Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 3:40 am thanks for the valuable input, veg

-----

So, back to it.

This...

(I)f all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom(?) There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

...is the assertion from the opening.

Anyone have any thoughts on it?

I gave my thoughts about WHY that factor does NOT 'have to be' non-material. Do you have ANY thought on this, or are you just going to ignore it?

Do you BELIEVE that that 'other factor' ALSO 'has to be' non-material?

If yes, then is this WHY you have asked for "others" thoughts but have NOT responded when POINTED OUT and SHOWN WHY 'that factor' is NOT necessarily 'non-material' AT ALL? Or, is there some other reason?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 9:18 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:27 pm You need to do some serious soul searchin', Henry.

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

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

me

I gave my thoughts about WHY that factor does NOT 'have to be' non-material.

I wouldn't know: I'm not readin' any of your large posts.

Do you have ANY thought on this,

Yes.

As the interviewer in Rappaport's fiction sez...

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.

or are you just going to ignore it?

I'm gonna ignore all your large posts.

WHY you have asked for "others" thoughts but have NOT responded

Cuz your large, oddly worded, posts give me a headache.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 9:09 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 6:51 pm Material existence is all that exists and has the nature it has, independent of anyone's consciousness or knowledge of that existence. The physical attributes of material existence are all the attributes of existence which can be discovered by being directly perceived or deduced from that perceived evidence, i.e. the physical sciences. The mistaken assumption of philosophy is that the physical attributes of material existence are all the attributes material existence can have. The physical attributes are all the attributes that can be directly percieved, but there is neither evidence or any reason to assume those are the only attributes possible to material existence.

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

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

Sorry, I cannot waste my time explaining what would be obvious to anyone familiar with normal English idiom.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 9:09 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 6:51 pm They are only attributes of some physical entities,

How, EXACTLY, are 'entities' physical 'things'?
What PROOF do you have for this CLAIM?

Prove what? The word, "entities," is just a synonym for actual physical things.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 9:16 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:10 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 4:26 pm Here's some excellent analysis of the problem and how it evolved in philosophy: https://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Rest_ ... c%20Genius

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

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

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

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:10 pm The concept, "being," identifies the class of things with attributes (qualities, properties, characteristics). To have the attribute, "being," means to have some identifying attributes. A thing cannot have, "being," before it has other attributes--it is the fact something has attributes that the concepts, "is," "exist," and, "being," refer to. [Nothing can exist without attributes.]

Will you provide examples?

Examples of what?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 9:34 pm While we are at thinking of this is it possible that you could be wrong or incorrect?

It is not possible.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 1:06 am I gave my thoughts about WHY that factor does NOT 'have to be' non-material.

I wouldn't know: I'm not readin' any of your large posts.

LOL So, you ask for thoughts, and then when they are given you do not read them anyway.

Which is QUITE CONVENIENT when those thoughts PROVE how what you wrote is NOT correct.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 1:06 am Do you have ANY thought on this,

Yes.

As the interviewer in Rappaport's fiction sez...

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.

or are you just going to ignore it?

I'm gonna ignore all your large posts.

Which AGAIN is quite convenient considering those posts PROVE what you wrote HAS TO BE False AND Wrong.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 1:06 am WHY you have asked for "others" thoughts but have NOT responded

Cuz your large, oddly worded, posts give me a headache.

So, ONCE AGAIN, MORE PROOF of just HOW MUCH control 'I' REALLY DO HAVE over 'you', human beings.

I will now make this NICE and SIMPLE for 'you', "Henry quirk", just because some 'thing' is NOT visible to the human eyes, this does NOT then mean that that 'thing' is or has to be 'non-material', as CLAIMED in your writings.

Now, what EXCUSE will you 'try' and use this time?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 12:50 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 9:18 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:27 pm You need to do some serious soul searchin', Henry.

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

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

me

And, who and/or what is 'me', EXACTLY?

When 'you' uncover and KNOW the proper AND correct answer to 'Who am 'I'?', then you WILL BE ABLE to provide thee True, Right, AND Correct answer. Until then 'you' will just respond or NOT respond the way you do.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 1:55 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 9:09 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 6:51 pm Material existence is all that exists and has the nature it has, independent of anyone's consciousness or knowledge of that existence. The physical attributes of material existence are all the attributes of existence which can be discovered by being directly perceived or deduced from that perceived evidence, i.e. the physical sciences. The mistaken assumption of philosophy is that the physical attributes of material existence are all the attributes material existence can have. The physical attributes are all the attributes that can be directly percieved, but there is neither evidence or any reason to assume those are the only attributes possible to material existence.

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

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

Sorry, I cannot waste my time explaining what would be obvious to anyone familiar with normal English idiom.

LOL ANY one reading what you wrote can CLEARLY SEE that ACTUALLY you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA AT ALL.

AND, your INABILITY TO CLARIFY PROVES FURTHER just how little you REALLY KNOW here.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 1:55 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 9:09 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 6:51 pm They are only attributes of some physical entities,

How, EXACTLY, are 'entities' physical 'things'?
What PROOF do you have for this CLAIM?

Prove what? The word, "entities," is just a synonym for actual physical things.

So, now that we have at least some 'thing' to LOOK AT, this time, only physical 'things' are entities and EVERY physical 'thing' is an entity, to you, correct?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 1:06 am I gave my thoughts about WHY that factor does NOT 'have to be' non-material.

I wouldn't know: I'm not readin' any of your large posts.

Do you have ANY thought on this,

Yes.

As the interviewer in Rappaport's fiction sez...

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.

or are you just going to ignore it?

I'm gonna ignore all your large posts.

WHY you have asked for "others" thoughts but have NOT responded

Cuz your large, oddly worded, posts give me a headache.

How would you KNOW if you are, supposedly, ignoring them AND NOT going to read them snyway?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 2:00 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 9:34 pm While we are at thinking of this is it possible that you could be wrong or incorrect?

It is not possible.

Here is ANOTHER one who EXPLAINS EXACTLY the reason WHY they are BLIND and can NOT YET SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS here.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 1:57 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 9:16 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:10 pm The concept, "being," identifies the class of things with attributes (qualities, properties, characteristics). To have the attribute, "being," means to have some identifying attributes. A thing cannot have, "being," before it has other attributes--it is the fact something has attributes that the concepts, "is," "exist," and, "being," refer to. [Nothing can exist without attributes.]

Will you provide examples?

Examples of what?

Examples of what you wrote and CLAIMED directly above where I asked you here, 'Will you provide examples?'

You did, after all, write and CLAIM that, The concept, "being," identifies the class of things with attributes (qualities, properties, characteristics).. So will you provide examples of some of these 'beings', which are classed as that group of 'things' with the attributes of 'quality', 'property', and 'character'?

You also wrote that, To have the attribute, "being," means to have some identifying attributes. So, will you provide examples of some 'things' with the attribute 'being'?

Which let us NOT get to far ahead of "ourselves" here and remember that you have, so far, said that 'beings' have some attributes and that 'being', itself, is the attribute of some other 'thing'.

You also wrote that, A thing cannot have, "being," before it has other attributes. So, will you provide examples of some 'things' that have the attribute 'being', and, what are some of the 'other' attributes that you claimed are needed BEFORE a 'thing' can have the attribute of 'being'?

Also, and by the way, when you write and say, [Nothing can exist without attributes.], is what you REALLY MEAN DIFFERENT from what you just said and wrote? Or, do you REALLY and LITERAlLY mean that 'nothing', itself, CAN EXIST, but ONLY when 'it' has NO attributes? Or, do you REALLY MEAN that EVERY thing that does, and can, exist does, or must, have attributes.

The two are VERY FIFFERENT 'things', although 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, we're STILL saying BOTH as though they meant the SAME. As can be CLEARLY SEEN here.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 9:55 pm
"dontaskme" is therefore ALSO 'an illusion'. But, to 'who', EXACTLY is "dontaskme" an illusion to? Is a question 'you' may (or may not) ask "your" 'self'.

The answer to 'who' knows what it knows is unknowable. Absolutely without doubt or error, totally and utterly unknowable.

To claim you know, is an illusion, there simply is no known knower. Reality is one without a second, meaning, reality is a verb.
Everything is made of Nothing. And that's quite a relief to some people, but to others, namely, the religious creeps, it's shocking and totally unacceptable.

Attachment to the illusions of life, causes pain and suffering.

Love, on the other hand is allowing everything that is ultimately made of nothing, to be exactly as it is, without resistence. Where there is resistence, there is incarceration.

Life is a death sentence. It's an absolute horror show from start to finish, and the only reason it is endured is because there is no other choice than to endure it. Since nothing is making it all happen.

Beauty is also part of the horror, beauty is a distraction away from the horror. Life is pretty much a dumb, pointless, meaningless, brainless event.

Animals are the lucky ones, they do not seem to cling to some imagined ''I story'' of my life.

Humans have evolved to attach themselves to an 'I story' which is a pretty sick trick of nature. IMHO

Also, you cannot share your philosophical opinions about what it feels like to be a live sentient feeling and thinking creature, and be totally honest about those feelings without being labeled SICK, so there you have it.

So I guess I'll just have to keep pretending that I am not sick. I'll just keep wearing that fake smile.

just because some 'thing' is NOT visible to the human eyes, this does NOT then mean that that 'thing' is or has to be 'non-material', as CLAIMED in your writings.

find for me, 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.

...any mention of visibility, age

And, who and/or what is 'me', EXACTLY?

Henry Quirk: the guy who is pokin' out the response you're readin' this very second.