Mind is uncaused cause

[bahman]

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.

What you experience is the properties of parts.

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:

I wanted to say that I have an argument that we are free but let's assume it for the sake of discussion.

"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:

Again that is a definition.

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 evidently follows from the previous definition.

"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?

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.

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.

You see, it was simple.

[Age]

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.

What you experience is the properties of parts.

So what?

I experience the properties of parts at the EXACT SAME time I experience the property of wholeness.

What I, however, care to take notice of, and thus be aware of, is another matter.

Now, besides this FACT, what has what you said here in reply got to do with what I said, and which you quoted?

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:

I wanted to say that I have an argument that we are free but let's assume it for the sake of discussion.

You here asked me to TELL YOU what you are trying to say and WHY 'it' is wrong.

SO, I do what you tell me to do, but then you, ONCE AGAIN, go completely OFF TOPIC and say what you said here.

So what that you wanted to say something but actually said another?

If you want to argue/logically reason some thing out, then just asking/telling people to ASSUME 'that' what 'it' is that you arguing for is ABSURD, UNREASONABLE, and just pure ILLOGICAL. So, WHY what you said is WRONG here is because you ask/tell people to just ASSUME what 'it' is that you want to argue for anyway.

This is just PLAIN RIDICULOUS and PLAINLY WRONG in ANY circumstance but even MORE RIDICULOUS and MORE WRONG in a 'philosophy forum.

Now I have TOLD YOU WHY what you are saying is WRONG. Are you going to OVERLOOK or MISS this as well?

YOUR response/non response will PROVIDE thee True ANSWER.

"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:

Again that is a definition.

That is NOT 'a definition'.

If you want to SEE EXAMPLES, and VERY GOOD EXAMPLES at that, of 'definitions', then I suggest that you take a LOOK in a dictionary.

And, if you want to INSIST that what you wrote IS A DEFINITION, then, as EXPLAINED TO YOU, that is VERY CIRCULAR and NOT a SUFFICIENT DEFINITION at all.

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 evidently follows from the previous definition.

So, you here STILL want to INSIST that:

EVERY decision made by EVERY human being was NOT caused/influenced by some 'thing' PRIOR, and therefore it would logically follow that 'we', human beings, ARE UNCAUSED.

Is this correct?

If this is correct, then there IS SO MUCH WRONG HERE.

[Age]

"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?

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.

Again.

Yes, AGAIN.

You see, it was simple.

I said to you VERY CLEARLY:
If this is NOT what you are trying to say, then just CORRECT it and TELL us what you are ACTUALLY saying.

So do you OPENLY ADMIT that what I wrote above about what you were saying IS CORRECT?

If no, then WHY did you NOT ALREADY CORRECT 'it'?

But if yes, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN is WHY what you have written here is SO VERY WRONG.

And yes, it REALLY is just this SIMPLE.

[bahman]

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.

What you experience is the properties of parts.

So what?

I experience the properties of parts at the EXACT SAME time I experience the property of wholeness.

What I, however, care to take notice of, and thus be aware of, is another matter.

Now, besides this FACT, what has what you said here in reply got to do with what I said, and which you quoted?

The properties of the whole are the properties of parts. You don't have anything extra. You have to show that where the extra thing that you are believing that exists in the whole that parts don't have come from.

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:

I wanted to say that I have an argument that we are free but let's assume it for the sake of discussion.

You here asked me to TELL YOU what you are trying to say and WHY 'it' is wrong.

SO, I do what you tell me to do, but then you, ONCE AGAIN, go completely OFF TOPIC and say what you said here.

So what that you wanted to say something but actually said another?

If you want to argue/logically reason some thing out, then just asking/telling people to ASSUME 'that' what 'it' is that you arguing for is ABSURD, UNREASONABLE, and just pure ILLOGICAL. So, WHY what you said is WRONG here is because you ask/tell people to just ASSUME what 'it' is that you want to argue for anyway.

This is just PLAIN RIDICULOUS and PLAINLY WRONG in ANY circumstance but even MORE RIDICULOUS and MORE WRONG in a 'philosophy forum.

Now I have TOLD YOU WHY what you are saying is WRONG. Are you going to OVERLOOK or MISS this as well?

YOUR response/non response will PROVIDE thee True ANSWER.

I said what should I said.

"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:

Again that is a definition.

That is NOT 'a definition'.

If you want to SEE EXAMPLES, and VERY GOOD EXAMPLES at that, of 'definitions', then I suggest that you take a LOOK in a dictionary.

And, if you want to INSIST that what you wrote IS A DEFINITION, then, as EXPLAINED TO YOU, that is VERY CIRCULAR and NOT a SUFFICIENT DEFINITION at all.

Let me be plain and simple. Is your decision free if it is affected by something else? If yes, then what you think is that a free decision is not free decision. If no, it is uncaused cause.

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 evidently follows from the previous definition.

So, you here STILL want to INSIST that:

EVERY decision made by EVERY human being was NOT caused/influenced by some 'thing' PRIOR, and therefore it would logically follow that 'we', human beings, ARE UNCAUSED.

Is this correct?

If this is correct, then there IS SO MUCH WRONG HERE.

Again what I said simply follows from the definition of free will and uncaused cause.

[bahman]

"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?



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.



Yes, AGAIN.

You see, it was simple.

I said to you VERY CLEARLY:
If this is NOT what you are trying to say, then just CORRECT it and TELL us what you are ACTUALLY saying.

So do you OPENLY ADMIT that what I wrote above about what you were saying IS CORRECT?

