bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 1:51 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
I think they are sound and valid.
Okay, but I KNOW they are NOT.
Or, you just don't understand.
OR, maybe 'I' understand FAR MORE than 'you' could even IMAGINE here.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
O, now you don't know what you are talking about. Let me commont further.
Okay, we WILL wait.
Ok.
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Now you are not making any sense.
Okay, but WHY, EXACTLY?
I know the whole picture.
So, you now CLAIM to know the whole picture, YET the picture that you are painting here for us is, OBVIOUSLY, False, Wrong, Incorrect, AND VERY CONTRADICTORY. So, what makes you ASSUME and BELIEVE that you know the whole picture?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
X and Y either lay on the same point there is a distance between them. Which one do you pick?
The words 'lay on the same point' does NOT really make that much sense when in relation to two DIFFERENT 'objects'.
I am talking about one system which is subject to change, a falling apple for example.
But every system is IN CONTINUOUS CHANGE, besides the BELIEF-system OF COURSE. Therefore it is ONLY the BELIEF-system that is 'subject to change'.
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Because there is a gap between X and Y.
BUT considering the Fact that there is NO ACTUAL 'separation' in the WHOLE Universe, besides, OF COURSE, the separation/s made through 'conception' or 'conceptual thinking'.
If there is no gap between X and Y then things would be simultaneous. Do you what is simultaneous? Do you know what is the difference between simultaneous and temporal?
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
There is a gap between when you experience something and when you cause something.
So, for example, when you 'experienced' your first year teacher telling you to 'sit down now', and, when you 'caused' the words above these ones, you are SAYING and CLAIMING that there is a so-called 'gap', right?
I am saying that there is a gap between asking you to do something and you doing something. For example, a teacher asks you to sit down and then you sit down.[/quote]
But I might be picking my nose, for example, when a teacher asks me to sit down, so there is ACTUALLY NO gap between the asking me to do some thing and the doing of this thing.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
This gap, however, is filled by background whatever you experience but it is not the subject of your focus.
I have absolutely NO IDEA NOR CLUE what 'filled by background' means AT ALL.
By the background, I mean whatever that you experience and it is not the subject of your focus. For example, now you are reading what I am writing. It takes you time that you read and then understand what I am writing. So there is a gap between reading and understanding too.
But WHY is there A GAP between you reading and you understanding?
And, HOW LONG is the GAP between you reading and understanding?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
You however experience all sorts of things, like your monitor and whatever is behind it. So we have two things in here: 1) Whatever is your subject of focus, like reading and then understanding my words, and 2) the background whatever you experience and it is not the subject of your focus, your monitor and whatever is behind it for example.
WHY do you ALWAYS IMAGINE there is A GAP, SOMEWHERE?
Can you REALLY NOT YET SEE and UNDERSTAND that there is NO ACTUAL 'gap' ANYWHERE?
OF COURSE there IS a 'distance' from when you see/read 'things' and when you see/understand some 'thing', but this in NO way means that there is ANY ACTUAL 'separation'. Besides, OF COURSE, the 'separation' of your OWN making.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
By simultaneous, I mean that X and Y lay at the same point or the distance between X and Y is absolutely zero. Temporal and simultaneous events are two different categories therefore they cannot be the same.
So, HOW, EXACTLY, does 'this' DIFFER from what I SAID and WROTE here?
What is simultaneous and temporal to you?
HOW MANY TIMES are you going to MAKE CLAIMS in this forum but WHEN asked to back them up or CLARIFY them you WILL just ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT?
'Simultaneous', to me, is something like two or more 'things' happening at the same time.
'Temporal', to me, here relates to 'time', or, 'temporary' and NOT 'eternal'?
What is 'simultaneous' and 'temporal', to you?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Example!? Anything that can experience now, like the chair that you are sitting on.
So now you are CLAIMING that 'chairs' can experience 'things', correct?
Sure it does. Your chair is made of wood which is a sort of matter. Matter is made of minds and Qualia.
LOL
LOL And,
LOL
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
What is the definition of regress for you?
'Return to a former or less developed state', will suffice for now.
No, by regress I mean endless. For example when something depends on something else etc.
Even to your OWN ABSURD CONCLUSION that EVERY 'thing' CAME FROM NO 'thing' there STILL EXISTS and ENDLESSNESS of DEPENDENCE, or CAUSE.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
To me, there are two categories of things, either the thing is reachable or not no matter how much you wait.
But the word 'you' refers to 'that', which is VERY, VERY limited. So, there are MANY, MANY 'things' that ARE 'unreachable', to 'you'.
'Regress' being just ANOTHER one of those 'things' that 'you' can NOT reach but 'I' CAN.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
The first category is a finite thing. The second category is infinity. Regress is endless so it is worst than infinity.
'Worst, (or even worse), than infinity', is NOT a LOGICAL term NOR phrase, in the english language.
And, it is GREAT to SEE that you DO RECOGNIZE the two categories of 'finite' and 'infinite'.
So you understand the difference between finite and infinite?
Yes.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Can you reach the infinite future for example if you could live forever?
Yes.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
What is your definition of regress?
As above.
Your definition of 'regress' is 'endless', right?
Yes.
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
You are chasing your tail when you say that matter is physical. What is physical? What matter is.
So, YOUR WAY out of 'this' was to just SAY and CLAIM that 'matter' is NOT 'physical', correct?
No, I am saying that just saying that matter is physical does not resolve the issue.
WHAT ISSUE? To me there is NO ISSUE AT ALL here, OTHER THAN you being SO CONTRADICTORY, OF COURSE.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
You have to explain what is physical.
To WHO, and WHY?
I am NOT the one making the CLAIMS here.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
So don't you agree that your definition of physical has problems?
Yes.
But explain to you that it has a problem since it is human dependent.
But there is NO problem. I just TOLD you THAT.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
You gave your definition of physicality, something that can be smelt, seen, etc.
AND what did that AT ALL have to do with some so-called 'thing' as 'spiritual reality'?
Something that some people can experience and others not.
But EVERY one experiences 'spiritual reality'. Only SOME recognize this Fact.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
No, I used it.
I asked what is physical to you.
AND I ANSWERED 'it'.
But your definition has a problem.
NO it does NOT.
But what do you ASSUME or BELIEVE is the so-called 'problem' with my definition of 'physical'.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
I didn't say that matter is not physical.
I asked 'you', "bahman", 'By the way 'matter' is just 'that', which is of 'physicality', yes or no?'
Which 'you' CLEARLY replied with 'No'.
So, now HOW, EXACTLY, does this ALIGN with your CLAIM here that you did NOT say that matter is not physical?
Matter to me is made of minds and Qualia. By physicality, I mean something that exists on its own.
Will you EVER provide ANY EXAMPLES?
What is some 'thing', to you, that exists 'on its OWN'?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
I asked you the question that I did, SPECIFICALLY in the WAY that I did, because of the OUTCOME that WOULD arise, and which HAS now ARISEN.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
What do you mean by physical?
As I SAID BEFORE, 'that', which can be felt by the five senses of the body.
But that definition has a problem as I showed you. It is human-dependent.
How is just being 'human-dependent' a so-called 'problem' here?
Also, what I SAID, and MEANT, NEVER meant 'human-dependent'. This is just ANOTHER 'thing' of your OWN making or PRESUMING.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
I already explain what mind is in OP.
So, to you, 'mind' is 'an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause', and, which, OBVIOUSLY IN YOUR VERSION of 'things', existed BEFORE absolutely ANY 'thing' ELSE did, and which CAUSED absolutely EVERY 'thing' to come into existence, OUT OF and FROM absolutely NOTHING, other than from its OWN self, correct?
No, I am not talking about the beginning of time here.
NEITHER AM I.
WHY do you PRESUME the MOST ILLOGICAL and STUPID 'things' some of the time?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Minds have existed since the beginning of time since there is no such thing as before the beginning of time.
Ah okay. So minds and time came FROM NO 'thing' just like EVERY 'thing' ELSE did, to you, correct?