Causality works infinitely backwards. So Goddard's theory is only ankle deep in reality. He does not consider that the larger system can also be understood, and the system beyond that into infinity. It doesn't mean that the truths of the original system are no longer truths.
Oh, my guess is that Godel understood that IN THEORY the larger truths EXIST, but in terms of our figuring out these truths, in PRACTICAL ways as they play out, we can only go by what we know in each moment. Or at any stage. For all we know, we also know there is so much we don't yet know, and we are hinged between those variables in the now. What we know; what we don't know. In the theoretical idea of causality, I understand it would be a finished, complete system. However, we are talking about you, as a flawed human trying to understand this VAST, COMPLEX, theoretically UNIVERSAL system, and if we are being honest, you only know what you do know, and you also don't know what you don't know. Therefore as Godel's theorem implies, you cannot 100% prove your theory because you will always have missing variables. And as you evolve and widen your understanding with expansion, such expansion will open up new incomplete possibilities to explore. Now my understanding was that Godel's theorem was regarding math, and not your consciousness evolution. The thing with math is we are talking an exact science--well, excepting for Godel's incompleteness theorem. In terms of your thoughts/philosophy and your theories that ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING AN EXACT SCIENCE, you can make this theory be perfect and make sense to you, but you've also had to dodge 20 practical arguments to the contrary in order to stick to your theory. It's the brain's way of avoiding cognitive dissonance, don'tcha know. If your thoughts were an exact science like math, you would not have been unable to disassociate from the arguments that were too difficult for you to face. But as an un-exact science, your personal philosophy, like the rest of ours, will continue to be just that--a personal philosophy, just fine in it's complete human fallibility.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Personally, Angelica. I can see a huge difference between these two statements:
"Our thoughts are products of our brains, which make determinations based on information. Scientific experiments such as Benjamin Libet (1980), the works of B.F. Skinner, Jean Piaget, Einstein and so on, provide empiracle reproducable evidence."
"Everything is a whole, and we exist within that whole, and when we acheive duality and become part of that whole, we can change it and then we are whole."
The first statement attempts to explain things by using reproducable experiments, wether they are simply experiential or substantiated mathematically. The latter statement is hippy-talk.
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
Personally, Angelica. I can see a huge difference between these two statements:
"Our thoughts are products of our brains, which make determinations based on information. Scientific experiments such as Benjamin Libet (1980), the works of B.F. Skinner, Jean Piaget, Einstein and so on, provide empiracle reproducable evidence."
"Everything is a whole, and we exist within that whole, and when we acheive duality and become part of that whole, we can change it and then we are whole."
The first statement attempts to explain things by using reproducable experiments, wether they are simply experiential or substantiated mathematically. The latter statement is hippy-talk.
Seriously Ahnimus. Your ruse is up.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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
Here are some of your "facts" from this thread. Okay, we'll drop the ruse and we'll see how your philosophy and value judgments are what they are: non-facts.
Judgment is not neutral and therefore not scientific, but instead based on subjectivity and values system.
That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't hold any water.
To say that science can not explain will or consciousness is incorrect. Science has explained it more than anything else.
"more" is about value and again subjective preference, not neutral fact.
Seratonin as far as I know is responsible for sexuality and mood.
"as far at you know" is a realistic limit in terms of assessing accuracy. It is not the same as being factual, but rather it accurately portrays that even when trying to be factual, you are still a fallible human with subjective flaws and limit.
I meant to mention as well Dan, that science has lead society to better understanding.
"better"--value judgment beyond neutrality of science.
Most of how we live today is cause of science.
personal opinion.
Science is man-made, so is the term causality, so is consciousness and will.
opinion, and a reductionist one at best, or a distorted-one-at-worst, as well. Do you know enough about consciousness to believe man just invented it? yikes. Remember that consciousness is far beyond physical science, in that is is not physical. You can factually assess brain chemicals. The physical counterpart of consciousness is merely a counterpart and not the whole. You do not apparently accept the methods of understanding consciousness, along with your lack of acceptance of culture or society.
There are far more of your personal subjective viewpoints woven throughout your each post in this thread. Because you gloss over them does not make them go away for the rest of us.
In other words, your opinions and personal value judgments and philosophies are on the same level as anyone's. You have no proof of non-free will. Your opinion stands as your opinion. And apparently as truth to you. The rest of us seem to differ. But I'm sure we'll be pleased if at any point you can empirically prove free will.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Even though I know what I know now, the mind is still complex and old habits are hard to kill. For example I was hard for time yesterday and I got into the shower, someone in the building kept turning the water on and off, out of habit I said out-loud "What the fuck? Fuck off!" and immediately realized afterwords that A) No one can hear me and It's nobodies fault. But I still reacted as I have in the past, look up synaptic plasticity and engrams to understand more about this.
If you actually open your mind and do some reading on the issue, you can see the clarity of what I'm saying, but rather you would pick away at little irrelevant traits. For example Seratonin is very well understood by people besides me, my knowledge is limited to that which I can remember from studying it and it wasn't something I was particularily interested in as a whole, rather how it pertains to sexuality and mood and the effects of SSRIs. Which I did not misrepresent.
Here is a chunk for you, you can look further into yourself if you want, or just accept that others know more about it.
"Like physicists, biologists have also frequently addressed the question of free will. One of the most heated debates of biology is that of "nature versus nurture". This debate questions the importance of genetics and biology in human behaviour when compared to culture and environment. Genetic studies have identified many specific genetic factors that affect the personality of the individual, from obvious cases such as Down syndrome to more subtle effects such as a statistical predisposition towards schizophrenia. However, it is not certain that environmental determination is less threatening to free will than genetic determination. The latest analysis of the human genome shows it to have only about 20,000 genes. These genes, and the reconsidered intron genetic material, and the newly-described MiRNA, allow a level of molecular complexity analogous to the complexity of human behavior."
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
If you actually open your mind and do some reading on the issue, you can see the clarity of what I'm saying, but rather you would pick away at little irrelevant traits.
You have not had one rational argument in dispute of my posts dealing with the subject matter for pages and pages now. Your arguments have been about denouncing and degrading my view. (accusing my view of being psychotic, non-real, fantasy, etc.) Talk about a pot calling a kettle black.
For example Seratonin is very well understood by people besides me, my knowledge is limited to that which I can remember from studying it and it wasn't something I was particularily interested in as a whole, rather how it pertains to sexuality and mood and the effects of SSRIs. Which I did not misrepresent.
Here is a chunk for you, you can look further into yourself if you want, or just accept that others know more about it.
"Like physicists, biologists have also frequently addressed the question of free will. One of the most heated debates of biology is that of "nature versus nurture". This debate questions the importance of genetics and biology in human behaviour when compared to culture and environment. Genetic studies have identified many specific genetic factors that affect the personality of the individual, from obvious cases such as Down syndrome to more subtle effects such as a statistical predisposition towards schizophrenia. However, it is not certain that environmental determination is less threatening to free will than genetic determination. The latest analysis of the human genome shows it to have only about 20,000 genes. These genes, and the reconsidered intron genetic material, and the newly-described MiRNA, allow a level of molecular complexity analogous to the complexity of human behavior."
I've not been interested in your self-serving tripe since you started tuning out conflicting arguments pages ago.
"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 not had one rational argument in dispute of my posts dealing with the subject matter for pages and pages now. Your arguments have been about denouncing and degrading my view. (accusing my view of being psychotic, non-real, fantasy, etc.) Talk about a pot calling a kettle black.
I've not been interested in your self-serving tripe since you started tuning out conflicting arguments pages ago.
lol, if you want me to address your arguments, present them in a comprehensible way. Most of what you say makes no sense.
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
If I pay my bills this month, then according to you (Ahnimus); it was already predetermined that I would pay my bills this month.
But if decide to NOT pay my bills this month, then, according your theory; it was predetermined that I would NOT pay my bills.
Is that not so very convenient? Such a win-win situation for Determinism. No chance of ever losing or being wrong.
The truth is, anything that is predetermined can only have one result or future. There can't be two seperate predetermined futures or results.
The truth is, Determinism awaits on my choice to either pay my bills or not pay my bills. If I can change Determinism's claims of what was expected, then, determinism is a farce.
Exactly, see, let me try to explain why this argument is ridiculous and not even really worthy of addressing.
You are proposing that an individual could make two conflicting choices at the exact same place in space and time, which is impossible. Therefor, "anything that is predetermined can only have one result or future." still applies.
You can not go back in time and change your decision because you learned something new in the future which would have altered your decision. The decision is made and based solely on your understanding at the time. Your understanding at the time is based solely on genetic and environmental influences. Those genetic and environmental influences are also the result of other complex dynamical systems. Such as society and evolution.
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
lol, if you want me to address your arguments, present them in a comprehensible way. Most of what you say makes no sense.
Most people here can spot a cheap way of trying to dominate an argument a mile away. You merely reveal your inability to participate in a healthy exchange of information. It's certainly your perogative. Since people use their best argument, and since your arguments to me keep looking like above, I'll take that as meaning you have no actual rebuttal on the subject matter. Thanks.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Here are some of your "facts" from this thread. Okay, we'll drop the ruse and we'll see how your philosophy and value judgments are what they are: non-facts.
I'm going to address this to try to provide you with a better understanding. Even though each and everyone of these statements is either false or irrelevant.
Your personal preference is not neutral--it is a grandiose dream of your subjective mind.
Preference is based on past experience and the laws of nature. Preference does not come from the conscious mind, it comes from the physical brain.
"good" is a value judgment beyond the neutrality of science.
No it's not, cross-culture observations will prove that "good" as a value judgment is different across cultures and the cause of which can be found in a history of reinforcement. It simply shows the dynamics of value judgments and that they are not innate or devinely inspired.
Judgment is not neutral and therefore not scientific, but instead based on subjectivity and values system.
I don't know how many times it needs to be proven that children the very start of life are causality inference machines, passing judgment on objects and people based on observation. Judgment is completely natural.
"more" is about value and again subjective preference, not neutral fact.
Same argument as above, equally as dependent on the influences of parenting and cultural influence. More and Less as operant terms are independent of any explanation besides what they imply as english words. It's not clear to me how more or less can be subjective in the raw definition of the words. 3 is more than 2 and 1 is less than 3.
"as far at you know" is a realistic limit in terms of assessing accuracy. It is not the same as being factual, but rather it accurately portrays that even when trying to be factual, you are still a fallible human with subjective flaws and limit.
I think I responded to this already.
"better"--value judgment beyond neutrality of science.
Same regurjitated argument.
personal opinion.
opinion, and a reductionist one at best, or a distorted-one-at-worst, as well. Do you know enough about consciousness to believe man just invented it? yikes. Remember that consciousness is far beyond physical science, in that is is not physical. You can factually assess brain chemicals. The physical counterpart of consciousness is merely a counterpart and not the whole. You do not apparently accept the methods of understanding consciousness, along with your lack of acceptance of culture or society.
More complete nonsense, consciousness is completely measurable, predictable and negatable through physical means. Getting shot in the brain ends the existence of consciousness quite abruptly.
There are far more of your personal subjective viewpoints woven throughout your each post in this thread. Because you gloss over them does not make them go away for the rest of us.
No, I think I've addressed the examples you are referring to.
In other words, your opinions and personal value judgments and philosophies are on the same level as anyone's. You have no proof of non-free will. Your opinion stands as your opinion. And apparently as truth to you. The rest of us seem to differ. But I'm sure we'll be pleased if at any point you can empirically prove free will.
I will be impressed if at any point you can accept the impirical evidence I've provided.
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 going to address this to try to provide you with a better understanding. Even though each and everyone of these statements is either false or irrelevant.
Preference is based on past experience and the laws of nature. Preference does not come from the conscious mind, it comes from the physical brain.
No it's not, cross-culture observations will prove that "good" as a value judgment is different across cultures and the cause of which can be found in a history of reinforcement. It simply shows the dynamics of value judgments and that they are not innate or devinely inspired.
I don't know how many times it needs to be proven that children the very start of life are causality inference machines, passing judgment on objects and people based on observation. Judgment is completely natural.
Same argument as above, equally as dependent on the influences of parenting and cultural influence. More and Less as operant terms are independent of any explanation besides what they imply as english words. It's not clear to me how more or less can be subjective in the raw definition of the words. 3 is more than 2 and 1 is less than 3.
I think I responded to this already.
Same regurjitated argument.
More complete nonsense, consciousness is completely measurable, predictable and negatable through physical means. Getting shot in the brain ends the existence of consciousness quite abruptly.
No, I think I've addressed the examples you are referring to.
I will be impressed if at any point you can accept the impirical evidence I've provided.
I said I'm not interested in your self-serving words. It's not objective. It's self-serving. As I said, it's been clear for pages that you are not open to an exchange. Therefore I pass.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I said I'm not interested in your self-serving words. It's not objective. It's self-serving. As I said, it's been clear for pages that you are not open to an exchange. Therefore I pass.
I don't understand how the concept of determination is at all beneficial to me and me alone. I am equally as stripped of my free-will in knowing that it's an illusion.
Your counter-arguments are far more self-serving than mine. My arguments strip me of illusions I've lived my whole life and serves to completely alter my understanding of reality. Your counter-arguments serve to boost your ego and vindicate your perception that you are responsible for your success and others for their faults. Which to me seems very self-serving.
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 don't understand how the concept of determination is at all beneficial to me and me alone. I am equally as stripped of my free-will in knowing that it's an illusion.
Your counter-arguments are far more self-serving than mine. My arguments strip me of illusions I've lived my whole life and serves to completely alter my understanding of reality. Your counter-arguments serve to boost your ego and vindicate your perception that you are responsible for your success and others for their faults. Which to me seems very self-serving.
You can have all the opinions in the world regarding anyone's arguments. Until you can actually disprove the argument, it stands. So like me, my view, or my style or not, you've not made a dent in one argument in this thread.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You can have all the opinions in the world regarding anyone's arguments. Until you can actually disprove the argument, it stands. So like me, my view, or my style or not, you've not made a dent in one argument in this thread.
I've actually refuted all of your arguments. You just won't accept it because you don't think logically. As you said, you think alogically which is synonymous with non-logical or the opposite to logic.
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've actually refuted all of your arguments. You just won't accept it because you don't think logically. As you said, you think alogically which is synonymous with non-logical or the opposite to logic.
Degrading a point, trying to put in on a lower playing field by characterizations such as "fantasy", or "hippie-like" or the dreaded "philosophy"-comment, is not reasonably refuting a point. Even making up a sentence in trying to mock me does not refute reasoning. It instead shows your inability to reasonably refute a point. My points remain standing in plain view. There are pages upon pages where I give reasoning, to be met with degradation. My reasoning stands, and your degradation remains what it is.
When you degrade my subjective thoughts, opinions, and views, and try to defend your own, you show the terms of your game, and as I say, I'm out.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Exactly, see, let me try to explain why this argument is ridiculous and not even really worthy of addressing.
You are proposing that an individual could make two conflicting choices at the exact same place in space and time, which is impossible. Therefor, "anything that is predetermined can only have one result or future." still applies.
You can not go back in time and change your decision because you learned something new in the future which would have altered your decision. The decision is made and based solely on your understanding at the time. Your understanding at the time is based solely on genetic and environmental influences. Those genetic and environmental influences are also the result of other complex dynamical systems. Such as society and evolution.
Degrading a point, trying to put in on a lower playing field by characterizations such as "fantasy", or "hippie-like" or the dreaded "philosophy"-comment, is not reasonably refuting a point. Even making up a sentence in trying to mock me does not refute reasoning. It instead shows your inability to reasonably refute a point. My points remain standing in plain view. There are pages upon pages where I give reasoning, to be met with degradation. My reasoning stands, and your degradation remains what it is.
When you degrade my subjective thoughts, opinions, and views, and try to defend your own, you show the terms of your game, and as I say, I'm out.
Huh? By what, what happens?
By providing empirical evidence, your subjective views are degraded, so therefor you are out?
That makes sense, if you can't sustain an intellectual, logical conversation, then being "out" is probably wise.
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
this notion is ridiculous...you're talking about a belief and presenting it as factual science...anyone who accepts this is doing the same.
Oh I see, so you can travel through time. You should open up your own school of enlightenment and teach others how to do that. Then everyone can travel through time altering the events that occurred in the past, in order to drastically alter the present and the future. See "Back to the Future"
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
Skeptic Society’s “Brain, Mind & Consciousness” conference held at Caltech in May 2005. Includes 30–50 minute talks by Michael Shermer, Roger Bingham, Christof Koch, Alison Gopnik, Richard McNally, Terry Sejnowski, Susan Blackmore, John Allman, Paul Zak, Hank Schlinger and Ursula Goodenough.
Michael Shermer, (born September 8, 1954 in Glendale, California) is a science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and editor of its magazine Skeptic, which is largely devoted to investigating pseudoscientific and supernatural claims.
Shermer is also the producer and co-host of the 13-hour Fox Family television series "Exploring the Unknown" and is a monthly columnist for Scientific American magazine. Shermer was once a fundamentalist Christian, but according to his book The Science of Good and Evil, is now an atheist and an advocate for humanist philosophy.
Roger Bingham is a member of the research faculty at the Center for Brain and Cognition, University of California, San Diego, focusing on theoretical evolutionary neuroscience. He is the co-author of The Origin of Minds: Evolution, Uniqueness, and the New Science of the Self (Harmony Books, December 2002) that describes a new evolutionary model of the mind. (See LA Times review.) Previously, he was a visiting associate in biology at the California Institute of Technology, and the creator and host of award-winning PBS science programs on evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience.
Christof Koch (born November 13, 1956, Kansas City) is an American neuroscientist educated in North Africa and Europe. He received a PhD in nonlinear information processing from the Max Planck Institute in Tübingen, Germany in 1982. He currently holds the position of Lois and Victor Troendle Professor of Cognitive and Behavioral Biology, California Institute of Technology, where he has been since 1986. From 2000 to 2005 he was the executive officer of the Computation and Neural Systems program at Caltech.
You can look up the others yourself. This conference debunks "What the BLEEP"'s implications of free-will and goes on to explain quite plainly how reality works. For those of you who don't believe me, don't understand my arguments or rebuttals or simply can't read, this should help.
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
lol, if you want me to address your arguments, present them in a comprehensible way. Most of what you say makes no sense.
That's an interesting comment coming from someone who's whole argument is based on a very flimsy theory (which could never be proven) and an arrogant determination to continue to try to convince people that your (non-fact based) opinion, is indeed....fact; because of your complex, intellectual capacity..
Your argument and rationalizing has been absurd and laughable, through out this whole thread. It's a farce as is your belief in this theory.
Exactly, see, let me try to explain why this argument is ridiculous and not even really worthy of addressing.
You are proposing that an individual could make two conflicting choices at the exact same place in space and time, which is impossible. Therefor, "anything that is predetermined can only have one result or future." still applies.
LOL, no. I did not propose that at all.
What I proposed was that your theory very conviently covers it's own ass, regardless of what choice and path a person takes. A theory that covers all of it's bases and attempts to proclaim itself predetermined, regardless of what the options, variable and alternatives are.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about how many links you post and how many "great minds" you quote.
It's a farce and your argument is in fact, a ruse.
What I proposed was that your theory very conviently covers it's own ass, regardless of what choice and path a person takes. A theory that covers all of it's bases and attempts to proclaim itself predetermined, regardless of what the options, variable and alternatives are.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about how many links you post and how many "great minds" you quote.
It's a farce and your argument is in fact, a ruse.
And your opinion is based on absolute nothing.
My opinion is based on empiricle evidence. You can view the posts, watch the videos and learn from the people that know. Because you do not.
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
My opinion is based on empiricle evidence. You can view the posts, watch the videos and learn from the people that know. Because you do not.
Your opinions are based on other people's opinions and theories. There is no evidence or proof to support anything you have said. The difference between you and I, is, that I'm not trying to convince anyone that my opinions are facts.
You've been taking little arrogant and snide swipes at angelica, through out this whole thread. That speakes volumes of what you know. Which of course, is nothing.
Your opinions are based on other people's opinions and theories. There is no evidence or proof to support anything you have said. The difference between you and I, is, that I'm not trying to convince anyone that my opinions are facts.
You've been taking little arrogant and snide swipes at angelica, through out this whole thread. That speakes volumes of what you know. Which of course, is nothing.
Dude, you haven't looked at the proof.
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
Nothing you have provided (links, quotes) proves your argument as a fact.
And since it is based on empirical evidence, that so-called evidence is quite open to interpretation and a plethora of contributing variables which effect the outcome.
None of it is rock-solid proof or fact, regardless of how desperately you want it to be.
Ultimately, it is a theory that can never be proven. Anyone who claims otherwise is either pulling an elaborate ruse or is highly delusioned by his/her own interests and investments into these experiments of such a flimsy theory.
Nothing you have provided (links, quotes) proves your argument as a fact.
And since it is based on empirical evidence, that so-called evidence is quite open to interpretation and a plethora of contributing variables which effect the outcome.
None of it is rock-solid proof or fact, regardless of how desperately you want it to be.
Ultimately, it is a theory that can never be proven. Anyone who claims otherwise is either pulling an elaborate ruse or is highly delusioned by his/her own interests and investments into these experiments of such a flimsy theory.
Yea, ultimately truths are only 99.999999~ percent provable. But you have to consider that it might be true in that case.
Ultimately I cannot control your thoughts, but you can subject yourself to information to challenge your beliefs and keep an open-mind. Which most people do not.
Statistically speaking, maybe only one person on this forum will believe this is true. I guess that's me. Because you have existing percepts and I entered this research with an open-mind.
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 would like to make special note of Susan Blackmore. She used to write books on near-death experiences and all kinds of paranormal phenomena, she claimed to be able to traverse the multiverse and all that kind of nonsense.
Anyway, she eventually became "educated" and now rights books of why it's all bullshit, consciousness is an illusion and free-will does not exist.
If you turn to session 2 of the Caltech conference on "Brain, Mind and Consciousness" she gives a very good presentation on this, including Libet's experiment and much of the proofs I've provided here.
The whole series is great, about 8 hours long, but very "educational". This is my second time watching it after researching individual the statements made and then some. Again factually accurate, I've done the research to validate what's in this conference. I suggest you all do the same, it's in your best interest.
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
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"Our thoughts are products of our brains, which make determinations based on information. Scientific experiments such as Benjamin Libet (1980), the works of B.F. Skinner, Jean Piaget, Einstein and so on, provide empiracle reproducable evidence."
"Everything is a whole, and we exist within that whole, and when we acheive duality and become part of that whole, we can change it and then we are whole."
The first statement attempts to explain things by using reproducable experiments, wether they are simply experiential or substantiated mathematically. The latter statement is hippy-talk.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I guess I'm missing something then.
What was your explanation again?
Here are some of your "facts" from this thread. Okay, we'll drop the ruse and we'll see how your philosophy and value judgments are what they are: non-facts.
Your personal preference is not neutral--it is a grandiose dream of your subjective mind.
"good" is a value judgment beyond the neutrality of science.
Judgment is not neutral and therefore not scientific, but instead based on subjectivity and values system.
"more" is about value and again subjective preference, not neutral fact.
"as far at you know" is a realistic limit in terms of assessing accuracy. It is not the same as being factual, but rather it accurately portrays that even when trying to be factual, you are still a fallible human with subjective flaws and limit.
"better"--value judgment beyond neutrality of science.
personal opinion.
opinion, and a reductionist one at best, or a distorted-one-at-worst, as well. Do you know enough about consciousness to believe man just invented it? yikes. Remember that consciousness is far beyond physical science, in that is is not physical. You can factually assess brain chemicals. The physical counterpart of consciousness is merely a counterpart and not the whole. You do not apparently accept the methods of understanding consciousness, along with your lack of acceptance of culture or society.
There are far more of your personal subjective viewpoints woven throughout your each post in this thread. Because you gloss over them does not make them go away for the rest of us.
In other words, your opinions and personal value judgments and philosophies are on the same level as anyone's. You have no proof of non-free will. Your opinion stands as your opinion. And apparently as truth to you. The rest of us seem to differ. But I'm sure we'll be pleased if at any point you can empirically prove free will.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Even though I know what I know now, the mind is still complex and old habits are hard to kill. For example I was hard for time yesterday and I got into the shower, someone in the building kept turning the water on and off, out of habit I said out-loud "What the fuck? Fuck off!" and immediately realized afterwords that A) No one can hear me and
If you actually open your mind and do some reading on the issue, you can see the clarity of what I'm saying, but rather you would pick away at little irrelevant traits. For example Seratonin is very well understood by people besides me, my knowledge is limited to that which I can remember from studying it and it wasn't something I was particularily interested in as a whole, rather how it pertains to sexuality and mood and the effects of SSRIs. Which I did not misrepresent.
Here is a chunk for you, you can look further into yourself if you want, or just accept that others know more about it.
"Like physicists, biologists have also frequently addressed the question of free will. One of the most heated debates of biology is that of "nature versus nurture". This debate questions the importance of genetics and biology in human behaviour when compared to culture and environment. Genetic studies have identified many specific genetic factors that affect the personality of the individual, from obvious cases such as Down syndrome to more subtle effects such as a statistical predisposition towards schizophrenia. However, it is not certain that environmental determination is less threatening to free will than genetic determination. The latest analysis of the human genome shows it to have only about 20,000 genes. These genes, and the reconsidered intron genetic material, and the newly-described MiRNA, allow a level of molecular complexity analogous to the complexity of human behavior."
You have not had one rational argument in dispute of my posts dealing with the subject matter for pages and pages now. Your arguments have been about denouncing and degrading my view. (accusing my view of being psychotic, non-real, fantasy, etc.) Talk about a pot calling a kettle black.
I've not been interested in your self-serving tripe since you started tuning out conflicting arguments pages ago.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
lol, if you want me to address your arguments, present them in a comprehensible way. Most of what you say makes no sense.
Exactly, see, let me try to explain why this argument is ridiculous and not even really worthy of addressing.
You are proposing that an individual could make two conflicting choices at the exact same place in space and time, which is impossible. Therefor, "anything that is predetermined can only have one result or future." still applies.
You can not go back in time and change your decision because you learned something new in the future which would have altered your decision. The decision is made and based solely on your understanding at the time. Your understanding at the time is based solely on genetic and environmental influences. Those genetic and environmental influences are also the result of other complex dynamical systems. Such as society and evolution.
Most people here can spot a cheap way of trying to dominate an argument a mile away. You merely reveal your inability to participate in a healthy exchange of information. It's certainly your perogative. Since people use their best argument, and since your arguments to me keep looking like above, I'll take that as meaning you have no actual rebuttal on the subject matter. Thanks.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm going to address this to try to provide you with a better understanding. Even though each and everyone of these statements is either false or irrelevant.
Preference is based on past experience and the laws of nature. Preference does not come from the conscious mind, it comes from the physical brain.
No it's not, cross-culture observations will prove that "good" as a value judgment is different across cultures and the cause of which can be found in a history of reinforcement. It simply shows the dynamics of value judgments and that they are not innate or devinely inspired.
I don't know how many times it needs to be proven that children the very start of life are causality inference machines, passing judgment on objects and people based on observation. Judgment is completely natural.
Same argument as above, equally as dependent on the influences of parenting and cultural influence. More and Less as operant terms are independent of any explanation besides what they imply as english words. It's not clear to me how more or less can be subjective in the raw definition of the words. 3 is more than 2 and 1 is less than 3.
I think I responded to this already.
Same regurjitated argument.
More complete nonsense, consciousness is completely measurable, predictable and negatable through physical means. Getting shot in the brain ends the existence of consciousness quite abruptly.
No, I think I've addressed the examples you are referring to.
I will be impressed if at any point you can accept the impirical evidence I've provided.
I said I'm not interested in your self-serving words. It's not objective. It's self-serving. As I said, it's been clear for pages that you are not open to an exchange. Therefore I pass.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I don't understand how the concept of determination is at all beneficial to me and me alone. I am equally as stripped of my free-will in knowing that it's an illusion.
Your counter-arguments are far more self-serving than mine. My arguments strip me of illusions I've lived my whole life and serves to completely alter my understanding of reality. Your counter-arguments serve to boost your ego and vindicate your perception that you are responsible for your success and others for their faults. Which to me seems very self-serving.
You can have all the opinions in the world regarding anyone's arguments. Until you can actually disprove the argument, it stands. So like me, my view, or my style or not, you've not made a dent in one argument in this thread.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I've actually refuted all of your arguments. You just won't accept it because you don't think logically. As you said, you think alogically which is synonymous with non-logical or the opposite to logic.
When you degrade my subjective thoughts, opinions, and views, and try to defend your own, you show the terms of your game, and as I say, I'm out.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
from my window to yours
Huh? By what, what happens?
By providing empirical evidence, your subjective views are degraded, so therefor you are out?
That makes sense, if you can't sustain an intellectual, logical conversation, then being "out" is probably wise.
Oh I see, so you can travel through time. You should open up your own school of enlightenment and teach others how to do that. Then everyone can travel through time altering the events that occurred in the past, in order to drastically alter the present and the future. See "Back to the Future"
Skeptic Society’s “Brain, Mind & Consciousness” conference held at Caltech in May 2005. Includes 30–50 minute talks by Michael Shermer, Roger Bingham, Christof Koch, Alison Gopnik, Richard McNally, Terry Sejnowski, Susan Blackmore, John Allman, Paul Zak, Hank Schlinger and Ursula Goodenough.
Michael Shermer, (born September 8, 1954 in Glendale, California) is a science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and editor of its magazine Skeptic, which is largely devoted to investigating pseudoscientific and supernatural claims.
Shermer is also the producer and co-host of the 13-hour Fox Family television series "Exploring the Unknown" and is a monthly columnist for Scientific American magazine. Shermer was once a fundamentalist Christian, but according to his book The Science of Good and Evil, is now an atheist and an advocate for humanist philosophy.
Roger Bingham is a member of the research faculty at the Center for Brain and Cognition, University of California, San Diego, focusing on theoretical evolutionary neuroscience. He is the co-author of The Origin of Minds: Evolution, Uniqueness, and the New Science of the Self (Harmony Books, December 2002) that describes a new evolutionary model of the mind. (See LA Times review.) Previously, he was a visiting associate in biology at the California Institute of Technology, and the creator and host of award-winning PBS science programs on evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience.
Christof Koch (born November 13, 1956, Kansas City) is an American neuroscientist educated in North Africa and Europe. He received a PhD in nonlinear information processing from the Max Planck Institute in Tübingen, Germany in 1982. He currently holds the position of Lois and Victor Troendle Professor of Cognitive and Behavioral Biology, California Institute of Technology, where he has been since 1986. From 2000 to 2005 he was the executive officer of the Computation and Neural Systems program at Caltech.
You can look up the others yourself. This conference debunks "What the BLEEP"'s implications of free-will and goes on to explain quite plainly how reality works. For those of you who don't believe me, don't understand my arguments or rebuttals or simply can't read, this should help.
That's an interesting comment coming from someone who's whole argument is based on a very flimsy theory (which could never be proven) and an arrogant determination to continue to try to convince people that your (non-fact based) opinion, is indeed....fact; because of your complex, intellectual capacity..
Your argument and rationalizing has been absurd and laughable, through out this whole thread. It's a farce as is your belief in this theory.
LOL, no. I did not propose that at all.
What I proposed was that your theory very conviently covers it's own ass, regardless of what choice and path a person takes. A theory that covers all of it's bases and attempts to proclaim itself predetermined, regardless of what the options, variable and alternatives are.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about how many links you post and how many "great minds" you quote.
It's a farce and your argument is in fact, a ruse.
And your opinion is based on absolute nothing.
My opinion is based on empiricle evidence. You can view the posts, watch the videos and learn from the people that know. Because you do not.
Your opinions are based on other people's opinions and theories. There is no evidence or proof to support anything you have said. The difference between you and I, is, that I'm not trying to convince anyone that my opinions are facts.
You've been taking little arrogant and snide swipes at angelica, through out this whole thread. That speakes volumes of what you know. Which of course, is nothing.
Dude, you haven't looked at the proof.
There isn't proof for the correctness of philosophies, beliefs and opinions. They cannot be scientically proven.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
There's is no proof.
Nothing you have provided (links, quotes) proves your argument as a fact.
And since it is based on empirical evidence, that so-called evidence is quite open to interpretation and a plethora of contributing variables which effect the outcome.
None of it is rock-solid proof or fact, regardless of how desperately you want it to be.
Ultimately, it is a theory that can never be proven. Anyone who claims otherwise is either pulling an elaborate ruse or is highly delusioned by his/her own interests and investments into these experiments of such a flimsy theory.
Yea, ultimately truths are only 99.999999~ percent provable. But you have to consider that it might be true in that case.
Ultimately I cannot control your thoughts, but you can subject yourself to information to challenge your beliefs and keep an open-mind. Which most people do not.
Statistically speaking, maybe only one person on this forum will believe this is true. I guess that's me. Because you have existing percepts and I entered this research with an open-mind.
Anyway, she eventually became "educated" and now rights books of why it's all bullshit, consciousness is an illusion and free-will does not exist.
If you turn to session 2 of the Caltech conference on "Brain, Mind and Consciousness" she gives a very good presentation on this, including Libet's experiment and much of the proofs I've provided here.
The whole series is great, about 8 hours long, but very "educational". This is my second time watching it after researching individual the statements made and then some. Again factually accurate, I've done the research to validate what's in this conference. I suggest you all do the same, it's in your best interest.
http://www.tsntv.org/Events/2005%20Skeptics%20Society%20Annual%20Conference/HighQuality/Session2.mov
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.