free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...

[Age]

This...

(I)f all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom(?) There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

...is the assertion from the opening.

Anyone have any thoughts on it?

The assertion hinges on an assumption that “non-material,” exists.
Only the physical exists, invalidates that assertion.

Well the non-material OBVIOUSLY 'has to' exist. So, the assertion is NOT invalidated and so COULD BE True.

For example:

- Thoughts exist, therefore thoughts are physical.

1. Where is thee PROOF that "only the physical exists". And,

2. Where is thee PROOF that 'thoughts' are physical?

- Therefore, thoughts are of a physicality excluded by current assumptions.

We WILL have to WAIT, and SEE, FIRST.

- Like phenomena that doesn’t fit what’s known of physics, what doesn't fit assumptions about physicality gets tossed into a similar “dark matter,” fudge-factor category that folks call, “non-material.”

I suggest NOT 'assuming' absolutely ANY thing AT ALL.

I also suggest that if ANY one mentions the words 'dark matter', then they be ABLE to EXPLAIN what those words mean or are referring to EXACTLY. And, if they CAN NOT, then they MUST allow ANY one else to bring ANY words they like into a discussion and ALSO NOT 'have to' EXPLAIN what those words mean or refer to, EXACTLY, AS WELL.

- The fact that definitions of “materialism,” exclude thoughts as “non-material,” is merely evidence of incomplete knowledge concerning:
- the nature of physicality,
- what it is that we are,
- what happens to each of us, us defined as awareness.

VERY, VERY True.

- This incomplete knowledge is understandable.

This is VERY UNDERSTANDABLE when one has just NOT gained FULL nor complete knowledge YET.

And, that most of 'you', human beings, had NOT YET gained complete knowledge of ALL of the above, in the days when this was being was FULLY UNDERSTANDABLE, considering the VERY Fact that gaining knowledge is just a NATURALLY evolving process.

- After all, what human can claim complete knowledge about anything let alone physicality,

Those human beings who have ALREADY gained 'complete knowledge' of 'things' can claim the complete knowledge about anything let alone physicality.

when some questions are unanswerable,

Will you SHARE ANY of these so-called "unanswerable questions" with us here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

And, when you say, "some questions are unanswerable", do you mean FOREVER MORE?

and when a dog will insist that invisible-to-human-senses odors are in fact tangible and physical?

HOW, EXACTLY, do dogs 'insist' things, to you?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

?

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of just thinking or BELIEVING some thing is true, while doing so without absolutely ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE nor PROOF AT ALL for.

And as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, when CHALLENGED, to back up and support THEIR CLAIMS, absolutely NOTHING of ANY substance AT ALL is provided.

I DON'T 'believe' anything. It's NOT hard to spot A charlatan, but apparently Henry HAS great difficulty DOING this. That's not MY problem. And I don't RECALL addressing you btw, SO keep YOUR big FAT hairy SNOUT out OF my conversations.


Warmest regards,
VT.

[Age]

… continued.

The solution to the artificial metaphysical crossroad of material/non-material is simple.
Simply, improve the definition of “material,” to more accurately describe reality.

I would ALWAYS suggest IMPROVING the definition of ALL words, but I would NEVER suggest do this "to more accurately describe" 'reality', itself.

'Reality', Itself, is ALREADY 'defined' ACCURATELY and PERFECTLY.

I suggest 'fitting in' your human being based words and definitions (descriptions) to BETTER FIT (with) 'Reality', Itself, rather than 'you', human beings, ASSUMING what 'reality' is, and then 'trying to' describe that ASSUMPTION, THEORY, or GUESS.

'Reality' exists HOW 'It' IS, no matter how many DIFFERENT ways 'you', human beings, 'try to' define and describe 'It'. BUT, when 'you' work out

Change the definition of material to include that which has material effects, and say hello to physical thoughts.

How, EXACTLY, do 'thoughts', themselves, have so-called "material effects'?

WHY would ANY one change the definition of the word 'material' to include those things that MAY NOT be 'material' AT ALL? To do so seems a rather ABSURD thing to do, well to me anyway.