If no, then WHY did you NOT ALREADY CORRECT 'it'?

But if yes, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN is WHY what you have written here is SO VERY WRONG.

And yes, it REALLY is just this SIMPLE.

I didn't correct anything. What I said is correct. I said more for sake of clarity.

[Age]

What you experience is the properties of parts.

So what?

I experience the properties of parts at the EXACT SAME time I experience the property of wholeness.

What I, however, care to take notice of, and thus be aware of, is another matter.

Now, besides this FACT, what has what you said here in reply got to do with what I said, and which you quoted?

The properties of the whole are the properties of parts.

Yes I KNOW. But, SO WHAT?

ALSO, you ONCE AGAIN REFUSED to answer my question posed to you.

You don't have anything extra. You have to show that where the extra thing that you are believing that exists in the whole that parts don't have come from.

YOUR responses SHOW that 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NO conception, let alone ANY understanding, AT ALL of what I am ACTUALLY saying AND meaning.

In fact YOUR RESPONSES appear to be on the brink of PURE INSANITY.

Absolutely EVERY thing you said here, in response to me, has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I actually said.

OR, YOUR RESPONSES are just TRYING TO DEFLECT.

I wanted to say that I have an argument that we are free but let's assume it for the sake of discussion.

You here asked me to TELL YOU what you are trying to say and WHY 'it' is wrong.

SO, I do what you tell me to do, but then you, ONCE AGAIN, go completely OFF TOPIC and say what you said here.

So what that you wanted to say something but actually said another?

If you want to argue/logically reason some thing out, then just asking/telling people to ASSUME 'that' what 'it' is that you arguing for is ABSURD, UNREASONABLE, and just pure ILLOGICAL. So, WHY what you said is WRONG here is because you ask/tell people to just ASSUME what 'it' is that you want to argue for anyway.

This is just PLAIN RIDICULOUS and PLAINLY WRONG in ANY circumstance but even MORE RIDICULOUS and MORE WRONG in a 'philosophy forum.

Now I have TOLD YOU WHY what you are saying is WRONG. Are you going to OVERLOOK or MISS this as well?

YOUR response/non response will PROVIDE thee True ANSWER.

I said what should I said.

Even this response of YOURS is incomprehensible.

What do you think I am saying, and what part exactly are you replying to?

Again that is a definition.

That is NOT 'a definition'.

If you want to SEE EXAMPLES, and VERY GOOD EXAMPLES at that, of 'definitions', then I suggest that you take a LOOK in a dictionary.

And, if you want to INSIST that what you wrote IS A DEFINITION, then, as EXPLAINED TO YOU, that is VERY CIRCULAR and NOT a SUFFICIENT DEFINITION at all.

Let me be plain and simple. Is your decision free if it is affected by something else? If yes, then what you think is that a free decision is not free decision. If no, it is uncaused cause.[/quote]

Are you FIRST, able to write in comprehensible sentences so that I do NOT 'have to' ASSUME what 'it' is that you are 'trying to' say and claim here?

If yes, then will you?

Now, if 'you' asking 'me' here, if my decision is 'free' if it is 'affected' by something else?, then this is just an absurd AND ridiculous question, in and of itself.

Is it possible, to you, for ANY thing to be 'free' if it is 'affected' by something else?

If the answer is no, then this would OBVIOUSLY apply to your question, to me, here also.

But, ONCE AGAIN, this has absolutely NO bearing on whether one is 'free' or not. You just BELIEVE one is 'free' and that is all that you need here. This can be CLEARLY SEEN in your third sentence and CLAIM. Which by the way does NOT make ANY sense AT ALL.

The rest of what you wrote, in relation to the question you posed here, is just to hard to decipher, without ASSUMING more than I like to.

By the way YOUR 'attempt' at being plain and simple is MORE confusing and complex instead.

This evidently follows from the previous definition.

So, you here STILL want to INSIST that:

EVERY decision made by EVERY human being was NOT caused/influenced by some 'thing' PRIOR, and therefore it would logically follow that 'we', human beings, ARE UNCAUSED.

Is this correct?

If this is correct, then there IS SO MUCH WRONG HERE.

Again what I said simply follows from the definition of free will and uncaused cause.

What, actually, IS the definition of 'free will' and 'uncaused cause', to you?

[Age]

You see, it was simple.

I said to you VERY CLEARLY:
If this is NOT what you are trying to say, then just CORRECT it and TELL us what you are ACTUALLY saying.

So do you OPENLY ADMIT that what I wrote above about what you were saying IS CORRECT?

If no, then WHY did you NOT ALREADY CORRECT 'it'?

But if yes, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN is WHY what you have written here is SO VERY WRONG.

And yes, it REALLY is just this SIMPLE.

I didn't correct anything. What I said is correct. I said more for sake of clarity.

You only True 'thing' you are CLARIFYING here is just how BLINDED you ARE by, and to, YOUR OWN BELIEFS.

[bahman]

So what?

I experience the properties of parts at the EXACT SAME time I experience the property of wholeness.

What I, however, care to take notice of, and thus be aware of, is another matter.

Now, besides this FACT, what has what you said here in reply got to do with what I said, and which you quoted?

The properties of the whole are the properties of parts.

Yes I KNOW. But, SO WHAT?

ALSO, you ONCE AGAIN REFUSED to answer my question posed to you.

You don't have anything extra. You have to show that where the extra thing that you are believing that exists in the whole that parts don't have come from.

YOUR responses SHOW that 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NO conception, let alone ANY understanding, AT ALL of what I am ACTUALLY saying AND meaning.

