You are both seeing it differently. If I'm understanding, farfromglorified realizes that our choices--what he relates to our free will--are preceded by determinants.
He is not saying that our choices come from thin air--he knows they are dependent on who we are and all of our experiences that influence us.
Now where he and I are share a view but are somewhat different than you, is that we see that the human, backed by all the determinants/reasons is very unique. We focus on and celebrate this! There will never ever be another same individual making those choices in this big old world, whether based on determinants or not. We see how potent and unique and spectacular that is--we see that the human making these choices is a separate thing than JUST being the choices. Remember ffg's analogy about how you would see the magic show, understand it, and then say the magician does not exist. We're saying an integral part of this process is all about this central, individual character--the individual themself, free to dance upon a world of forces even if driven by a past and causes. And we feel that this portion of the equation, being the role of the central character--ourself-- cannot be downplayed, or ignored.
"A Self is a set of behaviors appropriate to a given set of contingencies." - B.F. Skinner
I'm not playing down the self, I'm putting it into perspective. Whatever the hell you are talking about is irrelevant. I'm talking about facts that apply to real things and how those real things are affected. So yea, to the individual "Self" it appears to be free and basks in the glory of feeling free and acts as though it is. But it is not, that is the point.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
In the field it's called rational deliberation. By talking to people that have the illusion I'm providing them with evidence to question their beliefs, otherwise they may never not. You are still describing something different though.
So you're still a slave to this "illusion" then, despite your brilliance to see through it?
Without free-will, if will is truly determined. Then God cannot expect anyone to independently choose Good over Evil and therefor the entire myth about heaven and hell is wrong.
Hehe...no it's not. All you've done is proven God to be a really big sadist. Congratualtions, you're a Calvinist.
So you're still a slave to this "illusion" then, despite your brilliance to see through it?
Hehe...no it's not. All you've done is proven God to be a really big sadist. Congratualtions, you're a Calvinist.
Man, do I even have to tell you how nearsighted that is?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"A Self is a set of behaviors appropriate to a given set of contingencies." - B.F. Skinner
I'm not playing down the self, I'm putting it into perspective. Whatever the hell you are talking about is irrelevant. I'm talking about facts that apply to real things and how those real things are affected. So yea, to the individual "Self" it appears to be free and basks in the glory of feeling free and acts as though it is. But it is not, that is the point.
Yes, we have differences in our view. Do you recognize that myself and farfromglorified share the basic fundamentals with you? We all accept the determinants. We all recognize the programming people falsely labour under. We all believe this is at root of the human condition problems. We each seek, in our unique ways to wake people out of the illusions. We just don't recognize each other and our similarities, some of the times, while we are adamantly arguing for our differences. In my books, sharing such huge basic fundamentals, unlike the majority of the population is a bigggg thing. I'll take that!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Yes, we have differences in our view. Do you recognize that myself and farfromglorified share the basic fundamentals with you? We all accept the determinants. We all recognize the programming people falsely labour under. We all believe this is at root of the human condition problems. We each seek, in our unique ways to wake people out of the illusions. We just don't recognize each other and our similarities, some of the times, while we are adamantly arguing for our differences. In my books, sharing such huge basic fundamentals, unlike the majority of the population is a bigggg thing. I'll take that!
I agree Angelica. I'm extremely happy that we all view choice as the result of determinism. It's just the details we don't agree on. And I see that you think my opinions are just opinions. But I assure that they are grounded in evidence.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I am not living the illusion, I'm trying to influence the illusion.
God in the biblical definition is not a sadist, according to the bible we have free-will. God is based solely on the bible, without the credibility of biblical truth, God basically doesn't exist. There is no other reason to believe in God.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I agree Angelica. I'm extremely happy that we all view choice as the result of determinism. It's just the details we don't agree on. And I see that you think my opinions are just opinions. But I assure that they are grounded in evidence.
Your opinions are opinions by definition. Even though they may be grounded in fact, like my own, or like farfromglorified's.
Hopefully we can all respect that we share some very important basic groundwork. And that it's entirely natural that we also see many things differently, given our different perspectives.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Your opinions are opinions by definition. Even though they may be grounded in fact, like my own, or like farfromglorified's.
Hopefully we can all respect that we share some very important basic groundwork. And that it's entirely natural that we also see many things differently, given our different perspectives.
What facts?
I have a lot of facts. I don't go out, I don't drink, I don't go to PJ concerts. I don't have kids, don't have a mate. I do almost nothing besides read facts, mostly concerning consciousness and human behavior. What facts are you basing your belief on?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I have a lot of facts. I don't go out, I don't drink, I don't go to PJ concerts. I don't have kids, don't have a mate. I do almost nothing besides read facts, mostly concerning consciousness and human behavior. What facts are you basing your belief on?
