareness.
We wouldn’t talk about existence if we never observed it.
If we only have self-awareness without any other knowledge, existence is impossible as a concept (meaning, knowledge).
Because any existence is observed through our five senses we can say that all things are already known to us through the concepts created in the observation.
Details in 50/50 (Part One) throughout Part Two, Part Three, Point of Exit and Clarification for dummies as well as the first comment in this topic
The main problem in understanding the concept “Awareness beforehand” is:
the mind do not pay attention to the fact that it works with meanings and concepts created after the observation.
Once an existence was registered in observation the “existence” concept was created and from then on the mind applies the existence to an object.
That is wrong. The mind forgets that the existence applies to its own awareness and actually is observed presence, after which it became knowledge about presence.
Hence the concept of existence.
In other words existence is a mind awareness for a presence, or to make it even simpler, existence is a presence in the mind.
After the concept is created we apply it to objects and that makes it mind deceiving.
Mind starts to think of existence as something out of its awareness.
To see “existence” in its true nature we must go back and see it as a concept created by the awareness.
Existence applies to the awareness not to the object.
Now after repeating it few times I hope most dummies will get closer to the concept “Awareness beforehand” 😀
– – –
– – –
POINT OF EXIT
We are at the point of exit which comes with the end of the arguments.
I can expect more discussions on my statement, but there is no way to refute it.
Until you prove me wrong atheists don’t have the right to claim more than 49% possibility for God’s non-existence.
Wasn’t it 50/50?
It was, but not anymore.
There is no way for science to prove that brain produces awareness.
How is that?
Because any evidence must be approved by awareness.
Matter can not approve itself without awareness, while awareness is self-evident.
– – –
Humans intellectuality grows, concepts changes as the intellectuality grows, but the truth is always present and unchanged.
Many thousand years ago Enoch talk about the observers with different words.
Then Buddha talk about the Spirit with different word and after Him Jesus talk about the Spirit and the awaken Son with different words.
Everything is known to you and it is delivered as light, sound, smell, touch and taste.
You have nothing more to observe.
Start looking for the exit.
– – –