free will done right

[Syamsu]

The following provides a basic understanding of free will.

'''Free will''' means for a thing to have alternative states available in the moment, from one moment to the next, and an alternative being chosen. Free will in this sense of alternatives and decision is the most fundamental logic in creation science, more fundamental than cause and effect. Most all theories and facts within creation science are based on a logic of free will. With freedom things are created.


==Two categories: Dualism==

The logic of free will has two main parts, the agency which does the chosing, and the alternatives which are chosen over. These two parts are wholy different from each other, the agency is called spiritual, what is chosen is called material.


===Objective and subjective===

The way in which something can be known about material is relatively straightforward, through measurement we can know the properties of a material thing. For instance when a videocamera is turned towards the moon, then it receives the light reflected off the moon through the lens of the videocamera. The videocamera then stores this picture on a storage device such as a videotape. The information travelled from the moon by medium of light, through the lens, through the circuitry of the videocamera, onto the videotape. This transferring or copying of information unchanged (also known as rewriting) is called being objective. The videocamera provides objective information about the moon. When somebody looks at the moon, then in the same way as the videocamera, information transfers from the moon, by medium of light, through the eyes, to the memory in the brain, resulting in objective facts about the moon in memory.

The way in which something can be said about the spiritual doing the chosing is very different from objective measurement, instead we must form a subjective opinion. We can't rely on evidence to form a subjective opinion, because evidence forces to a conclusion destroying the freedom neccessary to reach a subjective opinion. Instead of relying on evidence, if we want to identify the agency in a choice, then we must make a choice related to the choice we are investigating. (1),(2)

For example: suppose there is a birthday cake, with 10 slices of cake, and 10 people attending the party. Suppose Joe takes 2 slices, which neccessarily means that 1 of the people will get no cake. As said, to investigate the agency of this choice to take 2 slices instead of 1, we have to make a new choice in turn, related to the choice we are investigating. To make a new choice we need new alternatives, for example the alternatives “hate” and “love”, so we get:


A Joe was “hateful” in choosing to take 2 slices instead of 1.

B Joe was “loving” in choosing to take 2 slices instead of 1.


Now we must chose, for instance we chose B, Joe was loving in taking 2 slices instead of 1. Very appreciative of the cake. We have now formed a subjective opinion about who Joe is as the owner of his choices, namely that Joe is loving. In the same way that beauty is said to be in the eye of the beholder, a subjective opinion says as much about the one expressing the opinion, as it does about whom the opinion is expressed about. We could have chosen that Joe was hateful instead, we had the freedom to do so. We arrived at the conclusion through chosing ourselves, and by choosing we revealed who we are as the owner of our choices, as well as revealing who Joe is as the owner of his choices.

===Overview of the dual categories in free will===


! agency in a choice !! what is chosen
|-
| subjectively identified || objectively measured
|-
| non-physical || physical
|-
| spiritual || material
|-
| soul || body
|-
| opinion || fact
|-
| God love hate self etc. ||
|-
| creator || creation


The leftside of the table belongs together and the rightside belongs together. The spiritual and material domains are directly connected with choices, yet the choices don’t provide any evidence of a spiritual domain. It is perfectly valid to express a feeling of emptiness in regards to agency, to subjectively reach the conclusion that the spiritual domain is empty, and God does not exist. The only requirement in the logic is that the conclusion about agency must be reached through choice.


==Morality==

However logically valid an expression of emptiness may be, that does not mean that such an expression is morally good. In creationist theory the universe starts with a free act, and ends with a final free act. The morality of any individual choice is often portrayed in relation to these choices of original creation and final judgement. In creationism morality is about the spiritual content of the choice, and is focused more on the way in which a choice is made, then on the result of a choice.


==Biblical interpretation==

The biblical doctrine outlined in the book of Genesis, during the creation of the world captures the source of choosing in regards to morality. The original parents of mankind, Adam and Eve as real historical persons, made the first human choice. The choice between the will of God which they were influenced by since their creation, and also their own will influenced by Satan. Both original and separate influences offer a distinct alternative that persons decide to follow based on their free will, in relation to experience filtered through their sensory system, which is analyzed by logic within the mind, which offers up alternatives for the human spirit to decide. The free will exercised by Adam and Eve severed the covenant with God by acting outside of His will. This act of free will had the consequence of a generational curse upon the rest of mankind, fundamentally altering life as they (Adam and Eve) knew it because of their sin. The original sin against the will and therefore nature of God physically and

spiritually had a sort of epigenetic affect on all of biology, introducing death and the struggle and survival that comes with it.(3) By eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve less felt what is good and bad, instead they became more emotionless and calculating in determining their course of action. Calculating in terms of survival and death.

{{bible quote|1Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" 2The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" 4The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.|book=Genesis|chap=3|verses=1-6}}


==Pseudoscience==

Words such as “selfish”, “altruistic”, “hateful”, “loving” etc. are commonly considered to be words of judgement relevant to agency, and should therefore only be used in this subjective way. That means you have to chose to arrive at the conclusion “selfish”, and you cannot measure or calculate somebody to be selfish. To make assertive statements about people being “selfish”, “loving” or “hateful” as a matter of objective fact is illogical, and is considered pseudoscience. (Although sometimes scientists use a different meaning of the words “selfishness” and “altruism” which has nothing to do with agency, in which case the selfishness and altruism can be measured). The same holds true for asserting the existence of God as a matter of fact, that is also considered pseudoscience. God is considered an agent who choses, and therefore God is only possibly known through faith, which faith neccessarily involves a choice.

==Politics and Ideology==

Theories about free will which treat agency as a matter of subjective opinion are strongly related to democracy. Theories about free will which treat agency as a matter of objective fact instead, are strongly related to ideological and political doctrines in which freedom plays a subordinate role.

Social Darwinist doctrines about the heritable character of people, based on the theory of natural selection, greatly influenced intellectual and political climate of opinion in the past, and continues to do so at present.

For example in the early part of the 20th century the influential Darwinist Ernst Heackel treated the “loving” agency of Jesus Christ as exhibiting an “Aryan” blood character. Heackel was not a Christian but an atheist, he treated the love of Christ as a matter of scientific fact, not a matter of faith. Social-Darwinism is considered the main ideological impetus in the rise of Nazism, which led to the holocaust. Specifically the denial of free will in Nazism is considered it's most lethal aspect. (4)

China is currentely drifting towards Social-Darwinism.(5)The overwhelming majority of scientists in the world at present support some form of Social-Darwinism where agency is treated as a matter of objective fact, and moral imperatives are derived from an interpretation of natural selection theory.


==Psychology==

Pscyhological research has found that disbelief in free will is related to increased agression and reduced helpfulness. (6)

Inducing disbelief in free will has been found to alter brain states related to preconscious motor preparation (7)

Belief in free will predicts better job performance.(8)

==Biological function of free will==

Free will of organisms appears to contribute to their survival in many ways. The variation in use of muscles caused by free will reduces wear and tear of them. Search algorithms for food are more optimal when based on freedom. Free will also appears to give predators surprise in attack, and prey unpredictability in escape.
Note again that subjective opinion is entertwined with objective fact in creationist discourse. When an animal is fleeing then we might consider some high risk decisions the animal makes “courageous” or “dumb” alternatively. What is objectively observed then is a decision with a high chance of being killed, and subjectively we might note “courage” as the agency which made the decision turn out the way it did. One should not interpret these writings of creationist scientists to posit a “science of courage”, they are merely expressions of personal opinion of the scientist.

DNA consists of chosen alternatives C,A,T and G. When looking at any particular string of DNA one should consider the alternatives that could have been chosen instead. DNA from one generation to the next is constructed based on informed and reasoned choices. The DNA is kept in a state of indecision, at which point the alternative states C, A, T, and G present themselves, and the organization of DNA as a whole is chosen. (9)


==Creation, creatio-ex-nihilo==

In a choice information is created, namely the information which way a choice turns out. The information is new in the universe, and therefore the information is derived from nothing. Commonly this principle is referred to with the latin phrase "Creatio ex nihilo". This nothing where the information derives from is objectively measurable. The measurements and calculations about where the information derives from simply turn out zero for position, mass, velocity, and so on. For instance the noise in a random number generator, which is used for encrypting data so that it remains secret, is derived from the socalled quantum mechanical zeropoint. When scientists look for the origin of a thing, then they always find nothing at the origin, and not a creator. The creator can only be found by deciding about the agency of the choices found.


==Other views==

Non-Creationist views treat the agency in a choice as a matter of objective fact. Compatibilism and Determinism are views on free will in which agency is treated as a matter of fact, and therefore in these views the same logic is used for describing freedom, as is used for describing force. For example Darwinian philosopher Daniel Dennett regards a thermostat as an agent which chooses, eventhough he says that in it's workings the thermostat is completely forced. (10) The overwhelming majority of scientists currently support a compatibilist or determinist position on free will, and thereby the majority of scientists currently acknowledge no proper place to subjective opinion or faith.

