Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 16:02:10 GMT -5
Freedom of will is an illusion born out of human arrogance. Perhaps I should start a new thread on the subject in Deep Thought. Mike, personally I think it would be an interesting exchange. I also think that it could quite easily get off track and become relatively contentious, mainly because such a dialog must be based on some understandings or reaching some type of common ground. For example, we as social beings make decisions that are based to a large degree on biologically driven foundations. That is, decisions that are primarily motor driven prior to reaching a level of actual decision making. Jerking one’s hand back from a received bee sting would be a motor driven reaction (not a decision), while staying away from bees would be more like a decision. Of this latter area, how much of this is actual decision and how much is biologically driven depends on who is driving the bus. What drives that actual decision making is also debatable. Those who are determinists believe that whatever happens is predetermined by past results. That is, if all that has happened before is known (and that is an impossibility) we could predict with absolute accuracy all that is happening and free will is therefore nonexistent. Even so we can only make decisions within the attributes of our species and we can only gather information through our senses which are limited, so then our decision making is limited. While I believe that free will exists, I also believe that its constrained and limited by a number of factors (not the least of those being society) and that few people actually use it. I did state that I would create a new thread on the subject in Deep Thought. But it is a topic I have studied for over thirty years and find the popular misconceptions on the subject sorely in need of being addressed. Neurology in any case has shown that the whole notion of free choice is false. But it is better if I begin a new thread in the appropriate area rather than begin to intrude one here!
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on May 20, 2017 16:06:48 GMT -5
Mike, personally I think it would be an interesting exchange. I also think that it could quite easily get off track and become relatively contentious, mainly because such a dialog must be based on some understandings or reaching some type of common ground. For example, we as social beings make decisions that are based to a large degree on biologically driven foundations. That is, decisions that are primarily motor driven prior to reaching a level of actual decision making. Jerking one’s hand back from a received bee sting would be a motor driven reaction (not a decision), while staying away from bees would be more like a decision. Of this latter area, how much of this is actual decision and how much is biologically driven depends on who is driving the bus. What drives that actual decision making is also debatable. Those who are determinists believe that whatever happens is predetermined by past results. That is, if all that has happened before is known (and that is an impossibility) we could predict with absolute accuracy all that is happening and free will is therefore nonexistent. Even so we can only make decisions within the attributes of our species and we can only gather information through our senses which are limited, so then our decision making is limited. While I believe that free will exists, I also believe that its constrained and limited by a number of factors (not the least of those being society) and that few people actually use it. I did state that I would create a new thread on the subject in Deep Thought. But it is a topic I have studied for over thirty years and find the popular misconceptions on the subject sorely in need of being addressed. Neurology in any case has shown that the whole notion of free choice is false. But it is better if I begin a new thread in the appropriate area rather than begin to intrude one here! I suspect that you are right Mike.
|
|
|
Post by beth on May 20, 2017 17:18:15 GMT -5
I did state that I would create a new thread on the subject in Deep Thought. But it is a topic I have studied for over thirty years and find the popular misconceptions on the subject sorely in need of being addressed. Neurology in any case has shown that the whole notion of free choice is false. But it is better if I begin a new thread in the appropriate area rather than begin to intrude one here! The Deep Thought topic has been a bit abused, Mike. If you'll give me an idea of something less general and more specific, I'll set in a new topic to accommodate such a discussion. If nothing comes to mind, I'll start a Deep Thought 2 or something similar.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 20, 2017 17:47:08 GMT -5
Mike, personally I think it would be an interesting exchange. I also think that it could quite easily get off track and become relatively contentious, mainly because such a dialog must be based on some understandings or reaching some type of common ground. For example, we as social beings make decisions that are based to a large degree on biologically driven foundations. That is, decisions that are primarily motor driven prior to reaching a level of actual decision making. Jerking one’s hand back from a received bee sting would be a motor driven reaction (not a decision), while staying away from bees would be more like a decision. Of this latter area, how much of this is actual decision and how much is biologically driven depends on who is driving the bus. What drives that actual decision making is also debatable. Those who are determinists believe that whatever happens is predetermined by past results. That is, if all that has happened before is known (and that is an impossibility) we could predict with absolute accuracy all that is happening and free will is therefore nonexistent. Even so we can only make decisions within the attributes of our species and we can only gather information through our senses which are limited, so then our decision making is limited. While I believe that free will exists, I also believe that its constrained and limited by a number of factors (not the least of those being society) and that few people actually use it. I did state that I would create a new thread on the subject in Deep Thought. But it is a topic I have studied for over thirty years and find the popular misconceptions on the subject sorely in need of being addressed. Neurology in any case has shown that the whole notion of free choice is false. But it is better if I begin a new thread in the appropriate area rather than begin to intrude one here! i think its a good idea Mike.. its an interesting wide subject subject and I would welcome it..
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on May 20, 2017 18:57:22 GMT -5
Hi Dex, I know, and that is how I am taking it. I even asked him if he was trying to compete with Kronks with his witty replies. Mouse has chosen to make an issue out of it. All is well.!!! what ? all I take issue with is your continual reinterpretations of the meanings of words and choosing to put your own interpretations on what other poster write... without a commonality of the meanings of words we enter verbal anarchy .. where every one can interpretate words and sentences as they tthink fit very much an Alice in Wonderland world .. and I find it strange that you expect what you write to be acepted without question as being fact.. and yet you will not accept what others write as fact even when they bring documentation etc ... that is a very one way street and totally arrogant and its very unrealistic to expect that grown adults will accept that sort of manipulation SL wrote """You are labeling my posts as being mind games. I don't..!!! And you are asking me to cease from that, which means in my book, that I have to stop posting, that is what it amounts to.""" and that posting[above] makes your irrationality with words very obvious.. you continually say things such as ""in my book that means xyz"" Fret did not say or imply that you should stop posting nor do his words amount to asking you to stop posting....he suggested you stop playing games...just because in your book you choose to make it mean some thing not intended is no excuse for acusing him of some thing he didn't write or infer insisting that in your book[again]a Christian being born again.. beginning life anew etc means reincarnation .. when it actually means nothing of the sort,, Hi Mouse, I'm afraid I will have to disagree once more with what you have stated. We were told to seek and then we will find, which I have done. My findings are exactly how I see things today. The crowd in ages past thought the world was flat. But it has now been proven wrong, as far as I am concerned, this applies to the Bible as well. I have a right to state my point of view on this forum, and it is only my point of view even though to me, it is the truth. There is no reason for you to get so upset over what I think. People disagree on matters all the time, we just have to accept that we think differently. I ask you how you define what Jesus meant, when he said these words. ' I am that I am ' I see it differently from what the ministers of religion preach from the pulpit. I hope you will reply to my request?
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on May 20, 2017 19:11:16 GMT -5
Mike, personally I think it would be an interesting exchange. I also think that it could quite easily get off track and become relatively contentious, mainly because such a dialog must be based on some understandings or reaching some type of common ground. For example, we as social beings make decisions that are based to a large degree on biologically driven foundations. That is, decisions that are primarily motor driven prior to reaching a level of actual decision making. Jerking one’s hand back from a received bee sting would be a motor driven reaction (not a decision), while staying away from bees would be more like a decision. Of this latter area, how much of this is actual decision and how much is biologically driven depends on who is driving the bus. What drives that actual decision making is also debatable. Those who are determinists believe that whatever happens is predetermined by past results. That is, if all that has happened before is known (and that is an impossibility) we could predict with absolute accuracy all that is happening and free will is therefore nonexistent. Even so we can only make decisions within the attributes of our species and we can only gather information through our senses which are limited, so then our decision making is limited. While I believe that free will exists, I also believe that its constrained and limited by a number of factors (not the least of those being society) and that few people actually use it. I did state that I would create a new thread on the subject in Deep Thought. But it is a topic I have studied for over thirty years and find the popular misconceptions on the subject sorely in need of being addressed. Neurology in any case has shown that the whole notion of free choice is false. But it is better if I begin a new thread in the appropriate area rather than begin to intrude one here! Hi Mike, I will certainly look forward to that. What Men an tol stated is as clear as a bell and I like what he had to say. I hope further down the track that what we debate is still as clear as a bell. Go for your life Mike Marshall.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on May 20, 2017 19:38:22 GMT -5
I did state that I would create a new thread on the subject in Deep Thought. But it is a topic I have studied for over thirty years and find the popular misconceptions on the subject sorely in need of being addressed. Neurology in any case has shown that the whole notion of free choice is false. But it is better if I begin a new thread in the appropriate area rather than begin to intrude one here! The Deep Thought topic has been a bit abused, Mike. If you'll give me an idea of something less general and more specific, I'll set in a new topic to accommodate such a discussion. If nothing comes to mind, I'll start a Deep Thought 2 or something similar. One Title to consider Mike could be "Biology and Human Behavior."
|
|
|
Post by kronks on May 20, 2017 23:54:35 GMT -5
Freedom of will is an illusion born out of human arrogance. Perhaps I should start a new thread on the subject in Deep Thought. Ultimately the universe is not predictable is it does not run by clock work. phys.org/news/2012-07-dice-quantum-mechanics-nature-unpredictable.htmlSo science cannot predict, maybe the present really is controlled by past lives?
|
|
|
Post by kronks on May 20, 2017 23:55:58 GMT -5
I did state that I would create a new thread on the subject in Deep Thought. But it is a topic I have studied for over thirty years and find the popular misconceptions on the subject sorely in need of being addressed. Neurology in any case has shown that the whole notion of free choice is false. But it is better if I begin a new thread in the appropriate area rather than begin to intrude one here! The Deep Thought topic has been a bit abused, Mike. If you'll give me an idea of something less general and more specific, I'll set in a new topic to accommodate such a discussion. If nothing comes to mind, I'll start a Deep Thought 2 or something similar. Yes maybe, or maybe you need to think about it more.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 21, 2017 4:31:22 GMT -5
what ? all I take issue with is your continual reinterpretations of the meanings of words and choosing to put your own interpretations on what other poster write... without a commonality of the meanings of words we enter verbal anarchy .. where every one can interpretate words and sentences as they tthink fit very much an Alice in Wonderland world .. and I find it strange that you expect what you write to be acepted without question as being fact.. and yet you will not accept what others write as fact even when they bring documentation etc ... that is a very one way street and totally arrogant and its very unrealistic to expect that grown adults will accept that sort of manipulation SL wrote """You are labeling my posts as being mind games. I don't..!!! And you are asking me to cease from that, which means in my book, that I have to stop posting, that is what it amounts to.""" and that posting[above] makes your irrationality with words very obvious.. you continually say things such as ""in my book that means xyz"" Fret did not say or imply that you should stop posting nor do his words amount to asking you to stop posting....he suggested you stop playing games...just because in your book you choose to make it mean some thing not intended is no excuse for acusing him of some thing he didn't write or infer insisting that in your book[again]a Christian being born again.. beginning life anew etc means reincarnation .. when it actually means nothing of the sort,, Hi Mouse, I'm afraid I will have to disagree once more with what you have stated. We were told to seek and then we will find, which I have done. My findings are exactly how I see things today. The crowd in ages past thought the world was flat. But it has now been proven wrong, as far as I am concerned, this applies to the Bible as well. I have a right to state my point of view on this forum, and it is only my point of view even though to me, it is the truth. There is no reason for you to get so upset over what I think. People disagree on matters all the time, we just have to accept that we think differently. I ask you how you define what Jesus meant, when he said these words. ' I am that I am ' c I hope you will reply to my request? SLwrote "" ' I am that I am ' to give a thought out reply I would need the contex in which he spoke these words,, so what was the contex ? I nto days speak ""I am what I am""would or could be. 1/. this is who I am.. take it or leave it.. 2/or .. this is who I am I make no appologies ... 3/or what you see is what you get 4/or even this is who I am.. if you don't like it tough I have no problem with the fact we disagree..and of course you have a right to state your view just as others have a perfect right to their views and opinions the problems arise as I have stated with the alteration of the meanings of words and the twisting of what is written into meanings which were never intended or suggested..you brush off these twistings as ""well that is what it means to me"" or and I quote ""My findings are exactly how I see things"""" as for me being upset.. sorry .no I am not upset ..why would I be upset... I find it sad and strange though that you think altering words is acceptable and very odd that you feel that no one should pick you up on these alterations of words and your expectations that no one should question your assertions based on nothing more than how you see it... and this below is a prime example """"I see it differently from what the ministers of religion preach from the pulpit.""" and it wouldn't be just the ministers would it but Christians around the world past and present... you do this all the time.. and its wrong and its irritating that you assume that your """I see it differently""" should be accepted unquestiongly as truth by the adults on this message board ....
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 21, 2017 5:10:10 GMT -5
Yes and no. Freedom of will, like freedom of expression, is an illusion borne out by the ever intrusive state on parental matters, for example. Take doing the very best you can for your child... The parents of a cancer-stricken boy were behind bars in Spain and facing extradition to Britain on Monday after taking their son from an English hospital without doctors’ consent to seek advanced medical treatment abroad.www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-britain-treatment-cancer-20140901-story.htmlWithout doctors' consent... The NHS Trust that treated Ashya has declined to comment on his current condition. Mr King has told the Sun newspaper a recent scan showed "no evidence" of the tumour. Mr and Mrs King took Ashya out of Southampton General Hospital last August, after disagreeing with doctors about his treatment and deciding to seek proton beam treatment abroad. ...
In order to help prevent a return of the tumour, his parents wanted him to be given proton beam therapy - a treatment the NHS does not provide in the UK, although it does refer patients to other countries for treatment.www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32013634Was it professional arrogance or pride on the part of the doctors, who acted as agents of the state? I think so... I'm a doctor and I know what is best for you whether you like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 21, 2017 5:22:42 GMT -5
Freedom of will is an illusion born out of human arrogance. Perhaps I should start a new thread on the subject in Deep Thought. Ultimately the universe is not predictable is it does not run by clock work. phys.org/news/2012-07-dice-quantum-mechanics-nature-unpredictable.htmlSo science cannot predict, maybe the present really is controlled by past lives? Ultimately the universe is not predictable is it does not run by clock work. You said there's a god for that. So science cannot predict, maybe the present really is controlled by past lives?A correct theory does predict. An incorrect one does not. Any fool knows that. What's this mumbo-jumbo about the present being controlled by past lives? Nore ectoplasm?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 21, 2017 5:38:00 GMT -5
""""Was it professional arrogance or pride on the part of the doctors, who acted as agents of the state?
I think so... I'm a doctor and I know what is best for you whether you like it or not."""
ah yes the state .. the state in its many guises medical/educational/ etc and yes the media which we like to kid ourselves is independent of the state along side the state is the self interested influence of big bussinnesses and of religions.. all intertwined to take away any freedom of self yet all the while perpepuating the myth of freedom
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on May 21, 2017 5:56:04 GMT -5
Hi Mouse, I'm afraid I will have to disagree once more with what you have stated. We were told to seek and then we will find, which I have done. My findings are exactly how I see things today. The crowd in ages past thought the world was flat. But it has now been proven wrong, as far as I am concerned, this applies to the Bible as well. I have a right to state my point of view on this forum, and it is only my point of view even though to me, it is the truth. There is no reason for you to get so upset over what I think. People disagree on matters all the time, we just have to accept that we think differently. I ask you how you define what Jesus meant, when he said these words. ' I am that I am ' I hope you will reply to my request? SLwrote "" ' I am that I am ' to give a thought out reply I would need the contex in which he spoke these words,, so what was the contex ? I nto days speak ""I am what I am""would or could be. 1/. this is who I am.. take it or leave it.. 2/or .. this is who I am I make no appologies ... 3/or what you see is what you get 4/or even this is who I am.. if you don't like it tough I have no problem with the fact we disagree..and of course you have a right to state your view just as others have a perfect right to their views and opinions the problems arise as I have stated with the alteration of the meanings of words and the twisting of what is written into meanings which were never intended or suggested..you brush off these twistings as ""well that is what it means to me"" or and I quote ""My findings are exactly how I see things"""" as for me being upset.. sorry .no I am not upset ..why would I be upset... I find it sad and strange though that you think altering words is acceptable and very odd that you feel that no one should pick you up on these alterations of words and your expectations that no one should question your assertions based on nothing more than how you see it... and this below is a prime example """"I see it differently from what the ministers of religion preach from the pulpit.""" and it wouldn't be just the ministers would it but Christians around the world past and present... you do this all the time.. and its wrong and its irritating that you assume that your """I see it differently""" should be accepted unquestiongly as truth by the adults on this message board .... Hi Mouse, Don't you have a concordance that you could look up. What you have offered does seem to be what is the accepted definition from what I remember. When God spoke with Moses ? And asked him to go tell the people something. Moses? asked, " who shall I say sent me?" God replied, " tell them the Iam sent you." So when Jsus said to whoever, Iam THAT Iam. Which means to me that Jesus and the Iam are one and the same, which seems more in keeping with the Trinity. If this is so, then it means that the scholars were wrong in their interpretation. If they can be wrong once, they can be wrong more often, which I have already suggested and you have denied that it is a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on May 21, 2017 6:19:48 GMT -5
Ultimately the universe is not predictable is it does not run by clock work. You said there's a god for that. So science cannot predict, maybe the present really is controlled by past lives?A correct theory does predict. An incorrect one does not. Any fool knows that. What's this mumbo- jumbo about the present being controlled by past lives? More ectoplasm? Hi Fretslider, The Law of Karma has been there since the beginning of Creation and accounts for what is known as destiny. ( that which is ordained to happen ) What ever a person puts into action has a consequence or reaction in other words, cause and effect. We do have free will to make a choice otherwise we would just proceed from bad to worse. But we can improve our lives by making a better choice that will result in resolving accrued Karma and therefore giving us a better future.
|
|