All of what you described is a logical process. There is no indication anywhere of alogic or free-will. Sorry, try again.
In my example, gift ideas A through F were all logical. i had to CHOOSE one of them. That is an excercise of free-will. It is a choice from several completely logical options! Then once making that choice, i had to choose again from hundreds of thousands of choices! If i were take it a step further, how do i wrap it? Bag or wrapping paper? What color? Bow, ribbon, or nothing at all? More choices. More free-will.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
In my example, gift ideas A through F were all logical. i had to CHOOSE one of them. That is an excercise of free-will. It is a choice from several completely logical options! Then once making that choice, i had to choose again from hundreds of thousands of choices! If i were take it a step further, how do i wrap it? Bag or wrapping paper? What color? Bow, ribbon, or nothing at all? More choices. More free-will.
No, that's all logical too.
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
Sorry, I'm a bit busy to quantify it for you. But, what would you choose of that list to buy for your father and why?
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'm curious, Ahnimus, how you would see things if someone made a completely illogical/irrational decision given the circumstances, even when it was deterministic factors that brought them to be and act irrational/illogical. Can you comprehend that there can be determined factors coinciding with the separate subjective perspective operating on an entirely different level?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Sorry, I'm a bit busy to quantify it for you. But, what would you choose of that list to buy for your father and why?
My father would be happy with anything from that list. Not one of the choices was more logical than the other. Regardless of WHY i come to one conclusion over the others, the fact is i chose one when i could have just as easily chosen another. Free will. Hell, It doesn't matter if only one of many possible choices is logical! i love my dad, he's a good man, but, i could still potentially choose to just "kick him in the balls" instead. Free will.
Its completely illogical, to be having this roundabout discussion with you, yet i CHOSE to anyway. Free will. i will now excercise my option to discontinue it. Viva la free will!
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
My father would be happy with anything from that list. Not one of the choices was more logical than the other. Regardless of WHY i come to one conclusion over the others, the fact is i chose one when i could have just as easily chosen another. Free will. Hell, It doesn't matter if only one of many possible choices is logical! i love my dad, he's a good man, but, i could still potentially choose to just "kick him in the balls" instead. Free will.
Its completely illogical, to be having this roundabout discussion with you, yet i CHOSE to anyway. Free will. i will now excercise my option to discontinue it. Viva la free will!
You are only looking at the illusion of free-will, not what quantifies it.
In most cases a person will choose of those logical choices, that which suits them best and not the ultimate receiver of the gift. Of course that is just one determinent in the logical process that is decision making. Down with free-will illusion.
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'm curious, Ahnimus, how you would see things if someone made a completely illogical/irrational decision given the circumstances, even when it was deterministic factors that brought them to be and act irrational/illogical. Can you comprehend that there can be determined factors coinciding with the separate subjective perspective operating on an entirely different level?
But, what if? Isn't going to work.
We are talking about a scale of logic that is applicable to different levels.
The logical process by which a choice is made, could be logical, as the ultimate result could be illogical, or so it would seem. The subjective perspective is a logical construct of deterministic factors. That's the whole 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
We are talking about a scale of logic that is applicable to different levels.
The logical process by which a choice is made, could be logical, as the ultimate result could be illogical, or so it would seem. The subjective perspective is a logical construct of deterministic factors. That's the whole point.
Are you saying you cannot hold the two views harmoniously in your mind at the same time, without reducing one to the other? Do you then think your personal experience is meaningless in the scheme of life?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Are you saying you cannot hold the two views harmoniously in your mind at the same time, without reducing one to the other?
I'm not so sure we are even talking about the same things. If you mean what I think you mean, then I don't see how you can view the two as coexistent.
Do you then think your personal experience is meaningless in the scheme of life?
My personal experience is meaningless to just about everything but myself. It will affect my behavior, which in turn will affect those around me. Which is exactly what I'm hoping will happen. So, no it's not meaningless.
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'm not so sure we are even talking about the same things. If you mean what I think you mean, then I don't see how you can view the two as coexistent.
Can you prove that subjectivity springs from determinism, rather than subjectivity being the precursor to reality? Can you prove that you have a valid reason to prioritize the objective aspects of life over the subjective ones? From what it seems to be is that people gravitate towards making their own preconceptions make sense to them. I think you are aware of the psychology behind that. If that is the case, you will tap into and find ways to conceptualize everything through logical, linear, deterministic processes. Just as I will do so otherwise, to fit my preconceptions. Ultimately, what do either one of us know?
My personal experience is meaningless to just about everything but myself. It will affect my behavior, which in turn will affect those around me. Which is exactly what I'm hoping will happen. So, no it's not meaningless.
okay.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Can you prove that subjectivity springs from determinism, rather than subjectivity being the precursor to reality? Can you prove that you have a valid reason to prioritize the objective aspects of life over the subjective ones? From what it seems to be is that people gravitate towards making their own preconceptions make sense to them. I think you are aware of the psychology behind that. If that is the case, you will tap into and find ways to conceptualize everything through logical, linear, deterministic processes. Just as I will do so otherwise, to fit my preconceptions. Ultimately, what do either one of us know?
I believe I have already proven it.
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
You have made a case for it. To me, it shows that you can string together a logical case that supports your agenda. I can do so as well. You may disagree, but it's also clear numerous people disagree with your view on determinism. Reality is what it is regardless of our opinions of it.
Do you recognize that scientists "prove" what they are pressured to, based upon determined factors, based on where we are in our evolution now rather than based on the nature of reality? We can only comprehend what of reality our brains will allow us, right?
Science can explain aspects of life, but considering that it is subjectively decided upon what is prioritized and sought to be understood in science, even your "facts" and logic spring from subjectivity, don't they? Also, science is not life. It is a way of mapping our observations of life. That's a very, very big gap from being the "truth" or "reality".
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You have made a case for it. To me, it shows that you can string together a logical case that supports your agenda. I can do so as well. You may disagree, but it's also clear numerous people disagree with your view on determinism. Reality is what it is regardless of our opinions of it.
Do you recognize that scientists "prove" what they are pressured to, based upon determined factors, based on where we are in our evolution now rather than based on the nature of reality? We can only comprehend what of reality our brains will allow us, right?
Science can explain aspects of life, but considering that it is subjectively decided upon what is prioritized and sought to be understood in science, even your "facts" and logic spring from subjectivity, don't they? Also, science is not life. It is a way of mapping our observations of life. That's a very, very big gap from being the "truth" or "reality".
Consciousness is only ontologically subjective. Think of solidity. Objects that are solid are ontologically solid, at the quantum level they are not solid. However, some behavior at the quantum level causes solidity. Remove the parts of the quantum mechanics that provide solidity and you no longer have solidity. Consciousness is no different.
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
Consciousness is only ontologically subjective. Think of solidity. Objects that are solid are ontologically solid, at the quantum level they are not solid. However, some behavior at the quantum level causes solidity. Remove the parts of the quantum mechanics that provide solidity and you no longer have solidity. Consciousness is no different.
What is the relevence of this to the subject matter?
It remains that when people study science, they do it from the subjective level of awareness, including what factors their brains direct them to prove. They do it from a human perspective of precepts and bias, and not from a perspective of pure logic.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What is the relevence of this to the subject matter?
It remains that when people study science, they do it from the subjective level of awareness, including what factors their brains direct them to prove. They do it from a human perspective of precepts and bias, and not from a perspective of pure logic.
Yea but, even if that is true, their is the scrutiny of peer review. Which makes sure that science remains unbias.
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
Yea but, even if that is true, their is the scrutiny of peer review. Which makes sure that science remains unbias.
Certain mindsets are honed, trained and expected in science, and therefore there is immense pressure for thoughts to be determined a certain way. Also, scientists are to discard their bias, and I am very aware that when we deny our biases they operate unconsciously rather than consciously. I've seen studies that show scientists distort findings of results, based on personal bias. To me asking a bunch of scientists for the relevence of each others work is akin to asking priests about the relevence of one another's work. There is inherent bias in the field, itself. Also subjective personal views dictate how value and meaning is ascribed and narrated into neutral happenings via theories. Such narrative and ascribing of value is subjective. Granted, scientists must come to a consensual reality eventually in order to decide something is "true". However a consensual reality is not reality. It's merely a reality a group of people decide to accept at the time. To me it all sounds like a bunch of imagination!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Certain mindsets are honed, trained and expected in science, and therefore there is immense pressure for thoughts to be determined a certain way. Also, scientists are to discard their bias, and I am very aware that when we deny our biases they operate unconsciously rather than consciously. I've seen studies that show scientists distort findings of results, based on personal bias. To me asking a bunch of scientists for the relevence of each others work is akin to asking priests about the relevence of one another's work. There is inherent bias in the field, itself. Also subjective personal views dictate how value and meaning is ascribed and narrated into neutral happenings via theories. Such narrative and ascribing of value is subjective. Granted, scientists must come to a consensual reality eventually in order to decide something is "true". However a consensual reality is not reality. It's merely a reality a group of people decide to accept at the time. To me it all sounds like a bunch of imagination!
It's highly structured. If you don't see the value in scientific methods. Then so sad for you. I for one am glad that we don't go with our own perceptions of reality as we did in the past. We've evolved beyond your line of thought.
Have a nice day
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
It's highly structured. If you don't see the value in scientific methods. Then so sad for you. I for one am glad that we don't go with our own perceptions of reality as we did in the past. We've evolved beyond your line of thought.
Have a nice day
I'll refrain from pulling out the development evolution stuff again, where scientific study of human development shows us where the reductionist mechanistic worldview stands relatively speaking. Have a nice day, as well.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If you don't see the value in scientific methods. Then so sad for you.
And pure scientific method is an ideal that is continually distorted by the biased, unbalanced humans who use it. Besides, it only covers science, not all of reality. The map is not the same as the territory. The map is actually a pale imitation of reality.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
And pure scientific method is an ideal that is continually distorted by the biased, unbalanced humans who use it. Besides, it only covers science, not all of reality. The map is not the same as the territory. The map is actually a pale imitation of reality.
So... you think the answers are revealed during self-induced psychosis?
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
Does the phrase "exercise in futility" mean anything to either of you?
"exercise in fertility"? Hell yea!
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
Wouldn't the alternative be a Tube/Valve Universe?
Wouldn't a tube/valve universe while imparting wee-bit more distortion in the higer regions of even order harmonics; also impart much more warmth and romanticism?
:D
What, no one in here is an audio gear-head? No one gets the joke?
Solidstate designs......Tube/Valve designs? C' mon, that's some funny stuff!:D:D
Has anyone ever seen angelica's picture? What's she look like?
Is she "fertility worthy?:D
I have, but I abstain from commenting.
I was just playing around with the word.
"exercise in futility"
Yup sounds about right.
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
The difference is, if I ask you why you made some statement, my guess is that you'd explain in some detail why you hold that opinion. In fact, I would expect you not to make some broad, sweeping statement in the first place, without going into some depth. If you can elaborate on a topic, address specific points, then it means something, it has substance, because you've thought it through and you're not merely echoing what you've heard. http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4016217&postcount=126
This is exactly what I'm talking about. This whole post is filled with deterministic thinking. "You can't have a point, unless.." "You must know details of..." "You must not be too ambiguous of...". "You must have cause for your viewpoint, or else you're just repeating what you've been told."
Exactly!!! We all know it, but we ignore it. You must either know the details of what you are saying, or else you are just repeating what you've heard. Or maybe just conjuring it out of imagination. But either way, it has a cause and is therefor determined by something else and not 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
Philosophy and religion/spirituality. It's the spiritual aspect of our nature that recognizes our free will.
Do you believe that humans have a spiritual capacity, Ahnimus?
Just out of curiosity, without the spiritual aspect do you still see a case for free will?
Personally I consider free will an illusion. I view our decision making process as being influenced by an enormous number of determinant factors. These factors determine non-conscious neural processes that give our decisions the illusion of being voluntary.
Synaptic pathways in our brain can be strengthened over time (although this occurs with greatest significance when we are young), which makes them more likely to be followed. In other words the deterministic factors influence which synaptic pathways are likely to be followed which influence our decisions.
Of interest also is something I read just recently, relating the illusion of free will to quantum mechanics and the self collapse of wave functions. I will be honest and say that I skimmed over it and didn't really get a deep understanding of it, but in light of this thread I will track down the article and attempt to summarise it for you all.
Comments
In my example, gift ideas A through F were all logical. i had to CHOOSE one of them. That is an excercise of free-will. It is a choice from several completely logical options! Then once making that choice, i had to choose again from hundreds of thousands of choices! If i were take it a step further, how do i wrap it? Bag or wrapping paper? What color? Bow, ribbon, or nothing at all? More choices. More free-will.
No, that's all logical too.
Sorry, I'm a bit busy to quantify it for you. But, what would you choose of that list to buy for your father and why?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
My father would be happy with anything from that list. Not one of the choices was more logical than the other. Regardless of WHY i come to one conclusion over the others, the fact is i chose one when i could have just as easily chosen another. Free will. Hell, It doesn't matter if only one of many possible choices is logical! i love my dad, he's a good man, but, i could still potentially choose to just "kick him in the balls" instead. Free will.
Its completely illogical, to be having this roundabout discussion with you, yet i CHOSE to anyway. Free will. i will now excercise my option to discontinue it. Viva la free will!
You are only looking at the illusion of free-will, not what quantifies it.
In most cases a person will choose of those logical choices, that which suits them best and not the ultimate receiver of the gift. Of course that is just one determinent in the logical process that is decision making. Down with free-will illusion.
But, what if? Isn't going to work.
We are talking about a scale of logic that is applicable to different levels.
The logical process by which a choice is made, could be logical, as the ultimate result could be illogical, or so it would seem. The subjective perspective is a logical construct of deterministic factors. That's the whole point.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm not so sure we are even talking about the same things. If you mean what I think you mean, then I don't see how you can view the two as coexistent.
My personal experience is meaningless to just about everything but myself. It will affect my behavior, which in turn will affect those around me. Which is exactly what I'm hoping will happen. So, no it's not meaningless.
okay.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I believe I have already proven it.
Do you recognize that scientists "prove" what they are pressured to, based upon determined factors, based on where we are in our evolution now rather than based on the nature of reality? We can only comprehend what of reality our brains will allow us, right?
Science can explain aspects of life, but considering that it is subjectively decided upon what is prioritized and sought to be understood in science, even your "facts" and logic spring from subjectivity, don't they? Also, science is not life. It is a way of mapping our observations of life. That's a very, very big gap from being the "truth" or "reality".
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Consciousness is only ontologically subjective. Think of solidity. Objects that are solid are ontologically solid, at the quantum level they are not solid. However, some behavior at the quantum level causes solidity. Remove the parts of the quantum mechanics that provide solidity and you no longer have solidity. Consciousness is no different.
What is the relevence of this to the subject matter?
It remains that when people study science, they do it from the subjective level of awareness, including what factors their brains direct them to prove. They do it from a human perspective of precepts and bias, and not from a perspective of pure logic.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yea but, even if that is true, their is the scrutiny of peer review. Which makes sure that science remains unbias.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's highly structured. If you don't see the value in scientific methods. Then so sad for you. I for one am glad that we don't go with our own perceptions of reality as we did in the past. We've evolved beyond your line of thought.
Have a nice day
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So... you think the answers are revealed during self-induced psychosis?
"exercise in fertility"? Hell yea!
:eek:
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What, no one in here is an audio gear-head? No one gets the joke?
Solidstate designs......Tube/Valve designs? C' mon, that's some funny stuff!:D:D
Tough room:D:D
Has anyone ever seen angelica's picture? What's she look like?
Is she "fertility worthy?:D
J/K angelica....that was a Sienfeld reference , there. I'm sure you're as beautiful on the outside, as you are on the inside.
audio gear? I dunno dude, just sounds like geek humor to me.
I have, but I abstain from commenting.
I was just playing around with the word.
"exercise in futility"
Yup sounds about right.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. This whole post is filled with deterministic thinking. "You can't have a point, unless.." "You must know details of..." "You must not be too ambiguous of...". "You must have cause for your viewpoint, or else you're just repeating what you've been told."
Exactly!!! We all know it, but we ignore it. You must either know the details of what you are saying, or else you are just repeating what you've heard. Or maybe just conjuring it out of imagination. But either way, it has a cause and is therefor determined by something else and not free.
I never claimed I wasn't a geek:D:D
Just out of curiosity, without the spiritual aspect do you still see a case for free will?
Personally I consider free will an illusion. I view our decision making process as being influenced by an enormous number of determinant factors. These factors determine non-conscious neural processes that give our decisions the illusion of being voluntary.
Synaptic pathways in our brain can be strengthened over time (although this occurs with greatest significance when we are young), which makes them more likely to be followed. In other words the deterministic factors influence which synaptic pathways are likely to be followed which influence our decisions.
Of interest also is something I read just recently, relating the illusion of free will to quantum mechanics and the self collapse of wave functions. I will be honest and say that I skimmed over it and didn't really get a deep understanding of it, but in light of this thread I will track down the article and attempt to summarise it for you all.
Cheers, Steve