bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:42 pm
Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:54 am
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:02 pm
There is a whole. But it is sum of its parts.
And what has this got to do with your CLAIM about what 'emergence' IS, BUT there is NO emergence, and that you have an argument AGAINST emergence?
When something is the sum of its parts then it cannot be anything more. THerefore, there is no emergence.
There is ONLY "no emergence" here in regards to "being more".
BUT:
When some 'thing' is the sum of its parts, then it can and IS, in fact, still changing.
When ANY 'thing' is still changing, then it is emerging.
Therefore, there is emergence.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:42 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:02 pm
Yes. Unless you tell me what my arguments are about and find an error in it otherwise it is correct.
Which 'arguments'? AND, I have ALREADY told you the errors in some of your "arguments". You, however, were NOT at all open to ANY of them. Thus, you could completely MISSED them them.
The OP. Tell me what I am trying to say and why it is wrong.
In the opening post of this thread, from my perspective, and please correct me if I am WRONG, what you are trying to say is underlined:
"We can freely decide."
But although you make this claim and state it as though it is an absolute fact, you still go on and say:
"Let us assume that there is free will for the sake of discussion."
Now that you have people ASSUMING that there is 'free will', (for the sake of THIS discussion), you then just conclude and say:
"Our decision, therefore, is not caused by something else since otherwise, they are not free."
Besides within this sentence itself being 'circular logic/reasoning', this conclusion is 'circular' in relation to your first sentence, but YET you still go on to conclude and say:
Therefore, we are uncaused cause.
Besides there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, DIRECTLY, in the previous sentences/premises, which could LOGICALLY CONCLUDE what you have here, you still say:
"This is pretty simple."
If this is NOT what you are trying to say, then just CORRECT it and TELL us what you are ACTUALLY saying.
The first wrong is; you used the 'we' word but NEVER made it clear who and/or what this is in relation to EXACTLY.
The second wrong is; stating something as a premise, but then you appear to not even be sure if it is true, right, and correct "yourself", so you then beg those who do not agree that there is 'free will' to just start to ASSUME that there this, just for the sake of THIS discussion. Now WHY would ANY one who BELIEVES there is NO 'free will' just start to ASSUME there is 'free will'?
The third wrong is; If you can PROVE, irrefutably, that there REALLY is 'free will', then you have NOT YET done this.
The fourth wrong is; 'circular reasoning'. Your conclusion just says the same as your first premise, and to make it worse, in between the premise and conclusion you ask "others" to just ASSUME that there is 'free will', which, AGAIN, is what the first premise and the conclusion is saying and stating is absolutely true anyway. The 'circularity' of what you write here is 'hilarity' to the beholder.
This is what you are trying to say (and again correct me if I am WRONG absolutely ANYWHERE here):
'We' can freely decide.
Absolutely NOTHING influences 'our' decision
Therefore, our decision are not caused by something else.
The fifth wrong is; if when 'you' used the 'we' word here you were referring to 'human beings', themselves, then just because they MIGHT be able to 'freely decide', on some 'things', this is NO way means that EVERY decision made by EVERY human being is not caused by some 'thing' else.
The sixth wrong is; JUMPING to the conclusion that 'you', human beings, are an "uncaused cause", just because 'you', human beings, MIGHT be able to make some decisions, which were not caused by some thing else, is ANOTHER result of faulty thinking and faulty reasoning here. The fact that EVERY human being was CAUSED, automatically SHOWS and PROVES that they are NOT a, so called, "uncaused cause".
The seventh wrong is; REALLY very simple in fact. What you say is "pretty simple", REALLY is VERY 'pretty simple'. That is; you say and state:
'We' can freely decide.
Therefore, NOTHING influences 'our' decisions.
And therefore means, 'we' are an uncaused cause.
Just HOW 'simple', AND FAULTY, this, so called, "logic" and "reasoning" IS, speaks for itself.
Now if you still can NOT see the WRONG and the ERRORS in what you say, in what I have just POINTED OUT and SHOWN here now, then so be it.
But this is WHERE and WHY 'you' are WRONG in what you say.
And, as I have ALREADY STATED, if this is NOT what you are saying, then what are you SAYING?
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:42 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:02 pm
Why it is ridiculous?
For the EXACT SAME reason as I SHOWED last time. That is; because it is a COMPLETE CONTRADICTION, literally, of itself, let alone a COMPLETE CONTRADICTION of what you have said previously.
You didn't say anything except that this is absurd, contradictory,...
I TOLD you PREVIOUSLY.
But just like EVERY other time I POINT OUT the ERRORS and WRONGS in your writings you, somehow magically, ALWAYS MISS them.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:42 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:02 pm
You are not saying anything or adding anything positive which is useful for the discussion.
But I could NEVER say ANY thing to 'you', which would be useful or positive, for 'this' discussion, UNLESS I just said, " 'you' are right ". SEE, to 'you', because you ALREADY BELIEVE that 'your', so called, "arguments" are ALREADY irrefutably true, right, AND correct, then, to 'you', there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that ANY one could say, for this discussion, that would be 'useful' and/or 'positive' UNLESS, of course, it is in TOTAL AGREEMENT with what you say here and ALREADY BELIEVE is true.
By the way, I have said 'that', which is VERY USEFUL and EXTREMELY POSITIVE for this discussion. You, however, and unfortunately, have been completely UNABLE to SEE and RECOGNIZE this FACT.
I have ALREADY EXPLAINED the 'ERRORS of your way', as some say, AND I have ALSO hinted about HOW you could say/word, what you are 'trying to' say and word here, so that what you have concluded is ACTUALLY and FINALLY irrefutably True.
But, as I said earlier, I am NOT here to do 'your work' for 'you'.
I will again now suggest that BEFORE you make ANY claim at all, that you have the EVIDENCE and PROOF, which backs up and supports your claims, FIRST. That way your claim could NEVER be WRONG, like your CLAIM here is now.
See, what you have concluded here ALREADY is thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', but the way in which you are going about in 'trying to' say and explain this, is just PLAIN WRONG, ABSURD, and RIDICULOUS. That NOT one poster in this thread agrees with you SHOWS and REVEALS the overwhelming EVIDENCE and SUPPORT that the way that you are "arguing", for what you are 'trying to' CLAIM here, is just PLAIN ABSURD and RIDICULOUS.
Now, if you are NOT going to LISTEN to what I have said in regards to YOUR ERRORS, then do NOT expect me to INFORM you of when I see and think you ACTUALLY Right in what you say, NOR expect me to INFORM you of how you could word what you 'trying to' CLAIM here in a much more valid AND sound way.
Again.
Yes, AGAIN.