The illusion of free will

[Quantum Quack]

@Sarkus,
lets change the the order of the line items:

[2] The product of the imagination is NOT determined by the laws of physics.

[3] The imagination does not need to defy the laws of physics but renders them irrelevant as per choice.

[1] The criteria that for freewill to be real it must defy the laws of physics has *therefore* been refuted.

[4] There is no need for me to bring in other more complex arguments than the above...

[5] Choices and decisions etc are made with the use of the imagination. A total fiction until "published" into action.

[6] Thus freewill is actual and real and in no way an illusion. [ as defined in this thread ]


Does that make it any easier for you?
Perhaps you are using a mobile phone or are reading and responding to the post line by line rather than taking the entire post in first before responding?
I must admit I am sometimes guilty of doing this much to my detriment too I might add, as it leads to false representation of the poster and also my own view.

Can I recommend that you take in the entire post before responding so that context can be ascertained properly?

 

[Quantum Quack]

too tall for me, (although I like the idea of my head being the same level as her boobs..
first thing I would do is go back with a video cam and watch jesus.
then I would gather as many 'how to' books as I can find, and find a nice place to live and make money, pry the beginning of the industrial area, when the west was still the west.

hee hee
and be guilty of worshiping the God Mammon? [Jesus would roll in his grave if he had one ]

so how would mass and volume disappear?
just because we cant measure it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

well you wouldn't exist to measure it to begin with.

There is a deeper issue though that yo are touching upon...
The paradox of ex nihilo is due to the logical belief that no-thing can come from no-thing....yet it appears that the universe does indeed exist, when logically it shouldn't.
Hence the strong reliance on religious theory by those of religious persuasion.

Yet if the sum of all negative and positive energies = nihilo what does ex-nihilo actually mean?

So the issue of exnihilo runs deep... IMO

 

[Sarkus]

Can you explain this post:

Why are you referring to defying the laws of physics?

Because you specifically posted: "The product of the imagination is NOT determined by the laws of physics."
While you say there is no "need" to defy the laws of physics, this implies there is still the ability to. Afterall, there is no "need" for you to continue posting. But you do.

Why do you think that I am saying that being a total fiction defies the laws of physics?

Seriously, I have no clue. Your posts are a garbled mess where you think what you say has meant something different to what it does, and you contradict yourself from one post to the next, and even in the same post: you claim the product of the imagination is not determined by the laws of physics, and then say that imagination "need not" defy the laws of physics.
You are at least consistent in your inconsistence and your incoherence.

 

[Sarkus]

Does that make it any easier for you?
Perhaps you are using a mobile phone or are reading and responding to the post line by line rather than taking the entire post in first before responding?

More evidence of your inconsistency, QQ.
Or did you not, in post #916, suggest I do that (even though, quite clearly, I already had)?
So first you suggest I take it line by line, and now you criticise me for doing just.
:shrug:

I must admit I am sometimes guilty of doing this much to my detriment too I might add, as it leads to false representation of the poster and also my own view.

Can I recommend that you take in the entire post before responding so that context can be ascertained properly?

Also already done, QQ, so please dismount from your rickety moral pedestal that you have constructed for yourself out of straw.
However, with your arguments it is often easier to deconstruct on a line by line basis simply because taken as a whole it is meaningless drivel, since the individual lines are too often contradictory or simply do not flow from one to the other, as is your proclivity to jump from claim to conclusion.
At least in taking it line by line there is a chance of extracting something of interest and/or worth.

 

[Quantum Quack]

More evidence of your inconsistency, QQ.
Or did you not, in post #916, suggest I do that (even though, quite clearly, I already had)?
So first you suggest I take it line by line, and now you criticise me for doing just.
:shrug:
Also already done, QQ, so please dismount from your rickety moral pedestal that you have constructed for yourself out of straw.
However, with your arguments it is often easier to deconstruct on a line by line basis simply because taken as a whole it is meaningless drivel, since the individual lines are too often contradictory or simply do not flow from one to the other, as is your proclivity to jump from claim to conclusion.
At least in taking it line by line there is a chance of extracting something of interest and/or worth.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about nor what your complaint actually is.
again:

[2] The product of the imagination is NOT determined by the laws of physics.

[3] The imagination does not need to defy the laws of physics but renders them irrelevant as per choice.

[1] The criteria that for freewill to be real it must defy the laws of physics has *therefore* been refuted.

[4] There is no need for me to bring in other more complex arguments than the above...

[5] Choices and decisions etc are made with the use of the imagination. A total fiction until "published" into action.

[6] Thus freewill is actual and real and in no way an illusion. [ as defined in this thread ]

so.... uhm... whats the problem?
I'll take a screen print and convert it into an image file just to make sure you are seeing what I see..

 

[Quantum Quack]

This is what I am seeing. Is it what you are seeing?
========

========

View attachment 7019

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Sarkus , seriously the problem is way to big to ignore..
can you read the following and tell us whether you understand what it says:
[it is short extract from a book I am currently compiling]
edit: I have added a logical error to one of the sentences for the purposes of this test.


Four and a half


I was only four and half years old when the mushroom cloud destroyed my life for ever.
.
I remember yelling out to my mother: “Mommy, Mommy, hot, hot, it hurts me” but all my mother could do was stare at me with her glazed over eyes not breathing and not able to utter a word. The side of her body appeared to be melting as she lay there underexposed to the heat of the explosion.
.
They say I was lucky. I was protected by the fact that I was so short and safely positioned behind and below the window sill with only my hair being evaporated as the wave of heat hit the house like a freight train slicing through a late night crowded shopping center at full speed.
.
Of course they were wrong. Lucky! Eh?
.
Mom wasn’t so lucky when she stood at the open door way to marvel at this event on our horizon and if mom wasn’t lucky then neither was I ‘cause I was only four and half years old and Mom was all I had.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Sarkus, being one to always take the bull by the horns so to speak.. I have started a thread titled:
Psychically induced dyslexia in the parapsychology sub forum.

You and others may find it interesting, and by all means participate if you wish to...

 

[Sarkus]

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about nor what your complaint actually is.

You stated something (post #907) which i disagreed with and responded to line by line (post #913), only to have you accuse me of lying about what you posted (post #915), and then post the same thing as in 907 and suggest I take it line by line (post #916). So I then refute your accusation of me lying by showing that I actually responded line by line - as you had since suggested I do (posts #918 and 919), and then you criticise me for having responded line by line (post #921). I thus point out your inconsistency (post #924), which brings us to you playing innocent to your actions (post #925).

Where do we go from here, QQ?
Have your "guests" run out on you and left you to fend for yourself such that you need to resort to the tactics of a troll?
Or perhaps you're just going to continue to throw out unsubstantiated claim after unsubstantiated claim, and jump from those to a conclusion with nothing inbetween?
You fail to address any criticisms raised against your position, instead move on to another unsubstantiated claim. It's almost as if you have people in hit he background feeding you snippets that you yourself don't understand, and when one doesn't work you move onto the next without taking responsibility for what you wrote.

So, QQ, where do we go?

 

[Quantum Quack]

You stated something (post #907) which i disagreed with and responded to line by line (post #913), only to have you accuse me of lying about what you posted (post #915), and then post the same thing as in 907 and suggest I take it line by line (post #916). So I then refute your accusation of me lying by showing that I actually responded line by line - as you had since suggested I do (posts #918 and 919), and then you criticise me for having responded line by line (post #921). I thus point out your inconsistency (post #924), which brings us to you playing innocent to your actions (post #925).

Where do we go from here, QQ?
Have your "guests" run out on you and left you to fend for yourself such that you need to resort to the tactics of a troll?
Or perhaps you're just going to continue to throw out unsubstantiated claim after unsubstantiated claim, and jump from those to a conclusion with nothing inbetween?
You fail to address any criticisms raised against your position, instead move on to another unsubstantiated claim. It's almost as if you have people in hit he background feeding you snippets that you yourself don't understand, and when one doesn't work you move onto the next without taking responsibility for what you wrote.

So, QQ, where do we go?

well uhm.. maybe we should call a moderator in to ... uhm moderate... what say you ..?

 

[Quantum Quack]

In the mean time I shall stand by the following and note that it has not been refuted...
maybe some one else would care to have a go...if they feel they are flawed in some significant way...

[1]The product of the imagination is NOT determined by the laws of physics.

[2] The imagination does not need to defy the laws of physics but renders them irrelevant as per choice.

[3] The criteria that for freewill to be real it must defy the laws of physics has *therefore* been refuted.

[4] There is no need for me to bring in other more complex arguments than the above...

[5] Choices and decisions etc are made with the use of the imagination. A total fiction until "published" into action.

[6] Thus freewill is actual and real and in no way an illusion. [ as defined in this thread ]

 

[Sarkus]

@ Sarkus , seriously the problem is way to big to ignore..

What problem would that be, exactly?

can you read the following and tell us whether you understand what it says:
[it is short extract from a book I am currently compiling]
edit: I have added a logical error to one of the sentences for the purposes of this test.

I can read it, thanks. And yes, I understand what it says, and what the error is.
Is there a purpose here other than an attempt to claim I have a problem so you can feel justified in ignoring any criticism I may levy against your position?

 

[Sarkus]

well uhm.. maybe we should call a moderator in to ... uhm moderate... what say you ..?

Do whatever you want, QQ.

 

[Quantum Quack]

What problem would that be, exactly?
I can read it, thanks. And yes, I understand what it says, and what the error is.
Is there a purpose here other than an attempt to claim I have a problem so you can feel justified in ignoring any criticism I may levy against your position?

so what is the error I deliberately installed?
and why is it an error?
btw it's not your problem, it is OUR problem...

Four and a half


I was only four and half years old when the mushroom cloud destroyed my life for ever.
.
I remember yelling out to my mother: “Mommy, Mommy, hot, hot, it hurts me” but all my mother could do was stare at me with her glazed over eyes not breathing and not able to utter a word. The side of her body appeared to be melting as she lay there underexposed to the heat of the explosion.
.
They say I was lucky. I was protected by the fact that I was so short and safely positioned behind and below the window sill with only my hair being evaporated as the wave of heat hit the house like a freight train slicing through a late night crowded shopping center at full speed.
.
Of course they were wrong. Lucky! Eh?
.
Mom wasn’t so lucky when she stood at the open door way to marvel at this event on our horizon and if mom wasn’t lucky then neither was I ‘cause I was only four and half years old and Mom was all I had.

 

[Sarkus]

so what is the error I deliberately installed?
and why is it an error?

I remember yelling out to my mother: “Mommy, Mommy, hot, hot, it hurts me” but all my mother could do was stare at me with her glazed over eyes not breathing and not able to utter a word. The side of her body appeared to be melting as she lay there underexposed to the heat of the explosion.

Hmmm, now why would that be an error? Let me think...

Now, if you've finished with your diversionary tactic, perhaps you will stop showing such gross disrespect and get back on topic of trying to support your unsubstantiated claims, back up your accusations, and generally stop being a troll.
Not too much to ask, is it?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Hmmm, now why would that be an error? Let me think...

Now, if you've finished with your diversionary tactic, perhaps you will stop showing such gross disrespect and get back on topic of trying to support your unsubstantiated claims, back up your accusations, and generally stop being a troll.
Not too much to ask, is it?

Whats wrong Sarkus, can't you explain why it is an error?

is it truly beneath you to explain why it is an error?

just think there may be 4 and a half year old's reading this and your assessment may be priceless to them.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Sarkus a similar issue is involved when you responded to this part of a post:

So what is the color blue?
is it red to you?
Is it green?
Or is it yellow?
or is the color blue
unable to be seen by you?

with:

The colour blue is EM radiation with a wavelength of c.475nm. How I perceive it is possibly unique to me, it is not something I can tell. But what I perceive it as I have labelled "blue". The same way as you have labelled whatever you perceive it as as "blue".

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sarkus wrote:
perhaps you will stop showing such gross disrespect and get back on topic of trying to support your unsubstantiated claims, back up your accusations, and generally stop being a troll.
Not too much to ask, is it?

Sorry, I thought the topic was "The Illusion of free will".

Which I believe can be refuted with the following:

[1]The product of the imagination is NOT determined by the laws of physics.

[2] The imagination does not need to defy the laws of physics but renders them irrelevant as per choice.

[3] The criteria that for freewill to be real it must defy the laws of physics has *therefore* been refuted.

[4] There is no need for me to bring in other more complex arguments than the above...

[5] Choices and decisions etc are made with the use of the imagination. A total fiction until "published" into action.

[6] Thus freewill is actual and real and in no way an illusion. [ as defined in this thread ]

 

[Sarkus]

@ Sarkus a similar issue is involved when you responded to this part of a post:

with:

And what exactly is the issue with what I wrote? It doesn't match your expected answer? If you have issue with it, respond to it by stating what issue you have. All you've done so far is ignore the answer when I initially gave it, and now just claim that there is an "issue" with it? So what gives?

 

[Sarkus]

Sorry, I thought the topic was "The Illusion of free will".

It is. So why sidetrack to stupid questions. And why keep raising the same post repeatedly when you have refused to acknowledge the first response to it (post #913), then the subsequent indication of that response, and then even further indications each time it was required? And yet here you are again, posting the same thing. :shrug: