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

[Age]

Free will or freedom, like understanding, and like thoughts, are INVISIBLE things, but this in itself does NOT mean that freedom NOR understanding are 'non-material'

sure, invisibility doesn't mean immateriality, but that's not the assertion made by Rappoport

this is the 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.

Can you REALLY NOT SEE NOR RECOGNIZE the words; "There must be another factor, and that factor would HAVE TO BE 'non-material'", literally, MEANS, or ASSERTS, that 'that factor' HAS TO BE 'non-material'?

If no, then what, EXACTLY, do those words MEAN, or ASSERT, to you?

And, that is the assertion made by the one known here as "rappoport".

What I am just saying, and ASSERTING, IS; UNTIL 'that factor' is PROVED to ACTUALLY BE 'non-material', then that factor' may indeed BE 'material', or something ELSE, for all we know.

In other words, we have NO PROOF that 'that factor' is 'non-material', so INSTEAD of just ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING that 'that factor' HAS TO BE 'non-material' some of us just prefer to REMAIN OPEN to FIND OUT and SEE what 'that factor' ACTUALLY, and IRREFUTABLY, IS, INSTEAD.

Also, and by the way, besides that was the ONLY ASSERTION made by that one, in the quoted part you posted here, the answer to the question that was made by that one, in the quoted part you posted here, is; 'understanding' and 'freedom' exist because of the coming together and mixing of different particles.

[henry quirk]

Can you REALLY NOT SEE NOR RECOGNIZE the words; "There must be another factor, and that factor would HAVE TO BE 'non-material'", literally, MEANS, or ASSERTS, that 'that factor' HAS TO BE 'non-material'?

yes, I can REALLY SEE AND RECOGNIZE that 'immaterial' LITERALLY MEANS 'non-material'

[Age]

Can you REALLY NOT SEE NOR RECOGNIZE the words; "There must be another factor, and that factor would HAVE TO BE 'non-material'", literally, MEANS, or ASSERTS, that 'that factor' HAS TO BE 'non-material'?

yes, I can REALLY SEE AND RECOGNIZE that 'immaterial' LITERALLY MEANS 'non-material'

But that has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with the ACTUAL QUESTION that I asked you here.

[Age]

Free will or freedom, like understanding, and like thoughts, are INVISIBLE things, but this in itself does NOT mean that freedom NOR understanding are 'non-material'

sure, invisibility doesn't mean immateriality, but that's not the assertion made by Rappoport

this is the 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.

Good assertion, but the answer to the how question is unknowable, else the question would be known once and for all, but the question of how is still being asked, and that by my logic means no one knows how...

In what Universe would it even be remotely true or correct that just because one human being does NOT YET KNOW some 'thing', then absolutely NO one KNOWS that 'thing'?

If some people are still asking a question of how, then this does NOT mean that NO one has NOT ALREADY OBTAINED the answer of how.

The answer of 'how' in that question is ALREADY KNOWN, by SOME.

and so the main question is, will the how question ever be known?

YES, and it ALREADY HAS.

and how will it be known?...

Through the EXACT SAME process ALL questions become answered, and KNOWN. Which, ironically, involves the formula - HOW.

see the dilemma Henry? Can knowing how we are alive ever be taken to our our grave...

If when one "goes to the grave" the brain is NOT functioning, then that one OBVIOUSLY could NOT take ANY knowledge or information with them. For the VERY SIMPLE and EASY Fact 'that one' does NOT exist the way 'it' do NOR could possible 'take with them to grave' ANY knowing. Unless, OF COURSE, you are referring to the concept that they actually did KNOW something, which they KEPT SECRET from "others", and maybe ALL "others".

we cannot know that even...

BUT 'we' do KNOW this ALREADY, also.

What the 'we' here refers to, EXACTLY, is OBVIOUSLY just DIFFERENT.

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

This is True; We REALLY do NOT know nothing at all. And, this is because we ACTUALLY REALLY, and literally, do know SOME things, OBVIOUSLY.

.except what we imagine metaphorically speaking.

.

[henry quirk]

But that has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with the ACTUAL QUESTION that I asked you here

this...

If no, then what, EXACTLY, do those words MEAN, or ASSERT, to you?

...question.?

I said: yes, I can REALLY SEE AND RECOGNIZE that 'immaterial' LITERALLY MEANS 'non-material'

if I'd said, no, I can't REALLY SEE AND RECOGNIZE that 'immaterial' LITERALLY MEANS 'non-material', then I woulda answered your question of If no, then what, EXACTLY, do those words MEAN, or ASSERT, to you?, but I do REALLY SEE AND RECOGNIZE that 'immaterial' LITERALLY MEANS 'non-material', so I didn't answer

[Age]

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.

This coming from 'you', "dontaskme", appears very funny, especially considering how many times you TELL us things like; "Everything REALLY IS Nothing".

WHY can some words be some thing OTHER than what 'it' IS, while, at other times, some words can NEVER be ANY other thing, other than what 'they' ARE?

The word exists as it is, it's a fixed concept known, and cannot not be, in the context of non-material.

IF Everything can be Nothing, and, Nothing can be Everything, then WHY can 'material' NOT be 'non-material', or' the 'non-material' NOT be 'material', to you?

[Age]

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..

But I do NOT see that as the main nor any question at all here.

There was NO mention AT ALL of how is matter ABLE TO INFORM ITSELF, but rather; how are particles (of matter) able create understanding and freedom when particles have and posses absolutely NO understanding NOR freedom, themselves?

Or, more correctly and accurately, the main question is asking; 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?

Who questions?

ONLY 'you', human beings, (as far as we are aware of).

Do trees question their reality?

Are 'you' asking 'us' because you REALLY do NOT YET KNOW the answer, or because you are 'trying to' make or prove a point?

If it is the latter, then what is the 'point' that you are 'trying to' make here?

But, if it is the former, then to help you uncover thee True answer, "yourself", could it even be a possibility that trees could question things?

If yes, then HOW, EXACTLY?

What is it exactly, that appears to ask questions?

'you', the human being.

'I' ALREADY KNOW ALL there is to know. 'you', however, ask questions, and once only to keep learning more and anew. But gradually less so.

'you', by the way, literally, are the 'thoughts' within a human body. The 'one' that was INSTINCTIVELY and Truly CURIOS and INQUISITIVE when that body evolved into a living and breathing physical organism.

Literally 'thoughts' ask questions because they do NOT YET KNOW thee True, Right, and Correct answers.

The answer is uncomfortable,

For 'who', and WHY?

By the way, the answer is NOT 'uncomfortable' AT ALL, well for me anyway.

is all I'm saying, because the mind demands answers for what it cannot know. That's it's nature.

LOOK, for most of 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, did NOT YET even KNOW what the 'mind' IS, EXACTLY.

So, making ANY claims AT ALL about what the 'mind' does was just ASSUMING at its best.

Again, what is with this 'demand' perception?

And, WHY do you persist with the idea that some things can NEVER be KNOWN?

Absolutely EVERY thing that 'you' and EVERY other human being KNOWS, in the days when this was written, was previously UNKNOWN. But yet here 'you' are now KNOWING these, once perceived, can NOT KNOW things.

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

What do 'you', "dontaskme", personally 'take for granted as being real', but what is NOT actually real?

And, WHY do you take these NOT actually real things as being 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.

BUT, there is NO actual 'physical actuality', which is present in ANY moment, that is the EXACT SAME 'physical actuality' present, in the next or ANY other moment, in Life.

And this is because 'Life', itself, is in a continual state of CHANGE, from EVERY moment to moment, or from EVERY moment to the next.

But, NONE of this necessarily means that at ANY moment the actual 'physical actuality' in that moment is an illusion NOR illusory.

This signifies that the physical actuality in any moment in life is illusory and not real.

But this does NOT signify this AT ALL. This is just your perception of things, from words you have be led to BELIEVE are true.

Therefore, illusory means that whatever exists in daily life changes and is not permanent.

If this is what the word 'illusory' has meant to you all along throughout this forum, then here EXACTLY is WHERE the CONFUSION has been between 'you' and 'I'.

See, to me, the word 'illusory' means something DIFFERENT than what 'it' clearly does to you here.

And, by the way, I agree TOTALLY and WHOLEHEARTEDLY with you that whatever exists in Life changes and is NOT permanent. I just use a completely DIFFERENT word than you do to describe this phenomena or actuality.

Notice that if something was real it would not change.

WHY NOT?

Why can, let us say for an example, 'a tree', which we can see, smell, taste, feel, and hear, and so which by all accounts here 'is real', can NOT also change, to you?

The Fact that 'real trees' do change, and are constantly ALWAYS changing, is ANOTHER REAL Fact, to me.

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,

But 'yesterday' does NOT exist, as real, in the present tense. 'Yesterday' 'existed', but does NOT 'exist'.

To use the word 'yesterday', properly and correctly, that word has to be used in 'past tense' and NOT in 'present tense'.

You asked the question here, "Where is yesterday?" The answer is; ' 'It' has passed '.

because it's a known concept.

But 'we' do NOT talk about things as being 'real' just because they are known concepts. Well I certainly do not anyway. Although you may.

But, to us, 'a unicorn' is a 'known concept' but we do NOT talk about 'unicorns' as though they 'exist as real animals', for example.

But what exactly knows a concept, and can that which is known know it is known....

YES, to the second part, but this only applies to a relatively few very things indeed.

'I' KNOW a concept. 'I' is the word used to refer to the 'thing' that is able to SEE and KNOW, for sure, ALL things, of which there is ONLY One. The other one, or things, that can know a concept is 'you'. 'you' is the word used to refer to 'things' known as 'human beings'. Well this is from 'my' perspective anyway. And, OBVIOUSLY, 'you', individually, have your OWN way of LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' here.

I say no a concept cannot know anything...

OF COURSE 'concepts', themselves, can NOT know ANY thing. BUT, there are, OBVIOUSLY, 'things' that can KNOW 'concepts', themselves.

in the same conceptual context a tree cannot know it is a tree.

OF COURSE NOT. A 'tree', unlike a 'human being', does NOT have a brain, which can obtain and gather a 'perspective', or 'view', of things, from and through senses.

But, to ASSUME that just because 'a tree' can NOT KNOW 'concepts' ,THEN THIS MEANS that there is absolutely NO other 'thing', within the WHOLE of the Universe, that can KNOW concepts is going to ABSURDITY, to the extreme.

It's a tricky subject...

NO it is NOT. That is; if and when one learns or KNOWS how to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' for what they Truly ARE, EXACTLY.

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.

Talk about a VERY LONG WAY round just to get to the point (or pet hate) one has.

And, here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of just how the human beings, in the days when this was being written, would, literally, say just about ANY thing on order to come up with just ANY thing in the hope that it would back up and support what they ALREADY BELIEVE, and/or CLAIM, is true.

[Age]

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.

This is akin to saying, "We do NOT (yet) know how a human made contraption could fly, so we will NEVER be able to know this", about 200 years prior to when this was being written.

Or, akin to saying, "We do NOT (yet) know how to live peacefully together in harmony, so we will NEVER be able to know this", in the days when this was being written.

What is 'the unknown', to 'you' here, "dontaskme", is ALREADY KNOWN, HOW, EXACTLY, 'that unknown', to you, arises from 'the source' is also ALREADY KNOWN, AND, even WHAT 'the source', EXACTLY, IS is ALSO ALREADY KNOWN.

And, to be even MORE CONTRARY to what 'you' BELIEVE here, ALL-OF-THIS just becomes KNOWN and just plain old COMMON KNOWLEDGE, like how it is so VERY POSSIBLE to fly in 'contraptions' called 'air planes' is just COMMON KNOWLEDGE to 'you', in the days when this was being written was.

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.

Is this thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth that will EXIST, forever MORE?

Or, could this just be YOUR OWN so-called "reality", which is NOT ACTUALLY True NOR Real, AT ALL?

This is the real truth of the illusory nature of knowledge, which is indistinguishable from the concept known as ( I )

Just because you read from some book - " There is NO 'I' ", does NOT mean, and I will repeat, does NOT mean, that those words are ACTUALLY nor IRREFUTABLY True, AT ALL.

The philosopher, aka the minds/brain intellect comes to know the known from the unknown and not from the unknowable.

To CLAIM that there is "an unknowable" is to just make an ASSUMPTION, without ANY ACTUAL PROOF AT ALL.

In fact, it would be an IMPOSSIBILITY to HAVE PROOF for this CLAIM.

The unknowable can never be known.

OF COURSE.

BUT to CLAIM to KNOW that there is "an unknowable" is a logical IMPOSSIBILITY.

The source of the unknown is the unknowable.

CONTRARY to what 'you' ASSUME and BELIEVE here "dontaskme", 'the source' is ALREADY KNOWN.

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.

Will you provide examples of WHERE the one known as "einstein", supposedly, stated 'this'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, is it CLAIMED that "einstein" once actually made the witty remark, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one", instead?

If yes, then what was that 'witty remark' in relation to, EXACTLY?

So even what we think is our consciousness is an illusion.

I am NOT sure how you arrived at this ergo, from your previous claim, which may NOT be true and right at all anyway, but anyway you have. Do they somehow follow logically? And, if yes, then HOW, EXACTLY?

Also, what do you think your conscious is, EXACTLY?

God is Light.

God is also Dark, according to your previous definition, and claims.

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

So, Light is running your OWN MISERY and wish of NEVER being born here, "dontaskme", correct?

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

If you say and BELIEVE so, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?

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...

So, whatever the one known as "dontaskme" KNOWS, then that is the END of knowledge, and as far as ANY one, FOREVER MORE, can 'reach'.

Well this is according to "dontaskme", and its so-called "logic", anyway.

And, if they are Correct, then there is NO going BEYOND 'that', which is ALL that can ONLY be KNOWN.

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

So, ONCE AGAIN, we have ANOTHER human being who CLAIMS to KNOW thee ACTUAL Truth, while also CLAIMING that 'others" do NOT.

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

BUT, human beings are, and can be, the MOST INTELLIGENT animal, which is what, literally and actually, separates them from ALL the other animals. But, let us NOT FORGET that human beings are, and can be, the MOST STUPID animal AS WELL.

Pain is a deeply obnoxious unpleasant sensation that can totally overwhelm the conscious being to the point of paralysis and complete bodily disfunction.

Pain is ALSO a VERY NECESSARY part of life, and living.

Without pain, healing could not be achieved, and then animals would (have already) just die(d) out.

Can't believe nature would even want this, but then what do I know, and how could I know, I cannot.

I am still shocked that there are some adult human beings who are so SELF-CENTERED that they would prefer, even think, or BELIEVE that Nature, Itself, should have had 'them' ONLY, in thought, when creating thee Universe in which they found themselves IN.

Roll on bedtime.




.

Roll on WAKE UP time.

[Age]

"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 mixing together, or by reacting with each other.

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

But NONE of these are 'complex', as they are ALL made up of the EXACT SAME fundamental, and VERY SIMPLE, 'things'.

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 systems do NOT become ACTUALLY 'more complex'. They just become DIFFERENT.

Once you learn and/or come to KNOW how ALL systems are fundamentally made and created, then there is NO ACTUAL 'complexity' AT ALL, to ANY nor ALL-OF-THIS.

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.

Although you are NOT absolutely Right and Correct here, at least you are able to LOOK AT 'this' far more OBJECTIVELY than "others" are here.

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

Okay, that is your view. But just how OBVIOUSLY False and Wrong it is speaks for itself.

[Age]

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

Through evolution a physical shape has been created, which is known as the 'human body'.

Now, through evolution a physical brain has been created with the ability to grasp and store information/knowledge from outside of itself, through the five senses of the human body.

Combine with this with the fact the human body has evolved also with the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY and EVERY thing, then this gave rise to 'understanding' and 'freedom', themselves, being able to flourish.

This might not be the ACTUAL answer that you are LOOKING FOR, but with further inquiry this will at least lead to thee ACTUAL answer you WANT or are LOOKING FOR here.

[Age]

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.?

If when you say, "systems of organs", you are actually referring to 'you', human beings, then let us LOOK AT just how 'intelligent', 'conscious', 'self-aware', 'intentional', and 'free' 'you' REALLY ARE, FIRST.

When this is done, properly and correctly, then what is SEEN is that 'you' are NOT REALLY FULLY ANY of those things, well JUST YET anyway.

But, granted is that 'you', human beings, are evolving into being those things FULLY, one day, and very soon enough I will add. But considering it has taken 'you', human beings, a few million of years or so to evolve to where most of 'you' are now, in the days when this is being written, just waiting, patiently, till 'you' are ALL FULLY 'there', is not too much to ask for, surely?

Anyway, when 'you' are FULLY Conscious, Self-Aware, Intentional, Free, and thee Intelligent Being, which is what 'we', as a collective are leading to and forming into, then thee answer you are SEEKING here becomes KNOWN, and almost INSTANTANEOUSLY I will add.

Thee ACTUAL answer was partly explained in the previous thread here.

How can these things give rise to even the illusion of intelligence, self-awareness, consciousness, intent, free will, etc.?

By coming together in the EXACT Right way, at the EXACT Right moment/s.

And, it is GREAT that 'you' NOTICED that there is only an 'illusion' of 'intelligence', 'self-awareness', 'consciousness', 'intent', and 'free will' here, in the days when this was being written.

Although those things ACTUALLY do exist, they have NOT FULLY evolved 'into the mainstream of society', as some say, just YET anyway.

[Age]

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.

How, EXACTLY, to you, do the ACTUAL 'physical things', in the explanation of what some 'physical thing' IS EXACTLY, NOT 'give rise' to that that 'thing'?

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.

So, the 'things' in that 'chemical description' WOULD 'give rise' to that 'physical phenomena' correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?

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.

So, 'what', EXACTLY, does give rise' to 'life', 'consciousness', and 'human volition'?

There is NO 'human mind', by the way.

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.

OBVIOUSLY, but what is ALSO OBVIOUS is that some 'thing' does. And, a SIMPLER question here might just be, What does?

[Age]

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.

When, and ONLY WHEN you define what those words mean or refer to, to you, then 'we' can START providing 'you' with the EXPLANATIONS you are CLEARLY SEEKING here for EXACTLY HOW those 'things' came to exist.

So, when you START, then so can we. Would you like to START in the order you wrote them down here?

[Age]

But that has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with the ACTUAL QUESTION that I asked you here

this...

If no, then what, EXACTLY, do those words MEAN, or ASSERT, to you?

...question.?

I said: yes, I can REALLY SEE AND RECOGNIZE that 'immaterial' LITERALLY MEANS 'non-material'

if I'd said, no, I can't REALLY SEE AND RECOGNIZE that 'immaterial' LITERALLY MEANS 'non-material', then I woulda answered your question of If no, then what, EXACTLY, do those words MEAN, or ASSERT, to you?, but I do REALLY SEE AND RECOGNIZE that 'immaterial' LITERALLY MEANS 'non-material', so I didn't answer

But I NEVER EVER asked you if you could or could not see and recognize that 'immaterial' literally means 'non-material'. So, WHY would you respond to 'that' UNASKED question. If I recall correctly I have NEVER even used the 'immaterial' word ANYWHERE throughout this thread. So, to bring that word into the 'equation' now is absolutely LUDICROUS, at best, and probably MISLEADING and DECEITFUL, at worst.

There is NO wonder AT ALL WHY 'you', human beings, are STILL LOOKING FOR and SEEKING answers, in the days when this was being written, when you TWIST and DISTORT things SO MUCH and as OFTEN as you do. As evidenced and PROVED here.

And, what happens with all this TWISTING and DISTORTING the ACTUAL ORIGINAL POINT gets LOST.

That point here being; The one who wrote that CLAIM, after that question, was STATING that 'that factor' would HAVE TO BE 'non-material'. Which is CLEARLY NOT the case AT ALL.

Can you STILL REALLY NOT SEE this Fact?

[Dontaskme]

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.

Definition of 'immaterial'
PHILOSOPHY
spiritual, rather than physical.


Definition of 'nonmaterial'
PHILOSOPHY
: not material: such as. a : not of a physical nature : mental, conceptual, or spiritual rather than physical nonmaterial values.

_________

So we are back to the mental 'conceptual' realm again. Boom!

Just ''words'' Henry...all our knowledge, and what is known, is nothing more than an optical and auditory illusion of Sound and Light.

That's a descriptive of HOW... via words...what are WORDS....made of? they are made of SOUND..nothing else. And then this sound is translated into symbols which are manifestations of light, which are indistinguishable from the light. Turn off the light, and notice the disappearance of image.

The minds/brain intellect comes to know the known words from the unknown and not from the unknowable. The unknowable can never be known.

The source of the unknown is the unknowable.

And that Henry is the answer to HOW ..in other words questions will always have to have an answer, else the question wouldn't even arise.

Physical things cannot know or see themselves....physical things are known, by the ONLY knowing there is, which is unknowable...because it's ONE

No one in the history of human existence has to date, been able to work out how ''ONE THING'' exists...except for the very rare few of us...you know, those people who have come to realise they do not exist as they once thought they did.

So for the rest of humanity, the reality of Oneness, will remain the unsolvable dilemma that every philosopher who ponders the idea of a non-material realm, will take to their grave.



Henry, if you do not like my answer ...just say it's crap, I won't mind, just be honest, that's all I care about, honesty.


To be born is to die. To die is to be born. The total sum of all gains and losses is exactly zero.

Zero is indistinguishable from it's equal and exact opposite which is ONE

No thing has free will because no thing is ever bound...except in the illusory conceptual story, the dream...the realm where everything appears as if REAL