1 <ref>{{cite web|last=Harrison-Barbet|first=Anthony|title=WILLIAM of OCKHAM|url=http://www.philosophos.com/philosophical_connections/profile_050.html#ocksec2|publisher=Philosophos.com|quote=we can have no knowledge of an immaterial soul; nor can we prove its existence philosophically. Instead we must rely on revealed truth and faith}}</ref>

2 <ref>{{cite web|last=Yaffe, Gideon and Nichols, Ryan|title=Thomas Reid|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reid/|work=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2009 Edition|quote=Reid staunchly refuses to speculate on the substance of the self,...he describes souls as beings of a quite different Nature than material bodies}}</ref>

3 <ref>[http://normangeisler.net/articles/theology/2010-EpigeneticsSolvesTheologicalProblems.htm Epigenetics Offers New Solution to Some Long-Standing Theological Problems: Inherited Sin, Christ’s Sinlessness, and Generational Curses Can be Explained] By Norman L. Geisler, 2010</ref>

4 [http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Germany-A-New-History/dp/0826409067 most lethal aspect].

5 <ref>{{cite web|last=Dikötter|first=Frank|title=Throw-Away Babies
|url=http://web.mac.com/dikotter/Dikotter/Eugenics.html|publisher=Times Literary Supplement,|quote=Whether the regulation of sexuality has replaced ideological control as the main tool of repression in the People's Republic is an important question which is open to debate. It is beyond question, however, that the signs of a drift towards an authoritarian form of government guided by biological imperatives have been accumulating in China for some time, and anybody with a serious interest in that country and its people should consider the implications of that drift carefully.}}</ref>

6 <ref>http://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/2/260</ref>

7 <ref> http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/5/613.abstract </ref>

8 <ref>http://spp.sagepub.com/content/1/1/43.abstract</ref>

9 <ref>{{cite web|last=Taborsky|first=Edwina|title=Biological Organisms as Semiosic Systems: the importance of strong and weak
anticipation|url=http://ebookbrowse.com/gdoc.php?id=180133786&url=0d3490b8c6d0e279f0b2fef473f4a08a |publisher=Signs vol. 2: pp. 146-187, 2008 ISSN: 1902-8822|quote=a framework that rejects anticipation and is instead based around a primary random or uninformed mutation of a single model supported by a post hoc ‘natural selection’ of that model – is an inadequate analysis. The semiosic biological system is not a random or mechanical process but an informed, reasoned and selfcontrolled process. pp 161}}</ref>

10 <ref>{{cite web|last=Torley|first=Vincent|title=Anatomy of a minimal mind|url=http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/Anatomy.pdf|publisher=philosophy department University of Melbourne|quote=Dennett, on the other hand, regards the attribution of intentionality to thermostats as more than metaphorical: he argues that if we are to explain what all thermostats have in common, we “have to rise to … a level that invokes belief-talk and desire-talk or … semantic information-talk and goal-registration-talk 1995a.}}</ref>

[Harry K]

On May 10, 6:27 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The following provides a basic understanding of free will.
>

<snip steaming piles of horseshit>

As long as you insist on an "all-knowing" god, there is no free will.

Harry K

[Syamsu]

Op donderdag 10 mei 2012 15:41:18 UTC+2 schreef Harry K het volgende:

Get lost, what I wrote was a fine understanding of free will that all civilized people basically agree on. You are not civilized, learn something, barbarian. And all knowing means all there is to know. God does not know what God hasn't decided yet, God does not know what you have decided neither, but He knows what you have decided before you know it.

[Kermit]

On May 10, 7:48 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Op donderdag 10 mei 2012 15:41:18 UTC+2 schreef Harry K het volgende:
>
> > On May 10, 6:27 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The following provides a basic understanding of free will.
>
> > <snip steaming piles of horseshit>
>
> > As long as you insist on an "all-knowing" god, there is no free will.
>
> > Harry K
>
> Get lost, what I wrote was a fine understanding of free will that all civilized people basically agree on. You are not civilized, learn something, barbarian.

Heh. He probably doesn't even think that rocks can decide anything.

> And all knowing means all there is to know. God does not know what God hasn't decided yet,

Hmmm. I like this. Not knowing [everything], but rather [everything
knowable]. OK; this reconciles certain claims about God with certain
issues.

> God does not know what you have decided neither, but He knows what you have decided before you know it.

I do have trouble with this. Is this worded the way you intended?

"God does not know what you have decided [...] but He knows what you
have decided "

Kermit

[Steven L.]

"Harry K" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f4f0e92-fe11-4659...@ri8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

Non sequitur.

An all-knowing God may know what I'm about to do.
But He didn't force me to do it.

For example, suppose that H.G. Wells' Time Traveler had really existed.
He could travel to the year 2008 to witness the election of Obama, and
then return to his own time, the 19th century. But the fact that he now
knows that in the future, America will elect Obama, doesn't mean that
Americans are forced to elect Obama. They still chose whom to vote for.

Predicting the future accurately doesn't force that course of action on
the future's inhabitants.



-- Steven L.

[Syamsu]

On May 10, 5:00 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 7:48 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Op donderdag 10 mei 2012 15:41:18 UTC+2 schreef Harry K het volgende:
>
> > > On May 10, 6:27 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > The following provides a basic understanding of free will.
>
> > > <snip steaming piles of horseshit>
>
> > > As long as you insist on an "all-knowing" god, there is no free will.
>
> > > Harry K
>
> > Get lost, what I wrote was a fine understanding of free will that all civilized people basically agree on. You are not civilized, learn something, barbarian.
>
> Heh. He probably doesn't even think that rocks can decide anything.

This is a serious issue, it's not so much the lack of acknowledgement
of the spirit in the inanimate universe that makes him a barbarian,
although that's already quite revolting, it is more the lack of
acknowledgement of the human spirit that makes him a barbarian.
Either you acknowledge my human spirit as I do yours, in a properly
subjective way, or you are a barbarian. Let's have it made abundundly
clear that I don't accept being approached as being like a termostat
or calculator, as some versions of free will insist.

>
> > And all knowing means all there is to know. God does not know what God hasn't decided yet,
>
> Hmmm. I like this. Not knowing [everything], but rather [everything
> knowable]. OK; this reconciles certain claims about God with certain
> issues.

That only took a few seconds of thought to solve...

> > God does not know what you have decided neither, but He knows what you have decided before you know it.
>
> I do have trouble with this. Is this worded the way you intended?

No I meant to say, God doesn't know what you haven't decided yet
neither, but once you have decided it, he knows it before you know
it.

[Ernest Major]

In message <5uidnX6oJeOFfTbS...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
<sdli...@earthlink.net> writes

It seems to me that the non-sequitur lies in your response; in
particular in the unstated 3rd part of your syllogism.

Physicists can predict where the moon will be at a future time. But
physicists do not force the moon to be there. But that doesn't mean that
the moon wasn't forced (by gravitational forces) to be there.

More generally, you seem to be adopting a compatibilist notion of free
will. But the PP was clearing writing in terms of a libertarian notion.
The OP's position is opaque, but I think I recall him claiming to hold a
libertarian concept of free will.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Boikat]

On May 10, 10:44 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 5:00 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 7:48 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Op donderdag 10 mei 2012 15:41:18 UTC+2 schreef Harry K het volgende:
>
> > > > On May 10, 6:27 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > The following provides a basic understanding of free will.
>
> > > > <snip steaming piles of horseshit>
>
> > > > As long as you insist on an "all-knowing" god, there is no free will.
>
> > > > Harry K
>
> > > Get lost, what I wrote was a fine understanding of free will that all civilized people basically agree on. You are not civilized, learn something, barbarian.
>
> > Heh. He probably doesn't even think that rocks can decide anything.
>
> This is a serious issue, it's not so much the lack of acknowledgement
> of the spirit in the inanimate universe that makes him a barbarian,
> although that's already quite revolting, it is more the lack of
> acknowledgement of the human spirit that makes him a barbarian.

That depends on the definition of "spirit" you ae using. If you mean
the "soul" in the religious context, you are full of crap.

> Either you acknowledge my human spirit as I do yours, in a properly
> subjective way, or you are a barbarian. Let's have it made abundundly
> clear that I don't accept being approached as being like a termostat
> or calculator, as some versions of free will insist.

Gow about being apporached as a raving nut case?

<snip>

Boikat

[Boikat]

On May 10, 8:27 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The following provides a basic understanding of free will.
>
> '''Free will''' means for a thing to have alternative states available in the moment,

Yo normal prople, it also implies a mind capable of making choices.

