so you also know how ppl read your posts?
Moby Dick reads fine.
Illiterate people still won't understand it.
didn't say you claimed that, said it 'reads like'.. proof that you don't listen.
Then you don't read it as if I claimed it, then, do you!
If you say it reads like X but then state that it isn't X, it clearly isn't as though you read it as X.
Or are you now able to read others' thoughts, as you accuse me of me being??
actually I wanted to let him know how futile it is to try to argue physics into free will as physics has nothing to do with free will.
yes physics make it possible for life to exist, but physics does not direct our behavior, our thinking does.
And how is our thinking exempt from physics?
Are you advocating an immaterial realm that is somehow outside the scope of physics?
clarification has already been asked of you and all you did was waffle..
so I have to conclude this statement is wrong as you have shown to not clarify yourself.
If you find the "waffle" not answering the question, just explain what you don't understand.
Every time I have been asked I have provided - with maybe one or two exceptions due to frustration.
That you haven't been able to understand the clarification merely means you have not understood it, not that I have not provided it.
so does this mean you have to insult and ridicule?
Good to see you don't deny it.
I try to restrain myself.
But when enough is thrown at me, expect splashback.
you were anything BUT clear and you were asked for a definition that you refused to give, so now you are saying it is ok for you to be that way but not others? this is called double standard.
How was I not clear?
I was the one asking for a definition.
That the other person refused to give.
Or is it now the case that if someone asks as question they should require the other person to provide the definition that the questioner is using?
it is intended as constructive criticism.
It reads far from it, both in content and tone.
I have known QQ longer than I have known you, and am aware of how he posts. and I have ben here at sciforums for a LONG time (perhaps more than 10 years) and know how a topic can be productive and how it can be derailed.
I couldn't care less how long you have known anyone.
I couldn't care less how long you have been here.
Length of service does not make one right, does not give one authority, and does not excuse anything.
I respond to the content of a post, not the person.
I have offered advice to you, to make your posts more productive and less self-defensive, I cannot force you to follow this advice, all I can do is advise.. you make your own choices,
if you refuse to listen to anyone who critiques you and trys to help you (statement conditional as some help is more distracting than others(ie filled with insults and ridicule)) you are limiting your choices.
And your pride in thinking that your advice is worth listening to in this regard is obvious.
Don't get me wrong, your comments have been noted.
But your comment above demonstrates your sense of self-importance in the matter.
show me where you have changed your position on this forum.
Show me where someone has shown my position to be wrong, or even flawed, with criticism that has not itself been shown to be flawed.
show me where you have stated that you were wrong.
Show me where I am.
show me where you have not returned an insult.(would have said perceived if there wasn't so much actual insults going at you..)
Post #506 (in response to Quantum Quack referring to my argument as "bullsh*t").
But eventually I return them, where I deem them warranted, and not without significant provocation.
see that's just it.. its not our responsibility to MAKE you see you are wrong.
it is only our responsibility to share with you what we know as right. its up to you to decide what to do with that information.
No, it's your responsibility to share with what you
think is right, and to have the decency to explain why you think you are right.
That is all I do.
All I have done.
And while others have provided their input on the matter, they fail to understand that, on the whole, it simply does not address the issue.
How many times need it be stated that if you start with an example of freewill that is judged by appearance (by one's own consciousness) then one can not hope to get to the core of whether freewill is illusory or not.
This is what they fail to understand and only a few (barcelonic, sarkus, cluelusshusband et al) seem to.
Yet every time the counter comes back it is with an example that starts with the notion of freewill starting at the level of appearance.
It's like people constantly pushing at a locked door, yet not realising.
They think they have provided explanation, but they really haven't.
I have argued this point before:
user1; 2+2=3
user2; 2+2=4
not:
u1; 2+2=3
u2; your wrong, your an idiot for thinking that.
u1; but why is it wrong?
u2; because you don't know what your talking about.
what you just said;
u1; 2+2=3
u2; your wrong 2+2=4
u1; i'm not wrong!
Oh, such a poor analogy.
Does sort of have the a priori assumption that I have claimed (analogous to) 2+2=3.
If you want to use such an analogy it is:
user1; 2+2 = 4 because of X, Y and Z.
user2; 2+2 = 3 because that's the way it appears to be.
user1; but X, Y and Z lead to the conclusion that 2+2 = 4, and you need to get past what it "appears" to be and look at what is actually going on.
user2; but you're wrong, and it is obviously apparent that 2+2 = 3.
user1; okay, so what is wrong with X, Y, or Z, and the logic that takes us from there to 2+2=4?
user2; well, it's obvious: 2+2 = 3.
user1; okay, but why do you think that 2+2=3? And what is wrong with what I have proposed?
user2; well, we start with 1, and so 2+2 = 3. Also, if 2+2 = 3 then elephants would exist. Elephants exist therefore 2+2 must = 3.
etc.
see how you just focused on how you feel rather than the correction that was offered?
Indeed: if you start with a false analogy you can arrive at any conclusion you want.
See how in my own analogy it is clear user2 is not providing an actual counter, just a claim, a conclusion, and a dismissal of another's view?
The emotion only comes into it once that "discussion" has been going on for so long that it deteriorates into insult and ridicule against user1.
I argue about this often. so much so that others who know me here see it as an OCD.
it is VERY distracting to the conversation and to any knowledge to be gained to fill your posts up with insults and ridicule.
Then I suggest you address the cause, not the symptom.
if you have notice I have gotten on QQ for his ridicule of you. and I will do the same to you.
Oh, yes, that one comment: "
and yes QQ drop it already, move on.. he pry already understands but just doesn't want to 'lose any points'
(in my experience those that accuse are guilty of what they accuse the other of. like 95% of the time) "
Well, it clearly worked.
Not only are you citing this as an example of you "stepping in" (as it is the only example I can find of it) but this one example is dripping in its own insult and ridicule of me.
Yes.
Thank you.
Perhaps practicing what you preach might be in order?
those that know me here, have learned when it comes to this particular issue (feeling of wrongness,worthlessness,insults.etc) know that I will not back down from trying to teach a person how to communicate his ideas without insults. (of course this doesn't mean I always succeed, in fact more often that not, I don't)(or at least learn how an insult can distract)
Then you would do well to practice what you preach.
lol..QQ has been nice compared to some of the older users that you haven't met yet, is dwyder still around?[/quote
and some includes you. now before you go off thinking this is an insult.. define civilized in this context and see how you are also guilty of it.
Civilised is responding to people in a relevant manner on the content of people's posts.
Oh, I have become uncivilised in some regards, undoubtedly.
Worn down to the lowest denominator, perhaps.
For which I apologise.
But even civilised people have the right to defend themselves.
wow..reading this in the context of 'in my experience 95% of those that accuse are guilty themselves of what they accuse'
you would really consider editing your post like that? (anyone wanna look for when he has done this? bet you find one..)
I have never corrected a post once it is discovered that what I said was wrong.
I have never considered it.
I would merely post a retraction.
Has Quantum Quack ever done it?
Yes.
But that was not why I posted that comment.
It was because he had previously said that people could copy a post and use it wherever they wanted.
I just wanted to ensure the integrity of that post was preserved for such a purpose, should anyone wish to do the same.
ask yourself these questions:
why is it so important that you are not wrong?
It's not.
It is important to me that I understand why I am wrong.
why does it matter that these strangers on this site think that you are right?
It doesn't.
It matters that strangers can explain to my why I am wrong.
have you ever NOT returned an insult?
Yes.
why does these strangers insults hurt? you don't know them, they don't know you.
and don't say they don't hurt, your attitude shows otherwise.
The insult doesn't.
What you are seeing is frustration at my inability to explain at a level they need.
At their inability to understand at the level of my explanations.
If they can't understand then they can't challenge the idea.
And if it can't be challenged (not through being right but through not being understood) then it remains untested.
do you think you could teach your grandma what you are trying to teach us?
Yes.
She actually explained the principles to me.
Over a snooker table.
do you really think you know all about said subject? (specially when there is no 'ALL' when it comes to discussing free will)
Of course I don't think I know all about the subject.
I don't claim to
know anything about the subject.
But if I am wrong I would hope people can explain to me why I am.
To date, noone has offered anything that actually does explain so, either by way of valid criticism of my own position, or by positing a more rational one.
The frustrating thing is that noone even seems to understand, yet think they are offering valid criticism.
what are your qualifications for claiming to know better? (quite a few users here have the degree's in their respective science fields, do you?)(I think QQ is one of them, which field is it QQ?)
So you are appealing to authority?
What would you like me to say?
That I am a qualified Engineer, Chartered Accountant, with a PhD and at least one Masters Degree to my name?
Would that in some way mean that what I say should be taken with any more credibility?
If I said only two of the above were correct, would that somehow change the validity or otherwise of what I post?
do you wanna open up another can of worms?
define 'Theory' in your own words not wiki's.
Theory is an attempt to explain one or more hypotheses, supported through overwhelming and repeated observations and rational thinking, ideally (from my point of view) through the scientific method, such that it is able to provide predictions.
It has more support (and by that I mean evidence, not popularity) for it than a mere hypothesis.
Yet it is still open to be proven incorrect, as indeed are laws.
Why do you ask?
