Regarding Franko...

[Titanpoint]

..isn't it time the R&P forum just wrote off Franko as severely delusional and just get on with life?

"TP in Hawaii"

[Franko]

Ohh if you are a hard core fanatical A-Theistic religious nitwit I hope and pray that you will.

If I never have to read another post from You (Titanpoint), Tricky, Whodini, Upchurch, Plutrach, Fade, Doubt, (I'm sure I'm missing some) ... then it will be too soon.

I think you guys should all get together and talk about how smart you are, and how much you agree that all of the other religions are "crazy" and inferior to your One True Faith, and pat each other on the back ... at least until you cease to exist, one by one.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Titanpoint
..isn't it time the R&P forum just wrote off Franko as severely delusional and just get on with life?
Yeah, I suppose it pretty much is. I/we have answered his questions and he ignores ours as he sees fit. There can be no motion forward, so why bother?

Heck, he isn't even that entertaining anymore.

Upchurch

[wolfgirl]

Don't feed the trolls.

Originally posted by Franko

----
Ohh if you are a hard core fanatical A-Theistic religious nitwit I hope and pray that you will.
----


lol, you do that.


----
I think you guys should all get together and talk about how smart you are, and how much you agree that all of the other religions are "crazy" and inferior to your One True Faith, and pat each other on the back ... at least until you cease to exist, one by one.
----


We all already do that at our weekly meetings. Right my fellow Pseudo-skeptical Materialistic Bad A-Theists?

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Yeah, I suppose it pretty much is. I/we have answered his questions and he ignores ours as he sees fit. There can be no motion forward, so why bother?

Heck, he isn't even that entertaining anymore.

Upchurch

Originally posted by Upchurch

[thought process]
a troll-troll, troll baiting and using a troll for the troll bait. so, I'm being a troll-troll and I'm now trolling for trolls using franko the troll as bait.
[/thought process]

Okay, I think I get that. But if I'm a troll troll using a troll for bait, does that mean I'm trolling for some sort of meta-troll?

This is all very confusing, but I'll take my cue from Sou, who said what I was afraid someone would say. I'm going to go behave myself now.

Upchurch

Upchurch - you can post what the hell you like to who the hell you like as far as I am concerned but who posted this at 10:08pm in the Banter section:D?

Ah Frank - he's easy to give up - we've all done it lots of times;)

Wolfgirl

Do not bump threads about feeding the trolls to the top

I'm sorry guys - I can't resist irony - and I'm posting a non R&P topic in R&P which majorly irritates me...but I can't help it - and I'm gonna blame you two:p

Sou

[Franko]

... some times, you are just too sexy for your own good ... ;) ...

[The Fool]

My POV on this is that there comes a time when making Franko dance for my amusement becomes simple cruelty. From time to time we get people on this site who have bizarre revelations to share and I am often one of the people poking them with a stick to see what silly things they will say. Franko's new age, sex determined by direction of spin, meta-omniverse creating Goddess is right up there for amusement value. I used to think Franko was just a troll, The godess was simply created for the purpose of his hobby of potty mouthing on the web...... But after seeing his efforts at deism.org I am saddened. He is a deeply troubled person. Not because of his religious views...to each their own. But his inner anger and his inability to relate to others in a rational manner are a worry..... I think the best thing I can do is just leave him alone.....

I am retiring from making Franko dance. Someone else can take over if they wish but I think it is getting beyond a joke and not helping the guy work out his problems.

[hammegk]

Every time you post, I get closer to concluding you are Franco's sock puppet. :cool:

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk
Every time you post, I get closer to concluding you are Franco's sock puppet. :cool:

When you've reached a conclusion be sure to let me know.

[Franko]

Every time you post, I get closer to concluding you are Franco's sock puppet.

Mr. Hand!!! (jabs in the ribs with elbow) shhhhsssss .... ;)

[Doubt]

Originally posted by The Fool
My POV on this is that there comes a time when making Franko dance for my amusement becomes simple cruelty. From time to time we get people on this site who have bizarre revelations to share and I am often one of the people poking them with a stick to see what silly things they will say. Franko's new age, sex determined by direction of spin, meta-omniverse creating Goddess is right up there for amusement value. I used to think Franko was just a troll, The godess was simply created for the purpose of his hobby of potty mouthing on the web...... But after seeing his efforts at deism.org I am saddened. He is a deeply troubled person. Not because of his religious views...to each their own. But his inner anger and his inability to relate to others in a rational manner are a worry..... I think the best thing I can do is just leave him alone.....

I am retiring from making Franko dance. Someone else can take over if they wish but I think it is getting beyond a joke and not helping the guy work out his problems.

Franko,

Read Fool’s post carefully. You do need help.

Have you bothered to consider that no one has accepted your view of the world? Does it bother you that you cannot prove solipsism false? Does it bother you that you cannot make a logical argument for your Goddess being female? Does it bother you that people like me, (agnostics,) find your view so easy to reject?

Why do you even come here and argue at all? If we have no free will, than nothing you can do will ever make a difference anywhere.

I do not know if I have free will or not, but I am pretty sure you don’t. You cannot resist posting here. Ask yourself why. What emotions are driving you? TLOP will not give you the answer and neither will your Goddess.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Titanpoint
..isn't it time the R&P forum just wrote off Franko as severely delusional and just get on with life?

"TP in Hawaii"


Titanpoint:

You always want to tell us what TO DO or what NOT TO DO.

If you cannot face somebody's arguments then that is YOUR problem.

Q-S

[BillyJoe]

TP has a problem? TP is in Hawaii. TP has no problem.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
TP has a problem? TP is in Hawaii. TP has no problem.

Oh he does BillyJoe

He is Hawaii and still can't resist posting to the JREF board - that is a problem:p

Sou
(edited to add small but important word)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Upchurch - you can post what the hell you like to who the hell you like as far as I am concerned but who posted this at 10:08pm in the Banter section:D?

Some habits die hard. It's why I never took up smoking. I even threw in another bait this morning. *sigh* The first step is admiting you have a problem...

Hi, my name is Upchurch and I'm a troll baiter.

[Franko]

Doubt,

Have you bothered to consider that no one has accepted your view of the world?

Really? I hadn’t considered that?

Does it bother you that you cannot prove solipsism false?

I can’t?

Does it bother you that you cannot make a logical argument for your Goddess being female?

I can’t?

Does it bother you that people like me, (agnostics,) find your view so easy to reject?

People like You, Dorman? No … not really.

Why do you even come here and argue at all? If we have no free will, than nothing you can do will ever make a difference anywhere.

Well if we have no “free will”, then you have answered your own question.

I do not know if I have free will or not, but I am pretty sure you don’t.

Is that because Solipsism if True? Then you would have Free Will, but no one else would.

You cannot resist posting here.

Neither can you apparently. I wonder if you stopped posting if anyone would even notice?

Ask yourself why.

Why? You seemed more concerned about it then I am.

What emotions are driving you?

Hmmmm?

TLOP will not give you the answer and neither will your Goddess.

I find your mind-reading “powers” to be extremely lacking.

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

Billyjoe!!!

Long time -- no see, old Friend.

[Doubt]

I am Dorman now? Like I said the last time, place call me jkorosi. He has a cool avatar and I used to be a deist.

If we have no freewill than you are wasting your time here. You could not a will not accomplish anything with any argument and neither can anyone else. Debate serves no purpose is we cannot make decisions.

As for the rest, ask yourself those questions. You really are a frightened little child if you cannot face them.

I don't read minds. I can observe and predict based on past actions. You will quit this board again and then return, Your behavior pattern is already established.

[Franko]

If we have no freewill than you are wasting your time here.

How so? How so more than you?

You could not a will not accomplish anything with any argument and neither can anyone else. Debate serves no purpose is we cannot make decisions.

Okay … if you say so A-Theist.

As for the rest, ask yourself those questions. You really are a frightened little child if you cannot face them.

Whatever you say Doubt.

I don't read minds. I can observe and predict based on past actions. You will quit this board again and then return, Your behavior pattern is already established.

… and that refutes my arguments and supports yours … exactly, how?

I wonder if you are altering my view of the world more or less then I am altering yours? ... hehehe ... actually ... I am NOT wondering about that at all ... hehe! ...

[Titanpoint]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
TP has a problem? TP is in Hawaii. TP has no problem.

Billy Joe :D

Soubrette :rolleyes:

Q-Source :mad:

"TP in Hawaii"

[scribble]

Originally posted by Upchurch


Some habits die hard. It's why I never took up smoking. I even threw in another bait this morning. *sigh* The first step is admiting you have a problem...

Hi, my name is Upchurch and I'm a troll baiter.

Keep practicing and some day you may be the best troll baiter on the forum.

Then we shall give you a title:

MASTER BAITER

[Soubrette]

"TP in Hawaii"

:p

"Soubrette in her house"

[Doubt]

Franko,

You assume that we don’t have free will. I don’t know if we do have free will, but I work under the assumption that I do. That way little things. Like “what do I want for lunch?” make a difference. As soon as someone proves free will false, I will stop making decisions about life.

Since you don’t believe in free will, why bother to discuss anything? Fate is fate and we don’t really make decisions. In your world, we may as well sit around and do nothing all day but wait to die, since we have no influence on the world around us.

Now how do you influence me? You used to make me laugh quite a bit. That was about all. Now you make me wonder if you should be on medication.

“Doubt in Detroit, not Hawaii.”

[Franko]

Doubt,

You assume that we don’t have free will. I don’t know if we do have free will, but I work under the assumption that I do. That way little things. Like “what do I want for lunch?” make a difference. As soon as someone proves free will false, I will stop making decisions about life.

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made of atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHSYICS.

When you have EVIDENCE that refutes this obvious TRUTH, then you will have evidence for “free will”. Until that Time you are a Religious Nitwit, who prefers Wishful Thinking to Logic and Reason.

BTW - You are a Nitwit for pretending that you are NOT religious, when you clearly are.

Since you don’t believe in free will, why bother to discuss anything? Fate is fate and we don’t really make decisions. In your world, we may as well sit around and do nothing all day but wait to die, since we have no influence on the world around us.

Perhaps that is Your Destiny, but I assure you … it is NOT mine.

Now how do you influence me? You used to make me laugh quite a bit. That was about all. Now you make me wonder if you should be on medication.

Yeah … you need more bad Karma (especially from Me), like you need a bullet in your temple.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Titanpoint
..isn't it time the R&P forum just wrote off Franko as severely delusional and just get on with life?

"TP in Hawaii"

Ah, the Amazing Titanpoint uses the JREF "brain-disorder" debate tactic. I explained that tactic pretty extensively in another thread. Should I cut and paste it here to go over it again?

JK

[Franko]

Ohh ... Jedi -- please do!!! :D

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Franko
Doubt,



Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made of atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHSYICS.

When you have EVIDENCE that refutes this obvious TRUTH, then you will have evidence for “free will”. Until that Time you are a Religious Nitwit, who prefers Wishful Thinking to Logic and Reason.

BTW - You are a Nitwit for pretending that you are NOT religious, when you clearly are.



The laws of physics cannot be used to predict my actions. The laws of physics incorporate the laws of probability, which limit predictability. Also, the uncertainty principle also limits predictability. The combination of probability and the uncertainty principle imply that no set of initial conditions can be determined that will yield the same result every time. There may or may not be free will, but there is no certain course of events that you would consider fate.

Others have told you why your syllogism is wrong, and you still keep repeating it as dogma. The laws of physics limit what can be done but do not predict specific events. For example, take one atom of U235 and tell me exactly when it will decay. If the laws of physics are ever refined enough to yield perfect predictability, then your argument about free will may gain some traction. Until then the door is open for free will. Even if free will does not exist, random events will still occur and prevent predictability.

Here again is a correct syllogism:

Atoms do not violate the laws of physics
I am made of atoms
I do not violate the laws of physics

While we are at it, I have been watching your evasion of questions in various threads. Here is another syllogism:

People who evade questions usually don’t know the answers
Franko evades direct questions
Franko does not know the answers.

Of course, that is a probablistic syllogism and cannot be used as a proof, but I see no reason to believe otherwise. You could deal with Jkorisi’s (spelling?) questions head on, but you wont.

Also, your wish to believe that I am an atheist will never make it true. Which is pretty much in line with your never presenting a logical reason to believe your Goddess is female and other aspects of your dogma.

In the mean time, see a shrink.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Titanpoint
..isn't it time the R&P forum just wrote off Franko as severely delusional and just get on with life?

"TP in Hawaii"

Way overdue.

[Franko]

Doubt,

The laws of physics cannot be used to predict my actions. The laws of physics incorporate the laws of probability, which limit predictability. Also, the uncertainty principle also limits predictability. The combination of probability and the uncertainty principle imply that no set of initial conditions can be determined that will yield the same result every time. There may or may not be free will, but there is no certain course of events that you would consider fate.

laws of probability? So you want to rehash the randomly and uncontrollably running of red lights again? How many times do the laws of probability cause you to unpredictably kick your father in the nutsack when you meant to shake his hand?

Does the fact that The combination of probability and the uncertainty principle imply that no set of initial conditions can be determined that will yield the same result every time mean that your computer will not yield this post as the same result every time?

There may or may not be free will, but there is no certain course of events that you would consider fate … So you are telling me that the orbit of the Moon and other planets is NOT predictable (Fated).

Others have told you why your syllogism is wrong …

How many people have told you that A-Theism is wrong? Tell me … what does the counter have to get up to (number of people) before a TRUE belief is transformed into a FALSE one?

… and you still keep repeating it as dogma.

I keep repeating it, because it is TRUE, and it drives you Fanatically Religious A-Theist insane.

The laws of physics limit what can be done but do not predict specific events. For example, take one atom of U235 and tell me exactly when it will decay. If the laws of physics are ever refined enough to yield perfect predictability, then your argument about free will may gain some traction. Until then the door is open for free will. Even if free will does not exist, random events will still occur and prevent predictability.

Ahhhh … So what you are asserting is that NO EVIDENCE for “free will”, is actually EVIDENCE for “free will”? Do I have it right?

If a Theist made the same claim, that NO EVIDENCE for “God”, is actually EVIDENCE for “God”, would you accept that as logically valid? What makes you think anyone will be stupid enough to accept it from you?

Here again is a correct syllogism:

Atoms do not violate the laws of physics
I am made of atoms
I do not violate the laws of physics

What does it mean NOT to violate the laws of physics?

Is it possible TO violate the laws of physics? If you can’t NOT VIOLATE, then isn’t it more accurate (and parsimonious) to just say Atoms obey the laws of Physics?

How is DO NOT VIOLATE more parsimonious (accurate, clear, expressive, concise, comprehensible, Logical) then just saying OBEY? Isn’t Obey = DO NOT VIOLATE …?

While we are at it, I have been watching your evasion of questions in various threads. Here is another syllogism:

People who evade questions usually don’t know the answers
Franko evades direct questions
Franko does not know the answers.

Hmmmm … that’s clever, doubt. Did mommy help you with that one?

Let me tell you something, if your last post is your idea of “a successful answer” to my points … then Franko does not know the answers. In that case, I suggest you run along and chat with you’re A-Theists pals about how great ceasing to exist will be …

Of course, that is a probablistic syllogism and cannot be used as a proof, but I see no reason to believe otherwise. You could deal with Jkorisi’s (spelling?) questions head on, but you wont.

1) Wish real hard, and maybe you’ll deceive yourself into believing you have “free will”, but you certainly don’t have any evidence for it. Wishful Thinking with all your might won’t make that syllogism FALSE either.

2) jk(whats-is-name) doesn’t really want to discuss squat. He thinks he can get me to talk to myself instead. Besides, what makes you think I give a warm spit about what you or jkawasaki thinks?

Also, your wish to believe that I am an atheist will never make it true. Which is pretty much in line with your never presenting a logical reason to believe your Goddess is female and other aspects of your dogma.

Why are A-Theists who know that God does not exist, so concerned regarding my views of God’s gender??? I don’t believe that household appliances have a gender, but what gender is your blender Doubt? How about the toaster? … and the microwave?

In the mean time, see a shrink.

I’ll row my own boat – thank you; but perhaps you should consider your own advice?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko

2) jk(whats-is-name) doesn’t really want to discuss squat. He thinks he can get me to talk to myself instead.

No, I just want you to answer direct questions, a feat which you have thus far proven yourself unable to accomplish. It seems to be YOU that wants ME to talk to myself, since you keep countering my questions with more questions whose bearing upon the subject is questionable to say the least.

atoms are not visible to the human eye
you are made of atoms
you are not visible to the human eye


atoms obey TLOP
you are made of atoms
you obey TLOP


notice the similarities...


;)


Franko...idiot...Franko...idiot...


notice the similarities?

;)

[Titanpoint]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Ah, the Amazing Titanpoint uses the JREF "brain-disorder" debate tactic. I explained that tactic pretty extensively in another thread. Should I cut and paste it here to go over it again?

JK

Is it bright and sunny over there on Planet Fruitloop?

"TP in Hawaii" :p

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Franko
Doubt,



laws of probability? So you want to rehash the randomly and uncontrollably running of red lights again? How many times do the laws of probability cause you to unpredictably kick your father in the nutsack when you meant to shake his hand?

Does the fact that The combination of probability and the uncertainty principle imply that no set of initial conditions can be determined that will yield the same result every time mean that your computer will not yield this post as the same result every time?

There may or may not be free will, but there is no certain course of events that you would consider fate … So you are telling me that the orbit of the Moon and other planets is NOT predictable (Fated).

Sorry, but the fate of the moon cannot be determined. We can observe its motion and predict that it will continue that action for the time being. We don't know how long that will last thanks to the inevitable influence of outside forces. You do know the moons current behavior, but not its "fate".

People are less predictable than the moon. Observing what I had for lunch yesterday will not tell you what I will have today. My lunch decision has not been made yet and no application of TLOP will tell you what it will be. Is my lunch decision free will? I don't know, but I have no evidence that it is predetermined either. I can make a decision and that is the limit of what is knowable at this time.


How many people have told you that A-Theism is wrong? Tell me … what does the counter have to get up to (number of people) before a TRUE belief is transformed into a FALSE one?

People have demonstrated the fallacy of composition for you. There is even a whole thread devoted to it now. Disagreeing with you does not make me an atheist. Tell me … what does the counter have to get up to (number of repetitions by you) before a your false assertion is transformed into a true one?


I keep repeating it, because it is TRUE, and it drives you Fanatically Religious A-Theist insane.

You keep repeating it because you need it to be true. It is a baseless assertion. You don't even know what I believe outside of my assertion that I am an agnostic. I would explain it, but you would just use that as yet another red herring to avoid dealing with the details of what you believe.


Ahhhh … So what you are asserting is that NO EVIDENCE for “free will”, is actually EVIDENCE for “free will”? Do I have it right?

If a Theist made the same claim, that NO EVIDENCE for “God”, is actually EVIDENCE for “God”, would you accept that as logically valid? What makes you think anyone will be stupid enough to accept it from you?

Nothing I said here is evidence against free will. I have not even claimed that free will is provable. I have provided you with an example of why TLOP does not predict the individual action of individual atoms. You keep asserting that materialists see TLOP as if it is the source of the universe. It is a way of describing it and nothing more. Other than you, who has asserted anything else? When are you going to stop rebuilding the same old strawman?

What does it mean NOT to violate the laws of physics?

Is it possible TO violate the laws of physics? If you can’t NOT VIOLATE, then isn’t it more accurate (and parsimonious) to just say Atoms obey the laws of Physics?

How is DO NOT VIOLATE more parsimonious (accurate, clear, expressive, concise, comprehensible, Logical) then just saying OBEY? Isn’t Obey = DO NOT VIOLATE …?

It would only be more parsimonious only if I accepted your strawman that TLOP is god or TLOP defines the universe. TLOP is a less than perfect mathematical description of the universe and nothing more. Unless TLOP becomes perfect, my syllogism needs no reductions.

[QUOTE]
Hmmmm … that’s clever, doubt. Did mommy help you with that one?

This is one of the weakest evasions I have seen from you yet. If you start providing answers to direct questions, I will stop making fun of you.


[QUOTE]
jk(whats-is-name) doesn’t really want to discuss squat. He thinks he can get me to talk to myself instead. Besides, what makes you think I give a warm spit about what you or jkawasaki thinks?

LOL! That answer only makes sense if you believe in solipsism.


Why are A-Theists who know that God does not exist, so concerned regarding my views of God’s gender??? I don’t believe that household appliances have a gender, but what gender is your blender Doubt? How about the toaster? … and the microwave?

The gender of your god is just one of many things you have not been able to prove. It is used as a simple example of your foolishness. I have seen where you asserted that gender is based on the spin of a graviton. Think about that one for a second. If different gravitons have different spins, then the term graviton describes a family of particles instead of a particle. I fully expect you to incorporate this into your belief system. From what I have observed, you will start asserting this in less than a month. I will be waiting……..

[Plutarck]

We need an excorcism! There are waaaaaay too many *********** threads that are possessed by the Evil Demon of Pointless Syllogisms!

We must EX-COR-CIIIII-IIII-III-III-IZE THE DEEEE-MONS! Can I get a WIIIIITNEEEESSSSSSSS!?!?!?!?!?!

[Ipecac]

Doubt raised a good point a couple of posts back.

Even assuming that there is no free will, how the heck does that affect me? I still have to decide what to do tonight, where I'm going to eat, what I'm going to eat, what I will do tomorrow, ad infinitum. Since I am reasonably free to choose among several different options (which sure seems like free will), even if there is no free will, how does that change my life one bit? The idea of free will versus no free will is meaningless.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Plutarck
We need an excorcism! There are waaaaaay too many *********** threads that are possessed by the Evil Demon of Pointless Syllogisms!

We must EX-COR-CIIIII-IIII-III-III-IZE THE DEEEE-MONS! Can I get a WIIIIITNEEEESSSSSSSS!?!?!?!?!?!

Surly you don't mean this one:

People who evade questions usually don't know the answers
Franko evades direct questions
Franko does not know the answers.
:D

Stand still and I will use my healing touch on you......

*wham*......

Plutarck!?!......Plutarck????!!!!

Darn, knock him out and the deeee-mons are still here.;)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Plutarck
We need an excorcism! There are waaaaaay too many *********** threads that are possessed by the Evil Demon of Pointless Syllogisms!

We must EX-COR-CIIIII-IIII-III-III-IZE THE DEEEE-MONS! Can I get a WIIIIITNEEEESSSSSSSS!?!?!?!?!?!

"I'm just new here but I'm stricken by the fact that certain people....you know who they are, and so do they.....have, in effect, hijacked this forum. They don't share any of the values expressed by the sponsoring organization. Its one thing to debate, but its another to babble, start with a conclusion and try to make all the facts fit to support it.
Read Randi's notice at the top of each topic, wherein he cautions against debating with unreasonable people as being a waste of time.
Much of what is posted by these people reminds me of a great item by Scott Adams of "Dilbert" fame:
"You are Wrong Because:
For, your convenience, I have checked the brain malfunction(s) that most closely resemble(s) the one(s) that you recently exhibited on the topic of: (fill in the blank)....."
He then goes on to list a number of them: "Amazingly Bad Analogy", "Faulty Cause and Effect", "Total Logical Disconnect", and give examples of each.
I am awaiting Scott's permission to share the whole of it with you...it is from his book "The Joy of Work."
Trying to follow the logic of the insane will drive you insane, and, dissipate your energy in the meantime, as Randi notes.
Once you identify someone with one of these brain disorders, it is best to ignore them and have a real discussion of the facts (note Randi's refusal to continue with "S&S" in another section.)
"Thinking is the hardest work of all, that's why so few of us engage in it."---Thoreau
"A conclusion is the place where we got tired of thinking."---unkown to me
"We see and hear what we expect to see and hear."----Thoreau
Oh, another Scott Adam's point from "You are wrong" that is particularly relevent here:
"Circluar reasoning---example: I'm correct because I'm smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I'm correct."

---me, in another thread.

Of course this post didn't mention any names, but I got, not unexpectedly, a vitrupetive response comparing me to Stalin, Hitler, etc. How did he know to whom I was referring?

They hate to be ignored. There is a way to exorcize the demons.....its the ignore button. I see that more and more of the reasoning people here have been driven to it.

"Living well is the best revenge."---Oscar Wilde

"Clowntime is over."----Elvis Costello

[Franko]

Ipecac,

Even assuming that there is no free will, how the heck does that affect me?

Even assuming that “red” is not really “red”, but oscillating photons traveling at the speed of light, how the heck does that affect me?

I still have to decide what to do tonight, where I'm going to eat, what I'm going to eat, what I will do tomorrow, ad infinitum. Since I am reasonably free to choose among several different options (which sure seems like free will), even if there is no free will, how does that change my life one bit? The idea of free will versus no free will is meaningless.

Sure – if you say so! I guess you think photons are meaningless also?

[Franko]

So Doubt …

Just in summary of your views …

NO evidence for “free will” is ACTUALLY evidence for “free will” …

And, Evidence for “God”, is ACTUALLY NO evidence for “God”.

And your Faith in the Dogma of A-Theism is NOT Religious in nature?

[Franko]

… well normally I wouldn’t bother, but this one seems to be a special kind of moron …

"I'm just new here but I'm stricken by the fact that certain people....you know who they are, and so do they.....have, in effect, hijacked this forum. They don't share any of the values expressed by the sponsoring organization.

This is a Skeptics forum Religious Fanatic, not another recruiting grounds for the Cult of A-Theism.

Its one thing to debate, but its another to babble, start with a conclusion and try to make all the facts fit to support it.

What are your FACTS for the existence of “free will”?

Read Randi's notice at the top of each topic, wherein he cautions against debating with unreasonable people as being a waste of time.

You sound like you are talking about the Pope. So why are You wasting your time?

Much of what is posted by these people reminds me of a great item by Scott Adams of "Dilbert" fame:
"You are Wrong Because:
For, your convenience, I have checked the brain malfunction(s) that most closely resemble(s) the one(s) that you recently exhibited on the topic of: (fill in the blank)....."
He then goes on to list a number of them: "Amazingly Bad Analogy", "Faulty Cause and Effect", "Total Logical Disconnect", and give examples of each.
I am awaiting Scott's permission to share the whole of it with you...it is from his book "The Joy of Work."

TP is the resident Dilbert Nitwit.

Trying to follow the logic of the insane will drive you insane, and, dissipate your energy in the meantime, as Randi notes.

Again with the appeal to the great Randi?

Once you identify someone with one of these brain disorders, it is best to ignore them and have a real discussion of the facts (note Randi's refusal to continue with "S&S" in another section.)

Speaking of facts, what is your evidence for “free will” again? Why do you believe that less conscious things control more conscious things?

"Thinking is the hardest work of all, that's why so few of us engage in it."---Thoreau
"A conclusion is the place where we got tired of thinking."---unkown to me
"We see and hear what we expect to see and hear."----Thoreau
Oh, another Scott Adam's point from "You are wrong" that is particularly relevent here:
"Circluar reasoning---example: I'm correct because I'm smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I'm correct."

So the A-Theists are smarter then everyone else because they claim to be smarter then everyone else?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Franko
Ipecac,

Even assuming that “red” is not really “red”, but oscillating photons traveling at the speed of light, how the heck does that affect me?

Sure – if you say so! I guess you think photons are meaningless also?

Okay. Then tell me how it affects me. Please enlighten me.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko

Speaking of facts, what is your evidence for “free will” again? Why do you believe that less conscious things control more conscious things?


I keep looking, but I honestly can't find any instance in subgenius's thread where he even mentions free will or consciousness. Franko, you're setting up strawmen for this guy, and he hasn't even said anything yet.

[Ipecac]

Maybe I should expand on my point a bit.

I have to choose where I'm going to eat tonight. I can have Italian, Mexican, Japanese, or pizza. I have a lot of choice! Seems like I have free will to go where I will.

So I pick Mexican. No, Japanese!

But wait, I don't have free will. Okay, so I still have the problem of where I'm going to eat tonight. I have no free will, how do I proceed? Since the universe didn't tell me what to do, I guess I may as well choose among the previous options. Doesn't seem like it matters whether or not I have free will.

Now there are other "eternal questions" that also have no relevance to my daily life. But one would think that free will wouldn't fit under the "Nice to know but not relevant" category. So please explain how this matters.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Franko
If I never have to read another post from You (Titanpoint), Tricky, Whodini, Upchurch, Plutrach, Fade, Doubt, (I'm sure I'm missing some) ... then it will be too soon.

Yeah...me, you troll! :p

[Franko]

Jk….

Franko, you're setting up strawmen for this guy, and he hasn't even said anything yet.

maybe I just see his Fate?

[Franko]

Ipecac,

Maybe I should expand on my point a bit.

In most cases there is no such thing as “too much information”, in my mind.

I have to choose where I'm going to eat tonight. I can have Italian, Mexican, Japanese, or pizza. I have a lot of choice! Seems like I have free will to go where I will.

So I pick Mexican. No, Japanese!

But wait, I don't have free will. Okay, so I still have the problem of where I'm going to eat tonight. I have no free will, how do I proceed? Since the universe didn't tell me what to do, I guess I may as well choose among the previous options. Doesn't seem like it matters whether or not I have free will.

Whether you think you got to “choose” is irrelevant to the FACT in reality of whether you got to choose. It is kind of like a kid at Christmas time. The FACT that he believes Santa brought him the toys, doesn’t change the Fact that Santa doesn’t exist, nor does it change the fact that the kid has the toys. When you say that the existence or nonexistence of “free will” is irrelevant it is like claiming that the existence or nonexistence of Santa is irrelevant.

Now there are other "eternal questions" that also have no relevance to my daily life. But one would think that free will wouldn't fit under the "Nice to know but not relevant" category. So please explain how this matters.

Well … if you are an A-Theist with a strong and heartfelt a priori conclusion that there is NO GOD, then I can certainly see why you wouldn’t want it to matter …

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Franko
Ipecac,

In most cases there is no such thing as “too much information”, in my mind.

Whether you think you got to “choose” is irrelevant to the FACT in reality of whether you got to choose. It is kind of like a kid at Christmas time. The FACT that he believes Santa brought him the toys, doesn’t change the Fact that Santa doesn’t exist, nor does it change the fact that the kid has the toys. When you say that the existence or nonexistence of “free will” is irrelevant it is like claiming that the existence or nonexistence of Santa is irrelevant.

Well … if you are an A-Theist with a strong and heartfelt a priori conclusion that there is NO GOD, then I can certainly see why you wouldn’t want it to matter …

Huh? I mean, huh? Does this answer my question? What does this mean? I've looked at it several times and can literally not make any sense out of it with regards to my question.

[Franko]

Ipecac,

Huh? I mean, huh? Does this answer my question? What does this mean? I've looked at it several times and can literally not make any sense out of it with regards to my question.

What is your question?

Are you claiming that chemical reactions are NOT caused by the Laws of Physics?

Are you really reading this Word at this moment because you wanted to, or because chemical reactions in your brain forced you to? Are those same chemicals going to force you to respond to this post?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Franko
Ipecac,

What is your question?

Are you claiming that chemical reactions are NOT caused by the Laws of Physics?

Are you really reading this Word at this moment because you wanted to, or because chemical reactions in your brain forced you to? Are those same chemicals going to force you to respond to this post?

Here is my question:

How does whether or not I have free will make any difference in where I am going to eat tonight?

[Franko]

... And here is my answer:

How does whether or not I have free will make any difference in where I am going to eat tonight?

Do you care whether or not you cease to exist one day Ipecac? If you cease to exist, then guess what you get to eat for lunch from that point on?

Do you care?

[Titanpoint]

Originally posted by jkorosi


I keep looking, but I honestly can't find any instance in subgenius's thread where he even mentions free will or consciousness. Franko, you're setting up strawmen for this guy, and he hasn't even said anything yet.

You're being sucked in.

Use the force, Luke!

"TP in Hawaii"

[Titanpoint]

Originally posted by Soubrette
"TP in Hawaii"

:p

"Soubrette in her house"

YOU'RE JUST JELLUS :cool:

"TP in Hawaii"

[Franko]

You're being sucked in.

Use the force, Luke!

"TP in Hawaii".

So he’s in a tropical paradise … and instead of enjoying the Sun and the beach, and the pretty women, he’s in here … telling You to use all your power to avoid this thread?

Obviously he is unable to follow his own advice? I wonder why? It is almost as if he has no control over his own actions? Surely something must control him?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Franko
... And here is my answer:

Do you care whether or not you cease to exist one day Ipecac? If you cease to exist, then guess what you get to eat for lunch from that point on?

Do you care?

Three questions (although you ask one twice) do not answer my question. I am looking for a practical application of your argument about free will. How does your argument affect my life tonight as I am preparing to have dinner? Is your answer some kind of Zen coan?


For the record, to answer your three questions:

Yes, I care whether or not I cease to exist. Caring about it, though, doesn't change my belief that I won't exist.

If I cease to exist, I will eat nothing for lunch from that day forward.

Again, yes I do care.

Your turn.

[Franko]

Ipecac,

Three questions (although you ask one twice) do not answer my question. I am looking for a practical application of your argument about free will. How does your argument affect my life tonight as I am preparing to have dinner? Is your answer some kind of Zen coan?

Maybe you cease to exist before you eat dinner tonight. Then you would have your answer … except it would be the wrong one and then it would be too late. Then you would understand why it mattered.

For the record, to answer your three questions:

Yes, I care whether or not I cease to exist. Caring about it, though, doesn't change my belief that I won't exist.

What is your evidence that you will?

Or let me put that another way … what is your evidence that the TRUTH is ever ultimately NOT beneficial?

If I cease to exist, I will eat nothing for lunch from that day forward.

Again, yes I do care.

So you are saying that you do not find it beneficial … This notion that you will one day cease to exist?

… and what makes you assume that the TRUTH is ever not beneficial? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Franko
Ipecac,

Maybe you cease to exist before you eat dinner tonight. Then you would have your answer … except it would be the wrong one and then it would be too late. Then you would understand why it mattered.

What is your evidence that you will?

Or let me put that another way … what is your evidence that the TRUTH is ever ultimately NOT beneficial?

So you are saying that you do not find it beneficial … This notion that you will one day cease to exist?

… and what makes you assume that the TRUTH is ever not beneficial? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Look, if there's no practical application, then just say so. Lots of things are interesting to know but have no practical application.

The only way in which my knowledge that I will cease to exist is beneficial is that it serves as notice that I need to live today. I need to do everything I want to within the space of my lifetime. There are no do-overs.

Do I have evidence to support claims that you make in your response to my questions? No.

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by Doubt


Surly you don't mean this one:

People who evade questions usually don't know the answers
Franko evades direct questions
Franko does not know the answers.
:D


Things that are not observed do not exist.
I do not observe Franko.
Franko does not exist.


I like mine better. :p

[Franko]

Things that are not observed do not exist.
I do not observe Franko.
Franko does not exist.

Did I mention that Plutard is just one of my sock puppets?

I do not observe Franko.

That’s a little hard to believe since you are posting in a thread titled Regarding Franko …, and your last post alone mentioned my name (Franko) 4 Times.

Things that are not observed do not exist

Well – thank the Goddess!!! At least you have finally conceded that Solipsism is TRUE.

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by Franko


Well – thank the Goddess!!! At least you have finally conceded that Solipsism is TRUE.

Sure Franko, you just go ahead and believe that. No point in arguing, seing as how you'll just ignore it or equivocate anyway, as per usual.

Of course if solipsism is true and I'm the only one that exists, that of course means your Goddess doesn't exist - because I say so. And if you're the only one that exists your Goddess exists only as a figment of your imagination, making her equally fake.

What your obsession is with solipsism I'll never...well, care.

Regardless, your make believe still fits neatly into the bin of useless and irrelevant.

You may now go back to playing games with the members of this forum who still find amusement in your tired little plastic monkey dance, though their numbers have dwindled. I prefer more useful and intellectually stimulating activities, like watching grass grow.

[Franko]

Plutarch,

[Plutarch claims Solipsism is True …]Sure Franko, you just go ahead and believe that. No point in arguing, seing as how you'll just ignore it or equivocate anyway, as per usual.

I am Your figment after all …

Of course if solipsism is true and I'm the only one that exists, that of course means your Goddess doesn't exist - because I say so.

Problem solved! See, was that so difficult … God?

… And if you're the only one that exists your Goddess exists only as a figment of your imagination, making her equally fake.

Exactly Right!!! Excellent God! You are beginning to Remember again!!! I am a figment of your imagination, and the Goddess is simply a figment of Mine!

What your obsession is with solipsism I'll never...well, care.

My obsession God? Ohhh no, it certainly isn’t My obsession. I don’t even exist.

Regardless, your make believe still fits neatly into the bin of useless and irrelevant, right along with you.

I am only a figment of your imagination God. I am only happy to be of what service you imagined me to be.

You may now go back to playing games with the members of this forum who still find amusement in your tired little plastic monkey dance

We all dance at your command God. Only YOU are real.

… though their numbers have dwindled. I prefer more useful and intellectually stimulating activities, like watching grass grow.

…ultimately that is all you really have to do. No wonder you long for the day when you will cease to exist …

[Ipecac]

Just to follow up . . .

I had leftovers for dinner tonight. :(

I have no idea what this says about free will so if you will tell me, Franko, I'd appreciate it.

[BillyJoe]

Surely Franko is right about free will.

All there is is TLOP.

Even if we accept randomness it doesn't amount to free will.

Why are we all so anxious to believe in free will?

There is certainly an illusion of free will and such a good illusion that we can more or less carry on as if we do have free will except, that is, when it comes to admitting and being honest about the fact that it actually doesn't exist.

A materialist, unless he redefines the term so as to make it meaningless, must surely accept that free will is an illusion.

[Franko]

Billyjoe,

Its good to see you around again …

There is certainly an illusion of free will and such a good illusion that we can more or less carry on as if we do have free will except, that is, when it comes to admitting and being honest about the fact that it actually doesn't exist.

So if “free will” is a “good illusion”, why not “God”, or the “afterlife”? Are only Atheist illusions “good ones”?

