I hate to spoil it, but if they could tell you where their thoughts actually come from, they would be proving that their thoughts are causal in nature.
You know Roland, I know you've had an epiphany that has clarified this for you. I'd be interested to see if you ever turn 180 on this, you'd make an excellent debate partner having seen things my way. I'm frustrated with some debaters because they don't seem to grasp the concepts.
Actually, I'm interested in debating some of the finer points with you. Such as indeterminism, and the plausibility of freedom emerging from complexity as Dan Dennett suggests. Just to get your thoughts on the topic.
I think debating with you would be more enjoyable if you chose to enjoy the debate for what it is rather than for what it isn't.
Just my two cents on the matter of debating those overthinking thoughts of yours.
I also want to ask Roland. When I realized that human free-will was an illusion and that the beginning as well as the end is determined, I felt emancipated, which one might think as contrary to the actual belief. I still feel like I have to talk about it openly to share my view in hope that others will also realize it. Do you feel like this at all?
On a side-note, a girl-friend of mine has just started a sociology course. Her sociology professor on the first day of class stated "Free-will does not exist" and provided an explanation. It has to do with the fact that three different models accurately predict human behavior without invoking free-wills. I'll find out what those models are, I know one is called "milieu" or environment. I'm guessing the other two are on the order of things we've already suggested on this board. I don't imagine sociology views human cognition any differently than psychology.
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 think debating with you would be more enjoyable if you chose to enjoy the debate for what it is rather than for what it isn't.
Just my two cents on the matter of debating those overthinking thoughts of yours.
Can you clarify your point?
To me the debate is exactly what a debate should be, or atleast what I think it should be. That is an analysis of different points tossed back and forth in order to reach a logical conclusion. If I believe what I believe, I'm more likely to find reasons to believe then to not, therefor it's necessary to have a debate partner who disagrees in order to really tease apart the subject matter.
For example, if you say "Indeterminism allows for free-will" you may have never thought "That would just make me an indeterminate machine, as opposed to a determinate machine and that would be no closer to having free-will." likewise, I may have never even considered indeterminism if I was too busy pushing my points and not considering the points of others, and that wouldn't be a debate.
I am open to debate, and I thank Hippiemom for sending me Freedom Evolves by DCD, because I'm in disagreeance with Dennett on some points and it was productive for me to read his in-depth explanations and analyses. He's certainly challenged my view of Ben Libet's experiments, which happens to be the prevailing view. It seems Dennett's points have gone largely unaddressed by the philosophical community, which is a real shame, because I think he has some excellent points.
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
Choice only seems free. It's not free from the laws of the universe.
That seems to be where the misunderstanding is.
Dude you are kind of obsessed with this idea that everything can be predicted. That you can find a set of equations to predict absolutely everything that will happen. While admire your passion this is kind of an out dated notion in science atleast (circa 1600's)....maybe thats why you are still fighting for it?
Reality is that shit just happens. Obviously that isn't very comforting to many people on this board.
To me the debate is exactly what a debate should be, or atleast what I think it should be. That is an analysis of different points tossed back and forth in order to reach a logical conclusion. If I believe what I believe, I'm more likely to find reasons to believe then to not, therefor it's necessary to have a debate partner who disagrees in order to really tease apart the subject matter.
For example, if you say "Indeterminism allows for free-will" you may have never thought "That would just make me an indeterminate machine, as opposed to a determinate machine and that would be no closer to having free-will." likewise, I may have never even considered indeterminism if I was too busy pushing my points and not considering the points of others, and that wouldn't be a debate.
I am open to debate, and I thank Hippiemom for sending me Freedom Evolves by DCD, because I'm in disagreeance with Dennett on some points and it was productive for me to read his in-depth explanations and analyses. He's certainly challenged my view of Ben Libet's experiments, which happens to be the prevailing view. It seems Dennett's points have gone largely unaddressed by the philosophical community, which is a real shame, because I think he has some excellent points.