We share a view. We have some differences based on that we each seek out different aspects of life to hone in on, and in different ways. It's as simple as that. We have different facts of the same subjects. We have different determinants so therefore we will come up with something different. We are connected in that we seem to be fixating on the same fundamentals at this time. and again, whew! we should count our lucky stars that others can even "go here", much less see many of the same things considering how rare it is!
No matter how hard we try, we cannot change our opinions to facts. We can derive our opinions from facts, yes. Facts can underly, support and sustain our opinions, yes.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I am not living the illusion, I'm trying to influence the illusion.
Hehe...you are living the the illusion so long as you put yourself outside the predestined reality you're proposing, which you do when you say "I am not...I am....". There is no "you" Ahnimus...you've argued yourself out of existence by eliminating the only thing that could ever make you an absolute: your existence as an agent. Do you not see this? When you've abdicated the ability to see and act upon yourself, you've ceased to exist as an absolute. You're nothing more than an atom, nothing more than a galaxy. You're a cancerous growth on which cancer grows. You've denied the part of your reality and your existence that made you an entity with an identity in the first place.
Your purpose, by your very philosophy, is no longer to be an agent but rather to be a tool. So you can no longer influence anything. You are only influenced which in turn influences another. The cue ball can take no credit. It cannot succeed and it cannot fail. It cannot "try".
God in the biblical definition is not a sadist, according to the bible we have free-will. God is based solely on the bible, without the credibility of biblical truth, God basically doesn't exist. There is no other reason to believe in God.
I didn't ask you if God existed. I told you that you are a Calvinist...a person who believes that people are destined to be good or destined to be bad. Predestination doesn't disprove heaven or hell, it simply leaves you unable to control which you end up in.
We share a view. We have some differences based on that we each seek out different aspects of life to hone in on, and in different ways. It's as simple as that. We have different facts of the same subjects. We have different determinants so therefore we will come up with something different. We are connected in that we seem to be fixating on the same fundamentals at this time. and again, whew! we should count our lucky stars that others can even "go here", much less see many of the same things considering how rare it is!
No matter how hard we try, we cannot change our opinions to facts. We can derive our opinions from facts, yes. Facts can underly, support and sustain our opinions, yes.
Ok, but what facts?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Hehe...you are living the the illusion so long as you put yourself outside the predestined reality you're proposing, which you do when you say "I am not...I am....". There is no "you" Ahnimus...you've argued yourself out of existence by eliminating the only thing that could ever make you an absolute: your existence as an agent. Do you not see this? When you've abdicated the ability to see and act upon yourself, you've ceased to exist as an absolute. You're nothing more than an atom, nothing more than a galaxy. You're a cancerous growth on which cancer grows. You've denied the part of your reality and your existence that made you an entity with an identity in the first place.
Your purpose, by your very philosophy, is no longer to be an agent but rather to be a tool. So you can no longer influence anything. You are only influenced which in turn influences another. The cue ball can take no credit. It cannot succeed and it cannot fail. It cannot "try".
I didn't ask you if God existed. I told you that you are a Calvinist...a person who believes that people are destined to be good or destined to be bad. Predestination doesn't disprove heaven or hell, it simply leaves you unable to control which you end up in.
Did you download a virus into your logic circuits? I'm being serious.
A person, although affected by their envirnoment also affects their environment. Within the environment the agent, when referencing it's self is "I". Look, Einstein didn't believe he was in control of his destiny and he caused a lot of influence.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Did you download a virus into your logic circuits? I'm being serious.
:rolleyes:
Your insecurities are glaring.
A person, although affected by their envirnoment also affects their environment. Within the environment the agent, when referencing it's self is "I".
I understand that. But that reference, based on your theories, would be invalid, incorrect, and irrelevant. It's like an atom calling itself a tree, or a tree calling itself a thunderstorm. It's a foolish differentiation.
Look, Einstein didn't believe he was in control of his destiny and he caused a lot of influence.
Did he, Ahnimus? Think about it. How does a hammer cause a lot of influence?
I understand that. But that reference, based on your theories, would be invalid, incorrect, and irrelevant. It's like an atom calling itself a tree, or a tree calling itself a thunderstorm. It's a foolish differentiation.
Did he, Ahnimus? Think about it. How does a hammer cause a lot of influence?
A hammer is an inanimate non-organic object. It's not even close to the same thing. Now I think you are being ignorant on purpose.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What does "non-organic" or "organic" have to do with it, Ahnimus? Would you prefer it if I asked you:
How does a cheetah cause a lot of influence?
A cheetah causes a great deal of influence.
A hammer is a static object, it does not autonomously interact with it's environment. Organic matter has a system for gathering energy and using that energy for motion. Organix have the ability to autonomously interact with their environments.
A human being is a being that has autonomy, the ability to interact and influence it's environment. Absolutely no comparison to a hammer.
Anyway, the dictionary definition of "I" is...
the one who is speaking or writing
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
No it doesn't. Whatever caused the cheetah causes a great deal of influence, by your theories.
A hammer is a static object, it does not autonomously interact with it's environment. Organic matter has a system for gathering energy and using that energy for motion. Organix have the ability to autonomously interact with their environments.
A human being is a being that has autonomy, the ability to interact and influence it's environment. Absolutely no comparison to a hammer.
First and foremost, static objects do interact with their environments. The have mass. They may absorb. They may consume. They may decay. Much interaction happens with static objects.
More importantly, however....how can a human being have "autonomy", based on your theories? What is "autonomous" about a being who is wholly determined by external factors outside of their control? This appears to be a complete and total contradiction.
Anyway, the dictionary definition of "I" is...
the one who is speaking or writing
But I'm not speaking or writing, right? Whatever caused these words and that voice is. And that isn't me, correct? A mouth is making noise, and some fingers are typing words, but "I" am not doing any of those things.
No it doesn't. Whatever caused the cheetah causes a great deal of influence, by your theories.
First and foremost, static objects do interact with their environments. The have mass. They may absorb. They may consume. They may decay. Much interaction happens with static objects.
More importantly, however....how can a human being have "autonomy", based on your theories? What is "autonomous" about a being who is wholly determined by external factors outside of their control? This appears to be a complete and total contradiction.
But I'm not speaking or writing, right? Whatever caused these words and that voice is. And that isn't me, correct? A mouth is making noise, and some fingers are typing words, but "I" am not doing any of those things.
:rolleyes: *Shakes Head*
All of this sounds like you are trying harder to find fault in what I'm saying, rather than trying to understand what I'm saying. That's why you are picking on things like choice of words when the message is blatant. Anyway, let me know when you want to actually discuss this.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
All of this sounds like you are trying harder to find fault in what I'm saying, rather than trying to understand what I'm saying. That's why you are picking on things like choice of words when the message is blatant. Anyway, let me know when you want to actually discuss this.
Really? This coming from the cue ball that employs responses like this:
"Did you download a virus into your logic circuits? I'm being serious."
"Man, do I even have to tell you how nearsighted that is?"
"Now I think you are being ignorant on purpose."
"No that's wrong. I'm sorry."
Those things aren't arguments, Ahnimus. Nor are they answers to the questions I've repeatedly posted to you. I've wanted to discuss this with you for months and made numerous attempts at those discussions. Yet each time you've shown a complete inability to go beyond the content of whatever article you happened to read the day before.
I'd suggest that you start a study in metaphysics so you're a little more able to deal with the information you find. Science, in the absence of philosophy, is far too often like a flamethrower in the hands of a child.
Really? This coming from the cue ball that employs responses like this:
"Did you download a virus into your logic circuits? I'm being serious."
"Man, do I even have to tell you how nearsighted that is?"
"Now I think you are being ignorant on purpose."
"No that's wrong. I'm sorry."
Those things aren't arguments, Ahnimus. Nor are they answers to the questions I've repeatedly posted to you. I've wanted to discuss this with you for months and made numerous attempts at those discussions. Yet each time you've shown a complete inability to go beyond the content of whatever article you happened to read the day before.
I'd suggest that you start a study in metaphysics so you're a little more able to deal with the information you find. Science, in the absence of philosophy, is far too often like a flamethrower in the hands of a child.
I'm sorry, you are right. I just don't see how you can ask questions with obvious answers. Maybe I take my knowledge for granted.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ahnimus, it is my impression that you believe the basic state of the universe is that it is neutral and beyond judgements of good/bad, right/wrong. Am I correct? I also believe this. Farfromglorified also believes this.
Do you recognize, then, that when you are talking against our belief in free will, that you are making something that is neutral into being about good/bad? You make the neutral world become about making a judgment and by your perceptions, you change the neutral nature of the universe in your view. You take the natural state of the universe where everything operates within perfect functions, and you make it wrong. Do you realize then, that when you are making a judgment, you are no longer being objective, but you are contributing to the good/bad ideas that are illusory and that you claim to dislike?
I have also faced this dilemma. The way I deal with it is that I realize I don't have to fix anything. Everything is okay. Everything is operating as per it's specific function. Including my desire to make a difference and to influence others. I don't need to change people; I accept that people are exactly designed for their own functions. However I, like you, feel my own inner purpose to make a difference and to contribute to the evolution of life on this planet. I feel a need to address the 'disorder' I see. I feel that it is my place to follow my own functions and purposes and what my intelligence and life experience is perfectly directed towards. I feel like I am aligned to my purpose when I do this. And so I am willing to do so in order to be true to me. And then I can be at peace. I can fulfill my dreams and desires and be happy. And I don't have to fix anything because I know at base, everything is perfectly synchronized for functions that I can't always grasp. My each action and movement is 100% functional at any given time. And yet, within evolution, we are progressing. There are unending ways we can influence others without stepping into the distortions or 'right/wrong' ourselves, which we do when we make others 'wrong'. When we truly let go and accept what is determined, we can let go of the idea of the "wrongness" and instead add contribution where we see potential. When we let go of fixing things, we can become true creators, and that, my friend, takes all of our hopes, dreams, skills, talents, abilities, intelligence and energy. Peace Ahnimus.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I dig and understand pretty much all of what Ahnimus says or what he's getting at, however this absence of free will thing for some reason doesn't do it for me.
I do understand the initial point of instance idea, and that all subsequent actions that follow may be predetermined and traced back to the point of origin (cause and effect).
However I don't think this can ultimately be bound 100% to how our minds work all the time. Our minds are like entirely separate universes within this universe. Energy is a constant form of renewal. Our bodies are never the same from one second to the next, and we are constantly changing at a atomic level. Our DNA contains the instructions to "channel" all this new energy in the form of the various atoms we take in to hold us together physically.
At some point the original energy pattern or sequence of events fades and new forms take precedence. As does the bond between the two. This is why I think we have unique and free thoughts all the time. Simply because the atoms the comprise our brains are constantly swapping out as new atoms enter our bodies to become us.
If that at all makes sense...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I dig and understand pretty much all of what Ahnimus says or what he's getting at, however this absence of free will thing for some reason doesn't do it for me.
I do understand the initial point of instance idea, and that all subsequent actions that follow may be predetermined and traced back to the point of origin (cause and effect).
However I don't think this can ultimately be bound 100% to how our minds work all the time. Our minds are like entirely separate universes within this universe. Energy is a constant form of renewal. Our bodies are never the same from one second to the next, and we are constantly changing at a atomic level. Our DNA contains the instructions to "channel" all this new energy in the form of the various atoms we take in to hold us together physically.
At some point the original energy pattern or sequence of events fades and new forms take precedence. As does the bond between the two. This is why I think we have unique and free thoughts all the time. Simply because the atoms the comprise our brains are constantly swapping out as new atoms enter our bodies to become us.
If that at all makes sense...
Hey! It's cool to hear your perspective. It's making me want to focus on aspects of this that in my understanding I see differently than Ahnimus. It sounds like you are coming from somewhat of a non-linear view, although I'm not sure. I personally believe that our theory of things progressing one after another from cause to effect is an illusion of our linear way of processing information. It is real in terms of what practical applications we have culled from being linear, and yet, it's an illusion if we believe it to be the basis of ALL reality. I believe that we are constantly in the only time there is. the past and the future does not exist, except in the way we order information in theories. And then, when we are theorizing, we authomatically distort reality to some degree. When I talk about how there are determinants and functions I see them in a big picture sense, not in a linear sense. I see the functions in each moment, and also tied out over time. I relate to what you are saying.
We know at the atomic level that at deeper levels of reality, things no longer operate in the mechanistic way. I believe there are swirls and levels all along any linear way of perceiving this all. I LOVE what you are saying about original energy pattersn or sequence of events fading and new forms taking precedence. That fits what I see. And I see that when we take into consideration the atomic view, which hinges on our observations, then we DO realize we also DO have free will, paradoxically, within the deterministic view at the same time. It's natural to have such a blatant contradiction within logic and communication because we are talking about things within linearity, which creates polarity.
As in the macrocosm, so in the microcosm. As within so without. The inner universe is as vast and awe-inspiring as the outer universe. The common denominator between the two is the individual. It's stellar.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Hey! It's cool to hear your perspective. It's making me want to focus on aspects of this that in my understanding I see differently than Ahnimus. It sounds like you are coming from somewhat of a non-linear view, although I'm not sure. I personally believe that our theory of things progressing one after another from cause to effect is an illusion of our linear way of processing information. It is real in terms of what practical applications we have culled from being linear, and yet, it's an illusion if we believe it to be the basis of ALL reality. I believe that we are constantly in the only time there is. the past and the future does not exist, except in the way we order information in theories. And then, when we are theorizing, we authomatically distort reality to some degree. When I talk about how there are determinants and functions I see them in a big picture sense, not in a linear sense. I see the functions in each moment, and also tied out over time. I relate to what you are saying.
We know at the atomic level that at deeper levels of reality, things no longer operate in the mechanistic way. I believe there are swirls and levels all along any linear way of perceiving this all. I LOVE what you are saying about original energy pattersn or sequence of events fading and new forms taking precedence. That fits what I see. And I see that when we take into consideration the atomic view, which hinges on our observations, then we DO realize we also DO have free will, paradoxically, within the deterministic view at the same time. It's natural to have such a blatant contradiction within logic and communication because we are talking about things within linearity, which creates polarity.
As in the macrocosm, so in the microcosm. As within so without. The inner universe is as vast and awe-inspiring as the outer universe. The common denominator between the two is the individual. It's stellar.
I know neither of you will listen to me. But there is honestly a lot of disinformation out there coming from various junk sciences and films. The quantum world as I understand it now is absolutely causal. Atoms do not pop in and out of a person's head. Also being that we are not atoms, but merely are at the mercey of atoms, the behavior of atoms are beyond our control, so our abilities are unchanged by the seemingly random nature of the quantum world.
Consider that a table is made of similar atoms, that behave exactly the same way, the table is always a table. Try as you might, you cannot change the table with your mind. The atoms do behave strangely, but the table is always there. So, you see, the quantum level is strange, but changes nothing on the macro level where we behave.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I know neither of you will listen to me. But there is honestly a lot of disinformation out there coming from various junk sciences and films. The quantum world as I understand it now is absolutely causal. Atoms do not pop in and out of a person's head. Also being that we are not atoms, but merely are at the mercey of atoms, the behavior of atoms are beyond our control, so our abilities are unchanged by the seemingly random nature of the quantum world.
Consider that a table is made of similar atoms, that behave exactly the same way, the table is always a table. Try as you might, you cannot change the table with your mind. The atoms do behave strangely, but the table is always there. So, you see, the quantum level is strange, but changes nothing on the macro level where we behave.
And cannot this quantum level "strangeness" actually be very important in this? For there to be free will, or at least non-determinism or something of the sort noone has required atoms "popping in and out of existence". It may well only be a result of the atoms' behaviour, even if the atoms or at least atom parts remain the same... Think of temperature. The same atoms behave very differently and have different properties at the macro level, decided by atomic level vibrations.
And as for the table example, I could go phenomenologic on your ass by starting to argue when something is regarded as a table, and when it is just some planks tossed together and so on. But I'll be nice and won't. It's saturday night!
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
And cannot this quantum level "strangeness" actually be very important in this? For there to be free will, or at least non-determinism or something of the sort noone has required atoms "popping in and out of existence". It may well only be a result of the atoms' behaviour, even if the atoms or at least atom parts remain the same... Think of temperature. The same atoms behave very differently and have different properties at the macro level, decided by atomic level vibrations.
And as for the table example, I could go phenomenologic on your ass by starting to argue when something is regarded as a table, and when it is just some planks tossed together and so on. But I'll be nice and won't. It's saturday night!
Peace
Dan
Well, heat requires a heat source, it requires a cause. You can go into spontaneous combustion, but I'd prefer to stick to things we understand, not the things we can't explain. Everything on the macro-level, our level, follows deterministic laws and none of that is change by the behavior of the quantum world. Take for example the solidity of the table, the table is 90% empty space, just electrons repelling or attracting each other. But to use the table is in-fact solid and unchanged by our knowledge of the quantum world.
So, basically what I'm trying to get at is in terms of our own behaviour, we only need to look at ourselves. Dipping into QM or cosmology is just going to raise more frivilous questions. Especially since we have a very limited understanding of the quantum world, and it's probably only going to get stranger.
The problem with free-will is that it cannot be caused to be free, by definition free-will is without cause and without influence. It's the only way it can exists as a free-choice system. All efforts to explain it, either behaviorally or physically always comes down to a cause. FFG says consciousness causes free-will, some suggest QM causes free-will, but these hypothesis are in defiance of the term free.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I know neither of you will listen to me. But there is honestly a lot of disinformation out there coming from various junk sciences and films. The quantum world as I understand it now is absolutely causal. Atoms do not pop in and out of a person's head. Also being that we are not atoms, but merely are at the mercey of atoms, the behavior of atoms are beyond our control, so our abilities are unchanged by the seemingly random nature of the quantum world.
Consider that a table is made of similar atoms, that behave exactly the same way, the table is always a table. Try as you might, you cannot change the table with your mind. The atoms do behave strangely, but the table is always there. So, you see, the quantum level is strange, but changes nothing on the macro level where we behave.
Over the past few days, as we've detailed our beliefs, I don't think you have found anything about my views to be outlandish. Again, your idea that my view comes from junk sciences and films is leading you to dispute my view without understanding my true understandings. When you understand, you will find I am very reasonable, logical and rational. If you can come to understand, you will see many aspects that you do not normally consider. But that I have sought out logically and empirically to great depths, by my own skills and abilities that are different than yours.
As for changing the table with my mind....yes I can change it. I can not buy it to begin with and therefore it is invisible to me. The point here is the observer effect is very very normal. We are not talking about magic. We are talking about choice. And how choice constructs a reality of whether I live in poverty or in wealth. You must realize that my creation of either lifestyle would have a very different outcome in my life in terms of what physically surrounds me, and what opportunities I have at my disposal--that is very, very normal and observable. Can you see that I'm not talking about magic, or junk science--that is the script you are using to rationalize why I don't make sense that tells you that. Again this is not about magic. This is the difference between saying I will stay mentally ill because I've been programmed this way, and my only hope is for science to come up with a solution. And between the choice of saying *I* create my brain chemicals based on what I choose to think about given the variables of my life. I choose to heal myself. And the outcome is the difference between being healthy, intelligent and wise contrasted with being crippled and degraded, living with many disorders.
Quantum mechanics hinges on principles that are beyond cause and effect mechanisms. Just like a kiss is beyond the brain chemicals of love and yet is still very very real within the context of love.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The problem with free-will is that it cannot be caused to be free, by definition free-will is without cause and without influence. It's the only way it can exists as a free-choice system. All efforts to explain it, either behaviorally or physically always comes down to a cause. FFG says consciousness causes free-will, some suggest QM causes free-will, but these hypothesis are in defiance of the term free.
Herein lies our difference. You have set out believing there is no way free will can exist amidst causes. Within that framework, you create your own outcome by your observation.
By my observation, given all the multiple variants, functions, causes, effects, etc, my will is free to create whatever I set my mind to.
Herein lies the almighty power of linguistics and of the observer to change the outcome based on the framework used to structure it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
"A Self is a set of behaviors appropriate to a given set of contingencies." - B.F. Skinner
I'm not playing down the self, I'm putting it into perspective. Whatever the hell you are talking about is irrelevant. I'm talking about facts that apply to real things and how those real things are affected. So yea, to the individual "Self" it appears to be free and basks in the glory of feeling free and acts as though it is. But it is not, that is the point.
So you're still a slave to this "illusion" then, despite your brilliance to see through it?
Hehe...no it's not. All you've done is proven God to be a really big sadist. Congratualtions, you're a Calvinist.
Man, do I even have to tell you how nearsighted that is?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes.
I agree Angelica. I'm extremely happy that we all view choice as the result of determinism. It's just the details we don't agree on. And I see that you think my opinions are just opinions. But I assure that they are grounded in evidence.
I am not living the illusion, I'm trying to influence the illusion.
God in the biblical definition is not a sadist, according to the bible we have free-will. God is based solely on the bible, without the credibility of biblical truth, God basically doesn't exist. There is no other reason to believe in God.
Hopefully we can all respect that we share some very important basic groundwork. And that it's entirely natural that we also see many things differently, given our different perspectives.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What facts?
I have a lot of facts. I don't go out, I don't drink, I don't go to PJ concerts. I don't have kids, don't have a mate. I do almost nothing besides read facts, mostly concerning consciousness and human behavior. What facts are you basing your belief on?
No matter how hard we try, we cannot change our opinions to facts. We can derive our opinions from facts, yes. Facts can underly, support and sustain our opinions, yes.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Hehe...you are living the the illusion so long as you put yourself outside the predestined reality you're proposing, which you do when you say "I am not...I am....". There is no "you" Ahnimus...you've argued yourself out of existence by eliminating the only thing that could ever make you an absolute: your existence as an agent. Do you not see this? When you've abdicated the ability to see and act upon yourself, you've ceased to exist as an absolute. You're nothing more than an atom, nothing more than a galaxy. You're a cancerous growth on which cancer grows. You've denied the part of your reality and your existence that made you an entity with an identity in the first place.
Your purpose, by your very philosophy, is no longer to be an agent but rather to be a tool. So you can no longer influence anything. You are only influenced which in turn influences another. The cue ball can take no credit. It cannot succeed and it cannot fail. It cannot "try".
I didn't ask you if God existed. I told you that you are a Calvinist...a person who believes that people are destined to be good or destined to be bad. Predestination doesn't disprove heaven or hell, it simply leaves you unable to control which you end up in.
Ok, but what facts?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Did you download a virus into your logic circuits? I'm being serious.
A person, although affected by their envirnoment also affects their environment. Within the environment the agent, when referencing it's self is "I". Look, Einstein didn't believe he was in control of his destiny and he caused a lot of influence.
:rolleyes:
Your insecurities are glaring.
I understand that. But that reference, based on your theories, would be invalid, incorrect, and irrelevant. It's like an atom calling itself a tree, or a tree calling itself a thunderstorm. It's a foolish differentiation.
Did he, Ahnimus? Think about it. How does a hammer cause a lot of influence?
A hammer is an inanimate non-organic object. It's not even close to the same thing. Now I think you are being ignorant on purpose.
What does "non-organic" or "organic" have to do with it, Ahnimus? Would you prefer it if I asked you:
How does a cheetah cause a lot of influence?
A cheetah causes a great deal of influence.
A hammer is a static object, it does not autonomously interact with it's environment. Organic matter has a system for gathering energy and using that energy for motion. Organix have the ability to autonomously interact with their environments.
A human being is a being that has autonomy, the ability to interact and influence it's environment. Absolutely no comparison to a hammer.
Anyway, the dictionary definition of "I" is...
the one who is speaking or writing
No it doesn't. Whatever caused the cheetah causes a great deal of influence, by your theories.
First and foremost, static objects do interact with their environments. The have mass. They may absorb. They may consume. They may decay. Much interaction happens with static objects.
More importantly, however....how can a human being have "autonomy", based on your theories? What is "autonomous" about a being who is wholly determined by external factors outside of their control? This appears to be a complete and total contradiction.
But I'm not speaking or writing, right? Whatever caused these words and that voice is. And that isn't me, correct? A mouth is making noise, and some fingers are typing words, but "I" am not doing any of those things.
:rolleyes: *Shakes Head*
All of this sounds like you are trying harder to find fault in what I'm saying, rather than trying to understand what I'm saying. That's why you are picking on things like choice of words when the message is blatant. Anyway, let me know when you want to actually discuss this.
Really? This coming from the cue ball that employs responses like this:
"Did you download a virus into your logic circuits? I'm being serious."
"Man, do I even have to tell you how nearsighted that is?"
"Now I think you are being ignorant on purpose."
"No that's wrong. I'm sorry."
Those things aren't arguments, Ahnimus. Nor are they answers to the questions I've repeatedly posted to you. I've wanted to discuss this with you for months and made numerous attempts at those discussions. Yet each time you've shown a complete inability to go beyond the content of whatever article you happened to read the day before.
I'd suggest that you start a study in metaphysics so you're a little more able to deal with the information you find. Science, in the absence of philosophy, is far too often like a flamethrower in the hands of a child.
I'm sorry, you are right. I just don't see how you can ask questions with obvious answers. Maybe I take my knowledge for granted.
Do you recognize, then, that when you are talking against our belief in free will, that you are making something that is neutral into being about good/bad? You make the neutral world become about making a judgment and by your perceptions, you change the neutral nature of the universe in your view. You take the natural state of the universe where everything operates within perfect functions, and you make it wrong. Do you realize then, that when you are making a judgment, you are no longer being objective, but you are contributing to the good/bad ideas that are illusory and that you claim to dislike?
I have also faced this dilemma. The way I deal with it is that I realize I don't have to fix anything. Everything is okay. Everything is operating as per it's specific function. Including my desire to make a difference and to influence others. I don't need to change people; I accept that people are exactly designed for their own functions. However I, like you, feel my own inner purpose to make a difference and to contribute to the evolution of life on this planet. I feel a need to address the 'disorder' I see. I feel that it is my place to follow my own functions and purposes and what my intelligence and life experience is perfectly directed towards. I feel like I am aligned to my purpose when I do this. And so I am willing to do so in order to be true to me. And then I can be at peace. I can fulfill my dreams and desires and be happy. And I don't have to fix anything because I know at base, everything is perfectly synchronized for functions that I can't always grasp. My each action and movement is 100% functional at any given time. And yet, within evolution, we are progressing. There are unending ways we can influence others without stepping into the distortions or 'right/wrong' ourselves, which we do when we make others 'wrong'. When we truly let go and accept what is determined, we can let go of the idea of the "wrongness" and instead add contribution where we see potential. When we let go of fixing things, we can become true creators, and that, my friend, takes all of our hopes, dreams, skills, talents, abilities, intelligence and energy. Peace Ahnimus.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I do understand the initial point of instance idea, and that all subsequent actions that follow may be predetermined and traced back to the point of origin (cause and effect).
However I don't think this can ultimately be bound 100% to how our minds work all the time. Our minds are like entirely separate universes within this universe. Energy is a constant form of renewal. Our bodies are never the same from one second to the next, and we are constantly changing at a atomic level. Our DNA contains the instructions to "channel" all this new energy in the form of the various atoms we take in to hold us together physically.
At some point the original energy pattern or sequence of events fades and new forms take precedence. As does the bond between the two. This is why I think we have unique and free thoughts all the time. Simply because the atoms the comprise our brains are constantly swapping out as new atoms enter our bodies to become us.
If that at all makes sense...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
We know at the atomic level that at deeper levels of reality, things no longer operate in the mechanistic way. I believe there are swirls and levels all along any linear way of perceiving this all. I LOVE what you are saying about original energy pattersn or sequence of events fading and new forms taking precedence. That fits what I see. And I see that when we take into consideration the atomic view, which hinges on our observations, then we DO realize we also DO have free will, paradoxically, within the deterministic view at the same time. It's natural to have such a blatant contradiction within logic and communication because we are talking about things within linearity, which creates polarity.
As in the macrocosm, so in the microcosm. As within so without. The inner universe is as vast and awe-inspiring as the outer universe. The common denominator between the two is the individual. It's stellar.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I know neither of you will listen to me. But there is honestly a lot of disinformation out there coming from various junk sciences and films. The quantum world as I understand it now is absolutely causal. Atoms do not pop in and out of a person's head. Also being that we are not atoms, but merely are at the mercey of atoms, the behavior of atoms are beyond our control, so our abilities are unchanged by the seemingly random nature of the quantum world.
Consider that a table is made of similar atoms, that behave exactly the same way, the table is always a table. Try as you might, you cannot change the table with your mind. The atoms do behave strangely, but the table is always there. So, you see, the quantum level is strange, but changes nothing on the macro level where we behave.
And as for the table example, I could go phenomenologic on your ass by starting to argue when something is regarded as a table, and when it is just some planks tossed together and so on. But I'll be nice and won't. It's saturday night!
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Well, heat requires a heat source, it requires a cause. You can go into spontaneous combustion, but I'd prefer to stick to things we understand, not the things we can't explain. Everything on the macro-level, our level, follows deterministic laws and none of that is change by the behavior of the quantum world. Take for example the solidity of the table, the table is 90% empty space, just electrons repelling or attracting each other. But to use the table is in-fact solid and unchanged by our knowledge of the quantum world.
So, basically what I'm trying to get at is in terms of our own behaviour, we only need to look at ourselves. Dipping into QM or cosmology is just going to raise more frivilous questions. Especially since we have a very limited understanding of the quantum world, and it's probably only going to get stranger.
The problem with free-will is that it cannot be caused to be free, by definition free-will is without cause and without influence. It's the only way it can exists as a free-choice system. All efforts to explain it, either behaviorally or physically always comes down to a cause. FFG says consciousness causes free-will, some suggest QM causes free-will, but these hypothesis are in defiance of the term free.
As for changing the table with my mind....yes I can change it. I can not buy it to begin with and therefore it is invisible to me. The point here is the observer effect is very very normal. We are not talking about magic. We are talking about choice. And how choice constructs a reality of whether I live in poverty or in wealth. You must realize that my creation of either lifestyle would have a very different outcome in my life in terms of what physically surrounds me, and what opportunities I have at my disposal--that is very, very normal and observable. Can you see that I'm not talking about magic, or junk science--that is the script you are using to rationalize why I don't make sense that tells you that. Again this is not about magic. This is the difference between saying I will stay mentally ill because I've been programmed this way, and my only hope is for science to come up with a solution. And between the choice of saying *I* create my brain chemicals based on what I choose to think about given the variables of my life. I choose to heal myself. And the outcome is the difference between being healthy, intelligent and wise contrasted with being crippled and degraded, living with many disorders.
Quantum mechanics hinges on principles that are beyond cause and effect mechanisms. Just like a kiss is beyond the brain chemicals of love and yet is still very very real within the context of love.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
By my observation, given all the multiple variants, functions, causes, effects, etc, my will is free to create whatever I set my mind to.
Herein lies the almighty power of linguistics and of the observer to change the outcome based on the framework used to structure it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!