Determinism and free will .

[chaos1956]

That's because, amid the inane drivel, it's far from apparent that you have a premise, let alone what it is.

Determinism should not be confused with self-determination of human actions by reasons, motives, and desires, or with predestination, which specifically factors the existence of God into its tenets.

Which would negate free will, neh?

You can't negate free will you can only confuse It. Sure if my intial determism were to be paraplegic, I would probably talk about time space and the universe just to exercise what little free will I had. I would probably also probe other peoples mind to find the answers as well for my initial deterministic problems. It is not hard to spot the faults of another, but to correct the mistakes it takes time and experience for one to understand.

Fail again. You keep bringing in non-sequiturs and trying (and failing!) to link them to make your "point".
For example: "free will... is a consequence of deterministic values". Run that by me again please because it appears that your claiming free will arises due to, and because of, determinism.

When you put it that way it just sounds crazy. Look the basic premisis is: I hold discussions with people with no prior knowledge except for my past "experience". Most of the time I click the right button or find the right words to say. This is my determinism. My free will allows me to post confusing nonsense until some person is able to give me a responce that intiates me to deterministically find the right words to make them less confused as to the main point. This button clicking and page turning required thought. So does the sarcasm that I employ durring a discussion. If someone say something stupid I usually quote wikipedia as it contains the thoughts of a vast collective of determined ideas. But its only when someone says something really stupid that I quote Neitzsche or another great individual mind. The rest of my thoughts are based on the experience in philosophy we call life which is the expression of my individual free will. My fate though is that I am always right in some way. As much as you think this would be a "good" thing I tell you it is not. This particular individual "experience" that I have sucks. This is allegorical to the parapelegic reference the difference being my free will sucked me into an "evil" experience now I'm determined to use my personality and free will to explain it to a group of understanding individuals. But I always speak as a collective which is the deterministic basis of any cognitive thought. AKA. "How long ago was it that you learned to think and who taught you?"

 

[Dywyddyr]

Determinism should not be confused with self-determination of human actions by reasons, motives, and desires, or with predestination, which specifically factors the existence of God into its tenets.

I wasn't confusing them.
And no, predestination doesn't always factor "god" (whatever that is) into its tenets.

You can't negate free will you can only confuse It.

Wrong. Predestination removes any possibility of free will.

When you put it that way it just sounds crazy.

Now you're getting it. Maybe you'll be more careful about what you write in future.

But its only when someone says something really stupid that I quote Neitzsche or another great individual mind.

Spend a lot of time quoting Nietzsche at yourself do you? What's the point of quoting when you fail to quote anything apropos?

The rest of my thoughts are based on the experience in philosophy we call life which is the expression of my individual free will.

Your assumed free will, you mean.

But I always speak as a collective which is the deterministic basis of any cognitive thought.

Balls. Unless the "person" at your end of the PC connection is actually a group of people.

AKA. "How long ago was it that you learned to think and who taught you?"

Well on current evidence your answer to that question should be: I haven't yet and I'm still waiting for a teacher.

 

[chaos1956]

I wasn't confusing them.
And no, predestination doesn't always factor "god" (whatever that is) into its tenets.

We are all God in our own ways. Just because an individual does not know what God "means" does not mean that a collective does either. God is unsubstantiated but underlying in any person's psyche. It is a word that denotes a missunderstanding of the subject of God itself, whatever subject is valid within the initial terms of what the person is actually trying to make communicable. AKA. "means something different to everyone."

Wrong. Predestination removes any possibility of free will.

correct until the present point in time where choice is constantly a determining factor.

Now you're getting it. Maybe you'll be more careful about what you write in future.

I doubt that. I have been very careful since the time I wrote upside down for the first time in front of my psychology teacher while illustrating a point. Most people learn how to do that on their own. I did it and stopped on the "Y"
in the word "everything" stopped to say, "I hate Y's" then continued to finish.

My teachers favorite saying when people ask for relationship advice, "dump them" which is exactly what I'm doing to you sweet heart.

Spend a lot of time quoting Nietzsche at yourself do you? What's the point of quoting when you fail to quote anything apropos?

apropos
"opportunely," 1660s, from Fr. à propos "to the purpose," from propos "purpose, plan," from L. propositium "purpose," pp. of proponere "to set forth, propose"[/quote]

You don't know the meaning of my individual purpose from my collective standpoint. This is something you rectify without valid consideration toward my views.

Balls. Unless the "person" at your end of the PC connection is actually a group of people.

one individual many shared thoughts from differnt people who were predetermined to fill my head with knowledge to the "present time". Correct. When something is learned from predetemined events the thoughts of that person stay with you. A+B=C. A+Bx+PC^2= collective. It's called "conditioning" for a reason there Pavlov. Conditional statements which formulate suppositions.

Well on current evidence your answer to that question should be: I haven't yet and I'm still waiting for a teacher.

Correct, someone who is willing to learn as well as follow without being a completely egotistical and PERSONALLY emotional moron. Someone who does not express their egotistical opinions without valid consideration. As well as someone who can challenge mine. I could hang the word "Stoic" in front of your face and you wouldn't even see it. It is just an ignored supposition to you. Still it is completely presented in full in a previous post to which main point you ignored completely on the chain to your balls. If you ignore the chain it does not remove it from your balls it just hurts when you run too far away from it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

We are all God in our own ways.

Supposition. What's your definition of god?

Just because an individual does not know what God "means" does not mean that a collective does either.

And just because a "collective" thinks they know what god means doesn't necessarily mean they're correct.

God is unsubstantiated but underlying in any person's psyche.

Wonderful. You claim that there's no substantiation for "god" and then in the same sentence you make claims about its properties. If god is unsubstantiated how do you know it "underlies" anyone's psyche?

It is a word that denotes a missunderstanding of the subject of God itself, whatever subject is valid within the initial terms of what the person is actually trying to make communicable. AKA. "means something different to everyone."

I see. We misunderstand what "god" means but it means something different to us all. Run that by me again...

correct until the present point in time where choice is constantly a determining factor.

No. predestination removes any and all traces of free will. See here and here.

I doubt that. I have been very careful since the time I wrote upside down for the first time in front of my psychology teacher while illustrating a point. Most people learn how to do that on their own. I did it and stopped on the "Y" in the word "everything" stopped to say, "I hate Y's" then continued to finish.

You doubt you'll be more careful what you write in future? So I can look forward to even more self-contradictory inanities? Oh joy...

apropos
"opportunely," 1660s, from Fr. à propos "to the purpose," from propos "purpose, plan," from L. propositium "purpose," pp. of proponere "to set forth, propose"

I know what apropos means - I don't use words I don't know and am not familiar with.

You don't know the meaning of my individual purpose from my collective standpoint. This is something you rectify without valid consideration toward my views.

Evidently, however, you use words when you're unaware of the correct usage. I "rectify"?
You're an individual: you don't have a collective viewpoint.

one individual many shared thoughts from differnt people who were predetermined to fill my head with knowledge to the "present time".

And because you are an individual you have "boiled down" those thoughts and "made them your own".

When something is learned from predetemined events the thoughts of that person stay with you. A+B=C. A+Bx+PC^2= collective. It's called "conditioning" for a reason there Pavlov. Conditional statements which formulate suppositions.

More off-topic inanity.
And a nonsensical equation in addition.

Correct, someone who is willing to learn as well as follow without being a completely egotistical and PERSONALLY emotional moron. Someone who does not express their egotistical opinions without valid consideration.

Oh dear. I'm not sure if this a claim that you consider what you write (which isn't at all evident) or an accusation that I don't (which is false).

I could hang the word "Stoic" in front of your face and you wouldn't even see it. It is just an ignored supposition to you.

Again you're making a false assumption. I have in the past been accused of stoicism to the point of foolhardiness.

Still it is completely presented in full in a previous post to which main point you ignored completely on the chain to your balls. If you ignore the chain it does not remove it from your balls it just hurts when you run too far away from it.

And to finish you resort, yet again, to inanities...

 

[Quantum Quack]

We are all God in our own ways. Just because an individual does not know what God "means" does not mean that a collective does either. God is unsubstantiated but underlying in any person's psyche. It is a word that denotes a missunderstanding of the subject of God itself, whatever subject is valid within the initial terms of what the person is actually trying to make communicable. AKA. "means something different to everyone."


correct until the present point in time where choice is constantly a determining factor.


I doubt that. I have been very careful since the time I wrote upside down for the first time in front of my psychology teacher while illustrating a point. Most people learn how to do that on their own. I did it and stopped on the "Y"
in the word "everything" stopped to say, "I hate Y's" then continued to finish.

My teachers favorite saying when people ask for relationship advice, "dump them" which is exactly what I'm doing to you sweet heart.

apropos
"opportunely," 1660s, from Fr. à propos "to the purpose," from propos "purpose, plan," from L. propositium "purpose," pp. of proponere "to set forth, propose"

You don't know the meaning of my individual purpose from my collective standpoint. This is something you rectify without valid consideration toward my views.


one individual many shared thoughts from differnt people who were predetermined to fill my head with knowledge to the "present time". Correct. When something is learned from predetemined events the thoughts of that person stay with you. A+B=C. A+Bx+PC^2= collective. It's called "conditioning" for a reason there Pavlov. Conditional statements which formulate suppositions.


Correct, someone who is willing to learn as well as follow without being a completely egotistical and PERSONALLY emotional moron. Someone who does not express their egotistical opinions without valid consideration. As well as someone who can challenge mine. I could hang the word "Stoic" in front of your face and you wouldn't even see it. It is just an ignored supposition to you. Still it is completely presented in full in a previous post to which main point you ignored completely on the chain to your balls. If you ignore the chain it does not remove it from your balls it just hurts when you run too far away from it.

Chaos1956, The problem with your posts are that they reek of a mixed agenda, some of which is obvious but most are hidden in the background of your "clues", "hints" and cryptic statements.

I have found that people dislike being misled by such strategies as when they post to a subject they prefer to deal with that subject and not all the other subjects a poster may wish to bring in. Another thread or topic discussing The rise to power [ acka: God complex] perhaps is the only solution.
If you wish to discuss free will and determinism I am more than willing, but if you wish to discuss other matters then minimise the insult upon the reader and post a topic with out the misrepresentations where by the poster can exercise their freewill to post or not in an informed and genuine fashion.

 

[Dywyddyr]

where by the poster can exercise their freewill to post or not in an informed and genuine fashion.

Bah!!!
Some of us have no choice but to respond!

 

[Quantum Quack]

No. predestination removes any and all traces of free will. See here and here.

As an emphatic statement this is totally unproven.
It presumes that "God" is unable to "block" himself from being all knowing and "All powerful". That God has no self restraint or discipline.
referring to a discussion on "How can God play Chess and win with out cheating?" ages ago...

In both cases Chaos1956 and you Dywyddyr are placing "finite limitations" on the omni potents of a mythical yet to be proven to exist entity.

You are also considering the supreme intelligence [ smarts ] of God to be rather stupid, which is a rather arrogant underestimation don't you think?
The existance of a God treated correctly does not undermine notions of freewill. IMO

 

[Quantum Quack]

Bah!!!
Some of us have no choice but to respond!

ahh another SDV....[Self Determination Violation] I see!!!

 

[Quantum Quack]

So chaos1956 is yanking your chain and you're letting him?.....[chuckle]

 

[Dywyddyr]

As an emphatic statement this is totally unproven.
It presumes that "God" is unable to "block" himself from being all knowing and "All powerful". That God has no self restraint or discipline.
referring to a discussion on "How can God play Chess and win with out cheating?" ages ago...

Wrong again. If it is known beforehand what we will do then we have no choice.
If god "blocks" himself from being omniscient and omnipotent then he stops being god.

The existance of a God treated correctly does not undermine notions of freewill. IMO

Only if you're prepared to wave away contradictions.

So chaos1956 is yanking your chain and you're letting him?.....[chuckle]

Hardly. It's been a few years since anyone yanked my chain, and Chaos certainly isn't up to it.

 

[chaos1956]

pretty much.

"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? … All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape.... The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth.... Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss … what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end."cite

It is just which way to pull the rope :tempted: I say once: toward immortality next. There is no end. That notion is in the, "Invention of Lying" itself. To tell people what they want to hear is no crime. I say this without the want of putting a warning label of a person who has taught me so very much. To all the people who have. I may have stolen something from you, but I "Apologize", for my mistakes if I make them.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Blah blah blah...

Remember what I said about "apropos"?
Apparently not.

That notion is in the, "Invention of Lying" itself.

What notion?

 

[chaos1956]

Your error. There is only one "athiest" philosopher to speak of "purpose", and you do not understand him. How I know this? I speak like him in many ways as I have read his words very well.

"On the Question of Being Understandable" ...."one wishes just as surly not to be understood"-Neitzsche

As in my purpose is my own and can only reveal itself in time to different minds, But the purpose of this thread is to prove my very existence which a monster has attempted to "negate" or "disprove" by taking away my experience. I could say which type of error this is, but it speaks for itself at the present point in time.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Your error.

Wrong again.

There is only one "athiest" philosopher to speak of "purpose"

Really?

and you do not understand him. How I know this? I speak like him in many ways as I have read his words very well.

Because you've read a guy you know I don't understand him? Very smart of you. But wrong. And you certainly don't write like him. You're incoherent whereas he's usually turgid and/ or banal.

On the Question of Being Understandable[/URL]" ...."one wishes just as surly not to be understood"-Neitzsche

I'll take a wild guess here and assume that he actually wrote surely not to be understood. Not "surly".

As in my purpose is my own

In your belief.

But the purpose of this thread is to prove my very existence which a monster has attempted to "negate" or "disprove" by taking away my experience.

And wrong again. Unless you're Emil who started the thread.

I could say which type of error this is, but it speaks for itself at the present point in time.

The error apparently is narcissism. This isn't "your thread" and you're mistaken as its purpose.

And one more post from you that doesn't address the topic...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Wrong again. If it is known beforehand what we will do then we have no choice.
If god "blocks" himself from being omniscient and omnipotent then he stops being god.

This is contrary to the notion/question /answer: "Can God create an obstacle that he can not remove?"
Only God can restrain his omnipotency. And self restraint is an act of freewill that actually determines just how "free" your choices are.

So your response itself is contradictory in that the entity in question has to be God to abdicate his Godhood!

Only if you're prepared to wave away contradictions.

The only contradiction present is our limitation placed upon that which we define God to be. If you wish to think of a God that has no self restraint then who's deluding who?

 

[Quantum Quack]

pretty much.

"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? … All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape.... The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth.... Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss … what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end."cite

It is just which way to pull the rope :tempted: I say once: toward immortality next. There is no end. That notion is in the, "Invention of Lying" itself. To tell people what they want to hear is no crime. I say this without the want of putting a warning label of a person who has taught me so very much. To all the people who have. I may have stolen something from you, but I "Apologize", for my mistakes if I make them.

Ole' Freddy Nietzche, never got to finish his quest...unfortunately..

 

[Dywyddyr]

This is contrary to the notion/question /answer: "Can God create an obstacle that he can not remove?"
Only God can restrain his omnipotency. And self restraint is an act of freewill that actually determines just how "free" your choices are.

How do see it as "contrary"?
If omnipotency has restraints then, by definition, it is not omnipotent.

So your response itself is contradictory in that the entity in question has to be God to abdicate his Godhood!

Keep trying - that's NOT what I stated, re-read it.

The only contradiction present is our limitation placed upon that which we define God to be. If you wish to think of a God that has no self restraint then who's deluding who?

It's not a question of "self" restraint. See my second sentence in this post.

 

[Quantum Quack]

How do see it as "contrary"?
If omnipotency has restraints then, by definition, it is not omnipotent.


Keep trying - that's NOT what I stated, re-read it.


It's not a question of "self" restraint. See my second sentence in this post.

It appears there is an inherant perception that if God exists he could not have free will!

If God has Freewill then he has the ability to restrain himself by using that freewill or freedom to do so.
e.g.
Does restraining himself from riding a bicycle and choose to walk instead void his ability to ride a bike ? Nope!

Does restraining himself to suffer the life of a mortal human make him any less omnipotent? Can God control his own potency? And if he did, does this actually not make him utterly potent?

"By the grace of God go God" rather than "By the Grace of God go I"
It is not hard to understand once those limitations on Gods omnipotency are removed.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If god "blocks" himself from being omniscient and omnipotent then he stops being god.

Do you not see the circular logic to this statement?

 

[chaos1956]

It appears there is an inherant perception that if God exists he could not have free will!

If God has Freewill then he has the ability to restrain himself by using that freewill or freedom to do so.

and If we are all god in our own ways

Then the person with the most free will is?