Didymos Thomas;7004 wrote:
You honestly try to argue that you understand Libet's work better than Libet? Okay.
Good. Glad to be done with this.
Do you want me to go through and show you the myriad of ad hominem's you use?
Yes. In providing those links, you will also display whether you know what an 'ad hominem' actually is.
Nice try with the semantic trickery. "Me" generally refers to what people perceive to be their 'self', which is different from the true 'self'. You do not know me. You do not know my name, my favorite book, my favorite song. You know nothing of my family, or any of my environment for that matter, other than that I am living in the US, perhaps. What you do know is that my true nature is a 'self' beyond my apparent 'self', you do not know me.
It's only your ego that imagines yourself to be so different than anyone else. You can make whatever claims that you like. Whatever works for you. The only 'self' that I do not know is illusory and not relevent. What kind of music you like is trivia and illusion. If that is the 'you' to which you refer, then you yourself does not know 'you'. And at the tender age of 19, I wouldn't expect you to. The equation of knowledge to ego, at 19, is quite unbalanced. Time, hopefully, will help.
I'd like to, but you keep telling me I'm wrong because of my ego.
My, my, another misquote. I have never said that you are 'wrong'. Try again, or provide a link.
I'm not sure how karma relies upon cause and effect. As I understand, the principle of karma is supposed to work because everything is interrelated, that there is no fundamental difference between you, me, or any other sentient being. Could you elaborate?
Go do a search, learn something about 'karma' from where it comes, re-read my comments, and get back to me then. I'm not going to teach you about an illusion just to tell you that it is an unscientific illusory concept.
'Karma' boils down, ultimately, to 'action', an illusion; 'action and reaction', 'cause and effect'... obsolete.
I am not enjoying this conversation, too argumentative. I have nothing to convince anyone of or defend. It is offered as food for thought. It is meaningful or not.
I am aware of 'common perspective', like everyone else, that is what makes it common. I offer something else, alternative perspective, for people who are sincerely interested in 'Reality/Truth', other than the naive realism (illusions) of the (perceptions) masses.
If you are interested in learning/understanding something 'alien' to your common 'reality', then we can continue to discuss, but the tension and defensiveness and argumentative attitude must abate.
Otherwise, I must bid you good day.