In fact YOUR RESPONSES appear to be on the brink of PURE INSANITY.

Absolutely EVERY thing you said here, in response to me, has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I actually said.

OR, YOUR RESPONSES are just TRYING TO DEFLECT.

You here asked me to TELL YOU what you are trying to say and WHY 'it' is wrong.

SO, I do what you tell me to do, but then you, ONCE AGAIN, go completely OFF TOPIC and say what you said here.

So what that you wanted to say something but actually said another?

If you want to argue/logically reason some thing out, then just asking/telling people to ASSUME 'that' what 'it' is that you arguing for is ABSURD, UNREASONABLE, and just pure ILLOGICAL. So, WHY what you said is WRONG here is because you ask/tell people to just ASSUME what 'it' is that you want to argue for anyway.

This is just PLAIN RIDICULOUS and PLAINLY WRONG in ANY circumstance but even MORE RIDICULOUS and MORE WRONG in a 'philosophy forum.

Now I have TOLD YOU WHY what you are saying is WRONG. Are you going to OVERLOOK or MISS this as well?

YOUR response/non response will PROVIDE thee True ANSWER.

I said what should I said.

Even this response of YOURS is incomprehensible.

What do you think I am saying, and what part exactly are you replying to?

Again that is a definition.

That is NOT 'a definition'.

If you want to SEE EXAMPLES, and VERY GOOD EXAMPLES at that, of 'definitions', then I suggest that you take a LOOK in a dictionary.

And, if you want to INSIST that what you wrote IS A DEFINITION, then, as EXPLAINED TO YOU, that is VERY CIRCULAR and NOT a SUFFICIENT DEFINITION at all.

Let me be plain and simple. Is your decision free if it is affected by something else? If yes, then what you think is that a free decision is not free decision. If no, it is uncaused cause.

Are you FIRST, able to write in comprehensible sentences so that I do NOT 'have to' ASSUME what 'it' is that you are 'trying to' say and claim here?

If yes, then will you?

Now, if 'you' asking 'me' here, if my decision is 'free' if it is 'affected' by something else?, then this is just an absurd AND ridiculous question, in and of itself.

Is it possible, to you, for ANY thing to be 'free' if it is 'affected' by something else?

If the answer is no, then this would OBVIOUSLY apply to your question, to me, here also.

But, ONCE AGAIN, this has absolutely NO bearing on whether one is 'free' or not. You just BELIEVE one is 'free' and that is all that you need here. This can be CLEARLY SEEN in your third sentence and CLAIM. Which by the way does NOT make ANY sense AT ALL.

The rest of what you wrote, in relation to the question you posed here, is just to hard to decipher, without ASSUMING more than I like to.

By the way YOUR 'attempt' at being plain and simple is MORE confusing and complex instead.

So, you here STILL want to INSIST that:

EVERY decision made by EVERY human being was NOT caused/influenced by some 'thing' PRIOR, and therefore it would logically follow that 'we', human beings, ARE UNCAUSED.

Is this correct?

If this is correct, then there IS SO MUCH WRONG HERE.

Again what I said simply follows from the definition of free will and uncaused cause.

What, actually, IS the definition of 'free will' and 'uncaused cause', to you?

Let me be plain and simple. Is your decision free if it is affected by something else? If yes, then what you think is that a free decision is not a free decision. If no, it is uncaused cause.

Moreover, if the properties of the whole are a function of properties of parts then there is no emergence.

[Age]

The properties of the whole are the properties of parts.

Yes I KNOW. But, SO WHAT?

ALSO, you ONCE AGAIN REFUSED to answer my question posed to you.

You don't have anything extra. You have to show that where the extra thing that you are believing that exists in the whole that parts don't have come from.

YOUR responses SHOW that 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NO conception, let alone ANY understanding, AT ALL of what I am ACTUALLY saying AND meaning.

In fact YOUR RESPONSES appear to be on the brink of PURE INSANITY.

Absolutely EVERY thing you said here, in response to me, has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I actually said.

OR, YOUR RESPONSES are just TRYING TO DEFLECT.

I said what should I said.

Even this response of YOURS is incomprehensible.

What do you think I am saying, and what part exactly are you replying to?

That is NOT 'a definition'.

If you want to SEE EXAMPLES, and VERY GOOD EXAMPLES at that, of 'definitions', then I suggest that you take a LOOK in a dictionary.

And, if you want to INSIST that what you wrote IS A DEFINITION, then, as EXPLAINED TO YOU, that is VERY CIRCULAR and NOT a SUFFICIENT DEFINITION at all.

Let me be plain and simple. Is your decision free if it is affected by something else? If yes, then what you think is that a free decision is not free decision. If no, it is uncaused cause.

Are you FIRST, able to write in comprehensible sentences so that I do NOT 'have to' ASSUME what 'it' is that you are 'trying to' say and claim here?

If yes, then will you?

Now, if 'you' asking 'me' here, if my decision is 'free' if it is 'affected' by something else?, then this is just an absurd AND ridiculous question, in and of itself.

Is it possible, to you, for ANY thing to be 'free' if it is 'affected' by something else?

If the answer is no, then this would OBVIOUSLY apply to your question, to me, here also.

But, ONCE AGAIN, this has absolutely NO bearing on whether one is 'free' or not. You just BELIEVE one is 'free' and that is all that you need here. This can be CLEARLY SEEN in your third sentence and CLAIM. Which by the way does NOT make ANY sense AT ALL.

The rest of what you wrote, in relation to the question you posed here, is just to hard to decipher, without ASSUMING more than I like to.

By the way YOUR 'attempt' at being plain and simple is MORE confusing and complex instead.

Again what I said simply follows from the definition of free will and uncaused cause.

What, actually, IS the definition of 'free will' and 'uncaused cause', to you?

Let me be plain and simple. Is your decision free if it is affected by something else? If yes, then what you think is that a free decision is not a free decision. If no, it is uncaused cause.

WHY do you think you can NOT SEE past that thinking within that head?

How could it even be POSSIBLE to make a free decision if it is affected by something else?

AND, if and when YOUR decisions are NOT 'free' because they are affected by something else, then HOW do you then conclude from this that "mind" is uncaused cause?

Moreover, if the properties of the whole are a function of properties of parts then there is no emergence.

But 'emergence', contrary to what 'you' BELIEVE is true, can mean CHANGE.
The whole CAN CHANGE.
Therefore, there IS emergence.

[bahman]

Yes I KNOW. But, SO WHAT?

ALSO, you ONCE AGAIN REFUSED to answer my question posed to you.



YOUR responses SHOW that 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NO conception, let alone ANY understanding, AT ALL of what I am ACTUALLY saying AND meaning.

In fact YOUR RESPONSES appear to be on the brink of PURE INSANITY.

Absolutely EVERY thing you said here, in response to me, has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I actually said.

OR, YOUR RESPONSES are just TRYING TO DEFLECT.



Even this response of YOURS is incomprehensible.

What do you think I am saying, and what part exactly are you replying to?



Are you FIRST, able to write in comprehensible sentences so that I do NOT 'have to' ASSUME what 'it' is that you are 'trying to' say and claim here?

If yes, then will you?

Now, if 'you' asking 'me' here, if my decision is 'free' if it is 'affected' by something else?, then this is just an absurd AND ridiculous question, in and of itself.

Is it possible, to you, for ANY thing to be 'free' if it is 'affected' by something else?

If the answer is no, then this would OBVIOUSLY apply to your question, to me, here also.

But, ONCE AGAIN, this has absolutely NO bearing on whether one is 'free' or not. You just BELIEVE one is 'free' and that is all that you need here. This can be CLEARLY SEEN in your third sentence and CLAIM. Which by the way does NOT make ANY sense AT ALL.

The rest of what you wrote, in relation to the question you posed here, is just to hard to decipher, without ASSUMING more than I like to.

By the way YOUR 'attempt' at being plain and simple is MORE confusing and complex instead.



What, actually, IS the definition of 'free will' and 'uncaused cause', to you?

Let me be plain and simple. Is your decision free if it is affected by something else? If yes, then what you think is that a free decision is not a free decision. If no, it is uncaused cause.

WHY do you think you can NOT SEE past that thinking within that head?

How could it even be POSSIBLE to make a free decision if it is affected by something else?

AND, if and when YOUR decisions are NOT 'free' because they are affected by something else, then HOW do you then conclude from this that "mind" is uncaused cause?

A decision is uncaused cause when it is free. The mind causes the decision. A mind that is caused cannot cause uncaused cause since it is very existence is due to something else, at the same time the causation of the decision is due to mind's existence.

Moreover, if the properties of the whole are a function of properties of parts then there is no emergence.

But 'emergence', contrary to what 'you' BELIEVE is true, can mean CHANGE.
The whole CAN CHANGE.
Therefore, there IS emergence.

The whole change because the part change.

[Age]

Let me be plain and simple. Is your decision free if it is affected by something else? If yes, then what you think is that a free decision is not a free decision. If no, it is uncaused cause.

WHY do you think you can NOT SEE past that thinking within that head?

How could it even be POSSIBLE to make a free decision if it is affected by something else?

AND, if and when YOUR decisions are NOT 'free' because they are affected by something else, then HOW do you then conclude from this that "mind" is uncaused cause?

A decision is uncaused cause when it is free.

Except for the PLAIN and SIMPLE FACT that the human being making the decision WAS CAUSED PRIOR to the CAUSING of the decision itself.

Therefore, the decision, itself, was CAUSED.

LOOK, I have said this to you previously, what you are 'trying to' say and argue can be, and in fact ALREADY HAS BEEN, put into words that are IRREFUTABLY True, and as such can NOT be refuted by ANY one EVER AGAIN.

But please continue on the way you are, 'you' are PROVIDING MORE PROOF for 'me' EVERY time you talk now it appears.

The mind causes the decision.

What 'mind'?

And, if there are different 'minds' in different human bodies, then OBVIOUSLY those 'minds' WERE CAUSED and CREATED AFTER the human body came into Existence, Itself.

A mind that is caused cannot cause uncaused cause since it is very existence is due to something else, at the same time the causation of the decision is due to mind's existence.

YOUR circular, so called, "reasoning/logic" is entertaining to WATCH and OBSERVE. So, please continue.

Also, this 'mind's' existence came about from WHERE or WHAT, EXACTLY?

And, please do NOT forget that if you are going to persist with the ABSURD and RIDICULOUS 'notion' that, "we are minds" or that there are different "minds", which are related to different people, then UNLESS people are an "uncaused cause", then 'you' are REFUTING "your" OWN 'self' here without me even having to say or do absolutely ANY thing AT ALL.

Moreover, if the properties of the whole are a function of properties of parts then there is no emergence.

But 'emergence', contrary to what 'you' BELIEVE is true, can mean CHANGE.
The whole CAN CHANGE.
Therefore, there IS emergence.

The whole change because the part change.

OF COURSE. And, SO WHAT?

Either you are just 'trying to' DEFLECT, and so NOT have to acknowledge that that CHANGE is 'emergence', itself, or you are 'trying to' DEFLECT for some other reason.

[bahman]

WHY do you think you can NOT SEE past that thinking within that head?

How could it even be POSSIBLE to make a free decision if it is affected by something else?

AND, if and when YOUR decisions are NOT 'free' because they are affected by something else, then HOW do you then conclude from this that "mind" is uncaused cause?

A decision is uncaused cause when it is free.

Except for the PLAIN and SIMPLE FACT that the human being making the decision WAS CAUSED PRIOR to the CAUSING of the decision itself.

Therefore, the decision, itself, was CAUSED.

LOOK, I have said this to you previously, what you are 'trying to' say and argue can be, and in fact ALREADY HAS BEEN, put into words that are IRREFUTABLY True, and as such can NOT be refuted by ANY one EVER AGAIN.

But please continue on the way you are, 'you' are PROVIDING MORE PROOF for 'me' EVERY time you talk now it appears.

Yes, the decision is caused by the mind. I should have said that the decision is unconditionalled when it is free.

The mind causes the decision.

What 'mind'?

And, if there are different 'minds' in different human bodies, then OBVIOUSLY those 'minds' WERE CAUSED and CREATED AFTER the human body came into Existence, Itself.

The mind that controls the body. The mind doesn't come from the body. There is no emergence. Unless you say that the matter is alive.

A mind that is caused cannot cause uncaused cause since it is very existence is due to something else, at the same time the causation of the decision is due to mind's existence.

YOUR circular, so called, "reasoning/logic" is entertaining to WATCH and OBSERVE. So, please continue.

Also, this 'mind's' existence came about from WHERE or WHAT, EXACTLY?

And, please do NOT forget that if you are going to persist with the ABSURD and RIDICULOUS 'notion' that, "we are minds" or that there are different "minds", which are related to different people, then UNLESS people are an "uncaused cause", then 'you' are REFUTING "your" OWN 'self' here without me even having to say or do absolutely ANY thing AT ALL.

My reasoning is not circular, I am saying that your mind is unconditioned, is not free otherwise. It has the ability to cause many things including the decision. It is obvious that it exists otherwise it could not cause and decide. Such a thing which exists is not conditioned therefore its existence cannot be possibly due to something else. Therefore it is uncaused.

But 'emergence', contrary to what 'you' BELIEVE is true, can mean CHANGE.
The whole CAN CHANGE.
Therefore, there IS emergence.

The whole change because the part change.

OF COURSE. And, SO WHAT?

Either you are just 'trying to' DEFLECT, and so NOT have to acknowledge that that CHANGE is 'emergence', itself, or you are 'trying to' DEFLECT for some other reason.

Therefore, what exist is due to the motion of parts. The behavior of the whole is then a function of property of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.

[Age]

A decision is uncaused cause when it is free.

Except for the PLAIN and SIMPLE FACT that the human being making the decision WAS CAUSED PRIOR to the CAUSING of the decision itself.

Therefore, the decision, itself, was CAUSED.

LOOK, I have said this to you previously, what you are 'trying to' say and argue can be, and in fact ALREADY HAS BEEN, put into words that are IRREFUTABLY True, and as such can NOT be refuted by ANY one EVER AGAIN.

But please continue on the way you are, 'you' are PROVIDING MORE PROOF for 'me' EVERY time you talk now it appears.

Yes, the decision is caused by the mind. I should have said that the decision is unconditionalled when it is free.

The mind causes the decision.

What 'mind'?

And, if there are different 'minds' in different human bodies, then OBVIOUSLY those 'minds' WERE CAUSED and CREATED AFTER the human body came into Existence, Itself.

The mind that controls the body.

LOOK, if you NEVER answer the actual CLARIFYING questions posed to you, by 'me' and by "others", then 'you' are just REVEALING how little you REALLY do KNOW.

As I have said to you previously what you are 'trying to' say here can be expressed in a completely agreeable, acceptable, and irrefutable way. But if you do not want to budge from thinking and speaking the way you are, then please carry on. You are only PROVING my claims anyway.

Now:

If there is 'mind' that controls bodies, then;
What bodies does 'it' control?
How many of these 'minds' are there? And,
Did this 'mind' or these 'minds' exist before say a human body comes into Existence?

The mind doesn't come from the body.

Okay. Where does the 'mind' come from, EXACTLY?

There is no emergence. Unless you say that the matter is alive.

But, If I say, "that the matter is alive", then you will STILL NOT believe that there is emergence, correct?

By the way, I say, 'matter is alive', anyway. But, as I continually say, I do LOOK AT and SEE 'things' VERY DIFFERENTLY from 'you', adult human beings.

A mind that is caused cannot cause uncaused cause since it is very existence is due to something else, at the same time the causation of the decision is due to mind's existence.

YOUR circular, so called, "reasoning/logic" is entertaining to WATCH and OBSERVE. So, please continue.

Also, this 'mind's' existence came about from WHERE or WHAT, EXACTLY?

And, please do NOT forget that if you are going to persist with the ABSURD and RIDICULOUS 'notion' that, "we are minds" or that there are different "minds", which are related to different people, then UNLESS people are an "uncaused cause", then 'you' are REFUTING "your" OWN 'self' here without me even having to say or do absolutely ANY thing AT ALL.

My reasoning is not circular, I am saying that your mind is unconditioned, is not free otherwise.

LOL

The word 'your' implies ownership.
Therefore, if and when you say, "your mind is unconditioned", then it is OBVIOUSLY 'conditioned' on 'me'.

The saying, "your mind", in relation to the mind being uncaused, is CIRCULAR reasoning at the ABSURD and RIDICULOUS level.

And, saying ANY 'thing' like, "some 'thing' is unconditioned, it is not free otherwise", does NOT, and I will repeat DOES NOT, prove that 'that' is unconditioned. The last part of your sentence here is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY and just a way people FOOLS "themselves" into BELIEVING something is true.

It is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of circular reasoning, by the way.

It has the ability to cause many things including the decision.

LOL

SO, 'you' do NOT 'decide' and it is "your" "mind" that decides, correct?

If this is correct, then WHY can you NOT control "your mind"? If it is "your mind", then surely you have control over what you own, right?

But, if it is NOT "your mind" that decides and it is actually 'you', then this CONFLICTS and CONTRADICTS with what you have said and CLAIMED here.

Therefore, you 'have to' ACCEPT that either what you have said here is SELF-CONTRADICTORY and just PLAIN WRONG or that 'you' have absolutely NO control over the decisions made within that head.

So, which one is it?

It is obvious that it exists otherwise it could not cause and decide.

Besides being ABSOLUTE circular reasoning, AGAIN, this is ALSO faulty reasoning in that it does NOT logically follow NOR back up and support what 'it' is that you are SO DESPERATELY 'trying to' CLAIM here.

Such a thing which exists is not conditioned therefore its existence cannot be possibly due to something else. Therefore it is uncaused.

LOL

Like I said previously, the MORE you write the MORE circular, absurd, and ridiculous 'you' become and get. But this is NOT because of 'you' correct, as this is "your mind" to blame, right? It is "your mind", which is making the DECISION here to use these words, correct?

The whole change because the part change.

OF COURSE. And, SO WHAT?

Either you are just 'trying to' DEFLECT, and so NOT have to acknowledge that that CHANGE is 'emergence', itself, or you are 'trying to' DEFLECT for some other reason.

Therefore, what exist is due to the motion of parts.

OF COURSE, but SO WHAT?

The behavior of the whole is then a function of property of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.

LOL

So, if property of parts change, then the whole is CHANGING.

Therefore, the whole is EMERGING.

So, you just DEFEATED your OWN CLAIM here.

But you can NOT SEE this, correct?

[bahman]

Except for the PLAIN and SIMPLE FACT that the human being making the decision WAS CAUSED PRIOR to the CAUSING of the decision itself.

Therefore, the decision, itself, was CAUSED.

LOOK, I have said this to you previously, what you are 'trying to' say and argue can be, and in fact ALREADY HAS BEEN, put into words that are IRREFUTABLY True, and as such can NOT be refuted by ANY one EVER AGAIN.

But please continue on the way you are, 'you' are PROVIDING MORE PROOF for 'me' EVERY time you talk now it appears.

Yes, the decision is caused by the mind. I should have said that the decision is unconditionalled when it is free.

What 'mind'?

And, if there are different 'minds' in different human bodies, then OBVIOUSLY those 'minds' WERE CAUSED and CREATED AFTER the human body came into Existence, Itself.

The mind that controls the body.

LOOK, if you NEVER answer the actual CLARIFYING questions posed to you, by 'me' and by "others", then 'you' are just REVEALING how little you REALLY do KNOW.

As I have said to you previously what you are 'trying to' say here can be expressed in a completely agreeable, acceptable, and irrefutable way. But if you do not want to budge from thinking and speaking the way you are, then please carry on. You are only PROVING my claims anyway.

Now:

If there is 'mind' that controls bodies, then;
What bodies does 'it' control?

This questing does not make sense to me.

How many of these 'minds' are there?

Many.

And,
Did this 'mind' or these 'minds' exist before say a human body comes into Existence?

The mind is not due to the form of matter like the human form therefore it existed before humanity and will exist after humanity.

The mind doesn't come from the body.

Okay. Where does the 'mind' come from, EXACTLY?

Mind doesn't come from anything. It simply exists.

There is no emergence. Unless you say that the matter is alive.

But, If I say, "that the matter is alive", then you will STILL NOT believe that there is emergence, correct?

Sorry. I should have said that "Unless you say that the matter is alive so human can be alive. Again there is no emergence. In here I mean that matter is alive and as matter of fact human for example alive. Life cannot just pop out of something which doesn't have life. By life, I mean the ability to experience and cause.

By the way, I say, 'matter is alive', anyway. But, as I continually say, I do LOOK AT and SEE 'things' VERY DIFFERENTLY from 'you', adult human beings.

How do you see it?

YOUR circular, so called, "reasoning/logic" is entertaining to WATCH and OBSERVE. So, please continue.

Also, this 'mind's' existence came about from WHERE or WHAT, EXACTLY?

And, please do NOT forget that if you are going to persist with the ABSURD and RIDICULOUS 'notion' that, "we are minds" or that there are different "minds", which are related to different people, then UNLESS people are an "uncaused cause", then 'you' are REFUTING "your" OWN 'self' here without me even having to say or do absolutely ANY thing AT ALL.

My reasoning is not circular, I am saying that your mind is unconditioned, is not free otherwise.

LOL

The word 'your' implies ownership.
Therefore, if and when you say, "your mind is unconditioned", then it is OBVIOUSLY 'conditioned' on 'me'.

The saying, "your mind", in relation to the mind being uncaused, is CIRCULAR reasoning at the ABSURD and RIDICULOUS level.

And, saying ANY 'thing' like, "some 'thing' is unconditioned, it is not free otherwise", does NOT, and I will repeat DOES NOT, prove that 'that' is unconditioned. The last part of your sentence here is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY and just a way people FOOLS "themselves" into BELIEVING something is true.

It is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of circular reasoning, by the way.

Do you know what conditioned mean?

It has the ability to cause many things including the decision.

LOL

SO, 'you' do NOT 'decide' and it is "your" "mind" that decides, correct?

I am mind and body. The mind decides, the body does.

If this is correct, then WHY can you NOT control "your mind"? If it is "your mind", then surely you have control over what you own, right?

There are Spiritual Beings who have control over my mind and body.

But, if it is NOT "your mind" that decides and it is actually 'you', then this CONFLICTS and CONTRADICTS with what you have said and CLAIMED here.

What is "you"?

Therefore, you 'have to' ACCEPT that either what you have said here is SELF-CONTRADICTORY and just PLAIN WRONG or that 'you' have absolutely NO control over the decisions made within that head.

I am right of course.

So, which one is it?

I already elaborated.

It is obvious that it exists otherwise it could not cause and decide.

Besides being ABSOLUTE circular reasoning, AGAIN, this is ALSO faulty reasoning in that it does NOT logically follow NOR back up and support what 'it' is that you are SO DESPERATELY 'trying to' CLAIM here.

So you believe that that is the thing that causes and decide is noting.

Such a thing which exists is not conditioned therefore its existence cannot be possibly due to something else. Therefore it is uncaused.

LOL

Like I said previously, the MORE you write the MORE circular, absurd, and ridiculous 'you' become and get. But this is NOT because of 'you' correct, as this is "your mind" to blame, right? It is "your mind", which is making the DECISION here to use these words, correct?

Where is the circularity?

OF COURSE. And, SO WHAT?

Either you are just 'trying to' DEFLECT, and so NOT have to acknowledge that that CHANGE is 'emergence', itself, or you are 'trying to' DEFLECT for some other reason.

Therefore, what exist is due to the motion of parts.

OF COURSE, but SO WHAT?

So there is no emergence.

The behavior of the whole is then a function of property of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.

LOL

So, if property of parts change, then the whole is CHANGING.

Therefore, the whole is EMERGING.

So, you just DEFEATED your OWN CLAIM here.

But you can NOT SEE this, correct?

Again, there is no emergence.

[Age]

Yes, the decision is caused by the mind. I should have said that the decision is unconditionalled when it is free.


The mind that controls the body.

LOOK, if you NEVER answer the actual CLARIFYING questions posed to you, by 'me' and by "others", then 'you' are just REVEALING how little you REALLY do KNOW.

As I have said to you previously what you are 'trying to' say here can be expressed in a completely agreeable, acceptable, and irrefutable way. But if you do not want to budge from thinking and speaking the way you are, then please carry on. You are only PROVING my claims anyway.

Now:

If there is 'mind' that controls bodies, then;
What bodies does 'it' control?

This questing does not make sense to me.

Okay. Then this is the end of this correct?

You have OBVIOUSLY SHOWN ZERO INTEREST in comprehending and understanding more, so is it best for 'you' that we just leave it here?

But for rest of 'you', readers, who have some interest here:

"bahman" wrote;
"The mind that controls the body".

I asked;
What bodies does 'it' [the "mind" here] control?

Which could be, but not limited to, 'planetary bodies', 'earthling bodies', 'animal bodies', 'human bodies', and/or ANY or EVERY one of 'these'?

How else could my question be taken?

Also, I suggest if some 'thing' does NOT make sense to 'you', then ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. That is; BUT ONLY if you are INTERESTED in learning more and becoming wiser. Otherwise, just say something like you have here.

SEE, I do NOT just accept 'things' just because they are written nor said, like 'you'.

I need to SEE clarity and proof, and without this what one is saying/claiming is NOT necessarily ANY 'thing' AT ALL, REALLY.

How many of these 'minds' are there?

Many.

How many bodies do EACH one of these "many minds" control?

And,
Did this 'mind' or these 'minds' exist before say a human body comes into Existence?

The mind is not due to the form of matter like the human form therefore it existed before humanity and will exist after humanity.

Okay, but WHY do you now say "it".

Either there are "many minds", and therefore they would be referred to as "they" and NOT "it", correct?

The mind doesn't come from the body.

Okay. Where does the 'mind' come from, EXACTLY?

Mind doesn't come from anything. It simply exists.

AGAIN, WHY do you now write as though there is just ONE "mind"?

You tell 'us' that there are "many minds". So, have these "many minds" ALWAYS simply co-existed together FOREVER?

There is no emergence. Unless you say that the matter is alive.

But, If I say, "that the matter is alive", then you will STILL NOT believe that there is emergence, correct?

Sorry. I should have said that "Unless you say that the matter is alive so human can be alive.

BUT, if I say, "that the matter is alive so human can be alive", then you will STILL NOT believe that there is emergence, correct?

Again there is no emergence.

Therefore, it would NOT matter what I SAID NOR DID and SHOWED you, to you, "There is NO emergence", FULL STOP, correct?

In here I mean that matter is alive and as matter of fact human for example alive. Life cannot just pop out of something which doesn't have life. By life, I mean the ability to experience and cause.

Sounds very much like 'emergence', to 'me'. But, "There is NO emergence", to 'you', correct?

By the way, I say, 'matter is alive', anyway. But, as I continually say, I do LOOK AT and SEE 'things' VERY DIFFERENTLY from 'you', adult human beings.

How do you see it?

What is 'it'?

How do you SEE 'it'?

My reasoning is not circular, I am saying that your mind is unconditioned, is not free otherwise.

LOL

The word 'your' implies ownership.
Therefore, if and when you say, "your mind is unconditioned", then it is OBVIOUSLY 'conditioned' on 'me'.

The saying, "your mind", in relation to the mind being uncaused, is CIRCULAR reasoning at the ABSURD and RIDICULOUS level.

And, saying ANY 'thing' like, "some 'thing' is unconditioned, it is not free otherwise", does NOT, and I will repeat DOES NOT, prove that 'that' is unconditioned. The last part of your sentence here is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY and just a way people FOOLS "themselves" into BELIEVING something is true.

It is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of circular reasoning, by the way.

Do you know what conditioned mean?

NOT from YOUR perspective. So, what does the word 'conditioned' here mean, to 'you'?

It has the ability to cause many things including the decision.

LOL

SO, 'you' do NOT 'decide' and it is "your" "mind" that decides, correct?

I am mind and body. The mind decides, the body does.

So, ONCE AGAIN, for I FORGET how many times now, HOW is it even POSSIBLE for BOTH to exist? That is; To be 'a mind' AND To have 'a mind'?

In other words, HOW can 'you' be 'a mind' AS WELL AS have 'a mind'?

ONLY UNTIL you can answer this question can you then MOVE FORWARD.

SEE, what thee One and ONLY True and ACTUAL Answer IS is ALREADY KNOWN. I am just SHOWING just how far you are AWAY from being able to obtain THIS ANSWER.

If this is correct, then WHY can you NOT control "your mind"? If it is "your mind", then surely you have control over what you own, right?

There are Spiritual Beings who have control over my mind and body.

LOL So you are now just convoluting this EVEN MORE.

Let us LOOK AT what you have said so far.

"You are a mind", "you have a mind", "the mind is uncaused", "the mind makes the decisions, and completely free ones at that", BUT, "there are Spiritual Beings who ACTUALLY have control over "my" mind and body".

The MORE 'you' talk, the MORE confused you appear here.

Oh, and by the way, thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' is SO MUCH SIMPLER than you could even imagine at the moment. You just can NOT YET SEE this because you are JUST SO BLINDED by your OWN COMPLETELY DELUDED and DISTORTED BELIEFS here.

But, if it is NOT "your mind" that decides and it is actually 'you', then this CONFLICTS and CONTRADICTS with what you have said and CLAIMED here.

What is "you"?

THANK YOU PROFUSELY for A clarifying question.

'you' are the individual 'thoughts' and 'internal/emotional feelings' within and individual human body. And, by the way, this is NOT what thee 'Mind' IS.

Therefore, you 'have to' ACCEPT that either what you have said here is SELF-CONTRADICTORY and just PLAIN WRONG or that 'you' have absolutely NO control over the decisions made within that head.

I am right of course.

LOL OF COURSE 'you' are to 'you'.

'you' OBVIOUSLY would NOT be talking the way 'you' are unless 'you' ASSUMED and BELIEVED WHOLEHEARTEDLY that 'you' ARE RIGHT.

The issue, however, which I have POINTED OUT, HIGHLIGHTED, and SHONE a BRIGHT LIGHT is that what is ASSUMED and BELIEVED to be 'right' here is OBVIOUSLY just PLAIN self-contradictory AND ABSURD.

So, which one is it?

I already elaborated.

LOL You do NOT even 'try to' hide YOUR LIES and DECEPTIONS now.

So, WHERE EXACTLY did 'you', supposedly and allegedly, "elaborate"?

It is obvious that it exists otherwise it could not cause and decide.

Besides being ABSOLUTE circular reasoning, AGAIN, this is ALSO faulty reasoning in that it does NOT logically follow NOR back up and support what 'it' is that you are SO DESPERATELY 'trying to' CLAIM here.

So you believe that that is the thing that causes and decide is noting.

NO.

In case you have NOT YET BEEN MADE AWARE - I neither believe nor disbelieve ANY thing.

Such a thing which exists is not conditioned therefore its existence cannot be possibly due to something else. Therefore it is uncaused.

LOL

Like I said previously, the MORE you write the MORE circular, absurd, and ridiculous 'you' become and get. But this is NOT because of 'you' correct, as this is "your mind" to blame, right? It is "your mind", which is making the DECISION here to use these words, correct?

Where is the circularity?

INSTEAD of 'trying to' DEFLECT, just ANSWER Honestly the clarifying questions I pose to 'you', then the CIRCULARITY becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR.

Also saying;
Some 'thing' exists is not conditioned.
Therefore, that 'thing' is not due to something "else".

Is PURE CIRCULAR reasoning.

NOTHING SAID is PROVING ANY 'thing' here.

It is ALL just here say and just YOUR BELIEF ONLY.

Therefore, what exist is due to the motion of parts.

OF COURSE, but SO WHAT?

So there is no emergence.

But that does NOT logically follow AT ALL.

The behavior of the whole is then a function of property of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.

LOL

So, if property of parts change, then the whole is CHANGING.

Therefore, the whole is EMERGING.

So, you just DEFEATED your OWN CLAIM here.

But you can NOT SEE this, correct?

Again, there is no emergence.

We ALREADY KNOW what you ASSUME and BELIEVE is true here.

Your COMPLETE and UTTER INABILITY to back up and support YOUR ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS is just what I have sought out to SHOW.

I want to do this because this is ACTUAL PROOF of just HOW the brain works, when under the CONTROL of the BELIEF-system.