Well it was only the 3rd time I asked, so that’s a little worrying when it comes to how much of what I’m saying that you’re reading/retaining.
And this worry is only compounded by your response to my question:
Fine, so internal is “not external” - complex stuff here - but in “answering” half the question, you’ve still not shed any light on the definition of “external” from which to define “internal” as “not that”… - thereby not answering anything at all.
Please do excuse my frustration, but if you could read and try to understand what I’m asking, I would be very grateful.
And the examples I gave of Jupiter’s “red spot” and the Lorenz attractor are examples of a stable identity emerging from chaos…
And the whole point is that identity itself isn’t a stable concept even for people without dissociative identity disorder et al.
Again some things you seem to have either not read, not understood, or not remembered…
If I’m the only one making an effort here then please let me know. Honestly speaking this is why I tend to avoid engaging with you, because the kind of consistent lack of clarity and progress that I tend to get from you is a waste of my time.
And here comes the exact defensive presumptions that I predicted… such a shame.
I know exactly what you’re saying when you say you originate your own ideas, and what you think you mean applies the same to me. But it’s not “free” thought in the sense that it bypasses Determinism, it’s just “free” in that your own effort and inspiration go into it, and any simple repetition is absent. The work and inspiration themselves, however, were determined to occur - so as free as we may be from being told what to think, it’s still not “us” and our wills that are free from everything else.
I’m inviting you to entertain a line of thinking here, you don’t have to oblige me - in that you are “free” in the way you mean it, but whichever way you choose will have been determined by something - even if not directly by other people’s words and actions. This is what closes all these loopholes that you think you see.
I’ve not missed the entire meaning of the quote, and I’m suggesting, as politely as I can that it may be yourself who is “attacted”… just trust me when I say I already understand everything else you argue in this post - you probably aren’t familiar with me as a poster so you probably have little reason to trust me, but it’s true that I already understand your argument.