Dear Banjo,

So we seem to be converging, with differences being mostly linguistic:
Perhaps it would be better if instead of "the laws of nature" I used "the mechanisms of nature" or "natural order", something like that in order to avoid any unnecessary confusion with human laws?
Perhaps if instead of "Formulate" I used "delineate"?

Thus I would like to take it back to square #4:

Can we agree that humans, being part of nature, cannot violate the mechanisms of nature (such as gravity)? Or are you claiming that there is something unique in humans (e.g. "free will") that allows them to do so?

Can we agree that the mechanisms of nature were established and the same even before mankind began to delineate them?

3.
I have not changed my mind:
I agree that you are not anything else (other than human) - this doesn't mean that I think you are a human!
And since you asked, I may add that nor do I think of you as "somebody".
I acknowledge that you are, but not that you are some-thing or some-body.

I do not expect you to blindly believe me, so in my last post I listed the options you face (I believe this list to be complete, but who knows...):

1. Keep insisting that you are a human despite the logical inconsistencies that I pointed to.
2. Adopt the idea that you are a spirit or soul, whatever that means.
3. Adopt an agnostic attitude whereby you don't know or even don't care who and what you are.
4. Adopt the Buddhist idea whereby in reality there is no such thing as "you" ("I").
5. Adopt the Hindu idea whereby in reality you are God, which is neither a thing nor a personality, neither body, nor soul, nor anything your mind and intellect could ever conceive of.
6. Adopt some other idea that I am not aware of.

[continued...]

[...continued]

4.
«judging from our exchanges on this forum, there is little doubt in my mind that you do, in fact, dispose of free will – whatever or whoever you happen to be.»

I have no reason to dispute this statement.
Indeed, this is the thought in your mind, in fact in most people's minds.
But does this thought/experience reflect the reality?

5.
It has been my pleasure.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « So, we seem to be converging, with differences being mostly linguistic »
.

Yes, some are linguistic, but we also have differences in comprehension and interpretation.

Words are important. Not only must we use the right words and expressions, but if we don’t have a common language, we can’t hope to understand each other.
.

2. « Perhaps it would be better if instead of "the laws of nature" I used "the mechanisms of nature" or "natural order", something like that in order to avoid any unnecessary confusion with human laws?

Perhaps if instead of "Formulate" I used "delineate"? »
.

I think that as a general rule, Yuyutsu, it is preferable to employ common expressions from everyday life that most people easily understand. The expression “law of nature” has that advantage. It is a common expression that is easily understood. It conveys the notions that it is an imperative, a constant, and invariable – which are notions that are not relayed by the word “mechanism”.

By the same token, I think it is better to “define” (including mathematically) the law of gravity rather than just “formulate” (create or prepare methodically) or “delineate” (describe, trace or outline) it.
.

3. « Can we agree that humans, being part of nature, cannot violate the mechanisms of nature (such as gravity)? Or are you claiming that there is something unique in humans (e.g., "free will") that allows them to do so? »

The fact is, animals (including human beings) “violate” the law of gravity every time they lift their legs and walk, jump, run, climb up a tree or a ladder, or simply pick things up and fly (birds). In addition, humans have invented airplanes and spacecraft that allow them to fly around the world and out into space.

Being part of nature does not prevent animals (including humans) from violating the laws of nature (such as gravity) to varying degrees – it could be free will, could also be instinctive.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

4. « Can we agree that the mechanisms of nature were established and the same even before mankind began to delineate them »

According to the current scientific theory, the universe (nature) is thought to have begun about 13.8 billion years ago with a giant explosion (the Big Bang theory). Whereas human beings broke off from their common ancestor with the chimpanzees only 5 to 7 million years ago. So, yes, nature and its laws preceded mankind by a long shot.
.

5. « I agree that you are not anything else (other than human) - this doesn't mean that I think you are a human!

And since you asked, I may add that nor do I think of you as "somebody". I acknowledge that you are, but not that you are some-thing or some-body.

I do not expect you to blindly believe me, so in my last post I listed the options you face (I believe this list to be complete, but who knows...) »
.

That is confusing, contradictory, and makes no sense I’m afraid, Yuyutsu. You juggle with contradictory ideas and don’t seem to be able to make up your mind exactly what to think.

It’s just as confusing, incomprehensible, and inconclusive as the Hindu definition of “self” that you indicated in your previous post :

• « That which is other than the 3 bodies: the gross, the subtle and the causal;
• beyond the 5 sheaths;
• the witness of the 3 states of awareness;
• which is of the nature of Existence-Knowledge-Bliss.
• That which remains, is the Self." »

In other words : “we don’t know !”
.

You are obviously looking at reality through the prism of your religious beliefs, Yuyutsu, and unable to see not only that I am a human being but that you are too – just like everybody else in this world.

Allow me to say as you did, Yuyutsu : « I do not expect you to blindly believe me ». I simply wish you well.

I shall now sign off.

.

Dear Banjo,

There are things I agree with you and others that I don't,
but since you decided to sign off, I also wish you well.

Banjo Patterson,

<<Words are important. Not only must we use the right words and expressions, but if we don’t have a common language, we can’t hope to understand each other.>>

No, the right words and expressions, or common language are not important. We do not need to understand each other and if two people agree, one of those people simply becomes redundant. If anything different perspectives and wordings allows people to learn more about someone or something else.

For example, I wouldn't simply want to have the right words used from the perspective of the western world for example, when there are so many other worlds out there.

<<According to the current scientific theory, the universe (nature) is thought to have begun about 13.8 billion years ago with a giant explosion (the Big Bang theory).>>

I suggest reading this critique which is about Lawrence Krauss and his book “A Universe From Nothing” in the New York Times. You should be able to open and read it at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

Continued...