Logical? Deism. [Archive] - Page 3

Tricky

3rd February 2003, 10:46 AM

Speaking of The List, it is about time for an update. Thanks to all, especially Latimer who helped research. New entries in red.
****

NOTE: Many of these “beliefs” were verified by Franko in this post. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=290098&highlight=logical+goddess+omnipotent#post290098)
Origins This universe is part of an omniverse.
The first entity is the Progenitor Solipsist (PS) – our original primordial ancestor – what the Christians call “God the Father/God the Creator”
The Progenitor Solipsist exists in the distant past when there were only two intrinsic parameters - Mass and Velocity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=306446&highlight=progenitor#post306446)
This universe was created by the Logical Goddess (LG), who also created the forces (electro-magnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear). She did not create gravity.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
The Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
Consciousness creates matter.
The Big Bang is made up of two parts. The Goddess corresponds to "The Initial State” (the initial “random” configuration of stuff). The other part is The Laws of Physics . (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306475&highlight=configuration+stuff#post306475)

How Things Work One soul = one graviton.
Gravitons come from the omniverse, but not necessarily this universe.
The Logical goddess is the "top graviton", meaning she is omnipotent.
Gravitons are fermions, i.e. they have spin and charge.
The gender of a graviton is determined by its spin.
Determinism/Fate/”free will” is the interaction of gravitons of varying strength.
The same logic that leads me to conclude a more evolved being exist leads me to believe that entities’ gender female. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=114229&highlight=determinism+interaction+gravitons#post11 4229)
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatabalist free will. None.
The LG is the most conscious and complex entity in the universe.
TLOP are an expression of the LG. She controls them.
The LG, using TLOP, creates the shape, or body of humans. The soul is the graviton.
The LG, and by extension TLOP are smarter, more powerful and more complex than humans.
True randomness does not exist.
If A has property P and B is made of A, then B has property P. (As shown by the syllogism, "Atoms obey the laws of physics. You are made of atoms. Therefore you obey the laws of physics.)
Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
Gravitons are the fundamental force-carrying particles of Gravity and Time.
Gravitons are made of time (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=311266&highlight=information+gravitons#post311266)
Essentially, LD is a Unified Theory of Physics.
The universe can be completely described in terms of binary responses.
If A controls B then A is more conscious than B. -- EXCEPTION If it appears that a less conscious object is controlling a more conscious object, it is actually the LG that is controlling them both.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.

Morality Gravitons are intrinsically Good or Evil.
Good Gravitons will move forward in Time (to a higher energy state), Evil Gravitons will move backwards in Time (to a lower energy state).
The lower, the worse things are, but not the same as the Christian "Hell".
the abyss is a Black hole where the Souls that don’t make it get tossed. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=305988&highlight=progenitor#post305988)
There are consequences for the things you do.
The things you do are the result of Maximum Perceived Benefit (MPB). This is not the same as free will.
You will be punished if your MPB causes you to do the wrong things.
MPB is what is actually evolving. Your algorithm (as well as your database) expands, and evolves over time. It grows. It becomes more complex. You become more self aware. You gain individuality, you gain power. You gain control. You gain freedom. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=121324&highlight=database+expands#post121324)
Anyone who commits an immoral act is insane (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306200&highlight=anyone+commits+immoral+insane#post306200 )
Threat of punishment is the only thing that leads to morality.
A situation is a pattern of events outside the context of time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=313714&highlight=situation+pattern+events#post313714)

Miscellaneous Followers of LD are on an Omniworldview line.
Fate = Karma. Karma is – every action has a equal reaction (initially equal, but magnified over Time) (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=303319&highlight=karma#post303319)
No evidence against a thing means evidence for a thing. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=315164&highlight=figment+progenitor#post315164)

A more detailed explanation of the Logical Deism creation story is given here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=315470&highlight=remnant+furthermore#post315470)

billydkid

3rd February 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by whitefork

I don't think that's how it goes. All the F-arguments are directed against A-theists. TLOP and free-willy are A-theist gods. He's telling you what you believe, according to Logical Deism. This is the reason why most people here think the whole basis of the argument is building and attacking the old straw man.

That's what I've concluded after months of watching the game. The positive elements of LDeism appear in Tricky's list. They are not supported by any arguments as far as I can tell.

Well, Franko did write "TLOP (God), controls you, controls car..." it seems to me writing "TLOP (God)...." is saying TLOP and God are synonymous.

Tricky

3rd February 2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by billydkid

Well, Franko did write "TLOP (God), controls you, controls car..." it seems to me writing "TLOP (God)...." is saying TLOP and God are synonymous.
That's the odd part. Franko has deified TLOP time and time again, arguing in fact that they are an aspect of the Logical Goddess. At the same time, he claims that atheists (or at least A-Theists) also worship TLOP even if they don't know it. Since he has declared atheism to be a religion, he must also provide them with a god. The presumption that this "religion" that he hates so much shares the same god as Logical Deism is one of the many very strange things about Franko.

whitefork

3rd February 2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by billydkid

Well, Franko did write "TLOP (God), controls you, controls car..." it seems to me writing "TLOP (God)...." is saying TLOP and God are synonymous.
You are of course correct, but the Sage of Baltimore has at least two flavors in his freezer - the one for the Logical Deists and the one for everybody else (the A-theists).

I do not have the link handy but he clearly stated that the "you/atoms/obey/tlop" trivet is "for the A-theists". Those who deny the existence of god are perforce believers in the deity of TLOP and the almighty toaster.

I don't think this position is part of the LD Catechism, but I'm no authority.

Franko

4th February 2003, 09:02 AM

Wraith:
It's not my problem if you’re so dependent on matter.

They can Run, they can Concede, or they can be Annihilated.

And they can only Run so far D.A.

Tricky

4th February 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Franko

They can Run, they can Concede, or they can be Annihilated.

And they can only Run so far D.A.
But they can't choose to do any of these, right?

Franko

4th February 2003, 10:18 AM

But they can't choose to do any of these, right?

That depends upon your specific definition of the term "choice" (to "choose"). In my vocabulary there are no 'choices" per sae. Everything you "decide" is simply the result of an algorithm running that is your mind. Your "choices" are simply your preordained "outputs".

So even by my terminology you could say that they "choose" their own Fate ... Yes.

Tricky

4th February 2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Franko
That depends upon your specific definition of the term "choice" (to "choose"). In my vocabulary there are no 'choices" per sae. Everything you "decide" is simply the result of an algorithm running that is your mind. Your "choices" are simply your preordained "outputs".

So even by my terminology you could say that they "choose" their own Fate ... Yes.
Well, that's certainly one for the list. Any chance of getting you to verifiy the accuracy of the list? I'm trying to make it easy by linking the references now.
**********************

NOTE: Many of these “beliefs” were verified by Franko in this post. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=290098&highlight=logical+goddess+omnipotent#post290098)
Origins This universe is part of an omniverse.
The first entity is the Progenitor Solipsist (PS) – our original primordial ancestor – what the Christians call “God the Father/God the Creator”
The Progenitor Solipsist exists in the distant past when there were only two intrinsic parameters - Mass and Velocity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=306446&highlight=progenitor#post306446)
This universe was created by the Logical Goddess (LG), who also created the forces (electro-magnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear). She did not create gravity.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
The Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
Consciousness creates matter.
The Big Bang is made up of two parts. The Goddess corresponds to "The Initial State” (the initial “random” configuration of stuff). The other part is The Laws of Physics . (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306475&highlight=configuration+stuff#post306475)

How Things Work One soul = one graviton.
Gravitons come from the omniverse, but not necessarily this universe.
The Logical goddess is the "top graviton", meaning she is omnipotent.
Gravitons are fermions, i.e. they have spin and charge.
The gender of a graviton is determined by its spin.
Determinism/Fate/”free will” is the interaction of gravitons of varying strength.
The same logic that leads me to conclude a more evolved being exist leads me to believe that entities’ gender female. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=114229&highlight=determinism+interaction+gravitons#post11 4229)
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatabalist free will. None.
The LG is the most conscious and complex entity in the universe.
TLOP are an expression of the LG. She controls them.
The LG, using TLOP, creates the shape, or body of humans. The soul is the graviton.
The LG, and by extension TLOP are smarter, more powerful and more complex than humans.
True randomness does not exist.
If A has property P and B is made of A, then B has property P. (As shown by the syllogism, "Atoms obey the laws of physics. You are made of atoms. Therefore you obey the laws of physics.)
Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
Gravitons are the fundamental force-carrying particles of Gravity and Time.
Gravitons are made of time (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=311266&highlight=information+gravitons#post311266)
Essentially, LD is a Unified Theory of Physics.
The universe can be completely described in terms of binary responses.
If A controls B then A is more conscious than B. -- EXCEPTION If it appears that a less conscious object is controlling a more conscious object, it is actually the LG that is controlling them both.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.

Morality Gravitons are intrinsically Good or Evil.
Good Gravitons will move forward in Time (to a higher energy state), Evil Gravitons will move backwards in Time (to a lower energy state).
The lower, the worse things are, but not the same as the Christian "Hell".
the abyss is a Black hole where the Souls that don’t make it get tossed. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=305988&highlight=progenitor#post305988)
There are consequences for the things you do.
The things you do are the result of Maximum Perceived Benefit (MPB). This is not the same as free will.
You will be punished if your MPB causes you to do the wrong things.
MPB is what is actually evolving. Your algorithm (as well as your database) expands, and evolves over time. It grows. It becomes more complex. You become more self aware. You gain individuality, you gain power. You gain control. You gain freedom. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=121324&highlight=database+expands#post121324)
Anyone who commits an immoral act is insane (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306200&highlight=anyone+commits+immoral+insane#post306200 )
Threat of punishment is the only thing that leads to morality.
A situation is a pattern of events outside the context of time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=313714&highlight=situation+pattern+events#post313714)

Miscellaneous/The Lexicon Followers of LD are on an Omniworldview line.
Fate = Karma. Karma is – every action has a equal reaction (initially equal, but magnified over Time) (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=303319&highlight=karma#post303319)
No evidence against a thing means evidence for a thing. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=315164&highlight=figment+progenitor#post315164)
choices are preordained outputs (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=323334&highlight=choices+preordained+outputs#post323334)

A more detailed explanation of the Logical Deism creation story is given here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=315470&highlight=remnant+furthermore#post315470)

Franko

4th February 2003, 12:14 PM

Ohhh Tricky, I'm much more interested in talking about A-Theism then I am in talking about Logical Deism. I talk enough about Logical Deism in the real world. Besides, as I keep stating I am NOT here to convert ANYONE to my beliefs. I am hear to find out why A-Theists think they are the most Skeptical Religion of all times?

Why don't you take 5 minutes and finally explain it to me?

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

Tricky

4th February 2003, 12:29 PM

Because, Franko, I have never said any of those things. Why don't you post some links to show where I have?

You, on the other hand, are recorded as saying the things above, and I have shown evidence for many of them. I have also offered to change them if you will give me your corrections.

BTW. Look at the title of this thread. This thread is about Logical Deism. That is what we are discussing here. If you want to discuss atheism or A-Theism, start another thread.

Franko

4th February 2003, 12:50 PM

Tricky: (A-Theist)
Because, Franko, I have never said any of those things. Why don't you post some links to show where I have?

So you are denying that you believe in “free will”? You are denying that you have claimed Determinism is FALSE? You are denying that you have claimed to have a “proof” for “free will”? and you are claiming that you have not stated CARs (or TOAST) is superior (more complex) than a HUMAN BEING?

You, on the other hand, are recorded as saying the things above, and I have shown evidence for many of them. I have also offered to change them if you will give me your corrections.

Yeah, I say what I believe and I stick to it. I don’t need to hide my beliefs like YOU do Tricky . A person only hides what they believe when they know they have no evidence to back any of it up.

BTW. Look at the title of this thread. This thread is about Logical Deism. That is what we are discussing here. If you want to discuss atheism or A-Theism, start another thread.

I’m here to talk about A-Theism. If you want to talk about Logical Deism I suggest you find yourself another Logical Deist.

Why don't you take 5 minutes and finally explain you’re a-Theism to me? Why don’t you PROVE you have nothing to hide Tricky?

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Tricky, 30+ year A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

Tricky

4th February 2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Franko
So you are denying that you believe in “free will
I have said I believe in free will defined as "The ability to choose between available, perceived options". I have not claimed to believe in free will as you have defined it.

You are denying that you have claimed Determinism is FALSE? It is my understanding that quantum mechanics gives evidence that determinism is false.

You are denying that you have claimed to have a “proof” for “free will”?

Yes, I deny that. I said (many times) I have evidence for free will as I have defined it above. Here's another piece of evidence. I "chose" to respond to your post.

and you are claiming that you have not stated CARs (or TOAST) is superior (more complex) than a HUMAN BEING?

If anyone is interested, I can provide the links back to that discussion. However I never said cars were superior to humans. In fact, I disagree strongly that "superior" and "complex" are synonyms.

Yeah, I say what I believe and I stick to it. I don’t need to hide my beliefs like YOU do Tricky. A person only hides what they believe when they know they have no evidence to back any of it up.

I'm not hiding anything. If you ask me what I believe, I will tell you. If you tell me what I believe, then I will probably disagree. You have a bit of a history for mis-stating the positions of others.

I’m here to talk about A-Theism. If you want to talk about Logical Deism I suggest you find yourself another Logical Deist.
Well, it's a free forum. For someone who claims they don't want to talk about Logical Deism, though, you certainly have an impressive array of things you've said about it. I only ask that you give me corrections for my list so that those of us who do wish to discuss Logical Deism do not misrepresent its beliefs. What could be more fair?

Franko

4th February 2003, 01:43 PM

Tricky:
I have said I believe in free will defined as "The ability to choose between available, perceived options". I have not claimed to believe in free will as you have defined it.

I never have defined “free will”, because it is a nonsensical concept that cannot be logical formulated.

What exactly does “choosing between available perceived options” mean? What “available perceived options” did you have in selecting your parents? What “available perceived options” did you have in selecting you hair color? Height? Final IQ? Etc. etc.?

What makes you believe that you EVER had any “available options”? You have NEVER presented ANY evidence that “choice” exist in the manner you describe.

It is my understanding that quantum mechanics gives evidence that determinism is false.

Yeah, but only of the present isn’t based on the past.

… and the last time I checked … the Buccaneer’s still had won the Super bowl.

Yes, I deny that. I said (many times) I have evidence for free will as I have defined it above. Here's another piece of evidence. I "chose" to respond to your post.

I Hate to burst your balloon, but that was Fate.

Check it out, I bet you will “choose” to respond to more of my posts in the future – That’s your Fate.

If anyone is interested, I can provide the links back to that discussion. However I never said cars were superior to humans. In fact, I disagree strongly that "superior" and "complex" are synonyms.

Okay, so if you are less complex than your CAR (as I have claimed all along), then how can you be more complex than TLOP?

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.

If TLOP is controlling your destiny in an analogous fashion to the way YOU control CAR, then why isn’t TLOP similarly more conscious then YOU the way you are more conscious then CAR?

Who “chose” the color of your CAR?
Who “chose” the color of your Hair?

Who “chose” the make and model of your CAR?
Who “chose” that you would be a Human living in this time period as a Male?

Who “determines” your destination when you drive your CAR? YOU or CAR?
Who “determines” the direction your life will go (destination) in this Universe? Doesn’t TLOP decide ALL of the crucial factors that make you YOU? How many things happen to you that seem purely the result of chance (TLOP)? It looks to me like TLOP determines your destination far more than YOU do.

In short, I hear a CAR claiming to be more conscious then his DRIVER (TLOP).

Tricky

4th February 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Franko
I never have defined “free will”, because it is a nonsensical concept that cannot be logical formulated.
One need not subscribe to a belief to be able to define it. For example, I can define God, even though I see no evidence for one. It may not agree with your definition, but I am capable of grasping the concept. It is a pity that you are so mentally hamstrung that you can't do this.

What exactly does “choosing between available perceived options” mean?
Available means it is an option that it is possible to choose. For example, defying gravity is not an available option. Perceived means that you realize the option is there. For example, the option for you to define "free will" is available, but you cannot perceive it. Having poor perception drastically reduces your free will.

What “available perceived options” did you have in selecting your parents?
Since travelling backwards in time is an impossiblity, this is not an available option, therefore it is not a free will choice. Are you really this dense?

What “available perceived options” did you have in selecting you hair color?
I can buy hair dye. As far a "natural" hair color goes, well that was decided before I was born. I cannot choose things when I don't yet exist.

Height?
Very little choice here. It is withing the range of possibility that I could have somehow obtained pituatary growth hormones when growing up. Not likely though.

Final IQ? Etc. etc.?
Depends on how you measure I.Q. The tests have never been shown to correct for all environmental factors. Certainly studying helped me score better on my GREs.

What makes you believe that you EVER had any “available options”? You have NEVER presented ANY evidence that “choice” exist in the manner you describe.
My, but your memory is short. Less than a month ago I used your sycophant, wraith to give evidence that even though he denied free will existed he could in fact
choose (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=298802&highlight=chose+number#post298802) between available, perceived options. Here's the evidence.
Originally posted by wraith
I chose 33. No particular reason.

Yeah, but only of the present isn’t based on the past.

The present isn't base only on the past. All you have to do is have a single non-deterministic event to prove that the universe isn't deterministic. QM shows this to be the case.

… and the last time I checked … the Buccaneer’s still had won the Super bowl.
Yeah, and last time you weighed in on this, you said you
Posted by Franko on 1-26-2003
I bet I could tell you who will win …
Of course, in your typical show of bravery, you declined to follow up your brag (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=312817&highlight=teams+stipulated#post312817) with a prediction.

I Hate to burst your balloon, but that was Fate.

Check it out, I bet you will “choose” to respond to more of my posts in the future – That’s your Fate.
Of course I will. I have promised you I will continue to respond to you. But not to every post, nor can you predict without error to which posts I will respond. That's my free will.

The rest is just repetition. Bring me some new questions and I will answer them, just as I have answered your old ones. Better yet, post your corrections to the "List". Then you would actually be doing something constructive.

wraith

5th February 2003, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Available means it is an option that it is possible to choose. For example, defying gravity is not an available option. Perceived means that you realize the option is there. For example, the option for you to define "free will" is available, but you cannot perceive it. Having poor perception drastically reduces your free will.

Why dont you wear a dress to work?
Are you not a product of your surroundings?
Why dont you use free-willy and walk to work ;)

Since travelling backwards in time is an impossiblity, this is not an available option, therefore it is not a free will choice. Are you really this dense?

So if you were born in a poor part of Africia, I take it that you use free-will to check your e-mails? Are you a product of your surroundings?

Are you this dense? ;)

Originally posted by wraith
I chose 33. No particular reason.

Trixy, "Fighter aircraft of the US airforce."
What did you think of?
Is this evidence of free-will?

Tricky

5th February 2003, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by wraith
Why dont you wear a dress to work?
Because I don't choose to.
Are you not a product of your surroundings?
Partially, but not completely, as you have demonstrated. What did your "surroundings" have to do with you picking the number 33?

Why dont you use free-willy and walk to work.
What makes you think I don't walk to work? What is your evidence?

So if you were born in a poor part of Africia, I take it that you use free-will to check your e-mails?
Don't mix tenses, wraith. It makes you look ignorant.
If I were born in a poor part of Africa but I had a PC and internet connections, I could use free will to check my e-mail. Otherwise, it would not be an available option. Why is this concept so difficult for you?

Are you this dense? ;)
I'm certainly not the brightest poster here, it only appears that way in when I am replying to you.:rolleyes:

Trixy, "Fighter aircraft of the US airforce."
What did you think of?

If there is no free will, then you should be able to predict this. I imagine it would surprise you. However, I can describe a test to show how good your powers of prediction are.

My wife and I play "word association" a lot, where you take turns saying the first word that the last person's word reminds you of. Even though I probably know her better than anyone else in the world does, I usually cannot guess what she will say. Why? She has free will too!

Is this evidence of free-will?
Yes. Duh.

Lucifuge Rofocale

5th February 2003, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

I'm certainly not the brightest poster here, it only appears that way in when I am replying to you.:rolleyes:

Brilliant!

Franko

5th February 2003, 01:08 PM

Tricky: (A-Theist)
One need not subscribe to a belief to be able to define it. For example, I can define God, even though I see no evidence for one. It may not agree with your definition, but I am capable of grasping the concept. It is a pity that you are so mentally hamstrung that you can't do this.

Well, I was unimpressed by your “4-sided triangle” as well “Tricky”.

I guess I’m just not as good at pretending I can imagine illogical things as well as you pretend Tricky?

Available means it is an option that it is possible to choose. For example, defying gravity is not an available option.

How about picking your parents?

How about selecting your gender at birth?

How about your height? Hair color? eye color? Place of birth? I.Q.? Elementary School? Whether your mother was an alcoholic? Whether your father was abusive?

What gives you the notion that you have ANY more ability to “choose” then the Moon does? What makes you believe that you have any more ability to “choose” anything than an Atom does?

What is you EVIDENCE for this claim? (other than your obvious Wishful Thinking?)

Perceived means that you realize the option is there. For example, the option for you to define "free will" is available, but you cannot perceive it. Having poor perception drastically reduces your free will.

yeah … like I said, wishful thinking. You haven’t provided a single scrap of evidence that you have any more “choice” then the Moon does in selecting it’s orbital position. You are living in a little A-Theist Fantasy world Trixy, and after dedicating your entire life to your Religion I think it is very obvious that it is Far, far more important to you than the Truth.

Tricky

5th February 2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Well, I was unimpressed by your “4-sided triangle” as well “Tricky”.
I knew you would be. At least you admit that free will exists now.

I guess I’m just not as good at pretending I can imagine illogical things as well as you pretend Tricky?
I would agree to that. You appear to be severely deficient in imagination.

How about picking your parents?
Not an available option. You appear to be severely deficient in reading skills too.

(Insert generic Franko post here)

As well as severely deficient in originality. Get some new material. Maybe some "new information" will enter your system.

Tricky

6th February 2003, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Franko
For once you can make a point instead of simply looking like a dogmatic A-Theist imbecile.
You can forget it, Dungeonmaster (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=325726&highlight=dungeonmaster#post325726). I'm on to you now. The game has lost its spark for me.

Franko

6th February 2003, 12:33 PM

Tricky:

I would agree to that. You appear to be severely deficient in imagination.

Yeah, but it did really crack me up when you claimed that you could actually comprehend things which you acknowledged you could not comprehend. That was a hoot.

Explain "free will" for me trixy, You claim to "comprehend" how it works. If things aren't completely determined by the events of your past (your past memories), then precisely and exactly how are they determined? Explain the magic process by which your actions are not determined completely by your past experiences?

For once you can make a point instead of simply looking like a dogmatic A-Theist imbecile.

wraith

6th February 2003, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
wraith: why dont you wear a dress to work?

Trix: Because I don't choose to.

Is that "choice" based on how you interpret your past?

wraith: Are you not a product of your surroundings?

Trix:Partially, but not completely, as you have demonstrated. What did your "surroundings" have to do with you picking the number 33?

My "surroundings" sent me to school.
My "surroundings" taught me how to count.

When you asked me to pick a number between 1 and 100, my MPB was to actually answer your question and to pick a number. My MPB was to "choose" the first number that came to my head.

I perveived no benefit to spend an "excessive" amount of time to go through a systematic process and "choose" a number.
If you asked me to "choose" a number, and that "choice" had a worthy outcome, then I would have put some effort into it :cool:

What makes you think I don't walk to work? What is your evidence?

I just assumed ;)

Don't mix tenses, wraith. It makes you look ignorant.
If I were born in a poor part of Africa but I had a PC and internet connections, I could use free will to check my e-mail.

Looks to me that youre simply obeying TLOP.

Otherwise, it would not be an available option. Why is this concept so difficult for you?

Youre obeying TLOP
You are a product of your surroundings.
If there is an internet connection, and I like using the net, then I will use the internet connection.
If there is none, then I wont use one. I cant go and willy nilly rock on up to a computer and get on-line :rolleyes:

wriath: Trixy, "Fighter aircraft of the US airforce."
What did you think of?

Trix: If there is no free will, then you should be able to predict this.

Thats a bit hard when you dont have all the information :rolleyes:
Does determinism imply that I control TLOP?

I imagine it would surprise you. However, I can describe a test to show how good your powers of prediction are.

I wasnt trying to predict anything, I wanted to know what you thought of...

My wife and I play "word association" a lot, where you take turns saying the first word that the last person's word reminds you of. Even though I probably know her better than anyone else in the world does, I usually cannot guess what she will say. Why? She has free will too!

Thats great ;)
You still havent answered my question.
What did you think of?
Is this evidence of free-will and why?

Tricky

7th February 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by dungeonmaster (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=325726&highlight=dungeonmaster#post325726)

Is that "choice" based on how you interpret your past?

Mostly, but not 100% I still have the option to wear a dress.

Originally posted by dungeonmaster (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=325726&highlight=dungeonmaster#post325726)
My "surroundings" sent me to school.
My "surroundings" taught me how to count.

When you asked me to pick a number between 1 and 100, my MPB was to actually answer your question and to pick a number. My MPB was to "choose" the first number that came to my head.
So all of your "surroundings" couldn't tell you what number you'd pick. Since there was no MPB, and no surroundings to clue you in, without free will, you should have been paralyzed, unable to pick anything. And yet you did. BTW, putting "choose" in quotes does not change the definition. You chose. You cannot substitute MBP because then it would read "My MPB was to MPB the first number...". Give it up.

Originally posted by dungeonmaster (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=325726&highlight=dungeonmaster#post325726)
I perveived no benefit to spend an "excessive" amount of time to go through a systematic process and "choose" a number.
If you asked me to "choose" a number, and that "choice" had a worthy outcome, then I would have put some effort into it :cool:
If you perceived no benefit in choosing a number using a systematic process, then you could not have chosen a number, with no free will. MPB only works when there is Perceived Benefit, right?

Originally posted by dungeonmaster (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=325726&highlight=dungeonmaster#post325726)
I just assumed ;)
And wrongly. I live about a mile and a half from work. Some days I walk. Some days I ride my bike. Some days I drive. I use my free will to decide which mode to use. Your example has failed again, as have all of your examples.

Originally posted by dungeonmaster (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=325726&highlight=dungeonmaster#post325726)
Looks to me that youre simply obeying TLOP.
Yes, this wraith character has a very simple outlook. It does not analyze much. Still I like it better than the Franko character.

Originally posted by dungeonmaster (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=325726&highlight=dungeonmaster#post325726)
Youre obeying TLOP
You are a product of your surroundings.
If there is an internet connection, and I like using the net, then I will use the internet connection.
If there is none, then I wont use one. I cant go and willy nilly rock on up to a computer and get on-line :rolleyes:
Nope. You can only choose between available options, as I have explained many (many, many, many) times before.

Originally posted by dungeonmaster (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=325726&highlight=dungeonmaster#post325726)

Thats a bit hard when you dont have all the information :rolleyes:
Does determinism imply that I control TLOP?
Well your basic argument is that something has all the information. Unless you can show that this is true, then it is purely hypothesis on your part. Unless you can show me where TLOP have this information, then why should I believe that they do? Since you are claiming that TLOP are conscious, you have the burden of proof.

Originally posted by dungeonmaster (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=325726&highlight=dungeonmaster#post325726)
I wasnt trying to predict anything, I wanted to know what you thought of...
An aircraft carrier, if you must know. Is that what you thought of? No? I guess we have different MPB :D.

Well, dungeonmaster (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=325726&highlight=dungeonmaster#post325726), I am tiring of your game. I will leave you to play with others. I am glad you are having fun with internet schizophrenia, but now that I see the man behind the curtain, the face of Oz isn't as exciting as before. Now if you come up with some new material, perhaps I will play again. This constant rehashing gets old, especially when I know you don't believe any of it.

wraith

8th February 2003, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Mostly, but not 100% I still have the option to wear a dress.

But is it really an option?
If you wanted to impress your boss and you knew that your boss would not be impressed if you wore a dress, then the choice of "wearing a dress to work" isnt a choice at all.

So all of your "surroundings" couldn't tell you what number you'd pick. Since there was no MPB, and no surroundings to clue you in, without free will, you should have been paralyzed, unable to pick anything. And yet you did.

I told you what the MPB was. It was to answer your question by actually picking a number and also to "choose" the number that first came to my head.

BTW, putting "choose" in quotes does not change the definition.

It does actually ;)
You perceive a "choice" as some sort of option that you "chose" because of free-will. In other words, youre saying that your past has nothing to do with your present.

Im saying that a "choice" is simply the result of an input processed by your MPB. (The present is based on your past.)

If you perceived no benefit in choosing a number using a systematic process, then you could not have chosen a number, with no free will.

?
Why?
I take it that deciding what you want for dinner is illogical without free-will? :rolleyes:

And wrongly. I live about a mile and a half from work. Some days I walk. Some days I ride my bike. Some days I drive. I use my free will to decide which mode to use. Your example has failed again, as have all of your examples.

lol
how can it be wrong if i wasnt trying to predict anything?
anyway, the causes for you driving, cycling or walking to work are all logical.
You wouldnt walk to work if it's raining and you wanted to keep dry.

Nope. You can only choose between available options, as I have explained many (many, many, many) times before.

Those other options are not really options that you would engage.

Well your basic argument is that something has all the information. Unless you can show that this is true, then it is purely hypothesis on your part. Unless you can show me where TLOP have this information, then why should I believe that they do? Since you are claiming that TLOP are conscious, you have the burden of proof.

Yes

CAR obeys ME obeys TLOP
without using a double standard, how are you more conscious than TLOP without the car being more conscious than you?

wraith: I wasnt trying to predict anything, I wanted to know what you thought of...

Trix: An aircraft carrier, if you must know. Is that what you thought of? No?

I thought of an F-22 actually :cool:

I guess we have different MPB :D.

ofcourse we do
we are different entities :eek:

Well, dungeonmaster (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=325726&highlight=dungeonmaster#post325726), I am tiring of your game. I will leave you to play with others. I am glad you are having fun with internet schizophrenia, but now that I see the man behind the curtain, the face of Oz isn't as exciting as before. Now if you come up with some new material, perhaps I will play again. This constant rehashing gets old, especially when I know you don't believe any of it.

youre going down in a ball of fire Trix ;)

Tricky

8th February 2003, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by wraith (or whoever)
youre going down in a ball of fire Trix ;)
I am simply returning my fighter plane to the aircraft carrier, since I have discovered there is no "real" enemy to engage. I'll let others participate in your "war games".

MRC_Hans

8th February 2003, 01:37 PM

CAR obeys ME obeys TLOP
without using a double standard, how are you more conscious than TLOP without the car being more conscious than you?
Do explain how anyting follows from this, Wraith, Frank, or whoever. Both I and my car are restrained by tlop. How is this evidence of tlop being conscious in any way?

Hans

MRC_Hans

9th February 2003, 11:14 PM

bump

Franko

10th February 2003, 07:32 AM

Do explain how anyting follows from this, Wraith, Frank, or whoever. Both I and my car are restrained by tlop. How is this evidence of tlop being conscious in any way?

It's a hierarchy MRC, TLOP is more conscious then YOU and your CAR.

Think of the Army ... A General commands (controls) a Captain who in turn commands a Private.

MRC_Hans

10th February 2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Franko

It's a hierarchy MRC, TLOP is more conscious then YOU and your CAR.

Think of the Army ... A General commands (controls) a Captain who in turn commands a Private. Yeah, I understand what you MEAN, but that doesn't make it make sense. Why is it a hierarchy? Why is the way tlop controls me any different from the way it controls my car?

Hans

Franko

10th February 2003, 07:40 AM

MRC:
Yeah, I understand what you MEAN, but that doesn't make it make sense. Why is it a hierarchy? Why is the way tlop controls me any different from the way it controls my car?

Do you directly control the fuel mix/rate as it flows to your CAR's engine, or do you indirectly control it by directly controlling the gas pedal?

In the same way the LG indirectly controls your CAR by directly controlling YOU.

Keep in mind YOU and the LG are both Gravitons, your CAR is not.

Aardvark_DK

10th February 2003, 08:04 AM

Hmmmmm... Nope, Franko, it's still bollocks.

Franko

10th February 2003, 08:40 AM

Aardvark:
Hmmmmm... Nope, Franko, it's still bollocks.

I guess since you don't feel the need to present ANY evidence we'll just have to take your word for it?

Yeah ... like I said Aardvark, YOU are no Skeptic.

Aardvark_DK

10th February 2003, 09:41 AM

Franko, if you don't understand that TLOP's consciousness doesn't follow from your "CAR obeys ME obeys TLOP", then there is really nothing we can do about it. And if you like to believe that you're a skeptic and pretty much everyone else here is not... well, knock yourself out, kid!

*Aardvark suddenly realises that he's arguing with Franko again*

DOH! This really says a lot about how empty my life is at the moment.

Franko

10th February 2003, 09:54 AM

Aardvark:
I see no evidence for any god or gods existence, and therefore I don't believe in, or lack belief in, any god or gods.

I see no evidence for any “black holes” existence, and therefore I don't believe in, or lack belief in, any “black holes”.

I see no evidence for any “extraterrestrial Aliens” existence, and therefore I don't believe in, or lack belief in, any “extraterrestrial Aliens”.

I see no evidence for any “free willy” existence, and therefore I don't believe in, or lack belief in, any “free willy”.

I guess when you are an A-Theist you have to throw consistency out the window.

Ohh well … at least you have your Dogma Aardfart!

Aardfart: (hopeless A-Theist nutcase)
if you don't understand that TLOP's consciousness doesn't follow from your "CAR obeys ME obeys TLOP", then there is really nothing we can do about it.

And if you don’t understand that YOU claiming to be more conscious then TLOP is the same as YOU claiming your CAR is more conscious then YOU then there us really nothing that I want to do about it. To be honest I enjoy making an idiot out of You, Trixy, CWL, MRC, Evildave, Da Fool, Titanpout, De-Bungler, Stimpy, etc. etc. day after day. Why the hell do you think I spend so much time here?

And if you like to believe that you're a skeptic and pretty much everyone else here is not...

What I believe is academic. In all likelihood I’m just a figment of your imagination … I don’t even exist …

Aardvark_DK

10th February 2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Franko
You, Trixy, CWL, MRC, Evildave, Da Fool, Titanpout, De-Bungler, Stimpy, etc. etc.
Hey, I'm in (mostly) pretty good company! Thanks, Franko!

*blushes*

Franko

10th February 2003, 10:14 AM

Hey, I'm in (mostly) pretty good company! Thanks, Franko!

hehe ... yeah say hi to Cardinal Bellarmine when you see him in Hell.

Tricky

12th February 2003, 11:27 AM

The Progenitor Logical Deist has been particularly lucid lately, and as a result, we have a much better list of his beliefs. Items marked by a
are new:

As always, I invite Franko to make corrections.
___________________________
NOTE: Many of these “beliefs” were verified by Franko in this post. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=290098&highlight=logical+goddess+omnipotent#post290098)
Origins This universe is part of an omniverse.
The first entity is the Progenitor Solipsist (PS) – our original primordial ancestor – what the Christians call “God the Father/God the Creator”
The Progenitor Solipsist exists in the distant past when there were only two intrinsic parameters - Mass and Velocity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=306446&highlight=progenitor#post306446)
This universe was created by the Logical Goddess (LG), who also created the forces (electro-magnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear). She did not create gravity.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
The Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
Consciousness creates matter.
The Big Bang is made up of two parts. The Goddess corresponds to "The Initial State” (the initial “random” configuration of stuff). The other part is The Laws of Physics . (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306475&highlight=configuration+stuff#post306475)

How Things Work One soul = one graviton.
Gravitons come from the omniverse, but not necessarily this universe.
The Logical goddess is the "top graviton", meaning she is omnipotent.
Gravitons are fermions, i.e. they have spin and charge.
Spin is quality of Mass, and Charge is quality of Velocity. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334873&highlight=spin+quality+mass+charge+velocity#post33 4873)
The gender of a graviton is determined by its spin.
Determinism/Fate/”free will” is the interaction of gravitons of varying strength.
The same logic that leads me to conclude a more evolved being exist leads me to believe that entities’ gender female. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=114229&highlight=determinism+interaction+gravitons#post11 4229)
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatabalist free will. None.
The LG is the most conscious and complex entity in the universe.
This entire Universe is essentially an illusion. You and I actually exist as particles in the Truer reality of the Omniverse. This universe is a carefully constructed elaboration of the True reality. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334724&highlight=entire+Universe+is+essentially+an+illusi on#post334724[/url)
TLOP are an expression of the LG. She controls them.
The LG, using TLOP, creates the shape, or body of humans. The soul is the graviton.
The LG, and by extension TLOP are smarter, more powerful and more complex than humans.
True randomness does not exist.
If A has property P and B is made of A, then B has property P. (As shown by the syllogism, "Atoms obey the laws of physics. You are made of atoms. Therefore you obey the laws of physics.)
Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
Gravitons are the fundamental force-carrying particles of Gravity and Time.
A Graviton is just a special kind of meme, and memes are just distinct packets of information. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334704&highlight=meme#post334704)
Gravitons are made of time (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=311266&highlight=information+gravitons#post311266)
Objects without gravitons don't really exist in the way that You or I do. They are merely projections. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334724&highlight=merely+projections#post334724[/url)
Essentially, LD is a Unified Theory of Physics.
The universe can be completely described in terms of binary responses.
If A controls B then A is more conscious than B. -- EXCEPTION If it appears that a less conscious object is controlling a more conscious object, it is actually the LG that is controlling them both.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.

Morality Gravitons are intrinsically Good or Evil.
Good Gravitons will move forward in Time (to a higher energy state), Evil Gravitons will move backwards in Time (to a lower energy state).
The lower, the worse things are, but not the same as the Christian "Hell".
the abyss is a Black hole where the Souls that don’t make it get tossed. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=305988&highlight=progenitor#post305988)
There are consequences for the things you do.
The things you do are the result of Maximum Perceived Benefit (MPB). This is not the same as free will.
You will be punished if your MPB causes you to do the wrong things.
MPB is what is actually evolving. Your algorithm (as well as your database) expands, and evolves over time. It grows. It becomes more complex. You become more self aware. You gain individuality, you gain power. You gain control. You gain freedom. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=121324&highlight=database+expands#post121324)
Anyone who commits an immoral act is insane (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306200&highlight=anyone+commits+immoral+insane#post306200 )
Threat of punishment is the only thing that leads to morality.
A situation is a pattern of events outside the context of time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=313714&highlight=situation+pattern+events#post313714)

Miscellaneous/The Lexicon Followers of LD are on an Omniworldview line.
Fate = Karma. Karma is – every action has a equal reaction (initially equal, but magnified over Time) (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=303319&highlight=karma#post303319)
No evidence against a thing means evidence for a thing. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=315164&highlight=figment+progenitor#post315164)
choices are preordained outputs (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=323334&highlight=choices+preordained+outputs#post323334)
In LD an Eternity is a very long long period of time, not an “infinite” period of time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=324718&highlight=eternity+period+time#post324718)

A more detailed explanation of the Logical Deism creation story is given here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=315470&highlight=remnant+furthermore#post315470)

wraith

13th February 2003, 12:36 AM

thats quite a list you have there Trix
keep it up
;)

Q-Source

13th February 2003, 02:52 AM

Impressive job, Tricky.

Now, I think it needs coherence.
I don't know if Franko has done it before, but it would be a good idea to have a kind of story, starting with how the PS split himself and how the LG created this Universe.

But before, Franko has to endorse that your list is what he believes.

Q-S

Tricky

13th February 2003, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source
Impressive job, Tricky.

Now, I think it needs coherence.
I don't know if Franko has done it before, but it would be a good idea to have a kind of story, starting with how the PS split himself and how the LG created this Universe.

Thanks
The "splitting" part is briefly covered in the creation story (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=315470&highlight=remnant+furthermore#post315470) but I agree it is a little fuzzy when it comes to "how". As far as creating the universe goes, it doesn't really exist other than as an illusion in the mind of the LG, so no real "creation" is necessary. It is just transfer of information between her graviton and ours. (At least, as much as I can decipher. I need a Rosetta Stone, or at least a copy of The Lexicon.)

But before, Franko has to endorse that your list is what he believes.
I have been asking him to do so and promised I would make any changes he deemed necessary. This particular labor is not part of any debate and not any kind of personal attack. It is simply trying to set the record straight about what Logical Deism is.

At least the Wraith persona seems to like it.

Q-Source

13th February 2003, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

As far as creating the universe goes, it doesn't really exist other than as an illusion in the mind of the LG, so no real "creation" is necessary. It is just transfer of information between her graviton and ours. (At least, as much as I can decipher. I need a Rosetta Stone, or at least a copy of The Lexicon

I haven't had the time to read in which context Frank mentioned that the Universe is just an illusion in the mind of the LG.
Maybe it is like running a programme that was created in her mind, that's why he says it is an illusion. She is just the programmer.

I have been asking him to do so and promised I would make any changes he deemed necessary. This particular labor is not part of any debate and not any kind of personal attack. It is simply trying to set the record straight about what Logical Deism is.

Come on, Frank. ;)
I agree with Tricky, it is just an effort to write it all in a clear and coherent fashion.

At least the Wraith persona seems to like it.

Tricky,

Franko is not wraith.
I have exchanged PMs with wraith and he seems to be a completely different person.

Besides, I have noticed something that makes me think they are not the same guy. If you check carefully, you will notice that wraith has never referred to God as the Logical Goddess. The reason is that he really doesn't buy everything that Frank says, of couse this is a deduction, wraith has not said it to me directly.

He always calls God the "higher power" or something like that.

Q-S

Rosetta Stone

13th February 2003, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
I need a Rosetta Stone, or at least a copy of The Lexicon

You rang?

13th February 2003, 06:17 AM

Q-S

Franko IS Wraith.

This has been admitted by both of them more than once.

Tricky

13th February 2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Rosetta Stone

You rang?
THERE you are! I've been waiting for MONTHS!

Could you please help me translate Frankonese into English. I've got a few of the terms now, but others are really throwing me. For example, when it says in Frankonese that "charge is a quality of velocity (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334873&highlight=charge+velocity#post334873)", does that mean that "charge" in Frankonese is not an electromagnetic phenomenon? When it says "spin is a quality of mass (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334873&highlight=charge+velocity#post334873)", does that mean that spin does not imply direction and velocity?

For now, I would like to see The Lexicon for English translations of the following words:
gravity
spin
mass
charge
velocity
logic
evidence
universe
atheist

I may request more translations later, but this would be a good start.

Thank you again, Ms. Stone.
(Forgive me if I have mistaken your gender, but Rosetta seems to be a feminine appellation. I don't know you well enough to ask to see which way your graviton is spinning.)

CWL

13th February 2003, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Rosetta Stone

You rang?

Hi again RS!

What's with the Nile Delta location? Have you moved? Last time I saw you, you were in the British Museum.

Rosetta Stone

13th February 2003, 06:41 AM

I hope you don't need an answer right away. Jean-Francois Champollion needed a few years to work out the hieroglyphics, and he had parallel texts available.

Q-Source

13th February 2003, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Franko IS Wraith.

This has been admitted by both of them more than once.

I think I was wrong when I said they were the same guy.

They just pretend to be the same because it is fun to have everybody speculating about them.

However, if I find that it is only Frank, then I am going to... :mad: :D

Rosetta Stone

13th February 2003, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by CWL
What's with the Nile Delta location? Have you moved? Last time I saw you, you were in the British Museum.
Thank you for pointing that out, CWL. When you get to be my age, you sometimes forget things. It's not easy being a rock.

CWL

13th February 2003, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Rosetta Stone

Thank you for pointing that out, CWL. When you get to be my age, you sometimes forget things. It's not easy being a rock.

Anytime Rosetta. Whilst on the subject of pointing things out, last time I saw you, you were not in a glass case. Have they put you in one, and why did they do that? Have you been a naughty little stone? ;)

Rosetta Stone

13th February 2003, 07:21 AM

A relatively recent (geologically speaking) development, CWL. If you are stoned all the time you might just forget where you are.

http://www.hat.net/album/middle_east/004_egypt/001_highlights_of_egypt/detail043.htm

CWL

13th February 2003, 07:33 AM

Ah, so that's why they put you in a glass cage. It looks pretty cosy though.

Listened to any good rock music lately? Still into the Stones?

How's your hubby by the way, that old erratic boulder. Still out rolling around somewhere?

Franko

13th February 2003, 07:40 AM

CWL,

I hear they really miss you over in the BANTER section.

Tricky

13th February 2003, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Franko
CWL,

I hear they really miss you over in the BANTER section.
If you are in a serious mood, how about taking a few minutes to correct the list (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=335172&highlight=elaboration#post335172) for us. I am trying very hard to capture your true meaning. I may differ with you in other places, but this one is on the up and up.

CWL

13th February 2003, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Franko
CWL,

I hear they really miss you over in the BANTER section.

Too bad there isn't a CUTTING AND PASTING section. It would fit you like a glove, syllogism man.

whitefork

13th February 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Too bad there isn't a CUTTING AND PASTING section. It would fit you like a glove, syllogism man.
Good heavens, you don't think they let him play with scissors, do you?

Franko

13th February 2003, 08:16 AM

Tricky:
If you are in a serious mood, how about taking a few minutes to correct the list for us. I am trying very hard to capture your true meaning. I may differ with you in other places, but this one is on the up and up.

red light means stop, green light means go.

I am still waiting for you to explain what you mean when you claim that you have “free will” because you deterministically “choose” between “available options”.

Do you also believe that computer programs also have “free will” because computer programs determinstically “choose” between “available options”? If not, why not? Please precisely explain what is different?

CWLoser and Whitey, you can help him if you are up to it.

CWL

13th February 2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Franko

red light means stop, green light means go.

I am still waiting for you to explain what you mean when you claim that you have “free will” because you deterministically “choose” between “available options”.

Do you also believe that computer programs also have “free will” because computer programs determinstically “choose” between “available options”? If not, why not? Please precisely explain what is different?

CWLoser and Whitey, you can help him if you are up to it.

CWLoser here. Thank you for your approval of my participation, Wise One.

Well, I am afraid I shall have to smack old Tricky (just a little) on the fingers about this one. Although I agree 100 % with his definition of "free will", I believe that he has omitted to underline that "consciousness" is a necessary part of the recipy. Hence a more complete definition is:

The ability to make conscious choices between perceived and available options.

That takes care of your computer program dilemma, unless of course you believe that computer programs are "conscious".

Franko

13th February 2003, 09:10 AM

Well, I am afraid I shall have to smack old Tricky (just a little) on the fingers about this one. Although I agree 100 % with his definition of "free will", I believe that he has omitted to underline that "consciousness" is a necessary part of the recipy. Hence a more complete definition is:

The ability to make conscious choices between perceived and available options.

That takes care of your computer program dilemma, unless of course you believe that computer programs are "conscious".

Hehe .. you really are retarded CWL.

Okay, so define consciousness. What is your evidence that YOU are conscious, and computers are not?

How does one recognize consciousness by your definition? In other words, how do you know that computers are not conscious?

Or is this just another of your hide-the-potato so you don't have to admit you are wrong games?

Tricky

13th February 2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Franko

red light means stop, green light means go.

I am still waiting for you to explain what you mean when you claim that you have “free will” because you deterministically “choose” between “available options”.

Do you also believe that computer programs also have “free will” because computer programs determinstically “choose” between “available options”? If not, why not? Please precisely explain what is different?
Chill, inqusitioner. I am not asking you anything other than, "Is this correct and not a straw man of your position?" I am not asking for proof or evidence or definitions (except to correct me if I have misrepresented you). I promise you, we'll discuss free will on other threads, but this one (supposedly) is about Logical Deism.

CWL

13th February 2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Franko
[B]

Hehe .. you really are retarded CWL.

More of that kindness and morality of Logical Deists I have heard so much about.

Okay, so define consciousness. What is your evidence that YOU are conscious, and computers are not?

How does one recognize consciousness by your definition? In other words, how do you know that computers are not conscious?

Cogito ergo sum takes care of my consciousness.

As to other computers being conscious - are you asking me to prove a negative? Or do you have any evidence that computers are conscious that you wish to discuss? That would be truly interesting.

Or is this just another of your hide-the-potato so you don't have to admit you are wrong games?

You say TLOP, I say potata.

Seriously, like Tricky suggests, let's leave the free will and consciousness banter for another thread and instead stick to the subject. So, "Logical" Deism you say... hmm... interesting...

CWL

13th February 2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Franko

I’m not kind to people who break into my house at night and try and rob me either!

Go figure.

So, what you are saying is that you equate burglars with people who do not agree with you. You live in an interesting world Franko.

Franko

13th February 2003, 01:25 PM

I guess you aren't actually here to discuss RELIGION and PHILSOPHY CWL. It seems very apparent that you are here solely to preach the "virtues" of your pathetic little Cult of pessimism. Otherwise you would address the points of posts instead of spouting off your Woo-woo gospel of logical fallacies and obfuscation.

CryingWhineyLoser:
More of that kindness and morality of Logical Deists I have heard so much about.

I’m not kind to people who break into my house at night and try and rob me either!

Go figure.

Franko:
Okay, so define consciousness. What is your evidence that YOU are conscious, and computers are not?

How does one recognize consciousness by your definition? In other words, how do you know that computers are not conscious?

CWLoser:
Cogito ergo sum takes care of my consciousness.

Define “think” CWL, otherwise you aren’t saying much of anything. (surprise, surprise)

CWLoser:
As to other computers being conscious - are you asking me to prove a negative?

No, you CLAIMED that YOU are conscious and computers are not. That isn’t a PROOF, it is just a CLAIM.

Either you have evidence for this belief, or it is simply another example of your wishful thinking in order to preserve your precious religious dogma.

What characteristic or ability leads you to conclude that YOU have “free will”, and computer do not? In other words, what is your empirical evidence (how can I replicate your train of thought) that You have “free will” and computers do not have “free will”?

Or do you have any evidence that computers are conscious that you wish to discuss? That would be truly interesting.

YOU are the one who claimed that YOU were conscious and computers were not. What is your reason for believing this (other than it would contradict your already contradictory position on “free will”?)

You say TLOP, I say potata.

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.

If TLOP is controlling your destiny in an analogous fashion to the way YOU control CAR, then why isn’t TLOP similarly more conscious then YOU the way you are more conscious then CAR?

Who “chose” the color of your CAR?
Who “chose” the color of your Hair?

Who “chose” the make and model of your CAR?
Who “chose” that you would be a Human living in this time period as a Male?

Who “determines” your destination when you drive your CAR? YOU or CAR?
Who “determines” the direction your life will go (destination) in this Universe? Doesn’t TLOP decide ALL of the crucial factors that make you YOU? How many things happen to you that seem purely the result of chance (TLOP)? It looks to me like TLOP determines your destination far more than YOU do.

In short, I hear a CAR claiming to be more conscious then his DRIVER (TLOP).

wraith

13th February 2003, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by CWL
I believe that he has omitted to underline that "consciousness" is a necessary part of the recipy. Hence a more complete definition is:

The ability to make conscious choices between perceived and available options.

That takes care of your computer program dilemma, unless of course you believe that computer programs are "conscious".

by that definition, all that you have done is shown that you are conscious when you make a decision...you perceive it

this, in no way, supports your free-willy god

CWL

14th February 2003, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by wraith

by that definition, all that you have done is shown that you are conscious when you make a decision...you perceive it

this, in no way, supports your free-willy god

Define my "free-willy god".

wraith

14th February 2003, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Define my "free-willy god".

ahhh why dont you describe it :rolleyes:

CWL

14th February 2003, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by wraith

ahhh why dont you describe it :rolleyes:

I don't believe in any god, with or without willy (free or otherwise).

I do however perceive myself making conscious choices between perceived and available options on a daily basis. This perception leads me to assume - and I think it is fairly reasonable to do so - that I, well, make conscious choices between perceived and available options! Whether or not this can be defined as a "free willy god" I leave up to you as the expert on the god stuff. Personally I see no reason to place any metaphysical label on such a simple observation.

wraith

14th February 2003, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by CWL
I do however perceive myself making conscious choices between perceived and available options on a daily basis. This perception leads me to assume - and I think it is fairly reasonable to do so - that I, well, make conscious choices between perceived and available options! Whether or not this can be defined as a "free willy god" I leave up to you as the expert on the god stuff. Personally I see no reason to place any metaphysical label on such a simple observation.

You say that you perceive your "choices"...
you dont actually "choose" anything...

You see an open flame for the first time, you touch it and get burnt...you didnt like this feeling of being burnt...

You see another open flame and you dont want to get burnt again. The "choice" of touching the flame again isnt really a choice because you will NOT "choose" to touch the flame again...

CWL

14th February 2003, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by wraith

You say that you perceive your "choices"...
you dont actually "choose" anything...

You see an open flame for the first time, you touch it and get burnt...you didnt like this feeling of being burnt...

You see another open flame and you dont want to get burnt again. The "choice" of touching the flame again isnt really a choice because you will NOT "choose" to touch the flame again...

Au contraire, mon ami logique. It is a choice because I will choose not to touch the flame again.

The above is not only a more legible sentence, but also a more accurate description of reality.

Tricky

14th February 2003, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by wraith
by that definition, all that you have done is shown that you are conscious when you make a decision...you perceive it

OH WOW! A VALID POINT! I have been arguing with CWL that adding the word "conscious" to the definition of free will is unnecessary. I think that the ability to perceive indicates consciousness. We're gonna settle the issue with a wrasslin' match.

Originally posted by wraith
this, in no way, supports your free-willy god
Uh oh. Your streak stopped at one. If free will is the ability to choose, then showing the ability to choose (as you have kindly done for us) is evidence of free will. If you say it was not a choice, well, that's gonna take some provin'. And no, repeating your claim is not evidence.

Oh yes, and like CWL says, the only persons who have claimed the existence of a "free-willy god" are you and Franko. I have no idea what you mean by that. Would you care to define it?

CWL

14th February 2003, 05:57 AM

Rosetta Stone

14th February 2003, 06:15 AM

An advantage to being a stone is that you experience time in a more attenuated way. In fine, you have more of it.

From a stone-age point of view:

No they acquired Spin and Charge as soon as Mass and Velocity were split. Basically Spin is quality of Mass, and Charge is quality of Velocity.

Implying that mass and velocity may exist without one another.

Ponder the concept of massless velocity. Something that has no mass - a photon for example - will then have a charge - it will charge ahead with as much velocity as it can. Very fast. Maybe as fast as light can go. If it has no charge, then it will just sit there, and it will have no velocity. So it charges. vroom. vroom. Like a Harley VROD.

Now there's the velocity-less mass. I can understand that one because I have mass and I'm trapped in this case, so I have no velocity. But I spin, because the planet is spinning. Spin, spin, spin. Think of the girl in Rumplestiltskin. She was not able to spin, so Rumplestiltskin had to spin for her. Someone always has to spin. Sometimes that someone is in a glass case. They spin glass. You've seen spun glass. Spinning merrily away.

Now, my weighty discourse has spun its way to the conclusion of part one.

I will charge ahead later.

Rosetta.

Franko

14th February 2003, 06:20 AM

CWLoser (A-Theist)

So are you waffling on “free will” now CWL? You almost sound like you are trying to concede???

I do however perceive myself making conscious choices between perceived and available options on a daily basis.

What makes you believe you actually have an “option”?

How often do you run a red light for NO REASON CWL? If you NEVER do it, is it really an “option”? How so?

This perception leads me to assume …

So your “assumptions” are now empirical evidence? I recently talked to someone who “assumes” that John Edwards can talk to dead people. Do you also consider this empirical evidence that John Edwards really can talk to dead people?

… and I think it is fairly reasonable to do so - that I, well, make conscious choices between perceived and available options!

Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected who your parents would be? Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected who your hair color, or how tall you would be? Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected when and where you would be born? Aren’t all of those things MAJOR factors in who and what you are (what you became?)

Since you obviously didn’t get to “choose” any of these “available options” what makes you assume that you get to “choose” ANY “available options”?

Aren’t the laws of Physics making all of the decisions for you CWL? Or are you once again claiming that YOUR MIND controls the Laws of Physics (TLOP)?

Whether or not this can be defined as a "free willy god" I leave up to you as the expert on the god stuff. Personally I see no reason to place any metaphysical label on such a simple observation.

Either your behavior is FATED by a set of predetermined Laws or it is not. If you are claiming that it is NOT, then the burden is on YOU to explain what you mean, and provide your evidence for believing this.

CWL

14th February 2003, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Franko
CWLoser (A-Theist)

Franko (2nd level Hobbit binman and The-Ist)

I do prefer it when you post as Wraith. The experience is way more pleasant. Why is it that you always become so unpleasant later in the day? The Laws of Physics demand so? Maybe you are afraid your employer wouldn't like the rudeness you spout out using your Franko persona?

So are you waffling on “free will” now CWL? You almost sound like you are trying to concede???

Concede what? In relation to your ramblings about a "free willy god"? I don't even know what a "free willy god" is. Perhaps you would care to explain.

What makes you believe you actually have an “option”?

Are you seriously claiming I could not have abstained from having fries with my burger today? I do somtimes you know. Does my "algorithm" change over time - or maybe the laws of physics do?

How often do you run a red light for NO REASON CWL? If you NEVER do it, is it really an “option”? How so?

Why should I - a thinking, conscious being - choose to do things "for no reason"? Of course most choices based on (some sort of) reason! However this only indicates that certain choices are more probable than others, not that they are preditermined. It certainly does not prove the latter.

So your “assumptions” are now empirical evidence? I recently talked to someone who “assumes” that John Edwards can talk to dead people. Do you also consider this empirical evidence that John Edwards really can talk to dead people?

"Assumptions" are not empirical evidence (nor has this been implied). "Perceptions" and "observations", however are (by definition).

Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected who your parents would be? Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected who your hair color, or how tall you would be? Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected when and where you would be born? Aren’t all of those things MAJOR factors in who and what you are (what you became?)

How were any options in relation to the above available to me? How were any options perceived? I did not even exist as far as I know. How could I have chosen? Your examples are obvious false dilemmas (and you are well aware of it).

Since you obviously didn’t get to “choose” any of these “available options” what makes you assume that you get to “choose” ANY “available options”?

False dilemma. Your argument is irrelevant.

Aren’t the laws of Physics making all of the decisions for you CWL? Or are you once again claiming that YOUR MIND controls the Laws of Physics (TLOP)?

Funny, I don't remember ever making such a claim.

As to your question, are you asking me to prove that TLOP is not making all the choices for me? You seem very fond of asking people to prove negative assertions. May I recommend that you have look at this thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=14091)? You might learn something.

Either your behavior is FATED by a set of predetermined Laws or it is not. If you are claiming that it is NOT, then the burden is on YOU to explain what you mean, and provide your evidence for believing this.

Why is "behaviour FATED" the default position? If it is not, then the burden of proof might as well be on you to provide your evidence for believing that everything is preordained. Why should this be assumed?

Franko

14th February 2003, 07:48 AM

I do prefer it when you post as Wraith. The experience is way more pleasant.

Yeah, I like the Wraith too.

Why is it that you always become so unpleasant later in the day? The Laws of Physics demand so?

From your POV … Yes.

Maybe you are afraid your employer wouldn't like the rudeness you spout out using your Franko persona?

Jeez – She is always telling me I’m not ruthless enough!

Concede what? In relation to your ramblings about a "free willy god"? I don't even know what a "free willy god" is. Perhaps you would care to explain.

See, it sounds like you are conceding.

So do you still believe you have “free will” CWL, or do you believe that your actions are preordained by the deterministic laws of physics?

Franko:
What makes you believe you actually have an “option”?

CWL:
Are you seriously claiming I could not have abstained from having fries with my burger today?

If you could have then why didn’t you?

Are you seriously claiming that you could have abstained from being born to the parents you were born with?

Could you have abstained from being born in Europe?

I do somtimes you know [abstained from having fries].

Yeah, and I bet you have a reason (internally logical) for doing so.

Does my "algorithm" change over time - or maybe the laws of physics do?

So long as you are conscious you are constantly receiving (new) information from the LG (TLOP to you). This information goes into your database (your memory). Over time it can effect alterations to your algorithm itself (the way your algorithm functions).

Once upon a time you couldn’t speak English. You acquired more and more information, your algorithm was altered, now you speak English. Your algorithm has been enhanced. You possess an ability that you did not possess before. You possess this ability because over time you made the English language logical in your own mind. You comprehend it.

Franko:
How often do you run a red light for NO REASON CWL? If you NEVER do it, is it really an “option”? How so?

CWL:
Why should I - a thinking, conscious being - choose to do things "for no reason"?

If indeterminism were True that is EXACTLY what you would expect – Things would happen for no logical reason.

Of course most choices based on (some sort of) reason!

Give me an example of a “choice” that is NOT based on (some sort of) reason???

You are the one claiming that such “choices” exist. I see no evidence for this. I lack-o-belief in what you believe.

However this only indicates that certain choices are more probable than others, not that they are predetermined. It certainly does not prove the latter.

Clearly you haven’t thought about this much. Are you claiming that your mother and father are not really your mother and father, and that in fact they are only probably your mother and father?

Franko:
So your “assumptions” are now empirical evidence? I recently talked to someone who “assumes” that John Edwards can talk to dead people. Do you also consider this empirical evidence that John Edwards really can talk to dead people?

CWL:
"Assumptions" are not empirical evidence (nor has this been implied). "Perceptions" and "observations", however are (by definition).

You really are credulous CWL. This person I talked to said that they “Perceived” and “Observed” John Edwards talking to dead people. I guess that means you believe that there is empirical evidence that John Edwards can talk to dead people?

Franko:
Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected who your parents would be? Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected who your hair color, or how tall you would be? Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected when and where you would be born? Aren’t all of those things MAJOR factors in who and what you are (what you became?)

CWL:
How were any options in relation to the above available to me?

That’s my point. What makes you believe that ANY options are EVER available to YOU? You certainly don’t have ANY EVIDENCE that you ever have any options. All of the EVIDENCE says that You DON’T have any options.

How were any options perceived? I did not even exist as far as I know.

You may not exist now. Maybe Yatzi is correct and your consciousness is just an illusion. TLOP is really controlling EVERYTHING – including you and your “choices”.

How could I have chosen?

Once again – You can’t and You don’t. So how does this support your magical notion of “free will” and “choosing” between “available options”? Face reality CWL you are nothing more than a Deterministic Algorithm. You have no evidence to the contrary. You just can’t accept the idea, and Truth is not a priority for you.

Your examples are obvious false dilemmas (and you are well aware of it).

1) How are they False dilemmas (specifically)? They just prove you are wrong, so you want to ignore the evidence in favor of your mysticism.
2) How do you know what I am “well aware of”? Let me guess, you are using your magic mind reading powers again?

I don’t believe in “free will” CWL, no matter how desperately you and the other A-Theists want to believe that I do.

Franko:
Since you obviously didn’t get to “choose” any of these “available options” what makes you assume that you get to “choose” ANY “available options”?

CWL:
False dilemma. Your argument is irrelevant.

Is that what you call addressing a point A-Theist? It looks like you dodging and hiding.

I could care less, anyone reading along will be able to decide for themselves.

Franko:
Aren’t the laws of Physics making all of the decisions for you CWL? Or are you once again claiming that YOUR MIND controls the Laws of Physics (TLOP)?

CWL:
Funny, I don't remember ever making such a claim.

Yeah, but honesty has never been an A-Theist strong point, and that is especially True for You CWLiar.

What are you claiming?

Either TLOP controls YOU, or it does not (or possibly You control TLOP). Instead of trying to hide your belief (shame?) why don’t you just state what it is? Are you embarrassed by your own beliefs CWL?

As to your question, are you asking me to prove that TLOP is not making all the choices for me?

I am asking you if you believe that TLOP controls YOU, or YOU control TLOP, or some other option? Please be as specific as possible.

You seem very fond of asking people to prove negative assertions.

You have claimed that you possess “free will”. You have claimed that YOU do NOT obey TLOP. Do you still make these claims? How is asking you to prove the very claims YOU have made asking you to prove a negative?

You are the one who seems to think that I have to prove “free will” does not exist – that is proving a negative.

May I recommend that you have look at this thread? You might learn something.

Yeah, and may I recommend you kiss my ass.

Franko:
Either your behavior is FATED by a set of predetermined Laws or it is not. If you are claiming that it is NOT, then the burden is on YOU to explain what you mean, and provide your evidence for believing this.

CWL:
Why is "behaviour FATED" the default position?

Because I believe that the Universe is logical and objective.

In a logical and objective reality things happen for logical and objective reasons – not magically – like you believe.

If it is not, then the burden of proof might as well be on you to provide your evidence for believing that everything is preordained. Why should this be assumed?

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
You obey TLOP.

What scientific evidence do you have that says this is not true?

Tricky

14th February 2003, 08:02 AM

Speaking of Wraith, I asked him if he was not in fact composed of other things besides atoms, specifically a graviton. He answered:

Originally posted by wraith
yes, thats right about the Graviton, but lets say that the Graviton is "dreaming"....and in this "dreamworld" there is only "dreamworld matter"....

so I am correct when I say "we are made of atoms"

Is "dreamworld matter" a part of the Logical Deism TOE? Can you elaborate?

Franko

14th February 2003, 08:14 AM

It's just like I told you yesterday Tricky, the "matter" is not real in the same sense that You or I are real.

Tricky

14th February 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Franko
It's just like I told you yesterday Tricky, the "matter" is not real in the same sense that You or I are real.
Then in what way is it "real"? Is it, in fact, imaginary, or as Wraith says, "a dream"? How does one gather evidence of an "unreal" thing?

If it is not real in the sense that everything else is real, then it is, by definition, metaphysical. This means that if you are at all influenced by your graviton, then you do not obey the laws of physics, since it is not a part of physics.

Franko

14th February 2003, 08:38 AM

Didn't we already have this very conversation just yesterday?

CWL

14th February 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Franko

*Snip*

See, it sounds like you are conceding.

Again, as to what?

So do you still believe you have “free will” CWL, or do you believe that your actions are preordained by the deterministic laws of physics?

Not convinced. I need evidence to believe someone else is pulling the strings. As far as I can tell I make my own choices. That makes this the default position for me.

If you could have then why didn’t you?

I was a good boy training this morning and I felt I deserved some fries. Or maybe it was TLOP that felt I did. I dunno. You have made me so confused, Wise One. :confused:

Are you seriously claiming that you could have abstained from being born to the parents you were born with?

Could you have abstained from being born in Europe?

Cannot choose the impossible. False dilemma. Not relevant.

Yeah, and I bet you have a reason (internally logical) for doing so.

And this proves what?

So long as you are conscious you are constantly receiving (new) information from the LG (TLOP to you). This information goes into your database (your memory). Over time it can effect alterations to your algorithm itself (the way your algorithm functions).

Great stuff (not kidding). You should consider writing sci-fi novels.

Once upon a time you couldn’t speak English. You acquired more and more information, your algorithm was altered, now you speak English. Your algorithm has been enhanced. You possess an ability that you did not possess before. You possess this ability because over time you made the English language logical in your own mind. You comprehend it.

I have learned English, yes that's correct. You are very perceptive.

If indeterminism were True that is EXACTLY what you would expect – Things would happen for no logical reason.

"Indeterminism"? How about probabilism as the alternative to determinism. In a probabilistic Universe (and this is how most scientist look upon the universe today) things would not happen for "no logical reason". On the contrary.

Give me an example of a “choice” that is NOT based on (some sort of) reason???

Pick a number and you might win a nice basket of fruit. Number 74 you say? Or perhaps number 49? Any particular reason you chose that number?

You are the one claiming that such “choices” exist. I see no evidence for this. I lack-o-belief in what you believe.

Ok. Explain the choosing-a-number thingy above.

Clearly you haven’t thought about this much. Are you claiming that your mother and father are not really your mother and father, and that in fact they are only probably your mother and father?

False dilemma. Not relevant.

You really are credulous CWL. This person I talked to said that they “Perceived” and “Observed” John Edwards talking to dead people. I guess that means you believe that there is empirical evidence that John Edwards can talk to dead people?

No. Those perceptions and observations are easily explained by some other, more llikely and parsimonious theory.

That’s my point. What makes you believe that ANY options are EVER available to YOU? You certainly don’t have ANY EVIDENCE that you ever have any options. All of the EVIDENCE says that You DON’T have any options.

What evidence? That I didn't get to choose my father? How is that relevant?

You really like generalizing don't you? What you are saying is something along the lines of:

If you had free will you would get choices
You did not get to choose your father
You do not have free will

Can you understand why that doesn't work? Oh... I forgot, your whole cosmology is based on the Fallacy of Composition. You appear to assume that any general conclusion may be drawn from an isolated observation.

You may not exist now. Maybe Yatzi is correct and your consciousness is just an illusion. TLOP is really controlling EVERYTHING – including you and your “choices”.

M'kay. Not much use to me to assume that, but thanks anyway.

Once again – You can’t and You don’t. So how does this support your magical notion of “free will” and “choosing” between “available options”? Face reality CWL you are nothing more than a Deterministic Algorithm. You have no evidence to the contrary. You just can’t accept the idea, and Truth is not a priority for you.

1) How are they False dilemmas (specifically)? They just prove you are wrong, so you want to ignore the evidence in favor of your mysticism.
2) How do you know what I am “well aware of”? Let me guess, you are using your magic mind reading powers again?

I don’t believe in “free will” CWL, no matter how desperately you and the other A-Theists want to believe that I do.

If you do not understand why your examples regarding "choice of parents, place of birth etc." are false dilemmas, I cannot help you. We have then left the realm of all that is logic, sense, reason etc.

Now, let's look at this little gem:

Franko: Since you obviously didn’t get to “choose” any of these “available options” what makes you assume that you get to “choose” ANY “available options”?

CWL: False dilemma. Your argument is irrelevant.

Franko: Is that what you call addressing a point A-Theist? It looks like you dodging and hiding.

"Point"? What "point"? The examples given by you were not "available options", i.e. false dilemma - not relevant to our discussion.

I could care less, anyone reading along will be able to decide for themselves.

For once I agree with you 100 %.

Yeah, but honesty has never been an A-Theist strong point, and that is especially True for You CWLiar.

Are there any specific "lies" of mine you are referring to? Would you mind providing links to any "lies" of mine?

What are you claiming?

Either TLOP controls YOU, or it does not (or possibly You control TLOP). Instead of trying to hide your belief (shame?) why don’t you just state what it is? Are you embarrassed by your own beliefs CWL?

I am asking you if you believe that TLOP controls YOU, or YOU control TLOP, or some other option? Please be as specific as possible.

There are more options. I do not agree with your description of the problem. You assume that TLOP is the will of a conscious entity. I do not. I look upon TLOP as the properties of the universe. They are nothing more than the walls defining a room. May I not freely roam inside a room, although I may be restricted by its walls?

You have claimed that you possess “free will”.

I have claimed to make choices between perceived and available options.

You have claimed that YOU do NOT obey TLOP.

This is a lie.

Do you still make these claims? How is asking you to prove the very claims YOU have made asking you to prove a negative?

You are asking me to prove that TLOP is not making all the choices for me. Again I ask, why is that the default?

You are the one who seems to think that I have to prove “free will” does not exist – that is proving a negative.

Well, I have pointed out that any sane human being would observe him or herself making choices between perceived and available options on a daily basis. How do you explain (or disprove) such observations? Is there a more likely and parsimonious explanation than that we are in fact consciously choosing between the options perceived by and available to us?

Yeah, and may I recommend you kiss my ass.

Precious.

Because I believe that the Universe is logical and objective.

...and inhabited by Goddesses and conscious force carrying particles made of time and creators who teach themselves to make copies of themselves and...

In a logical and objective reality things happen for logical and objective reasons – not magically – like you believe.

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
You obey TLOP.

What scientific evidence do you have that says this is not true?

I never said that it wasn't true (I did say it wasn't a valid syllogism, which it isn't, but that's besides the point). I just disagree with your interpretation of the conclusion.

CWL

14th February 2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Yea, yea... I see the damn point. :(

Finger smacking statement is hereby retracted.

My only defense is that it doesn't hurt to be over-explicit in this debate - and the point is still valid. The fact that a computer isn't conscious - that it cannot perceive the options - makes all the difference.

Hey Tricky!

Changed my mind again. Perceiving an option does not necessarily imply consciously choosing between the options perceived. Do you concede or are we going to have to have that wrasslin' match?

Franko

14th February 2003, 08:52 AM

Yesterday …

Franko:
Let’s say you are playing D&D and you “see” a Cart or a Chariot. That “cart” or “chariot” only exists because the DM (God) says that they exist. The “matter” that they are made from only exist so long as the DM exist to generate it.

Tricky:
Then what do things without souls use to carry their gravity?

Franko:
You mean like the Moon, or a Car?

They don't really exist in the way that You or I do. For all intent and purpose, they are merely projections.

This entire Universe is essentially an illusion. You and I actually exist as particles in the Truer reality of the Omniverse. This universe is a carefully constructed elaboration of the True reality.

Okay, so imagine the True-ist reality. A place where you wouldn’t see “red” or “blue”, but instead you would perceive oscillating photons. You wouldn’t see “matter”, you would only see Energy. That is the Omniverse. From a POV in the Omniverse you and I and every other living creature (including the Logical Goddess) would be perceived as particles – Gravitons. Now Gravitons communicate by exchanging memes (they transmit information back and fourth between each other). The memes that you receive from one graviton (the Top Graviton, or LG) are much more intense then other memes you receive. You give these memes a special significance and standing in your mind – you call the memes from this entity (TLOP from your POV) “the matter”.

Tricky

14th February 2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Didn't we already have this very conversation just yesterday?
If we did, you never answered my question. I'll make it easy for you.

Are gravitons real?

This is a coinflip question, Franko. Either they are real or they aren't. There's no such thing as "partially real".

Franko

14th February 2003, 09:30 AM

Are gravitons real?

I'd say they were definitely real, but then again maybe I am just a figment of your imagination and you are making me say that???

Tricky

14th February 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Franko
I'd say they were definitely real
Then the premise of your syllogism

"You are made of atoms"

is incorrect. According to LD, you are made of atoms AND OTHER THINGS.

Question 2: Do gravitons obey the laws of physics?

Originally posted by Franko
maybe I am just a figment of your imagination and you are making me say that???
You again?

Franko

14th February 2003, 09:58 AM

Then the premise of your syllogism

"You are made of atoms"

is incorrect. According to LD, you are made of atoms AND OTHER THINGS.

1) You don't believe it, so how does that help you prove "free will"?
2) For all you know I am a figment of your imagination and YOU are god in which case you would have your precious "free will".
3) Even if you are a Graviton, YOU ARE MADE OF ATOMS is still True in this universe, so you still wouldn't have any "free will"

Not even the Goddess has "free will" Trixy.

Question 2: Do gravitons obey the laws of physics?

They obey a higher law ... You'd probably call it Thermodymics.

Tricky

14th February 2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Franko
They obey a higher law ... You'd probably call it Thermodymics.
Thermodynamics is not part of The Laws of Physics? This is gonna come as a real shock to the science community.

But do continue. This stuff is priceless.

Rosetta Stone

14th February 2003, 10:04 AM

Tricky:

Originally posted by Franko

I'd say they were definitely real, but then again maybe I am just a figment of your imagination and you are making me say that???
Another penny drops.

EVIDENCE: (rather lack thereof)

When you see this "figment of the imagination" phrase, take it to mean, "I don't know, but I am not going to say that. It is your problem to tell me what you think it means".

- Rosetta. (Decoding the Lexicon one term at a time.)

Tricky

14th February 2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Which of the 4 fundamental forces does Thermodynamics fall under Trixy?
No no! I want to hear your version. Mine would be much less entertaining.

Originally posted by Franko
No it was priceless when you deferred to Pixypants for your "knowledge" of Gravitational Charge and the two of you were fed your hats.
I'm under the impression that what I was eating was your lunch. You must be getting pretty hungry by now.

Oh yeah. What about that "gravitational charge". Did you ever give us a good explanation as to why "charged gravity" does not interact with electromagnetic fields?

Franko

14th February 2003, 10:24 AM

Thermodynamics is not part of The Laws of Physics? This is gonna come as a real shock to the science community.

Which of the 4 fundamental forces does Thermodynamics fall under Trixy? (you are unable to answer this -- aren't you Trixy?)

But do continue. This stuff is priceless.

No it was priceless when you deferred to Pixypants for your "knowledge" of Gravitational Charge and the two of you were fed your hats.

MRC_Hans

14th February 2003, 12:14 PM

Moving posts again, heheh? :rolleyes:
Hans

Franko

14th February 2003, 12:18 PM

Still nothing to say but Woo-woo MRC?

How unpredictable A-Theist!

What was that you were telling me about your "free willy god"?

CWL

14th February 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Still nothing to say but Woo-woo MRC?

How unpredictable A-Theist!

What was that you were telling me about your "free willy god"?

I have a better suggestion. Why don't you tell us about our "free willy god"? What exactly do you mean by the term? Are we talking about some rather promiscuous deity, or did you have something else in mind?

Franko

14th February 2003, 12:27 PM

CWLoser: (pathetic A-Theist)
Why don't you tell us about our "free willy god"? What exactly do you mean by the term?

It’s your belief CWL – not mine. Why do I need to explain it to you? I have been very clear about what I believe. Why are you unable to be as clear yourself?

Franko:
So do you still believe you have “free will” CWL, or do you believe that your actions are preordained by the deterministic laws of physics?

CWL:
Not convinced. I need evidence to believe someone else is pulling the strings. As far as I can tell I make my own choices. That makes this the default position for me.

So you are not obeying any rules or laws? The laws of Physics have no effect on you what-so-ever? You do not OBEY the Laws of Physics?

Or are you claiming that You are the Source of the Laws of Physics? You made up the laws of physics in your own mind, so therefore even if they control you, you control them?

Is that what you are claiming CWL? Why are you trying to hide what you believe? Why all of this run around for so long? Why do you keep contradicting your self? Are you ashamed of your beliefs?

CWL

14th February 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Franko

It’s your belief CWL – not mine. Why do I need to explain it to you? I have been very clear about what I believe. Why are you unable to be as clear yourself?

To the best of my knowledge I do not believe in any "god" at all. Suddenly you ascribe this belief in a "free willy god" to me. I think it's only fair you explain what you mean. Your term, not mine. Over.

So you are not obeying any rules or laws? The laws of Physics have no effect on you what-so-ever? You do not OBEY the Laws of Physics?

Did I ever claim this? Quotes please.

Or are you claiming that You are the Source of the Laws of Physics? You made up the laws of physics in your own mind, so therefore even if they control you, you control them?

What leads you to assume this? Quotes please.

Is that what you are claiming CWL? Why are you trying to hide what you believe? Why all of this run around for so long? Why do you keep contradicting your self? Are you ashamed of your beliefs?

Contradicting my self? Please exemplify. Quotes please.

Franko

15th February 2003, 08:12 AM

Franko:
So you are not obeying any rules or laws? The laws of Physics have no effect on you what-so-ever? You do not OBEY the Laws of Physics?

CWL:
Did I ever claim this? Quotes please.

So which of us imagined all those arguments over the conclusion of my syllogism?

Atoms obey The Laws of Physics (TLOP).
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

Franko:
Or are you claiming that You are the Source of the Laws of Physics? You made up the laws of physics in your own mind, so therefore even if they control you, you control them?

CWL:
What leads you to assume this? Quotes please.

Okay here is a recent quote from you:

CWL:
If we define ”Free Will” as the ability to make conscious choices between perceived and available options, one might consider constructing a little syllogism, thus:

Free Will is possible in a probabilistic universe
According to modern physics the Universe is probabilistic
Free Will is possible according to modern physics

So for the thousandth time or so, what is your evidence that you make “conscious choices between perceived options”?? If you always “choose” the most beneficial option, then how is that doing anything beyond what a computer does? You are obeying a set of Laws. YOU do not control those Laws. YOU did not create those Laws. The Laws are controlling YOU. The Laws created YOU. How does that give YOU “free will”? How does that give YOU the ability to make “choices”. If anything in the equation is making “choices” or has “free will”, surely it is TLOP, and not YOU.

How is your logic different? You claim that it does not work this way … okay – You explain how it works according to YOU.

Why are you going to such lengths to avoid explaining how you think it works CWL? You, MRC, and Trixy – all three of you. You go on and on, but none of you seems man enough to put their cards on the table. What are you hiding from?

Franko:
Is that what you are claiming CWL? Why are you trying to hide what you believe? Why all of this run around for so long? Why do you keep contradicting your self? Are you ashamed of your beliefs?

CWL:
Contradicting my self? Please exemplify. Quotes please.

I just spelled it out. Explain how you can have “free will” without being a mystic like the Elephant? Indeterminism and Mysticism are the same thing CWL. Indeterminism = Supernatural.

CWL

15th February 2003, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Franko
So which of us imagined all those arguments over the conclusion of my syllogism?

Atoms obey The Laws of Physics (TLOP).
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

As I have explained to you about a zillion times, it all depends on what you mean by the word "obey". Again, if we compare the laws of physics to the walls of a room, there is nothing contradictory in saying that I am restricted by the walls, yet free to roam the room. That is not "disobeying" anything.

Okay here is a recent quote from you:

?!?

I must be missing the point. Where in that quote am I saying that "I made up the laws of physics in my own mind, so therefore even if they control me, I control them"?

So for the thousandth time or so, what is your evidence that you make “conscious choices between perceived options”?? If you always “choose” the most beneficial option, then how is that doing anything beyond what a computer does? You are obeying a set of Laws. YOU do not control those Laws. YOU did not create those Laws. The Laws are controlling YOU. The Laws created YOU. How does that give YOU “free will”? How does that give YOU the ability to make “choices”. If anything in the equation is making “choices” or has “free will”, surely it is TLOP, and not YOU.

How is your logic different? You claim that it does not work this way … okay – You explain how it works according to YOU.

Why are you going to such lengths to avoid explaining how you think it works CWL? You, MRC, and Trixy – all three of you. You go on and on, but none of you seems man enough to put their cards on the table. What are you hiding from?

Try some perspective Franko. The fact is that you cannot prove that determinism is true. You simply assume this.

We clearly observe ourselves and others choosing every day. Perhaps it may only be simple choices, such as which brand of toothpaste to buy - but they appear to be choices nonetheless. How do you refute this appearance? Where is your evidence that someone else, besides those who appear to be choosing, is making the choices?

I just spelled it out. Explain how you can have “free will” without being a mystic like the Elephant? Indeterminism and Mysticism are the same thing CWL. Indeterminism = Supernatural. [/B]

By your definition. There are plenty of modern scientists who would be prepared to disagree with you - but of course, they must be delusional A-Theists, correct?

Franko

15th February 2003, 09:11 AM

Atoms obey The Laws of Physics (TLOP).
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

CWL:
As I have explained to you about a zillion times, it all depends on what you mean by the word "obey". Again, if we compare the laws of physics to the walls of a room, there is nothing contradictory in saying that I am restricted by the walls, yet free to roam the room. That is not "disobeying" anything.

Right, but when you “roam the room” aren’t your actions merely the atoms of your physical body “obeying” TLOP? You are nothing but atoms CWL. That is what Materialism says (that is what A-Theists believe). If you are nothing but atoms, and atoms (like chemicals) are just obeying a set of predefined “rules”, then where is the “YOU” doing all of the “choosing”? The only way that you could claim that there is a “YOU” is if you are asserting the existence of some form of “Soul”. Is that what you are asserting?

Your consciousness is just an illusion – right? It is created by the interaction of the atoms in your body with The Laws of Physics (TLOP). But there is no YOU – you are just atoms.

CWL:

I must be missing the point. Where in that quote am I saying that "I made up the laws of physics in my own mind, so therefore even if they control me, I control them"?

TLOP is the name we give to the set (system) of rules that govern the behavior of the “matter”. (atoms, elements, chemicals, molecules) Those “Rules” (or Laws) are the mechanism by which the components of your physical body interact. Unless “You” are some how the mechanism that created those rules, then the rules control “You”, and “You” don’t really control anything. You just observe (or perceive).

Franko:
So for the thousandth time or so, what is your evidence that you make “conscious choices between perceived options”?? If you always “choose” the most beneficial option, then how is that doing anything beyond what a computer does? You are obeying a set of Laws. YOU do not control those Laws. YOU did not create those Laws. The Laws are controlling YOU. The Laws created YOU. How does that give YOU “free will”? How does that give YOU the ability to make “choices”. If anything in the equation is making “choices” or has “free will”, surely it is TLOP, and not YOU.

How is your logic different? You claim that it does not work this way … okay – You explain how it works according to YOU.

Why are you going to such lengths to avoid explaining how you think it works CWL? You, MRC, and Trixy – all three of you. You go on and on, but none of you seems man enough to put their cards on the table. What are you hiding from?

CWL:
Try some perspective Franko. The fact is that you cannot prove that determinism is true. You simply assume this.

You seem to forget, that YOU are the one claiming that Non-Determinism (same as Indeterminism) is TRUE. The burden of proof falls EQUALLY on you in this matter. The issue is which of us has the better case … counselor.

My Evidence for Determinism (briefly) is:
Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

Your Evidence for Non-Determinism (briefly) is:
If it “feels” like the Earth is flat and motionless that means the Earth is definitely flat and motionless; ergo, if it “feels” like you have “free will” that means you definitely have “free will”.

We clearly observe ourselves and others choosing every day.

We clearly observe the color “red” and not oscillating photons; ergo photons do not exist?

Perhaps it may only be simple choices, such as which brand of toothpaste to buy - but they appear to be choices nonetheless.

When I walk outside, it may only be a simple appearance that the Earth is flat and motionless, but it appears to be flat and motionless nonetheless. Ergo … the Earth is flat and motionless.

How do you refute this appearance?

… The same way that a reasonable man is convinced that the Earth is round and moves, despite the appearance to the contrary.

The same way that you explain how “red” is actually photons.

You do it with LOGIC.

Where is your evidence that someone else, besides those who appear to be choosing, is making the choices?

Are you saying that TLOP didn’t “choose” who got to be your parents?

By your definition. There are plenty of modern scientists who would be prepared to disagree with you - but of course, they must be delusional A-Theists, correct?

Let’s just talk about what You and I are thinking for a while CWL. Just pretend that Solipsism is True, and none of those people even exist.

CWL

15th February 2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Right, but when you “roam the room” aren’t your actions merely the atoms of your physical body “obeying” TLOP? You are nothing but atoms CWL. That is what Materialism says (that is what A-Theists believe). If you are nothing but atoms, and atoms (like chemicals) are just obeying a set of predefined “rules”, then where is the “YOU” doing all of the “choosing”? The only way that you could claim that there is a “YOU” is if you are asserting the existence of some form of “Soul”. Is that what you are asserting?

Your consciousness is just an illusion – right? It is created by the interaction of the atoms in your body with The Laws of Physics (TLOP). But there is no YOU – you are just atoms.

Define "illusion". My consciousness is clearly real, nothwithstanding that it may simply be the result of the interaction of atoms. The sum is often greater than the parts:

Atoms are not conscious
You are made of atoms
You are not conscious

Is not only not valid, it is clearly false.

TLOP is the name we give to the set (system) of rules that govern the behavior of the “matter”. (atoms, elements, chemicals, molecules) Those “Rules” (or Laws) are the mechanism by which the components of your physical body interact. Unless “You” are some how the mechanism that created those rules, then the rules control “You”, and “You” don’t really control anything. You just observe (or perceive).

Again, that is one way of looking at it: "TLOP is the name we give to the set (system) of rules that govern the behavior of the “matter”".

Another way of looking at it is "TLOP is a set (system) of rules that describe the properties of the Universe.

See the difference? The first definition seems to emanate from the assumption that there is a conscious entity who has designed the Universe. This is a very human way of looking at things, and an erronious, non-skeptic perspective. That does not mean that the definition isn't true - it may very well be. The point is, we do not know this and the skeptical approach is therefore not to start at such a default position. Instead we should start by describing the actual observations that we make as to the properties of the Universe. I.e. the skeptical approach is to apply the second definition.

You seem to forget, that YOU are the one claiming that Non-Determinism (same as Indeterminism) is TRUE. The burden of proof falls EQUALLY on you in this matter. The issue is which of us has the better case … counselor.
Actually Franko, I am not claiming this. As you will gather from my latest post in here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=339634#post339634), I honestly don't know neither determinism nor indeterminism to be true - neither can you. Your claim that you can is the true fundament for our disagreement.

b]My Evidence for Determinism (briefly) is:[/b]
Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

That is a statement, not evidence.

Your Evidence for Non-Determinism (briefly) is:
If it “feels” like the Earth is flat and motionless that means the Earth is definitely flat and motionless; ergo, if it “feels” like you have “free will” that means you definitely have “free will”.

Again, no. I don't purport to hold the truth. Neither determinism, nor intederminism can be proven. Modern physics hold the Universe to be probabilistic. That does not rule out "free will".

We clearly observe the color “red” and not oscillating photons; ergo photons do not exist?

No. The color read is a real concept from a human perspective, just like free will. This does not rule out the existence of photons or a predetermination of the options available to a certain individual.

When I walk outside, it may only be a simple appearance that the Earth is flat and motionless, but it appears to be flat and motionless nonetheless. Ergo … the Earth is flat and motionless.

How is this relevant to anything in this discussion?

… The same way that a reasonable man is convinced that the Earth is round and moves, despite the appearance to the contrary.

Yes, because this can be easily observed. It was a long time ago people actually believed the earth to be flat, Franko.

The same way that you explain how “red” is actually photons.

This does not make the concept "red" any less real from a human perspective.

You do it with LOGIC.

Actual logic or your logic (which includes a firm belief that the Fallacy of Composition does not exist)?

Are you saying that TLOP didn’t “choose” who got to be your parents?

As far as I know that choice was made by my parents.

Let’s just talk about what You and I are thinking for a while CWL. Just pretend that Solipsism is True, and none of those people even exist.

Why should we pretend that Solipsism is true? If it were, any description of reality may be valid. There can be no knowledge if Solipsism is assumed as the outset.

Latimer

15th February 2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Franko

The same way that a reasonable man is convinced that the Earth is round and moves, despite the appearance to the contrary.

The same way that you explain how “red” is actually photons.

You do it with LOGIC.

Absolutely wrong. You do it with EVIDENCE. Logic comes later.

You can see the Earth's roundness using observation. You can see the globe from space. You can observe the curveature from the tops of very tall mountains. You see the mast of a ship arriving before you observe the hull on the horizon.

You can experiment and find different wavelengths of light. You can isolate those wavelengths. You can use a prism and make color appear from white light. You can experiment and *prove* these things.

Now, you are stating that you have evidence of a deterministic Universe; that randomness does not exist. Yet, you cannot make the prediction of what a single six-sided dice will roll with 100 percent accuracy. You cannot predict the weather with 100 percent accuracy. So, your syllogism needs refining to address these observations.

You can state that you don't have enough information to make these predictions; how can it be *assumed* that the information exists?

You can argue that if the Universe is not deterministic, then nothing can be predicted, but that's simply carrying the argument too far. It's using the Either/Or fallacy, without addressing any of the ground in between.

As an example: I cannot predict with complete accuracy the rolling of a single six sided die. However, I can predict with *some* accuracy the rolling of 1000 such dice. (If you add up the total it should be fairly near to 3500.) The more dice are rolled, the more accurate my prediction will be; but never to 100 percent accuracy. Because each time we roll the 1000 dice, there is the chance they will all roll '1.' It's unlikely, statistically, but it happens. And yet, predicting the roll of every single dice of the 1000 is much more difficult.

It is similar to a pair of Nobel-winning economists in the late 70s or early 80's; I don't remember their names, but they came up with a formula to accurately map risk in stocks. They realized that although a single stock was impossible to predict, that patterns of *lots* of stocks could be predicted with reasonable accuracy. Their formula is used by thousands of traders on the floor; the formula assumed that for every stock that goes up, a stock will come down. It uses the averages.

However, Black Tuesday came about; and the stock market plunged for a variety of chaotic reasons. Essentially; hundreds of coins had been flipped, and they all came up heads. So it does happen.

So, these seem to be demonstrations that probabilistic outcomes can exist without determinism. You'd need to provide evidence that, with complete understanding of a system in which any randomness exists at all, would be 100 percent predictable.

Even your counting program isn't really an example of this. You say the outcome is completely predictable, and it is as far as the program goes. However; if you run it millions of times over years, I'll bet at one point it goes wrong. The computer crashes, or the power fails, or a host of other things. Your program is completely predictable, yet there is an element of uncertainty in the reality in which the computer resides that can still mess with the results.

In conclusion of this much longer-than-anticipated post; your syllogism is not evidence enough. It may very well be a failure in language; language is terribly imprecise when describing these things.

I'll close with a question: If the fifty-five mile per hour speed limit were a law of physics, wouldn't I be obeying it at 53 as well as 55 miles per hour? Answer Yes or No. :)

Keep smiling,

hammegk

15th February 2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Atoms are not conscious
You are made of atoms
You are not conscious

Is not only not valid, it is clearly false.
Clearly false? Which part?

How about Atoms are conscious, You are made of atoms, You are conscious.

What is clear, did you say, other than from an anthropomorphic human view, and why is that view justified?

Again, that is one way of looking at it: "TLOP is the name we give to the set (system) of rules that govern the behavior of the “matter”".

Another way of looking at it is "TLOP is a set (system) of rules that describe the properties of the Universe.

See the difference?
Not really. Look at a NA+ & a CL- interaction in a given PVT/solution. Does the "description of rules" provide an aspect of choice for either ion?

What makes interactions in your bag-o-bones -- or anywhere -- more subject to choice?

Franko

15th February 2003, 01:06 PM

Franko:
The same way that a reasonable man is convinced that the Earth is round and moves, despite the appearance to the contrary.

The same way that you explain how “red” is actually photons.

You do it with LOGIC.

Latimer:
Absolutely wrong. You do it with EVIDENCE. Logic comes later.

Latimer, I want to address your post in detail, but before I do, could you briefly give me an example of what You would consider valid "Evidence" which is NOT logical?

Latimer

15th February 2003, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Latimer, I want to address your post in detail, but before I do, could you briefly give me an example of what You would consider valid "Evidence" which is NOT logical?

You don't need to capitalize the y in you...I'm really not that important. :)

Some examples would include optical illusions and magic tricks. At first, your senses are telling you something that isn't really happening. The lady is evidentally sawed in half. The evidence of your own eyes is clearly not logical. Only when you investigate further, finding out how the trick was done, and uncovering FURTHER evidence do you discover the truth.

Ptolomeic astronomy had lots of evidence to support it. However, as it turned out with further observation, the model was not as logical as had been thought. Still, it accurately predicted for centuries the motions of the planets. So, although it was thought to be logical, it turned out not to be.

Our current understanding of physics is starting to have a similar problem; we have begun making observations that seem to indicate that the four primary forces aren't enough to explain what we are observing. Observed expansion of the Universe appears to be accelerating, which cannot be explained by the four forces we recognize now. So, what was logical with previous observations will have to change; a fifth force might indeed be at work, and that will turn physics on its ear again. New evidence is contradicting what we logically concluded before.

Logic is a method; evidence is evidence. If evidence arises that contradicts what we logically conclude, we have to change the conclusion, not ignore the evidence. Black Holes are a good example: You seem to reject them out of hand, but then you cannot explain where a star in Cygnus is being sucked off to. Astronomers are observing a black hole in action; so we need to modify our logic to assimilate this new evidence; we don't just reject the evidence.

You have never answered a question I have put to you many times; about what evidence can you *possibly* imagine that would change your opinions about any of your beliefs; the Goddess, TLOP being conscious, etc. You have never answered; you once replied asking if I could possibly imagine any evidence proving the Earth was not round (I produced two scenarios) and then claimed a month later you didn't understand my original question.

From these indirect answers, I can only provisionally conclude that there is *no* possible evidence in your whole imagination that could possibly change your mind regarding the Goddess, TLOP, your theory of gravitons, etc. Is this so?

If so; that's fine. We all have beliefs, and I hold onto my beliefs as much as anyone. I have a ton of them. :)

I guess that didn't quite fall under the category of 'brief.' Sorry about that. Long windedness is in my nature. :) I would have gone longer but my processor fan just failed, and my CPU is getting warm. :)

Keep smiling,

Franko

15th February 2003, 06:05 PM

Latimer:
valid non-logical evidence …

Some examples would include optical illusions and magic tricks. At first, your senses are telling you something that isn't really happening. The lady is evidentally sawed in half. The evidence of your own eyes is clearly not logical.

Yeah, that is the non-logical part.

Only when you investigate further, finding out how the trick was done, and uncovering FURTHER evidence do you discover the truth.

by “investigating further” don’t you mean applying logic? Let me remind you of your specific words.

Latimer: (previously …)
Absolutely wrong. You do it with EVIDENCE. Logic comes later.

If you do not apply logic until after you have already established it’s EVIDENCE then you just have the illusionary magic part. It only becomes real “Evidence” after you apply logic, of course by then it’s LOGICAL Evidence.

Latimer:
Ptolomeic astronomy had lots of evidence to support it. However, as it turned out with further observation, the model was not as logical as had been thought. Still, it accurately predicted for centuries the motions of the planets. So, although it was thought to be logical, it turned out not to be.

No, it was Logical, it just wasn’t the most logical. That is how reality works. You never quite seem to achieve perfection, but you have a symbolic representation of it, and you refine that model over Time, constantly improving upon it. That’s the basis for evolution as well.

Our current understanding of physics is starting to have a similar problem; we have begun making observations that seem to indicate that the four primary forces aren't enough to explain what we are observing. Observed expansion of the Universe appears to be accelerating, which cannot be explained by the four forces we recognize now. So, what was logical with previous observations will have to change; a fifth force might indeed be at work, and that will turn physics on its ear again. New evidence is contradicting what we logically concluded before.

Yeah, but mainly you are wrong about the “God” business.

Logic is a method; evidence is evidence.

Evidence is evidence? All evidence is created equal? One of John Edwards followers telling you that JE really can talk to dead people is just as good as Hubble’s evidence for an expanding Universe? Is that what you are saying?

What is the arbiter of evidence Latimer? … It’s Logic, that is what you use to decide which explanation conforms more accurately with observation.

If evidence arises that contradicts what we logically conclude, we have to change the conclusion, not ignore the evidence.

That is True, if you have new information (a new observation/new evidence) that contradicts an existing explanation (Theory). If this new information makes your existing explanation logically inconsistent, then you must modify your explanation, or perhaps even seek a radically different explanation altogether.

Black Holes are a good example: You seem to reject them out of hand, but then you cannot explain where a star in Cygnus is being sucked off to. Astronomers are observing a black hole in action; so we need to modify our logic to assimilate this new evidence; we don't just reject the evidence.

It is dishonest to imply that the majority of astronomers, physicist, and cosmologists are in unanimous agreement about the existence of Black Holes. There are MANY problems with the theory and the logical ramifications of it, and there are MANY simpler explanations which better describe the observations (check out Gravistars for example).

A-Theists just think Black Holes are “sexy”. But we don’t need to divert off on that tangent.

You have never answered a question I have put to you many times; about what evidence can you *possibly* imagine that would change your opinions about any of your beliefs; the Goddess, TLOP being conscious, etc. You have never answered; you once replied asking if I could possibly imagine any evidence proving the Earth was not round (I produced two scenarios) and then claimed a month later you didn't understand my original question.

You seem to be asking me if I can imagine a more realistic model of the Universe then I presently have. In my mind this is an absurd question. Are you honestly telling me Latimer, that YOU are capable of imagining a more realistic worldview than the worldview you presently hold? If that is the case, then why not simply switch to the imaginary superior worldview?

I am a Logical Deist, because my lifetime of experience has lead me to the inevitable conclusion that Logical Deism is the most accurate description of reality presently available. If you believe that your worldview is superior, then you will have to convince me of it.

From these indirect answers, I can only provisionally conclude that there is *no* possible evidence in your whole imagination that could possibly change your mind regarding the Goddess, TLOP, your theory of gravitons, etc. Is this so?

So you make up a logically contradictory question, and then based on me telling you that this is a logically contradictory question you conclude that I’m wrong and there is no God?

Latimer, I have noticed that A-Theists like to make up the most ridiculous concept of God that they can possibly imagine, and then pat themselves on the back for disbelieving their own absurd imaginary strawmen. If that is what you call “Science”, or “Seeking the Truth”, then you can keep your method … and I’ll stick to mine.

If so; that's fine. We all have beliefs, and I hold onto my beliefs as much as anyone. I have a ton of them.

I guess that didn't quite fall under the category of 'brief.' Sorry about that. Long windedness is in my nature. I would have gone longer but my processor fan just failed, and my CPU is getting warm.

Unless you can give me a Logical reason for believing that you have “free will” or that you get to “choose” between “options”, then I’d say any rational mind goes with the superior evidence and concludes:

Atoms obey The Laws of Physics (TLOP)
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more conscious than your CAR, TLOP is more conscious than YOU. In fact, to claim that a less conscious TLOP can control YOU, is analogous to claiming that CAR has more “free will” then YOU do when you go for a drive.

Tricky

15th February 2003, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by CWL
Hey Tricky!

Changed my mind again. Perceiving an option does not necessarily imply consciously choosing between the options perceived. Do you concede or are we going to have to have that wrasslin' match?
Sorry, CWL. I've been busy having a romantic Valentine's weekend with my enchantress.

Of course, it depends on what you mean by "perceived". Does an instrument perceive what it measures? Does a thermometer perceive the temperature? I say no. True perception can only come from a conscious being which recognizes more than the measurement itself. Computers cannot perceive, they can only measure. Of course, I can also defend the opposite point of view... and have done so in the past.

Latimer

15th February 2003, 08:09 PM

Hello,

by investigating further don’t you mean applying logic?

Eventually. But I think where we are missing each other is in where in the process we think we are. Right now, I think that in many of the conversations we have here, I would be of the opinion that we are in the 'evidence gathering' stage; and there is far too little to start creating theories of any kind of substance. You seem to indicate the jury is already in and the verdict rendered. I don't see it.

If you do not apply logic until after you have already established it’s EVIDENCE then you just have the illusionary magic part. It only becomes real Evidence after you apply logic, of course by then it’s LOGICAL Evidence.

Okay. To me, evidence isn't logical or not; it's just evidence. It takes someone interpreting it to be logical or not. But I think I see what you are saying.

Latimer:
Ptolomeic astronomy had lots of evidence to support it. However, as it turned out with further observation, the model was not as logical as had been thought. Still, it accurately predicted for centuries the motions of the planets. So, although it was thought to be logical, it turned out not to be.

No, it was Logical, it just wasn’t the most logical.

So, uh, what happened to the coin flipping; if it isn't heads it must be tails? Are you saying there are degrees of logical-ness?

Yeah, but mainly you are wrong about the God business.

Okay - Let's examine that. How am I wrong about the 'God business?' How do you know what I do and do not believe? You are a skeptic; please provide evidence to me that you understand my belief structure *at all.*

Of course, you might be able to ask the Logical Goddess, and She might be able to give you some juicy details of my belief system. If She does, and you post them, I shall have to seriously consider the validity of Logical Deism to be more likely.

I await the result of this experimental verification of Logical Deism with great anticipation.

Evidence is evidence? All evidence is created equal? One of John Edwards followers telling you that JE really can talk to dead people is just as good as Hubble’s evidence for an expanding Universe? Is that what you are saying?

Nope. There are different qualities of evidence. However, the way to sift through is to gather -- you guessed it -- MORE evidence. Once that's done, you can logically deduce some things; but the gathering of further evidence, or the continued testing of the evidence you already have, is just as important as the logical conclusion.

What is the arbiter of evidence Latimer? … It’s Logic, that is what you use to decide which explanation conforms more accurately with observation.

Well, yes and no. Logic is certainly part of it, but how do you use logic to prove or disprove illogical things? I love my wife, but how might I prove that logically? There is evidence that I love my wife; but can you logically conclude such a thing?

That is True, if you have new information (a new observation/new evidence) that contradicts an existing explanation (Theory). If this new information makes your existing explanation logically inconsistent, then you must modify your explanation, or perhaps even seek a radically different explanation altogether.

Yep, I agree.

It is dishonest to imply that the majority of astronomers, physicist, and cosmologists are in unanimous agreement about the existence of Black Holes. There are MANY problems with the theory and the logical ramifications of it, and there are MANY simpler explanations which better describe the observations (check out Gravistars for example).

The Gravistar theory has some interesting advantages but has a long way to go. And, really, there is disagreement among astronomers, physicists, and cosmologists about the *nature* of black holes. There is little to no debate about the *existence* of them.

A-Theists just think Black Holes are sexy. But we don’t need to divert off on that tangent.

I don't know what's terribly sexy about them, but okay. What evidence could *possibly* be presented to you to change your opinion about the impossibility of black holes?

You seem to be asking me if I can imagine a more realistic model of the Universe then I presently have.

No. I am asking what evidence can you *imagine* being presented to you that might change your opinion. Any at all?

In my mind this is an absurd question. Are you honestly telling me Latimer, that YOU are capable of imagining a more realistic worldview than the worldview you presently hold?

Sure; I did twice before. If someone presented me with irrefutable, concrete evidence that we lived in a Matrix-style computer Universe (by allowing me to jack out of reality, for example) then I would certainly have to adjust my worldview to incorporate this new evidence, wouldn't I?

So, back to you: What evidence can you *imagine* shaking your foundations so much that your belief system would be in doubt? Is there *none* you can *imagine?*

If that is the case, then why not simply switch to the imaginary superior worldview?

Well, because I haven't been jacked out of reality yet. :) But I can still imagine it.

I am a Logical Deist, because my lifetime of experience has lead me to the inevitable conclusion that Logical Deism is the most accurate description of reality presently available.

Could you be wrong? And, if so, what would it take to convince you you were wrong? Would convincing you that you were wrong even be *possible?* And what makes your lifetime of experience of a superior quality to anyone else's lifetime of experience? Why can't you allow them to have *their* 'inevitable conclusion?'

If you believe that your worldview is superior, then you will have to convince me of it.

Well, actually, no I don't. The whole superior/inferior idea smacks of elitism. I don't care if anyone shares my worldview or not. It has seemed to work for me; and that's enough. I don't need to convince anyone that my way is the only way; or as a wiser man put it: There are as many different ways up a mountain as there are people who climb it. :)

So you make up a logically contradictory question, and then based on me telling you that this is a logically contradictory question you conclude that I’m wrong and there is no God?

Sigh. One, the question is not logically contradictory, as I have just explained. Two, there is no pro or anti God part to the question *at all.* You put all that in by yourself.

Latimer, I have noticed that A-Theists like to make up the most ridiculous concept of God that they can possibly imagine, and then pat themselves on the back for disbelieving their own absurd imaginary strawmen.

Okay. What concept of God have I *ever* put forth? What strawman have I knocked down?

If that is what you call Science, or Seeking the Truth, then you can keep your method and I’ll stick to mine.

Okay, and no need to get nasty. But you are accusing me of things and beliefs I have never professed and have never posted. So stop blaming me for strawman arguments I have never made, and for beliefs and concepts I have never typed on this forum (or any other). Fair enough?

Unless you can give me a Logical reason for believing that you have free will or that you get to choose between options, then I’d say any rational mind goes with the superior evidence and concludes:

Well, Free will I have never argued about at all. As for choosing between options, I seem to recall the experience of looking on a menu and picking something to eat; that could be argued as choosing between options. :) It must be dinnertime.

Now, so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle; what we were talking about earlier...

You are stating that you have evidence of a deterministic Universe; that randomness does not exist. Yet, you cannot make the prediction of what a single six-sided dice will roll with 100 percent accuracy. You cannot predict the weather with 100 percent accuracy. So, your syllogism needs refining to address these observations.

You can state that you don't have enough information to make these predictions; how can it be *assumed* that the information exists?

You can argue that if the Universe is not deterministic, then nothing can be predicted, but that's simply carrying the argument too far. It's using the Either/Or fallacy, without addressing any of the ground in between.

As an example: I cannot predict with complete accuracy the rolling of a single six sided die. However, I can predict with *some* accuracy the rolling of 1000 such dice. (If you add up the total it should be fairly near to 3500.) The more dice are rolled, the more accurate my prediction will be; but never to 100 percent accuracy. Because each time we roll the 1000 dice, there is the chance they will all roll '1.' It's unlikely, statistically, but it happens. And yet, predicting the roll of every single dice of the 1000 is much more difficult.

So, these seem to be demonstrations that probabilistic outcomes can exist without determinism. You'd need to provide evidence that, with complete understanding of a system in which any randomness exists at all, would be 100 percent predictable.

I'll close with a question: If the fifty-five mile per hour speed limit were a law of physics, wouldn't I be obeying it at 53 as well as 55 miles per hour? Answer Yes or No. :)

Keep smiling,

Tricky

15th February 2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Franko
I have noticed that A-Theists like to make up the most ridiculous concept of God that they can possibly imagine, and then pat themselves on the back for disbelieving their own absurd imaginary strawmen. If that is what you call “Science”, or “Seeking the Truth”, then you can keep your method … and I’ll stick to mine.
So you say, but I have tried numerous times to get you to acknowledge the things on the list (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=335172&highlight=lucid#post335172) that you have said. I do not wish to make any straw men, I only wish to discuss the things you have actually said. Will you make your corrections to this list so that we can discuss your conception of God(ess) without strawmen, but only with evidence and logic? If it is possible, please try to respond to my request with your corrections, which I will faithfully include. Please do not respond with insults or straw men. I know how you dislike them.

Franko

15th February 2003, 10:48 PM

Eventually. But I think where we are missing each other is in where in the process we think we are. Right now, I think that in many of the conversations we have here, I would be of the opinion that we are in the 'evidence gathering' stage; and there is far too little to start creating theories of any kind of substance. You seem to indicate the jury is already in and the verdict rendered. I don't see it.

It’s ironic, but I believe I have made essentially the same statement to Atheists in the past.

It is only natural for the mind to attempt to perceive a pattern in the information it is gathering (evidence gathering stage). The Atheists seem to want to claim that any pattern perceived is surely the result of the magic of incomprehensible “randomness”, whereas a Logical Deists would say that the patterns are the deterministic result of a inherently similar consciousness traversing this same territory in our past.

So, uh, what happened to the coin flipping; if it isn't heads it must be tails? Are you saying there are degrees of logical-ness?

The coin toss … what I am saying is that HEADS, and TAILS are mutually exclusive options. The more True that HEADS is (the more likely that HEADS is to come up) the less True (more False) TAILS is. This whole idea of proving a negative is nonsense. The way that you prove something is True is by proving that it is a more logical (more likely) explanation then it’s mutually exclusive opposite option. If you want to prove that God is True, then all you have to do is prove that [God Exist] = [True] is more likely reality then [God Exist] = False. Conversely if you want to prove that [God Exist] = [False], then you have to prove that [God Exist] = [False] is more likely then [God Exist] = [True].

The same can be said about anything, be that whether “free will” exist, or whether “black holes” exist, or whether John Edwards really can “talk to dead people”, or whether “dowsing” really works, etc.

Okay - Let's examine that. How am I wrong about the 'God business?' How do you know what I do and do not believe? You are a skeptic; please provide evidence to me that you understand my belief structure *at all.*

If you agree with me, then explain the content of your posts and your tone with me?

Of course, you might be able to ask the Logical Goddess, and She might be able to give you some juicy details of my belief system. If She does, and you post them, I shall have to seriously consider the validity of Logical Deism to be more likely.

I await the result of this experimental verification of Logical Deism with great anticipation.

Yeah, but suppose that I did just that? Suppose that I told you some thing about yourself that no other person in this world could possibly know. Would that really prove that the Goddess exists? … or would it just prove that Solipsism was True, and I was merely a figment of your imagination … inside your mind already?

Franko:
Evidence is evidence? All evidence is created equal? One of John Edwards followers telling you that JE really can talk to dead people is just as good as Hubble’s evidence for an expanding Universe? Is that what you are saying?

Latimer:
Nope. There are different qualities of evidence. However, the way to sift through is to gather -- you guessed it -- MORE evidence.

No … you are only half right. You have rules (Logic), and you have data (Information/Energy [Time – really]). It is like I was saying to Tricky (if you happened to see it). If you are trying to determine what the best baseball team will be before the season starts you have to know 2 things. 1) The rules of baseball (the logic of it), and 2) data about the individual players comprising the teams (the Gravitons).

Once that's done, you can logically deduce some things; but the gathering of further evidence, or the continued testing of the evidence you already have, is just as important as the logical conclusion.

It took two things to make this Universe 1) The Laws of Physics, and 2) The Initial State, prior to, or at the moment of, the “Big Bang”.

… or in LD terms 1) A meme in the mind (Graviton) of the Logical Goddess, and 2) The Logical Goddess Herself.

Well, yes and no. Logic is certainly part of it, but how do you use logic to prove or disprove illogical things? I love my wife, but how might I prove that logically? There is evidence that I love my wife; but can you logically conclude such a thing?

Unless You and I can agree upon an objective way to test and see if you Love your Wife, then I see no way that You and I could objectively say that You Love your Wife.

Let’s say that we agree that a person Loves another individual if they are willing (or destined) to sacrifice their own existence (or sense of “benefit”) for the existence of the One Loved. In that case if I witnessed you deliberately take a bullet for your Wife, or jump in front of a truck to knock her out of the way, or donate a lung, then I would say you Love your Wife by an objective measure. I would say it was a logical conclusion, and I could specify exactly and precisely what I meant by that.

Franko:
You seem to be asking me if I can imagine a more realistic model of the Universe then I presently have.

Latimer:
No. I am asking what evidence can you *imagine* being presented to you that might change your opinion. Any at all?

I misunderstood you last time.

If you are asking what the Null Hypothesis is for Logical Deism, then I would say that proof of Atheism [proof of “free will”, proof of Matter makes consciousness, proof of no “god” universe, proof of non-conscious TLOP] would constitute credible evidence that LD was a False Philosophy/Worldview/Religion/Theory/Hypothesis.

Well, actually, no I don't. The whole superior/inferior idea smacks of elitism. I don't care if anyone shares my worldview or not. It has seemed to work for me; and that's enough. I don't need to convince anyone that my way is the only way; or as a wiser man put it: There are as many different ways up a mountain as there are people who climb it.

I agree. Individuality is a very important part of my worldview as well. The interesting thing about it is that every time you acquire more of it, as if by magic … so do I.

Well, Free will I have never argued about at all. As for choosing between options, I seem to recall the experience of looking on a menu and picking something to eat; that could be argued as choosing between options.

If you don’t mind me asking Latimer … what is the significance of your nickname?

You are stating that you have evidence of a deterministic Universe; that randomness does not exist. Yet, you cannot make the prediction of what a single six-sided dice will roll with 100 percent accuracy. You cannot predict the weather with 100 percent accuracy. So, your syllogism needs refining to address these observations.

Are you certain that I couldn’t make a die roll the number I wanted? I use to impress women in bars by calling the toss of a coin …

But lets say I am just messing with you, and I can’t predict “random” things any better than Joe-Blo … how does that make Determinism False? When you are playing D&D, You may be subject to the roll of the dice, but the referee certainly isn’t. The referee can tell you what the dice rolled if She wants to. She could just make up any number She wants. It’s Her universe after all.

You can state that you don't have enough information to make these predictions; how can it be *assumed* that the information exists?

If the information doesn’t exist, then what Determines it ultimately when the time comes? It is either determined by its previous state(s) (the information), or it is magical (based on no information and/or rules).

As an example: I cannot predict with complete accuracy the rolling of a single six sided die. However, I can predict with *some* accuracy the rolling of 1000 such dice. (If you add up the total it should be fairly near to 3500.) The more dice are rolled, the more accurate my prediction will be; but never to 100 percent accuracy. Because each time we roll the 1000 dice, there is the chance they will all roll '1.' It's unlikely, statistically, but it happens. And yet, predicting the roll of every single dice of the 1000 is much more difficult.

1) Lets say we have 6 different dice, and each is slightly off balance and tends to favor a specific number. Now on one or two, or ten or even 100 rolls if you were just watching you might never know, but if you rolled each one 1000 times and kept track of the numbers do you thing you could tell me which die was fixed for which number? Is that “magic”?

2) Thomas Bayes … You know of this Guy? He says that the more information you acquire about a system, the less “random” it becomes. Okay, so you take a computer program that generates “random” numbers, and you start showing the sequence to people, and if the numbers are singe digit, then they shouldn’t guess more than 1 in 10, and at first, you are right, but then over time … their accuracy rate starts to go up for some reason …

So, these seem to be demonstrations that probabilistic outcomes can exist without determinism. You'd need to provide evidence that, with complete understanding of a system in which any randomness exists at all, would be 100 percent predictable.

People (A-Theists) keep saying this, but I have yet to see anyone produce an example where the probability of an outcome can be calculated based on no determined parameters??

wraith

16th February 2003, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by CWL
It is a choice because I will choose not to touch the flame again.

Did you choose to not enjoy the sensation of being burnt?

wraith

16th February 2003, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

OH WOW! A VALID POINT! I have been arguing with CWL that adding the word "conscious" to the definition of free will is unnecessary. I think that the ability to perceive indicates consciousness. We're gonna settle the issue with a wrasslin' match.

Like I said before,
If you dont like getting burnt, and you saw an open flame, how is it possible that youre going to "choose" to touch it again?

Uh oh. Your streak stopped at one. If free will is the ability to choose, then showing the ability to choose (as you have kindly done for us) is evidence of free will.

Then you have totally missed what I have said ;)

If you say it was not a choice, well, that's gonna take some provin'. And no, repeating your claim is not evidence.

If you dont like getting burnt, and you saw an open flame, how is it possible that youre going to "choose" to touch it again?

Oh yes, and like CWL says, the only persons who have claimed the existence of a "free-willy god" are you and Franko. I have no idea what you mean by that. Would you care to define it?

I like to personify your beliefs as a god aka free-will/magic/materialism

wraith

16th February 2003, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Is "dreamworld matter" a part of the Logical Deism TOE? Can you elaborate?

The "dream world matter" is this universe...

wraith

16th February 2003, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by Franko
I use to impress women in bars by calling the toss of a coin …

haha! You so have to teach me that! ;)

Franko

16th February 2003, 08:26 AM

I knew this blind guy ... He would flip a coin, have you call it in the air, catch it on the back of his hand, and he would tell you if you had called it correctly or not.

He could "see" which way the coin had landed the instant he caught it by feeling which side landed up, and which side was facing down. :cool:

Tricky

16th February 2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Like I said before,
If you dont like getting burnt, and you saw an open flame, how is it possible that youre going to "choose" to touch it again?
And yet, people do. Ever hear of G. Gordon Liddy?

Then you have totally missed what I have said ;)
Nope. I haven't missed it at all. I understand exactly what you are saying, and I think you are wrong.

If you dont like getting burnt, and you saw an open flame, how is it possible that youre going to "choose" to touch it again?
I can think of lots of scenarios where this might happen. I imagine you can too. There is nothing in TLOP that prohibit you from touching the flame again.

Originally posted by wraith
I like to personify your beliefs as a god aka free-will/magic/materialism
Actually what you are personifying is your straw man. You have so far never accurately portrayed my beliefs. Hint: One of the main things I believe is that there is no such thing as magic. I do not believe free will is magic, but rather is required by TLOP. "Dream matter" on the other hand, sounds pretty darn magic to me, almost as if something becomes real because you dream it, like in a bad horror movie.

The "dream world matter" is this universe...
Well then, if "dream world matter" is this universe, then atoms are "dream world matter" too, being part of this universe. So now we have that both atoms and gravitons are "dream world matter" and both are part of the universe. This means that premise 2 of the syllogism is incorrect. It should read:

You are made of atoms and other things

One of those other things (according to you) is a graviton. Do gravitons obey the laws of physics? No they do not, at least the way they have been described by Logical Deists. I can show you examples if you wish, or just look at The List.

Now you are made of things, some of which obey the laws of physics and some of which do not. Therefore, even ignoring the fallacy of composition, you cannot logically say humans obey the laws of physics.

Tricky

16th February 2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Franko
I knew this blind guy ... He would flip a coin, have you call it in the air, catch it on the back of his hand, and he would tell you if you had called it correctly or not.

He could "see" which way the coin had landed the instant he caught it by feeling which side landed up, and which side was facing down. :cool:
Certainly an impressive trick, requiring great tactile skills, but of course, it is not a prediction of a random event. The event had already happened and he had observed the results (by feeling the coin) before he made the call. Notice the trick does not require him to call it in the air.

However I have seen people who could do this too. They were such good slight of hand artists that they could feel the coin when they caught it and surreptitiously flip it to the side they had called before they slapped it onto the back of their other hand.

None of these artists would dare to try to call a coin that they could not touch. Still a good trick though.

Franko

16th February 2003, 08:50 AM

It works the same way for the Goddess Tricky.

It only seems like "magic" when you do not know how the trick is done. Once you comprehend the Logic of it, it ceases to be magic.

wraith

16th February 2003, 10:41 PM

wraith

16th February 2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
wraith says: If you dont like getting burnt, and you saw an open flame, how is it possible that youre going to "choose" to touch it again?

Trix: And yet, people do. Ever hear of G. Gordon Liddy?

Sure they do...but it would have to depend on their reasoning at the time...
and what about this G. Gordon Liddy character?

Nope. I haven't missed it at all. I understand exactly what you are saying, and I think you are wrong.

Coming from a person that said that toast was more complex than a human.....im pretty sure that you didnt get my point ;)

wraith says: If you dont like getting burnt, and you saw an open flame, how is it possible that youre going to "choose" to touch it again?

Trix: I can think of lots of scenarios where this might happen. I imagine you can too. There is nothing in TLOP that prohibit you from touching the flame again.

Yes, but if I did touch the flame again, it was because that I perceived a benefit in doing so...

Actually what you are personifying is your straw man. You have so far never accurately portrayed my beliefs. Hint: One of the main things I believe is that there is no such thing as magic. I do not believe free will is magic, but rather is required by TLOP.

So the universe just sprung from the darkness willy nilly?
The present is not based on the past? (aka free-will/magic)

that Trix is magic

"Dream matter" on the other hand, sounds pretty darn magic to me, almost as if something becomes real because you dream it, like in a bad horror movie.

"dream matter" is energy aka this universe ;)

Well then, if "dream world matter" is this universe, then atoms are "dream world matter" too, being part of this universe. So now we have that both atoms and gravitons are "dream world matter" and both are part of the universe. This means that premise 2 of the syllogism is incorrect. It should read:

You are made of atoms and other things

This is how you perceieve this universe. Youre made of atoms...

One of those other things (according to you) is a graviton. Do gravitons obey the laws of physics? No they do not, at least the way they have been described by Logical Deists. I can show you examples if you wish, or just look at The List.

In other words, do they behave logically?

Now you are made of things, some of which obey the laws of physics and some of which do not. Therefore, even ignoring the fallacy of composition, you cannot logically say humans obey the laws of physics.

Which things are they that do not obey TLOP?

CWL

17th February 2003, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
Clearly false? Which part?

Are you not of the opinion that you are conscious?

How about Atoms are conscious, You are made of atoms, You are conscious.

Well, sure (besides the fact that this is also subject to the Fallacy of Composition, but that is way beside the point). But do we have any indication (whatsoever) that atoms are conscious? Wouldn't that be a reasonable requirement for the assumption according to the first premise?

What is clear, did you say, other than from an anthropomorphic human view, and why is that view justified?

Again, are you disputing that you are conscious? Which other view, besides the anthropomorfic view do you suggest? It seems to me that what we are really discussing is what should constitute valid "knowledge".

Not really. Look at a NA+ & a CL- interaction in a given PVT/solution. Does the "description of rules" provide an aspect of choice for either ion?

What makes interactions in your bag-o-bones -- or anywhere -- more subject to choice?

I am not schooled in chemistry or physics, so I am forced to admit that I do not understand your example. Please feel free to clarify/simplify, if possible.

CWL

17th February 2003, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Did you choose to not enjoy the sensation of being burnt?

No. I chose to avoid the pain.

CWL

17th February 2003, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Sorry, CWL. I've been busy having a romantic Valentine's weekend with my enchantress.

As have I (with my enchantress that is). I Hope yours was as good as mine (the weekend that is). ;)

Of course, it depends on what you mean by "perceived". Does an instrument perceive what it measures? Does a thermometer perceive the temperature? I say no. True perception can only come from a conscious being which recognizes more than the measurement itself. Computers cannot perceive, they can only measure. Of course, I can also defend the opposite point of view... and have done so in the past.

You may be missing the point I was trying to make. The fact that we perceive the options (which I think even Franko is willing to concede) does not necessarily mean that we are consciously choosing between them. "You may perceive the 'options', but it is in reality your algorithm 'choosing' for you" (or something to that effect).

What I am saying is that in order for "free will" to have any real meaning your choices must be conscious. That you have (consciously) perceived the options is not enough.

See what I mean?

wraith

17th February 2003, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by CWL
wraith says: Did you choose to not enjoy the sensation of being burnt?

CWL: No. I chose to avoid the pain.

That doesnt answer the question ;)

CWL

17th February 2003, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by wraith

That doesnt answer the question ;)

Yes it does. The answer was "no" as the question was not formulated correctly. The "sensation" of "being burnt" is hardly one to "enjoy".

Tricky

17th February 2003, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by wraith
Sure they do...but it would have to depend on their reasoning at the time...
Reason? But that would imply choice. Why reason about something for which you have no choice?

and what about this G. Gordon Liddy character?
A bit before your time. He was one of the principle characters in the Watergate scandal, and now has a radio show that makes Rush Limbaugh look like Jesse Jackson. But one of the things he is famous for is his free will. He absolutely refused to cooperate with investigators, and as a result, spent more time in prison than any other conspirator. At one point he showed his resolve by holding his hand in a candle flame until it was badly burned. "The trick", he said, "is not moving". I realize you will claim this was his MPB, :rolleyes: but it was a good example to show your "flame" analogy to be a poor one.

Coming from a person that said that toast was more complex than a human.....im pretty sure that you didnt get my point ;)
Are you going to harp on the toast thing now? If you followed that discussion, then you should understand the point I was trying to make (by playing Devil's Advocate). If you didn't understand the point, well, then I think you are ill advised to denigrate my ability to understand things.

Yes, but if I did touch the flame again, it was because that I perceived a benefit in doing so...
Yes. If you perceived a benefit, you might choose to do so. ;)

So the universe just sprung from the darkness willy nilly?
The present is not based on the past? (aka free-will/magic)

that Trix is magic
No, that is admitting I don't know how it happened. Neither do I make up magical stories with Goddesses or Progenitor Solipsists or theoretical particles with amazing powers that defy the laws of physics. Tell me. Do you really believe all that stuff?

"dream matter" is energy aka this universe ;)
I think you'd better withdraw the "dream matter" comment, wraith. It is an inordinately silly concept, even for a Logical Deist. BTW, last I heard, matter and energy were interchangable. I'm still waiting to hear the difference between "dream matter" and ordinary matter.

Also BTW. According to one prominent Logical Deist, gravitons are not made of "dream matter", they are made of time.

This is how you perceieve this universe. Youre made of atoms...

...and other things, including "dream matter". Is dream matter made of atoms?

In other words, do they behave logically?
Not according to The List. There are things on there which are so far outside of logic that one would have to rewrite the whole dictionary to argue the points. But wait! That's being done isn't it?

Which things are they that do not obey TLOP?
Gravitons, for one. Looks like we can add "dream matter" to the list.

Franko

17th February 2003, 09:50 AM

the Wraith:
Did you choose to not enjoy the sensation of being burnt?

CWL:
No. I chose to avoid the pain.

CWL, would you agree that anyone who did not avoid being burned, or if they actually enjoyed the sensation of being severely burned could be described as "mentally ill"?

CWL

17th February 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Franko

CWL, would you agree that anyone who did not avoid being burned, or if they actually enjoyed the sensation of being severely burned could be described as "mentally ill"?

The stability of a mind is a tricky one indeed to define, so I don't know about that...

Seriously, such a description would not be entirely unreasonable.

(Please feel free to interpret the above as a "yes").

17th February 2003, 12:04 PM

Frankooooooo!!!!! Franko man it's me Jimmy. Oh man, I owe you an apology, I've been spelling your name wrong.:(

So what's up? Did you decide if I can be in your group yet? I'm really serious about learning more about this Goddette thing. I got a raft of questions for you if you got a minute.

Where is she from? Is she the only god/goddette? Can she make me lose weight? What special powers does she have?

Is her fight with atheism only? Is she angry about the catholics? Does she like holy wars? Does she prefer absolute obedience?

What offends her? What makes her wet? Does she cook? Any special recipes? Does she know that the word recipes looks funny when its printed?

Is there an after life? Do I get free will then? Do I get to meet these atoms that push me around?

Talk to me man...I want in the club and I won't go away. I can't go away.

Franko

17th February 2003, 08:44 PM

Hey jimmydum, is Tricky paying you to kiss his ass, or did you volunteer for the job? I've noticed his once abundant stable of toadies has been seriously depleted in recent months.

Let me guess ... you are the "reinforcements"?

woooo ... I so scared!

You smell like a thaifoodkenny brand A-Theist!

hehehe!!! hehehe ....

Tricky

17th February 2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Hey jimmydum, is Tricky paying you to kiss his ass, or did you volunteer for the job? I've noticed his once abundant stable of toadies has been seriously depleted in recent months.

Let me guess ... you are the "reinforcements"?

woooo ... I so scared!

You smell like a thaifoodkenny brand A-Theist!

As I've told you many times before, Franko, I don't have any toadies. I do have one sock puppet, but you have still not identified it. Jimmy is ...well... a little odd. I could not possibly be creative enough to either produce or even influence his brand of craziness. But keep looking. I love it when you are eaten up by paranoia.

CWL

18th February 2003, 01:21 AM

Tricky,

Never mind your alleged toadies. We are having a shoot-out over the inclusion of "conscious" in the definition of "free will", remember?

I said:
You may be missing the point I was trying to make. The fact that we perceive the options (which I think even Franko is willing to concede) does not necessarily mean that we are consciously choosing between them. "You may perceive the 'options', but it is in reality your algorithm 'choosing' for you" (or something to that effect).

What I am saying is that in order for "free will" to have any real meaning your choices must be conscious. That you have (consciously) perceived the options is not enough.

In other words, "free will" IMO does not solely imply awareness of the options, but also awareness of the choice itself. A subtle but significant difference. The fact that I may stop a while to think about whether I should have chicken or salad for lunch today is important (as opposed to just perceiving both the salad and the chicken as "options" - if I don't actually make the choice consciously, what is such perception worth?) - and that is what I am getting at.

Now, for the third time - do you, or do you not, see my point (or am I actually going to have to kick your sorry geologist butt over this)?

MRC_Hans

18th February 2003, 01:29 AM

Which leads us to the evolutionary argument for the existence of free will.

Compared to other animals on that East-African plain, six million or so years ago, Man had only one advantage: His brain, and his ability to make deliberate choices. Whereas the other animals, faster, stronger, with sharper senses, were confined to their simple MPB algorithm, Man could think and plan ahead, and this enabled us to become the dominant species on the planet.

Hans

CWL

18th February 2003, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Which leads us to the evolutionary argument for the existence of free will.

Compared to other animals on that East-African plain, six million or so years ago, Man had only one advantage: His brain, and his ability to make deliberate choices. Whereas the other animals, faster, stronger, with sharper senses, were confined to their simple MPB algorithm, Man could think and plan ahead, and this enabled us to become the dominant species on the planet.

Hans

Hans,

Does this mean that you will support my "include-conscious-in the-definition-of-free-will-campaign"? We are a growing movement you know (well - we will be as soon as a certain Texan comes to his senses).

MRC_Hans

18th February 2003, 04:15 AM

I don't, on principle, support campaigns, heheheh. However, I dont see how free will can exist without consciousness. Consciousness, on the other hand, might exist without free will, it just wouldn't be of much use.

So, if your slogan is "Free will is a conscious choice between available options", I would say that you are partly right. Not entirely right, however, because a conscious entity might also choose to pursue a non-available option. Suppose I decided I wanted to own a Ferrari. At present, this is not an available option for me, but I could still choose it, and then plan a row of actions that would make it avalable.

I find it very hard to conciliate such a decision with MPB, by the way.

Hans

CWL

18th February 2003, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I don't, on principle, support campaigns, heheheh. However, I dont see how free will can exist without consciousness. Consciousness, on the other hand, might exist without free will, it just wouldn't be of much use.

So, if your slogan is "Free will is a conscious choice between available options", I would say that you are partly right. Not entirely right, however, because a conscious entity might also choose to pursue a non-available option. Suppose I decided I wanted to own a Ferrari. At present, this is not an available option for me, but I could still choose it, and then plan a row of actions that would make it avalable.

I find it very hard to conciliate such a decision with MPB, by the way.

Hans

The suggested definition is:

Free Will = The ability to make conscious choices between perceived and available options

Tricky has previously stated that "consciousness" is implied in the word "perceived" and that the ability to choose between perceived and available options therefore would be sufficient. I disagree.

BTW - "striving to own a Ferrari" is an "available option" - although "owning a Ferrari" may not be one at the time. In your example you are therefore IMO "choosing an available option".

Tricky

18th February 2003, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by CWL
Tricky,

Never mind your alleged toadies. We are having a shoot-out over the inclusion of "conscious" in the definition of "free will", remember?

I said:

In other words, "free will" IMO does not solely imply awareness of the options, but also awareness of the choice itself. A subtle but significant difference. The fact that I may stop a while to think about whether I should have chicken or salad for lunch today is important (as opposed to just perceiving both the salad and the chicken as "options" - if I don't actually make the choice consciously, what is such perception worth?) - and that is what I am getting at.

Now, for the third time - do you, or do you not, see my point (or am I actually going to have to kick your sorry geologist butt over this)?
Of course I see your point. You can't buy a hat tall enough to cover it. Your objectioin, though, is ludicrous. How can you perceive options and yet be unconscious of them? If you select things without recognizing options, then you have not perceived the other options. Admittedly, you pay a lot more attention to some choices than others. You would cogitate more about buying a car than a sandwich, yet you must spend at least a tiny amount of time making each choice. Otherwise, it would be "fated", right?

It is really sad to see you stoop to such ridiculous semantic arguments. I suppose it is the "lawyer" coming out in you.

CWL

18th February 2003, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Of course I see your point. You can't buy a hat tall enough to cover it. Your objectioin, though, is ludicrous. How can you perceive options and yet be unconscious of them? If you select things without recognizing options, then you have not perceived the other options. Admittedly, you pay a lot more attention to some choices than others. You would cogitate more about buying a car than a sandwich, yet you must spend at least a tiny amount of time making each choice. Otherwise, it would be "fated", right?

It is really sad to see you stoop to such ridiculous semantic arguments. I suppose it is the "lawyer" coming out in you.

Look here bub. No matter how impossible it may be to procure any kind of headgear sizable enough to cover my humble intimation, you still do not seem to grasp the issue. If you would spend less time staring at rocks all day and more time actually using your noggin, you would maybe be able to comprehend my allegedly obvious point.

As you clearly have not, you will forgive me for spelling it out for you once again:

If the definition does not clearly state that the choice as such is made consciously one can argue that - although you may perceive certain seemingly possible actions as "options" - you notwithstanding had no choice in pursuing the action that you ended up "choosing".

Need I remind you that it has been argued that a car "perceives" its speed through its instruments? One could however not reasonably argue that a car "consciously chooses" to travel at a certain speed.

Jeez Tricky. Surely you can comprehend this.

Seriously, yes this is semantics - but I believe the distinction is important. The purpose of a definition is to eliminate any possible misconstruction (no matter how remote and/or ridiculous) - and yes, this is the lawyer in me talking. If there is one thing one understands as a lawyer, it is the importance of being precise in one's definitions.

Concede, Texan, or be prepared to face me in fair intellectual joust (with the occasional biting).

Tricky

18th February 2003, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by CWL
As you clearly have not, you will forgive me for spelling it out for you once again:

If the definition does not clearly state that the choice as such is made consciously one can argue that, although you may perceive certain seemingly possible actions as "options" you notwithstanding had no choice in pursuing the action that you ended up "choosing".
Yes, I understand your argument, Shylock. It appears that you define "perceive" differently than I. So be it.

Originally posted by CWL
Seriously, yes this is semantics - but I believe the distinction is important. The purpose of a definition is to eliminate misconstructions (no matter how remote and/or ridiculous they may be) - and yes, this is the lawyer in me talking. If there is one thing one understands as a lawyer, it is the importance of being precise in one's definitions.
Okay, I give. You may write the definition of free will as the ability to consciously choose between available, perceived options. I will not claim copyright infringement. For that matter you may write it as the ability or capacity to consciously, meaningly, deliberately choose, select or pick between available, perceived, separate, identifiable options or possibilities. When it comes to writing legalese, I would not attempt to compete with the "Battling Barrister".

Originally posted by CWL
Concede, Texan, or be prepared to face me in fair intellectual joust (with the occasional biting).
If you wanna take this to the flame war section, Swedey Pie, that's fine with me. I'll leave you picking the fragments of your pathetic arguments out of your powdered wig.

whitefork

18th February 2003, 06:19 AM

Tricky, you mean Portia, the cross-dressing lawyer. Shylock was the defendant.

Now bow your head and say "D'oh"

CWL

18th February 2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes, I understand your argument, Shylock. It appears that you define "perceive" differently than I. So be it.

At least I hath eyes to see and a brain to think with.

Apparently you still do not understand the argument. It is not a matter of defining "perceive" - it is the fact that the word "perceive" only alludes to "options" - not to the act of choosing between them as such.

Okay, I give. You may write the definition of free will as the ability to consciously choose between available, perceived options. I will not claim copyright infringement. For that matter you may write it as the ability or capacity to consciously, meaningly, deliberately choose, select or pick between available, perceived, separate, identifiable options or possibilities. When it comes to writing legalese, I would not attempt to compete with the "Battling Barrister".

Good work, rock boy. I must admit that you do have a certain talent for the profession. Now how about unconditionally conceding, surrendering, admitting defeat and yielding as to the fact that the original definition suggested by you was incomplete?

If you wanna take this to the flame war section, Swedey Pie, that's fine with me. I'll leave you picking the fragments of your pathetic arguments out of your powdered wig.

You seem to have a little fetish for headdresses there, Tex. May I suggest barbecued hat this evening?

Tricky

18th February 2003, 06:57 AM

This has been a fun diversion, but I think we should not let our semantic differences divert us from the true purpose of this thread, which is to discuss Logical Deism. It has been a while so I think I should once again present The List in the fervent hope that some Logical Deist will confirm it's accuracy.
____________________________
NOTE: Many of these “beliefs” were verified by Franko in this post. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=290098&highlight=logical+goddess+omnipotent#post290098)
Origins This universe is part of an omniverse.
The first entity is the Progenitor Solipsist (PS) – our original primordial ancestor – what the Christians call “God the Father/God the Creator”
The Progenitor Solipsist exists in the distant past when there were only two intrinsic parameters - Mass and Velocity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=306446&highlight=progenitor#post306446)
This universe was created by the Logical Goddess (LG), who also created the forces (electro-magnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear). She did not create gravity.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
The Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
Consciousness creates matter.
The Big Bang is made up of two parts. The Goddess corresponds to "The Initial State” (the initial “random” configuration of stuff). The other part is The Laws of Physics . (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306475&highlight=configuration+stuff#post306475)

How Things Work One soul = one graviton.
Gravitons come from the omniverse, but not necessarily this universe.
The Logical goddess is the "top graviton", meaning she is omnipotent.
Gravitons are fermions, i.e. they have spin and charge.
Spin is quality of Mass, and Charge is quality of Velocity. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334873&highlight=spin+quality+mass+charge+velocity#post33 4873)
The gender of a graviton is determined by its spin.
Determinism/Fate/”free will” is the interaction of gravitons of varying strength.
The same logic that leads me to conclude a more evolved being exist leads me to believe that entities’ gender female. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=114229&highlight=determinism+interaction+gravitons#post11 4229)
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatabalist free will. None.
The LG is the most conscious and complex entity in the universe.
This entire Universe is essentially an illusion. You and I actually exist as particles in the Truer reality of the Omniverse. This universe is a carefully constructed elaboration of the True reality. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334724&highlight=entire+Universe+is+essentially+an+illusi on#post334724[/url)
TLOP are an expression of the LG. She controls them.
The LG, using TLOP, creates the shape, or body of humans. The soul is the graviton.
The LG, and by extension TLOP are smarter, more powerful and more complex than humans.
True randomness does not exist.
If A has property P and B is made of A, then B has property P. (As shown by the syllogism, "Atoms obey the laws of physics. You are made of atoms. Therefore you obey the laws of physics.)
Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
Gravitons are the fundamental force-carrying particles of Gravity and Time.
Gravitons are not real in the sense that you and I are real. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=338621&highlight=matter+real+sense#post338621)
Gravitons obey a higher law that we'd probably call Thermodymics. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=338862&highlight=thermodymics#post338862)
A Graviton is just a special kind of meme, and memes are just distinct packets of information. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334704&highlight=meme#post334704)
Gravitons are made of time (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=311266&highlight=information+gravitons#post311266)
Objects without gravitons don't really exist in the way that You or I do. They are merely projections. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334724&highlight=merely+projections#post334724[/url)
Essentially, LD is a Unified Theory of Physics.
The universe can be completely described in terms of binary responses.
If A controls B then A is more conscious than B. -- EXCEPTION If it appears that a less conscious object is controlling a more conscious object, it is actually the LG that is controlling them both.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.
At the core of your Soul there is a special type of meme, a special type of algorithm. It possesses this quality you call self-awareness to a far greater degree than other memes. It has this quality because it possesses a meme which gives it Simultaneous Perception. In short it has the ability to perceive two realities (or more) at the same time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=342244&highlight=Simultaneous+Perception#post342244)

Morality Gravitons are intrinsically Good or Evil.
Good Gravitons will move forward in Time (to a higher energy state), Evil Gravitons will move backwards in Time (to a lower energy state).
The lower, the worse things are, but not the same as the Christian "Hell".
the abyss is a Black hole where the Souls that don’t make it get tossed. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=305988&highlight=progenitor#post305988)
There are consequences for the things you do.
The things you do are the result of Maximum Perceived Benefit (MPB). This is not the same as free will.
You will be punished if your MPB causes you to do the wrong things.
MPB is what is actually evolving. Your algorithm (as well as your database) expands, and evolves over time. It grows. It becomes more complex. You become more self aware. You gain individuality, you gain power. You gain control. You gain freedom. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=121324&highlight=database+expands#post121324)
Anyone who commits an immoral act is insane (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306200&highlight=anyone+commits+immoral+insane#post306200 )
Threat of punishment is the only thing that leads to morality.
A situation is a pattern of events outside the context of time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=313714&highlight=situation+pattern+events#post313714)

Miscellaneous/The Lexicon Followers of LD are on an Omniworldview line.
Fate = Karma. Karma is – every action has a equal reaction (initially equal, but magnified over Time) (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=303319&highlight=karma#post303319)
No evidence against a thing means evidence for a thing. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=315164&highlight=figment+progenitor#post315164)
choices are preordained outputs (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=323334&highlight=choices+preordained+outputs#post323334)
In LD an Eternity is a very long long period of time, not an “infinite” period of time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=324718&highlight=eternity+period+time#post324718)

A more detailed explanation of the Logical Deism creation story is given here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=315470&highlight=remnant+furthermore#post315470)

CWL

18th February 2003, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
This has been a fun diversion, but I think we should not let our semantic differences divert us from the true purpose of this thread, which is to discuss Logical Deism. It has been a while so I think I should once again present The List in the fervent hope that some Logical Deist will confirm it's accuracy.

You realize of course that I shall be forced to interpret your silence in relation to my dazzling arguments as a walkover.

Be that as it may, I agree - it is now time to get back to

The List

[Insert music score to the Edward D. Wood Jr. movie of your choice here]

MRC_Hans

18th February 2003, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by CWL

The suggested definition is:

Free Will = The ability to make conscious choices between perceived and available options

Tricky has previously stated that "consciousness" is implied in the word "perceived" and that the ability to choose between perceived and available options therefore would be sufficient. I disagree.

BTW - "striving to own a Ferrari" is an "available option" - although "owning a Ferrari" may not be one at the time. In your example you are therefore IMO "choosing an available option". Ahh, but then we might argue that the word "percieved" is redundant, because if you don't percieve an option, then obviously it is not really available.

On striving as an available option: Well, you can call it that, but once you include abstract options, anything can happen. Anyhow, I dont argue that it isn't part of free will, but that it is beyond the concept of MPB as explained by our local authority on Logical Deism. :rolleyes:

Hans

CWL

18th February 2003, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Ahh, but then we might argue that the word "percieved" is redundant, because if you don't percieve an option, then obviously it is not really available.

On striving as an available option: Well, you can call it that, but once you include abstract options, anything can happen. Anyhow, I dont argue that it isn't part of free will, but that it is beyond the concept of MPB as explained by our local authority on Logical Deism. :rolleyes:

Hans

Good points Hans, but ssssh. We have to stop talking about free will - we might scare the Logical Deists away. Tricky is trying to get them to verify

The List

[Insert high pitched scream here]

Frostbite

18th February 2003, 07:30 AM

Whoo... 666 replies. Spooky!

Tricky

18th February 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by CWL
You realize of course that I shall be forced to interpret your silence in relation to my dazzling arguments as a walkover.
I guess you missed this part.
Tricky said:
Okay, I give.

That is the problem with legalese. It tends to obscure the important stuff. Of course that doesn't obscure the fact that my flames were far superior to yours.

CWL

18th February 2003, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

I guess you missed this part.

Hey - do you call telling me that I may define "free will" in the way suggested by myself giving? Guess we need to properly define the expression "I give" for you as well. :rolleyes:

That is the problem with legalese. It tends to obscure the important stuff. Of course that doesn't obscure the fact that my flames were far superior to yours.

I am certain you perceived it that way. In reality I consciously flamed your behind off.

But again, enough with our little linguistic squabble (amusing as it is). The List, the List!

Franko

18th February 2003, 08:24 AM

MRC:

Which leads us to the evolutionary argument for the existence of free will.

Compared to other animals on that East-African plain, six million or so years ago, Man had only one advantage: His brain, and his ability to make deliberate choices. Whereas the other animals, faster, stronger, with sharper senses, were confined to their simple MPB algorithm, Man could think and plan ahead, and this enabled us to become the dominant species on the planet.

MPB = Maximum Perceived Benefit (conscious algorithm)

So you are claiming that Man (not confined by MPB) became the "superior" species on this planet by NOT choosing the most beneficial option??

MRC, I want to conduct an experiment. I want you to continue to choose the option that is NOT most beneficial, while I am going to continue to do the opposite. let's see which of us ends up as the fitter to survive ...

Franko

18th February 2003, 08:35 AM

MRC: (A-Theist)
I don't, on principle, support campaigns, heheheh. However, I dont see how free will can exist without consciousness. Consciousness, on the other hand, might exist without free will, it just wouldn't be of much use.

Ahhh, there’s that famous A-Theist Pessimism again!!! How unpredictable …

without your precious imaginary "free will" powers life just wouldn't be worth living according to you ... would it A-Theist?

MRC: (A-Theist)
So, if your slogan is "Free will is a conscious choice between available options", I would say that you are partly right. Not entirely right, however, because a conscious entity might also choose to pursue a non-available option. Suppose I decided I wanted to own a Ferrari. At present, this is not an available option for me, but I could still choose it, and then plan a row of actions that would make it available.

What exactly is making the decision MRC? What is the “YOU” according to materialism? Explain it to me?

I thought that YOU were nothing more than your physical brain, and isn’t your physical brain just a collection of atoms (chemical elements), and don’t those chemical elements obey the exact same rules that ALL chemicals obey? Where is the YOU making the “choice”? Isn’t it all just laws of chemistry making all the “choices”???

Or are You claiming that your mind some how has the power to control the laws of chemistry? That seems like it would be easy to test for …

I find it very hard to conciliate such a decision with MPB, by the way.

MPB = Maximum Perceived Benefit. The chemicals in your brain obey the deterministic laws of physics (TLOP). Those reactions generate a list of perceived options based on past experience, but the same process that generates the list ranks the options from best (most beneficial) to worst (least beneficial). You are crazy if you think you get a “choice”. Your consciousness ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, picks the best option off the list.

Unless you are insane.

But I don’t know MRC, are you claiming that people have “free will” to be insane? Did insane individuals “choose” to be insane according to you? I thought that no one was responsible for their actions according to atheists?

Tricky

18th February 2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Franko
So you are claiming that Man (not confined by MPB) became the "superior" species on this planet by NOT choosing the most beneficial option??

It is not always possible to know in advance what is going to be beneficial. Nature does the culling, and people aren't always in tune with what nature likes. The Darwin Awards (http://www.darwinawards.com/) are full of stories of people who made bad guesses.

CWL

18th February 2003, 08:55 AM

I still don't understand how MBP works when I choose different numbers in a lottery for instance. How do I perceive a benefit in chosing number "9" over number "347"?

Franko

18th February 2003, 09:03 AM

Tricky:
It is not always possible to know in advance what is going to be beneficial.

That is why it is called Maximum Perceived Benefit instead of Maximum Actual Benefit.

CWL:
I still don't understand how MBP works when I choose different numbers in a lottery for instance. How do I perceive a benefit in chosing number "9" over number "347"?

When you “choose” a lottery number your mind is really trying to solve a very difficult Deterministic Equation. Let me give you an example. I want you to pick a “random” number that will make you a winner in this “mini-lottery” … what is the sum of 2 + 2 = ???

Just because your “choices” seem random doesn’t mean that they are actually random. In reality your mind is operating no more randomly then computer programs do.

Tricky

18th February 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Franko
That is why it is called Maximum Perceived Benefit instead of Maximum Actual Benefit.

Which is exactly why your statement here is ludicrous.
Originally posted by Franko
So you are claiming that Man (not confined by MPB) became the "superior" species on this planet by NOT choosing the most beneficial option??

Man cannot choose to be superior, because he can only choose "perceived" benefits. He cannot know if he is choosing "actual" benefits.

Man does not choose to evolve, he strives to survive. Nature decides if his survival strategy is successful, not Man himself.

Franko

18th February 2003, 09:16 AM

Man does not choose to evolve, he strives to survive. Nature decides if his survival strategy is successful, not Man himself.

"Nature Decides"? I thought you said that TLOP was non-conscious and didn't make ANY decisions about anything???

Tricky

18th February 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Franko

"Nature Decides"? I thought you said that TLOP was non-conscious and didn't make ANY decisions about anything???
One need not be conscious to effect a decision. Certainly I am not claiming nature has free will. A sudden gust of wind during a last second field goal can decide the outcome of a football game. Does that mean the gust of wind is conscious?

Franko

18th February 2003, 09:35 AM

Tricky:
One need not be conscious to effect a decision. Certainly I am not claiming nature has free will.

So if nature can make “decisions” without “free will”, and you are simply a part of nature, then why do you require “free will” to make “decisions”? By your own admission the concept is unnecessary. It would seem to indicate that parsimony would allow you to remove “free will” from your theory/worldview/philosophy/metaphysical belief system.

Tricky:
Man does not choose to evolve, he strives to survive. Nature decides if his survival strategy is successful, not Man himself.

In this existence you are either moving closer to the Truth, or you are Not. The Logical Goddess is the embodiment of the Truth. She comprehends it far better than You do. She is trying to explain it to you, but I don’t think you are listening.

CWL

18th February 2003, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Franko

That is why it is called Maximum Perceived Benefit instead of Maximum Actual Benefit.

When you “choose” a lottery number your mind is really trying to solve a very difficult Deterministic Equation. Let me give you an example. I want you to pick a “random” number that will make you a winner in this “mini-lottery” … what is the sum of 2 + 2 = ???

Just because your “choices” seem random doesn’t mean that they are actually random. In reality your mind is operating no more randomly then computer programs do.

No, seriously - I don't get it.

"Pick a number between 1 and 100 and win a basket of fruit". Why would my MBP tell me to prefer "87" over "34"?

Tricky

18th February 2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Franko
In this existence you are either moving closer to the Truth, or you are Not. The Logical Goddess is the embodiment of the Truth. She comprehends it far better than You do. She is trying to explain it to you, but I don’t think you are listening.
Actually, Franko, no one is listening more closely than I. In fact, I have tried to gather all the wisdom of The Goddess that I can glean in The List (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=342661&highlight=The+List#post342661). I really want to know if I am getting it right. Could you please make your corrections? As you can see by the current list, I am not twisting your words at all. Surely The Goddess wants her word to be transcribed correctly, right?

Franko

18th February 2003, 11:38 AM

Tricky, instead of wasting your time on that, why don't you explain what your evidence is for "choice"?

How can you prove that you make "choices" not based on your past experiences or memories? What is your evidence for 'free will"?

Theists may believe in God, but you believe in "free will", and I think there is a LOT more evidence for "god' then there is for 'free will" -- don't You???

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

(ergo no "free will")

and since:

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.

I'd say that there was more than ample evidence for the existence of "god".

Now when are you going to produce ANY evidence for your ridiculous concept of "free will"?

no one is listening more closely than I.

Well why don’t you prove that then you fanatical little A-Theist! What exactly is the YOU making the “free willy” “choices” Trixy? I thought that according to A-Theism YOU are nothing more than your physical brain, and your physical brain is nothing more than a collection of Atoms (chemicals). Don’t those chemicals (Hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, mostly) obey the same rules that all other chemicals obey? Do all chemical reactions indicate “free will”? Since we are talking about chemistry it seems that it would be a very easy thing to devise a test for your magic “free willy” powers.

Trixy are you aware that you’re hero Stephen Hawking believes that Determinism is true? His words of advice for A-Theists is I suggest you don’t think about it too much though. I wonder why the “great” scientist Hawking wouldn’t want A-Theists to think about the fact that they don’t have ‘free will” too much?

Tricky

18th February 2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Tricky, instead of wasting your time on that, why don't you explain what your evidence is for "choice"?
Are you telling me that learning about Logical Deism is a waste of time? http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/fragend/confused-smiley-008.gif

MRC_Hans

18th February 2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Franko

MPB = Maximum Perceived Benefit (conscious algorithm)

So you are claiming that Man (not confined by MPB) became the "superior" species on this planet by NOT choosing the most beneficial option??

MRC, I want to conduct an experiment. I want you to continue to choose the option that is NOT most beneficial, while I am going to continue to do the opposite. let's see which of us ends up as the fitter to survive ... Franko, according to you, MPB finds the most benificial solution based on previous experience and invariably selects that. What an intelligent being can do is to infer what might be most beneficial based on future events, and act on that. Thats what I do when I decide whether or not to sell or buy stock, whether or not to buy a new house, which ob to choose, etc. etc. I have been doing this for some 35 years. Do you want to compare annual incomes?

Hans

MRC_Hans

18th February 2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Ahhh, there’s that famous A-Theist Pessimism again!!! How unpredictable …

without your precious imaginary "free will" powers life just wouldn't be worth living according to you ... would it A-Theist?

I guess not. fortunately I have them.

What exactly is making the decision MRC? What is the “YOU” according to materialism? Explain it to me?

I thought that YOU were nothing more than your physical brain, and isn’t your physical brain just a collection of atoms (chemical elements), and don’t those chemical elements obey the exact same rules that ALL chemicals obey? Where is the YOU making the “choice”? Isn’t it all just laws of chemistry making all the “choices”???

Or are You claiming that your mind some how has the power to control the laws of chemistry? That seems like it would be easy to test for …

MPB = Maximum Perceived Benefit. The chemicals in your brain obey the deterministic laws of physics (TLOP). Those reactions generate a list of perceived options based on past experience, but the same process that generates the list ranks the options from best (most beneficial) to worst (least beneficial). You are crazy if you think you get a “choice”. Your consciousness ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, picks the best option off the list.

Laws of physics are not deterministic. Scientific proof exists of this. I have asked you to explain a simple, observable phenomenon like phosphorescense using determinism. So far I hear only crickets.

Unless you are insane.

But I don’t know MRC, are you claiming that people have “free will” to be insane? Did insane individuals “choose” to be insane according to you? I thought that no one was responsible for their actions according to atheists?

Again you attribute all sorts of strange claims to me that I haven't made. This is a really bad habit. But I do notice that you now say "atheist", I consider this progress. Personally, I'm agnostic.

Hans

Tricky

18th February 2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Trixy are you aware that you’re hero Stephen Hawking believes that Determinism is true? His words of advice for A-Theists is I suggest you don’t think about it too much though. I wonder why the “great” scientist Hawking wouldn’t want A-Theists to think about the fact that they don’t have ‘free will” too much?
I've never read Hawking, but a quick web search shows that Hawking's definition of determinism (http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html) is much different from yours.

Stephen Hawking from his Public Lectures
Thus one still has a kind of determinism, but it is not the sort that Laplace envisaged. Instead of being able to predict the positions and speeds of particles, all we can predict is the wave function. This means that we can predict just half what we could, according to the classical 19th century view.

In fact, he goes so far as to say:
Stephen Hawking from his Public Lectures
Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.

Since you made your little "Appeal to Authority", do you accept Hawking's authority on this subject? You would be wise to check these things out before you go making such incredibly foolish claims.

CWL

19th February 2003, 01:27 AM

Franko,

You may have missed this question so I take the liberty of posting it again. I have no trouble understanding your reasoning as to MBP when it comes to most decisions, and I see no real reason to dispute it either.

However, it does seem to me that not all choices fit into the theory.

Again, if I am asked to "pick a number between 1 and 100 and win a basket of fruit", why would my MBP tell me to prefer "87" over "34"?

Franko

19th February 2003, 06:50 AM

Franko:
without your precious imaginary "free will" powers life just wouldn't be worth living according to you ... would it A-Theist?

MRC:
I guess not. fortunately I have them. [“free willy” powers]

What is your evidence for this claim? So far you have presented NONE, and it has been OVER a year now …

Franko:
What exactly is making the decision MRC? What is the “YOU” according to materialism? Explain it to me?

I thought that YOU were nothing more than your physical brain, and isn’t your physical brain just a collection of atoms (chemical elements), and don’t those chemical elements obey the exact same rules that ALL chemicals obey? Where is the YOU making the “choice”? Isn’t it all just laws of chemistry making all the “choices”???

Or are You claiming that your mind some how has the power to control the laws of chemistry? That seems like it would be easy to test for …

I notice that you keep avoiding this question MRC. Why is that? What specifically is the YOU, you keep referring to that is making the “choices”. YOU don’t make “choices”, because according to materialism there is no YOU. There is only “matter”.

Franko

19th February 2003, 06:56 AM

CWL:
You may have missed this question so I take the liberty of posting it again. I have no trouble understanding your reasoning as to MBP when it comes to most decisions, and I see no real reason to dispute it either.

However, it does seem to me that not all choices fit into the theory.

Again, if I am asked to "pick a number between 1 and 100 and win a basket of fruit", why would my MBP tell me to prefer "87" over "34"?

Are you claiming that because you don’t know the specifics of the algorithm (chain of thought) that you use to select a “random” number that this is “evidence” that no such train of thought exists?

If you wanted to be very honest with me (if you did not call yourself A-Theist) I have no doubt that we could figure out exactly what criteria you are using to select a “random” number.

Why would you assume that just because you cannot perceive your precise chain of thought that you make this decision magically based on no train of thought? Maybe TLOP does your thinking for you on this one?

CWL

19th February 2003, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Are you claiming that because you don’t know the specifics of the algorithm (chain of thought) that you use to select a “random” number that this is “evidence” that no such train of thought exists?

I am trying to understand. Please do explain how according to your understanding MBP is at work in my example.

If you wanted to be very honest with me (if you did not call yourself A-Theist) I have no doubt that we could figure out exactly what criteria you are using to select a “random” number.

I do want to be honest and I do not call myself "A-Theist" (it is you who call me that, remember?). So please do give it a shot. What MBP criteria does one use in selecting a random number to win a basket of fruit?

Why would you assume that just because you cannot perceive your precise chain of thought that you make this decision magically based on no train of thought? Maybe TLOP does your thinking for you on this one?

Good question. It does not however answer my question which essentially is :why would I assume the opposite? I take it your assumptions did not just magically appear out of nowhere.

Franko

19th February 2003, 08:03 AM

CWL:

I am trying to understand. Please do explain how according to your understanding MBP is at work in my example.

This would be incredibly time consuming to explain on this forum. Let me try and come up with a more clear-cut example that will illustrate the same point.

Tricky

19th February 2003, 09:58 AM

Thanks to Upchurch et. al. who have helped me compile The List. Here is the latest on that amazing new religion, Logical Deism. New entries have a red bullet.
*****************
NOTE: Many of these “beliefs” were verified by Franko in this post. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=290098&highlight=logical+goddess+omnipotent#post290098)
Origins This universe is part of an omniverse.
The first entity is the Progenitor Solipsist (PS) – our original primordial ancestor – what the Christians call “God the Father/God the Creator”
The Progenitor Solipsist exists in the distant past when there were only two intrinsic parameters - Mass and Velocity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=306446&highlight=progenitor#post306446)
This universe was created by the Logical Goddess (LG), who also created the forces (electro-magnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear). She did not create gravity.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
The Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
The Logical Goddess is bound by both fate (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=343044&highlight=goddess+bound+fate#post343044) and logic. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=343062&highlight=bound+logic#post343062)
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
Consciousness creates matter.
The Big Bang is made up of two parts. The Goddess corresponds to "The Initial State” (the initial “random” configuration of stuff). The other part is The Laws of Physics . (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306475&highlight=configuration+stuff#post306475)

How Things Work One soul = one graviton.
Gravitons come from the omniverse, but not necessarily this universe.
The Logical goddess is the "top graviton", meaning she is omnipotent.
Gravitons are fermions, i.e. they have spin and charge.
Spin is quality of Mass, and Charge is quality of Velocity. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334873&highlight=spin+quality+mass+charge+velocity#post33 4873)
The gender of a graviton is determined by its spin.
Determinism/Fate/”free will” is the interaction of gravitons of varying strength.
The same logic that leads me to conclude a more evolved being exist leads me to believe that entities’ gender female. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=114229&highlight=determinism+interaction+gravitons#post11 4229)
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatabalist free will. None.
The LG is the most conscious and complex entity in the universe.
This entire Universe is essentially an illusion. You and I actually exist as particles in the Truer reality of the Omniverse. This universe is a carefully constructed elaboration of the True reality. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334724&highlight=entire+Universe+is+essentially+an+illusi on#post334724[/url)
TLOP are an expression of the LG. She controls them.
The LG, using TLOP, creates the shape, or body of humans. The soul is the graviton.
The LG, and by extension TLOP are smarter, more powerful and more complex than humans.
True randomness does not exist.
If A has property P and B is made of A, then B has property P. (As shown by the syllogism, "Atoms obey the laws of physics. You are made of atoms. Therefore you obey the laws of physics.)
Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
Gravitons are the fundamental force-carrying particles of Gravity and Time.
Gravitons are not real in the sense that you and I are real. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=338621&highlight=matter+real+sense#post338621)
Gravitons obey a higher law that we'd probably call Thermodymics. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=338862&highlight=thermodymics#post338862)
A Graviton is just a special kind of meme, and memes are just distinct packets of information. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334704&highlight=meme#post334704)
Gravitons are made of time (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=311266&highlight=information+gravitons#post311266)
Objects without gravitons don't really exist in the way that You or I do. They are merely projections. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334724&highlight=merely+projections#post334724[/url)
Essentially, LD is a Unified Theory of Physics.
The universe can be completely described in terms of binary responses.
If A controls B then A is more conscious than B. -- EXCEPTION If it appears that a less conscious object is controlling a more conscious object, it is actually the LG that is controlling them both.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.
At the core of your Soul there is a special type of meme, a special type of algorithm. It possesses this quality you call self-awareness to a far greater degree than other memes. It has this quality because it possesses a meme which gives it Simultaneous Perception. In short it has the ability to perceive two realities (or more) at the same time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=342244&highlight=Simultaneous+Perception#post342244)
The rules which bind all consciousness are the Laws of Time and Gravity. These are not laws in the same sense as TLOP. They are more like the base programming language that the consciousnesses are written in. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=343594&highlight=conditioning%2Fcontrol#post343594)
Electromagnetism is the memetic projection of the Goddess used as an enhanced means of conveying information. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=343594&highlight=conditioning%2Fcontrol#post343594)

Morality Gravitons are intrinsically Good or Evil.
Good Gravitons will move forward in Time (to a higher energy state), Evil Gravitons will move backwards in Time (to a lower energy state).
The lower, the worse things are, but not the same as the Christian "Hell".
the abyss is a Black hole where the Souls that don’t make it get tossed. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=305988&highlight=progenitor#post305988)
There are consequences for the things you do.
The things you do are the result of Maximum Perceived Benefit (MPB). This is not the same as free will.
You will be punished if your MPB causes you to do the wrong things.
MPB is what is actually evolving. Your algorithm (as well as your database) expands, and evolves over time. It grows. It becomes more complex. You become more self aware. You gain individuality, you gain power. You gain control. You gain freedom. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=121324&highlight=database+expands#post121324)
Anyone who commits an immoral act is insane (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306200&highlight=anyone+commits+immoral+insane#post306200 )
Threat of punishment is the only thing that leads to morality.
A situation is a pattern of events outside the context of time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=313714&highlight=situation+pattern+events#post313714)

Miscellaneous/The Lexicon Followers of LD are on an Omniworldview line.
Fate = Karma. Karma is – every action has a equal reaction (initially equal, but magnified over Time) (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=303319&highlight=karma#post303319)
No evidence against a thing means evidence for a thing. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=315164&highlight=figment+progenitor#post315164)
choices are preordained outputs (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=323334&highlight=choices+preordained+outputs#post323334)
In LD an Eternity is a very long long period of time, not an “infinite” period of time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=324718&highlight=eternity+period+time#post324718)
Logic works by having people compare their explanations and seeing which is more logical. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=344372&highlight=Upchurch+explain+something#post344372)

A more detailed explanation of the Logical Deism creation story is given here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=315470&highlight=remnant+furthermore#post315470)

Franko

19th February 2003, 10:04 AM

Tricky: (Fanatical brainwashed A-Theists for over 30 years)

Since its been over a year, and you STILL haven’t presented ANY evidence for your religious beliefs, and since you post NOTHING but the same spam over and over again, what do you want me to say? If you have an actual argument for your religious beliefs – some evidence – I’ll be happy to discuss it with you, but your spam doesn’t really require anything other than me restating the obvious. I realize you don’t like your hypocrisy exposed Tricky, perhaps you should run along then? I honestly don’t know why you keep non-responding to all of my posts?

Actually, I do know why … It’s because you are a severely brainwashed religious fanatic with no evidence for his beliefs.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky 30+ years dedicated to A-Theism: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Tricky 30+ years dedicated to A-Theism: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

When are you going to explain what the "YOU" is that is making the "decisions"??? I thought that according to Materialism there was no "YOU"? I thought that "YOU" were nothing more then a collection of Atoms?

Why do you believe that the atoms in your brain aren't controlled by the laws of Physics, Trixy? You never seem to want to explain this? What are you hiding A-Theist? Are you embarrassed to tell us what you believe?

Upchurch

19th February 2003, 10:19 AM

Hey Trick,

Wasn't there a statement a while back that the LG obeys only gravity? It came up in another thread and I thought sure I read that somewhere, but I can't find it. Do you remember something along those lines or is it only fate and logic that the LG obeys?

Franko

19th February 2003, 10:54 AM

Gravity is the force which makes Logic possible, and without Logic (objective rules) there would be no Fate.

Tricky

19th February 2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Gravity is the force which makes Logic possible, and without Logic (objective rules) there would be no Fate.
I wonder why NASA has never referred to astronauts as training in "zero logic" situations?

Franko

19th February 2003, 11:08 AM

Trixy (retarded A-Theist)

When are you going to explain what the "YOU" is that is making the "decisions"??? I thought that according to Materialism there was no "YOU"? I thought that "YOU" were nothing more then a collection of Atoms?

Why do you believe that the atoms in your brain aren't controlled by the laws of Physics, Trixy? You never seem to want to explain this? What are you hiding A-Theist? Are you embarrassed to tell us what you believe?

Also what does the theory of Materialism (a.k.a. "The Religion of A-Theism") explain that the theory of Solipsism does not also explain, but with a more parsimonious answer? How can you claim that a less parsimonious but otherwise identical theory is more True? parsimony is a component of Logic -- wouldn't you agree?

annadee

19th February 2003, 05:38 PM

Do you guys ever discuss things nicely, or do you just argue? Do you have fun arguing? I want to hear about some of the stuff on that list. Most of it looks bizarre, but some of it really get's me thinking. Maybe this universe is just one of many universes in the "omniverse". That would explain a lot of things that we can't seem to find the answers to.

But Franko, you shouldn't call people retarded. I have a little niece with Downs Syndrome, and it is a tragic and horrible disease. It is not something to make fun of.

If you guys want to talk like civilized human beings, I may join you. If you are just going to call each other names, then forget it.

Tricky

19th February 2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by annadee
Do you guys ever discuss things nicely, or do you just argue? Do you have fun arguing? I want to hear about some of the stuff on that list. Most of it looks bizarre, but some of it really get's me thinking. Maybe this universe is just one of many universes in the "omniverse". That would explain a lot of things that we can't seem to find the answers to.

But Franko, you shouldn't call people retarded. I have a little niece with Downs Syndrome, and it is a tragic and horrible disease. It is not something to make fun of.

If you guys want to talk like civilized human beings, I may join you. If you are just going to call each other names, then forget it.

Anna, I must apologize. I made a resolution last New Year that I wasn't going to bait Franko, and I have fallen off of it. I admit that it is irritating when he tells me what I believe and I respond with sarcasm. However, in deference to you, I will attempt once again to keep my temper in control.

You mentioned The List. That list is a bunch of things Franko has said or implied about his religion, Logical Deism. You must admit, his beliefs are unconventional, so I was trying very hard to capture them as he says them. I have also tried not to alter them, even to the point of asking Franko to make corrections for me. I have not had much luck in this effort.

Many things on that list are links (they are usually underlined). If you click on them, it will open up the post where Franko made the statement, which may give you more information. You can scroll down or up on that post to see where the belief was discussed. You could also ask Franko, and I wish you luck in doing so. Whatever you do, don't say you believe in free will!:D

annadee

19th February 2003, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Anna, I must apologize. I made a resolution last New Year that I wasn't going to bait Franko, and I have fallen off of it. I admit that it is irritating when he tells me what I believe and I respond with sarcasm. However, in deference to you, I will attempt once again to keep my temper in control.

You mentioned The List. That list is a bunch of things Franko has said or implied about his religion, Logical Deism. You must admit, his beliefs are unconventional, so I was trying very hard to capture them as he says them. I have also tried not to alter them, even to the point of asking Franko to make corrections for me. I have not had much luck in this effort.

Many things on that list are links (they are usually underlined). If you click on them, it will open up the post where Franko made the statement, which may give you more information. You can scroll down or up on that post to see where the belief was discussed. You could also ask Franko, and I wish you luck in doing so. Whatever you do, don't say you believe in free will!:D
I wasn't talking just about you, Tricky. I see lots of people here picking on Franko. I know he can be rude, but he does have some interesting ideas. Maybe if you guys didn't pick on him so much he would not be so rude.

Thank you for the hint about links. That is very useful. I'm still trying to find out how this board works. I figured out how to use quotes, but you guys do all sorts of things I don't know about.

So here's hoping we can have some nice discussions. I'm not a prude, by any means, but I see no point in name-calling.

Franko

19th February 2003, 07:08 PM

Hey anna!

Do you guys ever discuss things nicely, or do you just argue? Do you have fun arguing?

Let me explain what’s going on. Tricky (or Trixy) is a hard-core fanatical militant A-Theist who has dedicated the vast majority of his existence to the cause. For most of his life he has been running around telling people how they are going to cease to exist, and how they are idiots for believing in a “god”. At this point he is so committed there is just no turning back.

Now Trixy, he’s a first class hypocrite. He has one standard of morals that he expects you to live by, but for himself he has a completely different code of “honesty”. You see Trixy will laugh at you, and call You retarded for claiming that there is no “god” with no evidence to back you up. But at the same time he expects You to bow down and kiss his metaphysically superior ass because he believes that he has magic “free will” powers that allow him to defy the Laws of Physics. Of course he has no proof of his magic powers, in fact the evidence is clearly all against him. Never-the-less you are a moron if you do not believe Trixy’s claim about his “wizardry” (at least in his mind). In short, “Tricky’s” trick is an absurd double standard perpetrated at Your expense. (You know that saying about “with friends like that …”?)

Okay, so Trixy can’t refute any of my arguments, I am making him look like a complete and utter fool, and I am seriously interfering with his recruitment drive for the World Church of A-Theism, so he gets offline and organizes a dozen or so of his little A-Theist lackies to follow me around on the forum and basically post a bunch of spam (insults, jokes, off topic crap, sockpuppets galore, silly threads, ask the same contradictory questions over and over, etc., etc.). Then they all whine to the moderators about 8 or 9 times and try and get me banned.

To this day you will notice there are always at least a couple of derogatory threads with my name in them, ALL started by fanatical members of the Cult of A-Theism. It seems that every other week the moderators are forced to move some a-Theist insult thread off to the hidden recesses of the forum.

No … Trixy and his little A-Theists friends aren’t interested in Skepticism at all. They are religious fanatics from the cynical cult of pessimism. Plain and simple. Tricky is the biggest liar on this forum Darling. He has stated in word and demonstrated by deed that he is an individual who believes there will be no ultimate consequences for his actions. If he can benefit by harming you, then by his own logic he will.

I want to hear about some of the stuff on that list. Most of it looks bizarre, but some of it really get's me thinking. Maybe this universe is just one of many universes in the "omniverse". That would explain a lot of things that we can't seem to find the answers to.

It definitely explains a lot.

But Franko, you shouldn't call people retarded. I have a little niece with Downs Syndrome, and it is a tragic and horrible disease. It is not something to make fun of.

I certainly don’t mean to make fun of any innocent. But your “friend” Tricky is either severely mentally impaired, or malevolent. I was merely trying to be optimistic.

If you guys want to talk like civilized human beings, I may join you. If you are just going to call each other names, then forget it.

Which is exactly Trixy’s strategy.

But then again … you already believe in “god” … :)

annadee

19th February 2003, 07:24 PM

Yes, Franko, I have seen you and Tricky have had some arguments. (Why do you call him Trixy?). I have noted that many people are not nice to you here and make fun of you. But I think this is your chance to show that you are bigger than they are by ignoring their insults and being above name-calling.

I am really interested in some of your ideas, particularly the omniverse. Do you see it something like Christians see heaven? Is it a place where souls go? Do we ever see it here on Earth? Does it have time the same way we do here? Can we contact beings in the Omniverse?

There's a lot more I want to know, but this will do for a starter.

Franko

19th February 2003, 07:46 PM

annadee:
I am really interested in some of your ideas, particularly the omniverse. Do you see it something like Christians see heaven? Is it a place where souls go? Do we ever see it here on Earth? Does it have time the same way we do here? Can we contact beings in the Omniverse?

Unfortunately I am running short on Time at the moment, so I will have to be brief.

Imagine that reality is like one of those Russian nesting dolls – do you know what I am talking about – one inside the next? Okay, so the “Omniverse” is the hypothetical outer most doll that contains all of the other dolls. Now, each doll nested within represents an individual universe (like this one), and has you work back toward the center you are traveling backwards in Time towards the beginning of Time, through older lower energy state universes. You go down a layer (a smaller doll) and you get to a simpler universe with simpler rules operating at lower energy. You go up a layer (a larger doll) and you get a larger universe with more complex rules operating at a higher (producing/consuming) state.

From this Universe you can go back down a level to the Abyss (technically the Antiverse (Hell)), or you can go up a level to the higher energy state universe above – the Metaverse (Heaven in Christian terms). But all of these layers are contained within the Omniverse. The Omniverse is the set of Everything. All that exist.

MRC_Hans

19th February 2003, 10:55 PM

Okay, so Trixy can’t refute any of my arguments, I am making him look like a complete and utter fool, and I am seriously interfering with his recruitment drive for the World Church of A-Theism, so he gets offline and organizes a dozen or so of his little A-Theist lackies to follow me around on the forum and basically post a bunch of spam (insults, jokes, off topic crap, sockpuppets galore, silly threads, ask the same contradictory questions over and over, etc., etc.). Then they all whine to the moderators about 8 or 9 times and try and get me banned.

To this day you will notice there are always at least a couple of derogatory threads with my name in them, ALL started by fanatical members of the Cult of A-Theism. It seems that every other week the moderators are forced to move some a-Theist insult thread off to the hidden recesses of the forum. Sick. Totally sick. I'm off the game, this is not funny.

Hans

CWL

20th February 2003, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Franko
This would be incredibly time consuming to explain on this forum. Let me try and come up with a more clear-cut example that will illustrate the same point.

You are most welcome to provide another example and I would be most interested therin. However, you do seem to spend a lot of time on this forum anyway, so why not take a shot at my example?

One observation one could make is that your reply indicates that the concept of MBP is indeed not as simple as 2 + 4 = 4. Perhaps there is a slim possibility that "we" may have just a little something to do with our choices? The question that then arises is of course: what do we mean when we say "we"? In order to understand each other we must agree on this.

IMO, your theory of MPB (which again, to a great extent, seems reasonable to me) does not really refute "free will" in the sense that "we" may "consciously choose between perceived and available options" - I would even go so far as to say that it harmonizes with such a contention. For what are "we" if not - at least to a great extent - the sum of our experiences? You are therefore absolutely right in saying that our experiences will influence our choices - that is however not the same as saying that our choices are made by our experiences alone. There are other factors as well that make "us".

You are saying that our algorithm evolves over time. When I think of it, both myself and Tricky have in reality agreed with this all along. As we become more experienced over time, we perceive more options and our "free will increases".

The point is that we seem to agree to a great extent on what is going on, it is merely a question of finding the right labels. My problem with applying determinism to human behaviour and your contention that the "individual" does not get any real "choices" - that it is really just an (albeit evolving) algorithm producing output - seems to me a denial of the concept of "individual" as such. If "we" cannot make any choices, then what are "we" - what is the point of being "conscious" if not to influence our environment?

Again, that "I" may be defined as the result of genetic and environmental factors does not mean that it is not "me" making the choices. That would be the same as saying that "I", in reality, do not exist.

Edited to add:

In an effort not to derail this thread (and as I believe the subject deserves its own) I have started this new thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=345261#post345261) on the definition of "I".

Franko

21st February 2003, 07:20 AM

THE ARMAGGEDDON LIST

This list is nothing more then my own personal, subjective opinions of who on this forum is an Atheist, an Agnostic, or a Theist/Deist. Don’t complain to me that you are on “the wrong list”. 1) This is only My opinion, and 2) Actions speak louder than words ...

The Forces of Light – the Saved
Consciousness makes Matter – Deist/Theist
(people who are Sane/Lucid)

Beleth
Beth Paulkey (Butch Slade)
BiliousGreen
BobM
Christian [mia]
Csense [mia]
dsm
Filip Sandors [mia]
Franko (Serpent)
Gentlehorse
hammegk (Mr. Hand)
Interesting Ian (Mr. Quick)
Jedi Knight (Knight)
LukeT (Luke)[mia]
Metachristi
muscleman
PotatoStew [mia]
Roadtoad
S & S
Sorgoth
stamenflicker
strongstevesaint (Mr. Sleep) [mia]
Thanz
Win
Wraith (Wraith)
Yalel

The Legion of Darkness – the Damned
Matter makes consciousness – Atheist
(Religious Fanatics)

a_unique_person [mia]
Aardvark
aerosolben [mia]
arcticpenguin
AtheistArchon [mia]
Billyhoyt [mia]
c4ts
Central Scrutinizer
chulbert
Colloden [mia]
DanishDynamite
De_Bunk [mia]
Diogenes
Dorman [mia]
Doubt [mia]
Dragonrock
Evildave
Fade
Fool
fidiot
Futurefan [mia]
GoodPropaganda
Gnome
Homonculus [mia]
ImpyTimpy [mia]
Ipecac
J3k
jimmygun
joshua korosi
Keneke
Kodiak [mia]
Latimer
Legally Insane
Lizardpeople
Loki
Lucifuge Rofocale
Oceansize [mia]
Paradox [mia]
PixyMisa
Plutarck
Resonabledoubt [mia]
Max560
Magnifico [mia]
Megalodon
Mossy [mia]
MRC_Hans
neutrino_cannon
NoDeity [mia]
Segnosaur [mia]
Shemp
Sir-drinks-a-lot
Stimpson (Necromancer)
Synaesthesia
Thaifoodken
Titanpoint [mia]
Tricky
Trish [f] [mia]
tjwojo
Upchurch
Victor Danilchenko [mia]
welshdean
Whitefork
Wolfgirl [f] [mia]
xrayecho [mia]
Yahzi
Zombified [mia]

Neutral Charge – No Allegiance
Not enough information – Agnostic
(If you are on this list, then I consider you a Skeptic)

Bjorn (-)
BillyJoe (=)
Crocodile Deathroll (-)
Darat (-)
Darkness (+)
Davidhorman (-)
Frank Newgent (?)
Frostbite (=)
Graham (=)
Gregor (-)
Hal bidlack (=)
Kimpatsu (-)
LeFevre (+)
Lillyofthepink (-)[f][mia]
Luceiia (+) [mia]
Martinm(-)
Pahansiri (+)
Pie (-)[f]
Q-Source (-) [f]
Randfan (+)
Scribble (+) (Mobius)
Seelie (+) [f]
Shroud of Akron (-) [mia]
Slimshady (+) (Shadow)
SortingItAllOut (+)
Soubrette (+) (Enchantress) [f]
SpaceLord (-)
Sundog (-)
Vorticity (+)
Whodini (=)

[mia] = I haven’t seen you posts in the R&P in a while.

Religious Person = a person who has at least one metaphysical belief which they cannot prove (and is not disproven) which the individual acknowledges they hold purely because it makes them “happy”.

Religious Fanatic = a person who holds at least one metaphysical belief which is obviously contradicted by empirical observation (i.e. they hold a logically contradictory belief), yet the individual is unable to perceive the contradiction (or refuses to concede it) = a person traveling on a False Worldline.

Sane = Traveling on a true Worldline.

Skeptical = possessing the ability of Dual Perception.

wraith

22nd February 2003, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Reason? But that would imply choice. Why reason about something for which you have no choice?

Trix, do you think that my reasons for doing something just pops into my head? I know that you like the whole idea about the present not being based on the past....if gives you that satisfaction of having "free-will"...
all my actions are based on how I interpret the past....

A bit before your time. He was one of the principle characters in the Watergate scandal, and now has a radio show
that makes Rush Limbaugh look like Jesse Jackson.

ahhh yeah them :rolleyes:

But one of the things he is famous for is his free will. He absolutely refused to cooperate with investigators, and as a result, spent more time in prison than any other conspirator. At one point he showed his resolve by holding his hand in a candle flame until it was badly burned. "The trick", he said, "is not moving". I realize you will claim this was his MPB, :rolleyes: but it was a good example to show your "flame" analogy to be a poor one.

thats a negatory Trix....
He perceived a benefit by getting burnt...he wanted to show something about himself...his past made him into a hardcore...if he was a pussy, do you think that he would be holding his hand above a candle flame?

The flame analogy stands strong...sorry ;)

Are you going to harp on the toast thing now? If you followed that discussion, then you should understand the point I was trying to make (by playing Devil's Advocate). If you didn't understand the point, well, then I think you are ill advised to denigrate my ability to understand things.

I have a pretty good idea ;)

wraith says: Yes, but if I did touch the flame again, it was because that I perceived a benefit in doing so...

Trixy: Yes. If you perceived a benefit, you might choose to do so. ;)

If touching the flame again was my MAXIMUM perceived benefit then I WILL touch the flame

wraith says: So the universe just sprung from the darkness willy nilly?
The present is not based on the past? (aka free-will/magic)
that Trix is magic

Trixy:No, that is admitting I don't know how it happened. Neither do I make up magical stories with Goddesses or Progenitor Solipsists or theoretical particles with amazing powers that defy the laws of physics. Tell me. Do you really believe all that stuff?

So why claim atheism if you DONT KNOW how it happened?
From where Im sitting, it's clear that youre saying that NO GOD EXISTS....dont use your word games on me ;)

...and yes, I do believe all that "stuff" ;)

I think you'd better withdraw the "dream matter" comment, wraith. It is an inordinately silly concept, even for a Logical Deist. BTW, last I heard, matter and energy were interchangable. I'm still waiting to hear the difference between "dream matter" and ordinary matter.

Im not the one that bases my whole like on this "hard stuff"....
What is ordinary matter? This "hard stuff" that you babble on about?

If there was no consciousness at all, would a "tree" still exist?

Also BTW. According to one prominent Logical Deist, gravitons are not made of "dream matter", they are made of time.

I never said that they were...from what I understand, a Graviton is your soul...made up of Gravity/Time

...and other things, including "dream matter". Is dream matter made of atoms?

ahh...yes ;)

Not according to The List. There are things on there which are so far outside of logic that one would have to rewrite the whole dictionary to argue the points. But wait! That's being done isn't it?

what list? :eek:

Gravitons, for one. Looks like we can add "dream matter" to the list.

well Id write it has "the universe is made up of memes" ;)

wraith

22nd February 2003, 02:16 AM

wraith

22nd February 2003, 02:16 AM

Tricky

22nd February 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Trix, do you think that my reasons for doing something just pops into my head? I know that you like the whole idea about the present not being based on the past....if gives you that satisfaction of having "free-will"...
all my actions are based on how I interpret the past....

As I have said (many) times before, I believe the present is mostly based on the past, but not completely on the past. Not all of your actions are based on how you interpret the past, as you so politely demonstrated earlier.

thats a negatory Trix....
He perceived a benefit by getting burnt...he wanted to show something about himself...his past made him into a hardcore...if he was a pussy, do you think that he would be holding his hand above a candle flame?

The flame analogy stands strong...sorry ;)
'Fraid not, wraith. Now you are saying "you will not stick your hand into a flame unless you do." A rather obvious statement, which in no way disproves free will, in fact quite the opposite.

I have a pretty good idea ;)

I'll need some evidence for that ;)
If touching the flame again was my MAXIMUM perceived benefit then I WILL touch the flame.
Of course. You have then made a conscious choice between perceived, available options. AKA free will. If fatalism were operating, it would make no difference what benefit you perceived. You would not be able to act on it because it had been decided in advance.

So why claim atheism if you DONT KNOW how it happened?
From where Im sitting, it's clear that youre saying that NO GOD EXISTS....dont use your word games on me ;)
Then you do not have a very good view from where you are sitting. I do not, and have never said that no god exists. I have said no god is required to explain the universe. Really wraith, how do you manage to pass your classes with such poor reading comprehension skills?

But I like word games. Want to play some word association? I'll bet you can't predict what I will say.
...and yes, I do believe all that "stuff" ;)
You believe that gravitons defy the laws of physics? You believe that a progenitor solipsist "magically" popped out of nowhere? Really wraith, I don't think you even know what it is you are claiming to believe.
Im not the one that bases my whole like on this "hard stuff"....
What is ordinary matter? This "hard stuff" that you babble on about?

If there was no consciousness at all, would a "tree" still exist?
You prefer to base you life on "magic" stuff? Don't feel bad. All theists do.

Now since you are the one who proposed it's existence, perhaps you would care to stop dodging the question:

What is the difference between "dream matter" and "ordinary matter".

So far, I have been only able to determine that gravitons are made of dream matter, so they don't count when you say "humans are made of atoms". Can you tell me why they don't count?

I never said that they were...from what I understand, a Graviton is your soul...made up of Gravity/Time
I beg to differ. Your exact words were:
Originally posted by wraith 2/14/2003

yes, thats right about the Graviton, but lets say that the Graviton is "dreaming"....and in this "dreamworld" there is only "dreamworld matter"....

so I am correct when I say "we are made of atoms"
You proposed this to avoid admitting that humans are made of more than atoms. Now you wish to shove this under the table because you can't explain it? A very poor bit of legerdemain, wraith.

But now that you mention it, if Gravitons are made from gravity/time, then they differ from atoms, correct? Or is everything made of gravity/time? You really need to get your thinking straight on this. You keep trapping yourself in contradictions.

Tricky asked
Is dream matter made of atoms?
Wraith replied
ahh...yes ;)

You sound a bit unsure. But we now have enough premises that you have endorsed for a new syllogism.

Dream matter is made of atoms
Gravitons are made of dream matter
Therefore, gravitons are made of atoms.

Of course, this syllogism has the same fallacy of composition that your favorite one does, but since that doesn't seem to bother you, I assume that you will accept this syllogesm as correct.

So gravitons are made of atoms. Funny, I always thought they were smaller than atoms.

what list? :eek:
Come now, wraith. I have posted The List, a compilation of the beliefs held by Logical Deists, many times on this very thread. So often, in fact, that I have been accused of spamming. But I will forgive your intentional obtuseness and post a
Link to The List (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=344417&highlight=upchurch#post344417)
for your benefit. Click on the underlined words "Link to The List" and it will open up a new window with my most recent list in it. Read it over. Tell me if you agree with everything on it. If you do not agree, tell me what is wrong and I will try to fix it.

well I'd write it has "the universe is made up of memes"

Really? Not atoms? Not gravitons? Truly, you don't seem to have a firm position on this. Could you define "meme" for me?

wraith

24th February 2003, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

As I have said (many) times before, I believe the present is mostly based on the past, but not completely on the past. Not all of your actions are based on how you interpret the past, as you so politely demonstrated earlier.

Some things are based on the past and some things are not? How?
Once you have magic in the system, the whole thing is screwed...please give an example though :eek:

wraith says: thats a negatory Trix....
He perceived a benefit by getting burnt...he wanted to show something about himself...his past made him into a hardcore...if he was a pussy, do you think that he would be holding his hand above a candle flame?
The flame analogy stands strong...sorry

Trixy: 'Fraid not, wraith. Now you are saying "you will not stick your hand into a flame unless you do." A rather obvious statement, which in no way disproves free will, in fact quite the opposite.

No, im saying that if youre MPB is to get burnt then you WILL get burnt. Im saying that your actions are logical. You are saying that they are not.

I'll need some evidence for that ;)

Toast is more complex than humans....if you call that logic....then youre insane ;)

wraith says: If touching the flame again was my MAXIMUM perceived benefit then I WILL touch the flame.

