Creation - Evolution

[Age]

Continued aviodance of justifying assertions.

Continued non-collabaritive communication.

Atla and I have both been clear and you have not justifed your use of the term creation or in considering all matter to be creative and creating.

You've asserted but not justified.

But I have justified.

For you two, however, this might well be a completely different story. you two, after all, keep missing quite a lot here actually, so that you two have missed the justifications is absolutely nothing surprising, at all here.

You expect others to justify but have no similar expectation for yourself.

you are being an absolute lunatic and idiot here "iwannaplato".

It is like you are still missing, completely, what I have actually been saying, and spelling out here.

"iwannaplato", it still appears, still cannot see and recognize the actual difference here.

You're a preacher. Wrong forum.

And, you, like your friend here, are attempting at being just another "deceiver' here. But the only ones you two are really deceiving and fooling here are 'yourselves" only.

Neither of you have yet clarified, backed up, supported, proved, nor even stood behind an allegation, claim, nor assertion either of you two have made here, 'about me'. Yet, you expect these things from others.

[Age]

So, again, to get back to what I actually said and wrote here:

For those that cannot comprehend the irrefutable.

Every action has a reaction.

Every reaction is a new creation.

Every new creation evolves.

Every evolving creation interacts with other creations.

The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of 'matter', and a distance between and around matter. This distance is 'space'.

The action of when matter interacts with itself causes a reaction, and thus a new creation.

This always occurring action/reaction process is how all things/the Universe, Itself, are/is evolving.

The evolving-creation process that the Universe, Itself, is in is eternal.

I agree with most of this, but would add that each and every action or reaction is an initial or first cause, so action or motion or activity is the fundamental base of all. All of matter and space is based on motion.

Gee

And, 'motion', itself, is happening and occurring HERE-NOW, always.

The very 'motion' at, the continuous, NOW is what the words, 'In the beginning', are meaning and have been referring to all along.

As every action/reaction, or as you rightly suggest 'activity:, which happens and occurs NOW is the, in the beginning or initial 'creation', of all things, 'in the future'.

The 'activity' happening and occurring NOW is the 'fundamental base', or it could be said and argued, is the 'first cause' of all, moving forward.

[Age]

Nope. And I continue to think clarification about creation, which tends to include the idea of intent, is right on topic. As are the other points I raised.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

If Age is not interested in communicating more clearly, that's fine.

(Underlining is mine.)

I feel like I am missing something here. I have just read this entire thread and do not understand why Iwannaplato and Atla insist that this thread includes the idea of "intent". I have not seen anywhere that Age has brought up or discussed intent.

Is there some prior interaction between these parties that would explain this inconsistency? Or are we talking about prior beliefs? Is someone eluding to the "God" idea? Or are we thinking that they are?

Gee

It's inherent in the idea of creation.

The creation of 'whitecaps' on top of the ocean is created by wind, or matter. So, how and why is 'intent', itself, supposedly, 'inherent' in 'the idea of creation' here 'iwannaplato"?

In religion, creation, includes God's choice to create the universe.

But what has 'in religion' got to do with absolutely anything at all with what I have said and written here?

In general when we refer to creating something, we think of someone deciding to make something. Writers, authors, inventors, cooks, whomever.

When 'you' say and write 'we' here, who are 'you: referring to, exactly?

Because there are 'others' who think from a much wider and bigger perspective than that 'we' does.

And further Age when on to argue that all matter is creating.

In what context, exactly?

Do sheets of glass create wind breaks?

If yes, why would 'you', and 'others', think of someone deciding to make something here?

Matter creates things without absolutely anyone deciding to make things. Like, for example, the matter in the sun makes the warm that is felt on the skin of that body, and this but just another example among countless examples of matter creating, and/or making things.

When Atla suggested that humans create, because they have certain capablities and have intent to create, Age responded by saying that humans are made of the same matter as everything else. I specifically went into this in my two longer posts, suggesting the two possible ways Age and Atla were framing the issue and where the point of disagreement is.

But was there even any disagreement anyway?

Also, is what you claim here, in regards to what how I responded, exactly, how I responded?

Also, you, still, appear to not yet being in full understanding of what I am saying and meaning here.

Most people would not say chairs and rocks create things.

Okay, but I do not recall ever saying that chairs and rocks create things. So, this has obviously nothing at all to do with me.

And since Age focuses on matter, particles are generally not thought of as creating something. X causes Y.

Have you ever considered just seeking out and obtaining actual clarification from me first "iwannaplato", before you go off on assuming things?

It's fine if Age wants to claim that an electron is creating something when it, for example becomes part of a connection between two atoms in a molecule. But then I think he needs to support that.

What kind of further support do you want and/or need in relation to when there is an interaction, then this action causes and creates a reaction?

Atla would see the act of creating as an emergent property of some matter, not all matter. If he starts a thread, he can state that and justify it. Here Age is making a claim. But he hasn't justified it.

But it is self-justified. you just do not seem to be able to comprehend and understand this fact.

Intent is one facet of creating, there are others and other ways to word what is in creation and not other more basic kinds of causal chains.

But continually focussing on 'intent', which let us not forget was not introduced at all by me here. Do not forget that 'intent' was introduced by one who believes that I am a 'delusional liar' and so who has a 'motive' here to discredit 'me' in anyway they can. So, for you to continue to focus on 'intent' will only lead you astray or blind and deafen you to just seeing and hearing what I am actually saying and claiming about 'Creation', Itself, only.

Which is when matter inter-acts with itself, then this action creates a re-action, and every reaction is just another action, and how 'creation', itself, in one continual 'reaction/action' process.

And given that the title of the thread had evolution in it, doesn't evolution lead to more complicated actions/functions processes that earlier matter was not capable of?

No, not at all.Why would you be presuming otherwise?

Age doesn't need to justify the issue in terms of intent. But he does need to justify the use of creation rather than causation.

What is the difference to you?

And, why do I :now' not 'have to' justify what I, supposedly, 'had to', previously?

And just to be clear, I don't think his position is necessarily wrong: I would say that many compatibilists would believe that on some level he is correct, at least in saying that the types of causation are the same when humans create and when a stone rolls down a hill.

Are 'you' here, now, saying and claiming that stones, or rocks, cause some things?

My two early posts were an attempt to offer Age a way to better communicate and clarify his point and to explain how I see the position Atla represents sees it.

And I offered you actual ways to communicate better with me, collaboratively, and ways of how to just elaborate on what 'it' is, exactly, that you want or need 'justified' here.

But you obviously, so far, have not wanted to take up these offers.

He seems create/creation as being misapplied.

"iwannaplato" is misunderstanding and is missing things here.

Age is not interested in improving the communication, as far as I can see, and found ways to insult me for my suggestions.

1. I have never insulted 'you' "iwannaplato".

2. you 'iwannaplato" still have absolutely no idea nor clue at all as to what my intention of improving communication here is for nor in regards to, exactly. you just keep proving that your 'current' pre-existing beliefs and presumptions here are just False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

3. So, your presumptions belief that I am not interested in improving 'the communication' could not be more False, more Wrong, more Inaccurate, and more Incorrect here.

[Atla]

Yes they do. And, my posts here are clearly saying, as well as showing, with proof, that the Universe is an infinite and eternally Self evolving-creation.

Yes, so it's about intent, as it always has been.

Why?

Except you've never proven anything.

To you, maybe.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims,

Okay. If you say and believe so, then this must be so, true?

therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Okay.

There is no creation and evolution without intent or at least an infinite multiverse. Without them, there is just randomness that doesn't lead anywhere. Not everyone is as easily deceived by you as you think. I don't care about your TOTAL misuse of the words creation and evolution either.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

[Age]

Yes, so it's about intent, as it always has been.

Why?

Except you've never proven anything.

To you, maybe.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims,

Okay. If you say and believe so, then this must be so, true?

therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Okay.

There is no creation and evolution without intent or at least an infinite multiverse.

Has this been proved True?

Are you able to justify and/or prove this claim and assertion of yours here?

Also, just so you are aware, your sentence and claim here does not make full sense, well to me anyway. For example, the word 'multiverse' is an oxymoron or an impossibility by definition.

There is and can only be one Universe, only.

And, claiming that there could be more than One seems like a weird thing for a self-proclaimed "nondualist" to claim by the way.

Without them, there is just randomness that doesn't lead anywhere.

Without 'what'?

What is 'them', exactly?

Not everyone is as easily deceived by you as you think.

What do you imagine or believe I am deceiving about here?

And, could this claim of yours here be an attempt at deception, itself, here?

I don't care about your TOTAL misuse of the words creation and evolution either.

If you, supposedly, do not care, then why do you keep posting here?

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Okay, you are free to believe absolutely anything you like.

[Gee]

Nope. And I continue to think clarification about creation, which tends to include the idea of intent, is right on topic. As are the other points I raised.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

If Age is not interested in communicating more clearly, that's fine.

(Underlining is mine.)

I feel like I am missing something here. I have just read this entire thread and do not understand why Iwannaplato and Atla insist that this thread includes the idea of "intent". I have not seen anywhere that Age has brought up or discussed intent.

Is there some prior interaction between these parties that would explain this inconsistency? Or are we talking about prior beliefs? Is someone eluding to the "God" idea? Or are we thinking that they are?

Gee

It's inherent in the idea of creation. In religion, creation, includes God's choice to create the universe.

It is not inherent at all. Intent is inherent in religious "God" ideation with regard to creation. You could even argue that intent is inherent in the philosophy of solipsism as it applies to creation. In both cases we are using the example of a human mind to explain creation -- either directly from a human or anthropomorphized in the form of a "God". The human mind understands intent, but did not create the universe -- it wasn't there when the universe was created. If you state that intent was causal in the creation of the universe, then you are stating that humans were causal in the creation of the universe. That is something that you would have to justify.

In general when we refer to creating something, we think of someone deciding to make something. Writers, authors, inventors, cooks, whomever.

I understand what you are saying, but if you take some time to analyze what this "deciding" actually is, you will see that intent and creation are not at all related. So trace it back: When you decide something, you make a choice. What causes you to decide to make something? Well that would be some kind of motivation or inspiration. What helps you to decide what to make? That would be imagination. We are motivated by 'want' which is a feeling or emotion, so emotion and imagination are the causes that prompt the decision to create. Emotion and imagination both source through the unconscious aspect of mind and have little to do with the rational aspect of mind. Intent works through the rational aspect of mind -- as it is about choice. When we do something intentionally it is through the rational aspect of mind. Mixing the ideas of deciding and intent with creation just confuses the issue.

Many famous writers, authors, inventors, cooks, etc., have stated that their ideas or inspirations came to them, rather than that they decided the ideas. Decisions can be inspired, but Inspiration is not decided.

And further Age when on to argue that all matter is creating. When Atla suggested that humans create, because they have certain capablities and have intent to create, Age responded by saying that humans are made of the same matter as everything else. I specifically went into this in my two longer posts, suggesting the two possible ways Age and Atla were framing the issue and where the point of disagreement is.

Most people would not say chairs and rocks create things. And since Age focuses on matter, particles are generally not thought of as creating something. X causes Y.

It's fine if Age wants to claim that an electron is creating something when it, for example becomes part of a connection between two atoms in a molecule. But then I think he needs to support that.

This is the same old argument that asks, "Who is the boss?" Did "God" create reality or does man cause/create reality? This argument has been going on for thousands of years and is based on who or what caused creation by considering their power and 'intent'. The argument is invalid. There was no intent at the dawn of creation because there was no human rational mind at the dawn of creation. The idea is not only egotistical nonsense, but it is a tad circular.

Atla would see the act of creating as an emergent property of some matter, not all matter. If he starts a thread, he can state that and justify it. Here Age is making a claim. But he hasn't justified it.

As I stated, seeing the intent to create as an emergent property -- controlled by humans, or their "God" -- is egotistical nonsense. We need to go back to the drawing board and revisit this with new ideas as Age has done.

Intent is one facet of creating, there are others and other ways to word what is in creation and not other more basic kinds of causal chains.

And given that the title of the thread had evolution in it, doesn't evolution lead to more complicated actions/functions processes that earlier matter was not capable of?

Age doesn't need to justify the issue in terms of intent. But he does need to justify the use of creation rather than causation.

It appears to me that you are interpreting additional meanings on the words 'creation' and 'evolution'. Evolution is just about change and creation is just about causing something to exist that did not exist before. When you talk about them, I get the feeling that you see evolution as a positive thing and probably see devolving as a negative. Do you also see creation as positive, or maybe godly? My thought is that creation and evolution are just words that describe change.

And just to be clear, I don't think his position is necessarily wrong: I would say that many compatibilists would believe that on some level he is correct, at least in saying that the types of causation are the same when humans create and when a stone rolls down a hill. My two early posts were an attempt to offer Age a way to better communicate and clarify his point and to explain how I see the position Atla represents sees it. He seems create/creation as being misapplied. Age is not interested in improving the communication, as far as I can see, and found ways to insult me for my suggestions.

I don't think Age was trying to insult you, but it must be frustrating to find someone trying to clarify a point when they do not in fact understand the point.

Gee

[Atla]

Why?


To you, maybe.


Okay. If you say and believe so, then this must be so, true?


Okay.

There is no creation and evolution without intent or at least an infinite multiverse.

Has this been proved True?

Are you able to justify and/or prove this claim and assertion of yours here?

Also, just so you are aware, your sentence and claim here does not make full sense, well to me anyway. For example, the word 'multiverse' is an oxymoron or an impossibility by definition.

There is and can only be one Universe, only.

And, claiming that there could be more than One seems like a weird thing for a self-proclaimed "nondualist" to claim by the way.

Without them, there is just randomness that doesn't lead anywhere.

Without 'what'?

What is 'them', exactly?

Not everyone is as easily deceived by you as you think.

What do you imagine or believe I am deceiving about here?

And, could this claim of yours here be an attempt at deception, itself, here?

I don't care about your TOTAL misuse of the words creation and evolution either.

If you, supposedly, do not care, then why do you keep posting here?

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Okay, you are free to believe absolutely anything you like.

Everything was explained to you

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

[Iwannaplato]

It is not inherent at all. Intent is inherent in religious "God" ideation with regard to creation. You could even argue that intent is inherent in the philosophy of solipsism as it applies to creation. In both cases we are using the example of a human mind to explain creation -- either directly from a human or anthropomorphized in the form of a "God". The human mind understands intent, but did not create the universe -- it wasn't there when the universe was created. If you state that intent was causal in the creation of the universe, then you are stating that humans were causal in the creation of the universe. That is something that you would have to justify.

I'm not sure why you're limiting creation to the beginning of the universe. Age is talking about creation in the moment to moment everyday instances of causation. A billiard ball creating the motion of the next billiard ball. All causation is creation. That's an uncommon word usage/framing for that. And note that Age himself disagrees with the notion that only some matter has intent. He does not think that that term can be applied to some matter but not other matter.
viewtopic.php?p=700133#p700133

I understand what you are saying, but if you take some time to analyze what this "deciding" actually is, you will see that intent and creation are not at all related. So trace it back: When you decide something, you make a choice. What causes you to decide to make something? Well that would be some kind of motivation or inspiration.

You are now doing exactly what Atla and I have been asking Age to do.

You're now arguing why his position is correct. Great. I was suggesting that he do this: justify his position. I took enough time, in fact, to organize my responses, which were focused on getting just this kind of response from him.

What helps you to decide what to make? That would be imagination. We are motivated by 'want' which is a feeling or emotion, so emotion and imagination are the causes that prompt the decision to create. Emotion and imagination both source through the unconscious aspect of mind and have little to do with the rational aspect of mind. Intent works through the rational aspect of mind

1) I don't think intent is necessarily rational, but it is cognitive, in the broad sense of subjective.
2) You are here suggesting our creation comes from unconscious emotion and imagination. Are you suggesting that all causation in all matter has these facets?

-- as it is about choice. When we do something intentionally it is through the rational aspect of mind. Mixing the ideas of deciding and intent with creation just confuses the issue.

Well, that would lead to a whole tangent about how rationality escapes determinism, but the above point is fine. Further, you are now on the same page as Atla. When we do something intentionally, it is through the rational part of the mind. Great, so you see intention as arising in part of reality, in the rational aspect of mind. But Age has argued that all matter is the same
Age himself disagrees with the notion that some matter has intent. He does not think that that term can be applied to some matter but not other matter.
viewtopic.php?p=700133#p700133
Or are you saying that all matter is rational and can intend things?

You are arguing that creation does not require intent. But you are seeing intent in rational processes. So, while this point counters Atla's idea that creation needs intent, it seems like you might be disagreeing with AGe's idea that all matter has the same functions, the same range of functions. Unless you think that all matter can be rational.

IOW your response to me implies that Age is not attributing certain things to matter that we normally associate with higher human functions. Perhaps you are right about intent. But I think the main point holds, so far, that qualities that you associate with conscious aspects of the mind are ones he would see in other matter also. It's the same matter. And in fact, as you can see in that link, he also associate intent as possible in all matter.

Notice I said that intent is one way to frame creation, but that the act of creating doesn't have to be framed in terms of intent. Still, framing it in terms of causation was not enough, and here you have provided other kinds of processes, emotion and imagination, as parts of creation. Fine. You can perhaps justify their use in relation to radioactive decay or a stone rolling down a hill. Emotion and imagination.

And note again, even more important: you started this with the implication that I didn't analyze enough. But in fact, if you read my first two posts, you'll see that it was a suggestion that AGe do what you are doing. That's it.

This is the same old argument that asks, "Who is the boss?" Did "God" create reality or does man cause/create reality? This argument has been going on for thousands of years and is based on who or what caused creation by considering their power and 'intent'. The argument is invalid. There was no intent at the dawn of creation because there was no human rational mind at the dawn of creation. The idea is not only egotistical nonsense, but it is a tad circular.

I'm not arguing there was a rational mind at the dawn of creation. Is it possible you have assumed things about my position, rather than seeing that my posts were a request for him to explain his use of the term creation? Will you have empathy for my frustration, should I feel it?

As I stated, seeing the intent to create as an emergent property -- controlled by humans, or their "God" -- is egotistical nonsense.

Is there a reason you are going ad hom? Can you focus on your explanation and say things implicitly about me? Further you seemed to restrict intent and rational decisions to one part of human processes, not all of them. IOW what you are calling unconscious processes, which you consider non-rational, can create. But there you are attributing certain cognitive phenomena (rational choice and deciding) to some parts of the universe and not others. Why is that not egotistical nonsense also?

We need to go back to the drawing board and revisit this with new ideas as Age has done.

OK.

It appears to me that you are interpreting additional meanings on the words 'creation' and 'evolution'. Evolution is just about change and creation is just about causing something to exist that did not exist before.

Ah, so it doesn't need emotion and imagination. I'm not sure why you brought those up, then.Generally speaking I think evolution has to do with processes where there is the emergence of new qualities, functions, phenomena over time. I'm not sure what the relevance of my seeing evolution as good and devolving as negative would be, but I haven't said anything about devolving and I don't assume that evolution is positive.

When you talk about them, I get the feeling that you see evolution as a positive thing and probably see devolving as a negative. Do you also see creation as positive, or maybe godly? My thought is that creation and evolution are just words that describe change.

Again, you are assuming things about me for some reason.

I don't think Age was trying to insult you, but it must be frustrating to find someone trying to clarify a point when they do not in fact understand the point.

Really? I mean, it's great that you have empathy for Age, but triangulation is part of human intercourse. And it doesn't take away from his opportunity to explain how intent need not be involved. Or how creation is merely the arrival of new things. Further he has denied that he ever gets angry or frustrated in these discussions.

I also don't know if you are aware that Age's beliefs expressed in this thread are part of a wider range of beliefs: for example that there is only one mind, not many minds. Or that he is not of this time. Or that when he makes assertions here, he doesn't believe those assertions, they are not beliefs, they are views. But when other people assert things, those are beliefs and cannot be changed. That people do not change beliefs. And further is transcendent; and some patterns of interaction, where he tends to demand that others justify any assumptions in their critiques or even questions before he will justify his claims - for example that there is only one mind. Which ends up with his assertions not getting justified.

It is withing the context of his metaphysics that Atla's responses might be clearer to you. It is within the context of his interpersonal responses that some of our reactions might be more understandable and also, perhaps, elicit, not empathy but understanding.

I once politely asked him about his one true mind belief. He said he would not respond until I phrased my requests in the way he preferred. I did that and then he told me he was not going to do it anyway. I can own up to getting frustrated by his evasiveness, though that faded when I understood this was a pattern.

A common practice of his is to not do precisely what you did do. You explained why you thought my points were incorrect. Age will generally just deny they are correct. No triangulation. No, that is incorrect because of X. Or no, that is incorrect because when I refer to X I mean....

The opportunity to move forward is avoided, for reasons unknown. So, while I do not accept all of your interpretations of my post, I appreciate that you seem to understand a basic facet of communication, which is that a process of triangulation can take place where each post is an attempt to move forward.

My sense is that his approach to communication - he said many times that THE reason he came here was to learn how to communicate better - can be improved if he doesn't hinge justifying on the endless process of getting others to justify all their words and positions first, even when he starts a thread or makes an assertion himself.

IOW my first posts in this thread were an attempt to present another way to help a discussion with Atla to move forward.

He does want to communicate and communicate better with the people 'at the time this was being written. He can manage to ackowledge small mistakes, typos and the like. Under long a stubborn pressure from Atla he decided to stop an extremely idiosyncratic use of capitalization that bothered most readers here.

I think there are other facets of his communication that lead to dead end conversations. Perhaps I am wrong. But he has insulted me and now you have insulted me based on what you thought my positions must be - egotistical nonsense, for example.

It's fine that you have empathy for Age, of course, though you projected feelings onto him he has repeatedly denied, and they are in fact feelings that often lead to insult. In his case insults he often aims at everyone in the present time.

Despite this long standing pattern of insulting me and others, I posted twice suggesting a way that the conversation could move forward and you managed to include precisely the kinds of steps I was trying to elicit from Age. IOW whether I did it perfectly or framed his positions utterly correctly or not, you managed to respond in part precisely in the way I was suggesting. And I think that offers a way for the discussion to move forward and it is precisely that kind of response that I think Age has either a reluctance to make or can't make for some reason.

So, I'm going to leave the thread to you and Age and the infinitely more patient than me Atla. You all can use my egotistical nonsense and what you think should frustrate Age or not.

Fine with me either way at this point.

[Age]

There is no creation and evolution without intent or at least an infinite multiverse.

Has this been proved True?

Are you able to justify and/or prove this claim and assertion of yours here?

Also, just so you are aware, your sentence and claim here does not make full sense, well to me anyway. For example, the word 'multiverse' is an oxymoron or an impossibility by definition.

There is and can only be one Universe, only.

And, claiming that there could be more than One seems like a weird thing for a self-proclaimed "nondualist" to claim by the way.

Without them, there is just randomness that doesn't lead anywhere.

Without 'what'?

What is 'them', exactly?

Not everyone is as easily deceived by you as you think.

What do you imagine or believe I am deceiving about here?

And, could this claim of yours here be an attempt at deception, itself, here?

I don't care about your TOTAL misuse of the words creation and evolution either.

If you, supposedly, do not care, then why do you keep posting here?

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Okay, you are free to believe absolutely anything you like.

Everything was explained to you

And, anyone could say and claim the exact same thing, to 'you'.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Okay. To 'you', 'I' am incapable of proving these things. 'We' already 'know' what 'you' 'believe' is true here.

And, another thing that I can prove True, is how the brain when working in conjunction with the belief-system can and does stop and prevent one from being able to recognize, hear, and see what the actual Truth of things is, exactly.

Which, by the way, I can and are proving True thanks to you here "atla".

So, again, please carry on how you are here, now.

[Atla]

Has this been proved True?

Are you able to justify and/or prove this claim and assertion of yours here?

Also, just so you are aware, your sentence and claim here does not make full sense, well to me anyway. For example, the word 'multiverse' is an oxymoron or an impossibility by definition.

There is and can only be one Universe, only.

And, claiming that there could be more than One seems like a weird thing for a self-proclaimed "nondualist" to claim by the way.



Without 'what'?

What is 'them', exactly?


What do you imagine or believe I am deceiving about here?

And, could this claim of yours here be an attempt at deception, itself, here?


If you, supposedly, do not care, then why do you keep posting here?


Okay, you are free to believe absolutely anything you like.

Everything was explained to you

And, anyone could say and claim the exact same thing, to 'you'.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Okay. To 'you', 'I' am incapable of proving these things. 'We' already 'know' what 'you' 'believe' is true here.

And, another thing that I can prove True, is how the brain when working in conjunction with the belief-system can and does stop and prevent one from being able to recognize, hear, and see what the actual Truth of things is, exactly.

Which, by the way, I can and are proving True thanks to you here "atla".

So, again, please carry on how you are here, now.

Unlike you I have no hard beliefs, see you can't even get this right.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

[Age]

It is not inherent at all. Intent is inherent in religious "God" ideation with regard to creation. You could even argue that intent is inherent in the philosophy of solipsism as it applies to creation. In both cases we are using the example of a human mind to explain creation -- either directly from a human or anthropomorphized in the form of a "God". The human mind understands intent, but did not create the universe -- it wasn't there when the universe was created. If you state that intent was causal in the creation of the universe, then you are stating that humans were causal in the creation of the universe. That is something that you would have to justify.

I'm not sure why you're limiting creation to the beginning of the universe. Age is talking about creation in the moment to moment everyday instances of causation. A billiard ball creating the motion of the next billiard ball. All causation is creation. That's an uncommon word usage/framing for that.

'The earth revolves around the sun', was also, once, an uncommon word usage/framing.

And note that Age himself disagrees with the notion that only some matter has intent.

This here is more proof of just how blind and deaf people can get and be.

If I recall correctly I have never ever stated any such thing as said and claimed here, yet this one believes I have.

Also, note how this one is Truly fixated on 'intent' here.

He does not think that that term can be applied to some matter but not other matter.
viewtopic.php?p=700133#p700133

There is not a single word in this link that I write that would indicate that I disagree with the notion that only some matter has intent. Yet, this one, once again, assumed some thing, presumed that that thing is true, and then worse still started believing its own made up assumption is actually true. All without ever once seeking out and obtaining actual clarification.

Also, noted how this one is continually seeing things here from the context of 'intent'. Which, again, is something that I had, and still have no, intent of discussing here, YET.

'First things first', as some would say here now.

I understand what you are saying, but if you take some time to analyze what this "deciding" actually is, you will see that intent and creation are not at all related. So trace it back: When you decide something, you make a choice. What causes you to decide to make something? Well that would be some kind of motivation or inspiration.

You are now doing exactly what Atla and I have been asking Age to do.

You're now arguing why his position is correct. Great. I was suggesting that he do this: justify his position. I took enough time, in fact, to organize my responses, which were focused on getting just this kind of response from him.

Here is another prime example of twisting and distorting things around, absolutely, from what was actually meant and/or intended.

What helps you to decide what to make? That would be imagination. We are motivated by 'want' which is a feeling or emotion, so emotion and imagination are the causes that prompt the decision to create. Emotion and imagination both source through the unconscious aspect of mind and have little to do with the rational aspect of mind. Intent works through the rational aspect of mind

1) I don't think intent is necessarily rational, but it is cognitive, in the broad sense of subjective.
2) You are here suggesting our creation comes from unconscious emotion and imagination. Are you suggesting that all causation in all matter has these facets?

-- as it is about choice. When we do something intentionally it is through the rational aspect of mind. Mixing the ideas of deciding and intent with creation just confuses the issue.

Well, that would lead to a whole tangent about how rationality escapes determinism, but the above point is fine.

Introducing the word 'intent' into this thread was a complete whole tangent, which obviously you "iwannaplato" have been fooled and thus fallen prey and victim to.

Further, you are now on the same page as Atla. When we do something intentionally, it is through the rational part of the mind. Great, so you see intention as arising in part of reality, in the rational aspect of mind. But Age has argued that all matter is the same

I have never argued this. And, if you still want to believe I have, then provide a link to it.

Age himself disagrees with the notion that some matter has intent. He does not think that that term can be applied to some matter but not other matter.
viewtopic.php?p=700133#p700133

I do not think any such thing at all "iwannaplato".

you are, once again, just showing and proving that when you are already presuming or believing some thing is true, then you are not able to 'look at' and 'see' things properly and Correctly.

Or are you saying that all matter is rational and can intend things?

You are arguing that creation does not require intent. But you are seeing intent in rational processes. So, while this point counters Atla's idea that creation needs intent, it seems like you might be disagreeing with AGe's idea that all matter has the same functions, the same range of functions. Unless you think that all matter can be rational.

you people here talking about 'intent' has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I have written and said in the opening post, and other posts, here.

you can talk about 'intent' for as long as you like, but using that word and including that word in regards to what I have said and written here is just another further attempts at deflection and deception, and one doing it has just been fooled and tricked by "atla", and just carrying on and following on from "atla's" attempts at introducing a whole tangent for defection, and for deception. Which has obviously worked on this one here.

IOW your response to me implies that Age is not attributing certain things to matter that we normally associate with higher human functions.

Here is another prime example of 'confirmation bias' at work, and playing out, here. This one infers things in others words, which fit in perfectly with what the introduction of the 'intent' word was intended to do, that is; trick and fool people into 'seeing' and 'believing' things that were never introduced nor even ever intended in this thread.

But, please carry on following and talking about the 'intent' word here. As doing so fits in perfectly with what I have to say and will be presenting regarding how the Mind and the brain actually work.

Perhaps you are right about intent. But I think the main point holds, so far, that qualities that you associate with conscious aspects of the mind are ones he would see in other matter also. It's the same matter. And in fact, as you can see in that link, he also associate intent as possible in all matter.

Once again this one could not be any further away from the actual Truth of things.

Notice I said that intent is one way to frame creation, but that the act of creating doesn't have to be framed in terms of intent. Still, framing it in terms of causation was not enough, and here you have provided other kinds of processes, emotion and imagination, as parts of creation. Fine. You can perhaps justify their use in relation to radioactive decay or a stone rolling down a hill. Emotion and imagination.

And note again, even more important: you started this with the implication that I didn't analyze enough. But in fact, if you read my first two posts, you'll see that it was a suggestion that AGe do what you are doing. That's it.

I will, again, suggest that you read the actual words I write and do not start assuming, presuming, nor believing things here, before you obtain and gain actual clarity first. That way you will not be so Wrong, as often as you are.

This is the same old argument that asks, "Who is the boss?" Did "God" create reality or does man cause/create reality? This argument has been going on for thousands of years and is based on who or what caused creation by considering their power and 'intent'. The argument is invalid. There was no intent at the dawn of creation because there was no human rational mind at the dawn of creation. The idea is not only egotistical nonsense, but it is a tad circular.

I'm not arguing there was a rational mind at the dawn of creation. Is it possible you have assumed things about my position, rather than seeing that my posts were a request for him to explain his use of the term creation?

I will again suggest that if absolutely any one would like me to explain absolutely any thing to and for them, then they just ask me to.

How much simpler and easier could this get?

Will you have empathy for my frustration, should I feel it?

Wow, could one get more 'self-centered' here?

As I stated, seeing the intent to create as an emergent property -- controlled by humans, or their "God" -- is egotistical nonsense.

Is there a reason you are going ad hom? Can you focus on your explanation and say things implicitly about me? Further you seemed to restrict intent and rational decisions to one part of human processes, not all of them. IOW what you are calling unconscious processes, which you consider non-rational, can create. But there you are attributing certain cognitive phenomena (rational choice and deciding) to some parts of the universe and not others. Why is that not egotistical nonsense also?

We need to go back to the drawing board and revisit this with new ideas as Age has done.

OK.

It appears to me that you are interpreting additional meanings on the words 'creation' and 'evolution'. Evolution is just about change and creation is just about causing something to exist that did not exist before.

Ah, so it doesn't need emotion and imagination. I'm not sure why you brought those up, then.

Just maybe because you and another are intent on continually using the 'intent' word here.

Which, again, and let us not forget, has absolutely nothing at all in regards to this thread and my posts here.

Generally speaking I think evolution has to do with processes where there is the emergence of new qualities, functions, phenomena over time.

So, to you, when did so-called 'new qualities', 'functions', and/or 'phenomena' 'begin', actually?

I'm not sure what the relevance of my seeing evolution as good and devolving as negative would be, but I haven't said anything about devolving and I don't assume that evolution is positive.

When you talk about them, I get the feeling that you see evolution as a positive thing and probably see devolving as a negative. Do you also see creation as positive, or maybe godly? My thought is that creation and evolution are just words that describe change.

Again, you are assuming things about me for some reason.

LOL
LOL
LOL

you say this "iwannaplato" like you do not assume things about others, nor me.

I don't think Age was trying to insult you, but it must be frustrating to find someone trying to clarify a point when they do not in fact understand the point.

Really? I mean, it's great that you have empathy for Age, but triangulation is part of human intercourse. And it doesn't take away from his opportunity to explain how intent need not be involved.

you really, really cannot see, comprehend, and understand that the 'intent' word was introduced here by another to trick, fool, deflect, and deceive here.

'intent' was never introduced into this thread by me because 'intent' is not involved in any way whatsoever. So, why would there even be any opportunity at all to explain how intent need not be involved?

'intent' was never ever involved. Are you at least able to comprehend and understand this Fact?

Or how creation is merely the arrival of new things.

How could on the arrival of new things not be 'creation'?

Further he has denied that he ever gets angry or frustrated in these discussions.

Talk about introducing another whole tangent.

I also don't know if you are aware that Age's beliefs expressed in this thread are part of a wider range of beliefs:

Once again, I do not have beliefs.

And, once again, this will get completely taken out of context. Well by some here anyway.

for example that there is only one mind, not many minds.

Does this have absolutely anything at all to do with the thread title here?

Also, there are many other things I will be talking about and explaining, which are completely contrary to the popular beliefs, in the days when this is being written, but which, however, fit together, perfectly, to form the GUTOE, which can be and will end up being proving irrefutably True, to others, as well.

Or that he is not of this time.

This one gets more 'unbelievable' and irrational as we move along here.

So, when am I from, exactly, "iwannaplato" if not 'of this time'? And, when even is 'this time', to 'you' anyway?

Or that when he makes assertions here, he doesn't believe those assertions, they are not beliefs, they are views.

Finally you have got one thing Right here.

But when other people assert things, those are beliefs and cannot be changed.

But, 'we' are back to you being completely and utterly Wrong and Incorrect, again.

Also, you went on about another and 'ad hom', yet look at how you have taken this post of yours to now.

Why are you informing another poster here 'about me' now "iwannaplato"?

That people do not change beliefs.

Again, you could not be more Wrong and Incorrect here, even if you wanted to be.

And further is transcendent; and some patterns of interaction, where he tends to demand that others justify any assumptions in their critiques or even questions before he will justify his claims - for example that there is only one mind. Which ends up with his assertions not getting justified.

But it has been 'justified'. you just have not seen nor recognized this.

What you are doing here, in the days when this is being written, is just like those in the days when one was saying, and justifying, 'the earth revolves around the sun', while others kept saying and claiming, 'you are not justifying your assertion here'.

you "iwannaplato" are being exactly like 'them'.

But, please keep carrying on how you are and have been here. I like to have as much proof as I can obtain regarding how the brain, when working with the 'belief-system' is not able to see things properly, Correctly, and/nor clearly.

The reason why those who could not 'see' the 'justifications' being made for 'the earth revolving around the sun' is the exact same reason why you human beings cannot, yet, see the actual Truth of things. The human brain, in conjunction with the 'belief-system', when assuming or believing things are true, before the actual Truth is actually obtained and gathered stops and prevents people from 'seeing' and 'hearing' the actual Truth.

It is withing the context of his metaphysics that Atla's responses might be clearer to you. It is within the context of his interpersonal responses that some of our reactions might be more understandable and also, perhaps, elicit, not empathy but understanding.

you and "atla", among others here, have been, and still are, being irrefutable proof for what I will be saying and claiming about how the Mind and the brain actually work.

To 'justify' how the earth revolves around the sun 'proof' was needed and had to be provided. To 'justify' a great deal of what I want to and will be pointing out and showing the 'proof' I need, and which be provided, will be found here, in this forum.

I once politely asked him about his one true mind belief.

The actual and irrefutable Truth of what actually took place is here, in this forum, for all to 'look at' and 'see'.

He said he would not respond until I phrased my requests in the way he preferred.

These are not the actual words that I used. As can be proved irrefutably True here.

What this one 'saw' and 'heard' is just another prime example 'confirmation bias', at its best.

I did that and then he told me he was not going to do it anyway.

This is absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, as well.

Now, if absolutely any one would like me to prove this True, then let us discuss.

I can own up to getting frustrated by his evasiveness, though that faded when I understood this was a pattern.

What 'pattern'?

One pattern here is that you do not ask 'specific clarifying questions'. Again, as can be clearly seen and proved True here.

A common practice of his is to not do precisely what you did do. You explained why you thought my points were incorrect. Age will generally just deny they are correct. No triangulation. No, that is incorrect because of X. Or no, that is incorrect because when I refer to X I mean....

Do you realize how much 'projection' is happening and occurring here, right now?

The opportunity to move forward is avoided, for reasons unknown.

I have already explained why you are not moving forward at all.

So, while I do not accept all of your interpretations of my post, I appreciate that you seem to understand a basic facet of communication, which is that a process of triangulation can take place where each post is an attempt to move forward.

What can be clearly seen here in this post is you, once again, talking 'about me', and not doing anything to 'justify' your position/assertion, even when I ask you very specific clarifying questions.

I have also, countless times already, explained that until one asks me actual clarifying questions, then I have no interest, yet, in proving/justifying my claims/assertions.

They have already been proved True and Right to me. So, I am no rush, nor need, to prove/justify anything to anyone else. As I keep reminding here, I just wait, patiently, for those who have been prepared to Honest, OPEN, curios, and are Truly interested.

My sense is that his approach to communication - he said many times that THE reason he came here was to learn how to communicate better - can be improved if he doesn't hinge justifying on the endless process of getting others to justify all their words and positions first, even when he starts a thread or makes an assertion himself.

If people want to claim things, then I will, once again, suggest that they have the actual 'proof' needed to 'justify' their claim, before they go and make their claim public.

So, what this also means is that if one presents words and positions here, in this forum, then if they cannot back up and support those words and positions, first, then they go back and obtain the actual 'justification/proof', first, and then 'come back'.

And, again, I say and suggest this because I do this.

IOW my first posts in this thread were an attempt to present another way to help a discussion with Atla to move forward.

What you clearly missed, and keep missing, is I have no 'intention' of talking about 'the tangent' 'intent' here.

Can you, and will you, comprehend and understand this?

"atla" introduced the word 'intent' to deflect here. I do not want to be 'deflected' here. The word 'intent' does not belong in this thread. Surely even you "iwannaplato" could fathom and understand this. That is; if you had not been tricked, fooled, and deceived here.

He does want to communicate and communicate better with the people 'at the time this was being written. He can manage to ackowledge small mistakes, typos and the like. Under long a stubborn pressure from Atla he decided to stop an extremely idiosyncratic use of capitalization that bothered most readers here.

you are continually proving that you are an absolutely imbecile and completely and utterly stupid here "iwannaplato".

For those that have not yet seen the already proof that this is an absolute lie, caused and created by 'confirmation bias', itself, and would like to see the proof, then let us have a discussion. Until then absolutely anyone can believe whatever they like here.

This one, like "atla", whole intent here is to just try to discredit me, as much as they can. And, they will use any form of deceptive tactic they can.

They are being, exactly, like those, back in the day, who tried their absolutely hardest to discredit who was just expressing the truth about the earth revolving around the sun, instead of the other way around.

