Free Will

[Immanuel Can]

Everything exists in the eternal now.

Oh, so you're God now? You exist outside of the constraints of time?

[Belinda]

Everything exists in the eternal now.

Oh, so you're God now? You exist outside of the constraints of time?

You confuse the things of God such as you and me with God itself.

You and I are separate souls whereas God is absolute soul.

[Immanuel Can]

Everything exists in the eternal now.

Oh, so you're God now? You exist outside of the constraints of time?

You confuse the things of God such as you and me with God itself.

You said it...I didn't.

You and I are separate souls whereas God is absolute soul.

Ah. So you think you're part of God, but not the whole God?

[Belinda]

Oh, so you're God now? You exist outside of the constraints of time?

You confuse the things of God such as you and me with God itself.

You said it...I didn't.

You and I are separate souls whereas God is absolute soul.

Ah. So you think you're part of God, but not the whole God?

Not really. Do you know what a gestalt is? The entire picture is more than the sum of its parts.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you know what a gestalt is?

Sure. But it has no application to this issue.

[RCSaunders]

...superstition. I mean any form of mystic belief.

Then you have to include Atheism. What else can you do with a belief that's premised on nothing but imagination?

I never said, suggested or implied otherwise. What has that got to do with what I said? Did you lose the thread?

By, "mysticism," I mean anything not based of demonstrable evidence, or any kind of supposed knowledge one, "just has," without having to learn it, like intuition or conscience.

Atheism fits that definition perfectly. So you'll have to change your definition, or change your mind, I guess.

Change my mind about what. I never said atheism wasn't a superstition. I only talked about what is not a superstition, and the fact that you regarded anything that rejected mysticism in any form as atheism.

Is the rejection of all mysticism atheism or not? I said, I think you say it is, and you objected to it, calling me, "silly and dishonest." If you don't say it is, name someone you think rejects all mysticism who is not an atheist?

I really think you do regard anyone who rejects all mysticism as an atheist. I have no idea why you object to it being known. If it's not true, you have gone to great lengths avoiding explaining how you do not regard all rejection of mysticism the equivalent of atheism.

[Immanuel Can]

I only talked about what is not a superstition

There are only two things, RC: reality and falsehood.

If it is true that the referents of metaphysical reflection exist, then they exist whether somebody refuses to believe in them or not. And if they don't exist, then all the people who believe in them are wrong.

Reality wins, every time.

So it's unimportant whether we eliminate "mysticism" or not, unless we have reasons to do so. Because if it turns out that reality IS what that "mysticism" insists, then that "mysticism" is right, and the anti-mystical folks are the fools.

So the question becomes simply, "On what basis has RC ruled out "mysticism"?" If he can show that reality does not conform to what the mystics say, he wins. If not, his rejection of what he calls "mysticism" or "intuition" or worse "supersition" is itself gratuitous, devoid of evidence or reasons, and "mystical."

[RCSaunders]

I only talked about what is not a superstition

There are only two things, RC: reality and falsehood.

If it is true that the referents of metaphysical reflection exist, then they exist whether somebody refuses to believe in them or not. And if they don't exist, then all the people who believe in them are wrong.

What are, "the referents of metaphysical reflection?" Sounds like something form a Kipling's, Just So Stories.

So the question becomes simply, "On what basis has RC ruled out "mysticism"?"

Unless someone else presses it on him the question of mysticism will never come up and there is nothing to reject. Since there has never been any evidence to suggest anything mystical, there is nothing to consider, much less, "rule out."

[The notion is actually self-contradictory. If there is evidence, it's not mysticism. If it's mysticism, there is no evidence, and if there is no evidence, there is nothing to consider.]

If he can show that reality does not conform to what the mystics say, he wins. If not, his rejection of what he calls "mysticism" or "intuition" or worse "supersition" is itself gratuitous, devoid of evidence or reasons, and "mystical."

It is not necessary to counter the arguments of every inmate of the insane asylum before one can begin to accept the evidence of their own eyes. All mysticism is a kind of insanity that believes things for which there is no evidence except one's own subjective fantasies, alternately known as, "inspiration," "intuition," "inner conviction," and "revelation."

[Immanuel Can]

I only talked about what is not a superstition

There are only two things, RC: reality and falsehood.

If it is true that the referents of metaphysical reflection exist, then they exist whether somebody refuses to believe in them or not. And if they don't exist, then all the people who believe in them are wrong.

What are, "the referents of metaphysical reflection?"

There are lots. Minds, consciousness, rationality, Identity, morality, meaning, creativity, volition...All these are not open to empirical verification/falsification.

They're metaphysical properties; and yet they're things we all know exist.

So the question becomes simply, "On what basis has RC ruled out "mysticism"?"

Unless someone else presses it on him the question of mysticism will never come up and there is nothing to reject.

I'm presssing you on it, right now. What's your evidence?

And the burden of proof's on you. All those metaphysical things I listed above are things everybody uses every day...even the people who deny their real existence. So it's on you to show that, despite all appearances to the contrary, all that is hogwash.

Take your best shot.

[RCSaunders]

There are only two things, RC: reality and falsehood.

If it is true that the referents of metaphysical reflection exist, then they exist whether somebody refuses to believe in them or not. And if they don't exist, then all the people who believe in them are wrong.

What are, "the referents of metaphysical reflection?"

There are lots. Minds, consciousness, rationality, Identity, morality, meaning, creativity, volition...All these are not open to empirical verification/falsification.

They're metaphysical properties; and yet they're things we all know exist.

Since when are epistemological identifications, i.e. concepts, metaphysical? Minds and consciousness certainly exist metaphysically, as does volition as an aspect of the human mind, though not physically, but, "identity, morality, meaning, and creativity do not exist at all independently of human minds. They only exist as concepts.

So the question becomes simply, "On what basis has RC ruled out "mysticism"?"

Unless someone else presses it on him the question of mysticism will never come up and there is nothing to reject.

I'm presssing you on it, right now. What's your evidence?

The one doing the pressing must provide the evidence, else there is nothing to consider. Your just saying it's so is neither evidence or a reason to consider it. So I won't.

And the burden of proof's on you. All those metaphysical things I listed above are things everybody uses every day...even the people who deny their real existence. So it's on you to show that, despite all appearances to the contrary, all that is hogwash.

Proof of what? I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You're the one whose, "doing the pressing." If it's important to you to try to convince me, you provide the evidence. I couldn't care less what you choose to believe.

[Immanuel Can]

What are, "the referents of metaphysical reflection?"

There are lots. Minds, consciousness, rationality, Identity, morality, meaning, creativity, volition...All these are not open to empirical verification/falsification.

They're metaphysical properties; and yet they're things we all know exist.

Since when are epistemological identifications, i.e. concepts, metaphysical? Minds and consciousness certainly exist metaphysically, as does volition as an aspect of the human mind, though not physically, but, "identity, morality, meaning, and creativity do not exist at all independently of human minds. They only exist as concepts.

Well, we'll see. I think you'll find that concepts that don't refer to anything real are not useful concepts.

So the question becomes simply, "On what basis has RC ruled out "mysticism"?"

Unless someone else presses it on him the question of mysticism will never come up and there is nothing to reject.

I'm presssing you on it, right now. What's your evidence?

The one doing the pressing must provide the evidence, else there is nothing to consider.

You're the one who's advancing the proposition that the metaphysical concepts all human beings experience as real are not. The burden's on you.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Minds, consciousness, rationality, Identity, morality, meaning, creativity, volition...All these are not open to empirical verification/falsification.

Mind is an ontic i.e. metaphysical substance ,or an aspect of metaphysical substance, or a byproduct of metaphysical matter.

Consciousness means the same as mind when we are talking metaphysics, but not when we are assisting as first aiders at an accident.

Identity, morality, meaning, creativity, and volition are all qualities that pertain only or mostly to human beings. Human beings are not metaphysical substances therefore the
named qualities are not metaphysical.

Maybe if Immanuel Can started off his philosophising with the scepticism of Descartes then IC's thinking would not be hopelessly biased.

[RCSaunders]

There are lots. Minds, consciousness, rationality, Identity, morality, meaning, creativity, volition...All these are not open to empirical verification/falsification.

They're metaphysical properties; and yet they're things we all know exist.

Since when are epistemological identifications, i.e. concepts, metaphysical? Minds and consciousness certainly exist metaphysically, as does volition as an aspect of the human mind, though not physically, but, "identity, morality, meaning, and creativity do not exist at all independently of human minds. They only exist as concepts.

Well, we'll see. I think you'll find that concepts that don't refer to anything real are not useful concepts.

So the question becomes simply, "On what basis has RC ruled out "mysticism"?"
I'm presssing you on it, right now. What's your evidence?

The one doing the pressing must provide the evidence, else there is nothing to consider.

You're the one who's advancing the proposition that the metaphysical concepts all human beings experience as real are not. The burden's on you.

Please quote or link to where I have ever even suggested, "identity," "morality," "meaning," and "creativity," are not real. They are all quite real and all exist, but they do not exist metaphysically. They do not exist independently of human minds and consciousness just as mathematics, logic, science, history, and knowledge all exist and are real, but do not exist independently of human minds and consciousness.

An, "experience," cannot exist independently of the individual having the experience. An experience certainly exists and is certainly real, but it does not exist metaphysically, and would not exist at all independently of the individual's own consciousness. The metaphysical is all that exists and has the nature it has independent of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of it, that is, whether or not anyone is aware of its existence or knows its nature.

[Immanuel Can]

Since when are epistemological identifications, i.e. concepts, metaphysical? Minds and consciousness certainly exist metaphysically, as does volition as an aspect of the human mind, though not physically, but, "identity, morality, meaning, and creativity do not exist at all independently of human minds. They only exist as concepts.

Well, we'll see. I think you'll find that concepts that don't refer to anything real are not useful concepts.

The one doing the pressing must provide the evidence, else there is nothing to consider.

You're the one who's advancing the proposition that the metaphysical concepts all human beings experience as real are not. The burden's on you.

Please quote or link to where I have ever even suggested, "identity," "morality," "meaning," and "creativity," are not real. They are all quite real and all exist, but they do not exist metaphysically.

Then name the material substance from which they are made. Or you're a dualist.

An, "experience," cannot exist independently

Nobody ever said it could. (Where do you get these funny ideas?) But "experience" and "individual" (person) are not the same thing, either. So to say that the two exist contemporaneously is not to say that the one is reducible to the other.

[RCSaunders]

Well, we'll see. I think you'll find that concepts that don't refer to anything real are not useful concepts.


You're the one who's advancing the proposition that the metaphysical concepts all human beings experience as real are not. The burden's on you.

Please quote or link to where I have ever even suggested, "identity," "morality," "meaning," and "creativity," are not real. They are all quite real and all exist, but they do not exist metaphysically.

Then name the material substance from which they are made. Or you're a dualist.

If you read more carefully you know I only believe in one complete no-contingent metaphysical existence. As I said, "The metaphysical is all that exists and has the nature it has independent of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of it, that is, whether or not anyone is aware of its existence or knows its nature." Since all of physical existents, living physical enitites, conscious living entities, and volitionally conscious human beings all exist and have the natures they have independent of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of them (with the exception of course of individual's own consciousness and knowledge) the metaphysical includes all physical, living, conscious, and rational entities. All physical attributes, life attributes, consciousness attributes, and mind attributes are perfectly natural metaphysical attributes of the same ontological existence, but are independent attributes. Call that whatever you like. Quadruplism perhaps.

An, "experience," cannot exist independently

Nobody ever said it could. (Where do you get these funny ideas?) But "experience" and "individual" (person) are not the same thing, either. So to say that the two exist contemporaneously is not to say that the one is reducible to the other.

You said, "You're the one who's advancing the proposition that the metaphysical concepts all human beings experience as real are not," which implies those concepts are metaphysical. I was simply pointing out an experience does not exist independently of human consciousness and cannot be, as you implied, "metaphysical." Such experience are certainly exist and are real, but they are not metaphysically. Sans human consciousness, they do not exist.