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

[henry quirk]

the answer to the how question is unknowable

mebbe so...not seein' that as a reason to stop askin', or to stop lookin' for an answer

there comes a time when we just have to admit to ourselves we really do not know *nothing at all

*anything?

nah...that there is surrender to ignorance...can't see any reason for it

[Dontaskme]

the answer to the how question is unknowable

mebbe so...not seein' that as a reason to stop askin', or to stop lookin' for an answer

there comes a time when we just have to admit to ourselves we really do not know *nothing at all

*anything?

nah...that there is surrender to ignorance...can't see any reason for it

Then live the comfortable lie if that's what you prefer. The uncomfortable truth is easy to ignore when one can just cover it over with a denial.

Knowledge Henry, is an illusion.

[henry quirk]

the comfortable lie

you ever lose your keys?

were you comfortable as you scrounged around for 'em?

and: where's the lie? are questions lies?

[Dontaskme]

Language is so flawed from the start.

'' 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. ''

There is no such idea as a non-material material. The word ''material'' can never be anything other than what it is. The word exists as it is, it's a fixed concept known, and cannot not be, in the context of non-material.

[Dontaskme]

the comfortable lie

you ever lose your keys?

were you comfortable as you scrounged around for 'em?

and: where's the lie? are questions lies?

But this is just the narrative of language. That you are able to label these actions conceptually.

But the main question is HOW is matter able to inform itself of what it knows, especially since matter is known to be just a bunch of atoms..

Who questions?

Do trees question their reality?

What is it exactly, that appears to ask questions? The answer is uncomfortable, is all I'm saying, because the mind demands answers for what it cannot know. That's it's nature.

The word illusory nature of knowledge is used to signify that what we take for granted as being real, is not actually real.

What does illusory mean: it signifies that the physical actuality present in any moment is not the same physical actuality present in the next moment in life. This signifies that the physical actuality in any moment in life is illusory and not real.

Therefore, illusory means that whatever exists in daily life changes and is not permanent. Notice that if something was real it would not change. For example: the idea of yesterday, where is yesterday, it cannot be real, and yet we talk about it as though it exists as real, because it's a known concept. But what exactly knows a concept, and can that which is known know it is known....I say no a concept cannot know anything...in the same conceptual context a tree cannot know it is a tree.

It's a tricky subject...The mind cannot handle the truth of it's illusory nature, and that's why religion was born...which is a big fat porky lie that feels more comfortable.

[Dontaskme]

nah...that there is surrender to ignorance...can't see any reason for it

To surrender to ones ignorance is wisdom of the highest form, actually. Only ignorance is original.


''To know'' is a dexterous verb - instrinsic with the intellect that is the human mind. Every body of knowledge - the known - no matter the context, arises from the unknown, whilst the unknown arises from the source that can never be known – the unknowable.
The philosopher may come to understand that knowledge sought is known only as a word, which is basically composed of sound and light which is unknowable. The mind cannot know itself except as concept, which knows nothing.
This is the real truth of the illusory nature of knowledge, which is indistinguishable from the concept known as ( I )

The philosopher, aka the minds/brain intellect comes to know the known from the unknown and not from the unknowable. The unknowable can never be known.The source of the unknown is the unknowable. Hence why Einstein also stated that life is an illusion...albeit appearing as if real, and why this appears to be the case, is because 'real' is only known as a word, which is fundamentally composed of sound and light. So even what we think is our consciousness is an illusion.

God is Light. Light is running the show, not man, not woman, only God, the one and only.

Human animal is a transitory manifestion of God's Light. In other words,an optical and auditory illusion of Light.

Human beings are not doing any action or deed, these things are being DONE - and that's as far as knowledge will reach, there is no going beyond what can only be known as the conceptual story of ( I ) the illusion of duality...blah blah blah...

Anyways...believe what you want...it's your prerogative. I prefer the actual truth, over human pretence.

In reality, the human being is just like any other animal, it's as ignorant and dumb as fuck...except for the conceptual pretence.

Pain is a deeply obnoxious unpleasant sensation that can totally overwhelm the conscious being to the point of paralysis and complete bodily disfunction. Can't believe nature would even want this, but then what do I know, and how could I know, I cannot.

Roll on bedtime.




.

[Age]

..............

Age just so you know, I answered all your responses with my own responses, but I think I must have taken too long because when I submitted all of my replies to you, nothing showed up, it seems I was timed out, so all that I had so carefully written to you was lost.

Fully understand, and feel your frustration and annoyance.

What I found is if you just click on the 'Preview' or 'Submit' tabs, once more, then your writings will appear.

It was annoying to say the least, I'm disappointed,because I cannot be bothered to rewrite everything again, that's when life for me, can get very tedious.

But that is NOT 'life', itself, being 'tedious'. Learning, in order to obtain what we Truly WANT, can just be a VERY NORMAL 'tedious' PART OF 'life' and living, itself.

Anyway, in a simple short answer to all your responses to me, yes, I would rather have not been born ever.

In other words, if I already knew what being alive would be like before I was born, I would not choose to be alive, ever.
It would be a thanks, but no thanks for me.

Which is COMPLETELY fair enough and TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE. 'I', on the other hand however, would NOT trade just one singular solitary past experience for ABSOLUTELY ANY thing else, and I NEVER even experienced what it was like to just be noticed, let alone accepted, until i was about eight years old.

That's why I talk about there being nothing that is alive or dead, the idea that there is a something that is born and can die is the illusion I talk about.

WHY? Just because you would rather have not been born EVER you talk about there being NOTHING that is alive or dead?

Also, if the idea that something is born is the 'illusion' that you talk about, then WHY and HOW could you rather have not been 'born', ever?

In other words, WHY do you CLAIM that NOTHING is 'born', nor alive, YET 'you' would rather have NEVER been 'born'?

The illusion is real enough, and that to me is the problem, real for who? I have absolutely no idea, because if I knew, I wouldn't wish this illusion on my worst enemy.

But, in YOUR ILLUSION, there is NO 'other', so there could be NO 'enemy'.

In other words, in creating this 'illusion', which you appear to ACTUALLY despise AND dread, then the 'one' that you are putting this 'illusion' on is 'you'.

Could 'you' be, literally, MAKING "your" 'self', 'your' OWN 'worst enemy', by putting your OWN, dreaded and despised, illusion on to 'you', AND "them" ['your' "other" 'self'}?

Anyway, so as not to derail this free will thread any further, we can discuss my wish to have not been born on your own thread the one you created ...

Here ... viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34118

Is that ok with you Age?

.

This is PERFECTLY FINE with 'me'.

[Age]

Also, I am only a 'bother', to you, because I PROVE, IRREFUTABLY, WHERE and WHY you are Wrong in what you write, say, and CLAIM here.

No, you are like a mosquito who's meaningless buzzing irritates and needs an occasional swatting.

If you STILL DO NOT YET KNOW what the meaning is for the buzzing of a mosquito, then, please, keep BELIEVING that it is MEANINGLESS.

WHY do YOU BELIEVE mosquitoes NEED an "occasional swatting"?

Is it just for the 'buzzing', which you get so EASILY 'irritated' by? Or, for some other reason?

And, WHY only 'occasionally', WHY NOT ALL of the mosquitoes that 'irritate' you? Or, WHY NOT just ALL mosquitoes?

Otherwise, you don't really matter.

To 'who, EXACTLY?

When I PROVE WHERE, HOW, and WHY you are Wrong, "rcsaunders", then this REALLY DOES MATTER, to the readers.

Have nice new year!

Okay, if you say so.

[henry quirk]

There is no such idea as a non-material material.

sure, but I'm not seein' a mention of such a thing in this...

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.

To surrender to ones ignorance is wisdom of the highest form, actually

acknowledgin' I don't know is wise; wallowin' in it is foolish

[promethean75]

"then how can those particles give birth to understanding and freedom?"

'understanding' and 'freedom' are just characteristics of behavior, big Hen, they aren't physical things or material properties like particles. Let me ax you this: if fundamental subatomic particles possess no composition, then how can they give rise to atoms that DO, and are, comprised of electrons, neutrons, protons?

By comparison, an atom is a much more complex and organized system than a single quark... or even a quirk, like Henry.

See what's going on here? You are trying to argue that physical complexities possess some extra-material attribute when they don't. What changes as systems become more complex is behavior, process and quantifiability of composite parts.

But you're not even really making this mistake yet because you're stuck in the one before it; you're talking about 'consciousness' and 'freedom' and such as if they are possessions instead of just descriptions of behaviors. These things are emergent, non-physical properties belonging to a complex system (human beings) that describe ways this system acts. But they aren't additional, ontological features added to the system once it reaches that level of complexity.

I swear to god that fucking frenchy Descartes has sabotaged everything with his substance-dualism.

[promethean75]

download.jpeg-1.jpg

Shove off you three musketeers lookin' muhfucka!

[henry quirk]

I ain't seein' nuthin' in all that, pro, that answers this...

If all the particles (and all them sub-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?

we just behave as though we're conscious, free, etc.: that's not an answer, that's just dismissal

[henry quirk]

Electrons, neutrons, and protons; hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium; water, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, and proteins: if none of these are intelligent, conscious, self-aware, intentional, free, etc, then how can these give birth to organs and systems of organs that are intelligent, conscious, self-aware, intentional, free, etc.? How can these things give rise to even the illusion of intelligence, self-awareness, consciousness, intent, free will, etc.?

[RCSaunders]

Electrons, neutrons, and protons; hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium; water, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, and proteins: if none of these are intelligent, conscious, self-aware, intentional, free, etc, then how can these give birth to organs and systems of organs that are intelligent, conscious, self-aware, intentional, free, etc.? How can these things give rise to even the illusion of intelligence, self-awareness, consciousness, intent, free will, etc.?

Who says they do?

How do electrons, neutrons, and protons, which have nothing, "atom-like," about them give rise atoms. How do atoms, which have no color, make no sound, have not flavor or scent give rise to flashing lightening and thunder, the smell of ozone, and the taste of salt.

Of course the sub-atomic particles do not, "give rise," to atoms. The are the physical explanation of what atoms are. The atoms of chemical elements do not, "give rise," to physical phenomena like light, and sounds, and flavors and scents. The are the chemical description of what those physical phenomena are. Electrons, neutrons, and protons; hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium; water, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, and proteins do not giver rise to life, consciousness, or the human mind and volition. The are merely the scientific explanation and description of the physical aspects of living organisms.

What are you going on about? Do you doubt that things have color, make sounds, have tastes, and have textures and shapes? You don't ask, "since atoms have none of these things, how can they give rise to them? Nothing has to give rise to life anymore than something has to give rise to color.

[henry quirk]

oh, I think it's remarkable just 10 electrons and 10 protons produce, in quantity, wet and fluid, don't you?

and I think it's remarkable that roughly 60% of a human is just those 10 electrons and 10 protons, in quantity

more remarkable to me: how one bag of dirty water can contemplate itself and its nature, and another bag of dirty water can dismiss that contemplation as hogwash, especially when the water, and the dirt it's mixed with, isn't intelligent, conscious, self-aware, intentional, free, (or scornful and dismissive)

I await, from you, or anyone, the physical explanation, the chemical description, the scientific explanation and description of consciousness, understanding, comprehension of meaning, freedom, intelligence, self-awareness, intent, volition, choice, etc.; and mebbe you can offer up the same for humor, hate, surprise, disappointment, joy, etc.