The illusion of free will

Sarkus said:
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:
Click to expand...
because your post makes no sense that is why:
You posted snip#913:
"Fiction" does not equate to "defying the laws of physics". Again, what is it precisely that you think defies the laws of physics? *I don't think that. What is it in the act of imagination that requires physics to stop working as it does everywhere else in the universe? *it doesn't requires anything of the kind A mere unsupported claim will not cut it. *fully supported by casual observation
Click to expand...
As a refutation to a claim that there is no need to defy the laws of physics...to be valid. Which is an superb example of your absurd comprehension abilities.
And I have repeatedly pointed this out but you have failed to address your obvious mistake.

Again show me where "defying the laws of physics" is a necessary requirement for my refutation to stand as valid.

[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 ]

There is ample evidence that the product of the imagination is not dependent on the laws of physics and is quite good at making use of them at the whim of the imagine r.


Example of the obvious:

[video=youtube;KSRF3slguhI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSRF3slguhI[/video]

Any ways I think another thread needs to be started and then you can continue your agenda to stay off topic and attack me for you own shortcomings here for as long as you like and for as long as the mods allow you to.
 
@ Sarkus a similar issue is involved when you responded to this part of a post:
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
You respond 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".
Click to expand...
and now you ask:
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?
Click to expand...

maybe someone else can enlighten you as to your problem with this... I am done with attempting to help you...as I have no reason to ...
 
Quantum Quack, there is no problem in what he has said.
He has explained what the colour blue is.

Over the past so many pages Sarkus has tied you in knots of your own making.
You have squirmed, evaded and failed to support anything you have said (maybe you have supported one or two things - as NMSquirrel says, noone is wrong all the time).
Sarkus has stood up to all that you have thrown at him.
Yes, he has given it back.
But he has at least supported his positions.
You do not.
He has provided the (on topic) answers that you have requested.
You then have issue with what he says, but you don't explain what that issue is.
You just look to derail.
And you look for any opportunity to score points.
This is something I thought you were doing 30 or so pages ago.
And you are still doing it.
At the expense of any discussion.

The only one who should worry about moderators here is you.
Good day to you.
Back on ignore you go.
 
Baldeee said:
Quantum Quack, there is no problem in what he has said.
He has explained what the colour blue is.

Over the past so many pages Sarkus has tied you in knots of your own making.
You have squirmed, evaded and failed to support anything you have said (maybe you have supported one or two things - as NMSquirrel says, noone is wrong all the time).
Sarkus has stood up to all that you have thrown at him.
Yes, he has given it back.
But he has at least supported his positions.
You do not.
He has provided the (on topic) answers that you have requested.
You then have issue with what he says, but you don't explain what that issue is.
You just look to derail.
And you look for any opportunity to score points.
This is something I thought you were doing 30 or so pages ago.
And you are still doing it.
At the expense of any discussion.

The only one who should worry about moderators here is you.
Good day to you.
Back on ignore you go.
Click to expand...

the poem is a series of rhetorical questions.. and requires no answer...
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?
Click to expand...
 
A new thread has been started here:
Freewill ~ A product of imagination


Post #935 has been reported to the mods...
Any one can attempt to refute a claim. I have no problem with that, but be prepared to have the attempted refutation refuted if demonstrably false or in error. [Especially in the form of context]
 
Last edited:
Sarkus said:
And the rest of us are just supposed to guess that, are we? And to what end was it posted, if any at all?
Click to expand...
I guess if you re-read the original post in it's entirety and consider the post context properly, you would be able to work that out for yourself...
 
Quantum Quack said:
I guess if you re-read the original post in it's entirety and consider the post context properly, you would be able to work that out for yourself...
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm sorry, QQ. didn't you realise? Those were rhetorical questions. How silly of you to have answered them.
:rolleyes:
 
Sarkus said:
Oh, I'm sorry, QQ. didn't you realise? Those were rhetorical questions. How silly of you to have answered them.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Actually answering any of your questions is rather silly... yes I agree but would extend it to beyond the rhetorical... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top