PDA

View Full Version : Regarding Franko...


Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

3rd January 2003, 06:10 PM
What was the beggining of your conversion history?


Two things were extremely relevant. One was the realisation that mathematical structures self-exist without the need for a creator, and the other was about the roots of Christianity - specifically the fact that the Christian mythology was based on earlier mythologies and that the original Christian movement was actually mystical/gnostic NOT the literal version we inherited after the conference of Nicea and the incorporation of Christianity into Roman policitics.

I should also mention that you describe me as 'converted' but Frankenstein still insists I am an 'A-theist'.

3rd January 2003, 06:17 PM
The response to "How does something come from nothing?" can be found subjetively?




YES

Franko
3rd January 2003, 07:10 PM
UCE:

Two things were extremely relevant. One was the realisation that mathematical structures self-exist without the need for a creator

Wow … did this come to you as a divine revelation, or did someone just email it to you?

So you are claiming that mathematics self-exists? Numbers are around even if there is no one to perceive them? … really? How do you know this? I thought Heiny-berg said you can’t know what is happening when you aren’t looking? (or did he say that the “magic” only happens when you aren’t looking, I always get that mixed up …)

Let me ask you this mystic-boy, if no one is around to perceive Time … does Time exist?

… In what way?

4th January 2003, 04:14 AM
Frankenstein,


So you are claiming that mathematics self-exists?


I am a mathematical Platonist, yes.


How do you know this?


The Prime numbers have to be the Prime numbers. They could not be any other Prime numbers.


I thought Heiny-berg said you can’t know what is happening when you aren’t looking?


Heisenberg was refering to the physical world.


Let me ask you this mystic-boy, if no one is around to perceive Time … does Time exist?


No, I do not think so.

Lucifuge Rofocale
4th January 2003, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Two things were extremely relevant. One was the realisation that mathematical structures self-exist without the need for a creator

Care to elaborate ? a Link would be enought.


and the other was about the roots of Christianity - specifically the fact that the Christian mythology was based on earlier mythologies and that the original Christian movement was actually mystical/gnostic NOT the literal version we inherited after the conference of Nicea and the incorporation of Christianity into Roman policitics.

It is a tautology. Christianism, being a human creation, should correlate to earlier beliefs. Anyway, how could that be reponsible of your conversion? You think that there is an ancient body of gnostic doctrine that explain the higher spheres of reality and that it is contained in the original christianism?



I should also mention that you describe me as 'converted' but Frankenstein still insists I am an 'A-theist'.

Who cares about what Frankook says ;)

Franko
4th January 2003, 01:02 PM
Elephant,

The Prime numbers have to be the Prime numbers. They could not be any other Prime numbers.

If there were no consciousnesses to perceive “Prime Numbers” in what way would Prime numbers exist?

Franko:
I thought Heiny-berg said you can’t know what is happening when you aren’t looking?

Elephant:
Heisenberg was refering to the physical world.

So you are actually claiming that a “non-physical” mental-world exist apart from Minds? In other words you are actually claiming that some non-physical mental sphere exist independent of consciousness?

And how exactly did you come to this conclusion? Where is your train of thought?

Franko:
Let me ask you this … if no one is around to perceive Time … does Time exist?

Elephant:
No, I do not think so.

You sure you want to stick with that answer? … cause in the past You had a difference stance.

If it helps, I agree. No Consciousness – No Time.

Franko
4th January 2003, 01:06 PM
Luciforgery Rochellerina: (A-Theist Toady)

Who cares about what Frankook says

Your boyfriend (the [A-Theist] Fool) sure seems to get awful riled up by me. Why ... does She come home and bitch-slap you around afterwards?

4th January 2003, 02:27 PM
Luci


Care to elaborate ? a Link would be enought.


Numbers are inevitable. The Primes cannot have been any different to what they are. They are a fixed set of fundamental relationships. The integers can be extracted by applying basic logic to the empty set. Further applications of very simple logic to the integers can provide any amount of complexity you like. None of this requires as designer because it all self-exists - it just waits to be discovered. The implications of this are massive. Last year Stephen Wolfram published a book called 'A New Kind of Science' which describes how patterns of immense complexity can emerge from cellular automata - complex enough to represent all the complexity we see in physical and biological nature. All of that is also implied to self-exists as potential and all without any need for a designer. There are only two things missing from the picture now. One, as Hawking put it, is something to breathe life into the model and make it physically existent. The other is an explanation as to how this physically existent Universe gives rise to consciousness - or what consciousness is. The rest of Reality is accounted for. But it seemed to me that something like this had to figure as part of a 'theory of everything'. It seemed to me that we hard started from nothing (literally) and got at least half way to explaining existence using only logic. At the time I was actively involved in fighting creationists, hence my involvement with the secular web. It seemed to me a rather powerful weapon in the fight against creationism to have a theory which accounted for all forms of design without a designer.

Rather later I realises that the two questions remaining could be viewed as cancelling each other out, a knot and an anti-knot on a piece of rope which could be brought together to leave a piece of string with no knots at all.



It is a tautology. Christianism, being a human creation, should correlate to earlier beliefs. Anyway, how could that be reponsible of your conversion?


You asked what the initial triggers were. There is a great deal more to it than that.


You think that there is an ancient body of gnostic doctrine that explain the higher spheres of reality and that it is contained in the original christianism?


No. It was more a realisation that Christianity as we know it today was not really what it was originally intended to be. It opened the door for me to look more deeply into the original meaning of Christian mythology and its relationship to the meanings of other religious mythologies. It was a sniff of the truths that the metaphors encode, instead of just revulsion to a long-abused metaphor by literalists and power-seekers.


Geoff.

4th January 2003, 02:37 PM
Frank,


If there were no consciousnesses to perceive “Prime Numbers” in what way would Prime numbers exist?


In the way that they would be inevitable. The set of relationships we term Prime Numbers are eternally the same. Numbers exist regardless of time or space, and must be the way they are.


So you are actually claiming that a “non-physical” mental-world exist apart from Minds? In other words you are actually claiming that some non-physical mental sphere exist independent of consciousness?


No.... :confused:

I am claiming that numbers exist independent of consciousness. Apart from that I don't really understand why you think I implied what you have written. I might be...I can't grasp exactly what you mean. How can you have a mental sphere independent of consciousness?

scribble
4th January 2003, 02:38 PM
Numbers are inevitable. The Primes cannot have been any different to what they are. They are a fixed set of fundamental relationships. The integers can be extracted by applying basic logic to the empty set. Further applications of very simple logic to the integers can provide any amount of complexity you like. None of this requires as designer because it all self-exists - it just waits to be discovered. The implications of this are massive. Last year Stephen Wolfram published a book called 'A New Kind of Science' which describes how patterns of immense complexity can emerge from cellular automata - complex enough to represent all the complexity we see in physical and biological nature. All of that is also implied to self-exists as potential and all without any need for a designer. There are only two things missing from the picture now. One, as Hawking put it, is something to breathe life into the model and make it physically existent. The other is an explanation as to how this physically existent Universe gives rise to consciousness - or what consciousness is. The rest of Reality is accounted for. But it seemed to me that something like this had to figure as part of a 'theory of everything'. It seemed to me that we hard started from nothing (literally) and got at least half way to explaining existence using only logic. At the time I was actively involved in fighting creationists, hence my involvement with the secular web. It seemed to me a rather powerful weapon in the fight against creationism to have a theory which accounted for all forms of design without a designer.


The math doesn't matter

4th January 2003, 02:42 PM
The math doesn't matter


No, at the end of the day all that matters is that people treat other people with love and respect.

But if, as I once did, you happen to have an agenda which involves trying to castrate creationism, then rival theories matter a great deal.

:)

hammegk
4th January 2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
...How can you have a mental sphere independent of consciousness?

Do you by chance suggest "consciousness" *is* "what-exists"?

4th January 2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by hammegk


Do you by chance suggest "consciousness" *is* "what-exists"?

I have been heading in that general direction with recent posts. If "consciousness" *is* "what-exists" then the two remaining questions nullify each other. You no longer have to explain what breathed life into the mathematical model and made it a physical world, and you no longer have to explain how consciousness arises from this physical world. Our two questions seem to have been reduced to one i.e. What is the source of the conciousness?

scribble
4th January 2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I have been heading in that general direction with recent posts. If "consciousness" *is* "what-exists" then the two remaining questions nullify each other. You no longer have to explain what breathed life into the mathematical model and made it a physical world, and you no longer have to explain how consciousness arises from this physical world. Our two questions seem to have been reduced to one i.e. What is the source of the conciousness?

The answer to your question "What is the source of consciousness" is quite simple for materialists.

What's your answer?

-Chris

4th January 2003, 03:21 PM
The answer to your question "What is the source of consciousness" is quite simple for materialists.


As is the answer to the question "What is the source of the physical world" for Biblical Literalists.


What's your answer?


To the question 'What is the source of this consciousness?"

Well, I have two options :

1) The consciousness has multiple sources.
2) The consciousness has only one source.

How do I decide which?

Well, for a start, (2) is more parsimonious. An addition to this I can make an observation that the mystical traditions which exist in so many different religions and philosophies are united in agreeing with (2) and disagreeing with (1). Indeed the the only philosophical position which insists on (1) is materialism, which must do because it is a logical neccesity following on from the starting tenets of materialism. But since at this point in the logical thought process we have already bypassed the need for materialism, we are not bound by the same neccessity.

So my answer is that consciousness has only one source. This then opens an entirely new arena of philosophical questions : We must now think about the relationship between individuality and unity, which leads us to questions about ethics and human rights.

thaiboxerken
4th January 2003, 03:23 PM
I only hope Franko is locked up, committed into a psychiatric ward before he harms another person.... if he hasn't already. Has anyone seen the movie "Frailty"?

hammegk
4th January 2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by scribble


The answer to your question "What is the source of consciousness" is quite simple for materialists.

-Chris

LOL. Yeah, the answer is "We don't know, but have faith in materialism-in-the-gaps".

scribble
4th January 2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
As is the answer to the question "What is the source of the physical world" for Biblical Literalists.

As is any answer in any framework designed to provide answers. That was a good answer, Geoff. I'm glad that you seem to have progressed as a debator since I addressed you last.

To the question 'What is the source of this consciousness?"

To the question, but when will we arrive? You didn't answer "What is the source," you answered, "How many sources are there," which to me is an uninteresting question in itself.

Well, I have two options :

1) The consciousness has multiple sources.
2) The consciousness has only one source.

This dichotomy isn't directly relevant to my question. You could pick any dichotomy to present and ask how it relates to consciousness and give an answer and you still have not told me the source of consciousness.

Well, for a start, (2) is more parsimonious.

By definition. So?

An addition to this I can make an observation that the mystical traditions which exist in so many different religions and philosophies are united in agreeing with (2) and disagreeing with (1). Indeed the the only philosophical position which insists on (1) is materialism, which must do because it is a logical neccesity following on from the starting tenets of materialism.

I *just* read another post by you in which you claimed that the number of people holding a belief is no argument for that belief. Don't make me go find it and quote it here. I've read a lot of threads in the last few hours. :P

But since at this point in the logical thought process we have already bypassed the need for materialism, we are not bound by the same neccessity.

You are pointing out here that I have entered into an argument in which we examine the nature of reality, thus assuming materialism would be defeating the purpose of the discussion.

I am aware of that.

So my answer is that consciousness has only one source.

Okay, but that's you answering yourself. I'm not interested in that. Perhaps your answer to my question would lead me to find interest in this answer.

This then opens an entirely new arena of philosophical questions : We must now think about the relationship between individuality and unity, which leads us to questions about ethics and human rights. [/B]

Well, yes. If you assume that we are literally "all connected," then you have a lot of fascinating questions to ask and answer. But I'm not here to assume. I'm here to find Truth.

Yes, I know some people think that's not possible. Let me have my folly.

-Chris

scribble
4th January 2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by hammegk
LOL. Yeah, the answer is "We don't know, but have faith in materialism-in-the-gaps".

Not at all, but that comment did make me chuckle, and serves as a good reminder that we must be careful to seek answers, and not assume them.

-Chris

4th January 2003, 04:09 PM
Okay, but that's you answering yourself.


I was explaining the logical thought process I followed in order to arrive at my answer to your question.


I'm not interested in that.


Well, I think that understanding the set of logical steps one follows to arrive at an answer is essential if one is going to understand the answer. Otherwise any truth you find must be taken on faith.


Perhaps your answer to my question would lead me to find interest in this answer.


Well, we now arrive at the other half of my original answer to Luci regarding the triggers of my change in thought. The mystical traditions underlying not only early Christianity but many other religious and philosphical schools are directly concerned with providing answers to the question 'What is the source of consciousness'. Those traditions are based upon subjective reflection i.e. the inner exploration of consciousness. So my reply to you is that the answer is likely be found within ones own consciousness, and the search is likely to be assisted by taking some time to study the answers provided by the many different schools of philosophy that posit a single source of consciousness. I am loathe to provide a short but inadequate answer. It is your search for truth, not mine. I am supplying only a signpost. It is for you to decide whether or not that signpost is of any use to you.

:)


Well, yes. If you assume that we are literally "all connected," then you have a lot of fascinating questions to ask and answer. But I'm not here to assume. I'm here to find Truth.


The 'all connected' wasn't an assumption. It was tentative conclusion based upon parsimony in the face of an either/or question and upon the testimony of nearly all individuals who have attempted to study consciousness subjectively. The alternative to this 'assumption' would be that consciousness is "not all connected", and this leaves me with a need to explain how many different consciousnesses with "not connected" sources manage to end up experiencing a rather obviously "all connected" consensus reality. So I have a choice between an apparently dead-end stalemate or "a lot of fascinating questions to ask and answer." Which 'assumption' do you think is most likely to shed further light on this Truth you seek?

thaiboxerken
4th January 2003, 06:12 PM
The 'all connected' wasn't an assumption. It was tentative conclusion based upon parsimony in the face of an either/or question and upon the testimony of nearly all individuals who have attempted to study consciousness subjectively. The alternative to this 'assumption' would be that consciousness is "not all connected", and this leaves me with a need to explain how many different consciousnesses with "not connected" sources manage to end up experiencing a rather obviously "all connected" consensus reality.

No, it is more likely that consciousness is a product of the brain. It's also easy to see that this "all connected" consensus reality is merely a product of social teaching and cultures. There is no evidence of god. There is no evidence that all of our consciousness is connected. You are merely building conclusions off of some strange religious teachings.

Franko
4th January 2003, 07:19 PM
Mobius: (Scribble)
I *just* read another post by you in which you claimed that the number of people holding a belief is no argument for that belief. Don't make me go find it and quote it here. I've read a lot of threads in the last few hours. :P

Are you accusing the Elephant of a double standard?

His actions inconsistent with his stated beliefs???

Okay, but that's you answering yourself. I'm not interested in that. Perhaps your answer to my question would lead me to find interest in this answer.

You are a Graviton, Mobius.

Let me ask you a question ... in what way do you exist when YOU do not perceive Time?

Zombified
4th January 2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
The 'all connected' wasn't an assumption. It was tentative conclusion based upon parsimony in the face of an either/or question and upon the testimony of nearly all individuals who have attempted to study consciousness subjectively. The alternative to this 'assumption' would be that consciousness is "not all connected", and this leaves me with a need to explain how many different consciousnesses with "not connected" sources manage to end up experiencing a rather obviously "all connected" consensus reality. So I have a choice between an apparently dead-end stalemate or "a lot of fascinating questions to ask and answer." Which 'assumption' do you think is most likely to shed further light on this Truth you seek?
I suggest the parsimonious solution is to drop the assumption that reality is a matter of consensus. No assumption of connectedness is required if there is no opportunity to percieve reality differently from anyone else.

Or, if you prefer, that the connection between consciousnesses is simply that they exist in the same real world.

Franko
4th January 2003, 07:51 PM
Zombie,

I suggest the parsimonious solution is to drop the assumption that reality is a matter of consensus.

Obviously reality is NOT decided by majority vote.

That is like having a network where every PC is hardwired (direct connect) to every other one.

No assumption of connectedness is required if there is no opportunity to percieve reality differently from anyone else.

The ability to perceive reality differently from everyone else is called Relativity.

Or, if you prefer, that the connection between consciousnesses is simply that they exist in the same real world.

Here is how it works, imagine a whole bunch of networked PC’s – you, me, everybody else we see around (gestures). Okay, at the top you have the server (God). We are all connected to Her, and She relays information between each of us. There is no voting on reality, the Server decides.

scribble
4th January 2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I was explaining the logical thought process I followed in order to arrive at my answer to your question.

An answer that's still pending, I see.

Well, I think that understanding the set of logical steps one follows to arrive at an answer is essential if one is going to understand the answer. Otherwise any truth you find must be taken on faith.

Yes, but typically you present the answer first. Then if it's not immediately obvious to me how you got there, we can start a dialogue on the hows and whys.

Well, we now arrive at the other half of my original answer to Luci regarding the triggers of my change in thought. The mystical traditions underlying not only early Christianity but many other religious and philosphical schools are directly concerned with providing answers to the question 'What is the source of consciousness'. Those traditions are based upon subjective reflection i.e. the inner exploration of consciousness.


I don't particularly care how you changed; I'm still looking for the answer.

So my reply to you is that the answer is likely be found within ones own consciousness, and the search is likely to be assisted by taking some time to study the answers provided by the many different schools of philosophy that posit a single source of consciousness.

So you find the answers by searching, you say. Except, Geoff, I did search, I tried all kinds of new-agey single-source philosophies, introspection, meditation, you name it, I've been there. I did not find answers there. YOu claim you did. Again, I'm in the position of begging you for an answer and not getting it. Instead you give me, "the answer is out there." Well, I looked out there, I didn't see it. I'm begging you to tell us what you found that the rest of us missed.

I am loathe to provide a short but inadequate answer.

So you'll go for no answer at all? Thanks. :P

It is your search for truth, not mine. I am supplying only a signpost. It is for you to decide whether or not that signpost is of any use to you.

It ain't. BEcause as I said, I just came from the direction that signpost was pointing, and there wasn't any Truth at the end of the road.

I'm sure you're going to say I didn't walk down the road far enough. That's a "No-True-Scotsman" move. Trust me, I put in the hours. I found no answer that was viable. If you have found one, I ask you -- again -- to share it.

I've been begging you for answers like this for over a year now. It gets pretty frustrating.

The 'all connected' wasn't an assumption. It was tentative conclusion based upon parsimony in the face of an either/or question and upon the testimony of nearly all individuals who have attempted to study consciousness subjectively. The alternative to this 'assumption' would be that consciousness is "not all connected", and this leaves me with a need to explain how many different consciousnesses with "not connected" sources manage to end up experiencing a rather obviously "all connected" consensus reality.

If you are using the word "Parsimony" to mean "the law of parsimony," as in Ocham's Razor, drop it. YOur argument is not supported by it. If you do not mean Ocham's Razor, then I ask you: What has parsimony got to do with it? That's hardly an indicator of what is reality.

Your "need to explain how many individuals can experience the same reality" is bordering on nonsense. Perhaps it would make more sense to me if you would answer my initial question: what is consciousness? We are all part of the same reality, thus it makes perfect sense to assume we would all experience it similarly.

So I have a choice between an apparently dead-end stalemate or "a lot of fascinating questions to ask and answer." Which 'assumption' do you think is most likely to shed further light on this Truth you seek? [/B]

Hey, I have to admit, I'm a bit lost. What's the dead-end? And how does a philosophy being interesting (ie leading to lots of questions and answers) have a bearing on it's applicability to reality?

And how is this getting me any closer to an answer to "what is consciousness?"

Must I beg -- again?

-Chris

PixyMisa
4th January 2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
To the question 'What is the source of this consciousness?"

Well, I have two options :

1) The consciousness has multiple sources.
2) The consciousness has only one source.

How do I decide which?

Well, for a start, (2) is more parsimonious. An addition to this I can make an observation that the mystical traditions which exist in so many different religions and philosophies are united in agreeing with (2) and disagreeing with (1). Indeed the the only philosophical position which insists on (1) is materialism, which must do because it is a logical neccesity following on from the starting tenets of materialism.
What strange version of materialism is this?

Materialism says the material world is real; that there is no need for a non-material explanation for any phenomenon. So consciousness arises from the material world. One source. There is and can be no other source in the materialist philosphy.

There are, however, multiple consciousnesses. And given that materialism says that the material world is real, we have no problem with our observations of individuals perceiving the same reality.

You only see a problem with materialism here because you are trying to use it to explain something which makes no sense in a materialist philosophy.

thaiboxerken
5th January 2003, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by Franko

Let me ask you a question ... in what way do you exist when YOU do not perceive Time?

When asleep.

thaiboxerken
5th January 2003, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by Franko
Zombie,
Obviously reality is NOT decided by majority vote.

This is true


The ability to perceive reality differently from everyone else is called Relativity.

This is false, the theory of Relatively has been greatly twisted in meaning by you.


Here is how it works, imagine a whole bunch of networked PC’s – you, me, everybody else we see around (gestures). Okay, at the top you have the server (God). We are all connected to Her, and She relays information between each of us. There is no voting on reality, the Server decides.

This is just another dumb statement by the garbage man.

5th January 2003, 04:05 AM
Thaiboxerken said :


No, it is more likely that consciousness is a product of the brain. It's also easy to see that this "all connected" consensus reality is merely a product of social teaching and cultures. There is no evidence of god. There is no evidence that all of our consciousness is connected. You are merely building conclusions off of some strange religious teachings.


:confused:

I guess from this reply you didn't read the previous few posts. I described a set of logical steps - there was no reference to any religious teaching, and no mention of God. I have summarised below the logical steps I followed and why I ended up at the conclusion I ended up at.


Zombified :


Or, if you prefer, that the connection between consciousnesses is simply that they exist in the same real world.


I have to give you the same reply as Ken. It's not much use just reading the post you responded to - I had already explained why your suggestion does not work having followed the logic I followed.


Here is a summary :

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luci :


What was the beggining of your conversion history?


UE :

Two things were extremely relevant. One was the realisation that mathematical structures self-exist without the need for a creator


Luci :


Care to elaborate ?


UE :


Numbers are inevitable. The Primes cannot have been any different to what they are. They are a fixed set of fundamental relationships. The integers can be extracted by applying basic logic to the empty set. Further applications of very simple logic to the integers can provide any amount of complexity you like. None of this requires as designer because it all self-exists - it just waits to be discovered. The implications of this are massive. Last year Stephen Wolfram published a book called 'A New Kind of Science' which describes how patterns of immense complexity can emerge from cellular automata - complex enough to represent all the complexity we see in physical and biological nature. All of that is also implied to self-exists as potential and all without any need for a designer. There are only two things missing from the picture now. One, as Hawking put it, is something to breathe life into the model and make it physically existent. The other is an explanation as to how this physically existent Universe gives rise to consciousness - or what consciousness is. The rest of Reality is accounted for. But it seemed to me that something like this had to figure as part of a 'theory of everything'. It seemed to me that we hard started from nothing (literally) and got at least half way to explaining existence using only logic. At the time I was actively involved in fighting creationists, hence my involvement with the secular web. It seemed to me a rather powerful weapon in the fight against creationism to have a theory which accounted for all forms of design without a designer.

Rather later I realised that the two questions remaining could be viewed as cancelling each other out, a knot and an anti-knot on a piece of rope which could be brought together to leave a piece of string with no knots at all.


Hammegk :


Do you by chance suggest "consciousness" *is* "what-exists"?


UE :

I have been heading in that general direction with recent posts. If "consciousness" *is* "what-exists" then the two remaining questions nullify each other. You no longer have to explain what breathed life into the mathematical model and made it a physical world, and you no longer have to explain how consciousness arises from this physical world. Our two questions seem to have been reduced to one i.e. What is the source of the conciousness?

I have two options :

1) The consciousness has multiple sources.
2) The consciousness has only one source.

How do I decide which?

Well, for a start, (2) is more parsimonious. An addition to this I can make an observation that the mystical traditions which exist in so many different religions and philosophies are united in agreeing with (2) and disagreeing with (1). Indeed the the only philosophical position which insists on (1) is materialism, which must do because it is a logical neccesity following on from the starting tenets of materialism. But since at this point in the logical thought process we have already bypassed the need for materialism, we are not bound by the same neccessity.



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


Just to make it even clearer : The entire unspoken sub-text to Wolframs book is that the future of science is to regard the physical world as an iterative algorithm which self-exists as part of mathematics. Wolfram can hardly be said to be a religious nut - the man openly even despises philosophy (his mother was an Oxford philosophy professor). So all I am doing is going from "let us regard the physical world as a simple iterative algorithm" to "we have no need to believe the physical world is anything more than a simple iterative algorithm". (And why should we regard it as anything more? We do not experience a physical world - we experience a mental representation of a physical world - as every post-Kantian philosopher and anyone who has ever taken acid can confirm to you). And I do this because there seem to be two clear benefits to doing so : We negate the need to explain the origin of a physically existing Universe and we simultaneously bypass the requirement to solve Chalmers 'Hard Problem Conciousness'. The only 'problem' with this is that it opens the door to challenges to belief systems dependent on materialism. Personally, I do not find this problematic because I feel no attachment to any specific belief system - I prefer unfettered logic. I see no reason to feel threatened by mysticism. If other people do, then that is their business and I have absolutely no intention of convincing them otherwise. My only interest is in explaining why my own position is dependent purely on logic, and not on a belief system or any form of religious or philosophical dogma. I politely ask that people actually examine my logic, rather than simply accuse me of following an [unspecified] religious system. Right now I am simultaneiusly being accused by Frankenstein of being an atheist and by Ken of trying to provide evidence for the existence of God. The Truth is I have offered no opinion on the existence of God, and the position I have outlined can be said to underlie both theistic and atheistic forms of mysticism. My stated position is NEUTRAL regarding the existence of God. Chris asked what the source of consciousness is. As an atheist I could answer 'The Void'. As a theist I could answer 'God'. I have provided neither answer, and I have no intention of being drawn on the issue.



Scribble :


Must I beg -- again?


Chris - you are claiming that you have already "investigated" mysticism. If this is true, then you should already know the answer to the most central question it addresses. If it wasn't to your liking, then what makes you think it would be any more to your liking if I repeated it to you here?

My answer to you is that there is a single source of all consciousness and that more can be learned by personal investigation. That *IS* the answer. It is no use 'begging' for a more specific one, because a more specific one is not appropriate. It is neccesarily a personal choice and personal journey if you want to take it any further, or not as the case may be.


PixyMisa :


What strange version of materialism is this?

Materialism says the material world is real; that there is no need for a non-material explanation for any phenomenon. So consciousness arises from the material world. One source. There is and can be no other source in the materialist philosphy.


As with Ken and Zombie, it might clarify if you read the summary above. Your statement indicates you didn't follow the logical steps I followed. Each individual brain is an individual source of a seperated consciousness under any form of materialism.


There are, however, multiple consciousnesses. And given that materialism says that the material world is real, we have no problem with our observations of individuals perceiving the same reality.


Agreed - but I refer you again to my summary.


You only see a problem with materialism here because you are trying to use it to explain something which makes no sense in a materialist philosophy.


I am not motivated by a perceived problem with materialism. Please read the summary - specifically the piece about the 'knot' and 'anti-knot', how I got there and why I believe they must cancel each other out.

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

NOTE TO ALL :

I am not on a misson to 'convert' anyone. I was responding to Luci and Hammegk who asked me about how and why I moved beyond purely scientific thinking. I am happy to explain my logic and provide supporting evidence where neccesary. But endless repetitions are not my style - you don't want another Franko. I have repeated my logic once only because various people may not have read the lead-in posts to the one about unified consciousness. You must understand the mathematical platonism before you can follow the rest. And I might add that mathematical platonism is not "some strange religious teaching".

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Just to make it even clearer : The entire unspoken sub-text to Wolframs book is that the future of science is to regard the physical world as an iterative algorithm which self-exists as part of mathematics.
Erk.

Does Wolfram actually say that the network of cellular automata self-exisists? You say that this is an "unspoken subtext". Is there any reason to believe that it self-exists the way mathematics does?

And I do this because there seem to be two clear benefits to doing so : We negate the need to explain the origin of a physically existing Universe and we simultaneously bypass the requirement to solve Chalmers 'Hard Problem Conciousness'.
Actually, we do neither.

You still need to explain how this network of cellular automata arose - or why we can reasonably assume it self-exists, and how its computations give rise to consciousness. You've simply moved the questions, not answered them.
The only 'problem' with this is that it opens the door to challenges to belief systems dependent on materialism.
How?
Personally, I do not find this problematic because I feel no attachment to any specific belief system - I prefer unfettered logic.
Logic must be fettered by fact or it will lead everywhere and nowhere - and you will be unable to tell which is which.
My answer to you is that there is a single source of all consciousness and that more can be learned by personal investigation. That *IS* the answer. It is no use 'begging' for a more specific one, because a more specific one is not appropriate. It is neccesarily a personal choice and personal journey if you want to take it any further, or not as the case may be.
But materialism also gives a single source of all consciousness and doesn't require these bizarre leaps of faith.

As with Ken and Zombie, it might clarify if you read the summary above. Your statement indicates you didn't follow the logical steps I followed.
Um... Nope.

I followed the part about mathematics self-existing. Good stuff. Then you listed two hard problems, and then you claimed that if you assume something - unspecified - that the two problems cancelled out.

Each individual brain is an individual source of a seperated consciousness under any form of materialism.
Well, yeah.
Agreed - but I refer you again to my summary.
I've read it twice now.

And it still doesn't make sense.

You assumed something that solved all your philosphical problems. Well, that's nice. We materialists will get on with solving the real problems.

You must understand the mathematical platonism before you can follow the rest. And I might add that mathematical platonism is not "some strange religious teaching".
Well, I can agree with this last bit, anyway.

Oh, yeah: mysticism n. Vague, groundless speculation.

5th January 2003, 06:22 AM
Pixy :


Erk.


That noise usually accompanies my cat being sick. :D


Does Wolfram actually say that the network of cellular automata self-exisists?


Not in so many words - that would be a philosophical statement and this is a book about the future of science.


You say that this is an "unspoken subtext". Is there any reason to believe that it self-exists the way mathematics does?


If you accept the self-existence of the integers then it follows that mathematical structures dependent only on those integers (or similar basic logic applied to them) also self-exist, in precisely the same way. They are all just 'eternal' and unchanging information structures.

The whole book is dedicated to showing how these information structures can be responsible for all the complexity we see in the physical world.

It is for the reader to put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I do this because there seem to be two clear benefits to doing so : We negate the need to explain the origin of a physically existing Universe and we simultaneously bypass the requirement to solve Chalmers 'Hard Problem Conciousness'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Actually, we do neither.

You still need to explain how this network of cellular automata arose - or why we can reasonably assume it self-exists, and how its computations give rise to consciousness. You've simply moved the questions, not answered them.


It did not need to 'arise'. It is self-exists dependent only on applying logic to zero (or the empty set). 'arise' implies a time dimension - you have to have a 'before arising' and an 'after arising'. Mathematical structures are not time-dependent.

"how its computations give rise to consciousness."

I am not saying that the computations give rise to consciousness. I am saying the exact reverse. I am saying that consciousness + computations give rise to the experience of a physical world. The computations merely provide the complexity - the entire content of the physical Universe but not the experience of it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only 'problem' with this is that it opens the door to challenges to belief systems dependent on materialism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How?


If you are accustomed to thinking that *what exists* is primarily matter, and that consciousness is just a rather hard-to-explain side-effect then a whole bunch of commonly held non-scientific beliefs are necesarily pure bunk because there is no conceivable mechanism for direct consciousness-consciousness communication. Under the system I have outlined no such certainty exists - things like telepathy are suddenly theoretically possible. Unfortunately this often leads materialists to leap to the conclusion that in positing this explanation for existence I have been motivated by a desire to justify telepathy (or 'some wierd religious dogma'), when in actual fact my motivation was to find a scientifically valid theory-of-everything and to deflect the challenge of creationists and proponents of 'intelligent design' (including cosmic design). When I arrived at these conclusions I was the science and skepticism moderator at www.infidels.org


Logic must be fettered by fact or it will lead everywhere and nowhere - and you will be unable to tell which is which.


Perhaps Everywhere and Nowhere are ultimately the same place. But that is another story.

:)


But materialism also gives a single source of all consciousness and doesn't require these bizarre leaps of faith.


Materialism entails the leap of faith that 'somehow' consciousness 'arises' from matter, regardless of the fact that materialism is no closer to providing a substantial answer to that question than it was 400 years ago, and regardless of the fact that it has been under continual attack for this failure ever since Descartes.

By contrast, where specifically is my leap of faith?


I followed the part about mathematics self-existing. Good stuff. Then you listed two hard problems, and then you claimed that if you assume something - unspecified - that the two problems cancelled out.


Hammegk specified the 'assumption'. The 'assumption', as he put it, was that "*consciousness* *IS* *what exists*". And as far as direct evidence is concerned, this isn't an assumption at all. What you have experienced since you arrived in this world *is* *consciousness*. This is pure Kantianism. Ontology really stopped after Kant pointed out the difference between "The world as it is - the thing in itself" and "The world as we percieve it". All we can ever know is "the world as we percieve it" i.e. consciousness. "The world as it really is" we cannot know. All I am saying is that we might just as well consider "The world as it really is" to be a self-existing mathematical structure, and Stephen Wolfram appears to have written an entire book declaring that this very assumption is the future of science!

Has that made clearer how the problems cancel out?

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
That noise usually accompanies my cat being sick. :D
Yep. Pixies do this too when we choke on a philoshophical viewpoint.

Not in so many words - that would be a philosophical statement and this is a book about the future of science.
OK. Just wanted to clarify this.

If you accept the self-existence of the integers then it follows that mathematical structures dependent only on those integers (or similar basic logic applied to them) also self-exist, in precisely the same way. They are all just 'eternal' and unchanging information structures.
Yes. I agree with this.

The whole book is dedicated to showing how these information structures can be responsible for all the complexity we see in the physical world.

It is for the reader to put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4.
OK. It looks like I need to read the book. But in the meantime, I will note that integers do not do anything. They are, but they do not do. What you are suggesting is fundamentally different.

It did not need to 'arise'. It is self-exists dependent only on applying logic to zero (or the empty set). 'arise' implies a time dimension - you have to have a 'before arising' and an 'after arising'. Mathematical structures are not time-dependent.
Yes; what I do not see is how Wolfram's cellular automata can be said to self-exist the way mathematics does. It looks to me to be precisely the same nature of claim as the pre-existence of a creator.

"how its computations give rise to consciousness."

I am not saying that the computations give rise to consciousness. I am saying the exact reverse. I am saying that consciousness + computations give rise to the experience of a physical world. The computations merely provide the complexity - the entire content of the physical Universe but not the experience of it.
OK. That is very different. But now you are assuming the pre-existence of consciousness.

If you are accustomed to thinking that *what exists* is primarily matter, and that consciousness is just a rather hard-to-explain side-effect then a whole bunch of commonly held non-scientific beliefs are necesarily pure bunk because there is no conceivable mechanism for direct consciousness-consciousness communication.
Correct; but this is only part of the reason why we think that these beliefs are bunk.
Under the system I have outlined no such certainty exists - things like telepathy are suddenly theoretically possible.
Well, I'm not sure that there is anything that isn't possible in such a universe.

The other problem I see here, which is also the other reason scientists believe claims of such things as telepathy are pure bunk, is this:

These things do not happen.


Unfortunately this often leads materialists to leap to the conclusion that in positing this explanation for existence I have been motivated by a desire to justify telepathy (or 'some wierd religious dogma')
You seem to me to simply be trying to find a minimal philosophy that answers a specific set of questions.
when in actual fact my motivation was to find a scientifically valid
I'd still question the scientific validity of both your process and conclusion.
theory-of-everything and to deflect the challenge of creationists and proponents of 'intelligent design' (including cosmic design). When I arrived at these conclusions I was the science and skepticism moderator at www.infidels.org
Why bother?

Creationists are clearly wrong; science demonstrates this amply, and bringing philosophical waffle into the argument will hurt rather than help matters.

The ID people are demonstrably wrong when they disagree with science, right when they agree with it, and irrelevant otherwise.

Your philosophy is neither necessary nor useful in this debate.

Perhaps Everywhere and Nowhere are ultimately the same place. But that is another story.

Erk.

Materialism entails the leap of faith that 'somehow' consciousness 'arises' from matter
Well, the evidence that it does so is pretty conclusive. What we don't have yet is the good old OPC - operational theory of consciousness.

regardless of the fact that materialism is no closer to providing a substantial answer to that question than it was 400 years ago
No true at all. We are far closer now than we were then. Perhaps not your philosophers, who do nothing useful in any case, but science has made immense progress.

Four hundred years ago we had no idea how the brain is made up, much less how it perceives things or processes information. Now we do.
and regardless of the fact that it has been under continual attack for this failure ever since Descartes.
Philosphy has always attacked science for not answering philosophical questions. Science has always considered philosophy to be largely irrelevant. Science is demonstrably winning the game by a factor of several hundred points to one.

By contrast, where specifically is my leap of faith?
If I understand you correctly, the pre-existing consciousness is the key one.
What you have experienced since you arrived in this world *is* *consciousness*. [snip] All we can ever know is "the world as we percieve it" i.e. consciousness. "The world as it really is" we cannot know. All I am saying is that we might just as well consider "The world as it really is" to be a self-existing mathematical structure, and Stephen Wolfram appears to have written an entire book declaring that this very assumption is the future of science!
Ignoring Wolfram for the moment here, there remains the fact that the world behaves as though it does exist. This is the primary problem with non-materialist philopshies. The world acts as though it exists. Materialism assumes that the world follows rules. We test this, and it turns out to be correct. When we study quantum mechanics, it turns out that the rules are odd, but rules there are, understandable by us, and they do not vary.

Has that made clearer how the problems cancel out?
A bit. Now I merely think you are assuming what you set out to answer.

MRC_Hans
5th January 2003, 08:16 AM
PixyMisa:The world acts as though it exists. Materialism assumes that the world follows rules. We test this, and it turns out to be correct. Gawd, I love you! (Dont get me wrong, I'm happily married and live on the other side of the planet):cool:

Hans

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 08:20 AM
Hans, I'll take that platonically :)

Stimpson J. Cat
5th January 2003, 08:42 AM
You know, I have always considered this kind of mathematical Platonism to be very intriguing. When you consider that the scientific model of reality is based on the idea that reality is isomorphic to a logical framework, it is not such a big conceptual leap to consider that reality might be a logical framework.

More precisely, one could imagine that the only difference between the reality we perceive, and any of the other abstract possible realities that are logically self-consistent, is the fact that the person perceiving it happens to be a part of this particular logical framework, and not the others. Accounting for the fact that these other possible realities aren't observable is no problem, because although they are logically self-consistent, they are not logically consistent with each other. In other words, any possible reality is a set of logically self-consistent events, and our reality is just the one that includes us.

This certainly addresses a lot of those nasty philosophical issues, like why there is something instead of nothing, the fine-tuning problem, and even Quantum indeterminacy, since the Many Worlds interpretation of QM is practically built in. It even has the nice advantage of being both logically self-consistent, and well-defined, which almost no other Metaphysical Philosophy can claim.

Unfortunately, there is still one big problem with it. It is unfalsifiable. It does not make any testable predictions. There is no observation we could possibly make that would prove it false. This means that there cannot possibly be any logical reason to believe that it is true. Sure, there may be plenty of illogical, but nevertheless compelling, reasons to believe it is true, such as intuition, aesthetics, and even wishful thinking, but no logical reason.

What's more, attempting to argue that various subjective experiences could be relied on as logical reasons to believe, just undermines the position, and renders it incoherent. The hypothesis that personal experiences for which subjective bias has not been controlled, can yield reliable knowledge about reality, is easily falsified. The only way to accept such subjective evidence as valid, is to reject the hypothesis that you can draw logical conclusions from your observations, which is a premise of the very idea of there being such a thing as evidence.

It's a nifty idea to play around with, and an excellent model to think about in an attempt to teach yourself not to rely on intuitive notions about what is "real" and what is not. But that it is all it will ever be.

Dr. Stupid

5th January 2003, 09:22 AM
Pixy :


But in the meantime, I will note that integers do not do anything.
They are, but they do not do. What you are suggesting is fundamentally different.


Is it? I am not saying that the integers, or the automata are doing anything. Consciousness/Will is doing the doing. The precise nature of the doing depends on how you interpret QM. The simplest example being Everett-Wheeler MWI where all outcomes occur - the Universe then simply becomes all possibilities within the information structure and your life is one of a vast number of paths through it. This model removes all trace of Free Will, and I reject it, but it is a useful way of explaining what I mean.


what I do not see is how Wolfram's cellular automata can be said to self-exist the way mathematics does. It looks to me to be precisely the same nature of claim as the pre-existence of a creator.


Why? What are cellular automata and fractals but an extra layer of complexity on top of the integers? The integers logically precede a mandelbrot set, not temporally. Does a mandelbrot set require a creator? If not, then why does a cellular automaton?


But now you are assuming the pre-existence of consciousness.


Well, I haven't exactly assumed it. I have followed a logical precession of steps starting from the empty set (or literally nothing), and explained everything but the existence of consciousness itself. The content of consciousness has been explained - all that is missing is the thing which is common to all consciousness - the beingness - the experience itself. Materialism suffers exactly the same problem - it is this same beingness aspect of consciousness that Chalmers calls 'The Hard Problem' - but materialism additionally suffers from the problem of having very little hope of ever explaining how something comes from nothing.


Correct; but this is only part of the reason why we think that these beliefs are bunk.


It is a very big part. It is the founding part.


I am not sure that there is anything that isn't possible in such a universe.


Things which are internally illogical are not possible.


The other problem I see here, which is also the other reason scientists believe claims of such things as telepathy are pure bunk, is this:

These things do not happen.


They do not happen to you.

But I have no interest in pursuing this line of debate. You have already confirmed what I was trying to demonstrate : You are comitted to being absolutely certain that paranormal phenomena do not exist. Enough said.


You seem to me to simply be trying to find a minimal philosophy that answers a specific set of questions.


They are pretty important questions, and finding the minimal philosophy may well be the only logical route forward. After 400 years of scientific failure to find a solution to the mind-body problem perhaps the time has come to take a step back and review the philosophical assumptions that science operates within?


I'd still question the scientific validity of both your process and conclusion.


Questioning is good.


Why bother?

Creationists are clearly wrong


And they clearly haven't gone away either. The argument from cosmic design isn't so easy to dismiss. Who engineered the cosmos?

(rhetorical - I don't want to go there either).


Erk.


Rocket? You been eating my cacti again? :D


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Materialism entails the leap of faith that 'somehow' consciousness 'arises' from matter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, the evidence that it does so is pretty conclusive.


Er...how shall I put this.....

Any time you feel like replying to that PM I'm interested in your answer.


No true at all. We are far closer now than we were then. Perhaps not your philosophers, who do nothing useful in any case, but science has made immense progress.


Science has explained all sorts of correlations between brain and mind. Regarding the actual existence of a subjective realm at all made no progress.


Science has always considered philosophy to be largely irrelevant.


True. The result is a large number of philosophically-backward scientists who don't even know who Emmanuel Kant was or what he proved with pure logic. The very idea of a scientist arguing about the relationship between brain and mind without even a basic understanding of what Kant demonstrated about the nature of reality is utterly absurd.


Ignoring Wolfram for the moment here, there remains the fact that the world behaves as though it does exist. This is the primary problem with non-materialist philopshies. The world acts as though it exists. Materialism assumes that the world follows rules. We test this, and it turns out to be correct.
When we study quantum mechanics, it turns out that the rules are odd, but rules there are, understandable by us, and they do not vary.


Nothing I have said changes this. Mathematics does exist. Just because it does not exist physically does not mean that it does not exist. My philosophy does not devalue science in any way, shape or form. Why is it a problem? Science can go on assuming the physical world exists exactly the same way it did before. The only places where this has a bearing are in the parts of cosmology and quantum physics which border on philosophy anyway and the parts of cognitive science which border on philosophy anyway. All the bits in the middle are left untouched to get on with their business of examining the behaviour of the physical world. The fact that this physical world is actually a mathematical structure makes not the slightest bit of difference to anyone.

5th January 2003, 09:28 AM
Stimpson :


You know, I have always considered this kind of mathematical Platonism to be very intriguing. When you consider that the scientific model of reality is based on the idea that reality is isomorphic to a logical framework, it is not such a big conceptual leap to consider that reality might be a logical framework.

More precisely, one could imagine that the only difference between the reality we perceive, and any of the other abstract possible realities that are logically self-consistent, is the fact that the person perceiving it happens to be a part of this particular logical framework, and not the others. Accounting for the fact that these other possible realities aren't observable is no problem, because although they are logically self-consistent, they are not logically consistent with each other. In other words, any possible reality is a set of logically self-consistent events, and our reality is just the one that includes us.

This certainly addresses a lot of those nasty philosophical issues, like why there is something instead of nothing, the fine-tuning problem, and even Quantum indeterminacy, since the Many Worlds interpretation of QM is practically built in. It even has the nice advantage of being both logically self-consistent, and well-defined, which almost no other Metaphysical Philosophy can claim.


Well blow me down! :)


Unfortunately, there is still one big problem with it. It is unfalsifiable. It does not make any testable predictions.


It's philosophy.


There is no observation we could possibly make that would prove it false. This means that there cannot possibly be any logical reason to believe that it is true.


Except for :

"It even has the nice advantage of being both logically self-consistent, and well-defined, which almost no other Metaphysical Philosophy can claim."

When everything impossible has been eliminated, then what is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.


What's more, attempting to argue that various subjective experiences could be relied on as logical reasons to believe, just undermines the position, and renders it incoherent.


Well now we are heading out of philosophy and into the realms of religion. It is for individuals to choose to go there, not for science.

Zombified
5th January 2003, 09:47 AM
UCE, this having originally been a thread about something else I have not been following it in detail. I apologize for jumping in in the middle of the conversation.

Unfortunately, I have not yet had an opportunity to read Wolfram's book, so please bear with me.
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Why? What are cellular automata and fractals but an extra layer of complexity on top of the integers? The integers logically precede a mandelbrot set, not temporally. Does a mandelbrot set require a creator? If not, then why does a cellular automaton?

Hilbert spaces don't need a creator either; they are as mathematically true as integers or Mandelbrot sets. However, the statement that the state of the universe (or really some system of interest) is a vector from a Hilbert space is a statement of physics, not mathematics, and is established by experiment, not logic. (I'm talking about orthodox quantum mechanics here, if that wasn't clear.)

The "truth" of a mathematical statement is not the conclusion itself, but the implication that the conclusion holds under the conditions it applies to. Axioms are not self-evident, always applicable truths, they are the fundamental conditions that apply to all theorems of a particular field. For example, the theorem that say the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees is implicitly understood to mean "IF the geometry of interest is Euclidean and numbers and their sums satisfy the conditions of the real numbers (etc), THEN the sum of angles in a triangle is 180 degrees". This statement is universally true, uncreated, as an implication, but the conclusion alone is not.

That any mathematical structure applies to the physical world is a matter of physics, and must be established by experiment.

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Is it? I am not saying that the integers, or the automata are doing anything. Consciousness/Will is doing the doing.
Oops. My mistake. Yes, that makes sense, then. I'm not saying that it is right, but now you have just the one assumption, and with this the cellular automata can be reasonably said to self-exist.
Why? What are cellular automata and fractals but an extra layer of complexity on top of the integers? The integers logically precede a mandelbrot set, not temporally. Does a mandelbrot set require a creator? If not, then why does a cellular automaton?
Because I failed to take note of your assumption, given which the whole thing makes sense. Mea culpa :o
Well, I haven't exactly assumed it. I have followed a logical precession of steps starting from the empty set (or literally nothing), and explained everything but the existence of consciousness itself.
Yep. Agreed.
The content of consciousness has been explained - all that is missing is the thing which is common to all consciousness - the beingness - the experience itself. Materialism suffers exactly the same problem - it is this same beingness aspect of consciousness that Chalmers calls 'The Hard Problem' - but materialism additionally suffers from the problem of having very little hope of ever explaining how something comes from nothing.
Well, clearly I disagree with this last statement about materialism's chances of explaining consciousness. But I'll tiptoe around that, since as I said, I have no such explanation to hand.

I do see a pothole in the road that you appear to have missed: Where did the rules we observe the Universe to follow come from? In your philosophy, this question has the same status as the origin of the Universe itself in materialism.
It is a very big part. It is the founding part.
Actually, it isn't. It grew alongside, sometimes before, sometimes after, the overwhelming lack of empirical evidence.

Things which are internally illogical are not possible.
Point.

They do not happen to you.

But I have no interest in pursuing this line of debate. You have already confirmed what I was trying to demonstrate : You are comitted to being absolutely certain that paranormal phenomena do not exist. Enough said.
Oh no you don't, Mister Elephant! You're not going to paint me with your conspiracy theories and wriggle away like an elephant in the grass!

These things DO NOT HAPPEN! We look and look and find them not. You cannot claim this as a failure of science, of materialism, or of skepticism. These things do not happen. This is trivially falsifiable: all you need to do is demonstrate any such claim. Has any such claim been shown in a reliable, repeatable experiment? No.

Why? Because these things do not happen.
They are pretty important questions, and finding the minimal philosophy may well be the only logical route forward. After 400 years of scientific failure to find a solution to the mind-body problem perhaps the time has come to take a step back and review the philosophical assumptions that science operates within?
Piffle. Science works. Examining assumptions is a good idea, but changing ones that have been shown to be correct is not.

Questioning is good.
Yeah.

And they clearly haven't gone away either. The argument from cosmic design isn't so easy to dismiss. Who engineered the cosmos?

(rhetorical - I don't want to go there either).

OK.

Rocket? You been eating my cacti again? :D

Crunchy goodness! Erk!!

Er...how shall I put this.....

Any time you feel like replying to that PM I'm interested in your answer.
Ockham's hammer. I hit you over the head with it. What happens?
Science has explained all sorts of correlations between brain and mind. Regarding the actual existence of a subjective realm at all made no progress.
Since the subjective realm is that which hasn't been shown objectively, this is true by definition.

It's the same with artificial intelligence: AI is whatever hasn't been done yet.

True. The result is a large number of philosophically-backward scientists who don't even know who Emmanuel Kant was or what he proved with pure logic. The very idea of a scientist arguing about the relationship between brain and mind without even a basic understanding of what Kant demonstrated about the nature of reality is utterly absurd.
Kant - like all philosophers - waffles endlessly to produce one or two or no good points. We'll take the occasional point and leave you the vast fibrous waffly bulk, thank you very much.

You will find that scientists may not know of Kant, but do indeed know of and use his few successful ideas. These have been absorbed by science, and his interminable waffling discarded.

Nothing I have said changes this. Mathematics does exist. Just because it does not exist physically does not mean that it does not exist. My philosophy does not devalue science in any way, shape or form. Why is it a problem? Science can go on assuming the physical world exists exactly the same way it did before. The only places where this has a bearing are in the parts of cosmology and quantum physics which border on philosophy anyway and the parts of cognitive science which border on philosophy anyway. All the bits in the middle are left untouched to get on with their business of examining the behaviour of the physical world. The fact that this physical world is actually a mathematical structure makes not the slightest bit of difference to anyone.
If it makes different predictions to naturalism, then it is of fundamental interest. If not, then it is unfalsifiable, and more philosophical waffle for the compost heap of history.

5th January 2003, 11:03 AM
Pixy :

I am sensing we are reaching the end of what we can usefully discuss.


These things DO NOT HAPPEN! We look and look and find them not. You cannot claim this as a failure of science, of materialism, or of skepticism. These things do not happen. This is trivially falsifiable: all you need to do is demonstrate any such claim. Has any such claim been shown in a reliable, repeatable experiment? No.

Why? Because these things do not happen.


If you assume that reality operates the same for everybody, and if you assume that personal beliefs do not affect personal manifested reality then you can say "these things do not happen".

Whether or not the Universe actually operates like that is another question entirely, and one that you will only find the answer to by experimenting with your own belief system. :eek:

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I am sensing we are reaching the end of what we can usefully discuss.
This is because you are holding a position that is intrinsically irrational.

If you assume that reality operates the same for everybody, and if you assume that personal beliefs do not affect personal manifested reality then you can say "these things do not happen".
And if in addition to that I observe that these things do not happen, I would be correct to say so.
Whether or not the Universe actually operates like that is another question entirely, and one that you will only find the answer to by experimenting with your own belief system. :eek:
More piffle. When held to proper procedure, believers have failed to demonstrate these phenomena just as thoroughly as skeptics.

There is no way I can make myself believe in something simply by choosing to do so. I would need evidence first. But I can experiment with the Universe, and I do, and I find that it acts in a consistent manner, and that paranormal events do not happen.

Soubrette
5th January 2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by PixyMisa
...snipped...There is no way I can make myself believe in something simply by choosing to do so. ....snipped

Because I can't resist.....

Except that science will provide the answer to HPC and that that answer will be based in Materialism :)

Sou

5th January 2003, 11:29 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you assume that reality operates the same for everybody, and if you assume that personal beliefs do not affect personal manifested reality then you can say "these things do not happen".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And if in addition to that I observe that these things do not happen, I would be correct to say so.


You observe they do not happen in the reality which manifests to you. You cannot speak of what happens in the subjective reality experienced by others. You cannot know that nobody else has ever actually seen an alien. You can only know that no hard evidence has ever made it into your reality.


More piffle. When held to proper procedure, believers have failed to demonstrate these phenomena just as thoroughly as skeptics.


Such experiments always occured in the presence of skeptics. Your position is based upon an assumption that the temporary presence of the skeptic in the reality of the believer did not affect the outcome of the experiment.

Follow the logic. You may hate my position, but you cannot prove it is wrong.


There is no way I can make myself believe in something simply by choosing to do so. I would need evidence first.


No pixies for you then.


But I can experiment with the Universe, and I do, and I find that it acts in a consistent manner, and that paranormal events do not happen.


You experiment with that portion of the Universe which manifests in your consciousness. Unless you also experiment with your belief system you have no way of knowing whether beliefs can influence manifested reality. You can tell yourself you are as sure as you like that my position is wrong, but you cannot ever know it is wrong. However, you could know that it is right, if you chose to experiment with your own belief system and experienced different things as a result.

Isn't philosophy fun?

Follow the white rabbit. ;)


edited to add....

When I came back here I stated that I have no fixed belief system. I meant it. It was not always so. My beliefs have changed dramatically over the past 18 months. So has my perceived reality. I am left with NO BELIEFS. I like it that way.

Q-Source
5th January 2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


You observe they do not happen in the reality which manifests to you. You cannot speak of what happens in the subjective reality experienced by others. You cannot know that nobody else has ever actually seen an alien. You can only know that no hard evidence has ever made it into your reality.

So, if I say that I have a pink dragon in my garage, does it mean that it is true in my subjective reality?

This is how you pretend to prove the reality of paranormal events?.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Such experiments always occured in the presence of skeptics. Your position is based upon an assumption that the temporary presence of the skeptic in the reality of the believer did not affect the outcome of the experiment.

So Geoff, you still hold the position that in the presence of skeptics it is not possible to prove any paranormal event.

I still think that you are a fascinating individual, even though sometimes you come with this nonsense.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Isn't philosophy fun?


Absolutely ! :D

c4ts
5th January 2003, 11:48 AM
If only someone could give Franko his own forum and ban him from all the others. I suppose that would be too much to ask.

5th January 2003, 11:49 AM
Pixy (and anyone),

RE : No beliefs.

Ever heard of E-Prime?

Well, here is a site dedicated to freethought and the damage caused by limiting belief systems which are sometimes mistaken for the truth.

http://www.nobeliefs.com
http://www.nobeliefs.com/problemswithbeliefs.htm

Especially Confusing the Map for the Territory

http://www.nobeliefs.com/MapandTerritory.htm

But what I am really concerned with is a version of English known as E-prime.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm


E-PRIME, abolishing all forms of the verb "to be," has its roots in the field of general semantics, as presented by Alfred Korzybski in his 1933 book, Science and Sanity. Korzybski pointed out the pitfalls associated with, and produced by, two usages of "to be": identity and predication. His student D. David Bourland, Jr., observed that even linguistically sensitive people do not seem able to avoid identity and predication uses of "to be" if they continue to use the verb at all. Bourland pioneered in demonstrating that one can indeed write and speak without using any form of "to be," calling this subset of the English language "E-Prime." [snip] Korzybski felt that all humans should receive training in general semantics from grade school on, as "semantic hygiene" against the most prevalent forms of logical error, emotional distortion, and "demonological thinking." E-Prime provides a straightforward training technique for acquiring such semantic hygiene.

To understand E-Prime, consider the human brain as a computer. (Note that I did not say the brain "is" a computer.) As the Prime Law of Computers tells us, GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT (GIGO, for short). The wrong software guarantees wrong answers. Conversely, finding the right software can "miraculously" solve problems that previously appeared intractable.

It seems likely that the principal software used in the human brain consists of words, metaphors, disguised metaphors, and linguistic structures in general. The Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis, in anthropology, holds that a change in language can alter our perception of the cosmos. A revision of language structure, in particular, can alter the brain as dramatically as a psychedelic. In our metaphor, if we change the software, the computer operates in a new way.

Consider the following paired sets of propositions, in which Standard English alternates with English-Prime (E-Prime):

lA. The electron is a wave.
lB. The electron appears as a wave when measured with instrument-l.

2A. The electron is a particle.
2B. The electron appears as a particle when measured with instrument-2.

3A. John is lethargic and unhappy.
3B. John appears lethargic and unhappy in the office.

4A. John is bright and cheerful.
4B. John appears bright and cheerful on holiday at the beach.

5A. This is the knife the first man used to stab the second man.
5B. The first man appeared to stab the second man with what looked like a knife to me.

6A. The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford.
6B. In memory, I think I recall the car involved in the hit-and-run accident as a blue Ford.

7A. This is a fascist idea.
7B. This seems like a fascist idea to me.

8A. Beethoven is better than Mozart.
8B. In my present mixed state of musical education and ignorance, Beethoven seems better to me than Mozart.

9A. That is a sexist movie.
9B. That seems like a sexist movie to me.

10A. The fetus is a person.
10B. In my system of metaphysics, I classify the fetus as a person.
The "A"-type statements (Standard English) all implicitly or explicitly assume the medieval view called "Aristotelian essentialism" or "naive realism." In other words, they assume a world made up of block-like entities with indwelling "essences" or spooks- "ghosts in the machine." The "B"-type statements (E-Prime) recast these sentences into a form isomorphic to modern science by first abolishing the "is" of Aristotelian essence and then reformulating each observation in terms of signals received and interpreted by a body (or instrument) moving in space-time.

Relativity, quantum mechanics, large sections of general physics, perception psychology, sociology, linguistics, modern math, anthropology, ethology, and several other sciences make perfect sense when put into the software of E-Prime. Each of these sciences generates paradoxes, some bordering on "nonsense" or "gibberish," if you try to translate them back into the software of Standard English.

Concretely, "The electron is a wave" employs the Aristotelian "is" and thereby introduces us to the false-to-experience notion that we can know the indwelling "essence" of the electron. "The electron appears as a wave when measured by instrument-1" reports what actually occurred in space-time, namely that the electron when constrained by a certain instrument behaved in a certain way.

Similarly, "The electron is a particle" contains medieval Aristotelian software, but "The electron appears as a particle when measured by instrument-2" contains modern scientific software. Once again, the software determines whether we impose a medieval or modern grid upon our reality-tunnel.

Note that "the electron is a wave" and "the electron is a particle" contradict each other and begin the insidious process by which we move gradually from paradox to nonsense to total gibberish. On the other hand, the modern scientific statements "the electron appears as a wave when measured one way" and "the electron appears as a particle measured another way" do not contradict, but rather complement each other. (Bohr's Principle of Complementarity, which explained this and revolutionized physics, would have appeared obvious to all, and not just to a person of his genius, if physicists had written in E-Prime all along. . . .)




Now my point is this : How about we continue this discussion in E-prime?

E-prime is very good at showing up who is depending on a belief system and who is not. I am willing to bet that I am able to defend my own position with the utmost ease in E-Prime and that you will find your position impossible to defend in E-Prime.

Do you want to give it a try?

Q-Source
5th January 2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by c4ts
If only someone could give Franko his own forum and ban him from all the others. I suppose that would be too much to ask.

It would make YOU happy, wouldn´t it?

Unfortunately for you, this forum is full of many different people.

Q-S

5th January 2003, 11:52 AM
Q-Source,


So, if I say that I have a pink dragon in my garage, does it mean that it is true in my subjective reality?


Only if you go to your garage and find one there.


This is how you pretend to prove the reality of paranormal events?.


I have not the slightest intention of proving the reality of paranormal events to anyone. I am defending their theoretical possibility.


So Geoff, you still hold the position that in the presence of skeptics it is not possible to prove any paranormal event.


I am certainly claiming that such things cannot be dismissed as irrelevant.


I still think that you are a fascinating individual, even though sometimes you come with this nonsense.


Thanks. And I think you're cute..... :D

hammegk
5th January 2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by PixyMisa

These things DO NOT HAPPEN! We look and look and find them not. You cannot claim this as a failure of science, of materialism, or of skepticism. These things do not happen. This is trivially falsifiable: all you need to do is demonstrate any such claim. Has any such claim been shown in a reliable, repeatable experiment? No.

Why? Because these things do not happen.


Although the correct statement -- at 100% reliability -- is that human Science has so far been unable to reliably, repeatably demonstrate these phenomena.

Take the simple example of a glass object exposed to sunlight (especially at high altitudes) that over decades changes from colorless to a purpulish hue. Could a repeatable experiment be designed to explain the phenomena, or even measure it? Note theoretically we know what changes & why at the atomic level; but can you measure it?

Finally, consider the number of data points -- none *exactly* replicable -- needed to statistically verify QM level events. We have 10^(very large power) of individual "events" to measure, and we manage to observe very large numbers of them.

For psi-like phenomena, we have relatvely few measured points to use in our analyses, and as already mentioned if "non-believers" can also effect results, these effects would be even more difficult to measure & document.

As an aside, I believe that 99.99% of psi-like claims I heard of are fraud.


general question
Re Wolfram: I've only seen exerpts, but at what "level" of perceived materiality does he first propose the existence of cellular automata? Atomic? Sub-Atomic? Field Energetic?

Originally posted by Sou

Because I can't resist.....

Except that science will provide the answer to HPC and that that answer will be based in Materialism
How do materialists continue to overlook their personal need for "Faith"?

scribble
5th January 2003, 11:55 AM
Chris - you are claiming that you have already "investigated" mysticism. If this is true, then you should already know the answer to the most central question it addresses. If it wasn't to your liking, then what makes you think it would be any more to your liking if I repeated it to you here?

My answer to you is that there is a single source of all consciousness and that more can be learned by personal investigation. That *IS* the answer. It is no use 'begging' for a more specific one, because a more specific one is not appropriate. It is neccesarily a personal choice and personal journey if you want to take it any further, or not as the case may be.

Soyou sitll believe reality is what you make it. That consciousness makes matter.

You're still a nutter with no answers.

And I'd like to paraphrase our conversation to illustrate it:

"What is consciousness is a REALLY hard question." - you
"Not for me. What's your answer?" - me
"It comes from a single source." - you
"Well, that's not really what it IS, you've just told me it comes from a single source, not what it is or anything." - me
"Well, if you study, you'll understand what it is." -you
"I did study, and I learned what it was. I was interested in learing what you've found. Apparently you've found Nothing."
"No, no, it COMES FROM A SINGLE SOURCE!" - you
"I DON'T CARE! WHAT IS IT?" -me
"I won't tell you." -you

Fine.

I've played this game with you before, UcE. Not getting into it again.

-Chris

Q-Source
5th January 2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

E-prime is very good at showing up who is depending on a belief system and who is not. I am willing to bet that I am able to defend my own position with the utmost ease in E-Prime and that you will find your position impossible to defend in E-Prime.


Interesting UCE.

However, black is black no matter how much someone wishes it to be white. I mean, paranormal is not a matter of opinion or semantics, if this is what you think.

But, it seems to be a good proposition for other topics.

5th January 2003, 12:00 PM
hammegk


general question

Re Wolfram: I've only seen exerpts, but at what "level" of perceived materiality does he first propose the existence of cellular automata? Atomic? Sub-Atomic? Field Energetic?


Wolfram doesn't directly state this. He just examines patterns and complexity in nature and examines patterns and complexity in simple algorithms and finds that every sort of complex pattern that occurs in nature can be replicated by a simple algorithm.

That the physical world *IS* a simple algorithm he does not state. And good for him....it would be a violation of E-Prime.....

The physical world *appears* as if it was a simple algorithm.

c4ts
5th January 2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Q-Source


Interesting UCE.

However, black is black no matter how much someone wishes it to be white. I mean, paranormal is not a matter of opinion, if this is what you think.

It is rather unfortunate that some people cannot mentally seperate facts from their own beliefs, and that they would also be inclined to agree with you.

Soubrette
5th January 2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Pixy (and anyone),

RE : No beliefs.

Ever heard of E-Prime?

Well, here is a site dedicated to freethought and the damage caused by limiting belief systems which are sometimes mistaken for the truth.


Do you want to give it a try?

Oooh I want to give it a try....

Here is a site dedicated to freethought and what in our opinion seems to be the damage caused by limiting belief systems which appears sometimes to be mistaken for the truth.

How d'I do?

:D

Sou

5th January 2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Q-Source


Interesting UCE.

However, black is black no matter how much someone wishes it to be white. I mean, paranormal is not a matter of opinion or semantics, if this is what you think.

But, it seems to be a good proposition for other topics.


Example :

"The house is blue."

Seems fairly unproblematic. Except actually if you are a dog which sees in black-and-white then the house is grey. 'Blueness' is actually a property of your perception of the house, not of the house. In E-Prime you are forced to say :

"The house appears blue to me."

Which at first seems unneccesarily cumbersome, but strictly speaking it is the only way to eliminate the belief system from the reality.

5th January 2003, 12:10 PM
Sou :


Here is a site dedicated to freethought and what in our opinion seems to be the damage caused by limiting belief systems which appears sometimes to be mistaken for the truth.


I'd say :

"Nobeliefs.com dedicates itself to freethought. It examines the damage caused by confusing belief systems with the truth."

5th January 2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by c4ts


It is rather unfortunate that some people cannot mentally seperate facts from their own beliefs, and that they would also be inclined to agree with you.

People have a tendency to view other peoples belief systems as belief systems and ignore the fact that their own world view depends on another belief system they call reality.

Soubrette
5th January 2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Sou :



I'd say :

"Nobeliefs.com dedicates itself to freethought. It examines the damage caused by confusing beliefs systems with the truth."

"the damage" seems such a definite statement though, don't you think?

It smacks of belief ;)

Sou
(Edited to make clear what I was quoting :rolleyes: )

5th January 2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Soubrette


"the damage" seems such a definite statement though, don't you think?

It smacks of belief ;)

Sou
(Edited to make clear what I was quoting :rolleyes: )

Well, like I just said to c4ts, one can examine other peoples belief systems and observe the limitations caused with relative ease. We can objectively examine the limitations of our own belief system only with much more difficulty.

hammegk
5th January 2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

I'd say :

"Nobeliefs.com dedicates itself to freethought. It examines the damage caused by confusing belief systems with the truth."

Damned semantics! I suspect you meant:

"Nobeliefs.com is a site that attempts to dedicate itself to freethought. It provides a forum for individuals to discuss possible damage caused by confusing a perceived belief system with the truth." :D

Soubrette
5th January 2003, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by hammegk


Damned semantics! I suspect you meant:

"Nobeliefs.com is a site that attempts to dedicate itself to freethought. It provides a forum for individuals to discuss possible damage caused by confusing a perceived belief system with the truth." :D

Oooh you're good :D

Sou

Q-Source
5th January 2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

"The house appears blue to me."

Which at first seems unneccesarily cumbersome, but strictly speaking it is the only way to eliminate the belief system from the reality.

Yes, I see your point. The elimination of our subjective belief-systems leads us to undertand in a better way our Reality (BTW, which reality?).

Do your think it is possible to use E-Prime when we want to analyse objective and subjective facts through the scientific method?

Or do you consider Scientific knowledge as another belief system? :confused:

Q-S

P.D. Thank you for the compliment, Geoff ;) . It is good to have you back again, you bring fresh air and beauty to the forum...

5th January 2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by hammegk


Damned semantics! I suspect you meant:

"Nobeliefs.com is a site that attempts to dedicate itself to freethought. It provides a forum for individuals to discuss possible damage caused by confusing a perceived belief system with the truth." :D

Nope.

There are many uses of "to be" :

TO BE OR NOT TO BE: E-Prime as a Tool for Critical Thinking (http://www.generalsemantics.org/Articles/TOBECRIT.HTM)

But the two biggies to avoid are :

(1) Noun Phrase-1 + TO BE + Noun Phrase-2 (Identity)

(2) Noun Phrase-1 + TO BE + Adjective Phrase-1 (Predication)

You said "Nobeliefs.com is a site..."

That is (1) (identiity).

Why is this a problem....


Critical thinkers have argued against using statements having the structure of (1) because they immediately produce high order abstractions that lead the user to premature judgments. Consider the following example:

(3) John is a farmer.

The immediate consequence of such an identification at the very least brings about unjustified abbreviation. For example, consider the following three sentences about "John":

(4) John farms three acres.

(5) John owns and operates a 2,000-acre farm.

(6) John receives $20,000 a year from the government for not growing anything on his farm.

We could even carry this illustration into a different dimension:

(7) John, after living in the city all his life, has just bought a farm.

(8) John grew up on a farm and has farmed there for 61 years.

Despite the fact that (4) through (8) make extremely different statements about "John," most English-speaking people feel comfortable making the jump from any one of (4) through (8) to (3). Critical thinkers trained in general semantics hold that (3) does not represent a valid higher order abstraction which could come from such observations as (4) through (8), but rather a possibly incorrect and certainly inadequate abbreviation of the larger picture.



So when I said "Nobeliefs.com dedicates itself to freethought", I deliberately avoided this 'identity' use of 'to be'.

It is hard work writing in E-Prime. Even harder thinking in it. But several people have managed to write entire books in it, and I have even read one of them - after a while you don't notice.

5th January 2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Q-Source

Do your think it is possible to use E-Prime when we want to analyse objective and subjective facts through the scientific method?


I believe that any use of E-prime within science can only help rather than hinder the search for truth. It forces clarity. It eliminates certain forms bias. It doesn't affect the scientific method directly - but it does affect the accuracy of communication of the results - especially in the area of subjective and objective, an area which would certainly benefit from closer scrutiny in scientific literature.


Or do you consider Scientific knowledge as another belief system?


I view scientific knowledge as a model of the behaviour of the physical world at the present time. The problems occur when the model gets confused with what actually is. There has been a tendency to confuse scientific knowledge with the philosophical assumption of materialism which underlies it, at which point the map gets confused with the territory.



P.D. Thank you for the compliment, Geoff ;) . It is good to have you back again, you bring fresh air and beauty to the forum... [/B]



:)

Lucifuge Rofocale
5th January 2003, 01:26 PM
Geoff:

I was busy but all the observations I could have made to your model have been done (with a lot more "brilliance" that I could have done) by Pixie and Stimpy.

Now, some pending points:

-To satisfy your need of a minimal belief framework the only way I see correct is Physicalism.
-You have given up in the search for a scientific explanation for consciousness and the origin of the physical. For the latter, I suggest that Q fluctuation and inflationary universe theory can provide a testable answer, and for the former, maybe the cemi field theory of consciousness have the answer (specially to the binding problem) I'm starting a thread about this and I woudl like that "scientific" Geoff participate. Would you?
-For E-prime, i don't see how can you find this model better than Predicate Logic, Wittgenstein and Philosophy of Logical analisys. This takes this particular problem with descriptions, along with observer subjetivity. Also. what is physicalism if not the application of E-Prime to the scientific method?

Interesting Ian
5th January 2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
The problem, dear friend, is that when I study those matters, I'm every time more sure that they take account for all the history, EVEN the mind-body problem and HPC.
BTW, knowledge is knowledge, no matter from what source you get it.
So, my agenda now is to get what is missing in my vision of the universe. My tool is the scientific method, because it gives a way to validate.

Maybe you are the one that is recurring to unnecesary entities to explain phenomena? Maybe you could get rid of preconceived notions about a trascendent reality? maybe you could someday want to now what it feels to validate you beliefs?

Science has got nothing to do with metaphysics. All science does is describe our empirical reality. So in order to obtain what is missing from your vision of the Universe you'll need to forget science and venture into the realms of subjective knowledge.

Lucifuge Rofocale
5th January 2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Science has got nothing to do with metaphysics. All science does is describe our empirical reality. So in order to obtain what is missing from your vision of the Universe you'll need to forget science and venture into the realms of subjective knowledge.

If you don't need metaphysics to explain all your experiences, why bother?

Interesting Ian
5th January 2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Much of the questions we now answer with science were once exclusively metaphisycal field.


Are you able to give any examples?



- What are the aspects of knowledge we can't obtain using the scientific method?


Any knowledge which doesn't exclusively concern itself with the patterns revealed in our sensory perceptions.



- How we can evaluate the truth value of such answers?


Arguments, logically analysis, a direct knowing etc etc.

c4ts
5th January 2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Are you able to give any examples?


Aristotle's Metaphysics

Lucifuge Rofocale
5th January 2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Are you able to give any examples?

Free will



Any knowledge which doesn't exclusively concern itself with the patterns revealed in our sensory perceptions.

An example of a knowledge that don't concern our perceptions? :confused:


Arguments, logically analysis, a direct knowing etc etc.

What has logic to do with reality? As long as you know your axioms to be real :p
Direct knowing? What is its truth value? Can you prove you are not crazy?

Franko
5th January 2003, 01:42 PM
Stimpson:

You know, I have always considered this kind of mathematical Platonism to be very intriguing. When you consider that the scientific model of reality is based on the idea that reality is isomorphic to a logical framework, it is not such a big conceptual leap to consider that reality might be a logical framework.

Funny … because I have been telling you this for over a year now.

More precisely, one could imagine that the only difference between the reality we perceive, and any of the other abstract possible realities that are logically self-consistent, is the fact that the person perceiving it happens to be a part of this particular logical framework, and not the others.

Yeah … Relativity …like I have been telling you this for over a year now.

Accounting for the fact that these other possible realities aren't observable is no problem, because although they are logically self-consistent, they are not logically consistent with each other. In other words, any possible reality is a set of logically self-consistent events, and our reality is just the one that includes us.

Sounds like you are talking about Entangled Solipsism … ?

This certainly addresses a lot of those nasty philosophical issues, like why there is something instead of nothing, the fine-tuning problem, and even Quantum indeterminacy …

Yeah, there really isn’t any quantum indeterminacy – like I have been telling you for over a year now.

… since the Many Worlds interpretation of QM is practically built in.

Not in the “Feynmen” sense of it (MWI). MWI is false. In a vaguely analogous Godelian sense it could be seen as True though. Simpler states (universe) in the past, more complex ones in the future.

It even has the nice advantage of being both logically self-consistent, and well-defined, which almost no other Metaphysical Philosophy can claim.

That is why it is called Logical Deism.

Unfortunately, there is still one big problem with it. It is unfalsifiable. It does not make any testable predictions.

First of all I think you are wrong, and second of all how is it any LESS falsifiable or how does it make any LESS predictions then A-Theism/Pseudo-Materialism? You still cannot give ANY account of why Men should behave morally? You still are left in the absurd position of claiming that rewards and punishment are irrelevant to behavior.

There is no observation we could possibly make that would prove it false.

Abolish the penal system and observe what happens. Or switch to a Socialistic form of government (remove incentives – remove rewards and punishment from the system).

This means that there cannot possibly be any logical reason to believe that it is true.

What exactly is your reason for believing “free will” is TRUE?

What exactly is your reason for believing “There is NO GOD” is TRUE?

Sure, there may be plenty of illogical, but nevertheless compelling, reasons to believe it is true, such as intuition, aesthetics, and even wishful thinking, but no logical reason.

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

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

You just want to pretend it is complex, and pretend it is non-logical.

What's more, attempting to argue that various subjective experiences could be relied on as logical reasons to believe, just undermines the position, and renders it incoherent.

I agree. How is what you believe more logical exactly? You can’t even explain what you believe? You can’t explain why you believe you have “free will”?

I can explain why I don’t believe I have it. As a matter of fact I just saw that consciousness time delay thing on the learning channel the other night. Several very prominent A-Theists going on and on about how there was absolutely NO DOUBT – no “free will”! Our brain has already committed to the action well before our minds are consciously aware that we have made the decision. It is all predetermined. We don’t decide anything – we just perceive the decision.

The hypothesis that personal experiences for which subjective bias has not been controlled, can yield reliable knowledge about reality, is easily falsified. The only way to accept such subjective evidence as valid, is to reject the hypothesis that you can draw logical conclusions from your observations, which is a premise of the very idea of there being such a thing as evidence.

Any evidence which isn’t logical isn’t evidence.

If something isn’t coherent, if one person can’t explain it to another … then it isn’t logical.

You can’t explain what you believe, or why you believe it.

I can.

It's a nifty idea to play around with, and an excellent model to think about in an attempt to teach yourself not to rely on intuitive notions about what is "real" and what is not. But that it is all it will ever be.

Stimpson don’t kid yourself!

All YOU have done is assumed that someone else had better “intuitive notions” then YOU do (based on non evidence) and then assumed their beliefs as YOUR own. You need to think for YOURSELF before I’ll ever call you a “Free-Thinker”.

If your beliefs were more logical then mine, you would be able to explain why you believe the things that you do, far better then you have.

Interesting Ian
5th January 2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by scribble


The answer to your question "What is the source of consciousness" is quite simple for materialists.

What's your answer?

-Chris

Consciousness needs a source? Care to justify that thesis?

Franko
5th January 2003, 01:48 PM
Luciforge,

What has logic to do with reality?

Are you kidding?

What has Logic to do with reality?

As long as you know your axioms to be real

How do you know your axioms are real without logic?

Direct knowing?

How can you know something without comprehending it first?

Can you prove you are not crazy?

Me or You?

Interesting Ian
5th January 2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[b]The 'all connected' wasn't an assumption. It was tentative conclusion based upon parsimony in the face of an either/or question and upon the testimony of nearly all individuals who have attempted to study consciousness subjectively. The alternative to this 'assumption' would be that consciousness is "not all connected", and this leaves me with a need to explain how many different consciousnesses with "not connected" sources manage to end up experiencing a rather obviously "all connected" consensus reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


thaiboxerken
No, it is more likely that consciousness is a product of the brain.



Any arguments to support this thesis?



It's also easy to see that this "all connected" consensus reality is merely a product of social teaching and cultures. There is no evidence of god.


Inevitably atheists say this. It begs the question what must the world have been like for there to be any evidence of an appropriately defined "God"? It is quite clear to me that those who espouse modern western atheism and its associated beliefs consider their metaphysic to be wholly consonant with any logically possible empirical state of affairs.

scribble
5th January 2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Consciousness needs a source? Care to justify that thesis?

Ask UcE -- he said it first.

-Chris

Franko
5th January 2003, 02:19 PM
Interesting Ian:

Inevitably atheists say this. It begs the question what must the world have been like for there to be any evidence of an appropriately defined "God"? It is quite clear to me that those who espouse modern western atheism and its associated beliefs consider their metaphysic to be wholly consonant with any logically possible empirical state of affairs.

Unless (God Forbid) you bring up the subject of Rewards and Punishment in which case they turn and flee as if you were grim death himself.

I wonder why A-Theists would be sooo concerned about having to suffer consequences for their actions?

Interesting Ian
5th January 2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by c4ts


Aristotle's Metaphysics [/B]

I haven't read Aristotles metaphysics. What examples did he mention which science now gives an answer to?

Interesting Ian
5th January 2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale

Are you able to give any examples?

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


Free will



Science hasn't solved anything about free will. Materialists just assume it doesn't exist. The "free will" within compatibilism has quite a different meaning to proper free will



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


Any knowledge which doesn't exclusively concern itself with the patterns revealed in our sensory perceptions.

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


An example of a knowledge that don't concern our perceptions?


My knowledge that I am in pain.

Interesting Ian
5th January 2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by scribble


Ask UcE -- he said it first.

-Chris

Ah! Ok, so you don't think consciousness need a source? :)

Stimpson J. Cat
5th January 2003, 03:17 PM
UCE,

Well blow me down! :)

You seem surprised? I gave essentially this same little speech several months ago, remember? back before you became Juggler, and Franko went insane?

Unfortunately, there is still one big problem with it. It is unfalsifiable. It does not make any testable predictions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's philosophy.

Yes, and very interesting philosophy, IMO. But since it is not falsifiable, that is all it can ever be. It can never be a useful model for reality.

There is no observation we could possibly make that would prove it false. This means that there cannot possibly be any logical reason to believe that it is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except for :

"It even has the nice advantage of being both logically self-consistent, and well-defined, which almost no other Metaphysical Philosophy can claim."

When everything impossible has been eliminated, then what is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Notice the emphasis on "almost". There are other coherent, logically self-consistent philosophies out there. In fact, in principle there are an infinite number of such possibilities. That's the whole problem. Unless you reject the unfalsifiable ones, there is no way to eliminate all but one. This is the whole point of my little digression. It doesn't matter how emotionally compelling, or intuitively satisfying the model is. What matters is that the model make testable predictions. If the model is unfalsifiable, then it can never be anything more than fanciful speculation.

What's more, attempting to argue that various subjective experiences could be relied on as logical reasons to believe, just undermines the position, and renders it incoherent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well now we are heading out of philosophy and into the realms of religion. It is for individuals to choose to go there, not for science.

Nope, still completely within the realm of formal logic. remember that the idea that we can draw logical conclusions from our observations is, itself, fundamentally based on assumptions about the nature of reality. One possible set of assumptions that allows such conclusions to be draw is the set of axioms of the scientific method. If we accept the axioms of the scientific method, then we must reject the hypothesis that nonempirical personal experiences can provide reliable information about the nature of reality, because this hypothesis can easily be scientifically shown to be false. What's more, even if you do reject the axioms o science, and try to construct some other logical framework that allows conclusions to be reliable drawn from subjective evidence, the fact remains that the only way such a framework can remain logically self-consistent, is if it completely rejects the notion of objective reality. And this defeats the purpose, because then there is no objective truth for your observations to allow you to draw conclusions about.

Sorry, but the simple fact is that subjective experiences just plain aren't reliable. This is very easy to demonstrate, and no amount of logical shenanigans is going to allow you to get around it. You can certainly construct hypothetical logical frameworks in which subjective evidence could be reliable, but such a framework is clearly not an accurate representation of the World I live in.


Franko,

You know, I have always considered this kind of mathematical Platonism to be very intriguing. When you consider that the scientific model of reality is based on the idea that reality is isomorphic to a logical framework, it is not such a big conceptual leap to consider that reality might be a logical framework.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny … because I have been telling you this for over a year now.

I know. And I told you early on in our discussions exactly what I have said here. Platonism is an intriguing possibility, but since it is unfalsifiable, it is of no practical value. It is fantasy, and can never be anything more than that.

Accounting for the fact that these other possible realities aren't observable is no problem, because although they are logically self-consistent, they are not logically consistent with each other. In other words, any possible reality is a set of logically self-consistent events, and our reality is just the one that includes us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like you are talking about Entangled Solipsism … ?

No, that is not what I am talking about. What I am saying is that you can, in principle, look at the set of all logically self-consistent possible Universes, and although they are internally consistent, none of them are consistent with any of the others. This necessarily means that no interaction between such Universes could exist, because such an interaction would necessarily entail logical contradictions. I am not saying that we all exist in our own Universe, Just the opposite, in fact. The fact that we interact implies that we are both elements of the same Universe.

This certainly addresses a lot of those nasty philosophical issues, like why there is something instead of nothing, the fine-tuning problem, and even Quantum indeterminacy …
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, there really isn’t any quantum indeterminacy – like I have been telling you for over a year now

I had an Uncle who told me that his cat talked to him, too. But much like you, he never gave me any reason to believe it was true.

It even has the nice advantage of being both logically self-consistent, and well-defined, which almost no other Metaphysical Philosophy can claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is why it is called Logical Deism.

Nope, sorry. What I have described does not involve the existence of a God (or Goddess). Nor does it imply fatalism. Nor does it imply that consciousnesses continue to exist after bodily death. And it sure as Hell doesn't imply that people are spin 1/2 charged gravitons, like you have claimed.

Unfortunately, there is still one big problem with it. It is unfalsifiable. It does not make any testable predictions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all I think you are wrong,

OK. Name one.

and second of all how is it any LESS falsifiable or how does it make any LESS predictions then A-Theism/Pseudo-Materialism?

I am neither an A-Theist, nor a Pseudo-Materialist, so don't ask me. As for Atheism and Materialism, I have already explained to you that Atheism is not a claim, and I have already explained to you exactly how Materialism is falsifiable.

You still cannot give ANY account of why Men should behave morally? You still are left in the absurd position of claiming that rewards and punishment are irrelevant to behavior.

Nonsense. There is no objective reason why men should behave morally, only subjective ones. In fact, there is no absolute morality. And I would never say anything as absurd as to claim that rewards and punishments are irrelevant to behavior.

There is no observation we could possibly make that would prove it false.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abolish the penal system and observe what happens. Or switch to a Socialistic form of government (remove incentives – remove rewards and punishment from the system).

Non-sequitur. The philosophical framework I described makes no predictions about these things.

This means that there cannot possibly be any logical reason to believe that it is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What exactly is your reason for believing “free will” is TRUE?

I have already told you several times that I do not believe in free-will, as you have defined it.

What exactly is your reason for believing “There is NO GOD” is TRUE?

I don't.

Sure, there may be plenty of illogical, but nevertheless compelling, reasons to believe it is true, such as intuition, aesthetics, and even wishful thinking, but no logical reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

You just want to pretend it is complex, and pretend it is non-logical.

Non-sequitur. Atoms, and me, function according to Natural laws. You can call these laws God if you want. Makes no difference to me. None of this is in any way relevant to what I am talking about.

What's more, attempting to argue that various subjective experiences could be relied on as logical reasons to believe, just undermines the position, and renders it incoherent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. How is what you believe more logical exactly? You can’t even explain what you believe? You can’t explain why you believe you have “free will”?

I can explain what I believe. I just can't explain what you claim I believe, because I don't actually believe it. If you want somebody to explain their belief in free-will, go find somebody who actually believes in it.

I can explain why I don’t believe I have it. As a matter of fact I just saw that consciousness time delay thing on the learning channel the other night. Several very prominent A-Theists going on and on about how there was absolutely NO DOUBT – no “free will”! Our brain has already committed to the action well before our minds are consciously aware that we have made the decision. It is all predetermined. We don’t decide anything – we just perceive the decision.

How does this fit in with your absurd belief that free-will is an atheistic construct, and that all atheists believe in free-will? Do you even realize how ridiculously battered your poor strawman is?

The hypothesis that personal experiences for which subjective bias has not been controlled, can yield reliable knowledge about reality, is easily falsified. The only way to accept such subjective evidence as valid, is to reject the hypothesis that you can draw logical conclusions from your observations, which is a premise of the very idea of there being such a thing as evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any evidence which isn’t logical isn’t evidence.

If something isn’t coherent, if one person can’t explain it to another … then it isn’t logical.

You can’t explain what you believe, or why you believe it.

I can.

Really? Where is that explanation of Quantum Gravity I have heard so much about? Your not only a liar, you are a bad liar.

It's a nifty idea to play around with, and an excellent model to think about in an attempt to teach yourself not to rely on intuitive notions about what is "real" and what is not. But that it is all it will ever be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stimpson don’t kid yourself!

All YOU have done is assumed that someone else had better “intuitive notions” then YOU do (based on non evidence) and then assumed their beliefs as YOUR own. You need to think for YOURSELF before I’ll ever call you a “Free-Thinker”.

Nice try. My personal philosophy is of my own construction, and is not at all based on intuition. It was only after I had arrived at it that I started to learn about philosophy, and discovered that there were already names for the conclusions I had come to.

If your beliefs were more logical then mine, you would be able to explain why you believe the things that you do, far better then you have.

Maybe. But since the only real way either of us have to judge things in that regard, is by asking other people how well they think we have explained ourselves, I guess all we can do is ask them. Tell me, Franko. If we were to do a pole on this message board for which of us has done a better job explaining their philosophical positions, who do you think would win?

Dr. Stupid

thaiboxerken
5th January 2003, 03:22 PM
All of this is getting really silly. To claim that reality is subjective is absurd. Reality is objective, reality does not change itself to suit the user... it doesn't change for your needs or wants, it simply is. How one percieves reality is subjective though.

This "consciousness" being one with all consciousness's is just a silly arguement based on assumptions.. no matter how scientific you try to make the assumption or how much jargon you place in the arguement. UcE, your belief is just a belief, not a conclusion based on rational, logical progression.

hammegk
5th January 2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Soubrette


Oooh you're good :D

Sou

Guess not. :(

Did we conclude To Be or Not To Be isn't the question?

5th January 2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Geoff:

For the latter, I suggest that Q fluctuation and inflationary universe theory can provide a testable answer, and for the former, maybe the cemi field theory of consciousness have the answer (specially to the binding problem) I'm starting a thread about this and I woudl like that "scientific" Geoff participate. Would you?


OK.

This thread is a Franko thread anyway.

Franko
5th January 2003, 04:54 PM
Franko:
If there were no consciousnesses to perceive “Prime Numbers” in what way would Prime numbers exist?

Elephant:
In the way that they would be inevitable. The set of relationships we term Prime Numbers are eternally the same. Numbers exist regardless of time or space, and must be the way they are.

Why must they be that way? By what logic? How do you know that anything would exist if there were nothing here to perceive it? What makes you think that pattern pre-exist an ability to perceive a pattern?

You never seem to want to explain yourself Elephant. Just like that Lucy Rochalforge, or that little Fool – they never want to explain what they believe either. What are you “all” hiding?

Franko:
So you are actually claiming that a “non-physical” mental-world exist apart from Minds? In other words you are actually claiming that some non-physical mental sphere exist independent of consciousness?

And how exactly did you come to this conclusion? Where is your train of thought?


Elephant: (UCE’s “train of thought”)

No....

I am claiming that numbers exist independent of consciousness. Apart from that I don't really understand why you think I implied what you have written. I might be...I can't grasp exactly what you mean. How can you have a mental sphere independent of consciousness?

You tell me – you are the one claiming that numbers “self-exist”. If I have misunderstood your statement then you will have to be the one to clarify it. That is what I mean.

thaiboxerken
5th January 2003, 05:00 PM
Why must they be that way? By what logic? How do you know that anything would exist if there were nothing here to perceive it? What makes you think that pattern pre-exist an ability to perceive a pattern?

Reality exists regardless of who's observing. There are many new things that we discover that have existed long before we observed it. Your "logic" is lacking.


You never seem to want to explain yourself Elephant. Just like that Lucy Rochalforge, or that little Fool – they never want to explain what they believe either. What are you “all” hiding?

Many have explained their positions on differing issues to you repeatedly and you just ignore those explanation in favor of the strawmen that you've built for them.

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

You observe they do not happen in the reality which manifests to you. You cannot speak of what happens in the subjective reality experienced by others. You cannot know that nobody else has ever actually seen an alien. You can only know that no hard evidence has ever made it into your reality.
Believer: Aliens ate my baby!
Skeptic: Aliens ate your baby?
Believer: Yes! Little purple aliens came and ate my baby!
Skeptic: According to all witnesses, you never had a baby.
Believer: You can't prove me wrong! You can only know that no hard evidence has ever made it into your reality.
Skeptic: Thank you, doctor, that will be all for now. Take good care of him, will you?

Such experiments always occured in the presence of skeptics.
Wrong.

Check the PEAR reports. These people are dyed-in-the-wool creduloids. They'll believe anything. Fortunately, they're honest creduloids, and their own research shows that they can't find what they're looking for.

Your position is based upon an assumption that the temporary presence of the skeptic in the reality of the believer did not affect the outcome of the experiment.
The anti-psychic effect is baseless whining on the part of creduloids. It's claimed to work recursively and retroactively - which explains why experimental results disappear when a skeptic looks at them after the fact. By this logic, if a skeptic has ever existed in the Universe, no paranormal effect would have or will ever be possible.

Follow the logic. You may hate my position, but you cannot prove it is wrong.
Mister Elephant, this is not a good thing. This is The Retreat to Unfalsifiability. Once you are reduced to "you can't prove me wrong" it means that you have failed utterly to support your claim by any means whatsoever.
No pixies for you then.
Well, I'm just going to have to live with that.

You experiment with that portion of the Universe which manifests in your consciousness.
My experiment can be independently verified by any other consciousness in the portion of the Universe that manifests to them.

Oddly enough, these manifestations have a very strong correlation with each other, except for those of people who are technically described as "nuts".
Unless you also experiment with your belief system you have no way of knowing whether beliefs can influence manifested reality.
Experimenting with ones belief system is only possible once you have abandoned rationality. I'm not ready to do this quite yet.
You can tell yourself you are as sure as you like that my position is wrong, but you cannot ever know it is wrong.
No. Exactly. And this weakens your position drastically.

My position is falsifiable. I say, without equivocation, that telepathy does not happen. All you have to do is demonstrate telepathy, and my position falls apart. I am undone.

And yet, this has not happened.
However, you could know that it is right, if you chose to experiment with your own belief system and experienced different things as a result.
This sounds very much like insanity to me. No thanks. I like reality just fine.

Isn't philosophy fun?
Quite frankly, studying philosophy appears to cause permanent damage.

Follow the white rabbit. ;)

There is no white rabbit.

When I came back here I stated that I have no fixed belief system. I meant it. It was not always so. My beliefs have changed dramatically over the past 18 months. So has my perceived reality. I am left with NO BELIEFS. I like it that way.
Well that's nice for you.

Franko
5th January 2003, 05:19 PM
ThaifoodKen (A-Theist [wants people to think he’s “smart” … real bad])

Reality exists regardless of who's observing.

So long as someone is observing it. You have heard of the double slit experiment – haven’t you?

If no one is watching, the results are totally different then when someone is watching.

There are many new things that we discover that have existed long before we observed it.

I couldn’t agree more. I would use the analogy that the Earth was a moving sphere even long ago when Man believed that it was flat and motionless. Our understanding of how the universe operates makes no difference to the Laws of Physics (TLOP) understanding how the universe operates. Clearly TLOP understands it.

Of course, as a Deist I would say, that My lack of understanding about the operation of reality has no bearing on the Goddess’s comprehension of how reality operates. She understand what She understands regardless of what I do or don’t understand.

Your "logic" is lacking.

No junior-mint … my logic is fine. But your ability to go out of your way to almost deliberately misunderstand what another person is saying is quite extraordinary – someone, somewhere is undoubtedly very proud.

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

Pixy ...

See that -- the Brette never fails! You aren't all bad after all.

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by hammegk
Although the correct statement -- at 100% reliability -- is that human Science has so far been unable to reliably, repeatably demonstrate these phenomena.
Yes. Because there are infinitely many possible claims for the paranormal, and infinitely many reasons why a particular experiment might not demonstrate a valid claim, it is not possible to rule out the existence of the paranormal.

But the best theory of the paranormal we can come up with is: These things do not happen. It agrees with all existing evidence, makes a strong prediction for future tests, and is easily falsifiable.

Take the simple example of a glass object exposed to sunlight (especially at high altitudes) that over decades changes from colorless to a purpulish hue. Could a repeatable experiment be designed to explain the phenomena, or even measure it? Note theoretically we know what changes & why at the atomic level; but can you measure it?

You can certainly run experiments to try to duplicate the results. Since the original environment was not measured, clearly it is not possible to duplicate that environment.

Finally, consider the number of data points -- none *exactly* replicable -- needed to statistically verify QM level events. We have 10^(very large power) of individual "events" to measure, and we manage to observe very large numbers of them.
Some QM effects are quite easy to verify. Others are very difficult indeed (particularly those that only happen at very high energy levels).

For psi-like phenomena, we have relatvely few measured points to use in our analyses

"Relatively few" still means "many millions".

and as already mentioned if "non-believers" can also effect results, these effects would be even more difficult to measure & document.

Two points on the anti-psychic effect: first, experiments have been run by believers. When these experiments used acceptable methods, they failed to produce positive results.

Second, the presence of a skeptic, even the arrival of a letter from a skeptic, has been claimed to cause psychic powers to fail. If psychic powers are so sensitive, then the mere existence of a skeptic anywhere in the world is enough to cause all such phenomena to fail.
As an aside, I believe that 99.99% of psi-like claims I heard of are fraud.
I don't, actually. I believe that 100% of psi-like claims have no basis in fact.

But some are fraud, some delusion, some bad science, some misreported results, some are just those strange things that happen every day.

general question
Re Wolfram: I've only seen exerpts, but at what "level" of perceived materiality does he first propose the existence of cellular automata? Atomic? Sub-Atomic? Field Energetic?
I haven't seen Wolfram's book, but I'm familiar with the concept (it's not his idea originally). The answer is: below all that. The cellular automata give rise to all known physics.
How do materialists continue to overlook their personal need for "Faith"?
Easy. We don't have any. We don't need any. Materialism works.

Ask me again when someone sucessfully demonstrates a claim of the paranormal.

Edited for tyops.

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Consciousness needs a source? Care to justify that thesis?
Clearly this is wrong. One can always subscribe to the Philosophy of Intellectual Defeatism, abandon learning, and assume what you once tried to understand.

Franko
5th January 2003, 05:33 PM
I haven't seen Wolfram's book, but I'm familiar with the concept (it's not his idea originally).

Yeah, in case any one is interested, the old Black & White version of that movie is call The Loaves and the Fishes, and not only is the original version about 48 hours shorters then the Wolfram re-make, but personally I think it's just a better metaphor.

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 05:52 PM
The purported site claiming to be Nobeliefs.com appears to be a site that tries to dedicate itself to attempts at positions that may or may not resemble freethought (whatever that may be). It - if indeed there is such a thing - allegedly tries to provide supposed forum-like functionality for hypothetical individuals to supposedly discuss possible damage potentially caused by confusing (or otherwise correlating or miscorrelating) a perceived belief system with the alleged truth, not that there is necessarily any objective truth, alleged or otherwise.

Or not.

thaiboxerken
5th January 2003, 06:05 PM
Pixie, you are my champion of rational thinking!:D

Martin
5th January 2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Franko
So long as someone is observing it. You have heard of the double slit experiment – haven’t you?

If no one is watching, the results are totally different then when someone is watching

Only if you refer to inanimate objects as 'someone'.

thaiboxerken
5th January 2003, 06:10 PM
So long as someone is observing it. You have heard of the double slit experiment – haven’t you?

Yep, and as I understood it the results are inconclusive.


No junior-mint … my logic is fine. But your ability to go out of your way to almost deliberately misunderstand what another person is saying is quite extraordinary – someone, somewhere is undoubtedly very proud.

Your "i know you are but what am i game" is childish. It's apparent to the majority here that you are the one that goes out of his way to twist meaning, refuse to understand and fabricate evidence.

thaiboxerken
5th January 2003, 06:11 PM
I find it rather insane that Franko quotes experiments in the Uncertainy Principle and yet he calls the principle "magic". This is just another illustration of how dishonest Franko is.

Martin
5th January 2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by PixyMisa
The purported site claiming to be Nobeliefs.com appears to be a site that tries to dedicate itself to attempts at positions that may or may not resemble freethought (whatever that may be). It - if indeed there is such a thing - allegedly tries to provide supposed forum-like functionality for hypothetical individuals to supposedly discuss possible damage potentially caused by confusing (or otherwise correlating or miscorrelating) a perceived belief system with the alleged truth, not that there is necessarily any objective truth, alleged or otherwise.

Or not.

You know, you can express precisely the same information in my language, M-Prime. Roughly translated, the above comes out as 'MMMOOOOO'. Actually, that's pretty much what everything comes out as in M-Prime. So it's fairly easy to learn, and just as effective as E-Prime.

Needless to say, I learned this fascinating language by studying Lucianarchy's rudimentary attempts at English.

Interesting Ian
5th January 2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by PixyMisa

My position is falsifiable. I say, without equivocation, that telepathy does not happen. All you have to do is demonstrate telepathy, and my position falls apart. I am undone.

And yet, this has not happened.


Your position is not falsifiable, or at least it would only be falsifiable if we lived in a Universe where superpsi phenemona could be produced at whim. But of course we don't live in such a Universe.

With the alleged effects that are manifested the skeptic will always find one way or another to dismiss them. There are countless tactics here at the "skeptics" disposal.

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
I had an Uncle who told me that his cat talked to him, too. But much like you, he never gave me any reason to believe it was true.
[/B]
What did the cat say about it?

Interesting Ian
5th January 2003, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by PixyMisa
Easy. We don't have any. We don't need any. Materialism works.



Materialism works? I'm afraid materialism doesn't do anything. It is a wholly superfluous metaphysic, and moreover is quite clearly not even intelligible.

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Your position is not falsifiable, or at least it would only be falsifiable if we lived in a Universe where superpsi phenemona could be produced at whim.
My position is falsifiable in a universe where telepathy exists. All you need to do is demonstrate telepathy.
But of course we don't live in such a Universe.
Well, how about that.

With the alleged effects that are manifested the skeptic will always find one way or another to dismiss them. There are countless tactics here at the "skeptics" disposal.
Tactics like demanding evidence?
Tactics like using valid experimental controls?
Tactics like not allowing the subjects to cheat?

Those sorts of tactics?

Interesting Ian
5th January 2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by PixyMisa

Interesting Ian
Consciousness needs a source? Care to justify that thesis?

Pix
Clearly this is wrong. One can always subscribe to the Philosophy of Intellectual Defeatism, abandon learning, and assume what you once tried to understand. [/B]

Huh?? :confused: What on earth are you babbling on about? Why should consciousness have a source? Does the Universe have a source?

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Materialism works? I'm afraid materialism doesn't do anything. It is a wholly superfluous metaphysic, and moreover is quite clearly not even intelligible.
Really?

Materialism says the Universe is what it appears to be.

We build Science on this foundation, and we travel to the moon.

Idealism says that the Universe is a dream. Believers flounder in the mire for all eternity or until they return to their senses, whichever comes first.

Dualism says that the Universe is what it appears to be, except for the bits we don't understand, which we'll just assume to exist independently because we're too lazy to bother to work them out. Believers sit on the beach and congratulate each other on their cleverness until they all die because they've forgotten to eat anything.

Dualogical Squirrelism says that everything except acorns exists as thoughts in the mind of a pair of giant blue squirrels named Bip and Bop, who live in an oak tree on the planet Ookpik 5 under the care of Old Man Mud. It is more successful than Idealism or Dualism because it at least gets the acorns right. Plus the squirrels are cute.

Interesting Ian
5th January 2003, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by PixyMisa
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Your position is not falsifiable, or at least it would only be falsifiable if we lived in a Universe where superpsi phenemona could be produced at whim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My position is falsifiable in a universe where telepathy exists. All you need to do is demonstrate telepathy.



But due to the fact that psi effects cannot be reproduced on demand, the overall statistical significance of experimental data might be sufficiently low for "skeptics" to dismiss such results as being due to unknown artifacts of one sort or another, or fraud, or sloppy experimental protocol etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But of course we don't live in such a Universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, how about that.



You think that a Universe with either a low level of paranormal phenomena oir where it is wholly absent is somehow a priori more likely than a Universe where such phenomena is more prevalent and can be produced at will? Well well, that's interesting. Love to hear your reasoning here.


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

With the alleged effects that are manifested the skeptic will always find one way or another to dismiss them. There are countless tactics here at the "skeptics" disposal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tactics like demanding evidence?
Tactics like using valid experimental controls?
Tactics like not allowing the subjects to cheat?

Those sorts of tactics?


No. Of course as a preliminary he use these "tactics". If they work then great. If not he will resort to dishonest tactics.

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh?? :confused: What on earth are you babbling on about? Why should consciousness have a source?
Clearly, unless you simply assume its existence, it must have a source. We are currently not sure exactly how this works. We are working on the problem. Do not expect an answer soon.
Does the Universe have a source?
Clearly, unless you simply assume its existence, it must have a source. We are currently not sure exactly how this works. We are working on the problem. Do not expect an answer soon.

Martin
5th January 2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No. Of course as a preliminary he use these "tactics". If they work then great. If not he will resort to dishonest tactics.

Creationists use dishonest tactics to defend their 'theories'. Doesn't make them any less falsifiable, nor any less false. Produce a scientific demonstration of telepathy and the statement 'telepathy does not exist' is falsified, whether or not those who make it accept this.

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But due to the fact that psi effects cannot be reproduced on demand
Or indeed do not exist at all.

the overall statistical significance of experimental data might be sufficiently low for "skeptics" to dismiss such results as being due to unknown artifacts of one sort or another, or fraud, or sloppy experimental protocol etc.
And indeed it is likely that the results are due to any or all of these.
You think that a Universe with either a low level of paranormal phenomena oir where it is wholly absent is somehow a priori more likely than a Universe where such phenomena is more prevalent and can be produced at will?

No.
Well well, that's interesting. Love to hear your reasoning here.
I'd be interested too, if you could find someone who believed this.

No. Of course as a preliminary he use these "tactics". If they work then great. If not he will resort to dishonest tactics.
And you will resort to baseless accusations.

Ian, face it: no claim of the paranormal has ever been borne out in a properly conducted test. There's no need for the skeptics to cheat. The claimed powers just don't work.

Interesting Ian
5th January 2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by PixyMisa

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Materialism works? I'm afraid materialism doesn't do anything. It is a wholly superfluous metaphysic, and moreover is quite clearly not even intelligible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Really?



Yes.



Materialism says the Universe is what it appears to be.



No it doesn't. This is what idealism holds, at least for the "physical" Universe. Materialists advocate a wholly unknowable reality which in some mysterious manner gives rise to our sensory perceptions. Morover they hold that phenomenal consciousness is one and the same thing or reducible to particular physical processes.



We build Science on this foundation, and we travel to the moon.


No we don't. In no shape or manner does science require materialism. If anything subjective idealism is more consistant with science.



Idealism says that the Universe is a dream.