By this improved and more accurate definition, thoughts cause physical effects and therefore thought is a physical phenomena.

Wind causes water effects but is wind a water phenomena? Should we also change the definition of the non-wet/non-water 'wind' to include it as water?

And, if we did, then would this REALLY be an 'improved' and 'more accurate' definition?

I would NOT class defining 'thoughts' as a 'physical material' as an "improved and more accurate" definition AT ALL. This is because there is absolutely NO proof AT ALL that 'thought' is a 'physical phenomena' nor an actual 'physical material'. Within everybody I have LOOKED I have NOT been able to observe NOR see 'thoughts', themselves.

Thought can create material statues and thought can tear them down. Thought can feed a world population once thought unfeedable.

'Thought' creates EVERY, if not, then just about EVERY, human constructed thing, and 'thought' controls EVERY human mis/behavior.

Thought can give every beauty contestant an answer to achieving world peace, and thus assuage the thought-guilt of privileged opulence with the knowledge that at least ostensible, peaceful motives for rolling out of bed every day pass the woke test.

But 'thought' does NOT 'give' ANY one an answer to ANY thing. 'Thought', itself, is 'the answer', that comes. 'The answer', itself, is 'a thought'. If 'that answer/thought' is true, right, or correct, however, is another question/issue.

Thought can even toss heavy material objects into space. Ain’t this the darndest thing you’ve ever seen? (Could the launch date be April 1?)
https://www.aerotime.aero/29421-america ... satellites

Thought, by itself, will NOT toss those material objects into 'space'. It will be imagining/dreaming, devising, designing, and creating, which could 'toss' those things into 'space'. And, imagining/dreaming, devising, designing, and the ability to create is ALL, in one way or another, contained within 'thought', itself, anyway

Also, it is actually KNOWING, and BELIEF, that actually makes all of these human being made creations happen, or 'come to fruition', as some say, which again is contained within 'thinking', itself, also.

By the way, even 'Peace', Itself, is just ANOTHER thing that human beings WILL make happen, and come to fruition through KNOWING, and BELIEF.

[Age]

If a set of four wheels, a radiator, exhaust pipe, distributor cap, carburator, axel, etc., are unable to drive to the store individually, how then can a car do so when these things are combined to form the object that is the car?

A car can be understood and described from the subatomic level of electrons, protons, and neutrons thru the parts level of plugs, timing chain, and alternator to the car level as assembled vehicle that Mallory directs to convey herself from home to work and back again.

The car, at any level, is insensate, dumb matter that is part of what fictional ghost Einstein called an unending stream of cause and effect.

No such understanding and description exists for Mallory, who (like the person readin' this post; like the person who wrote this post), while composed of insensate, dumb matter, is most decidedly not insensate, not dumb, and not merely a link in causal chains.

A 'person', itself, when defined, accurately, properly, and correctly, or in other words; defined in a way that 'fits in' perfectly with EVERY other word and definition without ANY contradiction AT ALL, then what is SEEN is that 'a person' is NOT composed matter, which is visible to the human eyes.

There is obviously a human body, which consists of physical visibly seen matter, but this could NOT be the 'person'. Unless, of course, one LOOKS AT and SEES that there being some persons who are 'less' or 'more' of 'a person' than "others" are.

And the question and assertion...

If all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain and body, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can those particles give birth to understanding and freedom?

There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

...stand.

[Age]

?

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of just thinking or BELIEVING some thing is true, while doing so without absolutely ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE nor PROOF AT ALL for.

And as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, when CHALLENGED, to back up and support THEIR CLAIMS, absolutely NOTHING of ANY substance AT ALL is provided.

I DON'T 'believe' anything.

I NEVER said you did 'believe' ANY thing.

It's NOT hard to spot A charlatan, but apparently Henry HAS great difficulty DOING this. That's not MY problem.

Will you provide ANY example of this APPARENT 'charlatan', which you can APPARENTLY 'spot' here but which "henry quirk" supposedly can NOT?

If no, then WHY NOT?

And I don't RECALL addressing you btw, SO keep YOUR big FAT hairy SNOUT out OF my conversations.


Warmest regards,
VT.

I do NOT RECALL entering "your conversation", until this time. I WAS just USING "your conversation" to POINT OUT and SHOW, the readers, what 'you', adult human beings, DID, in those days when this was being written.

Remember, I was just POINTING OUT and SHOWING that you made the claim; "He's insane", but then you FAILED COMPLETELY and UTTERLY to back up and support this CLAIM when CHALLENGED and QUESTIONED about if what that one asserted was insane, then WHY?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of just thinking or BELIEVING some thing is true, while doing so without absolutely ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE nor PROOF AT ALL for.

And as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, when CHALLENGED, to back up and support THEIR CLAIMS, absolutely NOTHING of ANY substance AT ALL is provided.

I DON'T 'believe' anything.

I NEVER said you did 'believe' ANY thing.

It's NOT hard to spot A charlatan, but apparently Henry HAS great difficulty DOING this. That's not MY problem.

Will you provide ANY example of this APPARENT 'charlatan', which you can APPARENTLY 'spot' here but which "henry quirk" supposedly can NOT?

If no, then WHY NOT?

And I don't RECALL addressing you btw, SO keep YOUR big FAT hairy SNOUT out OF my conversations.


Warmest regards,
VT.

I do NOT RECALL entering "your conversation", until this time. I WAS just USING "your conversation" to POINT OUT and SHOW, the readers, what 'you', adult human beings, DID, in those days when this was being written.

Remember, I was just POINTING OUT and SHOWING that you made the claim; "He's insane", but then you FAILED COMPLETELY and UTTERLY to back up and support this CLAIM when CHALLENGED and QUESTIONED about if what that one asserted was insane, then WHY?

You WANT me to PROVE that HE'S inSANE? Some things ARE self EXPLANATORY. IDIOT.

[Age]

I DON'T 'believe' anything.

I NEVER said you did 'believe' ANY thing.

It's NOT hard to spot A charlatan, but apparently Henry HAS great difficulty DOING this. That's not MY problem.

Will you provide ANY example of this APPARENT 'charlatan', which you can APPARENTLY 'spot' here but which "henry quirk" supposedly can NOT?

If no, then WHY NOT?

And I don't RECALL addressing you btw, SO keep YOUR big FAT hairy SNOUT out OF my conversations.


Warmest regards,
VT.

I do NOT RECALL entering "your conversation", until this time. I WAS just USING "your conversation" to POINT OUT and SHOW, the readers, what 'you', adult human beings, DID, in those days when this was being written.

Remember, I was just POINTING OUT and SHOWING that you made the claim; "He's insane", but then you FAILED COMPLETELY and UTTERLY to back up and support this CLAIM when CHALLENGED and QUESTIONED about if what that one asserted was insane, then WHY?

You WANT me to PROVE that HE'S inSANE? Some things ARE self EXPLANATORY. IDIOT.

I do NOT want you to do absolutely ANY thing AT ALL.

I was just SHOWING, by POINTING OUT, that you FAILED COMPLETELY to back up and and support YOUR CLAIMS, ONCE AGAIN, when you were CHALLENGED, and QUESTIONED for CLARITY.

And, if you want to call me, or ANY one else, an "IDIOT" for NOT SEEING and RECOGNIZING what is, supposedly, self-EXPLANATORY, then are 'you' also an IDIOT for NOT RECOGNIZING and SEEING the self-CONTRADICTORY IDIOTIC thing that you just did here? After all the INSANITY of what you just did here was CLEARLY self-EXPLANATORY.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I NEVER said you did 'believe' ANY thing.



Will you provide ANY example of this APPARENT 'charlatan', which you can APPARENTLY 'spot' here but which "henry quirk" supposedly can NOT?

If no, then WHY NOT?



I do NOT RECALL entering "your conversation", until this time. I WAS just USING "your conversation" to POINT OUT and SHOW, the readers, what 'you', adult human beings, DID, in those days when this was being written.

Remember, I was just POINTING OUT and SHOWING that you made the claim; "He's insane", but then you FAILED COMPLETELY and UTTERLY to back up and support this CLAIM when CHALLENGED and QUESTIONED about if what that one asserted was insane, then WHY?

You WANT me to PROVE that HE'S inSANE? Some things ARE self EXPLANATORY. IDIOT.

I do NOT want you to do absolutely ANY thing AT ALL.

I was just SHOWING, by POINTING OUT, that you FAILED COMPLETELY to back up and and support YOUR CLAIMS, ONCE AGAIN, when you were CHALLENGED, and QUESTIONED for CLARITY.

And, if you want to call me, or ANY one else, an "IDIOT" for NOT SEEING and RECOGNIZING what is, supposedly, self-EXPLANATORY, then are 'you' also an IDIOT for NOT RECOGNIZING and SEEING the self-CONTRADICTORY IDIOTIC thing that you just did here? After all the INSANITY of what you just did here was CLEARLY self-EXPLANATORY.

IDIOT

[Age]

You WANT me to PROVE that HE'S inSANE? Some things ARE self EXPLANATORY. IDIOT.

I do NOT want you to do absolutely ANY thing AT ALL.

I was just SHOWING, by POINTING OUT, that you FAILED COMPLETELY to back up and and support YOUR CLAIMS, ONCE AGAIN, when you were CHALLENGED, and QUESTIONED for CLARITY.

And, if you want to call me, or ANY one else, an "IDIOT" for NOT SEEING and RECOGNIZING what is, supposedly, self-EXPLANATORY, then are 'you' also an IDIOT for NOT RECOGNIZING and SEEING the self-CONTRADICTORY IDIOTIC thing that you just did here? After all the INSANITY of what you just did here was CLEARLY self-EXPLANATORY.

IDIOT

SELF-EXPLANATORY.

[Walker]

This...

(I)f all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom(?) There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

...is the assertion from the opening.

Anyone have any thoughts on it?

...

- Because “non-material,” is nothing more than misunderstood materialism, the assertion is invalidated.
- Therefore, everything in the statement that precedes “non-material,” is irrelevant because it’s based on an invalid premise.
- Because the premise hinges on the existence of the “non-material,” then proof of “non-material” existence must consist of more than the commonly accepted ignorance of unproven assumptions, in order for relevant-to-reality reasoning to proceed.

- “Non-material,” is nothing more than an arbitrary classification of what doesn’t fit the pre-conceived models of “material.”
- At its best, the term non-material is a reference to what does not exist. However, thoughts exist. Therefore, thoughts are material.
- However, although material, thoughts are of a physicality that requires a complex instrument to detect.
- The brain is the instrument.

- What causes confusion about the physicality of thoughts is the old ways of discarding chunks of reality that don’t fit the functioning paradigm-consciousness-filter.
- Without fudge factors, everything has to fit.

- Consider:
- Lungs are for breathing.
- Lungs do not create what lungs breathe.

- Heart is for pumping.
- Heart does not create what heart pumps.

- Brain is for thinking.
- Brain does not create what is thought …
- Brain detects, tunes into, what is thought.

- What is thought is a function of the frequency of reception that the brain has tuned into … and there are causes for the tunings other than ego’s claims of creation, or ego's claims of choice.

[Age]

This...

(I)f all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom(?) There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

...is the assertion from the opening.

Anyone have any thoughts on it?

...

- Because “non-material,” is nothing more than misunderstood materialism, the assertion is invalidated.

The assertion is NOT invalidated.

What EXACTLY is 'materialism' and what EXACTLY is so-called "misunderstood materialism"?

- Therefore, everything in the statement that precedes “non-material,” is irrelevant because it’s based on an invalid premise.

But what you CLAIM here is an invalid premise.

- Because the premise hinges on the existence of the “non-material,” then proof of “non-material” existence must consist of more than the commonly accepted ignorance of unproven assumptions, in order for relevant-to-reality reasoning to proceed.

But your ASSUMPTION here is just plain old False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

- “Non-material,” is nothing more than an arbitrary classification of what doesn’t fit the pre-conceived models of “material.”

What are you on about here? 'non-material' is OBVIOUSLY just that what is, literally, non-material.

There is NO issue here AT ALL.

- At it’s best, the term non-material is a reference to what does not exist.

At its worst, the term 'non-material' is a reference to what does not exist.

However, thoughts exist. Therefore, thoughts are material.

LOL This is one of the worst attempts at 'arguing' that I have seen for a while here.

- However, although material, thoughts are of a physicality that requires a complex instrument to detect.

LOL

- The brain is the instrument.

LOL

- What causes confusion about the physicality of thoughts is the old ways of discarding chunks of reality that don’t fit the functioning paradigm-consciousness-filter.
- Without fudge factors, everything has to fit.

What ACTUALLY causes confusion is NOT YET UNDERSTANDING FULLY.

- Consider:
- Lungs are for breathing.
- Lungs do not create what lungs breathe.

- Heart is for pumping.
- Heart does not create what heart pumps.

- Brain is for thinking.
- Brain does not create what is thought …
- Brain detects, tunes into, what is thought.

And, WHAT is 'thought' EXACTLY? WHERE does 'thought' reside, EXACTLY? And, HOW does 'thought' come about, EXACTLY?

- What is thought is a function of the frequency of reception that the brain has tuned into … and there are causes for the tunings other than ego’s claims of creation.

And, I have NOT seen so much RUBBISH for a while.

[Walker]

Pretty quick on the trigger there, Buster.

You even know what you're shootin' at?

[Walker]

But, there’s more when it comes to an expressed, capital interest in “reality.”

The more is best understood when experience cracks open the door, which in this case is easy enough to arrange. Simply immerse yourself in any particular thought. For example, “lemons.”

Learn all there is to learn about lemons, think about lemons all the time, even when you think you're tired of it. An endless future of lemons, no graduation ceremonies for the lemon thinker. You begin to find links to lemons everywhere, sometimes in surprising places. That’s because attention is tuned to the lemon frequency of reality, which has always been there but was filtered out by more pressing, habitual concerns.

When lemon things begin to unfold in your access to reality, the philosophical question naturally arises ... to what degree does tuning into the lemon frequency … create what is unfolding in your experiences?

A good starting place to answer that question is to ask The Lemon King of The Imperial Valley, if you can find exactly who and where he is, in capital fashion.

[Age]

Pretty quick on the trigger there, Buster.

You even know what you're shootin' at?

Yes, do you know what I am shooting at?

In case you do not it is at your CLAIM that "Only the physical exists", and that this CLAIM is OBVIOUSLY False considering what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS.

So, are we BOTH now CLEAR what is happening and occurring here?

[Age]

But, there’s more when it comes to an expressed, capital interest in “reality.”

Who are you talking to here, and "more" than what, EXACTLY?

The more is best understood when experience cracks open the door, which in this case is easy enough to arrange. Simply immerse yourself in any particular thought. For example, “lemons.”

Learn all there is to learn about lemons, think about lemons all the time, even when you think you're tired of it. An endless future of lemons, no graduation ceremonies for the lemon thinker. You begin to find links to lemons everywhere, sometimes in surprising places. That’s because attention is tuned to the lemon frequency of reality, which has always been there but was filtered out by more pressing, habitual concerns.

Are we supposed to KNOW what you are talking about here?

If yes, then what is 'that', EXACTLY?

When lemon things begin to unfold in your access to reality, the philosophical question naturally arises ... to what degree does tuning into the lemon frequency … create what is unfolding in your experiences?

A good starting place to answer that question is to ask The Lemon King of The Imperial Valley, if you can find exactly who and where he is, in capital fashion.

HOW could it be true that ONLY the physical exists?

Are you immersed so deeply into the particular thought "material" that you can NOT YET SEE that there is MORE to thee Universe than just 'the physical'?