100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > electrickgreen
|
Topic:
Free Will
|
|
am aware of these experiments and they do not prove that free will does not exist. Neither do they predict what a person is going to do "a long time before" they do it. The time lapse is merely a few or fractions of a second. But what these experiments do support is my theory of how the human "mind" does not exist inside of the "brain" (which is a holographic projection and merely a biological computer that processes information.) I have even mentioned these experiments or other similar ones in support of my theory. Instead, the mind of the individual exists within the non-material human energy field which has its own space-time environment and is the true thinking center of human consciousness. Decisions are made in the mind, not the brain. The brain merely processes them. The mind is non-material and operates within its own separate space-time. That is my theory. The experiments you mentioned above actually support that theory. There is a delayed reaction between the decision the mind makes as it has not reached and been processed by the brain yet. That has to do with the two different space-time environments, one physical, the other non physical. No it wasnt fractions of a second. It was ten full seconds. Did you even read the article? Secondly your idea that the will exist outside of the brain is fine, cause if we can map the persons decision before there even aware of it, (and awareness is what consciousness is), then your simply labeling your immaterial deity as being subject to the deterministic nature of the universe, and not actually a cause of any of the persons actions. For example if we can still map/determine a persons will (even if it goes outside our universe/space-time and then comes back to play a role in our universe) its still determinable in these experiments! You STILL lose! Even if the will is completely immaterial! Get over it already. So what do I loose? You have only proven that my theory that mind exists outside of the brain and within a human energy field is more likely. (I don't agree with your premise that "awareness is what consciousness is" but I have gone around and around about this subject on this club a lot with other people, so I'm not going into all of it with you.) If you say they can map a person's decision before they are even aware of it, then you have identified "the self" as the brain. I can't agree with that premise either. The self is not the brain in my opinion. What I assert is that the self is aware even before the actual brain processes the information in the physical world. Also, that the self is the true thinking center and it is conscious and can be conscious apart from the brain and the body. The will is still in tact. The will is the creative faculty of the thinking center that is the self. It is what sets you apart from a machine. I don't know why people want to spread the lie that there is no will or that it is not free, or that everything is determined. That is really absurd. We are alive. We are not simply programed machines. Even if we were, then you would have to answer the question.... who programed you?  Lets get this strait. You believe Self Awareness isn't the originator of decision making? You believe its something completely independent from the brain? Ok If that is what you want to argue for then you are pretty much saying you don't make decisions, self awareness is just that, to be aware of "yourself", and if "you" are not included in your decision making because the choice (was made outside of the brain then was fed into it) then you are simply an observer of someone elses behavior, ie you are just a puppet on strings and you have no choice or free will. See how the loop feeds itself? Do you honestly not realize how nutty you sound? I'm not trying to be mean, but seriously. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Free Will
|
|
am aware of these experiments and they do not prove that free will does not exist. Neither do they predict what a person is going to do "a long time before" they do it. The time lapse is merely a few or fractions of a second. But what these experiments do support is my theory of how the human "mind" does not exist inside of the "brain" (which is a holographic projection and merely a biological computer that processes information.) I have even mentioned these experiments or other similar ones in support of my theory. Instead, the mind of the individual exists within the non-material human energy field which has its own space-time environment and is the true thinking center of human consciousness. Decisions are made in the mind, not the brain. The brain merely processes them. The mind is non-material and operates within its own separate space-time. That is my theory. The experiments you mentioned above actually support that theory. There is a delayed reaction between the decision the mind makes as it has not reached and been processed by the brain yet. That has to do with the two different space-time environments, one physical, the other non physical. No it wasnt fractions of a second. It was ten full seconds. Did you even read the article? Secondly your idea that the will exist outside of the brain is fine, cause if we can map the persons decision before there even aware of it, (and awareness is what consciousness is), then your simply labeling your immaterial deity as being subject to the deterministic nature of the universe, and not actually a cause of any of the persons actions. For example if we can still map/determine a persons will (even if it goes outside our universe/space-time and then comes back to play a role in our universe) its still determinable in these experiments! You STILL lose! Even if the will is completely immaterial! Get over it already. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Free Will
|
|
We are free to think. There is no cost or obligation to process cognitive thoughts. Thoughts, alone, do not require will and does not necessarily lead to volition. I agree that thoughts do not necessarily lead to volition, and they also do not "require" will. But if the will is not used to direct your thoughts with purpose, then you could simply become the effect of everything that happens to you, and the effect of your biological programing, indoctrination, brainwashing (mental programing) etc. The will to direct your thoughts with purpose is the power of self direction. That is use of the will. If you do not use it, your automatic programming, training, brainwashing, learned behavior etc. kicks in. The will is the power to direct your thoughts (your self) with purpose. One who does not use their will in this manner are simply pawns to be moved around by others and by circumstance. Your still not making any sense man. How about this. You perform an action for me that isn't dominated by any process going on within this forum or dominated by any past event in your life, that way you can prove to me that you can create an action that isn't the product of the surrounding situations your in (ie this forum). Post a picture of someone nude, I'll just say you posted it because your trying to make a point that you can be random. Type a bunch of random "Z's" same reason. Do an action that is of this "different book" you speak of. Show us your not a "pawn" or a part of chess. You cannot escape it and the sooner you come to accept it the better. You define "will" as "your self" then you define "your self" as your "will". And ants are black therefore black is ants. Start making some sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Free Will
|
|
FREE WILL FOR NON- YOUR WILL IS BROKEN ---MANIPULATED ---STEREOTYPED And is never heard from again. until a person understands the plastic hallow influences in the world, then one can so call"MATURE" This is either one of three things I think. A) Your trying too hard to sound deep/intelligent. B) Your drunk/high. C) Your crazy (brain defect). ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
"Whore" & other Trash
|
|
Are you trying to turn this into a comedy routine? Lol. Do you like circular arguments? Do you really just want me to repeat that the point of view (or piece of art) in respect to the "terrorist" would just be again all defined by whoevers point of view your looking at it from? That he wouldn't see himself as someone whos just trying to terrorize but rather one whos a warrior in a war? Why do you want to go in a circle? I don't understand. I don't want/need a comedy partner/duo type routine for the posters of mingle2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Free Will
Edited by
electrickgreen
on
Thu 01/08/09 07:24 PM
|
|
The will is just the will. It is neither free nor in bondage. It is the power of self direction. You either have a strong will or a weak will. The will is not "random." The will is the CAUSE OF the appearance of RANDOMNESS. "The will is just the will" hah. I think your getting frustrated. Whether you admit/realize it or not. Not to mention you also just said preferences are what a person likes, and what a person likes are their preferences, another sentence that proves nothing and says nothing. Experiences are all memory and can be confounded to brain structure, more determinable things. "Self-Direction" and what causes self direction to make the choices it does? It does go in a 'direction' but why? You can say "whatever IT wants, and it'll appear random" all you want, but like it or not it makes a decision. And these decisions in every instance are constrained or dominated by the things surrounding them and a knowledge of certain things. For example when people are asked "Are you six-feet tall?" People dont answer "Apple". Thats the kinda randomness your asking/arguing for, and not only is it illogical, it doesn't even happen in reality unless a person has a brain defect. You've taken your argument so far away from reality to protect something that doesn't even inherently make sense. If you have a point to make then just make it. Stop dancing around. And by your answer I can see that you don't comprehend what I am saying at all, and probably don't want to. (You are not even in the same book so you can't be on the same page.) So why don't you just get to the point and state what you believe about "free will" and save everybody a lot of wasted time dancing around with your questions while you show everyone how smart you think you are. After reading a few of your posts it is clear you have some kind of opinion, and you are certain that you are right and everyone else is wrong. I'm just dieing to hear it. I don't expect an answer until this afternoon though. Young whipper snappers like you usually sleep till noon.   Your way off. I woke up about three hours after noon. I think my points already been stated. Its known more as Hume's Fork. Science has recently delved into the point that decisions are actually made in the brain before you are even aware of them (or your "immaterial mind"). See this article What are you going to do after you read this story? You may not know that yet, but your brain probably does. A new study shows that patterns of brain activity can reveal which choice a person is going to make long before he or she is aware of it. A team led by John-Dylan Haynes of the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin scanned the brains of volunteers who held a button in each hand and were told to push one of the buttons whenever they wanted to. The scientists could tell from the scans which hand participants were going to use as early as 10 seconds before the volunteers were aware that they made up their mind. Previous research has shown motor-related brain activity preceding conscious intent by a fraction of a second, but this study is the first to show unconscious predictive activity in a region associated with decision making—the prefrontal cortex—according to Haynes. The results support the notion that unconscious brain activity comes first and conscious experience follows as a result, says Patrick Haggard of University College London, who was not involved with the study. “We all think that we have a conscious free will,” he says. “However, this study shows that actions come from preconscious brain activity patterns and not from the person consciously thinking about what they are going to do.” The idea of free will was dead before it was even started. Itd be like arguing the animal racizcosis can fly. Not only is it silly that your arguing such a thing could fly, but its even more so hilarious because the thing doesn't even exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Why String Theory Sucks
|
|
Most people don't know that we haven't ever actually "seen" an atom in any real sense like you see your hand, rather its size and physical design/shape it takes is believed to be what it is simply because it fits a mathematical mold. Fortunately we've even had a chance at testing this design/shape in many instances (ie see the atom bomb). Any string theorist will tell you there technically is no evidence for string theory. There is no proof that strings exist. Rather its much like that of early "proofs" of the atom - it fits a mathematical mold that makes a bunch of physicist and mathematicians happy cause they feel like they're getting/cutting at the edge of knowledge. The idea that there doing this all the while implicating 'science' in their field to me is rather questionable. Consider the difference between hypothesizing atoms vs strings. In order for the string theory to work we have to accept new dimensions. Something like 10-13 they're at now, does anything then 3 (excluding time as a plausible fourth) even make logical sense? Nope, but it helps the math! Mutliverse, now we have more then one Universe on our hands which completely laughs at the idea of any one day being "testable" String theory sucks because it doesn't just cause us to accept strings as existant alone in their own right, no in order to even get there we have to invite its friends, unlike the atom of the past it forces us to accept other abstract ideas as well, such as 13 dimensions and other universes, why? Simply so the math can fit. String theory sucks, and it isn't Science. As far as your comment about atoms, you couldnt be more wrong. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080221153725.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724150342.htm Now talking about atoms and string theory in the same breath is like talking about a single skin cell on the earth surface, then saying seeing the earth is important when talking about that skin cell. Now if you where referring to quarks and electrons then maybe we are on to something. Also if you think something has to appeal to your common sense just to be real then you are sadly mistaken. Does superpositions makes sense to you? This computer you are using makes use of QM, and we have made use of superpositions in cryptography, it works therefor it is . . . As far as whether string theory sucks or not, I reserve criticisms for when predictions get tested. Its far better then many other hypothesis becuase it actually does make predictions . . . ever heard of supersymmetry? It sounds like you have read a little and are skeptical, that is good and healthy, but don't stop now, its just getting good.  So you quote two relatively recent articles (2008). Blah, Lame (I'll admit I haven't kept up to date on the visibility of atoms, but not exactly because it was actually relevant to my point as ill now argue). Seen or not recently was kinda besides the point anyway, the point was more concerned with whether or not they could be identified/seen when they were originally being theorized about. And no it is ok to talk about they're existence in the same breath because I'm doing in a way that is about how to go about hypothesizing they're existence, how far apart they are from each other (or size) in the sense of being 'viewable' is then irrelevant and really just besides the point. I am not arguing they can't exist because of the actions of an atom, I am arguing they don't exist because of how their existence is coming about (bringing along the friends of mutliverse and extra dimensions), so size is again, irrelevant. As far as your other arguments after this the poster before me here did a pretty good job at refuting them I think. Your predictions take into account other assumptions (extra universes and dimensions) so if they're fulfilled, I could really care less. They use each other to prove each other, all the while neither of them are independently 'testable' (like the weird behavior of quantum mechanics) by any means whatsoever. Its completely pointless "science". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Free Will
|
|
The will is just the will. It is neither free nor in bondage. It is the power of self direction. You either have a strong will or a weak will. The will is not "random." The will is the CAUSE OF the appearance of RANDOMNESS. "The will is just the will" hah. I think your getting frustrated. Whether you admit/realize it or not. Not to mention you also just said preferences are what a person likes, and what a person likes are their preferences, another sentence that proves nothing and says nothing. Experiences are all memory and can be confounded to brain structure, more determinable things. "Self-Direction" and what causes self direction to make the choices it does? It does go in a 'direction' but why? You can say "whatever IT wants, and it'll appear random" all you want, but like it or not it makes a decision. And these decisions in every instance are constrained or dominated by the things surrounding them and a knowledge of certain things. For example when people are asked "Are you six-feet tall?" People dont answer "Apple". Thats the kinda randomness your asking/arguing for, and not only is it illogical, it doesn't even happen in reality unless a person has a brain defect. You've taken your argument so far away from reality to protect something that doesn't even inherently make sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
"Whore" & other Trash
|
|
A whore nevertheless is a whore. A terrorist nevertheless is a terrorist. We can attempt to use reason and understanding of the why. Why do some turn left instead of right or right instead of left? Does that justify or negate the end result? We have lost more troops since 9/11 than we lost people on 9/11. The amount of iraq or afhgan people lost in the first few days of this "war" surpassed the number of those lost on 9/11 and those killed in action. Is there any art in this from either side or anything to celebrate through art? One of the greatest artists in the past - Picasso - is quoted as saying "All art is meaningless so long as just one child suffers hunger or death and those who have the power to change it, choose to change nothing... Art has always been subjective to objectivity. The objectivity to see from all sides. If you have not yet truly learned this basic fundamental of art then how can you truly express the sentiment you feel. Sentiment is the tool that makes use of objectivity through art...Without a sense or gauge of morality how can you make use of this tool. Art is a great tool to improve the human condition. Should it be used so flagrantly as to perpetuate the failings of mans inhumanity towards man? Or is it to be used to gain understanding of mans inhumanity towards humanity in the effort to make change? This is how you guage what is of art and what is self-absorbed indulgence... Ugh instead of hitting "Quote" I hit "Report" then wrote in my reply and hit submit like an idiot. So if you get a report or anything just report this post and it should clear it up. But anyway... No I couldn't disagree more. Thats kind of ridiculous logic. The whole idea is the terrorist isn't a terrorist anymore because of how we would define him in society in one sense (heartless martyr whatever), and how he would define himself in another (being a warrior in a war). So "Whores" aren't "Whores", I mean cmon. Lets go back to 1800's, Slaves are black, therefore blacks are slaves. See how such logic isn't just wrong but can also become insulting to a whore nother era? Nothing is simply what it is because society says so. Society does not dominate what is reality, you need to learn where to draw the line. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Free Will
|
|
Ok then same question just in a different sense. How does the director come to make a decision? What causes him to make the ones he does? Personality? History? Memory? The director is the true self. The soul, if you believe in souls. The decisions are made by the having of preferences and the having of preferences are acquired through experience, history, memory etc. If so doesn't that make it determinable? Make what determinable? IE knowing the persons past allows you to determine their decisions? No, because every individual has unique responses to unique experiences and hence develop unique and very different and unknown preferences. Rendering them subject to the events that happened around them as they grew and genes they were born with? Rendering them what? No see I don't care. Ill even give that for arguments sake. Lets pretend immaterial souls exist. Lets pretend they can even have a cause on the deterministic cause and effect laws of the universe. How does this soul make decisions? What does it base them off of? If its not based on anything like intelligence memory or past, then its technically free like you want it to be, but its also random. You lose either way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Free Will
|
|
Freewill a defintion - Freewill is the idea that I can perform tasks based on abstract ideas that are not merely governed by emotions or a pleasure pain principle. It assumes that i can assess and decide free from constraints my own thoughts, ideas actions etc. It assumes that something else is governing behavior patterns besides a program reacting to external stimulis. That we are not constrainted by a set of rules in the pursuits and choices in our lives,that hings are not predetermed. Most of all it is the subjective experience which gives rise to these ideas. That I can choos between several possibilities or courses of action. Well then, since your "will" is free from all constraints, and isn't governed or dominated by any past, then its not really free, its actually 'random' and if its random, its not really a 'will' is it? IE if what governs it is indeterminable, then isn't it random? Why not? Hopefully people are catching along. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
"Whore" & other Trash
|
|
You are getting heated when I am making a point about the viewpoint you expresed. I am not judgeing you - I'm just saying - boy I know two different guys that had that viewpoint and they cost me two different women in my life because of that very attitude. I am an established artist in the field of abstract and impressionist art so yes I very well understand an artistic view point doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Art should show expressionism with integrity and dignity. It should not celebrate moral immorality... James A Caspian... Really? I think thats kinda subjective. For example a movie about a terrorist bombing army subjects just trying to create peace in a land may be blatantly seen as immoral. But say then the movie takes you on a ride to discover how the person came to do this, and you find maybe he was subject to various pains caused from the US, does this justify his action in killing, no, probably not, but do you understand it more so? Was it simply just immoral? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Free Will
|
|
Ok then same question just in a different sense. How does the director come to make a decision? What causes him to make the ones he does? Personality? History? Memory? If so doesn't that make it determinable? IE knowing the persons past allows you to determine their decisions? Rendering them subject to the events that happened around them as they grew and genes they were born with?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Free Will
|
|
So your defining will as an action then? What defines what action was taken? Personality? History? Memory? What is driving the will down the route it takes then? And why are those choices or routes taken? Does the will have a will?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Why String Theory Sucks
|
|
neither is evolution ah o God! Lets leave creationism vs evolution out of this please. Thats another subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
"Whore" & other Trash
Edited by
electrickgreen
on
Wed 01/07/09 09:11 PM
|
|
I take it you haven't been married before or you are what most married men would call the other guy. Its always funny to see how people draw upon societies views of whats supposed to be the norm in attempts to make a title and mirror themselves (rather than make a statement about me you've simply just shown me a side of yourself instead) off of a writing as if it displays any personal connection to me in anyway other way than the simple fact that I wrote it and considered it slightly artistic. Would a piece about murder make me a plausible murderer? Would it make me a plausible saint? Try again buddy. ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Why String Theory Sucks
|
|
Most people don't know that we haven't ever actually "seen" an atom in any real sense like you see your hand, rather its size and physical design/shape it takes is believed to be what it is simply because it fits a mathematical mold. Fortunately we've even had a chance at testing this design/shape in many instances (ie see the atom bomb).
Any string theorist will tell you there technically is no evidence for string theory. There is no proof that strings exist. Rather its much like that of early "proofs" of the atom - it fits a mathematical mold that makes a bunch of physicist and mathematicians happy cause they feel like they're getting/cutting at the edge of knowledge. The idea that there doing this all the while implicating 'science' in their field to me is rather questionable. Consider the difference between hypothesizing atoms vs strings. In order for the string theory to work we have to accept new dimensions. Something like 10-13 they're at now, does anything then 3 (excluding time as a plausible fourth) even make logical sense? Nope, but it helps the math! Mutliverse, now we have more then one Universe on our hands which completely laughs at the idea of any one day being "testable" String theory sucks because it doesn't just cause us to accept strings as existant alone in their own right, no in order to even get there we have to invite its friends, unlike the atom of the past it forces us to accept other abstract ideas as well, such as 13 dimensions and other universes, why? Simply so the math can fit. String theory sucks, and it isn't Science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Free Will
|
|
Do we have Free Will or are we completely determined? For the first time I believe I have complete free will. How about this. If anyone can come up with a definition of "free will" (I guarantee you all your assuming you do simply because its what you want to believe and not any conclusion you've come to vie logic - the two words together or the thought of it as a concept is a paradox) that makes logical sense, I'll believe it exist. Now go ahead shoot for it, and when I get back I'll promptly tell you why your wrong 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Science.vs.Philosophy
|
|
Its quite simple really.
Science = How? Philosophy = Why? If you regard one question more so important then the other then theres your answer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Science as a religion
|
|
Science and religion both opperate on the same principal, that is faith. The religious person has faith that their god will bring the sun up in the morning, the scientist has faith that with the physical laws applied the sun will come up in the morning. The religious person prays, the scientist measures both are ritualistic, both are looking for answers. The religious person has faith the prayer will be answered, the scientist has faith the instrument is working correctly. That is a very large distinction. In fact it has been used as the basis for sanity . . . All I'm saying is the scientific and religious way of thinking is outdated and flawed, for example the pre Copernicus scientists could explain rationally why everything in the universe revolved around the earth and were regarded by their peers as sane. There are things in this universe that neither science or religion can account for. Yet we struggle to accept these things because it doesn't fit into our way of thinking, and if you speak of them you're regarded as a crackpot. You regard the idea of being 'seen as sane' as if it has some stake on the nature of what reality is. But unfortunately for that argument while that view was still "sane" all the same as it is viewed "insane" in todays world the reality of the sun and the earths relationship has never flipped flopped or changed on the account of anyones beliefs (both sides would agree here). And if you don't understand the difference in attaining this answer from the Bible/religion vs attaining it from science then you really dont know what your talking about anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