It most certainly does not. As empirical reality is equated with our very sensory perceptions, then by definition the Universe is what it appears to be. Saying it's a dream is meaningless. What is meant by describing it as a dream?




Believers flounder in the mire for all eternity or until they return to their senses, whichever comes first.



Believers in what? Materialism?



Dualism says that the Universe is what it appears to be, except for the bits we don't understand, which we'll just assume to exist independently because we're too lazy to bother to work them out. Believers sit on the beach and congratulate each other on their cleverness until they all die because they've forgotten to eat anything.


Er . . yeah.



Dualogical Squirrelism says that everything except acorns exists as thoughts in the mind of a pair of giant blue squirrels named Bip and Bop, who live in an oak tree on the planet Ookpik 5 under the care of Old Man Mud. It is more successful than Idealism or Dualism because it at least gets the acorns right. Plus the squirrels are cute.


You really are utterly clueless aren't you Pixiepants?

Martin
5th January 2003, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You really are utterly clueless aren't you Pixiepants?

Oh, don't go Franko on us, Ian.



Besides...Dualogical Squirrelism...hrmm...kinda has a ring to it. Might have to rethink this whole Physicalist thing.

Hello, I'm an agnostic atheist compatabilist dualogical squirrelist? I can pull that off...

Interesting Ian
5th January 2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by PixyMisa
[B]
Clearly, unless you simply assume its existence,


So why can't we just do that? Treat consciousness as a basic ontological existent. Or if you're not entirely happy about that say the source is from "God" or the infinite ultimate reality or whatever.




it must have a source. We are currently not sure exactly how this works. We are working on the problem. Do not expect an answer soon.


Don't worry, I won't. I won't ever expect an answer. Consciousness is not in principle susceptible to a scientific explanation.

Clearly, unless you simply assume its (ie the Universe) existence, it must have a source. We are currently not sure exactly how this works. We are working on the problem. Do not expect an answer soon.

No the Universe need not have a source. There is nothing inherently absurd about it acausally springing into being without reason or rhyme.

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No it doesn't. This is what idealism holds, at least for the "physical" Universe.
Idealism holds that objects are perceptions. That's not what the Universe appears to be. It's backwards.

I see a tree. It appears to be a tree. It does not appear to be the perception of a tree, which is another thing entirely.

Materialists advocate a wholly unknowable reality
- which follows consistent rules and can be consistently observed by independent consicousnesses -
which in some mysterious
- or not mysterious -
manner gives rise to our sensory perceptions.
In other words, the Universe is what it appears to be.

Morover they hold that phenomenal consciousness is one and the same thing or reducible to particular physical processes.
Yes. "One and the same thing" sounds kind of odd to me, but I'll certainly grant you reducible.

No we don't. In no shape or manner does science require materialism. If anything subjective idealism is more consistant with science.
Subjective idealism denies objective reality. There is no reason for there to be physical laws, or indeed any coherent pattern. Science doesn't work very well in this situation.

It most certainly does not. As empirical reality is equated with our very sensory perceptions
That's idealism, yes.
then by definition the Universe is what it appears to be.
By the definition of idealism. You've already assumed that.
Saying it's a dream is meaningless. What is meant by describing it as a dream?
Subjective "reality". A dream is about the closest single word in our language
Believers in what? Materialism?
Idealism.

Er . . yeah.
Heh. Tough luck for the dualists.

You really are utterly clueless aren't you Pixiepants?
Have you caught an infection from Franko?

c4ts
5th January 2003, 07:18 PM
Someone once told me that reality was defined by two leprechauns and a chess board. I figure he was drunk or stoned at the time.

Interesting Ian
5th January 2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Martinm


Oh, don't go Franko on us, Ian.



Besides...Dualogical Squirrelism...hrmm...kinda has a ring to it. Might have to rethink this whole Physicalist thing.

Hello, I'm an agnostic atheist compatabilist dualogical squirrelist? I can pull that off...

Yeah you're right. Sorry PixyMisa :) One thing you'll note about me is that I get pis*ed off very easily and hence have a propensity to resort to insults LOL.

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So why can't we just do that? Treat consciousness as a basic ontological existent. Or if you're not entirely happy about that say the source is from "God" or the infinite ultimate reality or whatever.
OK. This is tricky for me, because I'm used to using materialist explanations (because they work).

We have a consciousness. And then... what? How does this give rise to the two big observations - the Universe, and multiple, (apparently) independent consciousnesses?
Don't worry, I won't. I won't ever expect an answer. Consciousness is not in principle susceptible to a scientific explanation.
Now, here we have a significant claim. No waffle. This is actually - no sarcasm - interesting.

Why do you think that consciousness is not in principle susceptible to a scientific explanation?
No the Universe need not have a source. There is nothing inherently absurd about it acausally springing into being without reason or rhyme.
If you assume consciousness pre-exists, and take the idealist position, this follows.

To a materialist, it is of concern. Depending on what the answer is, it may well be unknowable. Which would be annoying.

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yeah you're right. Sorry PixyMisa :) One thing you'll note about me is that I get pis*ed off very easily and hence have a propensity to resort to insults LOL.
'Sokay.

Interesting Ian
5th January 2003, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by PixyMisa


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No it doesn't. This is what idealism holds, at least for the "physical" Universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Idealism holds that objects are perceptions. That's not what the Universe appears to be. It's backwards.

I see a tree. It appears to be a tree. It does not appear to be the perception of a tree, which is another thing entirely.



Appearing to be a perception is meaningless. I agree it appears to be a tree. But that tree is constituted by a family of visual and tactile sensory perceptions. After all possible perceptual observations of a tree have been made, then you have said all that can be said about the tree. There is nothing more to the tree. Least of all is there some mysterious material reality existing in abstraction of all possible perceptions of it.


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

Materialists advocate a wholly unknowable reality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


- which follows consistent rules and can be consistently observed by independent consicousnesses -



We can all agree that empirical reality follows consistant rules.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
which in some mysterious
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


- or not mysterious -

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
manner gives rise to our sensory perceptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In other words, the Universe is what it appears to be.



Not at all. This is what idealists advance. A banana really is yellow. A materialist would hold that the yellowness as experienced is only apparent. It is a result of the interpretation by the brain of the reflection of electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength off the banana. The banana really is firm to the touch. The materialist would say that the feeling of firmness is a result of the electrical repulsion force between the electrons in my finger tips and the electrons near the surface of the banana. The materialist would have us believe we are systematically deluded in all things. That reality is vastly different from what it appears to be. That is the preposterous position they are forced into.




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

No we don't. In no shape or manner does science require materialism. If anything subjective idealism is more consistant with science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subjective idealism denies objective reality. There is no reason for there to be physical laws, or indeed any coherent pattern. Science doesn't work very well in this situation.



There is no reason? What reason is there for physical laws under materialism? Why isn't reality wholly random and chaotic? Under the particular form of subjective idealism that I espouse physical laws are simply a manifestation of God's Will. Thus in my metaphysic there is a rationale for physical laws. But under materialism it is wholly mysterious why there should be physical laws.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying it's a dream is meaningless. What is meant by describing it as a dream?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subjective "reality". A dream is about the closest single word in our language



but whether materialism is correct or idealism is correct, the totality of physical facts will be very similar. So why call one a dream and the other not? What milage is gained by describing reality as a dream?

Edited to add

I won't be responding anymore tonight. it's 3.15am and I want to read some Harry Potter before falling to sleep!

justsaygnosis
5th January 2003, 08:02 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No it doesn't. This is what idealism holds, at least for the "physical" Universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Idealism holds that objects are perceptions. That's not what the Universe appears to be. It's backwards.

I see a tree. It appears to be a tree. It does not appear to be the perception of a tree, which is another thing entirely.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Materialists advocate a wholly unknowable reality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


- which follows consistent rules and can be consistently observed by independent consicousnesses -

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
which in some mysterious
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


- or not mysterious -

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
manner gives rise to our sensory perceptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In other words, the Universe is what it appears to be.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morover they hold that phenomenal consciousness is one and the same thing or reducible to particular physical processes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes. "One and the same thing" sounds kind of odd to me, but I'll certainly grant you reducible.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No we don't. In no shape or manner does science require materialism. If anything subjective idealism is more consistant with science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subjective idealism denies objective reality. There is no reason for there to be physical laws, or indeed any coherent pattern. Science doesn't work very well in this situation.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It most certainly does not. As empirical reality is equated with our very sensory perceptions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's idealism, yes.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
then by definition the Universe is what it appears to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By the definition of idealism. You've already assumed that.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying it's a dream is meaningless. What is meant by describing it as a dream?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subjective "reality". A dream is about the closest single word in our language

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believers in what? Materialism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Idealism.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Er . . yeah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Heh. Tough luck for the dualists.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You really are utterly clueless aren't you Pixiepants?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Have you caught an infection from Franko?



Perception isn't necessarily consensus. Anyone can perceive a tree and assign that tree an origin and function that is completely out of touch with consensual agreement among sober and rational beings. Facts, provable and longstanding are sane basis' for forming hypothesis that will spurn us to investigate further possibilities on earth and in the universe.
Is there going to be ongoing argument on any topic or opinion....take it to the bank there will be.

Franko
5th January 2003, 08:03 PM
Pixie, you are my champion of rational thinking!

Perhaps you could prove that you mean what you say (another hypocrite A-Theist religious fanatic), by providing some evidence for your beliefs?

What makes you believe you have more “free will” then the Moon does?

How can something which you claim is non-conscious (TLOP) control something you claim is conscious (YOU)? Isn’t that like saying your CAR controls YOU?

How does this belief make YOU and Pixymisty “Rational”?

Franko
5th January 2003, 08:09 PM
Franko:
So long as someone is observing it. You have heard of the double slit experiment – haven’t you?

If no one is watching, the results are totally different then when someone is watching

martinm:
Only if you refer to inanimate objects as 'someone'.

What do you mean by that martinm? When there is no observer, the particle goes through both slits, but as soon as you observe the waveform collapses.

You want to think of a world of “matter”. But the Universe is made of Energy. In what way does a pattern exist if there is no “entity” capable of perceiving the pattern. Without an entity to perceive a pattern there is no pattern – all would just be “random” data there would be no patterns, because there would be nothing to perceive a pattern.

Martin
5th January 2003, 08:14 PM
Define 'observer'.

justsaygnosis
5th January 2003, 08:23 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Franko
[B]


How can something which you claim is non-conscious (TLOP) control something you claim is conscious (YOU)? Isn’t that like saying your CAR controls YOU?



If it's out of gas I have to put fuel in to make it start up again, if it's got a mechanical problem I fix it or bring it to someone who can, etc. etc. so in many ways my car does exert control over me.
Sliding downhill on ice forces me to respond to the situation at hand but offers me little control over it.

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Appearing to be a perception is meaningless. I agree it appears to be a tree.
So far so good.

But that tree is constituted by a family of visual and tactile sensory perceptions. After all possible perceptual observations of a tree have been made, then you have said all that can be said about the tree. There is nothing more to the tree. Least of all is there some mysterious material reality existing in abstraction of all possible perceptions of it.

Well, that is simply a restatement of idealism.

But I see the problem - we simply have different definitions of what "is" means. This is not a problem I am used to dealing with.
We can all agree that empirical reality follows consistant rules.
OK.
Not at all. This is what idealists advance. A banana really is yellow. A materialist would hold that the yellowness as experienced is only apparent. It is a result of the interpretation by the brain of the reflection of electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength off the banana. The banana really is firm to the touch. The materialist would say that the feeling of firmness is a result of the electrical repulsion force between the electrons in my finger tips and the electrons near the surface of the banana. The materialist would have us believe we are systematically deluded in all things. That reality is vastly different from what it appears to be. That is the preposterous position they are forced into.
Again, you only think it is odd because you are an idealist. (You are an idealist, aren't you? Just want to make sure I don't have this mixed up.) To a materialist, all your uses of the word "is" are incorrect.

The word "is" does not translate.
There is no reason? What reason is there for physical laws under materialism? Why isn't reality wholly random and chaotic? Under the particular form of subjective idealism that I espouse physical laws are simply a manifestation of God's Will. Thus in my metaphysic there is a rationale for physical laws. But under materialism it is wholly mysterious why there should be physical laws.
That physical laws are God's will is not an explanation, it is a defintion. It does not reduce the problem in any way.

but whether materialism is correct or idealism is correct, the totality of physical facts will be very similar. So why call one a dream and the other not? What milage is gained by describing reality as a dream?
OK. Here's the deal. (At least as I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong. )

Materialism assumes the material world exists, independent of consciousness. The material world follows physical laws. It doesn't matter to materialism what those laws are, just that there are laws. All else follows from this.

Idealism assumes that consciousness exists. The observations that this consciousness makes follow a set of rules. It doesn't matter what these rules are, just that there are rules. All else follows from this.

(Both state that things follow a set of laws, because otherwise they'd be inconsistent with our observations and would be dead meat.)

Now, each position assumes one of the two hard problems, and leaves the other open:

Materialism has to explain how consciousness arises from matter.

Idealism has to explain why there is an observable universe.

Now, some questions from a materialist standpoint:

We always associate consciousness with a particular material body - the brain. Brains are observed without consciousness, but not vice-versa. Why? Why does material damage to the brain materially affect consciousness? Why do we observe multiple consciousnesses?

Consciousness (as a phenomenon) is a recent thing as far as we can tell. Evidence gathered by following our consistent rule set indicates that the universe is perhaps 15 billion years old, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that multi-cellular life first appeared about 600 million years ago. There was nothing we can recognise as conscious during this time. What was this (universal) consciousness doing all this time?

These questions simply don't arise (or are trivial) in a materialist philosophy. There may be equivalent questions, but I'm not sure what they are.

I won't be responding anymore tonight. it's 3.15am and I want to read some Harry Potter before falling to sleep!
Yeah, Harry Potter does that to me too :)

See you in a day or so - I'm trying to reduce my JREF addiction :o (Yeah, like that'll work. Until my next anime shipment comes in...)

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Franko
What makes you believe you have more “free will” then the Moon does?
Observation.

How can something which you claim is non-conscious (TLOP) control something you claim is conscious (YOU)?

Hello? Franko? Anyone home?

We do not say that the laws of physics control us.

Try the word "constrain". We can agree to that.


Oh, and gravitons still don't have charge.

Franko
5th January 2003, 08:39 PM
The big problem in the metaphysics of quantum mechanics is the question of where to place the split between the observer and the observed. The astonishing finding of von Neumann (1955) is that its placement is irrelevant to any measured event. The Feynman rules for the world below the split and the classical rules for the world above the split are so clever that the split is moveable. This is the brilliant manner in which the quantum duality avoids the difficulties encountered by the previous dualities of Plato, Descartes and Kant. Previous dualities contained inconsistencies when the two sides were compared. There are no inconsistencies between the two halves of the quantum duality. Present quantum theory, with its flexible split placement, allows the neural correlates of awareness to be above the split (the neural correlates of awareness become the observer) and the remaining (unconscious) neural activity to be below. This is the placement advocated by von Neumann (1955), Wigner (1961) and Stapp (1993). Stapp, in particular, has been lucid in writing about the conscious act being connected with the reduction process.

what's wrong with von Neumann?

I'm more conscious then CAR, so with CAR, I would be the observer.

Franko
5th January 2003, 08:44 PM
Pixychixy:

Oh, and gravitons still don't have charge.

Sure Darling, and there is no evidence for "God", and people who don't believe in consequences for their actions (A-Theists) will behave just as morally as those who do believe.

... That's why we should abolish all the prisons, and make baby-killing cheap and legal! :rolleyes:

PixyMisa
5th January 2003, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Franko
Sure Darling, and there is no evidence for "God"
Which there isn't. If you have some, we'd be most interested.

and people who don't believe in consequences for their actions (A-Theists)

Ah. Well, if that's what an A-Theist is, then I'm not an A-Theist. Glad we cleared that up.

will behave just as morally as those who do believe.

... That's why we should abolish all the prisons, and make baby-killing cheap and legal!
Sorry, Franko, I don't agree with you. Some people should be locked up, for the good of society. I'm sorry that you can't see this.

By the way:
Graviton

A theoretical particle having no mass and no charge that mediates (carries) the gravitational force. The graviton is a boson. The existence of a graviton has not yet been confirmed experimentally, although string theory predicts the existence of gravitons as closed strings with the minimum possible energy. It is also theorized that gravitons interact with leptons and quarks.
Gravitons clearly cannot have charge, or the gravitational force would be subject to the electromagnetic force. While this would have some interesting applications (anti-gravity, for a start), if it were true, all major bodies in the Universe (planets, stars, galaxies) would disintegrate instantly. This would be bad.

scribble
5th January 2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Ah! Ok, so you don't think consciousness need a source? :)

I don't care to discuss it with you. Any further comment by me would be insulting.

-Chris

MRC_Hans
6th January 2003, 01:16 AM
PixyMisa*snip* if it were true, all major bodies in the Universe (planets, stars, galaxies) would disintegrate instantly. This would be bad.You can say that again, thats where I keep all my things!

But I suspect Frank0's version of graviton is different. The QM version is very small, since it represents the smallest quantum of gravity, thus even a dust particle will contain gazillions of gravitons, and Frank0 has said:

"1 Graviton = 1 Soul = 1 Life"

And obviously, this would get complicated, so perhaps you should explain a little of YOUR gravitons, Frank; how you discovered them, documentation, and such. You might as well practice now, the Nobel Comitee will want to see it.

Hans

6th January 2003, 02:45 AM
Pixy :


There is no white rabbit.


There is no spoon. ;)

Interesting Ian
6th January 2003, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by scribble


I don't care to discuss it with you. Any further comment by me would be insulting.

-Chris

Fine if that's your attitude. Why don't you put me on ignore if that's the way you feel about me?

scribble
6th January 2003, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Fine if that's your attitude. Why don't you put me on ignore if that's the way you feel about me?

I've considered it, but I don't like to go to that length if I can avoid it. Hope springs eternal -- I keep thinking people might change.

-Chris

Tricky
6th January 2003, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
There are many uses of "to be" :

TO BE OR NOT TO BE: E-Prime as a Tool for Critical Thinking (http://www.generalsemantics.org/Articles/TOBECRIT.HTM)

But the two biggies to avoid are :

(1) Noun Phrase-1 + TO BE + Noun Phrase-2 (Identity)

(2) Noun Phrase-1 + TO BE + Adjective Phrase-1 (Predication)

You said "Nobeliefs.com is a site..."

That is (1) (identiity).

Why is this a problem....



So when I said "Nobeliefs.com dedicates itself to freethought", I deliberately avoided this 'identity' use of 'to be'.

It is hard work writing in E-Prime. Even harder thinking in it. But several people have managed to write entire books in it, and I have even read one of them - after a while you don't notice.
The discussion of E-prime popped to mind when I read this (http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/index.html) News Of The Weird article.
In November 2001, News of the Weird reported on a language its practitioners called The Truth (but which is basically indistinguishable from gibberish), which at that time a few Canadian defendants were using in tax-evasion trials (with a huge lack of success). In December 2002, Janet Kay Logan, 46, and Jason Zellmer, 22, were convicted in Madison, Wis., of creating phony lawsuit documents, despite their using The Truth in their trial and attempting to call as a witness the language's creator, David Wynn Miller, also known as the "king of Hawaii," who informed the judge that the genesis of The Truth was when Miller "turned Hawaii into a verb" and showed "how a preposition is needed to certify a noun." Logan insisted until the very end that the lawsuits were legitimate because she is a judge in the "DI-STRICT court of the Unity State of the World."
Capital Times (Madison, Wis.), 12-5-02

Franko
6th January 2003, 09:59 AM
PixyChixy:

That physical laws are God's will is not an explanation, it is a defintion. It does not reduce the problem in any way.

How does saying that “Physical Laws are the will of a non-conscious mystery force” make it more of an explanation Pixie?

It just sounds like you being a pessimist? Where is your objectivity? Where is your evidence for YOUR beliefs?

Materialism assumes the material world exists, independent of consciousness. The material world follows physical laws. It doesn't matter to materialism what those laws are, just that there are laws. All else follows from this.

I thought you told me that there were no fixed laws (its all magical indeterminism)?

I thought you claimed to have “free will”? If you are governed by the laws of physics, then how can you have “free will”?

Or are you claiming that YOUR mind controls the Laws of Physics, Pixie?

I bet Randi would pay you a million if you could prove it …

Idealism [or Logical Deism] assumes that consciousness exists. The observations that this consciousness makes follow a set of rules. It doesn't matter what these rules are, just that there are rules. All else follows from this.

(Both state that things follow a set of laws, because otherwise they'd be inconsistent with our observations and would be dead meat.)

I agree so far …

Now, each position assumes one of the two hard problems, and leaves the other open:

Materialism has to explain how consciousness arises from matter.

Idealism has to explain why there is an observable universe.

That’s easy!

Imagine that you and I are the only things which exist. Two disembodied consciousnesses – that is all there is to the entire Universe.

Now, explain to me how your consciousness and mine could communicate without creating and exchanging energy between us?

Energy is simply the byproduct that you get when two or more consciousnesses communicate.

But you are correct about Materialism. Matter has no similar necessity to create life, but consciousness creates “matter” out of necessity whenever it communicates.

Now, some questions from a materialist standpoint:

We always associate consciousness with a particular material body - the brain. Brains are observed without consciousness, but not vice-versa. Why? Why does material damage to the brain materially affect consciousness? Why do we observe multiple consciousnesses?

If you play Dungeons and Dragons, and your character gets killed, does that mean YOU (the player) have also ceased to exist? Your Soul exist in the Omniverse, this universe is simply a single manifestation of the larger reality. Your physical body only exist in this universe. When your physical body dies then your soul has no tether to this place. It either goes to a different (higher energy) universe, or it returns to whence it came.

Consciousness (as a phenomenon) is a recent thing as far as we can tell. Evidence gathered by following our consistent rule set indicates that the universe is perhaps 15 billion years old, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that multi-cellular life first appeared about 600 million years ago. There was nothing we can recognise as conscious during this time. What was this (universal) consciousness doing all this time?

Actually you are dead wrong!

Read Fred Hoyle. He claims that life has always existed, and he makes quite a good case. Have you ever heard of Transspermia?

On why I should believe that A-Theists will be just as moral as Theists …

Franko:
... That's why we should abolish all the prisons, and make baby-killing cheap and legal!

Pixychix:
Sorry, Franko, I don't agree with you. Some people should be locked up, for the good of society. I'm sorry that you can't see this.

You are sorry I can’t see it???

I am sorry that you can’t see you are claiming EXACTLY that, when you tell me that A-Theists will be JUST as moral as NON-A-Theists. That is simply untrue. For you to claim that is as absurd as claiming that if we abolished all prisons people would STILL be just a moral (the crime rate would remain unchanged). A-Theists don’t believe their will be ANY consequences for their actions – and they behave JUST like they believe it!

A-Theist make far LESS moral people! People who don’t fear consequences ALWAYS make less moral people.

I am sorry that you are sooo incredibly brainwashed and self-deluded that you can’t see this yourself. But you do make an excellent demonstration of the fanaticism of A-Theism.

Gravitons clearly cannot have charge, or the gravitational force would be subject to the electromagnetic force. While this would have some interesting applications (anti-gravity, for a start), if it were true, all major bodies in the Universe (planets, stars, galaxies) would disintegrate instantly. This would be bad.

If Gravitons can’t have a charge, then how do you account for the existence of both “matter”, and “anti-matter”? What is different about Anti-matter from regular matter Darling?

Franko
6th January 2003, 10:03 AM
Franko:
If there were no consciousnesses to perceive “Prime Numbers” in what way would Prime numbers exist?

Elephant:
In the way that they would be inevitable. The set of relationships we term Prime Numbers are eternally the same. Numbers exist regardless of time or space, and must be the way they are.

Why must they be that way? By what logic? How do you know that anything would exist if there were nothing here to perceive it? What makes you think that pattern pre-exist an ability to perceive a pattern?

You never seem to want to explain yourself Elephant. Just like that Lucy Rochalforge, or that little Fool – they never want to explain what they believe either. What are you “all” hiding?

Franko:
So you are actually claiming that a “non-physical” mental-world exist apart from Minds? In other words you are actually claiming that some non-physical mental sphere exist independent of consciousness?

And how exactly did you come to this conclusion? Where is your train of thought?


Elephant: (UCE’s “train of thought”)

No....

I am claiming that numbers exist independent of consciousness. Apart from that I don't really understand why you think I implied what you have written. I might be...I can't grasp exactly what you mean. How can you have a mental sphere independent of consciousness?

You tell me – you are the one claiming that numbers “self-exist”. If I have misunderstood your statement then you will have to be the one to clarify it. That is what I mean.

6th January 2003, 10:53 AM
Frankenstein:


Why must they be that way? By what logic? How do you know that anything would exist if there were nothing here to perceive it? What makes you think that pattern pre-exist an ability to perceive a pattern?


These particular patterns have to be the way they are, that is all. They cannot be any other way. Even if there was nothing to perceive a mandelbrot set, it would be there waiting to be perceived. It exists potentially. When I say numbers self-exist I really mean they do not have to be created.


You never seem to want to explain yourself Elephant.


And you do? :rolleyes:


Just like that Lucy Rochalforge, or that little Fool – they never want to explain what they believe either. What are you “all” hiding?


Now you really are starting to sound like Gollum.

That nasty Lucy Rochalforge. Don't trusts him. Don't trusts any of 'em. Nasty little A-theistsssssss. No. Not like us logical deistssssss. What's they all hiding? Why don't they tells us?

Franko
6th January 2003, 11:12 AM
Elephant,

These particular patterns have to be the way they are, that is all. They cannot be any other way. Even if there was nothing to perceive a mandelbrot set, it would be there waiting to be perceived. It exists potentially. When I say numbers self-exist I really mean they do not have to be created.

Claiming that numbers self-exist does not make it so. I can see how the prime numbers (or Pi for that matter) have to have the values they do, but what makes you believe that this isn’t simply the result of some other process?

I had asked you long ago (more than once), how can Math exist without the existence of Logic? Doesn’t logic have to exist prior to the existence of Numbers?

Can you have numbers (or math) without having logic first?

Does that mean that Logic self exist, and then consciousness invents numbers afterwards?

If not, why not? Explain how numbers can exist without Logic?

Couldn’t someone make the same claim you make about numbers about ANYTHING?

The Moon self-exist, because our Moon could not exist any other way?

Franko:
You never seem to want to explain yourself Elephant.

Elephant:
And you do?

Not only do I explain myself, but I present my exact train of thought for my arguments, and I define any special terms I am using.

I can explain why I don’t believe in “free will” while you cannot explain why you do believe in it.

I can explain why I believe “God” exist, while you cannot explain why She doesn’t.

Now you really are starting to sound like Gollum.

That nasty Lucy Rochalforge. Don't trusts him. Don't trusts any of 'em. Nasty little A-theistsssssss. No. Not like us logical deistssssss. What's they all hiding? Why don't they tells us?

You, Luciforge, and Fool, all parrot the same nonsense, and none of you can (or will) explain any of it. Plus all three of you have harped on some rather strange non-issues with me. Some odd lines of thought that NO ONE else ever mentions. Yet you 3 all seem fixated. I guess it is just a coincidence though … ???

Q-Source
6th January 2003, 11:12 AM
Geoff,

What is the purpose of you coming to this forum if you don´t want to share your thoughts ? :confused:

Q-S

6th January 2003, 12:18 PM
Q-Source....

I thought I had been sharing my thoughts.

:(

The only things I do not want to discuss in public are unlikely to be of any real interest to people who do not believe in a spiritual/metaphysical realm. I also suspect that in metaphysics, as in physics, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And certain actions I might take (like revealing certain pieces of information publicly) might have opposite reactions I do not want to experience. Does that make sense?

6th January 2003, 12:34 PM
Franchesca :


I had asked you long ago (more than once), how can Math exist without the existence of Logic? Doesn’t logic have to exist prior to the existence of Numbers?


Logic logically precedes numbers.


Does that mean that Logic self exist, and then consciousness invents numbers afterwards?


Both are ex-temporal.


Couldn’t someone make the same claim you make about numbers about ANYTHING?


No. Everything else exists relative to something else in the manifested Universe. In the abscence of a Universe numbers are the only thing which can have meaning because they refer only to themselves and to Zero.


The Moon self-exist, because our Moon could not exist any other way?


The moon does not mean anything unless it is relative to the rest of the Universe.


I can explain why I don’t believe in “free will” while you cannot explain why you do believe in it.


I explained exactly what Free Will is and why I believe in it. You even replied "Very good Elephant." You are losing your memory.


I can explain why I believe “God” exist, while you cannot explain why She doesn’t.


I have offered no position on the existence of 'God'. I have stated several times that I believe in the objective existence of Infinity.

Can you explain why you think my position is that 'she doesn't exist'?

I will clarify my position a little further : If I look at history I conclude that it is the three religions that claim the existence of an authoritarian God figure have brought enormous conflict and misery to humanity. This does not neccesarily imply that I actively disbelieve in the existence of God, just that I do not want to be involved in perpetuating belief systems I perceive to be damaging. Neither does it imply that I actively believe in the existence of such a God-figure. I do not believe it is helpful for me to offer an opinion. I believe the Buddha also refused to be drawn on this. If this position was good enough for the Buddha then it is good enough for me.



You, Luciforge, and Fool, all parrot the same nonsense, and none of you can (or will) explain any of it. Plus all three of you have harped on some rather strange non-issues with me. Some odd lines of thought that NO ONE else ever mentions. Yet you 3 all seem fixated. I guess it is just a coincidence though … ???


I don't think Lucifuge likes my position any more than he likes yours. My interaction with Fool has been so minimal as to be practically non-existent. And I have NO SOCK PUPPETS. :rolleyes:

Q-Source
6th January 2003, 12:43 PM
UndercoverElephant

The only things I do not want to discuss in public are unlikely to be of any real interest to people who do not believe in a spiritual/metaphysical realm.

Hello ??

You should know by now that this forum is full of atheists, materialists and many people who don´t believe in the spiritual world. H o w e v e r, many people may find this interesting to discuss or read.

I feel a little bit intimidated by you :o, so don´t expect me to engage in any metaphysical discussion. I was just following the exchange with others. This is the way how we all learn new things.

UndercoverElephant

I also suspect that in metaphysics, as in physics, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Does that make sense?

No, it doesn´t make sense. What is the meaning of having information if you do not share it?. But, the choice is yours... so just do whatever you feel is good for you.

Maybe, this is part of your continuous metamorphosis. :)

scribble
6th January 2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
No. Everything else exists relative to something else in the manifested Universe. In the abscence of a Universe numbers are the only thing which can have meaning because they refer only to themselves and to Zero.


You still do not understand mathematics.

I have offered no position on the existence of 'God'. I have stated several times that I believe in the objective existence of Infinity.

And you claimed your beliefs have changed a lot. Guess not.


And I have NO SOCK PUPPETS. :rolleyes: [/B]

Juggler, Jedi Knight, Undercover Elephant.

Which two of the three aren't you? Oh, they are all you? Goodness, that sounds like a sock puppet to me.

-Chris

6th January 2003, 01:30 PM
Q-S


No, it doesn´t make sense.


Physics is dominated by action and reaction. Things start of in a state of equilibrium, you push, and something pushes back. Pull a pendulum one way and it swings back the other. Throw a pebble in a stream and water splashes back up in the air. This pattern is endemic all over physics.

Why shouldn't the system which underlies physics work in a similar way? Look at the Yin/Yang symbol. As far as a pictorial representation goes it is hard to better as a description of the way physics works. Everything is about positive and negative cancelling out and trying to find equilibrium. Metaphysics is exactly the same, its just the way action and reaction are connected together is not so obvious. The links are hidden from us. But your actions, and even your thoughts, all have unseen effects. Part of the subjective changes I speak of involve a steadily growing awareness of this metaphysical system of action and reaction i.e. why things happen the way they do. The skeptical community does not even believe such effects are possible, and science does not look for them. But they exist, and once you start looking for them, and becoming more and more aware of them, then you have no choice but to start taking them into account. This is where Franko and I are in the same boat. We are both acutely aware of many of these metaphysical mechanisms, and treat them with a great deal of respect - it would be very foolish to ignore them.

:)

scribble
6th January 2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

The only things I do not want to discuss in public are unlikely to be of any real interest to people who do not believe in a spiritual/metaphysical realm.

Unlikely? And you still deem them unlikely when we are sitting here telling you how interesting those things are and begging you to provide answers? Trust me, it's not unlikely to be interesting, at least to THIS non-believer. It's fascinating, and you are wrong.


I also suspect that in metaphysics, as in physics, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And certain actions I might take (like revealing certain pieces of information publicly) might have opposite reactions I do not want to experience. Does that make sense? [/B]

No.

-Chris

Franko
6th January 2003, 01:35 PM
Elephant/Luciforge:
The only things I do not want to discuss in public are unlikely to be of any real interest to people who do not believe in a spiritual/metaphysical realm. I also suspect that in metaphysics, as in physics, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And certain actions I might take (like revealing certain pieces of information publicly) might have opposite reactions I do not want to experience. Does that make sense?

Considering your various sockpuppets and other forms of deceit, I can see where you might have concern for the consequences of your actions; however, YOU specifically told me the other day that there would be NO consequences for our actions?

Are you changing your tune about this already?

scribble
6th January 2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
And certain actions I might take (like revealing certain pieces of information publicly) might have opposite reactions I do not want to experience. Does that make sense? [/B]

Hey, this reminds me, UcE --

Remember last year when that document that answered all the questions you had about life, the universe, and everything magically appeared on your computer overnight, and then you wouldn't show it to us because you were worried about copyright infringement (copyright infringement! On a document that magically appeared on his PC overnight! That would be copyright of who, God?)? And then you said you deleted it (he deleted a document that was given to him by a higher power?! Blasphemer!)?

What repercussions came of that?

-Chris

Q-Source
6th January 2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Part of the subjective changes I speak of involve a steadily growing awareness of this metaphysical system of action and reaction i.e. why things happen the way they do. The skeptical community does not even believe such effects are possible, and science does not look for them. But they exist, and once you start looking for them, and becoming more and more aware of them, then you have no choice but to start taking them into account.

:(

It is a pity that you assume that every positive action will bring a negative reaction.

...and Franko says that atheists are the only pessimists :rolleyes:

Franko
6th January 2003, 01:56 PM
Logic logically precedes numbers.

Ohhh, now was that so hard to admit?

Franko:
Does that mean that Logic self exist, and then consciousness invents numbers afterwards?

Elephant:
Both are ex-temporal.

You mean both exist beyond the confines of Time? Hehehe …

You’ll have to explain what that means Elephant? How exactly does one determine what exists beyond the realm of Time – praytell?

Can a Universe exist without Time?

Franko:
Couldn’t someone make the same claim you make about numbers about ANYTHING?

Juggler:
No. Everything else exists relative to something else in the manifested Universe. In the abscence of a Universe numbers are the only thing which can have meaning because they refer only to themselves and to Zero.

But you just said that Number can only exist relative to something else existing first – LOGIC.

Can Logic exist without consciousness? How so? In what form?

Franko:
The Moon self-exist, because our Moon could not exist any other way?

Elephant:
The moon does not mean anything unless it is relative to the rest of the Universe.

What do you mean by the Moon doesn’t “mean” anything?

Do numbers “mean” anything without the rest of the universe?

Do numbers mean anything is there is no consciousness around to perceive the Numbers?

Maybe the Universe does not mean anything unless it is relative to the Moon?

I don’t see how your statement is any more meaningful.

Franko:
I can explain why I don’t believe in “free will” while you cannot explain why you do believe in it.

Juggler:
I explained exactly what Free Will is and why I believe in it. You even replied "Very good Elephant." You are losing your memory.

My memory works very differently then yours does, but that point aside, You NEVER explained why you believed in “free will”, nor did you provide any evidence for your belief.

You simply acknowledged that there was no way we could have “free will” if Stimpy’s version of Pseudo-Materialism were true. You also stated that the very concept of “free will” was meaningless unless one also posited the existence of a Soul (which no A-Theist ever think of).

To those comments (specifically) I believe I responded – Very impressive Elephant.

Franko:
I can explain why I believe “God” exist, while you cannot explain why She doesn’t.

Elephant:
I have offered no position on the existence of 'God'. I have stated several times that I believe in the objective existence of Infinity.

Can you explain why you think my position is that 'she doesn't exist'?

Because we have been speaking about RELIGION and PHILOSOPHY for over a year now Elephant, and I know that in the past, you have espoused a version of Panentheism, or Taoism which posits an “Omniconsciousness” or “Metamind”. A kind of collective consciousness (megaconsciousness) that we all “rejoin” after we die.

Although I have asked you specifically how you came to this conclusion you have never really explained it to me.

Do you still hold these beliefs, or have you altered your position?

Also I have asked you what you mean specifically by the term “Infinity”. Do you believe that reality is cyclical? DO you still believe that Zero and Infinity are the same value as you once claimed?

I will clarify my position a little further : If I look at history I conclude that it is the three religions that claim the existence of an authoritarian God figure have brought enormous conflict and misery to humanity.

I would say that is a rather subjective and arbitrary judgment on your part, but I could see where an A-Theist might draw that conclusion.

This does not neccesarily imply that I actively disbelieve in the existence of God, just that I do not want to be involved in perpetuating belief systems I perceive to be damaging. Neither does it imply that I actively believe in the existence of such a God-figure. I do not believe it is helpful for me to offer an opinion. I believe the Buddha also refused to be drawn on this. If this position was good enough for the Buddha then it is good enough for me.

Buddhism is very close to A-Theism Elephant. The reason so many A-Theists like Buddhism is because Buddhism doesn’t preach that there are consequences for one’s actions either (just like A-Theism).

But lets set the God question aside for a moment. Do you believe that there are consequences for our actions after we die? Do you really believe in Karma? If you sin here and now, will you be punished for those sins later?

If our Ego does not survive death as you claim, isn’t that exactly the same as saying there are no consequences for our actions? What is the difference between that belief, and regular A-Theism? How is anyone going to punish me for my sins, if I have already been annihilated?

PixyMisa
6th January 2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Franko
How does saying that “Physical Laws are the will of a non-conscious mystery force” make it more of an explanation Pixie?
It doesn't. That's not an explanation either.

It just sounds like you being a pessimist? Where is your objectivity? Where is your evidence for YOUR beliefs?
It sounds to me like you're having trouble with your reading skills again.
I thought you told me that there were no fixed laws (its all magical indeterminism)?
Nope. I told you that some of the laws are that some natural processes are indeterministic. Try reading what people write, Franko.

I thought you claimed to have “free will”? If you are governed by the laws of physics, then how can you have “free will”?
There is no contradiction Franko.

Or are you claiming that YOUR mind controls the Laws of Physics, Pixie?

Are you incapable of comprehension, Franko? Or of even remembering what I said?

I bet Randi would pay you a million if you could prove it …
Yes, I expect he would.
That’s easy!

Imagine that you and I are the only things which exist. Two disembodied consciousnesses – that is all there is to the entire Universe.

Now, explain to me how your consciousness and mine could communicate without creating and exchanging energy between us?

Energy is simply the byproduct that you get when two or more consciousnesses communicate.
Sorry, Franko, you lose, in so many ways.

Idealism doesn't assume the existence of multiple disembodied consciousnesses. It assumes one consciousness, and that all is explained from that. If you want two independent consciousnesses communicating, you first need to explain how they arise. If this communication requires or creates energy, you need to explain that too.
But you are correct about Materialism. Matter has no similar necessity to create life, but consciousness creates “matter” out of necessity whenever it communicates.
Evidence?
If you play Dungeons and Dragons, and your character gets killed, does that mean YOU (the player) have also ceased to exist?
Don't be stupid. Or at least, try to be less stupid.
Your Soul
Which is what?
exist in the Omniverse
Omniverse? There's more than the Universe? Evidence?

this universe is simply a single manifestation of the larger reality. Your physical body only exist in this universe.
Well, this last statement is correct.
When your physical body dies then your soul has no tether to this place.
What soul, Franko?
It either goes to a different (higher energy) universe, or it returns to whence it came.
Which is... where?
Actually you are dead wrong!

Read Fred Hoyle. He claims that life has always existed, and he makes quite a good case. Have you ever heard of Transspermia?
Indeed I have. There is no evidence for it whatsoever.

You are sorry I can’t see it???

I am sorry that you can’t see you are claiming EXACTLY that, when you tell me that A-Theists will be JUST as moral as NON-A-Theists.
I never said that.

I will now make a statement on the subject:

Some people are moral regardless of their beliefs or threat of punishment.
Some people are moral only because of threat of immediate physical punishment - and will commit crimes when they think they can get away with it.
Some people are moral only because of their beliefs - and will commit crimes when they think they can rationalise it with those beliefs.

That is simply untrue. For you to claim that is as absurd as claiming that if we abolished all prisons people would STILL be just a moral (the crime rate would remain unchanged). A-Theists don’t believe their will be ANY consequences for their actions – and they behave JUST like they believe it!
Finished beating up your strawman, Franko? Try reading what I said for a change.

A-Theist make far LESS moral people! People who don’t fear consequences ALWAYS make less moral people.
Evidence?

I am sorry that you are sooo incredibly brainwashed and self-deluded that you can’t see this yourself. But you do make an excellent demonstration of the fanaticism of A-Theism.
You STILL haven't told me what I'm supposed to believe in!

If Gravitons can’t have a charge, then how do you account for the existence of both “matter”, and “anti-matter”? What is different about Anti-matter from regular matter Darling?
Gravitons have no charge. Why should they? How could they, and remain consistent with the known laws of physics? What does this have to do with matter or anti-matter?

In an anti-matter particle, the physical properties are reversed when compared to the matter equivalent.

A positron has, for example, the same mass and spin as an electron but the opposite charge and magnetic moment.

Uncharged bosons do not have antiparticles. There is no anti-photon, for example. Nor is there an anti-graviton.

PixyMisa
6th January 2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
And I have NO SOCK PUPPETS. :rolleyes:
Clearly not. All Sock Puppets belong to Jesus, as I demonstrated earlier and in another thread.

6th January 2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Q-Source


:(

It is a pity that you assume that every positive action will bring a negative reaction.

...and Franko says that atheists are the only pessimists :rolleyes:

There is no absolute positive and negative. Just thing and not-thing. Just this-way and that-way.

:)

Pahansiri
6th January 2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Franko



Buddhism is very close to A-Theism Elephant. The reason so many A-Theists like Buddhism is because Buddhism doesn’t preach that there are consequences for one’s actions either (just like A-Theism).

B

Framko Franko my friend again my friend you show little knowledge about the topics you seek to comment on.

Again I can point out that as I have in my last and other post you, your statements are in most cases self defeating, self contradictory both to the content and to your beliefs on a whole. I pointed out in my last post to you that for you to believe that the reality of karma/cause and effect or a god who hands out punishments for actions is contradictory to your belief that there is no form of free will. If one has no control over their actions as you say due to TLOP or your lack of understanding of TLOP as to how it would apply or not apply in most cases to thought shall I say, then how can one be punished for what is as you call fate?

How can your god or goddess punish a being for something they have no control over?

May I ask if a man puts in your drink something to render you unconscious, he then places a gun in your hand and pushes your finger until the gun fires and a child is hit and killed. You go to court there where 100 witnesses who clearly saw this man was in control of your finger and you had no control, should the judge still sentence you to jail for life? I must assume from your statements, yes. Is that the case, it would seem your goddess considers this fair should not our courts do the same?

Or, being your statements or positions change so, should you get a speeding ticket will you go to court and tell the judge you should not get a ticket as TLOF were in control and it was not you who decided to speed and run a stop sign?

Should the judge decide to not to fine you? No, wait he can not decide either way as that would indicate thought which would be needed to put in action a decision of guilty or not and a ticket and fine or not and it is your belief that TLOP is in full control so he can not have thought.

My friend again I must ask do you really what you believe? As with my last post to you I will say you will either choose to just ignore and not answer what you can not or only respond in a way with words of anger and hate of anyone who will not think as you choose to. That is up to you, it is your free will. I respect that and you and again hope you can become free from your anger and join in with real talks sharing what you may believe in a logical and respectful way free from anger or hate. I also hope all can be free from a need to make fun of the beliefs of others or lead with hate rather then compassion, logic and fact.

Be well and happy my friend.

6th January 2003, 03:36 PM
Franchesca :


Ohhh, now was that so hard to admit?


No. I've always said it.


You mean both exist beyond the confines of Time? Hehehe …

You’ll have to explain what that means Elephant? How exactly does one determine what exists beyond the realm of Time – praytell?


Numbers don't need time. Time is a mode of human perception.


Can a Universe exist without Time?


Not any sort of Universe I can imagine.



Can Logic exist without consciousness?


Potentially exist.

Again it is 'discovered' by consciousness rather than invented by it.


What do you mean by the Moon doesn’t “mean” anything?


I mean 'the Moon' is a meaningless concept in isolation from the rest of the physical world.

Do numbers mean anything is there is no consciousness around to perceive the Numbers?


Do numbers “mean” anything without the rest of the universe?


No. But the relationship between the 'twoness' and 'threeness' remains the same regardless of whether there is a consciousness which is 'aware' of the relationship.


Maybe the Universe does not mean anything unless it is relative to the Moon?


Maybe.


Do you still hold these beliefs, or have you altered your position?


Do I hold that there is a 'metamind'?

This is probably implied by the rest of my metaphysics.

Is the metamind independently conscious?

Perhaps I feel it is disrespectful to discuss this here in this way.


Also I have asked you what you mean specifically by the term “Infinity”.


I mean Absolute Infinity. Any other description would render it less than Infinity!


Do you believe that reality is cyclical? DO you still believe that Zero and Infinity are the same value as you once claimed?


I believe there is a very profound relationship between Zero and Infinity.


Buddhism is very close to A-Theism Elephant. The reason so many A-Theists like Buddhism is because Buddhism doesn’t preach that there are consequences for one’s actions either (just like A-Theism).


Total nonsense Franko. Buddhists believe in Karma and reincarnation.


Do you believe that there are consequences for our actions after we die?


Agnostic.


Do you really believe in Karma? If you sin here and now, will you be punished for those sins later?


I believe in a principle of action and reaction. This manifests not so differently to Karma.


If our Ego does not survive death as you claim, isn’t that exactly the same as saying there are no consequences for our actions?


It may be the same as saying there are no consequences after physical death. It is certainly not saying there are no metaphysical consequences before physical death.


What is the difference between that belief, and regular A-Theism? How is anyone going to punish me for my sins, if I have already been annihilated?


Most of the people I know who live for the benefit of others and think about other people instead of themselves are happy.

Most of the people I know who are self-obsessed and try to take more than they give are miserable.

Threatening people with eternal torment is not productive. Neither is promising them 70 virgins. It just drives people crazy.

Interesting Ian
6th January 2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by scribble


Juggler, Jedi Knight, Undercover Elephant.

Which two of the three aren't you? Oh, they are all you? Goodness, that sounds like a sock puppet to me.

-Chris [/B]

I scarcely think that the pontifications of Jedi Knight could be confused with the intelligent ideas that Geof expresses.

The Fool
6th January 2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Franko
You, Luciforge, and Fool, all parrot the same nonsense, and none of you can (or will) explain any of it. Plus all three of you have harped on some rather strange non-issues with me. Some odd lines of thought that NO ONE else ever mentions. Yet you 3 all seem fixated. I guess it is just a coincidence though … ???
LOL.....your blatant contradictions are now just "odd lines of thought" are they? Pathetic....have some courage Frank. The contradictions will not go away unless you explain them, wishing them away will not work.

I KNOW you wish you had not said this but unless you can explain why it will forever look like you are cntradicting your often yelled position.....

You get one true shot at Free Will. It’s no small thing. It is a very big thing. After that you get no more Free Will, but if you have chosen wisely you will be granted control, and control is infinitely better than “free will”.
http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5645&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

Now shut up about free will until you have a consistant position on it....does it exist? once only? or never? which is it? why do you state both cases?

Mossy
6th January 2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I scarcely think that the pontifications of Jedi Knight could be confused with the intelligent ideas that Geof expresses.

DING DING DING!!!!

I finally agree with Ian about something!!! This has to be the first time that I've read one of his posts and thought, "Yup, I agree" [writing in journal].

(sorry Ian, just feeling giddy)

-Ed

scribble
6th January 2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I scarcely think that the pontifications of Jedi Knight could be confused with the intelligent ideas that Geof expresses. ]

I'll admit that JK's style is different enough from UcE that they may not be the same person. I thought that it had been admitted by them they were the same person. Perhaps I remember wrong. My point still stands. UcE and Juggler is enough to make the point I was making.

-Chris

The Fool
6th January 2003, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Franko
Hey Fool,

Didn’t you get BANNED from Infidels.org for preaching your whacky version of A-Theism there?

That why you keep bringing up Deism.org -- isn't it?

Are you embarassed that the booted YOU out of the A-Theist forum? So now you have come here to pitch your new-age hokum?
10 points for the red herring Franko....never posted at Infidels.org in my life...got anything to back that one up?...

going to adress the "once only" free will question?...or are you still hiding.

Franko
6th January 2003, 11:39 PM
Hey Fool,

Didn’t you get BANNED from Infidels.org for preaching your whacky version of A-Theism there?

That why you keep bringing up Deism.org -- isn't it?

Are you embarassed that the booted YOU out of the A-Theist forum? So now you have come here to pitch your new-age hokum?

wraith
7th January 2003, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by PixyMisa
There is no contradiction Franko.

hi Missy Pixy, since I cant get a clear cut description of free-willy from you in the other thread, Ill try here

explain fully how free-willy exists...
I hear:

-TLOP is not deterministc
-I choose from a range of options

Do you use both definitions?
How do you link them together?

The Fool
7th January 2003, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by wraith


Do you use both definitions?
How do you link them together?

You get one true shot at Free Will
There is no free will
You get one true shot at Free Will
There is no free will
You get one true shot at Free Will
There is no free will
You get one true shot at Free Will
There is no free will

How about it sockpuppet...which of these two statements is correct and which one did your master say? or did he say both? How do you link them together?...

stay away from free will son, it has proved to be the downfall of your cult.

PixyMisa
7th January 2003, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by wraith


hi Missy Pixy, since I cant get a clear cut description of free-willy from you in the other thread, Ill try here

explain fully how free-willy exists...
I hear:

-TLOP is not deterministc
-I choose from a range of options

Do you use both definitions?

No. The second is the definition of free will. The first is merely a fact.

How do you link them together?
I don't. There is no need to.

The Fool
7th January 2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Franko
Fool, I am a "free will" A-Theist. I lack-o-belief in what YOU believe.

I don't suppose you have ANY evidence for your "free will" GOD do you Theist?

I didn't think so. Run along Troll ... www.Infidels.org
LOL..game over Frankie....your complete lack of honesty and integrty makes your continued participation on this forum pointless. Go away, you are a pest.

Franko
7th January 2003, 02:59 PM
Fool, I am a "free will" A-Theist. I lack-o-belief in what YOU believe.

I don't suppose you have ANY evidence for your "free will" GOD do you Theist?

I didn't think so. Run along Troll ... www.Infidels.org

hammegk
7th January 2003, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by PixyMisa

No. The second is the definition of free will. The first is merely a fact.

I don't. There is no need to.

For a moment it appeared you might have something new to offer.

Apparently not, although I would be interested to discover why you as a materialist think "what-is" is not absolutely deterministic. Would you care to give it some thought before you babble something about QM nuttiness and free will?

We do agree what-is is not random anyway, but I'm not a materialist.

Fool
Do you make meaningful posts in any forum here? Or is ragging on Franko & a couple others (yup, me sometimes) your only reason for living?

For example, do you have an answer to the question above?

PixyMisa
7th January 2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by hammegk
Apparently not, although I would be interested to discover why you as a materialist think "what-is" is not absolutely deterministic. Would you care to give it some thought before you babble something about QM nuttiness and free will?
"QM nuttiness"?

Quantum mechanics is perhaps the most sucessful theory in physics ever.

Perhaps you have a theory of QM that explains all the experimental data and is both deterministic and fully causal?

Nobel comittee awaits eagerly.

The Fool
7th January 2003, 03:22 PM
Hammy, it's you! I thought I could smell a racist. Did Franko order you in here to rescue his sorry ass? As you an see he's in a bit of a sticky situation.....He's a bit short on honesty and integrity so I'm not too sure why he would call for you? He would be better off getting Jedi to give him a hand on how to backslide away from stupid things you have said in the past and now want to deny.

Specifically, he needs someone to help with the Free will thingy..Its a bit difficult for him to continue to abuse people for proposing free will when he does the same thing himself....Can you help? Even just a diversion would be ok...maybe you could tell us (again) why slavery was good for blacks...or maybe how colonialism is the best solution for Africa.

Anyway, thats all the pointless ranting I have available for you today Mr Ham.....now be a good boy and go away ....

hammegk
7th January 2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by PixyMisa

"QM nuttiness"?

Quantum mechanics is perhaps the most sucessful theory in physics ever.

Perhaps you have a theory of QM that explains all the experimental data and is both deterministic and fully causal?

Nobel comittee awaits eagerly.

Was that a red herring? Smelt, at least.

Are you proposing that human free will depends on QM non-determinacy? That is, since the current human mathematics by which we attempt to describe The (real as they are) Laws of Physics do not provide a deterministic representation of reality, deterministic reality CANNOT exist?

If so, I may go back to the question concerning your "random" behavior (which I really don't think exists).


responding to latest Fool-o-fart

Have you heard this one? Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe, catch a ....... by the toe .....

Go back to Dream Time and take some friends (if any Abos still acknowledge you even exist).

The Fool
7th January 2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by hammegk
responding to latest Fool-o-fart

Have you heard this one? Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe, catch a ....... by the toe .....

Go back to Dream Time and take some friends (if any Abos still acknowledge you even exist). [/B]

you are a piece of human garbage. I have told you already that In my country "Abo" is the equivalent of ******. You really don't care do you. A racist coward posting on an anonymous forum..how brave.

PixyMisa
7th January 2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by hammegk
Was that a red herring? Smelt, at least.
No. Just a reply to your comment regarding "QM nuttiness".
Are you proposing that human free will depends on QM non-determinacy?
No. It may do so. I don't know.

I find the question: "Does consciousness depend on indeterminacy?" more interesting. Again, I don't know.

The reason QM came up at all was because certain individuals were claiming that the Universe was purely deterministic.
That is, since the current human mathematics by which we attempt to describe The (real as they are) Laws of Physics do not provide a deterministic representation of reality, deterministic reality CANNOT exist?
A good question. Our best current theories are non-deterministic. No-one has yet shown a theory that is deterministic and fully causal and agrees with the evidence, and there are theoretical reasons to believe that such a theory cannot exist (though not proof of this, though certain classes of such theories have indeed been ruled out).

Our non-deterministic theory is supported by all available evidence. It has been tested with extreme thoroughness and held up.
If so, I may go back to the question concerning your "random" behavior (which I really don't think exists).

Again I ask: Do you actually have a reason to believe that the Universe is deterministic? Do you have a deterministic and causal alternative to QM? Or does it merely clash with your curtains?
Edited to move a " mark from here to there.

hammegk
7th January 2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by The Fool


you are a piece of human garbage. I have told you already that In my country "Abo" is the equivalent of ******. You really don't care do you. A racist coward posting on an anonymous forum..how brave.

Fool, I hope you are not actually the dim-witted f*cking assh*le you are beginning to appear to be.

This is still a bulletin board, remember? You seem to think you know me. Are you psychic? No, I don't think so.

I ask again, do you make intelligent posts in any forum here?

hal bidlack
7th January 2003, 04:33 PM
Let's remember to play nice everyone :cool:

hammegk
7th January 2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by PixyMisa

The reason QM came up at all was because certain individuals were claiming that the Universe was purely deterministic.
And if you are not one of them, how do you avoid that position and arrive at free will as a Materialist? Do you have any answer?

Again I ask: Do you actually have a reason to believe that the Universe is deterministic? Do you have a deterministic and causal alternative to QM? Or does it merely clash with your curtains?

Even as a non-materialist, I have great difficulty escaping the thought that complete determinacy is the most logical conclusion.

Again, QM is some current human math that may (or may not) have any relationship to cause & effect as TLOP actually works. No, I'm afraid I will not be winning a Nobel, as I have no replacement theory, nor do I expect to. That is neither here nor there regarding the question of (non-random) free will.

Tricky
7th January 2003, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by hammegk
Again, QM is some current human math that may (or may not) have any relationship to cause & effect as TLOP actually works.
Um... no. It is physics, not math. And it has been experimentally verified countless times. And it has a great deal to do with how TLOP work, in fact, it is part of TLOP.

Please, Ham. This is unlike you to post this way. I echo Hal's sentiments. Let's all play nice. You too, Fool.

The Fool
7th January 2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by hal bidlack
Let's remember to play nice everyone :cool:

Ok Hal, not a problem. Is it ok now for me to start using the term "******" now? I have explained on numerous occasions to Hammegk the offensive nature of the word "Abo" to Black Australians. He simply delights in continuing to use it. I know I shouldn't expect anything different from Racist garbage but what about the mods on this forum? Are you happy to allow racial taunts to go unchallanged? If you are willing to ignore this then you are complicit to racism.

It should be made absolutely clear to racists that thier rhetoric is unwelcome on this board....do your job.

PixyMisa
8th January 2003, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by hammegk
And if you are not one of them, how do you avoid that position and arrive at free will as a Materialist? Do you have any answer?
Yes: There is no problem. The indeterminism of the physical world poses no problems for free will.
Even as a non-materialist, I have great difficulty escaping the thought that complete determinacy is the most logical conclusion.
Well, our current theories and collected evidence say that you're wrong.

Again, QM is some current human math that may (or may not) have any relationship to cause & effect as TLOP actually works.
The evidence that it is correct is extremely strong. QM has been verified with great accuracy in a huge number of experiments.
No, I'm afraid I will not be winning a Nobel, as I have no replacement theory, nor do I expect to. That is neither here nor there regarding the question of (non-random) free will.
Well, given that QM very much appears to be non-deterministic, any determinism we see is only so on a statistical basis. Which is good enough for most things. It's a major problem for the future of the silicon chip, though: things can't get much smaller before the effects of QM start making serious trouble.

Soubrette
8th January 2003, 03:05 AM
I'm having huge problems trying to get my head round this Misa :(

You have said before that "The world acts as though it exists. Materialism assumes that the world follows rules. We test this, and it turns out to be correct." At least I'm assuming this - it's in someone's sig somewhere :)

But then you're saying that "Well, given that QM very much appears to be non-deterministic, any determinism we see is only so on a statistical basis." You go on to say this is good enough for most things.

So are you saying that there are some things that do not follow rules? And if so isn't that a problem for Materialism?

Thanks :)

Sou

wraith
8th January 2003, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by The Fool


You get one true shot at Free Will
There is no free will
You get one true shot at Free Will
There is no free will
You get one true shot at Free Will
There is no free will
You get one true shot at Free Will
There is no free will

How about it sockpuppet...which of these two statements is correct and which one did your master say? or did he say both? How do you link them together?...

stay away from free will son, it has proved to be the downfall of your cult.

Did you actually read the quote and understand it?

You can reach a point where you are "more aware" and make a "choice" which is more of a "choice" compared to choosing what youre going to have for breakfast....


However, youre still bound to Fate

Hey Fool, we can see through your little fireworks display. I know that you hate the idea of Fate...You cling to free-willy like a kid clinging onto his cot when faced with a bed...
;)

wraith
8th January 2003, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by PixyMisa

No. The second is the definition of free will. The first is merely a fact.

do you function via MPB?

wraith
8th January 2003, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by hal bidlack
Let's remember to play nice everyone :cool:

screw that
;)

wraith
8th January 2003, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by PixyMisa
things can't get much smaller before the effects of QM start making serious trouble.

Fool seems to have no trouble at all when he goes for a slash...
;)

PixyMisa
8th January 2003, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by wraith
do you function via MPB?
I have free will. MPB is free will. See the Banana Pancakes and the Fork of Doom.

wraith
8th January 2003, 05:10 AM
you really are a looney toon
;)

Tricky
8th January 2003, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by Soubrette
I'm having huge problems trying to get my head round this Misa :(

You have said before that "The world acts as though it exists. Materialism assumes that the world follows rules. We test this, and it turns out to be correct." At least I'm assuming this - it's in someone's sig somewhere :)

But then you're saying that "Well, given that QM very much appears to be non-deterministic, any determinism we see is only so on a statistical basis." You go on to say this is good enough for most things.

So are you saying that there are some things that do not follow rules? And if so isn't that a problem for Materialism?

Thanks :)

Sou
If I may be so rude as to answer a question asked of someone else, I think what PixyMisa is saying is that the world operates within the laws of physics and that these things are experimentally verifiable. QM is also experimentally verifiable, but its effects are microscopic in scale, so it is unlikely that you will observe them unless you are working at microscopic scales.

By analogy, if you look through a piece of window glass, it appears transparant, but if you get very close, you can see tiny inclusions and flaws. These do not impair the use of the glass as window glass, they would be a big problem if you tried to use the same glass to make tiny lenses.

PM notes later that if we try to get silicon chips much smaller (they are already damn near microscopic) they will be hindered by the non-deterministic nature of QM. This is something I had not heard. If it is true, then this forum has once again provided me with interesting and potentially useful information.

PixyMisa
8th January 2003, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by Soubrette
I'm having huge problems trying to get my head round this Misa :(

You have said before that "The world acts as though it exists. Materialism assumes that the world follows rules. We test this, and it turns out to be correct." At least I'm assuming this - it's in someone's sig somewhere :)

But then you're saying that "Well, given that QM very much appears to be non-deterministic, any determinism we see is only so on a statistical basis." You go on to say this is good enough for most things.

So are you saying that there are some things that do not follow rules? And if so isn't that a problem for Materialism?
It's a good question, Sou.

The answer is that "non-deterministic" doesn't mean that there are no rules. While we cannot know, for example, both the exact position and the exact momentum of a particle, we do have a rule - Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - that tells us just what knowledge we can have, and how the precision of our knowledge of one property relates to the possible precision of our knowledge of the other.

Similarly, nuclear decay is acausal. Though we have theories that can tell us which isotopes are likely to decay and what their decay processes and half-lives are likely to be, there is no way to tell when a given atom will decay. However, given a sufficient quantity of atoms - say, a picogram - we can predict to very high precision just how many of those atoms will be left after any (reasonable) length of time.

8th January 2003, 06:17 AM
So Pixy you are saying....

Things either follow the rules, or they are random. Is that right?

i.e. At no point does the human mind manage to transcend determinism and randomness.

PixyMisa
8th January 2003, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by Tricky
PM notes later that if we try to get silicon chips much smaller (they are already damn near microscopic) they will be hindered by the non-deterministic nature of QM. This is something I had not heard. If it is true, then this forum has once again provided me with interesting and potentially useful information.
In fact, the details of the circuits on a chip are already sub-microscopic - they are too small to be seen with an optical microscope. The violet end of the visible spectrum is about 400 nanometres (nm), and current chips are made with features as small as 130nm. Expect to see 90nm chips out later this year. Oh yeah, chipmaking equipment uses ultraviolet light, which is why they can get away with this.

I'll see if I can dig out a good paper on the limits of chip shrinkage. Currently optimists think we should be able to get to 10nm before things fall apart; the pessimists say we'll be lucky to reach 30nm. The various limiting factors mostly relate directly or indirectly to QM; there are some other issues like design complexity and economics that also raise their heads.

whitefork
8th January 2003, 06:21 AM
PixyMisa, couple questions:

Does the decay of a radioactive atom require some form of activation energy from somewhere else?

and

If you can completely isolate a given atom from the outside world (which you can't), than, in theory, would it remain in its current quantum state indefinitely?

thank you

MRC_Hans
8th January 2003, 06:25 AM
My POV:So Pixy you are saying....

Things either follow the rules, or they are random. Is that right?

i.e. At no point does the human mind manage to transcend determinism and randomness.

Things follow rules, period. Randomness is part of the rules.

Depends on whether the human mind is a "thing". I assume it is, but I do not have knowledge.

Hans

PixyMisa
8th January 2003, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
So Pixy you are saying....

Things either follow the rules, or they are random. Is that right?
No.

What I'm saying is that even in randomness there are rules.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle always applies. The rate of nuclear decay in any sufficiently large sample of an isotope is always the same - to a degree of precision limited by the sample size and the period of time being studied. Where there are limits to the precision of knowledge, we know what these limits are and how they apply.
i.e. At no point does the human mind manage to transcend determinism and randomness.

Well, the materialist point of view is that the human mind arises from matter is not transcendent in any literal sense, and I agree with that.

Remember too that the mind is information, and is one step removed from direct application of the laws of physics.

PixyMisa
8th January 2003, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by whitefork
PixyMisa, couple questions:

Does the decay of a radioactive atom require some form of activation energy from somewhere else?

and

If you can completely isolate a given atom from the outside world (which you can't), than, in theory, would it remain in its current quantum state indefinitely?

thank you
Perhaps someone like Stimpson or Zombified could give you more details, but the answers are:

No.

and

Ugh. Independent of everything else, an atom will remain an evolving wave function, a superposition of states that never collapses into anything definite.

Tricky
8th January 2003, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by PixyMisa

In fact, the details of the circuits on a chip are already sub-microscopic - they are too small to be seen with an optical microscope. The violet end of the visible spectrum is about 400 nanometres (nm), and current chips are made with features as small as 130nm. Expect to see 90nm chips out later this year. Oh yeah, chipmaking equipment uses ultraviolet light, which is why they can get away with this.

I'll see if I can dig out a good paper on the limits of chip shrinkage. Currently optimists think we should be able to get to 10nm before things fall apart; the pessimists say we'll be lucky to reach 30nm. The various limiting factors mostly relate directly or indirectly to QM; there are some other issues like design complexity and economics that also raise their heads.
Thanks Misa. Using your terminology, I have Googled this very helpful (and reasonbly un-technical) paper.
Microchip manufacture (http://kgb.ijs.si/~f4/seminar/files/2001_2002/seminar1.pdf)

hammegk
8th January 2003, 06:47 AM
Thanks for continuing to demonstrate you don't have any position regarding determinism.

(Just another random word set from hammegk. ;) )


And for Tricky

Math. Physics. TLOP. You also remain clueless. Have fun with your non-deterministic QM effect computer. :rolleyes:

Tricky
8th January 2003, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by hammegk
And for Tricky

Math. Physics. TLOP. You also remain clueless. Have fun with your non-deterministic QM effect computer. :rolleyes:

Well, I admit I am not as educated in physics as many here, however I am always willing to learn. If you click that link I provided, you will see that indeed computers do have QM effects. (Either that or it is a gigantic conspiracy by the entire community of physicists).

Sorry, hammy. Science won't go away just because you have closed your eyes and stuck your fingers in your ears.

PixyMisa
8th January 2003, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by hammegk
Thanks for continuing to demonstrate you don't have any position regarding determinism.
The laws of physics are non-deterministic. This is well established, and is the limit of my position. How these laws relate to consciousness I don't know, and neither does anyone else.
Math. Physics. TLOP. You also remain clueless. Have fun with your non-deterministic QM effect computer.
So, do you deny that QM is non-deterministic? Do you deny that computers are influenced by QM effects? Do you deny that chip manufacturers spend significant amounts of money studying the level of QM-related errors in their products?

Or do you simply perch on your rock in the desert, pointing out the limits of others' knowledge while exhibiting no knowledge at all yourself?

8th January 2003, 07:03 AM
Pixy :

I'm having trouble understanding your precise position on free will and determinism.


Remember too that the mind is information, and is one step removed from direct application of the laws of physics.


But the behaviour of the information, according to materialism (and you) is still totally dependent on TLOP, yes?

If TLOP were totally deterministic would we have Free Will?

Since the TLOP are partly non-deterministic is that why we have Free Will i.e. is Free Will dependent on quantum indeterminacy?

If so does this mean that you are saying that consciousness is capable of taking advantage of quantum randomnesss in order to obtain Free Will?

If conciousness is NOT taking advantage of quantum indeterminacy then what is the difference between this situation and totally deterministic laws of physics?

'Free Will' can only mean anything if in a given situation you made the choice 'A', but if that situation could be completely replicated you could have made the choice 'B'. Determinism utterly rules this out. Quantum randomness suggests that you might choose 'A' and you might choose 'B' but that the deciding factor was Random. How does either case allow Free Will?

Contrast the above paragraph with Frankos position (and mine) which states that Free Will can only mean something if a human being also has a soul/god-head/'higher self', and it is the soul which takes advantage of the quantum indeterminacy and CHOOSES 'A' or 'B'.

Whose position makes sense?

:confused:

PixyMisa
8th January 2003, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by PixyMisa
No.
To elaborate slighly:

Some forms of decay do need an external stimulus; the chain reaction in nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs is an example.

Other forms of decay do not need any external stimulus.

Stimpson J. Cat
8th January 2003, 07:13 AM
Whitefork,

PixyMisa, couple questions:

Does the decay of a radioactive atom require some form of activation energy from somewhere else?

No. Here's an example: Carbon 14. This element has 8 protons and 10 neutrons. Neutrons have a higher rest mass than protons, but the repulsive electrostatic potential energy between protons also has mass. In this case, if one of those neutrons spontaneously decays into a proton, electron, and neutrino, then the total combined mass/energy of all of these particles, plus the extra potential energy, will still add up to less than the current rest mass of the nucleus. There is a principle in QM, anything that can happen eventually will. Since this decay can happen, without violating any conservation laws, it does. The half-life is basically just a function of the strengths of the interactions between the relative particles.

If you can completely isolate a given atom from the outside world (which you can't), than, in theory, would it remain in its current quantum state indefinitely?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "outside world". Take a solitary neutron, for example. A neutron all by itself is unstable, because as mentioned above, its rest mass is higher than the combined rest mass of a proton, electron, and neutrino. It will therefore decay into such a triplet, with a half-life of about 15 minutes.

But how does this decay happen? One way to look at it is as an interaction with the vacuum. This example is too complicated, but you can see the basic principle by looking at simple electron excitation states in atoms.

Imagine a Hydrogen atom in its ground state. A photon with just the right energy necessary to kick it into its first excited state comes along, and it absorbs the photon and jumps into its excited state. What happens then? The excited state is unstable. After a very short period of time, the atom emits a photon of the right energy, and drops back to its ground state. This is called spontaneous emission.

But why does this unstable state decay? To understand that, you need to know about stimulated emission. Let's say you've got an atom in its excited state, and you hit it with a photon corresponding to the energy difference between the excited state and the ground state. In this case, the atom drops to its ground state, and emits a second photon of the same energy. That photon will also, incidentally, be in phase with the first one. This is how lasers work.

So, why does spontaneous decay occur? Because what actually happens is a virtual photon appears from the vacuum with the right energy. This virtual photon causes stimulated emission, and then disappears back into the vacuum.

This is the basis of all "spontaneous" decay in QM. Spontaneous decay is essentially a particle interacting with the constantly fluctuating vacuum. So in principle, an unstable particle will still decay, even if cut off from the rest of the World, as long as it is still in the vacuum. Of course, nobody knows of any way to even meaningfully talk about particles somehow not being "in the vacuum". In fact, many of the properties we think of as intrinsic characteristics of particles, such as mass, appear to simply be manifestations of the interactions between the particle and the vacuum.

hammegk,

Math. Physics. TLOP. You also remain clueless. Have fun with your non-deterministic QM effect computer.

If you really believe that computers are not subject to quantum indeterminacy, then you are the one who is clueless. You also have no excuse for this willful ignorance, since several people here have already pointed out specific concrete examples of the indeterminacy inherent in computer hardware.

Dr. Stupid

Interesting Ian
8th January 2003, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by PixyMisa

Remember too that the mind is information,


Do you pre-suppose the correctness of materialism in all of your arguments?

Mind is information?? Dear me! :rolleyes:

whitefork
8th January 2003, 07:23 AM
Thanks, guys. Very clear.

Tricky
8th January 2003, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by PixyMisa

Remember too that the mind is information...


Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Do you pre-suppose the correctness of materialism in all of your arguments?

Mind is information?? Dear me! :rolleyes:
Sounds like a good explanation to me, and it does not pre-suppose materialism. After all, "information" is not a material thing, although the places to store it might be. Calling the mind "information" would fit right in with your dualism if you wanted it to. Information is a concept, not matter.

What do you think the mind is?

MRC_Hans
8th January 2003, 07:43 AM
Do you pre-suppose the correctness of materialism in all of your arguments? As PM has stated materialism to be his working assumption, yes, of course. Anything else would lead to inconsistencies.

Hans

PixyMisa
8th January 2003, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Pixy :

I'm having trouble understanding your precise position on free will and determinism.

But the behaviour of the information, according to materialism (and you) is still totally dependent on TLOP, yes?
Yes. Information must have a physical representation, and that physical representation is subject to physical law.
If TLOP were totally deterministic would we have Free Will?
I don't know.
Since the TLOP are partly non-deterministic is that why we have Free Will i.e. is Free Will dependent on quantum indeterminacy?
I don't know.
If so does this mean that you are saying that consciousness is capable of taking advantage of quantum randomnesss in order to obtain Free Will?
I don't know. Quantum effects occur in the brain as in all material objects. If consciousness arises from the brain, it is necessarily subject to these quantum effects. Whether and how this is related to consciousness or not has not been shown.
If conciousness is NOT taking advantage of quantum indeterminacy then what is the difference between this situation and totally deterministic laws of physics?
"Taking advantage of"? Read what I say above.
'Free Will' can only mean anything if in a given situation you made the choice 'A', but if that situation could be completely replicated you could have made the choice 'B'.
This is silly. You're saying that free will applies only in situations which cannot happen? Not a terribly useful definition.
Determinism utterly rules this out.
Assuming determinism is true, and that the replicated state includes the brain state, then yes, the choice would be the same every time. That's what determinism means.

However, even in a deterministic universe, this would not happen.
Quantum randomness suggests that you might choose 'A' and you might choose 'B' but that the deciding factor was Random.
A quantum effect might slightly skew one of the data values or one of the decisions, and lead to a different result. Or it might not.
How does either case allow Free Will?

Contrast the above paragraph with Frankos position (and mine) which states that Free Will can only mean something if a human being also has a soul/god-head/'higher self', and it is the soul which takes advantage of the quantum indeterminacy and CHOOSES 'A' or 'B'.

Whose position makes sense?
You claim that free will is somehow magical and transcends the material world, based on no evidence whatsoever.

I define free will as the ability to choose between possible courses of action. Choice is an exercise in information processing. That's all. I do not see any magic in consciousness or free will. Nor is any required.

Tying free will to a single quantum event in an otherwise identical global state is not meaningful. Free will is a real world phenomenon, and such a situation does not happen in the real world.

I simply point out two things: we do indeed make choices, and determinism is observably false.

Tricky
8th January 2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by hammegk
And for Tricky

Math. Physics. TLOP. You also remain clueless. Have fun with your non-deterministic QM effect computer. :rolleyes: http://cst.rbma.com/content/Rhymes_with_Orange?date=20030108
Appropriate comic strip for this issue. Rhymes with Orange.

Interesting Ian
8th January 2003, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Tricky
Originally posted by PixyMisa

Remember too that the mind is information...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Do you pre-suppose the correctness of materialism in all of your arguments?

Mind is information?? Dear me!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sounds like a good explanation to me, and it does not pre-suppose materialism. After all, "information" is not a material thing, although the places to store it might be.


Well I think that modern physicists think of the world as ultimately being information. If they are also physicalists (as they tend to be) they think consciousnesses or minds as also being information.

You see mass is really energy bound up in a certain way. Energy in its turn is not a thing. Energy is the measure of a system to do work. This in its turn is related to the concept of information.





Calling the mind "information" would fit right in with your dualism if you wanted it to. Information is a concept, not matter.

What do you think the mind is?



Mind is not information anymore than strawberry ice cream is. Information is information is information. Consciousness is awareness, our experiences. Nothing whatsoever to do with information. Information pertains only to physical reality, the world of the perceptually experienced, not of experiencers

Tricky
8th January 2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well I think that modern physicists think of the world as ultimately being information. If they are also physicalists (as they tend to be) they think consciousnesses or minds as also being information.[/B]
This is probably true, or at least close to being true.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You see mass is really energy bound up in a certain way. Energy in its turn is not a thing. Energy is the measure of a system to do work. This in its turn is related to the concept of information.
While it is true that matter and energy are interconvertable, I do not think that they are the same thing. Could you not say that energy is just mass in a certain configuration? E=MC^2 could also be written as M=E/C^2.

Energy is not a "thing"? I suppose you would have to define what "thing" means. Do you mean tangible? Is work a "thing"? What does qualify as a "thing"?

However, to say energy is a measure, is completely incorrect. Joules are a measure. What they measure is energy.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Mind is not information anymore than strawberry ice cream is.
If you were a physicalist, you would say that strawberry ice cream is information, or at least that it contains information. Molecular combinations relay information to your taste buds. If it has real strawberries, then there is probably some DNA in the pulp. But this is semantics.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Information is information is information.
Thanks for clearing that up.:rolleyes:


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Consciousness is awareness, our experiences. Nothing whatsoever to do with information.
Our experiences are not information? A job interviewer would disagree strongly with this. Is memory information?


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Information pertains only to physical reality, the world of the perceptually experienced, not of experiencers
In that case, strawberry ice cream is definately information. But as to experienced and experiencers, I venture to suggest that they are both part of the "information". As T. S. Eliot asks, "How can you tell the dancer from the dance?"

Interesting Ian
8th January 2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Tricky
However, to say energy is a measure, is completely incorrect. Joules are a measure. What they measure is energy.



Joules are simply the unit that energy is expressed in.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Mind is not information anymore than strawberry ice cream is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you were a physicalist, you would say that strawberry ice cream is information, or at least that it contains information. Molecular combinations relay information to your taste buds. If it has real strawberries, then there is probably some DNA in the pulp. But this is semantics.


And also a non-sequitur.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Information is information is information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for clearing that up.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Consciousness is awareness, our experiences. Nothing whatsoever to do with information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Our experiences are not information?



Of course they aren't. Experience is an experience is an experience! Where does information come into play?



A job interviewer would disagree strongly with this. Is memory information?



I cannot imagine why they would disagree. But if they did so I would let them know what I thought of them. And at the same time, no doubt, lamentably fail to get the job.

No memory has nothing to do with information. Unless you're talking about memory in a metaphorical sense such as used in I.T.

Franko
8th January 2003, 12:42 PM
Interesting Ian said:
Well I think that modern physicists think of the world as ultimately being information. If they are also physicalists (as they tend to be) they think consciousnesses or minds as also being information.

You see mass is really energy bound up in a certain way. Energy in its turn is not a thing. Energy is the measure of a system to do work. This in its turn is related to the concept of information.

Mind is not information anymore than strawberry ice cream is. Information is information is information. Consciousness is awareness, our experiences. Nothing whatsoever to do with information. Information pertains only to physical reality, the world of the perceptually experienced, not of experiencers

… Fast Graviton

Tricky
8th January 2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Joules are simply the unit that energy is expressed in. Why, yes, they are. Units are the measurement. If energy is a measurement, then joules are a measurement of a measurement. Sorry Ian. "Energy is a measurement" is simply incorrect.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And also a non-sequitur.
Not at all. It is directly related to the statement you have made and provides an alternate viewpoint. How is taste information stored? Is it not in the molecular structure of whatever you are eating?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Of course they aren't. Experience is an experience is an experience!
Gee, Ian. I am disappointed that you have fallen into such Gertrude Stein-like responses. This sentence tells us exactlly nothing. You are not an idiot. You must see the circular logic here.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Where does information come into play?
John: Can you tell me about your harrowing experience?
Joe: I don't have much information. I slept through most of it.

How about the old bromide, "Experience keeps a hard school"? If you make a mistake, does not the experience provide information so that you will not make the same mistake again?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I cannot imagine why they would disagree. But if they did so I would let them know what I thought of them. And at the same time, no doubt, lamentably fail to get the job.
Probably not. Sample scenario:

Interviewer: I need some information about you. Can you tell me about what experience you have?
Ian: Experience is not information.
Interviewer: Next applicant, please.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No memory has nothing to do with information. Unless you're talking about memory in a metaphorical sense such as used in I.T.
Doctor Ian: I need some information on your medical history.
Amnesia patient: I have no memory.
Doctor Ian: I was not asking for memory, I was asking for information.

So as you can see, your definitions of information, memory and experience are quite contradictory to those that most English speakers use. Are you writing your own Lexicon?

Interesting Ian
8th January 2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Tricky
Why, yes, they are. Units are the measurement. If energy is a measurement, then joules are a measurement of a measurement. Sorry Ian. "Energy is a measurement" is simply incorrect.


Not at all. It is directly related to the statement you have made and provides an alternate viewpoint. How is taste information stored? Is it not in the molecular structure of whatever you are eating?


Gee, Ian. I am disappointed that you have fallen into such Gertrude Stein-like responses. This sentence tells us exactlly nothing. You are not an idiot. You must see the circular logic here.


John: Can you tell me about your harrowing experience?
Joe: I don't have much information. I slept through most of it.

How about the old bromide, "Experience keeps a hard school"? If you make a mistake, does not the experience provide information so that you will not make the same mistake again?


Probably not. Sample scenario:

Interviewer: I need some information about you. Can you tell me about what experience you have?
Ian: Experience is not information.
Interviewer: Next applicant, please.


Doctor Ian: I need some information on your medical history.
Amnesia patient: I have no memory.
Doctor Ian: I was not asking for memory, I was asking for information.

So as you can see, your definitions of information, memory and experience are quite contradictory to those that most English speakers use. Are you writing your own Lexicon?

LMAO!! What a clown you are Tricky! Dear me!

Tricky
8th January 2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


LMAO!! What a clown you are Tricky! Dear me!
My, what a clever and reasoned response! I had no idea you had such depths.

hammegk
8th January 2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

hammegk,
If you really believe that computers are not subject to quantum indeterminacy, then you are the one who is clueless. You also have no excuse for this willful ignorance, since several people here have already pointed out specific concrete examples of the indeterminacy inherent in computer hardware.

Dr. Stupid

Stimpy, if your pc seems to be suffering from the QM nuttiness inherent in its' hardware, I'd buy another one. Mine works ok and provides absolutely deterministic answers. When its' output goes indeterminate on me I'll get a new one that works.

If your hardware ( & PixyMisa's & Tricky's) is also having indeterminacy problems, did any of you hurt anyone the last time you randomly ran a red light? Do you often walk into walls? What *are* the symptoms?

PixyMisa
8th January 2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by hammegk
Stimpy, if your pc seems to be suffering from the QM nuttiness inherent in its' hardware, I'd buy another one. Mine works ok and provides absolutely deterministic answers. When its' output goes indeterminate on me I'll get a new one that works."Works" is not the same as "fully deterministic". The fact that your computer works for you simply says that the problems of non-deterministic behaviour are too infrequent for you to notice. Chip designers work damn hard to make this so.If your hardware ( & PixyMisa's & Tricky's) is also having indeterminacy problems, did any of you hurt anyone the last time you randomly ran a red light? Do you often walk into walls? What *are* the symptoms? What are the symptoms of indeterminacy the human brain?

You, me, this forum, the Web, the Internet, all of human knowledge and achievment. That's about it. If you show any signs of these symptoms, see your family Quantum Mechanic.

The Fool
8th January 2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by wraith


Did you actually read the quote and understand it?

You can reach a point where you are "more aware" and make a "choice" which is more of a "choice" compared to choosing what youre going to have for breakfast....


However, youre still bound to Fate

Hey Fool, we can see through your little fireworks display. I know that you hate the idea of Fate...You cling to free-willy like a kid clinging onto his cot when faced with a bed...
;)

well, I'll give you this....you logical deists are persistant. Your lord and master managed to make himself look silly trying to explain this one....In the End he resorted to the "Its a secret" defence. Now his sockpuppet wants to line up for his turn on the spanking plank...

OK wraith.....explain to me the concept of "more aware" how does it differ from "aware" also what is "more of a choice" compared to a choice.... Are you adding yet another version of free will to the ever increasing list..... "semi free will" perhaps......

you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Do you believe people make choices or not? Seems to me to be a simple question....How do you make a choice without free will? If free will does not exist then nothing can be said to be your own choice, nothing

So why then go on about these mysterious things that "you must decide for yourself" or your own version that you now present, different levels of "choices"

You are telling me that you have no free will to chose your breakfast menu...but maybe you can reach some sort of higher level where you do get some sort of choice on more "important" matters? Is this the mysterious secret wraith? that if I become a logical deist I will be able to learn this secret and make my own choices??????

sounds like pretty standard cult stuff to me....inner secrets, higher levels....How much does it cost to go up a level? Do you have to pay in cash or is subservience enough?

hammegk
8th January 2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by PixyMisa
"Works" is not the same as "fully deterministic". The fact that your computer works for you simply says that the problems of non-deterministic behaviour are too infrequent for you to notice. Chip designers work damn hard to make this so.What are the symptoms of indeterminacy the human brain?

You, me, this forum, the Web, the Internet, all of human knowledge and achievment. That's about it. If you show any signs of these symptoms, see your family Quantum Mechanic.

See also UCE & PM

quote: UCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If TLOP were totally deterministic would we have Free Will?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PM: I don't know.

quote: UCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the TLOP are partly non-deterministic is that why we have Free Will i.e. is Free Will dependent on quantum indeterminacy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PM: I don't know.

quote: UCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If so does this mean that you are saying that consciousness is capable of taking advantage of quantum randomnesss in order to obtain Free Will?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PM: I don't know. Quantum effects occur in the brain as in all material objects. If consciousness arises from the brain, it is necessarily subject to these quantum effects. Whether and how this is related to consciousness or not has not been shown.

Wouldn't you feel more confident if you just declare yourself an agnostic?

(Unless you have indeterminacy trouble balancing your checkbook -- then you might have reason to accept, and blame, materialism.)

Upchurch
8th January 2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by hammegk
Wouldn't you feel more confident if you just declare yourself an agnostic?
What does determinicy have to do with the existance of God? Couldn't there be a God and still have a universe with indeterminicy?

Upchurch

thaiboxerken
8th January 2003, 04:30 PM
Wouldn't you feel more confident if you just declare yourself an agnostic?

(Unless you have indeterminacy trouble balancing your checkbook -- then you might have reason to accept, and blame, materialism.)

Determinacy has nothing to do with the belief in a god or not.

PixyMisa
8th January 2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by hammegk
Wouldn't you feel more confident if you just declare yourself an agnostic?No.

Agnosticism is a position on knowledge. I am saying simply that I don't know, not that the answer is unknowable.

jj
8th January 2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Franko
Ohh if you are a hard core fanatical A-Theistic religious nitwit I hope and pray that you will.


The way you speak, you mean "prey", not "pray".

For my opinion of your behavior, see my Avatar.

wraith
9th January 2003, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by The Fool


well, I'll give you this....you logical deists are persistant. Your lord and master managed to make himself look silly trying to explain this one....In the End he resorted to the "Its a secret" defence. Now his sockpuppet wants to line up for his turn on the spanking plank...

Im not the one bending over
;)


OK wraith.....explain to me the concept of "more aware" how does it differ from "aware" also what is "more of a choice" compared to a choice.... Are you adding yet another version of free will to the ever increasing list..... "semi free will" perhaps......

No
As I see it, once you perceive how Fate works and give up this imaginary friend of yours aka free-willy, youve come to a fork in the road. By this time, youre sanity has reached a point where you have to make a "choice" (keep in mind, that this choice has been Fated) You have come across a fork in the road. The path that you "choose" (good path or bad path ie Am I sane or insane) is really your "one free-will choice" (which is still governed by Fate...your choice has already been made)

you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Do you believe people make choices or not? Seems to me to be a simple question....How do you make a choice without free will? If free will does not exist then nothing can be said to be your own choice, nothing

People dont make choices at all...
does 2 + 2 choose to equal 4?
Do you choose to stop at a red light?

You are telling me that you have no free will to chose your breakfast menu...but maybe you can reach some sort of higher level where you do get some sort of choice on more "important" matters? Is this the mysterious secret wraith? that if I become a logical deist I will be able to learn this secret and make my own choices??????

read above chumpy ;)


sounds like pretty standard cult stuff to me....inner secrets, higher levels....How much does it cost to go up a level? Do you have to pay in cash or is subservience enough?

rofl
na
I use a credit card
:rolleyes:

wraith
9th January 2003, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by Upchurch

What does determinicy have to do with the existance of God? Couldn't there be a God and still have a universe with indeterminicy?

Upchurch

...and give Evil the chance to reign?
Not on my watch!
muhahaha

MRC_Hans
9th January 2003, 03:05 AM
...and give Evil the chance to reign?
Not on my watch!
You keep forgetting: It is already predetermined!

MUHAHAHAH

Hans:rolleyes:

wraith
9th January 2003, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
You keep forgetting: It is already predetermined!

MUHAHAHAH

Hans:rolleyes:

I forgot?
No, Fate is on my mind all the time....
;)

The Fool
9th January 2003, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by wraith

The path that you "choose" (good path or bad path ie Am I sane or insane) is really your "one free-will choice" (which is still governed by Fate...your choice has already been made)





Sockpuppet.

your lord and master at least required me to look in separate threads to find the inconsistencies. You do me the favor of putting them in the same paragraph.

So you have elected to ignore your lord and masters explanation that it is all a "dark secret" and come out with yet another explanation. This time "one free will choice" actually means "no choice" Why the hell don't you make it easy on everyone and call it your "one no choice" instead... why even use the word choice?

Damn, this is too easy wraith.... I'm glad you don't run a restaurant....

Good morning sir, you choose the steak. You also want the red wine and you don't want desert.

Hang on...don't I get to choose?

of course sir, this is a restaraunt, you choose the steak. You also choose the red wine and you don't want desert.


you insult the intelligence of the people on this forum with such rubbish. I hope for your sake you don't pay too much to go up the levels in the logical Deism cult to find the dark secret. I suspect the dark secret is that the whole thing is a joke....

do you seriously swallow this stuff? pre determined "choices"? I wish I was selling people like you used cars...I could retire.

so, In summary...you are saying that there is no contradiction because when your lord and master uses the terms "free will" and "choice" they do not actually indicate anything that is remotely free or any form of choice? Is that about it?

Aardvark_DK
9th January 2003, 07:21 AM
You know, Wraith, it might be a good idea if you stopped using the word 'choice' - I'm sure it would clear up a lot of confusion.

Hey, just a suggestion.

CWL
9th January 2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by wraith

People dont make choices at all...
does 2 + 2 choose to equal 4?
Do you choose to stop at a red light?

Are you seriously contending that no one ever chooses to run a red light?

Oh... I forgot you are also seriously contending that only theists can act moral and that we are all the spawn of one Progenitor Solipsist now tenderly ruled by a female deity who serves no real purpose as even she is governed by an unexplainable thingy called "Fate".

Very well, carry on...

Franko
9th January 2003, 11:12 AM
CWL:
Are you seriously contending that no one ever chooses to run a red light?

Not without a good reason they don't .

Not unless they are insane.

But you tell me CWL, how often do you just randomly and uncontrollanly run a red light for no reason? Perhaps you should demonstrate you devotion to A-Theism by doing it more often?

As any "good" A-Theist knows ... There are NO consequences for your actions. Determinism is FALSE -- haven't you heard?

CWL
9th January 2003, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Franko

Not without a good reason they don't .

Sure. Of course there will be a reason (of some sort). Any sane person "reasons" before making decisions. Notwithstanding some choices will be rather arbitrary.

What particular reason (other than my own whims for the day) did I have for choosing chicken instead of salad for lunch today?

Not unless they are insane.

So, what you are saying is that insane people get "free will" but sane people don't... M'kay.

But you tell me CWL, how often do you just randomly and uncontrollanly run a red light for no reason? Perhaps you should demonstrate you devotion to A-Theism by doing it more often?

My belief that I make my own choices within the available parameters has nothing to do with my doubt as to the existence of a supreme being. There are plenty of theists who share this belief. Anyhow, as I like this life and this world (in sharp contrast to certain pessimistic theists who only regard this existence as a temporary ordeal before their "real existence") I choose to live safe. I also abstain from running red lights out of compassion for other human beings who might be injured if I run a red light (my outstanding humanist moral code (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=11382) thus leads me to the conclusion that running red lights is immoral... ooops and I do this without any "God" being involved :eek: ).

As any "good" A-Theist knows ... There are NO consequences for your actions. Determinism is FALSE -- haven't you heard?

As any good humanist (e.g. like Einstein), or any other sane person for that matter, knows there ARE consequences for your actions. Only someone who belives that we are hapless puppets in the hands of "Fate" (and a hapless deity who itself is bound by it) would believe that there are "NO consequences for your actions".

Franko
9th January 2003, 02:29 PM
CrappyWittleLawyer:

What particular reason (other than my own whims for the day) did I have for choosing chicken instead of salad for lunch today?

When your body senses that it needs certain vitamins or minerals or other arrangements of “matter” it causes you to crave foods that possess those forms of “matter”.

Or are you claiming that you get thirsty of your own “free will”?

I’ll tell you what CWL, why don’t you use your “free will” not to eat or drink ANYTHING this year? Think of all the money you would save!

Franko:
[No one runs read lights without a good reason …] Not unless they are insane.

CWL:
So, what you are saying is that insane people get "free will" but sane people don't... M'kay.

No … I am saying that you have to be Insane to believe that you have “free will”.

As any good humanist … or any other sane person for that matter, knows there ARE consequences for your actions. Only someone who belives that we are hapless puppets in the hands of "Fate" (and a hapless deity who itself is bound by it) would believe that there are "NO consequences for your actions".

So you are TELLING me what I believe now CWL? I guess that is the only way you A-Theists can wage an “honest” debate?

I think you need to do a little reading on the concept of DETERMINISM. Determinism is ALL about Rewards and Punishment for your actions. You are simply clueless, but that does provide a reason for your a-Theism.

PixyMisa
9th January 2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Franko
So you are TELLING me what I believe now CWL? I guess that is the only way you A-Theists can wage an “honest” debate?
I'd say that was at least an 8.5 on the irony meter. What do you think, Bob?

Franko
9th January 2003, 02:37 PM
Pixydust:

I'd say that was at least an 8.5 on the irony meter. What do you think, Bob?

I guess this is more evidence for your magic "free will" powers, Darling?

The defense of A-Theism you offer seems to be growing weaker and weaker ...

PixyMisa
9th January 2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Franko
I guess this is more evidence for your magic "free will" powers, Darling?I guess you're still having trouble with this reading stuff, Franko dear.The defense of A-Theism you offer seems to be growing weaker and weaker ... Franko, you still haven't told me what A-Theism is! How can I defend this precious A-Theism of yours if you won't tell me what it is?!

CWL
9th January 2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by PixyMisa

I'd say that was at least an 8.5 on the irony meter. What do you think, Bob?

Pixy,

Thanks for noticing. I am glad someone did, as anything remotely close to irony, satire or any other humerous uttering is bound to go completely undetected by the particular target in question.

PixyMisa
9th January 2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by CWL
Thanks for noticing. I am glad someone did, as anything remotely close to irony, satire or any other humerous uttering is bound to go completely undetected by the particular target in question. I suspect Franko is a bot, and they forgot to program that part.

Skeptical Greg
9th January 2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by PixyMisa

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Franko
So you are TELLING me what I believe now CWL? I guess that is the only way you A-Theists can wage an “honest” debate?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd say that was at least an 8.5 on the irony meter. What do you think, Bob?

Only if the meter maxes at 7..

What makes it even more amusing, is that it invokes an image of Franko, grabbing for the Dictionary, leafing
through the ' i's ', and wondering what this has to do with a heavy, malleable, ductile, magnetic,
silver-white metallic element, or a household device, usually with a flat metal base that is heated to smooth,
finish, or press clothes..
:confused:

Franko
9th January 2003, 08:06 PM
So if you A-Theists don't have ANY evidence for "free will", why do you believe in it?

There is no evidence that an invisible dragon lives in my garage, so I guess you all (pixy, cwl, dio) believe an invisible dragon lives in my garage?

PixyMisa
9th January 2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Franko
So if you A-Theists don't have ANY evidence for "free will", why do you believe in it?We observe free will directly, Franko darling. To not believe in free will makes as much sense as not believing in red or hot or pain.There is no evidence that an invisible dragon lives in my garage, so I guess you all (pixy, cwl, dio) believe an invisible dragon lives in my garage? He can't be living in your garage, Franko; the invisible fairies would chase him out.

The Fool
9th January 2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by Franko
So if you A-Theists don't have ANY evidence for "free will", why do you believe in it?

There is no evidence that an invisible dragon lives in my garage, so I guess you all (pixy, cwl, dio) believe an invisible dragon lives in my garage?

Franko.There IS an invisible dragon living in your garage. The proof of this is obvious...Here it is.

Invisible Dragon controls Tlop/tlop controls YOU / you control CAR.

Obviously the car does not control you, you control the car...so obviously there must be something controlling you....and something controlling the thing that controlls you and something that controls the thing that controls the thing.......Oh bugger it lets just call it an invisible dragon and claim that Its the top of the chain, therefore it is excempt from the "everything is controlled by something" law..... This is how you justify your Goddess isn't it frank? Everything must be controlled by something?? except for the exception....hahahahahaha....wow thats a revolutionary new Idea.

and as a bonus here is my proof of free will

TLOP does not care what atoms have for breakfast
I am made of atoms
TLOP does not care what I have for breakfast.

Eating breakfast is not impossible, I can do many things that are not impossible. I can choose which (not impossible) thing I do and when I do them. It is no more or less impossible to have eggs or bacon for breakfast. I can therefore have eggs or bacon...OR EVEN BOTH for breakfast.....My Free Choice.
Lets get this straight franko, If you are proposing there is some god somewhere that wants to determine, or even cares what I Choose for breakfast then the onus is YOURS to establish this fact. I am not interested in proving to you something that is self evident to me.... that no gods are involved in my breakfast.
Here is where you normally insert one of your stupid strawmen...like asking me why I don't randomly run red lights.......well, I don't choose to.... Why don't I choose to? Because I'm not insane. If I was insane....I may choose to randomly run red lights.

Maybe you will ask me why I don't choose to do something impossible......Why don't I choose to fly? Well I can chose to try if I like......If it is impossible, I will fail, If I am still alive I could even choose to try again.

Your ******** is becoming very repetative. You should work up some more material, the audience is falling asleep.

wraith
10th January 2003, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
You know, Wraith, it might be a good idea if you stopped using the word 'choice' - I'm sure it would clear up a lot of confusion.

Hey, just a suggestion.

I make Fated Choices
;)

wraith
10th January 2003, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by The Fool


Sockpuppet.

your lord and master at least required me to look in separate threads to find the inconsistencies. You do me the favor of putting them in the same paragraph.

glad to be a convenience
;)


So you have elected to ignore your lord and masters explanation that it is all a "dark secret" and come out with yet another explanation. This time "one free will choice" actually means "no choice" Why the hell don't you make it easy on everyone and call it your "one no choice" instead... why even use the word choice?

what else would you call the act of selecting a course of action from a whole?
Im saying that my choices have been made...
youre saying that you use your magic...

Damn, this is too easy wraith.... I'm glad you don't run a restaurant....

Good morning sir, you choose the steak. You also want the red wine and you don't want desert.

Hang on...don't I get to choose?

of course sir, this is a restaraunt, you choose the steak. You also choose the red wine and you don't want desert.


that was awesome!
you should write a script

you insult the intelligence of the people on this forum with such rubbish. I hope for your sake you don't pay too much to go up the levels in the logical Deism cult to find the dark secret. I suspect the dark secret is that the whole thing is a joke....

whatever helps keeps you sane
:)

do you seriously swallow this stuff? pre determined "choices"? I wish I was selling people like you used cars...I could retire.

whats the mystery?
Youre an algorithmic process that finds the most beneficial outcome based on what you know...

wheres the flaw?

so, In summary...you are saying that there is no contradiction because when your lord and master uses the terms "free will" and "choice" they do not actually indicate anything that is remotely free or any form of choice? Is that about it?

?
get insomnia 3
;)

MRC_Hans
10th January 2003, 12:33 AM
:cool: :cool: :cool:
I make Fated Choices Bravo!! You are turning it into an art, Frank!

Ladies and gentlemen! Frank can now fully contradict himself in JUST FOUR WORDS!

(And the crowd goes wild)

:D Hans :D

wraith
10th January 2003, 12:55 AM
no crowd here shrimpy
;)

MRC_Hans
10th January 2003, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by wraith
no crowd here shrimpy
;) ;) You can say THAT again! :p

Hans

Aardvark_DK
10th January 2003, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by PixyMisa
To not believe in free will makes as much sense as not believing in red or hot or pain.
LOL! You A-Theists sure are FUNNY! There ARE no such things as red or hot or pain. Here, I'll explain it in small WORDS so you can understand:

ATOMS dont feel PAIN
HUMANS are made of ATOMS
HUMANS dont feel PAIN

It is simple LOGIC!

Now why dont you run along... www.infidelity.org

The Fool
10th January 2003, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by wraith

wheres the flaw?


"you get one free will choice" but unfortunately history has now been rewritten to say this one choice is just like all other Logical Deist choices ...no choice at all.

Whats the point of talking about this any further?.... you make an Ideal Cult member. You do understand the dangers when a cult is conditioned to believe they have no power to chose, no power to decide what is right and wrong.....no human dignity... don't you?

In nearly half a century on this planet I have never seen a more pathetically subservient little manservant....

Fetch me my slippers sockpuppet. It is your fate to serve a lord and master.

wraith
10th January 2003, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

LOL! You A-Theists sure are FUNNY! There ARE no such things as red or hot or pain. Here, I'll explain it in small WORDS so you can understand:

ATOMS dont feel PAIN
HUMANS are made of ATOMS
HUMANS dont feel PAIN

It is simple LOGIC!

that isnt logic actually
:(

Now why dont you run along... www.infidelity.org

it's actually www.infidels.org (http://www.infidels.org)
:rolleyes:

wraith
10th January 2003, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by The Fool


"you get one free will choice" but unfortunately history has now been rewritten to say this one choice is just like all other Logical Deist choices ...no choice at all.

Whats the point of talking about this any further?.... you make an Ideal Cult member. You do understand the dangers when a cult is conditioned to believe they have no power to chose, no power to decide what is right and wrong.....no human dignity... don't you?

In nearly half a century on this planet I have never seen a more pathetically subservient little manservant....

Fetch me my slippers sockpuppet. It is your fate to serve a lord and master.

Your perception of Fate is somewhat crapola....;)
run along....free-willy awaits you
www.disney.com (http://www.disney.com)

Upchurch
10th January 2003, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Franko
So if you A-Theists don't have ANY evidence for "free will", why do you believe in it?
Personal experience. I have no evidence that I feel happy or sad either, but I've experienced those emotions.

When people tell me about their personal experiences with God (in contect of trying to convert me), I ask "How do you know that you aren't just imagining it?" The same question would apply to me and free will. I don't know that I'm not imagining it, just like I don't know that I'm imagining being happy or sad.

Yes, it's faith, but it's faith based on actual, repeatable, consistant experience. Everytime I weigh an issue and make a choice, I witness free will. If someone were to say "exercise your free will right now, GO!" I could do it. Not many things taken of faith have that level of reliability and instantaneousity.

(is "instantaneousity" a word?)

Upchurch

The Fool
10th January 2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by wraith


Your perception of Fate is somewhat crapola....;)
run along....free-willy awaits you
www.disney.com (http://www.disney.com)
Sockpuppet you talk about perception? you would not percieve if your ass was on fire....

My perception of Fate...is that if something is fated then you have NO CHOICE....

You make rediculous statements like "my choices are fated". Before you start suggesting other people's powers of perception are limited explain why you can't see how stupid that statement is.
Your lord and master has made numerous statements about decisions... specifically "one free will decision" when he was eventually dragged by the nose to explain...he chickened out and said it was all "a secret"... So sockpuppet...are you telling me that this is "the secret" that all decisions including this special "one off" decision are all pre-determined....and you have the hide to suggest that explaining them as "choice free choices" is adequate?

The game is over sockpuppet. Logical Deism has been shown to be an inconsistent lash up..... Keep nailing patches on sockpuppet...it is looking just as illogical, inconsistant and squeaky as the thing it was supposed to replace, the Catholic Faith.....

Fated choices...what a joke.
run along, Franko is calling for his slippers.

wraith
10th January 2003, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by The Fool

Sockpuppet you talk about perception? you would not percieve if your ass was on fire....

My perception of Fate...is that if something is fated then you have NO CHOICE....

You make rediculous statements like "my choices are fated". Before you start suggesting other people's powers of perception are limited explain why you can't see how stupid that statement is.
Your lord and master has made numerous statements about decisions... specifically "one free will decision" when he was eventually dragged by the nose to explain...he chickened out and said it was all "a secret"... So sockpuppet...are you telling me that this is "the secret" that all decisions including this special "one off" decision are all pre-determined....and you have the hide to suggest that explaining them as "choice free choices" is adequate?

The game is over sockpuppet. Logical Deism has been shown to be an inconsistent lash up..... Keep nailing patches on sockpuppet...it is looking just as illogical, inconsistant and squeaky as the thing it was supposed to replace, the Catholic Faith.....

Fated choices...what a joke.
run along, Franko is calling for his slippers.

The next time that you take a dump Fool, you will use toilet paper to whipe your ar5e....thats Fate monfre :rolleyes:

according to you, you just happen to use your "free-will"
no no no
Why dont you use your free-will and fly an F-35...
Did your grandma have "Free-will" to connect to the net when she was 12?
:cool:

keep it up Fool, youre looking sleek
lol

Darat
11th January 2003, 03:42 AM
Originally posted by wraith


The next time that you take a dump Fool, you will use toilet paper to whipe your ar5e....thats Fate monfre :rolleyes:



Just thought I'd point this out - but Fool may not use toilet paper - he may use a bidet, he may have a toilet with built in "bottom washing" (very popular in Japan), he may use "moist toilet wipes" and he may not even wipe his bottom.

It would seem even in this he has many "choices" to make...


(Edited to add)

He may not even, ever have to take a "dump"...

thaiboxerken
11th January 2003, 07:46 AM
I tried using some pages from the bible to wipe with, but it's too scratchy.