> I do not seem to have freedom at all times, for instance when I have
> pain, while I have will I do not have freedom, my body has domain over
> my will
> perhaps will is predetermined, and freedom is a grand illusion
> but how do you explain the fact that you do not want pain, if the body
> and will were one, why the disconnect
> is this disconnect another illusion
> perhaps the answer is that stronger wills or energies prevail, and their
> is free will and dualism
> don't get me wrong, I am not leading this in the direction of an
> all-powerful benefactor, since suffering exists, and suffering is not
> beneficial
> what I am suggesting is that there may be more to reality than what the
> mainstream currently thinks, like life after death, etc.
There already exists knowledge about free will, making stuff up about
it is not neccessary. With free will there are 2 parts what choses,
and what is chosen, spiritual and material. The spiritual is known
subjectively by a way of choosing resulting in an opinion, the
material is known objectively through measurement resulting in a
fact.
What matter consists of then is chosen alternatives = information.
Like words consist of a string of chosen alternative letters, so to do
all things consist of chosen alternatives. For example the moon could
have turned out another way than it is now, so the moon consists of a
chosen alternative. So in creation science information replaces the
particle as the fundamental unit of existence.
All objects such as for example the moon have an organization in terms
of decisionmaking, related to socalled quantum uncertainty. This
organization is basically the same as a hologram. When you cut a piece
from a hologram, then you will see the entire picture in the piece you
cut out from the hologram. So a piece of the moon has information
about the whole moon, and not just about the piece itself. The piece
coheres with the whole.
And this coherence explains many "psychic" phenomena. For instance
when a psychic looks at a photograph of a person and then conveys
information that's not seen in the photograph, but the information
which coheres with the photograph.
IMO it is fine subjective reasoning to say that God does not exists,
because there is too much pain. Just as long as you make it clear that
it is subjective reasoning, and you do not propose it as a matter of
(pseudoscientifc) fact that pain exists. We can objectively see
creases in people's faces, and water leaking from people's eyes (Flash
Gordon quote ;), but nowhere is there proof that pain exists. Looking
more closely we can see processes in the brain, that the brain is
decided from alternatives in the moment, which chosen alternatives
then go to produce creases in the face, and tears, and the person
producing speech saying he is in pain. But this then does not prove
pain exists, the pain is understood to be the agency which made the
decisions turn out the way they did, which agency can only be
subjectively known. The pain is not the chosen alternatives of tears
and creases in the face, nor the brain processes. Those are by
subjective reasonable judgement all expressions of pain, and not pain
itself.
And same like faces displays chosen alternatives, one can also see
chosen alternatives in the moon, and then one can also read expression
of the spirit in the moon in a fundamentally similar way as one reads
expression of people's faces. One can with theological judgement say
the moon expresses beneficience of the holy spirit, or something.
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:53:37 AM UTC+1, Bill wrote:
> On May 16, 3:11 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > One can with theological judgement say
> > the moon expresses beneficience of the holy spirit, or something.
> I do not seem to have freedom at all times, for instance when I have
> pain, while I have will I do not have freedom, my body has domain over
> my will
> perhaps will is predetermined, and freedom is a grand illusion
> but how do you explain the fact that you do not want pain, if the body
> and will were one, why the disconnect
> is this disconnect another illusion
> perhaps the answer is that stronger wills or energies prevail, and their
> is free will and dualism
> don't get me wrong, I am not leading this in the direction of an
> all-powerful benefactor, since suffering exists, and suffering is not
> beneficial
Suffering is beneficial. Experience of pain is essential for avoiding
injury. Duh.
> what I am suggesting is that there may be more to reality than what the
> mainstream currently thinks, like life after death, etc.
> On May 15, 9:58 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> free will contains 2 parts:
>> 1) freedom
>> 2) will
>> I do not seem to have freedom at all times, for instance when I have
>> pain, while I have will I do not have freedom, my body has domain over
>> my will
>> perhaps will is predetermined, and freedom is a grand illusion
>> but how do you explain the fact that you do not want pain, if the body
>> and will were one, why the disconnect
>> is this disconnect another illusion
>> perhaps the answer is that stronger wills or energies prevail, and their
>> is free will and dualism
>> don't get me wrong, I am not leading this in the direction of an
>> all-powerful benefactor, since suffering exists, and suffering is not
>> beneficial
> Suffering is beneficial. Experience of pain is essential for avoiding
> injury. Duh.
Not all suffering is beneficial however. Otherwise anesthetics,
sedatives and painkillers wouldn't be the vitally important aspect of
medical care they are today (or should be).
>> I do not seem to have freedom at all times, for instance when I have
>> pain, while I have will I do not have freedom, my body has domain over
>> my will
>> perhaps will is predetermined, and freedom is a grand illusion
>> but how do you explain the fact that you do not want pain, if the body
>> and will were one, why the disconnect
>> is this disconnect another illusion
>> perhaps the answer is that stronger wills or energies prevail, and their
>> is free will and dualism
>> don't get me wrong, I am not leading this in the direction of an
>> all-powerful benefactor, since suffering exists, and suffering is not
>> beneficial
>> what I am suggesting is that there may be more to reality than what the
>> mainstream currently thinks, like life after death, etc.
>There already exists knowledge about free will, making stuff up about
>it is not neccessary. With free will there are 2 parts what choses,
>and what is chosen, spiritual and material. The spiritual is known
>subjectively by a way of choosing resulting in an opinion, the
>material is known objectively through measurement resulting in a
>fact.
>What matter consists of then is chosen alternatives = information.
>Like words consist of a string of chosen alternative letters, so to do
>all things consist of chosen alternatives. For example the moon could
>have turned out another way than it is now, so the moon consists of a
>chosen alternative. So in creation science information replaces the
>particle as the fundamental unit of existence.
>All objects such as for example the moon have an organization in terms
>of decisionmaking, related to socalled quantum uncertainty. This
>organization is basically the same as a hologram. When you cut a piece
>from a hologram, then you will see the entire picture in the piece you
>cut out from the hologram. So a piece of the moon has information
>about the whole moon, and not just about the piece itself. The piece
>coheres with the whole.
>And this coherence explains many "psychic" phenomena. For instance
>when a psychic looks at a photograph of a person and then conveys
>information that's not seen in the photograph, but the information
>which coheres with the photograph.
>IMO it is fine subjective reasoning to say that God does not exists,
>because there is too much pain. Just as long as you make it clear that
>it is subjective reasoning, and you do not propose it as a matter of
>(pseudoscientifc) fact that pain exists. We can objectively see
>creases in people's faces, and water leaking from people's eyes (Flash
>Gordon quote ;), but nowhere is there proof that pain exists. Looking
>more closely we can see processes in the brain, that the brain is
>decided from alternatives in the moment, which chosen alternatives
>then go to produce creases in the face, and tears, and the person
>producing speech saying he is in pain. But this then does not prove
>pain exists, the pain is understood to be the agency which made the
>decisions turn out the way they did, which agency can only be
>subjectively known. The pain is not the chosen alternatives of tears
>and creases in the face, nor the brain processes. Those are by
>subjective reasonable judgement all expressions of pain, and not pain
>itself.
>And same like faces displays chosen alternatives, one can also see
>chosen alternatives in the moon, and then one can also read expression
>of the spirit in the moon in a fundamentally similar way as one reads
>expression of people's faces. One can with theological judgement say
>the moon expresses beneficience of the holy spirit, or something.
In article <rTw*0x...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> On 16/05/12 12:42, wiki trix wrote:
> > On May 15, 9:58 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
> >> don't get me wrong, I am not leading this in the direction of an
> >> all-powerful benefactor, since suffering exists, and suffering is not
> >> beneficial
> > Suffering is beneficial. Experience of pain is essential for avoiding
> > injury. Duh.
> Not all suffering is beneficial however. Otherwise anesthetics,
> sedatives and painkillers wouldn't be the vitally important aspect of
> medical care they are today (or should be).
Also, one would imagine that an omnipotent being would be able to come up with a mechanism which served a similar purpose but without all the associated unpleasantness.
Mind you, historically pain has played an important role in the Church's ability to identify heretics and witches, so perhaps this was all part of god's master plan.
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:58:49 AM UTC+1, Dale wrote:
> free will contains 2 parts:
> 1) freedom
> 2) will
> I do not seem to have freedom at all times, for instance when I have > pain, while I have will I do not have freedom, my body has domain over > my will
> perhaps will is predetermined, and freedom is a grand illusion
> but how do you explain the fact that you do not want pain, if the body > and will were one, why the disconnect
> is this disconnect another illusion
> perhaps the answer is that stronger wills or energies prevail, and their > is free will and dualism
> don't get me wrong, I am not leading this in the direction of an > all-powerful benefactor, since suffering exists, and suffering is not > beneficial
> what I am suggesting is that there may be more to reality than what the > mainstream currently thinks, like life after death, etc.
"Free will" is a way for people to tell you that something is your fault. Which
maybe it is.
Your body is made up of many parts.
The part that perceives is the brain.
The brain also controls the body.
Pain is how other parts of the body
tell the brain that something bad is happening. Generally, you will deal with that, not by removing the pain,
but by removing the cause of the pain.
For instance, if you grasp a hot cup in your hand, you should not wish for
the pain of the heat to not be there, you should put the cup down - or even
drop it, if it's too hot.
-- Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
<rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:58:49 AM UTC+1, Dale wrote:
> > free will contains 2 parts:
> > 1) freedom
> > 2) will
> > I do not seem to have freedom at all times, for instance when I have > > pain, while I have will I do not have freedom, my body has domain over > > my will
> > perhaps will is predetermined, and freedom is a grand illusion
> > but how do you explain the fact that you do not want pain, if the body > > and will were one, why the disconnect
> > is this disconnect another illusion
> > perhaps the answer is that stronger wills or energies prevail, and their > > is free will and dualism
> > don't get me wrong, I am not leading this in the direction of an > > all-powerful benefactor, since suffering exists, and suffering is not > > beneficial
> > what I am suggesting is that there may be more to reality than what the > > mainstream currently thinks, like life after death, etc.
> "Free will" is a way for people to tell > you that something is your fault. Which
> maybe it is.
> Your body is made up of many parts.
> The part that perceives is the brain.
> The brain also controls the body.
> Pain is how other parts of the body
> tell the brain that something bad is > happening. Generally, you will deal > with that, not by removing the pain,
> but by removing the cause of the pain.
> For instance, if you grasp a hot cup > in your hand, you should not wish for
> the pain of the heat to not be there, > you should put the cup down - or even
> drop it, if it's too hot.
<pendantry> When you pick up a hot cup, the pain is what tells you not to do this *again*. The reflex arc which causes you to drop the cup will likely be completed before you actually register any pain. </pedantry>
> On 16 mei, 06:58, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > free will contains 2 parts:
> > 1) freedom
> > 2) will
> > I do not seem to have freedom at all times, for instance when I have
> > pain, while I have will I do not have freedom, my body has domain over
> > my will
> > perhaps will is predetermined, and freedom is a grand illusion
> > but how do you explain the fact that you do not want pain, if the body
> > and will were one, why the disconnect
> > is this disconnect another illusion
> > perhaps the answer is that stronger wills or energies prevail, and their
> > is free will and dualism
> > don't get me wrong, I am not leading this in the direction of an
> > all-powerful benefactor, since suffering exists, and suffering is not
> > beneficial
> > what I am suggesting is that there may be more to reality than what the
> > mainstream currently thinks, like life after death, etc.
> There already exists knowledge about free will, making stuff up about
> it is not neccessary.
That's as far as you needed to go. But then, you proceed to mastuff
up....
> With free will there are 2 parts what choses,
> and what is chosen, spiritual and material. The spiritual is known
> subjectively by a way of choosing resulting in an opinion, the
> material is known objectively through measurement resulting in a
> fact.
> What matter consists of then is chosen alternatives = information.
> Like words consist of a string of chosen alternative letters, so to do
> all things consist of chosen alternatives. For example the moon could
> have turned out another way than it is now, so the moon consists of a
> chosen alternative.
Chosen by whom?
> So in creation science information replaces the
> particle as the fundamental unit of existence.
There is no "creation science".
> All objects such as for example the moon have an organization in terms
> of decisionmaking, related to socalled quantum uncertainty.
In a metaphorical sense, maybe. But not in a "mental process" sense.
> This
> organization is basically the same as a hologram. When you cut a piece
> from a hologram, then you will see the entire picture in the piece you
> cut out from the hologram. So a piece of the moon has information
> about the whole moon, and not just about the piece itself.
Not really.
>The piece
> coheres with the whole.
Meaningless twaddle.
> And this coherence explains many "psychic" phenomena. For instance
> when a psychic looks at a photograph of a person and then conveys
> information that's not seen in the photograph, but the information
> which coheres with the photograph.
And off to Woo-Woo Land we go....
> IMO it is fine subjective reasoning to say that God does not exists,
> because there is too much pain. Just as long as you make it clear that
> it is subjective reasoning, and you do not propose it as a matter of
> (pseudoscientifc) fact that pain exists.
You've never stubbed your toe? It is a fact that pain does exist.
> We can objectively see
> creases in people's faces, and water leaking from people's eyes (Flash
> Gordon quote ;), but nowhere is there proof that pain exists.
I have a hammer, lend me your thunb.
> Looking
> more closely we can see processes in the brain, that the brain is
> decided from alternatives in the moment, which chosen alternatives
> then go to produce creases in the face, and tears, and the person
> producing speech saying he is in pain.
And you doubt him?
> But this then does not prove
> pain exists, the pain is understood to be the agency which made the
> decisions turn out the way they did, which agency can only be
> subjectively known. The pain is not the chosen alternatives of tears
> and creases in the face, nor the brain processes. Those are by
> subjective reasonable judgement all expressions of pain, and not pain
> itself.
Pain cause the reaction, fool.
> And same like faces displays chosen alternatives, one can also see
> chosen alternatives in the moon, and then one can also read expression
> of the spirit in the moon in a fundamentally similar way as one reads
> expression of people's faces.
Um, no. The "face" of the moon hasn't changed due to any emotional
state, ever. The only changes have been due to impacts from
astaroids, meteors, and like, a few comet fragments, over the past
several billion years.
> One can with theological judgement say
> the moon expresses beneficience of the holy spirit, or something.
Did you win a round trip ticket the the City beyond the Mountains of
Madness, and accidentally wake something up that got inside your
skull?
> All objects such as for example the moon have an organization in terms
> of decisionmaking, related to socalled quantum uncertainty. This
> organization is basically the same as a hologram. When you cut a piece
> from a hologram, then you will see the entire picture in the piece you
> cut out from the hologram. So a piece of the moon has information
> about the whole moon, and not just about the piece itself. The piece
> coheres with the whole.
So a chunk of the moon would have information about the crater patterns for the rest of the moon? A portion of the moon without human artefacts could tell us what the artefacts elsewhere would be? If an asteroid were to split the moon into pieces would each decided for itself on how to part ways with the whole?
> I do not seem to have freedom at all times, for instance when I have
> pain, while I have will I do not have freedom, my body has domain over
> my will
> perhaps will is predetermined, and freedom is a grand illusion
> but how do you explain the fact that you do not want pain, if the body
> and will were one, why the disconnect
> is this disconnect another illusion
> perhaps the answer is that stronger wills or energies prevail, and their
> is free will and dualism
> don't get me wrong, I am not leading this in the direction of an
> all-powerful benefactor, since suffering exists, and suffering is not
> beneficial
> what I am suggesting is that there may be more to reality than what the
> mainstream currently thinks, like life after death, etc.
If you weren't suffering, you would have never asked these questions. Yet you claim "suffering is not beneficial".
If you freely decide to get on a plane to New York, and in mid-flight change your mind and want to go to Los Angeles instead, you have to wait until the results of your previous free choice play out and the plane lands in New York.
Your freedom is conditioned by your prior choices. Suffering is part of that conditioning. It is ultimately your own faulty prior choices that caused it.
>> All objects such as for example the moon have an organization in terms
>> of decisionmaking, related to socalled quantum uncertainty. This
>> organization is basically the same as a hologram. When you cut a piece
>> from a hologram, then you will see the entire picture in the piece you
>> cut out from the hologram. So a piece of the moon has information
>> about the whole moon, and not just about the piece itself. The piece
>> coheres with the whole.
>So a chunk of the moon would have information about the crater patterns >for the rest of the moon? A portion of the moon without human artefacts >could tell us what the artefacts elsewhere would be? If an asteroid were >to split the moon into pieces would each decided for itself on how to >part ways with the whole?
For the last question, I suspect Nando's answer is "yes, all the
pieces choose which way they go".
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:43:31 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
> <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/16/2012 04:11 AM, Syamsu wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> All objects such as for example the moon have an organization in terms
>>> of decisionmaking, related to socalled quantum uncertainty. This
>>> organization is basically the same as a hologram. When you cut a piece
>>> from a hologram, then you will see the entire picture in the piece you
>>> cut out from the hologram. So a piece of the moon has information
>>> about the whole moon, and not just about the piece itself. The piece
>>> coheres with the whole.
>> So a chunk of the moon would have information about the crater patterns
>> for the rest of the moon? A portion of the moon without human artefacts
>> could tell us what the artefacts elsewhere would be? If an asteroid were
>> to split the moon into pieces would each decided for itself on how to
>> part ways with the whole?
> For the last question, I suspect Nando's answer is "yes, all the
> pieces choose which way they go".
But if they are holographic, wouldn't they make the same choice, since their ideas about the world would be isomorpic? Or would the part(s) with the moon landing remnants be compelled to trek off on their own? American flags tend to do that to decisionmakers.
And when the nuclear explosion happened which set Moon Base alpha off on a course far flung from Earth, what role did the moon play? Was the moon complacent in this "accident"? If the moon can make decisions could we charge the moon with gross negligence at least, if not deliberate or complicit malfeasance? Nando's ascribing human traits to inanimate object might cause us to haul cars, roofs and avalanche snow into a court of law.
If avalanche snow melts could it be charge with the killing of skiers or mountain climbers? Or could we assume this murderous water would have just tried to drown someone instead? Or as steam would it have attempted a scalding of any nearby people? Water could be inherently bad, no mater what state it is in. That is why we have tornadoes and hurricanes, not to mention tsunamis.
> > On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:43:31 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
> > <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 05/16/2012 04:11 AM, Syamsu wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>> All objects such as for example the moon have an organization in terms
> >>> of decisionmaking, related to socalled quantum uncertainty. This
> >>> organization is basically the same as a hologram. When you cut a piece
> >>> from a hologram, then you will see the entire picture in the piece you
> >>> cut out from the hologram. So a piece of the moon has information
> >>> about the whole moon, and not just about the piece itself. The piece
> >>> coheres with the whole.
> >> So a chunk of the moon would have information about the crater patterns
> >> for the rest of the moon? A portion of the moon without human artefacts
> >> could tell us what the artefacts elsewhere would be? If an asteroid were
> >> to split the moon into pieces would each decided for itself on how to
> >> part ways with the whole?
> > For the last question, I suspect Nando's answer is "yes, all the
> > pieces choose which way they go".
> But if they are holographic, wouldn't they make the same choice, since
> their ideas about the world would be isomorpic? Or would the part(s)
> with the moon landing remnants be compelled to trek off on their own?
> American flags tend to do that to decisionmakers.
> And when the nuclear explosion happened which set Moon Base alpha off on
> a course far flung from Earth, what role did the moon play? Was the moon
> complacent in this "accident"? If the moon can make decisions could we
> charge the moon with gross negligence at least, if not deliberate or
> complicit malfeasance? Nando's ascribing human traits to inanimate
> object might cause us to haul cars, roofs and avalanche snow into a
> court of law.
> If avalanche snow melts could it be charge with the killing of skiers or
> mountain climbers? Or could we assume this murderous water would have
> just tried to drown someone instead? Or as steam would it have attempted
> a scalding of any nearby people? Water could be inherently bad, no mater
> what state it is in. That is why we have tornadoes and hurricanes, not
> to mention tsunamis.
> --
> *Hemidactylus*
Again, don't let all that girly giggling about free will get out of
control, or you'll wet your panties.
> On 16 mei, 23:03, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/16/2012 02:10 PM, raven1 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:43:31 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
>>> <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 05/16/2012 04:11 AM, Syamsu wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> All objects such as for example the moon have an organization in terms
>>>>> of decisionmaking, related to socalled quantum uncertainty. This
>>>>> organization is basically the same as a hologram. When you cut a piece
>>>>> from a hologram, then you will see the entire picture in the piece you
>>>>> cut out from the hologram. So a piece of the moon has information
>>>>> about the whole moon, and not just about the piece itself. The piece
>>>>> coheres with the whole.
>>>> So a chunk of the moon would have information about the crater patterns
>>>> for the rest of the moon? A portion of the moon without human artefacts
>>>> could tell us what the artefacts elsewhere would be? If an asteroid were
>>>> to split the moon into pieces would each decided for itself on how to
>>>> part ways with the whole?
>>> For the last question, I suspect Nando's answer is "yes, all the
>>> pieces choose which way they go".
>> But if they are holographic, wouldn't they make the same choice, since
>> their ideas about the world would be isomorpic? Or would the part(s)
>> with the moon landing remnants be compelled to trek off on their own?
>> American flags tend to do that to decisionmakers.
>> And when the nuclear explosion happened which set Moon Base alpha off on
>> a course far flung from Earth, what role did the moon play? Was the moon
>> complacent in this "accident"? If the moon can make decisions could we
>> charge the moon with gross negligence at least, if not deliberate or
>> complicit malfeasance? Nando's ascribing human traits to inanimate
>> object might cause us to haul cars, roofs and avalanche snow into a
>> court of law.
>> If avalanche snow melts could it be charge with the killing of skiers or
>> mountain climbers? Or could we assume this murderous water would have
>> just tried to drown someone instead? Or as steam would it have attempted
>> a scalding of any nearby people? Water could be inherently bad, no mater
>> what state it is in. That is why we have tornadoes and hurricanes, not
>> to mention tsunamis.
>> --
>> *Hemidactylus*
> Again, don't let all that girly giggling about free will get out of
> control, or you'll wet your panties.
I would blame the water as it chose to evacuate from my bladder by bringing its buddies along and increasing the pressure inside my bladder. Water is an evil beast. Ask any sailor about Davy Jones' locker. Now that Davy Jones, an evolved Monkee, is now in charge of the Locker things may change for the better. I'm a Believer.
> On 05/16/2012 07:42 AM, wiki trix wrote:
>> Suffering is beneficial. Experience of pain is essential for avoiding
>> injury. Duh.
> pain and suffering are kind of different
Pain is produced by sense receptors in the skin and other places. Suffering is an emotional state that could have some input from pain receptors, but also could result from losing a loved one or another more abstracted emotional cause. So I agree with you. The two concepts are distinct. I've stubbed my toe. I have had loved ones die. No comparison. I'd rather stub my toe.
> > I do not seem to have freedom at all times, for instance when I have
> > pain, while I have will I do not have freedom, my body has domain over
> > my will
> > perhaps will is predetermined, and freedom is a grand illusion
> > but how do you explain the fact that you do not want pain, if the body
> > and will were one, why the disconnect
> > is this disconnect another illusion
> > perhaps the answer is that stronger wills or energies prevail, and their
> > is free will and dualism
> > don't get me wrong, I am not leading this in the direction of an
> > all-powerful benefactor, since suffering exists, and suffering is not
> > beneficial
> > what I am suggesting is that there may be more to reality than what the
> > mainstream currently thinks, like life after death, etc.
> If you weren't suffering, you would have never asked these questions.
> Yet you claim "suffering is not beneficial".
> If you freely decide to get on a plane to New York, and in mid-flight
> change your mind and want to go to Los Angeles instead, you have to wait
> until the results of your previous free choice play out and the plane
> lands in New York.
> Your freedom is conditioned by your prior choices. Suffering is part of
> that conditioning. It is ultimately your own faulty prior choices that
> caused it.
> On 16 mei, 23:03, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 05/16/2012 02:10 PM, raven1 wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:43:31 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
> > > <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 05/16/2012 04:11 AM, Syamsu wrote:
> > >> [snip]
> > >>> All objects such as for example the moon have an organization in terms
> > >>> of decisionmaking, related to socalled quantum uncertainty. This
> > >>> organization is basically the same as a hologram. When you cut a piece
> > >>> from a hologram, then you will see the entire picture in the piece you
> > >>> cut out from the hologram. So a piece of the moon has information
> > >>> about the whole moon, and not just about the piece itself. The piece
> > >>> coheres with the whole.
> > >> So a chunk of the moon would have information about the crater patterns
> > >> for the rest of the moon? A portion of the moon without human artefacts
> > >> could tell us what the artefacts elsewhere would be? If an asteroid were
> > >> to split the moon into pieces would each decided for itself on how to
> > >> part ways with the whole?
> > > For the last question, I suspect Nando's answer is "yes, all the
> > > pieces choose which way they go".
> > But if they are holographic, wouldn't they make the same choice, since
> > their ideas about the world would be isomorpic? Or would the part(s)
> > with the moon landing remnants be compelled to trek off on their own?
> > American flags tend to do that to decisionmakers.
> > And when the nuclear explosion happened which set Moon Base alpha off on
> > a course far flung from Earth, what role did the moon play? Was the moon
> > complacent in this "accident"? If the moon can make decisions could we
> > charge the moon with gross negligence at least, if not deliberate or
> > complicit malfeasance? Nando's ascribing human traits to inanimate
> > object might cause us to haul cars, roofs and avalanche snow into a
> > court of law.
> > If avalanche snow melts could it be charge with the killing of skiers or
> > mountain climbers? Or could we assume this murderous water would have
> > just tried to drown someone instead? Or as steam would it have attempted
> > a scalding of any nearby people? Water could be inherently bad, no mater
> > what state it is in. That is why we have tornadoes and hurricanes, not
> > to mention tsunamis.
> > --
> > *Hemidactylus*
> Again, don't let all that girly giggling about free will get out of
> control, or you'll wet your panties.
Why are you acting like an ordinary jerk here, Nando?
How about answering some of the more serious questions people ask
above?
> In article
> <6251198.1180.1337175551659.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbwa3>,
> "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org"
> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:58:49 AM UTC+1, Dale wrote:
> > > free will contains 2 parts:
> > > 1) freedom
> > > 2) will
> > > I do not seem to have freedom at all times, for instance when I have
> > > pain, while I have will I do not have freedom, my body has domain over
> > > my will
> > > perhaps will is predetermined, and freedom is a grand illusion
> > > but how do you explain the fact that you do not want pain, if the body
> > > and will were one, why the disconnect
> > > is this disconnect another illusion
> > > perhaps the answer is that stronger wills or energies prevail, and their
> > > is free will and dualism
> > > don't get me wrong, I am not leading this in the direction of an
> > > all-powerful benefactor, since suffering exists, and suffering is not
> > > beneficial
> > > what I am suggesting is that there may be more to reality than what the
> > > mainstream currently thinks, like life after death, etc.
> > "Free will" is a way for people to tell
> > you that something is your fault. Which
> > maybe it is.
> > Your body is made up of many parts.
> > The part that perceives is the brain.
> > The brain also controls the body.
> > Pain is how other parts of the body
> > tell the brain that something bad is
> > happening. Generally, you will deal
> > with that, not by removing the pain,
> > but by removing the cause of the pain.
> > For instance, if you grasp a hot cup
> > in your hand, you should not wish for
> > the pain of the heat to not be there,
> > you should put the cup down - or even
> > drop it, if it's too hot.
> <pendantry> When you pick up a hot cup, the pain is what tells you not
> to do this *again*. The reflex arc which causes you to drop the cup will
> likely be completed before you actually register any pain. </pedantry>
> André-
Inaccurate pedantry at that. I've only had this kind of experience
once, when I was twelve years old, of my body acting before I felt the
pain. I suddenly experienced my arm jerking backwards from a hot
stove, and only felt the heat a split second later.
I wish this reflex did work more often, though. I've been burned
quite a number of times over the years by reacting too slowly to the
pain caused by heat. Fortunately, all but one were just first degree
burns, and the one exception was a minor second degree burn over a
very small area.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/ nyikos @ math.sc.edu
> On 16 mei, 06:58, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > free will contains 2 parts:
> > 1) freedom
> > 2) will
> > I do not seem to have freedom at all times, for instance when I have
> > pain, while I have will I do not have freedom, my body has domain over
> > my will
> > perhaps will is predetermined, and freedom is a grand illusion
> > but how do you explain the fact that you do not want pain, if the body
> > and will were one, why the disconnect
> > is this disconnect another illusion
> > perhaps the answer is that stronger wills or energies prevail, and their
> > is free will and dualism
> > don't get me wrong, I am not leading this in the direction of an
> > all-powerful benefactor, since suffering exists, and suffering is not
> > beneficial
> > what I am suggesting is that there may be more to reality than what the
> > mainstream currently thinks, like life after death, etc.
> There already exists knowledge about free will, making stuff up about
> it is not neccessary. With free will there are 2 parts what choses,
> and what is chosen, spiritual and material. The spiritual is known
> subjectively by a way of choosing resulting in an opinion, the
> material is known objectively through measurement resulting in a
> fact.
> What matter consists of then is chosen alternatives = information.
> Like words consist of a string of chosen alternative letters, so to do
> all things consist of chosen alternatives. For example the moon could
> have turned out another way than it is now, so the moon consists of a
> chosen alternative. So in creation science information replaces the
> particle as the fundamental unit of existence.
> All objects such as for example the moon have an organization in terms
> of decisionmaking, related to socalled quantum uncertainty. This
> organization is basically the same as a hologram. When you cut a piece
> from a hologram, then you will see the entire picture in the piece you
> cut out from the hologram. So a piece of the moon has information
> about the whole moon, and not just about the piece itself. The piece
> coheres with the whole.
> And this coherence explains many "psychic" phenomena. For instance
> when a psychic looks at a photograph of a person and then conveys
> information that's not seen in the photograph, but the information
> which coheres with the photograph.
> IMO it is fine subjective reasoning to say that God does not exists,
> because there is too much pain. Just as long as you make it clear that
> it is subjective reasoning, and you do not propose it as a matter of
> (pseudoscientifc) fact that pain exists. We can objectively see
> creases in people's faces, and water leaking from people's eyes (Flash
> Gordon quote ;), but nowhere is there proof that pain exists. Looking
> more closely we can see processes in the brain, that the brain is
> decided from alternatives in the moment, which chosen alternatives
> then go to produce creases in the face, and tears, and the person
> producing speech saying he is in pain. But this then does not prove
> pain exists, the pain is understood to be the agency which made the
> decisions turn out the way they did, which agency can only be
> subjectively known. The pain is not the chosen alternatives of tears
> and creases in the face, nor the brain processes. Those are by
> subjective reasonable judgement all expressions of pain, and not pain
> itself.
> And same like faces displays chosen alternatives, one can also see
> chosen alternatives in the moon, and then one can also read expression
> of the spirit in the moon in a fundamentally similar way as one reads
> expression of people's faces. One can with theological judgement say
> the moon expresses beneficience of the holy spirit, or something.
I honestly do not understand what you mean by subjectivity, subjective
reasoning, and subjective opinion.
I think you consider that the pain I feel when I burn my hand is
subjective, correct?
It seems to me odd to call that subjective experience an opinion. It
is too direct and requires no reasoning at all. I just feel that it
hurts. It also certainly does not feel, subjectively, like a free
choice. It just hurts, no choice involved.
Do you think there is no way for you to draw any objective conclusion
about my pain? That I shout "Ow, that hurts" is, I think, an objective
observation. You could hear it and so could any number of independent
observers. Is that objective observation completely unlinked and
uncorrelated with my subjective experience of pain?
My reports of my subjective experience are themselves objective facts.
I could be lying or playacting, of course, but to suggest no
connection between the objectively verifiable behavior and the
subjective experience seems to me to be going too far. It would seem
to me that my reports of my subjective experience are objective
evidence, imperfect as it might be in case I am lying, that my
subjective experience is what I say it is. Do you disagree? I cannot
tell from reading your post whether you do or not.
[Note: All freedom was treated well and respectfully during the
preparation of this post. No knowledge of freedom was destroyed or
harmed in any way in writing it].
> On 16 mei, 23:03, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 05/16/2012 02:10 PM, raven1 wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:43:31 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
> > > <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 05/16/2012 04:11 AM, Syamsu wrote:
> > >> [snip]
> > >>> All objects such as for example the moon have an organization in terms
> > >>> of decisionmaking, related to socalled quantum uncertainty. This
> > >>> organization is basically the same as a hologram. When you cut a piece
> > >>> from a hologram, then you will see the entire picture in the piece you
> > >>> cut out from the hologram. So a piece of the moon has information
> > >>> about the whole moon, and not just about the piece itself. The piece
> > >>> coheres with the whole.
> > >> So a chunk of the moon would have information about the crater patterns
> > >> for the rest of the moon? A portion of the moon without human artefacts
> > >> could tell us what the artefacts elsewhere would be? If an asteroid were
> > >> to split the moon into pieces would each decided for itself on how to
> > >> part ways with the whole?
> > > For the last question, I suspect Nando's answer is "yes, all the
> > > pieces choose which way they go".
> > But if they are holographic, wouldn't they make the same choice, since
> > their ideas about the world would be isomorpic? Or would the part(s)
> > with the moon landing remnants be compelled to trek off on their own?
> > American flags tend to do that to decisionmakers.
> > And when the nuclear explosion happened which set Moon Base alpha off on
> > a course far flung from Earth, what role did the moon play? Was the moon
> > complacent in this "accident"? If the moon can make decisions could we
> > charge the moon with gross negligence at least, if not deliberate or
> > complicit malfeasance? Nando's ascribing human traits to inanimate
> > object might cause us to haul cars, roofs and avalanche snow into a
> > court of law.
> > If avalanche snow melts could it be charge with the killing of skiers or
> > mountain climbers? Or could we assume this murderous water would have
> > just tried to drown someone instead? Or as steam would it have attempted
> > a scalding of any nearby people? Water could be inherently bad, no mater
> > what state it is in. That is why we have tornadoes and hurricanes, not
> > to mention tsunamis.
> > --
> > *Hemidactylus*
> Again, don't let all that girly giggling about free will get out of
> control, or you'll wet your panties.
The "girly giggling" isn't about free will. It's about your unigue
perspective of free will. This is a case of "We are not laughing with
you. We are laughing at you"