> from one moment to the next, and an alternative being chosen.
> Free will in this sense of alternatives and decision is the most
> fundamental logic in creation science,

Creationism lacks two elements: logic and science

> more fundamental than cause and effect. Most all theories and facts
> within creation science are based on a logic of free will.

No. All claims made by creationism (no science involoved) is based
upon a narro interpretation of the Bible, and nothing else. It sure
isn't supported by any objective *evidence*.

> With freedom things are created.

Not without a mind and a means to c reat. Your basic problem, aside
from insanity, is that creationism is not science, has no supporting
evidence, and is untestable. It is nothing more than a creation myth
of a particular religion, and nothing more.

<Snip remaining inanities>

Boikat

[raven1]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 08:44:33 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On May 10, 5:00 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 10, 7:48 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Op donderdag 10 mei 2012 15:41:18 UTC+2 schreef Harry K het volgende:
>>
>> > > On May 10, 6:27 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > The following provides a basic understanding of free will.
>>
>> > > <snip steaming piles of horseshit>
>>
>> > > As long as you insist on an "all-knowing" god, there is no free will.
>>
>> > > Harry K
>>
>> > Get lost, what I wrote was a fine understanding of free will that all civilized people basically agree on. You are not civilized, learn something, barbarian.
>>
>> Heh. He probably doesn't even think that rocks can decide anything.
>
>This is a serious issue,

Actually, it's an amazingly silly non-issue. If free will exists, it
is limited to sentient beings, not inanimate objects.

[Syamsu]

A wrong between people who acknowledge the human spirit, and people
who don't, then always some guilt must be attributed to the people who
don't acknowledge the human spirit in a properly subjective way, no
matter who did what. The game of life must be played with
subjectivity, and those who don't acknowledge themselves or other
people as the owner of their choices, in a properly subjective way,
they fundamentally mess up the game of life, such that any interaction
with them is always a crime on their part. You are rude, and I am rude
as well, but the origin of the rudeness is all with you, in that you,
and your fellow conspirators, don't acknowledge my human spirit, which
lack of acknowledgement brings down the game of life.

[Boikat]

On May 10, 10:34 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Harry K" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:8f4f0e92-fe11-4659...@ri8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On May 10, 6:27 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The following provides a basic understanding of free will.
>
> > <snip steaming piles of horseshit>
>
> > As long as you insist on an "all-knowing" god, there is no free will.
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> An all-knowing God may know what I'm about to do.
> But He didn't force me to do it.

Ge doesn't have to since you're going to do it anyway. And since God
knows ahead of time what you are going to do, you cannot do otherwise,
therefore, you have no free will, since doing something else would
mean God was wrong, and that isn't supposed to happen, is it?

>
> For example, suppose that H.G. Wells' Time Traveler had really existed.
> He could travel to the year 2008 to witness the election of Obama, and
> then return to his own time, the 19th century. But the fact that he now
> knows that in the future, America will elect Obama, doesn't mean that
> Americans are forced to elect Obama.  They still chose whom to vote for.
>
> Predicting the future accurately doesn't force that course of action on
> the future's inhabitants.

Since God supposedly already knows what you are going to do, it's
really not a prediction, is it? But it does throw a monkey wrench in
the concept of free will.

Boikat

[Syamsu]

On May 10, 7:23 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2012 08:44:33 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
>

> >This is a serious issue,
>
> Actually, it's an amazingly silly non-issue. If free will exists, it
> is limited to sentient beings, not inanimate objects.

The inanimate universe, in all it's glory of planets, stars, and
abundant variation, can and does decide in the sense of having
alternative states available from moment to moment. Which is also
demonstrated as scientific fact, in certain interpretations of quantum
theory which are valid. In some invalid interpretations of quantum
theory, this observed freedom is treated as an irrellevancy. It is a
matter of subjective opinion what the agency in those decisions is.

The agency in your decisions is hubris, arrogance, selfsuperiority
etc. this is my subjective opinion. And looking at the inanimate
universe, and the freedom there, my feeling is that the spirit of
those decisions, and the wonders which the decisions result in, is
more demonstrative of benevolence, then the spirit of your decisions.

God created the planets, and then he said it was good, the planets
were good. He guides us to see the goodness of planets.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

(snip some silliness)

> The inanimate universe, in all it's glory of planets, stars, and
> abundant variation, can and does decide in the sense of having
> alternative states available from moment to moment.

So, you're going to do obeisance to the pathetic fallacy (or
anthropomorphic fallacy, or sentimatnal fallacy)...
Ions do not "want" to be stable, or "choose" to be stable.
Planets (whether 8, or 9... do not "choose to orbit the sun, or "want"
to orbit the sun (pace Pagano)

>Which is also demonstrated as scientific fact, in certain interpretations of quantum
> theory which are valid. In some invalid interpretations of quantum
> theory, this observed freedom is treated as an irrellevancy. It is a
> matter of subjective opinion what the agency in those decisions is.

Source? Identification of which interpretation of QM says that
inanimate objects "make choices"?
Aren't you just repeating your bias of choosing to assign teleological
import to events, rather than actors?

> The agency in your decisions is hubris, arrogance, selfsuperiority
> etc. this is my subjective opinion. And looking at the inanimate
> universe, and the freedom there, my feeling is that the spirit of
> those decisions, and the wonders which the decisions result in,  is
> more demonstrative of benevolence, then the spirit of your decisions.

...and as a subjective opinion, as your feeling, you are welcome to
it. As a ringing cry that you, and you alone, have uncovered the true
universe, in its inanimate benevolence, it's on par with your usual
fan-fic shipping Darwin & Hitler.

> God created the planets, and then he said it was good, the planets
> were good. He guides us to see the goodness of planets.

...and as a subjective opinion, you are welcome to it. As a
demonstration of reality, it is on a par with your other onanistic
offerings.

[Boikat]

My. That was deeply meaningless.

> The game of life must be played with
> subjectivity, and those who don't acknowledge themselves or other
> people as the owner of their choices, in a properly subjective way,
> they fundamentally mess up the game of life, such that any interaction
> with them is always a crime on their part.

That was also deeply meaningless.

> You are rude, and I am rude
> as well, but the origin of the rudeness is all with you, in that you,
> and your fellow conspirators, don't acknowledge my human spirit, which
> lack of acknowledgement brings down the game of life

"Does not agree with" does not equal "rude".

Boikat

[Boikat]

On May 10, 12:38 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 7:23 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 May 2012 08:44:33 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
>
> > >This is a serious issue,
>
> > Actually, it's an amazingly silly non-issue. If free will exists, it
> > is limited to sentient beings, not inanimate objects.
>
> The inanimate universe, in all it's glory of planets, stars, and
> abundant variation, can and does decide in the sense of having
> alternative states available from moment to moment. Which is also
> demonstrated as scientific fact, in certain interpretations of quantum
> theory which are valid. In some invalid interpretations of quantum
> theory, this observed freedom is treated as an irrellevancy. It is a
> matter of subjective opinion what the agency in those decisions is.

But not due to mental capabilities. Stars, planets, and so on, do not
have minds, therefore, do not "decide" in the same context of a person
deciding to have a cheese burger instead of a hot dog.

>
> The agency in your decisions is hubris, arrogance, selfsuperiority
> etc. this is my subjective opinion. And looking at the inanimate
> universe, and the freedom there, my feeling is that the spirit of
> those decisions, and the wonders which the decisions result in,  is
> more demonstrative of benevolence, then the spirit of your decisions.

Or, you could simply be bat-shit insane.

>
> God created the planets, and then he said it was good, the planets
> were good. He guides us to see the goodness of planets.

You say that as if it were an unquestionable fact. If it is an
unquestionable fact, you must have some supporting evidence.

Boikat

[Syamsu]

Again, not acknowleding my human spirit is an offence to me. And the
same for the rest of you thugs, you can all go to hell with your
replacing subjectivity in respect to agency with pseudoscientific
darwinism. Knowledge of good and evil is the original sin, and in
compatibilist free will good and bad are known as facts.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:
(snip to your words)

> Again, not acknowleding my human spirit is an offence to me. And the
> same for the rest of you thugs, you can all go to hell with your
> replacing subjectivity in respect to agency with pseudoscientific
> darwinism. Knowledge of good and evil is the original sin, and in
> compatibilist free will good and bad are known as facts.

(Literary Quote):

BRITANNUS (shocked).
Caesar: this is not proper.

THEODOTUS (outraged).
How!

CAESAR (recovering his self-possession).
Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs
of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.

(meat of message):

Subjectively, you may use words to mean anything you want to.
Realistically, if you are going to pretend to communicate, you should
consider using words in accord with their consensus meaning, or give
some reason, some explication, of your idiosyncratic autoparsing.

You are like the little kid who climbs up on a pile of boxes and
cries: "I am the boss of you! You have to do what I say!"

Left a lot of questions unanswered, bailing out on your other thread,
dincha?

I don't suppose you'd like to explain what you THINK you mean, when
you say (I guess that's the right verb):

"replacing subjectivity in respect to agency with pseudoscientific

darwinism"?

Or explain how a rock demonstrates "agency" vis-a-vis "free will"?

Or explain how having my own subjective opinion is "not
acknowledging" your "human spirit" (sub-question: is that animas, or
psuche, or just 'the can-do, go-get-'em, rah-rah-rah-spirit that makes
us human'?)?

[Bill]

On May 10, 10:44 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> No I meant to say, God doesn't know what you haven't decided yet
> neither, but once you have decided it, he knows it before you know
> it.

Ah, Benjamin Libet is God.

[Boikat]

So what? Insisting I acknowledge your religious beliefs as a
universal fact that I must accept is offensive to me.

> And the
> same for the rest of you thugs,

I find it offensive that you refer to everyone that does not agree
with you as "thugs".

> you can all go to hell

I find your judgementality offensive.

> with your
> replacing subjectivity in respect to agency with pseudoscientific
> darwinism.

I find your ignorance and arrogance offensive.

> Knowledge of good and evil is the original sin,

Which is sort of stupid, if you bother to actually think about it.

> and in
> compatibilist free will good and bad are known as facts.

What is ironic is that what is good, and what is evil, is in fact,
subjective. But it is a fact that the concepts of "good and evil" is
real.

Boikat

[Harry K]

My God. He doesn't know it but he knows it before you do!!! How
asinine can you get?

Harry K

[Harry K]

Mr. Syamsu is active in the religious groups. Soem think he is a
troll,
others that he is just a good example of how stupid one can be and
still breath without being told.

Harry K

[Harry K]

And the planets all bowed down and sang hosannas!

Harry K

[Harry K]

On May 10, 8:34 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Harry K" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

The usual handwaving trying to evade the point. they should park you
theists in the middle of a widn turbine farm to help generate
electricity.

Harry K

[Bill]

On May 11, 12:33 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 10, 10:34 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Harry K" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:8f4f0e92-fe11-4659...@ri8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > On May 10, 6:27 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > The following provides a basic understanding of free will.
>
> > > <snip steaming piles of horseshit>
>
> > > As long as you insist on an "all-knowing" god, there is no free will.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> > An all-knowing God may know what I'm about to do.
> > But He didn't force me to do it.
>
> Ge doesn't have to since you're going to do it anyway.  And since God
> knows ahead of time what you are going to do, you cannot do otherwise,
> therefore, you have no free will, since doing something else would
> mean God was wrong, and that isn't supposed to happen, is it?

Disclaimer: I am an atheist with a compatibilist view of free will.

But, I don't see that God's "foreknowledge" would necessarily kill
even a libertarian version of free will. It depends on how God knows
what you are going to do.

If he knows because he knows everything about how the world works and
he can predict all its future states from its present state, then
determinism must be true and a libertarian free will is excluded.

But if he knows because he sees it happen from outside time, then he
could just be watching it happen. Just looking at a very complicated
shape in a four dimensional space. And in that case, I do not think it
incompatible even with a libertarian view of free will. That I watch
you cross the street does not mean I force you to cross the street.

So to your objection above "since God knows ahead of time what you are
going to do, you cannot do otherwise" , the answer is that, of course
you could do otherwise, and if you did otherwise, God would know that
instead.

Repeated disclaimer - I don't think that a libertarian view of free
will makes sense, but if it did make sense, I do not think that God's
omnipotence would kill it.

[Harry K]

Oooopps. I thought I was still in AHR and that the nutcase had
escaped the reservation again.

Harry K

[Ernest Major]

In message
<e7eeced8-5061-4cd0...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Bill <broger...@gmail.com> writes

I think you've made the same error as StevenL. (That X is not forcing
you doesn't mean that your actions are free.)

You've just postulated a block (eternalist) universe. In a presentist
universe you can escape determinism through quantum indeterminacy
(though it doesn't help you with free will); in an eternalist universe
the future is fixed regardless of quantum indeterminacy. An eternalist
universe seems to me to be harder to reconcile with libertarian notions
of free will, not easier.

>
>So to your objection above "since God knows ahead of time what you are
>going to do, you cannot do otherwise" , the answer is that, of course
>you could do otherwise, and if you did otherwise, God would know that
>instead.
>
>Repeated disclaimer - I don't think that a libertarian view of free
>will makes sense, but if it did make sense, I do not think that God's
>omnipotence would kill it.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > For example, suppose that H.G. Wells' Time Traveler had really existed.
>> > He could travel to the year 2008 to witness the election of Obama, and
>> > then return to his own time, the 19th century. But the fact that he now
>> > knows that in the future, America will elect Obama, doesn't mean that
>> > Americans are forced to elect Obama.  They still chose whom to vote for.
>>
>> > Predicting the future accurately doesn't force that course of action on
>> > the future's inhabitants.
>>
>> Since God supposedly already knows what you are going to do, it's
>> really not a prediction, is it?  But it does throw a monkey wrench in
>> the concept of free will.
>>
>> Boikat
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Arkalen]

I think the issue isn't so much that God knows something will happen,
but the implication that what will happen can be known, i.e. that the
future is fixed.

If you watch me cross the street it doesn't mean you force me to cross
the street, but it does imply that I am crossing the street. And if you
watch me cross the street tomorrow in your crystal ball it implies that
I WILL cross the street tomorrow. You may not be forcing my future
choice to cross the street, but it does bring into question whether I
have a choice in the matter at all. It certainly brings into question
what we mean by "choice".

[DaveO]

raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in
news:k8unq7tfcg0h1nm14...@4ax.com:

> Actually, it's an amazingly silly non-issue. If free will exists, it
> is limited to sentient beings, not inanimate objects.

I think that free will may be a broken concept. For any given decision made
by a person, that decision will be shaped unconsciously by their cognitive
paradigms. Even if they choose to follow a coin toss to decide a particular
event, their choice to use this method of choosing has been shaped in their
paradigms. There is a curious twist to this. A human can form the rule "I
choose to act as though I have free will.".

Just my 2 cents

DaveO

[Bill]

I think that determinism brings into question what we mean by choice.
Personally, I offer the standard compatibilist answer.

But my argument here is that a supposed God's supposed omnipotence
would not, on its own, invalidate a libertarian view of free will. The
difficulty there is the problem of imagining what God's knowledge
would be like if God is outside of time. It's almost impossible not to
think of it as "fore-knowledge," but if God is outside time, there's
no "fore" about it, for God.

As I said before though, I'm an atheist. I think the problem with
libertarian views of free will is in trying to make sense of the claim
that one "could have" chosen differently.

[Bill]

On 11 Mei, 15:18, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <e7eeced8-5061-4cd0-ae3c-d890ff8b8...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> writes

I'm not sure what an eternalist universe is exactly. I certainly agree
that quantum indeterminacy is no help for free will. I think it is
difficult to imagine a universe as a 4 dimensional static object. It
is almost impossible not to think that it means that it is "pre-
determined." But "pre" has no meaning in such a universe. In such a
universe, you are an object with a complex shape. I don't see that you
cannot be said to choose your own shape or to be responsible for it.

So I think that an "eternalist" universe need not be "deterministic."
But it's a hard argument to make because (1) I am a determinist and I
don't actually think that a libertarian view of free will is coherent.
It's just that I do not think that God's omnipotence would pose any
special problem to free will. (If there were a God and if there were
free will)

[Ernest Major]

In message
<0a975383-22a4-415b...@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Bill <broger...@gmail.com> writes

I think that you're falling back into a compatibilist notion here. In
such a universe your choice is fixed. Libertarian free will requires
that it isn't fixed.

>
>So I think that an "eternalist" universe need not be "deterministic."
>But it's a hard argument to make because (1) I am a determinist and I
>don't actually think that a libertarian view of free will is coherent.
>It's just that I do not think that God's omnipotence would pose any
>special problem to free will. (If there were a God and if there were
>free will)

It's not God's omnipotence that is a problem for free will but his
omniscience. If the future is known then the future is fixed, and there
is no libertarian free will.

It seems to me that to reconcile divine omniscience with libertarian
free will you have to adopt a restricted definition of omniscience (such
as God knows everything that is knowable, that category excluding future
free will decisions).

Omnipotence only becomes a problem is you also adopt occasionalism -
that everything happens by God's (free and) active will.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Ymir]

In article
<f7fba10a-0a6a-4165...@q9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On May 10, 12:38 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > The agency in your decisions is hubris, arrogance, selfsuperiority
> > etc. this is my subjective opinion. And looking at the inanimate
> > universe, and the freedom there, my feeling is that the spirit of
> > those decisions, and the wonders which the decisions result in,  is
> > more demonstrative of benevolence, then the spirit of your decisions.
>
> Or, you could simply be bat-shit insane.

One thing which has always perplexed me is why everyone assumes that of
all the animals on earth bats are the ones with the craziest shit.

I mean, when was the last time you heard of someone referred to as
'cow-shit crazy' or 'hurled-enraged-lemur-feces crazy'?

What's the deal with bats? Is it something in their diet? Does
echolocation cause subtle reverberations of craziness in your GI tract?
Do (e.g.) fruit bat shit and vampire bat shit differ significantly in
their craziness? And does any type of bat seriously deserve to have the
craziness of their shit compared with Nando?

André
Spokesperson,
Anti Bat-Shit Defamation League.

[Bill]

On 11 Mei, 18:54, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message

> <0a975383-22a4-415b-be17-c830171cf...@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Sorry, I meant omniscience. I think the difficulty is in seeing that
there is no future. There is only a timeless 4 dimensional thing. That
that thing can choose its own shape does not seem to me particularly
more difficult than thinking that one can make a different choice with
regard to the future (from a point of view in which there is a
future).

>
> It seems to me that to reconcile divine omniscience with libertarian
> free will you have to adopt a restricted definition of omniscience (such
> as God knows everything that is knowable, that category excluding future
> free will decisions).

But, in my argument, anyway, for God there is no future. God does not
know the future because He can predict it. He knows it because He sees
it all together with the past and the present. And I think that puts
Him in the same category as someone watching me cross the street.

[Harry K]

On May 10, 8:34 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Harry K" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8f4f0e92-fe11-4659...@ri8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On May 10, 6:27 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The following provides a basic understanding of free will.
>
> > <snip steaming piles of horseshit>
>
> > As long as you insist on an "all-knowing" god, there is no free will.
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> An all-knowing God may know what I'm about to do.
> But He didn't force me to do it.
>

> For example, suppose that H.G. Wells' Time Traveler had really existed.
> He could travel to the year 2008 to witness the election of Obama, and
> then return to his own time, the 19th century. But the fact that he now
> knows that in the future, America will elect Obama, doesn't mean that
> Americans are forced to elect Obama.  They still chose whom to vote for.
>
> Predicting the future accurately doesn't force that course of action on
> the future's inhabitants.
>

> -- Steven L.

Wave those hands, wave those hands.

Harry K

[Matthew Bladen]

In article <agisaak.spamblock-E0D41C.08334711052012@shawnews>, Ymir

Batshit as a purported vector in the transmission of rabies?

(Serious answer: probably a cross between 'apeshit' and 'bats / batty'
(< 'bats in the belfry'. I like the silly answer better.)

--
Matthew

[Boikat]

On May 11, 9:33 am, Ymir <agis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <f7fba10a-0a6a-4165-b366-3078c4ecf...@q9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

It sounds funnier and takes less time to write than "crazed zombie
space monkey shit insane". But, then again, humor is subjective. ;)

Boikat

[Syamsu]

You are an idiot, and Darwinism made you so. Subjective opinions are
valid, faith is valid, and ignoring freedom in the universe is not
valid, and treating the agency of decisions as a matter of fact is
invalid.

You have fallen into the mad scientist stereotype, the scientist who
treats objectivity as good and subjectivity as bad, and thereby makes
the expression of emotion into an evil.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 17:44:11 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:

>On 11 mei, 18:47, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 10, 8:34 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Harry K" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:8f4f0e92-fe11-4659...@ri8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > > On May 10, 6:27 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > The following provides a basic understanding of free will.
>>
>> > > <snip steaming piles of horseshit>
>>
>> > > As long as you insist on an "all-knowing" god, there is no free will.
>>
>> > Non sequitur.
>>
>> > An all-knowing God may know what I'm about to do.
>> > But He didn't force me to do it.
>>
>> > For example, suppose that H.G. Wells' Time Traveler had really existed.
>> > He could travel to the year 2008 to witness the election of Obama, and
>> > then return to his own time, the 19th century. But the fact that he now
>> > knows that in the future, America will elect Obama, doesn't mean that
>> > Americans are forced to elect Obama.  They still chose whom to vote for.
>>
>> > Predicting the future accurately doesn't force that course of action on
>> > the future's inhabitants.
>>
>> > -- Steven L.
>>
>> Wave those hands, wave those hands.
>>
>> Harry K
>
>You are an idiot, and Darwinism made you so. Subjective opinions are
>valid,

Subjective opinions can only be valid if they are consistent with
objective facts.

>faith is valid,

No evidence supports that claim.

>and ignoring freedom in the universe is not
>valid, and treating the agency of decisions as a matter of fact is
>invalid.

That made no sense.

>You have fallen into the mad scientist stereotype, the scientist who
>treats objectivity as good and subjectivity as bad, and thereby makes
>the expression of emotion into an evil.

A subjective opinion that is shown to be wrong by evidence is wrong.

[Harry K]

LOL!

Harry K

[Syamsu]

On 12 mei, 03:02, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2012 17:44:11 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu

> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:

Nobody is in fact beatiful, beauty is not a matter of fact, agency is
categorically a matter of subjective opinion.

[Boikat]

That's correct. "Beauty" is in the eye of the beholder, meaning what
once person believes to be "beautyful" is in fact, subjective.

> agency is
> categorically a matter of subjective opinion.

True, however, you keep insisting it be treated as an objective fact.
But whenever that is pointed out to you, you pee on yourself, and stat
frothing at the mouth and start accusing people of lying.

Boikat

[Syamsu]

Boikat, you dumb liar, compatibilists such as yourself who deny a
spiritual domain, treat a thermostat as having free will. They
therefore treat agency as a matter of fact. The compatibilist agency
in a thermostat can be established as a matter of fact. And while it's
not so bad to metaphorically treat a thermostat as having free will,
in lieu of talking about good and bad in terms of the desired
temperature, it is social darwinism to the same with natural selection
theory. Compatibilist understanding of natural selection theory turns
natural selection theory into a prescriptive morality. "I am an
organism, I am in a struggle for existence, survival and reproduction
are good."

Dualists would say survival is only good if you love life, and that
the love for life can only subjectively be established to be there.
Compatibilists say that love is genetically programmed into the brain,
as like a thermostat is programmed, and that the love can be measured
to exist as matter of fact.

It is very clear you are a social darwinist in this way, because you
take people who are in love with rocks, like the rocky mountains, and
tree huggers, to be "scientifically" incorrect. You do not associate
love with alternative results from moment to moment, but with
calculation of an optimum, like optimal temperature for a thermostat,
or optimal survival for an organism.

And that is how you and your sort engineered the holocaust, by
positing factual knowledge of good and evil, in line with original sin
of Adam and Eve who were forbidden to eat from the tree which provided
knowledge of good and evil. And now Darwinists are trying to do the
same thing in China, trying to posit factual knowledge about good and
evil, derived from pseudoscientific facts about agency, and then to
invalidate emotions of people, and turn people into coldhearted
calculating monsters.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

I wondered how long it would take you to trot out the fan-fic you
wrote...the one that ships Darwin and Hitler...

Just for fun, go ahead: demonstrate the compatibilist agency in a
thermostat, as a matter of fact.

[Boikat]

Wrong on both counts.

> compatibilists such as yourself who deny a
> spiritual domain,

I don't deny it, I don't see any supporting evidence. There's a
difference.

> treat a thermostat as having free will.

I most certainly do not. Thermostats switch on and off due to
differential expansion of the two metals that make up the actuator and
where the contacts are possitioned. There is no "free will"
involved.

.

> They
> therefore treat agency as a matter of fact.

Do you think I've forgotten that you claim "agency" equals
"spirit" (soul, and therefore acknowledging the "spiritual domain")?
Sorry, but the "spirt" and the "spiritual bomain" gig is not supported
by any valid evidence.

> The compatibilist agency
> in a thermostat can be established as a matter of fact.

Not as you discribe it. The swithching on and off of a thermostat are
purely the result of natural physical forces (heat), and that is all
The *only* external influance that has any effect is where a person
sets the thermostat to turn on and off at a desired temprature.

> And while it's
> not so bad to metaphorically treat a thermostat as having free will,

Thats the only *realistic* way to treat it.

> in lieu of talking about good and bad in terms of the desired
> temperature,

The only "good and bad" involved is the subjective desired temperature
of the person setting the thermostat desires the room to be at..

> it is social darwinism to the same with natural selection
> theory.

Pure bullocks. "Social darwinism" has nothing to do with it.

> Compatibilist understanding of natural selection theory turns
> natural selection theory into a prescriptive morality. "I am an
> organism, I am in a struggle for existence, survival and reproduction
> are good."
>

Of course, in your small mind, social values never figure into it.

> Dualists would say survival is only good if you love life, and that
> the love for life can only subjectively be established to be there.
> Compatibilists say that love is genetically programmed into the brain,
> as like a thermostat is programmed, and that the love can be measured
> to exist as matter of fact.

Once again, you confuse the feeling of love with the existence of the
emotion of love.

>
> It is very clear you are a social darwinist in this way, because you
> take people who are in love with rocks, like the rocky mountains, and
> tree huggers, to be "scientifically" incorrect.

Nopw. I say that people who think rocks have free will, and can make
choices, and decide to turn out one way or the othere from moment to
moment, are mentally and/or reality challenged. A person "loving" a
rock may not be scientific, but I am sure that a lot of people loved
their Pet Rock when they were the fad at the time.

> You do not associate
> love with alternative results from moment to moment, but with
> calculation of an optimum, like optimal temperature for a thermostat,
> or optimal survival for an organism.

Again, where you pull that idiocy from can only be speculated upon.

>
> And that is how you and your sort engineered the holocaust,

Since everything you claim I "believe" is bullshit, you are obviously,
and pathetically, wrong.

> by
> positing factual knowledge of good and evil, in line with original sin
> of Adam and Eve who were forbidden to eat from the tree which provided
> knowledge of good and evil. And now Darwinists are trying to do the
> same thing in China, trying to posit factual knowledge about good and
> evil, derived from pseudoscientific facts about agency, and then to
> invalidate emotions of people, and turn people into coldhearted
> calculating monsters.

You're frothing nonsense again. And if any mind set "engineered" the
holocaust, it's people with your sort of mind set, where subjectivity
is the dominant philosophical basis for their actions.

Boikat

[Syamsu]

Now we are back to your bullshit again that subjective opinion must be
evidenced, just the same as facts must be evidenced.

[Syamsu]

The reference to daniel dennett is in the op.

[Boikat]

If you insist that your subjective opinion be considered valid, such
as your "spiritual realm", it needs to be supported by evidence.
Without evidence to support thye claim, the asserted existence of the
"spiritual realm" does not have to be accepted as a valid basis to
support your claim.

> just the same as facts must be evidenced.

You claim that the existance "spiritual realm" is real, do you not?
If it is real, it's existance would be a fact. If it is a fact, it
must have supporting evidence.

Boikat

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

(snip)

> Now we are back to your bullshit again that subjective opinion must be
> evidenced, just the same as facts must be evidenced.

So what you meant was, "I believe, subjectively, that 'compatibilist
agency' in a
thermostat can be demonstrated to me as a matter of my subjective
opinion."

You do realize that is not the same thing as a "fact", right?

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

(after a snip)

(my words)

> > I wondered how long it would take you to trot out the fan-fic you
> > wrote...the one that ships Darwin and Hitler...
>
> > Just for fun, go ahead: demonstrate the compatibilist agency in a
> > thermostat, as a matter of fact.

(your words)

> The reference to daniel dennett is in the op.

Do you mean that Daniel Dennett wrote your fan-fic about Darwin and
Hitler? Isn't it dishonest of you to take credit for it without
attribution?
Do you mean Daniel Dennett made Hitler engender the Holocaust? Wasn't
he born a bit late for that?
Do you mean, Daniel Dennett demonstrates the compatabilist agency in a
thermostat, as a matter of fact?

Oh, I get it...you mean," I said 'Daniel Dennett' so I won."

How does THAT demonstrate compatabilist agency in a thermostat?

[Syamsu]

So basically what you're saying is you're an idiot about free will,
and you like it that way.

[Syamsu]

Subjective opinions must be chosen, facts must be evidenced. Which is
what Ockham said in the middle-ages. Try to keep up with developments
will you.

> Without evidence to support thye claim, the asserted existence of the
> "spiritual realm" does not have to be accepted as a valid basis to
> support your claim.

So you mean that beauty, and agency must be evidenced.

> > just the same as facts must be evidenced.
>
> You claim that the existance "spiritual realm" is real, do you not?
> If it is real, it's existance would be a fact.  If it is a fact, it
> must have supporting evidence.

I claim that you're a dumb idiot.

[Boikat]

On May 12, 3:40 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 8:17 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 10:58 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Now we are back to your bullshit again that subjective opinion must be
> > > evidenced,
>
> > If you insist that your subjective opinion be considered valid, such
> > as your "spiritual realm", it needs to be supported by evidence.
>
> Subjective opinions must be chosen, facts must be evidenced. Which is
> what Ockham said in the middle-ages. Try to keep up with developments
> will you.

That is exactly what I said, moron. You insist that the "spiritual
realm" is factual. So, where's the evidence?

>
> > Without evidence to support thye claim, the asserted existence of the
> > "spiritual realm" does not have to be accepted as a valid basis to
> > support your claim.
>
> So you mean that beauty, and agency must be evidenced.

I was addressing your claim that the "spirit realm" should be treated
as a fact. I did not even remotely imply anything about thye concept
of "beauty". When it comes to "agency", since you equate that as
being equivolent to "the soul", in a religious sense, and the
"spiritual realm", yes, if you intend those concepts to be treated as
factual, then you must support it with evidence.

>
> > > just the same as facts must be evidenced.
>
> > You claim that the existance "spiritual realm" is real, do you not?
> > If it is real, it's existance would be a fact.  If it is a fact, it
> > must have supporting evidence.
>
> I claim that you're a dumb idiot.

You can claim anything you want. Without supporting evidence, like
pretty much everything else you claim, it's meaningless.

Boikat

[Syamsu]

SPIRITUAL IS A CATEGORY NAME FOR AGENCY SO IT IS SUBJECTIVE. MATERIAL
IS THE CATEGORY NAME FOR WHAT IS CHOSEN, SO THAT'S OBJECTIVE FACTS.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu, sweetie:

(after a snip) you say:

> So basically what you're saying is you're an idiot about free will,
> and you like it that way.

...in response to my calling your bluff about demonstrating that "...
(t)he compatibilist agency
in a thermostat can be established as a matter of fact."

You made the claim, ducky. You said that compatabilists treat
thermostats as if they had free will.

You continue to claim that 'the universe" has free will.

You continue to make bald assertions with no hint of support, and act
abusive to anyone who sees through you.

So, you're up, ducks. Prove it. Demonstrate it.
As a matter of fact.

Why are you "right" in thinking that the universe has free will?
Why do you claim that compatibilists treat thermostats as agents?
(Now pay attention) IF you are "right", AND compatabilists do treat
thermostats as actually having agency, why are you "right", and they
"wrong"?

You know nothing about what I believe about free will--does lying to
yourself about it just give you a warm feeling?
Are you really going to claim that "loving" and "hateful" are the only
two possible action bases? Because, you know, either reality is
Boolean, or it is not.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

(snip to your words)

> Subjective opinions must be chosen, facts must be evidenced. Which is
> what Ockham said in the middle-ages. Try to keep up with developments
> will you.

Where did Ockham say this? Source, please, or is it the subjective
Ockham that stars in your ongoing fan-fic?

(snip)

> I claim that you're a dumb idiot.

Well, THAT has a lot of validity, given the other things you "claim",
dunnit?

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

(snip)

> SPIRITUAL IS A CATEGORY NAME FOR AGENCY SO IT IS SUBJECTIVE. MATERIAL
> IS THE CATEGORY NAME FOR WHAT IS CHOSEN, SO THAT'S OBJECTIVE FACTS.

Duckling, *you* use spirituality as a category name for agency.

And, yes--your spiritual experience IS subjective.

Which does mean that you cannot demonstrate the existence of "the
spiritual"--you may claim it, you may describe it, you may even
proselyte others to your view (more accurately, you may encourage them
to apprehend their understanding of your view), but you cannot
demonstrate it.

If you feel you can, do so.

Feel free. This could even be fun.

[Boikat]

You are in serious need of a dictionary, and possibly a new keyboard,
since it appears your "Shift" key is stuck.

Otherwise, you are simply blathering nonsense, as usual.

Boikat

[Syamsu]

READ THE ORIGINAL POSTING

[Syamsu]

READ THE ORIGINAL POSTING

[Boikat]

Why? The very first sentence was idiotic.

Also, if your "shift" key isn't stuck, your "Capslock" is on. It's
making you look like a screaching loon, in addition to your usual
inanities.

Boikat

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

(snip)

> READ THE ORIGINAL POSTING

Duckybumps, the oblong keys to the left and right of the "z" row will
let you demonstrate agency by choosing to use caps and minuscules
(upper case letters and lower case letters) without seeming pig-
ignorant. Just a friendly suggestion...

And, Eiderschatze?
Your "original" post does not establish "The compatibilist agency in a
thermostat", "a matter of fact".
Your "original" post provides one (non-functioning) link to one
reference by Vincent Torley, a frequently entertaining defender of ID
creationism.
That is only important because even a cursory familiarity with Dennett
indicates that Dennett's "intentional systems" (if I remember the
words he used) distinguished between actual agents and pseudo-
agents.
As I recall, his illustration of the thermostat was intended to point
out the usefulness of *treating* inanimate objects *as if* they were
agents making choices...which is a long way from claiming that
inanimate objects *are* agents, "as a matter of fact".
And an even longer way from demonstrating that compatibilists, as a
group, ascribe agency to thermostats.
Which is what you said you could demonstrate. As a matter of fact.


In other words, dūce dūcan, you are perpetuating the standard lie-
tactic of carefully selecting one didactic episode form an author's
work, then lying about it twice. First, you pretend that a
manipulated example, out of context, offered for explication, and
stripped of the author's limiting language, represents the entirety of
the author's work. Second, you pretend that it is therefore
demonstrated that *all* members of a particular group hold the meaning
you ascribe to the straw man you raised up.

So, Mallardmuffin: it is still up to you to establish, as a matter of
fact, that all compatibilists, or even most compatibilists, or even a
hefty representational slice of compatibilists, ascribe actual agency
to a thermostat.

...whenever you are ready...

[Syamsu]

I am not about to engage the tangled web of lies compatibilists weave
for themselves. Dennett regards the thermostat having an "intentional
stance" as more than metaphorical. This is sufficient proof that
compatibilists regard thermostats as posessing agency.

[Syamsu]

And compatibilism is basically the same as Heackel's talk about
monism, and Darwin's take on the expression of emotions. All of them
rely on treating agency as a matter of fact. There are zero
evolutionists on talk.origins who acknowledge a spiritual domain
subjectively as a category name for agency, and a material domain as a
category name for what is chosen. They all require evidence to reach a
conclusion about agency, just as well as they require it for what is
chosen.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

(snip to your words)

> I am not about to engage the tangled web of lies compatibilists weave
> for themselves. Dennett regards the thermostat having an "intentional
> stance" as more than metaphorical. This is sufficient proof that
> compatibilists regard thermostats as posessing agency.

You use the words "sufficient proof" funny.

In this case, b'ata p'umbata, it is not the compatibilists doing the
lying.
Usually, when dealing with an ID defender, it is safe to assume that
any and all sources will be mishandled (even lied about), but in this
case, your boy Torley seems to have been uncharacteristically honest.
Here is a link to an article by Torley which may be the one you were
referencing:
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/dennett2.html

Notice that in it, Torley quotes Dennett as follows:
"It is *as if* these cells and cell assemblies were tiny, simple-
minded *agents*," (paired asterisks representing italics in the
source)
and
"Of course you don't have to describe a thermostat in these terms. You
can describe it in mechanical terms, or even molecular terms."

Which means, dwaze eend, That you are telling at least two lies:
1. You claim that one didactic anecdote, presented for illustration,
accurately sums up Dennett's entire position about agency in inanimate
objects; and,
2. You claim that your take on one didactic anecdote, form one
compatibilist, accurately reflects the opinions of all compatibilists.

You commit the Albuquerque Tourist Fallacy: "All the pueblo tribals in
New Mexico walk in single file...at least the one I saw did". Even
worse, in my opinion, you commit the fallacy at (at least) one remove:
"All the pueblo tribals in New Mexico walk in single file...at least
the on I saw in a picture did". Most laughably, you then universalize
your fallacious reasoning: "Globally, as a matter of fact, all
primitive peoples walk in single file...I saw a picture in a magazine
about New Mexico that showed one doing it".

You are spin-doctoring a professional spin doctor, from several
perspectives--how many angles do you expect me to believe will dance
on the head of a spin?

So, dumme ente, you cannot "as a matter of fact" "demonstrate

compatibilist agency in a thermostat"

Surprise, surprise. Your level of honesty does not even rise to that
of a professional ID defender.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

Snip your words, to get to your words)

> And compatibilism is basically the same as Heackel's talk about
> monism, and Darwin's take on the expression of emotions. All of them
> rely on treating agency as a matter of fact. There are zero
> evolutionists on talk.origins who acknowledge a spiritual domain
> subjectively as a category name for agency, and a material domain as a
> category name for what is chosen. They all require evidence to reach a
> conclusion about agency, just as well as they require it for what is
> chosen.

I think you mean, "I run my tattered flag of idiosyncratic
autoglossophilia up the flagpole of contention and no one in a forum
about evolution will rise to the bait and salute me, even if I dress
it up by saying 'Darwin' over rand over".
"I pipe for them and they will not mourn; I play for them, and they
will not dance".

Maybe you are an incompetent teacher.
Maybe it's a stupid idea.

Of course, you could always just explain what you think you mean when
you say things such as
"Compatibilism is the same as Haeckel's monism", or, "Darwin relies on

treating agency as a matter of fact".

Start with sources.

Do a better job than you did with Torley's treatment of Dennett.

Or, you could demonstrate why you think "spiritual domain" is a
"category name" for "agency"...
...and "material domain" is a "category name" for "what is chosen".
And why you think there are zero evolutionists here that will not
"acknowledge" your use of those sets of terms.

Maybe you are on the wrong forum...you cold always go play on
wikipedia...

[Syamsu]

I am banned from wikipedia by your sort. Dennet does not acknowledge a
spiritual domain subjectively he is not a creationist.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

(snip to your words)

> I am banned from wikipedia by your sort. Dennet does not acknowledge a
> spiritual domain subjectively he is not a creationist.

Anatra muta: You have no idea, none, what "my sort" is; "my sort"
doesn't police the wikis. You got yourself banned because you have
the manners and the social skills of a three-year-old exposed on a
hillside by badgers. After being neglected by wolves.

I am astonished that you were able to figure out, based on such subtle
things as his office as "One of the Four Horsemen of the New Atheism",
and his anti-accommodist stance toward religion in general, that
Dennett is, in fact, not a creationist. With a little work, you may
yet rise to the level of being able to tell Arthur form Martha, naked
in the shower with signs on.
...was there a point to your statement, or have you decided to play
bad (and blatant) trivia?

[Syamsu]

That Dennet as well as you and all compatibilists treat agency as a
matter of fact, not a matter of subjective opinion.

[Boikat]

On May 13, 9:32 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>

> That Dennet as well as you and all compatibilists treat agency as a
> matter of fact, not a matter of subjective opinion.

Are you not the one who claims "agency" = "soul"? Are you not the one
who claims, "soul" therefore "spiritual realm"? Are you not the one
who treats "the Spirirual realm" as a real?

Boikat

[Syamsu]

Treating it real as by faith, because I chose to. Not real as in
matter of fact.

[Boikat]

If it's a matter of your personal faith, why do you freak out when
nobody agrees with you?

Boikat

[Syamsu]

Because you all treat agency as matter of fact, not subjective
opinion.

X

[Boikat]

When you insist that others accept your version of "agency" as a
matter of fact, you are the one who tosses "subjective opinion" out
the window. Demanding that everyone else accepts your personal
opinion of "agency" as real is as idiotic as insisting that since you
like chocolate cake, everyone else must like chocolate cake. You're
probably too dim to see the parallel, thouch.


Boikat

[Syamsu]

It is not morally acceptable to treat agency as an issue of fact.

[Boikat]

And, yet you do, by insisting that others accept your version of
"agency". What does that say about you?

Boikat

[Syamsu]

That I insist on subjectivity in regards to agency.

Especially I demand it of people interacting with me.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

(snip to your "words")

> It is not morally acceptable to treat agency as an issue of fact.

Who are you to say that it is not "morally acceptable" to disagree
with your subjective opinion?

Your own behavior (here, in other posts, on the wiki) absolutely and
objectively disqualifies you as an authority on what is "moral".

Duckydiddle: a "subjective fact" is an oxymoron.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

(snip to your words, left in as demonstration)

You say:

>>" Dennet does not acknowledge a
>>spiritual domain subjectively he is not a creationist."

As if the question was whether Dennett was a creationist. Which it
was not, see above; and he is not, see below.

(snip some more)

Then you say:

> "That Dennet as well as you and all compatibilists treat agency as a
> matter of fact, not a matter of subjective opinion."

I feel it important to point out that your basic dishonesty is
exceeded only by your inability to form a rational thought.

1. No one, certainly not I, said that Dennett was a creationist.

2. Your construction, "That Dennet as well as you and all

compatibilists treat agency as a matter of fact, not a matter of

subjective opinion." is not a sentence. It is, at best, being
charitable, a clause. Because it is not a complete sentence, it is
difficult to determine whether it expresses a complete thought, or,
indeed, a thought at all.

3. Outside of grammar, your construction, ""That Dennet as well as you

and all compatibilists treat agency as a matter of fact, not a matter

of subjective opinion." has a few problems. One of them is that you
pretend to know what I believe, or what I think; or within what group
you want to be able to classify me. I repeat, ma petit caneton
mignon, you have no idea what I believe, or what I think. You assume,
and presume, based on questions I have put to you (questions which you
have not answered), but you do not know--and basic honesty would
compel you to admit it.

4. Your boast was that you could prove "compatibilist agency in a
thermostat, as a matter of fact". Your offering above appears to be
focused on your idea that Dennett treats *agency* "as a matter of
fact"...which does not even begin to address the boastful claim you
made, and upon which I called your bluff.

5. Your construction above does not demonstrate anything...it is
nothing more than another of your bald, fantastical assertions, with
no support and no apparent basis in reality.

6. Your construction above is a sloppy and fallacious syllogism. You
pretend that, *if* you had demonstrated that *Dennett* treats agency
as a matter of fac (which you did not)t, you would have demonstrated
that *all* compatibilists treat agency as a matter of fact. See "New
Mexico Tourist Fallacy", above.

So: do you ever plan to demonstrate compatibilist agency in a
thermostat as a matter of fact?
Torley's quotes of Dennett do not even demonstrate that *Dennett*
actually ascribed agency to inanimate objects...don't just parrot
them. You made a claim, widgeon; you ought to back it up.

A further question might be to ask, IF compatibilists DID assign
agency to a thermostat (which you have not demonstrated--that is a
didactical device), how is that different from YOU assigning agency to
rocks and trees and bushes and stars?

The ball's in your court, Spiro.

[Boikat]

And you want everyone to accept it as if were a fact. You say that is
not morally acceptable. To use the chocolate cake analogy again, you
can like chocolate cake, nobody can tell you that you don't, or
can't. On the other hand, you are insisting that everyone else must
like chocolate cake.

>

> Especially I demand it of people interacting with me.

What are you demanding? That your view of "agency" is subjective? I
have no problem with that, and I doubt too many others do, either.
The problem arises when you insist that everyone else adopts your
view, and it's attendant garbage of creationism.

Boikat

[Syamsu]

No, you exclude subjectivity, and I insist on it.

[Boikat]

I only exclude subjectivity where it is inapropriate, like in
science. Your problem is that you insist subjectivity be included as
part of science, where it is useless, or worse. The last time someone
did that, about 6 million Jews were murdered.

Boikat

[timoth...@gmail.com]

Cite for the Dennett reference please.

[Syamsu]

This is a 2+2 is 4 issue, not complex. Compatabilists treat agency as
an issue of fact, the end.

[Syamsu]

No 6 million Jews were murdered when social darwinists such as
yourself treated agency as an issue of fact, and thereby also made
good and bad an issue of fact in terms of natural selection.

Here now you insist that treating agency as an issue of fact must be
permitted. You have no morals on requiring agency to be treated in a
subjective way.

[Syamsu]

Read the op.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

> This is a 2+2 is 4 issue, not complex. Compatabilists treat agency as
> an issue of fact, the end.

No, nestliing, no, it is not. At best li'l' ducky-boo, you have
demonstrated that you *claim* that compatibilists treat agency as an
issue of fact. The only example you offer considers the didactic
assignment of agency to inanimate objects as a useful tool, an
illustrative stance.

You have failed to demonstrate your premise; you have failed to
fulfill your boast.
You have made erroneous and unfounded claims about a thinker who may
or may not represent "compatibilism"; you have treated the spectrum of
compatibilism as if it were homogeneous.
You have arrogated words with idiosyncratic meanings, and scorned
those who use them correctly.
You have made spurious claims about Torley, and Dennett; and several
posters here.
The only thing"over", pato chevato, is your hope of being taken
seriously by scholars and thinkers.

BTW: *I* know that Dennett is not a creationist...where did *you* get
the silly idea that he was?

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

> Read the op.

I did so.

I pointed out its glaring weaknesses.

I called your bluff.

You responded in predictable, typical Tyramisu.

...and you have yet to actually answer a single question.

[Boikat]

You're lying about the Holocaust.

>
> Here now you insist that treating agency as an issue of fact must be
> permitted. You have no morals on requiring agency to be treated in a
> subjective way.

That is how you are insisting agency be treated. Therefore, this is an
example of projection on your part.

Boikat

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

> No 6 million Jews were murdered when social darwinists such as
> yourself treated agency as an issue of fact, and thereby also made
> good and bad an issue of fact in terms of natural selection.
>
> Here now you insist that treating agency as an issue of fact must be
> permitted. You have no morals on requiring agency to be treated in a
> subjective way.

You are lying about the holocaust. Ignorance of history is no excuse
for telling lies about it.

You use "matter of fact" and "issue of fact" funny.

You do know that a "subjective fact" is an oxymoron, right?

[Syamsu]

That is nonsense, as you can read in the op. I support arriving at a
conclusion about agency through choice, resulting in an opinion, and
most all darwinists support arriving at a conclusion about agency
through evidence, resulting in a fact.

And your intellectual thuggery against creationism also proves that
darwinists are persistent against opinion about agency.

[Syamsu]

The main thing about the history of the holocaust, as historian Klaus
Fischer said, is to remember that it could have turned out a different
way.

[Boikat]

Your OP was crap.

> I support arriving at a
> conclusion about agency through choice, resulting in an opinion,

Which you trea as a fact, no matter what lable you want to hang on it.

> and
> most all darwinists support arriving at a conclusion about agency
> through evidence, resulting in a fact.

And?

>
> And your intellectual thuggery against creationism also proves that
> darwinists are persistent against opinion about agency.

Creationism is a myth, and your way of thinking caused the Holocaust.

Boikat

[Boikat]

That really doesn't change anything, does it?

Boikat

[Syamsu]

That is morally repulsive.

> > And your intellectual thuggery against creationism also proves that
> > darwinists are persistent against opinion about agency.
>
> Creationism is a myth, and your way of thinking caused the Holocaust.

The holocaust was perpetrated through original sin, knowledge of good
and evil derived from natural selection theory, instead of opinion
about good and evil.

[Syamsu]

How the holocaust is remembered is a significant part of the event
itself. And the history lesson about the holocaust in the future is
going to be of science gone bad, and the lesson will be to protect our
knowledge about free will from intellectual thugs such as yourself.

[Boikat]

On May 14, 3:50 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 14 mei, 08:53, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 1:09 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> > > I support arriving at a
> > > conclusion about agency through choice, resulting in an opinion,
>
> > Which you trea as a fact, no matter what lable you want to hang on it.
>
> > > and
> > > most all darwinists support arriving at a conclusion about agency
> > > through evidence, resulting in a fact.
>
> > And?
>
> That is morally repulsive.

But then again, to you science in general is "morally repulsive".
That's your problem.

>
> > > And your intellectual thuggery against creationism also proves that
> > > darwinists are persistent against opinion about agency.
>
> > Creationism is a myth, and your way of thinking caused the Holocaust.
>
> The holocaust was perpetrated through original sin, knowledge of good
> and evil derived from natural selection theory,

Natural selection has nothing to do with the concept of "original
sin". It may have escaped your demented mind, but that "original sin"
concept predated the concept of "natural selection", by many hundreds
of years.

> instead of opinion
> about good and evil.

Oh, it was definately due to *subjective opinions* fostered by
centuries of religious bigotry, and not anything resembling
objectivity, much ;less, actual science.

Boikat

[Boikat]

On May 14, 3:56 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 14 mei, 08:55, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > The main thing about the history of the holocaust, as historian Klaus
> > > Fischer said, is to remember that it could have turned out a different
> > > way.
>
> > That really doesn't change anything, does it?
>
> How the holocaust is remembered is a significant part of the event
> itself.

Only if you are into revisionist history, and wish to revise (lie)
about the Holocaust, which you do on a constant basis. You seek to
blame science, specifically, the ToE, in spite of the fact that the
bigotry involved predated Darwin. You lie via omission and
distortion.

> And the history lesson about the holocaust in the future is
> going to be of science gone bad,

"Science" perverted, along with an unhealty helping of religious
bigotry, not to mention personal ambitions and a lot of "applied
subjectivity".

> and the lesson will be to protect our
> knowledge about free will from intellectual thugs such as yourself.

You mean to protect the concept of "free will" from twits like you.

Boikat

[Syamsu]

See there you go again discarding subjective opinions, discarding
emotions, discarding conscience.