The seer and and the seen

[viole]

This is arrogance. You do not know how a subject can be studied as a subject without objectifying it, yet you assert that it is narcissism to question the assumption that we are machines?

OTOH, imo, it is narcissism, when one presumes that even though one is a machine, one is intelligent and one has power to determine truth value of any proposition.



No. The body drinks and the "body-mind-intellect" gets clouded. The "I" still clearly knows that the body has over-drunk and that "mind-body-intellect" is out of balance.

Do not lightly toss this away. See whether you can differentiate between "I" that exists in states of deep sleep, dream, and waking states and the shapes of the respective states. The "I" that knows the waking state, dream state, and deep sleep is same. It is same in the drunken state too.



No one is talking of god, except you.

Let’s cut through the chase here.

If your blain explodes, do you think that you will still be conscious?

Ciao

- viole

 

[atanu]

How do you know that you were dreaming?

The conscious self knows the dream and waking states. And it exists in fullness in deep sleep.

A dead body has no consciousness, because it is a dead body. All dead bodies are not conscious, because the body is dead. Sounds like a tautology to me. The problem here is a faulty conclusion. Consciousness IS a property of the body(mind). Just not a dead body.

Funny. So what is mind without consciousness and life? Surely consciousness is not the brain, which cannot shout "I wish to live. Do not create me". It dies with the body.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are asking, unless you can define these terms. Things? Or a conscious self?

Yes. You do not understand simple questions. You said: "Our objective reality/perspective is the domain of all physical things that exists outside of our perception, and doesn't require our presence to validate..."

So, who is validating the presence of objects? The objects are claiming that or you are claiming ?

....

You also said "..The act of stopping at a red light is subjective from your perspective, but objective from the traffic light's perspective. ...."

Do you seriously think that 'traffic light' has a perspective?
...

I do not think that any discussion with you can be fruitful, since you may not be capable of introspecting and acknowledging that your thoughts may be wrong. Let us see. Do you seriously think that 'traffic light' has a perspective?

 

[George-ananda]

Let’s cut through the chase here.

If your blain explodes, do you think that you will still be conscious?

Ciao

- viole

My answer would be that I believe I would still be conscious in my astral/mental body (that interpenetrate the physical body).

Key point is that in our school of thought the fundamental consciousness incarnates into the physical but the physical can never create consciousness.

 

[atanu]

Let’s cut through the chase here.

If your blain explodes, do you think that you will still be conscious?to the consciousness

Ciao

- viole

No. In this case, the vehicle of consciousness is destroyed in a particular body. So, the particular, body-mind-intellect' (BMI) will cease. That does nothing to the underlying consciousness that you are. Nothing happens to the consciousness that illumines all BMIs.

When a light bulb is smashed, and its filaments do not offer resistance to flow of electrons and there is no glow, it does not mean that electrons are destroyed.

 

[viole]

No. In this case, the vehicle of consciousness is destroyed in a particular body. So, the particular, body-mind-intellect' (BMI) will cease. That does nothing to the underlying consciousness that you are. Nothing happens to the consciousness that illumines all BMIs.

When a light bulb is smashed, and its filaments do not offer resistance to flow of electrons and there is no glow, it does not mean that electrons are destroyed.

Underlying consciousness that i am? What does it mean that nothing happens to it?

Will I still be conscious or not?

Oh, I see. I need another body, right?

Cool. What happens when we run out of bodies?

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

Let’s cut through the chase here.

If your blain explodes, do you think that you will still be conscious?

Ciao

- viole

Again cut to the chase means getting it down to the two fundamental schools of thought.

Nondual: Consciousness is primary and matter is a derivative of consciousness

Materialist: Matter is primary and consciousness is a derivative of matter


As you might have guessed I am a nondualist from my study of the paranormal dovetailing with eastern (Vedic) and western esoteric wisdom traditions.

That difference is 'the chase'. And the twain shall never meet as the difference is fundamental.

 

[viole]

Again cut to the chase means getting it down to the two fundamental schools of thought.

Nondual: Consciousness is primary and matter is a derivative of consciousness

Materialist: Matter is primary and consciousness is a derivative of matter


As you might have guessed I am a nondualist from my study of the paranormal dovetailing with eastern (Vedic) and western esoteric wisdom traditions.

