Total posts: 816
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Trump channeled the spirit of Adolf Hitler,
Obviously6, you have examples. Would you like to share, or do we take you at your word.
No, I don't. Examples, please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
the big bang more accurately, is what drops the ping pong balls.
Which big bang? The whole "timelessness" of the B-theory of time that is the argument given as the proof of determinism is not timeless at all if there is a beginning point. The argument that favors free will is that there is no beginning; that there is no time, but by our necessity for scheduling stuff; that there are cycles of universe expansion and contraction without a beginning, i.e., cycles of big bangs, and, therefore, n o beginning and no end = eternity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Drop two pingpong balls down a pachinko board and tell me the mechanism by which they choose different paths
Before I tell you, you're going to have to demonstrate to me that ping pong balls have any intelligence to properly make a choice; a conundrum that saddles the high majority of the animal kingdom, and even most species of the plant kingdom, if not all. Choice is a matter of intelligent processing of information, and that is not a universal skill. But, I will offer you another exercise:
Santayana, is quoted to have said, “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve, and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
There’s something else Santayana said relative to theory and ignorance: “Theory helps us bear our ignorance of fact.”
What if you’re a good scientist, but only a passable philosopher? What does it mean?
Suppose you are caught in a whirlpool in the ocean. What do you do to survive? If you haven’t the slightest idea, are you dead, already?
It’s only a theoretical argument. There are at least three theories; no evidence suggests that any of the three is an absolute fact. They are urban myth at best, except that all three begin with a prudent suggestion and, inevitably, this much is fact.
First, remain calm. Fear is a killer. From there, the methods vary. One theory says that being calm must even be a matter of physical relaxation, not just emotional. Remain still, and you will float out of danger.
Another theory says to swim hard with the current, and you will reach the edge and swim out of it.
Still another theory says give it up; your life is forfeit.
Three theories. It is likely that only one of them is fact, but which? Ignorant of fact, we take some solace that somebody has thought it through. But, until proven, they are just theories and that, according to Santayana, is solace enough. But, it is solace and nothing else, or, is it even that? There’s no joy in a negative consequence.
Are we plunged into the whirlpool of Santayana’s philosophy? What if the irony is that either theory returns us to the savagery of perpetual ignorance?
You see, at least my theory of free choice requires intelligence to operate within it. Then Santanyana is right; ignorance is mere savagery. Your theory of determinism requires no intelligence whatsoever, because your ping pong balls will follow a path, surely, but they have no contribution to the course, and that requires no intelligence, either. Between the two theories, I prefer the one that acknowledges intelligence and avoids savagery.
Created:
Posted in:
This post has everything to do with the outrageous consequence of attitude expressed by the Loudoun County School Board cover up of a sexual assault in order to advance a transgender bathroom policy. They buried a rape case, pure and simple. So, a male kid wearing a dress must, according to the Board, must be expressing as a girl, so all is good? NO!!!!!!!!! Girls can still rape girls, and boys, boys. Happens, boys and girls. And lets not fuck up the conversation with the nonsense of gender identity just because Psychologs today have declared that such identity is a free choice. Gee, I thought no one had free choice according to some here who think their brain chemistry is beholden to electrons in the universe messing with their brain chemistry. THEIR brain, maybe, but mine is clear enough to recognize that in the hubbub of gender identity, the new recognized gender alphabet6 soup just happens to ignore the 95% plus of us who are M or F. But, no, I don't have choice. Then neithert do you Progs have choice to abort, either, so can the pro-choice bit. Make up your fucking minds. At least mine is consistent. I accept choice except choosing to bury a rape, repeated in another school by the same perp, just to support gender choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
it’s impossible to know whether the tiny change to the firing of a neurone will be amplified over the course billion synapses that generate a thought or for making a choice such that a knife edge decision went one way instead of another.
Impossible, you say. Yet you're basing your determinism on that impossibility. Whereas, my argument of free choice has so many examples I've offered, with citations of support, that just the examples offer an occam's razor basis of far more simplistic explanations. How many choices have I made in a lifetime that rest on a knife edge, let alone a razor? I'd say less than five or ten. Even the choice of a house or a car is more blunt than that. My marriage? Yeah, because that was a lifetime commitment, but that one was an easy edge. And, considering the success of its longevity... Career choices? Pretty dull and easy. What shirt to wear? Really?
I've had exactly two life-and-death consequence decisions over which I had control in my life. Yeah, those were tough, but, obviously, the right choice made both times. And both were preceded by prayer. That's one of the primary, sharp tools in my toolbox, and I'm speaking to my Father, not some electron.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If conditions are off by so much as the placement of an electron then the conditions are not the same.
One electron? Tell me who has, can, or will be sensitive to the placement, or displacement, more properly said, of a single electron and its potential, monumental effect. That's not too exaggerated, is it?
I'm no chemist, but my father was. My high school chemistry classes taught me that the bonding of molecules [systems created by the bonding of atoms of one element, say H, and O, thus creating a molecule of water. That bonding is due to the displacement of electrons such that they are shared between the two atoms of H and the one of O. Further, my father taught that water does not exhibit the property of wetness until 6, or more molecules of water exist together, so, under that threshold, you may have "water," but it isn't yet wet. A single electron, though, even if displaced, is not sufficient to have any effect of bonding a molecule, let alone change properties that would affect human behavior consistently or randomly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Us and them?
You are obviously too distanced in time and distance to have that lax of an assessment. The '92 Crime Bill has been maligned from all sides, and it is Biden's one example representing 47 years of Senate activity. One bill? Not a great track record for Senate, let alone justifying a presidency.
If Blacks don't for for him... that's supposed to be racial animus? Strike two
The Black community is not diverse? Well, obviously, Biden is supporting his own previous statement regarding his perspective of their voting habits, which is an obvious lie. The voting record, alone, verifies the diversity of Blacks, but Joe is blind to it. Strike 3
If you think Biden has not been a follower/supporter of former Sen. Byrd, a KKK member, you don't know American Democrat politics. Not to mention a long history of Joe Biden's racially slurred commentary, such as 7-11 stores, a nationwide chain of convenience stores, always having Indian [as in India] accented people, and sexually insensitive actions like handling women and sniffing their hair, abusing kids claiming ;the like rubbing his hairy legs, and on, and on... Strike 4, 5, 6...?
Us and them, huh? Nope. Pure, unadulterated facts. The man is useless as a public servant. Chamberlain was much better for Great Britain, and he was disastrous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well that will invalidate your experiment.
You're confusing your argument with mine. Your determinist theory is the one that insists on consistency [otherwise, determinism is just random exhibitions of multiple consistencies across humanity; that humans cannot change their mind but as the universe directs it]. My argument is that which allows for changes of mind or consistency, and that is by individual choice.
Created:
Posted in:
I will offer another argument which will find detractors among you; most of you, I imagine. It is entirely a Christian perspective, but not even one that all Christians will agree is valid, since my Christianity varies a bit from most of yours. My belief in Christ is that he was perfect in mortal humanity; unique among humans in that respect, and this, although the literal Son of God in the flesh - the only human among us with that distinction - and a mortal mother, like all other mothers of humanity. Given the physically divine aspect of Jesus, along with mortal, therefore flawed human traits, because God created nothing on this Earth or in heaven that is perfect, and that is painfully obvious, the perfection of Jesus, one might suppose, given the opinion of all who think our choices in life do not exist due to determinism, came from another source, and, there again, determinists will point to their philosophy and say, "See; it was not by his choice. The universe did that." But, if there is an aspect to Jesus that is not divine, i.e., his mother's contribution to his DNA, and, therefore, physical, chemical makeup, which is not perfect, then the determinist option did not explain his perfection by determinism, but, rather, that he, an obvious mortal being - he did die, after all, the one sure aspect of mortality - chose to be perfect in spite of mortal imperfections. This is why he could say to us, as he did in Matthew 5: 48, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect," because he achieved it, himself, though mortal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
That being said, I'll go out on a limb a say Democrats will hold both houses because it doesn't seem GOP has much, if any, advantage.
You overlook one huge advantage I see, and it ties with the typical result of the party [Dems] in the Oval suffering congressional losses, and it goes directly to the 'party' in the Oval, i.e., Biden, and his current dismal ratings, even among Dems, which have no horizon of favorable events upcoming to change that. In spite of taking "control" of events by Biden, he has not exhibited, to date, any control of:
1. economy
2. inflation
3. border
4. immigration
5. foreign policy
6. domestic policy
7. covid
8. education
9. crime
10. climate change
10. Congress
My predict: mid-term disaster for Dems in House and Senate. Consequence: Biden is stiffled. And that's what he ought to do: stiffle himself, because every other word isn't. A word, that is. Still can't seem to get over "United States America." Perhaps he ought to go to his knees and ask "you know; the thing."
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
It's not genetic.
What does quoting Romans have to do with your introductory statement, which is overly simplistic. Paul isn't talking about genetics, so tying Paul to your claim accomplishes nothing. Behavior is not pure genetics only, anyway, so, again, tying them together is a misstep. Not to mention that you ignore the full capability that genes engage variance over a lifetime; they do not remain constant, even when disease is not a factor. Look into just the effect of telomere degradation, a natural effect, and that effect on gene stability, in all aspects of human anatomy and behavior, not just sexual activity. And if you're going to start citing God, consider that it is all of his design... including allowance gene variation at any time in pre- and post-natal consequence.
But it's not genetic? Tell it to the designer.
By the way, as for"God's Word," let's just remember that God, himself, wrote not one jot or tittle of it, and, therefore, any claim of "infallibility" is through a broken window. That's why he is always available to help interpretation, as needed, but it doesn't come without asking. Just sayin'
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Your #2 is about as clear and concise a conclusion as I've ever read. Well done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Trump too inept.
Really. I've offered cited sources refuting that claim in my #13, and you have rebutted none of it, nor can you. Further, is it because Biden is too old that you cannot cite references to what Biden has accomplished so far? Too old to really do anything? I agree, but age is not his overwhelming problem. Biden has never accomplished much in his entire political career. Oh, he sponsored the1992 Crime Bill that even Bill Clinton has admitted by reflection that it was a disaster, particularly for Blacks. Not to mention that Biden did himself no favors claiming that if blacks did not vote for him, they wren't black, or that the black community is not diverse like the hispanics, or by sucking up to KKK hero, Sen. Robert Byrd for Biden's entire, sorry life. Now, that is inept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
you know your argument is false if you also consider internal conditions being exactly the same
Internal conditions being exactly the same? Where is my argument anywhere that they remain constant? Nowhere. In fact, reading further into my #53, which you have overlooked besides re-interpreting incorrectly, I find that I wrote:
"And while personality traits are relatively stable over time, they can and often do gradually change across the life span."
"Relatively stab le," is not saying ":exactly the same," is it? Nor is "[they] gradually change..." is it?
face it. your do exactly as I charged in my #83:
...you truncate what I said. That's what you're doing. Do not edit, then say I'm saying two different things. Is that fair? Or accurate? No. Try again.
again.
Not to mention, my friend, that while I have offered cited sources to support my argument, you have offered... your opinion. I am not convinced, particularly because I have scholarship behind mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Most biblical scholars agree, the Book of Revelation was composed after 90 CE:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/revelation/white.html
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written
https://www.stjohnsmcc.org/gospel-of-revelation/resources/returning-the-book-of-revelation-to-its-historical-context.html
https://thirdmill.org/seminary/lesson.asp/vid/159/version/
https://www.npr.org/2012/03/07/148125942/the-book-of-revelation-visions-prophecy-politics
But, according to you, I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I offer citations; you offer belittlement. Some Christian attitude that is. Take a break, Pastor, your pulpit is shaking.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/revelation/white.html
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written
https://www.stjohnsmcc.org/gospel-of-revelation/resources/returning-the-book-of-revelation-to-its-historical-context.html
https://thirdmill.org/seminary/lesson.asp/vid/159/version/
https://www.npr.org/2012/03/07/148125942/the-book-of-revelation-visions-prophecy-politics
But, according to you, I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I offer citations; you offer belittlement. Some Christian attitude that is. Take a break, Pastor, your pulpit is shaking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Do you understand what you’re doing?
Why don't we look at my entire statements, not just your truncated version of them:
#53:
It is also that, given the same conditional circumstance repeated, we can and do decide to act differently.
#59
I'm saying that even in repeated identical external conditions, we can think and act by variation,
Do those two statements disagree? No, they do not. Not unless you truncate what I said. That's what you're doing. Do not edit, then say I'm saying two different things. Is that fair? Or accurate? No. Try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am genuinely not sure what your point is here.
Gee, what a surprise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
His success would have been impossible without a loan from his parents.
And? So what? Without a loan from his parents, he'd have generated a business plan to present to a bank, or the SBA, for a loan. Do you know what a business plan for such purpose consists of? Probably not: more than the idea. I've done it myself, successfully, so, I know it's possible, and Jeff Bezos is certainly more adept at innovation than I am. Like I've agued in another thread, to you, the universe will get out of the way of someone with ambition, a plan, and ability to execute the plan. A goal setter, and a goal achiever.
You cannot, in all your marxism, take that away from me, nor Jeff Bezos, nor anyone else with those credentials I've just identified. Try.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Billionaires are not special they are rich.
and yet, you admit
Jeff Bazos... had the idea to sell books on the internet using computers. This was not a worthless idea
Very true, and somebody else didn't have the idea, particularly no one in government. Why? Jeff Bezos is not only rich; he's innovative, and not a part of government at all. Private enterprise guy. Have any other examples? That one is a fail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That physical matter behaves deterministically is easily observable play billiards to see it in action.
Then why, pray tell, did we arrive at the billiard table of declaration that the universe was geocentric, a belief of laws of physics, applied to billiards, by the way, in antiquity, whereas, Galileo demonstrated it was not in the 17th century, but was placed under house arrest for his theory, and we held the theory of geocentrism until mid 19th century? Hmmm? Determinism failure, as I have previously argued without successful rebuttal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
In general corperations don't invent products
You have a marxist view of innovation. Hint: you also confuse it with funding, which is, itself, marxist. While I accept that there is a cost to innovation [invention, if you will], it certainly is not the government that is the braintrust of innovation. Nor does government truly produce anything, even in marxism, just because government owns business in that economic model does not mean that government is the new idea generator. If it were, we'd have far less issues in business just because of the intervention of government in business. There's a reason why the Constitution's Article I, section 8, granting powers to Congress, has little documented involvement of Congress in private enterprise. Not saying the government abides by the limitations, because they don't. There's just no constitutional justification for their involvement in private enterprise. Please try to understand the distinction between innovation and funding. The proof? If government is the braintrust of private enterprise innovation, why don't they already have the expertise they claim they need to investigate for legislative purpose; the ONLY reason why Congress should investigate anything other than impeachment of a federal officer?
By the way, by Supreme Court precedent, Congress is supposed to announce their legislative purpose for any investigation they conduce, other than for impeachment, but they don't even do that. Tell me, what is the specific legislative purpose Congress has announced for the January 6 investigation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The real way to handle this is to leave the thugs with only baseball bats and knives,
The glaring problem with that theory is that guns are not the number one weapon of use. Knives, for example, far exceed gun violence. Further, ban guns, knife use will increase, and further banning levels is a slippery slope until we're down to banning thumbs, which also can kill maliciously. Now you're talking mutilation as a legal response to thuggery. By your argument, the natural end-game is lombotomy, because there is the true source of thuggery, not the gun, nor any other tool used as weapon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
No it doesn’t; that’s just an assertion pulled out of your arse... little more than rank speculation
Another strawman. Who says it's an assertion beside your own assertion of laws of physics? You do. Who says it's just rank speculation. My sources, that's wgo, against which you... In spite of my evidence that laws of physics change, and are not immutable... I've offered you plenty of sources supporting my view. You offer... zip. Not even your arse. I thought you were keeping it civil. You said so, but that's a direct accusation, friend, and I will reply. This Christian is not compelled by turned cheeks. It's my arse, aftrer all. You take care of yours, ok?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@Ramshutu
No clever mixed determinism (not free) and random (not will)
Funny how you and your mate, Ram, interpret my arguments in your own words, completely missing my argument in the process. I have never argued for mixed determinism, nor random determinism.
I argue that there is no determinism, but that events in the universe have cause and no cause, but neither due to what you think, because, as I have also argued, the universe has no beginning as you might interpret it with a big bang, because the universe both expands, and then contracts in cycles. As a result, the "cause" of one cycle is merely the conclusion of the previous cycle, directed by a god whose dominion is the new cycle, and who allows humans who are born, live, die, and resurrect within that cycle their free agency. However, within any given cycle, random events still occur.
Neither of you say boo about any of that other than ridiculing the notion, which is far more simplistic than any explanation I've heard from either of you for determinism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
No it isn’t. What on earth are you talking about.
Your preferred question, and least effective rebuttal. I write in English by native tongue. I can also write in three other fluent languages, and in Egyptian hieroglyphs, but not on this site. They are all words that can be researched at will in the dictionary, and, if you use the OED, you will even encounter exemplary use over the history of the word. So, declaring you don't understand is entirely on you. You refuse to understand, and that is a different issue than your question poses.
that describe the interaction between chemicals and atoms;
Interaction? Chemicals are atoms, of a variety of compositions, thus expressing themselves as various compounds: thus, the science of chemistry. It is our thought processes in the brain that interact with the chemistry, and its variability based on environment, and somewhat on our past behavior.
how laughable your claim that everyone’s brain would be the same if our brains adheres to determinism.
But that is not what I said. Don't put your words in my mouth. I said that the universe is incapable of distinguishing our person-to-person's brain chemistry in order to allegedly "know" how to influence our person-to-person variances in thought and action such that we do not all behave in similar manner, because chemsitry is also the basis of that alleged physics law of the universe, which is not immutable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Which is it? Do you have a reason for the way you behave (a cause) or do you just do things for no reason (not actually making decisions at all)
I obviously succeeded in messing with your head when I said there is both cause and non-cause in the universe. But, I also argued that free will is, in fact, a choice to engage, and not everyone does it. Some are, indeed, satisfied to let the current take them where it will. That is allowing the universe to not just guide, but impose your path. So be it. Others do choose to direct their own destiny. Like I argued at first, there are three kinds of people: make things happen [choice to engage free will], watch what happens [may or may not engage free will, and swing both ways], and wonder what happened [never engage free will; they go with the current, never knowing whence it takes them. The latter are not goal oriented. The middle, once told what options there are, may engage one, or none, or try them all. The first group are entirely goal-oriented, choosing, first, the goals they set, and then execute the plans. The universe will get out of the way of such people, allowing no power to overwhelm their goal orientation, and the accomplishment of it.
Created:
Posted in:
Syllogism:
P1 Laws of physics are immutable
P2 The universe messes with your brain chemistry
C Determinism controls your thoughts ands actions, and not free will.
Just P1 is wrong, by the way.
Have at the rest
Created:
Posted in:
Your argument confuses the idea of “brain chemistry” and “chemistry”
The strawman is that you draw distinction. It's all chemistry, of which brain chemistry is a sub-set due to specific elements involved.
As my source cited [ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180710104631.htm ], chemistry is essential to understand anatomy, they are inseparable sciences, and each organ of the body has chemical function. And that source stipulated that such anatomy and chemistry are unique to individuals, so, of course, the same physics aplied by the action of universal elements will not yield the same behavior in all persons, as the source also said. Therefore, your argument is the strawman.
https://sciencing.com/regulation-co2-body-5007.html explains why chemistry, even being the same elements, will exhibit different resulting phenomena based on our actions, such as what we, by our choice, stuff in our pie hole. The body can only work with the ingredients it is given, and we choose poorly, such as a constant diet of fast food, the proteins our cells build will suffer from inadequate ingredients, and determinism is not the source of that choosing, because, as shown by my source, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/30/484053435/personality-can-change-over-a-lifetime-and-usually-for-the-better those choices can change over time, and that's not the universe coercion talking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Apparently God has to work with physics.
There's that pesky omnipotence, again. Who said God always acts omnipotently, when not necessary? Frankly, the notion that God is the total cause of everything is as nonsensical as determinism, which really comes to the same conclusion without acknowledging God. God may not be the total cause of anything.
And people wonder why my avatar, being a Christian, is "havoc." I don't think like most Christians on this site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
can you have a thought without a brain?
Probably not, but never lacking it, I can't say. If not me, someone else with a brain. Good ideas will always occur to some free-thinking person.
Regardless, given the non-sequitur nature of the question, that's exactly what it is.
Why dredge up conditions that will not occur since I have a brain?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
shouldn't be tried.
Democracy: unfettered freedom, so long as my freedom leaves your nose alone. Therefore, a proper trial.
Communism: restriction of individual freedom, regardless of condition of noses. therefore, an improper trial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I'll do whatever I damn well please with threads. My free will. Let your determinism stop me. Go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m calling your claim stupid : which it is.
With the citations I've offered supporting my idea, against which you throw laws of physics, which, again, used to say the Earth was the center of the universe, so they can be and have been wrong, free will is a valid argument.
You’re entire premise that different people in different environments at different times, must all develop identically if mediated by deterministic laws is a stupid premise. There is no other way to describe it; it is refuted by simply looking at clouds, or beaches.
And your determinism says we will always think and act consistently. That's absurd, and I've offered evidence against that, too. Yet, you still flaunt laws of physics.
Assuming that’s all the brain is,
Speaking of shyte, you know what assumptions make. Premature efactulation. Your assumption is patently false. No one, no where, no when, has demonstrated the physical presence of thought, only the results of thought: action. Again. Show me thought as a physical property. The challenge stands. That you want to ignore it is on you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Why not? Someday, you will find that all is encompassed in one eternal round. No, physics did not teach me that. There are greater laws than physics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
mass democracy isn’t all it is hyped up to be
Democracy is an ideal. There's nothing wrong with the ideal, it is simply our self-limited practice of it that is found wanting.
After all, consider that James Madison once said that if men were better angels, they would not need a government at all, because they would naturally be motivated to be the best they can be, learning correct principles and acting by them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
the Big Bang “caused” maths
Which big bang? The problem with causation, and determinism, is that they limit the cause to a single bang. What if there are repeated bangs; a cycle of them? One bang caused the next. Infinite regression and progression.
Or did the universe determine for you that it's one trip around the block? Limiting, isn't it? Well, some do think our brain is limited. too. I don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
But they are describing different thing - one is a physical object (the table), the other is a quantity
Not entirely true. For my daughter's third birthday, I made her birthday cake in the shape [a physical thing] of a 3. What is it? A 3. What else would it be called? A cake, also, but what physical property does not have multiple descriptives? Outside the box, man. Get outside your determined box.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Why is a greater authority required in order to tell us to emote?
You mean, the universe and its alleged determinism? We tell ourselves to emote, and not by suggestion of any physics law. Physics is not the be-all, end-all of existence. Release your self from that trap, you begin to see the true human potential to be divine. No physics there. There's a greater law than physics, to which even physics bows.
If you really want to know what that law is, it's called priesthood, the law by which God acts, and a law in which we are being schooled. Priesthood is synonymous with truth and light and intelligence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Rewind time? as IF that was done? No, that's not what 'm saying. I'm saying that even in repeated identical external conditions, we can think and act by variation, because we are not determined by the universe to so think and act. physics is not the law at work here, worlds without end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Show me how thought is a physical entity. Just show me. The chemical & physics involvement accepted, still, thought is not a physical property.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Your brain chemistry and mine are very slightly different - not because you have free will - but because identical physical laws operating in different environments, on subtly different genetics, subjected to different chemicals, heats, experience - produce different outcomes.
I don't appreciate yupur incivility. Clean it up, Bud. am not stupid. And your response ignores my last citation that, even given same circumstances, we can think and react differently than in times passed. Free will, not detemrinism, or we would ALWAYS react the same way, and we clearly do not, even in identically repeated circumstances.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Show me Biden's accomplishments. Something no President has ever done. I know you hate Trump. Show me why you love Biden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@Ramshutu
I agree. This wouldn't solve for freewill
No, it would not solve for free will. The reason is that this assumes that everyone's brain chemistry is the same. It is not, and I have proven that, already, You two just don'r want to accept it. But, there is also much more to it than that brain chemistry is unique, individual to individual. It is also that, given the same conditional circumstance repeated, we can and do decide to act differently. "And while personality traits are relatively stable over time, they can and often do gradually change across the life span. What's more, those changes are usually for the better. Many studies, including some of my own, show that most adults become more agreeable, conscientious and emotionally resilient as they age. But these changes tend to unfold across years or decades, rather than days or weeks. Sudden, dramatic changes in personality are rare." https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/30/484053435/personality-can-change-over-a-lifetime-and-usually-for-the-better
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
And so, you weave an elaborate, tangled web that
It does influence us all in exactly the same way. Chemistry is the same for all of us. Gravity is the same for all of us. The outcome is dependent on so many individual factors that differ for everyone - time, environment, etc, that the outcome is different.I mean seriously: why would you think natural process would make everyone identical when it can’t even make every cloud the same, or every beach. Or the weather.
But, you have an error in the statement:
Chemistry is the same for all of us.
And I already gave you my source refuting it [from my thread https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6909-some-here-say-the-universe-messes-with-my-brain-chemistry?page=2 #38]:
Determinism insists that we do not have free will, that our decision process when assessing options is driven by the universe and its affects via universal standard elements, explained by quantum physics: particles, waves, fields, and forces, acting on on our brain chemistry.according to this source, "…like with fingerprints, no two people have the same brain anatomy, a study has shown. This uniqueness is the result of a combination of genetic factors and individual life experiences."determinism must insist, therefore, that an unconscious, even non-living universe is capable of a remarkable function: the universal standard elements [particles, waves, fields, and forces] have the capacity to:
- Distinguish the brain chemistry of every individual
- Act upon that assessment to influence unique brain chemistry to cause a thought or action.
- Convince us that it, the universe, controls our choices and not our personal free will.
So, no, our brain chemistry is not "the same for all of us." Sorry, but I want to see you evidence that it is, and then, we merely have academic disagreement. What a surprise. That never happens.
If every electron and every atom in your brain behaves invariably according to natural laws
As if you have never changed your mind to act differently, even in identical conditional situations.
Free will appears to me to be a much more simple Occam's razor than your contradictions of determinism.
Created:
Posted in:
If attending college, and an advanced degree is even a just possibility, but not a sure decision, applying one's self in high school to earn scholarship eliminates a need for loans. I left high school with honors, was the senior class president, and carried a 3.9 GPA to a Sophomore year tuition and books scholarship, and, continuing that effort, earned a full ride including board the rest of the way in a private institution in the West.
I agree, the college of choice is far less important to most position-offering companies than the coursework, which is a direct application and leg-up in entertaining offers. Business expects you to hit the ground running, expecting very little learning curve. However, that said, my choice of major was History, but I never wanted nor expected a career in academia, of which, today, I have a rather low opinion in undergraduate work. On the strength of a single course I took my senior year, Process Management, which introduced me to Six Sigma [and convinced me to pursue advanced degrees, PhDs, and I subsequently earned a Six Sigma Black Belt], after the PhDs, I took a position with General Motors. I got lucky because I acquired an interest that was only just beginning to ruffle feathers within the auto industry, and on the subject of process management, I soon eclipsed my first boss in knowledge and application of the subject. I made my dime as a globe-trotting process troubleshooter, and had that position for several companies in and out of automotive, before going to work for myself.
Is college worth it? It is, today, indispensable, not just a good idea, unless all one expects is min wage. I never had a min wage job, even in high school. One summer, I did not have a job at all, by county decree. My father earned too much, and the county [L.A.] decided to set a cap on daddy's salary to allow me to work. I over-qualified; rather, my dad did. Positions went wanting in L.A., so they canned the idea, which says much about the lazy today, let alone then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Neurones are physical things, they obey physical and electrochemical rules, and individual neurones act predictably. The brain as a whole is highly simply complex interaction of predictable element. Electrons. Atoms. Chemicals. Fields. All interacting according to rules.
Yes, I agree, the operation of these elements is the result of their interaction, but that totally ignores the one factor you fail to mention. Me. You. Everyone. The entirety of at least the entirety of Homo sapiens. But taht says nothing for what consists of each individual entity, and each of us are unique. So, why does the universe not influence each entity in the same way such that our actions produced are identical to one another? Or do you apply intelligence and persuasion to read each of our variables by each of your Electons, Atoms, Chemicals, Fields?
For free will to exist - one electron. One molecule. One electric pulse, must not follow the natural rules of the universe, and must instead be affected by something that doesn’t itself follow any of the natural rules of the universe.
From whence comes that "logic?" Sorry, hot air to fill your wish balloon. keep blowing.
By what natural rule change have I caused violation because today, I wear a green shirt. Yesterday, it was red. Am I signaling my prep for Christmas? Or is it random, but free choice? And how do you EACFs know the difference?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
he easiest way to make a clear case without beating around the bush.
Logic should push through, not beat around the bush. The latter is how most people in my observation attempt syllogisms.
The Rocky Mountains?
Yes, that stretch from Canada through New Mexico. So where was Havoc? Somewhere at ~8,000 feet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
free will is as factually supported as Santa Claus.
Created: