82
   

Proof of nonexistence of free will

Forums: Philosophy, Free Will, Freedom, Yes, Ok
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:04 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Well if you wanna play that game go right ahead, I'm not interested in falling into YOUR little set-up for your 'self'. Who you are IS NOT A CONCEPT, it is in and of itself what it is. I highly suggest you free your 'self' from this 'conceptual dizzyness' otherwise you're just going to continue to make the mistake of covering up who you are as a concept of the world.

PS - There is no 'trying', who you are simply EXISTS - when you 'try' you create the concept of trying.

Just let your 'self' be.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:09 pm
@JPLosman0711,
And just where does that reply contradicts what I have just said ???

...of course your trying "exists"...its FACTUAL , its REAL !
...I merely pointed out that the concept of not being bound to any concept in the act of communicating it to me, is yet another form...and my motive was not futile as you wrongly guessed...it happens that such analysis points out to BEING in a very clear manner...just that...
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:15 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I'm not looking to contradict, 'you' are. There is no 'trying' - Who you are exists purely and simply as it is. Only when you 'try' do you turn your 'self' into a concept which will eventually need acceptance from another concept.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:20 pm
@JPLosman0711,
So now you state that you where not implying an opposition to my observation...are you joking ?
We are both "trying" while giving our points of view...and yes, that "trying" is happening...so what ?
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:25 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
There is no 'trying' and there is no such 'thing' as 'so what'!!!!!

Be-ing is.......period.

HINT - The thoughts you think you're having are YOU(Being) communicating with your 'self'.

PS - Everyone has a 'self'.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:28 pm
@JPLosman0711,
hell ! let´s go for it ...

There is no "there is" nor "no" or "yes" or whatever...
I buy the opposite...they ALL ARE !!! and still they "fuse" and "interact"...

Should I go "-----" everywhere ?
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:30 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
The conceptual world is only to be manipulated. As long as you know your 'self', you can do anything.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:34 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Anything which is not "nothing" nor "transcendent"...you mean/must...that which IS potentially possible...
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:37 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Vision is conceptual(potentially manipulation) - speaking is conceptual(manipulation) but if you can realise that YOU are the one who started all of this conceptualization.........LOL - well then it's all just fun and games isn't it?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:41 pm
@JPLosman0711,
As I said earlier YOU are ALL and ALL are YOU...it does n´t really matter much...

I am fed up with 3000 years of duality´s...
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:45 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Saying some'thing' matters or it doesn't is strcitly conceptual. By making what you are doing 'matter' or not you are imprisioning your 'self' to the conceptual world which is to be manipulated and toyed with to YOUR liking. You've got it 'flipped flopped' here, sorry to say.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:53 pm
@JPLosman0711,
You cannot avoid but be yourself exactly as you HAPPEN remember ?
I am denying as much as you are remember ? We are ourselves precisely at this point by denying each other in their be-ing, for the sake of our NEED of Be-ing as we are...

BEING does the conciliation through "Nirvana" remember ? Wink
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:57 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
To be honest with you, I haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about.

The only experience of your existence you, or anyone else will ever have(or ever have) is strictly conceptual. Period, that's it, end of story. So you might as well have fun with it.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 08:08 pm
@JPLosman0711,
I was merely reporting how phenomenological manifestations are linked with Ontological ultimate"Reality"...not that hard to get...(even considering my poor English control...)
I am having fun as we speak anyway´s...
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 08:12 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Think of this - imagine if eveyone had a thirst for truth and came to the conclusion that their experience of existence was strictly conceptual.........what wonders would await us then?
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 08:26 pm
@JPLosman0711,
The real question is, what is Being? Although this could never be answered because an answer cannot be given by that which we consider 'knowing'.........lol Being is and of itself, Being. One should both say and think that Being is.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 08:34 pm
@litewave,
Are you now contradicting your original thesis; the title of this thread?
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 05:11 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Again one is mixing an epistemic problem with an Ontic one...
Every possible will be actual eventually given enough time or enough big bangs...it follows quite easily from what I said previously...you have to transcend time through the possible like it was explained in the example from the screen of the calculator...


Then the possibility that you agree with me is already an actuality? Great! I'm glad we finally agree that possibilities are different from actualities.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 09:21 am
@guigus,
The thing is, if it is possible it will happen...that´s my personnel intuition, right there...
(betting high stakes I don´t mind to admit...)

...so possibility derives from actuality in terms of "running the programming" through in do time and not the other way around..."The Program" is the Actual...(mind that by using the term programming I do not imply a "Programmer" other then Universe...which accurately speaking did not even wrote the rules...(rules ARE, that´s it...and that´s an important little bit, to prevent further/the usual, confusion...)
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 05:34 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

The thing is, if it is possible it will happen...that´s my personnel intuition, right there...
(betting high stakes I don´t mind to admit...)


The I will wait until you agree with me, and ignore the rest of your post, if you don't mind.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
...so possibility derives from actuality in terms of "running the programming" through in do time and not the other way around..."The Program" is the Actual...(mind that by using the term programming I do not imply a "Programmer" other then Universe...which accurately speaking did not even wrote the rules...(rules ARE, that´s it...and that´s an important little bit, to prevent further/the usual, confusion...)
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Proof of nonexistence of free will
  3. » Page 42
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.07 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 01:46:10
▲ ▼