That difference is 'the chase'. And the twain shall never meet as the difference is fundamental.

Your study of the paranormal?

What do mean? There is not such a thing as the paranormal. These are all a bunch of claims that vanish when submitted to serious scientific inquiry.

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

Underlying consciousness that i am? What does it mean that nothing happens to it?

Will I still be conscious or not?

Oh, I see. I need another body, right?

Cool. What happens when we run out of bodies?

Ciao

- viole

The 'I' after peeling back the layers of the onion is ultimately the One universal eternal consciousness. The fundamental ground of all.

 

[viole]

The 'I' after peeling back the layers of the onion is ultimately the One universal eternal consciousness. The fundamental ground of all.

The fundamental deepity of all. I guess.

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

Your study of the paranormal?

What do mean? There is not such a thing as the paranormal. These are all a bunch of claims that vanish when submitted to serious scientific inquiry.

Ciao

- viole

Hmmm, well I have been impressed with the anecdotal, experimental and investigative evidence and analysis myself. My honest reasoning tells me something is indeed going on.

 

[atanu]

Underlying consciousness that i am? What does it mean that nothing happens to it?
Will I still be conscious or not?
Oh, I see. I need another body, right?

Who are you? The brain? The body? Or only an epiphenomenon?

Cool. What happens when we run out of bodies?
Ciao
- viole

Gold can exist in infinite number of forms. This is a metaphor only.

But, if you discriminate between the awareness that is constant, unchanging 'seer' on one hand and the forms that it cognises in sleep, dream, and waking states on the other, you may appreciate the metaphor.

The key is to discriminate between "I" and "I am this body-mind-intellect". The subject "I" is conscious. It sees all objects including the body, mind and intellect, which are insentient.

(Please cut out sarcasm, if you can).

 

[atanu]

 

[Windwalker]

Underlying consciousness that i am? What does it mean that nothing happens to it?

Will I still be conscious or not?

Oh, I see. I need another body, right?

Cool. What happens when we run out of bodies?

Ciao

- viole

Do imagine that creation ever actually ends?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You did, and when you did, my respect for you shot up as I saw the effort you were making. I made honest, sincere, and truthful statements of what I believe in response. Yet, you decided to deride and insult me in response to that sincere effort on my part to be clear. I did not expect that, but it is what it is. You chose that path rather than assuming I actually have something to say. If you wish to apologize again, and make another effort at this I may be game. But please take responsibility for yourself first.

BTW, if you read what that other poster I linked to said, you will see him saying the exact same things I was. That you don't understand it, it not because we are deliberately trying to be obtuse, unclear of the meaning of words, on some ego trip,or whatever thing you accused me of. I am not alone in this understanding. In fact, it's pretty common knowledge in the various schools of thought from Buddhism, to Hinduism, to Christianity, and outside religion, in postmodernist studies. While it may make you feel a sense of regaining control for your understanding to insult me personally as you have, it is not a true discussion, when that persits instead.

I'm willing to try again, but you need to step up to the table as you did in asking me that list of questions, but then follow up with some degree of respect shown to me. That's not a matter of a lack of grace on my part. It's a matter of not enabling your bad behaviors. It's a matter of not being willing to be a doormat for uncalled for insults against my integrity.

BTW, I have not said you have poor comprehension skills. You are assuming that "must" be what I'm saying here. I don't believe that. I believe you are quite intelligent, and make use of critical rational thought. That you don't follow what I, and many others like me say, is not a matter of intelligence. Being smart, doesn't get you to a knowledge of what we all are talking about. And that, is the point. I can only suggest try meditation, try defocusing the eyes. Then what is already obscured to the mind, to your and others thinking, becomes seen for what it truly is. None of this denies rationality. It goes beyond rationality. The rational mind, is not the only way we come to a knowledge of reality.

If you wish to try again, and show due respect, I'll be willing to consider that.

It probably means I understand something you don't.

I explained why it can be called objective, but I think you didn't follow it. I'll try again in perhaps simpler terms.

It is very clear that you were questioning my level of comprehension in these comments. I have had many conversations with your linked poster(Godnotgod) on the thread "The Watchman Revisited". This thread was locked because of his inability to engage in any rational discussion, without simply parroting rote-learned obfuscated rhetoric. If you are only interested in ego gratification, attracting groupies, or confirming your own personal biases, then stay away from open forums. Especially threads that have "science" in their heading.

I have no wish to insult you personally. You may be a wonderful human being, or a real SOB. My comments were only directed towards the statements you make, and the logic you use to make them. Claiming that you've answered my questions is irrelevant, if I don't understand the answers. This is an example of just ONE of your answers defining the difference between conceptual and perceptual,

I think how I might answer that is along the lines of what William James pointed out, which I believe to reflect the truth of it, is that when we experience something, the first thing that occurs is simple awareness. You could call that perception. There is only raw experience, without thought as to anything about it. Then in a seeming intanenous event, that awareness of experiences splits into two parts; objective and subjective. The mind divides it into two questions, "What was that" (objective), and "What does it mean" (subjective).

Conception occurs in both answers to those question. How experience becomes translated, and that is a good word for it, is through conceptual frameworks, based on linguist and cultural conditionings. Prior to this, in the non-verbal world, it's just raw experience floating around in a sea of perception, without being attached to this mental object or that mental object.

I suspect that you think that this explanation makes perfect rational sense? Do you really think that this explanations would be clear to anyone, other then those seeking to confirm and reinforce their own biased beliefs? We're not talking about some obscure deeply held belief, that can describe the internal workings of the mind, or life in the cosmos. We are only talking about providing simple definitions for simple terms(conception and perception). Without a clear understanding of these definitions, you can't be held accountable for the terms you use to explain anything. Imagine wading through 10 more responses worst than this one?

So, if you are willing to stop obfuscating ambiguous superlatives, or being condescending and oversensitive, then YES. I am very confident of the knowledge I have, as it directly applies to anything that I say. I am not threatened by any comment you make, to the point that I would feel insulted. The true mark of intelligence, exists in its simplicity, not in its complexity. ​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The conscious self knows the dream and waking states. And it exists in fullness in deep sleep.



Funny. So what is mind without consciousness and life? Surely consciousness is not the brain, which cannot shout "I wish to live. Do not create me". It dies with the body.



Yes. You do not understand simple questions. You said: "Our objective reality/perspective is the domain of all physical things that exists outside of our perception, and doesn't require our presence to validate..."

So, who is validating the presence of objects? The objects are claiming that or you are claiming ?

....

You also said "..The act of stopping at a red light is subjective from your perspective, but objective from the traffic light's perspective. ...."

Do you seriously think that 'traffic light' has a perspective?
...

I do not think that any discussion with you can be fruitful, since you may not be capable of introspecting and acknowledging that your thoughts may be wrong. Let us see. Do you seriously think that 'traffic light' has a perspective?

I'm certain that you are not the one dimensional thinker(garbage in, garbage out), that you appear to be. Did you think that a perspective is a concept that is limited only to humans beings, or living things? Perspective also mean a frame of reference, or a position. "From the moons perspective, the earth would seem small". If it makes you feel any better, there is a DUCK sitting on top of the traffic lights. This DUCK watches all that cars come to a halt every time the traffic signals turn red. The DUCK'S perspective is objective, and each individual driver's perspective is subjective. Is this clearer now?

The conscious self knows the dream and waking states. And it exists in fullness in deep sleep.

The full question also included, "Or do you simply have memories that you were dreaming?". For the rest of us mortals, we tend to be in an unconscious state when we are dreaming, or in a deep sleep. Are you conscious of the hours that past when you are asleep? I think not. If you wish to visit some alternative consciousness by concentrating hard enough, then you would still be in your original state of conscious awareness. Your body will still be in the same state of existence, and in the same reality. Not sure what you mean by how the "conscious self" exists in fullness in deep sleep? How can you be consciously aware that you are in deep sleep? This is impossible, unless you can demonstrate what internal senses are being used to perceive existence and awareness?

Mind and consciousness are both conceptual processes of the physical brain and endocrine system. Nothing more, and nothing less. Life itself is a far more complex answer. The short answer is if life can't maintain its enthalpy(order), it will cease to exist. In a sense, dead bodies are entropic successes. Therefore, two terms are conceptual, and one term is inanimate.

Yes. You do not understand simple questions. You said: "Our objective reality/perspective is the domain of all physical things that exists outside of our perception, and doesn't require our presence to validate..."

So, who is validating the presence of objects? The objects are claiming that or you are claiming ?

If you go outside and look at the moon, you are looking at the moon from a subjective perspective. You are using your visual senses directly to see the moon, correct? If you go back inside the house, and not directly in sight of the moon, does the moon still exist? Since you are in the house the moon exists outside the limits of your senses, thus can't be perceived directly. But it can be perceived or inferred indirectly. The self, mind, consciousness, can CONCEIVE that the moon exists, Australia exists, people exist in China, even though all exist outside of our senses to validate their existence. This is the objective reality that I am defining. In your language, it is the "I am" and the "conscious self" that is validating objective reality. In normal language, it is simply our inductive and deductive reasoning that is validating objective reality, or the reality that exists outside of our senses. Objective reality can also be validated by the internet, and through other media forms.

I do not think that any discussion with you can be fruitful, since you may not be capable of introspecting and acknowledging that your thoughts may be wrong.

I certainly admit that could be wrong about a great many things. And, certainly to things a lot more complicated than this. Not capable of introspection? Really? Sounds like very sound advise that you should practice yourself. Or, at least learn how to provide a more cogent, and rational argument.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The problem with that is, of course, that believe and understand are also brain states. That includes your belief in God. Actually, it is very plausible that believes in external agencies, even when there is none, are also naturalistic adaptations of our brains.

For sure they provide survival advantages, even if they are not factual. As a matter of fact, everything we believe is totally unreliable. We have basically no natural support from our brains to even have a minimal intuition of things like electrons or spacetime. And the reason is obvious. Since iur brains are wired for survival through million of years of evolution, it is not surprising that they are not equipped with natural tools geared towards truth in realms of reality that are irrelevant for our survival (eg QM).

Even theologians like Plantinga noticed that.

Ciao

- viole

You must tell that to the many Christian martyrs over the years, who clung to God in the face of not surviving.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You must tell that to the many Christian martyrs over the years, who clung to God in the face of not surviving.

And for those who cling to no one in the face of certain death, we call heroes, not martyrs.

 

[Windwalker]

It is very clear that you were questioning my level of comprehension in these comments.
​

It's not clear at all, and it certainly is not what I meant. To simply say to someone you may not be aware of, be exposed to, have the necessary or prerequisite context to understand something, can be said of anyone perceived as not really grasping what is being spoken about, without it being an insult to their intelligence. Someone easily can say the same thing to me depending on what it is they are trying to explain to me that I am not "getting". That's just a common reality for any of us.

If I actually thought you had comprehension problems, as if your brain were somehow defective or incapable of understanding, I would not have been spending the amount of energy and time into communicating these things with you! I'd just go, "Oh, he's not very bright," and politely not waste my time or yours any further. I would have probably only posted one or two posts and moved on.

So please understand, I am not belittling your intelligence in saying you don't get something. I am saying that for a very simple reason. You aren't getting what I am saying. And the evidence of that is because in the vast majority of your responses to me you restate what you think I am saying, and it's not accurate at all. That means you aren't getting what I said. Not that you're not capable of it.

I believe you could be, but it require deconstructing these assumptions of reality that have been conditioned into our minds. But underlying that is the desire to move beyond those assumptions to investigate truth. Most people aren't comfortable doing that, as it does have the effect of shaking lose how we believe about things. Pretty much the same sort of thing like that shaking lose of our long-held beliefs and assumptions when we realize that the myths of the Bible aren't historical and scientific facts. It's the same thing being applied to the "rationalist" model of reality, as opposed to the "mythic" model of reality. Both are models of the mind.

What my posts are is to demonstrate how these are essentially doing both the same function, in the same ways, just with different sets of symbols. It's still the same thing.

I have had many conversations with your linked poster(Godnotgod) on the thread "The Watchman Revisited". This thread was locked because of his inability to engage in any rational discussion, without simply parroting rote-learned obfuscated rhetoric.

You see, that's interesting to me. Your reaction to things he says is the same as to me! Are we both this ego-driven creature you imagine those who challenge your ideas of reality must be, because who else but someone with defects would think like us? I find his posts informative to me, as they fit into how I have of my own accord come to see these things. It's really one thing he and I, and numerous others on this site I could name have in common. Context. The context of experience. And oddly enough, we all come to see the same things.

If you are only interested in ego gratification

The one thing we do all have in common is not ego-gratification. The exact opposite is the truth. We have ego-recognition. We see and understand what the human ego is and what it does, and out of a genuine desire for truth, release the ego. That is what meditation is for. Transcending the ego. Getting it out of the way. As it is the ego that is responsible for clouding reality. It is freedom from the voices of the ego that liberate us to see reality without that narcissistic lens colorizing everything.

From your perspective you seem to have to see it that way, because frankly that is the only context you have to look at it from. It's what it would be for you. It's a projection. And I do not mean that as an insult to you, but as a simple recognition of how our minds work.

Claiming that you've answered my questions is irrelevant, if I don't understand the answers.

What is relevant is when I do answer your question in good faith, and your response is something like I'm an egotist looking for groupies, that is relevant. That is saying you aren't actually interested in understanding my response. That is disappointing intellectually to me, to say the very least. Can you understand how you sound to me?

So the question I have of you is can you respond to me, and others, without the rhetorical, insulting insinuations that we are "egotists seeking groupies" and other undeserved and unbecoming nonsense in these discussions? That is my only criteria here. That you show me personal respect. If you fail once more in this, then you'll be written off permanently, and you will bear full responsibility for that.

I suspect that you think that this explanation makes perfect rational sense?

It very much does. Yes. It details how the mind takes in information and process it. Do you have any basis to dispute otherwise? Can you share that? I'm always interested in other researchers points of view of these matters.

Do you really think that this explanations would be clear to anyone, other then those seeking to confirm and reinforce their own biased beliefs?

I think it is hard for us to think in terms like this because it goes against our habituated ways of thinking about things. No, it's not easy to see the eyes that are seeing. That's the point. And 'biased beliefs"? Nonsense. Has nothing to do with this. Is it really necessary to inject that sort of "you're fat and ugly too," type responses into these discussions?

We're not talking about some obscure deeply held belief, that can describe the internal workings of the mind, or life in the cosmos. We are only talking about providing simple definitions for simple terms(conception and perception). Without a clear understanding of these definitions, you can't be held accountable for the terms you use to explain anything. Imagine wading through 10 more responses worst than this one?

They are challenges to our normal assumptions about reality. So yes, they do require some deeper considerations. I've spent years doing just that, rather than being quick to dismiss them out of hand because they sound so "foreign" to may "normal" ways of thinking about things. It does require effort. No doubt about that.

So, if you are willing to stop obfuscating ambiguous superlatives, or being condescending and oversensitive, then YES. I am very confident of the knowledge I have, as it directly applies to anything that I say. I am not threatened by any comment you make, to the point that I would feel insulted. The true mark of intelligence, exists in its simplicity, not in its complexity.

Ah, but the simplicity is there. The complexity is only there because it takes assumptions of reality we have not examined, and breaks them apart for examination. It's only complex, because the mind has it's hooks into our views of reality and it becomes necessary to pry loose those fingers which are tightly gripping it, in order to go deeper into understanding with one's whole being.

It is complex to examine the mind and its habits. But once you realize all of that is an illusion, then all this becomes quite simple. The entire universe can be understood in a single drop of rain. It moves beyond intellectualizing all of this, into the simple state of being, which is the mystical realization.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

It's not clear at all, and it certainly is not what I meant. To simply say to someone you may not be aware of, be exposed to, have the necessary or prerequisite context to understand something, can be said of anyone perceived as not really grasping what is being spoken about, without it being an insult to their intelligence. Someone easily can say the same thing to me depending on what it is they are trying to explain to me that I am not "getting". That's just a common reality for any of us.

If I actually thought you had comprehension problems, as if your brain were somehow defective or incapable of understanding, I would not have been spending the amount of energy and time into communicating these things with you! I'd just go, "Oh, he's not very bright," and politely not waste my time or yours any further. I would have probably only posted one or two posts and moved on.

So please understand, I am not belittling your intelligence in saying you don't get something. I am saying that for a very simple reason. You aren't getting what I am saying. And the evidence of that is because in the vast majority of your responses to me you restate what you think I am saying, and it's not accurate at all. That means you aren't getting what I said. Not that you're not capable of it.

I believe you could be, but it require deconstructing these assumptions of reality that have been conditioned into our minds. But underlying that is the desire to move beyond those assumptions to investigate truth. Most people aren't comfortable doing that, as it does have the effect of shaking lose how we believe about things. Pretty much the same sort of thing like that shaking lose of our long-held beliefs and assumptions when we realize that the myths of the Bible aren't historical and scientific facts. It's the same thing being applied to the "rationalist" model of reality, as opposed to the "mythic" model of reality. Both are models of the mind.

What my posts are is to demonstrate how these are essentially doing both the same function, in the same ways, just with different sets of symbols. It's still the same thing.


You see, that's interesting to me. Your reaction to things he says is the same as to me! Are we both this ego-driven creature you imagine those who challenge your ideas of reality must be, because who else but someone with defects would think like us? I find his posts informative to me, as they fit into how I have of my own accord come to see these things. It's really one thing he and I, and numerous others on this site I could name have in common. Context. The context of experience. And oddly enough, we all come to see the same things.


The one thing we do all have in common is not ego-gratification. The exact opposite is the truth. We have ego-recognition. We see and understand what the human ego is and what it does, and out of a genuine desire for truth, release the ego. That is what meditation is for. Transcending the ego. Getting it out of the way. As it is the ego that is responsible for clouding reality. It is freedom from the voices of the ego that liberate us to see reality without that narcissistic lens colorizing everything.

From your perspective you seem to have to see it that way, because frankly that is the only context you have to look at it from. It's what it would be for you. It's a projection. And I do not mean that as an insult to you, but as a simple recognition of how our minds work.


What is relevant is when I do answer your question in good faith, and your response is something like I'm an egotist looking for groupies, that is relevant. That is saying you aren't actually interested in understanding my response. That is disappointing intellectually to me, to say the very least. Can you understand how you sound to me?

So the question I have of you is can you respond to me, and others, without the rhetorical, insulting insinuations that we are "egotists seeking groupies" and other undeserved and unbecoming nonsense in these discussions? That is my only criteria here. That you show me personal respect. If you fail once more in this, then you'll be written off permanently, and you will bear full responsibility for that.


It very much does. Yes. It details how the mind takes in information and process it. Do you have any basis to dispute otherwise? Can you share that? I'm always interested in other researchers points of view of these matters.


I think it is hard for us to think in terms like this because it goes against our habituated ways of thinking about things. No, it's not easy to see the eyes that are seeing. That's the point. And 'biased beliefs"? Nonsense. Has nothing to do with this. Is it really necessary to inject that sort of "you're fat and ugly too," type responses into these discussions?


They are challenges to our normal assumptions about reality. So yes, they do require some deeper considerations. I've spent years doing just that, rather than being quick to dismiss them out of hand because they sound so "foreign" to may "normal" ways of thinking about things. It does require effort. No doubt about that.

​

Ah, but the simplicity is there. The complexity is only there because it takes assumptions of reality we have not examined, and breaks them apart for examination. It's only complex, because the mind has it's hooks into our views of reality and it becomes necessary to pry loose those fingers which are tightly gripping it, in order to go deeper into understanding with one's whole being.

It is complex to examine the mind and its habits. But once you realize all of that is an illusion, then all this becomes quite simple. The entire universe can be understood in a single drop of rain. It moves beyond intellectualizing all of this, into the simple state of being, which is the mystical realization.

I am press for time now, so I will address the rest of your post later. But for now I have two issues. Firstly, please stop accusing me of insulting you personally, when I haven't. Please re-read my comments again, in the context that they were written in. Pay particular attention to the meaning of the word "IF". Secondly, please stop threatening to stop any further discourse if I don't behave. This is demeaning, and insulting. I will ask you two question, and then get back to the rest of your post. I asked my grandson these question, and he gave some pretty good answers. So you might have some very big shoes to fill.

If a child was born without any senses(hypothetically), what assumptions could the child make about his/her reality? Why?

 

[Windwalker]

If a child was born without any senses(hypothetically), what assumptions could the child make about his/her reality? Why?

The world would be oceanic for them. They would have no fixed ideas, nor assumptions of any sort. They would need some sort of framework in place first in order to formulate any assumptions, suppositions, suggestions, guesses, ideas, etc.

So what was his answer?