The Big Bang

1…457910

Comments

  • Posts: 2,130
    Ahnimus wrote:
    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."
  • Posts: 10,560
    cornnifer wrote:
    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
  • Posts: 10,560
    Ahnimus wrote:
    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?
    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
  • Posts: 6,038
    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

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Posts: 2,130
    Ahnimus wrote:
    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."
  • Posts: 10,560
    cornnifer wrote:
    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
  • Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    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
  • Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    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.
    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

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    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
  • Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    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

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    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
  • Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I believe I have already proven it.
    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

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    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
  • Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    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

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    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
  • Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    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

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    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
  • Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    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

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    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

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    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

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories