Regarding Franko... [Archive] - Page 5

wraith

12th January 2003, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Okay, then Wraith, try using this defintion of free will

Free will = the ability to choose between perceived available options.

You see, this definition rules out things that are unavailable or impossible (like flapping your wings to fly, etc.) No believe in free will claims that it gives one the power to do the impossible.

Can you show evidence why we don't have free will as described in the definition above? Please do not change definitions. I know you can disprove your definition of free will.

The evidence for this sort of free will is easy to gather. Just see if a person is able to make a choice. The only way you can disprove this kind of free will is to show evidence that the choice was made for them. To do this, you must be able to predict the choice. Of course you can claim that the LG or TLOP or some other entity can predict, but you cannot provide any evidence of this. Thus, all available evidence points towards the existence of free will. I have evidence. You have unsupported claims. I win.

ahhh yes.... the Trickster is back on the saddle once more
:eek:

I understand youre position and anyone elses position who claim that they still have free-will, yet cant do the impossible.

Like flapping your arms to fly...

The point is, you interpret informtaion gained through experience. Youre future actions are based on how you interpret that information. You will always "choose" the course of action with the most perceived benefit.

Whats the flaw?

Why dont you talk in french to me?
If you really want to impress your boss at a meeting, would you rock on up with thongs, singlet and a can of beer?

You perceive that you can do this....but you wont if you perceive a course of action that would lead to a more beneficial outcome.

Why is it that you messed your pants when you were a kid?
Why is it that you use the dunny now as an adult?

Is it because, as an adult, the most perceived benefit is to use the bathroom?

When you were a kid, why didnt you use "free-will" to go to the bathroom when nature called?
:cool:

Free-will is a meaningless concept...

Tricky

12th January 2003, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by wraith
ahhh yes.... the Trickster is back on the saddle once more
:eek:
Yes, I'm back, and badder than ever :D
Originally posted by wraith

I understand youre position and anyone elses position who claim that they still have free-will, yet cant do the impossible.

Like flapping your arms to fly...
Then do you understand that free will does not claim the impossible. it only claims that you are capable of making a choice. (Which you agree is possible, but you call it MPB). I gave you a definition of what I am calling "free will" and I asked that you debate that one, not one you made up. I see you cannot follow the simplest of directions. Have you learned to tie your shoes yet?

Originally posted by wraith

The point is, you interpret informtaion gained through experience. Youre future actions are based on how you interpret that information. You will always "choose" the course of action with the most perceived benefit.
I mostly agree with you. However, I have made very bad choices in the past, some of which, if I had been paying attention to my brain instead of my hormones, would have been much smarter. However, the point is, I made a choice. Call it MPB, or call it free will. They were choices and I made them. If you wish to claim that TLOP made them... well... evidence, please.

Originally posted by wraith
Why dont you talk in french to me?
Are you trying to flirt with me now? Sorry I usually only speak French to women I am trying to impress. However, since you have asked nicely, I will do so.

Vous avez les cerveaux d'une truite

Don't expect me to send you flowers, though.
Originally posted by wraith
If you really want to impress your boss at a meeting, would you rock on up with thongs, singlet and a can of beer?
I have no doubt that would "impress" my boss, but maybe not the way I would like. However, let me tell you a true story.

A few months ago, my company was having a "safety fair". They put people in the parking garage to keep them from breaking the rules. One of the rules was "no U-turns". Well, to get to the prime parking spaces before others do, sometimes U-turns are beneficial, and not dangerous (IMO) if you look before you turn. My boss was one of the ones in the garage noting rules violations. I drove right up to him and said I was going to make a U-turn. He said he would have to write me up. I said "fine", and I made the U-turn. This was probably not a good career move, but I did it anyway. Chalk up another win for free will.

Originally posted by wraith
You perceive that you can do this....but you wont if you perceive a course of action that would lead to a more beneficial outcome.
Sometimes I do things just for the sheer hell of it. I'll bet you know other people like this. They may logically know that it is foolish, but they do it anyway, sometimes just to thumb their nose at authority. That, my friend, is free will at it's most blatant.

Originally posted by wraith
Why is it that you messed your pants when you were a kid?
Why is it that you use the dunny now as an adult?
Seriously, wraith, you can't expect to say that because people do not use their free will to do stupid things that free will doesn't exist. I have given you a definition of free will and asked you to tell me what is wrong with that definition. I also asked you not to do so by making up a different definition (such as , "free will = doing stupid things") You have not been able to follow the simplest of instructions. Perhaps you do not have free will because you cannot say anything vaguely creative. However, you have said things that conflict with Franko, in spite of the fact that you have tried hard not to do so. Chalk up another victory for free will.

Originally posted by wraith
Is it because, as an adult, the most perceived benefit is to use the bathroom?
As I (and others, especially PixyMisa) have pointed out, this concept of MPB is really the same as free will. You choose between available, percieved options. Sure you choose the one that makes the most sense (at the time) but you still choose. That is what I am defining as free will. Nobody is choosing but you, or if they are, you have no evidence of it. Call it MPB if you like, but it is the exact same thing as free will.

Originally posted by wraith
When you were a kid, why didnt you use "free-will" to go to the bathroom when nature called?
Because it violated both the conditions of what I have defined as free will. I could not choose between available, percieved options because.
1) It was not available. I couldn't control my excretory system then. Choosing to "hold it" was not an available option.
2) I couldn't perceive it. I did not recognize the signals that said I needed to "go".

My free will has gotten much stronger since then. I even have the power to restrain myself from making insulting remarks. I hereby exercise that option right now.

Best wishes, Wraith.

Starshark

12th January 2003, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Vous avez les cerveaux d'une truite

While you're on, can you tell me what fanoir means? As in, Vous etes un grand fanoir?

wraith

12th January 2003, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Then do you understand that free will does not claim the impossible. it only claims that you are capable of making a choice. (Which you agree is possible, but you call it MPB). I gave you a definition of what I am calling "free will" and I asked that you debate that one, not one you made up. I see you cannot follow the simplest of directions. Have you learned to tie your shoes yet?

Yes, actually :eek:
When I was 4, I didnt know how, so I needed somebody else to tie them for me. Thats the maximum perceived benefit.
If I did know how, then I would have tied them myself, since that would have been the maximum perceived benefit.
Why dont you get someone to tie your shoes now?
Why didnt I use "free-will" to tie them when I was 4?

I mostly agree with you. However, I have made very bad choices in the past, some of which, if I had been paying attention to my brain instead of my hormones, would have been much smarter. However, the point is, I made a choice. Call it MPB, or call it free will. They were choices and I made them. If you wish to claim that TLOP made them... well... evidence, please.

Whatever "choice" that you made, was at the time the maximum perceived benefit. If you knew that the "choice" would lead to a non-beneficial outcome, then you wouldnt have made that choice.

Are you trying to flirt with me now?

yes
:rolleyes:

Sorry I usually only speak French to women I am trying to impress. However, since you have asked nicely, I will do so.

It's because that you dont perceive a benefit if you spoke to me in french

Vous avez les cerveaux d'une truite

if you think so
;)

I have no doubt that would "impress" my boss, but maybe not the way I would like. However, let me tell you a true story.

A few months ago, my company was having a "safety fair". They put people in the parking garage to keep them from breaking the rules. One of the rules was "no U-turns". Well, to get to the prime parking spaces before others do, sometimes U-turns are beneficial, and not dangerous (IMO) if you look before you turn. My boss was one of the ones in the garage noting rules violations. I drove right up to him and said I was going to make a U-turn. He said he would have to write me up. I said "fine", and I made the U-turn. This was probably not a good career move, but I did it anyway. Chalk up another win for free will.

well actually, you perceived a benefit in doing so.
You wanted to rebel against authority. You wanted to stick it to your boss and get one back for the Trickster lol. It made you feel good perhaps. :rolleyes:

You could have either obeyed the rules or not. You didnt obey the rules, because that was the most perceived benefit. Like I said before, you probably wanted to be rebellious...
trying to show of to a pretty las hey?
haha

There are 100s of things that you could have "chosen" to do. But the way that you interpret your experiences, forces one real path

Sometimes I do things just for the sheer hell of it. I'll bet you know other people like this. They may logically know that it is foolish, but they do it anyway, sometimes just to thumb their nose at authority. That, my friend, is free will at it's most blatant.

read above
;)

Seriously, wraith, you can't expect to say that because people do not use their free will to do stupid things that free will doesn't exist. I have given you a definition of free will and asked you to tell me what is wrong with that definition. I also asked you not to do so by making up a different definition (such as , "free will = doing stupid things") You have not been able to follow the simplest of instructions. Perhaps you do not have free will because you cannot say anything vaguely creative. However, you have said things that conflict with Franko, in spite of the fact that you have tried hard not to do so. Chalk up another victory for free will.

LOL
actually if you tally the points up, free-will yields 0 :eek:
what are you saying? That I should sacrifice logic for "creativity"? haha RIGHT!

Even if I had said things that conflict with Franko, we both believe that free-willy is useless, Fate is rockin, consciousness creates matter and that there are consequences for your actions...
and no, it's not because of free-willy...
So you can rub off that chalk mark :rolleyes:

As I (and others, especially PixyMisa) have pointed out, this concept of MPB is really the same as free will. You choose between available, percieved options. Sure you choose the one that makes the most sense (at the time) but you still choose. That is what I am defining as free will. Nobody is choosing but you, or if they are, you have no evidence of it. Call it MPB if you like, but it is the exact same thing as free will.

It's not
because of MPB, youre choices have already been made...you walk one REAL path...

free-will cant even be defined

Because it violated both the conditions of what I have defined as free will. I could not choose between available, percieved options because.
1) It was not available. I couldn't control my excretory system then. Choosing to "hold it" was not an available option.

Because you didnt perceive a benefit to do so? That only supports what Im saying.

2) I couldn't perceive it. I did not recognize the signals that said I needed to "go".

That supports what Im saying
;)

My free will has gotten much stronger since then.

You have gotten stronger, not free-will.
Your MPB has evolved.

I even have the power to restrain myself from making insulting remarks. I hereby exercise that option right now.

Best wishes, Wraith.

Right back at ya slick :cool:

Whyatt

12th January 2003, 09:20 AM

I've always thought if the illusion of free will and free will itself are indistinguishable, (which to me they appear to be) then it becomes a mute point. They are the same. (ie. 2=2.)

If you can not tell the difference between two species, those species are one. Hence, to me, an illusion of free will is equivelent to free will itself.

Hence no argument. (i haven't read this thread, but i couldn't resist putting forward my two cents, so i appologise id inappropriate)

Tricky

12th January 2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Starshark

While you're on, can you tell me what fanoir means? As in, Vous etes un grand fanoir?
Je suis désolé. Je ne sais pas le sens de "fanoir".

PixyMisa

12th January 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by wraith
When I was 4, I didnt know how, so I needed somebody else to tie them for me. Thats the maximum perceived benefit.So MPB is free will.If I did know how, then I would have tied them myself, since that would have been the maximum perceived benefit.Free will again.Why dont you get someone to tie your shoes now?He's free to try.Why didnt I use "free-will" to tie them when I was 4?That's exactly what you did.Whatever "choice" that you made, was at the time the maximum perceived benefit.Precisely. Free will.If you knew that the "choice" would lead to a non-beneficial outcome, then you wouldnt have made that choice.Banana Pancakes and the Fork of Doom. Shows that when MPB makes a different prediction to free will, MPB is wrong.well actually, you perceived a benefit in doing so.
You wanted to rebel against authority. You wanted to stick it to your boss and get one back for the Trickster. It made you feel good perhaps.Ah! More free will!.You could have either obeyed the rules or not. You didnt obey the rules, because that was the most perceived benefit. Like I said before, you probably wanted to be rebellious...Free will again.There are 100s of things that you could have "chosen" to do. But the way that you interpret your experiences, forces one real pathThat one real path being free will.That I should sacrifice logic for "creativity"?That would not be much of a sacrafice for you.It's not
because of MPB, youre choices have already been made...you walk one REAL path...The path of free will.free-will cant even be definedSince free will has been defined explicitly right here in this thread, you have clearly failed your second grade reading classes again. You'll never graduate at this rate.

whitefork

12th January 2003, 01:39 PM

"Fanoir" - obscene French term for the female genetalia.

(I gotta start referring to myself as "fork of doom". That rules).

Q-Source

12th January 2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by wraith

You could have either obeyed the rules or not. You didnt obey the rules, because that was the most perceived benefit.

Oh my God!. Franko is going to be very upset with you for saying this :eek:

Since when you either obey TLOP or not???

Originally posted by wraith

There are 100s of things that you could have "chosen" to do. But the way that you interpret your experiences, forces one real path

Exactly Wraith, this is what we call Free Will. It is not in contradiction with TLOP because, you choose among available and possible choices.

You think that because we don´t do stupid things or contradictory things then we don´t have free will. This is how you think FW works, but you are wrong.

It is true that the social and physical environment determines what you are and how you think, but it is because we cannot live in a vaccum. Even in those conditions and with this frame of reference, we still can make choices.

Wraith, I don´t think that we have a problem with the definition of FW, you can call it MPB and we FW. But, what we all have a problem is with your position that there is a Master Mind deciding for us, controlling our actions, when in fact, you don´t know.

What is the point of being a Police man if the Goddess, the entity you love most, has made those creatures behave as they do????
Every single action is determined by her, so a murder`s crime was his MPB. I don´t see how you can rationalise this fact.

Q-S

Tricky

12th January 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by whitefork
"Fanoir" - obscene French term for the female genetalia.

Ah. That might explain why it wasn't in any of my "respectable" dictionaries.

Oh, and to Starshark who said:
Originally posted by Starshark

While you're on, can you tell me what fanoir means? As in, Vous etes un grand fanoir?

Eat me.:D

wraith

13th January 2003, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
*yeah yeah yeah*

Dont take offence because of the fact that I didnt reply to your post.

It's just that I find talking to a brick wall more interesting
;)

c4ts

13th January 2003, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Dont take offence because of the fact that I didnt reply to your post.

It's just that I find talking to a brick wall more interesting
;)

I'll add "talks to brick walls" to a list of your idiosyncracies.

wraith

13th January 2003, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

Oh my God!. Franko is going to be very upset with you for saying this :eek:

Since when you either obey TLOP or not???

lol
I was referring to the road rules that Tricky was talking about ie No U-turns

not TLOP
;)

Exactly Wraith, this is what we call Free Will. It is not in contradiction with TLOP because, you choose among available and possible choices.

You think that because we don´t do stupid things or contradictory things then we don´t have free will. This is how you think FW works, but you are wrong.

I dont actually
:)

It is true that the social and physical environment determines what you are and how you think, but it is because we cannot live in a vaccum. Even in those conditions and with this frame of reference, we still can make choices.

Your choices have already been made.
Are you going to get your boss to tie your shoes for you?
I am aware that you can do this, but you wont if you perceive a more beneficial course of action. It's just not possible.

Wraith, I don´t think that we have a problem with the definition of FW, you can call it MPB and we FW. But, what we all have a problem is with your position that there is a Master Mind deciding for us, controlling our actions, when in fact, you don´t know.

The Consciousness of God is still bound to MPB.
How many different ways can consciousness operate?
MPB does not equal free-will.

MPB implies that your choices have already been made.

Free-will seems to imply that you make "choices" from willy-nilly. It cant be defined. The definition "to choose from a range of options" doesnt cut it, because ultiimately, you end up describing MPB.

does 2 + 2 choose to equal 4?

What is the point of being a Police man if the Goddess, the entity you love most, has made those creatures behave as they do????
Every single action is determined by her, so a murder`s crime was his MPB. I don´t see how you can rationalise this fact.

ahhh excellent question
;)

The way that you act, is based on your MPB, which is a reflection of your soul/intrinsic nature...

wraith

13th January 2003, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by c4ts

I'll add "talks to brick walls" to a list of your idiosyncracies.

you want a medal cats?
:rolleyes:

urstardust

13th January 2003, 12:35 AM

It’s like getting a personal visit from God.
- wraith

Wraith Have you ever had a personal visit from God?

urstardust

13th January 2003, 12:38 AM

Your choices have already been made-Wraith
Really, how do you now that wraith?

urstardust

13th January 2003, 12:40 AM

brick wall more interesting-wraith

Well wraith I hope your wall can take it?

wraith

13th January 2003, 12:56 AM

dusty
was it really necessary to have 3 posts?
Im sure that 1 would have been sufficient
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by urstardust
Wraith Have you ever had a personal visit from God?

read the quote
;)

Really, how do you now that wraith?

MPB

Well wraith I hope your wall can take it?

ahhh yeah
:rolleyes:

PixyMisa

13th January 2003, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by wraith
Your choices have already been made.
Are you going to get your boss to tie your shoes for you?
I am aware that you can do this, but you wont if you perceive a more beneficial course of action. It's just not possible.The same way that it's impossible for me to stab myself with a fork?The definition "to choose from a range of options" doesnt cut it, because ultiimately, you end up describing MPB.That's how we define free will. And yes, MPB is free will.does 2 + 2 choose to equal 4?Do you choose to be stupid in public?

MRC_Hans

13th January 2003, 01:46 AM

Just because I feel like nitpicking: 2+2 only equals 4 under certain conditions. This is the reason simple math is generally useless for describing real life. The premise needed for 2+2=4 to be true is that we are working with integers. Unfortunately, there arent too many integers in real life.

Hans

wraith

13th January 2003, 03:33 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
The same way that it's impossible for me to stab myself with a fork?

Why?
If you see a benefit to do so, then you will do it...

Why dont you use "free-will" and do it now

That's how we define free will. And yes, MPB is free will.

No it's not...
MPB implies that your choices have already been made...
when you go to the crapper, the way that you interpret your experiences forces you to use toilet paper ;)

Do you use "free-will" to use sandpaper instead?

I am aware that you can physically do this, but you wont select this option. You may if you want to spite me. But then, thats the perceived benefit...
:cool:

Do you choose to be stupid in public?

do you? :cool:

wraith

13th January 2003, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Just because I feel like nitpicking: 2+2 only equals 4 under certain conditions. This is the reason simple math is generally useless for describing real life. The premise needed for 2+2=4 to be true is that we are working with integers. Unfortunately, there arent too many integers in real life.

Hans

What are the different answers that 2+2 can have under different conditions?

MRC_Hans

13th January 2003, 05:21 AM

What are the different answers that 2+2 can have under different conditions?Are you serious? Imagine the numbers to be non-integers. What is the range of the non-integer 2? And non-integer 4? Come on, you can do it!

Hans

whitefork

13th January 2003, 05:47 AM

Nice cameo in today's Dilbert.

PixyMisa

13th January 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by wraith
Why?
If you see a benefit to do so, then you will do it...In other words, MPB is free will.Why dont you use "free-will" and do it nowDone! More free will!No it's not...
MPB implies that your choices have already been made...No. It implies that the choices that you make are the choices that you make. Fate might imply that your choices have already been made, but you seem to have gone off Fate.when you go to the crapper, the way that you interpret your experiences forces you to use toilet paper

Do you use "free-will" to use sandpaper instead?No, I keep a box of dead bunnies on hand. Lovely and soft.I am aware that you can physically do this, but you wont select this option. You may if you want to spite me. But then, thats the perceived benefit...In other words, MPB says that the choice you make is the choice you make. MPB is free will.do you?Clearly I do not.

alfaniner

13th January 2003, 11:08 AM

So, Franko is now wraith?

Welcome to ignore again.

Watcher

13th January 2003, 11:52 AM

Just out of curiousity, wraith:

What is the benefit that any of us see in debating you?

It is rather obvious from your posts that you won't change your mind. So why do we keep debating you? Most of us would probably see more benefit in reading a good book, going to the cinema, reading the news, or something else. But according to you, we debate you because we find it the action most beneficial at the time (maximum perceived benefit). So what is the benefit?

Upchurch

13th January 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by alfaniner
So, Franko is now wraith?
How's that new? wraith's sockpuppet status was established nearly from the beginning and confirmed by his appearence on www.deism.org (where his word usage and behavior was exactly that of Franko's).

Upchurch

Q-Source

13th January 2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by wraith

lol
I was referring to the road rules that Tricky was talking about ie No U-turns

not TLOP

O.K. Sorry, my mistake.

Originally posted by wraith

ahhh excellent question

The way that you act, is based on your MPB, which is a reflection of your soul/intrinsic nature...

So, it means that the LG has no responsability on our intrinsic nature?? Then, she is not so powerful as I thought.

Imagine an intrinsic evil soul (a killer), who is responsible for his actions in this Universe?? The LG, who controls and determines every thing here, or this evil guy???

Franko

13th January 2003, 12:37 PM

In other words, MPB is free will.

Sure … if you believe that Excel, or your web browser program also has “free will”.

MPB is an algorithm nitwit, or do you only hear what doesn’t conflict with your religious beliefs?

No. It implies that the choices that you make are the choices that you make. Fate might imply that your choices have already been made, but you seem to have gone off Fate.

Pixydust you make “choices” in the same way that a computer program makes “choices” … although to hear you and the A-Theists tell it, you make “choices” via the magic of QM “Uncertainty”.

Ooooooo … :rolleyes:

In other words, MPB says that the choice you make is the choice you make. MPB is free will.

Yeah, and ultimately there won’t be any consequences for your actions because you are going to cease to exist.

Tricky

13th January 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by wraith
When I was 4, I didnt know how, so I needed somebody else to tie them for me. Thats the maximum perceived benefit.
If I did know how, then I would have tied them myself, since that would have been the maximum perceived benefit.
Why dont you get someone to tie your shoes now?
Why didnt I use "free-will" to tie them when I was 4?
Using the definition I have provided (numerous times), Free Will is the ability to choose between available, perceived options, you were not able to tie your shoes, so that was not an available option. As I have said, free will increases as you learn and mature.

Whatever "choice" that you made, was at the time the maximum perceived benefit. If you knew that the "choice" would lead to a non-beneficial outcome, then you wouldnt have made that choice.

You can continue to repeat, "whatever you chose was your MPB" and I can say "whatever you chose was free will". As Misa has pointed out, even by your own description, the two concepts are nearly identical. There is one variation, which I will address in a moment.

It's because that you dont perceive a benefit if you spoke to me in french.
But I did speak to you in French, therefore your conclusion is incorrect. Now admittedly I did not and could not speak to you in Mandarin. That is because I don't know Mandarin. It is not an available option. If I learned Mandarin, then I would have that option, thus increasing my free will.

well actually, you perceived a benefit in doing so.
You wanted to rebel against authority. You wanted to stick it to your boss and get one back for the Trickster lol. It made you feel good perhaps.
Correct. Again, I perceived a benefit, so I chose it. MPB = free will.

You could have either obeyed the rules or not. You didnt obey the rules, because that was the most perceived benefit. Like I said before, you probably wanted to be rebellious...
trying to show of to a pretty las hey?
haha
Well, there is no doubt that showing off for the opposite sex has caused more bad decisions than almost anything else, but in this case no. There were no women present. Besides, I'm happily married.

There are 100s of things that you could have "chosen" to do. But the way that you interpret your experiences, forces one real path.

So you say. The parking lot episode gives evidence that coersion does not always result in the "logical" choice. Do you have any evidence that coersion by the LG is effective? If so, let's see it.

actually if you tally the points up, free-will yields 0 :eek:
what are you saying? That I should sacrifice logic for "creativity"? haha RIGHT!
I'm not saying you should do anything. I'm saying you choose for yourself what to do. Maybe it's a good choice, maybe bad. Personally, I think you have made some bad choices on these boards which have caused you to be humiliated by Misa and others. I cannot fathom why you perceive a benefit in encouraging people to lose respect for you. But such is the nature of free will.

free-will cant even be defined.

I have given you my definition. That is the only definition I am arguing. I understand that you don't accept my definition. You may debate whether or not my definition is correct, but to claim I haven't defined it is... a bad move by your free will.

You have gotten stronger, not free-will. Your MPB has evolved.
And this is different how?
-----------
Now, I have a request that will help demonstrate the difference between MPB and free will. Think of a number between 1 and 100.

Watcher

13th January 2003, 01:33 PM

Franko, I'd like to ask you the same question that I asked wraith:

What is the benefit that any of us see in debating you?

It is rather obvious from your posts that you won't change your mind. So why do we keep debating you? Most of us would probably see more benefit in reading a good book, going to the cinema, reading the news, or something else. But according to you, we debate you because we find it the action most beneficial at the time (maximum perceived benefit). So what is the benefit?

hammegk

13th January 2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Watcher
Franko, I'd like to ask you the same question that I asked wraith:

Interesting. Your MPB has sent here to these forums, and this one in particular. After reading and taking what your MPB decided was applicable, have you seen, or do you now see "free will" making any decision; or is it just your algorithm running?

The Fool

13th January 2003, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Interesting. Your MPB has sent here to these forums, and this one in particular. After reading and taking what your MPB decided was applicable, have you seen, or do you now see "free will" making any decision; or is it just your algorithm running?
Hammy, are you saying that you are a biological chat bot? you have no control over what you type on this forum? It is all pre determined?

wraith

13th January 2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by alfaniner
So, Franko is now wraith?

Welcome to ignore again.

some one give this guy a drink...

wraith

13th January 2003, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Watcher
Just out of curiousity, wraith:

What is the benefit that any of us see in debating you?

It is rather obvious from your posts that you won't change your mind. So why do we keep debating you? Most of us would probably see more benefit in reading a good book, going to the cinema, reading the news, or something else. But according to you, we debate you because we find it the action most beneficial at the time (maximum perceived benefit). So what is the benefit?

Youre asking me to explain your perceived benefit?
:rolleyes:

Ultimately, you see a benefit by responding to my posts. You seek the destruction of my beliefs. It will make you feel better about your own...

wraith

13th January 2003, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

How's that new? wraith's sockpuppet status was established nearly from the beginning and confirmed by his appearence on www.deism.org (where his word usage and behavior was exactly that of Franko's).

Upchurch

you should really change that avatar Churchy
;)

wraith

13th January 2003, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source
So, it means that the LG has no responsability on our intrinsic nature??

thats right
;)

Then, she is not so powerful as I thought.

LOL
....powerful enough to bring you here
:)

Imagine an intrinsic evil soul (a killer), who is responsible for his actions in this Universe?? The LG, who controls and determines every thing here, or this evil guy???

The evil guy Q-Source!

wraith

13th January 2003, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Are you serious? Imagine the numbers to be non-integers. What is the range of the non-integer 2? And non-integer 4? Come on, you can do it!

Hans

no hans

Im dealing with 2 + 2 here
:rolleyes:

MRC_Hans

14th January 2003, 12:08 AM

And, Frank, what is you definition of (non integer)2?

Does 2 flocks of birds + 2 flocks of birds equal 4 flocks of birds?

Hans :p

wraith

14th January 2003, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Using the definition I have provided (numerous times), Free Will is the ability to choose between available, perceived options, you were not able to tie your shoes, so that was not an available option. As I have said, free will increases as you learn and mature.

your MPB has already selected your choices...

look at my toilet example
;)

You can continue to repeat, "whatever you chose was your MPB" and I can say "whatever you chose was free will". As Misa has pointed out, even by your own description, the two concepts are nearly identical. There is one variation, which I will address in a moment.

MPB does not equal free-will...
Do you agree that your choices have already been selected?

2 + 2 does not choose to equal 4...
free-will believers say that it does...

But I did speak to you in French, therefore your conclusion is incorrect.

How? You spoke one sentence in french to mock me. That was the perceived benefit. However, you wouldnt type out this whole post in french if you wanted my opinion on something and I didnt understand french...

Now admittedly I did not and could not speak to you in Mandarin. That is because I don't know Mandarin. It is not an available option. If I learned Mandarin, then I would have that option, thus increasing my free will.

actually, your MPB decides whether or not you learn another language...
why not learn mandarin now?

Correct. Again, I perceived a benefit, so I chose it. MPB = free will.

In the same way that 2 + 2 chose to equal 4?

Well, there is no doubt that showing off for the opposite sex has caused more bad decisions than almost anything else, but in this case no. There were no women present. Besides, I'm happily married.

nice
keep up the good work
;)

So you say. The parking lot episode gives evidence that coersion does not always result in the "logical" choice. Do you have any evidence that coersion by the LG is effective? If so, let's see it.

coersion?
You saw that choice as being "beneficial" so you acted upon it...
if you knew that it was going to yield a certain outcome that you would have perceived as non-beneficial, then you wouldnt have "chosen" it.
Why do you think people always say "I wish I could go back in time and done this..."?

I'm not saying you should do anything. I'm saying you choose for yourself what to do. Maybe it's a good choice, maybe bad. Personally, I think you have made some bad choices on these boards which have caused you to be humiliated by Misa and others. I cannot fathom why you perceive a benefit in encouraging people to lose respect for you. But such is the nature of free will.

well, if double standards takes your fancy, then Pixy is kicking my arse
;)

I have given you my definition. That is the only definition I am arguing. I understand that you don't accept my definition. You may debate whether or not my definition is correct, but to claim I haven't defined it is... a bad move by your free will.

Sorry, bad wording...
Im saying describing free-will is like describing a 4 sided tri...
oh, are you going to show me this 4 sided tri of yours?
haha

And this is different how?

free-will is not MPB
read above!

Now, I have a request that will help demonstrate the difference between MPB and free will. Think of a number between 1 and 100.

done
;)

wraith

14th January 2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
And, Frank, what is you definition of (non integer)2?

Does 2 flocks of birds + 2 flocks of birds equal 4 flocks of birds?

Hans :p

it does actually
lol

Watcher

14th January 2003, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Ultimately, you see a benefit by responding to my posts. You seek the destruction of my beliefs. It will make you feel better about your own...

Yep, I see a benefit, that's absolutely right. As you've said yourself many times, we do things out of perceived benefit. My point is that it's quite possible that I would see more benefit in other actions. In other words: we don't always do what we perceive as most beneficial. The "perceived benefit" rule doesn't disprove free will, it merely restricts it.

MRC_Hans

14th January 2003, 01:59 AM

Frank: it does actually
*Yawn*

OK, have it your way: For a non-integer, there in principle exist an infinite number of decimals, even if we choose to represent only a few, or even none at all.

Thus, (non-integer)2 can per definition really be any value between 1.5 and 2.499...

So, for small values of 2, 2+2 = 3 (for large values of 3) ;)

And my reason for bringing this up is that in real life, true integer values are surprisingly rare (e.g. 2+2 flocks of birds may equal 127 birds, but the next 4 flocks may equal 966 birds).

Hans

wraith

14th January 2003, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Frank:
*Yawn*

OK, have it your way: For a non-integer, there in principle exist an infinite number of decimals, even if we choose to represent only a few, or even none at all.

Thus, (non-integer)2 can per definition really be any value between 1.5 and 2.499...

So, for small values of 2, 2+2 = 3 (for large values of 3) ;)

And my reason for bringing this up is that in real life, true integer values are surprisingly rare (e.g. 2+2 flocks of birds may equal 127 birds, but the next 4 flocks may equal 966 birds).

Hans

small values of 2 hey?
what about 2?
:rolleyes:

keep going han-z
:eek:

wraith

14th January 2003, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by Watcher

Yep, I see a benefit, that's absolutely right. As you've said yourself many times, we do things out of perceived benefit. My point is that it's quite possible that I would see more benefit in other actions. In other words: we don't always do what we perceive as most beneficial. The "perceived benefit" rule doesn't disprove free will, it merely restricts it.

whats an exmaple?

Watcher

14th January 2003, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by wraith

whats an exmaple?

Debating you. Doing my homework would be more beneficial. Yet here I am, using my time to debate you.

MRC_Hans

14th January 2003, 03:00 AM

small values of 2 hey?
what about 2?
Forget it, Frank. I was just testing out my suspicion that your math capability never came past integer level.

QED.

cheers
Hans

Q-Source

14th January 2003, 07:30 AM

Me:
Imagine an intrinsic evil soul (a killer), who is responsible for his actions in this Universe?? The LG, who controls and determines every thing here, or this evil guy???

Originally posted by wraith

The evil guy Q-Source!

That sounds to me as Free Will. When he decides that to kill somebody is his MPB, he is controlling his own destiny and he is determining the outcome of his future life (or path).

At the end, you are not a Fatalist, wraith.

hammegk

14th January 2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Hammy, are you saying that you are a biological chat bot? you have no control over what you type on this forum? It is all pre determined?
Certainly questions materialists/atheists need to answer for themselves.

What does your mpb tell you? And why are you still a materialist/atheist?

Upchurch

14th January 2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source
That sounds to me as Free Will. When he decides that to kill somebody is his MPB, he is controlling his own destiny and he is determining the outcome of his future life (or path).
Perhaps there is another way to think about that very situation, Q-Source.

When a killer uses a gun to shoot a bullet at a victim, it is the bullet that actually does the killing. The killer and the gun can be several feet/yards away.

Is the bullet morally responsible for the death of the victim? I would claim that it is not morally responsible for two reasons. First, it is not a conscious entity and not applicable for moral decision making. Second, it had no choice (or free will, if you like) in the matter. It was a tool of the gun.

Is the gun morally responsible for the death of the victim? Like the bullet, the gun is not applicable as a conscious, moral entity and further, had no choice in the action. It was a tool of the killer.

Is the killer morally responsible for the death of the victim? To answer this we must look at the question from the two sides of our "free will/determinism" issue. In either case, we'll assume that the killer is a conscious entity and capable of moral decision-making. (edited to add: In hindsight of writing this post, that can't be true. In a completely deterministic universe, the killer would be incapable of making any decisions, even moral ones.)

free will: Having free will, the killer has the freedom to make the choice to use the gun, and therefore the bullet to kill the victim. In which case, the responsibility relies solely with the killer because no one/thing forced the killer into action. i.e., the killer was not a tool of anything but himself.

determinism: Under determinism, or fatalism, the killer had no choice in the matter. The killer used the gun and bullet because someone/thing (in this context, call it TLOP, if you like) forced him to use the gun and bullet to kill the victim. The killer was a tool of TLOP.

Continuing on with this line or reasoning, we see that with free will, the killer is responsible for the death of the victim. On the other hand, in a completely deterministic universe, it is TLOP/God/the Universe/whatever who is responsible for the death of the victim.

Upchurch

Aardvark_DK

14th January 2003, 08:19 AM

Upperchurchy whined
On the other hand, in a completely deterministic universe, it is TLOP/God/the Universe/whatever who is responsible for the death of the victim.
Obviously youre wrong A-Theist nitwit. I would explain fate to you if you werent so stupid.

Ooops! Posted under wrong user name!

Franko

14th January 2003, 08:27 AM

Upchurch said:

Perhaps there is another way to think about that very situation, Q-Source.

When a killer uses a gun to shoot a bullet at a victim, it is the bullet that actually does the killing. The killer and the gun can be several feet/yards away.

Is the bullet morally responsible for the death of the victim? I would claim that it is not morally responsible for two reasons. First, it is not a conscious entity and not applicable for moral decision making. Second, it had no choice (or free will, if you like) in the matter. It was a tool of the gun.

Is the gun morally responsible for the death of the victim? Like the bullet, the gun is not applicable as a conscious, moral entity and further, had no choice in the action. It was a tool of the killer.

Is the killer morally responsible for the death of the victim? To answer this we must look at the question from the two sides of our "free will/determinism" issue. In either case, we'll assume that the killer is a conscious entity and capable of moral decision-making.

Upchurch you keep making post like this and people are going to start thinking you are a skeptic. ;)

Okay … so let’s take your analogy a little farther. I take it that we’d both agree that the Bullet is a tool (an implement), and the Gun is a tool, so my question is Why can’t the Killer also be a tool?

Let’s suppose that Adolph Hitler – a very charismatic and influential/manipulative person – takes several infants and has them indoctrinated into the Hitler Youth. These children are totally brainwashed and conditioned to be loyal and blindly obedient servants of dur Fuehrer. So now, as adults, Hitler uses these individuals (just like a gun or a bullet) to kill someone.

Why isn’t it Hitler who is responsible, and this trained/conditioned/programmed Killer is no different then Hitler’s Gun or Hitler’s Bullet. They just have better range and accuracy. They are just more deadly, it’s just a better technology …

Tricky

14th January 2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Perhaps there is another way to think about that very situation, Q-Source.

When a killer uses a gun to shoot a bullet at a victim, it is the bullet that actually does the killing. The killer and the gun can be several feet/yards away.

Is the bullet morally responsible for the death of the victim? I would claim that it is not morally responsible for two reasons. First, it is not a conscious entity and not applicable for moral decision making. Second, it had no choice (or free will, if you like) in the matter. It was a tool of the gun.

Is the gun morally responsible for the death of the victim? Like the bullet, the gun is not applicable as a conscious, moral entity and further, had no choice in the action. It was a tool of the killer.

Is the killer morally responsible for the death of the victim? To answer this we must look at the question from the two sides of our "free will/determinism" issue. In either case, we'll assume that the killer is a conscious entity and capable of moral decision-making. (edited to add: In hindsight of writing this post, that can't be true. In a completely deterministic universe, the killer would be incapable of making any decisions, even moral ones.)

free will: Having free will, the killer has the freedom to make the choice to use the gun, and therefore the bullet to kill the victim. In which case, the responsibility relies solely with the killer because no one/thing forced the killer into action. i.e., the killer was not a tool of anything but himself.

determinism: Under determinism, or fatalism, the killer had no choice in the matter. The killer used the gun and bullet because someone/thing (in this context, call it TLOP, if you like) forced him to use the gun and bullet to kill the victim. The killer was a tool of TLOP.

Continuing on with this line or reasoning, we see that with free will, the killer is responsible for the death of the victim. On the other hand, in a completely deterministic universe, it is TLOP/God/the Universe/whatever who is responsible for the death of the victim.

Upchurch
This defense has actually been used in court. It is known as "the insanity defense".

Upchurch

14th January 2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Okay … so let’s take your analogy a little farther. I take it that we’d both agree that the Bullet is a tool (an implement), and the Gun is a tool, so my question is Why can’t the Killer also be a tool?
Absolutely the point I was making, if you assume absolute determinism. You should explain that to your little wraith, who claims that the killer is responsible and not the LG, as your determinisc beliefs state must be the case.

Upchurch

Upchurch

14th January 2003, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Why isn’t it Hitler who is responsible, and this trained/conditioned/programmed Killer is no different then Hitler’s Gun or Hitler’s Bullet. They just have better range and accuracy. They are just more deadly, it’s just a better technology …
Why isn't Hitler (a killer) responsible? Because from your LD viewpoint, Hitler was just another tool of the LG, who technically would be morally responsible for the Holocaust (by using Hitler, who used the Nazis, etc).

Upchurch

Franko

14th January 2003, 09:01 AM

Upchurch:
Why isn't Hitler (a killer) responsible? Because from your LD viewpoint, Hitler was just another tool of the LG, who technically would be morally responsible for the Holocaust (by using Hitler, who used the Nazis, etc).

Ahh, you could say that She was responsible in the same way that you could claim Bill Gates was responsible for every Window’s based computer-virus that was ever written.

Tricky

14th January 2003, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by wraith
your MPB has already selected your choices...

Then it is not a "choice", is it?

MPB does not equal free-will...
Do you agree that your choices have already been selected?

I do not. If it is already selected, then there is no choice. For example. Choose one option from the following list.
Option one

2 + 2 does not choose to equal 4...
free-will believers say that it does...
Um... no they don't. Now some people adept at math have shown you that depending on how you define two, you can get various outcomes. However, I assume you are talking about integers (since I suspect you are not familiar with group theory) and I agree 2 + 2 = 4. But this has nothing to do with free will as I have defined it because there are no other options. Remember, free will chooses between available percieved options.

How? You spoke one sentence in french to mock me. That was the perceived benefit. However, you wouldnt type out this whole post in french if you wanted my opinion on something and I didnt understand french...
I did it to prove you wrong, not to mock you. The choice was mine.

actually, your MPB decides whether or not you learn another language...
why not learn mandarin now?
Too damn lazy. Mandarin would be of little use to me, although Spanish would be quite helpful. But I will probably use my free will to opt for being lazy.

In the same way that 2 + 2 chose to equal 4?
Not a choice. No options. See above.

coersion?
You saw that choice as being "beneficial" so you acted upon it...
if you knew that it was going to yield a certain outcome that you would have perceived as non-beneficial, then you wouldnt have "chosen" it.
Why do you think people always say "I wish I could go back in time and done this..."?
In everything you are explain here, you are making the the assumption that I choose. You have said it time and time again. Try it again. Choice means free will. If no free will, there is no choice.

Well, if double standards takes your fancy, then Pixy is kicking my arse.
;)
You have never demonstrated a double standard. You have tried to tell us what Misa thinks, then argued against that. However, most of us here have seen enough straw men to recognize one. You have demonstrated an inability to vary your arguments, an unwillingness to answer questions, and internal contradictions in your logic. Yes, PM is kicking your arse. Of course, you can use your "free will" to engage in self-delusion, but it is obvious to almost everyone else here.

Sorry, bad wording...
Im saying describing free-will is like describing a 4 sided tri...
oh, are you going to show me this 4 sided tri of yours?
haha.
As I have stated, I will show you the 4-sided triangle when you agree to admit free will exists once I have done so. If you do not agree to this in advance, I "perceive no benefit" in doing so, so I will excercise my free will not to show you.

free-will is not MPB
read above!

I agree, they are not exactly the same. Now I will show you the difference.

Tricky said:Think of a number between 1 and 100.
Wraith said:
done
;)
Okay. I don't care what number you chose, but you admit you chose one. I never promised you anything, and even if I had, what possible MPB could you have for choosing the number you did?. There is no benefit to one number over another. This illustrates the rare situation where MBP is different from free will. Usually, you use your free will to choose the most advantageous path. But sometimes, it is impossible to know what path is more advantageous. You have no idea what number I have chosen, and indeed, I didn't even choose one. No number could be perceived more beneficial than another one, and yet, you chose one. This is an example of free will without MPB.

Upchurch

14th January 2003, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Ahh, you could say that She was responsible in the same way that you could claim Bill Gates was responsible for every Window’s based computer-virus that was ever written.
Bill Gates doesn't have complete determisitic-style control over the computer industry (although he certainly would like to).

Does the LG/TLOP control EVERYTHING or doesn't she/it?

Upchurch

Franko

14th January 2003, 09:16 AM

Bill Gates doesn't have complete determisitic-style control over the computer industry (although he certainly would like to).

Does the LG/TLOP control EVERYTHING or doesn't she/it?

1) Bill Gates is no Logical Goddess
2) You obviously don't know much about the PC industry. More than ANY other person Bill Gates has shaped it's current and future form.

Upchurch

14th January 2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Franko

1) Bill Gates is no Logical Goddess
2) You obviously don't know much about the PC industry. More than ANY other person Bill Gates has shaped it's current and future form.
Yeah, but he doesn't control how I use my computer or what I use it for. Plus, I can always buy a Mac or use Linix. REGARDLESS, that isn't the point. I was making a joke at Bill's expense (another thing he can't control)

My question is: Does your Logical Goddess control everything in a deterministic fashion so that no human (our made up killer, Hitler, etc.) has a choice but to follow the LG's commands?

Upchurch

Franko

14th January 2003, 09:27 AM

Upchurch:
Yeah, but he doesn't control how I use my computer or what I use it for.

Sure he does!

Try and use a non-windows PC program on a window’s PC. Remove all of Bill Gate’s Microsoft products off your computer and see how useful it is to you.

Plus, I can always buy a Mac or use Linix.

Yeah, but then you can’t run any of the Microsoft products, and how good is a PC without any Microsoft products?

… REGARDLESS, that isn't the point. I was making a joke at Bill's expense (another thing he can't control)

hehehe … tell that to his goons (:mad: :mad: :mad: ) when they show up on your doorstep … hehehe …

Upchurch

14th January 2003, 09:30 AM

Allow me to simplify:

Does your Logical Goddess control everything in a deterministic fashion so that no human (our made up killer, Hitler, etc.) has a choice but to follow the LG's commands?

Upchurch

Checkmite

14th January 2003, 09:32 AM

It's Linux, not "Linix"...evil A-Theist... :p

Upchurch

14th January 2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
It's Linux, not "Linix"...evil A-Theist... :p
D@mn it! I almost spelled it that way, but changed my mind at the last minute. I don't use the stuff anyway and it's irrelevent to the topic at hand.

Upchurch

Checkmite

14th January 2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

D@mn it! I almost spelled it that way, but changed my mind at the last minute. I don't use the stuff anyway and it's irrelevent to the topic at hand.

Upchurch

I know...but whether it is relevant or not is irrelevant.

Do continue, though.

Franko

14th January 2003, 09:54 AM

Upchurch:
I don't use the stuff anyway and it's irrelevent to the topic at hand.

Ahhh -- so Bill Gates does control you and your computer use after all.

Make sure you tell the goons that! ( :mad: :mad: :mad: )

Upchurch

14th January 2003, 09:56 AM

Allow me to help you focus:

Does your Logical Goddess control everything in a deterministic fashion so that no human (our made up killer, Hitler, etc.) has a choice but to follow the LG's commands?

Upchurch

Checkmite

14th January 2003, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Ahhh -- so Bill Gates does control you and your computer use after all.

Make sure you tell the goons that! ( :mad: :mad: :mad: )

What are these goons, then?

Upchurch

14th January 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Does your Logical Goddess control everything in a deterministic fashion so that no human (our made up killer, Hitler, etc.) has a choice but to follow the LG's commands?
Nevermind. Unless you post, "No, Upchurch. My Logical Goddess doesn't control everything in a deterministic fashion", I'm going to assume that you believe that she does, since this is in keeping with your posts in the past.

Therefore, if we take that your system of beliefs are correct, then the LG is responsible for all the good and evil that happens in the world. As such, I have to wonder what is her basis for judging humans (her unwitting tools) and rewarding or punishing them?

It would seem that it is the LG herself who has earned the reward and/or punishment through her responsibility. Our imaginary killer should no more be punished for killing the victim than the gun or bullet should be punished.

Upchurch

Q-Source

14th January 2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

Nevermind. Unless you post, "No, Upchurch. My Logical Goddess doesn't control everything in a deterministic fashion", I'm going to assume that you believe that she does, since this is in keeping with your posts in the past.

Upchurch,

I don´t think Franko has any problem to recognise that the LG is responsible for everything in the Universe. In fact, the example of Hitler`s killers just reinforces his beliefs.

However, wraith said otherwise, that´s why I asked him about it. Wraith is not a Fatalist in this regard.

Originally posted by Upchurch

Therefore, if we take that your system of beliefs are correct, then the LG is responsible for all the good and evil that happens in the world. As such, I have to wonder what is her basis for judging humans (her unwitting tools) and rewarding or punishing them?

I have the same question. In a deterministic Universe, punishment and rewards are contradictory.

Franko

14th January 2003, 11:04 AM

Upchurch:

Does your Logical Goddess control everything in a deterministic fashion so that no human (our made up killer, Hitler, etc.) has a choice but to follow the LG's commands?

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics (TLOP).
You are made of Atoms.
You obey the laws of Physics.

Unless you have some evidence to the contrary … ?

But that doesn’t mean that the LG commanded Hitler to kill anyone. That was ALL Hitler!

Q-Source:
I have the same question. In a deterministic Universe, punishment and rewards are contradictory.

Yeah, it is contradictory in the EXACT same way that a round moving Earth is contradictory.

I mean – come on! The Earth is orbiting the Sun at 65,000 mph!?!?!?! If that is true then how come when I just walked outside a minute ago the wind wasn’t even blowing???

… and if the Earth is Really round … then how come all of the people don’t fall off of the Southern hemisphere?

Or are you claiming that Africa, South America, and Australia are all uninhabited?

Upchurch

14th January 2003, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Franko
But that doesn’t mean that the LG commanded Hitler to kill anyone. That was ALL Hitler!
Wait. So if Hitler wasn't being controled by the LG when he killed all those people and he wasn't being controlled by anyone else ("ALL Hitler!"), then Hitler chose to kill those people? Does that mean Hitler had free will? If not, how could have he decided to kill anyone?

Upchurch

edited to add:
Further, how do you find it possible for Hitler to do anything that the LG didn't want him to do? What allowed him to "defy the laws of physics" like that?

Q-Source

14th January 2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Yeah, it is contradictory in the EXACT same way that a round moving Earth is contradictory.

Who so?

The LG predetermines my actions, behaviour, decisions and whatever, I am just her puppet.

Are you claiming that a puppet has free will ? :mad:

Q-S

Franko

14th January 2003, 12:50 PM

Upchurch:
Wait. So if Hitler wasn't being controlled by the LG when he killed all those people and he wasn't being controlled by anyone else ("ALL Hitler!"), then Hitler chose to kill those people? Does that mean Hitler had free will? If not, how could have he decided to kill anyone?

Hitler was compelled to do what Hitler did by his own intrinsic nature.

Like I said, You can’t blame Bill Gates for every windows based computer virus that was ever written just because Gates is responsible for creating windows.

Never-the-less, every programmer who ever wrote a windows based computer virus was controlled in that endeavor by Bill Gates.

Q-Source:
Who so?

The LG predetermines my actions, behaviour, decisions and whatever, I am just her puppet.

Are you claiming that a puppet has free will ?

How are You Her puppet Source?

I thought You were an A-Theist? You don’t even believe She exist.

But I’m Her puppet, and I don’t have any “free will”. When She pulls my trigger, I fire with both barrels with a better than 100% reliability rate (and improved accuracy).

Upchurch

14th January 2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Hitler was compelled to do what Hitler did by his own intrinsic nature.
heh. That's what Latimer said you would say. Specifically, he told me:
Originally PMed by Latimer
So, he may arguie that Hitler was a graviton snatched by the LG and put into this universe for testing purposes; and that he turned out to be a bad graviton was because it was his 'intrinsic nature,' which the LG does not control. I think that's what he will say, anyway.
It's interesting that you believe that there is a part of humans that is not controlled by the Logical Goddess, by the laws of physics. A part of us that acts according to our own selves (our natures) and is not controled by any outside agency. A part that even the Logical Goddess doesn't know what we will do (for if she did, she's just as responsible for Hitler's acts as she would be setting fire to an explosive's fuse).

I can finally define "free will" within your own context, Franko.

"Acting according to one's free will" is the same thing as "acting according to one's intrinsic nature". It's the same thing that absolves your LG of responsibility of the actions of us humans. It's the same thing that allows her to justly judge us for reward and punishment.

your "intrinsic nature" = everyone else's "free will"

Upchurch

Franko

14th January 2003, 01:12 PM

Upchurch:

your "intrinsic nature" = everyone else's "free will"

If you insist. :confused:

I guess it is kind of like how My round Earth is you and all the rest of the A-Theist's flat Earth ???

... or is it more like:

your "The Laws of Physics" = everyone else's "God"?

... or is it more like:

your "not a religion" = everyone else's "THAT'S A RELIGION!!!"

Upchurch don't you think that maybe it is time to stop calling the round earth a flat one for the sake of your religious beliefs, and just concede to Agnosticism?

Upchurch

14th January 2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Franko
If you insist. :confused:
Well, you tell me how, from within the context of LD, someone can act outside of the will of the LG.

If the LG (or TLOP) did not command or decide that Hitler would kill over 6 million helpless people, then Hitler did it of his own accord (as you say, by his intrinsic nature). Does acting by intrinsic nature defy TLOP?

What you call "intrinsic nature" I call "free will"

Does anyone disagree with this definition, from within the context of LD or from without?

Upchurch

Loki

14th January 2003, 02:04 PM

Franko/wraith,

(from Tricky) : No number could be perceived more beneficial than another one, and yet, you chose one. This is an example of free will without MPB.
Wraith was asked to pick a number between 1 and 100 (make a choice). He did so. There was no (obvious) benefit in choosing any particular number over any other.

At least in theory, all 100 numbers are equally "beneficial". It's a tie! How then does the MPB make a decision? Which number would be selected, and why? Yes, this is my old "what about a tie?" question again. Last time I think you just defined it away, saying "ties aren't possible, because they'd complicate things. Let's invoke Occam's razor and remove the complication." Well, how would MPB process the "pick a number" issue raised by Tricky without resorting to a "tie-breaker" procedure?

Franko

14th January 2003, 02:21 PM

Loki,

Wraith was asked to pick a number between 1 and 100 (make a choice). He did so. There was no (obvious) benefit in choosing any particular number over any other.

what does no “obvious benefit” mean exactly?

Maybe there was a benefit, from his POV? Maybe you just failed to perceive it.

You know I play that same game with my wife and kids. They guess the number I am going to pick at least 90% of the time … ???

At least in theory, all 100 numbers are equally "beneficial". It's a tie! How then does the MPB make a decision? Which number would be selected, and why? Yes, this is my old "what about a tie?" question again. Last time I think you just defined it away, saying "ties aren't possible, because they'd complicate things. Let's invoke Occam's razor and remove the complication." Well, how would MPB process the "pick a number" issue raised by Tricky without resorting to a "tie-breaker" procedure?

Lets say that I present you with 100 “equally beautiful” and equally very naked women, all of whom are willing to sleep with you.

Are you saying that there will be NO LOGIC to your decision making process?

Maybe you have a reason for preferring brunettes to blondes (maybe a bad past experience with a blond?)? Maybe red-heads are even better still. Maybe you like big tits over small tits – why? Maybe soft round asses are preferable over hard muscular ones?

So how do you break the “tie” Loki?

Upchurch

14th January 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Franko
So how do you break the “tie” Loki?
By use of his intrinsic nature, I'd say.

Tricky

14th January 2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Franko
what does no “obvious benefit” mean exactly?

Maybe there was a benefit, from his POV? Maybe you just failed to perceive it.
If that were true, then wraith ought to be able to rank the numbers 1 to 100 in order of perceived benefit. If the perceived benefit varies depending on the situation, then he ought to be able to have a number of different rankings for different situations. Do you think this is the case?

You know I play that same game with my wife and kids. They guess the number I am going to pick at least 90% of the time … ???
Um, gee Franko. What that tells me is that you behave in a monotonous, predictable pattern that is discernable even to children.

Try it with a number of strangers and see if you hit the 90% mark.

Lets say that I present you with 100 “equally beautiful” and equally very naked women, all of whom are willing to sleep with you.

Are you saying that there will be NO LOGIC to your decision making process?

Maybe you have a reason for preferring (certain attributes over others)

So how do you break the “tie” Loki?
In this scenario, there is an MPB, based on your tastes. Also, you know the results of your choice. The "pick a number" scenario not only did not distinguish between the choices, but it promised nothing for picking correctly.

In fact, I specifically omitted telling wraith why I wanted him to pick a number to eliminate the possibility of him thinking one number would "win" versus another. There was absolutely no benefit to him picking one number over another, and yet, he still picked one, thus demonstrating that free will can exist in the absence of MPB.

Loki

14th January 2003, 03:03 PM

Franko,

Lets say that I present you with 100 “equally beautiful” and equally very naked women, all of whom are willing to sleep with you.
...
So how do you break the “tie” Loki?
Well, obviously research is called for in this situation. I'd suggest sleeping with each one a number of times to ensure I get a "proper feel" for the advantages and disadvantages on offer. Then we'd move to a second "double blind" round of tests, during which I'd be blind folded, and have to randomly select 3 naked women at a time to "test". Of course, I'd suggest a generous supply of baby oil and ostrich feathers, and then...wait, what were we discussing?

Maybe there was a benefit, from his POV? Maybe you just failed to perceive it.
So your answer is "wraith has a benefit in choosing certain numbers, even if I (and he) can't define what it is". Okay. Seems...convenient.

PixyMisa

14th January 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Franko
You know I play that same game with my wife and kids. They guess the number I am going to pick at least 90% of the timeAha! I see your problem, Franko! You're a mindless zombie! This explains everything!

The Fool

14th January 2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Certainly questions materialists/atheists need to answer for themselves.

What does your mpb tell you? And why are you still a materialist/atheist?

Hammy.
Answer for myself? How? by using free will? or is the decision fated?

my "mpb" tells me nothing. MPB as franko defines it seems to be a simplistic plagiarization of Abraham Maslow from first year psych....A nice simplistic behavioural model, suitable for beginners.

So what is it to be hammy? Frank also used this "there are some things that that you have to decide yourself" he then could not explain why this was not free will be retreated into the defence of "Its not inconsistent but the reason it isn't is a secret only available to cult members"
Are you a cult member bound by the secrecy provisions or can you explain how I can decide for myself, or answer for myself or do any damn thing "for myself" without free will?

wraith

15th January 2003, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source
At the end, you are not a Fatalist, wraith.

at the end, youre not a free-willy-ist Q-Cumber
;)

wraith

15th January 2003, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Then it is not a "choice", is it?

thats right...no choices

I do not. If it is already selected, then there is no choice. For example. Choose one option from the following list.
Option one

Here is a set of options...

- punch your wife
- punch a murderer

from what you have experienced, and the way that you have processed them, the above choice has already been made

Um... no they don't. Now some people adept at math have shown you that depending on how you define two, you can get various outcomes. However, I assume you are talking about integers (since I suspect you are not familiar with group theory) and I agree 2 + 2 = 4. But this has nothing to do with free will as I have defined it because there are no other options. Remember, free will chooses between available percieved options.

read above ;)

I did it to prove you wrong, not to mock you. The choice was mine.

You didnt prove anything
;)
and it wasnt your choice :cool:

Too damn lazy. Mandarin would be of little use to me, although Spanish would be quite helpful. But I will probably use my free will to opt for being lazy.

you didnt choose

read my first post
;)

In everything you are explain here, you are making the the assumption that I choose. You have said it time and time again. Try it again. Choice means free will. If no free will, there is no choice.

read first post
:cool:

You have never demonstrated a double standard. You have tried to tell us what Misa thinks, then argued against that. However, most of us here have seen enough straw men to recognize one. You have demonstrated an inability to vary your arguments, an unwillingness to answer questions, and internal contradictions in your logic. Yes, PM is kicking your arse. Of course, you can use your "free will" to engage in self-delusion, but it is obvious to almost everyone else here.

whatever makes you feel good
;)

As I have stated, I will show you the 4-sided triangle when you agree to admit free will exists once I have done so. If you do not agree to this in advance, I "perceive no benefit" in doing so, so I will excercise my free will not to show you.

ahhh no haha

Okay. I don't care what number you chose, but you admit you chose one. I never promised you anything, and even if I had, what possible MPB could you have for choosing the number you did?. There is no benefit to one number over another. This illustrates the rare situation where MBP is different from free will. Usually, you use your free will to choose the most advantageous path. But sometimes, it is impossible to know what path is more advantageous. You have no idea what number I have chosen, and indeed, I didn't even choose one. No number could be perceived more beneficial than another one, and yet, you chose one. This is an example of free will without MPB.

It's all MPB.
Perceived a benefit to choose a number so I did so. Just for fun ;)
I chose 33. No particular reason...just looks like a pretty sexy number :cool:
Relate it to my brain state if you like...I obey TLOP

and how does obeying TLOP give you free-will?
you might want to consult Pixy (who is a guy by the way haha) on this one

wraith

15th January 2003, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Loki
Franko/wraith,

Wraith was asked to pick a number between 1 and 100 (make a choice). He did so. There was no (obvious) benefit in choosing any particular number over any other.

At least in theory, all 100 numbers are equally "beneficial". It's a tie! How then does the MPB make a decision? Which number would be selected, and why? Yes, this is my old "what about a tie?" question again. Last time I think you just defined it away, saying "ties aren't possible, because they'd complicate things. Let's invoke Occam's razor and remove the complication." Well, how would MPB process the "pick a number" issue raised by Tricky without resorting to a "tie-breaker" procedure?

I was just obeying TLOP
33 looked pretty sexy

come to think ok it, 33 looks like a couple of firm, yet supple boobies rotated at 90 degrees
;)

wraith

15th January 2003, 01:47 AM

Upchurch

15th January 2003, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by wraith
and how does obeying TLOP give you free-will?
It's called "intrinsic nature", wraith-old-boy. Have Pope Franko give you a lesson in it sometime.
come to think ok it, 33 looks like a couple of firm, yet supple boobies rotated at 90 degrees
What are you? 12 years old? maybe 13?

Upchurch

Tricky

15th January 2003, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by wraith
thats right...no choices

Ah, but then you say...
Originally posted by wraith
I chose 33. No particular reason...just looks like a pretty sexy number :cool:

That's right. You chose. You had no MPB (no particular reason), but you chose anyway. Let me show you this again in case your memory is faulty.
Originally posted by wraith
I chose 33. No particular reason...
Originally posted by wraith
I chose 33. No particular reason...
Originally posted by wraith
I chose 33.
Originally posted by wraith
I chose 33.

By now you should realize that you admit you have choices and they are not necessarily based on MPB.

Now, each time that you try to tell me I have "no choice" I will remind you of your own words which show that you believe in choice. My lad, you are busted.

Originally posted by wraith
and how does obeying TLOP give you free-will?
you might want to consult Pixy (who is a guy by the way haha) on this one
Free will is a part of TLOP.
And yes, I have known about Misa's gender for some time. I also know he prefers to have his name shortened to "Misa" rather than "Pixy". I actually read the posts here.

Ipecac

15th January 2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by wraith
come to think ok it, 33 looks like a couple of firm, yet supple boobies rotated at 90 degrees
;)

Actually, it looks like four, so unless you're into cows, I don't see the appeal.

Q-Source

15th January 2003, 08:17 AM

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

Originally posted by Tricky

By now you should realize that you admit you have choices and they are not necessarily based on MPB.

Ouchh... Jaque & Mate !

Tricky rocks! :cool:

Franko

15th January 2003, 08:18 AM

Tricky:

That's right. You chose. You had no MPB (no particular reason), but you chose anyway. Let me show you this again in case your memory is faulty.

So misunderstanding the Wraith's words is you best empirical evidence for "free will" these days???

You A-Theist grow ever more pathetic.

I think the Wraith has made it very clear that he is NOT using the term "choice" in the same manner you are.

Upchurch

15th January 2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Franko

So misunderstanding the Wraith's words is you best empirical evidence for "free will" these days???
Actually, for you anyway, the best evidence for "free will" is the same as your best evidence for "intinsic nature".

What was that evidence again?

Upchurch

hammegk

15th January 2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

Ouchh... Jaque & Mate !

Tricky rocks! :cool:

Beauty. Eye. Beholder.

It will be more impressive when Tricky explains how he "knows" that Wraith's mpb algorithm was random in this case. The probability that to him it seems "random" is not a valid proof so far as I can see.

PixyMisa

15th January 2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Franko
I think the Wraith has made it very clear that he is NOT using the term "choice" in the same manner you are. Right. The Goddess threatened to kill a bunny unless he chose 22.

Oops. Well, that's tonight's dinner sorted out.

Franko

15th January 2003, 08:24 AM

Upchimp:

Atoms obey the laws of physics
You are made of atoms
You obey the laws of physics.

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

tell me more of this magical "free will" you speak of ...

BTW: "Intrinsic Nature" just means "Initial State".

Franko

15th January 2003, 08:27 AM

Hey Q-Source!

?Como se di se "F-U-C-K-E-R" en Espaniol?

Q-Source

15th January 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Hey Q-Source!

?Como se di se "F-U-C-K-E-R" en Espaniol?

"Pendejo"

Franko

15th January 2003, 08:31 AM

!muchas gracious Senorita!

Q-Source

15th January 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Franko
!muchas gracious Senorita!

De nada Querido, es un placer!

Franko

15th January 2003, 08:33 AM

madre-pendejo ... do you think the A-theists will try and censor me for using that one??

Where's Ian ... (goes off to search)

Franko

15th January 2003, 08:40 AM

I hope the moderators don´t get mad at me

Ohhh please, how many people under the age of 18 are seriously browsing this forum?

This censorship nonsense is exactly that. People like CWL and Upchimp whined because people like me and Ian were being mean to them :( (boo-hoo-hoo).

I wonder how they'd survive without a moderator looking down on them from above

... fact is, they wouldn't ... ;)

Tricky

15th January 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Franko
So misunderstanding the Wraith's words is you best empirical evidence for "free will" these days???

You A-Theist grow ever more pathetic.

I think the Wraith has made it very clear that he is NOT using the term "choice" in the same manner you are.
Allow me to remind you, Franko,
wraith said
I chose 33.
Kinda hard to misunderstand a three word sentence, Franko. What is the Lexicon definition of "choice"?

Face it Franko. Wraith was caught in a flat out contradiction and he must face my righteous scorn. Let him deal with it.

But alas, comes a time when the young ones must leave the nest and fly on their own. Wraith is now struggling with the difficult art of dissembling, and you should let him do so, without trying to pick him up each time he falls. It is the only way he will learn. Don't cover for him, or he will never be able to defend Logical Deism without you.

Upchurch

15th January 2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Franko

But that [LG's deterministic control] doesn’t mean that the LG commanded Hitler to kill anyone. That was ALL Hitler!

[snip]

Hitler was compelled to do what Hitler did by his own intrinsic nature.

[snip]

BTW: "Intrinsic Nature" just means "Initial State".
Now we're back to putting the moral responsibility of the Holocaust on the LG (as well as all the other evil acts in the world). Deterministically knowing the outcome of all events, the LG placed Hitler in that place at that time, knowing that he commit (or by other people for him) those attocities. It would be the same as someone putting a time bomb in an orphanage and saying the bomb was morally responsible for the deaths that would ensue.

In which case, according to LD, Hitler, who is nothing but a tool of the LG, is no more morally responsible for the Holocaust than a gun or bullet is morally responsible for the murder of the victim.

This is contradictory to your earlier statement that "the LG [didn't] commanded Hitler to kill anyone". She as much as pointed a gun at the Jews and pulled the trigger when she placed Hitler when and where she did. To say otherwise is to say that Hitler acted outside of the knowledge and/or will of the LG, due to his "intrinsic nature" or "initial state".

Which is it?

Upchurch

Tricky

15th January 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by wraith
come to think ok it, 33 looks like a couple of firm, yet supple boobies rotated at 90 degrees

Originally posted by Ipecac

Actually, it looks like four, so unless you're into cows, I don't see the appeal.
Or perhaps he is using LD logic to argue that 2 + 2 = 2. It wouldn't be the first time he has used... uh... interesting math.:D

Tricky

15th January 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
It will be more impressive when Tricky explains how he "knows" that Wraith's mpb algorithm was random in this case. The probability that to him it seems "random" is not a valid proof so far as I can see.
It was not trying to prove MPB was random so much as trying to show a case where MPB is different from free will. Wraith admitted that he did not know why he chose 33. This means there could be no "perceived" benefit if he did not know why. Of course, one could argue that prior brain states led to the choice, but the point is that those brain states were imperceptible to him.

The point is that even when you can perceive no advantage to one choice over another, you still can make a choice.

Franko

15th January 2003, 09:25 AM

Tricky,

Kinda hard to misunderstand a three word sentence, Franko. What is the Lexicon definition of "choice"?

If the Wraith said it you’ll have to ask him for his specific meaning, but I have said at least 100 times on this very forum that when I use the term “choice” I mean the deterministic result of your MPB algorithm.

In other words a “choice” is simply a deterministic output from an algorithm (YOU).

Face it Franko. Wraith was caught in a flat out contradiction and he must face my righteous scorn. Let him deal with it.

Ohh, but the Wraith is like a brother to me. You mess with him, and you are really messing with us BOTH.

But alas, comes a time when the young ones must leave the nest and fly on their own. Wraith is now struggling with the difficult art of dissembling, and you should let him do so, without trying to pick him up each time he falls. It is the only way he will learn. Don't cover for him, or he will never be able to defend Logical Deism without you.

You should follow your own advice … O’ organizer of the A-Theist Youth!

But actually I have been reading along and the Wraith seems to be doing a more than adequate job of explaining himself. It’s You, Upchimp, and PixyChix that aren’t making any sense.

How come you don’t believe in God without any evidence but you don’t have a similar such problem believing in magic “free will” powers without ANY evidence? Why the constant double standard? How is that Wraith’s problem?

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

thats the bottom line ...

Upchurch

15th January 2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Franko
How come you don’t believe in God without any evidence but you don’t have a similar such problem believing in magic “free will” powers without ANY evidence?
Well, first, you seem to forget that many of us have said that we've had personal experience with free will. That's not very good evidence, but it's more than I have for God.

Second, what evidence do you have that we have an intrinsic nature that cannot be determined by the LG? Since free will and intrinsic nature work the same way and, in essence, are the same thing, evidence for one would be evidence for the other.

Upchurch

Franko

15th January 2003, 09:31 AM

Loki,

So your answer is "wraith has a benefit in choosing certain numbers, even if I (and he) can't define what it is". Okay. Seems...convenient.

Actually the MPB routine is pretty simple, it's the underlying database that it relies on that takes a little while to sort out. What makes you so certain that the Wraith doesn't know EXACTLY why he "choose" the number he did?

Maybe he just doesn't want to reveal his train of thought to you?

But you know, I find that when I ask a person to "randomly" select a number between 1 and 100 I can almost always get them to pick "69" (60%+), yet in theory they should only pick that number about 1% of the time. It is very strange ...

Upchurch

15th January 2003, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Franko
But you know, I find that when I ask a person to "randomly" select a number between 1 and 100 I can almost always get them to pick "69" (60%+), yet in theory they should only pick that number about 1% of the time. It is very strange ...
It's also a quote from "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" as well as having a cultural mystique about it. Deterministic or extenuating circumstances? You decide.

Franko

15th January 2003, 09:34 AM

Upchurch:
Well, first, you seem to forget that many of us have said that we've had personal experience with free will. That's not very good evidence, but it's more than I have for God.

Well, first, you seem to forget that many of us have said that we've had personal experience with God. That's not very good evidence, but it's more than I have for “free will”.

Upchurch:
Second, what evidence do you have that we have an intrinsic nature that cannot be determined by the LG?

Logical evidence.

Since free will and intrinsic nature work the same way and, in essence, are the same thing, evidence for one would be evidence for the other.

Yeah, I guess kind of like how evidence for a Round moving Earth is actually evidence for a Flat motionless Earth???

You’re clueless Upchurch. You are nothing more then a braindead religious fanatic.

Atoms Obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
You Obey TLOP.

Upchurch

15th January 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Logical evidence.
Which is?

Tricky

15th January 2003, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Franko

If the Wraith said it you’ll have to ask him for his specific meaning, but I have said at least 100 times on this very forum that when I use the term “choice” I mean the deterministic result of your MPB algorithm.

In other words a “choice” is simply a deterministic output from an algorithm (YOU).
You might perhaps consider using another term, since the commonly accepted definition of "choice" is the complete opposite of yours. If you and wraith choose to continue to use "choice" to mean "no choice", then you must expect to be misunderstood quite a lot.

Ohh, but the Wraith is like a brother to me. You mess with him, and you are really messing with us BOTH.
I know that, but if big brother always steps in when little brother is in trouble, then little brother never learns to accept the consequences for his actions. You are doing him no favors.

You should follow your own advice … O’ organizer of the A-Theist Youth!
LOL. Is this because I warn newbies about you during their first encounters? Well, you do the same about me. However, in the spirit of the new year, let us both be content to attack the other's positions, and not the person.

But actually I have been reading along and the Wraith seems to be doing a more than adequate job of explaining himself. It’s You, Upchimp, and PixyChix that aren’t making any sense.

But only to you and perhaps Hammegk. How odd.
Seriously, wraith is not in your class. He often posts two word responses and "dittos" a lot. You at least try to explain, even if your explanations are somewhat predictable. Wraith is apparently not willing to do the very demanding cutting and pasting that it takes to be a well-spoken Logical Deist.

How come you don’t believe in God without any evidence but you don’t have a similar such problem believing in magic “free will” powers without ANY evidence? Why the constant double standard?
I have evidence for free will, as I have defined it. I just showed you evidence. Wraith showed you evidence (although I'm sure that was not his intention). You may stick your fingers in your ears and shout "La la la la. I'm not listening" if you so choose, but the evidence is there staring you in the face. We choose between available perceived alternatives. If you choose to dispute this, your choice to do so will be more evidence of free will.

How is that Wraith’s problem?

It is not Wraith's problem. Wraith does not have a problem as long as he is not disturbed by the fact that he is being badly out-debated on these boards. His beliefs are not a problem, unless he tries to use MPB as a legal defense. Lets hope it won't come to that.

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

thats the bottom line ...
Maybe you shold make it the bottom line (i.e. your signature). It would save you the trouble of cutting and pasting it so often.

Franko

15th January 2003, 10:04 AM

Tricky:
We choose between available perceived alternatives. If you choose to dispute this, your choice to do so will be more evidence of free will.

What makes you assume that I have a "choice" to dispute it?

Atoms obey TLOP.
I am made of Atoms.
I obey TLOP.

Where is the "choice" coming from Trixy? Can you "choose" not to obey TLOP?

Why don't you demonstrate your "free will" since you are claiming to possess it?

I bet you will "choose" NOT to ... :rolleyes:

Franko

15th January 2003, 10:08 AM

Upchimp:

Which is?

It's very similar to your evidence for an "Initial State" prior to the "Big Bang".

You see Upchimp ... there was no "Big Bang", and the reason there wasn't, is because (as you are fully aware) NOTHING can escape a singularity (like the Big Bang Singularity -- the mother of ALL singularities according to Pseudo-Materialism).

There was no "Big Bang", and there is no Universe. It's just YOU (the person reading this now) and Your imagination.

Me? ... I'm just a figment of your imagination ... ;)

Tricky

15th January 2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Franko

What makes you assume that I have a "choice" to dispute it?

Atoms obey TLOP.
I am made of Atoms.
I obey TLOP.

Where is the "choice" coming from Trixy? Can you "choose" not to obey TLOP?

Why don't you demonstrate your "free will" since you are claiming to possess it?

I bet you will "choose" NOT to ... :rolleyes:
LOL. I just picked a number between one and one hundred, using my free will. This concludes the demonstration.

Upchurch

15th January 2003, 10:09 AM

Okay, since you're struggling, let me help you. (Appologies to Augustine)

Part 1: is LG the source of evil?
1. Omnibenevolent entities do nothing but good.
2. LG is onmibenevolent
3. Evil acts exist in the world.
--------------------------------------
4. By 1 & 2, LG does nothing but good.
5. evil = ~good, :. LG is not the source of evil.

Part 2: Where does evil come from?
6. from Franko, humans perform evil acts due to their intrinsic nature
--------------------------------------
7. From 3 & 6, evil exists due to humans' intrinsic nature.

Part 3: Does LG have complete deterministic control over humans?
8. From 5, the LG does not compel humans to do evil.
--------------------------------------
9. From 6 & 8, humans do evil without the LG compelling them to do so.
10. From 9, Humans can perform acts outside of the LG.
11. from 10, :. The LG does not have complete deterministic control over humans.

So, we see that due to the fact that there is evil in the world, humans have an "intrinsic nature" that allows them to act outside of the LG to perform that evil.

Further, "intrinsic nature" has the same properties as "free will" (i.e. the ability to act in a non-deterministic fashion). Thus, the existance of LD "intrinsic nature" means the existance of non-LD "free will".

Upchurch

Upchurch

15th January 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Franko

It's very similar to your evidence for an "Initial State" prior to the "Big Bang".

You see Upchurch ... there was no "Big Bang", and the reason there wasn't, is because (as you are fully aware) NOTHING can escape a singularity (like the Big Bang Singularity -- the mother of ALL singularities according to Pseudo-Materialism).

There was no "Big Bang", and there is no Universe. It's just YOU (the person reading this now) and Your imagination.
So.... your "inital state" is similar to the "initial state" that existed before the Big Bang, which you say didn't happen. Meaning that there is no "initial state"? (because, if there were, there would have been a Big Bang)

Me? ... I'm just a figment of your imagination ... ;) Ah, if only....

Upchurch

15th January 2003, 10:17 AM

Just as a matter of clarification, Franko, are you saying that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust?

Upchurch

Franko

15th January 2003, 10:18 AM

Upchimp:
Okay, since you're struggling, let me help you.

Yes Upchimp – Yes. I am struggling to make sense of your whacky religious beliefs, and I desperately want to understand so I can become a “smart A-Theist” just like you.

Now will you please explain how the Universe escaped from the “Big Bang” singularity since according to YOU and Hawking (et al.) NOTHING can escape from a singularity?

Also, I thought that The Laws of Physics would break down inside a singularity. So if you are stuck in a singularity does that mean that Solipsism is True and YOU are the source of TLOP?

I mean … I have no evidence that I am a real person. I know that I am simply a figment of your imagination (so is the Wraith and everyone else). If this is FALSE, then why don’t you prove it is False? I would imagine it would be a very simple thing to do. I know I could do it … if only I were real …

Upchurch

15th January 2003, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Yes Upchurch – Yes. I am struggling to make sense of your whacky religious beliefs, and I desperately want to understand so I can become a “smart A-Theist” just like you.
I take it then that you didn't agree with my attempt to help. Could you then provide the logical evidence for LD intrinsic state?

Upchurch
edited for formating

Franko

15th January 2003, 11:36 AM

Upchurch!!!

If you aren’t even going to bother to read the post, then what are you even doing in this thread? Haven’t you been warned about Trolling enough A-Theist? I realize that you idolize that idiot De-bungler, but seriously Upchimp the two of you are an embarrassment to even the A-Theists.

Could you then provide the logical evidence for LD intrinsic state?

On 1/15/2003 @ 12:08 pm I posted:

It's very similar to your evidence for an "Initial State" prior to the "Big Bang".

You do have evidence for an "Initial State" (i.e. universal "intrinsic nature") existing prior to the "Big Bang" -- don't you UpChimp?

So what's the problemo?

Checkmite

15th January 2003, 11:38 AM

Upchurch, I think he wants you to define the current evidence for the "intial state", so he can repost it and say "yep, that's my evidence for LD".

Salvius

15th January 2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Now will you please explain how the Universe escaped from the “Big Bang” singularity since according to YOU and Hawking (et al.) NOTHING can escape from a singularity?

You mean, NOTHING except maybe Hawking radiation.

(And technically, it's the event horizon NOTHING, except maybe Hawking radiation, can escape from. This may or may not be an important distinction, depending on whether you believe naked singularities can exist or not).

Just to save anyone having to do their own Google search, here's the first link that popped up: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html

whitefork

15th January 2003, 01:37 PM

Certainly though, if the universe evolved from a singularity, we're still inside it....

Salvius

15th January 2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by whitefork
Certainly though, if the universe evolved from a singularity, we're still inside it....

Well, yeah, Franko seems to be imagining the universe beginning as a black hole (rather than a singularity), with his imaginary POV on the outside looking in.

Which, of course, is not what big bang cosmology actually says. See, for example, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html

Franko

15th January 2003, 01:59 PM

You mean, NOTHING except maybe Hawking radiation.

1) There isn’t any empirical evidence for “Black Holes”.
2) There is even less empirical evidence for “Hawking radiation”
3) Have you ever heard of “the Aether”?

(And technically, it's the event horizon NOTHING, except maybe Hawking radiation, can escape from.

Nothing can get past the event horizon that is correct. That is the point of no return. However once something crosses this threshold moving towards the singularity, then it is inevitably and inescapably pulled into the singularity.

It isn’t as if stuff goes back and fourth between the singularity and the event horizon once it gets inside a “black hole”. Once something gets inside the singularity … it stays there.

So how did we get out?

Maybe You didn’t … ?

Salvius

15th January 2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Franko

1) There isn’t any empirical evidence for “Black Holes”.
2) There is even less empirical evidence for “Hawking radiation”

Not entirely true (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_obsv.html), but even if it were, that would just mean there was only theoretical evidence. You know, the sort that uses logic and mathematics to reason from known principles. Sort of like:

Originally posted by Franko
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upchurch:
Second, what evidence do you have that we have an intrinsic nature that cannot be determined by the LG?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Logical evidence.

Upchurch

15th January 2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Franko

1) There isn’t any empirical evidence for “Black Holes”.
well, no empirical evidence other than observable phenomena.

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/seuforum/explore/blackhole/L3/smallholes.htm

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2001/03/

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_obsv.html

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/active/smblack.html

http://apod.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010508.html

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast12jan_1.htm

edited to add, because it's just too easy:

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9801/07/black.hole/

http://www.seds.org/hst/M87Disk.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/blackhole_supernova_wg.html

http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/shst2/ferraresel.html

http://www.sonic.net/~nbs/projects/astro305-3/search/

http://www.aip.org/physnews/update/538-1.html

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~spac250/steve/

If that's not enough, I can go find another couple of dozen...

Franko

15th January 2003, 02:36 PM

Upchurch,

1) If I post a bunch of links to Christian sites does that make Christianity True?
2) There are no "black holes" -- at least not in this universe. Ever heard of a Gravistar? The math works even better, the evidence is better, and they don't require TLOP to "break down".

... ohhh, that right ... you a-Theists are prohibited from reading certain texts which contradict your religious beliefs ...

Aardvark_DK

15th January 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Ever heard of a Gravistar?
*jumps up and down*

Me me me me! I know! It's that old arcade game that's a bit like, errr, that game where you shoot meteors*... Right?

Or is that Gravitar?

Edit: *Asteroids.

Loki

15th January 2003, 02:54 PM

Franko,

"Intrinsic Nature" just means "Initial State".
So gravitons have (had?) an "initial state". Since "initial" is a term/phrase involving time, we can conclude that there was a time before gravitons? So what creates gravitons? Us gravitons all whirl around in the Abyss waiting for the LG to fish us out and plonk us into this universe - how did we get into the Abyss?

Let me see if I've got this right - there's a graviton manufacturing process somewhere, and the Universe is the quality control department? So what exactly is this manufaturing plant - is it the LG? And why is it doing such a poor job in the initial construction - perhaps gravitons are like LCD monitors, and have a high failure rate in manufacturing?

Upchurch

15th January 2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Franko
1) If I post a bunch of links to Christian sites does that make Christianity True?
You said there was no evidence for black holes, I showed you all the evidence I could short of sitting your rear end down at a radio telescope.
2) There are no "black holes" -- at least not in this universe.
Ah, this is eluding to your unexplained alternative theory of gravity. Care to elaborate?
Ever heard of a Gravistar? The math works even better, the evidence is better, and they don't require TLOP to "break down".
Actually, I haven't. I did a web search and more than half of the hits I got were for a band. There is some mention of it, but nothing I saw said it was a replacement for the black hole theory and nowhere did I see any example of the justification for the theory. Odd for something that has better evidence... As uncharecteristic as it may be, do you think you could post a link to back this up?

You do realize that when physicists say that the laws of physics "break down" inside a black hole, they are refering to the language used by humans to desribe the nature of the universe and not the nature of the universe itself?

Upchurch

Upchurch

15th January 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

*jumps up and down*

Me me me me! I know! It's that old arcade game that's a bit like, errr, that game where you shoot meteors... Right?

Or is that Gravitar?
Well, the math would be easier...

Upchurch

Upchurch

15th January 2003, 03:04 PM

Okay, I did find this (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/glossary/indexg.shtml) :

GRAVISTAR
A gravastar is an extremely dense, cold, dark, thick-shelled object that contains springy, oddly-behaving space inside it. A gravistar is the remnant of a dying star that has imploded; it has many similarities to a black hole, but emits far brighter X-rays than a black hole. Gravistars were theorized to exist in 2002 by Emil Mottola of Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, and Pawel Mazur of the University of South Carolina, Columbia. The existence of gravistars is not universally accepted.

edited to add:
Actually have the names of the people involved, I was able to find out more infromation about the Gravistar theory (but no actual math), which is really just a modification of black hole thoery. Regardless, what happens outside the event horizen would be nearly identical, they're just trying to improve the physics for what is going on inside the event horizen based on current quantum theory.

The theory was only introduced last year and it looks like it is still under review. It's a long way from being established fact.

Upchurch

Salvius

15th January 2003, 03:17 PM

It usually seems to be spelled "gravastar":

"They even suggest that the universe we now know and live in may be the interior of a Gravastar." http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/releases/archive/02-035.shtml

"Moreover, from Earth, they would appear much the same as classical black holes." http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/01/22/gravastars/

"Other theorists have criticized the gravastar hypothesis. Mottola and Mazur defend it but admit they have work to do before they can explain how the objects actually develop when a star collapses." http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/gravastars_020423.html

Unless, of course, Google's alternative suggestion is correct, and Franko means to refer to Indian cricket player Sunil Manohar Gavaskar (http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/PLAYERS/IND/G/GAVASKAR_SM_06001378/)... ;)

The Fool

15th January 2003, 03:18 PM

Lol.
When the observed facts do not match the dreamed up religious dogma....Ignore the facts. Black holes do not exist..... But some Goddess does. Whatever.....

whitefork

15th January 2003, 03:45 PM

Gentlemen, if Phil Plait couldn't get A-ristotle over to Johns Hopkins to talk to the astronomy guys, do you really think you can?

Forget it. His density (as the Knight once put it) rivals that of black holes, and as we know, the prophet tolerates no rivals.

Maybe etymology. Lessee, Universe - Uni = One. Singularity - Singular = one. Therefore, the Universe is a singularity. We're in the universe. Therefore we're inside a singularity.

Makes as much sense as F-atoms and F-LOP.

Ditto the fool. Whatever. Well said.

Upchurch

15th January 2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by whitefork
Gentlemen, if Phil Plait couldn't get A-ristotle over to Johns Hopkins to talk to the astronomy guys, do you really think you can?

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink."

Someday I'll learn to deal with that which I cannot change.

Upchurch

whitefork

15th January 2003, 05:12 PM

Sometimes you can't lead the horse to water. Sometimes the horse prefers to gnaw on his stable door. (I like horses - they have a complex relationship to human beings that goes way back)

The Elephant has an especially fine response at the top of page 6, the Logical?Deism thread.

wraith

16th January 2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

It's called "intrinsic nature", wraith-old-boy. Have Pope Franko give you a lesson in it sometime.

I dont see the connection.
;)

What are you? 12 years old? maybe 13?

just turned 20 two days ago actually lol...
going to have a sick arse party this weekend :cool:
aiming for a girl to guy ratio of 3 to 1
;)

Tricky

16th January 2003, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by wraith
just turned 20 two days ago actually lol...
going to have a sick arse party this weekend :cool:
aiming for a girl to guy ratio of 3 to 1
;)
Happy birthday, wraith. Have a great time at your party, but remeber that all actions have conseqences. Don't do or even allow things that would have bad consequences. Other than that, PARTEEEEE!!!!!

wraith

16th January 2003, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
That's right. You chose. You had no MPB (no particular reason), but you chose anyway. Let me show you this again in case your memory is faulty.

no Twix, no
;)

me "choosing" 33 was my Fate...it was the result of my MPB
I used the word "choose" to describe the situation that I was in ie the selection from many options

I "chose" 33
but really, I didnt choose anything

the way that I interpret my experiences, made me "choose" 33. no matter how subtle it is...

In 30 minutues, Im going to have dinner. I could "choose" to have chicken or steak. I like them both.

However, that "choice" has already been made. Do I "choose" what I feel like to eat? Why dont I "choose" to feel like eating an onion?

NOW, would you agree that my brain state determined what I chose?

By now you should realize that you admit you have choices and they are not necessarily based on MPB.

You present me a basket of fruit, or a series of number :rolleyes: and ask me to "choose" one.

I have a range of "choices"
but teally, I have no choice because the way that I have interpreted my experiences determines what "choices" I make.

Does 2 + 2 choose to equal 4?

If I had read your post at a different time, I could have "choosen" 55 or 93 or 84....
Im obeying TLOP
;)

Now, each time that you try to tell me I have "no choice" I will remind you of your own words which show that you believe in choice. My lad, you are busted.

My "choices" are the result of MPB.
They have been already made.
2+2 does not equal 10...as much as you wish it did
;)

Free will is a part of TLOP.

How does obeying TLOP give you Free-will?
I have asked Mista and he failed to give an answer without looking a tad sheepish
haha

you can give it a shot though...
I dare you
;)

wraith

16th January 2003, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Ipecac

Actually, it looks like four, so unless you're into cows, I don't see the appeal.

8=========D

maybe that appeals to you more?
:cool:

urstardust

16th January 2003, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by wraith
"aiming for a girl to guy ratio of 3 to 1"

Good luck Wraith, you're going too need it even if it was 30 to 1...... you would still be spanking to monkey.

wraith

16th January 2003, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Face it Franko. Wraith was caught in a flat out contradiction and he must face my righteous scorn. Let him deal with it.

there is no contradiction ;)
I obey TLOP
MPB is not "magical"
MPB does not equal free-will

my "choices" are determined by MPB

"I choose to have breakfast."
My translation: It was my Fate to have breakfast. I have MPB. I obey TLOP.

Free-willy believers translation: I choose to have breakfast. I cant be predicted. Uncertainty = free-will. My history has nothing to do with my choices. It's all magic!

But alas, comes a time when the young ones must leave the nest and fly on their own. Wraith is now struggling with the difficult art of dissembling, and you should let him do so, without trying to pick him up each time he falls. It is the only way he will learn. Don't cover for him, or he will never be able to defend Logical Deism without you.

LOL!

Actually, LD is kicking the arse of your so called "non-religion" ;)

wraith

16th January 2003, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

It was not trying to prove MPB was random so much as trying to show a case where MPB is different from free will. Wraith admitted that he did not know why he chose 33. This means there could be no "perceived" benefit if he did not know why.

actually
the perceived benefit was to actually "choose" a number in the first place

33 was the first number that came to my head...probably saw it on a bus or something
;)

Of course, one could argue that prior brain states led to the choice, but the point is that those brain states were imperceptible to him.

what do you mean by this?

Tricky

16th January 2003, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by wraith

no Twix, no
;)

me "choosing" 33 was my Fate...it was the result of my MPB
I used the word "choose" to describe the situation that I was in ie the selection from many options

I "chose" 33
but really, I didnt choose anything
Well then you should avoid using the words "choose" or "choice" completely. People are going to be confused if you say "choice" when you mean "no choice". What do you suggest for an alternative?

the way that I interpret my experiences, made me "choose" 33. no matter how subtle it is...

In 30 minutues, Im going to have dinner. I could "choose" to have chicken or steak. I like them both.

However, that "choice" has already been made. Do I "choose" what I feel like to eat? Why dont I "choose" to feel like eating an onion?

NOW, would you agree that my brain state determined what I chose?
See? Anyone listening to you would think you had all kinds of free will with all the "choices" you are about to make.
Would I agree your brain state "determined" what you chose? Possibly. Of course, that brain state could also be described as "free will". Unless you can show that the brain state is a reliable predictor of what you will do, then you have at least the illusion of free will. In my opinion, the illusion of free will is no different from free will unless you can show how it is different. Some other atheists disagree with me on this point.

Does 2 + 2 choose to equal 4?
Uh, no. There are no options. I thought we cleared this up earlier. Why are you asking the same questions I already answered? Is your memory that poor?

If I had read your post at a different time, I could have "choosen" 55 or 93 or 84....
Im obeying TLOP
;)
And how is "obeying TLOP" discernably different from making choices? I would venture to say that you cannot provide any evidence for difference. Prove me wrong, if you can.

My "choices" are the result of MPB.
They have been already made.
2+2 does not equal 10...as much as you wish it did
;)
Can you tell me what choices you will make in the future? If not, then you have no evidence that your choices have already been made. Did you know in advance you would pick 33? You say you didn't have a reason for picking it. What evidence can you give to show that your choice was fated, versus you picking it with free will?
What is the observable difference between a fate which makes decisions that you cannot predict and free will which makes decisions you cannot predict? There is none. You claim there is a reason, but you can give no evidence, and you use the word "choice" then claim it means "no choice". Wraith my nescient young lad. You are engaging in "wishful thinking".

My "choices" are the result of MPB.
They have been already made.
2+2 does not equal 10...as much as you wish it did
;)
If they have already been made, can you tell me what all of your future choices are? If not, then why do you assume they have been made? Wouldn't it be a bummer if you had a major babe at your birthday party that really wanted to get close to you, but you discovered your MPB said it was not gonna happen? If it were me, I'd tell my MPB to take a long walk off a short pier. Something tells me, you would too.

How does obeying TLOP give you Free-will?
I have asked Mista and he failed to give an answer without looking a tad sheepish
haha

you can give it a shot though...
I dare you
;)
All right then. TLOP includes laws that are non-deterministic. Since there are non-deterministic things in the universe, free will is possible. Not only is it possible, TLOP demands it.

I have accepted your dare. Will you accept mine? I dare you to deliberately say something that contradicts Franko. I just want to see if you have any yarbles.

You're no longer a teenager, wraith. You can make your own decisions. Go for it.

PixyMisa

16th January 2003, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by wraith
MPB does not equal free-willIt has been shown on this forum that MPB - as you use the term - is indeed Free Will. You have no say in the matter, Wraith. Resistance is futile. You have Free Will.my "choices" are determined by MPBWhich is Free Will."I choose to have breakfast."
My translation: It was my Fate to have breakfast. I have MPB. I obey TLOP.Which is Free Will.

wraith

16th January 2003, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Happy birthday, wraith. Have a great time at your party, but remeber that all actions have conseqences. Don't do or even allow things that would have bad consequences. Other than that, PARTEEEEE!!!!!

why thank you
;)

The Fool

16th January 2003, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

I dare you to deliberately say something that contradicts Franko. I just want to see if you have any yarbles.

You're no longer a teenager, wraith. You can make your own decisions. Go for it.

This is not allowed Tricky.....Simply not allowed.

Tlop controls Franko/Franko controls cult/wraith is cult member.

wraith

16th January 2003, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Well then you should avoid using the words "choose" or "choice" completely. People are going to be confused if you say "choice" when you mean "no choice". What do you suggest for an alternative?

just think to yourself "wraith's choices are Fated"
;)

See? Anyone listening to you would think you had all kinds of free will with all the "choices" you are about to make.
Would I agree your brain state "determined" what you chose? Possibly. Of course, that brain state could also be described as "free will". Unless you can show that the brain state is a reliable predictor of what you will do, then you have at least the illusion of free will. In my opinion, the illusion of free will is no different from free will unless you can show how it is different. Some other atheists disagree with me on this point.

Illusion of free-will?
Do you have an illusion of a 4 sided triangle?

Uh, no. There are no options. I thought we cleared this up earlier. Why are you asking the same questions I already answered? Is your memory that poor?

haha
what makes you think that you have an option to have cerial or toast ( whether it may be more complex then you or not ;) ) for breakfast?

when you go to take a dump, did you just happen to use toilet paper willy nilly?

why didnt cavemen use "free-will" and make the stuff?

And how is "obeying TLOP" discernably different from making choices? I would venture to say that you cannot provide any evidence for difference. Prove me wrong, if you can.

Bit like a pilot who was ordered to go into battle, then saying to his friends that he "chose" to?

Can you tell me what choices you will make in the future?

I plan to catch the bus for work.

If not, then you have no evidence that your choices have already been made. Did you know in advance you would pick 33? You say you didn't have a reason for picking it. What evidence can you give to show that your choice was fated, versus you picking it with free will?

Why would I "choose" a number in the first place if you didnt ask the question?
When you did ask the question, it would make no sense for me to say "I knew that I was going to pick 33"

What is the observable difference between a fate which makes decisions that you cannot predict and free will which makes decisions you cannot predict? There is none. You claim there is a reason, but you can give no evidence, and you use the word "choice" then claim it means "no choice". Wraith my nescient young lad. You are engaging in "wishful thinking".

negative
;)
How does obeying TLOP give you free-will, whether you can be predicted or not by another person?

If they have already been made, can you tell me what all of your future choices are? If not, then why do you assume they have been made? Wouldn't it be a bummer if you had a major babe at your birthday party that really wanted to get close to you, but you discovered your MPB said it was not gonna happen? If it were me, I'd tell my MPB to take a long walk off a short pier. Something tells me, you would too.

haha!
MPB doesnt work like that.
I dont know if im going to get into a fight tomorrow with a group of tuffs lol
if I am, then at this point in time, they must be doing something that leads to the actual fight. The way that I will respond is based on my MPB. My MPB processes my history to give an outcome.

Just say that you box, and for the past 50 matches, you have dominated every fight that you had with this other boxer. When you guys meet again the next day, will you be scared?

All right then. TLOP includes laws that are non-deterministic. Since there are non-deterministic things in the universe, free will is possible. Not only is it possible, TLOP demands it.

How does uncertainy = free-will?
When do you come to a red light and have feelings of uncertainy, whether or not you have the ability to stop?

How does TLOP demand free-will?
You obey TLOP. You can have both. You cant use QM as an argument either. If I was driving a car at complete random, does the car have "choice" to go left or right? Backwards or forwards?

I have accepted your dare. Will you accept mine? I dare you to deliberately say something that contradicts Franko. I just want to see if you have any yarbles.

You're no longer a teenager, wraith. You can make your own decisions. Go for it.

haha
I accept!
;)

Frankster believes that he drives on the right side of the road. I believe that I do
:cool:

wraith

16th January 2003, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
It has been shown on this forum that MPB - as you use the term - is indeed Free Will. You have no say in the matter, Wraith. Resistance is futile. You have Free Will.

Which is Free Will.

Which is Free Will.

strike 3
youre out of there kid
;)

wraith

16th January 2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

This is not allowed Tricky.....Simply not allowed.

Tlop controls Franko/Franko controls cult/wraith is cult member.

just wondering Fool...

is your avatar an actual picture of you

:rolleyes:

The Fool

16th January 2003, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by wraith

just wondering Fool...

is your avatar an actual picture of you

:rolleyes:
yes.

And Franko, If you still cannot see how anything could break out of a "black" hole singularity therefore the "big bang" could not happen relies on the initial state being a black hole....Here is another possibility.

http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q2718.html

Because it was a very different kind of a singularity than what you find inside a black hole. The essential physics were entirely different. There were no 'in-going' geodesics, only 'out-going' ones in time. For black holes, you only have 'in-going' geodesics. Also, black hole 'solutions' are part of the local geometry of space-time and are embedded objects. The Big Bang singularity is part of the global geometry to space-time and is not an embedded object. As to how matter escaped from the Big Bang singularity, it's simple. Matter had no choice. These were the only geodesics possible at the time. Also, although local 'horizons' were present, they were constantly growing in size so that today they have all merged together to form the one that we see as the horizon to the visible universe.

PixyMisa

16th January 2003, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by wraith
strike 3
youre out of there kidIt appears that I am wrong. Yes indeed Wraith, you are a mindless zombie. It is only everyone else in the world who has free will.

Oh, and gravitons still don't have charge.

MRC_Hans

16th January 2003, 04:22 AM

The reason nothing can escape from a black hole is that it effectively has an infinitely deep gravity well. But with no space-time surrounding, an initial black hole would not have this well. So the initial black hole was different from those we observe now.

Btw, Frank: I notice that you deny the existence of black holes. Just out of curiosity, whats your beef with them? They are after all predicted by a strictly Einsteinian universe.

Hans

Ipecac

16th January 2003, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by wraith

8=========D

maybe that appeals to you more?
:cool:

Uh, since you were the one getting all excited about 33 I don't see the relevance of this "retort".

Upchurch

16th January 2003, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Ipecac

Uh, since you were the one getting all excited about 33 I don't see the relevance of this "retort".
No direct relevance, no, but I feel it does give a feel for the general intellectual and emotional maturity level that we're dealing with here. Which, in turn, I think explains some of the inconsistancies and mood swings that we've witnessed here. I mean, what male teenager ever made much sense? I know I certainly didn't.

Upchurch

Tricky

16th January 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by wraith
just think to yourself "wraith's choices are Fated"
;)
And just remember that a "choice that is fated" is not a choice. Sure, I can make the translation in my head, but you are making everyone do so, including those who have not learned your lingo. It would behoove your MPB to use the words that say what you mean, rather than using a word but meaning the opposite. Unless, of course, it is your MPB to be misunderstood.

Illusion of free-will?
Do you have an illusion of a 4 sided triangle?
No, it definately exists. I could draw you a picture if I perceived any benefit in doing so.

However, the discussion of "real free will" versus "the illusion of free will" has been going on for some time, with atheists coming down on different sides of the question. If you are truly interested, then we can discuss it. If you are going to be terse and repetitive, then I see no point.

what makes you think that you have an option to have cerial or toast ( whether it may be more complex then you or not ;) ) for breakfast?
I could have either, neither or both, assuming I have them available. (Well, technically I can't have cerial, but I could have cereal). What makes me think I have the option? Free will. Duh.

when you go to take a dump, did you just happen to use toilet paper willy nilly?

Repeating your already-refuted arguments does nothing to support your case, wraith. Plus I worry about your scatophilia.

why didnt cavemen use "free-will" and make the stuff?
Because it was not an available option. They did not have the technology. Do you remember my definition?

Bit like a pilot who was ordered to go into battle, then saying to his friends that he "chose" to?
He did choose to. He had the choice to disobey orders (just like I chose to break the parking lot rules in front of my boss). It might not have been a good option, but it was definately available.

I plan to catch the bus for work.

Yes, it is very easy to predict what choices you will make when certain ones have obviously beneficial outcomes. But you have already admitted that you cannot know in advance what you will choose when the results of the choice are not known. If you play the lottery, do you always know in advance what numbers you will choose? If I asked you again to pick a number between one and a hundred, would you be forced by MPB to pick 33 again? If your choices are that predictable, you would be a lousy poker player.

Why would I "choose" a number in the first place if you didnt ask the question?
When you did ask the question, it would make no sense for me to say "I knew that I was going to pick 33"

Not only would it make no sense, it would be a lie. Your whole argument hinges on the belief that something forces you to make certain choices, and yet you cannot tell what many of those choices will be. Of what use is a concept like this? Even if you don't have free will, you behave as if you do! (This is called "the illusion of free will"). IMO, there is no observable difference between having decisions forced but unknowable versus un-forced choices, i. e. there is no way to tell real free will from the illusion of free will.

How does obeying TLOP give you free-will, whether you can be predicted or not by another person?
Because TLOP include randomness. If you have no choices, then you should be completely predictable. If you cannot show that this is true, then you are just blowing hot air. I've already demonstrated that you are not even predictable to the one person who knows you best... yourself.
Remember this?
Originally posted by wraith
I chose 33. No particular reason...

MPB doesnt work like that.
I dont know if im going to get into a fight tomorrow with a group of tuffs lol
if I am, then at this point in time, they must be doing something that leads to the actual fight. The way that I will respond is based on my MPB. My MPB processes my history to give an outcome.

Just say that you box, and for the past 50 matches, you have dominated every fight that you had with this other boxer. When you guys meet again the next day, will you be scared?
Truly, your examples are getting more bizarre by the minute. However, you say "MPB doesn't work like that." How does it work then? If you know how it works, then why can't you use it to perfectly predict the future? If you don't know how it works, then of what uses is such a concept?

How does uncertainy = free-will?
When do you come to a red light and have feelings of uncertainy, whether or not you have the ability to stop?
I always have a small uncertainty of whether or not I will stop. Even if it is .00001% uncertainty, it is not zero. My brakes might fail. I might get pushed through the red light by the car behind me. I could evern "choose" to run it. Can you tell me with certainty that you will never ever run a red light?

How does TLOP demand free-will?
You obey TLOP. You can have both. You cant use QM as an argument either. If I was driving a car at complete random, does the car have "choice" to go left or right? Backwards or forwards?
Cars do not have free will because they have no options, or at least they have no ability to perceive options. (You really should read the definition I gave for free will).
However, you still need to realize that random is not the opposite of probablilistic. If randomness exists in the universe, then it is impossible to predict all things. If you believe no randomness exists in the universe, then I would LOVE to play poker with you.

Frankster believes that he drives on the right side of the road. I believe that I do

Do you mean "right" as in correct, or "right" as in dextral? But I don't know Franko's position on this so I can't judge the validity of this statement. How about disagreeing with one of the tenets of Logical Deism?
Just as I feared. No yarbles.:rolleyes:

Franko

16th January 2003, 08:35 AM

A-Theist Fool posted:

Because it was a very different kind of a singularity than what you find inside a black hole. The essential physics were entirely different. There were no 'in-going' geodesics, only 'out-going' ones in time. For black holes, you only have 'in-going' geodesics. Also, black hole 'solutions' are part of the local geometry of space-time and are embedded objects. The Big Bang singularity is part of the global geometry to space-time and is not an embedded object. As to how matter escaped from the Big Bang singularity, it's simple. Matter had no choice. These were the only geodesics possible at the time. Also, although local 'horizons' were present, they were constantly growing in size so that today they have all merged together to form the one that we see as the horizon to the visible universe.

hehehe!!!

What "divinely inspired holy book" did you crop this drivel from?

I guess we should just take your word for it Fooly?

Ipecac

16th January 2003, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

No direct relevance, no, but I feel it does give a feel for the general intellectual and emotional maturity level that we're dealing with here. Which, in turn, I think explains some of the inconsistancies and mood swings that we've witnessed here. I mean, what male teenager ever made much sense? I know I certainly didn't.

Upchurch

Well said.

Franko

16th January 2003, 09:42 AM

Upchimp:

I mean, what male teenager ever made much sense? I know I certainly didn't.

... and you still don't.

Explain why no evidence for "God" means that no god exist, yet no evidence for "free will" means that "free will" DOES exist?

Why the double standard? Why are there so many contradictions in your dogmatic religious belief system?

(personally I attribute it to all of the religious dogma that a devout A-Theist must blindly adhere to ...)

Franko

16th January 2003, 01:46 PM

Tricky:

However, the discussion of "real free will" versus "the illusion of free will" has been going on for some time, with atheists coming down on different sides of the question. If you are truly interested, then we can discuss it. If you are going to be terse and repetitive, then I see no point.

terse and repetitive?!?!?

Trixy, I have been on this forum for well over a year now. I've made almost 5000 posts, and I have read 10x that many more. In all those posts and in all that time I have yet to see ANY A-Theist saying ANYTHING non-terse or non-repetitive about "free will".

... and after ALL this time I still haven't seen ONE shred of evidence for "free will".

But I do laugh a lot watching you all pretend to have it.

I see you have conceded that the Wraith's use of the word "choice" is not evidence for "free will" either?

The Fool

16th January 2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Franko

hehehe!!!

What "divinely inspired holy book" did you crop this drivel from?

I guess we should just take your word for it Fooly?

Frank...that little line above the quote, you know....the one that starts with "http" Its called a "link" if you hover the mouse pointer over it and press the button on the left side of the mouse your screen will "magically" go to where the information came from. I'm sorry that you don't understand it, I couldn't find anything more simple.

Franko

16th January 2003, 03:05 PM

Fool, you are even funnier when you post as Pahansiri.

Tricky

16th January 2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Franko

terse and repetitive?!?!?

Trixy, I have been on this forum for well over a year now. I've made almost 5000 posts, and I have read 10x that many more. In all those posts and in all that time I have yet to see ANY A-Theist saying ANYTHING non-terse or non-repetitive about "free will".
That is probably because there are no A-Theists here, although there are lots of atheists. Of course, there have been long discussions about free will with atheists on various sides of the issue. I can prove this if you like, but let us not get into a pointing match, okay?

Originally posted by Franko
... and after ALL this time I still haven't seen ONE shred of evidence for "free will".

But I do laugh a lot watching you all pretend to have it.
Yes, we all get a lot of laughs here for various reasons. But than, you know that.
So, if I may ask, what would you consider valid evidence for free will that we can actually test for? If you can't think of anything, one would have to conclude that you are not amenable to reason on this issue.

Originally posted by Franko
I see you have conceded that the Wraith's use of the word "choice" is not evidence for "free will" either?
I have conceded that wraith can define a word any way he chooses. However, what he made was a "choice" (using the standard definition of the word). That "selection", "pick", "option" or whatever you wish to call it, was evidence for free will, at least the way I have defined it. I realize that you will disagree with this and my evidence will fall on deaf ears, but as you point out, I do enjoy sparring with you. Unfortunately, we're gonna have to let the refs decide this one. ;)

wraith

16th January 2003, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by Ipecac

Uh, since you were the one getting all excited about 33 I don't see the relevance of this "retort".

you know what?

if you rotate 3, it looks like your arse on a chair
;)

wraith

17th January 2003, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

And just remember that a "choice that is fated" is not a choice. Sure, I can make the translation in my head, but you are making everyone do so, including those who have not learned your lingo. It would behoove your MPB to use the words that say what you mean, rather than using a word but meaning the opposite. Unless, of course, it is your MPB to be misunderstood.

What is choice in your sense?!?!
Do you or do you not make decisions based on how you interpret your past?
If you do, then just how is it possible to choose anything?

No, it definately exists. I could draw you a picture if I perceived any benefit in doing so.

well heres your chance, shut me down by showing me a 4-sided tri
;)

However, the discussion of "real free will" versus "the illusion of free will" has been going on for some time, with atheists coming down on different sides of the question. If you are truly interested, then we can discuss it. If you are going to be terse and repetitive, then I see no point.

There is no "free-will"
there is no "illusion of free-will"

Im listening anyway
;)

I could have either, neither or both, assuming I have them available. (Well, technically I can't have cerial, but I could have cereal). What makes me think I have the option? Free will. Duh.

Why cant you have cerial?
Just use "free-will" and get your cerial!

Repeating your already-refuted arguments does nothing to support your case, wraith. Plus I worry about your scatophilia.

haha
it's a good example
;)

Because it was not an available option. They did not have the technology. Do you remember my definition?

So, are you a product of your surroundings or not?

He did choose to. He had the choice to disobey orders (just like I chose to break the parking lot rules in front of my boss). It might not have been a good option, but it was definately available.

Do you have the choice to disobey TLOP?

Yes, it is very easy to predict what choices you will make when certain ones have obviously beneficial outcomes. But you have already admitted that you cannot know in advance what you will choose when the results of the choice are not known. If you play the lottery, do you always know in advance what numbers you will choose?

The benefit is to enter the draw in the first place. When I fill in lotto numbers, I have a system. This does not mean I think "alright these are the numbers that I will always use." Although, others might. It depends on the person. It depends on their MPB. How often do you fill in lotto tickets with the sequence "1,2,3,4,5,6" ?

If I asked you again to pick a number between one and a hundred, would you be forced by MPB to pick 33 again? If your choices are that predictable, you would be a lousy poker player.

Depends. I would say 33 just to mock you. :rolleyes:
I might have said a different number if I had use the one that just "popped" into my head.

Not only would it make no sense, it would be a lie. Your whole argument hinges on the belief that something forces you to make certain choices, and yet you cannot tell what many of those choices will be. Of what use is a concept like this? Even if you don't have free will, you behave as if you do! (This is called "the illusion of free will"). IMO, there is no observable difference between having decisions forced but unknowable versus un-forced choices, i. e. there is no way to tell real free will from the illusion of free will.

To me, free-will and the illusion of free-will are the same thing.
I say that your choices are based on logic. There is a pattern. (MPB)
You say that your choices are ultimately unpredictable. There is no pattern. They are made willy nilly. (Magic)

Because TLOP include randomness. If you have no choices, then you should be completely predictable. If you cannot show that this is true, then you are just blowing hot air. I've already demonstrated that you are not even predictable to the one person who knows you best... yourself.
Remember this?

Its called Evolution Trix, it's MPB compatible
;)

Truly, your examples are getting more bizarre by the minute. However, you say "MPB doesn't work like that." How does it work then? If you know how it works, then why can't you use it to perfectly predict the future? If you don't know how it works, then of what uses is such a concept?

Just tell me when you dont use toilet paper the next time that you take a dump in a bathroom with ample dunny paper
;)

I always have a small uncertainty of whether or not I will stop. Even if it is .00001% uncertainty, it is not zero. My brakes might fail. I might get pushed through the red light by the car behind me. I could evern "choose" to run it. Can you tell me with certainty that you will never ever run a red light?

Sure the brakes may fail. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that you wanted to stop.

Ive ran a few. However, it was a result of my MPB. I saw a benefit to run the red light. When was the last time that you came to a red light and thought "hell, what is QM telling me to do?!!!!??!!"

Cars do not have free will because they have no options, or at least they have no ability to perceive options. (You really should read the definition I gave for free will).

Ultimately, you have no options either. You obey TLOP.

However, you still need to realize that random is not the opposite of probablilistic. If randomness exists in the universe, then it is impossible to predict all things. If you believe no randomness exists in the universe, then I would LOVE to play poker with you.

?
Poker is based on logic isnt it?
:eek:

Do you mean "right" as in correct, or "right" as in dextral? But I don't know Franko's position on this so I can't judge the validity of this statement. How about disagreeing with one of the tenets of Logical Deism?
Just as I feared. No yarbles.:rolleyes:

right as in correct :cool:

tenets of LD?

like the belief in the Higher Power?
The Soul?
That your actions have consequences?

....all logical to me
;)

urstardust

17th January 2003, 01:43 AM

wraith: like the belief in the Higher Power. The Soul?
That your actions have consequences?
"....all logical to me"

What highter power wound that be?
And most of all were is your soul that controls your actions=consequences? It may be logical too you, but were is the logic in a (God) that started everthing? That you and many theists just can't prove..... Can you (anybody)? Or just put a spin on your own wishfull thinking. Like Franko the MASTER of spin.
And why I'm at it; Were Did "God" Come FROM? :confused:

PixyMisa

17th January 2003, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by wraith
If you do, then just how is it possible to choose anything?Err... by choosing?there is no "illusion of free-will"Now that's an interesting statement. If I think that I have free will - and I do - then what is it if there is neither free will nor an illusion of free will?To me, free-will and the illusion of free-will are the same thing.
I say that your choices are based on logic. There is a pattern. (MPB)MPB, as you use the term, is Free Will. It doesn't matter whether you believe in Free Will or not. You have defined MPB and provided examples of it that match everyone else's definition of Free Will. Nothing you can say will change this. You may be a mindless zombie, but everyone else in the Universe has Free Will.You say that your choices are ultimately unpredictable.Correct.There is no pattern.Incorrect.They are made willy nilly.I asked you once before if you knew what that expression meant. Evidently not.MagicYour "magic" is everyone else's everyday normality. If you think that being able to make a choice is somehow magical, you clearly must be a mindless zombie. Its called Evolution Trix, it's MPB compatibleAnd you don't know what evolution is either.Just tell me when you dont use toilet paper the next time that you take a dump in a bathroom with ample dunny paperI've pointed out before that I use dead bunnies for this purpose.Sure the brakes may fail. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that you wanted to stop.No. But it sure makes stopping difficult.Ive ran a few. However, it was a result of my MPB. I saw a benefit to run the red light.Well, you are clearly a criminal and will go to hell, unlike us goodly A-Theists.When was the last time that you came to a red light and thought "hell, what is QM telling me to do?Have you ever once understood anything that anyone has said to you? I'm not sure at this point how you learned to speak.Ultimately, you have no options either. You obey TLOP. Indeed we do. And the laws of physics provide us with endless options.Poker is based on logic isnt it?Ooh! I wanna sit in on that game too!

wraith

17th January 2003, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by urstardust

[B]What highter power wound that be?

The more evolved Consciousness
;)

And most of all were is your soul that controls your actions=consequences?

Your actual soul?
Youll just have to die and find out
;)

anyway, you can decide now whether or not that your actions have consequences

It may be logical too you, but were is the logic in a (God) that started everthing? That you and many theists just can't prove..... Can you (anybody)? Or just put a spin on your own wishfull thinking. Like Franko the MASTER of spin.
And why I'm at it; [U]Were Did "God" Come FROM?:confused:

Oh thats rich!

I take it that you have proof that the universe just came to be?

According to you, non-conscious TLOP just sprung from the box. Yet, the belief in a High Power is just wack!?

Why the double standard?

wraith

17th January 2003, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Now that's an interesting statement. If I think that I have free will - and I do - then what is it if there is neither free will nor an illusion of free will?

do you have the illusion of a 4-sided tri?

MPB, as you use the term, is Free Will. It doesn't matter whether you believe in Free Will or not. You have defined MPB and provided examples of it that match everyone else's definition of Free Will. Nothing you can say will change this. You may be a mindless zombie, but everyone else in the Universe has Free Will.

It does actually.
Free-willy believers are really the ones who are "mindless zombies"

Correct.

Because of QM?
You have not demonstrated that this is the case

No. But it sure makes stopping difficult.

Do you know what a perceived benefit is?
Do you know what obeying TLOP means?

Indeed we do. And the laws of physics provide us with endless options.

Pixy, I SO think that youre losing it. :rolleyes:
You obey TLOP
how many options do you have?
does the moon choose its orbit?

PixyMisa

17th January 2003, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by wraith
do you have the illusion of a 4-sided tri?No. But I either have free will or the illusion of it. So which is it?It does actually.How does it matter what you believe?Free-willy believers are really the ones who are "mindless zombies"You're the one who has claimed to be predictable 90% of the time. That makes you the mindless zombie, I'm afraid.Because of QM?
You have not demonstrated that this is the caseQuantum Mechanics includes some of the most fundamental of those Laws of Physics you like so much. Quantum Mechanics is non-deterministic. Put chaos theory on top of that, and you have the human mind. You can't predict what I will do. If people can predict what you will do, it's because you're a mindless zombie, and not a human like the rest of us.Do you know what a perceived benefit is?I do. You apparently don't.Do you know what obeying TLOP means?I do. You very clearly have no idea what the Laws of Physics are.Pixy, I SO think that youre losing it.Harsh words, coming from a mindless zombie.how many options do you have?Infinitely many. Approximately.does the moon choose its orbit?Can't you think of a new question? No. Like you, the moon is a big lump of matter with no mind. Therefore, it is quite unable to choose anything. It can therefore be predicted statistically with enough accuracy for pretty much any purpose.

wraith

17th January 2003, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
No. But I either have free will or the illusion of it. So which is it?

Thats my point. Free-will is like a 4 sided tri.

Quantum Mechanics includes some of the most fundamental of those Laws of Physics you like so much. Quantum Mechanics is non-deterministic. Put chaos theory on top of that, and you have the human mind. You can't predict what I will do. If people can predict what you will do, it's because you're a mindless zombie, and not a human like the rest of us.

I say that MPB is logical. If I had the info, I can predict your actions.
If consciousness works in another way, lets here it...
Remember me saying "When was the last time that you came to a red light and thought "hell, what is QM telling me to do?""!!

Infinitely many. Approximately.

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you please make sense?

You say that you obey TLOP
Yet you have infinite options?
Sounds to me that you have a severe case of solipsism

Can't you think of a new question? No. Like you, the moon is a big lump of matter with no mind. Therefore, it is quite unable to choose anything. It can therefore be predicted statistically with enough accuracy for pretty much any purpose.

No I will not think of a new question. ;)

SO what if the moon has no mind. You and the moon are still made of atoms. You both obey TLOP.
How does having a mind give you free-will?
Are the atoms that form your mind, bound to TLOP? You obey TLOP!
You dont choose anything...
Pix, you cant have both. No matter how desperate you are.
Maybe you prefer solipsism?

PixyMisa

17th January 2003, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by wraith
Thats my point. Free-will is like a 4 sided tri. You have no point.

I believe I have free will. If there is neither free will nor the illusion of free will, what is it that I believe I have?I say that MPB is logical. If I had the info, I can predict your actions.And you are clearly wrong. First, you can't get the info, and second, even with the info you can't make a deterministic prediction.If consciousness works in another way, lets here it...Another way to what?Remember me saying "When was the last time that you came to a red light and thought "hell, what is QM telling me to do?""I remember. And this simply shows once more that you have no idea what the laws of physics are, what consciousness is, and what the relationship between the two is. You are quite remarkably full of anti-knowledge.OMG!
Can you please make sense?Everything I've said makes perfect sense. Except possibly for the bit about the bunnies.You say that you obey TLOPYes. As does everything in the Universe.Yet you have infinite options?Infinitely many.Sounds to me that you have a severe case of solipsismUnlikely. I could never come up with someone as confused as you all by myself.No I will not think of a new question.I didn't say "would you", I said "can't you". Evidently you can't.SO what if the moon has no mind.No mind no choice.You and the moon are still made of atoms.Duh.You both obey TLOP.Likewise duh.How does having a mind give you free-will?Because, my dear mindless zombie, that is what a mind does!
Not having one yourself you find this difficult to comprehend.Are the atoms that form your mind, bound to TLOP?The mind is a system of information. It is not made of atoms. It arises from the brain. That is made of atoms. And yes, like all atoms, like all matter and energy, the atoms in my brain obey the laws of physics.You obey TLOP!Yes.You dont choose anything.Wrong. I choose. I have free will.Pix, you cant have both.I can and do, as does everyone else except for you.No matter how desperate you are.No desperation, merely observation - and some understanding of how the Universe actually works.Maybe you prefer solipsism?Thank you, no. Where would I get the bunnies from?

whitefork

17th January 2003, 06:23 AM

PixyMisa, I've heard that Oz has approximately infinity bunnies. Is that approximately true? :)

Wraith, explain logic for the audience at home. I think you're using an F-definition that the rest of us don't understand.

PixyMisa

17th January 2003, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by whitefork
PixyMisa, I've heard that Oz has approximately infinity bunnies. Is that approximately true? :)We did have approximately infinity bunnies. Then we accidentally gave them the calicivirus, and we shortly had approximately infinity dead bunnies.

Tricky

17th January 2003, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
We did have approximately infinity bunnies. Then we accidentally gave them the calicivirus, and we shortly had approximately infinity dead bunnies.
I knew you were joking about the bunny thing. Those things absolutely will not flush.

Franko

17th January 2003, 08:22 AM

Pixychixy:
I believe I have free will. If there is neither free will nor the illusion of free will, what is it that I believe I have?

I believe I there is a God. If there is neither a God nor the illusion of a God (TLOP), what is it that I believe I there is?

And you are clearly wrong. First, you can't get the info, and second, even with the info you can't make a deterministic prediction.

Still claiming that Determinism isn’t True Pixychix?

How is that any different then saying there are no consequences for your actions? It is the same thing – correct? Because what you are claiming is that if you do A (2 + 2) it doesn’t always produce result B (4).

That sounds to me like what you are claiming?

Franko

17th January 2003, 08:33 AM

Urstarrust:

What highter power wound that be?

Are you denying that TLOP controls your every action cradle to grave?

What is YOUR evidence for this claim A-Theist?

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

And most of all w[h]ere is your soul that controls your actions=consequences?

You are a particle – a Graviton. You obey logical deterministic rules just like ALL particles do.

It may be logical too you, but were is the logic in a (God) that started everthing?

Where is YOUR logic in a “Big Bang”?

What caused this “Big Bang”???

How did our universe escape from a singularity? I thought that NOTHING (not even light) could escape from a singularity?

How are the contradictions of YOUR religion (A-Theism) actually contradictions in Logical Deism? That sounds more like the status quo of utter dishonesty from anyone calling themselves A-Theist.

That you and many theists just can't prove..... Can you (anybody)? Or just put a spin on your own wishfull thinking. Like Franko the MASTER of spin.

Call it “spin” if you want, but the fact is We can explain what We believe, while you and the other A-Theists cannot explain (or justify) your absurd claims. In fact it is VERY obvious that you and the other A-Theists aren’t skeptics or scientific at all. You are just a bunch of fanatically religious dire pessimist!

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

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more conscious and more complex than your CAR, TLOP is more conscious and more complex than YOU. If TLOP wasn’t more conscious then YOU, then YOU would makes and control TLOP instead of it being the other way around.

And why I'm at it; Were Did "God" Come FROM?

Translation: … and while I am at it: Were Did "God" Come FROM?

She evolved just like any other Graviton. But as an A-Theist I would think you would be much more concerned with WHERE DID THE UNIVERSE COME FROM? Your “explanation” that it magically appeared 12.7 billion years ago in a “big Bang” isn’t really an explanation at all. It is just a glorified special plead, and like ALL special pleads it isn’t logical, and it doesn’t make any sense.

But you seem happy with it … :confused:

Tricky

17th January 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Translation: … and while I am at it: Were Did "God" Come FROM?

She evolved just like any other Graviton. But as an A-Theist I would think you would be much more concerned with WHERE DID THE UNIVERSE COME FROM? Your “explanation” that it magically appeared 12.7 billion years ago in a “big Bang” isn’t really an explanation at all. It is just a glorified special plead, and like ALL special pleads it isn’t logical, and it doesn’t make any sense.

There is a lot of evidence for the Big Bang, but since there is little or no evidence on what happened before the BB, most of us do not speculate on it. We simply say, "I don't know."

However, you say the LG "evolved". From what? What started things in your cosmic model? You complain because your straw-man A-theists postulate a magical beginning, but you do exactly the same thing. Isn't that what's called a "double standard"?

PixyMisa

17th January 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Franko
I believe I there is a God. If there is neither a God nor the illusion of a God (TLOP), what is it that I believe I there is?If you believe in a God with no objectively observable properties, then the illusion is the same thing as the God itself. You can believe in either one.

You, however, stated that there was neither free will nor the illusion of free will. So what is this that I believe I have?Still claiming that Determinism isn’t True Pixychix?Not just me. All but a handful of physicists agree. So does the Universe. Even mindless zombies are non-deterministic.How is that any different then saying there are no consequences for your actions?Completely and utterly, for a start.It is the same thing – correct?No.Because what you are claiming is that if you do A (2 + 2) it doesn’t always produce result B (4).You seem to have people and integers mixed up here.That sounds to me like what you are claiming? If it sounds like that, then you must not have been paying attention.

hammegk

17th January 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa

You, however, stated that there was neither free will nor the illusion of free will. So what is this that I believe I have?

A complex and subtle mpb algorithm running in what you perceive as your brain.

Only " God;) " knows how many levels of complexity: conscious, subconscious, etc, & including all of the perceived *you*. As a materialist what else could you have? And why would that provide free will?

For myself, I have a thinking *I* and a perceived/perceivable *me*.

Tricky

17th January 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

A complex and subtle mpb algorithm running in what you perceive as your brain.

Only " God;) " knows how many levels of complexity: conscious, subconscious, etc, & including all of the perceived *you*. As a materialist what else could you have? And why would that provide free will?

For myself, I have a thinking *I* and a perceived/perceivable *me*.
Does the "thinking *I*" imagine that it decides what to think? Does it decide anything? If so, do you agree that this is at least the illusion of free will?
If not, then you have an odd concept of "thinking".

PixyMisa

17th January 2003, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Are you denying that TLOP controls your every action cradle to grave?The laws of physics do not control anything.What is YOUR evidence for this claim A-Theist?The laws of physics.Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU obey TLOP!Yeah. So?You are a particle – a Graviton.Oh, come on, Franko. If Gravitons exist - and there is only theoretical evidence for them; they have never been observed - they are emitted by anything and everything that has mass. They don't hang around to be people; they immediately depart at the speed of light. Why not just say that consciousness resides in the soul, like the other, uh, persons of confused philosophy?You obey logical deterministic rules just like ALL particles do.Which all particles in fact do not do at all.Where is YOUR logic in a “Big Bang”?Look around, Franko. The Universe is expanding. Run it backwards in time, and it shrinks. At some point, it was all in one place.What caused this “Big Bang”?If you pack the entire universe into one small object, it tends to expand.How did our universe escape from a singularity? I thought that NOTHING (not even light) could escape from a singularity?You're confused. A singularity is not the same thing as a black hole. Irregardless of this, nothing escaped from the initial singularity of the Universe. The singularity got bigger.How are the contradictions of YOUR religion (A-Theism)Atheism is not a religionactually contradictions in Logical Deism? That sounds more like the status quo of utter dishonesty from anyone calling themselves A-Theist.Nobody calls themself an A-Theist, Franko. We have you to do that for us.Call it “spin” if you want, but the fact is We can explain what We believe, while you and the other A-Theists cannot explain (or justify) your absurd claims.This would be hard, since we have not made any absurd claims. Again, we have you for that.In fact it is VERY obvious that you and the other A-Theists aren’t skeptics or scientific at all. You are just a bunch of fanatically religious dire pessimist!This from someone who claims that gravitons are conscious. And, what's worse, have charge.Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU obey TLOP!Yes. Yes. Yes. There is, however, no connection between these three statements.TLOP makes/controls YOU makes/controls CARFalse/false. True/true. In the same way that YOU are more conscious and more complex than your CAR, TLOP is more conscious and more complex than YOU.The laws of physics are not conscious, Franko. They cannot be conscious. There is nothing there to contain a consciousness. The laws of physics are even less conscious than gravitons, which aren't conscious at all.If TLOP wasn’t more conscious then YOU, then YOU would makes and control TLOP instead of it being the other way around.Wrong again, Franko. We cannot make or control the laws of physics at all, regardless of the fact the those laws are not conscious in any way.Translation: … and while I am at it: Were Did "God" Come FROM?

She evolved just like any other Graviton.Gravitons do not evolve. They're gravitons. They start out as gravitons, and end up as gravitons. And they're indistinguishable, each from each, like an unending series of your posts.But as an A-Theist I would think you would be much more concerned with WHERE DID THE UNIVERSE COME FROM? Your “explanation” that it magically appeared 12.7 billion years ago in a “big Bang” isn’t really an explanation at all. It is just a glorified special plead, and like ALL special pleads it isn’t logical, and it doesn’t make any sense. We know there was a big bang, because we can see this just by tracing back the expansion of the Universe. There are other pieces of evidence, like the cosmic background radiation. What happened before the big bang? We don't know, and we don't claim to know.But you seem happy with it … :confused: Some people are happier with the truth than with your bizarre fairy tales. Sorry about that Franko, but you'll have to live with it.

PixyMisa

17th January 2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
A complex and subtle mpb algorithm running in what you perceive as your brain.Complex and subtle as in something I can mess with at will? And if it's not free will, it's certainly the illusion of free will. And if I think I have free will, and I can't tell any different, and you can't tell any different by objective observation, how then is it not free will?Only " God;) " knows how many levels of complexity: conscious, subconscious, etc, & including all of the perceived *you*. As a materialist what else could you have? And why would that provide free will?We don't know yet exactly how consciousness arises from the brain. But that's irrelevant. I can consciously choose what course of action I will take. That's free will. Notrhing more is required.For myself, I have a thinking *I* and a perceived/perceivable *me*. Well, that's more than Franko has, anyway.

Franko

17th January 2003, 10:19 AM

Tricky:

There is a lot of evidence for the Logical Goddess, but since there is little or no evidence on what happened before the LG, most of us do not speculate on it. We simply say, "I don't know."

However, you say the BB "non-magically appeared". From what? What started things in your cosmic model? You complain because your straw-man LD postulate a magical beginning (actually we don’t – Godel & Bayes explain where the LG came from), but you claim that the Universe magically appeared, but since your religion is “sighantific” it doesn’t really count as Supernatural. Isn't that what's called a "double standard"?

Franko

17th January 2003, 10:25 AM

Pixydust,

Your claim that you possess magical "free willy" powers seems wholely unsupported by empirical evidence. Yet you persist in claiming that you possess these magical abilities?

How does that make you ANY different then ANY other religious fanatic with a load of unsupported Dogma?

Why should I believe your claim? You haven't presented ANY evidence for it -- You just keep insisting that you have magic powers???

You say that things are not Determined. Isn't that the same as saying that cause and event is not always True? Isn't that the same as saying that things in the present are NOT based on things that happened in the past?

How did you come up with this magical worldview, and why do you claim that it is "Scientific"? It certainly isn't objective or Logical.

I mean, you say that No evidence for God means No God Exist, but then in the next breath you claim that no evidence for "free willy" means that you STILL have magic "free willy" powers.

By the way, do you REALLY believe that TLOP doesn't control anything? (hehehehe)

Tricky

17th January 2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Tricky:

There is a lot of evidence for the Logical Goddess, but since there is little or no evidence on what happened before the LG, most of us do not speculate on it. We simply say, "I don't know."

Interesting, because scientists say "I don't know" too. In fact, I said this a couple of posts ago on this same thread.

Also, I would like to see some of this evidence which shows LD to be superior to materialism. Remember, of course, logic is not evidence.

Originally posted by Franko
However, you say the BB "non-magically appeared". From what? What started things in your cosmic model
I don't know.

Originally posted by Franko
You complain because your straw-man LD postulate a magical beginning (actually we don’t – Godel & Bayes explain where the LG came from)...
Did you not just say that LD does not speculate on what happened before the LG? This sounds suspiciously like speculation. Or perhaps Godel & Bayes' explanation does not support LD? Could you summarize what G & B say that explains where the LG came from?

Originally posted by Franko
...but you claim that the Universe magically appeared, but since your religion is “sighantific” it doesn’t really count as Supernatural. Isn't that what's called a "double standard"?
No, I don't. I say (as you do) "I don't know". In fact I believe you would have some difficulty finding a quote on these boards from an atheist or materialist which says they "know what existed before the big bang". As always, I invite you to prove me wrong.

Franko

17th January 2003, 02:02 PM

Remember, of course, logic is not evidence

That’s where you are wrong … because evidence which isn’t logical isn’t evidence.

There’s “evidence” that John Edwards can talk to dead people.

… not Logical evidence, but evidence.

The same thing is True about Alien abductions, or Aliens in general.

… or black holes, or the “big bang”.

[what happened before the BB (or LG) ?] I don't know.

Then why raise this as an issue with LD?

Did you not just say that LD does not speculate on what happened before the LG? This sounds suspiciously like speculation. Or perhaps Godel & Bayes' explanation does not support LD? Could you summarize what G & B say that explains where the LG came from?

In case you didn’t notice, my last post was just a repost of your previous one with “Big Bang” replaced with “Logical Goddess”, and “Atheism” replaced with “Logical Deism”.

But … according to your cosmology. The Universe began magically 12.7 billion years ago with the BB and as you say Atheism/Materialism doesn’t speculate about what was occurring (if anything) prior to that point.

But in LD the Universe (the Omniverse) began very long before that. This Universe is simply the most evolved Universe to come along in a long series of Universes. According to LD in the beginning there was nothing but Time and consciousness, and over Time that consciousness evolved and evolved and evolved, and everything that you see around you today is a result of that evolution. Godel explains [the math of] how you go from a simple system (a simple consciousness) to a complex system, and Bayes explains how whenever you have new information coming into a system the systems ability to anticipate what happens next grows and expands.

Without the LG you and I would still exist, but we would not exist in nearly as complex a form as we do, and we would only have a tiny fraction of the abilities and experiences we have here -- in this universe. In the same way that You or I are more complex and self-aware then a Dog, the LG is more complex and self-aware then You or I. And just as a Dog probably thinks that You or I work in mysterious ways, You might believe that the LG works in mysterious ways.

But her ways are really not that mysterious at all. She is helping entities to evolve. She is trying to transform simple entities into complex ones. Unfortunately some of those simple entities don’t want to be complex.

Tricky

17th January 2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Franko

That’s where you are wrong … because evidence which isn’t logical isn’t evidence.

There’s “evidence” that John Edwards can talk to dead people.

… not Logical evidence, but evidence.
Some people argue that anecdotal evidence is as good as empirical evidence. I disagree.
For example, one might claim (anecdotally) that gravitons have charge. However, unless that person could design an experiment that showed they had charge (or at the very least reference some peer-reviewed research), then that claim is very poor evidence.

Originally posted by Franko
Then why raise this as an issue with LD?
As long as you agree that you don't know and agree that materialists also do not claim to know, then it is not an issue.

Originally posted by Franko
In case you didn’t notice, my last post was just a repost of your previous one with “Big Bang” replaced with “Logical Goddess”, and “Atheism” replaced with “Logical Deism”.
Yes, of course I noticed. I also noticed you changed some other things.

Originally posted by Franko
But … according to your cosmology. The Universe began magically 12.7 billion years ago with the BB and as you say Atheism/Materialism doesn’t speculate about what was occurring (if anything) prior to that point.
Not magically. I don't believe in magic. Of course, if The Lexicon says nature=magic, then I will have to make the mental adjustment to allow for your non-standard definitions.

And oh yes. They might speculate. They don't claim to know. Speculation is how science forms hypotheses for testing.

Originally posted by Franko
But in LD the Universe (the Omniverse) began very long before that. This Universe is simply the most evolved Universe to come along in a long series of Universes. According to LD in the beginning there was nothing but Time and consciousness, and over Time that consciousness evolved and evolved and evolved, and everything that you see around you today is a result of that evolution. Godel explains [the math of] how you go from a simple system (a simple consciousness) to a complex system, and Bayes explains how whenever you have new information coming into a system the systems ability to anticipate what happens next grows and expands.
Then Godel's math goes against one of the prime tenets of Logical Deism. According to LD, things always move from more complex to less complex (TLOP create humans create toasters). Godel is saying the opposite.

Bayes also contradicts LD, because another tenet of LD is that everything is fated. If everything is fated, then, to The Goddess, there is no such thing as "new information". Its all planned for in the big algorithm, right?

Originally posted by Franko
Without the LG you and I would still exist, but we would not exist in nearly as complex a form as we do, and we would only have a tiny fraction of the abilities and experiences we have here -- in this universe. In the same way that You or I are more complex and self-aware then a Dog, the LG is more complex and self-aware then You or I. And just as a Dog probably thinks that You or I work in mysterious ways, You might believe that the LG works in mysterious ways.
Mysterious would be one way of putting it.

Originally posted by Franko
But her ways are really not that mysterious at all. She is helping entities to evolve. She is trying to transform simple entities into complex ones. Unfortunately some of those simple entities don’t want to be complex.
Want? How can they want anything? They have no free will. Besides, the "intrinsic nature" of a graviton means that you can never turn it from evil (or good), neh?

Salvius

17th January 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Godel explains [the math of] how you go from a simple system (a simple consciousness) to a complex system, and Bayes explains how whenever you have new information coming into a system the systems ability to anticipate what happens next grows and expands.

Um, but, according to you:
TLOP makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR
...the progression flows only from greater complexity to lesser complexity. Can you explain how you reconcile these seemingly contradictory concepts?

PixyMisa

17th January 2003, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Your claim that you possess magical "free willy" powers seems wholely unsupported by empirical evidence. Yet you persist in claiming that you possess these magical abilities?I don't claim to possess anything magical. Yes, I understand that choice seems magical to you, but that's because you are a mindless zombie.

Free will is the ability to choose between possible courses of action. There are six billion people in the world who do this constantly. They report subjective free will. You can observe and test them, and all the results are consistent with free will. If you ask them to pick a number between 1 and 100, you will have a hard time guessing it more than 1% of the time.

And then there's you, who can't do any of this. In other words, you are a mindles zombie, and everyone else in the world has free will.How does that make you ANY different then ANY other religious fanatic with a load of unsupported Dogma?Well, lets see. Everyone has the same subjective experience. Kind of different to religion, where no two people have the same subjective anything. Second, this subjective experience actually coincides perfectly with objective studies, which is a notable failure of religions, inlcuding your little effort. Indeed, your efforts are particularly bad at approximating reality. Gravitons, Franko? I mean, really, gravitons?Why should I believe your claim? You haven't presented ANY evidence for it -- You just keep insisting that you have magic powers?I have never once claimed magic powers. You have claimed that I don't possess free will, that all my actions are predetermined, and that I am predictable. The last is clearly false - check any study involving humans to find out just how hard we are to predict. You can't show any evidence that anything is predetermind. Your MPB is precisely equivalent to Free Will. Your claims contradict the experience of six billion people and all of the scientific studies in the field.

You are the only one who is predictable in the way you suggest. Therefore, you are a mindless zombie, and the rest of us are humans and have free willl.You say that things are not Determined.Yes.Isn't that the same as saying that cause and event is not always True?Cause and effect. Yes.Isn't that the same as saying that things in the present are NOT based on things that happened in the past?No.How did you come up with this magical worldview, and why do you claim that it is "Scientific"?No magic. All science. Quantum mechanics. Like it or loathe it, it's the way the Universe works, Franko, including the mindless zombies.It certainly isn't objective or Logical. It's entirely objective. Whether it's logical or not is irrelevant, because it matches our observations.I mean, you say that No evidence for God means No God ExistNope. I say that no evidence for the existence of God provides no reason for believing it exists.but then in the next breath you claim that no evidence for "free willy" means that you STILL have magic "free willy" powers.Nope. I claim that the mountain of evidence for free will provides strong reason for believing it exists.By the way, do you REALLY believe that TLOP doesn't control anything?Yes, Mister Mindless Zombie. This is correct. This is what the laws of physics themselves state.

PixyMisa

17th January 2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Franko
That’s where you are wrong … because evidence which isn’t logical isn’t evidence. Nonsense. Evidence is evidence. An observation is an observation. It is neither logical nor otherwise.There’s “evidence” that John Edwards can talk to dead people. And stronger evidence to suggest that this is not possible and that John Edward is a fraud.… not Logical evidence, but evidence. Evidence is not logical.The same thing is True about Alien abductions, or Aliens in general. The evidence for alien abductions is entirely anecdotal. To put it another way, wild stories with no basis in fact. The same as your religion, Franko.… or black holes, or the “big bang”. Evidence for black holes and the big bang is very strong. Black holes - a prediction of General Relativity - have known properties. Certain astronomical objects, such as Cygnus X-1, exhibit precisely the properties we'd expect from a black hole.

As I said earlier, the big bang is simply the logical result of tracing the Universe's expansion backwards in time. There's also empirical evidence, like the cosmic background radiation.Then why raise this as an issue with LD?Because rather than saying "I don't know", you make up more wild stories.In case you didn’t notice, my last post was just a repost of your previous one with “Big Bang” replaced with “Logical Goddess”, and “Atheism” replaced with “Logical Deism”. No. Really? never would have guessed.But … according to your cosmology. The Universe began magically 12.7 billion years ago with the BBApart from the "magic", and the ovely-precise age, this is correct.and as you say Atheism/Materialism doesn’t speculate about what was occurring (if anything) prior to that point. Oh, we speculate. But we don't claim to know.But in LD the Universe (the Omniverse) began very long before that.And your evidence for LD is? Your evidence for the Omniverse is?This Universe is simply the most evolved Universe to come along in a long series of Universes.And your evidence for this is?According to LD in the beginning there was nothing but Time and consciousness, and over Time that consciousness evolved and evolved and evolved, and everything that you see around you today is a result of that evolution.And your evidence for this is?Godel explains [the math of] how you go from a simple system (a simple consciousness) to a complex systemWhich of Godel's work are you referring to here?and Bayes explains how whenever you have new information coming into a system the systems ability to anticipate what happens next grows and expands. This actually depends entirely on the nature of the information. Or to put it another way, on a very strict definition of what information is.Without the LG you and I would still existWell, big surprise there.but we would not exist in nearly as complex a form as we doEvidence for this?and we would only have a tiny fraction of the abilities and experiences we have hereEvidence for this?-- in this universe. In the same way that You or I are more complex and self-aware then a DogWell, I am, anyway. You have stated quite the opposite for yourself.the LG is more complex and self-aware then You or I.And your evidence for the existence of this "LG" is?And just as a Dog probably thinks that You or I work in mysterious waysDogs are stupid. Cats are much smarter.You might believe that the LG works in mysterious ways. Nope. I don't believe that any such entity exists at all.But her ways are really not that mysterious at all.Starting with not existing.She is helping entities to evolve.And your evidence for this is?She is trying to transform simple entities into complex ones.Evidence for this? Including that this actually happens in the first place?Unfortunately some of those simple entities don’t want to be complex. Well, no, Mister Mindless Zombie, you apparently don't.

Franko

18th January 2003, 04:37 PM

Tricky:

Some people argue that anecdotal evidence [subjective evidence] is as good [=>] as empirical evidence [logical evidence]. I disagree [not TRUE [or/same as FALSE]].

Like I said, evidence which isn’t logical, isn’t evidence.

For example, one might claim (anecdotally) that gravitons have charge. However, unless that person could design an experiment that showed they had charge (or at the very least reference some peer-reviewed research), then that claim is very poor evidence.

Tricky do you have any idea what you are even talking about; or are you just parroting that imbecile Pixy because you think She is smarter than You?

Do you know what the main difference is between normal matter (“posi-matter”) and anti-matter? What is the difference between a posi-matter electron, and an anti-matter electron? Because, you see, you can’t talk about matter without also talking about gravity by default, just like you can’t talk about gravity without making reference to matter. The two are inexorably linked.

Posi-matter Gravitons have a positive charge, and Anti-matter Gravitons have a negative charge. That’s what LD claims. I could care less whether You believe it or not.

As long as you agree that you don't know and agree that materialists also do not claim to know, then it is not an issue.

If you can’t explain what happened before the “big bang”, and I can, then how does that make your religion “better”?

I guess your religion is “better” in the same way that Toast is superior to a Human Being??? :rolleyes:

Not magically. I don't believe in magic.

When you are claiming that an entire Universe appeared out of no where, and then it escaped a “singularity” (which no one has ever actually seen, and from which nothing is suppose to be able to escape – NOTHING!), and you have ABSOLUTELY no evidence for this claim (other than your “good word”), but I should believe You, because your religion is more special because You like to pretend that it isn’t really a religion … then I would say you have a Magical belief system regardless of what you want to call it or pretend it IS or IS NOT.

Of course, if The Lexicon says nature=magic

Magic = Incomprehensible = That which cannot be logically explained = Supernatural = beyond natural explanation = illogical = random = being both True and False or neither True and False simultaneously

then I will have to make the mental adjustment to allow for your non-standard definitions.

It is almost like you are refuting your own post.

Then Godel's math goes against one of the prime tenets of Logical Deism. According to LD, things always move from more complex to less complex (TLOP create humans create toasters). Godel is saying the opposite.

Godel + Bayes = Evolution (Darwin) … just like 2 + 2 = 4.

Godel essentially says it all, things (systems) go from simple to complex over time, but how does that contradict LD?

You have a kid, initially as an infant that child is virtually helpless – he or she has no comprehension of this reality, they are totally unable to navigate here independently. … Okay, so lets say 20 years or so go by, and now look at that “infant”. Now they are an adult, their mind has “evolved”, it has gone from less complex as an infant, to more complex as an adult. But that doesn’t mean that YOU as that person’s parent haven’t also gotten more complex over the last 20 years.

Bayes also contradicts LD, because another tenet of LD is that everything is fated. If everything is fated, then, to The Goddess, there is no such thing as "new information". Its all planned for in the big algorithm, right?

I don’t know? I suggest you find the guy most responsible for “inventing” the personal computer, and ask him if he envisioned every single thing (every single program) that would ever be written for Personal Computers and every single use personal computers would be put to at the moment he invented it? When Bill Gates started Microsoft all those years back, (I think he was 19 or 20) do you think he imagined the Internet EXACTLY as it is today?

Want? How can they want anything? They have no free will. Besides, the "intrinsic nature" of a graviton means that you can never turn it from evil (or good), neh?

The real question is … what is your Destiny? Let’s take You for example, do you perceive yourself still labeled as an “A-Theist” 5 years from now? … how about 10 years from now? Do you think you will still be calling yourself an A-Theist on your deathbed? … Honestly?

PixyMisa

18th January 2003, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Like I said, evidence which isn’t logical, isn’t evidence. You said this, and you are wrong.Tricky do you have any idea what you are even talking about; or are you just parroting that imbecile Pixy because you think She is smarter than You?"That imbecile Pixy" here.Do you know what the main difference is between normal matter (“posi-matter”) and anti-matter?Ooh! I do! I do!What is the difference between a posi-matter electron, and an anti-matter electron?The positron (the anti-matter equivalent of the electron) has the opposite charge and magnetic moment.Because, you see, you can’t talk about matter without also talking about gravity by defaultYeees. But gravity is pretty much irrelevant at small scales. It's just too weak to have any effect.just like you can’t talk about gravity without making reference to matter. The two are inexorably linked.Fair enough.Posi-matter Gravitons have a positive charge, and Anti-matter Gravitons have a negative charge. That’s what LD claims.Well, LD is wrong. Like photons, gravitons do not have charge, and do not have anti-particles. There is no anti-photon; nor is there an anti-graviton.I could care less whether You believe it or not. Do you care about being wrong?If you can’t explain what happened before the “big bang”, and I can, then how does that make your religion “better”?What religion?

Anyway, we don't know, and say so. This is better than fairy tales.I guess your religion is “better” in the same way that Toast is superior to a Human Being?What, more crunchy?When you are claiming that an entire Universe appeared out of no where, and then it escaped a “singularity”Which as I have pointed out is not what science says - we are still inside the singularity.(which no one has ever actually seen, and from which nothing is suppose to be able to escape – NOTHING!)Precisely.and you have ABSOLUTELY no evidence for this claim (other than your “good word”)The evidence has been pointed out to you, Franko. Have you forgotten already?but I should believe You, because your religion is more special because You like to pretend that it isn’t really a religionWhich it isn't … then I would say you have a Magical belief system regardless of what you want to call it or pretend it IS or IS NOT. Where's the magic, Franko?Magic = IncomprehensibleIt's only incomprehensible to you, Franko. That's not because it's magical, it's because you're stupid.= That which cannot be logically explainedIt has been logically explained to you, Franko.= SupernaturalNow you're getting your definitions mixed up.= beyond natural explanationWell, that's supernatural, yes.= illogicalMost supernatural beliefs are illogical. Maybe all of them. Including your "Logical Goddess" = randomNo. Randomness has nothing to do with magic, logic, or the supernatural.= being both True and False or neither True and False simultaneouslyThat relates to logic, but it has nothing to do with any of the other subjects.It is almost like you are refuting your own post. No, he's just making an effort to think down to your level.Godel + Bayes = Evolution (Darwin) … just like 2 + 2 = 4.That's complete nonsense. Godel and Bayes have nothing to do with Darwin's theory. One might note that Darwin had been dead for fourteen years before Godel was born.Godel essentially says it all, things (systems) go from simple to complex over time, but how does that contradict LD?Where does Godel say this?You have a kidNot that I've noticed.initially as an infant that child is virtually helpless – he or she has no comprehension of this reality, they are totally unable to navigate here independently.Yup. Newborn babies are blobs. Keep one end full and the other end clean. But within a few months they are quite alert and interested in the world. … Okay, so lets say 20 years or so go by, and now look at that “infant”. Now they are an adult, their mind has “evolved”, it has gone from less complex as an infant, to more complex as an adult.Yees.But that doesn’t mean that YOU as that person’s parent haven’t also gotten more complex over the last 20 years.No. Um, so what?I don’t know? I suggest you find the guy most responsible for “inventing” the personal computeSteve Wozniak? Chuck Peddle?and ask him if he envisioned every single thing (every single program) that would ever be written for Personal Computers and every single use personal computers would be put to at the moment he invented it? When Bill Gates started Microsoft all those years back, (I think he was 19 or 20) do you think he imagined the Internet EXACTLY as it is today?Considering that he hadn't forseen the internet in 1995, by which time it had already existed for fifteen to twenty years, depending on where you draw the line, I suspect not.The real question is … what is your Destiny?I don't have one.Let’s take You for example, do you perceive yourself still labeled as an “A-Theist” 5 years from now?I don't consider myself labeled as an "A-Theist" now. … how about 10 years from now? Do you think you will still be calling yourself an A-Theist on your deathbed?I don't call myself an "A-Theist" now. I don't think anyone does.

Tricky

18th January 2003, 08:50 PM

All quotes by Franko
Like I said, evidence which isn’t logical, isn’t evidence.
And like I said, evidence is not logical or illogical. It is just observations. Here's an example:

As a genetecist, you observe that humans and chimpanzees have nearly identical DNA.

That is the evidence. It involves no logic. The logic comes in when you try to fit the evidence to your hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1: The DNA is similar because God used a lot of the same parts during the seven days of creation.

Hypothesis 2: The DNA is similar because the humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor.

Both hypotheses use exactly the same evidence. How do we decide which is better? That is where you use logic to see how this hypothesis fits into the other things hypothesized by the belief system.

Tricky do you have any idea what you are even talking about; or are you just parroting that imbecile Pixy because you think She is smarter than You?
Although I am not as knowledgable about many things as Misa, especially particle physics (or even physics in general), I believe I can hold my own in a conversation with you.

Do you know what the main difference is between normal matter (“posi-matter”) and anti-matter? What is the difference between a posi-matter electron, and an anti-matter electron? Because, you see, you can’t talk about matter without also talking about gravity by default, just like you can’t talk about gravity without making reference to matter. The two are inexorably linked.
Gravity is one property of matter, however it is relatively easy to talk about other properties of matter without mentioning gravity, for example the property of matter that it occupies space. See? easily done.
If you're talking about positrons versus electrons, yes I knew what they are even before Misa explained them. If you are talking about something different, well then I really can't say. I have never come across the term "posi-matter electron" in any physics or chemistry course I have taken. Perhaps you could provide a reference. Or perhaps you merely made up the term.

Posi-matter Gravitons have a positive charge, and Anti-matter Gravitons have a negative charge. That’s what LD claims. I could care less whether You believe it or not.
Well then let's test it. Charged particles are deflected by electromagnetic fields. If gravitons, the hypothetical source of gravity, are charged, then gravity would be noticibly warped in the presence of a strong electromagnetic field. This would be a very easy experiment to test, in fact all you have to do is see if there are gravity anomalies around radio transmitters. Care to check this out? I'm betting there aren't.

If you can’t explain what happened before the “big bang”, and I can, then how does that make your religion “better”?
Because my beliefs (which aren't a religion) do not invent and claim the truth of explanations without evidence. And what happened to "I don't know"? You used to be so humble.

When you are claiming that an entire Universe appeared out of no where, and then it escaped a “singularity” (which no one has ever actually seen, and from which nothing is suppose to be able to escape – NOTHING!), and you have ABSOLUTELY no evidence for this claim (other than your “good word”), but I should believe You, because your religion is more special because You like to pretend that it isn’t really a religion … then I would say you have a Magical belief system regardless of what you want to call it or pretend it IS or IS NOT.
You'll be hard pressed to prove I have claimed any such thing. In truth, I have said very little about the scientific theories on the origin of the universe because I am not well educated in that field. If is another one where I say "I don't know" a lot. And I have already accepted the fact that you will call it "magic" and you will call my beliefs "religion". You may confuse the hell out of everyone else, but I am becoming familiar with your non-standard definitions.

Magic = Incomprehensible = That which cannot be logically explained = Supernatural = beyond natural explanation = illogical = random = being both True and False or neither True and False simultaneously
Magic is not incomprehensible, it simply isn't real, IMO. My wife claims to be able to do magic, and yes it's quite easy to comprehend, provided you accept the the assumption that it is possible to violate the laws of science. I do not accept this assumption, but if one does, the logic of magic is unassailable. Yet another case where logic is not evidence.

It is almost like you are refuting your own post.
Because I am adjusting for your odd definitions? Come on, Frank, I'm doing it for you so we won't have to argue semantics over and over again. I really do wish you would publish The Lexicon here so I wouldn't have to always guess what you mean by certain words.

Godel + Bayes = Evolution (Darwin) … just like 2 + 2 = 4.
Well then why do you insist on a model of the universe that posits decreasing complexity? You don't like Darwin either?

Godel essentially says it all, things (systems) go from simple to complex over time, but how does that contradict LD?
Because one of the things you have said time and time again is that things can only arise from things more complex than themselves. In fact I belive you have derided me a number of times for suggesting otherwise. You want me to post links? They are numerous. Or are you now arguing that toasters are more complex than humans?

You have a kid, initially as an infant that child is virtually helpless – he or she has no comprehension of this reality, they are totally unable to navigate here independently. … Okay, so lets say 20 years or so go by, and now look at that “infant”. Now they are an adult, their mind has “evolved”, it has gone from less complex as an infant, to more complex as an adult. But that doesn’t mean that YOU as that person’s parent haven’t also gotten more complex over the last 20 years.
Possibly. Or you might be dead (considerably less complex).

It is nice to see, though, that you have adopted my "infant growing up" example. I guess this also means that you now accept the evidence that matter creates consciousness (infant adds matter to its neurological system which in turn makes the child more conscious). This truly is a day to remember when you have made such major concessions about your old ways of looking at things. I'm proud of you, lad!

I don’t know? I suggest you find the guy most responsible for “inventing” the personal computer, and ask him if he envisioned every single thing (every single program) that would ever be written for Personal Computers and every single use personal computers would be put to at the moment he invented it? When Bill Gates started Microsoft all those years back, (I think he was 19 or 20) do you think he imagined the Internet EXACTLY as it is today?
Well if it was all fated then the man who is more responsible than anyone else for everything ever done on computers, (which is how you have described Gates) should have had enough info to make such predictions. If not, then it is just possible that things aren't fated. Gosh Franko. Keep going at this rate and you will be an A-Theist before you know it.

The real question is … what is your Destiny? Let’s take You for example, do you perceive yourself still labeled as an “A-Theist” 5 years from now? … how about 10 years from now? Do you think you will still be calling yourself an A-Theist on your deathbed? … Honestly?
Of course, I have never called myself an A-Theist and based on your description, I am not one. According to The Lexicon I am an agnostic. Nevertheless, I don't envision making major changes in my beliefs, though I won't say it is impossible. Heck, I might have a lobotomy and become a Logical Deist.

Franko

18th January 2003, 11:27 PM

Tricky:
And like I said, evidence is not logical or illogical. It is just observations.

So when someone tells you that they were abducted by Aliens on numerous occasions, that is an “empirical observation” just as good as any other? – is that what you are saying Tricky??

If 1000 former guest of Crossing Over, with John Edwards all state that they “observed” John Edwards “communicating” with their dead relatives, than that evidence is just as much evidence as 2 + 2 = 4, or E = MC^2 ???

Here's an example:

As a genetecist, you observe that humans and chimpanzees have nearly identical DNA.

That is the evidence. It involves no logic.

Try defining “human”, “chimpanzee”, “nearly identical” or “DNA” without Logic Tricky.

The logic comes in when you try to fit the evidence to your hypothesis.

Better late than never … ?

Hypothesis 1: The DNA is similar because God used a lot of the same parts during the seven days of creation.

Hypothesis 2: The DNA is similar because the humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor.

Yeah, maybe “God” was the common ancestor? … Or are Theists only allowed to believe #1 according to you Tricky?

Both hypotheses use exactly the same evidence. How do we decide which is better? That is where you use logic to see how this hypothesis fits into the other things hypothesized by the belief system.

Wait -- wait – wait … you have gotten way to far ahead of yourself. Before you can even consider “DNA”, how do you know that ANY of it is real? How do you know that YOU aren’t the only entity to exist, and chimp’s, and dogs, and cats, and all the people in this forum, and everyone you have ever seen aren’t simply figments of your imagination? Maybe there isn’t any DNA in the first place?

Gravity is one property of matter, however it is relatively easy to talk about other properties of matter without mentioning gravity, for example the property of matter that it occupies space. See? easily done.

You have heard of Spacetime haven’t you Tricky? Gravity curves Spacetime …

If you're talking about positrons versus electrons, yes I knew what they are even before Misa explained them. If you are talking about something different, well then I really can't say. I have never come across the term "posi-matter electron" in any physics or chemistry course I have taken. Perhaps you could provide a reference. Or perhaps you merely made up the term.

Do you understand what posi-matter (+), and anti-matter (-) mean Tricky? … because when you A-Theists start playing dumb it just kind of makes my eyes glaze over.

Well then let's test it. Charged particles are deflected by electromagnetic fields. If gravitons, the hypothetical source of gravity, are charged, then gravity would be noticibly warped in the presence of a strong electromagnetic field. This would be a very easy experiment to test, in fact all you have to do is see if there are gravity anomalies around radio transmitters. Care to check this out? I'm betting there aren't.

Whatever you say Flat-Earth-boy … :rolleyes:

Because my beliefs (which aren't a religion) do not invent and claim the truth of explanations without evidence …

What’s your evidence for “free will” then Tricky? Why are you unable to be honest regarding this point?

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

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

You just can’t face the facts religious fanatic.

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by Franko
You have heard of Spacetime haven’t you Tricky? Gravity curves SpacetimeNo, it doesn't. Gravity can be described as a curve in spacetime, but it's the effect, not the cause. Matter bends spacetime.

Franko

19th January 2003, 12:09 AM

No, it doesn't. Gravity can be described as a curve in spacetime, but it's the effect, not the cause. Matter bends spacetime.

So Pixychix, I am taking it that your Husband or Father is a Physicist, or a high school science teacher or something like that?

So if charge has nothing do do with Gravity, then what is Your accounting of Anti-matter?

and by the way, would gravitational charge be exactly the same as electrical charge? They are two different forces (gravity and electromagnetism) -- aren't they?

I mean, are electrons and quarks the same because they both have Spin, Mass, and Velocity?

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by Franko
So Pixychix, I am taking it that your Husband or Father is a Physicist, or a high school science teacher or something like that?I'm going to leave that sentence there so I can look at it. It's just such a wonderful window into the Frankoverse.So if charge has nothing do do with Gravity, then what is Your accounting of Anti-matter?Gravity has nothing to do with charge. Charge is a factor in the electromagnetic force, which is entirely different to gravity.and by the way, would gravitational charge be exactly the same as electrical charge?There is no such thing as gravitational "charge". In physics, the word charge by itself always means electrical charge.

Having sorted that out, there are two big differences between the electromagnetic and the gravitational forces.

First, gravity is always attractive, while electromagnetism can be attractive or repulsive. Consider the poles of a magnet, or the positive and negative ends of a battery. There's no antigravity. Anti-matter reacts to gravity in precisely the same way as normal matter.

Second, the gravitational force is much much much weaker than the electromagnetic force. The electromagnetic force is a trillion trillion trillion (about 1.2e36) times more powerful than gravity.They are two different forces (gravity and electromagnetism) -- aren't they?Indeed they are.I mean, are electrons and quarks the same because they both have Spin, Mass, and Velocity? Both electrons and quarks also have charge. But that doesn't mean that they are the same. They are very different particles. Quarks only exist within other particles (called hadrons); it would take an infinite amount of energy to separate a quark. Electrons are leptons, which is the other family of fundamental material particles.

metacristi

19th January 2003, 03:06 AM

PixyMisa

Gravity has nothing to do with charge. Charge is a factor in the electromagnetic force, which is entirely different to gravity.......There is no such thing as gravitational "charge". In physics, the word charge by itself always means electrical charge.

My reply has nothing to do with the polemics you have here though I couldn't resist to make some comments,this topic is interesting for me as I've always been a maverick [given that science is always fallible].
From the point of view of modern science gravity is not really a force,it is a geomerical feature of the spacetime continuous [a curvature of space time due to the presence of mass].We can oppose the effects of gravity by using other known basic forces [interactions] but that does not mean 'antigravity'.There is no way in fact to obtain antigravity given the way gravity is defined today.Even if there existed forces we do not know about-for example the cosmological,very faint,'anti gravitational' force,acting at very large,cosmological,scale-seen by some as a possible explanation for the fact that space seems flat to us.

However I've stumbled once [whilst searching more info about the alleged antigravity produced by superconductors-see Podkletnovs' experiments] to a very interesting site presenting the experiments made almost 100 years ago by prof Nipher [1917].See:

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm#2

Electricity seems to produce the reverse of gravity [real antigravity] not only to simply oppose gravity! In this case gravity and electrical fields would be much closer than we consider them now.
The results are indeed puzzling because modern science only tell us that at very high energies [10^(19) ev] all known basic interactions become a single 'superforce'.Or Nipher's results defy that.

Well,if Nipher's experiments are correctly conducted,there is really a link between gravity and electromagnetism,manifest at usual energies too.
I've tried to see what the scientific community think of this experiment,is it valid or not?I've written to some scientific magazines [american included].No answers.
Probably they did not even know of this experiment.Einstein's theory was so succesfull that no one really bothered with this strange experiment.
Correct or not?That's the question.Though,from all I know now,no one proved it is incorrect.Enough to make me,at least now,to adopt a more flexible position.
Generally all scientific theories [we consider as giving us 'objective knowledge'] can be regarded as being convenient ways to explain phenomena 'working for all our practical purposes-for the moment'.However we can never claim he have reached the 'truth',in absolute.

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 03:44 AM

I took a look at the Nipher page. It is - at least by modern standards - junk science. There is no reason to think that his results are anything other than electromagnetic in nature. Nipher's experiments are almost trivially simple, and if there was anything to them, we would know.

As for Podkletnov, physicists are divided. Some dismiss his work as worthless, others consider it to be only mostly worthless. His results have not been independently verified. He just may have something, but it seem very unlikely.

wraith

19th January 2003, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
You have no point.

I believe I have free will. If there is neither free will nor the illusion of free will, what is it that I believe I have?

You like the idea of a 4 sided tri...
if you benefit from this, then I wont stop you
;)

And you are clearly wrong. First, you can't get the info, and second, even with the info you can't make a deterministic prediction.

Just because I cant get all the info, doesnt mean ultimately, that the process in which you make decisions is not deterministic.

The only way that I can be wrong about this is if you run red lights at random

....and we all know that you do :rolleyes:

Another way to what?

another way of functioning...
I see MPB
what are they others?

I remember. And this simply shows once more that you have no idea what the laws of physics are, what consciousness is, and what the relationship between the two is. You are quite remarkably full of anti-knowledge.

...from reading your posts, lets just say that you are loonied up
:)

Infinitely many.

just provide your reasoning thanks pix

you obey TLOP
yet you have an infinite supply of options?
RIGHT....go on!

No mind no choice.

ahhh you obey TLOP
...what makes the atoms in your brain more special in their behaviour that gives you more "free-will" than the moon?

Because, my dear mindless zombie, that is what a mind does!
Not having one yourself you find this difficult to comprehend.

Thats what a mind does.
Thats your answer is it?

Why do stars shine?
Thats what stars do!
:rolleyes:

The mind is a system of information. It is not made of atoms. It arises from the brain. That is made of atoms. And yes, like all atoms, like all matter and energy, the atoms in my brain obey the laws of physics.

So is this system of information independent from the atoms?

Wrong. I choose. I have free will.

To have more free-will you would have to be outside the control of TLOP.
Youre system of information would have to be independent from the atoms which obeys TLOP

It seems to me that you want both...sorry Mista....cant do that

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by wraith
You like the idea of a 4 sided tri...
if you benefit from this, then I wont stop youYou really don't like answering direct questions, do you? OK, here we go again:
I believe I have free will. If there is neither free will nor the illusion of free will, what is it that I believe I have?Just because I cant get all the info, doesnt mean ultimately, that the process in which you make decisions is not deterministic. No. Non-determinism is a seperate issue. And as I have noted, it is a well-established part of the laws of physics.The only way that I can be wrong about this is if you run red lights at random
....and we all know that you doHaving memory problems again? I have never, not once in my life, run a red light. Unlike you, Mister Hardened Criminal.

Oh, and you still don't know what random means.another way of functioning...
I see MPB
what are they others?I'm not sure that the argument of free will is related to the functioning of consciousness. I would think it works the other way around....from reading your posts, lets just say that you are loonied upEverything I have said - except for the bunnies - could be independently verified if you ever cared to learn anything. Since you don't, you will remain a treasured anti-knowledge resource. If your country ever goes to war against a nation with any semblance of civilisation or learning, they may drop you in beforehand to paralyse the intellectuals with your barrage of antifacts and illogic.just provide your reasoning thanks pixI can choose. Choices lead to more choices. Ta da. Approximately infinitely many options.you obey TLOP
yet you have an infinite supply of options?Approximately. Yes.RIGHT....go on!Err, that's it, really. I obey the laws of physics, and have approximately infinitely many options. (Actually, the number is almost certainly finite, but is certainly uncountable.)ahhh you obey TLOPYep. That's about the fiftieth time I've confirmed that for you....what makes the atoms in your brain more special in their behaviour that gives you more "free-will" than the moon?The atoms are the same. The arrangement is different.Thats what a mind does.
Thats your answer is it?Well, yes. After all, that is what a mind does.Why do stars shine?"Why" is not a relevant question. "How" is relevant.Thats what stars do!True enough. But we can also talk about nuclear fusion if you like. The carbon cycle. No, the other carbon cycle.So is this system of information independent from the atoms?Nope.To have more free-willWhat's "more" free will? I have free will. I don't need "more".you would have to be outside the control of TLOP.Why?Youre system of information would have to be independent from the atoms which obeys TLOPWhy?It seems to me that you want both...sorry Mista....cant do that Why not? I've been entirely successful at having free will and obeying the laws of physics so far.

Tricky

19th January 2003, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Franko
So when someone tells you that they were abducted by Aliens on numerous occasions, that is an “empirical observation” just as good as any other? – is that what you are saying Tricky??

I forgot who I was talking to. My fault. By observations, I meant testable, independantly repeatable observations. I did mention earlier about the poor quality of anecdotal evidence a very short time ago, but I was foolish to think that you could remember that.

If 1000 former guest of Crossing Over, with John Edwards all state that they “observed” John Edwards “communicating” with their dead relatives, than that evidence is just as much evidence as 2 + 2 = 4, or E = MC^2 ???
No, because if it were, then not only John Edward (Not Edwards - he's the guy running for president) should be able to communicate with the dead, but anybody should with proper instructions.

Try defining “human”, “chimpanzee”, “nearly identical” or “DNA” without Logic Tricky.

It is easily done, Franko. Dictionaries don't require logic. At least they require no more logic than to say "If the person reading this dictionary can understand the language it is written in, then this is the definition of "chimpanzee".

The logic comes in when you compare humans and chimpanzees. For example, one might compare gravitons to souls and state that one graviton = one soul. Then it is a simple matter to show the logic behind that statement. Its... uh... dang, I must have misplaced that logic. Could you lend me some of yours?

Yeah, maybe “God” was the common ancestor? … Or are Theists only allowed to believe #1 according to you Tricky?
While theists can believe 1 or 2 (or a wide variety of other explanations based on the same evidence), atheists cannot believe 1 since it would lead to a logical paradox. I only gave you two hypotheses. There could be others which utilize the same evidence but different logic.

Wait -- wait – wait … you have gotten way to far ahead of yourself. Before you can even consider “DNA”, how do you know that ANY of it is real? How do you know that YOU aren’t the only entity to exist, and chimp’s, and dogs, and cats, and all the people in this forum, and everyone you have ever seen aren’t simply figments of your imagination? Maybe there isn’t any DNA in the first place?
That is absolutely ludicrous. If somebody asks you "Where are you from?" do you launch into your theory of the origin of the universe? Well, maybe you do.

You have heard of Spacetime haven’t you Tricky? Gravity curves Spacetime …
Even if this were true, it still doesn't support your proposition. As it turns out, warping of spacetime is yet another property of matter that can be discussed without mentioning gravity.

Do you understand what posi-matter (+), and anti-matter (-) mean Tricky? … because when you A-Theists start playing dumb it just kind of makes my eyes glaze over.
I have a basic knowledge. I do not claim to extensive knowledge. However, if I were to study it, I could learn, provided I chose reputable sources to take my knowledge from. I suppose that your eyes must have glazed over when someone tried to explain quantum mechanics to you.

Whatever you say Flat-Earth-boy … :rolleyes:
Interesting that you don't comment at all on the validity of the experiment. Or are you now saying that gravitons have charge, but it is unlike the charge on any other particles?

You're so cute when you're painted into a corner like this. You immediately abandon trying to defend your position and start with the insults.

Why isn't gravity affected by the presence of an electromagnetic field?

Can you answer this question? If not, you want to admit you were wrong about gravitions being "charged"? Or have your eyes glazed over by now?

What’s your evidence for “free will” then Tricky? Why are you unable to be honest regarding this point?
Please do not accuse me of being dishonest. I am trying very hard to have a civil discussion.

Here is some of the evidence
wraith said
I chose 33. No particular reason (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=298802)

Since I define free will as the ability to choose between availble, perceivable options, this is evidence for free will. This experiment is repeatable by others. Pick a number between 1 and 100. If you can do that, you have free will.

You just can’t face the facts religious fanatic.
You mean like the "fact" that gravitons are charged? Yeah, I will admit I have a hard time accepting what you call "facts". However, I suppose somewhere in The Lexicon there is an entry that says.
Fact - Somthing that Franko believes
I will have to add that one to the list of words I must translate when reading your wisdom.

Franko

19th January 2003, 08:24 AM

Tricky (A-Theist) said:

Dictionaries don't require logic.

Whew!

I am a bit pressed for Time at the moment, but Trixy this one is right up there with:

TOAST is more complex then a HUMAN BEING. (Trick, on this forum a few months back)

Dictionaries don’t require Logic??? You mean A-Theist dictionaries don’t require logic. Dictionaries for people who want to be logical (sane) require logic. It’s a necessity.

Tricky

19th January 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Whew!
Dictionaries don’t require Logic??? You mean A-Theist dictionaries don’t require logic. Dictionaries for people who want to be logical (sane) require logic. It’s a necessity.
I guess there is a Lexicon entry for "logic" too. Care to tell us your definition of "logic" Franko?

However, I would appreciate if you do not use this as an excuse for a diversion because you do not wish to answer my question:
Originally posted by Tricky
Why isn't gravity affected by the presence of an electromagnetic field?

hammegk

19th January 2003, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Why isn't gravity affected by the presence of an electromagnetic field?

Can you answer this question?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html

Note the relative strengths. That 10^-39 difference may be tough to measure.

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
Note the relative strengths. That 10^-39 difference may be tough to measure. That's actually the relative strengths of the strong and gravitational forces. The electromagnetic force is two orders of magnitude smaller, so it's more like 10e-37. (I got slightly different numbers earlier, but it doesn't really matter.)

Anyway, if electromagnetism affected gravity - which would certainly happen if gravitons had charge - the effects would be dramatic to say the least, since the elctromagnetic force is vastly stronger than gravity.

Gravity does affect electromagnetism, by the way; light is bent by gravity, and electrons are subject to gravity too.

Franko

19th January 2003, 12:03 PM

Tricky,

I guess there is a Lexicon entry for "logic" too. Care to tell us your definition of "logic" Franko?

For now, let’s just say that the “Logic” has the opposite definition of this term in the LD vocabulary …

Magic = Incomprehensible = That which cannot be logically explained = Supernatural = beyond natural explanation = illogical = random = being both True and False or neither True and False simultaneously

I just made this same point to Elephant and Whithead a day or so ago (I can’t remember which thread). I was saying that Logical means you could ultimate reduce it down to True or False. If you can write a computer program to do it – computer programming ultimately nothing more than zeros and ones [trues and falses] – then it is “logical”.

However, I would appreciate if you do not use this as an excuse for a diversion because you do not wish to answer my question:

Tricky – speaking of diversions -- what does ANY of this have to do with your reason for believing in things with no evidence for those beliefs?

Tricky (A-Theist):

1) What is your evidence for “free will”? Answer: NONE (Tricky has NO evidence for this belief, so NO EVIDENCE = TRUE).

2) What is your evidence that no “god” exist? Answer: NONE (Tricky has NO evidence for this belief so NO EVIDENCE = FALSE).

Franko (Logical Deist):

1) What is your evidence that no “free will” exist?
Answer: Atoms obey The Laws of Physics.
You are made of Atoms.
You obey the Laws of Physics.
(so EVIDENCE “free will” = FALSE, means “free will” = False).

2) What is your evidence for “god”?
Answer: TLOP (“God”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

There is a logically equivalent relationship between YOU and CAR, and TLOP and YOU. In the same way that YOU by logical necessity must be more conscious and more complexly organized to make and/or control CAR, TLOP must by logical necessity be more conscious and more complexly organized than YOU. If you are claiming this analogy is FALSE, then essentially you are claiming that YOU can explain how a CAR can be more conscious then YOU, because in order to explain how YOU are more conscious then TLOP you have to do the same exact thing.
(so EVIDENCE “Goddess” = TRUE, means “Goddess” = True).

My beliefs are Logically consistent A-Theist, yours are not. You seem to have deluded yourself into believing that somehow you can lie, or obfuscate, or insult and magically alter this logically obvious fact?

hammegk

19th January 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by PixyMisa

Anyway, if electromagnetism affected gravity - which would certainly happen if gravitons had charge - the effects would be dramatic to say the least, since the elctromagnetic force is vastly stronger than gravity.
Err, might depend on the value of graviton charge might it not? Aren't quark non-integer charges interesting? You state graviton charge must be zero, but if it were a teeny tiny value, would anyone know? Answer: no they wouldn't. Agnosticism, anyone?

Gravity does affect electromagnetism, by the way; light is bent by gravity, and electrons are subject to gravity too.

Did someone say not? :rolleyes:

Tricky

19th January 2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Tricky,For now, let’s just say that the “Logic” has the opposite definition of this term in the LD vocabulary …
LOL. Well that answers a lot. When you use the word "logic" you actually mean "the opposite of logic". So by the standard dictionary, your religion is Illogical Deism. Thanks for clearing that up.
Originally posted by Franko
Magic = Incomprehensible = That which cannot be logically explained = Supernatural = beyond natural explanation = illogical = random = being both True and False or neither True and False simultaneously
Yes, you already gave us The Lexicon definition of "magic". I have already made the adjustment to understand that whenever your say "magic" you mean "anything Franko doesn't understand." Carry on.

I just made this same point to Elephant and Whithead a day or so ago (I can’t remember which thread). I was saying that Logical means you could ultimate reduce it down to True or False. If you can write a computer program to do it – computer programming ultimately nothing more than zeros and ones [trues and falses] – then it is “logical”.
Yes, I was watching. The set-to of you against UCE has been truly entertaining.
But your belief that everything can be reduced down to True and False is patently ridiculous. Certainly you can code many things into binary responses, but you need a large number of these binary numbers in order to ascertain anything. Recalling the fuzzy logic discussion of a couple of days ago, how would a single binary response answer the question, "Is Joe tall?". It can't possibly. You would have to have a lot of binary questions, like "is Joe taller than Dan"? Is Joe taller than Pete? etc. Though the answer to each of these questions might be a yes/no response (assuming you have the ability to measure height perfectly. Can't have any ties), the answer to the question requires a large set of binary responses. More than two. You would then have to derive a mean height from these numbers such that you could see if Joe was taller than the mean (or whatever number you have designated as "tall".)
So you cannot answer the question "Is Joe Tall" by a true/false response.

Tricky – speaking of diversions -- what does ANY of this have to do with your reason for believing in things with no evidence for those beliefs?
I don't. But obviously you do. Which is why you create this diversion instead of answering the question:

Originally posted by Tricky
Why isn't gravity affected by the presence of an electromagnetic field?

There are a number of other things you believe with no evidence, and I can list a few if you like.

Tricky (atheist)
1) What is your evidence for “free will”? Answer: NONE (Tricky has NO evidence for this belief, so NO EVIDENCE = TRUE).

I've shown you the evidence time and time again, and even designed an experiment whereby you chould gather evidence of your own. But you knew this.

2) What is your evidence that no “god” exist? Answer: NONE (Tricky has NO evidence for this belief so NO EVIDENCE = FALSE).
I say there is no evidence that god exists. How in the world am I to provide evidence of no evidence? But you knew this.

Franko (Logical Deist):
1) What is your evidence that no “free will” exist?
Answer: Atoms obey The Laws of Physics.
You are made of Atoms.
You obey the Laws of Physics.
(so EVIDENCE “free will” = FALSE, means “free will” = False).

Except that you have given no evidence that free will violates the laws of physics. None. Not one ort. In fact, you continue to ignore the evidence for free will provided to you. Thus, you not only require no evidence for your beliefs, you believe things for which there is evidence against.

2) What is your evidence for “god”?
Answer: TLOP (“God”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

And again, you have not given evidence for a creator, nor can you find an error in this piece of logic:

Everything real requires a creator
The Progenitor Solipsist is real
The Progenitor Solipsist has a creator

Yeah, I know logic isn't evidence. But since you quote it as if it were, perhaps you will accept this logic or at least tell me where it errs. I do not claim it is evidence.

There is a logically equivalent relationship between YOU and CAR, and TLOP and YOU. In the same way that YOU by logical necessity must be more conscious and more complexly organized to make and/or control CAR, TLOP must by logical necessity be more conscious and more complexly organized than YOU.

Weren't you just telling me how Godel says that systems move towards increasing complexity? Now you claim the opposite? Get your story straight, Franko. It's a good thing you aren't on trial for your life here. You'd be on death row faster than Halle Berry leaves an accident scene.

If you are claiming this analogy is FALSE, then essentially you are claiming that YOU can explain how a CAR can be more conscious then YOU, because in order to explain how YOU are more conscious then TLOP you have to do the same exact thing.
(so EVIDENCE “Goddess” = TRUE, means “Goddess” = True).

As explained earlier, there is no evidence that TLOP are conscious. There is a vast amount of evidence against it. Every consciousness ever observed has been associated with a brain. TLOP does not have a brain. More of your evidence-less beliefs.

My beliefs are Logically consistent A-Theist, yours are not. You seem to have deluded yourself into believing that somehow you can lie, or obfuscate, or insult and magically alter this logically obvious fact?

Please don't call me a liar. I have already apologized for calling you one in the past. If you want to flame me, let's move it to the Flame Wars. I wouldn't want to offend Sou or Girl 6.

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Err, might depend on the value of graviton charge might it not? Aren't quark non-integer charges interesting? You state graviton charge must be zero, but if it were a teeny tiny value, would anyone know? Answer: no they wouldn't. Wrong. Any charge at all on the Graviton would have significant impact on the nature of the universe.

If a graviton carried an electric charge, that charge must come from somewhere. While charge by itself is not conserved, it is conserved as part of a larger principle known as CPT Invariance. So if a proton emits a charged graviton, either[list=a] Its charge must change - which does not happen.
Its parity must change - which does not happen, or
Its movement in time must change direction... which does not happen.[/list=a]If gravitons carried any electrical charge, protons and electrons would no longer necessarily have equal and opposite charges, and matter would disintegrate.Agnosticism, anyone?No thanks, I just ate.Did someone say not?Just making sure. You did have the relative strengths reversed, for a start.

Franko

19th January 2003, 08:22 PM

Tricky:

your belief that everything can be reduced down to True and False is patently ridiculous. Certainly you can code many things into binary responses, but you need a large number of these binary numbers in order to ascertain anything. Recalling the fuzzy logic discussion of a couple of days ago, how would a single binary response answer the question, "Is Joe tall?".

If you can’t phrase the question (Is Joe Tall?) as a single binary statement what makes you assume it can be answered with a single binary option?

Lets like saying what is 2 + 2 equal to, and then qualifying by stating that you are limited in your choice of answers to 0 or 1.

You would have to have a lot of binary questions, like "is Joe taller than Dan"? Is Joe taller than Pete? etc.

Yes, and recall that I already mentioned Relativity could also be (easily) encoded into a binary system.

Though the answer to each of these questions might be a yes/no response (assuming you have the ability to measure height perfectly. Can't have any ties)

So you are already conceding that you are wrong in your own post.

BTW, why can’t you have any ties regarding height? Are you saying that it is impossible that the 2 heights are equal? That would depend on your units of measurement – wouldn’t it?

the answer to the question requires a large set of binary responses. More than two.

So why would you try to limit the answer to only ONE binary response if you have already acknowledged that it would require MORE than one? … Ohhh … that’s right!!! … it’s because you don’t want there to be a “God” – isn’t it?

You would then have to derive a mean height from these numbers such that you could see if Joe was taller than the mean (or whatever number you have designated as "tall".)
So you cannot answer the question "Is Joe Tall" by a true/false response.

You’re wrong Trixy.

YOU provide me with an objective definition of “Tall”, and I will objectively tell you who is “Tall” and who is not. In fact, I wouldn’t even need to tell you, you give me an objective definition of “Tall”, and I can write a computer program that will tell you.

There are a number of other things you believe with no evidence, and I can list a few if you like.

No, I like it a lot better when you make vague unsupported accusations regarding your opinions of imaginary contradictions in my beliefs. It better demonstrates your religious fanaticism when you repeatedly rely on logically fallacious tactics.

) What is your evidence for “free will”? Answer: NONE (Tricky has NO evidence for this belief, so NO EVIDENCE = TRUE).
Tricky:
I've shown you the evidence time and time again, and even designed an experiment whereby you chould gather evidence of your own. But you knew this.

Like I said: Tricky A-Theists Evidence = NONE.

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

2) What is your evidence that no “god” exist? Answer: NONE (Tricky has NO evidence for this belief so NO EVIDENCE = FALSE).

Tricky:
I say there is no evidence that god exists. How in the world am I to provide evidence of no evidence? But you knew this.

Yeah, it would be kind of like trying to prove that coins ALWAYS land Tails up when you flip them, because there is “no evidence” that they will land Heads up. :rolleyes:

Like I said: Tricky A-Theists Evidence = NONE.

wraith

20th January 2003, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
You really don't like answering direct questions, do you? OK, here we go again:
I believe I have free will. If there is neither free will nor the illusion of free will, what is it that I believe I have?

Thats just it. You have convinced yourself that 4 sided tris exist.
You believe that you have this so called free-will.
To me, you have a belief in a 4 sided-tri

No. Non-determinism is a seperate issue. And as I have noted, it is a well-established part of the laws of physics.

Yes, we have all seen QM in action when you "randomly" run red lights :rolleyes:

Having memory problems again? I have never, not once in my life, run a red light. Unlike you, Mister Hardened Criminal.

Oh, and you still don't know what random means.

Do you want to know why?
It's called MPB.
It's called logic.

No magic here Picks

I'm not sure that the argument of free will is related to the functioning of consciousness. I would think it works the other way around.

So if you had no consciousness, would you still think that you have "free-will"?????
:rolleyes:

I say MPB woman ;) aka logic

Everything I have said - except for the bunnies - could be independently verified if you ever cared to learn anything. Since you don't, you will remain a treasured anti-knowledge resource. If your country ever goes to war against a nation with any semblance of civilisation or learning, they may drop you in beforehand to paralyse the intellectuals with your barrage of antifacts and illogic.

thats great Pix ;)

I can choose. Choices lead to more choices. Ta da. Approximately infinitely many options.

Your "choices" dont just pop into your head willy nilly.
Are your "choices" based on how YOU interpret information?
Just how often do you use "free-will" to ask someone to tie up your shoe laces?

Err, that's it, really. I obey the laws of physics, and have approximately infinitely many options. (Actually, the number is almost certainly finite, but is certainly uncountable.)

No. You cant have both.
You cant obey something and have "choice."

You have totally convinced yourself that you can.
The bug in your system I think :eek:

wraith: ...what makes the atoms in your brain more special in their behaviour that gives you more "free-will" than the moon?

Pix: The atoms are the same. The arrangement is different.

ahhh, right...
care to explain it in more detail?

True enough. But we can also talk about nuclear fusion if you like. The carbon cycle. No, the other carbon cycle.

So explain how the mind works. Explain how matter creates consciousness.

wraith: So is this system of information independent from the atoms?

Pix: no.

Again, you cant have both
What is something that obeys something and has "choice"

wraith: It seems to me that you want both...sorry Mista....cant do that

Pix: Why not? I've been entirely successful at having free will and obeying the laws of physics so far.

Yeah, the moon "chooses" its orbit aswell...
:rolleyes:

wraith

20th January 2003, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Here is some of the evidence

wraith said
I chose 33. No particular reason

Since I define free will as the ability to choose between availble, perceivable options, this is evidence for free will. This experiment is repeatable by others. Pick a number between 1 and 100. If you can do that, you have free will.

Twix bar, youre question was: "choose a number between 1 and 100"

The benefit was to actually answer your question. As I said before, 33 was the number that I "plucked."
I dont see it as being a more sexier number than lets say, 70. Well.....come to think of it :eek:
If I said to you "whats the first thing that comes to your head when I say that Pixy is a man, pretending to be a woman."

Are you going to claim that your initial thought is free-will in action?

urstardust

20th January 2003, 01:44 AM

Wanko: Yeah, the moon "chooses" its orbit aswell...

The moon chooses it's own orbit? So the moon makes it's own chooses? Well we should make sure now too piss off the MOON!
The moon might choose to orbit 2 inchs a earth away each year?

BTW, I'm IWI again...

wraith

20th January 2003, 02:16 AM

urstardust

you might want to read that again
;)

MRC_Hans

20th January 2003, 02:30 AM

If I said to you "whats the first thing that comes to your head when I say that Pixy is a man, pretending to be a woman."The first thing that comes into my mind is that you are a liar. PM has never claimed to be a woman. Do you pretend to be a wraith?

What has this to do with free will? We all percieve free will (with you as a possible exception), we all know that if we dont make careful choices, we will run into trouble.

You claim there is no free will, but your evidence has been refuted. You may not understand or accept the counter arguments, but thats the hazards of debate. Now, what are you gonna do about it?

1) Present new arguments?

2) Rest your case (agree to disagree)?

3) Repost your old argument (and repost, and repost, and repost ..)?

Hans

wraith

20th January 2003, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
The first thing that comes into my mind is that you are a liar. PM has never claimed to be a woman. Do you pretend to be a wraith?

OH, I dont pretend ;)

What has this to do with free will?

Ask Tricky...
this is apparently free-willy in action

We all percieve free will (with you as a possible exception), we all know that if we dont make careful choices, we will run into trouble.

You claim there is no free will, but your evidence has been refuted. You may not understand or accept the counter arguments, but thats the hazards of debate. Now, what are you gonna do about it?

1) Present new arguments?

2) Rest your case (agree to disagree)?

3) Repost your old argument (and repost, and repost, and repost ..)?

Counter-arguments?
I dont think so....
;)

MRC_Hans

20th January 2003, 03:11 AM

OH, I dont pretend

wraith n.
1) An apparition of a living person that appears as a portent just before that person's death.

2) The ghost of a dead person.

3) Something shadowy and insubstantial.

---- Well, I guess 3) fits OK :rolleyes:

Counter-arguments?
I dont think so....
I didnt expect so ..... :rolleyes:

Hans

wraith

20th January 2003, 03:19 AM

nice web page by the way pops
haha

hell, I didnt know that you were that old
;)

you like aircraft too hey?
I guess youre not all that bad.......for an amateur
:cool:

MRC_Hans

20th January 2003, 04:34 AM

Thanks.

Mmm, I take it you're more into jet sims?

Hans

wraith

20th January 2003, 05:04 AM

I like the real thing myself
;)

but simulators are the next best thing
:cool:

Tricky

20th January 2003, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Twix bar, youre question was: "choose a number between 1 and 100"

The benefit was to actually answer your question. As I said before, 33 was the number that I "plucked."

Very good, wraith. You have correctly identified that you made at least two decisions. As I mentioned earlier, this example was given to show the difference in the MPB type of free will, versus free will with no MPB. The decision to pick a number probably had an MPB element. It might have been a wish to be seen as amicable. It might have been curiosity as to what I was going to do with it. Actually, I considered that you might refuse to pick a number and then your free will would have thwarted my experiment. However, you came through like a champ.

Your second decision was to pick the number 33, and you even admitted you didn't know why. Well my friend, if YOU don't know why, how can you possibly hypothesize some other entity that not only knows you better than you know yourself, but is able to "force" you to pick a certain number without giving you a clue why? This is the free will decision that occurred without any MPB input, illustrating a fairly minor difference between free will and MPB. Apart from that, they are virtually identical.

I dont see it as being a more sexier number than lets say, 70. Well.....come to think of it :eek:

So what you are saying is you still can't rationalize why you would pick a certain number. Don't try. It was essentially random. ("More sexier"? :rolleyes: )

If I said to you "whats the first thing that comes to your head when I say that Pixy is a man, pretending to be a woman."

Calm down, hormone boy. You're not likely to impress any women here unless you stop talking gibberish. Misa is probably just using his favorite Anime character as an icon. He has already disclosed his gender and has never claimed to be female. The fact that you cannot look at that icon without having carnal thoughts says more about you than him.

But I hope you had a good (and safe) birthday party.

Are you going to claim that your initial thought is free-will in action?
I'm claiming every decision you make is free will in action, including the first thing that pops into your head. Some of your free will actions involve thought and careful selection (MPB) and some are apparently random (non-MPB), but both are free will.

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by wraith
Thats just it. You have convinced yourself that 4 sided tris exist.
You believe that you have this so called free-will.
To me, you have a belief in a 4 sided-triYes, you have blithered about this before. So, what is it that I think I have, wraith? I observe that I have free will. What am I observing?Yes, we have all seen QM in action when you "randomly" run red lightsI have never once run a red light.Do you want to know why?
It's called MPB.And we have established that MPB is free will.It's called logic.Logic? You have never once used logic.No magic here PicksNo. But you're wrong. And not understanding logic, you are unable to work out why you are wrong. Shall I tell you?So if you had no consciousness, would you still think that you have "free-will"?Do you buy your stupid questions cheap by the case-load? If I didn't have consciousness, I wouldn't think anything. And you have now reversed your position. Which is it?I say MPB womanWhich is free will, as has been demonstrated here.aka logicYes, I've noticed you mistreat words that way before.thats great PixShrug.Your "choices" dont just pop into your head willy nilly.Do you know what "willy nilly" means?Are your "choices" based on how YOU interpret information?Yes. No. Maybe.Just how often do you use "free-will" to ask someone to tie up your shoe laces?Oh, it's been several minutes at least.No. You cant have both.Why not?You cant obey something and have "choice."Ah. So you choose to misunderstand what it means to obey the laws of physics now. Well, you are still wrong. Obeying the laws of physics allows choice. It doesn't remove it. Nor is there anything that does not obey the laws of physics. But not everything is capable of making choices. You, for example.You have totally convinced yourself that you can.
The bug in your system I thinkWell, I can choose. I have demonstrated this. Everyone except you has demonstrated this. as I have stated, this means that you are a mindless zombie rather than a human. And even your MPB has been shown to be free will. Banana Pancakes and the Fork of Doom, remember?ahhh, right...
care to explain it in more detail?Why? If you can't see that the atoms in the brain are arranged diferently to the atoms in the moon, you're a hopeless case as well as a mindless zombie.So explain how the mind works. Explain how matter creates consciousness. The brain processes information. Consciousness is an illusion presented by this information processing system. It's the user interface.Again, you cant have bothWhy not?What is something that obeys something and has "choice"Me. And all other humans. And bunnies which are not dead. You have to understand what "obey" means, and what the laws of physics are, and as you have demonstrated repeatedly, you do not.Yeah, the moon "chooses" its orbit aswell...You may think so. You are wrong. I have explained why the moon does not and cannot choose anything.