free will and dualism

[Dale]

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.


--
Dale

[Syamsu]

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.

[Bill]

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.

or something.

[alyc...@btinternet.com]

Maybe it means the moon is a harsh mistress?

[wiki trix]

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.

> what I am suggesting is that there may be more to reality than what the
> mainstream currently thinks, like life after death, etc.

Life after death? Non sequitur.

[Arkalen]

On 16/05/12 12:42, wiki trix wrote:
> 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).

[raven1]

Kook fight! I'll bring the popcorn.

[Ymir]

In article <rTw*0x...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

Arkalen <ark...@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.

André

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

"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]

On 5/15/12 9:58 PM, Dale wrote:
> free will contains 2 parts:

So far, so good.

> 1) freedom
> 2) will

Nope. The two parts are:

1) pointless
2) argumentation.

--
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

[Ymir]

In article
<6251198.1180.1337175551659.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbwa3>,
"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"

<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

[Boikat]

On May 16, 3:11 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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?

Boikat

[*Hemidactylus*]

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?


--
*Hemidactylus*

[Kalkidas]

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.

[raven1]

For the last question, I suspect Nando's answer is "yes, all the
pieces choose which way they go".

[*Hemidactylus*]

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*

[Syamsu]

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:

Again, don't let all that girly giggling about free will get out of
control, or you'll wet your panties.

[*Hemidactylus*]

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfuBREMXxts


--
*Hemidactylus*

[Dale]

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


--
Dale

[*Hemidactylus*]

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.



--
*Hemidactylus*

[Robert Camp]

Sometimes.

RLC

[pnyikos]

Why are you acting like an ordinary jerk here, Nando?

How about answering some of the more serious questions people ask
above?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 16, 10:34 am, Ymir <agis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Good sound comment, this last one.

> > 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

[Bill]

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].

[Boikat]

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"

Boikat

[Rolf]

What is freedom? What is will?

[Syamsu]

> harmed in any way in writing it].- Hide quoted text -
>
Saying you are honest is a bit selfrighteous, you are not honest, not
near it. The logic demands that what choses can only be identified
with a choice, the spiritual, and what is chosen is objectively
measured, material. That is the way the logic locks into place, and it
doesn't work in another way.

What you write is a childish distinction of fantasy vs reality instead
of spiritual vs material. In your head is fantasy, and outside your
head are real facts, a phony dualism. The things inside your head are
matters of objective fact too, when you fantasize about an invisible
pink unicorn, then that is the objective fact, and there is no
choosing about it, it is a matter of fact. So you propose the duality
of objective facts, objective facts, and then you say to support
subjectivity.

Real subjectivity, by choosing in identifying agency, that is a
different category, true dualism, because the logical progression is
different from objectivity, it is by choice with free will. And only
with the agency in free will is pain relevant.

You are certainly intelligent enough to phatom simple logic of
alternative results, so it is not that you are incapable to follow
such logic. You don't put theories side by side and see which one
works best. You tell lies, you are evil, out to destroy people's
spirit, that is very clear. And then you want to throw some doubt into
it that you choose this evil, doubt that you could have done something
else. I see no reason for doubt, you have free will, you chose, the
issue is simple, you are a liar, you deliberately try to put down
people's spirit.

And that will be the story of the holocaust which will be taught, of
intellectual thugs in science who attacked our knowledge about free
will, who undermined faith, who straightforwardly attacked all
subjectivity, all emotion, and produced coldhearted ideologies in
which freedom played a subordinate role.

[Bill]

Sorry, I cannot follow you at all.

[Dale]

On 05/17/2012 03:49 AM, Rolf wrote:
> What is freedom? What is will?

use wikipedia or google


--
Dale

[Boikat]

And being judgmental isn't "self rightious"?

> The logic demands

Oops! You used "logic" again. That does not bode well for your next
steam of thought.

> that what choses can only be identified
> with a choice, the spiritual,

Poof! Logic goes out the window.

<snip remaining insanity>

Boikat.

[Syamsu]

Is a lie.

[Boikat]

Is that what you call what you wrote? My, that was brutally honest of
you.

Boikat

[William Morse]

On 05/16/2012 12:58 AM, Dale wrote:
> free will contains 2 parts:
>
> 1) freedom
> 2) will

Hofstadter had some interesting comments about "free will" in his _I am
a Strange Loop_ IIRC, he argues that the term makes no sense. If I have
"will", it can't be"free", it has to be my will. It has to be
constrained by all the things that make me an individual me. This would
include the pain I suffer, and would also include the things I consider
as obligations, which also limit the "freedom" of my "will".

Yours,

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/18/2012 11:05 PM, William Morse wrote:
> On 05/16/2012 12:58 AM, Dale wrote:
>> free will contains 2 parts:
>>
>> 1) freedom
>> 2) will
>
> Hofstadter had some interesting comments about "free will" in his _I am
> a Strange Loop_ IIRC, he argues that the term makes no sense. If I have
> "will", it can't be"free", it has to be my will. It has to be
> constrained by all the things that make me an individual me. This would
> include the pain I suffer, and would also include the things I consider
> as obligations, which also limit the "freedom" of my "will".

Freedom as in libre isn't free as in gratis. "Free" will is a neurally
based exertion that must burn calories. And prior causes negate the
libre sense of the word. Game over.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[Dale]

On 05/18/2012 11:26 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
> Freedom as in libre isn't free as in gratis. "Free" will is a neurally
> based exertion that must burn calories. And prior causes negate the
> libre sense of the word. Game over.

freedom would take infinite energy, we don't take in infinite calories,
so IF we have free will, it is a dualism


--
Dale

[*Hemidactylus*]

Dualism is bullshit, therefore...


--
*Hemidactylus*

[Syamsu]

Yes Dale, don't make stuff up about free will, with infinities. You
need to support the common usage about freedom, which is what
evolutionists are attacking. They are attacking the common notion of
free will where from moment to moment there are alternative results.
They are explaining emotion as like programming in which there is no
freedom in this sense of alternative results from moment to moment.
This kind of freedom they call randomness, and they reject it as the
basis for freedom in emotion, instead they see calculating an optimum
as the basis for choosing, which they explain that it is completely
forced.

So the way you talk about emotions in every day life is under attack,
and frankly you are attacking it as well, with your talk about
infinities.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/19/2012 12:07 PM, Syamsu wrote:
> On May 19, 6:43 am, Dale<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 05/18/2012 11:26 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Freedom as in libre isn't free as in gratis. "Free" will is a neurally
>>> based exertion that must burn calories. And prior causes negate the
>>> libre sense of the word. Game over.
>>
>> freedom would take infinite energy, we don't take in infinite calories,
>> so IF we have free will, it is a dualism
>
> Yes Dale, don't make stuff up about free will, with infinities. You
> need to support the common usage about freedom, which is what
> evolutionists are attacking. They are attacking the common notion of
> free will where from moment to moment there are alternative results.

There are alternative results, but your subjective experience of
rumination and choosing is a secondary byproduct to what actually causes
the result. The experience of choice and self-determination is real, but
it isn't what you think it is. It is not a true cause, but an effect of
a deeper neural causality outside of your conscious awareness. Enjoy the
illusion while it lasts.

And there's nothing stopping you from acting "as if" you have free will,
as useful fictional narrative. But that's not the point. It's about as
real as the image on your computer screen that allows you to generate
machine language that will eventually spill out from your network and
onto the internetworks. Do you really want to punch in those 1s and 0s?
By the same token do you really want to micromanage your synaptic
transmissions and brainstorms? Do you understand neurocoded machine
language? Be happy evolution provided you with a haphazardly constructed
GUI, so you don't have to launch a terminal, which would still be some
steps removed from the nitty gritty of neural processes. you are
basically streaming a usefully fictional narrative via the cognitive
equivalent of Netflix, but you are not really the audience, but a bunch
of simpletons wearing dunce caps are. You are a noisy crowd. Many of
your posts are the equivalent of an angry mob laying siege to a city and
burning it to the ground.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[Boikat]

The problem is that your usage of "free will" is not the same as the
"common useage" of the term.

Boikat