Good mornin' guys.
Whew! Okay here we go...
A statement is not likely to be absolutely true - in all universes and time paths. Thus the quality obscured by the word "truth" is being true to some reference.
'Truth' does not mean true for all time. I'm not convinced the universe is a static system. I think most people aren't. The world is ever changing, and we can draw from that that what was once true or what is true today may not be the case in the future. It is still a valuable term. I'm not talking about misindentifying truth either. It is useful to identify aspects of our world as they are now, to determine if they have been so for as long as we can observe, and then to predict that they will continue as such well into the distant future. There will always be the possibility that abrupt, dramatic changes do occur, but that gives me no pause. I'm stuck on this ride; I'm going to use my wits to the best of my ability in order to enjoy it as much as possible.
When a quality or state (e.g. trueness or knowingness) is treated as an object ("truth" or "knowledge') it appears to become an independent object or thing (Latin: reus). The idea that knowingness can be turned into a knowledge object (e.g. a book) and thus transferred is a logical error.
Thus a book on how to swim does not contain the knowingness of how to swim.
Holding a book won't make you able to swim. Reading it will. I'm confused on this one. Yall are obviously a little better with the words than yours truly.
I don't believe in absolute certainty; with one singular exception - we exist.
I wasn't questioning 'grok' but the statement beforehand.
If you are not in control, then convince me that I am not talking with a hand-puppet.
Less of a puppet, more like a snowball rolling down a never-ending hill.
If something is caught in the light of my attention, then I will act on it, one way or another. This is as far as I can say that I 'choose' something. But the 'I' here is my complete being, not simply my ego, which is what I think most people consider when talking about themselves and the locus of their control. If I believed that my true self were non-physical, like a soul, and were riding behind my eyes, inside of a body rather than being that body, than I would believe in free will. But, from whence I sit it does not fit.
Simply put, belief is what you hold dear. What do you hold dear and why?
I used to affirm that these things I speak of about free will, the mind, and God were my deepest held convictions. Time and experience have begun to change that. I don't think I Believe anything anymore, and that may have a hand in why I struggle with depression and anxiety. I used to laugh when I'd hear people say that atheists believe just as theists do. I never understood it, until quite recently. Very few people, it seems, have truly observed and contemplated existence with a complete absence of assumptions. I actually have yet to meet or speak to one. I'm not so sure I want anyone to though because it can be quite unsettling. I very much want to find a way to unsee the 'seen', or at the very least find a way to live happily in spite of having seen it.
But you are not according to you. You only say that you are but if you are truly a sock -puppet, something else is making you say all this and it is not your free-will.
Correct. You call it God. I call it life.
Sounds like a cop-out excuse to be irresponsible, once again.
Everything that results from the actions of my being, my being will have to answer for them. It's just the answers may be "I don't know" or simply a perplexed shrug. I'm okay with that, because what other choice will I have.