I think there are other facets of his communication that lead to dead end conversations.

I know, without doubt, that you spend far more time talking 'about me', then ever trying to understand what I am actually saying and meaning.

This post of yours here is another prime example of this.

Perhaps I am wrong. But he has insulted me and now you have insulted me based on what you thought my positions must be - egotistical nonsense, for example.

you get 'insulted' by things that may well not even be 'insults' at all.

I, for one, have never 'insulted' you once "iwannaplato". Although you obviously believe otherwise. And, thus why you are not OPEN to discussions, nor to anything else here regarding this.

It's fine that you have empathy for Age, of course, though you projected feelings onto him he has repeatedly denied, and they are in fact feelings that often lead to insult. In his case insults he often aims at everyone in the present time.

Once again, this is one is completely and utterly blind and deaf here.

And, from being so is trying to cause and create further deception.

Despite this long standing pattern of insulting me and others, I posted twice suggesting a way that the conversation could move forward and you managed to include precisely the kinds of steps I was trying to elicit from Age. IOW whether I did it perfectly or framed his positions utterly correctly or not, you managed to respond in part precisely in the way I was suggesting.

you could not further a lot of my positions more Wrongly and Incorrectly "iwannaplato".

Also, your attempts at more and more deflection here do not go unnoticed. If, however, you are even aware at just how much deflecting and deceiving you are doing here is another matter.

I suggest that every now and then you look back up the thread title and remember that this thread was, and still is, about 'creation-evolution' and not about 'me'.

And I think that offers a way for the discussion to move forward and it is precisely that kind of response that I think Age has either a reluctance to make or can't make for some reason.

So, I'm going to leave the thread to you and Age

We will wait, to see just how true, or not, this this.

and the infinitely more patient than me Atla.

Keep building your buddy up.

You all can use my egotistical nonsense and what you think should frustrate Age or not.

Fine with me either way at this point.

Okay. So, let us get back to what was being discussed here. That is; The Universe is in an eternal constant reactionary evolving process, sometimes called 'Creation', itself.

[Age]

Everything was explained to you

And, anyone could say and claim the exact same thing, to 'you'.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Okay. To 'you', 'I' am incapable of proving these things. 'We' already 'know' what 'you' 'believe' is true here.

And, another thing that I can prove True, is how the brain when working in conjunction with the belief-system can and does stop and prevent one from being able to recognize, hear, and see what the actual Truth of things is, exactly.

Which, by the way, I can and are proving True thanks to you here "atla".

So, again, please carry on how you are here, now.

Unlike you I have no hard beliefs,

But I never said you had so-called 'hard beliefs'.

see you can't even get this right.

you could not even get your presumption here right and correct, once again.

Also, and by the way, how do you differentiate between 'hard beliefs' and just 'beliefs'?

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Okay. To 'you', 'I' am incapable of proving these things. 'We' already 'know' what 'you' 'believe' is true here.

Also, are you 'now' saying that you do not even actually believe what you say here?

Because, if you do, then your friend and buddy here "iwannaplato" will not be too happy with you at all "atla".

[Atla]

And, anyone could say and claim the exact same thing, to 'you'.


Okay. To 'you', 'I' am incapable of proving these things. 'We' already 'know' what 'you' 'believe' is true here.

And, another thing that I can prove True, is how the brain when working in conjunction with the belief-system can and does stop and prevent one from being able to recognize, hear, and see what the actual Truth of things is, exactly.

Which, by the way, I can and are proving True thanks to you here "atla".

So, again, please carry on how you are here, now.

Unlike you I have no hard beliefs,

But I never said you had so-called 'hard beliefs'.

see you can't even get this right.

you could not even get your presumption here right and correct, once again.

Also, and by the way, how do you differentiate between 'hard beliefs' and just 'beliefs'?

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Okay. To 'you', 'I' am incapable of proving these things. 'We' already 'know' what 'you' 'believe' is true here.

Also, are you 'now' saying that you do not even actually believe what you say here?

Because, if you do, then your friend and buddy here "iwannaplato" will not be too happy with you at all "atla".

You can shove your blatantly dishonest usage of the word 'belief' up your backside as well.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential BELIEFS, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

[Age]

Unlike you I have no hard beliefs,

But I never said you had so-called 'hard beliefs'.

see you can't even get this right.

you could not even get your presumption here right and correct, once again.

Also, and by the way, how do you differentiate between 'hard beliefs' and just 'beliefs'?

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Okay. To 'you', 'I' am incapable of proving these things. 'We' already 'know' what 'you' 'believe' is true here.

Also, are you 'now' saying that you do not even actually believe what you say here?

Because, if you do, then your friend and buddy here "iwannaplato" will not be too happy with you at all "atla".

You can shove your blatantly dishonest usage of the word 'belief' up your backside as well.

So, here 'we' have another example of this one trying to deflect, and thus attempting to deceive here, again.

1. you have not yet clarified if you even actually believe what you said, or not.

2. What, exactly, is my supposed usage of the 'belief' word, from your perspective?

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential BELIEFS, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Okay. To 'you', 'I' am incapable of proving these things. 'We' already 'know' what 'you' 'believe' is true here.

'We' also know that you have been incapable of disproving, countering, and/or refuting absolutely anything of what I have said and claimed here, as well.

[Iwannaplato]

Because, if you do, then your friend and buddy here "iwannaplato" will not be too happy with you at all "atla".

Notice that this person, Age, who thinks he knows how we can solve all the problems at this time
is willing to try to create tensions between people for his own gain.
In other words, Age, here, is pulling the same childish but also very destructive games that relatively powerful to extremely powerful people play in the time this is being written.

You can shove your blatantly dishonest usage of the word 'belief' up your backside as well.

You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential BELIEFS, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

Yes: his dishonest use of the word belief. Dishonest in relation to himself and others.