secularmerlin

Also why he and him? Seems an odd way to refer to the truth, whatever that may be.

This is a claim. When one makes a positive claim one shoulders the burden of proof. Can you demonstrate that reality makes things rather than simply containing things?

If you slapped a kid for litteraly no reason, apart from being a terrible baby sitter,  you haven't made a descision you are just doing things. As for changing your preferences (not your behavior but your actual preferences) I don't think that is as simple as you seem to be making it out to be. Like enjoying coffee, you can stop drinking coffee sure but by your own admission it would take severe brain damage to keep you from thinking about it.

Well, I guess that is sort of a reasonable suggestion.

(No but being a child soldier in an orc army that gets decimated by another orc army tends to have that effect sooo...)

So you have never changed your mind about anything because of an event? You've never burned your hand on the stove and been instilled with more caution for example?

(I am not a follower of the morninglord. I am a proud disciple of Zud. I get that you are buck8ng for an In game buff like we got for burying the children but Eikka doesn't know she's in a game and that can't effect her descision realistically.)

In any way at all.

You can change your mind at the drop of a hat about your likes and dislikes? Prove it. Briefly change your sexual orientation and decide to hate coffee. I'll just give you a minute... take your time... did it work? No? Harder than it sounds isn't it?

Ok now let's assume that you do something for literally no reason. Not even just to prove to me that you can. In that case you haven't really made a descision at all you have simply engaged in random behavior. A random event is not an indication of freewill any more than following the dictates of cause and effect is.

That would be one event. One which only effects ypur mind if you are aware of it admittedly but I mean any event. Finding a penny in your couch is also an event, so is having a child or being educated. Do any events of any kind effect your mind?

So in general you would only say no because of an external reason over which you have no control? Or are you claiming to be in control of another person's sexual health and the intoxicants they have consumed? (You forgot to avoid pregnancy or if she says "you remind me of my father" by the way, both totally legit reasons to bail imho). Seems less like a choice than an evaluation of the situation combined with a reasonable risk assessment.

Let's examine the pleasure angle shall we. What are some reason la you might "choose" not to do something that brings you pleasure. Let's take sex, by all accounts a pretty serious motivator. Let's say a person you find attractive has made it very clear that they reciprocate. Now ordinarily that would equal a night in a motel you wouldn't tell your nanna about but let's say you don't go through with it. Why wouldn't You? What reason do you have to say no? Sure you could say no but why would you?

(Oh right  Donavich, I knew that.)

Before I reply I just want to say that I am not making fun. This sort of conversation is why I joined ddo and why I continue to frequent dart. 

At the very least your "choices" are determined by a mixture of your preferences (which are not under your control) and your circumstances (which are not under your control) by your definition it would seem that freewill does not exist. All things being equal a coffee drinker drinks coffee, but they didn't decide to like coffee it just brings them pleasure. Of course if it's too hot outside they might go for a soda or an iced tea but they didn't decide what the weather would be like either. It follows therefore that the coffee drinker has no control over what beverage they "choose".

We may circle back to your definition of consciousness since it includes many other words that are fairly illdefined and/or subjective like awareness and sentience but for now let's focus on freewill. If we cannot ascertain what freewill is then we can hardly claim to have any.

Fine, but if it works you won't like it.

If you can then do it or concede that you do not posses the capacity. Look with me into the spectre of our shared epistemological limits. It is beyond our ability to know what if anything is beyond the observable universe (that is what observable means). If you look long enough into the void the void gives no indication that it is staring back (anyone who says different is anthropomorphizing voids). There is no physical evidence to suggest that there is anything beyond the physical. If you cannot examine this line of reasoning with me you cannot claim you are making choices governing your beliefs and if you can you may be forced to face the crushing reality of undeniable cause and effect from which there is no escape.

I challenge you to offer a logical line of reasoning that shows freewill not just as a possibility but as a necessary element of human conciousness. But first before you can even try you must have a working definition of both conciousness and freewill. This is much harder than you think since the definitions must include everything/everyone you believe possesses these qualities and nothing/no one that you believe doesn't.

I choose the infinity stone of epistemology. Face me with your claims if you dare (too dramatic?)

Ok outplayz if you say so.

So what your saying is that you have no choice but to believe you have choice?

It is exactly like saying freewill isn't a thing. I mean it could be but I see no conclusive evidence for or against it and I am unable to maintain a belief in the absence of evidence. You still don't seem to be understanding what I mean about choice and beliefs. You believe in what you think is true until something convinces you otherwise. It doesn't matter what you believe is true you believe it because you are convinced it is true. Even if you have the beliefs of a very confused spiritual skeptic.

(In character I only know what Drafterman tells me my character knows. Out of character I know what the procedure for killing a vampire was in 2nd ed.)

Then you are a very rare case but you still are unable to believe in anything you think is definitely false. Believing in everything does not require a choice and so unless I misunderstand you you still did not choose your beliefs. In fact let's go a step farther. You believe that it is more probable that anything is possible than that nothing exists. You did not choose to believe that it is just what you consider to be more likely true than the alternatives. If you didn't think it was true you would not believe it. Honestly I'm not sure that anyone makes any choices at all but that is a seperate discussion.

The more precautions we can take the better.

I accept that something must exist in order for me to have perceptions. I accept the tautology you have presented. It is your claims about this underlying reality that I reject. Also please understand that rejecting your claims does not mean I consider them impossible I am simply unable to maintain a belief in the absence of evidence.

Even an (how did you put it?) invisible sky daddy is not impossible, there just isn't any sufficient evidence to support the idea. In much the same way there is no sufficient evidence that ultimate reality is connected to christianity or the bible. Can you demonstrate that it is impossible to accept the idea of an underlying reality without also accepting christian doctrine?

