Mind is uncaused cause

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind is uncaused cause

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:39 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:34 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:11 pm
What is the definition of emergence to you? Anyway, the definition that I provided was for sake of discussion.
Your use of the 'Anyway' word here DIRECTLY after the clarifying question you asked me here implies or infers that you REALLY have absolutely NO interest at all in what the definition of 'emergence' is, to 'me'.

Now, if the definition, which you provided here was for the sake of this discussion, then you can continue on discussing this part without me.

To 'me', the 'emergence' word just refers to 'things', which come into being SEEN/UNDERSTOOD. Which, by the way, just about EVERY thing that I have been saying here is NOT being seen, NOR understood, by 'you' AT ALL.
Everything that you understand is a function of what you have experienced.
Let 'us' CORRECT this and make it thee ACTUAL Truth okay?

EVERY 'thing' that 'you' do, and do NOT, understand is a direct result of what that body, which 'you' are in, has experienced.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind is uncaused cause

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:52 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:45 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:27 pm
Yes.


I am free.
If thee 'I' is FREE, then thee 'I' is NOT a 'human being'. This is because the 'human being' is a caused evolving creation.

Which, by the way, can be EXPLAINED in a VERY EXTREMELY SIMPLE and VERY EASY way, which can be agreed with by EVERY one, and which is ACTUALLY thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

Which is EXACTLY what I have been saying from entering this forum. But not one of 'you', human beings, here believe this could even be possibly true, let alone thee actual Truth, nor has one of 'you' shown ANY real interest to this fact.
The "I" who decides is mind and not the body.
Much closer. But 'you' still have some way to go yet.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is uncaused cause

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:11 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:39 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:34 pm

Your use of the 'Anyway' word here DIRECTLY after the clarifying question you asked me here implies or infers that you REALLY have absolutely NO interest at all in what the definition of 'emergence' is, to 'me'.

Now, if the definition, which you provided here was for the sake of this discussion, then you can continue on discussing this part without me.

To 'me', the 'emergence' word just refers to 'things', which come into being SEEN/UNDERSTOOD. Which, by the way, just about EVERY thing that I have been saying here is NOT being seen, NOR understood, by 'you' AT ALL.
Everything that you understand is a function of what you have experienced.
Let 'us' CORRECT this and make it thee ACTUAL Truth okay?

EVERY 'thing' that 'you' do, and do NOT, understand is a direct result of what that body, which 'you' are in, has experienced.
No. Not everything that you experience now is a function of what you have experienced. You for example are free. Regardless, anything but a free decision is a function of what you have experienced. Therefore, there is no emergence.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind is uncaused cause

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:15 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:11 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:39 pm
Everything that you understand is a function of what you have experienced.
Let 'us' CORRECT this and make it thee ACTUAL Truth okay?

EVERY 'thing' that 'you' do, and do NOT, understand is a direct result of what that body, which 'you' are in, has experienced.
No. Not everything that you experience now is a function of what you have experienced.
I NEVER said this, so MOOT.
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:15 pm You for example are free.
Who and/or what is the 'you', which 'you' here CLAIM are "free"?

From the way 'you' are writing 'you' are OBVIOUSLY NOT that 'free' at all.
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:15 pm Regardless, anything but a free decision is a function of what you have experienced. Therefore, there is no emergence.
LOL Considering this is a philosophy forum some of the attempts at 'arguing' are staggering.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is uncaused cause

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:57 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:15 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:11 pm

Let 'us' CORRECT this and make it thee ACTUAL Truth okay?

EVERY 'thing' that 'you' do, and do NOT, understand is a direct result of what that body, which 'you' are in, has experienced.
No. Not everything that you experience now is a function of what you have experienced.
I NEVER said this, so MOOT.
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:15 pm You for example are free.
Who and/or what is the 'you', which 'you' here CLAIM are "free"?

From the way 'you' are writing 'you' are OBVIOUSLY NOT that 'free' at all.
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:15 pm Regardless, anything but a free decision is a function of what you have experienced. Therefore, there is no emergence.
LOL Considering this is a philosophy forum some of the attempts at 'arguing' are staggering.
You want a proof for free will not being a function of anything else? Or you are waiting for an argument against emergence?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind is uncaused cause

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:23 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:57 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:15 pm
No. Not everything that you experience now is a function of what you have experienced.
I NEVER said this, so MOOT.
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:15 pm You for example are free.
Who and/or what is the 'you', which 'you' here CLAIM are "free"?

From the way 'you' are writing 'you' are OBVIOUSLY NOT that 'free' at all.
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:15 pm Regardless, anything but a free decision is a function of what you have experienced. Therefore, there is no emergence.
LOL Considering this is a philosophy forum some of the attempts at 'arguing' are staggering.
You want a proof for free will not being a function of anything else?
Are you asking me or telling me?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:23 am Or you are waiting for an argument against emergence?
Again, are you asking me or telling me?

Either way I want PROOF and/or sound and valid arguments for EVERY CLAIM made.

I suggest that if one can NOT back up and support their CLAIMS with ACTUAL PROOF and/or with ACTUAL sound and valid arguments BEFORE they make the CLAIM, then it would be best for them to NOT make the CLAIM at all.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is uncaused cause

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:58 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:23 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:57 pm

I NEVER said this, so MOOT.



Who and/or what is the 'you', which 'you' here CLAIM are "free"?

From the way 'you' are writing 'you' are OBVIOUSLY NOT that 'free' at all.



LOL Considering this is a philosophy forum some of the attempts at 'arguing' are staggering.
You want a proof for free will not being a function of anything else?
Are you asking me or telling me?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:23 am Or you are waiting for an argument against emergence?
Again, are you asking me or telling me?

Either way I want PROOF and/or sound and valid arguments for EVERY CLAIM made.

I suggest that if one can NOT back up and support their CLAIMS with ACTUAL PROOF and/or with ACTUAL sound and valid arguments BEFORE they make the CLAIM, then it would be best for them to NOT make the CLAIM at all.
I am asking whether you want proof for what I claimed? The claim beings that the free decision is not subject of anything else and there is no emergence. The first one is very clear. If your free decision was subject to something else but your mind then it was not free. I have an argument against emergence that you can find it in here.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind is uncaused cause

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:15 am
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:58 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:23 am
You want a proof for free will not being a function of anything else?
Are you asking me or telling me?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:23 am Or you are waiting for an argument against emergence?
Again, are you asking me or telling me?

Either way I want PROOF and/or sound and valid arguments for EVERY CLAIM made.

I suggest that if one can NOT back up and support their CLAIMS with ACTUAL PROOF and/or with ACTUAL sound and valid arguments BEFORE they make the CLAIM, then it would be best for them to NOT make the CLAIM at all.
I am asking whether you want proof for what I claimed?
LOL And, ONCE AGAIN, you make and write a statement but add a question mark to the end of it.

So, ONCE MORE, are you asking me or telling me?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:15 am The claim beings that the free decision is not subject of anything else and there is no emergence.
What "free decision"? Will you provide an example or some examples?

As for there being NO 'emergence', THEN, you wrote:
By emergence, I simply mean that the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't.

So, if you are now saying that there is NO the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't, then I REALLY do NOT CARE one iota.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:15 am The first one is very clear.
To 'who', EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:15 am If your free decision was subject to something else but your mind then it was not free.
LOL The ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS of this is just STRIKING.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:15 am I have an argument against emergence that you can find it in here.
If you want to CLAIM that 'emergence' "SIMPLY means the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't but THEN want to make an argument against 'that', then go right on ahead. Do NOT let 'me' STOP 'you'.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is uncaused cause

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:15 am
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:58 am Are you asking me or telling me?

Again, are you asking me or telling me?

Either way I want PROOF and/or sound and valid arguments for EVERY CLAIM made.

I suggest that if one can NOT back up and support their CLAIMS with ACTUAL PROOF and/or with ACTUAL sound and valid arguments BEFORE they make the CLAIM, then it would be best for them to NOT make the CLAIM at all.
I am asking whether you want proof for what I claimed?
LOL And, ONCE AGAIN, you make and write a statement but add a question mark to the end of it.

So, ONCE MORE, are you asking me or telling me?
I provided my proof. Feel free to answer.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:15 am The claim beings that the free decision is not subject of anything else and there is no emergence.
What "free decision"? Will you provide an example or some examples?
The free decision to in case you want to decide tea or not.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am As for there being NO 'emergence', THEN, you wrote:
By emergence, I simply mean that the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't.

So, if you are now saying that there is NO the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't, then I REALLY do NOT CARE one iota.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:15 am The first one is very clear.
To 'who', EXACTLY?
Myself. I am sure that you didn't understand my arguments.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:15 am If your free decision was subject to something else but your mind then it was not free.
LOL The ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS of this is just STRIKING.
Do you understand what I am trying to say?
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:15 am I have an argument against emergence that you can find it in here.
If you want to CLAIM that 'emergence' "SIMPLY means the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't but THEN want to make an argument against 'that', then go right on ahead. Do NOT let 'me' STOP 'you'.
I did it the thread.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind is uncaused cause

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:10 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:15 am
I am asking whether you want proof for what I claimed?
LOL And, ONCE AGAIN, you make and write a statement but add a question mark to the end of it.

So, ONCE MORE, are you asking me or telling me?
I provided my proof. Feel free to answer.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:15 am The claim beings that the free decision is not subject of anything else and there is no emergence.
What "free decision"? Will you provide an example or some examples?
The free decision to in case you want to decide tea or not.
But you are only able to "freely" decide if you want tea or not if 'you' live in a time or place that there is 'tea'. Because 'you' are a caused and created 'being' you can only "decide tea" if 'you' had ALREADY became aware of 'tea'. Therefore, if you lived in another time and place where there was NO 'tea', then 'you' would NOT have this, so called, "free decision".
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:10 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am As for there being NO 'emergence', THEN, you wrote:
By emergence, I simply mean that the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't.

So, if you are now saying that there is NO the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't, then I REALLY do NOT CARE one iota.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
And because of the WAY 'you' LOOK AT and SEE 'things', then that 'you' do NOT understand what I ACTUALLY said and wrote here is NOT unexpected AT ALL.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:10 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:15 am The first one is very clear.
To 'who', EXACTLY?
Myself. I am sure that you didn't understand my arguments.
Since 'you' are SURE, then that means that 'you' have NO doubt at all, correct?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:10 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:15 am If your free decision was subject to something else but your mind then it was not free.
LOL The ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS of this is just STRIKING.
Do you understand what I am trying to say?
YES. That is WHY I find what you say so ABSURD and RIDICULOUS.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:10 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:15 am I have an argument against emergence that you can find it in here.
If you want to CLAIM that 'emergence' "SIMPLY means the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't but THEN want to make an argument against 'that', then go right on ahead. Do NOT let 'me' STOP 'you'.
I did it the thread.
What you are 'trying to' do is just propose some absurd AND ridiculous definition for a word, which by the way NOT one person YET agrees with, and then you use that OBVIOUSLY absurd AND ridiculous definition to argue against. And when you succeed in arguing against your OWN ridiculous AND absurd definition, then you say that this is PROOF and therefore what I conclude is irrefutably TRUE.

The FAULTY and ILLOGICAL reasoning when you do this is, to me, just PLAIN SIMPLE and OBVIOUS.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is uncaused cause

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:45 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:10 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am

LOL And, ONCE AGAIN, you make and write a statement but add a question mark to the end of it.

So, ONCE MORE, are you asking me or telling me?
I provided my proof. Feel free to answer.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
What "free decision"? Will you provide an example or some examples?
The free decision to in case you want to decide tea or not.
But you are only able to "freely" decide if you want tea or not if 'you' live in a time or place that there is 'tea'. Because 'you' are a caused and created 'being' you can only "decide tea" if 'you' had ALREADY became aware of 'tea'. Therefore, if you lived in another time and place where there was NO 'tea', then 'you' would NOT have this, so called, "free decision".
There is always something else to do if there is no tea.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:10 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am As for there being NO 'emergence', THEN, you wrote:
By emergence, I simply mean that the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't.

So, if you are now saying that there is NO the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't, then I REALLY do NOT CARE one iota.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
And because of the WAY 'you' LOOK AT and SEE 'things', then that 'you' do NOT understand what I ACTUALLY said and wrote here is NOT unexpected AT ALL.
There is a whole. But it is sum of its parts.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:10 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
To 'who', EXACTLY?
Myself. I am sure that you didn't understand my arguments.
Since 'you' are SURE, then that means that 'you' have NO doubt at all, correct?
Yes. Unless you tell me what my arguments are about and find an error in it otherwise it is correct.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:10 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
LOL The ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS of this is just STRIKING.
Do you understand what I am trying to say?
YES. That is WHY I find what you say so ABSURD and RIDICULOUS.
Why it is ridiculous?
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:10 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am

If you want to CLAIM that 'emergence' "SIMPLY means the whole has a set of properties in a given condition that parts don't but THEN want to make an argument against 'that', then go right on ahead. Do NOT let 'me' STOP 'you'.
I did it the thread.
What you are 'trying to' do is just propose some absurd AND ridiculous definition for a word, which by the way NOT one person YET agrees with, and then you use that OBVIOUSLY absurd AND ridiculous definition to argue against. And when you succeed in arguing against your OWN ridiculous AND absurd definition, then you say that this is PROOF and therefore what I conclude is irrefutably TRUE.

The FAULTY and ILLOGICAL reasoning when you do this is, to me, just PLAIN SIMPLE and OBVIOUS.
You are not saying anything or adding anything positive which is useful for the discussion.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind is uncaused cause

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:02 pm
Age wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:45 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:10 pm
I provided my proof. Feel free to answer.


The free decision to in case you want to decide tea or not.
But you are only able to "freely" decide if you want tea or not if 'you' live in a time or place that there is 'tea'. Because 'you' are a caused and created 'being' you can only "decide tea" if 'you' had ALREADY became aware of 'tea'. Therefore, if you lived in another time and place where there was NO 'tea', then 'you' would NOT have this, so called, "free decision".
There is always something else to do if there is no tea.
There is also a way to word 'that', what you are 'trying to' word and say here, in a Truly VALID and SOUND way so that 'it' could be agreed with by EVERY one. I have ALREADY SHOWN this way, which could NOT be refuted by ANY one. But you just refuse to LOOK AT 'this'. This is because you are spending all your time just 'trying to' defend your already well maintained views and BELIEFS. And this is because you BELIEVE that your own views and beliefs here are irrefutably true.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind is uncaused cause

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:10 pm
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
And because of the WAY 'you' LOOK AT and SEE 'things', then that 'you' do NOT understand what I ACTUALLY said and wrote here is NOT unexpected AT ALL.
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?
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:10 pm
Myself. I am sure that you didn't understand my arguments.
Since 'you' are SURE, then that means that 'you' have NO doubt at all, correct?
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.

bahman wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:10 pm
Do you understand what I am trying to say?
YES. That is WHY I find what you say so ABSURD and RIDICULOUS.
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.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:10 pm
I did it the thread.
What you are 'trying to' do is just propose some absurd AND ridiculous definition for a word, which by the way NOT one person YET agrees with, and then you use that OBVIOUSLY absurd AND ridiculous definition to argue against. And when you succeed in arguing against your OWN ridiculous AND absurd definition, then you say that this is PROOF and therefore what I conclude is irrefutably TRUE.

The FAULTY and ILLOGICAL reasoning when you do this is, to me, just PLAIN SIMPLE and OBVIOUS.
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.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is uncaused cause

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:54 am
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
And because of the WAY 'you' LOOK AT and SEE 'things', then that 'you' do NOT understand what I ACTUALLY said and wrote here is NOT unexpected AT ALL.
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.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am Since 'you' are SURE, then that means that 'you' have NO doubt at all, correct?
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.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am YES. That is WHY I find what you say so ABSURD and RIDICULOUS.
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,...
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 am What you are 'trying to' do is just propose some absurd AND ridiculous definition for a word, which by the way NOT one person YET agrees with, and then you use that OBVIOUSLY absurd AND ridiculous definition to argue against. And when you succeed in arguing against your OWN ridiculous AND absurd definition, then you say that this is PROOF and therefore what I conclude is irrefutably TRUE.

The FAULTY and ILLOGICAL reasoning when you do this is, to me, just PLAIN SIMPLE and OBVIOUS.
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.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind is uncaused cause

Post by Age »

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.
Post Reply