Humans who do soul travel can traverse many higher densities. Reptilians are barred from the higher levels. This really pisses them off.

It is because reptilians are STS (Service To Self)entities Humans can still evolve into STO(Service To Others) or STS entities The Reptilians are locked at a 4th level existence because they chose STS. Humans still have a choice and therefore have the potential to ascend to the higher levels

S1ow...

Always on it!



The bolded suggests what is, and it clearly shows prior determinants.



You consciously chose it, or was that preference just consciously recognized through the feelings of favoritism towards that color?

That example would necessitate the idea that one can choose how they feel. That idea is false, goes against current FMRI observations which clearly show emotional existence(the chemical reactions which always coincide with emotional content) prior to conscious thought about that emotion.

Why is blue your favorite?





Sure, red is 'nice', but I have no reason to believe that it will ever replace green as my favorite hue, even though - as a child - red was my favorite...

I have no idea why I do not like it now.



Through what means?



Freedom to choose between options is not in question, is it? You do not decide what foods you like through conscious decision, you either like the way it tastes, or you don't.

That is self-evident. A baby is the same way.

The fact that one can choose between perceived options is obviously true, but that does not equate to an undetermined(free) will.

My dog chooses canned food over dry every time, because his preference determined which he liked better. Is that to be considered as free will as well?



I fail to see relevance or answers in that direction of thought...

Variables which determine the outcome.

Yeah! It is so much more sane to believe that we know nothing, or that 'God' forbade logic and reason, and then gave us free will!






Density is calling me...

Where's my spaceship driven by cackaroaches that will take me to intuition?

Spaceships traverse distances in physical realms... Intuition can only be reached by the mind willing to break the barrier of the box.

Which box?

Intuition without knowledge leads to delusion.

Actually we have found that responses to many flavors are based on genetic make up.

If you have at least one of one kind of gene then you find broccoli bitter, if you have two you cannot stand it.

People with one set do sometimes enjoy the taste, but people with both do not.

What about rotten meat, can you make yourself like that? If you don't get the point then just bow out of the conversation like abra did.

We are actually quite ignorant to the vast majority of genes no less how the stimulus from the environment controls the switching of those genes.

Let me ask this single question.

If in 1000 years we can hook up sensors to a person that measure every stimulus, including when poeple interact, and the mental, and physical effects everything has on a person, and then a computer can determine every choice in that person's life based on that data, would you kill yourself?

Many poeple act like they would, like it would be the end of the world if somehow we could know every decision you will ever make through interpreting a complex pattern of cause and effect events.

I would not, I see no lessening of value of the human experience. Art would still be beautiful regardless if my computer friend told me that that is what I would think 1 second before I thought it.

I would posit that this is what ALL of our friends are able to do with us to a lesser or greater degree. That to me shows empirical evidence that humans are deterministic beings, becuase other humans can with great accuracy predict what we will do when they have a large data set of information, now they also need to know our mind states as well now don't they?

I mean sure they surprise us, but much less of the time then they are predictive of our behaviors. We are predictable that is what makes us a capable social creature.

My point with the computer is this: we can analyze the data sets of a computer and know with 100% certainty why a computer did a certain thing. So if the brain is computational, then its only a matter of time before we can do that with it.

I chose so and so because of...

If the computer is adaptive then it can include a new value assessment variable and then reevaluate including that new variable all of which is the definition of determinism whether the PC, or the person does it.

Software that is adaptive in this way has already been achieved not on the level of human adaptation, but no one said people where not special, just not indeterminate, and definitely not acausal.


It seems clear to me that there is a million ways to point to determinism and so far nothing that points to indeterminacy except vague notions that QM makes a difference in consciousness introducing randomness.

The fact that behavior is not random seems to have no bearing on the folks making this assertion even though in my mind it should.

and if you could program it to do anything then it could do anything....(note that i said "introduction of a variable which is NOT programmed for into the decision making process")



my point is that it is possible to always exceed the programmed
capability of the code. especially if you know the code or are
the author of the code. even if the code is adaptive. unless it is infinitely adaptive. but then it would be god. do i have to post the bomb sequence from the movie Dark Star (again)



this is not free will.

but the dog who chooses alpo has free will. just votes with
his/her mouth!



eventually if artificial intelligence is achieved then it might be possible that an "ai machine" could be argued to have free will. but
that is not the case at this time.

now i am going to exercise my free will and click the "Post Reply"
button!!



quote of the thread: "you can lead a horse to water...."

Pretending to take the high road by ignoring what is really being talked about is kind of rude, you don't see me making reference to you being lead to truth and not accepting it do you? I am taking a Socratic approach and thus am not holding to any conclusion merely asking exploratory questions.

I am just asking you questions that you seem incapable of answering, don't feel bad I cant answer them either, I am just willing to admit such and find it intriguing.

Are we infinitely adaptive? Or is there a limit to the adaptiveness of human minds?

Every example you have used has been shown to be a poor example at best, at worst an example in favor of determinism.
So does this or does this not also apply to people? Why, or why not?

I see the idea that will cannot be determined as a cop out, its like intelligent design, it says wow this is hard, lets give up and say god did it.

If its true that will is free from determinism then I want to see some specifics on why that is so. Until there is some feasible exclusive phenomena that only indeterminacy can handle that gives rise to consciousness then I am going to continue to look for causal links to increase knowledge.

That is what science does.

i think we (humans) are infinitely adaptive. there appears to be no real limit in how our neurology develops in configuration nor any real limit on how we adapt or think.

=-=-=-=

there is no programmed code in the case of human beings which is comparable to that of machines. so the limitation which always
allows us to introduce new variables to the problem to exceed the
machine's programming does not exist for humans.

Ok, this is a bold assertion that I do not feel maps to observations.

Name a problem that cannot ever be solved by a computer but can be solved by a person.

Once upon a time it was thought that chess was such a problem.

I think its absurd to even pretend that anything, any distinct thing, can EVER be infinitely adaptable all physical forms have a range of capability.

For one its the kind of assertion that can never be demonstrated, so its fallacious to even consider it as a point, even if it where true its use as a valid logical argument would be flawed.

Every day people prove to me that they have boundaries of imagination, boundaries of creativity, and boundaries of knowledge.

If you want to take some kind of eternal metaphor and say that minds in general are infinitely adaptable as in they adapt over an infinite and continuous time line from iteration to iteration and they can possibly achieve anything given infinite time, well then that's fine, but how that maps to this conversation is anyone's guess.

never say NEVER!

i did not assert that there is a problem which can NEVER be solved by computer. i asserted that given a computer and it's program it is always possible to add an additional variable which the program cannot deal with.

I find it interesting how so many free will believers readily accept and acknowledge determinants, yet continue to deny their function in everyday thought and choice.

It is just a label either way, and so really what difference can it make?

I would like to approach the topic from that point of view.

Does it make a difference? If so - how? If not - why?

*******************************************************************
Oh, Abra, darling, tell me more. PLEEEEASE! (and finally derail this_stupid_train of philosophycal BS -- going nowhere...
********************************************************************

The highway to hell...

I think she found it ...


http://www.wingmusic.co.nz/listen.html

CD 10
Song Sample: Highway to Hell


You will never be the same again ...

knowledge without intuition leads to dead ends.

Delusion can be found in most things... If one applies enough knowledge.