Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
professed faith in some higher power
"some higher power" = some unspecified non-specific impersonal force, you know like gravity - - not a "miracle daddy" who "listens to my prayers like santa claus"
a theist believes in a specific god with a specific definition
a deist believes in a NON-specific unknowable god often referred to by the american founding fathers as "the god of nature" also commonly "mother nature" giving rise to the idea of "natural laws" which are not written in a book, but can be extrapolated by communing with and observing "nature" itself
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Functionality as in processing equipment.
i'm not sure how you're missing this
atheist and deist are functionally identical when faced with any aspect of "organized religion"
more specifically, the god of the deist is UNKNOWABLE NOUMENON
and therefore, didn't write a majikal instruction booklet for anyone
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
A Deist would believe in God, though they might disagree on the 'certainty of religious claims.
a DEIST disagrees with ALL POSSIBLE RELIGIOUS CLAIMS
because if they believed in a PARTICULAR god (or any religious claims for that matter)
then they would magically and instantly, in a puff of logic, be turned into a THEIST
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Functionally, a theist and an atheist are the same.
no, not even close
a THEIST believes in strictly superstitious "rules for society" based on their faith in THE ANGRY SKY DADDY
an ATHEIST believes in no such thing
a DEIST also believes in no such thing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I would figure that Deists and Atheists might differ in their perspective of existence.Compare an individual who believes the American founding fathers existed,Set the laws of the nation, but now no longer interact with America.. .And an individual who believes the founding fathers never existed,Never set any laws of the nation.
a DEIST has no "faith"
a DEIST has no DOGMA
a DEIST has absolutely no reason to fabricate and project human emotions onto a hypothetical creator
a DEIST does not believe a creator cares about them personally
a DEIST does not believe a creator cares about the existence of the human race in the slightest
a DEIST understands that an apparatus capable of creating all things functions on scales that more than dwarf human insignificance
a DEIST understands that such a thing (if it would even properly qualify as a "thing") would be, for all practical intents and purposes, "incomprehensible"
NOUMENON
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim to provide evidence for their claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"if we didn't detect it and find a perpetrator it didn't happen"
bingo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Never mind that everyone heard and saw Trump commit these crimes in plain site for everyone to see
and joe biden is obviously a god damned saint
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Based on this, do you think there is anything beyond the universe?
it is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Ultimately, for there to be an illusion there must both be the real existence of the thing that is perceiving, and a correct view of the circumstances that are being distracted by the illusion.How do you know this?
there must be a "real existence" of a "thing" (depending on your personally preferred definition of "real" and "existence" and "thing" and or "phenomena")
but there is MOST CERTAINLY NOT (necessarily) a "correct view" (of any particular "phenomena")
and i know this by pure logic
NOUMENON
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Define substance.
non-illusion
the "opposite" of "imaginary"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Got stuck on the good old , "Trying to prove" a single fucking thing to be true nonsense .
a pure illusion is impossible
even an illusion must be rooted in substance
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
If something cannot be proven true empirically it doesn't make it true or false but rather an unknown as we cannot validify its correlation to a subjective reference.
that's
why
i
said
logically necessary
otherwise
it has no "truth value"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
even if you are a dream character in a dream world
you have still responded
which is positive
verification
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
you seem to be
conflating
sincerity
with
"truth"
and this is a classic category error
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
but rather dependent on whether it correlates with the reference
and whether or not something correlates with the reference
must be verifiable
either through observation
or by logical necessity
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
This is a clear demonstration of how opinions and subjective experiences can both be true and false.
this is impossible to verify
and therefore
there is simply no way to call it
"true"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
The statement "I could have made a better decision yesterday" is an opinion rather than a fact. It's based on your own subjective assessment of the situation and your belief that you had more information, resources or clarity today that would have led to a better decision yesterday.
While it is possible that with new information or hindsight, you may come to realize that there were better options available at the time of making the decision, this realization does not change the fact that you made what was then considered as the best decision based on all available factors and constraints. Therefore, whether or not you could have made a better decision in retrospect remains an opinion rather than a verifiable fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Ignoring whether said choice is true or not,I wonder,Do individuals big on the lack of free will,State to themselves?It 'might be in the skein of fate, that I make X action.
i've been without free will for quite some time now
and i still make mistakes
and i still try to improve my skill
i do the best i can
but the most significant change
is that i don't blame others for their own short-sighted actions
i still react
but i understand they are also
doing the best they are currently capable of
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
once we have established the rudimentary concepts
phenomenal
i suspected as much
and that's why i am rigorously defining REAL-TRUE-FACT
this explains my axioms in exactly one minute and nineteen seconds,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
i just didNo, you did not. You stated that my response is verification without proving that such response exists.
every time you respond
you are providing validation to my claim
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
"To know means to believe with certainty, to be true means to correlate with."
i disagree
only facts are true
opinions cannot be true
also,
opinions cannot be false
opinions hold no truth value
it is a category error
to try and assign a truth value to an opinion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
your will can only be goal seeking in service of desire
desire always CAUSES your intentional action
desire might be uncaused
but your will can never be uncaused
ipso facto
not free
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
REAL TRUE FACT = EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE (WITH A CONFIDENCE OF AT LEAST 2 SIGMA) AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY
EVERYTHING ELSE IS OPINION
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
objective reality is rather an illusion as it rests upon
you couldn't be more wrong
the logical conclusion of a solipsist axiom
is that even an illusion requires substance
zero substance
zero illusion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
if you are asserting that nothing is truly random
then free will is reduced to a human emotion
but even if
even if you believe that some things are truly uncaused
like the apparent randomness of the quantum foam
the injection of uncaused, functionally random noise
into an otherwise causal system
still does nothing to salvage the idea of free will
as nothing more than a mere emotion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
there are very few things that are empirically verifiable and or logically necessary
but it is not true that NOTHING is empirically verifiable and or logically necessary
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
you seem to be completely missing the point
even if all of this is some sort of elaborate fever dream
the laws of physics are still immutable within this dream
the laws of logic are still immutable within this dream
so,
the definition of FACT remains unchanged
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
i am reading the words which you wrote
they exist as verifiable code
therefore
you exist
a writer of those words
exists
unquestionably
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
i doubt, therefore i think, therefore there is a thinker of some unknown description that i call "me"You cant prove that you doubt or that you think.
i only need to prove it to myself
and you only need to prove it to yourself
also,
i'm pretty sure you think, otherwise you would not write
also,
i'm pretty sure you doubt, because you are asking me to prove
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
random noise
as in random signal
as in random influence
anything considered non-causal or un-caused is functionally indistinguishable from random
because it cannot possibly be in response to
any goal
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Actually, we cannot know if anything exists, not even if we exist, since we dont know if our feelings are real.
solipsism does not prove that your body "exists"
dubito ergo cogito ergo sum
i doubt, therefore i think, therefore there is a thinker of some unknown description that i call "me"
this is an indisputable and logically necessary fact
and the foundation of all epistemology and ontology
i am the apophatic phaneron
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
If solipsism is true, then there is no reason to consider other human beings as worthy of basic rights. This is one of many reasons that solipsism should be dismissed from a pragmatic perspective.
number one, we don't decide what is true based on PURE SPECULATION of the potential consequences (this is known as "motivated reasoning")
number two, you clearly have no idea what solipsism actually is
in 29 seconds,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
FACT = EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE WITH A MINIMUM CONFIDENCE OF AT LEAST TWO SIGMA AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY
OPINION = EVERYTHING THAT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A FACT
it's not even the slightest bit complicated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
you can't be free from causality
without being a slave to random noise
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
you're making it way too complicated
here's the core of it in 79 seconds,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
all you really need to do is make your definition of slavery explicit
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
thanks, can you be slightly more specific ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
if you take the forced labor out of slavery, it's not really slavery anymore, depending on your definition of course
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
voluntary, comfortable slavery would seem to be not only acceptable, but ideal
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
the ancient greeks and romans and chinese held strong beliefs about fate and destiny
and they still managed a few meager accomplishments
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
will must be defined as conscious-intentional-goal-seeking-in-service-of-desire
this type of will can never be free from desire
and as such, this type of will can never be free from a cause
desire must by definition be the cause of will
Created:
Posted in:
Do you ever feel like you're making meaningful choices in your life? Do you feel like you have the power to shape your own destiny? If so, you're not alone. Most people believe in the idea of free will, the notion that we are capable of making choices that are not predetermined by external factors.
However, upon closer inspection, the concept of free will is an obvious contradiction in terms. After all, if an event is truly "free" and not caused by any prior factors, then it is essentially a random event - and not a product of our own choices or agency. In other words, to be truly free, an event must be uncaused by anything else - and that is simply impossible.
This is where compatibilism comes in. Compatibilists argue that free will and determinism can coexist, and that our choices can still be meaningful even if they are ultimately determined by prior causes. However, this perspective is a bit of a smoke screen - it's essentially redefining free will in a way that almost nobody thinks of it.
For example, when most people talk about free will, they mean something like "the power to act untethered to fate." They're not thinking about internal mental processes or the influence of their environment on their decisions. By redefining free will in this way, compatibilists are essentially dodging the issue of determinism and the idea that events are pre-determined by prior causes.
To make matters worse, even magic and supernatural powers cannot solve this simple logic problem. The idea of causing an uncaused cause is inherently flawed and runs counter to the basic principles of logic itself.
So what's the takeaway from all this? At the end of the day, the concept of free will is an impossible and incoherent one. While it's certainly true that we feel like we're making decisions and acting on them, this feeling is a product of our internal mental processes and the influence of external factors - not a supernatural power to break causality.
In short, if you want to feel like you have free will, go ahead and do so. But just know that this feeling is not based on any coherent or logical perspective.
I hope you find this post entertaining and thought-provoking!
Created: