Pointless questions, as in how what QQ argues for actually leads to freewill?
How is that pointless?
Or perhaps you think them pointless because you know that QQ won't have the decency to answer them? :shrug:
The illusion of free will
- Thread starter barcelonic
- Start date
How is that pointless?
Or perhaps you think them pointless because you know that QQ won't have the decency to answer them? :shrug:
@Sarkus, Clueless and others.
Well you know ... if someone is unable to philosophically appreciate the depth of following then he is also incapable of dealing with the notion of freewill.
[Possibly having the "decency" to admit you are out of your depth would be of value ]
A+B=C
only because
C-(A+B) = 0
or simplified
A=A
only because
A-A = 0
and eventually arrive at the only conclusion possible, that being that the entire universe, materially, metaphysically, epistemologically, and spiritually is utterly dependent on the immutability and constancy of something that is non-existent.
If you are unable to fathom the above then there is absolutely no point expecting you to comprehend the nature of freewill.
So as I wrote before There is no value in attempting to achieve understanding if the person is incapable of doing so [as proven]
When you can demonstrate a thorough understanding of the above I will then endevour to re-explain what I have already explained.
Well you know ... if someone is unable to philosophically appreciate the depth of following then he is also incapable of dealing with the notion of freewill.
[Possibly having the "decency" to admit you are out of your depth would be of value ]
A+B=C
only because
C-(A+B) = 0
or simplified
A=A
only because
A-A = 0
and eventually arrive at the only conclusion possible, that being that the entire universe, materially, metaphysically, epistemologically, and spiritually is utterly dependent on the immutability and constancy of something that is non-existent.
If you are unable to fathom the above then there is absolutely no point expecting you to comprehend the nature of freewill.
So as I wrote before There is no value in attempting to achieve understanding if the person is incapable of doing so [as proven]
When you can demonstrate a thorough understanding of the above I will then endevour to re-explain what I have already explained.
Last edited:
QQ
I'm begining to think that for the most part , people have become dull of mind
Most people have the mindset that we know all there is know
Which leads to the mindset of most , free-will is not possible , which is wrong of course
People don't question , inquire or think what has someone else have to say on this or that topic , different to what is generally known about this topic
Hence the thread title
Because really those who have free-will know that it is NOT an illusion , at all
As a whole , the World , people of the World , have become zombies in the way they think and see the world
Any knowledge thats contrary or contradicts , what they have been told , is automatically ignored , or attacked , as being wrong , or nonsense
Free-will is really about ......awareness , knowledge , questioning and inquiry and then coming to your OWN conclusions , which may be in acceptance or non-acceptance of what is generally accepted
But at least find out ....
I'm begining to think that for the most part , people have become dull of mind
Most people have the mindset that we know all there is know
Which leads to the mindset of most , free-will is not possible , which is wrong of course
People don't question , inquire or think what has someone else have to say on this or that topic , different to what is generally known about this topic
Hence the thread title
Because really those who have free-will know that it is NOT an illusion , at all
As a whole , the World , people of the World , have become zombies in the way they think and see the world
Any knowledge thats contrary or contradicts , what they have been told , is automatically ignored , or attacked , as being wrong , or nonsense
Free-will is really about ......awareness , knowledge , questioning and inquiry and then coming to your OWN conclusions , which may be in acceptance or non-acceptance of what is generally accepted
But at least find out ....
An amount of evidence that would convince a jury of reasonable people.
By the courts. But science actually operates at the lower standard: "preponderance of evidence". Whatever the evidence most strongly indicates, that's what we run with. Fraggle sets the standard a little higher, probably to ward off religious nuts.
Before the evidence is published, the scientific method has usually run its course. Depends on the specific issue being researched. After that the scientific method iterates endlessly, constantly retesting the published work, and building new science around it . . . depending on how useful the result is.
That's because you either have no clue what you're talking about, or else you're here to antagonize people who do.
There can be no scientific method without separating the known facts from the unknowns. That's where "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes in. I would just say "knowledge" but since the ICR folks here deny that science can convey knowledge, Fraggle counters that it's "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is true enough for anything actually known.
It's just like like trying to have any reasonably intelligent discussion with you, without you tripping on facts commonly covered by about a high school level of education. For whatever reason, you present the persona of a person who either dropped out of school or quit and then decided to post claims on a science board anyway, knowing full well that educated people will take issue with you whenever you screw up. What's up with that, anyway? Why can't you just try to follow the intent of the site rules, which is to stick to facts and evidence, cut the bullshit to a minimum and try to make these either learning or teaching experiences, or else just to share ideas with people freely, in the spirit of good will, rather than bickering over pointless trivia?
The point is this: you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that educated people post here. You see people talking about their experience in fields of science. Yet you continually harp on the adequacy of science, the scientific method, the published facts, evidence and theories, as if you know them better than experts. Why bother with all of that? Isn't it simpler just to ask questions and take whatever answers you're given and go off and do some fact checking on your own, and then bring back actual evidence by way of cites if you disagree, rather than arguing with people who are more qualified than you and better equipped to call a spade a spade?
so uhm "beyond reasonable doubt " is "truth by consensus" ....uhmmm see link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_by_consensus
"logical truth does not make reality"
because, in the final wash, it is only "logical" truth by consensus. [collective subjective-ism]
are you going to refute it or just write vitriolic nonsense as you have above...
and also you asked for the following and have no comment to make about my doing as you requested.
my response:
So you owe me an apology or never be taken seriously again... [notes: post #785]
I empathize with you, river, however to be fair it seems that in the main it is only at online forums like this one that you will strike such attitudes , foolish pride and thinking.
At the moment for example there are about 12 or so different discussion groups scattered around the city of Melbourne , in pubs, clubs, bars, meeting halls all talking about more or less the same thing. Respectfully, candidly and honestly. most with significant qualifications I might add... [there are also university sponsored discussion groups available that allow the general public to participate.]
The few that I have managed [basically I am confined to home due to health reasons] to sit in on have proved excellent places to garner extraordinary approaches and insights into very old and intractable issues such as this one. Perhaps you have similar where you reside, some that you could participate in?
The operative term you left out was "reasonable people". It's the law and you will cling to it like a shivering rabbit the day you are on trial for a crime you did not commit. And that will be the day the jury just can't help you, because they've all been persuaded by the kind of crap you're selling here, that all science, including the "consensus" at the forensic examiner's office that would have cleared you is . . . you know, "truth by consensus". No, they'll be in the jury room drawing cones connecting the past to the future, all pointing to your guilt. Just freaking brilliant, Sherlock.
. . . never mean anything to you? :shrug:
Within every inertial reference frame there is a local arrow of time. Pearls to swine, but that should at least keep you busy for the next 10-20 years.
No, when you get run over by a train you actually do become sushi.
In responding to the mind of a dolt it can seem like an eternity.
The answer lies at the back of the 7th grade math book that you never opened.
d = dunce? dolt? dummy? Oh, I got it: dropout.
All you need to diagram are all the ICR attacks on science boards your people have planned.
You owe this audience an apology for selling ICR-brand anti-science crap, with an explanation of why you never made it past the 7th grade, or, if you did, why you are pretending to be a dunce. In either case you will never be taken seriously by anyone who at least made it through high school no matter what comes next.
Begone, troll. I'm putting you back on Ignore. This is about as rewarding as a colonoscopy.
again all you can do is post vitriol and not deal with the issue you yourself requested.
And now you resort to blatant insult instead...
edit: and what on Earth is ICR?
edit2: I googled it.. I now know OK...!
Last edited:
and the event, when the train ran you over, is a mere memory, a temporal reality.
When confronting the zero duration event horizon of time [present moment] every experience is a past experience [ memory - temporal ]
For what precedes the event horizon of time [immediate future ] is in fact zipo! [as is the horizon itself.]
Surely even you in your paranoid ICR conspiracy theory state can understand what I just wrote?
how does 'we know all there is' lead to 'no free will'?
How is it "dull of mind" to suggest that what we intuitively appear to have is in fact not possible?
Surely it is the dull of mind that, for no other reason than how it appears, claim that it therefore necessarily is at it appears.
People do question it, all the time. But generally what someone has to say should be supported with something that both addresses the question in hand as well as the claim being made.
No, it only appears that way. They are unable to distinguish between the illusion and the reality, yet they judge their "knowledge" by how it appears.
Sayeth the person who attacks the notion that free-will is illusory, is wrong, and is nonsense.
What you describe is merely inquiry and judgement. It speaks nothing of HOW you reach your own conclusions, irrespective of what they may be.
Originally Posted by river
QQ
I'm begining to think that for the most part , people have become dull of mind
Most people have the mindset that we know all there is know
Which leads to the mindset of most , free-will is not possible , which is wrong of course
People don't question , inquire or think what has someone else have to say on this or that topic , different to what is generally known about this topic
Hence the thread title
Because really those who have free-will know that it is NOT an illusion , at all
As a whole , the World , people of the World , have become zombies in the way they think and see the world
Any knowledge thats contrary or contradicts , what they have been told , is automatically ignored , or attacked , as being wrong or nonsense
Free-will is really about ......awareness , knowledge , questioning and inquiry and then coming to your OWN conclusions , which may be in acceptance or non-acceptance of what is generally accepted
But at least find out ....
QQ
I'm in the country , which means there is nobody that I have met that even has any interest in what I think about
Oh for a more city environment
I'm begining to think that for the most part , people have become dull of mind
Most people have the mindset that we know all there is know
Which leads to the mindset of most , free-will is not possible , which is wrong of course
People don't question , inquire or think what has someone else have to say on this or that topic , different to what is generally known about this topic
Hence the thread title
Because really those who have free-will know that it is NOT an illusion , at all
As a whole , the World , people of the World , have become zombies in the way they think and see the world
Any knowledge thats contrary or contradicts , what they have been told , is automatically ignored , or attacked , as being wrong or nonsense
Free-will is really about ......awareness , knowledge , questioning and inquiry and then coming to your OWN conclusions , which may be in acceptance or non-acceptance of what is generally accepted
But at least find out ....
I'm in the country , which means there is nobody that I have met that even has any interest in what I think about
Oh for a more city environment
@Sarkus,
You know this attitude is totally daft don't you?
So your attitude and response to the question of freewill is from a presumption of "complete knowledge" and "perfect logic" [proven flawed due to ego related issues] which is what River was attempting to suggest.
Please don't forget a response to post #782
You know this attitude is totally daft don't you?
I mean, compare the possibility of freewill with the possibility of a universe existing to begin with. Neither are deemed possible according to limited use of human logic, yet here we are ...
So your attitude and response to the question of freewill is from a presumption of "complete knowledge" and "perfect logic" [proven flawed due to ego related issues] which is what River was attempting to suggest.
Please don't forget a response to post #782
Unfortunately due to anonymity, the internet tends to dehumanize people, both from an actor and act-ee perspective.
But if you find forums or discussion boards that have little anonymity and are more face to face "real" identities you may get better feelings and results. Surprisingly Facebook with it's emphasis on real identity info can be an excellent place to discuss topics but alas they don't seem to use a forum based process like vbbulletin does.
There are a number of discussion groups on face book... perhaps....
Sinse no one has total knowledge... the "sharp-of-mind" believe whatever sounds the most pleasant to them... an to hell wit logic facts an science... lol
I totally agree, and when you get both of those sorted out let us all know ok?Sinse no one has total knowledge... the "sharp-of-mind" believe whatever sounds the most pleasant to them... an to hell wit logic facts an science... lol
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Sinse no one has total knowledge... the "sharp-of-mind" believe whatever sounds the most pleasant to them... an to hell wit logic facts an science... lol
:thankyou:
The universe existing is entirely possible according to "limited use of human logic". Why would you think it is logically not possible?
The possibility of freewill defying the known laws of physics is impossible. But then you think we defy the law of gravity every time we stand up, so your grasp of the terms used is as flawed as the logic you employ.
It's not from any such presumption, but rather from an assumption that the current understanding of the laws are sound. If they are ever proven not to be, then we adjust our arguments accordingly.
If you wish to demonstrate that the knowledge is not complete, or the logic is not perfect, you'll have to do more than your usual display of just claiming someone is wrong.
Why should I bother to reply to something that has already been covered in this thread and shown to be irrelevant?
I.e. you have yet to explain how what you propose leads to freewill being genuine. All you have done, as I believe others have pointed out, gone from a claim to a conclusion with nothing in between.
And what is more, the final paragraph of #782 is a pathetic attempt to claim an unwarranted high-ground until someone can decipher your nonsense.
I might as well say: "Sfifohdl dlkshgie dhflh dshfe8 fjdlkfj3 dnfkd df fhei fkh dkf dlfk... and if you are unable to fathom the above then there is absolutely no point expecting you to comprehend the nature of freewill."
But heck, over the past 35 pages people have explained to you in detail their positions, and yet you are unable to fathom sufficiently to be able to offer a logical criticism.
oh well... suit yourself...but please allow for the possibility that other's may feel other wise...