Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:36 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 9:32 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:54 am
Okay so I was right again, it's some kind of intent of the (universal) 'Self'.

So, I say and write that 'infinite luck' may well be, exactly, what is happening and occurring, but you, however, conclude that 'you were right', and that it is some kind of 'intent' of the (universal) 'Self'.

This here, my friends, is a prime example of 'confirmation bias' at work, and at play.

From the outset this one has been presuming and believing that 'I' am saying and claiming 'things' here, about 'intent', which I obviously have not been, but yet this is all this one can focus on. So, what this one 'sees', and 'hears', in what I say and write here is about 'intent'.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:54 am Why make so much fuss about it?

Why do I, supposedly, make so much, so-called, 'fuss' about 'what', exactly?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:54 am Just prove your mind claim and show that it has intent, and I won't have to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

But I LOVE you 'viewing' 'me' as a 'delusional liar', and absolutely 'nothing more' than a 'delusional liar'

you doing so PROVES what I will be saying and claiming about how the Mind and the brain actually work, and how with the belief-system the brain will only 'see' and 'hear' what it wants to, which is also known as 'confirmation bias'.

you will be, once again, proving me irrefutably True here, so why would I want you to stop what you are doing here?

Also, and obviously, this thread is about 'creation-evolution', and not 'the Mind'. So, this is a different topic here, in case you had not noticed.

Furthermore, you were here demanding proof that the Universe, Itself, is evolving. I informed you that the proof is HERE, NOW, for all to 'look at' and 'see'. I then asked you another clarifying question, 'How could 'I' make 'you' 'see' 'the proof', 'for you'?'

But, instead of just answering and clarifying 'this', you, once again, went completely astray and off track, and 'now' are referring back to some other thread, of mine titled, 'The Mind'.

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 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:19 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:36 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 9:32 am

So, I say and write that 'infinite luck' may well be, exactly, what is happening and occurring, but you, however, conclude that 'you were right', and that it is some kind of 'intent' of the (universal) 'Self'.

This here, my friends, is a prime example of 'confirmation bias' at work, and at play.

From the outset this one has been presuming and believing that 'I' am saying and claiming 'things' here, about 'intent', which I obviously have not been, but yet this is all this one can focus on. So, what this one 'sees', and 'hears', in what I say and write here is about 'intent'.


Why do I, supposedly, make so much, so-called, 'fuss' about 'what', exactly?


But I LOVE you 'viewing' 'me' as a 'delusional liar', and absolutely 'nothing more' than a 'delusional liar'

you doing so PROVES what I will be saying and claiming about how the Mind and the brain actually work, and how with the belief-system the brain will only 'see' and 'hear' what it wants to, which is also known as 'confirmation bias'.

you will be, once again, proving me irrefutably True here, so why would I want you to stop what you are doing here?

Also, and obviously, this thread is about 'creation-evolution', and not 'the Mind'. So, this is a different topic here, in case you had not noticed.

Furthermore, you were here demanding proof that the Universe, Itself, is evolving. I informed you that the proof is HERE, NOW, for all to 'look at' and 'see'. I then asked you another clarifying question, 'How could 'I' make 'you' 'see' 'the proof', 'for you'?'

But, instead of just answering and clarifying 'this', you, once again, went completely astray and off track, and 'now' are referring back to some other thread, of mine titled, 'The Mind'.

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.

This one, still, believes things here that are absolutely and thus irrefutably False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:18 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Another way to reframe the disagreement is that both Atla and Age believe there is evolution.

you "iwannaplato" can reframe absolutely anything in any way, but this will not make your 'reframe' true nor right in any way.

Exactly like the way you have reframed things here is completely and utterly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, as well.

you could not be more Wrong and Incorrect here "iwannaplato".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Evolution entails change over time.

Well obviously. Change cannot happen in less than 'time'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Possibly including changes in function/cognition.
One change that Atla would likely believe in is that increasing local complexity of specific kinds in matter led to (evolved to) certain portions of matter in cohesive self-relation now had intent, a qualities lacking before these specific configurations.
Age is assertion that all matter has intention and, it seems, always has.

"iwannaplato" is even more deluded than I first saw and realized.

Now, "iwannplato" when have I used the 'intention' word and introduced it in my views in the opening post here?

"iwannaplato" does not even know my view of 'matter', which partly explains why "iwannaplato" believes what it does here and why it has made this another completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect accusation and assertion here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am
So, intention is not one of those things that via evolution arose in his schema.
Age xxplaining what has evolved and how he knows that rocks and chairs have intent and are creative, would add greatly to the OP and discussion.

This here is the primest example of how "atla" achieved what it wanted to do and set out to do. That is; trick, fool, and deceive others into thinking or believing that it was I who introduced and talked about 'intention' here.

"iwannplato" has, once again, been deceived, absolutely.

But, as I have alluded to earlier, "atla" is an expert at deceit and deception. And, as I have also alluded to, "atla" is an expert at deflecting and deception because "atla" has already tricked, fooled, and deceived "itself" through and by its own previously made up and held onto False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect assumptions and beliefs.

But "atla" is acting no different from all the other adult human beings who have been tricked, fooled, and deceived into believing False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect 'things', based on APE-thinking. "atla" and others just end up deflecting 'things' from the actual and irrefutable Truth of 'things'. And then ones like "iwannaplato" who do not think and see 'things', for and by "themselves", just get tricked, fooled, and deceived into and by 'the deflection'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am IOW words I think the former issue - what has in fact evolved, what changes have taken place over time - might help others understand why he considers 'intent' to not be one of those things. That it has always been here in all matter.

Then also how he knows there is intent in the category of combinations of matter generally classed as inanimate. And with examples or what he sees as the intent in certain clumps of matter not considered by many to be alive, let alone having intent.

This would make it clearer to people who are not yet convinced or even clear how intent would be used in relation to what they might call inanimate matter.as opposed to configurations of matter they consider animate.

If the intention is to communicate better, I think following these suggestions and the ones in my previous post would be very helpful.

Okay.

But I just found if and when one has a True 'intention' of Truly wanting to learn something, then they will do what is necessarily to obtain that information/knowledge, in their 'life time'.

But, then again, maybe this one still believes that 'I' am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better with human beings here, in this forum.

If so, then here is another prime example of why it is better to never assume 'things', and why it is always better to actually seek out and gain and obtain actual clarification, first.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Further, if we take all matter as having intent, it might be possible to see the disagreement about the scope of that word.

Why would absolutely any one want to 'take' 'all matter as having intent', especially when absolutely no one has even implied this, let alone said this absolutely anywhere here, in this thread?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Intent with humans might include things like intending to invent a machine that has near zero friction, despite many moving parts, for a specific purpose.

What can be seen here is just how quick, simple, and easy it was for "atla" to deceive and fool 'another', that is; "iwannaplato", into 'looking at' and 'talking about' 'intent'. This one cannot stop 'talking about' 'intent' here, now.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Or intent might include intending to soothe the suffering of someone who recently suffering the loss of a close friend.
For Age, perhaps the intent of the matter in a dust mote and the intent in the matter of one of the people I mentioned just now can both be described by the same word 'intent'.

But to other people there would be a qualitative difference and the human intent is of a quality different from, say, the momentum of the dust mote.

So, that an understanding could be found between Age and others based on differing use of the word intent. OK, you wouldn't use that word for the dust mote because of criteria X and Y not being met, whereas I would because......and so on.

This two could lead to at least a more clearly delineated discussion.

But if there is a line in the sand around who bears the onus, steps in the direction of better communication may not be reached.

So, the title of this thread is, still, about 'evolution-creation', but this one, like "atla", want to 'talk about' 'intent', for some reason.

Could they both be trying to deflect here, for some reason?

Has one been misled, deceived, tricked, and/or fooled into talking about 'intent'? Which is obviously some thing that I was not talking about, at all.

So, the title of this thread is, still, about 'evolution-creation', but this one, like "atla", want to 'talk about' 'intent', for some reason.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 3:51 pm

So, the title of this thread is, still, about 'evolution-creation', but this one, like "atla", want to 'talk about' 'intent', for some reason.

Nope.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 3:51 pm And I continue to think clarification about creation, which tends to include the idea of intent, is right on topic.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 3:51 pm As are the other points I raised.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 3:51 pm If Age is not interested in communicating more clearly, that's fine.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 2:47 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:18 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Another way to reframe the disagreement is that both Atla and Age believe there is evolution.

you "iwannaplato" can reframe absolutely anything in any way, but this will not make your 'reframe' true nor right in any way.

Exactly like the way you have reframed things here is completely and utterly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, as well.

you could not be more Wrong and Incorrect here "iwannaplato".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Evolution entails change over time.

Well obviously. Change cannot happen in less than 'time'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Possibly including changes in function/cognition.
One change that Atla would likely believe in is that increasing local complexity of specific kinds in matter led to (evolved to) certain portions of matter in cohesive self-relation now had intent, a qualities lacking before these specific configurations.
Age is assertion that all matter has intention and, it seems, always has.

"iwannaplato" is even more deluded than I first saw and realized.

Now, "iwannplato" when have I used the 'intention' word and introduced it in my views in the opening post here?

"iwannaplato" does not even know my view of 'matter', which partly explains why "iwannaplato" believes what it does here and why it has made this another completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect accusation and assertion here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am
So, intention is not one of those things that via evolution arose in his schema.
Age xxplaining what has evolved and how he knows that rocks and chairs have intent and are creative, would add greatly to the OP and discussion.

This here is the primest example of how "atla" achieved what it wanted to do and set out to do. That is; trick, fool, and deceive others into thinking or believing that it was I who introduced and talked about 'intention' here.

"iwannplato" has, once again, been deceived, absolutely.

But, as I have alluded to earlier, "atla" is an expert at deceit and deception. And, as I have also alluded to, "atla" is an expert at deflecting and deception because "atla" has already tricked, fooled, and deceived "itself" through and by its own previously made up and held onto False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect assumptions and beliefs.

But "atla" is acting no different from all the other adult human beings who have been tricked, fooled, and deceived into believing False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect 'things', based on APE-thinking. "atla" and others just end up deflecting 'things' from the actual and irrefutable Truth of 'things'. And then ones like "iwannaplato" who do not think and see 'things', for and by "themselves", just get tricked, fooled, and deceived into and by 'the deflection'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am IOW words I think the former issue - what has in fact evolved, what changes have taken place over time - might help others understand why he considers 'intent' to not be one of those things. That it has always been here in all matter.

Then also how he knows there is intent in the category of combinations of matter generally classed as inanimate. And with examples or what he sees as the intent in certain clumps of matter not considered by many to be alive, let alone having intent.

This would make it clearer to people who are not yet convinced or even clear how intent would be used in relation to what they might call inanimate matter.as opposed to configurations of matter they consider animate.

If the intention is to communicate better, I think following these suggestions and the ones in my previous post would be very helpful.

Okay.

But I just found if and when one has a True 'intention' of Truly wanting to learn something, then they will do what is necessarily to obtain that information/knowledge, in their 'life time'.

But, then again, maybe this one still believes that 'I' am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better with human beings here, in this forum.

If so, then here is another prime example of why it is better to never assume 'things', and why it is always better to actually seek out and gain and obtain actual clarification, first.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Further, if we take all matter as having intent, it might be possible to see the disagreement about the scope of that word.

Why would absolutely any one want to 'take' 'all matter as having intent', especially when absolutely no one has even implied this, let alone said this absolutely anywhere here, in this thread?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Intent with humans might include things like intending to invent a machine that has near zero friction, despite many moving parts, for a specific purpose.

What can be seen here is just how quick, simple, and easy it was for "atla" to deceive and fool 'another', that is; "iwannaplato", into 'looking at' and 'talking about' 'intent'. This one cannot stop 'talking about' 'intent' here, now.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:04 am Or intent might include intending to soothe the suffering of someone who recently suffering the loss of a close friend.
For Age, perhaps the intent of the matter in a dust mote and the intent in the matter of one of the people I mentioned just now can both be described by the same word 'intent'.

But to other people there would be a qualitative difference and the human intent is of a quality different from, say, the momentum of the dust mote.

So, that an understanding could be found between Age and others based on differing use of the word intent. OK, you wouldn't use that word for the dust mote because of criteria X and Y not being met, whereas I would because......and so on.

This two could lead to at least a more clearly delineated discussion.

But if there is a line in the sand around who bears the onus, steps in the direction of better communication may not be reached.

So, the title of this thread is, still, about 'evolution-creation', but this one, like "atla", want to 'talk about' 'intent', for some reason.

Could they both be trying to deflect here, for some reason?

Has one been misled, deceived, tricked, and/or fooled into talking about 'intent'? Which is obviously some thing that I was not talking about, at all.

I didn't deceive anyone, your posts speak for themselves.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:22 pm See, no one really knows what you want because you seem to have a severe communication disability in asking clarifying questions. you, like one who believes that they are better than others, seem to just expect others to know what you know or want, and expect others to do what it is that you expect or want.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 4:08 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:22 pm See, no one really knows what you want because you seem to have a severe communication disability in asking clarifying questions. you, like one who believes that they are better than others, seem to just expect others to know what you know or want, and expect others to do what it is that you expect or want.

False generalization. Many people know what I want.
Projection. It is you ageken, who talk disparagingly about everyone you communicate with and those who are not even here reading your posts. It is you who lump together all the people of this time with your judgments and present yourself as someone who does not have the problems of this time period that all others do.

Your lack of self-awareness is astounding.

My 'nope' could certainly have been clearer. So, if I write with a lack of clarity, you form a general belief. Nice.

My nope was aimed at the idea that 'intent' is not relevant to the topic and title. I should have explained that more clearly. The implicit assertion that, as asserted by you elsewhere, bringing up the issue of intent is deflection...nope.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:24 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 2:47 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:18 pm

you "iwannaplato" can reframe absolutely anything in any way, but this will not make your 'reframe' true nor right in any way.

Exactly like the way you have reframed things here is completely and utterly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, as well.

you could not be more Wrong and Incorrect here "iwannaplato".



Well obviously. Change cannot happen in less than 'time'.


"iwannaplato" is even more deluded than I first saw and realized.

Now, "iwannplato" when have I used the 'intention' word and introduced it in my views in the opening post here?

"iwannaplato" does not even know my view of 'matter', which partly explains why "iwannaplato" believes what it does here and why it has made this another completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect accusation and assertion here.



This here is the primest example of how "atla" achieved what it wanted to do and set out to do. That is; trick, fool, and deceive others into thinking or believing that it was I who introduced and talked about 'intention' here.

"iwannplato" has, once again, been deceived, absolutely.

But, as I have alluded to earlier, "atla" is an expert at deceit and deception. And, as I have also alluded to, "atla" is an expert at deflecting and deception because "atla" has already tricked, fooled, and deceived "itself" through and by its own previously made up and held onto False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect assumptions and beliefs.

But "atla" is acting no different from all the other adult human beings who have been tricked, fooled, and deceived into believing False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect 'things', based on APE-thinking. "atla" and others just end up deflecting 'things' from the actual and irrefutable Truth of 'things'. And then ones like "iwannaplato" who do not think and see 'things', for and by "themselves", just get tricked, fooled, and deceived into and by 'the deflection'.




Okay.

But I just found if and when one has a True 'intention' of Truly wanting to learn something, then they will do what is necessarily to obtain that information/knowledge, in their 'life time'.

But, then again, maybe this one still believes that 'I' am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better with human beings here, in this forum.

If so, then here is another prime example of why it is better to never assume 'things', and why it is always better to actually seek out and gain and obtain actual clarification, first.


Why would absolutely any one want to 'take' 'all matter as having intent', especially when absolutely no one has even implied this, let alone said this absolutely anywhere here, in this thread?


What can be seen here is just how quick, simple, and easy it was for "atla" to deceive and fool 'another', that is; "iwannaplato", into 'looking at' and 'talking about' 'intent'. This one cannot stop 'talking about' 'intent' here, now.



So, the title of this thread is, still, about 'evolution-creation', but this one, like "atla", want to 'talk about' 'intent', for some reason.

Could they both be trying to deflect here, for some reason?

Has one been misled, deceived, tricked, and/or fooled into talking about 'intent'? Which is obviously some thing that I was not talking about, at all.

I didn't deceive anyone, your posts speak for themselves.

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.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 4:55 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 3:51 pm

So, the title of this thread is, still, about 'evolution-creation', but this one, like "atla", want to 'talk about' 'intent', for some reason.

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.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:51 am 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.

Gee wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 9:35 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 3:51 pm

So, the title of this thread is, still, about 'evolution-creation', but this one, like "atla", want to 'talk about' 'intent', for some reason.

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

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 5:42 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:24 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 2:47 pm
I didn't deceive anyone, your posts speak for themselves.

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.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 5:42 am Except you've never proven anything.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 5:42 am You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential claims,

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 5:42 am therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.