Why is that?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Just to follow up . . .

I had leftovers for dinner tonight. :(

I have no idea what this says about free will so if you will tell me, Franko, I'd appreciate it.

You should have hopped on the Metro and got yourself something to eat. There is a mall off Vienna that has a good restaurant inside. A mexican food place too--I think it is called Tex-Mex.

JK

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko
Ipecac,

Maybe you cease to exist before you eat dinner tonight. Then you would have your answer … except it would be the wrong one and then it would be too late. Then you would understand why it mattered.

Wait a second....if he ceased to exist, how could he understand anything, much less whether it mattered or not? :D

Originally posted by Franko
… and what makes you assume that the TRUTH is ever not beneficial? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

When I was little, before my great-grandfather died, he was bedridden in the hospital for a while. I was genuinely worried about it, whilst my parents kept telling me "I'm sure it's nothing to worry about, it's probably just a bad case of the flu."

The TRUTH was, he had cancer, and was suffering greatly with pain. A few months later, he was dead. In his case, the truth was most decidedly not beneficial - for him or anyone else.

[Ipecac]

Okay, I was somewhat disappointed the other night when logical deism didn't seem to give me any guidance for dinner. (Thank you for the suggestion, JK, there are certainly a lot of good restaurants in the area!) So, here are a few more questions.

What does logical deism give me in the way of day to day advice on how to live my life? Christianity and Judaism have a whole bunch of commandments and other examples I can use every single day! Islam certainly has its share of rules. So, what does LD have that will help me live my daily life?

Or is it more a philosophy and less a practical religion?

[Franko]

Ipecac,

LD is modeled after the mystery religions of Ancient times.

At the ground floor (lower circles of initiation) it is more a general philosophy – a worldview.

You can still be a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu and be a Logical Deist at the same time. In fact, Logical deists consider anyone who believes in the 3 tenets to be a fellow Logical Deist. Calling yourself a Logical Deist just makes it official.

At the deeper levels (higher circles) Logical Deism becomes more of a “Religion” in the typical sense of the word.

Level 1: Believes the following:
1) God
2) Soul
3) Karma (or ultimate consequences/divine justice)

(essentially this set includes all major religions)

Level 2: Believes the 3 tenets are logical conclusions, and calls himself a Logical Deist.

Level 3: as Level 2, and is also a Fatalist.

… and so on …

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Franko
Ipecac,

LD is modeled after the mystery religions of Ancient times.

At the ground floor (lower circles of initiation) it is more a general philosophy – a worldview.

You can still be a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu and be a Logical Deist at the same time. In fact, Logical deists consider anyone who believes in the 3 tenets to be a fellow Logical Deist. Calling yourself a Logical Deist just makes it official.

At the deeper levels (higher circles) Logical Deism becomes more of a “Religion” in the typical sense of the word.

Level 1: Believes the following:
1) God
2) Soul
3) Karma (or ultimate consequences/divine justice)

(essentially this set includes all major religions)

Level 2: Believes the 3 tenets are logical conclusions, and calls himself a Logical Deist.

Level 3: as Level 2, and is also a Fatalist.

… and so on …

THANK YOU! I've been asking this question for days. Now I have some understanding of what you believe.

How do you stand on moral positions which differ between religions? For example, keeping kosher versus not keeping kosher? Eating cows versus not eating cows? The ancient religions are not all homogenous. How do you reconcile the contradictions?

[Ipecac]

Oh, and where do the Goddess and gravitons fit in? They seem unique to your version of LD.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Franko
Billyjoe,

Its good to see you around again …

So if “free will” is a “good illusion”, why not “God”, or the “afterlife”? Are only Atheist illusions “good ones”?

Why is that?

Good to be around again, Franko

But, as you can see from the time it took me to respond to your post, my time is limited these days (well, it always has been but the necessary things are getting some more of their deserved attention now)

As for "free will" and not "God" or "Afterlife".....

The illusion of free will is very real. It's as real as that checkered board illusion with the different shades of grey which are actually the same. "God" and "Afterlife" are emotional attachments only and, as you know, I have no emotional attachments to either.

regards,
BillyJoe.

[LW]

Originally posted by Ipecac
But wait, I don't have free will. Okay, so I still have the problem of where I'm going to eat tonight. I have no free will, how do I proceed?
Back when Franko still occasionally posted coherent posts (it was in some early free-will thread) he explained his position on free will like this: (not a direct quote)

Even though you think that you are conciously making a choice, what really happens is that there is some chemical process going on in your brain that causes some of the neurons fire and some not. The end of this process is that you end up with a decision. Since you cannot consciously affect the process, you don't have a real control over the choice and you don't have a free will.

I partly agree with that argument. However, I think we don't know enough about internal workings of the brain to say that the situation is necessarily so. At least I don't know enough about them.

I haven't bothered to debate with Franko because it seems that he uses a lot of words to mean something different that they usually mean and he doesn't define his terms.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Franko
Ipecac,

Maybe you cease to exist before you eat dinner tonight. Then you would have your answer … except it would be the wrong one and then it would be too late. Then you would understand why it mattered.
Originally posted by jkorosi
Wait a second....if he ceased to exist, how could he understand anything, much less whether it mattered or not? :Djkorosi, you misunderstand Franko's reply to Ipecac (unless, of course, you are answering tongue in cheek).

Substitute "die" for "cease to exist" - which is Ipecac's opinion as to what happens when you die - and remember that, in Franko's opinion, there is life after death and you might get a sense of his meaning.



Originally posted by Franko
… and what makes you assume that the TRUTH is ever not beneficial? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Originally posted by jkorosi
When I was little, before my great-grandfather died, he was bedridden in the hospital for a while. I was genuinely worried about it, whilst my parents kept telling me "I'm sure it's nothing to worry about, it's probably just a bad case of the flu."

The TRUTH was, he had cancer, and was suffering greatly with pain. A few months later, he was dead. In his case, the truth was most decidedly not beneficial - for him or anyone else. I have a similar story of a man of about sixty-five who developed an illness which runs a benign course for several years without causing any symptoms but which eventally turns malignant resulting in death within six months or so. His daughter was adamant that he not be told his diagnosis because he would simply give up. He was an Italian migrant who didn't speak or understand a word of English so the diagnosis could easily be kept from him. As it turned, after about two and a half years, he died of a sudden heart attack just as he was about to leave Italy to return to Australia after a three month holiday there to see his relatives and friends.

I couldn't imagine a happier ending for him.
The truth very likely would have ruined the last two and a half years of his life.

However, despite isolated cases such as these, I think that as a general rule Franko is right

regards,
BillyJoe

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by LW

Back when Franko still occasionally posted coherent posts (it was in some early free-will thread) he explained his position on free will like this: (not a direct quote)

Even though you think that you are conciously making a choice, what really happens is that there is some chemical process going on in your brain that causes some of the neurons fire and some not. The end of this process is that you end up with a decision. Since you cannot consciously affect the process, you don't have a real control over the choice and you don't have a free will.

I partly agree with that argument. However, I think we don't know enough about internal workings of the brain to say that the situation is necessarily so. At least I don't know enough about them.

Thanks, LW. That's a clear explanation and one I haven't heard.

I would put this in the category of information that is interesting to know but utterly useless. Whether we have "free will" or it's a chemical process in the brain is completely irrelevant to our daily lives. If I know that I have no free will, it doesn't change anything.

[Upchurch]

Folks, I've pretty much given up my troll baiting ways for the last week or so, but I gotta tell ya, it gets easier as time goes on.

I'm to the point now, that when I occasionally take a glance at some of the discussions over here and I happen across Franko's LD driven posts, I recognize it as the same ol' stuff and move on. There's been no advancement, no progress, nothing conceeded, so why bother?

Give it up and he'll go away. I promise you.

Upchurch

[Franko]

Ipecac,

THANK YOU! I've been asking this question for days. Now I have some understanding of what you believe.

You are quite welcome. Specific direct questions are usually the easiest to answer.

How do you stand on moral positions which differ between religions? For example, keeping kosher versus not keeping kosher? Eating cows versus not eating cows? The ancient religions are not all homogenous. How do you reconcile the contradictions?

From an LD standpoint those are differences between individuals, but LD rejects any beliefs which are based purely on dogma; because of tradition, or because some individual – either in the past or present – claimed that we should all do this or that, or live this way, or that way without a valid logical reason for doing so.

Obviously there are logically valid reasons for prohibiting thievery or murder, but telling people what they can and cannot eat is absurd. Benefit is relative to the individual, and LD is a Philosophy and Religion of Individuals. LD is vehemently anti-conformity. We believe in an Objective Moral Code – NOT an Absolute one.

Oh, and where do the Goddess and gravitons fit in? They seem unique to your version of LD.

The Graviton is essentially the “Housing” of the Soul. It is the essential YOU. Using the D&D metaphor, your Graviton is the real person, the Player, the physical YOU is just the character.

The Logical Goddess is also a Graviton, but She fills the role of DungeonMaster. Her consciousness is what is generating this universe around you.

This belief (gender aside) is entirely consistent with the concept of a “Deity”, “Soul”, and “Universe” in all major Religions.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Folks, I've pretty much given up my troll baiting ways for the last week or so, but I gotta tell ya, it gets easier as time goes on.

I'm to the point now, that when I occasionally take a glance at some of the discussions over here and I happen across Franko's LD driven posts, I recognize it as the same ol' stuff and move on. There's been no advancement, no progress, nothing conceeded, so why bother?

Give it up and he'll go away. I promise you.

Upchurch

Umm, and which thread do you direct us to so we may sample the brilliance of your discourse?

[Franko]

Billyjoe,

Good to be around again, Franko

Your level-headedness has been sorely missed. ;)

As for "free will" and not "God" or "Afterlife".....

The illusion of free will is very real. It's as real as that checkered board illusion with the different shades of grey which are actually the same. "God" and "Afterlife" are emotional attachments only and, as you know, I have no emotional attachments to either.

But it sounds to me like you do have emotional attachments! You obviously have an emotional attachment to the concept of “free will”. Except you don’t call your Religious emotional attachments, “Religious Emotional Attachments”, you call yours “very real illusions”, or “necessary illusions”, but I see no difference.

Why is it that you feel your Religious beliefs should have a different standard applied then the Religious beliefs of others?

There is no evidence for “afterlife”; ergo you believe there is no “afterlife”.

Likewise there is NO evidence for “free will”; ergo you believe in “free will”?

Why the double standard?

[Franko]

LW,

Back when Franko still occasionally posted coherent posts (it was in some early free-will thread) he explained his position on free will like this: (not a direct quote)

Even though you think that you are conciously making a choice, what really happens is that there is some chemical process going on in your brain that causes some of the neurons fire and some not. The end of this process is that you end up with a decision. Since you cannot consciously affect the process, you don't have a real control over the choice and you don't have a free will.

I partly agree with that argument.

explain the part you don’t agree with?

… However, I think we don't know enough about internal workings of the brain to say that the situation is necessarily so. At least I don't know enough about them.

So is this A-Theism of the Gaps … YET AGAIN?!?!?

So let me get this straight … you don’t understand it … so you just declare that you have “free will”???

Is that how it works? So, in similar fashion, if a Christian claims he doesn’t really understand “God”, he can simply assume (or declare) that God exist?

If NOT, why NOT? How is the Christian doing anything different then what you are doing?

I haven't bothered to debate with Franko because it seems that he uses a lot of words to mean something different that they usually mean and he doesn't define his terms.

Yeah … define “free will” for me, and explain why you believe that you have more of it then the Moon does?

… or is it sooo complex that you can’t explain it? can’t explain it – but you are still certain you must have “free will”? Great Logic – no wonder you haven’t debated me …

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk
Umm, and which thread do you direct us to so we may sample the brilliance of your discourse?
Umm, I was refering to the R&P board in general. Franko's posts are all over the board.

Calm down, hammegk. This is not a personal attack on you or anyone. I'm just trying help the troll baiters out there, should they want it.

Upchurch

[Franko]

I've pretty much given up my troll baiting ways for the last week or so, but I gotta tell ya, it gets easier as time goes on.

Give it up and he'll (Franko) go away. I promise you.

And to PROVE he actually means what he says … (yeah that’s sarcasm)

Umm, I was refering to the R&P board in general. Franko's posts are all over the board.

Calm down, hammegk. This is not a personal attack on you or anyone. I'm just trying help the troll baiters out there, should they want it.

Upchurch … honestly I don’t think anyone noticed you were even gone. Why don’t you “disappear” again and we’ll re-check and see if anyone NOT notices again?

Why don’t you just Give it up, and go away. You promise I.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Franko
Ipecac,

You are quite welcome. Specific direct questions are usually the easiest to answer.

From an LD standpoint those are differences between individuals, but LD rejects any beliefs which are based purely on dogma; because of tradition, or because some individual – either in the past or present – claimed that we should all do this or that, or live this way, or that way without a valid logical reason for doing so.

Obviously there are logically valid reasons for prohibiting thievery or murder, but telling people what they can and cannot eat is absurd. Benefit is relative to the individual, and LD is a Philosophy and Religion of Individuals. LD is vehemently anti-conformity. We believe in an Objective Moral Code – NOT an Absolute one.

The Graviton is essentially the “Housing” of the Soul. It is the essential YOU. Using the D&D metaphor, your Graviton is the real person, the Player, the physical YOU is just the character.

The Logical Goddess is also a Graviton, but She fills the role of DungeonMaster. Her consciousness is what is generating this universe around you.

This belief (gender aside) is entirely consistent with the concept of a “Deity”, “Soul”, and “Universe” in all major Religions.

And what about "Karma"? Christians don't believe in Karma. Muslims either.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Ipecac


And what about "Karma"? Christians don't believe in Karma. Muslims either.

As ye sow so shall ye reap ... nah, no Karma there. Or, I know, it's gardening advice!

I've read the Quran a time or two; I guess you had to be there, or maybe it doesn't translate well to English.

[Franko]

Yeah, and for some reason I think that both Muslims and Christians had these whacky ideas about Good people being rewarded by going to the Metaverse, while evil people would be cast back into the Abyss.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Yeah, and for some reason I think that both Muslims and Christians had these whacky ideas about Good people being rewarded by going to the Metaverse, while evil people would be cast back into the Abyss.
What if suddenly one day you realized you were evil? In the absence of free will, what could you do about it?

[Franko]

What if suddenly one day you realized you were evil? In the absence of free will, what could you do about it?

Maybe it’s not really your Destiny to be evil?

Perhaps it is your Fate to be Good? But if you find it beneficial to be Evil you will be Evil, and if you find it Beneficial to be Good you will be Good.

The real question is … what is actually beneficial in reality?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


Maybe it’s not really your Destiny to be evil?

Perhaps it is your Fate to be Good? But if you find it beneficial to be Evil you will be Evil, and if you find it Beneficial to be Good you will be Good.

The real question is … what is actually beneficial in reality?
The point is, if you are evil but you did nothing to cause it and there is nothing you can do about it, then you are not evil at all. It is the one who is controlling you that is evil and that is the one who should be cast into the abyss.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by hammegk


As ye sow so shall ye reap ... nah, no Karma there. Or, I know, it's gardening advice!

I've read the Quran a time or two; I guess you had to be there, or maybe it doesn't translate well to English.


Uh, excuse me? Do you know anything about Christianity today? The sole way to get into heaven is acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal saviour. Deeds don't cut it. No karma.

I will admit I know little about the Islamic dogma for getting into heaven. But since people flying airplanes into buildings think that killing the infidels gets them into heaven, it doesn't sound like Karma plays a part.

[Franko]

Its difficult to explain Fate to a materialist, the two are kind of contrary to one another ...

The point is, if you are evil but you did nothing to cause it and there is nothing you can do about it, then you are not evil at all.

How so? If you like to kill people it doesn’t really matter to me that you kill people because you had a crappy childhood. That doesn’t make you NOT evil, it just means there is a reason you are evil. The fact that you didn’t have “free will” over who your parents were, or what your childhood was like doesn’t change that fact.

It is the one who is controlling you that is evil and that is the one who should be cast into the abyss.

Not if She is trying to control you to make you NOT evil. It is NOT her fault if you are unable to “alter” your Destiny. Not everyone who had a crappy childhood grows up to be a mass murderer after all.

[Loki]

Franko,

Its difficult to explain Fate to a materialist...
I'm in complete agreement with this, but only when it's Fate as in the Logical Deists world.

It is NOT her fault if you are unable to “alter” your Destiny
But we can't "alter" our destiny without Free Will, can we? Your worldview seems to need "free will" as much as any other. You say we have "one shot" at Free Will. How? When? How do you know when you one shot has arrived?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko

Not if She is trying to control you to make you NOT evil. It is NOT her fault if you are unable to “alter” your Destiny.
If she tries, how can she fail? You have no will to oppose her. Is it Destiny then that is controlling both you and the Goddess? In that case, Destiny is the source of evil and IT should be cast into the abyss.

[Franko]

Loki,

I'm in complete agreement with this, but only when it's Fate as in the Logical Deists world.

Its hard to explain a concept which requires an understanding of God to a person who asserts there is no god. It’s kind of like trying to explain rotational progression to a person who believes that the Earth is Flat (no offense meant).

But we can't "alter" our destiny without Free Will, can we?

Well, how do you know it is not your ultimate Destiny to become a Theist or Deist in the future? Perhaps that is your Fate?

No “free will” is required.

Your worldview seems to need "free will" as much as any other.

Not at all. Like I said, it is difficult to explain to a pseudo-materialist/Atheist.

We obey the Laws of Physics – end of story.

You say we have "one shot" at Free Will. How? When? How do you know when you one shot has arrived?

If you don’t reach the Fateline while you live, then you are forced to it when you die.

All your Logic and Experiences will be useless to you, and you will only have your intrinsic nature to guide you – True Free Will. … Free of any other influences then who, and what, you are deep down in your Soul.

[Franko]

If she tries, how can she fail? You have no will to oppose her.

1) She didn’t create you.
2) She is not Omnipotent in the Christian sense of the Word.
3) Ultimately She doesn’t fail you. Some Entities don’t want to go to heaven. Eternity terrifies them, they would prefer nonexistence; She gives them what they want – what they desire in their hearts.

Is it Destiny then that is controlling both you and the Goddess?

She is also bound by Fate.

The Force (or Law) of Gravity is Fate. The Goddess just happens to be the greatest source of Gravity; therefore, Her name is often synonymous with it – as in Lady Fate (Fortuna). She is like the living symbol of the thing (Gravity).

In that case, Destiny is the source of evil and IT should be cast into the abyss.

Evil serves a purpose, or it would have been annihilated completely long ago. Evil imparts motion to the system. Without it, everything would stagnate and eventually grind to a halt.

But the Source of Evil is in the Abyss (in the Past).

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Ipecac

Uh, excuse me? Do you know anything about Christianity today? The sole way to get into heaven is acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal saviour.

Karma is working as we chat/exist. Heaven is a longer term problem wouldn't you agree?

Since Gutenberg's little invention, you can form you own opinions more easily. If the major organized-religion leadership are Xian rather than updated E. Gantry's that would be scary.

Re maniacs: the karma that carried them through the act must have been overpowering.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


Evil serves a purpose, or it would have been annihilated completely long ago. Evil imparts motion to the system. Without it, everything would stagnate and eventually grind to a halt.

So evil is an integral part of the plan, without which it could not exist? Then we should not speak of evil as a bad thing. It is merely part of fate. So when you speak of atheists as being evil, you mean they are as important to the goddess as deists or theists. Funny. It always sounded like it had a bad connotation to you. In fact, the word "evil" itself has a sort of nasty ring to it. However, now that I see that you do not see evil as wrong, but simply inevitable, I realize that you were not insulting atheists by calling them evil, but rather you were calling them "essential".

I feel much better now.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by hammegk


Karma is working as we chat/exist. Heaven is a longer term problem wouldn't you agree?

Since Gutenberg's little invention, you can form you own opinions more easily. If the major organized-religion leadership are Xian rather than updated E. Gantry's that would be scary.

Re maniacs: the karma that carried them through the act must have been overpowering.

I'm not even going to pretend I understand what that means. :)

We just had a huge discussion on this board about Christian grace. I really doubt you'd find many Christians who agree with your statement that Christianity espouses karma.

Another question. Among the many, many, tenets of these religions, how does the lay person LD follower know which tenets to follow? Any of them? None of them?

[Franko]

Tricky,

So evil is an integral part of the plan, without which it could not exist? Then we should not speak of evil as a bad thing.

Ohh No, I never said or implied that. I simply said that Evil serves a useful purpose. That doesn’t make it NOT evil.

I always wonder if you are actually much smarter or much dumber than you appear? In either probability it is a bad thing all around.

It is merely part of fate.

Exactly right, without FALSE, there can be no TRUE.

So when you speak of atheists as being evil, you mean they are as important to the goddess as deists or theists. Funny. It always sounded like it had a bad connotation to you. In fact, the word "evil" itself has a sort of nasty ring to it. However, now that I see that you do not see evil as wrong, but simply inevitable, I realize that you were not insulting atheists by calling them evil, but rather you were calling them "essential".

I feel much better now.

It seems to me, that only someone who was going out of their way to misunderstand (or misrepresent) what I said could do such an adequate job of it.

I hope you feel better A-Theist. One day … sooner then you think … you will cease to exist.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Tricky,
Ohh No, I never said or implied that. I simply said that Evil serves a useful purpose. That doesn’t make it NOT evil.

You said, Franko,
Evil imparts motion to the system. Without it, everything would stagnate and eventually grind to a halt.

You have stated that if evil didn't exist, everything would stagnate and grind to a halt. That can only mean that evil is essential to a vital system. Also, as pointed out earlier, this evil originates from the Goddess (or from fate), but NOT from individuals. They have no free will, therfore they cannot generate evil.


I always wonder if you are actually much smarter or much dumber than you appear? In either probability it is a bad thing all around.

Hint: It's the "smarter" one. I'm only playing dumb to walk you through this scenario of your own creation.


Exactly right, without FALSE, there can be no TRUE.
Nice aphorism, but it leads you no closer to truth.

It seems to me, that only someone who was going out of their way to misunderstand (or misrepresent) what I said could do such an adequate job of it.
Not trying to misunderstand your at all, and I am representing you exactly as you represent yourself. I am merely pointing out the logical inconsistancies in your beliefs.


I hope you feel better A-Theist. One day … sooner then you think … you will cease to exist.
I am sure this is true, as will we all. It does not scare me. Nor do you.

[Franko]

Tricky,

You have stated that if evil didn't exist, everything would stagnate and grind to a halt. That can only mean that evil is essential to a vital system. Also, as pointed out earlier, this evil originates from the Goddess (or from fate), but NOT from individuals.

That’s not what I said at all. I said specifically: The Goddess did NOT create You (or any of us).

They have no free will, therefore they cannot generate evil.

I said specifically – either you are intrinsically Good, or intrinsically Evil. The LG has nothing to do with it. She is just sorting the Good from the Bad. The Good She keeps, the Bad are discarded and go back to whence they came …

Hint: It's the "smarter" one. I'm only playing dumb to walk you through this scenario of your own creation.

… or Your own creation. For all you know, you are the only entity to actually exist, and I am simply a figment of your subconscious imagination.

Not trying to misunderstand your at all, and I am representing you exactly as you represent yourself. I am merely pointing out the logical inconsistancies in your beliefs.

You always make this kind of general accusation, without ever specifying the actual inconsistency. Rather self-serving and intellectually deceitful on your part, but you are Tricky after all. Do you think you are really that clever and NO one notices?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
You always make this kind of general accusation, without ever specifying the actual inconsistency. Rather self-serving and intellectually deceitful on your part, but you are Tricky after all. Do you think you are really that clever and NO one notices?
Do you think no one notices that I have posted this about a dozen times:
***
Which of the following is inconsistant with Logical deism?
1) You have no choice.
2) There are consequences for the choices you make.
***
You have supported both these statements in various places. Recently you tried to weasle out by saying you didn't make choices, but you never explained the "consequences" part. Consequences of what? The choices the Goddess makes? Choices Fate makes? If you truly have no free will, then nothing you do has any consequences. It is all decided by others.

Now, I have specified one of your many inconsistancies. Please do not lie (again) and say I have not.

[The Fool]

Hey franko...

close your eyes...... you just made the world go away. Spooky isn't it. Ok, you can open your eyes now.

Now go back to dancing for our amusement, I'll let you know when you can stop.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Franko
But it sounds to me like you do have emotional attachments! You obviously have an emotional attachment to the concept of “free will”. Except you don’t call your Religious emotional attachments, “Religious Emotional Attachments”, you call yours “very real illusions”, or “necessary illusions”, but I see no difference. I'm not sure if I have made myself clear.....

From the materialist point of view, our actions are all just physics and chemistry. There is no free will. However, the physics and chemistry produce the illusion of free will. This illusion of free will is very real.

In the checker board illusion the difference in shades of grey between the square marked 'A' and 'B' is very real. We definitely do see these shades of grey as very different (have a look). However, if we examine it more closely, we find to our amazement that the shades of grey are actually identical. They just seem to be the same. The difference is an illusion.
It's not that we are mistaken about it . It's not like the person who sees hieroglyphics on ancient coins. He is the only one who "sees" them whereas we all see the different shades of grey.

http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/images/checkershadow
The Checker Board Illusion (http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html)

It's the same with free will. We all seem to have free will but, when we examine it more closely, we find that it's all just physics and chemistry producing the illusion of free will.

Originally posted by Franko
Why is it that you feel your Religious beliefs should have a different standard applied then the Religious beliefs of others?
I do not have Religious beliefs. All I am interested in is what science can tell us about the world. It is the only way we can know anything objectively and objectivity is the only way to arrive at truth. The scientific evidence is, in my opinion consistent with free will being an illusion produced by the physics and chemistry in the brain.

Religious beliefs are almost entirely subjective. As a result there are a million and one varieties of Religious beliefs and no way to chose between them except what feels right. Hence the emotional attachment.

Originally posted by Franko
There is no evidence for “afterlife”; ergo you believe there is no “afterlife”.It's not that I "believe there is no afterlife". It's that I do not see any point in believing in anything for which there is no evidence.

It's like the faeries at the bottom of my garden. There is no evidence for them and therefore there is no point in believing in them. There is not even any point in seriously considering the question.

Ditto with the "afterlife".

Originally posted by Franko
Likewise there is NO evidence for “free will”; ergo you believe in “free will”?As I said, I do not believe in free will but the illusion of free will is very real. We all experience it.

[BillyJoe]

For some bloody reason neither the image not the link work.

[CWL]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
As I said, I do not believe in free will but the illusion of free will is very real. We all experience it.

In other words, the statement "we have free will" depends on how we define the concept of "free will". But Franko is not very keen on definitions is he?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CWL


In other words, the statement "we have free will" depends on how we define the concept of "free will".

To me at least that statement is a tautology. Can I "explain" satisfactorly to you -- or anyone -- why it is so for *my I*? Apparently not, nor can anyone else verbalize it for *your I*.

Ergo, who should answer, for *you*, the question?


Do you have any problem with Ques #2; Are you punished for incorrect choices and rewarded for good ones? If so, how is it determined if *your* choice was correct or not?

[CWL]

Of course it is a tautology. Whether or not a certain concept can be said to exist must depend on what we include in such a concept.

In other words, what do we mean when we say "free will"? Can we make a definition that we can all agree on for the purposes of our discussions?

I have proposed "the ability to make conscious choices between available options".

Anyone?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by CWL
Of course it is a tautology. Whether or not a certain concept can be said to exist must depend on what we include in such a concept.

In other words, what do we mean when we say "free will"? Can we make a definition that we can all agree on for the purposes of our discussions?

I have proposed "the ability to make conscious choices between available options".

Anyone?
CWL,
This is almost identical to my definition, except I said "...perceived available options". This is important to my concept that free will is tied to intelligence. The more options you can perceive, the more free will you have, thus an adult has more free will than an infant.

Billy Joe:
Physics and chemistry in the brain are real. There is nothing "outside of you" participating in your decisions, so there is no real difference between what you call "the illusion of free will" and actual free will. They behave identically. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe the physics and chemistry of the brain as "(some of) the reasons for free will".

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CWL
....

I have proposed "the ability to make conscious choices between available options".



We would be home free IFF we could define "conscious"..... :(

Observe a specific atom capable of radioactive decay : at each successive delta Time a yes or no decision occurs for that specific atom. (as an aside, I've read recently that beginning to observe, not observing, and beginning to observe again seems to "reset" that specific atom's clock back to its' usual expected half-life)

Is the yes or no decision at each instant "conscious"? If not, why not?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by hammegk


We would be home free IFF we could define "conscious"..... :(

Observe a specific atom capable of radioactive decay : at each successive delta Time a yes or no decision occurs for that specific atom. (as an aside, I've read recently that beginning to observe, not observing, and beginning to observe again seems to "reset" that specific atom's clock back to its' usual expected half-life)

Is the yes or no decision at each instant "conscious"? If not, why not?
I don't know why you have such an aversion to dictionary definitions. Is it because they stubbornly refuse to support your beliefs? Anway, for conscious, let's try Merriam-Webster:

1 : perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation
2 archaic : sharing another's knowledge or awareness of an inward state or outward fact
3 : personally felt
4 : capable of or marked by thought, will, design, or perception
5 : having mental faculties undulled by sleep, faintness, or stupor : AWAKE
6 : done or acting with critical awareness
7 a : likely to notice, consider, or appraise b : being concerned or interested c : marked by strong feelings or notions

Your radioactive atom does not qualify as conscious under any of these definitions. Furthermore, its behavior is completely predictable as a probability function.

You are not a winner this time. Please try again.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tricky

You are not a winner this time. Please try again.
Yeah, I know, just agree with the dictionary definition of "human, probably other animal, plant?, god knows" consciousness and pretend all is well.

Care to make an actual contribution?

[Franko]

Trixy,

How many times do I have to answer this SAME question before it actually sinks into that beady little brain of yours???

Do you think no one notices that I have posted this about a dozen times:
***
Which of the following is inconsistant with Logical deism?
1) You have no choice.
2) There are consequences for the choices you make.

If you have no “choice” (statement #1) then how can there be consequences for “Choices”? There are no choices!!! … and there are no choices, because there is no “free will”.

But there are consequences for the information you carry and perceive TRUE.

1) C = MPB(I)
2) If C Then X

Where C = “Choice”, MPB = your conscious algorithm, I = the information your carry, and X = Consequences.

You have supported both these statements in various places. Recently you tried to weasle out by saying you didn't make choices, but you never explained the "consequences" part.

I have explained it OVER and OVER. You are just to retarded or defective to comprehend the answer; most likely, because it directly conflicts with your absurd religious dogma.

Consequences of what? The choices the Goddess makes? Choices Fate makes? If you truly have no free will, then nothing you do has any consequences. It is all decided by others.

Like I said, it is very difficult to explain Fate to a A-Theist-Pseudo-Materialist, Religious fanatic, but try this …

Suppose that you are convinced you are Superman, and you can fly. So you go to the roof of a tall building and you try to fly high above the City below. Now, in this example you have come to your conclusion solely because of the irrevocable chain of cause and event which began at the Big Bang, and has been wholly determined by TLOP ever since. Never-the-less, as you leap from the tall building and plummet to the pavement below, I am fairly certain that you will suffer the consequences for this belief. In other words, you really had no choice (ultimately) about whether or not you would think you could fly, but you STILL suffer the consequences for that belief.

Now, I have specified one of your many inconsistancies. Please do not lie (again) and say I have not.

If you call the above example an “inconsistency” in MY beliefs, then on that statement alone, I’d question the consistency of YOUR beliefs.

[Franko]

Hey franko...

close your eyes...... you just made the world go away. Spooky isn't it. Ok, you can open your eyes now.

Now go back to dancing for our amusement, I'll let you know when you can stop.

The more I read your posts, the more I find your nickname redundant.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by hammegk

Yeah, I know, just agree with the dictionary definition of "human, probably other animal, plant?, god knows" consciousness and pretend all is well.

Care to make an actual contribution?
I have provided you a definition, as you requested (I consider that a contribution). If you have an alternate definition, please furnish it. Or would you rather just pretend that all the dictionaries are wrong even though you can't exactly say why?

[Franko]

Billyjoe,

From the materialist point of view, our actions are all just physics and chemistry. There is no free will. However, the physics and chemistry produce the illusion of free will. This illusion of free will is very real.

In the checker board illusion the difference in shades of grey between the square marked 'A' and 'B' is very real. We definitely do see these shades of grey as very different (have a look). However, if we examine it more closely, we find to our amazement that the shades of grey are actually identical. They just seem to be the same. The difference is an illusion.
It's not that we are mistaken about it . It's not like the person who sees hieroglyphics on ancient coins. He is the only one who "sees" them whereas we all see the different shades of grey.

It's the same with free will. We all seem to have free will but, when we examine it more closely, we find that it's all just physics and chemistry producing the illusion of free will.

Billyjoe, I’m still not sure exactly what you are getting at, but we seem to be in agreement that –illusions or not – ultimately (in reality) there is no “free will”. The illusion is irrelevant – we are talking about what is TRUE is reality.

And if you do not have “free will” in reality, then this means there is a force (TLOP), which controls your every action cradle to grave. Now what the A-Theists want to assert, is that there is no evidence that this force is conscious. They say (claim) that TLOP must be non-conscious, but that is patently absurd!

When does a non-conscious, or even a less conscious force tend to control a superior conscious force!?!? Never! I bet you cannot produce ONE single example. It is ALWAYS the case, that Superior consciousnesses tend to control inferior ones. Ergo, if TLOP is controlling you utterly then TLOP (or TLOP’s source) MUST be more conscious then you. To say otherwise is to deny ALL of the evidence. There is NO evidence which supports TLOP as non-conscious. It is only wishful thinking on the part of A-Theists. They don’t want there to be a God, because with no God, the A-Theists think that they are the ones who control. It is pure fantasy. Dogma … plain and simple. There is absolutely NO evidence for this belief.

I do not have Religious beliefs. All I am interested in is what science can tell us about the world. It is the only way we can know anything objectively and objectivity is the only way to arrive at truth. The scientific evidence is, in my opinion consistent with free will being an illusion produced by the physics and chemistry in the brain.

Religious beliefs are almost entirely subjective. As a result there are a million and one varieties of Religious beliefs and no way to chose between them except what feels right. Hence the emotional attachment.

Exactly, and for whatever reason you have an emotional attachment to this idea that TLOP is NOT conscious. It is utterly unsupported by the evidence – All of the evidence says exactly the opposite.

[Afterlife …] It's not that I "believe there is no afterlife". It's that I do not see any point in believing in anything for which there is no evidence.

I thought no evidence one way or the other (i.e. no evidence for True or False) meant the proposition was Unknown?

It's like the faeries at the bottom of my garden. There is no evidence for them and therefore there is no point in believing in them. There is not even any point in seriously considering the question.

From your point of view there is evidence against faeries in your garden. You have seen your garden many times. You have dug around in it. In all that time you have seen no evidence of faeries.

But if I told you that there were faeries in My garden, and I didn’t really explain what I meant by “faeries” how would you know if there really were “faeries” there or not? You have no evidence either way – does that make my claim FALSE by default? I’d say that it makes my claim UNKNOWN from your POV.

Ditto with the "afterlife".

The evidence for the “afterlife” is to be found in the nature of the Truth. What I mean by that is, how do you know that the Truth can ever be non-beneficial? Are you simply assuming that it can be? Do you have any evidence for that belief? Once again, I would say that one MUST start with the assumption that it is an UNKNOWN (Is the Truth ever non-beneficial?).

As I said, I do not believe in free will but the illusion of free will is very real. We all experience it.

Once you are a Fatalist, then you are mere “inches” from your Omniworldline and Logical Deism. A superior entity is controlling you. If you are intrinsically sane, you will be compelled to perceive a new Destiny.

[CWL]

The world is NOT a computer program. End of story. This is not the Matrix.

Back to the drawing board Franko.

[Franko]

CWL,

The world is NOT a computer program. End of story.

Do you get to decide?

I thought you said Solipsism wasn’t TRUE? Have you suddenly realized that we are all just figments of your imagination after all? Now you can just decree what is TRUE, and what is FALSE?

This is not the Matrix.

The evidence refutes your claim.

If you believe that reality is determined by your Wishful Thinking then the world is NOT the “Matrix”; otherwise, you have some explaining to do … A-Theist. You can start by explaining exactly why everything isn’t all just Energy. Explain where Einstein went wrong?

Back to the drawing board ...

Hey! … that’s what I was gonna say to You … CWL!

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko
The evidence for the “afterlife” is to be found in the nature of the Truth. What I mean by that is, how do you know that the Truth can ever be non-beneficial? Are you simply assuming that it can be? Do you have any evidence for that belief? Once again, I would say that one MUST start with the assumption that it is an UNKNOWN (Is the Truth ever non-beneficial?).


I've given an instance before in which the truth was not beneficial.

Originally posted by Franko
You can start by explaining exactly why everything isn’t all just Energy. Explain where Einstein went wrong?

Misrepresentation. Since Einstein said matter and energy are equal, I could just as easily assert that Einstein said "everything is all just matter".

[Franko]

Jk***si,

[I] … Why do I persist in wasting my Time … ?

I've given an instance before in which the truth was not beneficial.

Well are we all suppose to divine it nitwit, or was it “invisible”, because I don’t see it ANYWHERE in your post?

Since Einstein said matter and energy are equal, I could just as easily assert that Einstein said "everything is all just matter".

Yeah! About as easy as you could claim that there are NO PHOTONS!

… All things are reducible to there simplest form … the common denominator -- Energy.

All particles are specified ultimately by their relative Energy. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about bud. All Matter can be defined in terms of Energy, but the reverse statement is NOT true.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko
Jk***si,

… Why do I persist in wasting my Time … ?

Why are you asking me?

Originally posted by Franko
Well are we all suppose to divine it nitwit, or was it “invisible”, because I don’t see it ANYWHERE in your post?

Check page 2 of this thread, a little more than halfway down. Don't feel like looking? That's just laziness. It's just a page up on this very thread.


Originally posted by Franko
… All things are reducible to there simplest form … the common denominator -- Energy.

...

All particles are specified ultimately by their relative Energy. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about bud. All Matter can be defined in terms of Energy, but the reverse statement is NOT true.

Wrong again. While E = MC^2, it also follows that M = E/C^2. Energy is divisible into matter. That you have to divide energy by the constant(squared) in order to get matter (and conversely, that you must multiply matter in order to get energy) makes matter technically the mathematically simpler term. In other words, energy is a more complex form of matter. This isn't an 'interpretation' either - read the equations. If energy were the simplest form, as you say it is, then you would have to multiply energy in order to get matter. According to Einstein, the opposite is true.

[Franko]

jk***ii,

Obviously you have convinced yourself.

Enjoy it, until it ceases! ;)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jkorosi


Wrong again. While E = MC^2, it also follows that M = E/C^2. Energy is divisible into matter. That you have to divide energy by the constant(squared) in order to get matter (and conversely, that you must multiply matter in order to get energy) makes matter technically the mathematically simpler term. In other words, energy is a more complex form of matter. This isn't an 'interpretation' either - read the equations. If energy were the simplest form, as you say it is, then you would have to multiply energy in order to get matter. According to Einstein, the opposite is true.

Kewl. You can apparently tell us The Answers:
Matter is __________? Energy is ___________?

What is an electron? A bit of each? Or ???.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Franko
Billyjoe, I’m still not sure exactly what you are getting at, but we seem to be in agreement that –illusions or not – ultimately (in reality) there is no “free will”. Yes.
If you look behind the illusion there is only physics and chemistry.
In that sense there is no free will.

Originally posted by Franko
The illusion is irrelevant – we are talking about what is TRUE is reality. The illusion is not irrelevant.
For a start, when some say there is free will, they are refering to this illusion.
For seconds, the illusion, as I said, is real.
Illusions are not something that don't exist. The square in "The Color-bleeding Illusion" is there (as a representation in your brain (like everything else you see)) and the difference in shades of grey in "The Checker-board Illusion" is also there (again as a representation in your brain).
The illusion of free will, similarly, is also there. It is real. It exists. This is all many posters here mean when they say they believe in free will (see Tricky above in reply to my post).
For me, however, the word loses meaning by defining it in this manner. It's a bit like Einstein's "God" or Paul Davies' "God". There is hardly any point of contact between their versions of "God" and the "God" of Religion.

Originally posted by Franko
And if you do not have “free will” in reality, then this means there is a force (TLOP), which controls your every action cradle to grave. Yes.
Even quantum fluctuation and uncertainty and the "unpredictability" of chaotic/complex systems cannot be a source of free will (as opposed to the illusion of free will)

Originally posted by Franko
Now what the A-Theists want to assert, is that there is no evidence that this force is conscious. They say (claim) that TLOP must be non-conscious, but that is patently absurd!
Oops. We disagree.

Originally posted by Franko
When does a non-conscious, or even a less conscious force tend to control a superior conscious force!?!? Never! I bet you cannot produce ONE single example. It is ALWAYS the case, that Superior consciousnesses tend to control inferior ones. Ergo, if TLOP is controlling you utterly then TLOP (or TLOP’s source) MUST be more conscious then you. To say otherwise is to deny ALL of the evidence. I suppose you must be saying that you do not believe in "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection".
It is the mechanism by which life proceeds form non-life (not proven, I know, but plenty of evidence to support the possibility) and consciousness from non-consciousness (much more speculative, I agree, but lots of promising work been done in that area as well).
If we stick with purely physical systems, we have heaps of examples of complexity arising from simplicity or, as Paul Kelly said, "From Little Things Big Things Grow".

Originally posted by Franko
There is NO evidence which supports TLOP as non-conscious. It is only wishful thinking on the part of A-Theists. They don’t want there to be a God, because with no God, the A-Theists think that they are the ones who control. It is pure fantasy. Dogma … plain and simple. There is absolutely NO evidence for this belief. But, of course, the problem with "God" is that we have as big a mystery to be solved as we started with. No progress.
A-theists will have to speak for themselves but, as a Non-theist (or weak(ugh!) atheist), I do not or try not to engage in "wishful thinking". All I wish to do is look at the scientifically (objectively) derived facts and see where they lead. All the rest is pure (subjective) speculation. Interesting speculation, maybe, but not something worth staking your life on.

Originally posted by Franko
I thought no evidence one way or the other (i.e. no evidence for True or False) meant the proposition was Unknown?Yes, unknown.
But what role should the unknown play in your life.
For me, what is known is what is important. This is what I base my life on. What is unknown can only be speculated upon. As I say, perhaps an interesting pastime but not something to stake your life on, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Franko
From your point of view there is evidence against faeries in your garden. You have seen your garden many times. You have dug around in it. In all that time you have seen no evidence of faeries.

But if I told you that there were faeries in My garden, and I didn’t really explain what I meant by “faeries” how would you know if there really were “faeries” there or not? You have no evidence either way – does that make my claim FALSE by default? I’d say that it makes my claim UNKNOWN from your POV. Unknown and irrelevant, I would say, unless you could explain what you did mean by "faeries" and prove your claim about their existence.

Originally posted by Franko
The evidence for the “afterlife” is to be found in the nature of the Truth. What I mean by that is, how do you know that the Truth can ever be non-beneficial? Are you simply assuming that it can be? Do you have any evidence for that belief? Once again, I would say that one MUST start with the assumption that it is an UNKNOWN (Is the Truth ever non-beneficial?).
Both hammejk and myself have given examples of where the "the truth" would not have been beneficial but, I guess, you mean "The Truth" (not "the truth").
"The Truth" is only what we can objectively derive and it is always qualified (percentage probability of being True depending on the weight of evidence) but, if it could be proven that the afterlife did not exist, this Truth would not be beneficial to a large percentage of the population.

Originally posted by Franko
Once you are a Fatalist, then you are mere “inches” from your Omniworldline and Logical Deism. A superior entity is controlling you. If you are intrinsically sane, you will be compelled to perceive a new Destiny. Are you speaking speculatively - are you "emotionally attached" to this view - or have you arrived at this view objectively?

[Franko]

Billyjoe,

Franko:
There is no “free will” …

Billyjoe:
Yes.
If you look behind the illusion there is only physics and chemistry.
In that sense there is no free will.

Franko:
The illusion is irrelevant – we are talking about what is TRUE is reality.

Billyjoe:
The illusion is not irrelevant.
For a start, when some say there [I[is[/I] free will, they are refering to this illusion.

That makes about as much sense as saying that when a person refers to “red” they are actually denying the existence of oscillating photons.

The fact that you see “red” doesn’t make photons NOT real.

The fact that you perceive “free will” doesn’t make Fate NOT real.

For seconds, the illusion, as I said, is real.
Illusions are not something that don't exist. The square in "The Color-bleeding Illusion" is there (as a representation in your brain (like everything else you see)) and the difference in shades of grey in "The Checker-board Illusion" is also there (again as a representation in your brain).

So I guess what you are saying then is that when a Christian or Hindu has an illusion of Gods, or an Afterlife that the illusion is just as real as your “free will”?

How does that make you any different then any other religious fanatic? You just have different unproveable dogma? Why the double standard?

The illusion of free will, similarly, is also there. It is real. It exists. This is all many posters here mean when they say they believe in free will (see Tricky above in reply to my post).

So Tricky has a mystical belief in “free will” in exactly the same way as a Scientologist believes that the Earth is actually the Prison planet, of a Master Race of Giant, super-intelligent, technologically advanced, Jumbo Jet flying Aliens??

How does that make A-Theism any better than Scientology minus Guru with computerized voice in wheel-chair?

For me, however, the word loses meaning by defining it in this manner. It's a bit like Einstein's "God" or Paul Davies' "God". There is hardly any point of contact between their versions of "God" and the "God" of Religion.

I have no idea what you are Talking about? Where are you getting this notion of Non-conscious Superior controlling forces? How can a force which controls you utterly possibly be less conscious then you are? How can it be less evolved?

Think of it in terms of reality – everything is actually a Sea of Energy. The “Matter” is simply patterns, or concentrations of Energy in this sea. Your consciousness is Nothing more than a pattern within this energy. Now how is a pattern of Information stored in Energy, making you more Physical then a computer program minus the “computer”.

According to Einstein you are a disembodied consciousness. You are Energy which is aware it is Energy.

Franko:
… And if you do not have “free will” in reality, then this means there is a force (TLOP), which controls your every action cradle to grave.

Billyjoe:
Yes.
Even quantum fluctuation and uncertainty and the "unpredictability" of chaotic/complex systems cannot be a source of free will (as opposed to the illusion of free will)

1) TLOP controls YOU
2) YOU control a CAR.

In #1 you want to claim YOU has the superior consciousness.
In #2 you want to claim YOU has the superior consciousness.

Explain the contradiction?

Franko:
When does a non-conscious, or even a less conscious force tend to control a superior conscious force!?!? Never! I bet you cannot produce ONE single example. It is ALWAYS the case, that Superior consciousnesses tend to control inferior ones. Ergo, if TLOP is controlling you utterly then TLOP (or TLOP’s source) MUST be more conscious then you. To say otherwise is to deny ALL of the evidence.

Billyjoe:
I suppose you must be saying that you do not believe in "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection".

Are you paying attention Billyjoe? The Theory of Evolution is EXACTLY what I am talking about. You are the one who can’t explain evolution.

Tell me Billyjoe – how EXACTLY do charcoal briquettes and warm water turn in to bacteria?

Can you perform the life creation experiment? Abiogensis?

How many breeds of Dogs existed before Man?

It is the mechanism by which life proceeds form non-life (not proven, I know, but plenty of evidence to support the possibility) and consciousness from non-consciousness (much more speculative, I agree, but lots of promising work been done in that area as well).

Yeah … well some Christians assure me that there Bibles are inerrant as well …

If we stick with purely physical systems, we have heaps of examples of complexity arising from simplicity or, as Paul Kelly said, "From Little Things Big Things Grow".

That’s evolution, and I am all Up with Evolution. Godel and Bayes (both far closer to LD, than to A-Theism) are the guys who have the Math on Evolution. You A-Theists got diddly-squat … but that point aside … you are skirting the issue. The issue isn’t Evolution. The issue is Abiogenesis. How does Matter make consciousness.

You see there is ALL kinds of evidence that the reverse can happen, but NONE that Matter makes consciousness you cannot produce ONE scrape of empirical evidence that supports this belief (and spare me Amino Acids! Amino Acids don’t prove Sh*t!).

Where the AI computer program that passes the Turing test?

[God …] But, of course, the problem with "God" is that we have as big a mystery to be solved as we started with. No progress.

Speak for yourself!

You call yourself A-Theist, and then act surprised that you have found no evidence for God? To me that is kind of like a White-Racist from the South, claiming he’s found no evidence for the equality of Black-people.

A-theists will have to speak for themselves but, as a Non-theist (or weak(ugh!) atheist), I do not or try not to engage in "wishful thinking". All I wish to do is look at the scientifically (objectively) derived facts and see where they lead. All the rest is pure (subjective) speculation. Interesting speculation, maybe, but not something worth staking your life on.

So you gamble on Ceasing to Exist instead??? No ultimate answers is worth staking your life on? Why not be a Theist or Deist purely out of a sense of Optimism?

[Can the Truth not be Beneficial? …]Both hammejk and myself have given examples of where the "the truth" would not have been beneficial but, I guess, you mean "The Truth" (not "the truth").

Truth = What is believed True based on the information at hand.

MetaTruth = What is True in OmniReality. The highest Truth as perceived from a point “outside” the Universe (i.e. outside the universe = Omniverse) = (metaphorically) What the Goddess Believes

"The Truth" is only what we can objectively derive and it is always qualified (percentage probability of being True depending on the weight of evidence) but, if it could be proven that the afterlife did not exist, this Truth would not be beneficial to a large percentage of the population.

Agreed … strangely the inverse proposition is also True. … But the question remains: Is the Truth ever ultimately Harmful (Harmful = Not Beneficial)?

I say, and I assume you’d agree, that the default position is UNKNOWN. So you go from there, what example do you have (which does not Beg the Question) which demonstrates an ultimately non-beneficial Truth?

[UserGoogol]

I am hooked up to a pulley.
The pulley controls me.

Therefore, I OBEY THE PULLEY!
Therefore, the Pulley is more concious than I am.

No wait, that doesn't make any sense.

[Franko]

UG,

I am hooked up to a pulley.
The pulley controls me.

One single, garden-variety pulley does all that?

… oh wait? You are an A-Theist – aren’t you … ?

Therefore, I OBEY THE PULLEY!
Therefore, the Pulley is more concious than I am.

Probably … :rolleyes:

Hey, ahh – UG (nudge) … your desperation is showing …

[BillyJoe]

Franko,

Originally posted by Franko
That makes about as much sense as saying that when a person refers to “red” they are actually denying the existence of oscillating photons.

The fact that you see “red” doesn’t make photons NOT real.
Those who equate "free will" with "the illusion of free will" accept that, on closer inspection, "free will" is just physics and chemistry.

They disagree with those who take "free will" to be something "beyond" physics and chemistry; something non-physical; something bestowed by God.

Originally posted by Franko
So I guess what you are saying then is that when a Christian or Hindu has an illusion of Gods, or an Afterlife that the illusion is just as real as your “free will”?I think you are using the word "illusion" in a very different sense here. An optical illusion has no point of contact with what you call "the illusion of God". One is physically present on the screen, the other is nowhere to be seen.

Originally posted by Franko
So Tricky has a mystical belief in “free will” in exactly the same way as a Scientologist believes that the Earth is actually the Prison planet, of a Master Race of Giant, super-intelligent, technologically advanced, Jumbo Jet flying Aliens?? You'd better ask Tricky but my take is that his version of free will is that it is all physics and chemistry which produces an illusion of free will as real as that coloured square and the different shades of grey.

Originally posted by Franko
I have no idea what you are Talking about? I was talking about the problems inherent in defining the term "free will" as "the illusion of free will". The term "free will" should apply only to the non-physical variety so as to not confuse it with the purely physical "illusion of free will"

Originally posted by Franko
Where are you getting this notion of Non-conscious Superior controlling forces? How can a force which controls you utterly possibly be less conscious then you are? How can it be less evolved? Probably like the prison walls that control the movements of it's contained prisoner without being conscious.
But perhaps you mean something else.

Originally posted by Franko
Think of it in terms of reality – everything is actually a Sea of Energy. The “Matter” is simply patterns, or concentrations of Energy in this sea. Your consciousness is Nothing more than a pattern within this energy. Now how is a pattern of Information stored in Energy, making you more Physical then a computer program minus the “computer”. I'm not sure if I understand the point you are making here....

?Summary of your preamble: Energy -> Matter (patterns of energy) -> Conciousness (patterns of matter)
?Your question: How is consciousness more physical than a computer program?

Please clarify.

Originally posted by Franko
According to Einstein you are a disembodied consciousness.I don't recall Einstein having any mystical leanings. He was pretty down to earth as I recall. I do not recall him saying that consciousness can be "disembodied" (separated from the pysical body)

Originally posted by Franko
1) TLOP controls YOU
2) YOU control a CAR.

In #1 you want to claim YOU has the superior consciousness.
In #2 you want to claim YOU has the superior consciousness.

Explain the contradiction?In #1, TLOP (simplicity) produces, through evolution, YOU (complexity)
In #2, YOU (complexity) control a CAR (simplicity)

#1 cannot be used as a template for #2

Originally posted by Franko
Are you paying attention Billyjoe? The Theory of Evolution is EXACTLY what I am talking about. You are the one who can’t explain evolution. Are you imputing an input form God into the evolutionary process.........

Originally posted by Franko
Tell me Billyjoe – how EXACTLY do charcoal briquettes and warm water turn in to bacteria?C + H2O -> -> -> complex organic molecules -> -> -> non-living complex aggregates of complex organic molecules -> -> -> transitional complex aggregates of complex organic molecules -. -> -> living complex aggregates of complex organic molecules -> -> -> bacteria.

But "how EXACTLY"?............

There are numerous clues to many possibilities but the final answer awaits us. Perhaps we will never know EXACTLY how it happened but science is our only hope of finding an answer.
Anything else is pure speculation.

Originally posted by Franko
Can you perform the life creation experiment? Abiogensis? Innumerable times.
But it has come off only four times :D

Originally posted by Franko
Yeah … well some Christians assure me that there Bibles are inerrant as well …Fortunately, science does not claim inerancy.
There are built-in correction mechanisms (such as peer review, repeatability and falsification) which, though not perfect, work most of the time

Originally posted by Franko
That’s evolution, and I am all Up with Evolution. Godel and Bayes (both far closer to LD, than to A-Theism) are the guys who have the Math on Evolution. You A-Theists got diddly-squat … but that point aside … you are skirting the issue. The issue isn’t Evolution. The issue is Abiogenesis. Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection referred to the evolution of species and did not include abiogensis. But this is not to say that abiogenesis did not occur by evolutionary means.

Originally posted by Franko
How does Matter make consciousness.There are presently numerous clues as to how this could happen but, if the answer lies in the future it will be through science or not at all. If science cannot provide the answer, we will never know. At this point we can simply say we don't know and leave it at that. Or we can speculate - as long as we realize this is just for amusement and that we cannot expect to arrive at Truth in this way.

Originally posted by Franko
You see there is ALL kinds of evidence that the reverse can happen, but NONE that Matter makes consciousness you cannot produce ONE scrape of empirical evidence that supports this belief (and spare me Amino Acids! Amino Acids don’t prove Sh*t!).
There are "ALL kinds if evidence" that consciousness makes matter?

Originally posted by Franko
Where the AI computer program that passes the Turing testHuman brains are a million orders of magnitude more complex than the most advanced AI program.

Originally posted by Franko
Speak for yourself!

You call yourself A-Theist, and then act surprised that you have found no evidence for God?.No one has ever found evidence for the existence of God. The belief in God is based purely on faith. A subjective feeling that God exists leading to an emotional attachment to that belief.

But if you have objective evidence I would like to hear it.

Originally posted by Franko
So you gamble on Ceasing to Exist instead??? No ultimate answers [b]is worth staking your life on? Why not be a Theist or Deist purely out of a sense of Optimism?A belief in God and an Afterlife is not without its costs.
Pascal's Wager has been falsified.

I am not gambling on ceasing to exist.
I see no evidence that I will not cease to exist after I die. The default position is that there is no reason to believe in an Afterlife. Extraordinary claims do not only require evidence, they require extraordinary evidence.

I don't even gamble on the lotto and the evidence is that I have a 1 in a million chance of winning. The evidence is that I will probably never win and therefore I don't buy that lotto ticket. The evidence for an Afterlife is zero so I'm not going to live my life based on that expectation.

Originally posted by Franko
Truth = What is believed True based on the information at hand.Agreed.

Originally posted by Franko
MetaTruth = What is True in OmniReality. The highest Truth as perceived from a point “outside” the Universe (i.e. outside the universe = Omniverse) = (metaphorically) What the Goddess BelievesThis view sounds to me very subjective.
The only Goddess I believe in is.....No, best not go there! :D

Originally posted by Franko
I say, and I assume you’d agree, that the default position is UNKNOWN. So you go from there, what example do you have (which does not Beg the Question) which demonstrates an ultimately non-beneficial Truth? As it happens, I have already given my default position.......

The default position is that I do not believe in the existence of something for which there is no supporting evidence.

I do not say that the question of faeries at the bottom of my garden is UNKNOWN, I say there is no evidence for them and therefore I do not believe in their existence (note that I am not saying that I believe that they don't exist - although if push comes to shove....;) )

Similarly, I do not say that the question of God and Afterlife is UNKNOWN, I say there is no evidence for them and therefore I do not believe in their existence (again, note that I am not saying that I believe that they don't exist.)

regards,
BillyJoe

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by UserGoogol
I am hooked up to a pulley.
The pulley controls me.

Therefore, I OBEY THE PULLEY!
Therefore, the Pulley is more concious than I am.

No wait, that doesn't make any sense.

I think you would have to be a little bit more sophisticated than that to change Frank's mind:)

What hooked you up to the pulley?

What makes the pulley work?

Even if it's all electronic - what put the pulley together, what wrote the programme? What pushed the button?

In the end you were controlled by another consciousness in your example, yes?

Sorry you were unsuccessful this time but please try again;)

A hint: Anything which is manmade is a poor example - because in the end the game, machine, computer are all designed by conscious human beings.

Sou

[hammegk]

Both hammejk and myself have given examples of where the "the truth" would not have been beneficial ...

It might have been jk*****i .. not hammegk at any rate. :(

[Titanpoint]

Originally posted by hammegk


It might have been jk*****i .. not hammegk at any rate. :(

FWIW I don't regard you as a Franko-lite. I think you're being a philosophical gad-fly. We notice your presence but tend to see your intervention as irritating rather than insightful, and tend to want to swat you rather than consider our logic more carefully.

TP

[Franko]

FWIW I don't regard you as a Franko-lite. I think you're being a philosophical gad-fly.

… considering 99% of your posts are nothing more then a buzzing noise … I find this quote immensely humorous.

Woo-woo!

We notice your presence but tend to see your intervention as irritating rather than insightful, and tend to want to swat you rather than consider our logic more carefully.

Shouldn’t you be dedicating another thread to me, right about now …?

[Franko]

Billyjoe,

Those who equate "free will" with "the illusion of free will" accept that, on closer inspection, "free will" is just physics and chemistry.

They disagree with those who take "free will" to be something "beyond" physics and chemistry; something non-physical; something bestowed by God.

The problem is, that it is a lot easier to say that there is no evidence for “God” while you are claiming there is evidence for “free will”.

The fact of the matter, is there is no evidence for “free will”, and Fate is the evidence for “God”.

Franko:
So I guess what you are saying then is that when a Christian or Hindu has an illusion of Gods, or an Afterlife that the illusion is just as real as your “free will”?

Billyjoe:
I think you are using the word "illusion" in a very different sense here. An optical illusion has no point of contact with what you call "the illusion of God". One is physically present on the screen, the other is nowhere to be seen.

TLOP controlling ME in an analogous manner to ME controlling my CAR is far less of an illusion then “free will”, but perhaps that’s just me and 90% of the population? Maybe we are all wrong, and the A-Theists are right?

Perhaps you guys are just looking at a different “screen”?

You'd better ask Tricky but my take is that his version of free will is that it is all physics and chemistry which produces an illusion of free will as real as that coloured square and the different shades of grey.

… Still sounds like you are saying it is okay for an A-Theist to believe in his illusion of “free will”, but not for a Theist to believe his “illusion” of “God”, “Karma”, and the “afterlife”? Are you claiming that the Religion of A-Theism should get a special pass on it’s illusions?

I was talking about the problems inherent in defining the term "free will" as "the illusion of free will". The term "free will" should apply only to the non-physical variety so as to not confuse it with the purely physical "illusion of free will"

Well I’d agree with you there.

I’d even go one step farther, and say it is impossible to define “free will” in logical consistent terms. It is like claiming you can draw a 4-sided triangle. You will note that the terms, “God”, “karma”, and “afterlife” are NOT similarly constrained.

Probably like the prison walls that control the movements of it's contained prisoner without being conscious.
But perhaps you mean something else.

Are you suggesting those “prison walls” magically appeared out of the void?

Didn’t a consciousness build/make/generate them?

Where are you getting this notion of Non-conscious Superior controlling forces? How can a force which controls you utterly possibly be less conscious then you are? How can it be less evolved? You’ll have to explain what you mean, because all evidence indicates the exact opposite of what you are asserting is TRUE.

Franko:
Think of it in terms of reality – everything is actually a Sea of Energy. The “Matter” is simply patterns, or concentrations of Energy in this sea. Your consciousness is Nothing more than a pattern within this energy. Now how is a pattern of Information stored in Energy, making you more Physical then a computer program minus the “computer”.

Billyjoe:
I'm not sure if I understand the point you are making here....

?Summary of your preamble: Energy -> Matter (patterns of energy) -> Conciousness (patterns of matter)
?Your question: How is consciousness more physical than a computer program?

Please clarify.

I am saying, that all “matter” – everything, which exist, can be reduced to its lowest common denominator – ENERGY.

This Energy is NOT physical in the sense that we normally imagine “Matter”. So if you imagine this reality, then how would consciousness manifest within it?

According to Einstein, we are all essentially disembodied consciousnesses – organized patterns within the energy. TLOP is simply a bigger, more organized pattern within the Energy. The A-Theist-Pseudo-Materialists want to assert that Matter made consciousness, that we are simply self-aware atoms, but the reality is we are more like a computer program. We are information arranged in patterns of Energy. The “matter” is a chimera. It doesn’t really exist in the manner, which A-Theist pretend that it does.

How does self-aware Energy capable of organizing itself lead one to the conclusion that Matter makes consciousness? All the evidence seems to indicate that Consciousness dreams up matter after becoming self-aware.

I don't recall Einstein having any mystical leanings. He was pretty down to earth as I recall. I do not recall him saying that consciousness can be "disembodied" (separated from the pysical body)

What “physical body”? Do you mean the body that is actually just patterns of Energy you are perceiving as a physical body? There is NO “matter”, my Friend. You are made out of Energy.

So some Energy decides to make you. How do you claim that this Energy which made you, is less conscious then your Energy?

Franko:
1) TLOP controls YOU
2) YOU control a CAR.

In #1 you want to claim YOU has the superior consciousness.
In #2 you want to claim YOU has the superior consciousness.

Explain the contradiction?

Billyjoe:
In #1, TLOP (simplicity) produces, through evolution, YOU (complexity)
In #2, YOU (complexity) control a CAR (simplicity)

#1 cannot be used as a template for #2

Say WHAT!?! That is some serious question begging Billyjoe! So TLOP is less conscious because you say so? TLOP controls your every move cradle to grave, in fact, TLOP controls YOU a hell of a lot more then YOU control your CAR.

So once again, why is it that you believe YOU are a superior conscious than your CAR, but TLOP which controls you analogous to the way YOU control a CAR is also less conscious then YOU?

You haven’t explained Your contradiction at all! You have simply restated it.

1) TLOP controls YOU (YOU Superior)
2) YOU control a CAR. (YOU Superior)

Just like EVERY A-Theist I talk to. They ALWAYS claim to be Superior! Can’t explain why they believe this, but they just are.

Are you imputing an input form God into the evolutionary process.........

What makes you believe that You Evolve, but God does not?

Franko:
Tell me Billyjoe – how EXACTLY do charcoal briquettes and warm water turn in to bacteria?

Billyjoe:
C + H2O -> -> -> complex organic molecules -> -> -> non-living complex aggregates of complex organic molecules -> -> -> transitional complex aggregates of complex organic molecules -. -> -> living complex aggregates of complex organic molecules -> -> -> bacteria.

But "how EXACTLY"?............

There are numerous clues to many possibilities but the final answer awaits us. Perhaps we will never know EXACTLY how it happened but science is our only hope of finding an answer.
Anything else is pure speculation.

A-Theism of the Gaps. Until and Unless you can demonstrate non-living matter being transformed into a living state, then you have no evidence that Matter makes consciousness. We have all kinds of examples of the reverse however.

Essentially you A-Theists are claiming that Machines make Minds.

Whereas, Me and my Theist Friends are claiming that Minds make Machines.

Fortunately, science does not claim inerancy.
There are built-in correction mechanisms (such as peer review, repeatability and falsification) which, though not perfect, work most of the time

You are kidding yourself. Things haven’t changed much from Galileo’s Time, except this time you A-Theists are the bad guys.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection referred to the evolution of species and did not include abiogensis. But this is not to say that abiogenesis did not occur by evolutionary means.

So don’t assume that TLOP is more conscious then you are, but Darwin suddenly implies Abiogenesis? Unless you have some evidence, I’d say that is a serious stretch. Darwin implies change over time, but Darwin has nothing to do with getting something alive out of nothing.

There are presently numerous clues as to how this could happen but, if the answer lies in the future it will be through science or not at all. If science cannot provide the answer, we will never know. At this point we can simply say we don't know and leave it at that. Or we can speculate - as long as we realize this is just for amusement and that we cannot expect to arrive at Truth in this way.

There are presently numerous clues as to how this could happen but, if the answer lies in the future it will be through Our Lord and savior Jesus Christ or not at all. If Jesus Christ cannot provide the answer, we will never know. At this point we can simply say we don't know and leave it at that. Or we can speculate - as long as we realize this is just for amusement and that we cannot expect to arrive at Truth in this way.

That’s what I hear a lot of times when you A-Theist speak …

[BillyJoe]

Franko,

Originally posted by Franko
The problem is, that it is a lot easier to say that there is no evidence for “God” while you are claiming there is evidenced for “free will”.

The fact of the matter, is there is no evidence for “free will”....Obviously I'm still not getting my view across :(

I am not claiming there is evidence for "free will".
I am agreeing with you that there is no evidence for "free will" (the non-physical variety) .
I am claiming, however, that the existence of "the illusion of free will" is evidenced by the finding that it's all just physics and chemistry inside the brain.
Even you, Franko, must have an "illusion of free will". You do feel as if you have "free will" don't you? Surely?

Originally posted by Franko
.....and Fate is the evidence for “God”. I need you to expand on this.
How is Fate evidence of "God"?

Originally posted by Franko
… Still sounds like you are saying it is okay for an A-Theist to believe in his illusion of “free will”, but not for a Theist to believe his “illusion” of “God”, “Karma”, and the “afterlife”? Are you claiming that the Religion of A-Theism should get a special pass on it’s illusions?In my last post I said that you must be using the word "illusion" in a different sense but it seems that you are insisting this is not the case. In that case........

"free will" - there is no evidence that "free will" exists
"illusion of free will" - what we refer to as "free will" is all just physics and chemistry producing an "illusion of free will"

"God" - there is no evidence that "God" exists.
"illusion of God" - what we refer to as "God" is all just physics and chemistry (eg Einstein's God) producing the "illusion of God"

I will not quarrel with that. :cool:

Originally posted by Franko
Are you suggesting those “prison walls” magically appeared out of the void?
Didn’t a consciousness build/make/generate them?
I asked in my reply to your question "or do you mean something else?" and obviously you did......

Those prison walls are certainly not conscious so my example answers your simple question. But I concede you your point that the walls are the product of consciousness so my example doesn't answer your complex question.

Please excuse my narrow interpretation of your question. :(

Originally posted by Franko
Where are you getting this notion of Non-conscious Superior controlling forces? How can a force which controls you utterly possibly be less conscious then you are? How can it be less evolved? You’ll have to explain what you mean, because all evidence indicates the exact opposite of what you are asserting is TRUE. What is this evidence?

Originally posted by Franko
How does self-aware Energy capable of organizing itself lead one to the conclusion that Matter makes consciousness? All the evidence seems to indicate that Consciousness dreams up matter after becoming self-aware.
Again, what is this evidence?

Originally posted by Franko
What “physical body”? Do you mean the body that is actually just patterns of Energy you are perceiving as a physical body? There is NO “matter”, my Friend. You are made out of Energy. But then even energy doesn't exist. The positive energy of mass is cancelled by the negative energy of gravity producing zero.
Or perhaps zero splits into mass and gravity so that, if anything at all can be said to exist, it must be mass and gravity (ie physical bodies).

Originally posted by Franko
So some Energy decides to make you. How do you claim that this Energy which made you, is less conscious then your Energy?I am having a real hard time trying to imagine the energy (the energy that made me) being even a little bit conscious let alone more conscious than me.

Originally posted by Franko
Say WHAT!?! That is some serious question begging Billyjoe! So TLOP is less conscious because you say so? TLOP controls your every move cradle to grave, in fact, TLOP controls YOU a hell of a lot more then YOU control your CAR. I am trying to imagine a conscious law, Franko, but I can't do it no matter how hard I try.

Originally posted by Franko
What makes you believe that You Evolve, but God does not?
First of all you need to produce evidence that God exists.
But, God evolving? Do you mean that the concept of God evolving through history? No argument here.

Originally posted by Franko
A-Theism of the Gaps. A-theism (or non-theism) does not fill any gaps.
A-theism (or non-theism) simply means not having a belief that God exists because there is no evidence that God exists.

Originally posted by Franko
Until and Unless you can demonstrate non-living matter being transformed into a living state, then you have no evidence that Matter makes consciousness. We have all kinds of examples of the reverse however. For example......


Originally posted by Franko
You are kidding yourself. Things haven’t changed much from Galileo’s Time, except this time you A-Theists are the bad guysAre you saying, then, that Newton, Bohr and Einstein haven't pushed things along? Even just a little bit?
Do I presume, then, that you don't drive a car, watch television or use the internet?
Aren't they all products of scientific progress since Galileo?

Originally posted by Franko
So don’t assume that TLOP is more conscious then you are, but Darwin suddenly implies Abiogenesis? Unless you have some evidence, I’d say that is a serious stretch. Darwin implies change over time, but Darwin has nothing to do with getting something alive out of nothing. Franko, all I was saying is that life could have evolved from non-life. Evolution and Darwinism are not synonymous. When I say life "evolved" I am not implying "Darwinian Evolution". I am well aware that Darwinian Evolution refers to evolution of species not evolution of life.

Originally posted by Franko
[Quoting BillyJoe but substituting "Jesus" for "science".....]
There are presently numerous clues as to how this could happen but, if the answer lies in the future it will be through Our Lord and savior Jesus Christ or not at all. If Jesus Christ cannot provide the answer, we will never know. At this point we can simply say we don't know and leave it at that. Or we can speculate - as long as we realize this is just for amusement and that we cannot expect to arrive at Truth in this way.The sentence doesn't work for me but, hey, if you think arriving at answers through science is equivalent to saying "God did it", we are miles apart with a solid brick wall in between.

BillyJoe

[CWL]

To elaborate on what BillyJoe is saying (IMHO of course):

Free will (if defined as "the ability to make conscious choices between availble options") is as real as consciousness itself. It is a result and a property of consciousness.

If consciousness can be described as an illusion, then, yes, free will is indeed an illusion as well.

If we accept consciousness as "real" in our everyday life and in our outlook as to the world then free will (as defined above) is also "real".

Saying "I think therefore I am" is just as valid as saying "I think therefore I am able to make conscious choices between available options".

The validity of this cannot be reduced simply by saying "but there are no options". I can have chicken or salad for lunch. I can choose to have the air condition on during the winter or to spend my afterlife (if any) in the abyss (or whatever). That some options may be less pleasant than others does not mean that they do not qualify as options.

"Consciousness" and "free will" must be accepted as true for all practical and/or pragmatic reasons. What point is there in striving to obtain knowledge if we do not accept consciousness as real? What purpose do laws or ethics serve if there is no free will?

[Franko]

BillyJoe:

I am not claiming there is evidence for "free will".
I am agreeing with you that there is no evidence for "free will" (the non-physical variety) .
I am claiming, however, that the existence of "the illusion of free will" is evidenced by the finding that it's all just physics and chemistry inside the brain.

Why is it acceptable, in your view, for A-Theists to have an “illusion of “free will””, but unacceptable for other Theists to have their own Religious illusions – like God, Karma, or afterlife?

Even you, Franko, must have an "illusion of free will". You do feel as if you have "free will" don't you? Surely?

Not at all. I am a Fatalist. All that happens to me is the direct result of the Laws of Physics. I would only be kidding myself if I believed otherwise.

[Fate is evidence for God …] I need you to expand on this.
How is Fate evidence of "God"?

There is a reason that the ancients were Fatalists … The Sumerians, The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Israelites … I a way … they understood the Laws of Physics far better than any A-theist.

TLOP controls YOU
YOU control a CAR.

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR.

You want to claim that you are a superior consciousness to BOTH your CAR, and TLOP. This is a serious logical contradiction on your part. No A-Theists seems willing, or able, to explain this contradiction.

"free will" - there is no evidence that "free will" exists
"illusion of free will" - what we refer to as "free will" is all just physics and chemistry producing an "illusion of free will"

Right … it’s an illusion – NOT real. Just like you believe of the Christian God, and the concept of “afterlife”. So if they are ALL illusions, then why is “free willy” okay for you’re a-Theist friends, while God and afterlife are unacceptable?

"God" - there is no evidence that "God" exists.

I lack-o-belief in your claim. Explain why TLOP is less conscious then you, and try to do more then just claim it is so.

"illusion of God" - what we refer to as "God" is all just physics and chemistry (eg Einstein's God) producing the "illusion of God"

I will not quarrel with that.

So a Theists is JUST as justified in believing in “God” as an A-Theist who believes in “free will”?

I hope that is what you are saying, but if I am understanding you correctly, that doesn’t exactly make A-Theism, NOT a Religion.

Franko:
Where are you getting this notion of Non-conscious Superior controlling forces? How can a force which controls you utterly possibly be less conscious then you are? How can it be less evolved? You’ll have to explain what you mean, because all evidence indicates the exact opposite of what you are asserting is TRUE.

BillyJoe:
What is this evidence?

The evidence is ALL around you. When have you EVER seen a single example of a lesser consciousness controlling a superior one as a trend?

Do you remember us talking about Evolution? This is exactly what I meant. Why are humans at the Top of the food chain? Do chickens control the chicken farmer, or does the chicken farmer control the chickens? Do you tend to control your young children more then they control you? Who tells who what to eat more often? Who tells who what they can watch on TV, or when to go to bed?

Can you provide ONE single example of a lesser consciousness controlling a superior one?

Franko:
How does self-aware Energy capable of organizing itself lead one to the conclusion that Matter makes consciousness? All the evidence seems to indicate that Consciousness dreams up matter after becoming self-aware.

Billyjoe:
Again, what is this evidence?

Is this really that difficult for you to grasp, My Friend? Take a look around you … what do you see? It isn’t what it appears. Everything you see is just Energy.

It is consciousness which perceives the Energy as more than it is. Consciousness makes the Energy more than it is. It Elaborates, it creates, it uses its imagination. Energy (“matter”) couldn’t do this on its own. It doesn’t have the ability to evolve. Your mind perceives patterns in Energy, and it interprets them into a story which makes sense to you, yourself.

But those patterns did not appear magically or randomly (same difference) they were all created by consciousness. Without consciousness there are no patterns.

[You are made of Energy …] But then even energy doesn't exist. The positive energy of mass is cancelled by the negative energy of gravity producing zero.

The energy doesn’t exist in the same way your D&D character isn’t really YOU. Your physical body, like your D&D character is simply an elaboration of the real you. Your Graviton, your particle.

Or perhaps zero splits into mass and gravity so that, if anything at all can be said to exist, it must be mass and gravity (ie physical bodies).

Mass and Gravity do exist in reality, but not in the manner believed by A-Theist-Pseudo-Materialist. The A-Theists don’t know the first thing about the Laws of Physics, and they have no idea what real “matter” is. They’ve never ever perceived it, at least not that they can remember.

I am having a real hard time trying to imagine the energy (the energy that made me) being even a little bit conscious let alone more conscious than me.

You are made of Energy, and yet you are conscious. Other people are made of Energy and they are conscious. What makes you believe that the original Energy which made you TLOP, is less conscious then you?

That is kind of like two computer programs getting together inside the computer memory, and one of the programs (You) starts telling the other that there is NO EVIDENCE for the PROGAMMER, and that in all likelihood the computer and us programs just spontaneously and randomly appeared out of the void. No Programmer was required to write our code.

If you believe that programs magically appear/write themselves is a better explanation then the mundane truth (computer programmers write computer programs), then I can understand why you believe A-Theism is more reasonable then Deism or Theism.

I am trying to imagine a conscious law, Franko, but I can't do it no matter how hard I try.

What’s so hard to imagine?

You obey The Laws of Physics.
Your Car obeys the Laws of YOU.

A-theism (or non-theism) does not fill any gaps.
A-theism (or non-theism) simply means not having a belief that God exists because there is no evidence that God exists.

TLOP controls YOU
YOU control a CAR.

If there is no evidence for God, then explain why you believe that you are more conscious then your CAR, but TLOP is NOT more conscious then YOU.

You are simply claiming to be superior to everything, but that creates a contradiction. Explain the contradiction. Otherwise, it simply looks like your lack of evidence is explained by arrogance. There is NO GOD, because nothing could possibly be superior to YOU.

all I was saying is that life could have evolved from non-life. Evolution and Darwinism are not synonymous. When I say life "evolved" I am not implying "Darwinian Evolution". I am well aware that Darwinian Evolution refers to evolution of species not evolution of life.

There’s you’re A-Theism of the gaps I was talking about. Darwin says NOTHING about Abiogenesis, yet you A-Theists ALWAYS bring up Darwin as an argument for Abiogenesis.

The sentence doesn't work for me but, hey, if you think arriving at answers through science is equivalent to saying "God did it", we are miles apart with a solid brick wall in between.

You are the one making “science” equivalent to “God”. I am simply pointing out that this is what you are doing …

[CWL]

One could proceed to ask questions such as...

Franko, can you not see the difference between yourself and a car?

...but I am beginning to feel that it is rather pointless.

Franko, don't you ever get tired of thinking the same old things, of constantly repeating the same old dogma to yourself?

[Franko]

What's your point CWL?

Can you explain the contradiction or NOT?

If NOT, then please run along and let the grown-ups talk in peace.

[BillyJoe]

CML,

Originally posted by CWL
Free will (if defined as "the ability to make conscious choices between availble options") is as real as consciousness itself. It is a result and a property of consciousness.The presumption of "free will" (properly defined) is that there is something beyond physics and chemistry.

Free will is not real.
Free will only seems to be real.
Free will is an illusion.
The illusion of free will, however, is real.

The presumption of the "illusion of free will" is that there is nothing beyond physics and chemistry.

Originally posted by CWL
Saying "I think therefore I am" is just as valid as saying "I think therefore I am able to make conscious choices between available options". Descartes statement "I think therefore I am" is not valid.

Descartes was the perfect materialist until he started thinking about thinking. He thought that because he could imagine thinking without a physical body that this was actually possible. But imagining something does not mean that thing is possible.

This was the genesis of Descartes statement "I think therefore I am" and it is not valid.

Originally posted by CWL
"Consciousness" and "free will" must be accepted as true for all practical and/or pragmatic reasons. What point is there in striving to obtain knowledge if we do not accept consciousness as real? What purpose do laws or ethics serve if there is no free will? What you are saying is that we act as if "free will" is real. We certainly do. And why not? The "illusion of free will" is so real that we really do seem to have "free will". It's not a problem provided we remember that deep down it's all just physics and chemistry.

regards,
BillyJoe

[ImpyTimpy]

If I remember correctly, Descartes statement came about when he began to question his own existence - that is how do *I* know that *I* am really here and this isn't an illusion.

The answer was "I think therefore I am".


Originally posted by BillyJoe

CML,

[snip]
Descartes statement "I think therefore I am" is not valid.

Descartes was the perfect materialist until he started thinking about thinking. He thought that because he could imagine thinking without a physical body that this was actually possible. But imagining something does not mean that thing is possible.

This was the genesis of Descartes statement "I think therefore I am" and it is not valid.

[snip]

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
If I remember correctly, Descartes statement came about when he began to question his own existence - that is how do *I* know that *I* am really here and this isn't an illusion.

The answer was "I think therefore I am".
My understanding is that Descartes was trying to develop a rational basis for philosophy, and had the problem of determining where to start. "I think therefore I am" was his widely quoted solution.

Personally, I accept the concept as true simply because to believe otherwise leads nowhere (solipsism or nihilism). I'm a pragmatist, if a philosophical road leads nowhere then it is only of passing interest. Which is what I find these threads to be. :)

(besides, I have time to kill in between resets of equipment)

I had a friend in college who rejected the entirety of philosophy on the basis of it's uselessness. At the time I tried to argue her out of it, but let's just say I'm glad she didn't have this thread to use as ammunition for her side. :D

[CWL]

Originally posted by BillyJoe

What you are saying is that we act as if "free will" is real. We certainly do. And why not? The "illusion of free will" is so real that we really do seem to have "free will". It's not a problem provided we remember that deep down it's all just physics and chemistry.

regards,
BillyJoe

BillyJoe,

We are in complete agreement. However what I am saying is not only that we act as if "free will" is real, but that for all practical reasons we must do so. If we want a functional society and if we want concepts such as ethics and laws to have any meaning, that is.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
What's your point CWL?

Can you explain the contradiction or NOT?

If NOT, then please run along and let the grown-ups talk in peace.

If you read what BillyJoe is saying you will realize that there is no contradiction.

As to your "grown-up" comment (which of course does not merit any response - but I guess I am not grown up enough to resist) It seems to me that certain people are neither grown-up nor are they "talking".

I am sorry Franko, but it has become painfully obvious to me that you are stuck within your own dogmatic frame. You are not interested in debating. Instead you hold sermons and lecture without listening to others. It is a sad thing to see intellectual capacity wasted in such a way.

Once again, to claim that one holds "the Truth" without being able to explain it does not increase one's credibility.

[BillyJoe]

Franko,

Originally posted by Franko
Why is it acceptable, in your view, for A-Theists to have an “illusion of “free will””, but unacceptable for other Theists to have their own Religious illusions – like God, Karma, or afterlife?
I am happy for theists to have an "illusion of God" because the "illusion of God" is real. The problem is that the "illlusion of God", which is real, makes it seem as if "God" is real. "God", however, is not real.

To make this clearer, let us consider for a moment the perfect example of an illusion: the optical illusion.....

Have a look again at the square in the "Color-bleeding Illusion" and the shades of grey in the "Checker-board Illusion. You really do seem to see them don't you? Everyone does. In fact, at first blush, you are willing to swear that they are there. But they are not. And you can prove to yourself. There is no square or different shades of grey out there. Using Paintshop you can flood the square as if is not there - because it isn't - and you can cut out and overlap the shades of grey to show that they are not radically different - they are identical. So they are not out there even though they seem to be. But there are representations of them in our brains. Which is why we all seem to see them out there.

Optical illusions, therefore, are real because we all have representations of them in our brains which is why we all seem to see them out there when they are actually not out there.

Like the optical illusion, the "illusion of free will" and the "illusion of God" are also real but, like the square and the different shades of grey, "Free will" and "God" are not there.

Originally posted by Franko
Not at all . I am a Fatalist. All that happens to me is the direct result of the Laws of Physics. I would only be kidding myself if I believed otherwise.
Franko, the "illusion of free will" is merely seeming to have "free will". The "illusion of free will" doesn't disappear because you have investigated the matter and discovered that there is no "free will".

Everyone has an "illusion of free will". We live every moment of our whole lives as if we have "free will". Even when we realize that there is no such thing as "free will" we still have the "illusion of free will". You really aren't wanting to deny this are you?

Originally posted by Franko
[Franko expanding on Fate as evidence for God]

TLOP controls YOU
YOU control a CAR.

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR.

You want to claim that you are a superior consciousness to BOTH your CAR, and TLOP. This is a serious logical contradiction on your part. We are back to your simple and complex question about whether a car is conscious.

The simple answer is that a car is not conscious. It obviously isn't.
The complex answer is that a car is conscious because it is the artifact of a conscious being.

So we actually have an evolutionary process...

TLOP -> -> -> non-conscious entities -> -> -> transitionally conscious entities -> -> -> conscious entities -> -> - > artifacts

On the left is simplicity and, on the right is increasing evolved complexity - with artifacts containing within them the complexity of the entities that produced them.

It's more a question of evolution than control.

Originally posted by Franko
Right … ...[free will is] an illusion – NOT real. Just like you believe of the Christian God, and the concept of “afterlife”. So if they are ALL illusions, then why is “free willy” okay for you’re a-Theist friends, while God and afterlife are unacceptable?Well "free will" shouldn't be okay for a materialist.

The only way it is okay for a materialist to believe in "free will" is if he redefines the term so as to make it okay. But, in my opinion this just confuses the issue. "Free will" implies something beyond physics and chemistry and I do not see the point in removing that extra something out of "free will" so as to make it okay for a materialist to believe in it.

Originally posted by Franko
Explain why TLOP is less conscious then you, and try to do more then just claim it is so.It's the evolutionary process producing entities of increasing complexity. At some period in time that complexity produces consciousness. TLOP are not conscious at all and human artifacts represent a higher consciousness than humans because they imply the existence of humans capable of producing them.

Originally posted by Franko
So a Theist is JUST as justified in believing in “God” as an A-Theist who believes in “free will”?They are both equally unjustified in their belief because neither "free will" nor "God" exist.

Originally posted by Franko
The evidence is ALL around you. When have you EVER seen a single example of a lesser consciousness controlling a superior one as a trend? Well, if you accept that a human artifact represents a higher consciousness than the individual humans who produced it, then an astronaut controlling a rocket would be an example of a lesser consciousness controlling a higher consciousness.

Originally posted by Franko
Is this [I]really that difficult for you to grasp [that consciousness creates matter], My Friend? Take a look around you … what do you see? It isn’t what it appears. Everything you see is just Energy.........and energy is a zero sum.....

Originally posted by Franko
.....It is consciousness which perceives the Energy as more than it is. Consciousness makes the Energy more than it is. It Elaborates, it creates, it uses its imagination. Energy (“matter”) couldn’t do this on its own. It doesn’t have the ability to evolve. Your mind perceives patterns in Energy, and it interprets them into a story which makes sense to you, yourself.........or perhaps a quantum fluctuation split zero energy into the positive energy of matter and the negative energy of gravity......

Originally posted by Franko
....But those patterns did not appear magically or randomly (same difference) they were all created by consciousness. Without consciousness there are no patterns. .....or the matter/gravity, constrained by TLOP, created patterns which acted as the sieve of natural selection driving the evolution of entities which, of course, recogize these patterns.

Originally posted by Franko
That [TLOP being less conscious then you] is kind of like two computer programs getting together inside the computer memory, and one of the programs (You) starts telling the other that there is NO EVIDENCE for the PROGAMMER, and that in all likelihood the computer and us programs just spontaneously and randomly appeared out of the void. No Programmer was required to write our code......it's turtles all the way up.....

That original programmer is a program in the computer of another programmer who is a program in the computer of yet another programmer who .... etc etc etc

.....and turtles all the way down.....

The original program produces a program which runs in a computer and that program produces another program which runs in another computer and that program produces yet another program which he runs in yet another computer and that program....etc etc etc.

Perhaps the last turtle/program produces the first turtle/program creating a self-sustaining loop?

....or perhaps it was a quantum fluctuation.....

The point is that no one really knows. The only way we can know anything is through science and that is where I prefer to firmly plant my feet. I enjoy speculating and imagining like everyone else but I don't imagine that pure imagining will reveal The Truth

Originally posted by Franko
If there is no evidence for God, then explain why you believe that you are more conscious then your CAR, but TLOP is NOT more conscious then YOU. I have offered an explanation above which you may or may not find acceptable. Be that as it may, you cannot use the inability to explain something as evidence for God. That is "God of the Gaps".

Originally posted by Franko
There’s you’re A-Theism of the gaps I was talking about. Darwin says NOTHING about Abiogenesis, yet you A-Theists ALWAYS bring up Darwin as an argument for Abiogenesis.Yes......

Darwinian evolution is about the origin of species.
Darwinian evolution is not about abiogenesis.

But no.....

I am not bringing up Darwin as an argument for abiogenesis.
I am saying that life could have evolved.

I am using the word "evolve" generically.

Originally posted by Franko
You are the one making “science” equivalent to “God”. I am simply pointing out that this is what you are doing I am not making this equivalence. On the contrary, what I am saying is....

Science is objective.
God is subjective.
God sits in the gaps.
Science fills in the gaps.

There is no equivalence between the two.

[BillyJoe]

Impy Timpy,

Have you not heard the term "cartesian dualism"?
Descartes believed in "mind" and "brain" not "mind is brain".

BillyJoe.

[BillyJoe]

Aoidoi,

:D Piss off :D

BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by CWL
We are in complete agreement. However what I am saying is not only that we act as if "free will" is real, but that for all practical reasons we must do so. If we want a functional society and if we want concepts such as ethics and laws to have any meaning, that is. My God, I think we are.

BillyJoe.

[Checkmite]

I asked Franko a while ago what proved (for him) that God exists. He told me that it was logic, something like "2+2=4". I asked him to elaborate, but he ignored me. Yet, this allegory is flawed.

By saying "it's as simple as 2 + 2 = 4", I assume Franko means that "Something" + "Something" = "Proof there is a God". But this simply does not work, because the expression "2 + 2", while it does indeed equal 4, most certainly does not prove the existence of 4, nor should it be the criteria which leads someone to "believe" in 4. 4 already exists, the expression "2 + 2 = 4" just indicates how it relates to other numbers. Thus, by saying that "believing in God" is as simple as "2 + 2 = 4", one is plainly stating that the existence of God is already assumed, and that terms "x" and "y" are merely compatible with that presumption.

Second, even supposing that the "2 + 2 = 4" allegory is valid, Franko cannot reasonably be upset with us for not understanding when he doesn't define "2". Does 2 = Fate, for example? "Fate + Fate = Proof there is a God"? Or does 2 = Consciousness? Can something added to itself equal evidence of God?

Perhaps it would be better if we had more than two integers to work with - "1 + 3 = 4" for example. That way it may follow a little easier, and we come up with "Fate + Consciousness = Proof there is a God".

But even in this case, we're dealing with uncertain terms. The exact natures of the integers "Fate" and "Consciousness" are unknown, and the actual existence of the integer "Proof there is a God" is questionable.

But using a "mathematical" allegory won't work, for reasons mentioned at the beginning of this post - no matter whether you use addition, subtraction, long division, or vector calculus. One set of numbers simply does not prove the existence of another set, even if the two are equal.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jkorosi
But using a "mathematical" allegory won't work, for reasons mentioned at the beginning of this post - no matter whether you use addition, subtraction, long division, or vector calculus. One set of numbers simply does not prove the existence of another set, even if the two are equal.
While I agree that a simple mathematical formula would be insufficient to prove a vastly complex concept like God, I don't know that I agree that it would be completely impossible. Physics does this all the time. Granted, the premisises (sp?) used in theoretical physics are varified empircally.
However, for the sake of argument, should we have a set of reasonable assumptions, it might be possible to derive a logical (or mathematical) proof of god based soley on those reasonable assumptions. It might also not be possible. I guess it really depends on how tight or loose you want your assumptions to be.

Not that I agree or disagree with Franko's position that god can be logically determined (hell, I've never even heard what his logical proof is), but I don't think it is theoretically impossible to come up with a good proof. I just haven't heard one that wasn't based on really loose assumptions.

Upchurch

[Checkmite]

Well Upchurch....I see what you're trying to say, but I still disagree.

Mathematical theorems are proven through (however complex) equations...but this is something different. A theorem is a way of explaining how this set of quantative observations or predictions can be related to or reconciled with that set. It's a "method", in other words...and when proving them, no new terms are discovered...we use the same integers, exponents, sin/cos (etc), and values that have always been there...we simply arrange them in different configurations until we find one that works...it may take us a while to figure out the right process; but once it's figured out, we say "of course, that's the only way it could have worked".

But the mathematical term "God" (reverting to the allegory) has not been shown to exist yet. It's not a function, to be sure - it would be an integer, the way it is used. But since the very existence of this integer is the matter in question, we cannot actually use it in an expression unless we assume it exists.

Like I said, 2 + 2 = 4, just as surely as -3(-6) / 9 + 2 = 4...but we've never needed any equation to "deduce" the very existence of the number 4.

However, you are right...while he has gone on and on about how "it's easy as 1-2-3", Franko has never once shown the actual logical steps which lead him to believe in God - he's never "defined the terms", so to speak. I must correct my earlier post....I asked him twice to do this. The first time, he did ignore me, but the second time, he said "It looks as if you may not be compatible with the information", whatever the hell that means. :rolleyes:

[CWL]

I have also asked Franko to explain his chain of reasoning on several occasions. This has always resulted in special pleading and statements that I "could not be expected to understand as an A-Theist" etc.

To such nonsense I think it is more than appropriate to respond with the old Swedish saying "Foggy speech, foggy thoughts".

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jkorosi
Like I said, 2 + 2 = 4, just as surely as -3(-6) / 9 + 2 = 4...but we've never needed any equation to "deduce" the very existence of the number 4.
Sorry, jkorosi, but I'm afraid I must still disagree with you in principle here. Previously unknown phenomena have indeed been deduced through mathematics. For examples, the constancy of the speed of light or the existance of black holes. Both were deduced mathematically before their existance was verified (edited to add: or even imagined).

I will point out that things that there are also things that have been proven mathematically that have been later patently proven to be false. Along the same lines of my examples above, I would point to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" (which incidently was never taken as a serious physical phenomena but recognized as a flaw in the then current theory).

I would also like to point out that none of these phenomena were assumed to be true first and then the proof made to back it up. In these cases, the math suggested the phenomena first and then it was identified.

The only way to know which of these catagories Franko's 1-2-3 proof belongs to is to examine the proof itself.
Upchurch

[Franko]

Billyjoe,

I am happy for theists to have an "illusion of God" because the "illusion of God" is real. The problem is that the "illlusion of God", which is real, makes it seem as if "God" is real. "God", however, is not real.

I am happy for A-Theists to have an "illusion of free will" because the "illusion of free will" is real. The problem is that the "illlusion of free will", which is real, makes it seem as if "free will" is real. "free will", however, is not real.

BTW … God is real …

To make this clearer, let us consider for a moment the perfect example of an illusion: the optical illusion.....

Have a look again at the square in the "Color-bleeding Illusion" and the shades of grey in the "Checker-board Illusion. You really do seem to see them don't you? Everyone does. In fact, at first blush, you are willing to swear that they are there. But they are not. And you can prove to yourself. There is no square or different shades of grey out there. Using Paintshop you can flood the square as if is not there - because it isn't - and you can cut out and overlap the shades of grey to show that they are not radically different - they are identical. So they are not out there even though they seem to be. But there are representations of them in our brains. Which is why we all seem to see them out there.

Optical illusions, therefore, are real because we all have representations of them in our brains which is why we all seem to see them out there when they are actually not out there.

Like the optical illusion, the "illusion of free will" and the "illusion of God" are also real but, like the square and the different shades of grey, "Free will" and "God" are not there.

Well, I’d say you are half right.

Franko, the "illusion of free will" is merely seeming to have "free will". The "illusion of free will" doesn't disappear because you have investigated the matter and discovered that there is no "free will".

Speak for yourself. You have no idea how I perceive reality.

… unless you are claiming to read minds?

Everyone has an "illusion of free will".

Again -- Speak for yourself. I don’t have it, neither do any of the other LD. Ask the Wraith if he experiences the “illusion of free will”.

Your claim is as absurd as me claiming that ALL A-Theists experience the “illusion of God”, or the “illusion of afterlife”, or all A-Theists experience the “illusion of invisible pink dragons living in their garage”.

We live every moment of our whole lives as if we have "free will".

Speak for YOURSELF!

Even when we realize that there is no such thing as "free will" we still have the "illusion of free will". You really aren't wanting to deny this are you?

Even when we realize that there is no such thing as "God" we still have the "illusion of God". You really aren't wanting to deny this are you?

Even when we realize that there is no such thing as "afterlife" we still have the "illusion of afterlife". You really aren't wanting to deny this are you?

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

We are back to your simple and complex question about whether a car is conscious.

The simple answer is that a car is not conscious. It obviously isn't.

Well …technically you can’t say that it is NOT conscious. Technically you can only claim that YOU are more conscious. If you want to precisely define consciousness, then perhaps, you could claim the CAR is NOT conscious. Do you have a definition of consciousness?

The complex answer is that a car is conscious because it is the artifact of a conscious being.

Just like YOU are a conscious artifact of TLOP?

So we actually have an evolutionary process...

TLOP -> -> -> non-conscious entities -> -> -> transitionally conscious entities -> -> -> conscious entities -> -> - > artifacts

Is this what you call a proof Billyjoe? This looks more like a logical contradiction to me. You are simply CLAIMING that TLOP is non-conscious. You might as well be claiming that your CAR is more conscious then you are. Why the contradiction? You have done nothing to explain it, you have simply asserted that there is NO contradiction.

But your assertion is no proof; it’s just an assertion.

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

On the left is simplicity and, on the right is increasing evolved complexity - with artifacts containing within them the complexity of the entities that produced them.

So if complexity increase to the right, then you are claiming that your CAR is more conscious then YOU are!!! So is your CAR GOD Billyjoe?

It's more a question of evolution than control.

So you CAR is more evolved than YOU? Without humans, how many CARS would exist?

Well "free will" shouldn't be okay for a materialist.

The only way it is okay for a materialist to believe in "free will" is if he redefines the term so as to make it okay. But, in my opinion this just confuses the issue. "Free will" implies something beyond physics and chemistry and I do not see the point in removing that extra something out of "free will" so as to make it okay for a materialist to believe in it.

Well your “illusions of free will” comments aside, I think we see eye to eye in that this conversation was FATED to happen at this moment, and what you said, and how I would respond was also FATED. The question is will this conversation have any ultimate effect on Your Fate overall?

Franko:
Explain why TLOP is less conscious then you, and try to do more then just claim it is so.

Billyjoe:
It's the evolutionary process producing entities of increasing complexity.

So TLOP produces US … we produce TOASTERS; ergo Toasters are more evolved then we are?

At some period in time that complexity produces consciousness. TLOP are not conscious at all and human artifacts represent a higher consciousness than humans because they imply the existence of humans capable of producing them.

You are thinking of things in terms of “Matter” instead of terms of Energy. Once you envision the Universe as it is (in terms of Energy) then you will see, that there is NO WAY TLOP can be less evolved than you are.

You can make a Toaster, can a Toaster make you?

TLOP can make you, can you make TLOP?

You can’t even comprehend TLOP!

Franko:
So a Theist is JUST as justified in believing in “God” as an A-Theist who believes in “free will”?

Billjoe:
They are both equally unjustified in their belief because neither "free will" nor "God" exist.

I agree.

But, perhaps you should have a chat with CWL and straighten him out. He has deluded himself into believing you agree with him on this point …

Franko:
The evidence is ALL around you. When have you EVER seen a single example of a lesser consciousness controlling a superior one as a trend?

Billyjoe:
Well, if you accept that a human artifact represents a higher consciousness than the individual humans who produced it, then an astronaut controlling a rocket would be an example of a lesser consciousness controlling a higher consciousness.

So you are actually claiming that the Rocket is somehow more conscious then the Astronaut? (at least that is consistent)

Why isn’t the Rocket a “God” then? It is a superior consciousness?

It almost sounds like you are claiming that “God” will one day be a super-intelligent computer algorithm … kind of like TLOP!!!

Franko:
Is this really that difficult for you to grasp [that consciousness creates matter], My Friend? Take a look around you … what do you see? It isn’t what it appears. Everything you see is just Energy.....

Billyjoe:
....and energy is a zero sum.....

Is that what you believe???

Ohhh, I’d love to see you try and prove that assertion Billyjoe. What you say may be True from the POV of a Pseudo-Materialist, but only as a theory. No one has ever been able to prove this claim, nor will they.

Franko:
.....It is consciousness which perceives the Energy as more than it is. Consciousness makes the Energy more than it is. It Elaborates, it creates, it uses its imagination. Energy (“matter”) couldn’t do this on its own. It doesn’t have the ability to evolve. Your mind perceives patterns in Energy, and it interprets them into a story which makes sense to you, yourself.....

Billyjoe:
....or perhaps a quantum fluctuation split zero energy into the positive energy of matter and the negative energy of gravity......

There is only one type of particle in reality … Gravitons. There are two varieties – Posi-Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons. One types produces/creates/generates Energy/”Matter”(Information), the other type destroys/annihilates Energy/”Matter”(Information).

The thing is, that the Anti-Gravitons have this tendency to annihilate themselves. So over time, the Posi-Gravitons are increasing in number relative to the whole.

Franko:
....But those patterns did not appear magically or randomly (same difference) they were all created by consciousness. Without consciousness there are no patterns.
added: in other words, all of the patterns are being created by one Graviton, or another.

Billyjoe:
.....or the matter/gravity, constrained by TLOP, created patterns which acted as the sieve of natural selection driving the evolution of entities which, of course, recognize these patterns.

What you are claiming is that Machines make Minds. All of the evidence indicates that the opposite is TRUE.

Franko:
That [TLOP being less conscious then you] is kind of like two computer programs getting together inside the computer memory, and one of the programs (You) starts telling the other that there is NO EVIDENCE for the PROGAMMER, and that in all likelihood the computer and us programs just spontaneously and randomly appeared out of the void. No Programmer was required to write our code.

BillyJoe:
.....it's turtles all the way up.....

That original programmer is a program in the computer of another programmer who is a program in the computer of yet another programmer who .... etc etc etc

Exactly! Which is what Godel explained.

Essentially you are trying to argue that 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

Are you familiar with Mandelbrot? What you are claiming is analogous to looking at some of the fine detail after generations and generations of recursion on the Mandelbrot set, and claiming that this fine detail is more complex then the original algorithm and program that is generating the fine detail you are observing.

.....and turtles all the way down.....

The original program produces a program which runs in a computer and that program produces another program which runs in another computer and that program produces yet another program which he runs in yet another computer and that program....etc etc etc.

Perhaps the last turtle/program produces the first turtle/program creating a self-sustaining loop?

So now you are the Elephant claiming that Zero and Infinity are the same thing? Let me give you a warning, my Friend. The Elephant made the mistake of looking at Time before he should have. It fried out his little brain.

....or perhaps it was a quantum fluctuation.....

Sure! Why not just claim it was “Magic”?

If your prefer a magical answer to Godel’s solid Math, then knock yourself out, my Friend. Personally I think you are fooling yourself, and you aren’t exactly convincing me that these aren’t religious beliefs on your part.

The point is that no one really knows.

Sure you do – THERE IS NO GOD!

The only way we can know anything is through science and that is where I prefer to firmly plant my feet.

If your definition of “Science” involves calling something FALSE when you have NO EVIDENCE it is FALSE, then I have a different definition of “Science” then you do.

I enjoy speculating and imagining like everyone else but I don't imagine that pure imagining will reveal The Truth.

2 + 2 = 4

So you are claiming that thought experiments are an invalid method of investigation?

If it weren’t for thought experiments, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein would have never been heard of.

Franko:
If there is no evidence for God, then explain why you believe that you are more conscious then your CAR, but TLOP is NOT more conscious then YOU.

Billyjoe:
I have offered an explanation above which you may or may not find acceptable. Be that as it may, you cannot use the inability to explain something as evidence for God. That is "God of the Gaps".

Actually your inability to explain an obvious logically contradiction is what I call A-Theism of the Gaps. It is only God of the Gaps when a Theists dodges logical inconsistencies in Their beliefs. But when you A-Theists use this fallacious argument it is YOUR problem.

Franko:
There’s you’re A-Theism of the gaps I was talking about. Darwin says NOTHING about Abiogenesis, yet you A-Theists ALWAYS bring up Darwin as an argument for Abiogenesis.

Billyjoe:
Yes......

Darwinian evolution is about the origin of species.
Darwinian evolution is not about abiogenesis.

But no.....

I am not bringing up Darwin as an argument for abiogenesis.
I am saying that life could have evolved.

I am using the word "evolve" generically.

Here is a hypothetical conversation between us. Please make any corrections on your side …

Franko: Does Darwin provide any evidence for the origin of Life? In other words, is Darwin a Proof of Abiogenesis?
Billyjoe: No, Darwin only proves evolution (change over time) once life got started. Darwin – in and of himself – says nothing about life’s origin.
Franko: So Darwin provides no proof that Matter makes consciousness?
Billyjoe: No, Darwin does not prove Matter makes consciousness
Franko: So what empirical evidence do you have that Matter makes consciousness is True? It is merely an assumption on your part, is it not? Why even bother to mention Darwin?
Billyjoe: ???

[I claimed that Billyjoe was saying “Science” equals “God” …]
I am not making this equivalence. On the contrary, what I am saying is....

Science is objective.
God is subjective.
God sits in the gaps.
Science fills in the gaps.

There is no equivalence between the two.

Well this is a lot of question begging and unfounded assumptions on your part. I could just as easily claim:

A-Theistic Science is subjective. (No evidence = FALSE???[are you crazy?])
God is objective.
A-theistic Science tries to hide the gaps.
God fills in the gaps.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Aoidoi,

:D Piss off :D

BillyJoe Now that is the best idea I've seen in this thread! :D

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Sorry, jkorosi, but I'm afraid I must still disagree with you in principle here. Previously unknown phenomena have indeed been deduced through mathematics. For examples, the constancy of the speed of light or the existance of black holes. Both were deduced mathematically before their existance was verified (edited to add: or even imagined).

I will point out that things that there are also things that have been proven mathematically that have been later patently proven to be false. Along the same lines of my examples above, I would point to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" (which incidently was never taken as a serious physical phenomena but recognized as a flaw in the then current theory).

I would also like to point out that none of these phenomena were assumed to be true first and then the proof made to back it up. In these cases, the math suggested the phenomena first and then it was identified.

All right, all right...you win. I'm wrong - at least in this particular instance. Salut!:cool:

Originally posted by Upchurch
The only way to know which of these catagories Franko's 1-2-3 proof belongs to is to examine the proof itself.
Upchurch

I agree. Now...do you think we'll ever be provided with that proof? ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jkorosi


All right, all right...you win. I'm wrong - at least in this particular instance. Salut!:cool:
Gratse (sp?). I'm sorry if I seemed to be brow beating you. That wasn't my intent. I've always thought that it is the sign of a great mind to be able to recognize when one is wrong, because that is the only way one can grow. (a lesson far too often ignored)

I agree. Now...do you think we'll ever be provided with that proof? ;) I cannot say. Of course, such a proof would require clear statement of it's assumptions/premises and a step by step chain of logic. It would have to be understood that the argument is only to be taken within context of the assumptions/premises, which are to be taken as givens.

Actually, I'm kinda interested in this now, on an intellectual level. What would be the minimal amount of assumptions that would have to be made in order to logically deduce the existance of god? Might be a fun mind puzzle.

Upchurch

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What would be the minimal amount of assumptions that would have to be made in order to logically deduce the existance of god? Might be a fun mind puzzle.

Upchurch

If God is (logically) necessary, then no assumptions would be required. You'd merely assume that God does not exist, and then show the (logical) contradition.

Most interesting attempt would be Anselm's, I think (bad paraphrase follows):

God is that which the greater than cannot be imagined.
That which exists only in thought is less great than that which exists in reality.
Therefore God exists in reality.

Always brings down the house.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by whitefork
God is that which the greater than cannot be imagined.
That which exists only in thought is less great than that which exists in reality.
Therefore God exists in reality.

Hold the phone, I remember ol' Anselm from Mideval Philosophy in college! I wrote a paper where I found a way to quantify god based on his and Augustine's writings. I gotta find that paper! That'd be loads of fun on here.

If I remember right, I created a variable, X, that was representative of something like a things cosmic significance. I could be off, but I think that
X = 0 was nothingness
0 < X <= 0.5 was plantlife
0.5 < X < 1 were animals
X = 1 was humanity
1 < X < infinity were all the celestrial critters that they wrote about.
X = infinity being the greatest thing that is, was God.

I had references where I justfied each step and what not. I gotta find that paper....

Upchurch

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I gotta find that paper.... heh heh heh! I found a hard copy (with my prof's notes :eek: )

I'll type it back up when I get the chance and let you folks rip 'er to shreds. Might be a fun change of pace....

Upchurch

[wraith]

Originally posted by downchurch
What would be the minimal amount of assumptions that would have to be made in order to logically deduce the existance of god? Might be a fun mind puzzle.

Can you create something more conscious than yourself?
Do you control TLOP?

Come on churchy, it's not hard!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith


Can you create something more conscious than yourself?
Do you control TLOP?
Franko,

oh, excuse me, "wraith"

What on earth does any of that have to do with what I wrote?

Upchurch

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Gratse (sp?). I'm sorry if I seemed to be brow beating you. That wasn't my intent. I've always thought that it is the sign of a great mind to be able to recognize when one is wrong, because that is the only way one can grow. (a lesson far too often ignored)

No, I didn't take it that way at all. I honestly hadn't thought about it...it hadn't occurred to me then, about the black holes and such. In fact, now that I think about it, the existence of Hawking radiation was also deduced from math. But you are right...and I feel no shame admitting when I'm wrong.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'll type it back up when I get the chance and let you folks rip 'er to shreds. Might be a fun change of pace....
Done and done (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9693).

Upchurch

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Franko,

oh, excuse me, "wraith"

What on earth does any of that have to do with what I wrote?

Upchurch

Im just saying that you need to use logic

:eek:

[MRC_Hans]

Its always fun to answer riddles, e.g.:

Can you create something more conscious than yourself?
Do you control TLOP?


First question: Unanswerable. We dont know what consciousness is or how to quantify it. Can I create something conscious at all?

Second question: Basically, yes. Tlop as they apply to me describe or confine what I can do. If I change the range of what I can do, I thereby change tlop. But of course it all depends on the definition of tlop.

Hans

[wraith]

How old are you?
12?

[Q-Source]

Wraith,

What time is it there?

You should go back to bed now.

You surprise me!!

Q-S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith
How old are you?
12?
Fra ...er, "wraith",

Just how, then, do you quantify consiousness?
Upchurch

[BillyJoe]

Franko’s quotes in ordinary type

Billyjoe’s reply in bold type

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

I am happy for A-Theists to have an "illusion of free will" because the "illusion of free will" is real. The problem is that the "illlusion of free will", which is real, makes it seem as if "free will" is real. "free will", however, is not real.

Franko, you are not saying anthing with which I disagree.

BTW … God is real …

Now you are.

Well, I’d say you are half right [regarding the statement: Like the optical illusion, the "illusion of free will" and the "illusion of God" are also real but, like the square and the different shades of grey, "Free will" and "God" are not there.

Well, I’d say you are half right. :D

Speak for yourself. You have no idea how I perceive reality.

Well, okay, you deny not only “free will” but also the “illusion of free will”
This is hard for me to believe.
Okay, it’s all just FATE but doesn’t it at least seem like “free will” to you?
How do you “make” all those decisions that you must “make” every moment of your life if you don’t at least accept the “illusion of free will”?
The alternative is that you feel yourself following a predetermined path. Is this really how it feels for an LD. Following a predetermined path, “making” no decisions?
If so, I bet it took a hell of an effort to get yourself to feel this way. I’ll bet you didn’t start off this way. I’ll bet you at least started off feeling as if you had “free will”

Your claim is as absurd as me claiming that ALL A-Theists experience the “illusion of God”, or the “illusion of afterlife”, or all A-Theists experience the “illusion of invisible pink dragons living in their garage”.

But we don’t come face to face with the concepts of “God” and “Afterlife” until these concepts are presented to us by our parents and teachers. But we do come face to face with “free will” long before this concept is presented to us.
If you really do not have the “illusion of free will” now, then I think it was there at the beginning until you philosophically cast it out.

Well …technically you can’t say that it is NOT conscious. Technically you can only claim that YOU are more conscious. If you want to precisely define consciousness, then perhaps, you could claim the CAR is NOT conscious. Do you have a definition of consciousness?

The simple answer is that a car is not conscious.
I do not need a complete definition of consciousness to determine that a car is not conscious.
It obviously isn't.
(Remember, I’m answering the simple question here)


Frankpo: Just like YOU are a conscious artifact of TLOP?

[b]I do not disagree.
The point is that the complexity goes from left to right.
YOU are more complex than TLOP and the CAR is more complex than YOU
(Remember, I’m answering the complex question here where the CAR being an artifact of YOU includes the complexity of YOU)


Franko: Is this what you call a proof Billyjoe? This looks more like a logical contradiction to me. You are simply CLAIMING that TLOP is non-conscious. You might as well be claiming that your CAR is more conscious then you are. Why the contradiction? You have done nothing to explain it, you have simply asserted that there is NO contradiction.

But your assertion is no proof; it’s just an assertion.

[b]I’m just demonstrating the evolutionary process from simple to complex, from non-conscious through transitionally conscious to conscious to higher consciousness.

So if complexity increase to the right, then you are claiming that your CAR is more conscious then YOU are!!! So is your CAR GOD Billyjoe?

Remember though that artifacts include/imply the consciousness of the producer of the artifact.
Suppose you visited another planet on your intergalactic travels. What would you regard as more important, finding a life form or a watch?
The watch implies more than the existence of a life form. It implies the existence of a life form intelligent enough to produce a watch.

So you CAR is more evolved than YOU? Without humans, how many CARS would exist?

But the CAR implies the existence of YOU.
In evolution, consciousness PRECEEDED artifacts.
So the presence of artifacts implies a higher form of consciousness.

Well your “illusions of free will” comments aside, I think we see eye to eye in that this conversation was FATED to happen at this moment, and what you said, and how I would respond was also FATED. The question is will this conversation have any ultimate effect on Your Fate overall?

None.
Because what happens in the future is determined by the present state of play (which, of course, was determined by what came before).

This is my answer but I’m not confident that I am correct…..

Many would say that contingency means that, if you wind back the clock and let her rip again, you would not get the same result. Determinacy means that the result would be roughly the same but contingency means that it would not play out indentically.

The question is: Is [/I]contigency[/I] just determinacy once removed?
Would that meteor strike again and wipe out the dinosaurs?

So TLOP produces US … we produce TOASTERS; ergo Toasters are more evolved then we are?

Yes, artifacts imply forms of consciousness capable of producing them.
YOU cannot produce a TOASTER.
That requires knowledge of electricity, electrical generators, mining of metals, manufacturing of metals etc etc. At a deeper level, it even requires knowledge of quantum theory.
YOU don’t have that knowledge.
That required a lot of conscious intelligences spread through time and space.
The artifact that resulted – the TOASTER – implies all of this.
This is the complex answer to your question.

You can make a Toaster, can a Toaster make you?

YOU cannot make a TOASTER.
That TOASTER is at the end of a long line of evolutionary change

TLOP can make you, can you make TLOP?

The problem is who made TLOP?
If the answer is God made TLOP or God is TLOP, then who made God….and it’s turtles all the way up

You can’t even comprehend TLOP!

This is the mystery at the beginning of the universe: Why these laws? Why anything at all?
This mystery is not solved by saying “God” because “God” is also a mystery solved by saying “Supergod” ….and it’s turtles all the way up.

I agree [that they are both equally unjustified in their belief because neither "free will" nor "God" exist.]
But, perhaps you should have a chat with CWL and straighten him out. He has deluded himself into believing you agree with him on this point …

I think CWL agrees.
It’s just that he has removed that extra bit out of the definition of “free will” so as to that he can believe in “free will”.
His “free will” is my “illusion of free will”

So you are actually claiming that the Rocket is somehow more conscious then the Astronaut? (at least that is consistent)

A rocket is a good example.
Imagine how many consciousnesses it took to get that rocket up there in space.
If an alien came here to evaluate life on Earth what do you think would impress him more, YOU or a ROCKET.
The ROCKET would tell him a whole lot more about life on Earth than YOU.

Is that what you believe (that energy is a zero sum)???

Ohhh, I’d love to see you try and prove that assertion Billyjoe. What you say may be True from the POV of a Pseudo-Materialist, but only as a theory. No one has ever been able to prove this claim, nor will they.

Energy = Matter + Gravity
The positive Energy of Matter is balanced by the negative Energy of Gravity.
Energy = 0

There is only one type of particle in reality … Gravitons. There are two varieties – Posi-Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons. One types produces/creates/generates Energy/”Matter”(Information), the other type destroys/annihilates Energy/”Matter”(Information).

Says who?

The thing is, that the Anti-Gravitons have this tendency to annihilate themselves. So over time, the Posi-Gravitons are increasing in number relative to the whole.

Again, says who?

What you are claiming is that Machines make Minds. All of the evidence indicates that the opposite is TRUE.

What evidence indicates minds make machines?

Are you familiar with Mandelbrot? What you are claiming is analogous to looking at some of the fine detail after generations and generations of recursion on the Mandelbrot set, and claiming that this fine detail is more complex then the original algorithm and program that is generating the fine detail you are observing.

My understanding of Mandlebrot is “simplicity produces complexity”.
A simple algorithm produces a complex drawing
My understanding is that Mandlebrot had no idea what drawings his algorithms would produce. The equations he used were very simple and the idea of iterating them was also very simple idea. But the result was amazingly complex.

So now you are the Elephant claiming that Zero and Infinity are the same thing? Let me give you a warning, my Friend. The Elephant made the mistake of looking at Time before he should have. It fried out his little brain.

Actually, what did happen to UCE?

But I can’t remember claiming that zero and infinity are the same.
The point I was trying to make is that if we are programs in Gods computer, then God could be a program in a Supergod’s computer…..and it’s turtles all the way up

In other words, there’s no explanatory power in positing God.

Sure! Why not just claim it was “Magic”?

A quantum fluctuation is a real phenomenon.
Why there should be a quantum fluctuation is a mystery.
This mystery is not resolved by positing a mysterious God.

If your prefer a magical answer to Godel’s solid Math, then knock yourself out, my Friend. Personally I think you are fooling yourself, and you aren’t exactly convincing me that these aren’t religious beliefs on your part.

They are based on objective evidence.
Subject, of course, to correction if further evidence should demand it.


Franko: Sure you do – THERE IS NO GOD!

[b]Well, okay, an overstatement I admit – but not much.
There is no evidence that God exists….
…..so I live my life as if God doesn’t exist.
Ditto for the faeries at the bottom of my garden.
This is a long way from saying that THERE IS NO GOD

If your definition of “Science” involves calling something FALSE when you have NO EVIDENCE it is FALSE, then I have a different definition of “Science” then you do.

See above

If it weren’t for thought experiments, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein would have never been heard of.

I love thought experiments but ultimately they mean nothing unless they produce falsifiable hypotheses like those of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.

Actually your inability to explain an obvious logically contradiction is what I call A-Theism of the Gaps. It is only God of the Gaps when a Theists dodges logical inconsistencies in Their beliefs. But when you A-Theists use this fallacious argument it is YOUR problem.

I do not see the contradiction.

Here is a hypothetical conversation between us. Please make any corrections on your side …

Franko: Does Darwin provide any evidence for the origin of Life? In other words, is Darwin a Proof of Abiogenesis?
Billyjoe: No, Darwin only proves evolution (change over time) once life got started. Darwin – in and of himself – says nothing about life’s origin.
Franko: So Darwin provides no proof that Matter makes consciousness?
Billyjoe: No, Darwin does not prove Matter makes consciousness
Franko: So what empirical evidence do you have that Matter makes consciousness is True? It is merely an assumption on your part, is it not? Why even bother to mention Darwin?
Billyjoe: ???

Okay confession…..

I looked back and, surprise, I did in fact raise Darwin in the context of abiogenesis.
Apologies.
It is obviously an easy mistake to make even when you know better.

But, in answer to your question regarding empirical evidence for non-life -> life.
There is no direct evidence but a lot of pointers as to how this could happen.
Your cynical comment about amino acids in a previous post suggests to me that you are not interested in pointers however. Obviously you want nothing short of life from non-life in the laboratory. Well, it hasn’t happened. It is a big mountain to climb and we’re only a little way up from base camp. Maybe we’ll never get to the top but there’s no other way to get there.

Theologians think they are sitting up there already but how would they know when they've got their heads in the clouds :D
(Sorry, Franko, just foolin’ around)

Well this is a lot of question begging and unfounded assumptions on your part. I could just as easily claim:

A-Theistic Science is subjective. (No evidence = FALSE???[are you crazy?])
God is objective.
A-theistic Science tries to hide the gaps.
God fills in the gaps.

Yes, but what is your basis for saying so.

The products of science are many and varied. How subjective is your washing machine, your television or your computer.
On the other hand, how objective is God? Where is your empirical proof of God?

As for “No evidence = FALSE???[are you crazy?]”………….

Let me just repeat again:
I am not saying that “No evidence” = FALSE.
I am saying that “No evidence” = IRRELEVANT.

If there is no evidence that God exists, God is irrelevant (meaning I do not take God into account when considering how to live my life) until such time as this evidence is forthcoming.

[CWL]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
I think CWL agrees.
It’s just that he has removed that extra bit out of the definition of “free will” so as to that he can believe in “free will”.
His “free will” is my “illusion of free will”
Correct.

The world is complex and dichotomous. Whether or not a concept "exists" or not depends on the context.

What you are saying regarding "actual free will" is correct from a strictly materialistic point of view. From this perspective ("it all boils down to chemicals in our brain", or something to that effect) the concept of "free will" looses its meaning. This does however not mean that in a social context - from a humanistic perspective - that our perception of free will is false.

This is where you admit that "the illusion of free will" (what I have simply referred to as "free will") is real. I would argue that the choice of the word "illusion" is rather unfortunate (I would prefer "perception") but otherwise I think that you have done an oustanding job on formulating this analysis - my compliments. :)

What I am saying (and I belive that we are still in agreement) is that on a social level - for all practical reasons - we may, should and must assume that we possess free will. Otherwise all that is left is nihilism. Forget about society, ethics or laws.

That a concept "looses its meaning" from a certain perspective is not the same as that concept "not being true". The concept of free will derives from and exists within a humanistic perspective. It is pointless to debate or question it from a materialistic perspective. Hence Franko's confusion.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by CWL
That a concept "looses its meaning" from a certain perspective is not the same as that concept "not being true". The concept of free will derives from and exists within a humanistic perspective. It is pointless to debate or question it from a materialistic perspective.

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to go back over some of my old college philosophy stuff and I remembered something I had forgotten, which your post brings up.

Arguements require a great deal of definition in order to establish their validity. It's assumptions must be agreed upon (or at least taken as granted), terms must be defined, and context (or point of view or perspective) must be established. Without it, as CWL points out, there is a great deal of confusion.

Upchurch

[Franko]

Billjoe:

My Friend, are you seriously telling me you don’t see a contradiction here?

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

You can’t say that you are superior to the left side, AND superior to the right side at the same time. At least, you cannot do it and maintain any sort of sense of Logical Consistency.

Franko:
[The “illusion of free will” …]Speak for yourself. You have no idea how I perceive reality.

Billyjoe:
Well, okay, you deny not only “free will” but also the “illusion of free will”
This is hard for me to believe.

Why do you say that?

You deny not only “God”, but the “illusion of God”? Don’t you feel God’s presence hovering around you all day? Watching over you?

What makes you think that I perceive this “illusion” just because you do?

If another individual tell you that he believes Extraterrestrial Aliens make regular visits to Earth in their “flying saucers”, does that make you believe in “flying saucers” too?

Flying saucers aren’t real Billyjoe. Some people just imagine they see them. Same with “free will”.

BJ:
Okay, it’s all just FATE but doesn’t it at least seem like “free will” to you?

Not really, but then again I wouldn’t call a “square” a “4-sided triangle” either.

How do you “make” all those decisions that you must “make” every moment of your life if you don’t at least accept the “illusion of free will”?

My “decisions” were preordained by events in my past. All of my “decisions” are merely the inevitable result and logical consequence of my previous “decisions”.

The alternative is that you feel yourself following a predetermined path. Is this really how it feels for an LD. Following a predetermined path, “making” no decisions?

You aren’t making “decisions” either. The only difference is, I realize this and perceive accordingly. You on the other hand are programmed to pretend as if something FALSE is actually TRUE. It is a serious flaw in your algorithm. Fortunately, in your case, the error can be corrected.

If so, I bet it took a hell of an effort to get yourself to feel this way. I’ll bet you didn’t start off this way. I’ll bet you at least started off feeling as if you had “free will”

The Evil of Atheism is far more pervasive then most people realize. The Atheists have even managed to convince many Christians that they have this “illusionary free will”. It reminds me of an old saying, that the best Trick the Devil ever preformed was convincing people that he didn’t exist. It is kind of like Atheism. Their best trick was convincing people that they weren’t really a Religion.

Franko:
[All people experience the illusion of “free will” …]Your claim is as absurd as me claiming that ALL A-Theists experience the “illusion of God”, or the “illusion of afterlife”, or all A-Theists experience the “illusion of invisible pink dragons living in their garage”.

BillyJoe:
But we don’t come face to face with the concepts of “God” and “Afterlife” until these concepts are presented to us by our parents and teachers. But we do come face to face with “free will” long before this concept is presented to us.

Really? None of my children ever believed in “free will”.

This is an unwarranted assumption on your part.

Franko:
[Your Car …]Well …technically you can’t say that it is NOT conscious. Technically you can only claim that YOU are more conscious. If you want to precisely define consciousness, then perhaps, you could claim the CAR is NOT conscious. Do you have a definition of consciousness?

Billyjoe:
The simple answer is that a car is not conscious.
I do not need a complete definition of consciousness to determine that a car is not conscious.
It obviously isn't.
(Remember, I’m answering the simple question here)

Okay so a Christian answering a simple question …

Does God exist? (simple question)
Obviously God exist.
(Remember, I’m answering the simple question here)

In Logic you cannot just declare things as TRUE or FALSE, you have to prove them True or False within a logically consistent framework.

I say that my CAR is less conscious then ME, because 1) I control my CAR, and 2) I make a CAR far easier than a CAR makes ME.



Franko: Just like YOU are a conscious artifact of TLOP?

I do not disagree.
The point is that the complexity goes from left to right.

[TLOP controls YOU controls CAR]

YOU are more complex than TLOP and the CAR is more complex than YOU
(Remember, I’m answering the complex question here where the CAR being an artifact of YOU includes the complexity of YOU)

Billyjoe, I can’t believe you are saying your CAR is more Complex, or Superior to YOU in any way analogous to YOU being Superior or more complex to TLOP.

Tell me, I can make a CAR, but I can’t make TLOP. Why is the less complex thing (TLOP – according to you) more difficult for me to make and understand than the CAR; which, according to you is more complex and Superior?

BillyJoe:
So we actually have an evolutionary process...

TLOP -> -> -> non-conscious entities -> -> -> transitionally conscious entities -> -> -> conscious entities -> -> - > artifacts

Franko:
Is this what you call a proof Billyjoe? This looks more like a logical contradiction to me. You are simply CLAIMING that TLOP is non-conscious. You might as well be claiming that your CAR is more conscious then you are. Why the contradiction? You have done nothing to explain it, you have simply asserted that there is NO contradiction.

But your assertion is no proof; it’s just an assertion.

Billyjoe:
I’m just demonstrating the evolutionary process from simple to complex, from non-conscious through transitionally conscious to conscious to higher consciousness.

Franko:
So if complexity increase to the right, then you are claiming that your CAR is more conscious then YOU are!!! So is your CAR GOD Billyjoe?

Billyjoe:
Remember though that artifacts include/imply the consciousness of the producer of the artifact.

… And like I said, you are an artifact of TLOP!!!

Ergo, TLOP is more conscious then you are – by your own Logic.

Suppose you visited another planet on your intergalactic travels. What would you regard as more important, finding a life form or a watch?
The watch implies more than the existence of a life form. It implies the existence of a life form intelligent enough to produce a watch.

Does the watch imply that? Maybe the watch just randomly formed according to the Laws of Physics? Why posit that the laws of physics first made “Intelligent Aliens”, who then in turn made watches? Maybe TLOP just cut to the chase, and is producing watches directly now?

I agree with your point, but you are still begging the question of Materialism. Why does a watch imply a consciousness intelligent enough to produce a watch, while universe does NOT imply the existence of a life form intelligent enough to produce a Universe?

Franko:
So you CAR is more evolved than YOU? Without humans, how many CARS would exist?

Billyjoe:
But the CAR implies the existence of YOU.

But YOU imply the existence of GOD (or TLOP).

In evolution, consciousness PRECEEDED artifacts.

Really? If that is True, then how did non-conscious TLOP make consciousness?

Of course if TLOP were already conscious (just like you) then TLOP makes you, and you make cars. Or maybe one day, you make robots, and one day robots make something else?

So the presence of artifacts implies a higher form of consciousness.

I agree completely – O’artifact of Almighty TLOP.

Franko:
Well your “illusions of free will” comments aside, I think we see eye to eye in that this conversation was FATED to happen at this moment, and what you said, and how I would respond was also FATED. The question is will this conversation have any ultimate effect on Your Fate overall?

Billyjoe:
None.
Because what happens in the future is determined by the present state of play (which, of course, was determined by what came before).

Yes, but that is My point. Our conversation from yesterday (and now this one) are art of your past already. The information from these exchanges is affecting the output of your MPB algorithm, as we speak.

This is my answer but I’m not confident that I am correct…..

Many would say that contingency means that, if you wind back the clock and let her rip again, you would not get the same result. Determinacy means that the result would be roughly the same but contingency means that it would not play out indentically.

The question is: Is [/I]contigency[/I] just determinacy once removed?
Would that meteor strike again and wipe out the dinosaurs?

This is why Dawkins and others like him are Nitwits. Contingency is an absurd and logically inconsistent notion. Reality does NOT operate like that.

If I erased your memory of the last 10 years and sent you back in Time 10 years in the past. You would relive those 10 years exactly the same as you did the first time. The only way that ANYTHING would ever be different is if somehow you retained some memory of your previous run through the cycle.

Did you ever see Groundhog Day with Bill Murray? Bill Murray becomes more and more powerful in that reality, because he is gaining information throughout. Meanwhile the other individuals of that town are being reset to their previous state at the end of each Groundhog day. They do not retain their memories; ergo on the following day, they do the exact same thing, unless the Billy Murray character interacts with them.

Franko:
So TLOP produces US … we produce TOASTERS; ergo Toasters are more evolved then we are?

Billyjoe:
Yes, artifacts imply forms of consciousness capable of producing them.

Once again I agree. But clearly, You and I are artifacts of TLOP in an analogous manner to the way that Toasters are artifacts of You and I.

YOU cannot produce a TOASTER.

Of course I could.

That requires knowledge of electricity, electrical generators, mining of metals, manufacturing of metals etc etc. At a deeper level, it even requires knowledge of quantum theory.

… or I could put a piece of bread on the end of a stick, and hold it over a fire.

YOU don’t have that knowledge.

Perhaps, but the Toaster in my Kitchen is evidence that some humans DO have that knowledge. Since those humans are intrinsically no different then I am, it is easily within the realm of possibility that I could learn to make Toasters.

Besides … how do you know that I don’t work in a Toaster factory?

That required a lot of conscious intelligences spread through time and space.

So why do you assume that TLOP isn’t “a lot of conscious intelligence spread through time and space”? Are you saying that TLOP is not spread through time and space?

YOU cannot produce a Consciousness.
YOU don’t have that knowledge.
The artifact that resulted – Toaster – implies all of this.
This is the complex answer to your question.

Exactly! … just like The artifact that resulted -- YOU – implies all of this.

Franko:
You can make a Toaster, can a Toaster make you?
TLOP can make YOU, can YOU make TLOP?

Billyjoe:
YOU cannot make a TOASTER.
That TOASTER is at the end of a long line of evolutionary change

Billyjoe! … Please!

Obviously TLOP makes humans, and humans make Toasters. Is this really so complicated?

Franko:
TLOP can make you, can you make TLOP?

The problem is who made TLOP?
If the answer is God made TLOP or God is TLOP, then who made God….and it’s turtles all the way up

Why is that a problem? Remember Mandelbrot? How about Godel? Godel explained all of this (mathematically), and then Mandelbrot demonstrated it.

The problem is who made TLOP?

Me: Who made you?
You: my parents.
Me: Who made your parents?
You: my grandparents.
Me: Who made your grandparents?
You: My great grandparents …

So why is it a problem? That’s not a problem, that is cause and event. Pretending that everything appeared like magic in the Big Bang is no more of an explanation, it is far far less of one.


Franko:
You can’t even comprehend TLOP!

Billyjoe:
This is the mystery at the beginning of the universe: Why these laws? Why anything at all?
This mystery is not solved by saying “God” because “God” is also a mystery solved by saying “Supergod” ….and it’s turtles all the way up.

No.

It is only a mystery, if you want to pretend that it is a mystery. TLOP is nothing more than the rules of the game. If you were God, and we were all inside your mind, your communications to me and everyone else would be perceived by us as something akin to the Laws of Physics. Think about it, and perhaps you will see what I mean.

It is like the game Dungeons and Dragons. The referee (DM) is like God. He is the frame of reference, and creator and arbiter of the rules. The DM generates the reality, but does not physically manifest himself. The world and the rules are his manifestation. The DM tells everyone where they are located relative to everyone else. When you want to act, you must act through the DM.

Another analogy would be a game of chess. You are one of the pieces on the board, when you want to move, you make a request to God, with where you want to move to. If your move is a valid one, then God moves your piece, but you cannot move anywhere without God’s say so. It’s her game. She ultimately controls ALL of the action.


Billyjoe:
I agree [that they are both equally unjustified in their belief because neither "free will" nor "God" exist.]

Franko:
well perhaps you should have a chat with CWL and straighten him out. He has deluded himself into believing you agree with him on this point …

Billyjoe:
I think CWL agrees.
It’s just that he has removed that extra bit out of the definition of “free will” so as to that he can believe in “free will”.
His “free will” is my “illusion of free will”

Kind of like a Christians concept of “afterlife” is your concept of “crazy talk”; same with CWL and his talk of “free will”.

Franko:
So you are actually claiming that the Rocket is somehow more conscious then the Astronaut? (at least that is consistent)

Billyjoe:
A rocket is a good example.
Imagine how many consciousnesses it took to get that rocket up there in space.

Yeah … think how many consciousnesses TLOP had to make before it could build You.

If an alien came here to evaluate life on Earth what do you think would impress him more, YOU or a ROCKET.
The ROCKET would tell him a whole lot more about life on Earth than YOU.

Really?

So if an Alien ship ever crashed on Earth, you are claiming you would be more interested in their Spaceship then in the Aliens themselves?

Personally, that sounds to me like claiming it is better to possess One Physical Wheel, then it is to possess the knowledge of “the Wheel”.

Franko:
Is that what you believe (that energy is a zero sum)???

Ohhh, I’d love to see you try and prove that assertion Billyjoe. What you say may be True from the POV of a Pseudo-Materialist, but only as a theory. No one has ever been able to prove this claim, nor will they.

Billyjoe:
Energy = Matter + Gravity
The positive Energy of Matter is balanced by the negative Energy of Gravity.
Energy = 0

1) This simply isn’t True.
2) You have no idea of how gravity works exactly (remem the missing Higg’s boson?), so I don’t see how you can even make this claim.
3) If Energy = Zero, then how do you explain all of the Energy apparently lying around?
4) Stand in a burning fire and try telling yourself that Energy = 0.
5) If this is True, then what caused the Big Bang?
6) we don’t really need to get sidetracked on this now.

Franko:
There is only one type of particle in reality … Gravitons. There are two varieties – Posi-Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons. One types produces/creates/generates Energy/”Matter”(Information), the other type destroys/annihilates Energy/”Matter”(Information).

Billyjoe:
Says who?

Says reality. ;)

Franko:
The thing is, that the Anti-Gravitons have this tendency to annihilate themselves. So over time, the Posi-Gravitons are increasing in number relative to the whole.

Billyjoe:
Again, says who?

Same source. You could also say it was Fate, but don’t confuse “Fate” with “Lady Fate”, they are two different things.

Franko:
What you are claiming is that Machines make Minds. All of the evidence indicates that the opposite is TRUE.

Billyjoe:
What evidence indicates minds make machines?

Do you see this post?
See the screen that frames it?
See the cables leading off to a nearby box?
That box is a machine. That machine was made by a consciousness.

There is abundant evidence that Minds make machines, but there is no evidence that Machines (or “Matter”) makes minds. The only example you could site is Living creatures, but unless you have definitive proof that TLOP is NON-conscious (which you do not), then you have no evidence – not one shred – of Machines making Minds. That it is even possible is simply an assumption on your part.

Franko:
Are you familiar with Mandelbrot? What you are claiming is analogous to looking at some of the fine detail after generations and generations of recursion on the Mandelbrot set, and claiming that this fine detail is more complex then the original algorithm and program that is generating the fine detail you are observing.

Billyjoe:
My understanding of Mandlebrot is “simplicity produces complexity”.
A simple algorithm produces a complex drawing
My understanding is that Mandlebrot had no idea what drawings his algorithms would produce. The equations he used were very simple and the idea of iterating them was also very simple idea. But the result was amazingly complex.

Exactly right. As it turns out Mandelbrot is an excellent analogy for reality. Simple ideas, plus a lot of recursion – and Waa-laa – elaborate and seemingly complex universe with You and I talking about Mandelbrot!

Actually, what did happen to UCE?

But I can’t remember claiming that zero and infinity are the same.

Have you heard of the Halting problem? The halting-problem is actually a real type of problem -- a class of problems – that actually exist in reality. The LD call them H-Mobius problems. These are a special class of logic problems that can reiterate indefinitely inside your consciousness. They can trap you, and eventually drive you insane – annihilating You in the process.

Solipsism, Fate, God, and Time are all examples of H-Mobius problems. But not all of these problems are equal. Time is actually many different H-Mobius problems.

… but getting back to the point, the Elephant tried to solve Time first, and there was no way he was going to be able to do that. He became convinced that Zero and Infinity were the same value. An entirely logical conclusion from his POV, but based on a faulty initial premise none-the-less. Essentially he became trapped in a loop of his own creation. I believe this manifested as his “Juggler” persona (note the obvious, around and around connotation of that nick).

The point I was trying to make is that if we are programs in Gods computer, then God could be a program in a Supergod’s computer…..and it’s turtles all the way up

What you are saying here is entirely possible. But I have no way of knowing myself. The Logical Goddess is the most powerful entity that I perceive, I am unable to perceive any entity Superior to Her; ergo there is no evidence for me to speculate on a entity which is Superior to Her.

But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible.

In other words, there’s no explanatory power in positing God.

That is analogous to claiming that there is no explanatory power in positing “atoms”.

[BillyJoe: The point is that no one really knows.]
Franko: Sure you do – THERE IS NO GOD!

Billyjoe:
Well, okay, an overstatement I admit – but not much.
There is no evidence that God exists….
…..so I live my life as if God doesn’t exist.
Ditto for the faeries at the bottom of my garden.
This is a long way from saying that THERE IS NO GOD

Franko:
If your definition of “Science” involves calling something FALSE when you have NO EVIDENCE it is FALSE, then I have a different definition of “Science” then you do.

Billyjoe:
See above

This is where the Atheists lose me.

X + Y – Z = N

1) TRUE
2) FALSE
3) UNKNOWN

Absent ANY evidence, my answer is #3 – UNKNOWN. You seem to be claiming that somehow You know that the answer is #2 – FALSE.

In my mind, that is utterly ridiculous. Would you really live your life as if this equation is FALSE? Why not act as if the equation is UNKWOWN?

Will you be alive next year at this time?

1) True
2) False
3) Unknown

Billyjoe, are you seriously telling me that you are living your life as if #2 (False) is the correct answer to this question? Running up your credit cards? Eating and drinking whatever you want? Smoking, womanizing, gambling all your money away?

…..so I live my life as if God doesn’t exist.
Ditto for the faeries at the bottom of my garden.

Ditto for will I be alive next year?

Franko:
If it weren’t for thought experiments, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein would have never been heard of.

Billyjoe:
I love thought experiments but ultimately they mean nothing unless they produce falsifiable hypotheses like those of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.

That’s True in a sense, but what empirical evidence do you really need to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 inside your own head?

Okay confession…..

I looked back and, surprise, I did in fact raise Darwin in the context of abiogenesis.
Apologies. It is obviously an easy mistake to make even when you know better.

Good Karma for you, My Friend. ;)

But, in answer to your question regarding empirical evidence for non-life -> life.
There is no direct evidence but a lot of pointers as to how this could happen.
Your cynical comment about amino acids in a previous post suggests to me that you are not interested in pointers however. Obviously you want nothing short of life from non-life in the laboratory. Well, it hasn’t happened. It is a big mountain to climb and we’re only a little way up from base camp. Maybe we’ll never get to the top but there’s no other way to get there.

Not only haven’t they been able to produce life in the lab, but “they” have also failed to produce a consciousness on a computer, which would be another possible way to prove that Matter makes consciousness. I say possible, because it is also possible that a computer life form may actually just confirm that Consciousness makes Matter.

Theologians think they are sitting up there already but how would they know when they've got their heads in the clouds
(Sorry, Franko, just foolin’ around)

No offense taken my friend. To a large degree I concur. Dogma is the enemy of us all.

[Loki]

CWL,

What you are saying regarding "actual free will" is correct from a strictly materialistic point of view. From this perspective ("it all boils down to chemicals in our brain", or something to that effect) the concept of "free will" looses its meaning. This does however not mean that in a social context - from a humanistic perspective - that our perception of free will is false.
This is pretty much how I put it to Franko a year ago - I used the approach of "two Free Wills", the 'Apparent' and the 'Real'. Since then I've been introduced to the topic of compatibilism, which essentially encompasses this by defining Free Will in terms of human behaviour (Freedom from Coercion). Of course, this is rejected by Franko!

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Loki
CWL,
.... compatibilism, which essentially encompasses this by defining Free Will in terms of human behaviour (Freedom from Coercion).

How did you avoid "coercion" beginning at your conception up through now? (Unless you are the solipcist? ;) )

[Franko]

Of course, this is rejected by Franko!

Yet, if I explain why I reject this nonsense again. I will hear the full chorus of weena-whiners singing the hymn of repetitiveness.

No wonder I have to repeat myself over and over and over and over and over again. It is because A-Theists are so retarded you have to say everything to them 500 times. I swear, small children comprehend things better.

Loki … isn’t the Moon also “free from coercion”? So does the Moon have “free will”?

This stupid compatibilism didn’t work for Vicky D. how do you imagine that new life has been breathed into it?

Its like frickin Jason, from those Friday the 13th slasher movies! Every time you think you have finished off this stupid monster, it just jumps back up again. It is like a relentless, mindless Zombie.

[Loki]

hammegk/Franko,

My comment was for CWL - perhaps he will find the topic interesting and "inline" with his current perceptions, perhaps not. I understand that both of you reject it, although you are united only in your rejection - what you would offer as alternatives are completely opposite to each other.

hammegk - Comments like "How did you avoid "coercion" beginning at your conception " reveal that you either (a) don't undestand compatibilism, or (b) want to construct a few straw men that yoiu can dismantle. Either way, I see no value in trying to take it further. If you disagree, then take the first step - present a post/thread on why you disagree with compatibilism, and what you feel are it's weaknesses. Do that and I'll put some effort into a serious discussion. Otherwise, I'll leave you to resume your one line assertions.

Franko - "Every time you think you have finished off this stupid monster...". I may have missed the relevent posts. Easy to do given the enormous volume of posts you produce. I've never seen you offer *any* serious discussion of compatibilism, except to simply dismiss it out of hand. Your manner seems to be to declare it "unworthy of serious comment". Given that approach, I see no value to offering any reply. Again, feel free to take the first step and offer a post/thread in which you lay out you understanding on compatibilism, and your specific reasons for rejecting it. Otherwise, I can't see why I should spend time offering up a new soapbox for you to rain assertions down on me from.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Loki

hammegk - Comments like "How did you avoid "coercion" beginning at your conception " reveal that you either (a) don't undestand compatibilism, or (b) want to construct a few straw men that yoiu can dismantle.

Well. Loki, if you can't tell the difference between a question -- testing for understanding -- and an assertion -- stating a position -- you must have a lot of difficulties with people around you.

At least thank you for refraining from "humorous" revision or offtakes of my username.

[Loki]

hammegk,

Loki, if you can't tell the difference between a question -- testing for understanding -- and an assertion -- stating a position -- you must have a lot of difficulties with people around you.
I can tell the difference fine - at least, most of the time! Given your recent posting history, your original reply looked like yet another "leading question". Asking a loaded question that (appears to) contain a preferred conclusion seems to be a style you have embrassed lately.

But perhaps I was incorrect in my assumption, and you were actually asking a genuine question. "Coercion" in the compatibilst sense is a 'human' concept - it belongs to the realm of human behaviour. Free Will does not imply "ability to do anything I desire". It relates to the degree to which a human is able to make a decision free from direct influence. As such, Free Will is a relative thing, changing with circumstance. The greater the coercion, the less the Free Will.

How did I avoid "coercion" from contraception to now? The question appears to be poorly phrased. The "degree" of coercion is variable.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Loki
hammegk,
"Coercion" in the compatibilst sense is a 'human' concept - it belongs to the realm of human behaviour. Free Will does not imply "ability to do anything I desire". It relates to the degree to which a human is able to make a decision free from direct influence.
And I don't understand why you ignore the absolute fact that from the moment of conception -- and it seems to me in egg & sperm & all that came before -- that materialism can provide nothing except stimulus & response, each response absolutely hard-wired to previous stimuli/responses. The most direct influence is *you* in every case as I see it.

Compatibilism does nothing to interrupt this chain imo.

As such, Free Will is a relative thing, changing with circumstance. The greater the coercion, the less the Free Will.
Or, coercion is coercion, subtle or great, and you can only respond as you must.

[Franko]

hehehe … ahhh Brother Hand, these silly A-Theists and their illusions of “free willy” … heheehe … I explained to this one, a relative age ago, how a Hand moves Pebbles; and NOT the other way ‘round … hehe …

[Loki]

hammegk,

Compatibilism does nothing to interrupt this chain imo
Of course! Again, you seem to have no idea of what compatibilism is. It doesn't seek to interrupt or remove this 'chain'. It seeks to provide a definition of Free Will that is compatibile with reality, by placing Free Will where it belongs - in the realms of human behaviour.

Discussing Free Will in terms of "determinsitic stimulus & response" is the equivalent of discussing a symphony in terms of "air vibrations". It may be technically correct, but you lose the "essence" of what you discuss when you change the frame of reference.

[Franko]

Loki,

… It may be technically correct, but you lose the "essence" of what you discuss when you change the frame of reference.

change Your frame of reference …

Machines make Minds? Or Minds makes machines?

Matter makes consciousness? Or Consciousness makes matter?

change Your frame of reference …

Suddenly perceiving things from the POV of a consciousness makes sense?

Tell me more about non-conscious TLOP-God?

Perception = frame of reference = point of view = relative to YOU = Internally Logical

Logical Perception = Relative to All = Externally Logical

change Your frame of reference …

[wraith]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Wraith,

What time is it there?

You should go back to bed now.

You surprise me!!

Q-S

it was almost midnight from memory

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Fra ...er, "wraith",

Just how, then, do you quantify consiousness?
Upchurch

with my measuring tape....
what do you use?

:eek:

[wraith]

Originally posted by Loki
This is pretty much how I put it to Franko a year ago - I used the approach of "two Free Wills", the 'Apparent' and the 'Real'. Since then I've been introduced to the topic of compatibilism, which essentially encompasses this by defining Free Will in terms of human behaviour (Freedom from Coercion)

Would you fight a friend of yours that you saw on the street and claim that it was your free-will to do so?

You would fight him if your brain was wired in away (ie your algorithm) to think "smack up friends that you see on the street."

Is this still free will? Do you deny that youre brain goes through a series of steps based on how you interpret past experiences?

How often do you jump out of planes?
Do you wear a bra when you go out?

:cool:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
change Your frame of reference ?
Whoops. Franko has slipped into agur mode. Poetry and poor English.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Loki
CWL,

This is pretty much how I put it to Franko a year ago - I used the approach of "two Free Wills", the 'Apparent' and the 'Real'. Since then I've been introduced to the topic of compatibilism, which essentially encompasses this by defining Free Will in terms of human behaviour (Freedom from Coercion). Of course, this is rejected by Franko!

Loki,

One could in fact argue that ANY human (=intellectual) concept looses its meaning from a purely materialistic/deterministic poinf ot view. For instance does the concept "blue" exist from any other perspective than the human? Isn't it exactly the same with "free will", "consciousness", "English", "funk music", "the JREF Forum" or whatever? All such concepts loose their meaning if we reduce everything to "chemicals in our brains".

Rejecting free will on materialistic grounds means that one obviously has no grasp of the concept and indeed as you aptly point out, no understanding of compatibilism (or at any rate that one is unwilling to understand).

[BillyJoe]

Franko,

Not enough time to reply tonight :(
Watched "The Shipping News" with my wife and now we're off to bed :)
Have to get my priorities right ;)

regards,
BillyJoe.

[wraith]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Franko,

Not enough time to reply tonight :(
Watched "The Shipping News" with my wife and now we're off to bed :)
Have to get my priorities right ;)

regards,
BillyJoe.

show-off

:rolleyes:

[Franko]

Whoops. Franko has slipped into agur mode. Poetry and poor English.

Hey ... I guess that means you are only Poetry away from being agur too!!!

[BillyJoe]

Franko’s quotes in ordinary type

BillyJoe’s reply in bold type

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

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

You can’t say that you are superior to the left side, AND superior to the right side at the same time. At least, you cannot do it and maintain any sort of sense of Logical Consistency.

Complexity increases form left to right.

Flying saucers aren’t real Billyjoe. Some people just imagine they see them. Same with “free will”.

Yeah but what about the ILLUSION of free will?

Not really , but then again I wouldn’t call a “square” a “4-sided triangle” either.

Well I’ll have to take your word for it.
When you wrote this post you did not feel as if you were using “free will” you felt AS IF you were following your FATE. In fact, in your opinion, you ARE following your FATE.
But I still find it hard to believe that you did not once feel as if you had “free will”. Before you arrived, through your logic, at the conclusion that you are just following your fate.

My “decisions” were preordained by events in my past. All of my “decisions” are merely the inevitable result and logical consequence of my previous “decisions”.

Well that is your logical conclusion.
But what was your gut feeling before you employed your logic? Before you were capable of logic?

You aren’t making “decisions” either. The only difference is, I realize this and perceive accordingly. You on the other hand are programmed to pretend as if something FALSE is actually TRUE. It is a serious flaw in your algorithm. Fortunately, in your case, the error can be corrected.

I said “making” decisions.
That means I do not really think I am making decisions. As I said, it’s all physics and chemistry.
I do go through life as if I have free will, realizing all the while that free will is an illusion.
But perhaps, as an experiment, I will practice living with the thought that it’s all fate – after all I agree that it is – and see how it feels to live without the illusion of free will.
Trouble is the illusion of free will is so good it’s going to be pretty hard to shake it.

Really? None of my children ever believed in “free will”.

Really?
You must have indoctrinated them from birth, Franko. ;)

Does God exist? (simple question)
Obviously God exist.
(Remember, I’m answering the simple question here)

I wouldn’t quarrel with this.
At first blush, God exists (simple answer).
But, when you investigate further, you find that there is no evidence that God exists and that God has no explanatory power (complex answer)

I say that my CAR is less conscious then ME, because 1) I control my CAR, and 2) I make a CAR far easier than a CAR makes ME.

Franko, YOU cannot make a CAR.

To do so you must be able to mine iron ore, you must be able to manufacture steel, you must be able to manufacture the machines which manufacture steel, you must be able to build the factories that manufacture these machines, you must be able to design such machines and factories, you must be able to design and build electricity generators so that you can use electricity to power your various manufacturing industries, you must have been able to create the theoretical framework which is the basis of all the above etc etc etc etc etc etc

Art, Science and Culture are at an evolutionary level above the individual human being.
Nobody knows how to make a car.
Lots of people know how to do little bits and pieces here and there but nobody has any idea how to do the lot.

Maybe the watch just randomly formed according to the Laws of Physics? Why posit that the laws of physics first made “Intelligent Aliens”, who then in turn made watches? Maybe TLOP just cut to the chase, and is producing watches directly now?

I cannot believe you are serious, Franko.
What is the probability that a watch could form [i]randomly[/], do you think?

I agree with your point, but you are still begging the question of Materialism. Why does a watch imply a consciousness intelligent enough to produce a watch, while universe does NOT imply the existence of a life form intelligent enough to produce a Universe?

Simplicity produces complexity.

But YOU imply the existence of GOD (or TLOP).

Do you mean GOD = TLOP?
Or do you mean that GOD is responsible for TLOP?
If the second alternative, then who is responsible for GOD?


I agree completely – O’artifact of Almighty TLOP.

[b]Franko, what I meant by this statement was that the artifact, itself, is a higher form of consciousness because the seive of natural selection had to do more work to produce an artifact of homo sapiens than is required to produce homo sapiens.

Yes, but that is My point. Our conversation from yesterday (and now this one) are [p]art of your past already. The information from these exchanges is affecting the output of your MPB algorithm, as we speak.

It is not YOUR point, it is OUR point.
I was indicating that this was a point of agreement between us.

This is why Dawkins and others like him are Nitwits. Contingency is an absurd and logically inconsistent notion. Reality does NOT operate like that.

If I erased your memory of the last 10 years and sent you back in Time 10 years in the past. You would relive those 10 years exactly the same as you did the first time. The only way that ANYTHING would ever be different is if somehow you retained some memory of your previous run through the cycle.

Yes, I do not understand how [I]"contingency" could change the outcome second time around, merely that it would make it impossibe to predict the original outcome.

Of course I could [produce a TOASTER.]

No you couldn’t

… or I could put a piece of bread on the end of a stick, and hold it over a fire.

Franko, you forgot your smiley because this is surely a joke.

Perhaps, but the Toaster in my Kitchen is evidence that some humans DO have that knowledge. Since those humans are intrinsically no different then I am, it is easily within the realm of possibility that I could learn to make Toasters.

No, Franko, it is impossible for anyone to make a toaster.
It took 3 – 4 million years of evolution to produce a toaster.

Besides … how do you know that I don’t work in a Toaster factory?

:)

Why is that a problem [as to who made TLOP] ? Remember Mandelbrot? How about Godel? Godel explained all of this (mathematically), and then Mandelbrot demonstrated it.

I must have missed this lesson.
I don’t remember how Godel explained and Mandlebrot demonstrated the origin of TLOP

Me: Who made you?
You: my parents.
Me: Who made your parents?
You: my grandparents.
Me: Who made your grandparents?
You: My great grandparents …

So why is it a problem? That’s not a problem, that is cause and event.

The problem is that there are an infinite number of steps.
Where’s the explanation in an infinite series?

Pretending that everything appeared like magic in the Big Bang is no more of an explanation, it is far far less of one.

The Big Bang does not explain TLOP unless these particular LOPs are the only possible ones.
If not, then there is a problem – a mystery in fact.

[TLOP] is only a mystery, if you want to pretend that it is a mystery. TLOP is nothing more than the rules of the game. If you were God, and we were all inside your mind, your communications to me and everyone else would be perceived by us as something akin to the Laws of Physics. Think about it, and perhaps you will see what I mean.

Don’t you feel a need to explain GOD?

…if an Alien ship ever crashed on Earth, you are claiming you would be more interested in their Spaceship then in the Aliens themselves?

[b]You would discover a whole lot more about the aliens by examining their spacecraft (assuming it survived the crash) that you would ever gain from examining the aliens (even if they survived the crash)

Personally, that sounds to me like claiming it is better to possess One Physical Wheel, then it is to possess the knowledge of “the Wheel”.

The aliens in the spacecraft are unlikely, in the extreme, to know how their spacecraft operates or how it was manufactured or to have knowledge of the underlying theories necessary in order to design the spacecraft.
The spacecraft has the potential to inform us about all of these things which, in turn, has the potential to inform us about the whole alien race (as opposed to these particular aliens).

You have no idea of how gravity works exactly (remem the missing Higg’s boson?), so I don’t see how you can even make this claim.

No. I am obviously no physicist. Just a struggling layman. But physicist do have some ideas on this question. I do not remember the argument that establishes that Gravity is negative energy but it is generally agreed amongst physicists that this is the case.
I am not sure of the relevance of the Higgs Boson. This is the hypothetical particle that gives elementary particles their mass isn’t it? The Higgs Boson hasn’t yet been discovered but this is not to deny that mass exists?

If Energy = Zero, then how do you explain all of the Energy apparently lying around?

Its splits into positive energy (Mass) and negative energy (Gravity)

Stand in a burning fire and try telling yourself that Energy = 0.

I would be experiencing positive energy :eek:

If this is True, then what caused the Big Bang?

This is the mystery at the beginning of the universe.
Nobody knows the answer although people like Hawking think they have some clues.

Do you see this post?
See the screen that frames it?
See the cables leading off to a nearby box?
That box is a machine. That machine was made by a consciousness.

Well, I meant ultimately….
What evidence indicates that ultimately it is (Primordial) Mind that produces machines.
What evidence indicates that Mind came before machines.

There is abundant evidence that Minds make machines, but there is no evidence that Machines (or “Matter”) makes minds. The only example you could site is Living creatures, but unless you have definitive proof that TLOP is NON-conscious (which you do not), then you have no evidence – not one shred – of Machines making Minds. That it is even possible is simply an assumption on your part.

But it is at least possible (some would say likely) that the mind is a machine.

Exactly right. As it turns out Mandelbrot is an excellent analogy for reality. Simple ideas, plus a lot of recursion – and Waa-laa – elaborate and seemingly complex universe with You and I talking about Mandelbrot!

Simplicity (TLOP) -> Complexity (YOU) -> Increased Complexity (ART, SCIENCE, CULTURE)

Have you heard of the Halting problem? The halting-problem is actually a real type of problem -- a class of problems – that actually exist in reality. The LD call them H-Mobius problems. These are a special class of logic problems that can reiterate indefinitely inside your consciousness. They can trap you, and eventually drive you insane – annihilating You in the process.

Solipsism, Fate, God, and Time are all examples of H-Mobius problems. But not all of these problems are equal. Time is actually many different H-Mobius problems.

Are you saying that FATE can trap you and drive you insane?
Are you saying that GOD can trap you and drive you insane?
I'd better avoid tham both then

… but getting back to the point, the Elephant tried to solve Time first, and there was no way he was going to be able to do that. He became convinced that Zero and Infinity were the same value. An entirely logical conclusion from his POV, but based on a faulty initial premise none-the-less. Essentially he became trapped in a loop of his own creation. I believe this manifested as his “Juggler” persona (note the obvious, around and around connotation of that nick).

Franko, I was joking.
Turtles all the way down means there is no beginning.
Turtles all the way up means there is no end.
This is obviously no solution to the problem so I jokingly suggested that perhaps the up turtles loop back onto the down turtles forming a continuous loop without beginning or end.
I was not suggesting this as an actual solution.

What you are saying here is entirely possible. But I have no way of knowing myself. The Logical Goddess is the most powerful entity that I perceive, I am unable to perceive any entity Superior to Her; ergo there is no evidence for me to speculate on a entity which is Superior to Her.

The Logical Goddess?
I have heard you mention the Goddess on many occasions but still do not know what it means.

This is where the Atheists lose me.

X + Y – Z = N

1) TRUE
2) FALSE
3) UNKNOWN

Absent ANY evidence, my answer is #3 – UNKNOWN. You seem to be claiming that somehow You know that the answer is #2 – FALSE.

I think I have said this at least three times already.
I do NOT claim that I know the answer is FALSE (except in jest or engaging in hyperbole such as when I say “You will NEVER win lotto”)

My position is that……….
I take X into account only if there is evidence that X is true.
There is no evidence that X is TRUE.
Therefore, until such evidence is forthcoming, I do not take X into account.

In my mind, that is utterly ridiculous. Would you really live your life as if this equation is FALSE? Why not act as if the equation is UNKWOWN?

Why not act as if Santa Claus and Faeries are UNKNOWN?
Isn't it better to say.....
There is no evidence that Santa and faeries are TRUE, therefore I do not take them into account.

Will you be alive next year at this time?

1) True
2) False
3) Unknown

Billyjoe, are you seriously telling me that you are living your life as if #2 (False) is the correct answer to this question? Running up your credit cards? Eating and drinking whatever you want? Smoking, womanizing, gambling all your money away?

]“Will I be alive this time next year?”
There is lots of evidence to suggest that I will be alive this time next year so I do take this into account.

“Will I be dead this time next year?”
There is no evidence to suggest that I will be dead this time next year so I don’t take this into account.

Good Karma for you, My Friend [for admitting you made a mistake]

Yeah well, a bit embarassing as well.

[Titanpoint]

If there any moderators watching, can you please lock this thread?

TP

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Titanpoint
If there any moderators watching, can you please lock this thread?

TP

If I ever begin using stupid quotations as sig lines that will one of them. Thanks for sharing.

[MRC_Hans]

Damn, TP! I saw your post and waded through the last 10 posts to savour the blatant offensiveness, but no joy! Hey, why should it be locked?

Hans

[hammegk]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Damn, TP! I saw your post and waded through the last 10 posts to savour the blatant offensiveness, but no joy! Hey, why should it be locked?

Hans

Oh, I can help! Because the world will not stop playing chess when he wants play something he understands, like checkers.

[Franko]

Titanpout cried:
If there any moderators watching, can you please lock this thread?

Translation: We must protect the Dogma of the Cult of A-Theism AT ALL COST!!! These Heretical writting must CEASE THIS INSTANT!!!


Run along Troll-Boy, the Abyss is calling you ... www.infidels.org

[Titanpoint]

Originally posted by hammegk


Oh, I can help! Because the world will not stop playing chess when he wants play something he understands, like checkers.

What on earth brought this on?

[Franko]

Billyjoe:

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

Complexity increases form left to right.

Well if that is True, then explain why we understand “more” complex Cars so much better than “less” complex TLOP?

Why can you make a Car easier than you can make TLOP?

Franko:
Flying saucers aren’t real Billyjoe. Some people just imagine they see them. Same with “free will”.

Billyjoe:
Yeah but what about the ILLUSION of free will?

The illusion of free will is just as real as the illusion of alien abductions.

So A-Theists who believe in “free will” are about as logical as people who believe they have been anal probed and implanted by extraterrestrials.

When you wrote this post you did not feel as if you were using “free will” you felt AS IF you were following your FATE. In fact, in your opinion, you ARE following your FATE.
But I still find it hard to believe that you did not once feel as if you had “free will”. Before you arrived, through your logic, at the conclusion that you are just following your fate.

Exactly! Kind of like how YOU once believed that when you died you would go to Heaven and be with God.

Franko:
My “decisions” were preordained by events in my past. All of my “decisions” are merely the inevitable result and logical consequence of my previous “decisions”.

Billyjoe:
Well that is your logical conclusion.
But what was your gut feeling before you employed your logic? Before you were capable of logic?

I became a Fatalist some time between the Age of 18 and 20. Prior to that I guess I believed in “free will”, it has been so long now, that I am not certain what I really believed before that, or if I gave the matter much thought at all?

But I guess it is analogous to being a Christian in ones youth, and becoming an Atheist later in life.

I said “making” decisions.
That means I do not really think I am making decisions. As I said, it’s all physics and chemistry.
I do go through life as if I have free will, realizing all the while that free will is an illusion.
But perhaps, as an experiment, I will practice living with the thought that it’s all fate – after all I agree that it is – and see how it feels to live without the illusion of free will.
Trouble is the illusion of free will is so good it’s going to be pretty hard to shake it.

Let me give you some advice on this, if I may be so bold.

It is very difficult to believe in Fate, and remain a materialist, and maintain your sanity at the same time. The belief in Fate by necessity implies a “higher power” controlling Destiny. But since Fate is the reality – since it is True – then like all True things, it conveys a great benefit to the believer. It would be very difficult for me to explain this benefit, it is something that one must experience for themselves to truly comprehend.

Think about it. People were once very upset by the notion of evolution, or a round Earth, but certainly no one who believes in these things today would say that we are worse off for knowing the Truth. To suggest that the Truth is ever non-beneficial is absurd.

Franko:
None of my children ever believed in “free will”.

Billyjoe:
Really?
You must have indoctrinated them from birth, Franko.

Actually Billyjoe, I have never taught any children (especially my own) WHAT to think, I only teach them HOW to think. When you teach (tell) someone WHAT to think you have only served to rob them, and yourself, of Individuality.

I say that my CAR is less conscious then ME, because 1) I control my CAR, and 2) I make a CAR far easier than a CAR makes ME.

Billyjoe:
Franko, YOU cannot make a CAR.

Billyjoe, someone (a human) sure as hell can make them. I certainly see plenty of them around. Who made the first car?

To do so you must be able to mine iron ore, you must be able to manufacture steel, you must be able to manufacture the machines which manufacture steel, you must be able to build the factories that manufacture these machines, you must be able to design such machines and factories, you must be able to design and build electricity generators so that you can use electricity to power your various manufacturing industries, you must have been able to create the theoretical framework which is the basis of all the above etc etc etc etc etc etc

Art, Science and Culture are at an evolutionary level above the individual human being.
Nobody knows how to make a car.
Lots of people know how to do little bits and pieces here and there but nobody has any idea how to do the lot.

Admittedly there are a lot of layers to the process of building a Car, but regardless of the number of layers, there are even more involved in building you.

Why is our (human) technology fundamentally different then TLOP’s? Today we make better cars and toasters then we did 50 years ago. Similarly TLOP makes better Animals and planets then it did 50 million years ago.

Think back 300 million years, the best TLOP could do was a dinosaur, or a lemur, or a sloth. Now – Today – TLOP can make you (a Human Being). Just like a Car was a long evolutionary line for us to produce a modern Car today, You are the result of a long evolutionary line of technological progress. Next year, or next generation, or next millennium, TLOP will come out with an even better model.

Franko:
Maybe the watch just randomly formed according to the Laws of Physics? Why posit that the laws of physics first made “Intelligent Aliens”, who then in turn made watches? Maybe TLOP just cut to the chase, and is producing watches directly now?

Billyjoe:
I cannot believe you are serious, Franko.
What is the probability that a watch could form randomly, do you think?

Billyjoe, I can’t believe that YOU are serious. I understand how a WATCH is made FAR better then I understand how YOU are made. Why is it so hard for you to see that it would be easier for TLOP to make a watch, then it would for TLOP to make you? Obviously a watch is less complex then your are. Why do you believe that more complex you can be randomly formed, but not less complex watch cannot be randomly formed?

Franko:
you are still begging the question of Materialism. Why does a watch imply a consciousness intelligent enough to produce a watch, while universe does NOT imply the existence of a life form intelligent enough to produce a Universe?

Billyjoe:
Simplicity produces complexity.

Actually the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise.

Except, possibly where life is involved, but Life can’t save you here, because you claim TLOP is not Alive.

Franko: But YOU imply the existence of GOD (or TLOP)

Do you mean GOD = TLOP?
Or do you mean that GOD is responsible for TLOP?
If the second alternative, then who is responsible for GOD?

Using the Initial state and the Laws of Physics as the base, if YOU were God, Your mind (your consciousness) would be the initial state, and your words and actions would be TLOP.

It is kind of like this post. I don’t see you physically manifest when I perceive it. I only perceive your words (your TLOP your energy/information transmitted). So I perceive TLOB (The Laws of BillyJoe), but I don’t perceive the Initial State (Billyjoe yourself).

Billyjoe:
the presence of artifacts implies a higher form of consciousness

Franko:
I agree completely – O’artifact of Almighty TLOP.

Billyjoe:
Franko, what I meant by this statement was that the artifact, itself, is a higher form of consciousness because the seive of natural selection had to do more work to produce an artifact of homo sapiens than is required to produce homo sapiens.

TLOP ------- > YOU -------- > TOASTER

Now you can’t have it both ways Billyjoe. Not if you want to be logically consistent. Either TLOP, or the TOASTER must be 1) More complex, 2) More evolved, 3) More conscious. Personally, my vote is for TLOP, but you seem to be saying it’s the toaster.

Let me ask you this. I can make a spear by taking a straight stick and sharpen the end with a rock. Does this mean that the pointy stick is more complex, more evolved, and more conscious then I am?

The thing I think you are forgetting in your equation is that in all likelihood TLOP hasn’t “died” in over 12.7 Billion years. In that much time you learn a thing or to. You can get to be rather complex, especially when you are immersed in an environment where you are receiving a constant and steady stream of new information.

Franko:
[Primitive Toasters] … or I could put a piece of bread on the end of a stick, and hold it over a fire.

Billyjoe:
Franko, you forgot your smiley because this is surely a joke.

The point I was trying to make, my fine Friend is that in the same way our technology has increased over Time, so has TLOP’s. We are accumulating knowledge, our technology increases. TLOP is accumulating knowledge, Her technology increases.

Once we couldn’t make Toasters. Now we can.

Once She couldn’t make Humans. Now She can.

Billyjoe:
[You (Franko) cannot make a Toaster …]

Franko:
Perhaps, but the Toaster in my Kitchen is evidence that some humans DO have that knowledge. Since those humans are intrinsically no different then I am, it is easily within the realm of possibility that I could learn to make Toasters.

Billyjoe:
No, Franko, it is impossible for anyone to make a toaster.
It took 3 – 4 million years of evolution to produce a toaster.

That’s right, but by the same token, it took at least 12.7 Billion years of evolution to produce “Billyjoe”. In the same way a Toaster is less complex than the thing that made it (You/Humans), You are less complex than the thing that made YOU (TLOP).

I don’t remember how Godel explained and Mandlebrot demonstrated the origin of TLOP

Yeah, In my opinion, Godel should have guys like Einstein and Newton bringing him coffee and his slippers in the afterlife.

Godel is famous for his incompleteness theorem. Later he used a variation of this argument as the basis for his ontological proof of God.

What Godel says is that if you succeed in Unifying Physics – you boil everything down to an equation, or a system of equations, that there is no way to justify or prove that this equation is actually valid without making an appeal to an agent outside or beyond that system.

In other words, Godel is basically providing a Math proof for something “outside” the universe. The LD call this realm the Omniverse.

When you combine Godel with Thomas Bayes, essentially you arrive at the conclusion, that previous systems in the past (the Abyss and back) would be simpler, and operate at lower energies. Systems in the future (i.e. the Metaverse and up) would be more complex systems, and run at higher Energies.

Turtles all the way Up, and all the way down …

Franko:
Me: Who made you?
You: my parents.
Me: Who made your parents?
You: my grandparents.
Me: Who made your grandparents?
You: My great grandparents …

So why is it a problem? That’s not a problem, that is cause and event.

Billyjoe:
The problem is that there are an infinite number of steps.
Where’s the explanation in an infinite series?

Well I never claimed to have ALL the answers, just more of the answer.

What is the use in claiming that everything began with the Big Bang, and that nothing comes before when this is obviously NOT THE CASE? I mean, seriously Billyjoe, something had to be happening before the Big Bang, otherwise … why did the Big Bang even occur?

That is why I mention Godel and Mandelbrot. This isn’t just elaborate speculation, this is mathematics we are talking about here. This is empirically verifiable results. It should be obvious to you that reality is VERY recursive in nature. How many times have you driven the exact same route home from work at the same time of day? How many times have you stood out front of your door, and inserted your house key into the same lock? How many summers have you seen follow winters?

Franko:
[TLOP] is only a mystery, if you want to pretend that it is a mystery. TLOP is nothing more than the rules of the game. If you were God, and we were all inside your mind, your communications to me and everyone else would be perceived by us as something akin to the Laws of Physics. Think about it, and perhaps you will see what I mean.

Billyjoe:
Don’t you feel a need to explain GOD?

But I do explain God. She is the Logical Goddess. She is the source of Logic, the frame of reference for you and me and everyone. Aside from Your own mind, Her’s the one mind that you understand best of all. In fact, you understand Her mind so well, that you are hardly able to distinguish it from yourself any more. You have come to believe that it is simply an extension of yourself. Perceiving Fate is the first step in separating yourself, and re-establishing your unique Individuality.

Franko:
If Energy = Zero, then how do you explain all of the Energy apparently lying around?

Billyjoe:
Its splits into positive energy (Mass) and negative energy (Gravity)

That theory runs in to serious problems though when anti-matter enters into the equation.

Franko:
If this is True, then what caused the Big Bang?

Billyjoe:
This is the mystery at the beginning of the universe.
Nobody knows the answer although people like Hawking think they have some clues.

Mark my words Billyjoe. Hawking is so far off in left field on this, if we were living in the 15th century he would be calling for Galileo to be burned at the stake.

[Minds make machines …] Well, I meant [I]ultimately….
What evidence indicates that ultimately it is (Primordial) Mind that produces machines.
What evidence indicates that Mind came before machines.

Well, that’s what I mean. There is NO evidence of machines making minds – unless you beg the question of materialism – in which case machines make minds. But that one single hypothetical example aside, all of the other observed evidence says that the opposite is True, and that it is always Minds which make Machines.

In other words, if TLOP is conscious, then there would be NO examples (even hypothetical) of Machines making Minds. Not One. But so long as you make TLOP non-conscious this creates a contradiction, there are no tangible examples of what you are claiming.

Franko:
There is abundant evidence that Minds make machines, but there is no evidence that Machines (or “Matter”) makes minds. The only example you could site is Living creatures, but unless you have definitive proof that TLOP is NON-conscious (which you do not), then you have no evidence – not one shred – of Machines making Minds. That it is even possible is simply an assumption on your part.

Billyjoe:
But it is at least possible (some would say likely) that the mind is a machine.

:D

There is a reason that the LD say they are “True-Materialists”, while the Atheists are referred to as “Pseudo-materialists”. That fact is that your mind is a machine – more of an algorithm actually then a “machine”. But your consciousness is not made out of what the pseudo-materialist would call “matter” – not in reality. Your consciousness is made of “True-matter” it is an entirely different stuff, nothing like what the pseudo-materialist imagine “matter” to be. This is exactly why LD has more explanatory power then Atheism/Pseudo-materialism.

It is analogous to two people, one believing in Atoms, and the other believing everything is made of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water.

Franko:
Exactly right. As it turns out Mandelbrot is an excellent analogy for reality. Simple ideas, plus a lot of recursion – and Waa-laa – elaborate and seemingly complex universe with You and I talking about Mandelbrot!

Billyjoe:
Simplicity (TLOP) -> Complexity (YOU) -> Increased Complexity (ART, SCIENCE, CULTURE)

Your notion regarding the lack of an afterlife is hindering your imagining this. Assume for a moment that you are immortal. You have children. Initially they are inferior, but over time they grow and learn. Perhaps one day they are even smarter and wiser than you.

But in 1000 years, do you suppose that you great, great, great, … great grandchildren will have ANY chance of growing up to be smarter or wiser than you? After 1000 years, in all likelihood your lead would be too great for them to EVER catch up.

Franko:
Solipsism, Fate, God, and Time are all examples of H-Mobius problems. But not all of these problems are equal. Time is actually many different H-Mobius problems.

Billyjoe:
Are you saying that FATE can trap you and drive you insane?
Are you saying that GOD can trap you and drive you insane?
I'd better avoid them both then

The problem is … eventually you will be forced to face them. The fact that you are here in this Universe is the ONLY thing preventing you from fully considering them now. In my assessment it is better to deal with these issues on your own terms, at the time of your choosing, then to wait for them to come for you when you are not mentally prepared.

The Logical Goddess?
I have heard you mention the Goddess on many occasions but still do not know what it means.

… Imagine that you are playing Dungeons and Dragons, and the coolest, prettiest, smartest, most gorgeous woman you have ever laid eyes on is the Dungeonmistress.

That’s the Logical Goddess.

Franko:
In my mind, that is utterly ridiculous. Would you really live your life as if this equation is FALSE? Why not act as if the equation is UNKNOWN?

Billyjoe:
Why not act as if Santa Claus and Faeries are UNKNOWN?

Well Santa is easy … My parents eventually confessed they were behind that scam. But I didn’t hold it against them. They were always pulling practical jokes on us kids when we were little. They still do!

As for the Faeries … I’d say Unknown. I’m not even sure what you mean by “Faeries”. For example, Gay men are sometimes called “Faeries”. And I am pretty sure that Gay men exist in reality.

Isn't it better to say.....
There is no evidence that Santa and faeries are TRUE, therefore I do not take them into account.

Well lets use Faeries instead of Santa, but using the general definition of Faeries, I would say that my Agnosticism on Faeries doesn’t really come up much, and when it does, I don’t see how me claiming there are NO faeries when I really have No idea if there are faeries is a superior or more beneficial way to act?

Franko:
Will you be alive next year at this time?

1) True
2) False
3) Unknown

Billyjoe, are you seriously telling me that you are living your life as if #2 (False) is the correct answer to this question? Running up your credit cards? Eating and drinking whatever you want? Smoking, womanizing, gambling all your money away?

Billjoe:
“Will I be alive this time next year?”
There is lots of evidence to suggest that I will be alive this time next year so I do take this into account.

“Will I be dead this time next year?”
There is no evidence to suggest that I will be dead this time next year so I don’t take this into account.

What evidence? Are you claiming it is impossible that you will be run over by a bus later today (Goddess forbid!)?

I don’t see the difference. If there is no evidence for God, Atheist believe NO GOD.

Similarly if there is NO evidence you will be alive next week, NO ALIVE NEXT WEEK.

[for admitting you made a mistake]

Yeah well, a bit embarassing as well.

Really? Do you think so? You shouldn’t be embarrassed.

That is what being a Fatalist is all about BJ. To a Fatalist it is an Honor, of sorts, to concede a mistake. The only dishonor is in not conceding to it, and instead making that same mistake over and over and over again. To a Fatalist, mistakes in your past are unavoidable (a source of humor perhaps, but never regret), it is repeating those mistakes in the present when you should know better that is the true sin (source of embarrassment).

[wraith]

Originally posted by hammegk

If I ever begin using stupid quotations as sig lines that will one of them. Thanks for sharing.



Oh, I can help! Because the world will not stop playing chess when he wants play something he understands, like checkers.



LOL
HAHAHA
now THATS a hoot!


:cool:

[wraith]

Originally posted by Franko
Titanpout cried:


Translation: We must protect the Dogma of the Cult of A-Theism AT ALL COST!!! These Heretical writting must CEASE THIS INSTANT!!!


Run along Troll-Boy, the Abyss is calling you ... www.infidels.org

HAHAHA!
Another one for the books
:)

[gentlehorse]

Titanpoint:
If there any moderators watching, can you please lock this thread?

TP

Franko and Billy Joe are having a civil discussion, TP. What do you find so offensive? Seriously. Two people are making an effort to share ideas. They're obviously putting some thought into their posts. They're neither flaming nor talking past one another, regardless of whether they come to any kind of an agreement. Each is exploring/sharing his ideas in light of the other's.

Why put a stop to this kind of exchange, whether you agree with either of their positions or not? Why even entertain the idea? Isn't this type of echange to be expected and even encouraged in the JREF's R&P section? My goodness.

Edited to thank Billy Joe and Franko for their contributions to this thread. I've enjoyed following your discussion very much.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Franko
… Imagine that you are playing Dungeons and Dragons, and the coolest, prettiest, smartest, most gorgeous woman you have ever laid eyes on is the Dungeonmistress.

That’s the Logical Goddess.

WOAH, slow down there Turbo, this is starting to get interesting!
;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by Titanpoint


What on earth brought this on?

Dont play Mr Innocent TP. It doesnt suit you.
;)

[BillyJoe]

Franko,

I have to pass again tonight.
Back tomorrow night.

regards,
BillyJoe.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by gentlehorse


Franko and Billy Joe are having a civil discussion, TP. What do you find so offensive? Seriously. Two people are making an effort to share ideas. They're obviously putting some thought into their posts. They're neither flaming nor talking past one another, regardless of whether they come to any kind of an agreement. Each is exploring/sharing his ideas in light of the other's.

Why put a stop to this kind of exchange, whether you agree with either of their positions or not? Why even entertain the idea? Isn't this type of echange to be expected and even encouraged in the JREF's R&P section? My goodness.

Edited to thank Billy Joe and Franko for their contributions to this thread. I've enjoyed following your discussion very much.

I agree gentlehorse

I always like to read BillyJoe and Frank discussing things

And in case any body has you on ignore I've quoted you in full

:p

Sou

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Soubrette


Originally posted by gentlehorse

Franko and Billy Joe are having a civil discussion, TP. What do you find so offensive? Seriously. Two people are making an effort to share ideas. They're obviously putting some thought into their posts. They're neither flaming nor talking past one another, regardless of whether they come to any kind of an agreement. Each is exploring/sharing his ideas in light of the other's.

Why put a stop to this kind of exchange, whether you agree with either of their positions or not? Why even entertain the idea? Isn't this type of echange to be expected and even encouraged in the JREF's R&P section? My goodness.

Edited to thank Billy Joe and Franko for their contributions to this thread. I've enjoyed following your discussion very much.

I agree gentlehorse

I always like to read BillyJoe and Frank discussing things

And in case any body has you on ignore I've quoted you in full

:p

Sou [/B]


Full quote.

Just in case that anybody has Soubrette on ignore as well :D

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Full quote.

Just in case that anybody has Soubrette on ignore as well :D

Thank you :p

Call me Sou - please:)

And I don't think TP has me on ignore - or if he has....I haven't read the essay yet:rolleyes:

Sou

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Soubrette


Thank you :p

Call me Sou - please:)

And I don't think TP has me on ignore - or if he has....I haven't read the essay yet:rolleyes:

Sou


So, you were talking about Titanpoint only :eek:

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Q-Source



So, you were talking about Titanpoint only :eek:

Because I know he has or used to have gentlehorse on ignore, yes:)

max used to have me on ignore too though - but not gentlehorse:p

Sou

[BillyJoe]

Franko is in ordinary type

BillyJoe is in bold type

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

Well if that is True, then explain why we understand “more” complex Cars so much better than “less” complex TLOP?

We don't.
To understand CAR, we first have to understand TLOP

Why can you make a Car easier than you can make TLOP?

It took 3 – 4 billion years of evolution to “make” a CAR.
TLOP is still a mystery we have not yet solved.

The illusion of free will is just as real as the illusion of alien abductions.

Free will is an illusion.
Alien abductions are a delusion.
Illusions are real – everyone sees the square in the “Color-bleeding Illusion”
Delusions are false – one person sees an alien where everyone else sees a blank wall.

So A-Theists who believe in “free will” are about as logical as people who believe they have been anal probed and implanted by extraterrestrials.

It’s a question of whether you think free will is an illusion or a delusion.
What do you think, Franko?
Does pretty well everyone have the illusion of free will or is it the case that only a few people have the delusion of free will?

Exactly! Kind of like how YOU once believed that when you died you would go to Heaven and be with God.

I’m still not disagreeing with you on this.
The “illusion of God” and the “illusion of Afterlife” are real.
But there is no evidence that “God” and “Afterlife” are real.

I became a Fatalist some time between the Age of 18 and 20. Prior to that I guess I believed in “free will”, it has been so long now, that I am not certain what I really believed before that, or if I gave the matter much thought at all?

Good Franko. So then you did have the “Illusion of free will”
But I’m still after blood…..
Don’t you even now have the “illusion of free will” even though you now know there is no such thing as “free will” or do you really go through life thinking at every moment “I am following a predetermined path”, “I am not making any decisions, I am merely following my fate”?

But I guess it is analogous to being a Christian in ones youth, and becoming an Atheist later in life.

The existence of “God” and “Afterlife” do not enter into the equation for me. At no time do I entertain thoughts such as “Will God will punish me for that”, “Will God be pleased with me for having done this”, “Am I going to end up in Hell for this” or “Will this good deed help get me into Heaven when I die”
So are you saying that, in the same way, “free will” does not enter into the equation for you?

Let me give you some advice on this, if I may be so bold.
It is very difficult to believe in Fate, and remain a materialist, and maintain your sanity at the same time….

So it’s a choice between Fate-and-Sanity and Materialism-and-Insanity?

…..The belief in Fate by necessity implies a “higher power” controlling Destiny…..

How does FATE imply a belief in a higher power?
How is Fate not consistent with Materialism?

…..But since Fate is the reality – since it is True – then like all True things, it conveys a great benefit to the believer. It would be very difficult for me to explain this benefit, it is something that one must experience for themselves to truly comprehend…..

But couldn’t you at least try?
I need a really good reason to give up on Materialism (assuming that you can explain how Fate is not consistent with Materialism) in order to experience the presumed benefits of FATE.

…..Think about it. People were once very upset by the notion of evolution, or a round Earth, but certainly no one who believes in these things today would say that we are worse off for knowing the Truth. To suggest that the Truth is ever non-beneficial is absurd.

In this context and for me personally I would agree with you.
However, I do not think it is true in other contexts (ie the man who died suddenly of a heart attack never knowing that he had had a terminal disease for the last three years of his life) and for other people (a person who is convinced in the belief of an Afterlife who is suddenly shown incontrovertable proof that his belief was mistaken).

Actually Billyjoe, I have never taught any children (especially my own) WHAT to think, I only teach them HOW to think. When you teach (tell) someone WHAT to think you have only served to rob them, and yourself, of Individuality.

I am glad to hear that, Franko.

In my own case, two out of my four children were teenagers before they discovered what my thoughts were on these questions. My eleven year old only recently asked me for the first time what a sceptic is.
I think it is important to teach them HOW to think and just as important to avoid telling them WHAT to think. What I want most of all for my children is that they live happy and satisfying lives.

But tell me, Franko, did your children really never believe in “free will” or live their lives as if they had “free will”?

Admittedly there are a lot of layers to the process of building a Car, but regardless of the number of layers, there are even more involved in building you.

But first homo sapiens must be “built” before homo sapiens can “build” a Car.
The artifacts of homo sapiens branch out from homo sapiens on the evolutionary tree.

Why is our (human) technology fundamentally different then TLOP’s? Today we make better cars and toasters then we did 50 years ago. Similarly TLOP makes better Animals and planets then it did 50 million years ago.

Homo sapiens has not evolved to any significant extent during the last hundred years.
The artifacts of homo sapiens, on the other hand, have evolved to very significant extent during the last hundred years.

Billyjoe I can’t believe that YOU are serious [that a watch could not form randomly]....

Theoretically, TLOP could throw up a watch randomly but it would take an almost infinite amount of time.
By comparison, the time taken for TLOP to “make” a watch by first making homo sapiens who would then complete the process of making the watch would be a mere instant.

...I understand how a WATCH is made FAR better then I understand how YOU are made. Why is it so hard for you to see that it would be easier for TLOP to make a watch, then it would for TLOP to make you?

Because TLOP would have to "make" us (homo sapiens) first

Obviously a watch is less complex then you are. Why do you believe that more complex you can be randomly formed, but not less complex watch cannot be randomly formed?

I still think, Franko, that you must think about all the complexity that must necessarily go before the appearance of that watch. The existence of the watch implies all that complexity.


Actually the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise.

[b]The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies only to a closed system.
The Earth is not a closed system.
Energy from the sun allows simplicity to produce complexity.
For the Earth-Sun system the 2nd Law still applies – the increase in entropy of the Sun is greater than the decrease in entropy of the Earth so that overall, for the Earth-Sun system, entropy increases in agreement with the 2nd Law.

Except, possibly where life is involved, but Life can’t save you here, because you claim TLOP is not Alive.

Entropy can decrease locally even in the absence of life (as long as entropy increases or remains the same in the closed system which contains this locale).
Complex molecules can form from simple molecules provided there is an external source of energy.

Using the Initial state and the Laws of Physics as the base, if YOU were God, Your mind (your consciousness) would be the initial state, and your words and actions would be TLOP.

So, GOD = Initial State + TLOP.
To me, this means that GOD is a mere label for an unresolved mystery.

It is kind of like this post. I don’t see you physically manifest when I perceive it. I only perceive your words (your TLOP your energy/information transmitted). So I perceive TLOB (The Laws of BillyJoe), but I don’t perceive the Initial State (Billyjoe yourself).

But, then, just as BillyJoe requires further explanation, GOD requires further explanation.

Let me ask you this. I can make a spear by taking a straight stick and sharpen the end with a rock. Does this mean that the pointy stick is more complex, more evolved, and more conscious then I am?

Certainly “more evolved” because, for spears to “evolve”, homo sapiens would need to evolve first.
The spear is part of the evolutionary tree that branches off from homo sapiens.

The thing I think you are forgetting in your equation is that in all likelihood TLOP hasn’t “died” in over 12.7 Billion years. In that much time you learn a thing or to. You can get to be rather complex, especially when you are immersed in an environment where you are receiving a constant and steady stream of new information.

Nothing really dies.
Everything builds on everything that has come before.
So everything that comes after contains what has come before.
Simplicity produces complexity.

When you combine Godel with Thomas Bayes……

Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem – that for any axiomatic self-consistent system there are truths that cannot be proven within the system.
Bayes? The only thing I know about Bayes is Bayes Rule and it has been demonstrated to be nonsense.

….essentially you arrive at the conclusion, that previous systems in the past (the Abyss and back) would be simpler, and operate at lower energies. Systems in the future (i.e. the Metaverse and up) would be more complex systems, and run at higher Energies.

Yes, so Simplicity -> Complexity
Homo sapiens more complex than TLOP and the artifacts of homo sapiens more complex than homo sapiens.

What is the use in claiming that everything began with the Big Bang, and that nothing comes before when this is obviously NOT THE CASE? I mean, seriously Billyjoe, something had to be happening before the Big Bang, otherwise … why did the Big Bang even occur?

Hawking attempted to show how the Big Bang could have been the first cause uncaused (which is what is being claimed for God). The analogy he used, if I remember, is the surface of a sphere which has no beginning. However, when I first read his explanation, it sounded like some sort of a trick. But I’m not sure what physicists in general think of his demonstration.

In any case….

If something was happening before the Big Bang, then something must have been happening before that and something else before that and something else before that…etc…etc…etc…
Sooner or later we have to face the following (?apparent) paradox:

At some time in the past there must have been NOTHING and now there is SOMETHING...
...but how can SOMETHING arise from NOTHING?

This is the unsolved mystery which Hawking was attempting to resolve.


But I do explain God. She is the Logical Goddess. She is the source of Logic, the frame of reference for you and me and everyone. Aside from Your own mind, Her’s the one mind that you understand best of all. In fact, you understand Her mind so well, that you are hardly able to distinguish it from yourself any more. You have come to believe that it is simply an extension of yourself. Perceiving Fate is the first step in separating yourself, and re-establishing your unique Individuality.

[b]This sounds to me like a subjective interpretation rather than an objective explanation

That theory [Energy = positive energy (Mass) + negative energy (Gravity) = zero]
runs in to serious problems though when anti-matter enters into the equation.

Perhaps it works like this…..

Matter is positive energy so Anti-matter must be negative energy and its associated Anti-gravity must be positive energy.
Matter (positive energy) + Gravity (negative energy) = zero
Anti-matter (negative energy) + Anti-gravity (positive energy) = zero
Energy = Matter (positive energy) + Anti-matter (negative energy) + Gravity (negative energy) + Anti-gravity (positive energy) = zero.

…..but I had better leave this to the physicists.

Well, that’s what I mean. There is NO evidence of machines making minds – unless you beg the question of materialism – in which case machines make minds…..

Or, more correctly, according to Materialism, minds are machines.
So it’s machines -> machines -> machines -> etc

…..But that one single hypothetical example aside, all of the other observed evidence says that the opposite is True, and that it is always Minds which make Machines

In other words, if TLOP is conscious, then there would be NO examples (even hypothetical) of Machines making Minds. Not One. But so long as you make TLOP non-conscious this creates a contradiction, there are no tangible examples of what you are claiming.

You are talking about the human mind making its technological machines.
But what about the evolutionary process producing homo sapiens from single-celled oragmisms? Setting aside abiogenesis for the moment, we have a gradual increase in the quality of mind…..

Prokaryotes (single-celled organisms) -> Eukaryotes (single-celled organisms containing organelles) -> multicelled organisms (insects -> reptiles -> birds -> mammals including homo sapiens)

That is to say, lesser minds gave rise to greater minds through the evolutionary process.
So, even though we haven’t as yet shown non-mind -> mind, we have shown lesser mind -> greater mind.
Isn’t it therefore logical that TLOP are even less mind? Perhaps even non-mind?

There is a reason that the LD say they are “True-Materialists”, while the Atheists are referred to as “Pseudo-materialists”. That fact is that your mind is a machine – more of an algorithm actually then a “machine”. But your consciousness is not made out of what the pseudo-materialist would call “matter” – not in reality. Your consciousness is made of “True-matter” it is an entirely different stuff, nothing like what the pseudo-materialist imagine “matter” to be. This is exactly why LD has more explanatory power then Atheism/Pseudo-materialism.

So you are saying that, according to LD, mind is brain (or machine or matter or algorithm) but consciousness is not brain. You are saying that consciousness is “True-matter”???
But to have explanatory power, LD must explain what “True Matter” is.


The problem is … eventually you will be forced to face them. The fact that you are here in this Universe is the ONLY thing preventing you from fully considering them now. In my assessment it is better to deal with these issues on your own terms, at the time of your choosing, then to wait for them to come for you when you are not mentally prepared.

[b]So you are saying here that FATE and GOD can trap you and drive you insane if you are not prepared for them?

… Imagine that you are playing Dungeons and Dragons, and the coolest, prettiest, smartest, most gorgeous woman you have ever laid eyes on is the Dungeonmistress.
That’s the Logical Goddess.

The Logical Goddess, then, is a label for the logical reasoning that leads you to your conclusion about the nature of reality?
Your conclusions about the nature of reality are based on pure logic?
No empirical evidence required?

Well Santa is easy … My parents eventually confessed they were behind that scam. But I didn’t hold it against them. They were always pulling practical jokes on us kids when we were little. They still do!

And they might still be kidding you about Santa….
They were kidding you before that he was real, they could be kidding you now that he is false.
So why do you believe Santa is false?

As for the Faeries … I’d say Unknown. I’m not even sure what you mean by “Faeries”. For example, Gay men are sometimes called “Faeries”. And I am pretty sure that Gay men exist in reality.

Fokloric faeries (the other type is spelled without the ‘e’ ;) )
But does unknown mean 50% chance of being real and 50% chance of being false.
For me, considering the dearth of evidence for the existence of faeries, I would say that the chances of them being real are such that I will not be taking them into account.

Well lets use Faeries instead of Santa, but using the general definition of Faeries, I would say that my Agnosticism on Faeries doesn’t really come up much, and when it does, I don’t see how me claiming there are NO faeries when I really have No idea if there are faeries is a superior or more beneficial way to act?

Franko, to repeat again, I do not say “There are no faeries.”
I say “There is no evidence that faeries exist, so I do not take them into account.”
To put it another way: In living my life I take into account only those things for which there is evidence.

What evidence? Are you claiming it is impossible that you will be run over by a bus later today (Goddess forbid!)?

No. Just very unlikely.

I don’t see the difference. If there is no evidence for God, Atheist believe NO GOD.

Consider, for the sake of argument, that the following statement is true…..

“There is no evidence that God exists.”

Now, consider the following two statements about belief…..

(1) I believe that God does not exist.
(2) I do not hold the belief that God exists.

Do you accept that there is a difference between (1) and (2)?

I go with (2)

Similarly if there is NO evidence you will be alive next week, NO ALIVE NEXT WEEK.

There is lots of evidence that I will be alive next week……

I am relatively young. A person of my age has a life expectancy way in excess of one week. I am fit. I am healthy. There is longevity in my family. I have no psychological or emotional problems that would result in suicide within the next week.

Really the only reason I will not be alive next week is just plain bad luck and, even then, the odds are heavily loaded in my favour. There is virtually no chance I will win lotto next week and there is almost no chance or very little chance that I will die next week.

Conclusion:
There is lots of evidence that I will be alive next week therefore I believe I will be alive next week.

Really? Do you think so? You shouldn’t be embarrassed.

That is what being a Fatalist is all about BJ. To a Fatalist it is an Honor, of sorts, to concede a mistake. The only dishonor is in not conceding to it, and instead making that same mistake over and over and over again. To a Fatalist, mistakes in your past are unavoidable (a source of humor perhaps, but never regret), it is repeating those mistakes in the present when you should know better that is the true sin (source of embarrassment).

You are, of course, right Franko.
I was under the illusion that I had free will.

[Franko]

Billyjoe,

… sorry about that … I was distracted momentarily …

Franko:
Well if that is True, then explain why we understand “more” complex Cars so much better than “less” complex TLOP?

Billyjoe:
We don't.
To understand CAR, we first have to understand TLOP

Wait a minute … it looks like you are pulling the switcheroo. YOU control CAR, but TLOP controls YOU. You understand CAR much better then you understand TLOP.

Come on Billyjoe! … you are playing word games.

Franko:
Why can you make a Car easier than you can make TLOP?

Billyjoe:
It took 3 – 4 billion years of evolution to “make” a CAR.
TLOP is still a mystery we have not yet solved.

It might take ME 3 – 4 billion years to make a “Billyjoe”, but I bet I could make a Car in a LOT less time. What makes you think that it is any different for TLOP?

I can build a house by stacking rocks on top of each other. Are you telling me that stacked stones require more technology then making Me does?

Franko:
The illusion of free will is just as real as the illusion of alien abductions.

Billyjoe:
Free will is an illusion.
Alien abductions are a delusion.
Illusions are real – everyone sees the square in the “Color-bleeding Illusion”
Delusions are false – one person sees an alien where everyone else sees a blank wall.

Just like everyone sees God, or afterlife, or “free will”, or the hidden image in those crazy hologram posters?

One man’s reality is another man’s illusions.

Franko:
So A-Theists who believe in “free will” are about as logical as people who believe they have been anal probed and implanted by extraterrestrials.

Billyjoe:
It’s a question of whether you think free will is an illusion or a delusion.
What do you think, Franko? Does pretty well everyone have the illusion of free will or is it the case that only a few people have the delusion of free will?

I am not going to comment, my Friend, but I assure you … I do not experience this “illusion of free will” you claim “everyone” experiences, and I am by no means the only one who does not experience it.

Franko:
Exactly! Kind of like how YOU once believed that when you died you would go to Heaven and be with God.

Billyjoe:
I’m still not disagreeing with you on this.
The “illusion of God” and the “illusion of Afterlife” are real.
But there is no evidence that “God” and “Afterlife” are real.

That depends on if you have a proper comprehension of Logic, in other words, it depends upon your perspective (whether there is evidence).

Franko:
I became a Fatalist some time between the Age of 18 and 20. Prior to that I guess I believed in “free will”, it has been so long now, that I am not certain what I really believed before that, or if I gave the matter much thought at all?

Billyjoe:
Good Franko. So then you did have the “Illusion of free will”
But I’m still after blood…..

Slow down their “Killer”, like I said, before I became a Fatalist, I don’t know that I gave the idea of “free will” much thought. I was programming computers from an even younger age, and I always had a hunch that reality/minds were at least as logical as computers …

Don’t you even now have the “illusion of free will” even though you now know there is no such thing as “free will” or do you really go through life thinking at every moment “I am following a predetermined path”, “I am not making any decisions, I am merely following my fate”?

It is very difficult to explain in this forum …

I would say … that I go through life knowing that a great destiny lies before me. As I perceive that Destiny it manifests in reality.

The existence of “God” and “Afterlife” do not enter into the equation for me. At no time do I entertain thoughts such as “Will God will punish me for that”, “Will God be pleased with me for having done this”, “Am I going to end up in Hell for this” or “Will this good deed help get me into Heaven when I die”
So are you saying that, in the same way, “free will” does not enter into the equation for you?

Yes. But I am not really sure what you mean when you ask?

When you make a decision, aren’t you aware that you decision is simply based on your experiences in the past, and those experiences where based on even earlier experiences, which were based on even earlier experiences … and so on … all the way back to long before you were even born.

Where are you getting this idea that there is a YOU controlling things?

What’s the “You” anyway? You’re just a collection of Atoms, I thought?

Franko:
Let me give you some advice on this, if I may be so bold.
It is very difficult to believe in Fate, and remain a materialist, and maintain your sanity at the same time….

Billyjoe:
So it’s a choice between Fate-and-Sanity and Materialism-and-Insanity?

I know it probably sounds more than a little crazy to you my Friend, but in the end your one Free Will choice is going to either put you in Heaven, or leave you trapped in the isolation of Solipsism, for the rest of this Eternity.

Franko:
…..The belief in Fate by necessity implies a “higher power” controlling Destiny…..

Billyjoe:
1) How does FATE imply a belief in a higher power?
2) How is Fate not consistent with Materialism?

Fate requires a higher power, the higher power is the thing doing the controlling – TLOP in our case. But Fate can be consistent with either Atheism/Materialism, or Logical deism/Materialism. In the former the source of control (Fate) is non-conscious, like a machine; in the latter the source of control is a consciousness, more evolved, but fundamentally no different then yours or mine.

Here’s the thing … if a consciousness controls your mind, then you are a consciousness; but if a machine controls your consciousness then in reality you are a machine. Of course if you are conscious then you get to decide what is a machine, and not a machine. Either way, it doesn’t change what you … or She is, in reality.

Franko:
…..But since Fate is the reality – since it is True – then like all True things, it conveys a great benefit to the believer. It would be very difficult for me to explain this benefit, it is something that one must experience for themselves to truly comprehend…..

Billyjoe:
But couldn’t you at least try?
I need a really good reason to give up on Materialism (assuming that you can explain how Fate is not consistent with Materialism) in order to experience the presumed benefits of FATE.

You could be a Fatalist as a Materialist, try living your life for a few days knowing that you control none of your actions in reality, and are instead controlled by an uncaring, unthinking, and unknowing “invisible sky-machine” (i.e. non-conscious TLOP)?

When you realize that this “invisible sky machine” seems to be going out of Her way to look out for your benefit, She doesn’t seem so “machine-like.

To suggest that the Truth is ever non-beneficial is absurd.

In this context and for me personally I would agree with you.
However, I do not think it is true in other contexts (ie the man who died suddenly of a heart attack never knowing that he had had a terminal disease for the last three years of his life)

Look carefully at what you are doing. You are simply assuming that dying is bad, when actually you have no idea if it is bad in reality. If it is somehow True that you go to a better place when you die, this individual might have been delighted to know his end was near??? Perhaps it would have given him an opportunity to bring closure to his affairs here, and prepare himself?

What if death is actually like an all-expense paid trip to Disney World?

and for other people (a person who is convinced in the belief of an Afterlife who is suddenly shown incontrovertable proof that his belief was mistaken).

Once again you are begging the question. Suppose the afterlife is far better than existence here? You might anticipate it like you anticipate an upcoming vacation trip, or moving to a New and Bigger House?

Franko:
Actually Billyjoe, I have never taught any children (especially my own) WHAT to think, I only teach them HOW to think. When you teach (tell) someone WHAT to think you have only served to rob them, and yourself, of Individuality.

Billyjoe:
I am glad to hear that, Franko.

In my own case, two out of my four children were teenagers before they discovered what my thoughts were on these questions. My eleven year old only recently asked me for the first time what a sceptic is.

Hehe .. I am the same way. It’s not like I am whipping out the textbook, and saying “Tonight’s metaphysical topic will be …”. Kids ask about stuff when they get around to it. My children are younger than yours. I find that they ask a lot of innocent sounding questions that are actually very deep philosophically.

I think it is important to teach them HOW to think and just as important to avoid telling them WHAT to think. What I want most of all for my children is that they live happy and satisfying lives.

I couldn’t agree more.

But tell me, Franko, did your children really never believe in “free will” or live their lives as if they had “free will”?

In all honesty Billyjoe, it has only strengthen and confirmed my belief in Fate. You assume that children have an intrinsic sense of “free will”. The fact is, that the opposite is True. Children are born as Fatalist, you have to implant a notion of “free will” in their heads.

Franko:
Admittedly there are a lot of layers to the process of building a Car, but regardless of the number of layers, there are even more involved in building you.

Billyjoe:
But first homo sapiens must be “built” before homo sapiens can “build” a Car.
The artifacts of homo sapiens branch out from homo sapiens on the evolutionary tree.

You are simply assuming that to be the case. The fact of the matter is, it would be much easier for you and me to build a functioning “Car”, then it would for us to build a functioning “homo sapien”.

Franko:
Why is our (human) technology fundamentally different then TLOP’s? Today we make better cars and toasters then we did 50 years ago. Similarly TLOP makes better Animals and planets then it did 50 million years ago.

Billyjoe:
Homo sapiens has not evolved to any significant extent during the last hundred years.

Sure we have. For one thing … we make much better toasters.

The artifacts of homo sapiens, on the other hand, have evolved to very significant extent during the last hundred years.

Why is one suddenly not a product of TLOP? All evolution works up the tree …

TLOP ---- > YOU ---- > TOASTER

If the Toaster improves it means that you were in some way improved, which implies that TLOP was in some way improved.

Franko:
Billyjoe I can’t believe that YOU are serious [that a watch could not form randomly]....

Billyjoe:
Theoretically, TLOP could throw up a watch randomly but it would take an almost infinite amount of time.
By comparison, the time taken for TLOP to “make” a watch by first making homo sapiens who would then complete the process of making the watch would be a mere instant.

How do you come to this conclusion? As I keep saying if you and I can make a watch easier then a homo sapien, by what logic do you claim this is not the case for TLOP?

How can TLOP make us directly, but not form watches directly?

Is a watch more complicated then the Earth? TLOP made the Earth – right?

Franko:
...I understand how a WATCH is made FAR better then I understand how YOU are made. Why is it so hard for you to see that it would be easier for TLOP to make a watch, then it would for TLOP to make you?

Billyjoe:
Because TLOP would have to "make" us (homo sapiens) first

Why?

If at the moment of the Big Bang, the Initial State and TLOP got together and decided that they wanted a Universe which resulted in Watches, and Toasters, surely they could have contrived to have these things produced more directly? Why include homo sapiens at all, unless there was some necessity for TLOP and the Initial State to include homo sapiens?

Franko:
Obviously a watch is less complex then you are. Why do you believe that more complex you can be randomly formed, but not less complex watch cannot be randomly formed?

Billyjoe:
I still think, Franko, that you must think about all the complexity that must necessarily go before the appearance of that watch. The existence of the watch implies all that complexity.

Billyjoe … that is exactly what I am thinking about. You must think about all the complexity that must necessarily go before the appearance of YOU. The existence of YOU implies all that complexity (TLOP/God).


Billyjoe:
[Simplicity produces complexity]

Franko:
Actually the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise.

Billyjoe:
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies only to a closed system.
The Earth is not a closed system.

Yes, but unless me and Godel are correct, the Universe is a closed system -- isn’t it?

According to the Atheist/Materialist, the Laws of Thermodynamics are inviolate when it comes to empirical observation. NEVER has there been a recorded and verified violation of these Laws. They are the hardest science that Science has.

Yet in order for the Big Bang to work, essentially you have to throw Thermodynamics out the window. The Big Bang is making a huge doo-doo on Both the Conservation of Energy, and Entropy.

Energy from the sun allows simplicity to produce complexity.
For the Earth-Sun system the 2nd Law still applies – the increase in entropy of the Sun is greater than the decrease in entropy of the Earth so that overall, for the Earth-Sun system, entropy increases in agreement with the 2nd Law.

Right, but how did all of this Energy just magically appear? It doesn’t make any sense, at least not according to Atheism/Materialism. Switch your premise, and have Consciousness make matter, and this “conundrum” vanishes like magic.

To wit …

Franko:
Except, possibly where life is involved, but Life can’t save you here, because you claim TLOP is not Alive.

Entropy can decrease locally even in the absence of life (as long as entropy increases or remains the same in the closed system which contains this locale).
Complex molecules can form from simple molecules provided there is an external source of energy.

What I am saying Billyjoe, that left to its own devices a Matter-System is destroyed by Entropy, while Conscious-System can resist, or even overcome the forces of Entropy. As Matter the universe has no way to form. As a consciousness, it was only a matter of Time.

Consciousness evolves over time, matter does not. Matter just sits there.

Franko:
Using the Initial state and the Laws of Physics as the base, if YOU were God, Your mind (your consciousness) would be the initial state, and your words and actions would be TLOP.

Billyjoe:
So, GOD = Initial State + TLOP.
To me, this means that GOD is a mere label for an unresolved mystery.

When you get the idea in your head that it is a consciousness, similar to yours, as opposed to an incomprehensible energy-matter force, then it goes a long way to resolving the mystery. … At least a good piece of it.

Franko:
Let me ask you this. I can make a spear by taking a straight stick and sharpen the end with a rock. Does this mean that the pointy stick is more complex, more evolved, and more conscious then I am?

Billyjoe:
Certainly “more evolved” because, for spears to “evolve”, homo sapiens would need to evolve first.
The spear is part of the evolutionary tree that branches off from homo sapiens.

I don’t mean to belabor the point, but repetition does work …

How can I make a more complex spear so simply, but I cannot make the less “evolved” homo sapien?

Franko:
When you combine Godel with Thomas Bayes……

Billyjoe:
Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem – that for any axiomatic self-consistent system there are truths that cannot be proven within the system.
Bayes? The only thing I know about Bayes is Bayes Rule and it has been demonstrated to be nonsense.

Say you are on that old game show the Price is Right, there are 3 doors, 1 has a fabulous prize, the other 2 have goofy gag gifts. What are your odds of guessing the door with the Good-Prize?

I bet you are thinking it’s 1 in 3 – aren’t you?

Bayes has a magic trick. He’s gonna dopuble your odds of winning -- get them up to 2 in 3 – guaranteed.

Franko:
….essentially you arrive at the conclusion, that previous systems in the past (the Abyss and back) would be simpler, and operate at lower energies. Systems in the future (i.e. the Metaverse and up) would be more complex systems, and run at higher Energies.

Billyjoe:
Yes, so Simplicity -> Complexity
Homo sapiens more complex than TLOP and the artifacts of homo sapiens more complex than homo sapiens.

No, no, no … you are mixing apples and oranges now.

Universes are generated by consciousnesses . The more evolved the consciousness generating the Universe, the more evolved the Universe. In other words, simple universe runs at low Energy, simple consciousnesses. Complex, more evolved universe -- high energy, complex more evolved consciousnesses. Like Mandelbrot, turtles all the way up, and all the way down …

Franko:
What is the use in claiming that everything began with the Big Bang, and that nothing comes before when this is obviously NOT THE CASE? I mean, seriously Billyjoe, something had to be happening before the Big Bang, otherwise … why did the Big Bang even occur?

Billyjoe:
Hawking attempted to show how the Big Bang could have been the first cause uncaused (which is what is being claimed for God). The analogy he used, if I remember, is the surface of a sphere which has no beginning. However, when I first read his explanation, it sounded like some sort of a trick. But I’m not sure what physicists in general think of his demonstration.

Did you see my thread on Nothing?

First of all it seems rather axiomatic that Nothing can’t really exist … ?

At least not without a magical explanation beyond any potential for human comprehension.

I was getting on this topic there. Hawking has got himself a crystal spheres of a Theory compared to what I got. All I need to build the Omniverse is Time. That’s all that any of it is made of … even you and me …

In any case….

If something was happening before the Big Bang, then something must have been happening before that and something else before that and something else before that…etc…etc…etc…
Sooner or later we have to face the following (?apparent) paradox:

At some time in the past there must have been NOTHING and now there is SOMETHING...
...but how can SOMETHING arise from NOTHING?

This is the unsolved mystery which Hawking was attempting to resolve.

Crystal spheres weren’t the answer 400 years ago, and they still aren’t the answer.

Franko:
Well, that’s what I mean. There is NO evidence of machines making minds – unless you beg the question of materialism – in which case machines make minds…..

Billyjoe:
Or, more correctly, according to Materialism, minds are machines.
So it’s machines -> machines -> machines -> etc

Now see, if you were a Fatalist like me, then this would make much more sense …

Why is it that you need to experience the “illusion of free will” to feel human (conscious), and to be able to deal with reality, yet in this regard you so easily accept the idea that you are simply a deterministic machine?

In other words, if you find “consciousness” and easier frame of reference then “machine” (which I would think most people would find natural) then why is it machines -> machines -> machines -> etc … instead of consciousness -- > consciousness -- > consciousness -- > etc. ?

Franko:
…..But that one single hypothetical example aside, all of the other observed evidence says that the opposite is True, and that it is always Minds which make Machines

In other words, if TLOP is conscious, then there would be NO examples (even hypothetical) of Machines making Minds. Not One. But so long as you make TLOP non-conscious this creates a contradiction, there are no tangible examples of what you are claiming.

Billyjoe:
You are talking about the human mind making its technological machines.
But what about the evolutionary process producing homo sapiens from single-celled oragmisms? Setting aside abiogenesis for the moment, we have a gradual increase in the quality of mind…..

Prokaryotes (single-celled organisms) -> Eukaryotes (single-celled organisms containing organelles) -> multicelled organisms (insects -> reptiles -> birds -> mammals including homo sapiens)

That is to say, lesser minds gave rise to greater minds through the evolutionary process.
So, even though we haven’t as yet shown non-mind -> mind, we have shown lesser mind -> greater mind.
Isn’t it therefore logical that TLOP are even less mind? Perhaps even non-mind?

But how is that Parsimonious? Why postulate a hither-to-unseen, or unknown non-entity which is “Non-conscious”, when you know that you could just insert a consciousness and be done?

In other words, if you don’t need the “matter”, then why include it in the theory?

Franko:
There is a reason that the LD say they are “True-Materialists”, while the Atheists are referred to as “Pseudo-materialists”. That fact is that your mind is a machine – more of an algorithm actually then a “machine”. But your consciousness is not made out of what the pseudo-materialist would call “matter” – not in reality. Your consciousness is made of “True-matter” it is an entirely different stuff, nothing like what the pseudo-materialist imagine “matter” to be. This is exactly why LD has more explanatory power then Atheism/Pseudo-materialism.

Billyjoe:
So you are saying that, according to LD, mind is brain (or machine or matter or algorithm) but consciousness is not brain. You are saying that consciousness is “True-matter”???
But to have explanatory power, LD must explain what “True Matter” is.

Essentially (and this is the abbreviated version) … You are a self aware meme. You are a meme, that is locked in an axiomatic potentially-infinite H-Mobius loop. You perceive reality, because you perceive Time. You are an individual Graviton, unique in all the Omniverse.

There are several ways to think of it. But regardless, you can reduce you existence as an entity to a particle. This particle is your Graviton (the True-Matter part), the shell. Inside is your Soul (your MPB algorithm and database).

As a Graviton you have two abilities: Perception and Expression. Perception is your ability to receive data, and Expression is you ability to transmit data. All of the data that you ever receive originates with another Graviton. When you think you are alone, or you are simply perceiving nature – the world – this universe – that is simply you receiving information from the DM (or LG) – another Graviton.

There are only two parts to reality – Gravitons, and the information/energy (in the form of memes) that they transmit back and fourth to each other.

So you are saying here that FATE and GOD can trap you and drive you insane if you are not prepared for them?

I’m say that Fate is more complicated then just saying that everything is predetermined.

… Imagine that you are playing Dungeons and Dragons, and the coolest, prettiest, smartest, most gorgeous woman you have ever laid eyes on is the Dungeonmistress.
That’s the Logical Goddess.

The Logical Goddess, then, is a label for the logical reasoning that leads you to your conclusion about the nature of reality?
Your conclusions about the nature of reality are based on pure logic?
No empirical evidence required?

Empirical evidence is logical evidence. Pure logic from a pure source.

Franko, to repeat again, I do not say “There are no faeries.”
I say “There is no evidence that faeries exist, so I do not take them into account.”
To put it another way: In living my life I take into account only those things for which there is evidence.

That sounds like Agnosticism, which, if it is … is exactly what I’d say, so we are in agreement on this one?

Franko:
I don’t see the difference. If there is no evidence for God, Atheist believe NO GOD.

Billyjoe:
Consider, for the sake of argument, that the following statement is true…..

“There is no evidence that God exists.”

Now, consider the following two statements about belief…..

(1) I believe that God does not exist.
(2) I do not hold the belief that God exists.

Do you accept that there is a difference between (1) and (2)?

I go with (2)

How is saying that you don’t believe that God Exist, any different then saying that NO GOD EXIST? I don’t see the difference?

Do you hold the belief that God exists?

1) Yes - TRUE (Theism/Deism)
2) No - FALSE (Atheism)
3) Not Enough Information - UNKNOWN (Agnosticism)

How about this to illustrate the point …

Do you hold the belief that (N x Z) + (Y x Z) = Q (based on no other info)?

1) Yes - TRUE (Theism/Deism)
2) No - FALSE (Atheism)
3) Not Enough Information - UNKNOWN (Agnosticism)


Conclusion:
There is lots of evidence that I will be alive next week therefore I believe I will be alive next week.

On this point:

1) for every reason you have that you will still exist, I can think of several why you will not (disease, accidents, natural disasters, crime, etc.)
2) You have no control over what happens. Its all be preordained by TLOP. You are powerless against the laws of physics.
3) What if you were 89 years old? Should you start assuming that the odds are you will be dead next week? When do you start the clock?

Fact is, it never hurts to assume the best outcome.



(Upchunk, Fool, Whodidi, Evildave, Diogenes, Impytimpy, sock-puppet)

[BillyJoe]

Franko in ordinary type
BillyJoe in bold type
-----------------------------------------------------------

Wait a minute … it looks like you are pulling the switcheroo. YOU control CAR, but TLOP controls YOU. You understand CAR much better then you understand TLOP.

I can only repeat….. To understand CAR, we first have to understand TLOP

It might take ME 3 – 4 billion years to make a “Billyjoe”, but I bet I could make a Car in a LOT less time. What makes you think that it is any different for TLOP?

It takes 3-4 billion years to “make” homo sapiens.
A CAR can be “made” only after homo sapiens is “made”.
Therefore a CAR takes longer to be “made” than homo sapiens.

I can build a house by stacking rocks on top of each other. Are you telling me that stacked stones require more technology then making Me does?

[b]It requires the “technology” involved in “making” of homo sapiens of which you are a member.

Just like everyone sees God, or afterlife, or “free will”, or the hidden image in those crazy hologram posters?
One man’s reality is another man’s illusions.

Holograms (?magic eye pictures) are real. It’s just that some unfortunate individuals are unable to perform the feat with their eyes which reveals the reality.
The “Color-bleeding” square is an illusion. Its not actually out there in the external world but there is definitely a representation of it in our brains which is why we all see it .
Free Will is an illusion because we all seem to have it (or to have had it at some stage of our lives ;) )
God and Afterlife are probably delusions because there is no proof for either.

I am not going to comment, my Friend, but I assure you … I do not experience this “illusion of free will” you claim “everyone” experiences, and I am by no means the only one who does not experience it.

Okay.
Would you say then that you feel yourself following a predetermined path?

That depends on if you have a proper comprehension of Logic, in other words, it depends upon your perspective (whether there is evidence [for God and Afterlife]).

What is your perpective on Logic?


F: I would say … that I go through life knowing that a great destiny lies before me. As I perceive that Destiny it manifests in reality.

[b]How do you know that?
Do you mean that your knowing causes it to be real?

When you make a decision, aren’t you aware that you decision is simply based on your experiences in the past, and those experiences where based on even earlier experiences, which were based on even earlier experiences … and so on … all the way back to long before you were even born.

No. It’s only on reflection that I realize that its all physics and chemistry.
When I’m actually doing it, it seems like free will

Where are you getting this idea that there is a YOU controlling things?

No. It only seems that way.

What’s the “You” anyway? You’re just a collection of Atoms, I thought?

Yes, but a molecule is more than the sum of its atoms, an organelle more than the sum of its molecules, a cell more than the sum of its organelles, an organ more than the sum of its cells and a body are more than the sum of your organs.
Similarly “You” are more than the sum of the brains molecules.


F: I know it probably sounds more than a little crazy to you my Friend, but in the end your one Free Will choice is going to either put you in Heaven, or leave you trapped in the isolation of Solipsism, for the rest of this Eternity.

[b]But…..there is no such thing as Free Will.
I thought we agreed?

Fate requires a higher power, the higher power is the thing doing the controlling – TLOP in our case…..

So the Goddess you talk about is merely TLOP?

……But Fate can be consistent with either Atheism/Materialism, or Logical deism/Materialism. In the former the source of control (Fate) is non-conscious, like a machine; in the latter the source of control is a consciousness, more evolved, but fundamentally no different then yours or mine…..

I like the former (non-conscious machine) and you like the latter (primordial consciousness)
But I would call it Materialism v Logical Deism.

Here’s the thing … if a consciousness controls your mind, then you are a consciousness…..

A pocket of consciousness within a Universal Consciousness?

…..but if a machine controls your consciousness then in reality you are a machine…..

But, if the shoe fits….and doesn’t it as far as we (objectively) know?

….Of course if you are conscious then you get to decide what is a machine, and not a machine. Either way, it doesn’t change what you … or She is, in reality.

What’s the use of a conscious decision that doesn’t reflect reality?

You could be a Fatalist as a Materialist, try living your life for a few days knowing that you control none of your actions in reality, and are instead controlled by an uncaring, unthinking, and unknowing “invisible sky-machine” (i.e. non-conscious TLOP)?

When you realize that this “invisible sky machine” seems to be going out of Her way to look out for your benefit, She doesn’t seem so “machine-like.

I am one in trillions.
The rest either didn’t come up when the dice were thrown or were thrown out afterwards.
In other words its all chance mutation and natural selection.
That’s why She SEEMS to be going out of Her way to look out for my benefit whereas She is ACTUALLY a machine.

Look carefully at what you are doing. You are simply assuming that dying is bad, when actually you have no idea if it is bad in reality. If it is somehow True that you go to a better place when you die, this individual might have been delighted to know his end was near??? ….

I don’t know many people who want to die – even those who believe in God and Afterlife.

…..Perhaps it would have given him an opportunity to bring closure to his affairs here, and prepare himself?

It was not my choice. His daughter made this decision.
But when my father’s best mate became terminally ill with lung cancer, he suffered more from panic attacks at the thought of his oncoming breathlessness and final demise than he ever did from the illness itself.

What if death is actually like an all-expense paid trip to Disney World?

Yeah….what if?
But, fantasy aside, what do we really know about life after death?

]
Once again you are begging the question. Suppose the afterlife is far better than existence here? You might anticipate it like you anticipate an upcoming vacation trip, or moving to a New and Bigger House?

[b]Then would it be benficial for a person who believed in this fantasy to be shown incontrovertable proof that his belief was mistaken?

You assume that children have an intrinsic sense of “free will”. The fact is, that the opposite is True. Children are born as Fatalist, you have to implant a notion of “free will” in their heads.

Are you saying that children feel as if they are following a predetermined path rather than that they have a will of their own? I wonder what others think?

….it would be much easier for you and me to build a functioning “Car”, then it would for us to build a functioning “homo sapien”.

Yes.
And both require that homo sapiens is “made” first.


F: Sure we have. For one thing … we make much better toasters.

[b]That is not evolution. That is an expansion in the knowledge base of the species homo sapiens which has enabled toasters to evolve.
As far as I know, there are no important genetic differences between homo sapiens of today and a hundred years ago.

Well that is assuming the Big Bang, the Initial State and TLOP were able to get together to decide anything. That is part of your theory but not mine. In your theory it’s Big Things -> little things. In my theory it’s little things -> Big Things

Billyjoe … that is exactly what I am thinking about. You must think about all the complexity that must necessarily go before the appearance of YOU. The existence of YOU implies all that complexity (TLOP/God).

You are misunderstanding my reply.

I am saying that the watch implies all the complexity that has gone before and, therefore the watch is more complex [I]because of the fact that it includes all the complexity that has gone before plus the extra complexity of producing the watch.
Homo sapiens implies the complexity of TLOP (not much) plus all the complexity generated by the evolution of the universe (a fair bit) plus the complexity generated by the evolution of homo sapiens from its much simpler precursors (a heap).

Complexity progressively increases form left to right.

On the other hand you are saying that TLOP contains all the complexity of which homo sapiens and watches are much simpler expressions.

….in order for the Big Bang to work, essentially you have to throw Thermodynamics out the window. The Big Bang is making a huge doo-doo on Both the Conservation of Energy, and Entropy.

Energy is a zero sum. (Energy = Mass + Gravity)
Entropy only increases overall in the closed system but this does not mean that there cannot be pockets of decreased entropy within this closed system (as, in fact, there are). As long as overall it increases

…but where did all this energy come from?

Energy is a zero sum (Energy = Mass + Gravity = 0)
Energy separates into mass and gravity but the total energy remains zero.

To wit …


What I am saying Billyjoe, that left to its own devices a Matter-System is destroyed by Entropy, while Conscious-System can resist, or even overcome the forces of Entropy. As Matter the universe has no way to form. As a consciousness, it was only a matter of Time.
Consciousness evolves over time, matter does not. Matter just sits there.

Entropy always increases globally.
Entopy can decrease locally.

This means that Mass + Gravity (that has separated out from Energy which always totals zero) can evolve locally so that Simplicity -> Complexity.

When you get the idea in your head that it is a consciousness, similar to yours, as opposed to an incomprehensible energy-matter force, then it goes a long way to resolving the mystery. … At least a good piece of it.

But where does this Complex Consciousness arise that’s generating all these lesser consciousnesses such as homo sapiens and watches?
Is it just a given? A self evident truth?

I don’t mean to belabor the point, but repetition does work …

How can I make a more complex spear so simply, but I cannot make the less “evolved” homo sapien?

Because a homo sapien “made” by a homo sapien is more evolved. More complex.
Tell me Franko what you think……
Is it harder to “make” a homo sapien or a homo sapien made by a homo sapien?


Say you are on that old game show the Price is Right, there are 3 doors, 1 has a fabulous prize, the other 2 have goofy gag gifts. What are your odds of guessing the door with the Good-Prize?

I bet you are thinking it’s 1 in 3 – aren’t you?

Bayes has a magic trick. He’s gonna dopuble your odds of winning -- get them up to 2 in 3 – guaranteed.

[b]Yes I’ve heard that one.
(Discussed at length by myself and others in the puzzles section many moons ago).
But I was mistaken about Bayes. I was thinking about a particular misapplication of Bayes Rule. You know the one about how it predicts “Doom Soon”.

Universes are generated by consciousnesses . The more evolved the consciousness generating the Universe, the more evolved the Universe. In other words, simple universe runs at low Energy, simple consciousnesses. Complex, more evolved universe -- high energy, complex more evolved consciousnesses. Like Mandelbrot, turtles all the way up, and all the way down …

And what generates consciousness then?

“Turtles all the way up and all the way down”???
No beginning and no end???

This is easy to say, Franko, but saying it doesn’t make it right.
There is no explanatory power here. You just hook into the infinite causal chain and don’t worry too much about where it leads to the left and the right.

Did you see my thread on Nothing?

Actually I have now.

First of all it seems rather axiomatic that Nothing can’t really exist … ?

Not unless you can explain how something can arise from nothing.
As I said, Hawking has attempted to do this. I am not sure whether physicists in general agree that he has done this successfully.
[b]Not knowing how, though, doesn’t mean it there isn’t a way to do it.

At least not without a magical explanation beyond any potential for human comprehension.
I was getting on this topic there. Hawking has got himself a crystal spheres of a Theory compared to what I got. All I need to build the Omniverse is Time. That’s all that any of it is made of … even you and me …

And where does time come from?
But perhaps we can leave this to that thread.


F: Now see, if you were a Fatalist like me, then this would make much more sense …

Why is it that you need to experience the “illusion of free will” to feel human (conscious), and to be able to deal with reality, yet in this regard you so easily accept the idea that you are simply a deterministic machine?

In other words, if you find “consciousness” an easier frame of reference then “machine” (which I would think most people would find natural) then why is it machines -> machines -> machines -> etc … instead of consciousness -- > consciousness -- > consciousness -- > etc. ?

[b]Why is it easier to think in terms of a programming language (composed of meaningful symbols) than a machine language (composed of meaningless zeros and ones)?
But when the program runs it’s the machine language that’s producing all the output.

Why postulate a hither-to-unseen, or unknown non-entity which is “Non-conscious”, when you know that you could just insert a consciousness and be done?
In other words, if you don’t need the “matter”, then why include it in the theory?

Because with Mass comes Gravity and Mass + Gravity = zero.
We’re getting closer to getting something from nothing.
But where does consciousness come from if it came before matter (remembering that I am not impressed by the turtles argument – unless you can flesh it out a bit for me)

Essentially (and this is the abbreviated version) … You are a self aware meme. You are a meme, that is locked in an axiomatic potentially-infinite H-Mobius loop. You perceive reality, because you perceive Time. You are an individual Graviton, unique in all the Omniverse.

But what does all this mean?

There are several ways to think of it. But regardless, you can reduce you existence as an entity to a particle. This particle is your Graviton (the True-Matter part), the shell. Inside is your Soul (your MPB algorithm and database).

And what does this mean??

As a Graviton you have two abilities: Perception and Expression. Perception is your ability to receive data, and Expression is you ability to transmit data. All of the data that you ever receive originates with another Graviton. When you think you are alone, or you are simply perceiving nature – the world – this universe – that is simply you receiving information from the DM (or LG) – another Graviton.

Sounds like a nice theory, Franko, but….

There are only two parts to reality – Gravitons, and the information/energy (in the form of memes) that they transmit back and fourth to each other.

…..why should I believe this rather than some other persons intuitions about reality.

I’m say that Fate is more complicated then just saying that everything is predetermined.

So Fate is NOT predestination?


Empirical evidence is logical evidence. Pure logic from a pure source.

[b]I thought empirical evidence is performing experiments to see if your intuitions are born out by the facts.
Pure logic from a pure source?
And the pure source – what is that? – your logical Goddess? – where does She come from?

How is saying that you don’t believe that God Exist, any different then saying that NO GOD EXIST? I don’t see the difference?

I said “I do not hold the belief that God exists” is different from “I believe that God does not exist.”
Can you not see the difference?

Do you hold the belief that God exists?
1) Yes - TRUE (Theism/Deism)
2) No - FALSE (Atheism)
3) Not Enough Information - UNKNOWN (Agnosticism)

No. There is no evidence that God exist so why should I believe that God exists?
There is no evidence for God so I don’t take Him into account.

As for ….
3) Not Enough Information - UNKNOWN (Agnosticism)
How about….
4) A complete lack of information – therefore why should I take it into account?

How about this to illustrate the point …

Do you hold the belief that (N x Z) + (Y x Z) = Q (based on no other info)?

1) Yes - TRUE (Theism/Deism)
2) No - FALSE (Atheism)
3) Not Enough Information - UNKNOWN (Agnosticism)

4) A complete lack of information – therefore why should I take it into account?
[b]Give me the values of N, Z, Y and Q and I’ll bother myself about it.

1) for every reason you have that you will still exist, I can think of several why you will not (disease, accidents, natural disasters, crime, etc.)

But what are the probabilities?

2) You have no control over what happens. Its all be preordained by TLOP. You are powerless against the laws of physics.

TLOP enable me to compute the probabilities.

3) What if you were 89 years old? Should you start assuming that the odds are you will be dead next week? When do you start the clock?

The odds would shorten but I would still be more likely to be alive next week.
If I was going into heart failure following a heart attack, I would think the probability of me dying in thenext week would shorten dramatically.

Fact is, it never hurts to assume the best outcome.

I tend to expect the worst and hope for the best.
That way you tend to be more prepared when the tide turns.

BillyJoe

[whitefork]

Sorry to interrupt here, but I have a question for Franko.

What makes you think you're made of atoms?

[Franko]

Billyjoe:

Franko:

Wait a minute … it looks like you are pulling the switcheroo. YOU control CAR, but TLOP controls YOU. You understand CAR much better then you understand TLOP.

[b]Billyjoe:
I can only repeat….. To understand CAR, we first have to understand TLOP

That’s simply not True. There are plenty of 16 year old kids who can control a CAR, but they don’t know squat about controlling TLOP.

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

Franko:
It might take ME 3 – 4 billion years to make a “Billyjoe”, but I bet I could make a Car in a LOT less time. What makes you think that it is any different for TLOP?

Billyjoe:
It takes 3-4 billion years to “make” homo sapiens.
A CAR can be “made” only after homo sapiens is “made”.

Says who? What makes you so certain that only humans build CARS?

Is a CAR more or less complex than the MOON? TLOP made the MOON didn’t it? Are you telling me that TLOP can build the MOON, but NOT build a CAR?

Therefore a CAR takes longer to be “made” than homo sapiens.

Really, I still bet I can make a CAR quicker than you can make a Human.

You are trying to change the test. You are saying that to make a CAR you have to actually make two things – a human, and a car. Well if that is the case, then don’t you first have to make TLOP before you can make a Human? If a human is harder to make than a car, then doesn’t that imply that TLOP is harder to make than a human?

Franko:
I can build a house by stacking rocks on top of each other. Are you telling me that stacked stones require more technology then making Me does?

Billyjoe:
It requires the “technology” involved in “making” of homo sapiens of which you are a member.

No it doesn’t. Sometimes rocks are stacked naturally by TLOP. How can we tell which stacked stones are the more complex and evolved human-stacked variety, and which types are the less complex and evolved Tlop-stacked variety? If you are claiming that there is a difference in complexity, then we should be able to observe this difference.

God and Afterlife are probably delusions because there is no proof for either.

There is plenty of proof for God and afterlife, but not while you are deluded with crazy notions of “free will”.

Franko:
I am not going to comment, my Friend, but I assure you … I do not experience this “illusion of free will” you claim “everyone” experiences, and I am by no means the only one who does not experience it.

Billyjoe:
Okay.
Would you say then that you feel yourself following a predetermined path?

Yes.

Franko:
That depends on if you have a proper comprehension of Logic, in other words, it depends upon your perspective (whether there is evidence [for God and Afterlife]).

Billyjoe:
What is your perpective on Logic?

The biggest immediate difference I notice, is that I do not declare something UNKNOWN to be FALSE automatically.

(N x P) + R = Z

With no other information I would claim that this equation is UNKNOWN. An A-Theists would say that based on no evidence it is FALSE. This is ludicrous in my way of thinking, I do not consider it logical at all.

Franko:
[BJ: do you really go through life thinking at every moment “I am following a predetermined path”, “I am not making any decisions, I am merely following my fate”? ]
F: I would say … that I go through life knowing that a great destiny lies before me. As I perceive that Destiny it manifests in reality.

Billyjoe:
1) How do you know that?
2) Do you mean that your knowing causes it to be real?

1) I know it, because I know that the Truth is always beneficial for Me.

2) My perception is what ultimately causes it to manifest. Without perception, nothing exist.

Franko:
When you make a decision, aren’t you aware that you decision is simply based on your experiences in the past, and those experiences where based on even earlier experiences, which were based on even earlier experiences … and so on … all the way back to long before you were even born.

Billyjoe:
No. It’s only on reflection that I realize that its all physics and chemistry.
When I’m actually doing it, it seems like free will

Don’t take this the wrong way my friend, but A-Theism diminishes your perception of Time.

Franko:
What’s the “You” anyway? You’re just a collection of Atoms, I thought?

Billyjoe:
Yes, but a molecule is more than the sum of its atoms, an organelle more than the sum of its molecules, a cell more than the sum of its organelles, an organ more than the sum of its cells and a body are more than the sum of your organs.
Similarly “You” are more than the sum of the brains molecules.

Is the Moon more than the sum of its atoms and molecules? In a way yes, but that doesn’t mean the Moon has “free will”. It also doesn’t mean that the Moon isn’t doing what it is commanded to do by TLOP, just like you. Your “orbit” is just slightly harder to perceive.

Franko:
[BJ: So it’s a choice between Fate-and-Sanity and Materialism-and-Insanity?]
F: I know it probably sounds more than a little crazy to you my Friend, but in the end your one Free Will choice is going to either put you in Heaven, or leave you trapped in the isolation of Solipsism, for the rest of this Eternity.

Billyjoe:
But…..there is no such thing as Free Will.
I thought we agreed?

You get One True Free Will choice … essentially, is it better to exist, or not exist? All of your other “decisions” are a reaffirmation of this choice in one form or another.

Franko:
Fate requires a higher power, the higher power is the thing doing the controlling – TLOP in our case…..

Billyjoe:
So the Goddess you talk about is merely TLOP?

Tlop is like your words in these posts. In other words, any way that you communicate with me is ultimately you transmitting a meme to me. Tlop is the mechanism that the LG uses to transmit Her memes to you.

Let me put it another way:

BillyJoe is To Initial State (Goddess) what Billyjoe’s words are to To the Laws of Physics (TLOP).

The LG is the “Physics” in TLOP. Just like any of your communications follow the protocol of TLOB (The Laws of Billyjoe).

Franko:
……But Fate can be consistent with either Atheism/Materialism, or Logical deism/Materialism. In the former the source of control (Fate) is non-conscious, like a machine; in the latter the source of control is a consciousness, more evolved, but fundamentally no different then yours or mine…..

Billyjoe:
I like the former (non-conscious machine) and you like the latter (primordial consciousness)
But I would call it Materialism v Logical Deism.

Right … more or less …

According to Atheism/Pseudo-Materialism, “God” (Source of Tlop) is an incomprehensible invisible mystery non-conscious, sorta, kinda, “machine-like” thingy-ma-bob.

According to Logical deism/Materialism, “God” (source of Tlop) is just another Graviton, like You or Me.

Franko:
Here’s the thing … if a consciousness controls your mind, then you are a consciousness…..

Billyjoe:
A pocket of consciousness within a Universal Consciousness?

Yeah … that sounds right.

Franko:
…..but if a machine controls your consciousness then in reality you are a machine…..

Billyjoe:
But, if the shoe fits….and doesn’t it as far as we (objectively) know?

Well why do you think the A-Theists have invented “free will”? It’s because they don’t like the idea of being machines. Machines obey Fate, they are controlled by their program.

But my point is that suppose you found out that you were a robot? Would it really change anything? Would it make you less human, less conscious?

Franko:
….Of course if you are conscious then you get to decide what is a machine, and not a machine. Either way, it doesn’t change what you … or She is, in reality.

Billyjoe:
What’s the use of a conscious decision that doesn’t reflect reality?

But if it makes your algorithm function more efficiently, then it does effect reality.

Franko:
….it would be much easier for you and me to build a functioning “Car”, then it would for us to build a functioning “homo sapien”.

Billyjoe:
Yes.
And both require that homo sapiens is “made” first.

That’s just question begging on your part. Did the Ocean need a human to build it first? How about the grand canyon? Is the ocean more or less complex than a Car? Less? Why because a human didn’t make the ocean? That’s circular logic.

Without making reference to humans, provide a definition of complexity that explains why a CAR is more complex than the Moon (or the Ocean, or the Grand Canyon)?

Franko:
[BJ: Homo sapiens has not evolved to any significant extent during the last hundred years.]
F: Sure we have. For one thing … we make much better toasters.

Billyjoe:
That is not evolution. That is an expansion in the knowledge base of the species homo sapiens which has enabled toasters to evolve.

Like I said, we know more about TOASTERS, which means that TLOP knows more about TOASTERS, why do you claim that TOASTERS have gained information (evolved), we have gained information (evolved), but TLOP has NOR gained information (evolved). Why the contradiction?

As far as I know, there are no important genetic differences between homo sapiens of today and a hundred years ago.

Yes, but aren’t there important “genetic” differences between TOASTERS of today, and a hundred years ago?

Franko:
TLOP --- > YOU --- > TOASTER ---- > TOAST

Billyjoe:
Complexity progressively increases form left to right.

I don’t see how you can make that statement. You are trying to claim that the subset is greater then the whole set.

Franko:
….in order for the Big Bang to work, essentially you have to throw Thermodynamics out the window. The Big Bang is making a huge doo-doo on Both the Conservation of Energy, and Entropy.

Billyjoe:
Energy is a zero sum. (Energy = Mass + Gravity)

Maybe, but Entropy is increasing over Time for the universe as a whole (at least according to the A-Theist). How did the Entropy of all the energy start off so low? Why doesn’t energy just appear all the time if it is so simple?

Why haven’t there been any more “Bangs” since the big one?

Entropy only increases overall in the closed system but this does not mean that there cannot be pockets of decreased entropy within this closed system (as, in fact, there are). As long as overall it increases

Exactly! So how did all of this USEABLE energy just magically appear out of the void one day 12.7 billion years ago? Like I said, for the A-Theists magical religion to be true, you have to take a poop on your most solid Science – Thermodynamics.

Of course if you listen to Godel and Einstein instead …

Franko:
…but where did all this energy come from?

Billyjoe:
Energy is a zero sum (Energy = Mass + Gravity = 0)
Energy separates into mass and gravity but the total energy remains zero.

No one has ever gotten that “theory” to work, and no one ever will (well … other than in their own mind I mean …)

Franko:
What I am saying Billyjoe, that left to its own devices a Matter-System is destroyed by Entropy, while Conscious-System can resist, or even overcome the forces of Entropy. As Matter the universe has no way to form. As a consciousness, it was only a matter of Time.
Consciousness evolves over time, matter does not. Matter just sits there.

Billjoe:
Entropy always increases globally.
Entopy can decrease locally.

This means that Mass + Gravity (that has separated out from Energy which always totals zero) can evolve locally so that Simplicity -> Complexity.

Well I agree, but that is my point, if Entropy ALWAYS increases globally, then how do you account for the MASSIVE contradiction of ENTROPY decreasing globally at the moment of the Big Bang?

Franko:
When you get the idea in your head that it is a consciousness, similar to yours, as opposed to an incomprehensible energy-matter force, then it goes a long way to resolving the mystery. … At least a good piece of it.

Billyjoe:
But where does this Complex Consciousness arise that’s generating all these lesser consciousnesses such as homo sapiens and watches?
Is it just a given? A self evident truth?

The answer is simple, but it would be a long conversation. Suffice to say, this isn’t the only universe to exist, or the only one that will exist. Just as we evolve, so do universes, and so does reality itself.

The LG is the product of such evolution, but she is “New”, like us. She is a product of the original primordial consciousness that the LD call the Progenitor Solipsist (PS). This entity was the first consciousness (although he was very unlike us). Eventually, this entity split himself, and when he did, evolution as we know it began. We are all his descendants … he is our ancestor.

But the PS, like ourselves, is made out of True-Matter. Essentially he is made out of self-aware Time. But like I said … that is a long conversation.

… and speaking of which, I am out of time. I’ll have to get to the rest of your post a little later.

Best regards …

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
The LG is the product of such evolution, but she is “New”, like us. She is a product of the original primordial consciousness that the LD call the Progenitor Solipsist (PS). This entity was the first consciousness (although he was very unlike us). Eventually, this entity split himself, and when he did, evolution as we know it began. We are all his descendants … he is our ancestor.

But the PS, like ourselves, is made out of True-Matter. Essentially he is made out of self-aware Time. But like I said … that is a long conversation.

Well then Franko, are you saying that the Progenitor Solipsist just "magically appeared"?

Wouldn't a more parsimonious theory be that "the laws of physics" just magically appeared? Why add (i) a Logical Goddess and (ii) a Progenitor Solipsist?

Why don't you worship the Progenitor Solipsist as he/she/it is clearly superior to the Logical Goddess?

[Franko]

CWL,

Well then Franko, are you saying that the Progenitor Solipsist just "magically appeared"?

Well then CWL, are you saying that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE just "magically appeared" (in the Big Bang)?

honestly CWL I can make a rudimentary consciousness appear A LOT easier than you can make an Entire Universe appear …

Wouldn't a more parsimonious theory be that "the laws of physics" just magically appeared? Why add (i) a Logical Goddess and (ii) a Progenitor Solipsist?

Wouldn't a more parsimonious theory be that "consciousness" just naturally appeared? Why add (i) an Entire Energy Filled Universe and (ii) a complete set of Laws (TLOP)?

Why don't you worship the Progenitor Solipsist as he/she/it is clearly superior to the Logical Goddess?

Why don't you worship a piece of Toast (or a Taco) according to Tricky (and the A-Theists) clearly it is superior/more complex to YOU?

Originally posted by Franko
honestly CWL I can make a rudimentary consciousness appear A LOT easier than you can make an Entire Universe appear …

Sorry if I missed this, but how exactly did you make a rudimentary consiousness appear again?

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Purr


Sorry if I missed this, but how exactly did you make a rudimentary consiousness appear again?

Hellooooo, hanging curve ball.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
Well why do you think the A-Theists have invented “free will”? It’s because they don’t like the idea of being machines. Machines obey Fate, they are controlled by their program.

Hold up...so it was the atheists that invented free will? Why is it that the people I see most often playing the free will card are in fact christians? Is there a single atheist here that has actually said they believed in free will...every time I see you bring it up I see someone informing you once again that they never said they believed it in the first place.

Besides this, I would like to comment on your butchery of what the laws of physics actually are. Your first problem is that you don't seem to actually understand them very well at all (especially quantum mechanics and general relativity). Your second problem is that somewhere along the line you got caught up in a bunch of psuedoscientific crap. You keep talking about memes and gravitons...[Inigo Montoya]you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means[/Inigo Montoya]. This is just one of the words for which you use a definition that I've never seen a single other person actually use. Your third problem is that you needlessly anthropomorphize the laws of physics. Here's a hint...there is a big difference between a consciousness controlling something, and a set of rules dictating action. The laws of physics are just a set of rules, there is nothing to indicate that the sum collection of those rules is somehow conscious.

Maybe, but Entropy is increasing over Time for the universe as a whole (at least according to the A-Theist). How did the Entropy of all the energy start off so low? Why doesn’t energy just appear all the time if it is so simple?

Probably because energy didn't "just appear" (strawman).

Why haven’t there been any more “Bangs” since the big one?

There quite possibly have been. What you fail to take into account is that since the big bang originated from absolute vacuum, and no absolute vacuum exists in our universe (because our universe by definition is a hypervolume of spacetime), a big bang type event could not possibly take place IN our universe. Outside our universe is another story...but just try observing something outside our universe...not so easy.

Exactly! So how did all of this USEABLE energy just magically appear out of the void one day 12.7 billion years ago? Like I said, for the A-Theists magical religion to be true, you have to take a poop on your most solid Science – Thermodynamics.

Once again, a quantum fluctuation in the ground state of absolute vacuum. It does not violate thermodynamics at all.

Of course if you listen to Godel and Einstein instead …

Blatant appeal to authority...authority that is well over a half a century old as well...why don't you join us in this millenium?

No one has ever gotten that “theory” to work, and no one ever will (well … other than in their own mind I mean …)

It works just fine mathematically, and it happens to conform to what we know of the topology of our universe. What the hell else are you looking for from theoretical physics?

Well I agree, but that is my point, if Entropy ALWAYS increases globally, then how do you account for the MASSIVE contradiction of ENTROPY decreasing globally at the moment of the Big Bang?

Quite easily...it didn't decrease at the moment of the big bang. There was no entropy before the big bang, it went from undefined to an actual value. That is not a decrease.

But the PS, like ourselves, is made out of True-Matter. Essentially he is made out of self-aware Time. But like I said … that is a long conversation.

Riiiiiiiight...so what exactly is "True-Matter"? What is your evidence that it even exists? I've asked something similar in your nothing thread but have not gotten a reply...what about the nature of time suggests that it would necessarily produce a consciousness or that time itself is in fact self-aware? Could you possibly anthropomorphize just a tad more?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Purr


Sorry if I missed this, but how exactly did you make a rudimentary consiousness appear again?

Thanks Purr.

Franko Debate Proof Shelter Rule No. 1: Evade any and all questions. Bounce them back.

[MRC_Hans]

honestly CWL I can make a rudimentary consciousness appear A LOT easier than you can make an Entire Universe appear … So it started with a rudimetary consciousness and became an entire universe? So NOW you are saying that something complicated came from something simple??

Rudimentary consciousness -> Universe -> TLOP -> You -> Toaster

Ehhh? Are you sure you wanna do that?

Wouldn't a more parsimonious theory be that "consciousness" just naturally appeared? Why add (i) an Entire Energy Filled Universe and (ii) a complete set of Laws (TLOP)? Again, the energy filled universe and TLOP did appear somewhere along the line. So what made them? The rudimentary consciousness? Magic?

Methinks you are contradicting yourself.

Hans

Originally posted by CWL
Thanks Purr.

Franko Debate Proof Shelter Rule No. 1: Evade any and all questions. Bounce them back.

Sorry, did I do something wrong, I have been trying to follow along the way, but I can't see where it is more likely, or even more possible that a rudimentary consiousness spontaneously appeared than the the universe diverged from a non-consious event.

edited for tags

[Franko]

Hold up...so it was the atheists that invented free will? Why is it that the people I see most often playing the free will card are in fact christians?

Why do people who believe in "free will" need to pray so much?

Prayer is what you do when you don't have "free will".

The Christians (as well as other Theists) obey God's will, not some illusionary "free will" that you A-Theists made up.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Purr
Sorry, did I do something wrong
Purr, you didn't do anything wrong except to maybe expect an answer to a direct question from P&R's Troll-In-Residence.

Don't let it get you down. He does this to everyone. He can't help himself.

Upchurch

Originally posted by Franko
The Christians (as well as other Theists) obey God's will, not some illusionary "free will" that you A-Theists made up.

Didn't God grant us free will(y) when we were booted from Eden? Unless.. the bible was written by A-Theists. *runs screaming into the night*

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
Why do people who believe in "free will" need to pray so much?

Prayer is what you do when you don't have "free will".

The Christians (as well as other Theists) obey God's will, not some illusionary "free will" that you A-Theists made up.

The self-consistancy of including free will into their religion is their problem not mine...your first question would be a good one to ask a christian (which I am not). However, your last sentence does not accurately portray what christians actually believe when it comes to free will. They obey God's will by CHOICE, which they exercise with the free will that God gave them...or so they say.

[Franko]

The self-consistancy of including free will into their religion is their problem not mine...your first question would be a good one to ask a christian (which I am not).

Obviously you don’t know much about Christianity. The Bible never uses the term “free will” in the manner which you A-Theists do. In the Bible “free will” is almost always mentioned in the context of ”free will offering” which means consigning ones self to the will of God. i.e. Freely offering oneself as the servant to God.

In other words, Theists use this term in the sense of conceding to the “will of Fate”

However, your last sentence does not accurately portray what christians actually believe when it comes to free will. They obey God's will by CHOICE, which they exercise with the free will that God gave them...or so they say.

I’m not a Christian either, but I disagree with your interpretation A-Theist.

[MRC_Hans]

In the Bible “free will” is almost always mentioned in the context of ”free will offering” which means consigning ones self to the will of God. i.e. Freely offering oneself as the servant to God.
And thats exactly free will. How can you offer something (service) if it is not yours to give? How can you consign youself if already consigned?

Another Christian dogma is resisting temptation . How are you supposed to do that if you have no power of decision?

Hans

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


Why do people who believe in "free will" need to pray so much?

Prayer is what you do when you don't have "free will".

The Christians (as well as other Theists) obey God's will, not some illusionary "free will" that you A-Theists made up.
You've really painted yourself in a corner here Franko. Since you were raised in a Christian household (I'm guessing Catholic) you know that most prayers are asking for God's guidance to keep them from making the wrong choices. If God's guidance were guaranteed (i.e., no free will) then there would be no need to pray. Without free will, the concept of "sin" could not exist.

Or you could simply ask a Christian if they believe in free will, and I assure you the vast majority will say "yes" (Potato Stew already has done so). Of course, if the concept of free will really was invented by atheists, that means that the Christians borrowed it from them.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
Obviously you don’t know much about Christianity. The Bible never uses the term “free will” in the manner which you A-Theists do.

Strange, especially since I was raised Methodist, went through two years of confirmation classes, and was confirmed in a Methodist church at the age of 15. Also, your continuing attempts to classify atheists as an inclusive philosophical group is getting quite old. Atheism requires no specific stance on free will...nor have I actually made one. When addressing me would you mind actually addressing my arguments and not the ones that wish to address in your little conversations with yourself?

In the Bible “free will” is almost always mentioned in the context of ”free will offering” which means consigning ones self to the will of God. i.e. Freely offering oneself as the servant to God.

Quick question...do they believe that all people have the CHOICE of consigning themselves to God's will? The answer is yes if you are wondering. In other words according to them, God does not force anyone to follow his will. Each individual makes that choice freely. If a person can choose freely, do they not have free will?

In other words, Theists use this term in the sense of conceding to the “will of Fate”

Some theists do. Calvinists are the only christians that I know of that would hold such a stance. Of course we could always just simply ask a current christian if you don't believe me...

[Franko]

Atheism requires no specific stance on free will...nor have I actually made one.

That’s nonsense. But you can pretend that it is True if you like, just as you pretend there is no evidence for God … perhaps it’s the result of your “free will”?

In other words according to them, God does not force anyone to follow his will. Each individual makes that choice freely.

I would say that according to Theists in general (or Christianity in particular) that you have the choice of working FOR God, or working AGAINST Her. You A-Theist make one “choice”, and we Theists and Deists make the opposite one.

… although in reality it is not a “choice” at all. It is preordained by the intrinsic nature of your Soul. God just need some time to check you out and determine which way you will Fall.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko


That’s nonsense. But you can pretend that it is True if you like, just as you pretend there is no evidence for God … perhaps it’s the result of your “free will”?

Ok, how does atheism in and of itself necessitate a belief in free will? Put up or shut up.

I would say that according to Theists in general (or Christianity in particular) that you have the choice of working FOR God, or working AGAINST Her. You A-Theist make one “choice”, and we Theists and Deists make the opposite one.

… although in reality it is not a “choice” at all. It is preordained by the intrinsic nature of your Soul. God just need some time to check you out and determine which way you will Fall.

I think if you actually took the time to ask an actual christian as I said...you would find that you are indeed mistaken.

[Franko]

Ok, how does atheism in and of itself necessitate a belief in free will? Put up or shut up.

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more conscious then your CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

TLOP = The Laws of Physics

I think if you actually took the time to ask an actual christian as I said...you would find that you are indeed mistaken.

I just knew you would say something like that A-Theist. :D

[CWL]

Franko,

There are many glitches in your imaginary battle between Theism and Atheism.

E.g:

1) As Tricky has rightly pointed out - "Free will" is an important part of the theology of many Christians.

2) Many theists are monists = do not believe in your dualistic separation between "consciousness" and "matter".

3) Immoral theists exist.

4) Moral atheists exist.

The list could be made much longer.

What is it you are trying to acheive by being so contentious?

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko


TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more conscious then your CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

TLOP = The Laws of Physics

A few problems. First, this does not prove that atheism necessitates a belief in free will. It does show that your belief system must be deterministic. Second, it is circular. The term control in your first premise implies consciousness. You then use that premise to conclude that the laws of physics are conscious. Third, the fact that one thing controls another does not necessarily mean that it is more conscious than the thing it controls...that is an assumption on your part.

The laws of physics do not consciously control things...they are a set of rules that dictate the outcome of events by limiting what is possible. There is a rather large difference.

[Franko]

A few problems.

If you are an A-Theist … yes,, I agree …

First, this does not prove that atheism necessitates a belief in free will.

Well, only if you want to make the ridiculous claim that there is no evidence for God.

It does show that your belief system must be deterministic. Second, it is circular. The term control in your first premise implies consciousness. You then use that premise to conclude that the laws of physics are conscious.

Fine, then please provide a single example of a non-conscious object controlling a conscious one? Or … demonstrate a inferior consciousness (like a dog) which regularly tends to control a superior one (like a human). You have heard of the “Food Chain” -- haven’t you A-Theist?

Third, the fact that one thing controls another does not necessarily mean that it is more conscious than the thing it controls...that is an assumption on your part.

All of the evidence indicates that this is so. If you disagree, then please provide a single example to the contrary.

Do YOU control your CAR, or does your CAR control YOU? Which has the superior consciousness? Does a chicken farmer tend to control the chickens, or do the chickens tend to control the chicken farmer?

The laws of physics do not consciously control things...

Really? Can you provide an example of when they are NOT controlling things?

they are a set of rules that dictate the outcome of events by limiting what is possible. There is a rather large difference.

I guess you claiming it makes it True?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Purr


Sorry, did I do something wrong, I have been trying to follow along the way, but I can't see where it is more likely, or even more possible that a rudimentary consiousness spontaneously appeared than the the universe diverged from a non-consious event.

edited for tags

You have done absolutely nothing wrong IMHO. The question is a very valid one indeed.

Franko is very funny on this subject. He always attacks his "A-Theists" for not being able to explain how the Laws of Physics came into being, yet he himself fails to explain how his "Progenitor Solipsist" came into being...

Go figure the difference...

[Franko]

CWL is very funny on this subject. He always attacks his Theists for not being able to explain how the Laws of Physics came into being, yet he himself fails to explain how they came into being, and furthermore he can't explain how his "free will" came into being, or what it even means ...

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
Well, only if you want to make the ridiculous claim that there is no evidence for God.

There is no good evidence for the existance of a god. That is to say that there is nothing in this universe (the existance of the universe itself included) that requires the existance of a god.



Fine, then please provide a single example of a non-conscious object controlling a conscious one?

That would be a neat trick considering that I already objected to the use of the term controlling based on the idea that it implies consciousness. You just asked me to prove a logical impossibility based on a fallacious reasoning of YOURS that I pointed out...

Or … demonstrate a inferior consciousness (like a dog) which regularly tends to control a superior one (like a human). You have heard of the “Food Chain” -- haven’t you A-Theist?

So it is your contention that anything that eats something else has superior consciousness than the thing it eats? Would you mind defining your criteria for what constitutes superior or inferior consciousness?

Do YOU control your CAR, or does your CAR control YOU?

Obviously I control my car (how well I do this is obviously subjective). My car cannot control me becuase it is not conscious (this question is a continuation of your fallacious reasoning).

Which has the superior consciousness?

I do obviously, as the car has none.

Really? Can you provide an example of when they are NOT controlling things?

Sure...right now...and now...and again right now...pretty much all the time, as the laws of physics are not a consciousness. There is no good reason to believe that they are. You have yet to adequately support this useless anthropomorphizing.

[Franko]

Sure...right now...and now...and again right now...pretty much all the time, as the laws of physics are not a consciousness.

Question begging

There is no good reason to believe that they are.

There is no good reason to believe that they are NOT.

What is your evidence that you will be alive this time tomorrow?

You have yet to adequately support this useless anthropomorphizing.

You have yet to adequately support this useless non-anthropomorphizing.

Initially posted by me! yay!
I can't see where it is more likely, or even more possible that a rudimentary consiousness spontaneously appeared than the the universe diverged from a non-consious event.


Then posted by CWL
Franko is very funny on this subject. He always attacks his "A-Theists" for not being able to explain how the Laws of Physics came into being, yet he himself fails to explain how his "Progenitor Solipsist" came into being...

Okay, in absence of a decent reply from Franko to that one, I guess I'll chalk that up to being a big, ignored problem.

All is not lost for Franko though. I will gladly look over his lack of insight as to the origins of his own system (I am in total ignorance as to the origins of mine too!) provided he can answer Mordred's (and doubtless others) question..

Posted by Franko
TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more conscious then your CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

TLOP = The Laws of Physics

How exactly does it follow that anything controls something is more conscious that that which it controls? I am ready and willing to hear conclusive evidence that this is always the case.

[Mordred]

Originally posted by Franko
There is no good reason to believe that they are NOT.

So logically we must conclude that we do not know for certain and default to whichever position is simpler. Law of parsimony ring a bell? Ockham's Razor perhaps?

What is your evidence that you will be alive this time tomorrow?

I have none...I could very likely die on the drive to work I am about to embark on. I could of course state that there is some nonzero probability that I will live to see tomorrow based on the premise that I am alive at the moment. I fail to see how this is applicable to the current discussion however...

You have yet to adequately support this useless non-anthropomorphizing.

Ah, but it is not useless. It does away with needless complexity (see law of parsimony above).

[Franko]

So logically we must conclude that we do not know for certain and default to whichever position is simpler. Law of parsimony ring a bell? Ockham's Razor perhaps?

yes – but you are the one who does not understand parsimony.

How is your incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo about “invisible-magical-self-creating-non-conscious-omnipotent-sky-machine-thingy” more parsimonious then God.

I understand exactly what “God” is, but I have no idea what you are talking about with your “invisible-magical-self-creating-non-conscious-omnipotent-sky-machine-thingy”

Franko:
What is your evidence that you will be alive this time tomorrow?

Whodidi
I have none..

Ergo, just like you assume God, you should assume that YOU will NOT exist tomorrow, and live your remaining 24 hours accordingly.

[MRC_Hans]

you should assume that YOU will NOT exist tomorrow So, in the absense of evidence that something is TRUE, you say we should assume it is FALSE?

Hans

[Franko]

So, in the absense of evidence that something is TRUE, you say we should assume it is FALSE?

MRC!!!

You know better then to think that I believe that!! I am just a stupid Logical Deist. When I have no information I am forced to claim UNKNOWN.

... but you super-duper "smart" A-Theists with your "magical powers" have the ability to claim that an UNKNOWN is actually FALSE ...

Do "invisible pink unicorns" live in my backyard?

I say: UNKNOWN

MRC (A-Theists) say: FALSE!

[MRC_Hans]

No, you said:
you should assume that YOU will NOT exist tomorrow in reply to the statement "I dont know if I'll live tolorrow".

So you told him to believe UNKNOWN=FALSE.

Or was it the LD mind-reading powers? Were you devining how the other guy was thinking? Ahhh I see----;)

About your pink unicorns: Well sure, in principle unknown. But I'm willing to bet on false :rolleyes:

There are various degrees of unknown, you know.

----

So, lets get back to the beef, shall we? You claim that:

Female God=TRUE

Fine, so, according to yourself, you MUST have EVIDENCE. Mind sharing it with us?

Hans

[Franko]

MRC do you worship TOAST just like Trixy?

Do you believe (as all devout A-Theists do) that a piece of crispy-burnt bread is Superior to You?

How did you come to discover that TOAST was the most complex entity in the Universe?

Can you explain it to us?

[MRC_Hans]

Why sure, never heard the phrase "Toastmaster"? I know some people thinks its just somebody keeping track of speeches, but the REAL Toastmasters are the supreme priests in the A-theist Church Of Great Crispy Toasts (ACOGCT).

But dont tell anybody, its a secret!

Hans

[Franko]

Whodiddly, Fool, and Upchurch welcome you to the rolls of obssessed religious fanatics.

You are henecfourth commanded to follow me around and make lame unsubstantive posts in pathetic defense of your ridiculous religion.

Originally posted by Franko
Whodiddly, Fool, and Upchurch welcome you to the rolls of obssessed religious fanatics.



I did?

Can you show me the post which I did 'welcome' him?

waiting ...

waiting ...

waiting ...

:) I like you Franko! :)

[Franko]

whodidi?!?!?

Who do you think you are fooling?

Everyone here can see that you are totally and completely obssessed with me.

Make an argument, stop wasting time with your nonsense ...

Originally posted by Franko

Who do you think you are fooling?
Everyone here can see that you are totally and completely obssessed with me.
Make an argument, stop wasting time with your nonsense ...


:) Nice try Franko. :)

But, as usual, you avoided my question. So I'll ignore everything that doesn't pertain to it.

You said:

----
Originally posted by Franko
Whodiddly, Fool, and Upchurch welcome you to the rolls of obssessed religious fanatics.
----


And then I asked:

----
Can you show me the post which I did 'welcome' him?
----


We're waiting...

Else I'll have to think that you are a liar.

:)

[Franko]

yeah, but every one of your posts just reinforces the notion that your actions are predictable (you obey Fate).

You are living proof that "free will" doesn't exist Whodidi.

Prove it again. I like when you keep proving it...