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

[RCSaunders]

I disagree

Of course you do. Anyone who confuses existents and existents' attibutes would have to disagree. It's the curse of Plato. [It was Plato who introduced the absurd idea that attributes had independent, "real," existence, and philosophy has suffered for it since.]

Attributes do not exist except as attributes of existents. An apple, sugar, or candy can all be sweet. Apples, sugar, and candy are all material existents. Apples and candy are entities, and sugar is a substance. Sweetness exists too, but is neither an entity or substance. Sweetness is an attribute and does not exist at all except as an attribute of entities or substances which have the sweet attribute. If there were no apples, sugar, candy, or any other sweet entities or substances, there would be no sweetness.

Identifying life, or consciousness, or volition as entities or substances is the same category mistake. Life is an attribute, not some kind of stuff or a thing. Separate from those entites that have the life attribute (organisms) there is no life. Separate from the entities that are conscious (have the consciousness attribute) there is no consciousness. Separate from those organisms required to consciously choose their behavior (the attribute of volition) there is no volition. The life, consciousness, and volitional attributes of organism are not things, not substances, they are like, sweetness, simply attributes of those entities that have them.

This not for you, Henry, but for those who are really interested in understanding the correct answer to the question this thread asked.

Those not interested, can, like you, stamp their little feet and shake their little fists and cry, "I disagree."

[henry quirk]

you forgot to post the address to yer lil essay site

ain't never gonna build up a following if you don't advertise

[Age]

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.

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

What is thee ACTUAL Truth of things in relation to there being absolutely NOTHING other than 'the physical'? And what ACTUAL PROOF do you have for this CLAIM of yours?

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

OF COURSE.

And thee Universe, Itself, can NOT be made up of just 'the physical'.
If thee Universe was made up solely of "only the physical", then thee Universe could NOT exist in a way that It could be comprehended,
Thee Universe can be comprehended, OBVIOUSLY.
Therefore, thee Universe consists of 'the physical' (matter) and 'the non physical' (non-material), and, this by the way, is IRREFUTABLE.

- At its best, the term non-material is a reference to what does not exist. However, thoughts exist. Therefore, thoughts are material.

But the term 'non-material' is NOT a reference to what does not exist. The term 'non-material' is a reference to 'that' what is 'not matter' or 'non-material'. So, your conclusion is incorrect.

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

This is an ASSUMPTION, and a CONCLUSION based on NOTHING but an ASSUMPTION.

WHERE is the PROOF that 'thoughts' are of a 'physicality'?

WHERE is the PROOF that 'thoughts' require a complex instrument to detect?

Where is the PROOF that 'the brain' is the "complex instrument" that is 'required' to detect 'thoughts', which you ALSO CLAIM are made up of material and thus are physical things?

[Age]

Yeah any specific philosophical vernacular involved in talk about the 'existence of the immaterial' is possible because distortions and violations of grammar and logic have persisted for so long, that a thinker takes up the habit almost unwittingly... simply because such talk has become part of the furniture.

What you have is a complicated linguistic entanglement of grammatical functions and rules which pass undetected by people who force such concepts as 'being' and 'existence' into nonsensical propositions and their meanings. You see this immediately in the statement 'the immaterial exists', which violates every notion we ordinarily have of what constitutes the nature of an existing thing, e.g., that it is extended in space, has mass, and persists or changes through a duration of time, etc.

OBVIOUSLY we have ANOTHER one here who is YET able to SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

If thee Universe was just material, then there could NOT be ANY thing else.

If thee Universe was just material, then there could ONLY be ONE single piece of material.

Obviously, there are individual and separate shapes and forms of material combined together, WITH SPACE (or distance) BETWEEN them.

Therefore, thee Universe consists of what is known as 'the material' (or matter) AND 'a distance' (or space) between and around 'pieces of material' or 'particles of matter'.

Now, ANY one of you can 'try to' word, and define, this in ANY way that you like, but if what you CLAIM does NOT fit in with Reality and thee Universe, Itself, or in other words is NOT 'unified' with thee Truth, Itself, then what you are saying and CLAIMING is true is ONLY 'that' what you BELIEVE is true WITHOUT thee ACTUAL PROOF, nor Facts.

Another point that makes this confusion imperceptible is the existence of other concepts which, while not being physical things, nonetheless exist and have being. Things like 'process', 'dynamic', 'relation', 'state', and so on. The thinker accidentally extends the notion of these descriptions being 'of' physical things and their characteristics, into an ontological category of their own. The result; because these items, which are not 'things', can exist,

But, OBVIOUSLY, they ARE 'things'. They ARE just NOT 'material' 'things', AGAIN OBVIOUSLY.

it follows that some 'immaterial' things are real and exist...

OF COURSE some 'things' are 'immaterial', and which are real and exist.

WHY are you SO CONFUSED to think, or BELIEVE, that 'an item' can NOT be 'a thing'?

Is it because of the 'thoughts' within that head, or, because of the way you define and use words?

Or, is the way you view 'things' thee ONLY true, right, AND correct way to SEE 'things'?

You do appear to LOVE coming across as though you KNOW what is thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', and if ANY one deviates from YOUR WAY of looking and seeing 'things', then it is them who is confused, and NEVER 'you', "promethean75", correct?

in which case one can speak haphazardly about immaterial things existing... and even include some rather vague and ambiguous concepts of the 'soul' into this kind of reasoning without producing senselessness and confusion.

If you were at all Truly OPEN, then you could SEE and LEARN how the 'soul' can be brought into a discussion and still be Truly logical, sound, AND valid. But anyway, WHY EXACTLY did you bring the 'soul' word into this discussion, in this thread, now?

Further promoting this contorted use of language is actually the fear, dread and anxiety one feels at the thought of no soul existing.

Is this WHY you brought your OWN contorted and DISTORTED use of language, words, and definitions into this discussion here now?

One WANTS it to exist, and so takes language hostage and forces it to do such work.

Ah, now you are EXPLAINING HOW and WHY you take and use language the way you do.

Why this is possible is because the sense of certainty is dubious by nature, which permits this kind of suspended but experienced-as-such, sensibility of concepts. It shorter words, one is so baffled and disappointed by the thought that only the material exists, one accepts without reservation the apparent sense of the distorted language they are using, and is only certain that they prefer it (not certain that it makes any sense) It's a complex confirmation bias and process of rationalization.

Which 'you', "promethean75", are providing a GREAT EXAMPLE of such here. So, thank you.

Here's some excellent analysis of the problem and how it evolved in philosophy: https://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Rest_ ... c%20Genius

As partner essay supporting the above as a basic criticism of metaphysics in general: https://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_a ... nsical.htm

[Age]

Blast! Forget that first essay above... that's not the one I was looking for... and now I can't find it. I mean it's good

LOL "good" for what, EXACTLY?

And remember the 'good' example it provided for me might not be the 'good' you were envisioning.

but not the one I meant to post.

[Age]

Oh absolutely, that's why I am a practioner of the NW (Nietzsche's Wager).

If I'm right and the eternal recurrence is true, awesome sauce!

If I'm wrong, and it's false, it duddint matter.

But soul migration and gods and heavens and hells and shit, that's just incredibly dumb nonsense that people who are already half-dead irrelevants, believe.

AND YET here 'you' are, "promethean57", the most hardened BELIEVER here.

If you can honestly look at this world and not be immediately repulsed even by the thought of a 'god', you should be taken out back and summarily shot.

WHY, EXACTLY, when you look at 'this world' you are IMMEDIATELY repulsed even by the thought of a 'god'?

Some would say if you can honestly look at 'this world' and not be IMMEDIATELY intrigued even by the thought of a 'god', then you have lost ALL of what is Truly IS to be a human being.

But, as they say, each to their own.

Belief in 'god' is not just childish bologna, but downright appalling and offensive.

Belief in there is NO 'God' can be said to be the EXACT SAME.

REALLY, the 'stuff' that 'you', human beings, have BELIEF in is Truly beyond 'belief'.

Step out of your bubble and look at the world.

When are you going to do this "promethean75" and LOOK AT 'the world' from the proper AND correct perspective?

[Dontaskme]

“I’m dead,” he said, “aren’t I? I didn’t realize it until this very moment.”

I shook my head. “No. I would say you WERE dead until this moment.”

He grinned. “Yes!” he said. “That’s a good one. I WAS dead.”



Let the discussion begin...

'I' is just a presumption. I is an awareness of being aware, that's all. I is pure emptiness at it's fundamental core.
Awareness of being aware is not the presumed experience of being alive or dead, except as an illusory conceived idea. The only experience is the idea, not the actuality. An Illusory idea because no one ever witnesses their OWN birth or death. No one is ever present at the EXACT moment of their OWN birth or death. No one has ever had conscious control over their OWN birth or death.

Life therefore, is nothing other than an involuntary process done without will or conscious control. Life has no idea as to whether it is alive or dead. Life simply is. The mind is a superimposed idea, an idea that tends to steal the show, when in reality, no thing owns this show, there is only the show, no known thing ever needs to show up for what is already this immediate showing.

No thing can know it is alive without also knowing it is dead, therefore, things have no physical reality, things are just empty conceptual images, in the same context of what a dream or a video game, or some computer graphic is made of, all of which have no actual reality...they only appear to have.

Free will is an illusion.

.

[Walker]

Free will is an illusion.

.

Applying that principle, choice doesn't kick the question-crutch habit.

[promethean75]

"Her mistake is a totally different one, the belief that meaning, purpose, or value resides in or derives from society or collectives and that economics is an aspect of philosophy. I'm not criticising that, however."

See comrade Rosa and I are of the impression that:

a) since language develops out of and from the material and social relations of human beings, and

b) divisions of labor occur in which one small class/caste of society eventually comes to control the majority of property while a majority of people come to control a minority of property, and

c) that ruling class controlling the majority of property will seek to preserve, maintain and expand such control, so

d) ideological, philosophical, religious, political and economic systems will be devised that accomplish those ends most efficiently, and then

e) morons like Plato and co. invent monolithic systems of nonsense to secure those ambitions so that eventually

d) 21rst century man is so confused and assbackward that he doesn't know his ass from uh hole in the ground.

Not only this, but even the indifferent discoveries of the natural sciences are either conveniently ignored or put to the service of the ruling ideology's dominating power over civilization. Racism, theology, free-market, individualism, none of this is science. It's carefully crafted ideology that has taken thousands of years to produce. But guess what. Dem days are ova.

*laces boots and ties headband*

[Age]

And forget about natural disasters and famine and wars and all that shit.

WHY would we want to even forget about these 'things'?

I'm talking about stuff like Beyonce. What kind of 'god' would create a universe in which a Beyonce is even possible?

LOL The same kind of God that created EVERY other thing.

You need to do some serious soul searchin', Henry.

So, are you now actually suggesting that there really is a 'soul' that exists?

If yes, then what is this 'soul' thing EXACTLY and where EXACTLY does it exist?

[Age]

(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.

The fundamental mistake here is the false assumption that life, consciousness, and volition are things, like substances or entities. They are not things, they are attributes (properties or qualities), which do not exist at all separate from those entities they are the attributes of.

In what 'world' or dictionary does the word 'things' that apply to ALL nor EVERY.

'Attributes' are 'things', and like you say here they do not exist at all separate from those entities that they are attributes of. Those attributes just may not be made up of matter/'the material', but they do exist.

It is this mistake that has befuddled all of philosophy.

What to you does the word 'philosophy' mean or refer to EXACTLY, in which all of 'it' could be "befuddled". You seem to be 'befuddled' here, because only 'you', human beings, can get 'befuddled' and 'things' like 'philosophy', which once just meant or referred to the 'love-of-wisdom' only that some entities have or hold, could itself NEVER be 'befuddled'.

It is obvious there is life, consciousness, and human volition and equally obvious they are not physical things, leading to the false assumption, there must be other things which are not physical.

Which one of 'you', human beings, has been led to ASSUMING that because some things are obviously not physical things, then there MUST BE other things that are not physical?

And, what 'things' do you now ASSUME are not physical 'things'.

Also, WHY make this CLAIM? What is the actual point that you are 'trying to' express and make here, EXACTLY?

If ANY one wants to CLAIM that some 'thing' is NOT physical, then I suggest that they have the ACTUAL PROOF for this, or ANY, CLAIM before they make the CLAIM itself.

To me, 'free will', (which is what this thread was about), exists, but whether 'free will' is a physical/material/matter 'thing' or not is STILL OPEN. Just because 'free will', itself, can NOT be directly experienced with any of the five senses, to me, does NOT instantly mean that it is 'non-material' like it means to some "others".

[Since the physical is usually considered all that exists, "naturally," the other, "existents," are falsley assumed be, "supernatural."]

Again, who of 'you', human beings, ASSUMES or considers this?

And, WHY, EXACTLY, would 'you' ASSUME such a thing, and, WHAT, EXACTLY, would make ''you' ASSUME such a thing?

Material existence is all that exists and has the nature it has, independent of anyone's consciousness or knowledge of that existence. The physical attributes of material existence are all the attributes of existence which can be discovered by being directly perceived or deduced from that perceived evidence, i.e. the physical sciences. The mistaken assumption of philosophy is that the physical attributes of material existence are all the attributes material existence can have. The physical attributes are all the attributes that can be directly percieved, but there is neither evidence or any reason to assume those are the only attributes possible to material existence.

In fact, it is ludicrous to deny the evidence of life, consciousness, and volition just because they cannot be directly perceived. They are undeniable facts. But it must be understood, they are not things, not substances, not some kind of independent existents.

What does the word 'thing' or 'things' mean or refer to, EXACTLY, to you?

They are only attributes of some physical entities,

How, EXACTLY, are 'entities' physical 'things'?

What PROOF do you have for this CLAIM?

And, what does the word 'entity' mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

attributes that cannot be explained in terms of the physical attributes, but additional, perfectly natural attributes, in addition to the physical attributes.

[Age]

Here's some excellent analysis of the problem and how it evolved in philosophy: https://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Rest_ ... c%20Genius

Wonderful example of typical philosophical self-induced insanity constructed on the false premise, that, "being," is an independent attribute.

It is also a GREAT EXAMPLE of how 'you', adult human beings, can make COMPLEX and HARD what is essentially Truly SIMPLE and EASY.

A LOT of what is written in this forum is ALSO ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE.

The concept, "being," identifies the class of things with attributes (qualities, properties, characteristics). To have the attribute, "being," means to have some identifying attributes. A thing cannot have, "being," before it has other attributes--it is the fact something has attributes that the concepts, "is," "exist," and, "being," refer to. [Nothing can exist without attributes.]

Will you provide examples?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[Age]

You need to do some serious soul searchin', Henry.

I do that regularly...I can cuz I got one to search

Who, and/or what, EXACTLY is the one who has "got a soul" here?

[Age]

I disagree

Of course you do. Anyone who confuses existents and existents' attibutes would have to disagree. It's the curse of Plato. [It was Plato who introduced the absurd idea that attributes had independent, "real," existence, and philosophy has suffered for it since.]

Attributes do not exist except as attributes of existents. An apple, sugar, or candy can all be sweet. Apples, sugar, and candy are all material existents. Apples and candy are entities, and sugar is a substance.

WHY are 'apples' and 'candy' entities, and 'sugar' is a substance, to you?

Are you saying here that 'apples' and 'candy' are not a substance, are you saying that 'sugar' is not an entity, or are you saying something else?

Sweetness exists too, but is neither an entity or substance. Sweetness is an attribute and does not exist at all except as an attribute of entities or substances which have the sweet attribute. If there were no apples, sugar, candy, or any other sweet entities or substances, there would be no sweetness.

It could then also be said, or argued, that if there was no actual 'thing' as 'sweetness', then those three other 'things', that is; 'apples', 'sugar', 'candy', would not have the attribute 'sweetness'.

Identifying life, or consciousness, or volition as entities or substances is the same category mistake. Life is an attribute, not some kind of stuff or a thing.

Did you INFORM us of how 'you' define the word 'thing' above?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Separate from those entites that have the life attribute (organisms) there is no life.

LOL Now how, EXACTLY, do you define the word 'life'?

And, are you YET AWARE of what the word 'life' means and refers to, EXACTLY?

Separate from the entities that are conscious (have the consciousness attribute) there is no consciousness.

What entities are conscious?

How do you define the word 'conscious'?

And, which entities do not have conscious?

Separate from those organisms required to consciously choose their behavior (the attribute of volition) there is no volition.

To you, EXACTLY which entities are REQUIRED to consciously choose their behavior, and, EXACTLY which entities are NOT REQUIRED to consciously choose their behavior?

The life, consciousness, and volitional attributes of organism are not things, not substances, they are like, sweetness, simply attributes of those entities that have them.

And WHY AGAIN, to you, are those 'things' NOT 'things', EXACTLY?

This not for you, Henry, but for those who are really interested in understanding the correct answer to the question this thread asked.

What, EXACTLY, was the question asked in this thread, which you CLAIM here you have given the 'correct answer'?

And, what EXACTLY is the 'correct answer' to 'that question'?

Your ability or inability to CLARIFY this will SHOW us MORE about the REAL 'you'.

Those not interested, can, like you, stamp their little feet and shake their little fists and cry, "I disagree."

When you use the word 'interested' here you are only referring to 'agreeing' with you, correct?

Can one REALLY not have 'interest' and still disagree with you?

While we are at thinking of this is it possible that you could be wrong or incorrect?

Or is this just NOT possible?

[Age]

“I’m dead,” he said, “aren’t I? I didn’t realize it until this very moment.”

I shook my head. “No. I would say you WERE dead until this moment.”

He grinned. “Yes!” he said. “That’s a good one. I WAS dead.”



Let the discussion begin...

'I' is just a presumption. I is an awareness of being aware, that's all. I is pure emptiness at it's fundamental core.

This is according to the 'one' known here as "dontaskme".

The word 'I', obviously, means and refers to other 'things', to "other" ones.

'I' is ALSO pure fullness at Its fundamental core.

Awareness of being aware is not the presumed experience of being alive or dead, except as an illusory conceived idea. The only experience is the idea, not the actuality. An Illusory idea because no one ever witnesses their OWN birth or death.

This is because this 'one' is NOT thee 'I'.

Thee 'I' is VERY DIFFERENT to those who are CLAIMED to have been 'born' and who are CLAIM 'to die'.

No one is ever present at the EXACT moment of their OWN birth or death. No one has ever had conscious control over their OWN birth or death.

This is because the 'one/s' 'you' are meaning and referring to here can NOT do such thing. ONLY 'I' observe the 'births' of 'you', ones. But, 'you', ones, in the days when this was being written, STILL had NOT evolved enough to be able to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND this, YET. 'you', ones, are STILL just in the being prepared stage.

When 'you' have been prepared enough, then 'you' can and WILL understand more and anew.

Life therefore, is nothing other than an involuntary process done without will or conscious control.

This is true for those of 'you' who still do NOT YET KNOW who 'you' REALLY ARE, and so STILL do NOT have FULL CONTROL, YET. But this is all, very soon, about to CHANGE.

Life has no idea as to whether it is alive or dead.

Just like an apple has NO idea as to what 'it' is nor to whether it is alive or dead. Which is similar to how 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, had NO idea as to who nor what 'you' NOR 'I' IS, REALLY.

Life simply is. The mind is a superimposed idea, an idea that tends to steal the show, when in reality, no thing owns this show, there is only the show, no known thing ever needs to show up for what is already this immediate showing.

There has been a story shared around among 'you', human beings, of which some of 'you' would be aware of, in the days when this was being written, about 'God, and the devil', and how the 'devil' can be very devious and deceptive. When what the 'Mind' ACTUALLY IS is learned, then 'you' will ALSO SEE just how 'you', human beings, have been deceived and are deceiving "yourselves" here.

For example of this just LOOK AT how many times 'you' use the 'mind' word, while asking "yourselves", 'What is the 'mind', EXACTLY?'

No thing can know it is alive without also knowing it is dead,

BUT, for the 'Thing' like 'I', 'I' was NEVER 'dead' and will NEVER be 'dead'.

therefore, things have no physical reality, things are just empty conceptual images, in the same context of what a dream or a video game, or some computer graphic is made of, all of which have no actual reality...they only appear to have.

Free will is an illusion.

.

"dontaskme" is therefore ALSO 'an illusion'. But, to 'who', EXACTLY is "dontaskme" an illusion to? Is a question 'you' may (or may not) ask "your" 'self'.