Free agent cannot be created

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
AlexW
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by AlexW » Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:56 am

Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:10 am
The one who is truly able to remember is thee One who is able to observe and see ALL. This One is known by many different names, some being; Allah/God/Enlightenment, plus many more.
Yes... then ultimately this "one" is also having these discussions and the different personas (as well as every conceptualised, and seemingly separate, thing/object) are just ideas that come up in these discussions :-)

Atla
Posts: 1804
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Atla » Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:56 am

Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:10 am
But in short; To me, memory is just a part of thoughts, and 'thoughts' are one half of what a person is. If memory is a part of a person, then a person is NOT who the one is who is the one remembering.

The one who is truly able to remember is thee One who is able to observe and see ALL. This One is known by many different names, some being; Allah/God/Enlightenment, plus many more.
But don't you realize that these thoughts/memories/persons are also all part of the One, so everything you're trying to teach on this forum is twisted nonsense? There is no Universal knowledge and you have no access to it. "One" is just a word we put on reality and you're just another insane person. The One is everything and everywhere but it's not an entity, the "observing" plays no special role, more like humans do that too.

Age
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Age » Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:30 am

Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:56 am
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:10 am
But in short; To me, memory is just a part of thoughts, and 'thoughts' are one half of what a person is. If memory is a part of a person, then a person is NOT who the one is who is the one remembering.

The one who is truly able to remember is thee One who is able to observe and see ALL. This One is known by many different names, some being; Allah/God/Enlightenment, plus many more.
But don't you realize that these thoughts/memories/persons are also all part of the One,
I am aware of this.
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:56 am
so everything you're trying to teach on this forum is twisted nonsense?
But how would you, and do you, already KNOW what I am, supposedly, TRYING TO teach on this forum?

What do you think or believe that I am TRYING TO teach on this forum?

Have I written, or even suggested, any where in this forum that I am TRYING TO teach any thing here, in this forum?

If I have, then where?

And, if you look back at what I have actually written here, in this forum, then you MIGHT just discover what it actually IS that I am TRYING TO do here, in this forum.
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:56 am
There is no Universal knowledge and you have no access to it.
If that is what you, want, to BELIEVE, then so be it. Do you have any actual evidence of this, alleged, FACT?
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:56 am
"One" is just a word we put on reality and you're just another insane person.


Fair enough. If that is what you SEE and/or KNOW, then so be it. If that is WHAT I AM, to you, then that is WHAT I AM, to you.
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:56 am
The One is everything and everywhere but it's not an entity, the "observing" plays no special role, more like humans do that too.
If you say this is the absolute truth, then it must, to you.

Is this an unambiguous FACT that can NOT be disputed?

Atla
Posts: 1804
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Atla » Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am

Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:30 am
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:56 am
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:10 am
But in short; To me, memory is just a part of thoughts, and 'thoughts' are one half of what a person is. If memory is a part of a person, then a person is NOT who the one is who is the one remembering.

The one who is truly able to remember is thee One who is able to observe and see ALL. This One is known by many different names, some being; Allah/God/Enlightenment, plus many more.
But don't you realize that these thoughts/memories/persons are also all part of the One,
I am aware of this.
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:56 am
so everything you're trying to teach on this forum is twisted nonsense?
But how would you, and do you, already KNOW what I am, supposedly, TRYING TO teach on this forum?

What do you think or believe that I am TRYING TO teach on this forum?

Have I written, or even suggested, any where in this forum that I am TRYING TO teach any thing here, in this forum?

If I have, then where?

And, if you look back at what I have actually written here, in this forum, then you MIGHT just discover what it actually IS that I am TRYING TO do here, in this forum.
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:56 am
There is no Universal knowledge and you have no access to it.
If that is what you, want, to BELIEVE, then so be it. Do you have any actual evidence of this, alleged, FACT?
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:56 am
"One" is just a word we put on reality and you're just another insane person.


Fair enough. If that is what you SEE and/or KNOW, then so be it. If that is WHAT I AM, to you, then that is WHAT I AM, to you.
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:56 am
The One is everything and everywhere but it's not an entity, the "observing" plays no special role, more like humans do that too.
If you say this is the absolute truth, then it must, to you.

Is this an unambiguous FACT that can NOT be disputed?
Yes, I think that's what you're trying to teach, because everything you've written so far is consistent with it. As I said before, you come across as a nondualist gone wrong, who fell into one of the typical traps, thinks he is the voice of the absolute.

I've called you out on this several times, and you seemed to have confirmed it. Even though you are spending a lot of time on every post, deliberately trying to evade the question and confuse the issue. That's pretty dishonest.

Age
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Age » Sun Dec 23, 2018 9:05 am

Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:30 am
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:56 am

But don't you realize that these thoughts/memories/persons are also all part of the One,
I am aware of this.
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:56 am
so everything you're trying to teach on this forum is twisted nonsense?
But how would you, and do you, already KNOW what I am, supposedly, TRYING TO teach on this forum?

What do you think or believe that I am TRYING TO teach on this forum?

Have I written, or even suggested, any where in this forum that I am TRYING TO teach any thing here, in this forum?

If I have, then where?

And, if you look back at what I have actually written here, in this forum, then you MIGHT just discover what it actually IS that I am TRYING TO do here, in this forum.
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:56 am
There is no Universal knowledge and you have no access to it.
If that is what you, want, to BELIEVE, then so be it. Do you have any actual evidence of this, alleged, FACT?
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:56 am
"One" is just a word we put on reality and you're just another insane person.


Fair enough. If that is what you SEE and/or KNOW, then so be it. If that is WHAT I AM, to you, then that is WHAT I AM, to you.
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:56 am
The One is everything and everywhere but it's not an entity, the "observing" plays no special role, more like humans do that too.
If you say this is the absolute truth, then it must, to you.

Is this an unambiguous FACT that can NOT be disputed?
Yes, I think that's what you're trying to teach,
Are you aware that you have to write and/or speak out loudly what THOUGHTS are occurring in that head if you want "others" to understand what it is that is being THOUGHT.

I asked you FOUR very plain and simple clarifying questions, which were:

But how would you, and do you, already KNOW what I am, supposedly, TRYING TO teach on this forum?

What do you think or believe that I am TRYING TO teach on this forum?

Have I written, or even suggested, any where in this forum that I am TRYING TO teach any thing here, in this forum?

If I have, then where?


Your response IS;
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
Yes, I think that's what you're trying to teach,
WHAT IS IT that you think that I am TRYING TO teach?

If you do NOT write it down, then we are NONE the wiser. I, for One, certainly have NO clue what you are thinking, in regards to this.

If you answer each and every question separately, then you will shine some light on that THINKING in that head. Until then, I am certainly in dark about what is THOUGHT to be happening here.
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
because everything you've written so far is consistent with it.
'Inconsistent' with WHAT exactly?

Are you at all aware that you have to spell out, in written words, what you are actually thinking and talking about, that is; if you want us to understand what IT IS that you are thinking and/or are talking about?

As I said before, you come across as a nondualist gone wrong, who fell into one of the typical traps, thinks he is the voice of the absolute.[/quote]

Just because I come across as this to you, does that in and of itself mean that that is the absolute actual and real Truth?
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
I've called you out on this several times, and you seemed to have confirmed it.
You have supposedly called me out on WHAT, several times, and, I have "seemed" to have "confirmed" WHAT exactly, to you?
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
Even though you are spending a lot of time on every post, deliberately trying to evade the question and confuse the issue.
POINT OUT and SHOW one question that I have, so called "deliberately" TRIED TO evade.

And, while you are looking for just one question that I have actually evaded, how about counting just how many questions that I have asked you, and "others", of which you, and "them", have NOT answered.
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
That's pretty dishonest.
POINT OUT and SHOW where you think or believe that I have been dishonest, then we WILL actually have some thing to LOOK AT, and discuss.

Until then I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about in relation to dishonesty and Me.

Atla
Posts: 1804
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Atla » Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:15 am

Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 9:05 am
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
Yes, I think that's what you're trying to teach,
Are you aware that you have to write and/or speak out loudly what THOUGHTS are occurring in that head if you want "others" to understand what it is that is being THOUGHT.

I asked you FOUR very plain and simple clarifying questions, which were:

But how would you, and do you, already KNOW what I am, supposedly, TRYING TO teach on this forum?

What do you think or believe that I am TRYING TO teach on this forum?

Have I written, or even suggested, any where in this forum that I am TRYING TO teach any thing here, in this forum?

If I have, then where?


Your response IS;
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
Yes, I think that's what you're trying to teach,
WHAT IS IT that you think that I am TRYING TO teach?

If you do NOT write it down, then we are NONE the wiser. I, for One, certainly have NO clue what you are thinking, in regards to this.

If you answer each and every question separately, then you will shine some light on that THINKING in that head. Until then, I am certainly in dark about what is THOUGHT to be happening here.
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
because everything you've written so far is consistent with it.
'Inconsistent' with WHAT exactly?

