Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:58 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 12:18 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:25 pm
Absolute empirical truth is an attribute of God's, not human knowledge
What is this God 'Thing', which you SAY and CLAIM here HAS 'knowledge'?

And, is the 'knowledge' that 'you', a human being, just wrote here 'God's' knowledge OR 'human's' knowledge?

Also, will you provide example/s of this so-called 'absolute empirical truth', which is supposedly an attribute of this God 'Things' knowledge, and NOT 'human knowledge'?

Furthermore, HOW, EXACTLY, does one like 'you', human beings, DIFFERENTIATE, EXACTLY, between 'God's knowledge' and 'human knowledge'?

For example, Could the 'knowledge' that there IS 'God's knowledge' just be 'human knowledge', which is somehow CONFUSED in SOME WAY? Or, is this NOT a POSSIBILITY in the 'knowledge' that comes FROM the human being known here as "belinda"?
Sorry. I'd better have simply said absolute (empirical) experience is not available to any temporal being. By "God" I simply meant absolute experience.
But WHY can a human body NOT have an 'absolute (empirical) experience?

If the physical human body can NOT have 'absolute (empirical) experience, then this would MEAN, or at least IMPLY, that there is NOT a 'physical thing' that could have an 'absolute (empirical) experience', which seems to be Truly ABSURD, NONSENSICAL, AND ILLOGICAL. Are you able to EXPLAIN this apparent CONTRADICTION here?

If yes, then will you?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?

Post by Belinda »

Age wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 12:06 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:58 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 12:18 am

What is this God 'Thing', which you SAY and CLAIM here HAS 'knowledge'?

And, is the 'knowledge' that 'you', a human being, just wrote here 'God's' knowledge OR 'human's' knowledge?

Also, will you provide example/s of this so-called 'absolute empirical truth', which is supposedly an attribute of this God 'Things' knowledge, and NOT 'human knowledge'?

Furthermore, HOW, EXACTLY, does one like 'you', human beings, DIFFERENTIATE, EXACTLY, between 'God's knowledge' and 'human knowledge'?

For example, Could the 'knowledge' that there IS 'God's knowledge' just be 'human knowledge', which is somehow CONFUSED in SOME WAY? Or, is this NOT a POSSIBILITY in the 'knowledge' that comes FROM the human being known here as "belinda"?
Sorry. I'd better have simply said absolute (empirical) experience is not available to any temporal being. By "God" I simply meant absolute experience.
But WHY can a human body NOT have an 'absolute (empirical) experience?

If the physical human body can NOT have 'absolute (empirical) experience, then this would MEAN, or at least IMPLY, that there is NOT a 'physical thing' that could have an 'absolute (empirical) experience', which seems to be Truly ABSURD, NONSENSICAL, AND ILLOGICAL. Are you able to EXPLAIN this apparent CONTRADICTION here?

If yes, then will you?
The reason the physical human body can't have absolute(empirical) experience is because each physical human body is limited to its own skin, its own nervous system, its own times, and its own location.
There is no physical thing that can have absolute experience.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:10 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 12:06 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:58 am
Sorry. I'd better have simply said absolute (empirical) experience is not available to any temporal being. By "God" I simply meant absolute experience.
But WHY can a human body NOT have an 'absolute (empirical) experience?

If the physical human body can NOT have 'absolute (empirical) experience, then this would MEAN, or at least IMPLY, that there is NOT a 'physical thing' that could have an 'absolute (empirical) experience', which seems to be Truly ABSURD, NONSENSICAL, AND ILLOGICAL. Are you able to EXPLAIN this apparent CONTRADICTION here?

If yes, then will you?
The reason the physical human body can't have absolute(empirical) experience is because each physical human body is limited to its own skin, its own nervous system, its own times, and its own location.
There is no physical thing that can have absolute experience.
If there is absolutely NO 'thing' that can have 'absolute experience', then WHY SAY and CLAIM, 'Absolute empirical truth is an attribute of God's, not human knowledge', EXACTLY?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?

Post by Belinda »

Age wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:56 am
Belinda wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:10 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 12:06 pm

But WHY can a human body NOT have an 'absolute (empirical) experience?

If the physical human body can NOT have 'absolute (empirical) experience, then this would MEAN, or at least IMPLY, that there is NOT a 'physical thing' that could have an 'absolute (empirical) experience', which seems to be Truly ABSURD, NONSENSICAL, AND ILLOGICAL. Are you able to EXPLAIN this apparent CONTRADICTION here?

If yes, then will you?
The reason the physical human body can't have absolute(empirical) experience is because each physical human body is limited to its own skin, its own nervous system, its own times, and its own location.
There is no physical thing that can have absolute experience.
If there is absolutely NO 'thing' that can have 'absolute experience', then WHY SAY and CLAIM, 'Absolute empirical truth is an attribute of God's, not human knowledge', EXACTLY?
I was being poetic when I wrote "God's". What I meant by "God's" is an imaginary scenario with a God figure that is omniscient. "Experience is irreducible " means that experience is not confined to a time or place or the confines of one memory therefore experience may be absolute.

I am confined as above, so I am not omniscient however the state of omniscience is probably true.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?

Post by Advocate »

We are free to the extent we are ignorant of causality, whether physically, cosmically, legally, or socially.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:26 pm
Age wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:56 am
Belinda wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:10 pm The reason the physical human body can't have absolute(empirical) experience is because each physical human body is limited to its own skin, its own nervous system, its own times, and its own location.
There is no physical thing that can have absolute experience.
If there is absolutely NO 'thing' that can have 'absolute experience', then WHY SAY and CLAIM, 'Absolute empirical truth is an attribute of God's, not human knowledge', EXACTLY?
I was being poetic when I wrote "God's". What I meant by "God's" is an imaginary scenario with a God figure that is omniscient.
WHY do people INSIST writing 'poetically', 'imaginary', and/or 'figuratively' IN a 'philosophy' forum?

If one is NOT going to EXPRESS the Truth, the WHOLE Truth, and NOTHING but the Truth in philosophical discussions, then WHY even BOTHER?

Also, there is NO need to CREATE some 'imaginary scenario', as above, as One ALREADY EXISTS.
Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:26 pm "Experience is irreducible " means that experience is not confined to a time or place or the confines of one memory therefore experience may be absolute.
If 'now' you want to SAY, WRITE, and CONCLUDE that 'experience MAY BE 'absolute', then WHY did you previous WRITE, SAY, and CLAIM, 'There is NO physical thing that can have absolute experience'?

So, WHICH ONE is 'it'?

Is there a physical 'thing' that MAY BE ABLE to have 'absolute experience', OR, is there NO physical 'thing' that COULD HAVE 'absolute experience'?

you CLARIFYING 'this' will HELP in UNDERSTANDING 'you' here.
Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:26 pm I am confined as above, so I am not omniscient however the state of omniscience is probably true.
So, if 'you' ARE CONFINED, then WHY even express 'your' CONFINED views as though they ARE what IS true, right, and correct here?

'your' OWN CONFINED experiences, thus CONFINED views, are NOT, necessarily, the SAME as those of the One that HAS 'absolute experiences' and HAS an 'omniscient perspective', right?

Or, does 'your' OWN CONFINED perspective of 'things' KNOW that there is NO such 'Thing' as One that HAS 'absolute experiences' and HAS an 'omniscient perspective' of 'things'?

What have 'your' OWN CONFINED 'experiences' led 'you' to SEE, and/or BELIEVE, here, EXACTLY?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?

Post by Belinda »

Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:30 pm We are free to the extent we are ignorant of causality, whether physically, cosmically, legally, or socially.
That's the same sentiment I have when I claim that it's chance that frees us.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?

Post by Belinda »

Age wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 12:55 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:26 pm
Age wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:56 am

If there is absolutely NO 'thing' that can have 'absolute experience', then WHY SAY and CLAIM, 'Absolute empirical truth is an attribute of God's, not human knowledge', EXACTLY?
I was being poetic when I wrote "God's". What I meant by "God's" is an imaginary scenario with a God figure that is omniscient.
WHY do people INSIST writing 'poetically', 'imaginary', and/or 'figuratively' IN a 'philosophy' forum?

If one is NOT going to EXPRESS the Truth, the WHOLE Truth, and NOTHING but the Truth in philosophical discussions, then WHY even BOTHER?

Also, there is NO need to CREATE some 'imaginary scenario', as above, as One ALREADY EXISTS.
Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:26 pm "Experience is irreducible " means that experience is not confined to a time or place or the confines of one memory therefore experience may be absolute.
If 'now' you want to SAY, WRITE, and CONCLUDE that 'experience MAY BE 'absolute', then WHY did you previous WRITE, SAY, and CLAIM, 'There is NO physical thing that can have absolute experience'?

So, WHICH ONE is 'it'?

Is there a physical 'thing' that MAY BE ABLE to have 'absolute experience', OR, is there NO physical 'thing' that COULD HAVE 'absolute experience'?

you CLARIFYING 'this' will HELP in UNDERSTANDING 'you' here.
Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:26 pm I am confined as above, so I am not omniscient however the state of omniscience is probably true.
So, if 'you' ARE CONFINED, then WHY even express 'your' CONFINED views as though they ARE what IS true, right, and correct here?

'your' OWN CONFINED experiences, thus CONFINED views, are NOT, necessarily, the SAME as those of the One that HAS 'absolute experiences' and HAS an 'omniscient perspective', right?

Or, does 'your' OWN CONFINED perspective of 'things' KNOW that there is NO such 'Thing' as One that HAS 'absolute experiences' and HAS an 'omniscient perspective' of 'things'?

What have 'your' OWN CONFINED 'experiences' led 'you' to SEE, and/or BELIEVE, here, EXACTLY?
Poetic metaphors and hypothetical scenarios need fewer words and are more graphic than explicit language. I agree not everyone likes them and some find explicit language more intelligible.

Subjective opinion is limited, by definition. Lifeless forms such as rocks or dead bodies don't opine so we may discount them. If it were not for subjectivity no learning could happen , as learning can't happen unless there is a base upon which or from which learning can take place.If I were not subject to my own limitations I'd either be dead or alternately know everything.

As an example (which you requested above) I have learned from this very reply to you that I can support the causes of subjectivity and expressive metaphors. I also learned that your questions are worth attending to. It's impossible to be an intellect and not learn.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:43 am
Age wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 12:55 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:26 pm

I was being poetic when I wrote "God's". What I meant by "God's" is an imaginary scenario with a God figure that is omniscient.
WHY do people INSIST writing 'poetically', 'imaginary', and/or 'figuratively' IN a 'philosophy' forum?

If one is NOT going to EXPRESS the Truth, the WHOLE Truth, and NOTHING but the Truth in philosophical discussions, then WHY even BOTHER?

Also, there is NO need to CREATE some 'imaginary scenario', as above, as One ALREADY EXISTS.
Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:26 pm "Experience is irreducible " means that experience is not confined to a time or place or the confines of one memory therefore experience may be absolute.
If 'now' you want to SAY, WRITE, and CONCLUDE that 'experience MAY BE 'absolute', then WHY did you previous WRITE, SAY, and CLAIM, 'There is NO physical thing that can have absolute experience'?

So, WHICH ONE is 'it'?

Is there a physical 'thing' that MAY BE ABLE to have 'absolute experience', OR, is there NO physical 'thing' that COULD HAVE 'absolute experience'?

you CLARIFYING 'this' will HELP in UNDERSTANDING 'you' here.
Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:26 pm I am confined as above, so I am not omniscient however the state of omniscience is probably true.
So, if 'you' ARE CONFINED, then WHY even express 'your' CONFINED views as though they ARE what IS true, right, and correct here?

'your' OWN CONFINED experiences, thus CONFINED views, are NOT, necessarily, the SAME as those of the One that HAS 'absolute experiences' and HAS an 'omniscient perspective', right?

Or, does 'your' OWN CONFINED perspective of 'things' KNOW that there is NO such 'Thing' as One that HAS 'absolute experiences' and HAS an 'omniscient perspective' of 'things'?

What have 'your' OWN CONFINED 'experiences' led 'you' to SEE, and/or BELIEVE, here, EXACTLY?
Poetic metaphors and hypothetical scenarios need fewer words and are more graphic than explicit language.
REALLY, is this ALWAYS, or just sometimes?

See, to me, sometimes it is just SIMPLER to EXPLAIN in EXPLICIT LANGUAGE.As it AlSO makes it MUCH EASIER for "others" to FULLY UNDERSTAND, AS WELL.

Also, what do the words 'God's knowledge' even REFER TO EXACTLY? In other words what are those two words being MORE 'graphic' ABOUT, EXACTLY?

By the way, USING 'poetic metaphors and/or hypothetical scenarios' can ALSO just be USED at DISTRACTION to the Fact that one, REALLY, does NOT YET KNOW what they are talking ABOUT and referring TO, EXACTLY.
Belinda wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:43 am I agree not everyone likes them and some find explicit language more intelligible.
I do NOT recall even thinking 'this', let alone expressing 'this', in what I said and wrote above.
Belinda wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:43 am Subjective opinion is limited, by definition. Lifeless forms such as rocks or dead bodies don't opine so we may discount them. If it were not for subjectivity no learning could happen , as learning can't happen unless there is a base upon which or from which learning can take place.If I were not subject to my own limitations I'd either be dead or alternately know everything.
'Trying to' DEFLECT and/or 'trying to' "JUSTIFY" what you are DOING here, is NOT ANSWERING ANY of the FOUR QUESTIONS I posed and ASKED YOU.
Belinda wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:43 am As an example (which you requested above) I have learned from this very reply to you that I can support the causes of subjectivity and expressive metaphors. I also learned that your questions are worth attending to. It's impossible to be an intellect and not learn.
Okay.

We WILL WAIT, to AWW, If you WILL ANSWER ANY of theise QUESTIONS I ASKED above here.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?

Post by Belinda »

Age wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:46 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:43 am
Age wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 12:55 am

WHY do people INSIST writing 'poetically', 'imaginary', and/or 'figuratively' IN a 'philosophy' forum?

If one is NOT going to EXPRESS the Truth, the WHOLE Truth, and NOTHING but the Truth in philosophical discussions, then WHY even BOTHER?

Also, there is NO need to CREATE some 'imaginary scenario', as above, as One ALREADY EXISTS.



If 'now' you want to SAY, WRITE, and CONCLUDE that 'experience MAY BE 'absolute', then WHY did you previous WRITE, SAY, and CLAIM, 'There is NO physical thing that can have absolute experience'?

So, WHICH ONE is 'it'?

Is there a physical 'thing' that MAY BE ABLE to have 'absolute experience', OR, is there NO physical 'thing' that COULD HAVE 'absolute experience'?

you CLARIFYING 'this' will HELP in UNDERSTANDING 'you' here.


So, if 'you' ARE CONFINED, then WHY even express 'your' CONFINED views as though they ARE what IS true, right, and correct here?

'your' OWN CONFINED experiences, thus CONFINED views, are NOT, necessarily, the SAME as those of the One that HAS 'absolute experiences' and HAS an 'omniscient perspective', right?

Or, does 'your' OWN CONFINED perspective of 'things' KNOW that there is NO such 'Thing' as One that HAS 'absolute experiences' and HAS an 'omniscient perspective' of 'things'?

What have 'your' OWN CONFINED 'experiences' led 'you' to SEE, and/or BELIEVE, here, EXACTLY?
Poetic metaphors and hypothetical scenarios need fewer words and are more graphic than explicit language.
REALLY, is this ALWAYS, or just sometimes?

See, to me, sometimes it is just SIMPLER to EXPLAIN in EXPLICIT LANGUAGE.As it AlSO makes it MUCH EASIER for "others" to FULLY UNDERSTAND, AS WELL.

Also, what do the words 'God's knowledge' even REFER TO EXACTLY? In other words what are those two words being MORE 'graphic' ABOUT, EXACTLY?

By the way, USING 'poetic metaphors and/or hypothetical scenarios' can ALSO just be USED at DISTRACTION to the Fact that one, REALLY, does NOT YET KNOW what they are talking ABOUT and referring TO, EXACTLY.
Belinda wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:43 am I agree not everyone likes them and some find explicit language more intelligible.
I do NOT recall even thinking 'this', let alone expressing 'this', in what I said and wrote above.
Belinda wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:43 am Subjective opinion is limited, by definition. Lifeless forms such as rocks or dead bodies don't opine so we may discount them. If it were not for subjectivity no learning could happen , as learning can't happen unless there is a base upon which or from which learning can take place.If I were not subject to my own limitations I'd either be dead or alternately know everything.
'Trying to' DEFLECT and/or 'trying to' "JUSTIFY" what you are DOING here, is NOT ANSWERING ANY of the FOUR QUESTIONS I posed and ASKED YOU.
Belinda wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:43 am As an example (which you requested above) I have learned from this very reply to you that I can support the causes of subjectivity and expressive metaphors. I also learned that your questions are worth attending to. It's impossible to be an intellect and not learn.
Okay.

We WILL WAIT, to AWW, If you WILL ANSWER ANY of theise QUESTIONS I ASKED above here.
It's not worthwhile talking to you as long as you think that I don't mean what I say. Trust is a basic necessity for any cooperation.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:46 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:43 am

Poetic metaphors and hypothetical scenarios need fewer words and are more graphic than explicit language.
REALLY, is this ALWAYS, or just sometimes?

See, to me, sometimes it is just SIMPLER to EXPLAIN in EXPLICIT LANGUAGE.As it AlSO makes it MUCH EASIER for "others" to FULLY UNDERSTAND, AS WELL.

Also, what do the words 'God's knowledge' even REFER TO EXACTLY? In other words what are those two words being MORE 'graphic' ABOUT, EXACTLY?

By the way, USING 'poetic metaphors and/or hypothetical scenarios' can ALSO just be USED at DISTRACTION to the Fact that one, REALLY, does NOT YET KNOW what they are talking ABOUT and referring TO, EXACTLY.
Belinda wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:43 am I agree not everyone likes them and some find explicit language more intelligible.
I do NOT recall even thinking 'this', let alone expressing 'this', in what I said and wrote above.
Belinda wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:43 am Subjective opinion is limited, by definition. Lifeless forms such as rocks or dead bodies don't opine so we may discount them. If it were not for subjectivity no learning could happen , as learning can't happen unless there is a base upon which or from which learning can take place.If I were not subject to my own limitations I'd either be dead or alternately know everything.
'Trying to' DEFLECT and/or 'trying to' "JUSTIFY" what you are DOING here, is NOT ANSWERING ANY of the FOUR QUESTIONS I posed and ASKED YOU.
Belinda wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:43 am As an example (which you requested above) I have learned from this very reply to you that I can support the causes of subjectivity and expressive metaphors. I also learned that your questions are worth attending to. It's impossible to be an intellect and not learn.
Okay.

We WILL WAIT, to AWW, If you WILL ANSWER ANY of theise QUESTIONS I ASKED above here.
It's not worthwhile talking to you as long as you think that I don't mean what I say. Trust is a basic necessity for any cooperation.
I am SURE you MEAN 'God's knowledge', for example, when you say that. HOWEVER, we just do NOT KNOW what you ACTUALLY FULLY MEAN and are ACTUALLY REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, OBVIOUSLY.

Unless, OF COURSE, you do ACTUALLY FULLY KNOW what 'God' IS, EXACTLY.

AGAIN, we will WAIT, to SEE.
Post Reply