I would rather you construct your arguments around your own honest ideas than to always (and it seems like its always) citing this or that article of academia as thee talking point.
Maybe that's just me, I dunno.
Angelica likes to go point-for-point for you that way, but most of us won't.
There isn't much to gain from studying the reasons why we choose action films over drama or any such thing. But I can postulate that it's relative to the stimulus. Men and Women differ neurologically, such that, women like emotionally stimulating entertainment more than men. I'm sure there are many reasons why you choose the films that you do. I'm certain you would find causes for your decisions if you looked. But I'm willing to bet you don't care too much about science. Therefor you wouldn't know a thing that affects your decisions.
A girl I know (12) was diagnosed with ADHD at age 6 and perscribed Rispirital/Rispirtone. Which is an anti-psychotic with some serious permanent side-effects. Six years later she's uncontrollable and hallucinating. I think it is a result of the perscription. But maybe you'd like her auditory hallucinations to be a matter of choice.
i agree, i'm sure her hallucinations and uncontrollable behavior is due to the medications(man, dude... if only there was someone like you working here where i work... you'd be of great help). but that's not what i'm talking about here. on your previous post you said that it's more likely that everything is caused by something, i.e. my choices (like choosing which film to watch). But can we honestly find any types of evidences by any scientific methods that can prove that my choice was caused by something?
Honestly?
I think it's way more complicated than that. In fact, I think it's so complicated that science can't even answer that for us.
It's a debate that's almost as "undiscussable" as it is discussing the existence, or unexsitence, of a god. Let's go back with my choice of film. Why did I pick the drama over the action? Let's say I rented both films. Let's say that I enjoyed both films equally. But let's say that when I went home I had two choices: whether to play the drama film or the action film first. In a scenario like this it has nothing to do with:
Men and Women differ neurologically, such that, women like emotionally stimulating entertainment more than men.
In this case it just matters on what movie I want to watch first. And like you said, there could've been numerous reasons why I picked the drama over the action film. And simply put, the only mere reason was because I had to watch one film before the other, because obviously I can't watch both films at once. But why in this case did I pick the drama over the action? See what I mean?
Is there a scientific explanation for it? If there is, I'd be more than fascinated to know.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
1. "Life is What You Make it"
a. the language of "life"
b. language is what you make it?
2. The Fate of Language
a. Fate is spoken-word
b. Fate is thought
3. Intelligence
a. intelligence comes from the living
b. brains
c. ancient brains
4. Hehee
1. "Life is What You Make it"
a. the language of "life"
b. language is what you make it?
2. The Fate of Language
a. Fate is spoken-word
b. Fate is thought
3. Intelligence
a. intelligence comes from the living
b. brains
c. ancient brains
4. Hehee
i don't get it.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Yo - flor, polen - abeja, oso, pez, agua
sube nube, llueve, arbol - oxigeno - pulmón.
Nopiltze, hija mia ?Acaso Dios nunca muere?
A qué dios te refieres,
todo de eso depende.
Hay dioses que pensaron Que el mundo era infinito,
no hay un equilibrio entre los reinos hijo mío
Gira y da vueltas
y rueda, y rueda.
Quero hacerla un cuadrado,
deformarla en un triangulo
pero la vida siempre vuelve a su forma circular.
La única que puede darnos vueltas es Dios.
Hay tan pocas flores ya, peces agua y pensé
que la vuelta no daría, hoy tu hijo me respira.
Si el equilibrio es Dios, y el equilibrio murió,
?Que pasó con Dios?
Me - flower, polen - bee, bear, fish, water
fog, rain, tree - oxygen - lungs
Nopiltze, my girl? Does God ever die?
Which god do you refer?
All that depends
there were gods who believed the world is infinite
there is no equilibrium between kingdoms, my child
Turns and spins
Round and round
I want to make a square
decorate it in a triangle
but life always returns to it's circular form
the only one who can spin us is God
there are a few flowers, fishes and water now
and I thought the world would never end, today your child breathes
and if the equilibrium is god, and the equilibrium died
what happened to God?
great song from a mexican band named Cafe Tacuba... it reminded me about this topic... yes, i took the time to translate.... so appreciate it mofo's!
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
I hate to spoil it, but if they could tell you where their thoughts actually come from, they would be proving that their thoughts are causal in nature.
You know Roland, I know you've had an epiphany that has clarified this for you. I'd be interested to see if you ever turn 180 on this, you'd make an excellent debate partner having seen things my way. I'm frustrated with some debaters because they don't seem to grasp the concepts.
Actually, I'm interested in debating some of the finer points with you. Such as indeterminism, and the plausibility of freedom emerging from complexity as Dan Dennett suggests. Just to get your thoughts on the topic.
Actually that makes sense. My argument was perhaps reversed as in can v.s. cannot. If anyone actually knew where their thoughts came, from it would seem to support causality.
It can be frustrating, reason being it's not anywhere near a simple topic to explain. It's waay out of the box type thinking (to me anyways).
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.
all books are books of the bible??? ummmm... i dunno.... but i don't see how that makes us fated.
it would make sense though.... all books are boooks of the bible. total sense. but it wouldn't make sense if it said, "All books are books of the Holy Bible."
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
all books are books of the bible??? ummmm... i dunno.... but i don't see how that makes us fated.
it would make sense though.... all books are boooks of the bible. total sense. but it wouldn't make sense if it said, "All books are books of the Holy Bible."
Well, you're nitpicking. One human is as a human is, no?
The idea that all books are books of the bible (holy or not) came to me many yeas ago as i related to the new testament and some of the stories of the old testament. Like Esther.
It is a neverending story, is it not? We all contribute our Word.
Well, you're nitpicking. One human is as a human is, no?
The idea that all books are books of the bible (holy or not) came to me many yeas ago as i related to the new testament and some of the stories of the old testament. Like Esther.
It is a neverending story, is it not? We all contribute our Word.
Even here, and now.
i guess, it just depends on what you believe. it's alright with me.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Well, you're nitpicking. One human is as a human is, no?
The idea that all books are books of the bible (holy or not) came to me many yeas ago as i related to the new testament and some of the stories of the old testament. Like Esther.
It is a neverending story, is it not? We all contribute our Word.
Even here, and now.
you do know that there's a scripture in revelation that says if you add to it then the tribulations will be doubled, right?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
i guess, it just depends on what you believe. it's alright with me.
Are you afraid of what another believes?
I just stated that the Holy Bible has never concluded. The spirit of the written and the spoken word is as holy and amongst us now as it was when it was first conjured by the hebrew wordsmiths of yore. I believe that. You don't?
I also want to ask Roland. When I realized that human free-will was an illusion and that the beginning as well as the end is determined, I felt emancipated, which one might think as contrary to the actual belief. I still feel like I have to talk about it openly to share my view in hope that others will also realize it. Do you feel like this at all?
On a side-note, a girl-friend of mine has just started a sociology course. Her sociology professor on the first day of class stated "Free-will does not exist" and provided an explanation. It has to do with the fact that three different models accurately predict human behavior without invoking free-wills. I'll find out what those models are, I know one is called "milieu" or environment. I'm guessing the other two are on the order of things we've already suggested on this board. I don't imagine sociology views human cognition any differently than psychology.
When it first hit me, it was odd. I had recalled something that I had read from several months earlier about the moment of the big bang, creation, or "spark of life" (call it what you will) that everything is set forth on a path of a pre-determined existence or "state of affairs" so to speak.
All events thereafter will play out according to observable physical laws and phenomenas. I'm beginning to think even if one was to look at it from a planets flying around crashing into each other perspective it would hold true.
It was a lot like a light bulb going off. Unfortunately I don't remember the other factor that triggered the realization.
I have to say I feel kinda neutral but definitely intrigued.
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.
Purplehawk's greatX1000 grandfather was there back then, too.
Ahh... so that's who Moses was...
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.
When it first hit me, it was odd. I had recalled something that I had read from several months earlier about the moment of the big bang, creation, or "spark of life" (call it what you will) that everything is set forth on a path of a pre-determined existence or "state of affairs" so to speak.
All events thereafter will play out according to observable physical laws and phenomenas. I'm beginning to think even if one was to look at it from a planets flying around crashing into each other perspective it would hold true.
It was a lot like a light bulb going off. Unfortunately I don't remember the other factor that triggered the realization.
I have to say I feel kinda neutral but definitely intrigued.
Nobody would have gotten anywhere without a little song, a little dance, a little storytelling by the fire under the stars.
Are you afraid of what another believes?
I just stated that the Holy Bible has never concluded. The spirit of the written and the spoken word is as holy and amongst us now as it was when it was first conjured by the hebrew wordsmiths of yore. I believe that. You don't?
no, i'm not afraid what others believe. what makes you say that?
i thought you were saying that anybody who writes another book is just as holy as the bible. am i right? it's fine by me... although i don't particularly agree, but ok.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Comments
I think debating with you would be more enjoyable if you chose to enjoy the debate for what it is rather than for what it isn't.
Just my two cents on the matter of debating those overthinking thoughts of yours.
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.
On a side-note, a girl-friend of mine has just started a sociology course. Her sociology professor on the first day of class stated "Free-will does not exist" and provided an explanation. It has to do with the fact that three different models accurately predict human behavior without invoking free-wills. I'll find out what those models are, I know one is called "milieu" or environment. I'm guessing the other two are on the order of things we've already suggested on this board. I don't imagine sociology views human cognition any differently than psychology.
Can you clarify your point?
To me the debate is exactly what a debate should be, or atleast what I think it should be. That is an analysis of different points tossed back and forth in order to reach a logical conclusion. If I believe what I believe, I'm more likely to find reasons to believe then to not, therefor it's necessary to have a debate partner who disagrees in order to really tease apart the subject matter.
For example, if you say "Indeterminism allows for free-will" you may have never thought "That would just make me an indeterminate machine, as opposed to a determinate machine and that would be no closer to having free-will." likewise, I may have never even considered indeterminism if I was too busy pushing my points and not considering the points of others, and that wouldn't be a debate.
I am open to debate, and I thank Hippiemom for sending me Freedom Evolves by DCD, because I'm in disagreeance with Dennett on some points and it was productive for me to read his in-depth explanations and analyses. He's certainly challenged my view of Ben Libet's experiments, which happens to be the prevailing view. It seems Dennett's points have gone largely unaddressed by the philosophical community, which is a real shame, because I think he has some excellent points.
Dude you are kind of obsessed with this idea that everything can be predicted. That you can find a set of equations to predict absolutely everything that will happen. While admire your passion this is kind of an out dated notion in science atleast (circa 1600's)....maybe thats why you are still fighting for it?
Reality is that shit just happens. Obviously that isn't very comforting to many people on this board.
I would rather you construct your arguments around your own honest ideas than to always (and it seems like its always) citing this or that article of academia as thee talking point.
Maybe that's just me, I dunno.
Angelica likes to go point-for-point for you that way, but most of us won't.
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.
Don't tell me that I'm actually right?
Coz I'm no clearer than when I said that pages back, well except for the depth varying!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Honestly?
I think it's way more complicated than that. In fact, I think it's so complicated that science can't even answer that for us.
It's a debate that's almost as "undiscussable" as it is discussing the existence, or unexsitence, of a god. Let's go back with my choice of film. Why did I pick the drama over the action? Let's say I rented both films. Let's say that I enjoyed both films equally. But let's say that when I went home I had two choices: whether to play the drama film or the action film first. In a scenario like this it has nothing to do with:
In this case it just matters on what movie I want to watch first. And like you said, there could've been numerous reasons why I picked the drama over the action film. And simply put, the only mere reason was because I had to watch one film before the other, because obviously I can't watch both films at once. But why in this case did I pick the drama over the action? See what I mean?