Again you are under no obligation to provide evidence but if you cannot or will not do not be surprised when others remain unconvinced of your possition.

Can you demonstrate a connection between christianity and ultimate reality in the way that an Australian could demonstrate that Australia exists?

Can you demonstrate that the bible is more than a work of fiction in this way?

This niether tells us what any hypothetical god(s) are/is nor demonstrates the existence of any such hypothetical god(s).

When you say clear truth do you mean clear in the way that Australia clearly exists? If so then please demonstrate this clear truth and I will have no choice but to accept it (to the extent that I accept the existence of Australia).

This is tautalogically true but you have not demonstrated to me that reality as it truly is is in any way connected with christianity or the bible.

You have not demonstrated to me that one cannot love others or practice charity, for whatever reason, without accepting truth.

You have not demonstrated to me that there is anything other than this world (assuming this world does exist).

You have not demonstrated to me that the bible is more than a work of fiction or that Jesus and the apostles were historical rather than apocryphal figures.

If you can clear up these issues we can discuss "what the bible is for".

I mean the  claims made by the bible not about the bible although any claim about the bible would.likewise need to be demonstrated. 

So you believe that it is true that there is a chance not a certainty. You still believe that is true don't you? You believe that anything is possible because you consider that the truth. I defy you to believe that not everything is possible. I do not think that you can because you do not consider that true. You cannot simply choose to believe something which you consider to be false whatever that is for you subjectively.

Either our perceptions reflect reality and there is no reason to suspect that the ultimate reality is more than simple physical reality or they do not in which case there is no reason to suspect any particular thing is true over any other. Niether of these scenarios necessitates that christianity reflects ultimate reality.

If my perceptions reflect reality then we can make certain inferences from those perceptions through the proper application of the scientific method. That the ultimate reality is more than simple physical reality is not among these inferences.

In any case I am a soft solipsist not a hard solipsist. I do not claim that reality does not exist only that it is beyond our epistemological limits to say with certainty that it does.

The fiend must be beheaded and burned. 

Do you believe that your beliefs are true? 

Anything that happens in real time in the observable universe is an event goldtop. Is your mind effected by the goings on of the physical universe or not?

The bible is the claim not the evidence. I see no reason to consider it more than a book of fiction until it is demonstrated to me that it is. 

I don't believe in any god(s) therefore for the purposes of this discussion we can use your preferred definition. When I say god(s) it is merely a placeholder for whatever concept is under discussion. 

As for my perceptions reflecting reality I'm not sure how we could design a test to determine that but if they do reflect reality then there is no evidence for or against the idea that some god(s) exist unless you have some evidence to present.

Indeed if we can alter outcomes then this hypothetical being cannot be omniscient.

But when discussing your omniscient being we are only discussing one frame of reference. A frame of reference in which time is a complete and static timeline. That the timeline might appear different to me relativisticaly is immaterial. If your omniscient being cannot alter outcomes then it has no freewill and if it can then it is not omniscient.

Is your mind unaffected by any events or is it subject to some events. This is not a vague question. It is a yes or no question.

You and I are having this conversation. I am not conversing with any god(s) so far as I know. That would make this between you and I not god(s) and I.

Your last post had nothing to do with our conversation. If our perceptions accurately reflect reality then we can make certain inferences from those perceptions. One of those inferences is that gasoline is not good to drink. How does that prove that our perceptions do reflect reality? Also is that an eternal truth? I'm still a little fuzzy on the difference between the truth and any eternal truth. Either way how does that prove there is a right and a wrong way to determine truth?

You are not supporting your claim you are engaging in tautologies again (in this case "drinking poison is unhealthy").

You are right about one thing. You don't need to explain or prove anything, but if you refuse to don't be surprised when I dismiss ypur claims as unproven.

You therefore cannot dismiss solipsism as a possibility philosophically. You are functionally a soft solipsist too. This does not prevent us from accepting "reality" at face value both as the only reality we know and as a convenience I order to maximize our experience (real or not).

I do not know if there is a right or wrong way. That is why I do  it claim that there is a right way or a wrong way. You are the one making this claim. When making a positive claim one shoulders the burden of proof. You have thus far not met this burden. 

Which leaves us with no way to prove that our observable universe is "real" even as we become more learned about the physical laws that govern it.

What about saying "I don't know" is arbitrary? You are the one who both embraces a philosophy which states that we cannot know ultimate reality while simultaneously believing that you can make claims about that reality.

You must believe what you think is true. I defy you to believe something which you believe to be false. If this proves impossible, as I suspect you will, then you must concede that whether we must believe the actual truth or not we have no choice but to believe what we consider truth and in that case beliefs are not a choice but rather a product of our perceptions which we also do not choose.

It hardly matters if there is a right and wrong way of embracing truth. If everyone is wrong then you are wrong and if you are wrong then clearly you do not know the right way to embrace truth whether there is a right way or not. Also if everyone is wrong then how could we ever possibly determine that any god(s) are right? If it even anything but nonsensical to think of the ultimate truth is right or wrong rather than simply being or that it could or would acknowledge our love or lack thereof.

This line of reasoning is self defeating.

Both perspectives would still be a part of the same reality regardless of the observer's relative perception of it. For the omniscient observer this perception would be of a complete and static timeline.

Static means unalterable and if events are unalterable then there can be no freewill, only the wrote fulfillment of predetermined events. Two beings might well perceive this static timeline differently but neither could possess freewill.

You do not choose your beliefs.