Free agent cannot be created

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 3610
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Age » Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:33 am

-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:48 am
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:11 pm
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm


(1.) Religion: there are supernatural forces affecting the physical world. Examples: Virgin birth; ascending to heaven; healing the blind with just putting the hand over her eyes; prayers being returned with positive results.
Science: Prayer's effect is random and statistically ineffectual. Nobody can move against laws of nature, such as defeating gravity by employing supernatural forces. Healing the blind with putting a hand over her eyes exists only in fairy tales.

(2.) Bullshit in religion: denial of the evolutionary process.

I have yet to see denial of the evolutionary process in religion. In fact in some religious texts it clearly, to me anyway, states the evolutionary process.
Your religion is different from other religions.

But I do NOT have a religion.

I gained that view from looking in a bible.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Accepting that some people have prophetic abilities.

Are you saying that it is absolutely impossible for EVERY, and ALL, human being to be able to prophesize?
I am saying that according to science, it is not possible to prophecize without data and logic and reason. My opinion does not matter. You asked what differences there are between religion and science. This is one.

But 'science' does NOT state things.

Human beings, through a 'scientific method', come to conclusions. So, according to some human beings, who I think you would be alleging have used some scientific method to conclude, it is not possible to prophecize. However, are you now inferring that it is possible to prophecize with data, logic, and reason?

If you are, then would that be contradicting yourself when you state that accepting that some people have prophetic abilities is only a religious thing, and that is the difference between religion and science?
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Accepting that one person on Earth is god.
To you, could it be possible?
My stance is not indicative. It is immaterial. According to science, it is unacceptable, because there is no evidence of it, never has been. You asked what differences there are between religion and science. This is one.

You speak as though you have some overriding ability to KNOW what, so called, "science" KNOWS, and KNOWS forever more.

Are you at all aware that the use of 'scientific methods' to better learn and understand material things is an ONGOING thing?
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Accepting that one person on Earth can communicate directly with god.
To you, could it be possible?
My stance is not indicative. It is immaterial. According to science, it is unacceptable, because there is no evidence of it, never has been. You asked what differences there are between religion and science. This is one.

Do you have any actual "scientific" literary that clears states forever more what you alleging here, in your last three quotes?
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Accepting that the religious are righteous and the heathen are lost sheep.

Is there one that is truly religious or righteous?
It is not for me to say. The religious think that, the scientific community denies that.
You asked what differences there are between religion and science. This is one.


Are you trying to suggest that there is absolutely NO one, within the "scientific community", that does NOT think religiously and does NOT think the above?
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Rejecting that the Earth is very nearly of a ball shape.
Does it state in religious text that the earth is not very nearly of a ball shape?

Don't play dumb with me. Religious texts are not the entire body of religious beliefs.

WHAT?

If religious texts are not the entire body of religious beliefs, then what IS the entire body of religious beliefs?

Besides that, I have NOT seen NOR heard any thing within any religious belief that states that the earth is not very nearly of a ball shape. If you have any evidence I would be most curious to see this.

Also, why do some human beings think that I play "dumb" or that I am expressing a point or view when ALL I am doing is just asking a truly OPEN clarifying question?
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Insisting there is an afterlife.
Well how could there not be an afterlife?

There is either Life, which is eternal, or, there is life, with some thing after it.
You are playing dumb on purpose? "Afterlife" is not "after life". Get to know English, or rather, stop pretending that you don't know English.

Have you ever heard of 'chinese whispers' or the 'telephone game'?

Have you ever considered that through translation the actual and true meaning that was passed on the first time has been misconstrued and/or misinterpreted?

Also, again I am NOT playing "anything". I am just asking clarifying questions, in response for an open and honest answers.

Afterlife - after life. Everything - every thing. Anything - any thing. How well do you want me to KNOW english?

Do you KNOW the actual and real differences between them?
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Insisting to know the nature of the afterlife.
The nature of the, so called, 'afterlife' is extremely simple and easy to understand, and to KNOW.
Except on a scientific basis. There is no evidence of what happens to the human mind after the body dies. There is no knowledge, nothing of the sort. For the religious, it is easy to "know" and understand. They believe anything, so why not believe the dogmas on this.

But it is FROM a scientific basis that helps in understanding and KNOWING the True afterlife.

There is EVIDENCE and KNOWLEDGE, just some of you, human beings, are UNABLE to SEE IT yet.

Once you KNOW how to LOOK, properly and correctly, then you WILL SEE what the Actual and Real Truth of ALL things IS, and then, to verify if what you SEE is actually True, Right, and/or Correct you can use as many scientific methods as you like.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Insisting on claims of knowledge how to behave on Earth to direct a human to a spot in the afterlife.
Again, very simple and easy to understand, and KNOW.
Except on a scientific basis. There is no evidence of what happens to the human mind after the body dies. There is no knowledge, nothing of the sort. For the religious, it is easy to "know" and understand. They believe anything, so why not believe the dogmas on this.

But I am certainly NOT 'religious', that is; in the way you assume, think or believe, and there is plenty of EVIDENCE and KNOWLEDGE, which can be easily KNOWN through and from a scientific basis.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
These are just some of the bullshit teachings, and some of the incompatibilities between religious tenets or dogmas, and scientific findings.
From science explanation and understanding of how the; Virgin birth; ascending to heaven; healing the blind with just putting the hand over her eyes; prayers being returned with positive results, can happen, and will happen, will be very easily understood.
Except on a scientific basis. Maybe you meant "church of science" when you used "science" in "From science explanation". There is no evidence of any of these ever happening, and there is evidence they are not possible to happen. For the religious, it is easy to "know" and understand. They believe anything, so why not dogmas on this.

Are you trying to suggest here that you KNOW ALL the outcomes from ALL scientific basis, forever more?

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. And, you obviously read, and read into, things differently than I do.
This claim by you is absolutely unscientific. Science is based on the assumption that the universe is knowable, and that humans can learn how it operates. That involves repeatability. If everyone interpreted data and relationships differently from everyone else, we would have no science. Your observation and claim is false.

So, my claim that; 'EVERY thing is relative to the observer' IS false, is based on what exactly? Your observation?

By the way, besides YOU, who else said any thing about every one interpreting data and relationships differently from every one else?

Also, are you playing dumb here? 'everyone' is not 'every one'. Do you KNOW english? (Remember, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is relative to the observer, or Observer, depending on which way you are LOOKING at this, of course).

Furthermore, are you aware of a thing called "climate change", which is backed up by "scientific data"?
If yes, is that "scientific data" and relationships interpreted differently or the EXACT SAME by 'everyone'?

Do we still have 'science'?
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
If you say that some of the examples of religious beliefs or dogmas here are only true to some specific religions, you're right.
But i would have NEVER of had said that.
Interesting English. Plus you don't undersand the nature of a conditional construct. I am not saying you ARE saying that; I am saying "IF" you said that; that is, in case you said that, but that does not carry the claim at all that you WOULD say that for sure.

Very uninteresting english.

I am NOT saying that you said that I would say that. However, you alluded to, which was NOT necessary and thus for NO real reason, (as already stated WHY) that "IF" I said some thing.

I was just informing you that there was NO reason at all to remark, or even to suggest, that IF such a thing was to occur BECAUSE that would NEVER have happened anyway.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm
But they are still religions. You can't deny that, Age, even if you wanted to.
WHY would you even begin to ASSUME such a thing?
I am not assuming anything in what you refer to as assumption. Plus, it's a mute point.
Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that you are NOT assuming any thing here?

Are you NOT assuming; I was going to "try to" deny that they are still religions?

When you wrote: "You can't deny that, Age, even if you wanted to." this, to me, appears that you were assuming that I was going to, or wanted to, deny some thing, which by the way I obviously was NOT going to.

By the way, this has been a moot point from the very start from when you first mentioned that "IF" i said some thing, because there NEVER was even an "IF" to begin with, in relation to this.

Also, IS "mute point" actually correct english, or as you would might say "knowing", english?
(And I do NOT use capital E for specific reasons).

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by -1- » Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:26 pm

Age, I have got tired of answering your questions. You are playing dumb, and of your arguments some have merit, some don't and some both do and don't (like "science does not state anything" is wholly wrong, and wholly right, with different explanation of the statement).

But I am finishing this argument on my side simply because you exhaust me. Your playing stupid and drowning me in saliva is a typical tactic that I don't have the stamina of fighting. It slows me down, I feel like my arms (virtual arms) and limbs are moving through a thick miasma. Your arguments slow me down in a sense that they are demanding to answer, but not of merit. It is simply not something I like to do.

So adieu.

Age
Posts: 3610
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Age » Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:43 pm

-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:26 pm
Age, I have got tired of answering your questions. You are playing dumb, and of your arguments some have merit, some don't and some both do and don't (like "science does not state anything" is wholly wrong, and wholly right, with different explanation of the statement).

But I am finishing this argument on my side simply because you exhaust me. Your playing stupid and drowning me in saliva is a typical tactic that I don't have the stamina of fighting. It slows me down, I feel like my arms (virtual arms) and limbs are moving through a thick miasma. Your arguments slow me down in a sense that they are demanding to answer, but not of merit. It is simply not something I like to do.

So adieu.
Fair enough. But if I recall correctly I was NOT arguing for any thing. Like what you were doing. I just expressed that I do NOT see what you see, and so asked you for clarification of what it actually was that you were seeing as being "different" in religion from science. To me they both compliment each other. But then again I observe most things differently than most people do.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:43 pm

Walker wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 7:11 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:46 am
Here is the argument:

1) Causation requires knowledge
2) Knowledge is structured
3) Therefore any caused thing is structured
4) Anything which is structured cannot be free
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

The first premise is correct since causation always aim to an end.
The second premise is correct too because knowledge is about the relation between concepts.
Three is the result of one and two.
Four is correct too since the behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts.
Five follows from three and four.
Structure causes freedom.

Freedom is only realized as a transcendence of structure.

e.g., the freedom of nature is realized because of the boundaries caused by the structure of a picture frame surrounding a Van Gogh creation.

e.g., Viktor Frankl realized the freedom of love while his existence, his relationships with other people, was structured as a slave.

e.g., F. Scott Fitzgerald graduated from college and lived in his parent’s attic. He was bound into that structure, that limitation. The limitation of that circumstance created F. Scott Fitzgerald.

Transcendence of structure reveals the illusion of limitations (e.g., caused by slavery or paint or words).
You are talking about freedom in action. The subject of this thread is about freedom in decision.

Age
Posts: 3610
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Age » Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm

bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm

You are very welcome. :-)

No problem. I am open to discuss things.

We have always existed as mind, mind being the essence of any being/thing with the ability to experience and cause.
When you use the word 'we' having always existed as 'mind', is that the collective 'we' as one, and that is also is the one Mind/Essence, right?

After all, 'always existed' implies an eternalness to it. And, 'we', individual, human beings, have not always existed.

Or, are there many 'minds' that have always existed?
That was my mistake. I should have written minds instead of mind.
I was hoping you were going to keep as the singular mind, but not to matter.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
Do you see/mean the 'we' as individuals, each with its own 'mind/essence'?
Yes.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
If so, then is this individual mind just a part of some Universal One Mind? Or, is there some thing else going on here?
We are separate minds.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm

We just have a chance to interact with material as a form of human being now.We have been other things in the past.
Fair enough, but that does not explain HOW human beings did come to exist, if they are not caused/created.
Yes, that is completely another story. I believe that things have been evolving because of existence of minds.
I can accept and agree that within each and every smallest sub-atomic particle of matter there is, what I call 'Mind', and you would call 'minds', (correct me if i am wrong here), and within that Mind/minds there is a 'knowledge or knowing', embedded/encrypted in the dna, for lack of better wording, that causes/creates EVERY thing the way that IT is NOW. 'NOW' just being any given moment. The natural law of cause and effect being this knowledge embedded deep within EVERY physical thing. The molecules are being bounced around, like snooker balls hitting each other, producing, causing, or creating the Universe the way that It is NOW.

bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm

Let me give you a couple of examples to show what do I mean with the first premise. Think of a seed which turns into a tree. The causation is a at work at any moment of its development from one stage to another stage. Yet knowledge which is encrypted as DNA exists in the seed and it is necessary for the development of the seed. Now think of a cue ball which hits another ball. Again, the balls react upon collision based on their nature. Knowledge requires for causation since things should go somewhere, an end from a beginning.
The word 'knowledge' is what did not make sense to me, in your argument, and of which seemed incorrect, the first time i read it. But as explained the second time i read it, i could see that what you said expressed a truth. To me, a 'paradox' is just some thing which SEEMS absurd or contradictory but which ACTUALLY does express a truth.

How do you define the word 'knowledge'?
Knowledge is what is derived from the relation between concepts. Knowledge is something encrypted in any statement: We have concepts, "it", "raining", "is" and sum of them "it is raining". We know something when it is said that "it is raining".
But only human beings, as far as they know, have/hold knowledge, IF 'knowledge' is something encrypted in any statement and only human beings make statements, (within the brain or within speech and/or writings) then some might suggest that your first premise; Causation requires knowledge would not be true, not right, and/or nor correct because they would see that causation was happening BEFORE human beings came into existence, and here you are saying that knowledge is something encrypted in any statement, and of which I am aware ONLY human beings make statements.

Again, please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

However, if the definition of 'knowledge' was changed to something like; is something which is encrypted within the Mind of EVERY thing, then that could/would work better. By the way, I use the word Mind instead of minds because there being only One Mind, then It would be working in One way only, in unity and uniformly, whereas, minds could/would be working in all manner of different ways, which could/would cause separation and/or chaos, or just a plain 'mess'.

Obviously, at the point of NOW when this is written most human beings do see a very clear separation, and, chaos, but, relatively soon, the opposite will be SHOWN, and thus seen. A Theory of Everything is being created, which will show how EVERY thing is united as One.

bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
You did not need to give examples here because this is how i understood it, the second time around anyway. But I will say that with each perceived beginning there may be an, also perceived, end, however, there is no actual beginning as there was no actual end.
Yes. Beginning and end define a step of causality.
The defined step of causality is only an agreed upon terminology or conceptual step because I have yet to see how there could be an actual and real physical step of causality.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
This applies to the act of creation of mind if such a thing is possible.
But such a thing could not be possible as you have already stated, 'We have always existed as mind'. If 'we' (when who/what the 'we' actually is revealed/known, then that makes understanding ALL of this much easier), but anyway, if 'we' have ALWAYS EXISTED as 'mind', then there is, obviously, NO creation of mind.
I meant if mind is created then a knowledge related to such a act is required. I need to assume so and show that it leads to a contradiction. The opposite is then correct.[/quote]

Why do you NEED to assume so, (or assume any thing for that matter)?

Let us just continue to LOOK AT what IS, instead?

bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
God should have specific knowledge in order to create a mind.
Again, how could God 'create' a 'mind', if 'mind' has ALWAYS existed?
I meant, if creation of mind was possible then the appropriate knowledge is required. We assume this and see that this leads to a contradiction, basically premises (1) and (4) contradict each other. (4) is true therefore (1) is wrong.
To me your argument is unnecessary complex.

Since 'God' has never REALLY been defined accurately. Let us just continue on saying that there is only one Mind, which is within EVERY physical thing and which Itself is encrypted with knowledge (this may appear circular from definition above but this can be clarified and cleared up later) that is causing/creating EVERY thing, the way It IS, then that Mind is the ALL-KNOWING Creator of EVERY thing. (However, if you insist that there are many minds, and not just one Mind, then this will need more explaining on your part).

One 'Mind' within EVERY thing, but many different 'thoughts' within every (human) body, for me anyway, SHOWS a much clearer picture of things. This by the way is just one minute detail that needs to be explained with many other things for the big and full picture to be SEEN and fully understood.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
You are very close to coming to understand this fully, but you can not and will not gain fully understanding with a contradictory view like this one is.
I don't think if there is any contradiction in my understanding. This was just a misunderstanding.
Of course you do not think there is any contradiction in your understanding. If you did think there was, then your understanding would instantly, and automatically, change. From birth until that body stops breathing and pumping blood understanding is not fixed and rigid. Understanding is always movable and changing depending on what appears contradictory,wrong, true, right, et cetera.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
The first premise is in fact very general and the act of creation is one example of it.
I do not understand what you mean by 'the act of creation', nor that that act being 'one example of it'. What 'act of creation', and what is the 'it'?
Let's say the creation instead of act of creation. By it I meant the first premise.
I very much appreciate you answering EVERY and ALL of my questions. It is so rare in this day and age. You doing this also helps me so much in gaining a much better perspective of where you are ACTUALLY coming from, without me having to ASSUME any thing at all.

Although, and truthfully, I am NOT fully understanding your statement here, I think we can leave it for now. Unless, of course, you would like to elaborate further.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm

I already explain what I think is true about our existence.
When did you? I must of missed it.
I mentioned that we have always existed. That is another conclusion of the argument: We have always existed if we could not be created.
I will have to clarify now; Who/what is the 'we' here?
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
What is true about our existence?
That we have always existed.
I will wait for your definition of 'we'.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
How did you humans come into existence if they were not caused/created?
We have always existed therefore we were not created.
Some may find that hard to comprehend, or even an impossibility. But I can leave this for now, knowing that it can be very easily explained and cleared up later on.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm

To me reality is very simple. It has two ingredient: 1) Minds and 2) The stuff created by minds.
How many 'minds' (with s) are there?
I guess infinite. I don't have any argument in favor of this claim though.
If you want to stick with using the word 'minds', then you could argue that there are as many 'minds' as there are particles of matter.

But I much prefer to use the word 'Mind' instead. Every thing else can and does follow on much easier then.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
If there was 'stuff' before human beings existed, then where else do you propose these 'minds' are, which creates stuff?
Another level of reality. I believe that reality has infinite levels. We just don't have access to higher level.
Human beings may not have that access. But the reasons WHY can be easily understood when other things are understood and KNOWN first.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
The first thing is very essence of us. The second, we experience, we live within, and we communicate by it, etc.
I do agree with you, up to a certain extent. But you will have to be able to answer the clarifying questions sufficiently and so show a uniformed picture. Answering the questions properly and correctly will show how this uniformed picture was formed. However, until then from what I see of Reality it is much simpler than how you are trying to explain it here. Although as I suggested previously you are far closer than any one else has been at understanding, and explaining this.
Thanks. There are several questions that I have no answer for them yet.
Totally understandable.

But just KNOW that those answers can be very easily answered and will be very simply.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
I am however ready to explain things that I have understood the best I can.
And you are doing that perfectly.

Again very much appreciated.

The only thing that I ask for is total honesty and openness, of which you are doing.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm

The stuff that we experience is caused.
Are you able to explain who/what 'we' are/is?
We are simply minds embedded inside the stuff.
Perfect response, and thus perfect answer.

Although there is a little bit more to the actual True answer your theme follows and is consistent.

There is one thing though that I would like to point out. Before I asked you;
"How did you humans come into existence if they were not caused/created? And you replied;
"We have always existed therefore we were not created."

But now you are saying; " 'We' are simply minds ....".

Are you classing 'humans' as having a human body or just the, what you call, 'minds' within the human body?

Some might say this is just pedantic, but to get this 100% fully understood, then ALL of it needs to be 100% correctly explained fully.

By the way, are you able to consider that there is only One Mind, which is embedded inside the, or ALL, what you call "stuff".

I just call 'stuff', physical things also, by the way. And, I call 'we', individuals, the 'person', which are the thoughts and emotions, within a human body. Or, 'we', collective, either ALL people, or ALL things, depending on the discussion.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm

That is a little long.
I do not understand. What is a little long?
The explainaing of how we come to be in here.
The explaining has taken thousands of millenia, but relatively speaking it will not be much longer.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
To me minds existed at the beginning.

How many 'minds' existed at the "beginning", and when was that 'beginning'?
Beginning lies at eternal past. All mind existed at the beginning.[/quote]

What you call 'beginning' here I just call the 'NOW' (capital letters). To me, there is really only a NOW, which as you say lies at eternal past, and what I would add lies at eternal "future". At any given moment there is only a NOW, and this is the end, which is also just the beginning. What happens NOW creates (a perceived "future"), and, is the result (of a perceived "past").
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
There was nothing but minds and time (time cannot be created, I have an argument for that).
I would love to hear that argument, sometime.
Here is the argument: Time is fundamental variable of any dynamical theory. This means that time cannot be an emergent property of any dynamical theory otherwise we are dealing with a contradiction. Therefore time cannot be created/emergent.
What this arguments states is simply that you need time in first place, because time is fundamental variable, in order to create time and this a contradiction. Time could not be emergent either.
There is no such thing as actual time. But rather 'time' is just a concept, used to measure between perceived breaks and/or periods within the One Event. Clocks, or time pieces, are just tools used to make these measurements. I say there is no such thing as time because things are not not changed to fit in with these human being made measuring tools, (clocks, time pieces, watches, et cetera), instead, human beings change these measuring tools to fit in with that one star, called "the sun", that is closest to earth. Or, more correctly, clocks are changed in relation to light.

I also say there is no such actual thing as time because imagine placing one's self anywhere on earth, or for that matter anywhere in the Universe, and tell us what is (the) time? If you can not tell us what (the) time IS, then that infers that there is no such actual thing as time unless in relation to (rays of) light.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
So the beginning started either as a result of a Mind wishing to creating the stuff or as a result of nothingness being unstable could turns into all possible things.

Before you said, " 'minds' existed at the beginning", but now you are saying "the beginning started with 'a Mind' (or for some other reason). So, was there was one Mind, or, minds (with an s)?
I mean that stuff didn't exist.
Was there ever a period of NO 'stuff', or NO physical things?
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
A 'Mind', or 'minds', that always existed, without absolutely anything else existing, seems a bit far fetched. What seems more inconceivable that one "day" or at some point, this Mind or minds suddenly wished to create stuff. What also seems just as inconceivable is how 'nothingness' could become unstable, and then that turns into stuff.
There was either a Mind who created the stuff or the nothingness (no stuff) in presence of minds is unstable. We don't have any other option.
What about the option that there always exists 'stuff', physical things, AND, Mind?

If that option is LOOKED AT, agreed upon, and accepted, then I KNOW ALL else falls into place, like a jigsaw puzzle, perfectly. Forming a crystal clear True picture of ALL-THERE-IS.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
There is a far quicker, very simply conceived, and more easily understood explanation of how ALL of this came to be.
What is that?
How much "time" do you have?

Also, asking clarifying questions to, and of, me to begin with, then gives me somewhere to start, for you. Every person is at different points of where to begin with this. Also, even though a philosophy forum is not the best place for this, I am willing to give it a go. I also much prefer if I am questioned, quizzed, critiqued, challenged, and SHOWN where, when and WHY I am WRONG as much as possible.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm
The creation or the universe is eternal in the sense that its origin lays in infinite past since time cannot be created and it is eternal.
This is all well and good. But it is contradictory to say, "minds existed at the 'beginning' ", and then say, "The creation or the universe is, 'eternal' ". If some thing has a beginning, then it obviously could not be eternal, and vice-versa, if some thing is eternal, then it obviously could not have a beginning.
There is no contradiction in here if we can agree that the beginning lies at eternal past.
Yes we can totally agree here NOW. But I would still much prefer to use a phrase like, thee Mind exists NOW rather than 'minds'.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Also, again how many 'minds' do you propose was at this "beginning"?
All minds. Whatever number of minds exist now existed at the beginning.
Could we agree that there are as many 'minds', thoughts 'existed at the beginning', or NOW, as there are people existing NOW?

To me, there is One Mind, but many people or thoughts existing at any given moment of NOW. I say, "existing at any given moment of NOW" because it is only through an intelligent animal like human beings that the One Mind can become conscious, and/or aware of Itself. So, it is only at that moment of NOW, when people/human beings are existing and have evolved enough that the phrase "existing at any given moment of NOW' would apply.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pm

Thank you.
Just a hint; one reason human beings have not yet unraveled the, so called, "mysteries" of the Universe, like what actually IS 'God' and so forth, yet, is because human beings think/believe that there are many "minds". Discovering and understanding what the one 'Mind' actually IS, and how It works, creates, and interacts in relation to, and with, the human brain, then the solution of HOW to solve ALL of those, past, "mysteries" starts being revealed,and becoming more obvious.

With this revealing knowledge, then comes the realization of how ALL of these answers are already KNOWN, but are, at the moment, to most human beings, just hidden. Part of this revealing knowledge contains HOW ALL of this 'knowledge' was being hidden, and more importantly, WHY it was being hidden, hitherto.
I agree with you.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
I was hoping you were going to keep as the singular mind, but not to matter.
I was thinking about this problem, whether there is a Mind or many minds, for a long time. I think there is a main problem related to one Mind model: The problem of personality. The very fact that we have personal internal lives, such as personal thought and decision means that there should be many minds involved in the reality.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
I can accept and agree that within each and every smallest sub-atomic particle of matter there is, what I call 'Mind', and you would call 'minds', (correct me if i am wrong here), and within that Mind/minds there is a 'knowledge or knowing', embedded/encrypted in the dna, for lack of better wording, that causes/creates EVERY thing the way that IT is NOW. 'NOW' just being any given moment. The natural law of cause and effect being this knowledge embedded deep within EVERY physical thing. The molecules are being bounced around, like snooker balls hitting each other, producing, causing, or creating the Universe the way that It is NOW.
Yes, that is how I see the reality.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
But only human beings, as far as they know, have/hold knowledge, IF 'knowledge' is something encrypted in any statement and only human beings make statements, (within the brain or within speech and/or writings) then some might suggest that your first premise; Causation requires knowledge would not be true, not right, and/or nor correct because they would see that causation was happening BEFORE human beings came into existence, and here you are saying that knowledge is something encrypted in any statement, and of which I am aware ONLY human beings make statements.

Again, please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

However, if the definition of 'knowledge' was changed to something like; is something which is encrypted within the Mind of EVERY thing, then that could/would work better. By the way, I use the word Mind instead of minds because there being only One Mind, then It would be working in One way only, in unity and uniformly, whereas, minds could/would be working in all manner of different ways, which could/would cause separation and/or chaos, or just a plain 'mess'.

Obviously, at the point of NOW when this is written most human beings do see a very clear separation, and, chaos, but, relatively soon, the opposite will be SHOWN, and thus seen. A Theory of Everything is being created, which will show how EVERY thing is united as One.
I think I should agree with your observation. Knowledge in general sense is more than what human comprehend. I should define knowledge as what is derived from the relation between things.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
The defined step of causality is only an agreed upon terminology or conceptual step because I have yet to see how there could be an actual and real physical step of causality.
Well, I have an argument for that which clearly show how there exists an actual and real physical step of causality. In this argument I also show that mind is necessary as a main ingredient. I would be happy to share it with you if you wish.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
To me your argument is unnecessary complex.

Since 'God' has never REALLY been defined accurately. Let us just continue on saying that there is only one Mind, which is within EVERY physical thing and which Itself is encrypted with knowledge (this may appear circular from definition above but this can be clarified and cleared up later) that is causing/creating EVERY thing, the way It IS, then that Mind is the ALL-KNOWING Creator of EVERY thing. (However, if you insist that there are many minds, and not just one Mind, then this will need more explaining on your part).

One 'Mind' within EVERY thing, but many different 'thoughts' within every (human) body, for me anyway, SHOWS a much clearer picture of things. This by the way is just one minute detail that needs to be explained with many other things for the big and full picture to be SEEN and fully understood.
I already explained that why I think there are many minds. For the rest I completely agree with you.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
I very much appreciate you answering EVERY and ALL of my questions. It is so rare in this day and age. You doing this also helps me so much in gaining a much better perspective of where you are ACTUALLY coming from, without me having to ASSUME any thing at all.

Although, and truthfully, I am NOT fully understanding your statement here, I think we can leave it for now. Unless, of course, you would like to elaborate further.
Ok.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
I will have to clarify now; Who/what is the 'we' here?
Minds.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
Perfect response, and thus perfect answer.

Although there is a little bit more to the actual True answer your theme follows and is consistent.

There is one thing though that I would like to point out. Before I asked you;
"How did you humans come into existence if they were not caused/created? And you replied;
"We have always existed therefore we were not created."

But now you are saying; " 'We' are simply minds ....".

Are you classing 'humans' as having a human body or just the, what you call, 'minds' within the human body?
Yes. We are minds with human bodies. There are all sort of other beings or things out there, such as animal, plants, electron, etc.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
Some might say this is just pedantic, but to get this 100% fully understood, then ALL of it needs to be 100% correctly explained fully.

By the way, are you able to consider that there is only One Mind, which is embedded inside the, or ALL, what you call "stuff".

I just call 'stuff', physical things also, by the way. And, I call 'we', individuals, the 'person', which are the thoughts and emotions, within a human body. Or, 'we', collective, either ALL people, or ALL things, depending on the discussion.
Yes. By stuff I mean physical things which we experience and interact through it.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
What you call 'beginning' here I just call the 'NOW' (capital letters). To me, there is really only a NOW, which as you say lies at eternal past, and what I would add lies at eternal "future". At any given moment there is only a NOW, and this is the end, which is also just the beginning. What happens NOW creates (a perceived "future"), and, is the result (of a perceived "past").
I have problem with your picture of NOW. But let's discuss it when the other things are sorted out.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
There is no such thing as actual time. But rather 'time' is just a concept, used to measure between perceived breaks and/or periods within the One Event. Clocks, or time pieces, are just tools used to make these measurements. I say there is no such thing as time because things are not not changed to fit in with these human being made measuring tools, (clocks, time pieces, watches, et cetera), instead, human beings change these measuring tools to fit in with that one star, called "the sun", that is closest to earth. Or, more correctly, clocks are changed in relation to light.

I also say there is no such actual thing as time because imagine placing one's self anywhere on earth, or for that matter anywhere in the Universe, and tell us what is (the) time? If you can not tell us what (the) time IS, then that infers that there is no such actual thing as time unless in relation to (rays of) light.
I used to think that time is not real too but I changed my mind. I have an argument for time being real: Consider a change in state of a system, X->Y. Two states cannot lay on each other since the state of affair becomes ill-defined. This means that two states must lay on different points. This means that we need a variable to allow this to happen. There must however be a duration between two points otherwise the change will never takes place. The variable is therefore time.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
Was there ever a period of NO 'stuff', or NO physical things?
This depends on the model. In the model that there is a Mind/God there was no stuff in the beginning. I another model where only minds exist the beginning and appearance of stuff lay at the same point.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
What about the option that there always exists 'stuff', physical things, AND, Mind?

If that option is LOOKED AT, agreed upon, and accepted, then I KNOW ALL else falls into place, like a jigsaw puzzle, perfectly. Forming a crystal clear True picture of ALL-THERE-IS.
I already mentioned the problem with only one Mind model.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
How much "time" do you have?

Also, asking clarifying questions to, and of, me to begin with, then gives me somewhere to start, for you. Every person is at different points of where to begin with this. Also, even though a philosophy forum is not the best place for this, I am willing to give it a go. I also much prefer if I am questioned, quizzed, critiqued, challenged, and SHOWN where, when and WHY I am WRONG as much as possible.
I am open to criticism too. I have enough time to discuss things with you.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
Yes we can totally agree here NOW. But I would still much prefer to use a phrase like, thee Mind exists NOW rather than 'minds'.
Ok, let me know what do you think of the problem of the personality. The fact that we have internal lives.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
Could we agree that there are as many 'minds', thoughts 'existed at the beginning', or NOW, as there are people existing NOW?
Yes.

Walker
Posts: 6890
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Walker » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:56 am

bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:43 pm
You are talking about freedom in action. The subject of this thread is about freedom in decision.
Without action, a decision is merely speculation.

Freedom in speculation is brainstorming, in which limitations are removed.

Group brainstorming is useful but rare because of inhibitions.
No limitations disrupts known causation, and defense of known causation makes the stormer a target for silly paint.

I should probably edit before posting to keep from getting buried in a word avalanche, like when I missed your short and dismissive reply there, which is completely understandable as your attention and interest is elsewhere and now so is mine, however perpetual inspiration means perpetual editing so if it bobs up to attention then so be it, although at some point one must just let it go with the flow and wish the words well, a safe journey ... and the same for you too!

(I still remember scenes from that movie about Goya, that many portals to mind can access, for during that thread I almost died.)
Last edited by Walker on Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:40 am, edited 6 times in total.

Age
Posts: 3610
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Age » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:59 am

bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
I was hoping you were going to keep as the singular mind, but not to matter.
I was thinking about this problem, whether there is a Mind or many minds, for a long time. I think there is a main problem related to one Mind model:
Just to inform you, to Me, There is NO problem here, and one Mind is NOT a model at all. This does NOT make it right, I am just explaining what I see.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
The problem of personality.
This, so called, "problem" can be very easily overcome and solved. As I suggest previously the 'personality' comes from thoughts (and emotions). The Mind is NOT these things.

Part of the reason WHY this has taken millennia to be worked out is because the Mind, thoughts, and emotions are invisible to the human eye.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
The very fact that we have personal internal lives, such as personal thought and decision means that there should be many minds involved in the reality.
You have just used the right words here that gives a clue to WHO the person, the personal, or the personality actually IS. Those words are 'personal THOUGHT'. What makes each person an individual and different personality is the personal (individual, different) THOUGHTS within each and every human body.

Older human beings are able to KNOW what 'thoughts' are, but what is just as obviously KNOWN is ALL human beings, since their conception through evolution have NEVER known what the 'mind' is.

What the Mind actually IS and how it relates in conjunction with thought and emotion is very easily to understand, and can be discussed later if so wished.

But if you want to insist that there are MANY minds, then so be it.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
I can accept and agree that within each and every smallest sub-atomic particle of matter there is, what I call 'Mind', and you would call 'minds', (correct me if i am wrong here), and within that Mind/minds there is a 'knowledge or knowing', embedded/encrypted in the dna, for lack of better wording, that causes/creates EVERY thing the way that IT is NOW. 'NOW' just being any given moment. The natural law of cause and effect being this knowledge embedded deep within EVERY physical thing. The molecules are being bounced around, like snooker balls hitting each other, producing, causing, or creating the Universe the way that It is NOW.
Yes, that is how I see the reality.
I see 'reality', itself, a bit different. But we can leave this for another discussion if you like?
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
But only human beings, as far as they know, have/hold knowledge, IF 'knowledge' is something encrypted in any statement and only human beings make statements, (within the brain or within speech and/or writings) then some might suggest that your first premise; Causation requires knowledge would not be true, not right, and/or nor correct because they would see that causation was happening BEFORE human beings came into existence, and here you are saying that knowledge is something encrypted in any statement, and of which I am aware ONLY human beings make statements.

Again, please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

However, if the definition of 'knowledge' was changed to something like; is something which is encrypted within the Mind of EVERY thing, then that could/would work better. By the way, I use the word Mind instead of minds because there being only One Mind, then It would be working in One way only, in unity and uniformly, whereas, minds could/would be working in all manner of different ways, which could/would cause separation and/or chaos, or just a plain 'mess'.

Obviously, at the point of NOW when this is written most human beings do see a very clear separation, and, chaos, but, relatively soon, the opposite will be SHOWN, and thus seen. A Theory of Everything is being created, which will show how EVERY thing is united as One.
I think I should agree with your observation. Knowledge in general sense is more than what human comprehend. I should define knowledge as what is derived from the relation between things.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
The defined step of causality is only an agreed upon terminology or conceptual step because I have yet to see how there could be an actual and real physical step of causality.
Well, I have an argument for that which clearly show how there exists an actual and real physical step of causality. In this argument I also show that mind is necessary as a main ingredient. I would be happy to share it with you if you wish.
I would love to see it.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
To me your argument is unnecessary complex.

Since 'God' has never REALLY been defined accurately. Let us just continue on saying that there is only one Mind, which is within EVERY physical thing and which Itself is encrypted with knowledge (this may appear circular from definition above but this can be clarified and cleared up later) that is causing/creating EVERY thing, the way It IS, then that Mind is the ALL-KNOWING Creator of EVERY thing. (However, if you insist that there are many minds, and not just one Mind, then this will need more explaining on your part).

One 'Mind' within EVERY thing, but many different 'thoughts' within every (human) body, for me anyway, SHOWS a much clearer picture of things. This by the way is just one minute detail that needs to be explained with many other things for the big and full picture to be SEEN and fully understood.
I already explained that why I think there are many minds. For the rest I completely agree with you.
Hopefully, I have explained clearly enough that just the word 'thought' could be exchanged for the word 'minds' in relationship to there being different and many persons, and then with this defining explanation then far more can be grasped and understood.