Are you at all aware that you have to spell out, in written words, what you are actually thinking and talking about, that is; if you want us to understand what IT IS that you are thinking and/or are talking about?
As I said before, you come across as a nondualist gone wrong, who fell into one of the typical traps, thinks he is the voice of the absolute.
Just because I come across as this to you, does that in and of itself mean that that is the absolute actual and real Truth?
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
I've called you out on this several times, and you seemed to have confirmed it.
You have supposedly called me out on WHAT, several times, and, I have "seemed" to have "confirmed" WHAT exactly, to you?
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
Even though you are spending a lot of time on every post, deliberately trying to evade the question and confuse the issue.
POINT OUT and SHOW one question that I have, so called "deliberately" TRIED TO evade.

And, while you are looking for just one question that I have actually evaded, how about counting just how many questions that I have asked you, and "others", of which you, and "them", have NOT answered.
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
That's pretty dishonest.
POINT OUT and SHOW where you think or believe that I have been dishonest, then we WILL actually have some thing to LOOK AT, and discuss.

Until then I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about in relation to dishonesty and Me.
Either you're playing a game, or you have severe comprehension issues and a strong belief in being the voice of the absolute. But the problem isn't really with communication itself, is it.

Age
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Age » Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am

bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:36 pm

I agree. But that is mind which allows me to experience thoughts and emotions
I agree with this, but not in the same way you do.

I already have a defined conclusion for what 'mind' is, what 'me' is, and how the 'mind' allows 'me' to experience thoughts and emotions in your sentence here. Now can you define the 'mind', the 'me', and how that that 'mind' allows 'me' to experience thoughts and emotions?
Mind to me is essence of any being or thing with the ability to experience, decide and cause.
Who or what is the being or thing that mind is the essence of?
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Experiencing is an ability of mind therefore we cannot understand how mind experience certain things.
But I can UNDERSTAND and already KNOW how Mind experiences ALL things.

How do 'you' experience, certain, things?
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
The same is true for decision and causation.
When, and if, you KNOW what/who 'Mind' IS, then you KNOW, and UNDERSTAND these things also.
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:36 pm
That is mind which allows me to cause different things.
What is the 'mind' and how is 'it' in relation to the 'me' here?
Also, are you able to answer who/what 'me' actually is?
Mind is essence of 'me'. 'Me' is being/thing.
Tell me if I have any of this wrong. From your perspective;

'me' is being/thing.
Every being/thing has a mind. And,
'mind' is essence of 'me'.

To me this does not follow. How can the ESSENCE OF 'me' be 'mind', but also me HAS a mind? (But maybe you have changed your view, and 'me' does NOT 'have' a mind, now?)

But firstly, who/what is 'being/thing'?

Imagine if some one explained to you that a 'tree' is being/thing. What would you make of that? To me, this does not say much at all.

At the moment, are you able to be better define what 'me' is, first?
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:36 pm

So here is the argument: Consider a change in a system, X->Y.
P1. X and Y cannot coexist therefore X must vanish before Y takes place.
P2. Y however cannot comes of nothingness.
C. Therefore there should exist a mind which experiences X (is aware of X) and causes Y.
I hope it is okay with you what I did here? If not, just let me know.
That is all good.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
P1. I agree.
Great.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
P2. That is just an assumption. Although I agree wholeheartedly with it, I have yet to see HOW any thing could come from nothing, but I also will not yet say Y CAN NOT come from nothing, until I see actual evidence that Y CAN NOT come from nothing. For all I KNOW the whole Universe may just have come from no thing at all.
Ok, let me argue it this way: We always see correlation between X and Y. Nothingness is however indifferent. Therefore we cannot expect to get specific Y from nothingness. So I change P2 to "one cannot expect to get specific Y from nothingness".
If, and when, you are speaking of, and FOR, 'we', then you have to be VERY, VERY careful. One would HAVE TO have absolute and ALL KNOWLEDGE of EVERY thing to be able to accurately and truly speak FOR 'we'. Unless of course the size of the group of 'we' is smaller than the group of EVERY thing, but if this is the case one NEEDS to still be VERY careful because they would still HAVE TO have absolute and ALL knowledge of EVERY one, in that group, to be able to accurately and truly speak FOR that 'we'.

In saying that, however, I can accept that 'you', bahman, always see correlation between X and Y, and, 'you', bahman, can not expect to get specific Y from nothingness. And, that P2 could change to 'you', bahman, can not expect to get specific Y from nothingness.

What I would say here, however, and would write is: I have always seen correlation between X and Y, and therefore I have not yet seen Y from nothingness. So, then I would change P2. As far as I have observed, hitherto, no thing has come from nothingness. (The Truth is I can only talk about from what I have observed only, and NEVER from what "others" may or may not have observed. In other words, I can NEVER speak FOR another. Unless of course they have clearly clarified what they, themselves, have observed also.)

Also, as I have suggested, but may not have made fully clear yet, I do NOT 'expect' any thing at all, (if I did, then I might feel somewhat disappointed at times, when the UNexpected arises or arrives). I just always remain OPEN, instead. If I was 'expecting' some thing, then I am NOT fully OPEN. If I am NOT fully OPEN, then I am NOT at my best to be able to learn more nor better.
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Although I remain OPEN to EVERY thing and can NOT yet see how any thing can come from no thing, what I can and do very easily see is just how EVERY thing came into existence.

C. I do not, yet, see how you arrived at YOUR conclusion.
If X and Y can not coexist and X must vanish before Y takes place, then how and why does that mean that 'there should exist a mind'?
The problem is if X vanishes therefore we do not have any witness in order to have Y after all.
I am NOT sure what the word 'problem' means, to you. But, to me, 'problem' means just a question posed for a solution. Therefore, if you do not pose an actual 'problem', (that is; a question to be answered/solved), then there, really, is no problem at all.

Besides that, (and while I await your question, posed for a solution/answer), IF X does vanish, then WHY does that supposedly mean that there is NO witness in order to have Y after all? You did write;
If X vanishes, therefore we do not have any witness in order to have Y after all.

bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
This means that there should exist a mind who witnesses X and can cause Y when X is gone.
If that is just what you want to argue for, then that can be easily done, and in a much quicker and simpler way, or form.

Also, Y is not caused when X IS GONE. Y is caused/created WITH THE DISAPPEARANCE of X.

You also say 'mind' should exist who witnesses X and can cause Y ... .

You also insist that there are many 'minds'. Are you then suggesting that with absolutely EVERY X disappearing and/or going causing Y, then there is ANOTHER mind?
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
You might have to explain what the definition of the word 'mind' is that are you seeing this from here?
Mind is essence of any being or thing with ability to experience, decide and cause.
Does the inter-action of EVERY particle, and/or EVERY sub-particle, of matter, bouncing off of each other, have the; essence of mind, or which is mind, and thus having the ability to experience, decide, and cause?

Or, is 'being' or 'thing' not the actual matter but some thing else?

bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
If you seeing this 'mind' as being very deep down, at the most fundamental level of Creation, Itself, then I can see where you are coming from. But i just want to clarify first, to make sure.
I know that we agree on the fact is the most fundamental thing in reality but I want to reach to a point that we agree that mind exists and necessary for any change.
But this is WHAT I already SEE, and have SEEN for some time now, and also what I wholeheartedly agree with anyway.

What we do not agree on is the number. Either there is one Mind only, or many minds.

I KNOW what I can SEE, and what makes sense to me, but I am in NO position yet to say that what I SEE is correct, nor even remotely correct.

Maybe there are MANY 'minds', which I do NOT yet see, and SO I just wait patiently for you to SHOW me if there are. I will continue to ask clarifying questions to you that will help you SHOW the Truth of things here.
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:36 pm
Here we show two things, the necessity of existence of mind and the fact that causality involved in any change.
If an intelligent species has evolved that is capable of becoming truly Self-aware, then I do NOT dispute the necessity of existence of Mind at all.
Nor, do I dispute the fact that causality is involved in any change.

For, to me, it is a very fact that Creation nor Evolution could NOT exist without causality.
Creation AND Evolution co-exist together as One.
Therefore, there IS causality.
That is interesting too.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:36 pm

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.
If I have this correct;
Your definition of 'time' is the variable between two points.
My definition of 'time' is 'the measured' duration between two points.

Obviously, there has to be some sort of distance, (variable/duration) which, in itself, makes two things. Otherwise, there would only be one, unchangeable, thing, always.
Well, I first showed that two points are necessary otherwise the state of system become ill-defined.
Compartmentalizing and breaking things down into smaller and smaller DIFFERENT and SEPARATE things is how human being are much better ABLE to make sense of the "world" in which they live. So, using two different and separate points is necessary to explain things, but If I recall correctly I did say some thing earlier in relation to that when THINGS are defined accurately and properly, then ALL things, discussed within 'philosophical' discussion, will become clearly and easily UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN.

A huge part of the very reason WHY human beings are STILL, when this is written, searching answers IS because of how the use language. That is; the way that words are ILL-DEFINED is the reason WHY there still appears to still be some mysteries in Life left and WHY human beings are still so CONFUSED about some things.
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
These two points belong to a variable. I then show that there is a duration between two points otherwise the change never occurs.
It seems to me that we both agree with existence of duration. In my case the duration is fundamental since change cannot happen without it. In your case the duration is measured thing.[/quote]

To me, change can NOT happen without duration, so 'duration' is fundamental to change. So, we are in total agreement here.

However, and on a much deeper level, other things NEED to be explained and understood so that I can then explain how the 'duration' is only a perceived thing and not an actual real thing.

And, by the way, 'duration' is a measured thing, is it not?

Do we agree that 'duration' is a measured thing, taken between two points?
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:36 pm


What other option do we have?
What about the option of; There is a Mind, and, the 'beginning' and appearance of stuff lay at the same point?
I see what do you mean. I have only one argument against that now which I presented it in another thread. So let's see how our discussion follows in another thread.
Just to be clear for me, and the readers, what is the name of that other thread?
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
bahman wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:36 pm

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.
How 'we', different people, can have different experiences in different locations IS because how could 'we' NOT have. EVERY human body experiences different things. Through some or all of the five senses of each and every different human body different experiences are seen, felt, heard, smelt, and tasted. ALL bodies are in different locations. There are NO two bodies that can co-exist the exact same location. Even siamese twins, who share the exact same body, do NOT share the exact same experiences. One set of eyes might be looking in a different direction, thus having a different perspective and experiences, from a different location, and also forming different thinking/thoughts. These different experiences is thus the very reason WHY all people are different.

To me, 'people' are unique and different beings, with each one being within a different human head. Whereas, there is another Being, on a deeper level, that is even within each unique and different person(al) being.

How 'we', the one and only Being, can have different experiences in different locations, is by LOOKING AT ALL things through human being's different perspectives. The one and only Being is just the collective sharing of ALL the person/beings. That is; What it is that is agreed upon by ALL is how the one and only Being is omniscient, and able to KNOW.

'We', the one Being, is just a collective of 'we', the different experienced and located human beings.
I see what you are trying to say. But how do you relate one Mind to many bodies? Again, this we can discuss it in another thread.
I think the other thread is mind or minds, is this correct? If so, then I will see you there to explain and show how thee one Mind relates with and to the many bodies, and thus the many brains.

Age
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Age » Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:56 am

Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:15 am
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 9:05 am
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
Yes, I think that's what you're trying to teach,
Are you aware that you have to write and/or speak out loudly what THOUGHTS are occurring in that head if you want "others" to understand what it is that is being THOUGHT.

I asked you FOUR very plain and simple clarifying questions, which were:

But how would you, and do you, already KNOW what I am, supposedly, TRYING TO teach on this forum?

What do you think or believe that I am TRYING TO teach on this forum?

Have I written, or even suggested, any where in this forum that I am TRYING TO teach any thing here, in this forum?

If I have, then where?


Your response IS;
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
Yes, I think that's what you're trying to teach,
WHAT IS IT that you think that I am TRYING TO teach?

If you do NOT write it down, then we are NONE the wiser. I, for One, certainly have NO clue what you are thinking, in regards to this.

If you answer each and every question separately, then you will shine some light on that THINKING in that head. Until then, I am certainly in dark about what is THOUGHT to be happening here.
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
because everything you've written so far is consistent with it.
'Inconsistent' with WHAT exactly?

Are you at all aware that you have to spell out, in written words, what you are actually thinking and talking about, that is; if you want us to understand what IT IS that you are thinking and/or are talking about?
As I said before, you come across as a nondualist gone wrong, who fell into one of the typical traps, thinks he is the voice of the absolute.
Just because I come across as this to you, does that in and of itself mean that that is the absolute actual and real Truth?
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
I've called you out on this several times, and you seemed to have confirmed it.
You have supposedly called me out on WHAT, several times, and, I have "seemed" to have "confirmed" WHAT exactly, to you?
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
Even though you are spending a lot of time on every post, deliberately trying to evade the question and confuse the issue.
POINT OUT and SHOW one question that I have, so called "deliberately" TRIED TO evade.

And, while you are looking for just one question that I have actually evaded, how about counting just how many questions that I have asked you, and "others", of which you, and "them", have NOT answered.
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:37 am
That's pretty dishonest.
POINT OUT and SHOW where you think or believe that I have been dishonest, then we WILL actually have some thing to LOOK AT, and discuss.

Until then I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about in relation to dishonesty and Me.
Either you're playing a game, or you have severe comprehension issues and a strong belief in being the voice of the absolute.
Well I certainly do NOT have a 'strong' belief, as I do NOT even have 'any' belief.

I, obviously, would NOT know if I have "comprehension issues" unless of course they are POINTED OUT to me, which is some thing that you OBVIOUSLY do NOT do. Even when I ask you to POINT OUT things that you accuse me of, you WILL NOT even do that.

As for Me playing a game, well there could be some, or maybe even a LOT, of Truth in that.

Life, after all, is just a game, to be played and enjoyed. 'Playing', once meant, having fun and IF I am 'playing a game', then I am certainly having fun and enjoying.
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:15 am
But the problem isn't really with communication itself, is it.
The 'problem'. WHAT 'problem'?

I, for One, certainly do NOT see any problem here.

'Communication' on WHO'S part are you referring to here?

Did you read earlier WHERE I have said that I am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better?

Either you completely and fully UNDERSTAND ALL of what I am saying here, or, I have to continue learning how to communicate better. So, either you UNDERSTAND EVERY I am saying, or there really is a 'problem' with communication itself, and that problem IS; HOW can I better learn how I can communicate thy Self better?

If you continue to NOT answer My clarifying questions to you, and you continue to NOT point out and show the ERRORS of My ways, that you accuse Me of, then learning how to communicate better, with you, will NOT become easier, for Me.

To Me, it appears as though you are continually TRYING TO make 'this game' much harder than it necessarily HAS TO BE.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2049
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am

I agree with this, but not in the same way you do.

I already have a defined conclusion for what 'mind' is, what 'me' is, and how the 'mind' allows 'me' to experience thoughts and emotions in your sentence here. Now can you define the 'mind', the 'me', and how that that 'mind' allows 'me' to experience thoughts and emotions?
Mind to me is essence of any being or thing with the ability to experience, decide and cause.
Who or what is the being or thing that mind is the essence of?
Human is a being for example. Object is a thing for example.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Experiencing is an ability of mind therefore we cannot understand how mind experience certain things.
But I can UNDERSTAND and already KNOW how Mind experiences ALL things.

How do 'you' experience, certain, things?
We need to understand that there are three things, stuff, Qualia and mind when it comes to how I experience certain thing. Mind experience Qualia only since it is bounded by stuff. Qualia is the result of activity in stuff.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
The same is true for decision and causation.
When, and if, you KNOW what/who 'Mind' IS, then you KNOW, and UNDERSTAND these things also.
I would be happy to know your view.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am

What is the 'mind' and how is 'it' in relation to the 'me' here?
Also, are you able to answer who/what 'me' actually is?
Mind is essence of 'me'. 'Me' is being/thing.
Tell me if I have any of this wrong. From your perspective;

'me' is being/thing.
Every being/thing has a mind. And,
'mind' is essence of 'me'.

To me this does not follow. How can the ESSENCE OF 'me' be 'mind', but also me HAS a mind? (But maybe you have changed your view, and 'me' does NOT 'have' a mind, now?)
There are two statements in here: (1) 'me' is being/thing and (2) 'mind' is essence of 'me'.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
But firstly, who/what is 'being/thing'?
Human is a being for example.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
Imagine if some one explained to you that a 'tree' is being/thing. What would you make of that? To me, this does not say much at all.

At the moment, are you able to be better define what 'me' is, first?
I think we can understand what 'me' is through instances, a living thing, human for example. I don't think if there is any better definition for that.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
P2. That is just an assumption. Although I agree wholeheartedly with it, I have yet to see HOW any thing could come from nothing, but I also will not yet say Y CAN NOT come from nothing, until I see actual evidence that Y CAN NOT come from nothing. For all I KNOW the whole Universe may just have come from no thing at all.
Ok, let me argue it this way: We always see correlation between X and Y. Nothingness is however indifferent. Therefore we cannot expect to get specific Y from nothingness. So I change P2 to "one cannot expect to get specific Y from nothingness".
If, and when, you are speaking of, and FOR, 'we', then you have to be VERY, VERY careful. One would HAVE TO have absolute and ALL KNOWLEDGE of EVERY thing to be able to accurately and truly speak FOR 'we'. Unless of course the size of the group of 'we' is smaller than the group of EVERY thing, but if this is the case one NEEDS to still be VERY careful because they would still HAVE TO have absolute and ALL knowledge of EVERY one, in that group, to be able to accurately and truly speak FOR that 'we'.
Ok. I think I should have said that "one, me for example, always sees correlation between X and Y".
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
In saying that, however, I can accept that 'you', bahman, always see correlation between X and Y, and, 'you', bahman, can not expect to get specific Y from nothingness. And, that P2 could change to 'you', bahman, can not expect to get specific Y from nothingness.
Yes.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
What I would say here, however, and would write is: I have always seen correlation between X and Y, and therefore I have not yet seen Y from nothingness. So, then I would change P2. As far as I have observed, hitherto, no thing has come from nothingness. (The Truth is I can only talk about from what I have observed only, and NEVER from what "others" may or may not have observed. In other words, I can NEVER speak FOR another. Unless of course they have clearly clarified what they, themselves, have observed also.)
I think that these are valid argument which apply to everyone and every situation: (1) one always sees correlation between X and Y, (2) nothingness is indifferent and (3) Therefore, one cannot expect to get Y from nothingness.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Although I remain OPEN to EVERY thing and can NOT yet see how any thing can come from no thing, what I can and do very easily see is just how EVERY thing came into existence.

C. I do not, yet, see how you arrived at YOUR conclusion.
If X and Y can not coexist and X must vanish before Y takes place, then how and why does that mean that 'there should exist a mind'?
The problem is if X vanishes therefore we do not have any witness in order to have Y after all.
I am NOT sure what the word 'problem' means, to you. But, to me, 'problem' means just a question posed for a solution. Therefore, if you do not pose an actual 'problem', (that is; a question to be answered/solved), then there, really, is no problem at all.
Lets use the difficulty instead of the problem. So the preposition becomes: The difficulty is that one cannot expect to get Y if X vanishes and there is no witness for X.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Besides that, (and while I await your question, posed for a solution/answer), IF X does vanish, then WHY does that supposedly mean that there is NO witness in order to have Y after all? You did write;
If X vanishes, therefore we do not have any witness in order to have Y after all.
If there is no mind then there is no witness. That is the one of the main conclusion of the argument.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
This means that there should exist a mind who witnesses X and can cause Y when X is gone.
If that is just what you want to argue for, then that can be easily done, and in a much quicker and simpler way, or form.
Could you please provide the alternative?
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Also, Y is not caused when X IS GONE. Y is caused/created WITH THE DISAPPEARANCE of X.
That as I argued is not possible since there is only nothingness when X disappears.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
You also say 'mind' should exist who witnesses X and can cause Y ... .
Yes.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
You also insist that there are many 'minds'. Are you then suggesting that with absolutely EVERY X disappearing and/or going causing Y, then there is ANOTHER mind?
There are many minds and therefore many changes, Xs to Ys.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
You might have to explain what the definition of the word 'mind' is that are you seeing this from here?
Mind is essence of any being or thing with ability to experience, decide and cause.
Does the inter-action of EVERY particle, and/or EVERY sub-particle, of matter, bouncing off of each other, have the; essence of mind, or which is mind, and thus having the ability to experience, decide, and cause?
Yes. They also experience, decide and cause.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Or, is 'being' or 'thing' not the actual matter but some thing else?
It can be matter as well as human, animal, etc.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
If you seeing this 'mind' as being very deep down, at the most fundamental level of Creation, Itself, then I can see where you are coming from. But i just want to clarify first, to make sure.
I know that we agree on the fact is the most fundamental thing in reality but I want to reach to a point that we agree that mind exists and necessary for any change.
But this is WHAT I already SEE, and have SEEN for some time now, and also what I wholeheartedly agree with anyway.

What we do not agree on is the number. Either there is one Mind only, or many minds.

I KNOW what I can SEE, and what makes sense to me, but I am in NO position yet to say that what I SEE is correct, nor even remotely correct.

Maybe there are MANY 'minds', which I do NOT yet see, and SO I just wait patiently for you to SHOW me if there are. I will continue to ask clarifying questions to you that will help you SHOW the Truth of things here.
Ok, let's discuss this in another thread.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
To me, change can NOT happen without duration, so 'duration' is fundamental to change. So, we are in total agreement here.

However, and on a much deeper level, other things NEED to be explained and understood so that I can then explain how the 'duration' is only a perceived thing and not an actual real thing.

And, by the way, 'duration' is a measured thing, is it not?
The duration is the time elapsed between two points. It has to exist otherwise either the change never happens, in the case that duration is infinite, or all changes happen simultaneously if duration is zero.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Do we agree that 'duration' is a measured thing, taken between two points?
We cannot measure duration. What we measure is the change in something respect to a change in something else so called clock. Duration exists in both systems.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am

What about the option of; There is a Mind, and, the 'beginning' and appearance of stuff lay at the same point?
I see what do you mean. I have only one argument against that now which I presented it in another thread. So let's see how our discussion follows in another thread.
Just to be clear for me, and the readers, what is the name of that other thread?
Mind or minds. I am sorry for no being more specific.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
How 'we', different people, can have different experiences in different locations IS because how could 'we' NOT have. EVERY human body experiences different things. Through some or all of the five senses of each and every different human body different experiences are seen, felt, heard, smelt, and tasted. ALL bodies are in different locations. There are NO two bodies that can co-exist the exact same location. Even siamese twins, who share the exact same body, do NOT share the exact same experiences. One set of eyes might be looking in a different direction, thus having a different perspective and experiences, from a different location, and also forming different thinking/thoughts. These different experiences is thus the very reason WHY all people are different.

To me, 'people' are unique and different beings, with each one being within a different human head. Whereas, there is another Being, on a deeper level, that is even within each unique and different person(al) being.

How 'we', the one and only Being, can have different experiences in different locations, is by LOOKING AT ALL things through human being's different perspectives. The one and only Being is just the collective sharing of ALL the person/beings. That is; What it is that is agreed upon by ALL is how the one and only Being is omniscient, and able to KNOW.

'We', the one Being, is just a collective of 'we', the different experienced and located human beings.
I see what you are trying to say. But how do you relate one Mind to many bodies? Again, this we can discuss it in another thread.
I think the other thread is mind or minds, is this correct? If so, then I will see you there to explain and show how thee one Mind relates with and to the many bodies, and thus the many brains.
Yes. Let's discuss it there.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2973
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:22 am

AlexW wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
They dont possess memory so act automatically in accordance with the laws of physics
It is those laws that determine how the objects act rather than the objects themselves
Would you agree that to apply any law of physics you have to know and remember a previous
state of affairs so you can make an informed statement about the projected outcome ?
Yes but my point was that objects that act according to the laws of physics do not actually need to know the laws
An apple falling from a tree does not know what gravity is but it still falls because the laws of physics says it will

AlexW
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by AlexW » Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:41 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:22 am
Yes but my point was that objects that act according to the laws of physics do not actually need to know the laws
An apple falling from a tree does not know what gravity is but it still falls because the laws of physics says it will
Yes, sure, nothing has to know anything to do whatever it does - things happen spontaneously no matter if you know "laws of physics" or not.
But to state anything about any process you require memory - to define any law of physics you require memory of a previous state. There is no other way.
Defining a law of physics, or rather stating anything at all about a certain process, is based on memory - on thought.
Everything rests on this key ingredient.
I just wanted to point out that all of our knowledge is really based on a very flimsy, often unreliable tool - thought/memory. Without it nothing can be said about any so called "process" or "law of physics"...

Age
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Age » Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:09 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm

Mind to me is essence of any being or thing with the ability to experience, decide and cause.
Who or what is the being or thing that mind is the essence of?
Human is a being for example. Object is a thing for example.
Besides human beings what else can experience, decide and cause?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Experiencing is an ability of mind therefore we cannot understand how mind experience certain things.
But I can UNDERSTAND and already KNOW how Mind experiences ALL things.

How do 'you' experience, certain, things?
We need to understand that there are three things, stuff, Qualia and mind when it comes to how I experience certain thing. Mind experience Qualia only since it is bounded by stuff. Qualia is the result of activity in stuff.
I do not see that you are clearing up things here but rather leaving me with far more clarifying questions.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
The same is true for decision and causation.
When, and if, you KNOW what/who 'Mind' IS, then you KNOW, and UNDERSTAND these things also.
I would be happy to know your view.
What the 'Mind is IS that, within human beings that IS completely OPEN, which allows human beings to continually be able to imagine, learn, devise, design, construct, and create absolutely EVERY thing that they have, and EVERY thing that will continue creating.
Who the 'Mind' is IS Allah/God/Enlightenment, in the Spiritual or non-physical sense.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm

Mind is essence of 'me'. 'Me' is being/thing.
Tell me if I have any of this wrong. From your perspective;

'me' is being/thing.
Every being/thing has a mind. And,
'mind' is essence of 'me'.

To me this does not follow. How can the ESSENCE OF 'me' be 'mind', but also me HAS a mind? (But maybe you have changed your view, and 'me' does NOT 'have' a mind, now?)
There are two statements in here: (1) 'me' is being/thing and (2) 'mind' is essence of 'me'.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
But firstly, who/what is 'being/thing'?
Human is a being for example.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
Imagine if some one explained to you that a 'tree' is being/thing. What would you make of that? To me, this does not say much at all.

At the moment, are you able to be better define what 'me' is, first?
I think we can understand what 'me' is through instances, a living thing, human for example.
But what exactly is 'me', and, who exactly is 'me'?

I know that there are much clearer defined definitions than what you are providing here.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
I don't think if there is any better definition for that.
Fair enough.

I think and KNOW there is a much clearer and thus better definition. But depending on how strongly one think/believes the definitions they have now are true, right, and correct, will influence how long it takes for what I SEE and KNOW is a much clearer and better definition to be understood, accepted, and agreed upon.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm

Ok, let me argue it this way: We always see correlation between X and Y. Nothingness is however indifferent. Therefore we cannot expect to get specific Y from nothingness. So I change P2 to "one cannot expect to get specific Y from nothingness".
If, and when, you are speaking of, and FOR, 'we', then you have to be VERY, VERY careful. One would HAVE TO have absolute and ALL KNOWLEDGE of EVERY thing to be able to accurately and truly speak FOR 'we'. Unless of course the size of the group of 'we' is smaller than the group of EVERY thing, but if this is the case one NEEDS to still be VERY careful because they would still HAVE TO have absolute and ALL knowledge of EVERY one, in that group, to be able to accurately and truly speak FOR that 'we'.
Ok. I think I should have said that "one, me for example, always sees correlation between X and Y".
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
In saying that, however, I can accept that 'you', bahman, always see correlation between X and Y, and, 'you', bahman, can not expect to get specific Y from nothingness. And, that P2 could change to 'you', bahman, can not expect to get specific Y from nothingness.
Yes.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
What I would say here, however, and would write is: I have always seen correlation between X and Y, and therefore I have not yet seen Y from nothingness. So, then I would change P2. As far as I have observed, hitherto, no thing has come from nothingness. (The Truth is I can only talk about from what I have observed only, and NEVER from what "others" may or may not have observed. In other words, I can NEVER speak FOR another. Unless of course they have clearly clarified what they, themselves, have observed also.)
I think that these are valid argument which apply to everyone and every situation: (1) one always sees correlation between X and Y, (2) nothingness is indifferent and (3) Therefore, one cannot expect to get Y from nothingness.
I have already said some thing about being able to speak FOR every one.

I have also said that I do NOT expect any thing, and I gave reasons WHY for this.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am


I am NOT sure what the word 'problem' means, to you. But, to me, 'problem' means just a question posed for a solution. Therefore, if you do not pose an actual 'problem', (that is; a question to be answered/solved), then there, really, is no problem at all.
Lets use the difficulty instead of the problem. So the preposition becomes: The difficulty is that one cannot expect to get Y if X vanishes and there is no witness for X.
I am still unsure of what you have been arguing for here. I was thinking you were arguing some thing before but now I am wondering some thing else.

Before human beings came into existence were there any witnesses?

Did, what you call, 'minds' exist before humans and animals existed?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Besides that, (and while I await your question, posed for a solution/answer), IF X does vanish, then WHY does that supposedly mean that there is NO witness in order to have Y after all? You did write;
If X vanishes, therefore we do not have any witness in order to have Y after all.
If there is no mind then there is no witness.
I can and do accept and agree to this.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
That is the one of the main conclusion of the argument.
The actual conclusion is NOT what one would be best TRYING TO argue for.

If, however, ALL of the premises are True, then the conclusion would just logically and accurately follow soundly and validly, naturally.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am


If that is just what you want to argue for, then that can be easily done, and in a much quicker and simpler way, or form.
Could you please provide the alternative?
Yes, but an actual definition of 'Mind' needs to be comprehended, understood, accepted, and agreed upon for THE sound, valid argument to be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD also.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Also, Y is not caused when X IS GONE. Y is caused/created WITH THE DISAPPEARANCE of X.
That as I argued is not possible since there is only nothingness when X disappears.
But did you not say that Y is caused when X is gone?

I think you might have misunderstood me.

What I was saying is that if X IS GONE, then only Y IS LEFT, if Y is caused/created. This is WHY you say there is a distinct/separate "step in causality", whereas, I say there is NO distinct/separate "step in causality".

That is, to me, there is a continual flow of causality, and thus NO 'STEP' in causality. DURING the disappearance of X, then that is WHEN Y comes/caused/created into existence.

Y does NOT just suddenly emerge/exist AFTER X is gone. Y is caused/created/emerges/evolves with the degeneration/disappearance of X, instead. That is HOW evolution works, that is; the changing of one thing into another thing. The CHANGE happens in one continual FLOW, and NOT after one thing has gone.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
You also say 'mind' should exist who witnesses X and can cause Y ... .
Yes.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
You also insist that there are many 'minds'. Are you then suggesting that with absolutely EVERY X disappearing and/or going causing Y, then there is ANOTHER mind?
There are many minds and therefore many changes, Xs to Ys.
Are you at all able to LOOK AT the idea of just one Mind, observer/witness, in ALL things, and question me for clarification about this idea?

Or, does there HAVE TO BE many minds?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am


Does the inter-action of EVERY particle, and/or EVERY sub-particle, of matter, bouncing off of each other, have the; essence of mind, or which is mind, and thus having the ability to experience, decide, and cause?
Yes. They also experience, decide and cause.
Why do you propose they there HAS TO be many minds?

Why can there not be just one Mind?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Or, is 'being' or 'thing' not the actual matter but some thing else?
It can be matter as well as human, animal, etc.
I am pretty sure I already know the answer but I will ask for clarification anyway. Are you aware that to some people there is only actual physical matter, and so 'human', 'animal', et cetera MUST therefore BE actual matter also?

If so, then how do you overcome their objection?
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am


But this is WHAT I already SEE, and have SEEN for some time now, and also what I wholeheartedly agree with anyway.

What we do not agree on is the number. Either there is one Mind only, or many minds.

I KNOW what I can SEE, and what makes sense to me, but I am in NO position yet to say that what I SEE is correct, nor even remotely correct.

Maybe there are MANY 'minds', which I do NOT yet see, and SO I just wait patiently for you to SHOW me if there are. I will continue to ask clarifying questions to you that will help you SHOW the Truth of things here.
Ok, let's discuss this in another thread.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
To me, change can NOT happen without duration, so 'duration' is fundamental to change. So, we are in total agreement here.

However, and on a much deeper level, other things NEED to be explained and understood so that I can then explain how the 'duration' is only a perceived thing and not an actual real thing.

And, by the way, 'duration' is a measured thing, is it not?
The duration is the time elapsed between two points.
Okay, is the 'time elapsed' between two points a measured thing? Or, is the question; CAN the time 'elapsed' between two points BE a measured thing?

To me the word 'elapsed' in relation to the word 'time' usually refers to some measurement being made.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
It has to exist otherwise either the change never happens, in the case that duration is infinite, or all changes happen simultaneously if duration is zero.
I do not see that I am disagreeing with you at all here.

I think you are just misinterpreting what I am saying.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Do we agree that 'duration' is a measured thing, taken between two points?
We cannot measure duration. What we measure is the change in something respect to a change in something else so called clock. Duration exists in both systems.
To me the word 'duration' means the, so called, "time" 'measured' between two points. 'Two points' just being the CHANGE that HAS already taken place.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am


Just to be clear for me, and the readers, what is the name of that other thread?
Mind or minds. I am sorry for no being more specific.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am


I think the other thread is mind or minds, is this correct? If so, then I will see you there to explain and show how thee one Mind relates with and to the many bodies, and thus the many brains.
Yes. Let's discuss it there.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2049
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:09 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am

Who or what is the being or thing that mind is the essence of?
Human is a being for example. Object is a thing for example.
Besides human beings what else can experience, decide and cause?
Animals, plants, even elementary particles, etc.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:09 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am

But I can UNDERSTAND and already KNOW how Mind experiences ALL things.

How do 'you' experience, certain, things?
We need to understand that there are three things, stuff, Qualia and mind when it comes to how I experience certain thing. Mind experience Qualia only since it is bounded by stuff. Qualia is the result of activity in stuff.
I do not see that you are clearing up things here but rather leaving me with far more clarifying questions.
Ok, let's leave that aside for now. At the end we should discuss the subject of this thread too.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:09 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am

When, and if, you KNOW what/who 'Mind' IS, then you KNOW, and UNDERSTAND these things also.
I would be happy to know your view.
What the 'Mind is IS that, within human beings that IS completely OPEN, which allows human beings to continually be able to imagine, learn, devise, design, construct, and create absolutely EVERY thing that they have, and EVERY thing that will continue creating.
I think that is capacity of human's brain which allows all sort of thing which you mentioned. Mind is simple entity as I defined. The way that minds are structured in case of human's brain allow them to cause fantastic range of thoughts.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:09 pm
Who the 'Mind' is IS Allah/God/Enlightenment, in the Spiritual or non-physical sense.
By Mind I mean the supreme which is not absolutely powerful. This, power which unbound, is discussed in another thread, Mind or minds.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:09 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am

Tell me if I have any of this wrong. From your perspective;

'me' is being/thing.
Every being/thing has a mind. And,
'mind' is essence of 'me'.

To me this does not follow. How can the ESSENCE OF 'me' be 'mind', but also me HAS a mind? (But maybe you have changed your view, and 'me' does NOT 'have' a mind, now?)
There are two statements in here: (1) 'me' is being/thing and (2) 'mind' is essence of 'me'.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
But firstly, who/what is 'being/thing'?
Human is a being for example.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
Imagine if some one explained to you that a 'tree' is being/thing. What would you make of that? To me, this does not say much at all.

At the moment, are you able to be better define what 'me' is, first?
I think we can understand what 'me' is through instances, a living thing, human for example.
But what exactly is 'me', and, who exactly is 'me'?
'Me' is mind and body/physical.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
I know that there are much clearer defined definitions than what you are providing here.
What is that?
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm

I don't think if there is any better definition for that.
Fair enough.

I think and KNOW there is a much clearer and thus better definition. But depending on how strongly one think/believes the definitions they have now are true, right, and correct, will influence how long it takes for what I SEE and KNOW is a much clearer and better definition to be understood, accepted, and agreed upon.
Yes, that is possible. So I wait for your definition.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am

I am NOT sure what the word 'problem' means, to you. But, to me, 'problem' means just a question posed for a solution. Therefore, if you do not pose an actual 'problem', (that is; a question to be answered/solved), then there, really, is no problem at all.
Lets use the difficulty instead of the problem. So the preposition becomes: The difficulty is that one cannot expect to get Y if X vanishes and there is no witness for X.
I am still unsure of what you have been arguing for here. I was thinking you were arguing some thing before but now I am wondering some thing else.

Before human beings came into existence were there any witnesses?

Did, what you call, 'minds' exist before humans and animals existed?
Yes, there have been always something who have witnessed things and had caused changes.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Besides that, (and while I await your question, posed for a solution/answer), IF X does vanish, then WHY does that supposedly mean that there is NO witness in order to have Y after all? You did write;
If X vanishes, therefore we do not have any witness in order to have Y after all.
If there is no mind then there is no witness.
I can and do accept and agree to this.
Great.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
That is the one of the main conclusion of the argument.
The actual conclusion is NOT what one would be best TRYING TO argue for.

If, however, ALL of the premises are True, then the conclusion would just logically and accurately follow soundly and validly, naturally.
So what is wrong? You accept that there is a witness. The witness is the one who causes thing.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am

If that is just what you want to argue for, then that can be easily done, and in a much quicker and simpler way, or form.
Could you please provide the alternative?
Yes, but an actual definition of 'Mind' needs to be comprehended, understood, accepted, and agreed upon for THE sound, valid argument to be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD also.
The definition that I provided is the optimal definition which can explain how we could have changes.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Also, Y is not caused when X IS GONE. Y is caused/created WITH THE DISAPPEARANCE of X.
That as I argued is not possible since there is only nothingness when X disappears.
But did you not say that Y is caused when X is gone?

I think you might have misunderstood me.

What I was saying is that if X IS GONE, then only Y IS LEFT, if Y is caused/created. This is WHY you say there is a distinct/separate "step in causality", whereas, I say there is NO distinct/separate "step in causality".

That is, to me, there is a continual flow of causality, and thus NO 'STEP' in causality. DURING the disappearance of X, then that is WHEN Y comes/caused/created into existence.

Y does NOT just suddenly emerge/exist AFTER X is gone. Y is caused/created/emerges/evolves with the degeneration/disappearance of X, instead. That is HOW evolution works, that is; the changing of one thing into another thing. The CHANGE happens in one continual FLOW, and NOT after one thing has gone.
We have three steps in here: (1) When X exists, (2) When X disappears, (3) When Y emerges. You have nothing in the second step therefore you cannot have Y out of nothing. The only solution to this is to accept that both X and Y exist but at different points of a variable, so called time. Moreover, X is nothing but a state of affair, therefore you need to show that a state of affair has causal power too.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
You also say 'mind' should exist who witnesses X and can cause Y ... .
Yes.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
You also insist that there are many 'minds'. Are you then suggesting that with absolutely EVERY X disappearing and/or going causing Y, then there is ANOTHER mind?
There are many minds and therefore many changes, Xs to Ys.
Are you at all able to LOOK AT the idea of just one Mind, observer/witness, in ALL things, and question me for clarification about this idea?
The idea is to show first that a mind is needed whenever there is a change. One can then argue that there at least two mind exist, one the mind which is aware of change which s/he is responsible for and another mind which is responsible for the rest of changes.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Or, does there HAVE TO BE many minds?
There at least two minds in the reality we observe.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Does the inter-action of EVERY particle, and/or EVERY sub-particle, of matter, bouncing off of each other, have the; essence of mind, or which is mind, and thus having the ability to experience, decide, and cause?
Yes. They also experience, decide and cause.
Why do you propose they there HAS TO be many minds?
You cannot have any change otherwise.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Why can there not be just one Mind?
There are at least two minds. One is you which causes certain change that you aware of it and the other is in charge of rest of changes that you might be or not be aware of.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Or, is 'being' or 'thing' not the actual matter but some thing else?
It can be matter as well as human, animal, etc.
I am pretty sure I already know the answer but I will ask for clarification anyway. Are you aware that to some people there is only actual physical matter, and so 'human', 'animal', et cetera MUST therefore BE actual matter also?

If so, then how do you overcome their objection?
We are more than physical, by physical I mean certain entities which their behavior could be formulated, since we can decide.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
But this is WHAT I already SEE, and have SEEN for some time now, and also what I wholeheartedly agree with anyway.

What we do not agree on is the number. Either there is one Mind only, or many minds.

I KNOW what I can SEE, and what makes sense to me, but I am in NO position yet to say that what I SEE is correct, nor even remotely correct.

Maybe there are MANY 'minds', which I do NOT yet see, and SO I just wait patiently for you to SHOW me if there are. I will continue to ask clarifying questions to you that will help you SHOW the Truth of things here.
Ok, let's discuss this in another thread.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
To me, change can NOT happen without duration, so 'duration' is fundamental to change. So, we are in total agreement here.

However, and on a much deeper level, other things NEED to be explained and understood so that I can then explain how the 'duration' is only a perceived thing and not an actual real thing.

And, by the way, 'duration' is a measured thing, is it not?
The duration is the time elapsed between two points.
Okay, is the 'time elapsed' between two points a measured thing?
No. I showed that there should exist two points where X and Y are located at. Duration is time elapsed between these points. Duration should exist otherwise all changes happen simultaneously, in the case that duration is zero, or change never happen, in the case that duration is infinite.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Or, is the question; CAN the time 'elapsed' between two points BE a measured thing?
No. What we can measure is relative change in two things, X and C. X changes certain amount and C changes other amount. We then consider one of the things, C in here, as standard, clock. We finally say that changes in X is a fraction of change in another one, therefore that amount of time is passed.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
To me the word 'elapsed' in relation to the word 'time' usually refers to some measurement being made.
To me it means the time passed.

Age
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Age » Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:33 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:09 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm

Human is a being for example. Object is a thing for example.
Besides human beings what else can experience, decide and cause?
Animals, plants, even elementary particles, etc.
In other words EVERY thing, or EVERY physical thing, is either one correct?
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:09 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm

We need to understand that there are three things, stuff, Qualia and mind when it comes to how I experience certain thing. Mind experience Qualia only since it is bounded by stuff. Qualia is the result of activity in stuff.
I do not see that you are clearing up things here but rather leaving me with far more clarifying questions.
Ok, let's leave that aside for now. At the end we should discuss the subject of this thread too.
I think the only real difference between what 'you' and 'I' see here is;
You see, There are many free agents that can not be created. Whereas,
I see, There is only One free agent that always exists.

The trouble I have is YOUR 'free agents' come into and out existence, and thus they are created, and then they disappear. They are like the X that is caused into Y, when the X disappears.

