Why are you both laser focused on the word “new”?
New can mean anything within a frame of reference and the frame of reference decides how its applied.
One of your cells divides. You now have a new cell. So your entire body changed is changed compared to when you didnt, so now you have a new body.
You can screw around with the frame of reference as you like.
I specified what i meant by new. To create. Not to transform, change or recombine.
And yet here you are still talking to me about an example that makes the concept entirely subjective to me. Not to you, but you at the same time fail to explain why that’d be not the case.
This much is probably correct on the grander scale.
If something were to be completely unrelated to anything that exists within this universe, we would be probably not capable of perceiving it. So whether i am right or wrong would probably not be possible to confirm.
However, my example was way simpler and revolved literally around thinking of something new.
New according to my specification of not being transformative or observed. But completely and fundamentally new.
If anyone could think of something like that, they’d know. Simply because it’d skull f them for the lack of a better word.
You’d be keenly aware of something lodged inside your brain that does not belong anywhere.
Regardless:
Thank you for the conversation if you decide to drop out.
Even if we cant seem to connect our views nor confirm or deny, its a good exercise in stretching one’s views and perspectives. Thank you for the opportunity.
Because i was talking about a specific situation/problem.
Ofc you can put the word “new” into all kinds of different context where it acts perfectly normal and possible. Its just that those were not what i was on about.
At times i wonder what i sound like to other people.
Because i constantly find myself in situations where it seems like i cant communicate for sh-t and nobody understands what im trying to get at.
I found the discussion frustrating and left it. It felt like you weren’t going to concede things that had very strong support and I thought I made good points around - I haven’t read your last response to me. Or responses if there were more than one to my previous post. Of course my sense of my own posts can be biased, but hey, for what it’s worth I found it frustrating. I happened to read this and I thought ok, perhaps I have been misunderstanding Nausamedu’s positions. Maybe he didn’t explain it well, as you hypothesize here (perhaps more as exasperation than something you really consider possible). I don’t know. I think it’s the second time I felt this frustration in discussion with you over a series of posts.. I mean, you’re obviously intelligent and it’s not like I think your positions are loopy. Some things did become clear. I mean, I think the position that nothing new arises in the sense of divorced completely from the past, is a sustainable ontological position. I’m sort of a pragmatist so I don’t find so much use for it, but that’s neither here nor there.
I dunno. I’ll wait until we naturally fall into discussion again on some new topic and try to ask more questions, perhaps I’m misreading or reading poorly.
To me it constantly sounded like you were missing my point and branching off towards something you either understood by it, and/or proposed a new problem entirely.
Like the same person two person problem, and you were right within that frame. Nothing you said was wrong, in fact it was correct. It was just not what i was trying to get across.
But yeah that becomes frustrating easily.
And yeah, Its better to drop it if we cant connect the strands, because only frustration arises from it.