Free Will

[_PrickKicker]

Are you a Montypython fan...?
You: "You are here for an argument"... Me: "No I am Not," You: "Yes You are," Me: "No I am Not!" And so on and so on.
The difference between you and I, is while You like to tell me, what I do and do not know or believe, you keep telling me that I cannot believe in 'freewill' because it is against the laws of nature.
I am trying to explain to you 'freewill' is nothing more than an intelligent creatures ability to act / react to stimuli.

i have seen no evidence that would reliably conclude that any tree is "intelligent" as you describe above.
Its reactions to sunlight and water are not cognitive and i disagree with your assumption that they are. There is no evidence that the tree could choose otherwise in how it photosynthesizes sunlight.
The reason I believe plants are intelligent because they 'sense', they are 'photosensitive' as well as being capable of 'photosynthesis' like you mentioned, the venus fly trap is a plant that is carnivorous, it traps and digests insects and arachnia, these plants display a behaviour with actions and reactions, they can be tricked into conservation and tricked into production, they do not act on a single switch but many. You cannot claim that they are unable to do these things without logic or intelligence, because it is evident that they feel and or sense, which enables them to trap food and adapt their actions to their environment.

No contradiction for myself.
i was clear about what my position was, what the position of the church is, and what the position of science is based on the evidence available.
I clearly stated that with a purely scientific view of the world, sexual activity is intended for procreation....i never stated that this was "my" position, i was simply illustrating the difficult argument a typical "atheist" would have difficulty making without conceding "self-interest, self-centeredness, and selfishness".
Ah yes you don't subscribe to mainstream Mormonism so the churches views are not yours, but have hinted that you are wholly against contributing to a organisation that grants the same rights to GAYs as heterosexuals... Got it!... shall we move on, with this topic?

exactly what is an "irrational sensation"?
and though you may try to dress it up with terms like "understanding", how can you support an idea that "understanding" is nothing more than a complex sequence of chemical reactions in the brain organ which could result in no other product? It is not as if "you" have made any actual achievement, it would just be a coincidence of reactions. There is no "you" pulling switches behind a curtain, the switches operate independent of "you" and, in fact of your position, these switches are what tell you there is a "you".
Irrational sensation is where your mind misinterprets signals and or relays signals to and from different areas of the brain.
I exist as a human being nothing more nothing less. which I believe is nothing more than the brains ability to process past, present and future stimuli.
environmental stimuli internal or external is the input / information, the brain is the hub which stores and processes information and part of that process is the ability to consider other information from other areas of the brain and whether or not to tell other parts of the brain to act or react to that information and the the product / output is the physical beings actions.
So we agree, I also do not believe in a 'spirit-me' pulling switches behind a curtain? and yes some of the switches operate independent of consciousness.
I think, therefore I am capable of thinking and I know that I am capable of thinking because I think.
But you can keep on telling me I am wrong if you wish to waste your time.

i have stated examples relative to this position. The laws of the universe, like gravity...atomic physics...that electrons are negative and protons are positive...etc.....these laws are in no way "grey".
Different personalities, by your admitted position, are simply coincidence with environmental influences. "You" can not violate the biochemical processes which define and sustain "you". Your "mind" is nothing more than a product of bio-mechanics according to your stance...evolutionary influences are completely reliant on external influences - so there is no "control"- no "direction" by the illusory "you".
Again CFR! What is the natural law that the brain is capable of superseding?

"it is not controlling" BECAUSE "There is no autonomous you"....because there is no "it".
that is just one way...not both ways...whatever that means.
Yeah, You have lost me... I have no idea what you are on about AGAIN.I am simply saying I know my conscious mind exists while my brain functions, I am unaware but have been educated to understand that my subconscious mind controls parts of my being that I do not have to make a conscious effort to maintain.

Your premise is that a complex system of chemical reactions can produce "something" which in turn can control the very chemical reactions which sustain and create this same "something"....all the while the manner by which it "controls" is by the same method (chemical reactions)....but somehow (magically?) these new chemical reactions are able to subvert the natural law which governs their reactions...so the chemistry creates a chemistry which creates a chemistry that is supernatural, thus making it not-chemistry.
So, the natural law about how matter can neither be created nor destroyed is rather "grey" and "not perfect"....got it!
quite simply, your premise is absurd and illogical.
Erm, thank you for again proving my point that you like to tell me what I do and do not know and believe. Are you aware that Drs have mapped the brain so well these days that they have produced brain implants which enable deaf people to hear through technology

So, your own mind told your own mind that your own mind is not real, and your own mind believed it........got it!
(or did you mean that your own mind told your own mind that your own mind is real, and your own mind believed it?)
Got what? I don't get what it is you think I am thinking? because that is not what I wrote. that is what you wrote about what you thought that I meant when I wrote what I wrote.

which clearly you believe you are unable to ever actually choose.
Clearly you are unable to understand human physiology fully until you stop philosophising about it.


not sure i follow your logic there...is there a problem with Abigail and/or Brittany?

Me: "Blatant misdirection," You: "no it wasn't," Me: "yes it was," You: "no it wasn't, you said it wasn't but you are incapable of talking because your head is empty!"
Me:

[_subgenius]

Are you a Montypython fan...?
You: "You are here for an argument"... Me: "No I am Not," You: "Yes You are," Me: "No I am Not!" And so on and so on.
The difference between you and I, is while You like to tell me, what I do and do not know or believe, you keep telling me that I cannot believe in 'freewill' because it is against the laws of nature.
I am trying to explain to you 'freewill' is nothing more than an intelligent creatures ability to act / react to stimuli.

oh, i see...you are going to re-write definitions to suit your argument and then tell me that by using the actual definition, i am not paying attention....got it.
and
when i use the term free-will i mean "choose otherwise"
when you use the term free-will you mean not-free-will

and for the record, one can not "act" to stimuli...one can only react to stimuli....chronologically speaking.

i have seen no evidence that would reliably conclude that any tree is "intelligent" as you describe above.
Its reactions to sunlight and water are not cognitive and i disagree with your assumption that they are. There is no evidence that the tree could choose otherwise in how it photosynthesizes sunlight.

The reason I believe plants are intelligent because they 'sense', they are 'photosensitive' as well as being capable of 'photosynthesis' like you mentioned, the venus fly trap is a plant that is carnivorous, it traps and digests insects and arachnia, these plants display a behaviour with actions and reactions, they can be tricked into conservation and tricked into production, they do not act on a single switch but many. You cannot claim that they are unable to do these things without logic or intelligence, because it is evident that they feel and or sense, which enables them to trap food and adapt their actions to their environment.

i am not disputing that, but there is no evidence, nor reason, to believe that a flytrap could "choose" to not trap food when the fly lands.

No contradiction for myself.
i was clear about what my position was, what the position of the church is, and what the position of science is based on the evidence available.
I clearly stated that with a purely scientific view of the world, sexual activity is intended for procreation....i never stated that this was "my" position, i was simply illustrating the difficult argument a typical "atheist" would have difficulty making without conceding "self-interest, self-centeredness, and selfishness".

Ah yes you don't subscribe to mainstream Mormonism so the churches views are not yours, but have hinted that you are wholly against contributing to a organisation that grants the same rights to GAYs as heterosexuals... Got it!... shall we move on, with this topic?

i agree with the church's position on homosexuality...i do NOT agree with your position that the church's position is "sterile people should not marry".
moving on....

exactly what is an "irrational sensation"?
and though you may try to dress it up with terms like "understanding", how can you support an idea that "understanding" is nothing more than a complex sequence of chemical reactions in the brain organ which could result in no other product? It is not as if "you" have made any actual achievement, it would just be a coincidence of reactions. There is no "you" pulling switches behind a curtain, the switches operate independent of "you" and, in fact of your position, these switches are what tell you there is a "you".

Irrational sensation is where your mind misinterprets signals and or relays signals to and from different areas of the brain.
I exist as a human being nothing more nothing less. which I believe is nothing more than the brains ability to process past, present and future stimuli.
environmental stimuli internal or external is the input / information, the brain is the hub which stores and processes information and part of that process is the ability to consider other information from other areas of the brain and whether or not to tell other parts of the brain to act or react to that information and the the product / output is the physical beings actions.
So we agree, I also do not believe in a 'spirit-me' pulling switches behind a curtain? and yes some of the switches operate independent of consciousness.
I think, therefore I am capable of thinking and I know that I am capable of thinking because I think.
But you can keep on telling me I am wrong if you wish to waste your time.

i don't have to tell you are wrong, you have proven that by yourself here.

but just for kicks...how exactly does the mind "misinterpret"?

i have stated examples relative to this position. The laws of the universe, like gravity...atomic physics...that electrons are negative and protons are positive...etc.....these laws are in no way "grey".
Different personalities, by your admitted position, are simply coincidence with environmental influences. "You" can not violate the biochemical processes which define and sustain "you". Your "mind" is nothing more than a product of bio-mechanics according to your stance...evolutionary influences are completely reliant on external influences - so there is no "control"- no "direction" by the illusory "you".

Again CFR! What is the natural law that the brain is capable of superseding?

mostly these

"it is not controlling" BECAUSE "There is no autonomous you"....because there is no "it".
that is just one way...not both ways...whatever that means.

Yeah, You have lost me... I have no idea what you are on about AGAIN.I am simply saying I know my conscious mind exists while my brain functions, I am unaware but have been educated to understand that my subconscious mind controls parts of my being that I do not have to make a conscious effort to maintain.

you do not "know" your conscious mind exists at all is my point, let alone you do not know what exists when your brain does not function for you have no evidence for that knowledge...you might get away with saying you have no "memory" of something bu you can hardly support an argument otherwise.
Nevertheless, you have no actual way of proving your mind exists, if anything you have provided more evidence that your "mind" is an illusion created by your brain organ....as in a product of but not distinct from.

Your premise is that a complex system of chemical reactions can produce "something" which in turn can control the very chemical reactions which sustain and create this same "something"....all the while the manner by which it "controls" is by the same method (chemical reactions)....but somehow (magically?) these new chemical reactions are able to subvert the natural law which governs their reactions...so the chemistry creates a chemistry which creates a chemistry that is supernatural, thus making it not-chemistry.
So, the natural law about how matter can neither be created nor destroyed is rather "grey" and "not perfect"....got it!
quite simply, your premise is absurd and illogical.

Erm, thank you for again proving my point that you like to tell me what I do and do not know and believe. Are you aware that Drs have mapped the brain so well these days that they have produced brain implants which enable deaf people to hear through technology

yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with being able violate the natural law of biochemistry....engineers have also created cars which enable slow people to get to other places faster...but we are not talking about cars...or implants.
You obviously can not hear that chemical reactions are unable to "choose otherwise" - bottom line.

So, your own mind told your own mind that your own mind is not real, and your own mind believed it........got it!
(or did you mean that your own mind told your own mind that your own mind is real, and your own mind believed it?)

Got what? I don't get what it is you think I am thinking? because that is not what I wrote. that is what you wrote about what you thought that I meant when I wrote what I wrote.

no, pretty sure you wrote that your own mind tells your own mind stuff which your own mind considers true.
what part of that is not correct?

which clearly you believe you are unable to ever actually choose.

Clearly you are unable to understand human physiology fully until you stop philosophising about it.

it is all pretty simple actually


http://rlv.zcache.com/overthinking_it_m ... 400.jpgnot sure i follow your logic there...is there a problem with Abigail and/or Brittany?[/quote]
Me: "Blatant misdirection," You: "no it wasn't," Me: "yes it was," You: "no it wasn't, you said it wasn't but you are incapable of talking because your head is empty!"
Me: [/quote]
again, you obviously had a point to make about the conjoined twins, what was it?
do they somehow, by their existence, disprove that the human body is outfitted with a soul? a spirit? Does their existence somehow provide undeniable empirical evidence that God's plan could not possibly be?
You posted it, so own it.

[_Tobin]

sub,

I think all your points are wasted on him (as they seem to be waste on a number of people here). I've often pointed out how our concepts of "free will" are probably unrealistic. Special Relativity as proposed by Einstein and provided it is true which all indications show, clearly means that the future is already written and must unfold as it will. Since God is part of nature, that means God could potentially see how our future will unfold and our views of "free will" as far as being able to alter the future are false.

Anyway, have fun. I don't think you'll get anywhere with this guy, but I do appreciate the effort you are making.

Tobin

[_subgenius]

sub,

I think all your points are wasted on him (as they seem to be waste on a number of people here). I've often pointed out how our concepts of "free will" are probably unrealistic. Special Relativity as proposed by Einstein and provided it is true which all indications show, clearly means that the future is already written and must unfold as it will. Since God is part of nature, that means God could potentially see how our future will unfold and our views of "free will" as far as being able to alter the future are false.

Anyway, have fun. I don't think you'll get anywhere with this guy, but I do appreciate the effort you are making.

Tobin

The irony is that my argument is merely to show the inadequacy of that position, of how their own stance leaves them lacking many of the abilities they assume they have...personally, my position is that what i say is true for the physical aspect of being a human, and that indeed there is a supernatural quality to our lives that enables us to violate the laws of the universe and "choose otherwise".
(but seeing kicker chase his tail is awfully amusing)

[_Themis]

sub,

I think all your points are wasted on him (as they seem to be waste on a number of people here). I've often pointed out how our concepts of "free will" are probably unrealistic. Special Relativity as proposed by Einstein and provided it is true which all indications show, clearly means that the future is already written and must unfold as it will. Since God is part of nature, that means God could potentially see how our future will unfold and our views of "free will" as far as being able to alter the future are false.

Anyway, have fun. I don't think you'll get anywhere with this guy, but I do appreciate the effort you are making.

Tobin

The irony is that my argument is merely to show the inadequacy of that position, of how their own stance leaves them lacking many of the abilities they assume they have...personally, my position is that what i say is true for the physical aspect of being a human, and that indeed there is a supernatural quality to our lives that enables us to violate the laws of the universe and "choose otherwise".
(but seeing kicker chase his tail is awfully amusing)

I got you at least admit you don't really know this, but the true irony is quoting tobin who is making an argument against free will even with God as part of the equation.

[_PrickKicker]

I see you were just playing games.
Very Funny!

Theres me thinking you needed an analogy to aid your childlike understanding.
I was about to compare the brain to a Biological supercomputer with numerous sensors and processors and storage space, with the ability to analyse one space with another.

I was about to give you this linkhttp://youtu.be/CrSR-55xXD8

But now I see you were mimicking Joseph Smith! Talking like you know stuff that is beyond anyone else's understanding, till they submit your self confidence!

You Sure Showed Me!


PS: the venus fly trap needs several sensors to trigger to close not just one and so therefore it must know not to close on the first trigger!

[_subgenius]

I got you at least admit you don't really know this, but the true irony is quoting tobin who is making an argument against free will even with God as part of the equation.

1. "You" did not get anyone to admit anything (delusion)
2. I do really know this, the facts are quite clear, your reluctance to acknowledge that does not mean that I do not know".
3. Tobin's argument is not ironic at all except in that it is an argument whereas you have neither proposed irony nor an argument but simply been in a position of disagreement...which is not ironic but rather predictable.

[_subgenius]

I see you were just playing games.
Very Funny!

no games, my position was abundantly clear at the beginning of the discussion.

Theres me thinking you needed an analogy to aid your childlike understanding.
I was about to compare the brain to a Biological supercomputer with numerous sensors and processors and storage space, with the ability to analyse one space with another.

you still fail to see the control..the level of complexity for reactions does not somehow "magically" suspend the laws which govern those reactions.
Does not matter how big the fire, it still must burn fuel.

But now I see you were mimicking Joseph Smith! Talking like you know stuff that is beyond anyone else's understanding, till they submit your self confidence!

what i spoke of, i did know. By your own premise I can not be responsible for your assumptions and predisposition.

You Sure Showed Me!

obviously not

PS: the venus fly trap needs several sensors to trigger to close not just one and so therefore it must know not to close on the first trigger!

so what?
you have simply affirmed my claim. I have a combination lock that must "know" not to release the latch on the first correct number, but only after it "senses" all three correct numbers......got it!

[_Themis]

I got you at least admit you don't really know this, but the true irony is quoting tobin who is making an argument against free will even with God as part of the equation.

1. "You" did not get anyone to admit anything (delusion)
2. I do really know this, the facts are quite clear, your reluctance to acknowledge that does not mean that I do not know".

1. Here is the evidence that once again your posts are inadequate, naïve, and ill-informed.
premise = a statement that is assumed to be true for the purpose of an argument from which a conclusion is drawn
so, even a novice can get this one.

More then close enough. You have continued to fail to provide any evidence, but most here understand it is all a weak argument in trying to prove a supernatural entity.

3. Tobin's argument is not ironic at all except in that it is an argument whereas you have neither proposed irony nor an argument but simply been in a position of disagreement...which is not ironic but rather predictable.

The irony went over your head. At least he was wise enough to use an if when making his argument.

[_PrickKicker]

no games, my position was abundantly clear at the beginning of the discussion.
So you had fun prompting me to chase my tail while watching me, but there was no game?

you still fail to see the control..the level of complexity for reactions does not somehow "magically" suspend the laws which govern those reactions.
Does not matter how big the fire, it still must burn fuel.
So you are allowed to use the term magic and supernatural, but I am not allowed to use the terms undiscovered or unknown?

what i spoke of, i did know. By your own premise I can not be responsible for your assumptions and predisposition.
So you're not talking about magic or the super natural?

obviously not
Again, Sarcasm.

so what?
you have simply affirmed my claim. I have a combination lock that must "know" not to release the latch on the first correct number, but only after it "senses" all three correct numbers......got it!
Hmm, Again resorting to manmade inanimate objects to make your point, Clever.