MY 'free Agent', which always exists and thus is NOT created, observes ALL of this happening, and also KNOWS how it ALL evolves and thus is also ALL caused/created.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:09 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm

I would be happy to know your view.
What the 'Mind is IS that, within human beings that IS completely OPEN, which allows human beings to continually be able to imagine, learn, devise, design, construct, and create absolutely EVERY thing that they have, and EVERY thing that will continue creating.
I think that is capacity of human's brain which allows all sort of thing which you mentioned.
So, to you, it is the capacity of human brain that is OPEN, and is thus therefore the 'free agent', which you talk about here, is this correct?
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Mind is simple entity as I defined.
Yes, you defined 'mind' as the essence of 'me' and 'me' is the being/thing of EVERY object. There are therefore as many 'minds' as there are objects, and these 'minds' only come into existence when there is an object, which by the way ALL and EVERY object IS CREATED. Therefore, meaning EVERY 'me' IS also CREATED. Now, WHERE is the supposed 'free agent' that is supposedly NOT created?

The way that minds are structured in case of human's brain allow them to cause fantastic range of thoughts.[/quote]

How can 'minds' be STRUCTURED differently if they are supposedly 'free agents that are NOT created'?
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:09 pm
Who the 'Mind' is IS Allah/God/Enlightenment, in the Spiritual or non-physical sense.
By Mind I mean the supreme which is not absolutely powerful.
Well then, by definition, it is NOT supreme.

This, power which unbound, is discussed in another thread, Mind or minds.[/quote]

Your explanation in that discussion, to me, does NOT logically follow.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:09 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm

There are two statements in here: (1) 'me' is being/thing and (2) 'mind' is essence of 'me'.
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm

Human is a being for example.


I think we can understand what 'me' is through instances, a living thing, human for example.
But what exactly is 'me', and, who exactly is 'me'?
'Me' is mind and body/physical.
So, 'me' is EVERY thing, is this right?
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
I know that there are much clearer defined definitions than what you are providing here.
What is that?
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm

I don't think if there is any better definition for that.
Fair enough.

I think and KNOW there is a much clearer and thus better definition. But depending on how strongly one think/believes the definitions they have now are true, right, and correct, will influence how long it takes for what I SEE and KNOW is a much clearer and better definition to be understood, accepted, and agreed upon.
Yes, that is possible. So I wait for your definition.
Wait for My definition of WHAT exactly?

You seem to have your own definitions, which appear to be unchangeable.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm

Lets use the difficulty instead of the problem. So the preposition becomes: The difficulty is that one cannot expect to get Y if X vanishes and there is no witness for X.
I am still unsure of what you have been arguing for here. I was thinking you were arguing some thing before but now I am wondering some thing else.

Before human beings came into existence were there any witnesses?

Did, what you call, 'minds' exist before humans and animals existed?
Yes, there have been always something who have witnessed things and had caused changes.
You are confusing this again.

Has there been always 'something' OR 'some things' who have witnessed things and had caused changes?

If just one letter is missed, out of place, or incorrect, then the WHOLE sentence, paragraph, argument, and/or story IS changed.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm

If there is no mind then there is no witness.
I can and do accept and agree to this.
Great.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am


The actual conclusion is NOT what one would be best TRYING TO argue for.

If, however, ALL of the premises are True, then the conclusion would just logically and accurately follow soundly and validly, naturally.
So what is wrong? You accept that there is a witness. The witness is the one who causes thing.
What is wrong is; you are some times saying there are MANY witnesses (minds) and some times you say/imply, like now, that there is only A (or one) Witness.

A conclusion, which follows on from premises, are more easily accepted if it REMAINS the SAME.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am


Yes, but an actual definition of 'Mind' needs to be comprehended, understood, accepted, and agreed upon for THE sound, valid argument to be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD also.
The definition that I provided is the optimal definition which can explain how we could have changes.
If the definition that you provided is the BEST and MOST FAVORABLE optimal definition, then that is it. There is NO other real/better definition, for you. End of story.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am


But did you not say that Y is caused when X is gone?

I think you might have misunderstood me.

What I was saying is that if X IS GONE, then only Y IS LEFT, if Y is caused/created. This is WHY you say there is a distinct/separate "step in causality", whereas, I say there is NO distinct/separate "step in causality".

That is, to me, there is a continual flow of causality, and thus NO 'STEP' in causality. DURING the disappearance of X, then that is WHEN Y comes/caused/created into existence.

Y does NOT just suddenly emerge/exist AFTER X is gone. Y is caused/created/emerges/evolves with the degeneration/disappearance of X, instead. That is HOW evolution works, that is; the changing of one thing into another thing. The CHANGE happens in one continual FLOW, and NOT after one thing has gone.
We have three steps in here: (1) When X exists, (2) When X disappears, (3) When Y emerges. You have nothing in the second step therefore you cannot have Y out of nothing.
You missed my point again. This is NOT your fault, but mine. I still have a LONG way to go in my learning how to communicate better.

The only solution to this is to accept that both X and Y exist but at different points of a variable, so called time. Moreover, X is nothing but a state of affair, therefore you need to show that a state of affair has causal power too.[/quote]

There is NO need for me to do this as I am NOT disagreeing with you, besides the Mind/minds issue. I am just TRYING TO show, in far more greater detail, HOW what you are saying here IS actually True, Right, and Correct.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm

Yes.


There are many minds and therefore many changes, Xs to Ys.
Are you at all able to LOOK AT the idea of just one Mind, observer/witness, in ALL things, and question me for clarification about this idea?
The idea is to show first that a mind is needed whenever there is a change.
Already agreed with from the outset. Also agreed with is that 'A' mind is needed. 'A' infers One.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
One can then argue that there at least two mind exist,
But one does NOT 'have to' argue that there are at least two minds. This is completely unnecessary.

one the mind which is aware of change which s/he is responsible for and another mind which is responsible for the rest of changes.[/quote]

All of this is completely unnecessary from HOW I SEE things.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Or, does there HAVE TO BE many minds?
There at least two minds in the reality we observe.
Using words like 'in the REALITY we observe', influences that what is being said is 100% correct.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm

Yes. They also experience, decide and cause.
Why do you propose they there HAS TO be many minds?
You cannot have any change otherwise.
Are you absolutely sure of this?
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Why can there not be just one Mind?
There are at least two minds. One is you which causes certain change that you aware of it and the other is in charge of rest of changes that you might be or not be aware of.
All sounds very confusing.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm

It can be matter as well as human, animal, etc.
I am pretty sure I already know the answer but I will ask for clarification anyway. Are you aware that to some people there is only actual physical matter, and so 'human', 'animal', et cetera MUST therefore BE actual matter also?

If so, then how do you overcome their objection?
We are more than physical, by physical I mean certain entities which their behavior could be formulated, since we can decide.
But as I just said some people will argue that there is ONLY physical matter. How can you overcome this objection?
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:12 pm

Ok, let's discuss this in another thread.


The duration is the time elapsed between two points.
Okay, is the 'time elapsed' between two points a measured thing?
No. I showed that there should exist two points where X and Y are located at.
The words 'should' and 'is' can mean two very different things.

I agree that there 'is' therefore there is absolutely no need for the word 'should' here.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Duration is time elapsed between these points. Duration should exist otherwise all changes happen simultaneously, in the case that duration is zero, or change never happen, in the case that duration is infinite.
We, you and I, are agreeing on the exact same thing. We, you and I, are just using slightly different terms for the word 'time', which is NOT really affecting the outcome/conclusion here.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Or, is the question; CAN the time 'elapsed' between two points BE a measured thing?
No. What we can measure is relative change in two things, X and C.
There is NO disagreement here. What is measured is the distance between two points. The difference between one point to the other point IS change.

X changes certain amount and C changes other amount. We then consider one of the things, C in here, as standard, clock. We finally say that changes in X is a fraction of change in another one, therefore that amount of time is passed.[/quote]

Yes that is what human beings say. NO dispute here.
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
To me the word 'elapsed' in relation to the word 'time' usually refers to some measurement being made.
To me it means the time passed.
What is 'time passed'? Can it be a measurement?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2049
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by bahman » Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:22 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:33 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:09 pm

Besides human beings what else can experience, decide and cause?
Animals, plants, even elementary particles, etc.
In other words EVERY thing, or EVERY physical thing, is either one correct?
Every thing only. To me physical is caused by Mind/Minds/minds.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:33 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:09 pm
I do not see that you are clearing up things here but rather leaving me with far more clarifying questions.
Ok, let's leave that aside for now. At the end we should discuss the subject of this thread too.
I think the only real difference between what 'you' and 'I' see here is;
You see, There are many free agents that can not be created. Whereas,
I see, There is only One free agent that always exists.
There are at least two free agents. One who is you who cause certain things which you are aware you do. The rest of changes can be assigned to another free agent.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:33 pm
The trouble I have is YOUR 'free agents' come into and out existence, and thus they are created, and then they disappear. They are like the X that is caused into Y, when the X disappears.
His mind does not come into and out of existence. His mind simply exists. He only as a being/thing comes into and out of existence because he comes into and out of a body.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:33 pm
MY 'free Agent', which always exists and thus is NOT created, observes ALL of this happening, and also KNOWS how it ALL evolves and thus is also ALL caused/created.
I understand what you are saying. But I am sure that we can agree on the fact that you are in charge of certain changes. There should exist at least one more free agent who is in charge of the rest of changes. So there is at least two free agents in here unless you claim that the fact that you are in charge of certain changes is an illusion.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:33 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:09 pm
What the 'Mind is IS that, within human beings that IS completely OPEN, which allows human beings to continually be able to imagine, learn, devise, design, construct, and create absolutely EVERY thing that they have, and EVERY thing that will continue creating.
I think that is capacity of human's brain which allows all sort of thing which you mentioned.
So, to you, it is the capacity of human brain that is OPEN, and is thus therefore the 'free agent', which you talk about here, is this correct?
Human is a mind and a body. His body is however made of cells and atoms and electrons, etc. each has its own mind. We are able to do all sort of things that you mentioned because of the way that these minds are working together. Our brains are OPEN because of how our brains are structured.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:33 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Mind is simple entity as I defined.
Yes, you defined 'mind' as the essence of 'me' and 'me' is the being/thing of EVERY object. There are therefore as many 'minds' as there are objects, and these 'minds' only come into existence when there is an object, which by the way ALL and EVERY object IS CREATED. Therefore, meaning EVERY 'me' IS also CREATED. Now, WHERE is the supposed 'free agent' that is supposedly NOT created?
Your mind is not created. The physical that you are attached to it is created.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:33 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
The way that minds are structured in case of human's brain allow them to cause fantastic range of thoughts.
How can 'minds' be STRUCTURED differently if they are supposedly 'free agents that are NOT created'?
The way that 'minds' are connected together make an object what it is.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:33 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:09 pm
Who the 'Mind' is IS Allah/God/Enlightenment, in the Spiritual or non-physical sense.
By Mind I mean the supreme which is not absolutely powerful.
Well then, by definition, it is NOT supreme.
Well, if you define supreme as absolute power then it does not exist. If you define supreme as the strongest who exists right now then supreme exists.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:33 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
This, power which unbound, is discussed in another thread, Mind or minds.
Your explanation in that discussion, to me, does NOT logically follow.
I already answer to all your questions in another thread. Let's hope that things work out.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:33 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:09 pm
But what exactly is 'me', and, who exactly is 'me'?
'Me' is mind and body/physical.
So, 'me' is EVERY thing, is this right?
No. There exist many 'me', such as me and you.
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:33 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
I know that there are much clearer defined definitions than what you are providing here.
What is that?
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
Fair enough.

I think and KNOW there is a much clearer and thus better definition. But depending on how strongly one think/believes the definitions they have now are true, right, and correct, will influence how long it takes for what I SEE and KNOW is a much clearer and better definition to be understood, accepted, and agreed upon.
Yes, that is possible. So I wait for your definition.
Wait for My definition of WHAT exactly?
How do you define a being, yourself for example?
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
You seem to have your own definitions, which appear to be unchangeable.
Yes.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
I am still unsure of what you have been arguing for here. I was thinking you were arguing some thing before but now I am wondering some thing else.

Before human beings came into existence were there any witnesses?

Did, what you call, 'minds' exist before humans and animals existed?
Yes, there have been always something who have witnessed things and had caused changes.
You are confusing this again.

Has there been always 'something' OR 'some things' who have witnessed things and had caused changes?
Yes, there has been always 'some things' who have witnessed things and had caused changes.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
If just one letter is missed, out of place, or incorrect, then the WHOLE sentence, paragraph, argument, and/or story IS changed.
Sorry for that.
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:41 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
I can and do accept and agree to this.
Great.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
The actual conclusion is NOT what one would be best TRYING TO argue for.

If, however, ALL of the premises are True, then the conclusion would just logically and accurately follow soundly and validly, naturally.
So what is wrong? You accept that there is a witness. The witness is the one who causes thing.
What is wrong is; you are some times saying there are MANY witnesses (minds) and some times you say/imply, like now, that there is only A (or one) Witness.

A conclusion, which follows on from premises, are more easily accepted if it REMAINS the SAME.
I see. I use single witness when I want to argue the argument about change, the argument that there is a mind because there is a change. We have witnesses, at least two, when it comes to the whole picture, in another word the universe.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Yes, but an actual definition of 'Mind' needs to be comprehended, understood, accepted, and agreed upon for THE sound, valid argument to be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD also.
The definition that I provided is the optimal definition which can explain how we could have changes.
If the definition that you provided is the BEST and MOST FAVORABLE optimal definition, then that is it. There is NO other real/better definition, for you. End of story.
I hope that we can reach to a conclusion that my definition is good enough.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
But did you not say that Y is caused when X is gone?

I think you might have misunderstood me.

What I was saying is that if X IS GONE, then only Y IS LEFT, if Y is caused/created. This is WHY you say there is a distinct/separate "step in causality", whereas, I say there is NO distinct/separate "step in causality".

That is, to me, there is a continual flow of causality, and thus NO 'STEP' in causality. DURING the disappearance of X, then that is WHEN Y comes/caused/created into existence.

Y does NOT just suddenly emerge/exist AFTER X is gone. Y is caused/created/emerges/evolves with the degeneration/disappearance of X, instead. That is HOW evolution works, that is; the changing of one thing into another thing. The CHANGE happens in one continual FLOW, and NOT after one thing has gone.
We have three steps in here: (1) When X exists, (2) When X disappears, (3) When Y emerges. You have nothing in the second step therefore you cannot have Y out of nothing.
You missed my point again. This is NOT your fault, but mine. I still have a LONG way to go in my learning how to communicate better.
I think I should have been more specific and elaborated more.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
The only solution to this is to accept that both X and Y exist but at different points of a variable, so called time. Moreover, X is nothing but a state of affair, therefore you need to show that a state of affair has causal power too.
There is NO need for me to do this as I am NOT disagreeing with you, besides the Mind/minds issue. I am just TRYING TO show, in far more greater detail, HOW what you are saying here IS actually True, Right, and Correct.
I see.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Are you at all able to LOOK AT the idea of just one Mind, observer/witness, in ALL things, and question me for clarification about this idea?
The idea is to show first that a mind is needed whenever there is a change.
Already agreed with from the outset. Also agreed with is that 'A' mind is needed. 'A' infers One.
Great.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Why do you propose they there HAS TO be many minds?
You cannot have any change otherwise.
Are you absolutely sure of this?
So the whole picture as I should elaborated is like this. I first consider a change in a system and argue that a mind is needed for that change. I then argue that in the universe there are at least two minds because there are changes.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Why can there not be just one Mind?
There are at least two minds. One is you which causes certain change that you aware of it and the other is in charge of rest of changes that you might be or not be aware of.
All sounds very confusing.
Why?
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
I am pretty sure I already know the answer but I will ask for clarification anyway. Are you aware that to some people there is only actual physical matter, and so 'human', 'animal', et cetera MUST therefore BE actual matter also?

If so, then how do you overcome their objection?
We are more than physical, by physical I mean certain entities which their behavior could be formulated, since we can decide.
But as I just said some people will argue that there is ONLY physical matter. How can you overcome this objection?
They have three main problems: (1) How matter activity can give rise to consciousness (matter is unconscious so where consciousness comes from, I have an argument that emergence is impossible), (2) Why consciousness exists (why things don't evolve in dark) and (3) The problem of free will (I have an argument for that).
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am

Okay, is the 'time elapsed' between two points a measured thing?
No. I showed that there should exist two points where X and Y are located at.
The words 'should' and 'is' can mean two very different things.

I agree that there 'is' therefore there is absolutely no need for the word 'should' here.
Yes, my fault.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Duration is time elapsed between these points. Duration should exist otherwise all changes happen simultaneously, in the case that duration is zero, or change never happen, in the case that duration is infinite.
We, you and I, are agreeing on the exact same thing. We, you and I, are just using slightly different terms for the word 'time', which is NOT really affecting the outcome/conclusion here.
Great.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Or, is the question; CAN the time 'elapsed' between two points BE a measured thing?
No. What we can measure is relative change in two things, X and C.
There is NO disagreement here. What is measured is the distance between two points. The difference between one point to the other point IS change.
Great.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
X changes certain amount and C changes other amount. We then consider one of the things, C in here, as standard, clock. We finally say that changes in X is a fraction of change in another one, therefore that amount of time is passed.
Yes that is what human beings say. NO dispute here.
Great.
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
To me the word 'elapsed' in relation to the word 'time' usually refers to some measurement being made.
To me it means the time passed.
What is 'time passed'? Can it be a measurement?
No, just change can be measured directly. We measure certain change relative to a standard change and then we use standard change to say how much time has passed.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests