I have spent lot of years mainly figuring out what myself and this reality is all about.

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 124
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
the rock accumulates experiences
That is an exceptionally broad use of the word "experiance"

I have always read that "experinace" as properly understood involves a mind of some sort.

Even still: The "exhibits behavior" is only when brought in with other elements, chemical reactions if you want. There is still no mind behind that in the thing itself. Most definitly outside of it there is a mind of some sort.

I am not quite sure what your point is here. Where are you trying to go with this?


MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
we're still talking about function
Purpose is not necessarily the same thing as function. It can be. But that does not mean always.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
That is an exceptionally broad use of the word "experiance"
in the sense that all objects record data
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
I am not quite sure what your point is here. Where are you trying to go with this?

your "soul" is designed by the creator

the creator knows how your "soul" will react in every conceivable situation

the creator also knows what specific data your "soul" will accumulate

and if the creator wanted you to be any different (perhaps happier, smarter, more holy or whatever)

it would have simply used a different "soul" variation

your "soul" is a known quantity to the creator

easily predictable

a foregone conclusion
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL

your "soul" is designed by the creator

the creator knows how your "soul" will react in every conceivable situation

the creator also knows what specific data your "soul" will accumulate

and if the creator wanted you to be any different (perhaps happier, smarter, more holy or whatever)

it would have simply used a different "soul" variation

your "soul" is a known quantity to the creator

easily predictable

a foregone conclusion
And your point is what?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
And your point is what?
your actions are the manifest will of the creator
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
your actions are the manifest will of the creator
No they are not.

Or you would not have free will.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Or you would not have free will.
design + experience + random noise = your will
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
design + experience + random noise = your will
Nope. Not what I have been saying.

Design + "experiance" (better to say "concept") + ability to choose = free will

And what does "random noise" mean?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
And what does "random noise" mean?
any misunderstanding of the environment and or quantum flux
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
design + accumulated data + random noise = "ability to choose"

i mean

you can't "make a choice"

if you don't know how to detect "a choice"

so there are some obvious context-sensitive prerequisites
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
design + accumulated data + random noise = "ability to choose"
You are basically saying here that free will needs a "misunderstanding" to be free because you said "random noise" is a misunderstanding of enviorment/ quantum flux.

That means absolutely nothing. You are not being very clear here.

Look, I am assuming you have something to say, but right now it seems you are just clothing it in random meaningless phrases that have nothing to do with what I said.

This conversation is really going nowhere.




3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
You are basically saying here that free will needs a "misunderstanding" to be free because you said "random noise" is a misunderstanding of enviorment/ quantum flux.
you only make a deliberate conscious decision when you are trying to predict the future and you are less than 100% positive

you weigh pros and cons based on your experience and intuition

an omniscient omnipotent creator already knows all futures with 100% certainty and therefore cannot make a deliberate conscious decision
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
you only make a deliberate conscious decision when you are trying to predict the future and you are less than 100% positive
That is not true.

I make a conscious deliberate descision about what I know here and now. It has nothing to do with trying to predict the future.

an omniscient omnipotent creator already knows all futures with 100% certainty and therefore cannot make a deliberate conscious decision
You are confusing possibility with actuality.

An OOC knows all future possibilities. It does not mean He cannot make a deliberate conscious descision to make one of those possibilities an actuality.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
I make a conscious deliberate descision about what I know here and now. It has nothing to do with trying to predict the future.
please provide an example
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I make a conscious deliberate descision about what I know here and now. It has nothing to do with trying to predict the future.
please provide an example

I know, here and now, that I have vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream in front of me. I know that I can choose either or neither or both. So, with this knowledge I choose here and now.

You can swap out whatever you want for the two different types of ice cream. a walk or run, a wrench or screwdriver, a martini or a gin and tonic, a job or unemployment, cash or credit, this bank or that bank, whatever you want.

Free will has to do with here and now, what I know. I cannot choose something I have no idea whatsoever that it exists.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
I know, here and now, that I have vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream in front of me.
do you decide to eat the ice cream before or after you eat the ice cream ?
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
do you decide to eat the ice cream before or after you eat the ice cream ?
Before obviously. What are you trying to get at by that question?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Before obviously. What are you trying to get at by that question?
whether it's a short term or long term goal, you're still making a prediction about the future
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
you're still making a prediction about the future
How is it a prediction?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
How is it a prediction?
you choose the flavor that you predict will result in a future state of enjoyment that is preferable to the future state of another choice
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
you choose the flavor that you predict will result in a future state of enjoyment that is preferable to the future state of another choice
That is not the will predicting. That is the intellect predicting.

Predicting means "to say of the future with knowledge" That means it deals with the intellect.

I still do not think free will has anything to do with prediction.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
I still do not think free will has anything to do with prediction.
what percentage of a specific decision is based on information ?

just a rough guess

if you have two flavors of ice cream in your freezer

and they are both unopened


of course, you know what ice cream is because of your experience - - you've accumulated data on the topic


you also know where your freezer is located

and probably a spoon

you can imagine how good you are going to feel while it melts in your mouth

some of this can clearly be traced to the universal chain of cause-and-effect

but how much, what fills the gap between the orchestra of causality and your "choice" ?
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
but how much, what fills the gap between the orchestra of causality and your "choice" ?
There is no gap.

There are theuniversal causal chains and my free will simply continues it in whatever I choose.

I can choose not to eat the ice cream. I have simply continued the universal chain of causes.

I can choose to eat the vanilla. I have simply continued the universal chain of causality.

Universal causality does not mean there can be no free will.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Universal causality does not mean there can be no free will.
if your actions are caused they are inevitable

the only way to break inevitability is to add randomness
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
if your actions are caused they are inevitable
They are only inevitable after they are caused not before.

the only way to break inevitability is to add randomness
Why is that the only way?

You seem to be saying that an action is caused before it is caused. That is absurd.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
You seem to be saying that an action is caused before it is caused. That is absurd.

well, it can't be caused AFTER it is caused


causes precede causes


that's what we call "cause-and-effect"
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
You seem to be saying that an action is caused before it is caused. That is absurd.

well, it can't be caused AFTER it is caused

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. So let me make it clear.

"caused" is from the verb "to cause" and it is the past particple which in english can also be an adjective implying that something is already an effect.

So what I said above, let me say it another way.

You seem to be saying that something is an effect before it is an effect. Which is to say that something is an effect and not effect at the same time and in the same way. Which is absurd.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
You seem to be saying that something is an effect before it is an effect. Which is to say that something is an effect and not effect at the same time and in the same way. Which is absurd.
that's not necessarily the case

first cause + (effect which is also a cause) + (effect which is also a cause) + (effect which is also a cause) + (effect which is also a cause) = (object which is both an effect and also a cause)

one necessarily and inevitably leads to the next
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
first cause + (effect which is also a cause) + (effect which is also a cause) + (effect which is also a cause) + (effect which is also a cause) = (object which is both an effect and also a cause)
Yes I agree with this as an explanation of causality. I do not disagree that an effect can be a cause. In fact, I think we can say that of everything that happens after the first cause.

one necessarily and inevitably leads to the next
I understand the "necessarily" as in whatever the causes effectuates is necessary by virtue of the cause. That I agree with.

But to say that "This particuler effect is what is necessary" is what I do not agree with. There can be different types of causes, and a cause can cause differently. It is not determined (i.e. necessary) until it actually causes in the moment of causation.

I understand the "inevitably" simply as "if a cause effectutes, its effect is inevitable" This I agree with. But to say "This particuler effect is inevitable" I disagree because there can be different types of causes involved and every effect is determined by its cause. Not to mention other causes can interfere.

Every Cause is indeterminate until the actual moment of causation.

An effect is an effect and only an effect until the moment it is causing.