Is there a scientific explanation for it? If there is, I'd be more than fascinated to know.
a. the language of "life"
b. language is what you make it?
2. The Fate of Language
a. Fate is spoken-word
b. Fate is thought
3. Intelligence
a. intelligence comes from the living
b. brains
c. ancient brains
4. Hehee
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.
1. Jesus is God's only begotten son
a. That's what the Bible "says"
b. It is written
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.
I'm just doing some free-thought outlining.
Nothing there for you to get.
Praise and blessings.
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.
Well ditto!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Yo - flor, polen - abeja, oso, pez, agua
sube nube, llueve, arbol - oxigeno - pulmón.
Nopiltze, hija mia ?Acaso Dios nunca muere?
A qué dios te refieres,
todo de eso depende.
Hay dioses que pensaron Que el mundo era infinito,
no hay un equilibrio entre los reinos hijo mío
Gira y da vueltas
y rueda, y rueda.
Quero hacerla un cuadrado,
deformarla en un triangulo
pero la vida siempre vuelve a su forma circular.
La única que puede darnos vueltas es Dios.
Hay tan pocas flores ya, peces agua y pensé
que la vuelta no daría, hoy tu hijo me respira.
Si el equilibrio es Dios, y el equilibrio murió,
?Que pasó con Dios?
Me - flower, polen - bee, bear, fish, water
fog, rain, tree - oxygen - lungs
Nopiltze, my girl? Does God ever die?
Which god do you refer?
All that depends
there were gods who believed the world is infinite
there is no equilibrium between kingdoms, my child
Turns and spins
Round and round
I want to make a square
decorate it in a triangle
but life always returns to it's circular form
the only one who can spin us is God
there are a few flowers, fishes and water now
and I thought the world would never end, today your child breathes
and if the equilibrium is god, and the equilibrium died
what happened to God?
great song from a mexican band named Cafe Tacuba... it reminded me about this topic... yes, i took the time to translate.... so appreciate it mofo's!
Actually that makes sense. My argument was perhaps reversed as in can v.s. cannot. If anyone actually knew where their thoughts came, from it would seem to support causality.
It can be frustrating, reason being it's not anywhere near a simple topic to explain. It's waay out of the box type thinking (to me anyways).
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)
(")_(")
What do you make of:
"All books are books of the Bible."
Is it Fate, are we fated?
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.
it would make sense though.... all books are boooks of the bible. total sense. but it wouldn't make sense if it said, "All books are books of the Holy Bible."
Well, you're nitpicking. One human is as a human is, no?
The idea that all books are books of the bible (holy or not) came to me many yeas ago as i related to the new testament and some of the stories of the old testament. Like Esther.
It is a neverending story, is it not? We all contribute our Word.
Even here, and now.
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.
Are you afraid of what another believes?
I just stated that the Holy Bible has never concluded. The spirit of the written and the spoken word is as holy and amongst us now as it was when it was first conjured by the hebrew wordsmiths of yore. I believe that. You don't?
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.
Purplehawk's greatX1000 grandfather was there back then, too.
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.
When it first hit me, it was odd. I had recalled something that I had read from several months earlier about the moment of the big bang, creation, or "spark of life" (call it what you will) that everything is set forth on a path of a pre-determined existence or "state of affairs" so to speak.
All events thereafter will play out according to observable physical laws and phenomenas. I'm beginning to think even if one was to look at it from a planets flying around crashing into each other perspective it would hold true.
It was a lot like a light bulb going off. Unfortunately I don't remember the other factor that triggered the realization.
I have to say I feel kinda neutral but definitely intrigued.
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)
(")_(")
Ahh... so that's who Moses was...
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)
(")_(")
Nobody would have gotten anywhere without a little song, a little dance, a little storytelling by the fire under the stars.
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.
I wouldn't give him that much credit. He does like his wine, however....
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.
i thought you were saying that anybody who writes another book is just as holy as the bible. am i right? it's fine by me... although i don't particularly agree, but ok.