I do agree wholeheartedly that there are many different what appear to be 'minds', but this word is just used, unfortunately, for really what is just a 'body of knowledge', which is obviously invisible, to the human eye, within things. 'Thoughts and internal feelings/emotions' ARE invisible to the human eye, and ARE within the human body.

A 'body of knowledge' or a 'KNOWING', which is obviously invisible (and which could be referred to as 'minds' but I do NOT use that term as I KNOW the confusion that that has caused and continues to cause). What you and me agree on as being within absolutely ALL things is what I would call a 'KNOWING', or, a 'body of knowledge' that has yet to be revealed to most.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
I will have to clarify now; Who/what is the 'we' here?
Minds.
Okay, now this is where it can get a bit tricky.

I could ask what is 'mind' or 'minds', but I will not, for now.

But I will ask; is 'we', who/what you are saying is 'minds', in absolutely EVERY particle in the Universe, or just in human bodies, or are 'we/minds' in some else? Or, are 'we/minds' some thing else all together?
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
Perfect response, and thus perfect answer.

Although there is a little bit more to the actual True answer your theme follows and is consistent.

There is one thing though that I would like to point out. Before I asked you;
"How did you humans come into existence if they were not caused/created? And you replied;
"We have always existed therefore we were not created."

But now you are saying; " 'We' are simply minds ....".

Are you classing 'humans' as having a human body or just the, what you call, 'minds' within the human body?
Yes. We are minds with human bodies. There are all sort of other beings or things out there, such as animal, plants, electron, etc.
Okay, great close to what I see, and say. However, I do not class 'beings' as animals, plants, electron, et cetera, because 'beings' is a word like 'mind' that can not be physically seen, nor seen physically, and so these things have been much harder to give an actual precise definition for, which is in agreement and accepted. So, when you say there are other 'beings' such as animal, plants, et cetera I would say there are other animals, plants, et cetera, and keep the 'beings' word in relation to what you call 'minds', which I am now calling 'KNOWING' or 'body of knowledge', or, 'thoughts'.

The difference between 'beings' in human bodies, which are just the 'thoughts' (and emotions) from, the one Being in EVERY thing, which is the 'KNOWING' or the 'Mind' is one being THINKS it KNOWS, this is obviously 'thought', whereas the one Being already KNOWS, this is the Mind.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
Some might say this is just pedantic, but to get this 100% fully understood, then ALL of it needs to be 100% correctly explained fully.

By the way, are you able to consider that there is only One Mind, which is embedded inside the, or ALL, what you call "stuff".

I just call 'stuff', physical things also, by the way. And, I call 'we', individuals, the 'person', which are the thoughts and emotions, within a human body. Or, 'we', collective, either ALL people, or ALL things, depending on the discussion.
Yes. By stuff I mean physical things which we experience and interact through it.
To me, there is a Universe with physical things, which can be seen with human eyes, and, there is are things, which can not be seen with human eyes.

When you say 'we' here, you are referring to human beings right? Or, are you referring to more than just them?

There are layers and layers, and to explain, UNDERSTAND, and SEE them ALL, then I need to know where you are up to exactly.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
What you call 'beginning' here I just call the 'NOW' (capital letters). To me, there is really only a NOW, which as you say lies at eternal past, and what I would add lies at eternal "future". At any given moment there is only a NOW, and this is the end, which is also just the beginning. What happens NOW creates (a perceived "future"), and, is the result (of a perceived "past").
I have problem with your picture of NOW. But let's discuss it when the other things are sorted out.
Yeah that is fine.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
There is no such thing as actual time. But rather 'time' is just a concept, used to measure between perceived breaks and/or periods within the One Event. Clocks, or time pieces, are just tools used to make these measurements. I say there is no such thing as time because things are not not changed to fit in with these human being made measuring tools, (clocks, time pieces, watches, et cetera), instead, human beings change these measuring tools to fit in with that one star, called "the sun", that is closest to earth. Or, more correctly, clocks are changed in relation to light.

I also say there is no such actual thing as time because imagine placing one's self anywhere on earth, or for that matter anywhere in the Universe, and tell us what is (the) time? If you can not tell us what (the) time IS, then that infers that there is no such actual thing as time unless in relation to (rays of) light.
I used to think that time is not real too but I changed my mind.
But you can not change YOUR mind if as you previously stated that YOU/WE are mind.

What makes more sense, for me anyway, is, now you see things differently, and the view that you used to have has changed.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
I have an argument for time being real: Consider a change in state of a system, X->Y. Two states cannot lay on each other since the state of affair becomes ill-defined. This means that two states must lay on different points. This means that we need a variable to allow this to happen. There must however be a duration between two points otherwise the change will never takes place. The variable is therefore time.
This is true. You are just using the word 'time' to refer to change. I just use the word 'change' to refer to 'change' and the word 'time' to refer to measurement that human beings use to describe between one 'change' to another.

Of course and obviously a 'change' happens. In fact it is, as far as I can tell, an impossibility for there not to be 'change' taking place. 'Change' just being the interaction between physical things. With each interaction just being an action, in and of itself, and obviously with each action there is a reaction. A re-action just causes things to move or change, and with each movement more particles of matter interact, which is just an action, which causes a reaction. This reaction process, which is always happening NOW, is just creation, in action. This continual action/reaction process is HOW things are continually 'changing'. With 'change' just being the evolution process. Creation/Evolution are just the One Thing continually happening. But I have digressed.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
Was there ever a period of NO 'stuff', or NO physical things?
This depends on the model.
How about instead of looking at models we just LOOK AT what IS, instead?

For example if for every action there is a reaction, then there, obviously, is no beginning and there was no end.

Now, because I remain OPEN always, there may have well been a beginning, but without any proof of that I just can NOT see how that is possible.

Maybe an explanation of HOW a beginning of ALL-THERE-IS is possible, but I have yet to see one. However, HOW ALL-THERE-IS is infinite and eternal is very EASY to SEE and UNDERSTAND.

In the model that there is a Mind/God there was no stuff in the beginning. I another model where only minds exist the beginning and appearance of stuff lay at the same point.[/quote]

These two models look very far fetched from what IS the actual Truth.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
What about the option that there always exists 'stuff', physical things, AND, Mind?

If that option is LOOKED AT, agreed upon, and accepted, then I KNOW ALL else falls into place, like a jigsaw puzzle, perfectly. Forming a crystal clear True picture of ALL-THERE-IS.
I already mentioned the problem with only one Mind model.
I hope I overcome that in the beginning of this post?

If not, then hopefully we can still discuss further.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
How much "time" do you have?

Also, asking clarifying questions to, and of, me to begin with, then gives me somewhere to start, for you. Every person is at different points of where to begin with this. Also, even though a philosophy forum is not the best place for this, I am willing to give it a go. I also much prefer if I am questioned, quizzed, critiqued, challenged, and SHOWN where, when and WHY I am WRONG as much as possible.
I am open to criticism too. I have enough time to discuss things with you.
Great it really is refreshing to have a truly OPEN and honest discussion.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
Yes we can totally agree here NOW. But I would still much prefer to use a phrase like, thee Mind exists NOW rather than 'minds'.
Ok, let me know what do you think of the problem of the personality. The fact that we have internal lives.
'Internal', literally, being the operative word here. Every human being has their own internal thoughts/thinking, and thus their own lives, or their own 'picture' of life. This picture is, literally, drawn from each one's own past experiences.

The reason life is so uniquely personal and/or different is because each human body has had their own uniquely personal different experiences. It is from those past experiences thoughts are formed. And the reason each person is so different and unique is because no two human bodies can have the exact same experiences. Individual experiences, literally, creates the individuals, who live/dwell within the individual different human bodies.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
Could we agree that there are as many 'minds', thoughts 'existed at the beginning', or NOW, as there are people existing NOW?
Yes.
So, if we just changed the word 'minds' to 'thoughts', and accept that it is 'thoughts' that makes the person, the person, then we can look at what the Mind actually IS, another time.

Also, a 'person', who I say is the 'thoughts' (and 'emotions') within a body is NOT the human body. This is because if you cut an arm or a leg of a body the 'person' does not become less of a 'person'.

To me, a 'human being' IS a human body with a person within. The 'human' of 'human being' is the physical body part, generally called the 'human body' and the 'being' part of the 'human being' is just the 'thoughts and emotions', which are what makes the personality of a person, or just the person a 'person'.

AlexW
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by AlexW » Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:27 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm

Here is the argument:

1) Causation requires knowledge
2) Knowledge is structured
3) Therefore any caused thing is structured
4) Anything which is structured cannot be free
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

The first premise is correct since causation always aim to an end.
The second premise is correct too because knowledge is about the relation between concepts.
Three is the result of one and two.
Four is correct too since the behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts.
Five follows from three and four.
I would rephrase:

1) Causation requires memory
2) Memory is thought
3) Therefore any caused thing is thought up
4) Anything which is thought up cannot be real
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is real

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:45 pm

Walker wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:56 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:43 pm
You are talking about freedom in action. The subject of this thread is about freedom in decision.
Without action, a decision is merely speculation.

Freedom in speculation is brainstorming, in which limitations are removed.

Group brainstorming is useful but rare because of inhibitions.
No limitations disrupts known causation, and defense of known causation makes the stormer a target for silly paint.

I should probably edit before posting to keep from getting buried in a word avalanche, like when I missed your short and dismissive reply there, which is completely understandable as your attention and interest is elsewhere and now so is mine, however perpetual inspiration means perpetual editing so if it bobs up to attention then so be it, although at some point one must just let it go with the flow and wish the words well, a safe journey ... and the same for you too!

(I still remember scenes from that movie about Goya, that many portals to mind can access, for during that thread I almost died.)
I agree with what you stated but as I mentioned before we are interested in freedom in decision in here. This is the key point for me since allows me to formulate my argument. I am so sorry for my short reply. I cannot elaborate most of the time. Opposite of you it seems. :-)

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:36 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:59 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
I was hoping you were going to keep as the singular mind, but not to matter.
I was thinking about this problem, whether there is a Mind or many minds, for a long time. I think there is a main problem related to one Mind model:
Just to inform you, to Me, There is NO problem here, and one Mind is NOT a model at all. This does NOT make it right, I am just explaining what I see.
Ok, I had a thread on this subject a while ago but I will open a new one so we can discuss these things there.
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:59 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
The problem of personality.
This, so called, "problem" can be very easily overcome and solved. As I suggest previously the 'personality' comes from thoughts (and emotions). The Mind is NOT these things.
I agree. But that is mind which allows me to experience thoughts and emotions. That is mind which allows me to cause different things.
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:59 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
The very fact that we have personal internal lives, such as personal thought and decision means that there should be many minds involved in the reality.
You have just used the right words here that gives a clue to WHO the person, the personal, or the personality actually IS. Those words are 'personal THOUGHT'. What makes each person an individual and different personality is the personal (individual, different) THOUGHTS within each and every human body.

Older human beings are able to KNOW what 'thoughts' are, but what is just as obviously KNOWN is ALL human beings, since their conception through evolution have NEVER known what the 'mind' is.

What the Mind actually IS and how it relates in conjunction with thought and emotion is very easily to understand, and can be discussed later if so wished.

But if you want to insist that there are MANY minds, then so be it.
I will be happy to hear your words in another thread which I open shortly.
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:59 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
I can accept and agree that within each and every smallest sub-atomic particle of matter there is, what I call 'Mind', and you would call 'minds', (correct me if i am wrong here), and within that Mind/minds there is a 'knowledge or knowing', embedded/encrypted in the dna, for lack of better wording, that causes/creates EVERY thing the way that IT is NOW. 'NOW' just being any given moment. The natural law of cause and effect being this knowledge embedded deep within EVERY physical thing. The molecules are being bounced around, like snooker balls hitting each other, producing, causing, or creating the Universe the way that It is NOW.
Yes, that is how I see the reality.
I see 'reality', itself, a bit different. But we can leave this for another discussion if you like?
What is reality then?
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:59 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
But only human beings, as far as they know, have/hold knowledge, IF 'knowledge' is something encrypted in any statement and only human beings make statements, (within the brain or within speech and/or writings) then some might suggest that your first premise; Causation requires knowledge would not be true, not right, and/or nor correct because they would see that causation was happening BEFORE human beings came into existence, and here you are saying that knowledge is something encrypted in any statement, and of which I am aware ONLY human beings make statements.

Again, please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

However, if the definition of 'knowledge' was changed to something like; is something which is encrypted within the Mind of EVERY thing, then that could/would work better. By the way, I use the word Mind instead of minds because there being only One Mind, then It would be working in One way only, in unity and uniformly, whereas, minds could/would be working in all manner of different ways, which could/would cause separation and/or chaos, or just a plain 'mess'.

Obviously, at the point of NOW when this is written most human beings do see a very clear separation, and, chaos, but, relatively soon, the opposite will be SHOWN, and thus seen. A Theory of Everything is being created, which will show how EVERY thing is united as One.
I think I should agree with your observation. Knowledge in general sense is more than what human comprehend. I should define knowledge as what is derived from the relation between things.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
The defined step of causality is only an agreed upon terminology or conceptual step because I have yet to see how there could be an actual and real physical step of causality.
Well, I have an argument for that which clearly show how there exists an actual and real physical step of causality. In this argument I also show that mind is necessary as a main ingredient. I would be happy to share it with you if you wish.
I would love to see it.
So here is the argument: Consider a change in a system, X->Y. X and Y cannot coexist therefore X must vanish before Y takes place. Y however cannot comes of nothingness. Therefore there should exist a mind which experiences X (is aware of X) and causes Y.

Here we show two things, the necessity of existence of mind and the fact that causality involved in any change.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
I will have to clarify now; Who/what is the 'we' here?
Minds.
Okay, now this is where it can get a bit tricky.

I could ask what is 'mind' or 'minds', but I will not, for now.

But I will ask; is 'we', who/what you are saying is 'minds', in absolutely EVERY particle in the Universe, or just in human bodies, or are 'we/minds' in some else? Or, are 'we/minds' some thing else all together?
Every thing or being has a mind. But let's discuss it in another thread.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
Perfect response, and thus perfect answer.

Although there is a little bit more to the actual True answer your theme follows and is consistent.

There is one thing though that I would like to point out. Before I asked you;
"How did you humans come into existence if they were not caused/created? And you replied;
"We have always existed therefore we were not created."

But now you are saying; " 'We' are simply minds ....".

Are you classing 'humans' as having a human body or just the, what you call, 'minds' within the human body?
Yes. We are minds with human bodies. There are all sort of other beings or things out there, such as animal, plants, electron, etc.
Okay, great close to what I see, and say. However, I do not class 'beings' as animals, plants, electron, et cetera, because 'beings' is a word like 'mind' that can not be physically seen, nor seen physically, and so these things have been much harder to give an actual precise definition for, which is in agreement and accepted. So, when you say there are other 'beings' such as animal, plants, et cetera I would say there are other animals, plants, et cetera, and keep the 'beings' word in relation to what you call 'minds', which I am now calling 'KNOWING' or 'body of knowledge', or, 'thoughts'.

The difference between 'beings' in human bodies, which are just the 'thoughts' (and emotions) from, the one Being in EVERY thing, which is the 'KNOWING' or the 'Mind' is one being THINKS it KNOWS, this is obviously 'thought', whereas the one Being already KNOWS, this is the Mind.
I see.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
Some might say this is just pedantic, but to get this 100% fully understood, then ALL of it needs to be 100% correctly explained fully.

By the way, are you able to consider that there is only One Mind, which is embedded inside the, or ALL, what you call "stuff".

I just call 'stuff', physical things also, by the way. And, I call 'we', individuals, the 'person', which are the thoughts and emotions, within a human body. Or, 'we', collective, either ALL people, or ALL things, depending on the discussion.
Yes. By stuff I mean physical things which we experience and interact through it.
To me, there is a Universe with physical things, which can be seen with human eyes, and, there is are things, which can not be seen with human eyes.

When you say 'we' here, you are referring to human beings right? Or, are you referring to more than just them?

There are layers and layers, and to explain, UNDERSTAND, and SEE them ALL, then I need to know where you are up to exactly.
By we I mean all things or beings. Sorry for not being clear here.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
There is no such thing as actual time. But rather 'time' is just a concept, used to measure between perceived breaks and/or periods within the One Event. Clocks, or time pieces, are just tools used to make these measurements. I say there is no such thing as time because things are not not changed to fit in with these human being made measuring tools, (clocks, time pieces, watches, et cetera), instead, human beings change these measuring tools to fit in with that one star, called "the sun", that is closest to earth. Or, more correctly, clocks are changed in relation to light.

I also say there is no such actual thing as time because imagine placing one's self anywhere on earth, or for that matter anywhere in the Universe, and tell us what is (the) time? If you can not tell us what (the) time IS, then that infers that there is no such actual thing as time unless in relation to (rays of) light.
I used to think that time is not real too but I changed my mind.
But you can not change YOUR mind if as you previously stated that YOU/WE are mind.

What makes more sense, for me anyway, is, now you see things differently, and the view that you used to have has changed.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
I have an argument for time being real: Consider a change in state of a system, X->Y. Two states cannot lay on each other since the state of affair becomes ill-defined. This means that two states must lay on different points. This means that we need a variable to allow this to happen. There must however be a duration between two points otherwise the change will never takes place. The variable is therefore time.
This is true. You are just using the word 'time' to refer to change. I just use the word 'change' to refer to 'change' and the word 'time' to refer to measurement that human beings use to describe between one 'change' to another.

Of course and obviously a 'change' happens. In fact it is, as far as I can tell, an impossibility for there not to be 'change' taking place. 'Change' just being the interaction between physical things. With each interaction just being an action, in and of itself, and obviously with each action there is a reaction. A re-action just causes things to move or change, and with each movement more particles of matter interact, which is just an action, which causes a reaction. This reaction process, which is always happening NOW, is just creation, in action. This continual action/reaction process is HOW things are continually 'changing'. With 'change' just being the evolution process. Creation/Evolution are just the One Thing continually happening. But I have digressed.
No. I just have shown in my argument that a variable, time, is need to allows the change. I start with a change in a system and show that change is not possible without time.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
Was there ever a period of NO 'stuff', or NO physical things?
This depends on the model.
How about instead of looking at models we just LOOK AT what IS, instead?

For example if for every action there is a reaction, then there, obviously, is no beginning and there was no end.

Now, because I remain OPEN always, there may have well been a beginning, but without any proof of that I just can NOT see how that is possible.

Maybe an explanation of HOW a beginning of ALL-THERE-IS is possible, but I have yet to see one. However, HOW ALL-THERE-IS is infinite and eternal is very EASY to SEE and UNDERSTAND.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
In the model that there is a Mind/God there was no stuff in the beginning. I another model where only minds exist the beginning and appearance of stuff lay at the same point.
These two models look very far fetched from what IS the actual Truth.
What other option do we have?
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
Yes we can totally agree here NOW. But I would still much prefer to use a phrase like, thee Mind exists NOW rather than 'minds'.
Ok, let me know what do you think of the problem of the personality. The fact that we have internal lives.
'Internal', literally, being the operative word here. Every human being has their own internal thoughts/thinking, and thus their own lives, or their own 'picture' of life. This picture is, literally, drawn from each one's own past experiences.

The reason life is so uniquely personal and/or different is because each human body has had their own uniquely personal different experiences. It is from those past experiences thoughts are formed. And the reason each person is so different and unique is because no two human bodies can have the exact same experiences. Individual experiences, literally, creates the individuals, who live/dwell within the individual different human bodies.
Ok. Let me ask you this question that how that is possible that we can have different experience in different locations? To be honest the model with more minds doesn't resolve the issue.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Fri Dec 21, 2018 2:21 pm

AlexW wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:27 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:29 pm

Here is the argument:

1) Causation requires knowledge
2) Knowledge is structured
3) Therefore any caused thing is structured
4) Anything which is structured cannot be free
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

The first premise is correct since causation always aim to an end.
The second premise is correct too because knowledge is about the relation between concepts.
Three is the result of one and two.
Four is correct too since the behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts.
Five follows from three and four.
I would rephrase:

1) Causation requires memory
2) Memory is thought
3) Therefore any caused thing is thought up
4) Anything which is thought up cannot be real
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is real
Anything which is caused is thought up. That doesn't mean that what is caused is not real. Basically I have problem with (4).

AlexW
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by AlexW » Sat Dec 22, 2018 2:17 am

bahman wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 2:21 pm
Anything which is caused is thought up. That doesn't mean that what is caused is not real. Basically I have problem with (4).
What is thought up can not be real.
Thought operates on a conceptual/interpretative level whereas reality is prior to that - a concept never touches or influences reality (just like a map never touches or influences the terrain).
Reality is not affected or controlled by causation - it is uncaused. It is, as you say, "free" - free from causation.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3637
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Dec 22, 2018 3:08 am

AlexW wrote:
Reality is not affected or controlled by causation - it is uncaused
The Universe may be eternal and therefore itself uncaused but causation occurs within it at a smaller scale
Events do not happen randomly but in response to previous events that follow a logical and temporal chain

surreptitious57
Posts: 3637
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Dec 22, 2018 3:42 am

Age wrote:
What you call beginning here I just call the NOW ( capital letters ) To me there is really only a NOW which as you say lies at eternal past and what I would add lies at eternal future. At any given moment there is only a NOW and this is the end which is also just the beginning. What happens NOW creates ( a perceived future ) and is the result ( of a perceived past )
I think that there is only the eternal NOW in relation to time and nothing else. The past only exists in human memory and the future only exists in
human imagination. Another way to think of it is that the past is NOW that is no longer happening and the future is NOW that has yet to happen

But I also think that because of Special Relativity that there may be many eternal NOWS not just a single definite one and this is why :
No two points in spacetime can occupy the same NOW because of the finite time that it takes for light to travel from one to the other
So there are an infinity of NOWS existing in their own real time which is different for each one rather than just the one eternal NOW

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests