seriously, moot discussions take place all the time. there is no necessary connection between the mootness of a discussion and whether the discussion can take place.
all of these claims and no argument for any of them. Oh my.

Either you have free will or you do not. Discussing the issue is not going to decide the issue. If you believe you have free will and you do not, you could not have believed otherwise. If you believe you do not have free will and you do, then you have missed your opportunity to live your life according to your will. There is no in between. There is no way out. Arguing about it will make no difference. Think about it.

If you believe you have free will and you do not, you could not have believed otherwise.

If you believe you do not have free will and you do, then that is just tragic.

So I live my life as if I have free will.

Either engage meaningfully in the discussion, or find something useful to do elsewhere. — Possibility

now look who is venting their frustrations.

an either or command.

relax, dude.

But don’t expect me to respond to you venting your frustrations. — Possibility

or you could look to getting a sense of humor.

What laws of physics are involved here? — Glenn Turner

7 and 8 and in particular 9, paragraph B, clause II.

And you are welcome.

though that is consistent with socialism, that does not establish socialism as its foundation.

when you start down the road of philosophy by reading The Republic. . .

I choose to be aware

I choose to connect

I choose to collaborate — Possibility

Only after I have had my coffee.

This is the first discussion topic I have started, so go easy on me. — Possibility

No.

It is inconsistent to post as your first discussion a discussion that has been done to death and then expect people to go easy on you.

I always were my helmet. :-)

I’m trying not to complicate it unnecessarily. — Possibility

then why don't you just say "I'm trying not to complicate it."?

Philosophy as industry.

Given that I cannot choose to consciously exist in this situation: — Possibility

what does that even mean?

Zeno's paradox, like your paradox, presumes the universe to be analog. However, if the universe is digital, then there is a discrete (finite) number of states between Achilles and the tortoise. So long as Achilles can "jump" discrete states faster that the tortoise, he will catch the tortoise.

so we only matter if the universe depends upon us? Could you be more anthropocentric?

then I suggest you give it some more thought.

There is no Real you because your personality is simply a compilation of your tastes with your experiences and both of those things are beyond any type of reasonable control. — Filipe

You are just begging the question. If I define the real me as "a compilation of my tastes and experiences", then according to you there is a real me/there is no real me.

you are trapped within the "in time" paradigm. Forever is by definition not "in time." Similarly, most religions consider God to not be "in time."

We make things, like computers, from stuff out there and they work out there, for one, and two, we have senses also as to be able to take things in from out there, so, welcome to the real 'our there'! — PoeticUniverse

We make things, like computers, from entities within the world that we are in and they work within the world that we are in, for one, and two, we have senses also as to be able to understand entities within the world that we are in, so, welcome to the world that you are in.

I do not know what that means.

I am always open to enlightenment.

I am uncertain as to whether eternal and infinite are synonymous. I suspect their relationship to time may be different.

and therefore. . . ?

yes

Are you an agnostic about every empirical claim, such as whether you have an automobile? — Terrapin Station

I have no reason to believe our modes of access to the universe are comprehensive.

I have no reason to believe that our modes of access to the universe are comprehensive.

who said the existence of God is an empirical claim? And besides, are you seriously suggesting that our access abilities are absolute? garbage in, garbage out.

I generally enjoy discussions regarding the existence/non-existence of God. Unfortunately, those who profess to be atheists tend to get rather abusive, especially when compared to the believers.

You are not independent from it if you see it, or if you think about it, interaction doesn't reduce to the feeling of touch. What about a remote that you've never seen and never thought about? People somewhere designed it, others built it, others use it, which influences what they do, what they think about, which influences what others do and think about, which influences the world, which ends up having an influence on you. — leo

You seem to be suggesting that independent and interaction and influence and perception are all somehow synonymous. And again, you seem to be suggesting that there is no connection between the notions of dependent and independent. I would hate to think that I am dependent upon something just because I perceive it. You are essentially draining the concept of any useful meaning.
.

perhaps

or you could be less wordy.

Banno writes in English. I write in English. Being able to say it in the first person is not a sufficient criterion for separating the so called subject/object. It is all word salad.

If I had to explain it to you, it wouldn't be funny anymore.

I stole that.

I agree with Leo. The notion of "objective" truth is rooted in the age old "subject/object", "inner/outer" nonsensical Cartesian dichotomies. Calling something objectively true is tantamount to calling something truly true. It is nonsensical.

We are addicted to power and control. So much of religion is focused upon finding a way to make do as we please. If we just say the right things and do the right things then we will please god and god will give us what we want. we just want that power and control even over god. we do not to be like god, we want to be god.

Most of our language is simply about being there with others. We talk weather, we talk cars, we talk sports, we talk politics, we talk books, we talk movies. Very little of our everyday discourse hinges upon clarity. Being clear about what to get at the grocery story requires more clarity than most of our everyday conversations. So I would losing the notion of "all about."

I agree. Language is more about sharing a space than transferring information.

I agree with your general thrust. However, the interaction of things does not in and of itself define whether they are "independent." And that is especially true when one contrasts independent with dependent. I may well interact with my television remote, but that does not make me dependent upon my television remote. And I could choose to never interact with it be independent of it.

seriously, it is called all sorts of things and we are dealing with a translation. If I were to take up learning a new language, it would definitely be German. But I also remind myself that Being and Time was written under hurried circumstances and that there were portions (particularly Discourse and Space) that Heidegger was not happy with.

There is nothing more meaningfully expressive of our explicit understanding of entities as entities than our regular and ongoing involvement with them in a fluid and seamless manner. The ability to verbally express that same understanding pales in comparison.

Being as the always present yet necessarily hidden continually emerging openness that makes possible an awareness of beings as beings.