Trixy: Of course. You have then made a conscious choice between perceived, available options. AKA free will. If fatalism were operating, it would make no difference what benefit you perceived. You would not be able to act on it because it had been decided in advance.

You are ultimately saying Tricky that the MPB to touch the flame had no logical reason.

Then you do not have a very good view from where you are sitting. I do not, and have never said that no god exists. I have said no god is required to explain the universe. Really wraith, how do you manage to pass your classes with such poor reading comprehension skills?

I take it that you call double standards logic then? :rolleyes:

CAR obeys YOU obeys TLOP

But I like word games. Want to play some word association? I'll bet you can't predict what I will say.

Based on partial info?
Keep singing trix ;)

You believe that gravitons defy the laws of physics?

ie. Gravitons dont behave in a logial way?
No I dont believe in your magic

You believe that a progenitor solipsist "magically" popped out of nowhere? Really wraith, I don't think you even know what it is you are claiming to believe.

Time and Consciousness go hand in hand...youre the one claiming a period of "no-time"

in any case, you believe that TLOP just warped in from the void, yet you claim that youre right....keep those double standards up there Trix..it suits you ;)

You prefer to base you life on "magic" stuff? Don't feel bad. All theists do.

It's not magic

Now since you are the one who proposed it's existence, perhaps you would care to stop dodging the question:

What is the difference between "dream matter" and "ordinary matter".

You see "ordinary matter" has this hard stuff...ie matter creates consciousness...
"dream matter" is energy that we interpret as "matter"

Im not dodging anything....
Again, if there is no consciousness around, is there still a "tree" growing somewhere?

So far, I have been only able to determine that gravitons are made of dream matter, so they don't count when you say "humans are made of atoms". Can you tell me why they don't count?

read above...the "dream matter" is this universe

wraith says: I never said that they were...from what I understand, a Graviton is your soul...made up of Gravity/Time
I beg to differ. Your exact words were:

"Originally posted by wraith 2/14/2003
yes, thats right about the Graviton, but lets say that the Graviton is "dreaming"....and in this "dreamworld" there is only "dreamworld matter"....
so I am correct when I say "we are made of atoms"

You proposed this to avoid admitting that humans are made of more than atoms. Now you wish to shove this under the table because you can't explain it? A very poor bit of legerdemain, wraith.

But now that you mention it, if Gravitons are made from gravity/time, then they differ from atoms, correct? Or is everything made of gravity/time? You really need to get your thinking straight on this. You keep trapping yourself in contradictions.

what contradictions?
Matter is a pattern of energy that we perceieve...
you are still fixated on the "matter creates consciousness" belief...

You sound a bit unsure. But we now have enough premises that you have endorsed for a new syllogism.

Dream matter is made of atoms
Gravitons are made of dream matter
Therefore, gravitons are made of atoms.

Of course, this syllogism has the same fallacy of composition that your favorite one does, but since that doesn't seem to bother you, I assume that you will accept this syllogesm as correct.

So gravitons are made of atoms. Funny, I always thought they were smaller than atoms.

You have totally gotten it all wrong.....why is the Graviton made of dream matter? :eek:

Really? Not atoms? Not gravitons? Truly, you don't seem to have a firm position on this. Could you define "meme" for me?

from my understanding, a meme is an idea/energy

Tricky

24th February 2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by wraith
Some things are based on the past and some things are not? How?
Once you have magic in the system, the whole thing is screwed...please give an example though
Easily done. Flip a coin. The outcome of that coin flip (heads or tails) is not based on the past. Don't try to obfuscate by saying "the decision to flip the coin was MPB", I am speaking of the outcome only.

No, im saying that if youre MPB is to get burnt then you WILL get burnt. Im saying that your actions are logical. You are saying that they are not.
You earlier said that a person will not put their hand in a flame. Now you are are saying they will if they feel like it. Make up you mind. If you are claiming that no human ever does anything illogical, well, I beg to differ.

You are ultimately saying Tricky that the MPB to touch the flame had no logical reason.
You seem to think that anything a person decides to do makes it logical, regardless of how stupid. This is very interesting concept: illogical logic.

Based on partial info?
Keep singing trix ;)
And you claim "something" has complete info, but you are continuously unable to demonstrate it? Keep wishing if you like, wrath, but remember that wishes don't make things come true.

ie. Gravitons dont behave in a logial way?
No, they don't. At least not the way Logical Deists have defined them. (I notice you completely ignored my request to comment on The List (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=344417&highlight=upchurch#post344417) even though provide you convenient links. I can show you where your concept of gravitons is illogical.

But of course, you know that anything you say about gravitons is purely speculatative. They have not even been proven to exist, yet you feel no hesitation to "magically" assign them characteristics, including concepts like soul storage, "dream matter" composition et. al. Are you aware of how silly you look when you do this?

No, I don't believe in your magic.
I see. You prefer to believe in "omniverses", "gravitons", "dream matter", conscious laws of physics and other completely ludicrous assertions based on zero evidence. Yet, that, by your definition, they are not "magic". You should be overwhelmed by cognitive dissonance.

Time and Consciousness go hand in hand...youre the one claiming a period of "no-time"
I have said that some cosmologists think time did not exist before the Big Bang. Of course, a "period of no time" is an oxymoron.

in any case, you believe that TLOP just warped in from the void, yet you claim that youre right....keep those double standards up there Trix..it suits you ;)
I believe that is one of the foundations of Logical Deism. Three of the four forces did not exist until the Logical Goddess magically willed them into existence, yet you have the temerity to complain about double standards? I accept your double and redouble.

It's not magic.
Let's see. You propose things with no evidence which violate the laws of physics and create an anthropomorphic construct which embodies your beliefs. Sounds pretty magic to me. Gandalf would be awed by your work.

what contradictions?
Matter is a pattern of energy that we perceieve...

It is? Well this is certainly a new definition of matter to me. Tell me then, what is energy that we percieve (like light)? Is that matter too? Do we have to perceive matter before it exists? Your hypothesis (it's not even a theory, because theories require evidence) is full of contradictions.

You see "ordinary matter" has this hard stuff...ie matter creates consciousness...
"dream matter" is energy that we interpret as "matter"
This is pure gobbeldygook. You said "dream matter" was made of atoms. Now you say it is energy. Make up your mind.

What is the difference between the "hard stuff" and the "dream matter" that we interpret as "hard stuff"? How do you test is something is made of matter or dream matter? And are you now agreeing that matter makes consciousness?

I'm afraid your last statement looks like a pathetic attempt to obfuscate because you cannot explain your stance. It fools no one.

Im not dodging anything....
Again, if there is no consciousness around, is there still a "tree" growing somewhere?
You are dodging like the Wicked Witch of the West running through a water sprinkler. You have not answered the question in any meaningful way. Can we not "perceive" ordinary matter? Does that make it "dream matter"? You have established no method of identifying one versus another.
And again, with your "tree" thing, you are proposing that something only exists if it is perceived. You have evidence for this, I presume?

read above...the "dream matter" is this universe
I did. It is self-contradictory and absolute nonsense.

You have totally gotten it all wrong.....why is the Graviton made of dream matter? :eek:

It is your creation, wraith. I never heard of "dream matter" until you proposed it to explain why we are made of something other than atoms. (Gravitons don't count. They are dream matter). I imagine that you are now sorry you ever said so foolish a thing. It's okay to say, "I was wrong", wraith. You needn't defend this riduculous concept forever.

from my understanding, a meme is an idea/energy
Which is it? An idea or energy. They're not the same thing, you know. How about
A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.
Do you accept that definition? If not, why not?

Franko

24th February 2003, 07:43 AM

Tricky:
Easily done. Flip a coin. The outcome of that coin flip (heads or tails) is not based on the past.

Really? If that is True, then how come the outcome is always HEADS or TAILS, but never PURPLE, “24.8” or HORSE?

Don't try to obfuscate by saying "the decision to flip the coin was MPB", I am speaking of the outcome only.

The outcome is ALWAYS determined solely by the input parameters (the coin in this case).

The Wraith:
No, im saying that if youre MPB is to get burnt then you WILL get burnt. Im saying that your actions are logical. You are saying that they are not.

Tricky: (A-Theist recruiter)
You earlier said that a person will not put their hand in a flame. Now you are saying they will if they feel like it. Make up you mind.

Actually I reread what the Wraith said and it makes perfect sense. Your chain of thought – on the other hand – seems to be all over the place.

Tricky explain the traffic light to me? When you approach a “red” traffic light and perceive that it is “red” I would say that you extrapolate from the past and quickly determine:

1) STOP = GOOD
2) GO = BAD

Now you seem to be claiming that your decision is NOT based on the past, so as you approach the “red” light your decision to GO or STOP will be “randomly” determined. (how this equals you have “free will” is anyone’s guess, but logical consistency is not one of the A-Theists strong points, and that is especially True for Tricky.)

If you are claiming that no human ever does anything illogical, well, I beg to differ.

Some humans approach a “red” traffic light and based on their past they come up with this hierarchy of “options”.

1) GO = “GOOD”
2) STOP = “BAD”

Similarly some humans like to self mutilate themselves by burning their hands on a hot stove. These individuals are True A-Theists at heart … We say that they are “Insane”.

The Wraith: (Logical Deist)
You are ultimately saying Tricky that the MPB to touch the flame had no logical reason.

Tricky: (A-Theist)
You seem to think that anything a person decides to do makes it logical, regardless of how stupid. This is very interesting concept: illogical logic.

Hey neither me or the Wraith fully comprehend why you keep coming in this forum to burn your hand on the hot stove day after day after day? Why you keep asserting that people who believe in “God” based on no evidence are crazy, while you persist in believing you have magic “free willy” powers BASED ON NO EVIDENCE.

If you could stop pretending that you have magic “free will” powers that allow you to avoid the consequences for your actions for 5 minutes you’d quickly realize that FATALISM IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!

But you are utterly unwilling to sacrifice your dogma for the Truth. Like a person burning their hand on the hot stove you aren’t interested in TRUTH, you are only interested in your own insanity.

wraith

25th February 2003, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
wraith says: Some things are based on the past and some things are not? How?
Once you have magic in the system, the whole thing is screwed...please give an example though

Trix: Easily done. Flip a coin. The outcome of that coin flip (heads or tails) is not based on the past. Don't try to obfuscate by saying "the decision to flip the coin was MPB", I am speaking of the outcome only.

Atoms obey TLOP....
It was your Fate to flip the coin (atoms obey TLOP/MPB) and the coin's outcome is based on that. YOUR HISTORY.

Everything was obeying TLOP.
You and the coin.

You earlier said that a person will not put their hand in a flame. Now you are are saying they will if they feel like it. Make up you mind. If you are claiming that no human ever does anything illogical, well, I beg to differ.

Franko's reply as follows:

Tricky explain the traffic light to me? When you approach a “red” traffic light and perceive that it is “red” I would say that you extrapolate from the past and quickly determine:
1) STOP = GOOD
2) GO = BAD
Now you seem to be claiming that your decision is NOT based on the past, so as you approach the “red” light your decision to GO or STOP will be “randomly” determined. (how this equals you have “free will” is anyone’s guess, but logical consistency is not one of the A-Theists strong points, and that is especially True for Tricky.)

If you dont like fire Trixy, then maybe you prefer this traffic light example instead? ;)

And you claim "something" has complete info, but you are continuously unable to demonstrate it? Keep wishing if you like, wrath, but remember that wishes don't make things come true.

If I had complete control of the atoms in your brain, id be able to make you do whatever I want....are you saying otherwise?

It's all in the Gravity ;)

wraith says: ie. Gravitons dont behave in a logial way?

Trix: No, they don't. At least not the way Logical Deists have defined them. (I notice you completely ignored my request to comment on The List (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=344417&highlight=upchurch#post344417) even though provide you convenient links. I can show you where your concept of gravitons is illogical.

The line itself would be good Trix :)

But of course, you know that anything you say about gravitons is purely speculatative. They have not even been proven to exist, yet you feel no hesitation to "magically" assign them characteristics, including concepts like soul storage, "dream matter" composition et. al. Are you aware of how silly you look when you do this?

Maybe you are looking in the wrong place?
Ever consider consciousness being the source of gravity?

I see. You prefer to believe in "omniverses", "gravitons", "dream matter", conscious laws of physics and other completely ludicrous assertions based on zero evidence. Yet, that, by your definition, they are not "magic". You should be overwhelmed by cognitive dissonance.

Yes Trix, we all know how much you want matter creating consciousness to be TRUE!

I have said that some cosmologists think time did not exist before the Big Bang. Of course, a "period of no time" is an oxymoron.

What else would you call a timeless period?
Thats your belief is it not? :rolleyes:

I believe that is one of the foundations of Logical Deism. Three of the four forces did not exist until the Logical Goddess magically willed them into existence, yet you have the temerity to complain about double standards? I accept your double and redouble.

Tell me which sounds magical:
TLOP coming from the void without any cause or a consciousness that generates TLOP?

Let's see. You propose things with no evidence which violate the laws of physics and create an anthropomorphic construct which embodies your beliefs. Sounds pretty magic to me. Gandalf would be awed by your work.

It is? Well this is certainly a new definition of matter to me. Tell me then, what is energy that we percieve (like light)? Is that matter too? Do we have to perceive matter before it exists? Your hypothesis (it's not even a theory, because theories require evidence) is full of contradictions.

Tell me Trix, can you perceive something if you dont exist?

This is pure gobbeldygook. You said "dream matter" was made of atoms. Now you say it is energy. Make up your mind.

E=mc^2 is false is it?

What is the difference between the "hard stuff" and the "dream matter" that we interpret as "hard stuff"? How do you test is something is made of matter or dream matter? And are you now agreeing that matter makes consciousness?

Why in the HELL would I agree to matter creating consciousness?
Anyone the believes that a rock can become conscious is a looney toon.

E=mc^2

Take a tree. It's made of atoms. It's energy that we interpret in a certain way. We call this patten of energy a "tree"

would any of the senses exist without a consciousness?

You are dodging like the Wicked Witch of the West running through a water sprinkler.

Similies in action folks :rolleyes:

You have not answered the question in any meaningful way. Can we not "perceive" ordinary matter? Does that make it "dream matter"? You have established no method of identifying one versus another.

?
We perceive a pattern of energy as matter...
Youre looking through the "matter creates consciousness" window...

And again, with your "tree" thing, you are proposing that something only exists if it is perceived. You have evidence for this, I presume?

If you were the sole consciousness in the universe, if you died, would a "tree" still exist?

I take it that you will be able to perceive things when youre 6 feet under?

It is your creation, wraith. I never heard of "dream matter" until you proposed it to explain why we are made of something other than atoms. (Gravitons don't count. They are dream matter). I imagine that you are now sorry you ever said so foolish a thing. It's okay to say, "I was wrong", wraith. You needn't defend this riduculous concept forever.

Why is it foolish?
It's only "dream matter" to you because youre mind is fixed on a matter creating consciousness universe...

wraith says: from my understanding, a meme is an idea/energy

Trix: Which is it? An idea or energy. They're not the same thing, you know.

You have the Higher Power generating this universe...

You have the Mind of the Higher Power (initial state) and then you have the Higher Power's actions (TLOP)

Tricky

25th February 2003, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by wraith
Atoms obey TLOP....
It was your Fate to flip the coin (atoms obey TLOP/MPB) and the coin's outcome is based on that. YOUR HISTORY.
Whether it lands heads or tails is based on my history? That certainly is an interesting proposition. Care to back it up with evidence. I have flipped numerous coins and they seem to show a random distribution of heads and tails. I guess my history changes dramatically every second. :rolleyes:

Everything was obeying TLOP.
You and the coin.
Yes, wraith, I know your catch phrase. But you still have not shown how the outcome of the coin flip is based on the past. I can think of ways you might argue this, but you haven't used them yet, and I'm not going to give you hints. Try thinking on your own.

If you dont like fire Trixy, then maybe you prefer this traffic light example instead? ;)
So one analogy fails and you must dodge the question by trying another one? As I say, most things are determined by MPB, but a few aren't. I have already shot down the "traffic light" scenario. Unlike you, I get tired of repeating myself.

Hint. Try demonstrating some evidence instead of analogies.

If I had complete control of the atoms in your brain, id be able to make you do whatever I want....are you saying otherwise?

If you had control in the sense of being able to order them around, yes. But if you had control in the sense making sure they obey the rules, no. You are proposing an entity that is able to "order atoms around". You have not shown anything to support this proposition.
It's all in the Gravity ;)
Really. Then you can explain the mechanism for gravity? It's Nobel Prize time.

The line itself would be good Trix :)
What line? Why are you still avoiding talking about The List (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=344417&highlight=upchurch#post344417)? They are your beliefs, are they not? If not, tell me which ones are not.

Maybe you are looking in the wrong place?
Ever consider consciousness being the source of gravity?

Sure I'd consider it, if you could provide some evidence. But unconscious things have gravity, so I'd say the evidence is going to be hard to find.

Yes Trix, we all know how much you want matter creating consciousness to be TRUE!
I have no emotional attachment to this theory, but I have to admit it is well supported. The reverse theory (consciousness makes matter) is not only unsupported but self-contradictory.

What else would you call a timeless period?
Thats your belief is it not? :rolleyes:
It is one possibility that cosmologists have put forth. It is not a belief, because we have no evidence for it, however it is logically consistant. That doesn't mean it's true.

I'd probably call it a timeless "state", thus avoiding the self-contradiction of using a measurement of time (period) to describe timelessness.

Tell me which sounds magical:
TLOP coming from the void without any cause or a consciousness that generates TLOP?
And where does that causal consciousness come from? You are merely adding another layer of mystery because you cannot acknowledge you have no explanation for the first layer. Somewhere in your creation story, you have to have something that doesn't have a cause. For Franko, it is the Progenitor Solipsist. For me it is the universe itself. What is it for you?

Tell me Trix, can you perceive something if you dont exist?
And can you answer a question directly instead of making a non-sequitur? If dream matter is energy that we interpret as matter, what is energy that we interpret as energy? Is it "dream energy"?

I see you are trying to shove the whole "dream matter" issue under the table by not discussing it. I can't blame you, for it is a silly concept. However, you could be forthright and admit that you were just making it up. Somehow, I don't expect that.

E=mc^2 is false is it?
That equation is for normal matter. As far as I know, there is no equation for "dream matter". Are you then admitting that dream matter is no different from ordinary matter? Why did you propose it then? Oh, right. Because you were cornered in the syllogism thing.

Why in the HELL would I agree to matter creating consciousness?
Anyone the believes that a rock can become conscious is a looney toon.
And anyone who would say that rocks are the only kind of matter that exists is a loony toon. Guess what, wraith. There are many kinds of matter, all with different properties. Also, there's a little thing called "evolution". Back to begginner's science class for you.

E=mc^2

Take a tree. It's made of atoms. It's energy that we interpret in a certain way. We call this patten of energy a "tree"
More non-sequiturs, I see. Do you somehow imagine this stuff you are babbling is addressing the issue?

would any of the senses exist without a consciousness?
It would depend on how you define consciousness. Even one-celled animals are able to sense light. Are they conscious?

?
We perceive a pattern of energy as matter...
Youre looking through the "matter creates consciousness" window...
Then open a new window for me, wrath. Give me a demonstrable example of consciousness creating matter. I have already given you one for matter making consciousness, but since you have shown a remarkably poor memory, I will summarize again.

A human zygote becomes more conscious as it adds matter to it's neurologic system.

Which brings up another interesting question. When does the graviton enter a human? At conception? Are they all clustered around, each betting on one sperm? (They must be associated with the sperm, since we know that gravitons have gender and the sperm determines the baby's gender.) Does this mean that male gametes have gravitons but female ones do not?:rolleyes:

If you were the sole consciousness in the universe, if you died, would a "tree" still exist?
First you would have to demonstrate that I was the sole consciousness in the universe. How would you do that?

I take it that you will be able to perceive things when youre 6 feet under?
According to me, no. According to you, yes. (My graviton would still be around, exchanging information).
Why is it foolish?
It's only "dream matter" to you because youre mind is fixed on a matter creating consciousness universe...
Okay, we have yet more info about "dream matter". It only exists if you think matter makes consciousness. Does this mean that for Logical Deists, there is no such thing as "dream matter"? Really wraith. Just admit you made it up and you can stop tap dancing. No one will think less of you, in fact, just the opposite.

You have the Higher Power generating this universe...

You have the Mind of the Higher Power (initial state) and then you have the Higher Power's actions (TLOP)
And who genererates the "Higher Power"? And who generates the power that generates the "Higher Power", ad. infinitum? It's turtles all the way down, sonny.

Franko

25th February 2003, 12:13 PM

Am I the only person who thinks that "The Brak Show" is the funniest 15 minutes on television?

Franko

25th February 2003, 12:16 PM

Tricky: (wants his "free willy")
Whether it lands heads or tails is based on my history? That certainly is an interesting proposition. Care to back it up with evidence. I have flipped numerous coins and they seem to show a random distribution of heads and tails. I guess my history changes dramatically every second.

Considering that you believe the present is not based on the past, I am curious as to how many times you flipped the coin and it landed as a FISH?

Ever wake up in the morning as an Ostrich? Ever know anyone who did? if the present is not based on the past how come things like that NEVER seem to happen?

(of course, I never see TOAST running for president either, so what do I know?)

Tricky

25th February 2003, 12:22 PM

Gosh, it has been a gold mine of LD information today. Again, thanks to those sockpuppets who have been keeping me apprised of threads that I'm not watching.

Here is the latest list of the Beliefs of the Progenitor Logical Deist. They are as close to the actual words as I can get without feedback from Franko. I welcome that feedback. Misdirection and accusations will be less welcome, but totally expected.

New items have a red bullet.
-----------------------------
NOTE: Many of these “beliefs” were verified by Franko in this post. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=290098&highlight=logical+goddess+omnipotent#post290098)
Origins This universe is part of an omniverse.
The Omniverse, and all of its subsets (Universes, even You and I) are all reiterative hierarchical structures, i.e. fractals. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=346035&highlight=hierarchical#post346035)
The first entity is the Progenitor Solipsist (PS) – our original primordial ancestor – what the Christians call “God the Father/God the Creator”
The Progenitor Solipsist exists in the distant past when there were only two intrinsic parameters - Mass and Velocity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=306446&highlight=progenitor#post306446)
This universe was created by the Logical Goddess (LG), who also created the forces (electro-magnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear). She did not create gravity.
The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
The Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
The Logical Goddess is bound by both fate (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=343044&highlight=goddess+bound+fate#post343044) and logic. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=343062&highlight=bound+logic#post343062)
Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
Consciousness creates matter.
Once Time achieves a certain level of self-awareness it begins to evolve (and expand). Your “extra” spatial dimensions are the early manifestations of “the matter”, but they are merely the byproduct of Time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=352045&highlight=time+selfawareness#post352045[/url)
The Big Bang is made up of two parts. The Goddess corresponds to "The Initial State” (the initial “random” configuration of stuff). The other part is The Laws of Physics . (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306475&highlight=configuration+stuff#post306475)

How Things Work One soul = one graviton.
Gravitons come from the omniverse, but not necessarily this universe.
The Logical goddess is the "top graviton", meaning she is omnipotent.
Gravitons are fermions, i.e. they have spin and charge.
Spin is quality of Mass, and Charge is quality of Velocity. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334873&highlight=spin+quality+mass+charge+velocity#post33 4873)
The gender of a graviton is determined by its spin.
Determinism/Fate/”free will” is the interaction of gravitons of varying strength.
The same logic that leads me to conclude a more evolved being exist leads me to believe that entities’ gender female. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=114229&highlight=determinism+interaction+gravitons#post11 4229)
There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatabalist free will. None.
The LG is the most conscious and complex entity in the universe.
This entire Universe is essentially an illusion. You and I actually exist as particles in the Truer reality of the Omniverse. This universe is a carefully constructed elaboration of the True reality. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334724&highlight=entire+Universe+is+essentially+an+illusi on#post334724[/url)
TLOP are an expression of the LG. She controls them.
The LG, using TLOP, creates the shape, or body of humans. The soul is the graviton.
The LG, and by extension TLOP are smarter, more powerful and more complex than humans.
True randomness does not exist.
If A has property P and B is made of A, then B has property P. (As shown by the syllogism, "Atoms obey the laws of physics. You are made of atoms. Therefore you obey the laws of physics.)
Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
Gravitons are the fundamental force-carrying particles of Gravity and Time.
Gravitons are not real in the sense that you and I are real. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=338621&highlight=matter+real+sense#post338621)
Gravitons obey a higher law that we'd probably call Thermodymics. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=338862&highlight=thermodymics#post338862)
A Graviton is just a special kind of meme, and memes are just distinct packets of information. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334704&highlight=meme#post334704)
Gravitons are made of time (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=311266&highlight=information+gravitons#post311266)
The Logical Goddess cannot create gravitons, but she can destroy them. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=346035&highlight=hierarchical#post346035)
Objects without gravitons don't really exist in the way that You or I do. They are merely projections. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334724&highlight=merely+projections#post334724)
Essentially, LD is a Unified Theory of Physics.
The universe can be completely described in terms of binary responses.
If A controls B then A is more conscious than B. -- EXCEPTION If it appears that a less conscious object is controlling a more conscious object, it is actually the LG that is controlling them both.
Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.
At the core of your Soul there is a special type of meme, a special type of algorithm. It possesses this quality you call self-awareness to a far greater degree than other memes. It has this quality because it possesses a meme which gives it Simultaneous Perception. In short it has the ability to perceive two realities (or more) at the same time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=342244&highlight=Simultaneous+Perception#post342244)
Electromagnetism is the memetic projection of the Goddess used as an enhanced means of conveying information. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=343594&highlight=conditioning%2Fcontrol#post343594)
The rules which bind all consciousness are the Laws of Time and Gravity. These are not laws in the same sense as TLOP (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=344438&highlight=consciousness+laws+time+gravity#post3444 38)
Space and Time are essentially the same thing, or more accurately “Space” (and it’s cousin the “matter”) are merely manifestations of extrapolated (evolved) Time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=352345&highlight=space+extrapolated#post352345)

Morality Gravitons are intrinsically Good or Evil.
Good Gravitons will move forward in Time (to a higher energy state), Evil Gravitons will move backwards in Time (to a lower energy state).
The lower, the worse things are, but not the same as the Christian "Hell".
the abyss is a Black hole where the Souls that don’t make it get tossed. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=305988&highlight=progenitor#post305988)
There are consequences for the things you do.
The things you do are the result of Maximum Perceived Benefit (MPB). This is not the same as free will.
You will be punished if your MPB causes you to do the wrong things.
MPB is what is actually evolving. Your algorithm (as well as your database) expands, and evolves over time. It grows. It becomes more complex. You become more self aware. You gain individuality, you gain power. You gain control. You gain freedom. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=121324&highlight=database+expands#post121324)
Anyone who commits an immoral act is insane (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=306200&highlight=anyone+commits+immoral+insane#post306200 )
Threat of punishment is the only thing that leads to morality.
A situation is a pattern of events outside the context of time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=313714&highlight=situation+pattern+events#post313714)

Miscellaneous/The Lexicon Followers of LD are on an Omniworldview line.
Fate = Karma. Karma is – every action has a equal reaction (initially equal, but magnified over Time) (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=303319&highlight=karma#post303319)
No evidence against a thing means evidence for a thing. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=315164&highlight=figment+progenitor#post315164)
choices are preordained outputs (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=323334&highlight=choices+preordained+outputs#post323334)
In LD an Eternity is a very long long period of time, not an “infinite” period of time. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=324718&highlight=eternity+period+time#post324718)
Gravity is the force which makes Logic possible, and without Logic there would be no Fate. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=344470&highlight=gravity+logic+possible#post344470)
Logic works by having people compare their explanations and seeing which is more logical. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=344372&highlight=Upchurch+explain+something#post344372)
Love is when the existence of another Graviton becomes more axiomatic then your own existence. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=351994&highlight=axiomatic#post351994)

A more detailed explanation of the Logical Deism creation story is given here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=315470&highlight=remnant+furthermore#post315470)

Franko

25th February 2003, 12:36 PM

Since its been over a year, and you STILL haven’t presented ANY evidence for your religious beliefs, and since you post NOTHING but the same spam over and over again, what do you want me to say? If you have an actual argument for your religious beliefs – some evidence – I’ll be happy to discuss it with you, but your spam doesn’t really require anything other than me restating the obvious. I realize you don’t like your hypocrisy exposed Tricky, perhaps you should run along then? I honestly don’t know why you keep non-responding to all of my posts?

Actually, I do know why … It’s because you are a severely brainwashed religious fanatic with no evidence for his beliefs.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky 30+ years dedicated to A-Theism: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Tricky 30+ years dedicated to A-Theism: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

When are you going to explain what the "YOU" is that is making the "decisions"??? I thought that according to Materialism there was no "YOU"? I thought that "YOU" were nothing more then a collection of Atoms?

Why do you believe that the atoms in your brain aren't controlled by the laws of Physics, Trixy? You never seem to want to explain this? What are you hiding A-Theist? Are you embarrassed to tell us what you believe?

Tricky

25th February 2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Misdirection and accusations will be less welcome, but totally expected.

Wow! I must be psychic!

But if you want to discuss any of the things I have actually said, Franko, just provide a link, as I have.

Franko

25th February 2003, 12:43 PM

Yeah I didn't think you would change your tune Troll-boy.

Gotten any new recruits to the church of Pessimism lately? ;)

Tricky

25th February 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Yeah I didn't think you would change your tune Troll-boy.

Gotten any new recruits to the church of Pessimism lately? ;)
Yeah, Frank. I got so many sock puppets I can't keep track of them. The outlook for pessimism is very optimistic.:D

Franko

25th February 2003, 12:46 PM

Let me explain what’s going on. Tricky (or Trixy) is a hard-core fanatical militant A-Theist who has dedicated the vast majority of his existence to the cause. For most of his life he has been running around telling people how they are going to cease to exist, and how they are idiots for believing in a “god”. At this point he is so committed there is just no turning back.

Now Trixy, he’s a first class hypocrite. He has one standard of morals that he expects you to live by, but for himself he has a completely different code of “honesty”. You see Trixy will laugh at you, and call You retarded for claiming that there is no “god” with no evidence to back you up. But at the same time he expects You to bow down and kiss his metaphysically superior ass because he believes that he has magic “free will” powers that allow him to defy the Laws of Physics. Of course he has no proof of his magic powers, in fact the evidence is clearly all against him. Never-the-less you are a moron if you do not believe Trixy’s claim about his “wizardry” (at least in his mind). In short, “Tricky’s” trick is an absurd double standard perpetrated at Your expense. (You know that saying about “with friends like that …”?)

Okay, so Trixy can’t refute any of my arguments, I am making him look like a complete and utter fool, and I am seriously interfering with his recruitment drive for the World Church of A-Theism, so he gets offline and organizes a dozen or so of his little A-Theist lackies to follow me around on the forum and basically post a bunch of spam (insults, jokes, off topic crap, sockpuppets galore, silly threads, ask the same contradictory questions over and over, etc., etc.). Then they all whine to the moderators about 8 or 9 times and try and get me banned.

To this day you will notice there are always at least a couple of derogatory threads with my name in them, ALL started by fanatical members of the Cult of A-Theism. It seems that every other week the moderators are forced to move some a-Theist insult thread off to the hidden recesses of the forum.

No … Trixy and his little A-Theists friends aren’t interested in Skepticism at all. They are religious fanatics from the cynical cult of pessimism. Plain and simple. Tricky is the biggest liar on this forum Darling. He has stated in word and demonstrated by deed that he is an individual who believes there will be no ultimate consequences for his actions. If he can benefit by harming you, then by his own logic he will.

Tricky

25th February 2003, 12:54 PM

Who are you talking to, Franko? Annadee (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=345070&highlight=organizes+tricky#post345070) isn't in here right now. I suppose it is getting too difficult to come up with new attacks and you have to recycle old ones.

Franko

25th February 2003, 12:59 PM

you spout the same nonsense over and over again, what makes you think you are worth new material?

Like I said, i don't really fathom why you persist in non-responding to all my post other than out of desperate fear, insanity, or a combination of the two.

Tricky

25th February 2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Franko
you spout the same nonsense over and over again, what makes you think you are worth new material?
You are right, Franko. I do post the same nonsense over and over again. Of course, that "nonsense" is your exact words. Also, I try to put something new in each time I post an update. I do this as a service to those who are having a hard time understanding Logical Deism. You would be doing a great favor to them by correcting the list. Why is it that you refuse to do so?

Originally posted by Franko
Like I said, i don't really fathom why you persist in non-responding to all my post other than out of desperate fear, insanity, or a combination of the two.
Call it a mission. I am your nemesis. I am the one poster that you will not drive away with your drivel and insults. I will make sure that your own words are preserved accurately so that you cannot hide from them. You cannot escape. All you can do is cry and call names. Carry on.

Franko

25th February 2003, 01:21 PM

Call it a mission. I am your nemesis. I am the one poster that you will not drive away with your drivel and insults.

Ohh please! You are more like my trained monkey. You follow me around draw a lot of extra attention to me, my posts, and my ideas, you make a mockery of your own religious beliefs – not mine. Plus you constantly repost the highlights of logical deism. You are like a walking billboard. All I need to get you to do is quote me in your sig, and I’ll have the trifecta.

I will make sure that your own words are preserved accurately so that you cannot hide from them.

Unlike yourself, I am not ashamed of the things I believe, that is why I don’t mind discussing them. I can explain why I believe in my “God”. You are the one who cannot explain the things he believes or why you dogmatically cling to your deity “free willy” based on no evidence.

You cannot escape.

Do I look like I’m trying?

All you can do is cry and call names. Carry on.

You are an imbecile trixy. You are a lying hypocrite. Here’s why …

Since its been over a year, and you STILL haven’t presented ANY evidence for your religious beliefs, and since you post NOTHING but the same spam over and over again, what do you want me to say? If you have an actual argument for your religious beliefs – some evidence – I’ll be happy to discuss it with you, but your spam doesn’t really require anything other than me restating the obvious. I realize you don’t like your hypocrisy exposed Tricky, perhaps you should run along then? I honestly don’t know why you keep non-responding to all of my posts?

Actually, I do know why … It’s because you are a severely brainwashed religious fanatic with no evidence for his beliefs.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky 30+ years dedicated to A-Theism: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Tricky 30+ years dedicated to A-Theism: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

When are you going to explain what the "YOU" is that is making the "decisions"??? I thought that according to Materialism there was no "YOU"? I thought that "YOU" were nothing more then a collection of Atoms?

Why do you believe that the atoms in your brain aren't controlled by the laws of Physics, Trixy? You never seem to want to explain this? What are you hiding A-Theist? Are you embarrassed to tell us what you believe?

Tricky

25th February 2003, 01:25 PM

Tricky said
All you can do is cry and call names. Carry on.

Franko responded (in Pavlovian fashion)

You are an imbecile trixy. You are a lying hypocrite.

LOL. Who's got who trained? :D

Franko

25th February 2003, 02:12 PM

Ohh please! You are more like my trained monkey. You follow me around draw a lot of extra attention to me, my posts, and my ideas, you make a mockery of your own religious beliefs – not mine. Plus you constantly repost the highlights of logical deism. You are like a walking billboard. All I need to get you to do is quote me in your sig, and I’ll have the trifecta.

You prediactably follow all my posts with your woo-woo nonsense.

Anyone want to make a wager that Tricky NEVER makes even a feeble attempt to prove the existence of his magic "free willy" god/powers?

Tricky

25th February 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Franko

You prediactably follow all my posts with your woo-woo nonsense.

Anyone want to make a wager that Tricky NEVER makes even a feeble attempt to prove the existence of his magic "free willy" god/powers?
BZZT. You already lost, Franko, back around the middle of January. Apparently you don't remember when I performed this experiment (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=296718&highlight=wraith+chose+dont+know#post296718) using your buddy Wraith as a subject. I must say, Wraith came through like a champ.

Tricky requested
Now, I have a request that will help demonstrate the difference between MPB and free will. Think of a number between 1 and 100.

From this simple request, I gathered
the evidence (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=298802&highlight=reason...just#post298802) that wraith was using free will. His own words were:
Wraith answered
I chose 33. No particular reason

Thus, as anyone can see, I have presented evidence for the ability to make conscious choices between perceived, available options, which is my definition of free will.

Can we have your next lie, Franko? Why don't you claim, that I have never defined "God"? Why don't you claim, as you have done before, (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334934&highlight=defined+here#post334934) that I have never defined "free will". Oops. Just did it again right in this post. I would advise you to hold off for at least one or two posts before you use that lie again.

Franko

25th February 2003, 05:34 PM

Trixy, I am a bit confused.

How is the Wraith’s “choosing of the 33” evidence for your magic power?

By what Logic do you claim to know that he could have possible told you some other number? In fact, I once overheard a woman ask the Wraith that same question in a bar, and he gave the same exact answer then (33)!

Does this mean that The John Edwards Show is evidence that there is an afterlife and Dead people can communicate with us through the Wizard Edwards?

Tricky

25th February 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Trixy, I am a bit confused.
So I noticed.

How is the Wraith’s “choosing of the 33” evidence for your magic power?
It's not evidence of magic power. It's evidence of free will, which is in no way magic.

By what Logic do you claim to know that he could have possible told you some other number? In fact, I once overheard a woman ask the Wraith that same question in a bar, and he gave the same exact answer then (33)!
Isn't that amazing! So I guess it is fate because Wraith only knows one number! Wow, what a stunning rebuttal!

Does this mean that The John Edwards Show is evidence that there is an afterlife and Dead people can communicate with us through the Wizard Edwards?
No, you dolt. It is evidence that elves are making camp in your laundry hamper. Geez! Some guys just don't understand logic.

MRC_Hans

26th February 2003, 12:15 AM

Franko wrote:
? In fact, I once overheard a woman ask the Wraith that same question in a bar, and he gave the same exact answer then (33)!

Bzzzzzt! Self-contradiction. You have more than once declared that you and Wraith are the same person. Now you say you are not. Which of those two mutually exclusive statements is a lie?

And what has it to do with the discussion? Even if "Wraith" always answered 33, there would still be no reason, except "his" free choice. No, dont dream up some reason for "Wraith" choosing it, since by "his" own admission, it was chosen "for no particular reason".

Hans

wraith

26th February 2003, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Let me explain what’s going on. Tricky (or Trixy) is a hard-core fanatical militant A-Theist who has dedicated the vast majority of his existence to the cause. For most of his life he has been running around telling people how they are going to cease to exist, and how they are idiots for believing in a “god”. At this point he is so committed there is just no turning back.

Now Trixy, he’s a first class hypocrite. He has one standard of morals that he expects you to live by, but for himself he has a completely different code of “honesty”. You see Trixy will laugh at you, and call You retarded for claiming that there is no “god” with no evidence to back you up. But at the same time he expects You to bow down and kiss his metaphysically superior ass because he believes that he has magic “free will” powers that allow him to defy the Laws of Physics. Of course he has no proof of his magic powers, in fact the evidence is clearly all against him. Never-the-less you are a moron if you do not believe Trixy’s claim about his “wizardry” (at least in his mind). In short, “Tricky’s” trick is an absurd double standard perpetrated at Your expense. (You know that saying about “with friends like that …”?)

Okay, so Trixy can’t refute any of my arguments, I am making him look like a complete and utter fool, and I am seriously interfering with his recruitment drive for the World Church of A-Theism, so he gets offline and organizes a dozen or so of his little A-Theist lackies to follow me around on the forum and basically post a bunch of spam (insults, jokes, off topic crap, sockpuppets galore, silly threads, ask the same contradictory questions over and over, etc., etc.). Then they all whine to the moderators about 8 or 9 times and try and get me banned.

To this day you will notice there are always at least a couple of derogatory threads with my name in them, ALL started by fanatical members of the Cult of A-Theism. It seems that every other week the moderators are forced to move some a-Theist insult thread off to the hidden recesses of the forum.

No … Trixy and his little A-Theists friends aren’t interested in Skepticism at all. They are religious fanatics from the cynical cult of pessimism. Plain and simple. Tricky is the biggest liar on this forum Darling. He has stated in word and demonstrated by deed that he is an individual who believes there will be no ultimate consequences for his actions. If he can benefit by harming you, then by his own logic he will.

hahaha!
DAM!
keep em coming! :)

Tricky

26th February 2003, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by wraith
hahaha!
DAM!
keep em coming! :)
Yeah, Wraith. That's hilarious. A long, vulgar screed that Franko borrowed from another thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=345070&highlight=organizes+tricky#post345070).

Now, if you have recovered from you amusement at Franko's brilliant repartee, would like to continue our discussion where we left off. Since I know you don't like to scroll, I'll reproduce it here for you.

***********
Originally posted by wraith
Atoms obey TLOP....
It was your Fate to flip the coin (atoms obey TLOP/MPB) and the coin's outcome is based on that. YOUR HISTORY.
Whether it lands heads or tails is based on my history? That certainly is an interesting proposition. Care to back it up with evidence. I have flipped numerous coins and they seem to show a random distribution of heads and tails. I guess my history changes dramatically every second. :rolleyes:

Everything was obeying TLOP.
You and the coin.
Yes, wraith, I know your catch phrase. But you still have not shown how the outcome of the coin flip is based on the past. I can think of ways you might argue this, but you haven't used them yet, and I'm not going to give you hints. Try thinking on your own.

If you dont like fire Trixy, then maybe you prefer this traffic light example instead? ;)
So one analogy fails and you must dodge the question by trying another one? As I say, most things are determined by MPB, but a few aren't. I have already shot down the "traffic light" scenario. Unlike you, I get tired of repeating myself.

Hint. Try demonstrating some evidence instead of analogies.

If I had complete control of the atoms in your brain, id be able to make you do whatever I want....are you saying otherwise?

If you had control in the sense of being able to order them around, yes. But if you had control in the sense making sure they obey the rules, no. You are proposing an entity that is able to "order atoms around". You have not shown anything to support this proposition.
It's all in the Gravity ;)
Really. Then you can explain the mechanism for gravity? It's Nobel Prize time.

The line itself would be good Trix :)
What line? Why are you still avoiding talking about The List (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=344417&highlight=upchurch#post344417)? They are your beliefs, are they not? If not, tell me which ones are not.

Maybe you are looking in the wrong place?
Ever consider consciousness being the source of gravity?

Sure I'd consider it, if you could provide some evidence. But unconscious things have gravity, so I'd say the evidence is going to be hard to find.

Yes Trix, we all know how much you want matter creating consciousness to be TRUE!
I have no emotional attachment to this theory, but I have to admit it is well supported. The reverse theory (consciousness makes matter) is not only unsupported but self-contradictory.

What else would you call a timeless period?
Thats your belief is it not? :rolleyes:
It is one possibility that cosmologists have put forth. It is not a belief, because we have no evidence for it, however it is logically consistant. That doesn't mean it's true.

I'd probably call it a timeless "state", thus avoiding the self-contradiction of using a measurement of time (period) to describe timelessness.

Tell me which sounds magical:
TLOP coming from the void without any cause or a consciousness that generates TLOP?
And where does that causal consciousness come from? You are merely adding another layer of mystery because you cannot acknowledge you have no explanation for the first layer. Somewhere in your creation story, you have to have something that doesn't have a cause. For Franko, it is the Progenitor Solipsist. For me it is the universe itself. What is it for you?

Tell me Trix, can you perceive something if you dont exist?
And can you answer a question directly instead of making a non-sequitur? If dream matter is energy that we interpret as matter, what is energy that we interpret as energy? Is it "dream energy"?

I see you are trying to shove the whole "dream matter" issue under the table by not discussing it. I can't blame you, for it is a silly concept. However, you could be forthright and admit that you were just making it up. Somehow, I don't expect that.

E=mc^2 is false is it?
That equation is for normal matter. As far as I know, there is no equation for "dream matter". Are you then admitting that dream matter is no different from ordinary matter? Why did you propose it then? Oh, right. Because you were cornered in the syllogism thing.

Why in the HELL would I agree to matter creating consciousness?
Anyone the believes that a rock can become conscious is a looney toon.
And anyone who would say that rocks are the only kind of matter that exists is a loony toon. Guess what, wraith. There are many kinds of matter, all with different properties. Also, there's a little thing called "evolution". Back to beginner's science class for you.

E=mc^2

Take a tree. It's made of atoms. It's energy that we interpret in a certain way. We call this patten of energy a "tree"
More non-sequiturs, I see. Do you somehow imagine this stuff you are babbling is addressing the issue?

would any of the senses exist without a consciousness?
It would depend on how you define consciousness. Even one-celled animals are able to sense light. Are they conscious?

?
We perceive a pattern of energy as matter...
Youre looking through the "matter creates consciousness" window...
Then open a new window for me, wrath. Give me a demonstrable example of consciousness creating matter. I have already given you one for matter making consciousness, but since you have shown a remarkably poor memory, I will summarize again.

A human zygote becomes more conscious as it adds matter to it's neurologic system.

Which brings up another interesting question. When does the graviton enter a human? At conception? Are they all clustered around, each betting on one sperm? (They must be associated with the sperm, since we know that gravitons have gender and the sperm determines the baby's gender.) Does this mean that male gametes have gravitons but female ones do not?:rolleyes:

If you were the sole consciousness in the universe, if you died, would a "tree" still exist?
First you would have to demonstrate that I was the sole consciousness in the universe. How would you do that?

I take it that you will be able to perceive things when youre 6 feet under?
According to me, no. According to you, yes. (My graviton would still be around, exchanging information).
Why is it foolish?
It's only "dream matter" to you because youre mind is fixed on a matter creating consciousness universe...
Okay, we have yet more info about "dream matter". It only exists if you think matter makes consciousness. Does this mean that for Logical Deists, there is no such thing as "dream matter"? Really wraith. Just admit you made it up and you can stop tap dancing. No one will think less of you, in fact, just the opposite.

You have the Higher Power generating this universe...

You have the Mind of the Higher Power (initial state) and then you have the Higher Power's actions (TLOP)
And who genererates the "Higher Power"? And who generates the power that generates the "Higher Power", ad. infinitum? It's turtles all the way down, sonny.

wraith

26th February 2003, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Franko says: How is the Wraith’s “choosing of the 33” evidence for your magic power?

Trix: It's not evidence of magic power. It's evidence of free will, which is in no way magic.

here we go again :rolleyes:

ok Trix and Hans...this is how it works...

I perceived a benefit to actually ANSWER the question properly....notice how I didnt answer the question by saying "263874" or "bunny rabbit"
also, I perceived a benefit by "choosing" my initial thought

Secondly, my history gave me the ability to work out what "pick a number between 1 and 100" meant. Due to maths and english, lets say.

My history taught me:
what a number was
what the question meant
why I should answer the question in the way that I did

It all looks determined to me.

SO, I ask, how is my initial "choice" to select 33 evidence for free-will?

If I said to you "think of a fighter jet"
is your inital thought evidence for free-will?

If I said to you "think of a turbeokfld"
what is your initial thought?

I bet it was something like
"wtf is that?"
"or what the hell is he on about"

use your "free-will" and tell me what you think of it/him/her/them....

muhaha

wraith

26th February 2003, 06:07 AM

Trixy, I will reply to your post, hopefully sometime tomorrow...
it's 00:06 over here and I need to round me up some zzzs

:cool:

Franko

26th February 2003, 06:09 AM

MRC: (Whack-Job)
Bzzzzzt! Self-contradiction. You have more than once declared that you and Wraith are the same person. Now you say you are not. Which of those two mutually exclusive statements is a lie?

And what has it to do with the discussion? Even if "Wraith" always answered 33, there would still be no reason, except "his" free choice. No, dont dream up some reason for "Wraith" choosing it, since by "his" own admission, it was chosen "for no particular reason".

Lets say we have a whole series of random questions like this:

Pick a “random” number between 1 and 100.
Pick a “random” color.
Pick a “random” female name.
Pick a “random” male name.
Etc. etc.

If the answers are truly random and completely magical and unpredictable like You and Trixy and the other A-Theists claim, then why is it that my Wife can predict what my answers will be so much better than You can?

How do you account for that MRC? I thought it was all supernatural? How would some one familiar with me get a better score if it is all “magic”?

MRC_Hans

26th February 2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Lets say we have a whole series of random questions like this:

Pick a “random” number between 1 and 100.
Pick a “random” color.
Pick a “random” female name.
Pick a “random” male name.
Etc. etc.

If the answers are truly random and completely magical and unpredictable like You and Trixy and the other A-Theists claim, then why is it that my Wife can predict what my answers will be so much better than You can?

How do you account for that MRC? I thought it was all supernatural? How would some one familiar with me get a better score if it is all “magic”? As usual, Franko, you use a diversion and present a strawman instead of answering the question presented:

Bzzzzzt! Self-contradiction. You have more than once declared that you and Wraith are the same person. Now you say you are not. Which of those two mutually exclusive statements is a lie?

Nobody claimed it was magic or random, and you know it. What was demonstrated was that all not all decisions are based on percieved benefit. I dont know about the games you play with your wife (but be careful not to be too predictable, she'll grow tird of you), but what was shown with "Wraith" was that "he" was able to pick a number without any possible knowledge of which number might be beneficial. A deterministic algorithm would have been foiled by that task.

Hans

Tricky

26th February 2003, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by wraith
here we go again :rolleyes:
Yes, here you go again with another one of your sad attempts to cover for the fact that you used free will and admitted it.

ok Trix and Hans...this is how it works...

I perceived a benefit to actually ANSWER the question properly....notice how I didnt answer the question by saying "263874" or "bunny rabbit"
also, I perceived a benefit by "choosing" my initial thought

Secondly, my history gave me the ability to work out what "pick a number between 1 and 100" meant. Due to maths and english, lets say.

My history taught me:
what a number was
what the question meant
why I should answer the question in the way that I did

It all looks determined to me.

SO, I ask, how is my initial "choice" to select 33 evidence for free-will?
All of those factors may have led to you choosing a number, but you still have not explained how they made you choose "33". Since you like analogies, it is kind of how TLOP work. They limit your choices, but they do not make the choice for you. The factors you mention above limited your choices to choosing a number between 1 and 100, but they did not make the choice. Sorry wraith. That dog won't hunt.

If I said to you "think of a fighter jet"
is your inital thought evidence for free-will?
Yes. I have a number of available options to think about. I choose one.

If I said to you "think of a turbeokfld"
what is your initial thought?

I bet it was something like
"wtf is that?"
"or what the hell is he on about"
No, my initial thought was something else (I'll tell you if you like). You lose your bet. Free will beats fatalism again.

use your "free-will" and tell me what you think of it/him/her/them....
Okay, since you ask nicely. I thought of a costumed super hero named TurboKid. I have no idea if such a fictional character has already been created by someone else. I just made it up in my mind because the letters looked a little bit like that. A combination of free will and imagination.

Have you ever done any creative writing? Well, according to you it is impossible, since nothing anyone does is creative. In fact, the word "creative" has no meaning in a fatalistic universe. What a dreary place that would be.

MRC_Hans

26th February 2003, 06:29 AM

Tricky
Have you ever done any creative writing? Well, according to you it is impossible, since nothing anyone does is creative. In fact, the word "creative" has no meaning in a fatalistic universe. What a dreary place that would be. If you ask me, thats a damn silly thing to ask of somebody who has dreamed up his entire personal cosmology, and who doesn't seem to tell a truth if he can think of a lie :rolleyes:

And Franko: Diversion and strawman again. :rolleyes:

Hans

Franko

26th February 2003, 06:50 AM

Bzzzzzt! Self-contradiction. You have more than once declared that you and Wraith are the same person. Now you say you are not. Which of those two mutually exclusive statements is a lie?

Actually it is YOU and the other A-Theists that have consistently accused the Wraith and myself of being the same person. Since we are both figments of your imagination and since we both realize that you fearful little mind can't handle the possibility that there is more than one logical deist, we just agree with whatever you boys say ...

Perhaps you can use the same magic powers that told you there was no "god" to determine whether the Wraith and myself actually exist?

If not, then why should I believe your powers worked on "god"?

You mean you can determine that god doesn't exist, but you can't tell me if I'm real, or the Wraith is real? That seems odd ... ?

Franko

26th February 2003, 06:54 AM

MRC: (crazy A-Theist)
Nobody claimed it was magic or random, and you know it. What was demonstrated was that all not all decisions are based on percieved benefit.

How are you able to read the Wraith’s mind and “know” that he did not perceive it as beneficial? Could you please provide me with some examples of YOU making regular “choices” that were obviously perceived as non-beneficial by YOU?

I dont know about the games you play with your wife (but be careful not to be too predictable, she'll grow tired of you), but what was shown with "Wraith" was that "he" was able to pick a number without any possible knowledge of which number might be beneficial. A deterministic algorithm would have been foiled by that task.

Question begging.

If the answers are truly random and completely magical and unpredictable like You and Trixy and the other A-Theists claim, then why is it that my Wife can predict what my answers will be so much better than You can?

How do you account for that MRC? I thought it was all supernatural? How would some one familiar with me get a better score if it is all “magic”?

Tricky

26th February 2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by wraith
Trixy, I will reply to your post, hopefully sometime tomorrow...
it's 00:06 over here and I need to round me up some zzzs

:cool:
That's cool, wraith. come back when you are rested. I hope we can continue our discussion without interruption from the PLD.

wraith

27th February 2003, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
As usual, Franko, you use a diversion and present a strawman instead of answering the question presented:

Why dont YOU just answer the question. Why can Franko's Wife predict something about Franko better than you can?

Bzzzzzt! Self-contradiction. You have more than once declared that you and Wraith are the same person. Now you say you are not. Which of those two mutually exclusive statements is a lie?

I like to switch to me "Franko" alias and watch the athiests run to the nearest shadow muhaha

but what was shown with "Wraith" was that "he" was able to pick a number without any possible knowledge of which number might be beneficial. A deterministic algorithm would have been foiled by that task.

What dont you get?
I just explained this!!

I PERCEIVED A BENEFIT to actually answer the question, and I PERCEIVED A BENEFIT to answer it properly. Notice how I didnt give an answer above 100 or below 1? I PERCEIVED A BENEFIT to "choose" my initial thought ie 33

Now according to you, if I said "think of a tangahelora" youre able to to think of a tangahelora.

According to you, if I said "think of a ship" your initial thought of a ship is evidence of free-will?

History. Do you think it was due to my "free-will" to understand english and maths?

wraith

27th February 2003, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes, here you go again with another one of your sad attempts to cover for the fact that you used free will and admitted it.

ahh
It was my MPB actually

All of those factors may have led to you choosing a number, but you still have not explained how they made you choose "33". Since you like analogies, it is kind of how TLOP work. They limit your choices, but they do not make the choice for you. The factors you mention above limited your choices to choosing a number between 1 and 100, but they did not make the choice. Sorry wraith. That dog won't hunt.

According to you, if you are brain dead, you are still able to "choose" numbers? TLOP has nothing to do with the selection right?

Ill say it again...

I perceived a benefit to "choose" my INITIAL THOUGHT.
Now if youre wondering where that initial though came from, it came from my HISOTRY.

How did I understand you?
Why did I want to listen to you?
WHy did I answer you?

If you said to me Trix, pick a number between 1 and 100 and if you "choose" correctly, Ill give you $1000, ill be thinking carefully, and not necessarily go with my initial thought[/B][/QUOTE]

wraith says: If I said to you "think of a fighter jet"
is your inital thought evidence for free-will?

Trix: Yes. I have a number of available options to think about. I choose one.

So your history had NOTHING to do with your "choice"???
It was your "choice" to perceive what a "jet" was?

No, my initial thought was something else (I'll tell you if you like). You lose your bet. Free will beats fatalism again.

Okay, since you ask nicely. I thought of a costumed super hero named TurboKid. I have no idea if such a fictional character has already been created by someone else. I just made it up in my mind because the letters looked a little bit like that. A combination of free will and imagination.

Actually, that does look like "turbokid" haha
You know Trix, that only helps my point...
Your mind tried to work out what "turbeokfld" meant, yet it looked like "turbokid" so you though what a "turbokid" looked like, probably a cartoon character (at least thats what I thought off lol)

Just suppose that you had no idea what "turbokid" meant. The word looked as if it was jumbled up. Would you still be thinking of fictional character?

Have you ever done any creative writing? Well, according to you it is impossible, since nothing anyone does is creative. In fact, the word "creative" has no meaning in a fatalistic universe. What a dreary place that would be.

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!
You obviosuly have NO idea on how Fate works...

MRC_Hans

27th February 2003, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by Franko
How are you able to read the Wraith’s mind and “know” that he did not perceive it as beneficial?

No mind-reading needed. Tricky did not give any clue to what number might be benificial (in fact, there was no benefit). And Wraith did not state that he percieved anything beneficial about 33. "For no special reason".

Could you please provide me with some examples of YOU making regular “choices” that were obviously perceived as non-beneficial by YOU?

Beside the point as the purpose of this is to show that a decision can be made without access to information about benefit, and thus outside the scope of MPB. To make (for some reason) an unbenificial choice would still be within MPB scope.

Question begging.

If the answers are truly random and completely magical and unpredictable like You and Trixy and the other A-Theists claim,

Strawman. Nobody called them "truly random and completely magical and unpredictable". The claim was that the choice was made without access to benefit data. You claim to be a skeptic; this is a truely scientific way to test for MPB. To device a situation where no info on benefit is percievable, and see if a choice can still be made. Maybe Tricky's experiment is not perfect, but if you are a true skeptic as you claim, you will try to find a better experiement.

then why is it that my Wife can predict what my answers will be so much better than You can?

Totally irrelevant.

How do you account for that MRC? I thought it was all supernatural? How would some one familiar with me get a better score if it is all “magic”?

I don't need to account for it. There is nothing supernatural or magic in my cosmology.

Hans

MRC_Hans

27th February 2003, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by wraith
Why dont YOU just answer the question. Why can Franko's Wife predict something about Franko better than you can?

Why should I answer it? What has it to do with anything? How should I know the answer? Mind-reading? --- Come on!

I like to switch to me "Franko" alias and watch the athiests run to the nearest shadow muhaha

Thats rich! First, Franko claims you're his sockpuppet. Then he claims you're not. Then you claim he's your sockpuppet. Now we're ready to believe anything you say :rolleyes:

What dont you get?
I just explained this!!

I PERCEIVED A BENEFIT to actually answer the question, and I PERCEIVED A BENEFIT to answer it properly. Notice how I didnt give an answer above 100 or below 1? I PERCEIVED A BENEFIT to "choose" my initial thought ie 33

Yep, you percieved a benefit to provide a sensible answer, but you were able to think of a number without any information on benefit. So in choosing that particular number out of the available options (1-100) you could not use MPB. But you still arrived at a number. That's the point.

Now according to you, if I said "think of a tangahelora" youre able to to think of a tangahelora.

A what?

According to you, if I said "think of a ship" your initial thought of a ship is evidence of free-will?

Irrelevant

History. Do you think it was due to my "free-will" to understand english and maths?

If I have to be perfectly honest, I doubt that you really understand either . --- On a different note, I assume somebody did their best to teach you both. How well they succeeded, was to some degree a product of your free will.

Hans

wraith

27th February 2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Whether it lands heads or tails is based on my history? That certainly is an interesting proposition. Care to back it up with evidence. I have flipped numerous coins and they seem to show a random distribution of heads and tails. I guess my history changes dramatically every second. :rolleyes:

Yeah Trix, I see coins flip themselves all the time :rolleyes:

Yes, wraith, I know your catch phrase. But you still have not shown how the outcome of the coin flip is based on the past. I can think of ways you might argue this, but you haven't used them yet, and I'm not going to give you hints. Try thinking on your own.

OH BOY
The outcome IS based on the past...
Trix, YOU FLIPPED THE COIN!

If you made a coin that was double headed, youre saying that it may land tails up.

So one analogy fails and you must dodge the question by trying another one? As I say, most things are determined by MPB, but a few aren't. I have already shot down the "traffic light" scenario. Unlike you, I get tired of repeating myself.

Youve shot down nothing...
Im still waiting to see where you run red lights at "random"

If you had control in the sense of being able to order them around, yes. But if you had control in the sense making sure they obey the rules, no. You are proposing an entity that is able to "order atoms around". You have not shown anything to support this proposition.

CAR obeys ME obeys TLOP

without a double standard, how can you be more conscious than your car and TLOP?

I have no emotional attachment to this theory, but I have to admit it is well supported.

Dam right it's well supported. Well supported with double standards and magic aka ******

By the way, you live your whole life around this belief...I bet that you would be crushed if you found out that it was false :eek:

The reverse theory (consciousness makes matter) is not only unsupported but self-contradictory.

Self contradictory?
How do you figure?

It is one possibility that cosmologists have put forth. It is not a belief, because we have no evidence for it, however it is logically consistant. That doesn't mean it's true.

I'd probably call it a timeless "state", thus avoiding the self-contradiction of using a measurement of time (period) to describe timelessness.

Yeah, consciousness existing in timeless space? I dont think so

And where does that causal consciousness come from? You are merely adding another layer of mystery because you cannot acknowledge you have no explanation for the first layer. Somewhere in your creation story, you have to have something that doesn't have a cause. For Franko, it is the Progenitor Solipsist. For me it is the universe itself. What is it for you?

The PS ofcourse...
just how can consciousness exist without time and vice-versa?

And can you answer a question directly instead of making a non-sequitur? If dream matter is energy that we interpret as matter, what is energy that we interpret as energy? Is it "dream energy"?

I see you are trying to shove the whole "dream matter" issue under the table by not discussing it. I can't blame you, for it is a silly concept. However, you could be forthright and admit that you were just making it up. Somehow, I don't expect that.

That equation is for normal matter. As far as I know, there is no equation for "dream matter". Are you then admitting that dream matter is no different from ordinary matter? Why did you propose it then? Oh, right. Because you were cornered in the syllogism thing.

And anyone who would say that rocks are the only kind of matter that exists is a loony toon. Guess what, wraith. There are many kinds of matter, all with different properties. Also, there's a little thing called "evolution". Back to beginner's science class for you.

E=mc^2
Youre perceiving energy!
There is no "hard stuff"
thats why I call it "dream matter"
It's like a dream for you, because you hate the idea of consciousness creatiing matter

It would depend on how you define consciousness. Even one-celled animals are able to sense light. Are they conscious?

They would be alive but they wouldnt be self-aware

Then open a new window for me, wrath. Give me a demonstrable example of consciousness creating matter. I have already given you one for matter making consciousness, but since you have shown a remarkably poor memory, I will summarize again.

A human zygote becomes more conscious as it adds matter to it's neurologic system.

Which brings up another interesting question. When does the graviton enter a human? At conception? Are they all clustered around, each betting on one sperm? (They must be associated with the sperm, since we know that gravitons have gender and the sperm determines the baby's gender.) Does this mean that male gametes have gravitons but female ones do not?:rolleyes:

Youre describing a correlation...that doesnt imply that matter creates consciousness....

according to you, if a rock became more massive, it may one day be conscious?

OH
and whats this "graviton entering a human" business?
YOU ARE THE GRAVITON PERCEIVING THIS REALITY/UNIVERSE

wraith says: If you were the sole consciousness in the universe, if you died, would a "tree" still exist?

Trix: First you would have to demonstrate that I was the sole consciousness in the universe. How would you do that?

or you could just answer the question :rolleyes:

Okay, we have yet more info about "dream matter". It only exists if you think matter makes consciousness. Does this mean that for Logical Deists, there is no such thing as "dream matter"? Really wraith. Just admit you made it up and you can stop tap dancing. No one will think less of you, in fact, just the opposite.

No, to the LD there is only energy

And who genererates the "Higher Power"? And who generates the power that generates the "Higher Power", ad. infinitum? It's turtles all the way down, sonny.

Time....what else? ;)