New talk origins forum

[Syamsu]

I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.

http://groups.google.com/group/talkorigins

Rules of the forum are as follows:

Rule 1: Every poster acknowledges their own human spirit, as well as
those of the other posters, as a matter of subjective opinion.

Those are all the rules.

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.

Why? What's wrong with this newsgroup?

Steve

--
Neural Network Software. http://www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

[*Hemidactylus*]

Afraid I cannot abide by those rules. Do me a favor. Ban me for life
from your group. TIA.

As an aside (directed at anyone bothering to read this thread), is a
group like that only accessible using Google Groups? Would it ever
show up on a REAL news server?

[Syamsu]

On 24 mei, 12:50, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
>

> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>
> Why? What's wrong with this newsgroup?
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Neural Network Software.                    http://www.npsl1.com
> EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus.          http://www.easynn.com
> SwingNN.     Forecast with Neural Networks.  http://www.swingnn.com
> JustNN.      Just Neural Networks.          http://www.justnn.com

This group is inundated with nerd types who provide no room for
subjective opinion.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:56:51 -0700, Syamsu wrote:

> On 24 mei, 12:50, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
>>
>> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>>
>> Why? What's wrong with this newsgroup?
>>

[snip Steve's sig line]

>
> This group is inundated with nerd types who provide no room for
> subjective opinion.

Nerd = anyone who thinks

> Rule 1: Every poster acknowledges their own human spirit, as well as
> those of the other posters, as a matter of subjective opinion

I think spirit is BS hogwash.

[Slow Vehicle]

SO, its going to be a fantasy fanfic forum, where
your ...peculiar...ideas about meaning are the norm?

In Tyramisu-speak:
"Nerds who provide no room for subjective opinion." means "...posters
who disagree with me".
"Proven liar about the Holocaust" means, "...has never referred to the
holocaust at all, but disagrees with me".
"Compatibilist" means "...someone who disagrees with me".
"Fucking nerd asshole liar" means "...someone who disagrees with me".

" Every poster acknowledges their own human spirit, as well as those

of the other posters, as a matter of subjective opinion" means,
"...agrees with me, no matter what silly thing I say".

Have all kinds of fun in your new secret club--make sure you have a
password and a secret handshake, and a really cool motto. Maybe it
will be so successful, and keep you so busy, you won't have time to
hang around here...

I'll make you a deal. I won;t ever go there, if you will stop coming
here...
"

[wiki trix]

That is the only rule? So if I acknowledge my own human spirit, as

well as those of the other posters, as a matter of subjective opinion

(what ever all that is defined to mean), but I also tend to destroy
knowledge of freedom from time to time (what ever all that is defined
to mean), then that is OK. Correct?

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 24 mei, 12:50, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
>>
>> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>>
>> Why? What's wrong with this newsgroup?
>>
>> Steve
>>

>

>This group is inundated with nerd types who provide no room for
>subjective opinion.
>

Any newsreader can filter out the people who are no contributing to
this newsgroup. When that is done this group has no problems.

Setting up a google group for the same purpose as this newsgroup is
just creating more chaos.

[Mike Duffy]

Syamsu <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:nando-4be017eb-2813-4d2c-
9e26-bb6...@s5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:

> I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.

So, what is your next challenge?

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

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

On Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:55:51 PM UTC+1, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
> <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On 24 mei, 12:50, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
> >>
> >> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
> >>
> >> Why? What's wrong with this newsgroup?
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
>
> >
> >This group is inundated with nerd types who provide no room for
> >subjective opinion.
> >
>
> Any newsreader can filter out the people who are no contributing to
> this newsgroup. When that is done this group has no problems.
>
> Setting up a google group for the same purpose as this newsgroup is
> just creating more chaos.

Evidently it isn't for the same purpose.
Instead, it appears (from what's been
said here) to be a fake version of
this talk.origins - and I think that
Google Groups won't accept that if it's
brought to their attention.

You could probably create a group called
"Acknowledge Your Own Human Spirit, As Well
As Those Of Others", without causing a fuss.

[wiki trix]

On May 24, 8:08 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:55:51 PM UTC+1, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >On 24 mei, 12:50, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
>
> > >> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>
> > >> Why? What's wrong with this newsgroup?
>
> > >> Steve
>
> > >This group is inundated with nerd types who provide no room for
> > >subjective opinion.
>
> > Any newsreader can filter out the people who are no contributing to
> > this newsgroup. When that is done this group has no problems.
>
> > Setting up a google group for the same purpose as this newsgroup is
> > just creating more chaos.
>
> Evidently it isn't for the same purpose.
> Instead, it appears (from what's been
> said here) to be a fake version of
> this talk.origins - and I think that
> Google Groups won't accept that if it's
> brought to their attention.

I assure you that google would not give a rat's ass about it.

[Syamsu]

Op donderdag 24 mei 2012 13:55:51 UTC+2 schreef Stephen Wolstenholme het volgende:

> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
> <nando_ronteltapyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On 24 mei, 12:50, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
> >>
> >> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
> >>
> >> Why? What's wrong with this newsgroup?
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
>
> >
> >This group is inundated with nerd types who provide no room for
> >subjective opinion.
> >
>
> Any newsreader can filter out the people who are no contributing to
> this newsgroup. When that is done this group has no problems.
>
> Setting up a google group for the same purpose as this newsgroup is
> just creating more chaos.

We are dealing with an engrained pathology peculiar to many science-minded people to only arrive at a conclusion about what exists through evidence (being a nerd). This pathology is widespread, almost all evolutionists do not acknowledge agency, who somebody is as the owner of their choices, is a matter of subjective opinion. This is 1. insulting, 2. it also tends to destroy all factual knowledge about how choices are made.

So a group with this rule, is significantly different from talk.origins at present, which is inundated with nerds.

[Syamsu]

Op donderdag 24 mei 2012 12:41:01 UTC+2 schreef Syamsu het volgende:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/talkorigins

Is the new fancier and slower view of Talk Origins

[prawnster]

On May 24, 5:49 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]

> We are dealing with an engrained pathology peculiar to many science-minded people to only arrive at a conclusion about what exists through evidence (being a nerd). This pathology is widespread, almost all evolutionists do not acknowledge agency, who somebody is as the owner of their choices, is a matter of subjective opinion. This is 1. insulting, 2. it also tends to destroy all factual knowledge about how choices are made.
>

Actually, the problem with Darwinistas is that they assume their
conclusions and then provide fantasies, drawings, and cartoon
simulations as evidence for their conclusions. Darwinistas have no
interest in evidence at all; they prefer to live in their rich fantasy
world, and then like to accuse others of disingenuity and/or stupidity
when others don't share their rich fantasy life.

I also enjoy a rich fantasy life where I will, through faith in
Christ, inherit eternal life in a perfect environment free from
sophists and pseudospergos; i.e., Darwinists.

[wiki trix]

On May 24, 7:56 am, Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_p...@website.in.sig>
wrote:
> Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:nando-4be017eb-2813-4d2c-
> 9e26-bb66648f6...@s5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:

>
> > I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>
> So, what is your next challenge?

His next challenge? That would be to create lots of knowledge of
freedom on the new newsgroup, I would think. I am rather thrilled
about the prospects of these exciting new developments. After all the
hideous destruction of knowledge of freedom that has gone on unabated
in this horrible old newsgroup, year after year, well... someone just
had to do something about it. Thanks Syamsu...

[Slow Vehicle]

(snip)

> We are dealing with an engrained pathology peculiar to many science-minded people to only arrive at a conclusion about what exists through evidence (being a nerd). This pathology is widespread, almost all evolutionists do not acknowledge agency, who somebody is as the owner of their choices, is a matter of subjective opinion. This is 1. insulting, 2. it also tends to destroy all factual knowledge about how choices are made.
>
> So a group with this rule, is significantly different from talk.origins at present, which is inundated with nerds.

More Tyramisu-speak:

"pathology" = "disagrees with me"
"arrive at a conclusion through evidence" = "disagree with me"
"nerd" = "disagrees with me"
"agency" = "my magic word that means whatever I want it to"
"insulting" = "disagrees with me"
"destroys all knowledge about how choices are made" = "disagrees with
me".
"inundated with nerds" = "nearly everyone here disagrees with me"

...if this place is so distasteful to you, why do you make the
subjective agency choice to keep coming back?

[Syamsu]

The disbelief in free will is acknowledged by psychologists as a
pathology in that it leads to increased aggression and cheating etc.
You can read all about it on Talk Origins.

[Syamsu]

Op donderdag 24 mei 2012 15:32:10 UTC+2 schreef prawnster het volgende:

Uh no, relying on evidence to the exclusion of subjective opinion would be the major problem with Darwinists, because that is what led to the holocaust previously.

You are just increasing their pathology by emphasizing that they must focus more on evidence. Instead they must provide room for subjective opinion in respect to agency.

Also now China is drifting towards a kind of social darwinism, in the ideological vacuum left by communism. That's another big issue, a marauding tribe of hundreds of millions of self-identified darwinists in a delusional struggle for life, informed by natural selection theory.

What you are talking about is a small non-issue.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

He won't because he will get so bored in his forum.

[Kermit]

On May 24, 5:49�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Op donderdag 24 mei 2012 13:55:51 UTC+2 schreef Stephen Wolstenholme het volgende:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
> > <nando_ronteltapyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >On 24 mei, 12:50, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
>
> > >> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>
> > >> Why? What's wrong with this newsgroup?
>
> > >> Steve
>
> > >This group is inundated with nerd types who provide no room for
> > >subjective opinion.
>
> > Any newsreader can filter out the people who are no contributing to
> > this newsgroup. When that is done this group has no problems.
>
> > Setting up a google group for the same purpose as this newsgroup is
> > just creating more chaos.
>
> We are dealing with an engrained pathology peculiar to many science-minded people to only arrive at a conclusion about what exists through evidence (being a nerd).

Imagine that!

Oh, wait...

That's all you do.

>This pathology is widespread, almost all evolutionists do not acknowledge agency, who somebody is as the owner of their choices, is a matter of subjective opinion. This is 1. insulting, 2. it also tends to destroy all factual knowledge about how choices are made.

"Fact" means nothing if it is not evidence based. (Other than
assertions inherent in closed systems of logic, such as arithmetic.)

>
> So a group with this rule, is significantly different from talk.origins at present, which is inundated with nerds.

Yes. Science. verifiable claims. Sanity. That sort of thing.

Kermit

[chris thompson]

On May 24, 6:41 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I think you have done a fine public service.

If you post there, and attract like-minded insane loon-idiots, it's a
great thing to keep you lunatics sequestered in an obscure Google
Group. You know, I kill freedom all the time and I won't miss you.

DEATH TO FREEDOM!!!!

You have a nice day.

Chris

[Slow Vehicle]

(snipedy-doo-dah)
Tyramisu:

You write

> The disbelief in free will is acknowledged by psychologists as a
> pathology in that it leads to increased aggression and cheating etc.
> You can read all about it on Talk Origins.

I know what I expect your response to be, but you wouldn't happen to
have, oh, a source for this contention? A cite, maybe? Or is this
just your subjective idea about what psychologists would say, if they
only knew to consult your "subjective fact" first, before bothering to
cloud the issue by developing any objective support?

Again, I ask:

[Kermit]

Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
transitional series.
Fossil evidence showing progression of whole ecosystems, with various
types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils.
Fossil evidence corresponding to plate tectonics, magnetic striping,
and other geological evidence.
Nested hierarchy of morphology.
Nested hierarchy of all the genomes studied so far.
The fact that these two nested hierarchies *match* is evidence in
itself.
Vestigial organs, structures, molecules, and behaviors.
Life is unified by a sharing of fundamental polymers, nucleic acids,
protein catalysts, etc.

If you have trouble using Google and need specific links to ignore,
let me know.

Kermit

[Burkhard]

On May 24, 1:08 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

didn't spintronic create a new talkorigins forum on google groups all
for himself? He started to talk to the spammers, really sad, and then
abandoned it.

[wiki trix]

On May 24, 8:49 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Op donderdag 24 mei 2012 13:55:51 UTC+2 schreef Stephen Wolstenholme het volgende:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
> > <nando_ronteltapyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >On 24 mei, 12:50, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
>
> > >> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>
> > >> Why? What's wrong with this newsgroup?
>
> > >> Steve
>
> > >This group is inundated with nerd types who provide no room for
> > >subjective opinion.
>
> > Any newsreader can filter out the people who are no contributing to
> > this newsgroup. When that is done this group has no problems.
>
> > Setting up a google group for the same purpose as this newsgroup is
> > just creating more chaos.
>

> We are dealing with an engrained pathology peculiar to many science-minded people to only arrive at a conclusion about what exists through evidence ...

Do you have any evidence to arrive at that conclusion?

This pathology is widespread, almost all evolutionists do not
acknowledge agency, who somebody is as the owner of their choices, is
a matter of subjective opinion.

My own subjective view on this is that you are full of crap.

> This is 1. insulting, 2. it also tends to destroy all factual knowledge about how choices are made.

How is it insulting, and why would insulting you be a problem for
anyone other than you? Also, what exactly do you mean by "destroy all
factual knowledge about how choices are made". How does one destroy
knowledge?

> So a group with this rule, is significantly different from talk.origins at present, which is inundated with nerds.

Your new newsgroup will no doubt not be inundated with nerds, or
anyone else for that matter. I expect it will have only about zero
member in it, excluding yourself.

[Syamsu]

not 1, not 2, but 3 cites on talk origins in the posting about free
will

also an exciting posting about the universal nil potency rewrite
system theory, which is the only "theory of everything" with any
credibility in science right now.

That theory is the cutting edge be all and end all theory of science,
and it is now exclusive, only on talk origins.

[Slow Vehicle]

I asked you to back up your claim that denying free will is a
pathology.
You did exactly what I predicted.
Go play with yourself on your own site, sweetie.
You can imagine Hitler singing "Charlie Is My Darwin" to make it
better for you.

[Boikat]

"Slower"? Sounds like the perfect group for you.

Boikat

[Boikat]

On May 24, 5:41 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talkorigins
>
> Rules of the forum are as follows:
>
> Rule 1: Every poster acknowledges their own human spirit, as well as
> those of the other posters, as a matter of subjective opinion.
>
> Those are all the rules.

So, you created a google group just for yourself? I'm sure posting
your inane spewage, and then congradulating yourself in replies to
yourself about your clever insights and wisdom will do wonders for
your self esteem, but I doubt you'll win any converts. Intellectual
bafoonery is still intellectual bafoonery, no matter how many times
you repeat it and pat yourself on the back.

Boikat

[Syamsu]

On May 24, 6:37 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>is it insulting, and why would insulting you be a problem for
> anyone other than you? Also, what exactly do you mean by "destroy all
> factual knowledge about how choices are made". How does one destroy
> knowledge?

By redefining the terms beauty, subjective, free will, love, hate, so
that alternative results in the moment are not part of it. That's how
knowledge about freedom is destroyed, by using the logic of force, of
cause and effect, with the words of freedom.

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

It comes up with an "insecure content" in Google Chrome so that will
put most people off.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Syamsu
<nando_r...@yahoo.com>:

>I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talkorigins
>
>Rules of the forum are as follows:
>
>Rule 1: Every poster acknowledges their own human spirit, as well as
>those of the other posters, as a matter of subjective opinion.
>
>Those are all the rules.

Enjoy talking to yourself.

BTW, does this particular bit of idiocy on your part mean
that you'll no longer be posting in Usenet? If so, I can
only wish you full success.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:56:06 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Mike Duffy
<Use_guest...@website.in.sig>:

>Syamsu <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:nando-4be017eb-2813-4d2c-
>9e26-bb6...@s5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>
>So, what is your next challenge?

He's switched to shoes with laces.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 05:49:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Syamsu
<nando_r...@yahoo.com>:

>Op donderdag 24 mei 2012 13:55:51 UTC+2 schreef Stephen Wolstenholme het volgende:

>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
>> <nando_ronteltapyahoo.com> wrote:

>> >On 24 mei, 12:50, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:

>> >> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
>> >>
>> >> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >> >I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.

>> >> Why? What's wrong with this newsgroup?

>> >This group is inundated with nerd types who provide no room for
>> >subjective opinion.

>> Any newsreader can filter out the people who are no contributing to
>> this newsgroup. When that is done this group has no problems.
>>
>> Setting up a google group for the same purpose as this newsgroup is
>> just creating more chaos.

>We are dealing with an engrained pathology...

Yes, many of us have noticed that, and are eager for the
carrier to leave and infest his "personal" group on Gurgle.
So when is your planned permanent departure?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 06:32:10 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:

>...the problem with Darwinistas is that they assume their

>conclusions and then provide fantasies, drawings, and cartoon
>simulations as evidence for their conclusions.

My IronyMeter just exploded...

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 08:17:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com>:

So his new "group" will be to this one as this one was
intended to be for the serious science groups, i.e., a loon
magnet?

Cascading filters are So Cool! ;-)

>DEATH TO FREEDOM!!!!
>
>You have a nice day.

[wiki trix]

I do not understand that. Can you do a better job of it than that?

[Syamsu]

By sayingg free will is how a thermostat operates, which is completely
forced, yet call it free will.

[Bruce Stephens]

Syamsu <nando_r...@yahoo.com> writes:

> On 24 mei, 20:43, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>> I do not understand that. Can you do a better job of it than that?
>
> By sayingg free will is how a thermostat operates, which is completely
> forced, yet call it free will.

Is there anything that isn't free will?

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

(snip)

> By sayingg free will is how a thermostat operates, which is completely
> forced, yet call it free will.

Still trying to trot out this quote-mine lie?
You are wrong on so many levels, little one...the only one here
claiming that the operation of a thermostat is how free will operates,
is...well, you.
How's that screenplay working out?

[Mitchell Coffey]

Wait: Don't you claim that rocks have free will?

Mitchell Coffey

[Syamsu]

Yes rocks have free will, meaning there are autonomous processes of
the rock which have alternative results.

Forced processes are usually related to the universal law that the
totality of the universe can only be nothing.

So for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, which
keeps the totality of the universe nothing, and this is forced, not
chosen.

[Syamsu]

On 24 mei, 21:12, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

Yes when it is forced it is not free will.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On May 24, 3:33 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 24 mei, 21:17, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 2:52 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 24 mei, 20:43, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 24, 12:48 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 24, 6:37 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >is it insulting, and why would insulting you be a problem for
> > > > > > anyone other than you? Also, what exactly do you mean by "destroy all
> > > > > > factual knowledge about how choices are made". How does one destroy
> > > > > > knowledge?
>
> > > > > By redefining the terms beauty, subjective, free will, love, hate, so
> > > > > that alternative results in the moment are not part of it. That's how
> > > > > knowledge about freedom is destroyed, by using the logic of force, of
> > > > > cause and effect, with the words of freedom.
>
> > > > I do not understand that. Can you do a better job of it than that?
>
> > > By sayingg free will is how a thermostat operates, which is completely
> > > forced, yet call it free will.
>
> > Wait: Don't you claim that rocks have free will?
>
> > Mitchell Coffey
>
> Yes rocks have free will, meaning there are autonomous processes of
> the rock which have alternative results.

Nothing happens to rocks that isn't "forced" upon them, because rocks
have no more free will than a thermostat. And, of course, the reason
everyone can tell that "evolutionist" don't believe that thermostats
have free will is that you will be unable to demonstrate that claim.

> Forced processes are usually related to the universal law that the
> totality of the universe can only be nothing.

There is no universal law that "the totality of the universe can only

be nothing."
>
> So for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, which
> keeps the totality of the universe nothing, and this is forced, not
> chosen.

There is no universal law that "the totality of the universe can only
be nothing."

Mitchell Coffey

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

(snip)

So, you are "forced" to lie?
...or do you choose to ignore the truth of your own free will?

[Perseus]

On May 24, 11:41 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talkorigins
>
> Rules of the forum are as follows:
>
> Rule 1: Every poster acknowledges their own human spirit, as well as
> those of the other posters, as a matter of subjective opinion.
>
> Those are all the rules.

what you mean by "human spirit"? Is it that we have an spirit?
Or are you referring to "human thinking" by using this word?

Perseus

[Perseus]

On May 24, 11:56 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 24 mei, 12:50, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
>

> > On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu

>
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>

> > Why? What's wrong with this newsgroup?
>

> > Steve
>
> > --
> > Neural Network Software.                    http://www.npsl1.com
> > EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus.          http://www.easynn.com
> > SwingNN.     Forecast with Neural Networks.  http://www.swingnn.com
> > JustNN.      Just Neural Networks.          http://www.justnn.com
>

> This group is inundated with nerd types who provide no room for
> subjective opinion.
>

> Rule 1: Every poster acknowledges their own human spirit, as well as
> those of the other posters, as a matter of subjective opinion

you mean the right of posters to have erroneous pieces of knowledge?
We are already full of this stuff in here.
Most of our knowledge are made out of wrong ideas.
We have enough trash in this group, and we do not need to found a new
group, for there are not enough freaks in here. We got plenty of
freaks.
There would not have been any scarcities of them in the near future.

Perseus

[Perseus]

On May 24, 1:49 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Op donderdag 24 mei 2012 13:55:51 UTC+2 schreef Stephen Wolstenholme het volgende:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu

> > <nando_ronteltapyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >On 24 mei, 12:50, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
>
> > >> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>
> > >> Why? What's wrong with this newsgroup?
>
> > >> Steve
>

> > >This group is inundated with nerd types who provide no room for
> > >subjective opinion.
>

> > Any newsreader can filter out the people who are no contributing to
> > this newsgroup. When that is done this group has no problems.
>
> > Setting up a google group for the same purpose as this newsgroup is
> > just creating more chaos.
>

> We are dealing with an engrained pathology peculiar to many science-minded people to only arrive at a conclusion about what exists through evidence (being a nerd). This pathology is widespread, almost all evolutionists do not acknowledge agency, who somebody is as the owner of their choices, is a matter of subjective opinion. This is 1. insulting, 2. it also tends to destroy all factual knowledge about how choices are made.

>
> So a group with this rule, is significantly different from talk.origins at present, which is inundated with nerds.

why you dont go to argue on a religious freaky group? They do not
mind that BS of the human spirit, but do not allow you either to have
heretical opinions. All the subjective opinions should conform to
the dogma of their own religion.

Perseus

[deadrat]

Now, some people may think that Tiramisu made the the "universal
nilpotency rewrite" system, but he didn't. I looked up the paper, which
has something to do with alphabet generation in computer languages. Or
something.

Tiramisu, please tell us what "nilpotent" means.

[Syamsu]

Subjective opinions are never factually incorrect.

[Syamsu]

There are references for it on talk origins.

[Syamsu]

Is bullshit, it's a matter of scientific fact that rocks have
alternativein the moment, its quantum physics, and the totality of
nothing has been hinted at by many scientists previous to the rewrite
theory.

[Syamsu]

No, the object of thought is a matter of fact. The spirit is what
decides the alternatives in the moment, and can only be identified by
a way of choosing. So the spirit decides the object of thought. But
everything which is decided is categorically a spiritual issue, a
matter of subjective opinion.

[Burkhard]

It's the political correct word for someone with erection problems.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 08:54:18 -0700, Burkhard wrote:

> On May 24, 1:08 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:55:51 PM UTC+1, Stephen Wolstenholme
>> wrote:

>> > On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
>> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >On 24 mei, 12:50, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:

>> > >> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu

>>
>> > >> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >> >I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>>

>> > >> Why? What's wrong with this newsgroup?
>>
>> > >> Steve
>>

>> > >This group is inundated with nerd types who provide no room for
>> > >subjective opinion.
>>

>> > Any newsreader can filter out the people who are no contributing to
>> > this newsgroup. When that is done this group has no problems.
>>
>> > Setting up a google group for the same purpose as this newsgroup is
>> > just creating more chaos.
>>

>> Evidently it isn't for the same purpose.
>> Instead, it appears (from what's been said here) to be a fake version
>> of this talk.origins - and I think that Google Groups won't accept that
>> if it's brought to their attention.
>>
>> You could probably create a group called "Acknowledge Your Own Human
>> Spirit, As Well As Those Of Others", without causing a fuss.
>
> didn't spintronic create a new talkorigins forum on google groups all
> for himself? He started to talk to the spammers, really sad, and then
> abandoned it.

Just checked alt.psychology.jung to see if anything has changed since I
abandoned it in late 2010. It's become a blog where a single person
babbles on for their own amusement I guess. That's probably what Siam
Sue's new blog will be like, but less coherently worded.

Hopefully Nando has honored my request and banned me for life from his
new group. That would be a badge of honor.

[Louann Miller]

Syamsu <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:nando-4e449a28-c321-4d95-
92b0-671...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:

(continued lecturing)

I thought you were going to take your bat and ball and go home?

[Slow Vehicle]

(snip)

Tyramisu:

you write...

> Is bullshit, it's a matter of scientific fact that rocks have
> alternativein the moment, its quantum physics,

...yet you feel free to heap ignorant abuse on better thinkers than
yourself for daring to suggest that a useful way to clarify an
understanding of one approach to the idea of free will is to consider
some kinds of inanimate objects as exercising a kind of agency.

So, I ask again:
Is this stupidity?
Ignorance?
Rampant dishonesty?
Or is your free will forced to tell lies against your will...by whom?
The rocks?

Elsewhere, you opine:

>Subjective opinions are never factually incorrect.

...which is really, really, stupid. If you were of the subjective
opinion that Thomas Jefferson was a woman, or wanted to insert modern
xianity into the Constitution, or had a tender S&M relationship with
Nikolai Tesla, each of those "subjective opinions" can, in fact, be
demonstrated to be incorrect.
Now, if you wanted to say that you believe all of the above, your
belief, is, in fact, not subject to objective refutation--given the
spew you splatter, it is clear that you can believe all kinds of
things. (x-ref "nil potent rewrite"). Your belief does not make the
things you believe any less factually incorrect.

>and the totality of nothing has been hinted at by many scientists previous to the rewrite theory.

...and the nothingness of totality has been chanted at by generations
of zen buddhists...what's your point?

Are you plagiarizing Rowlands and Marcer? Or is it Rowan and Martin?
'Cause, you know, "exclusive" has an actual meaning...as does
"credibility".

Don't you have a "new" forum to go spew on? If this place is so
benighted (he asked a third time), why are you still here?

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

(snippiit...snippit good)

you write--

> No, the object of thought is a matter of fact. The spirit is what
> decides the alternatives in the moment, and can only be identified by
> a way of choosing. So the spirit decides the object of thought. But
> everything which is decided is categorically a spiritual issue, a
> matter of subjective opinion.

...which only goes to show that you have not caught onto the idea that
words mean things.

[Syamsu]

Outside of your nerd congregation your ideas about freedom being
basically irrellevant in the universe , and not applying to rocks,
don't have a chance in hell in breakthrough science. The bit has
alternative states, how are you going to do science of informatics
applied to the universe without freedom? You write.bullshit.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:33:30 -0700, Syamsu wrote:

[snip]

> Yes rocks have free will, meaning there are autonomous processes of the
> rock which have alternative results.

What processes of the rock can be involved in the rock ruminating on the
multiple choices available for it to pursue? Can rocks experience regret
over having made the wrong choice? Can rocks learn from their mistakes?
Do they exhibit counterfactual thinking?

[Mitchell Coffey]

A rock being subject to quantum effects just means it's physical
activities have a random component. That isn't free will. A rock
doesn't decide anything . There's more to free will than the existance
of "alternative results" (which you persist in lying about and
claiming that scientists and historians don't believe alternative
results even exist).

You stated a "universal law" as a fact, not as your personal
interpritation of a single paper. Now you're removing the universal
law part and walking back from it.

Mitchell Coffey

[wiki trix]

But nobody says that free will is how a thermostat operates.

[*Hemidactylus*]

In the category "Ecallaw Mailliw death scene in Treahevarb"

> I kill freedom all the time and I won't miss you.
>
> DEATH TO FREEDOM!!!!
>

[*Hemidactylus*]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:35:20 -0700, Syamsu wrote:

[snip]

> Subjective opinions are never factually incorrect.

It is my subjective opinion that the Houston Oilers have won the World
Series for three years straight.

[Syamsu]

Bullcrap, wether it is a rock deciding some velocity over momentum or
whatever, that is free will just as much as somebody deciding to jump
in the water to try to save a man drowning or not. There are
alternatives, they are decided, that is free will. And anybody
disagreeing with that has made love and hate, right and wrong into
matters of pseudoscientific fact. Because that is implied, that the
decision of a rock does not express love or hate, and people do. But
the truth is that agency is categorically a matter of subjective
opinion, and science has no say in it whatever.

[*Hemidactylus*]

It is my subjective opinion that you are full of sh-t. Since you hold
that subjective opinions cannot be factually incorrect, I have checkmated
you.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fe2bc07ce2923403

[Slow Vehicle]

...what? You claim that words DON'T mean things? No wonder spewing
nonsense and lies does not bother you. At all. Don't you have a
secret club to go do this in?

You do not know what my "ideas bout freedom" are. Go ahead--state
them. Accurately.

>You write.bullshit.

Ah, yes...the refuge of the hopeless scholar. I think you may have
blown out another Irony Meter.

For the fourth time, if this forum is so unpleasant, so unprofitable,
so tedious and tasteless to you...why are you still here? Just a
helpless tool of your own agency?
I'll leave you alone if you just go away.

Please, also add me to the permaban list over at Tyramisu's Magick
Funclub, OK?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Would a rock gladly drown to save eight cousins?

> There are alternatives,
> they are decided, that is free will.

If a decision is made within me to drop a rock, that came from a neural
cause. Whether a choice is made within my brain to drop the rock or not,
it isn't "free will". A rock doesn't even have that yes/no choice matrix.
It just falls or not due to a choice made within me (and gravity). What
alternative does the rock have? If a rock is dropped by my hand releasing
its grip from a bridge toward a river, the rock may veer one way or
another due to prevailing winds. Where are the alternatives for the rock
and how can it be said to make a choice? If it plops into the river and
is carried a ways by a rapid current, what choice does the rock have
where it will settle along the river bed? There are gravity, prevailing
winds then river current. That's it.

> And anybody disagreeing with that
> has made love and hate, right and wrong into matters of pseudoscientific
> fact. Because that is implied, that the decision of a rock does not
> express love or hate, and people do. But the truth is that agency is
> categorically a matter of subjective opinion, and science has no say in
> it whatever.

I'm confused. Do rocks express love or hate or have subjective opinions?
Or do they just have what you call "free will"?

[*Hemidactylus*]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 07:18:45 -0700, marc.tessera wrote:

> On 24 mai, 15:34, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (snip)

>>
>> > We are dealing with an engrained pathology peculiar to many
>> > science-minded people to only arrive at a conclusion about what
>> > exists through evidence (being a nerd). This pathology is widespread,
>> > almost all evolutionists do not acknowledge agency, who somebody is
>> > as the owner of their choices, is a matter of subjective opinion.
>> > This is 1. insulting, 2. it also tends to destroy all factual
>> > knowledge about how choices are made.
>>
>> > So a group with this rule, is significantly different from
>> > talk.origins at present, which is inundated with nerds.
>>

>> More Tyramisu-speak:
>>
>> "pathology" = "disagrees with me"
>> "arrive at a conclusion through evidence" = "disagree with me" "nerd" =
>> "disagrees with me"
>> "agency" = "my magic word that means whatever I want it to" "insulting"
>> = "disagrees with me"
>> "destroys all knowledge about how choices are made" = "disagrees with
>> me".
>> "inundated with nerds" = "nearly everyone here disagrees with me"

>>
>> ...if this place is so distasteful to you, why do you make the
>> subjective agency choice to keep coming back?
>

> He won't because he will get so bored in his forum.

That's your subjective opinion, therefore it cannot be incorrect.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

(snip to my Lou)

you spew-

> Bullcrap, wether it is a rock deciding some velocity over momentum or
> whatever, that is free will just as much as somebody deciding to jump
> in the water to try to save a man drowning or not.

So why a rock, and why not a thermostat? You never have even tried to
answer that one.

> There are alternatives, they are decided,

...I get it. A flipped coin has a choice upon which side to land.

> that is free will.

...not to anyone who uses the term to mean anything. That may be a
statement of your perfervid perversion of the thing you believe you
believe about free will...but that's about it. See discussion of
"subjective opinion", above. You get that cartoon drawn yet?

>And anybody disagreeing with that has made love and hate, right and wrong into
> matters of pseudoscientific fact.

As someone once said, somewhere, "You write bullshit". You have no
grounds upon which to base this idiotic statement. At best, you can
say that you disagree with anyone who disagrees with you. Other than
that, you're back inside the cave of your head.

> Because that is implied, that the
> decision of a rock does not express love or hate, and people do.

Lemme get this straight: a rock makes decisions based on love or
hate? Big Paul Ruebens fan, aincha?

> But the truth

...in your subjective opinion...

> is that agency is categorically a matter of subjective opinion,

...in your subjective opinion...

> and science has no say in it whatever.

...in your subjective opinion...

So, I have to know. does the rock's decision involve "creating a new
symbol", or "preserving a nothing"? Which one is "loving", and which
one is "hateful"?

Again, I ask: if this milieu is so little to your taste, why are you
still here? Nobody coming over to play at the Klubhouse? Go wait for
them--I'm sure they'll come along...

[Boikat]

Nope. Rocks cannot make decisions of any sort. You are lying,
demented, or both.

> There are
> alternatives, they are decided, that is free will.

Rocks do not decide anything.

> And anybody
> disagreeing with that has made love and hate, right and wrong into
> matters of pseudoscientific fact. Because that is implied, that the
> decision of a rock does not express love or hate, and people do. But
> the truth is that agency is categorically a matter of subjective
> opinion, and science has no say in it whatever.

Okay, I'll stick with you are demented.

Boikat

[*Hemidactylus*]

Well since free will plays a role in jurisprudence and you say rocks have
free will, if a rock falls upon a human and kills them, can the rock be
charged with murder? If the rock can make choices, maybe killing the
human was premeditated, thus a capital crime. How exactly does one go
about applying the death penalty to a rock? Lethal injection?

If we smashed the rock with a hammer it would break into smaller
murderous pieces, then we would have a real problem on our hands.

[Boikat]

On May 24, 4:35 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 24 mei, 22:14, Perseus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 11:56 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 24 mei, 12:50, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
>
> > > > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>
> > > > Why? What's wrong with this newsgroup?
>
> > > > Steve
>
> > > > --

> > > > Neural Network Software.http://www.npsl1.com
> > > > EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus.http://www.easynn.com
> > > > SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks.http://www.swingnn.com
> > > > JustNN. Just Neural Networks.http://www.justnn.com

>
> > > This group is inundated with nerd types who provide no room for
> > > subjective opinion.
>
> > > Rule 1: Every poster acknowledges their own human spirit, as well as
> > > those of the other posters, as a matter of subjective opinion
>
> > you mean the right of posters to have erroneous pieces of knowledge?
> > We are already full of this stuff in here.
> > Most of our knowledge are made out of wrong ideas.
> > We have enough trash in this group, and we do not need to found a new
> > group, for there are not enough freaks in here. We got plenty of
> > freaks.
> > There would not have been any scarcities of them in the near future.
>
> > Perseus
>
> Subjective opinions are never factually incorrect

Yet, you insist that "subjective opinions" be treated as fact.

Boikat

[*Hemidactylus*]

For someone so enamored over "free will" Siam Sue doesn't seem to have
any depth on the topic.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Maybe to play pied piper and lure a following to his blog. No thanks. I
hope he's banned me in absentia.

Anyone who starts ascribing free will to rocks has left serious
discussion behind long ago. That's probably why he retreats behind his
"subjective opinion" cloak of invincibility. And the rest of us are nerds
because we give actual thought to the topic.

[wiki trix]

We have no idea if quantum effects are random (intrinsically
uncertain), or just unpredictable due to lack of information (hidden
variables).

> That isn't free will. A rock
> doesn't decide anything .

People are no better than rocks at decide anything.

> There's more to free will than the existance
> of "alternative results" (which you persist in lying about and
> claiming that scientists and historians don't believe alternative
> results even exist).

What do you man by free will? On second thought... don't bother :)

> You stated a "universal law" as a fact, not as your personal
> interpritation of a single paper. Now you're removing the universal
> law part and walking back from it.

Remember who you are talking to here.

[wiki trix]

People cannot make decisions of any sort.

> > There are
> > alternatives, they are decided, that is free will.
>
> Rocks do not decide anything.

People do not decide anything.

[Earle Jones]

In article
<nando-a6c471e0-58b5-4...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com
>,
Syamsu <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 24 mei, 23:26, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> > On 5/24/12 11:44 AM, Syamsu wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 24, 4:52 pm, Slow Vehicle<oneslowvehi...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > >> (snipedy-doo-dah)
> > >>   Tyramisu:
> >
> > >>   You write
> >
> > >>> The disbelief in free will is acknowledged by psychologists as a
> > >>> pathology in that it leads to increased aggression and cheating etc.
> > >>> You can read all about it on Talk Origins.
> >
> > >> I know what I expect your response to be, but you wouldn't happen to
> > >> have, oh, a source for this contention?  A cite, maybe?  Or is this
> > >> just your subjective idea about what psychologists would say, if they
> > >> only knew to consult your "subjective fact" first, before bothering to
> > >> cloud the issue by developing any objective support?
> >
> > >> Again, I ask:

> > >>   ...if this place is so distasteful to you, why do you make the
> > >> subjective agency choice to keep coming back?
> >

> > > not 1, not 2, but 3 cites on talk origins in the posting about free
> > > will
> >
> > > also an exciting posting about the universal nil potency rewrite
> > > system theory, which is the only "theory of everything" with any
> > > credibility in science right now.
> >
> > > That theory is the cutting edge be all and end all theory of science,
> > > and it is now exclusive, only on talk origins.
> >
> > Now, some people may think that Tiramisu made the the "universal
> > nilpotency rewrite" system, but he didn't.  I looked up the paper, which
> > has something to do with alphabet generation in computer languages.  Or
> > something.
> >
> > Tiramisu, please tell us what "nilpotent" means.
>

> There are references for it on talk origins.

*
Nando: Why are you still here?

Please do not respond.

earle
*

[jillery]

How would you know it was dead?

[Boikat]

If that makes you feel better, you can decide to believe that are a
meat puppet with no self control.

>
> > > There are
> > > alternatives, they are decided, that is free will.
>
> > Rocks do not decide anything.
>
> People do not decide anything.

People make decisions all the time, whether you like it or not.

Boikat

[Syamsu]

Nerds who burst out in girly giggling when the issue is subjective
opinion about the decisions in the inanimate universe.

[wiki trix]

How can I *decide* to believe either that I am a meat puppet with no
self control or that I am not a meat puppet with no self control? How
can one *decide* anything to believe in? Here is a challenge for
you... if beliefs were actually free will choices; you should be able
to do this task: Take several beliefs that you currently have, and
change them to the opposite. For example, you evidently believe in
free will, so let's see if you can *choose* to disbelieve in free will
for a full day. Only you can determine if you are successful in this
experiment, so you will have to be honest with yourself. I know that
in my own experience, I have not been able to intentionally modify any
of my beliefs. Of course, to me a belief is never fully defined and
never totally accepted, but rather always tentatively based on
experience/evidence and/or emotion/desire. So I am not saying that one
never changes beliefs, since inputs change, but rather one cannot
arbitrarily choose beliefs. Here is one more experiment: Flip a coin
100 times, and after each heads toss, truly believe in Odin and
disbelieve in the Tooth Fairy and on every tails toss, truly believe
in the Tooth Fairy and disbelieve in Odin. Good luck with that.

> > > > There are
> > > > alternatives, they are decided, that is free will.
>
> > > Rocks do not decide anything.
>
> > People do not decide anything.
>
> People make decisions all the time, whether you like it or not.

How would you set up an experiment to draw that conclusion? What
evidence do you have? What makes people special in this regard? This
seems to be an unfounded belief (illusion) of yours.

> Boikat

[wiki trix]

Very sad...

[Rolf]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:56:51 -0700, Syamsu wrote:
>
>> On 24 mei, 12:50, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
>>>
>>> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>>>
>>> Why? What's wrong with this newsgroup?
>>>

> [snip Steve's sig line]

>>
>> This group is inundated with nerd types who provide no room for
>> subjective opinion.
>

> Nerd = anyone who thinks

>
>> Rule 1: Every poster acknowledges their own human spirit, as well as
>> those of the other posters, as a matter of subjective opinion
>

> I think spirit is BS hogwash.

Including The Spirit of St. Louis?

[*Hemidactylus*]

And mineral spirits.

[*Hemidactylus*]

For a rock to experience the illusion of free will it would be necessary,
but not sufficient, for it to have recordable brain waves. Attach an EEG
to the rock. If you cannot register brain waves, it is at least brain
dead. It could still be in a vegetative state, which opens up another
ethical can of worms, outside the specified context of a death penalty
case.

If you are walking in your yard and stumble upon an innocent and law-
abiding brain dead rock, should you euthanize it? Can rocks exercise end
of life choices, like DNR forms? And if a large boulder is on my
property, could I have it forcibly removed? Do rocks have squatters
rights? Or can they trespass? If I run over a rock with heavy equipment
and break it in two, can the two pieces sue me for damages?

[Mitchell Coffey]

Rocks don't have a say in what they do, Crazy Person.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

On May 24, 5:35 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 24 mei, 22:14, Perseus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

> > On May 24, 11:56 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 24 mei, 12:50, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:41:01 -0700 (PDT), Syamsu
>
> > > > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >I created talk origins on google groups, because it was easy.
>
> > > > Why? What's wrong with this newsgroup?
>

> > > > Steve
>
> > > > --
> > > > Neural Network Software.http://www.npsl1.com
> > > > EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus.http://www.easynn.com
> > > > SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks.http://www.swingnn.com
> > > > JustNN. Just Neural Networks.http://www.justnn.com
>

> > > This group is inundated with nerd types who provide no room for
> > > subjective opinion.
>

> > > Rule 1: Every poster acknowledges their own human spirit, as well as
> > > those of the other posters, as a matter of subjective opinion
>

> > you mean the right of posters to have erroneous pieces of knowledge?
> > We are already full of this stuff in here.
> > Most of our knowledge are made out of wrong ideas.
> > We have enough trash in this group, and we do not need to found a new
> > group, for there are not enough freaks in here. We got plenty of
> > freaks.
> > There would not have been any scarcities of them in the near future.
>
> > Perseus
>

> Subjective opinions are never factually incorrect.-

They may be when they are treated as facts.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

OK: you are right, I am wrong. However, in regarding the volitional
capacity of rocks it comes to the same thing.

> > That isn't free will. A rock
> > doesn't decide anything .
>
> People are no better than rocks at decide anything.

This is controversial.

> > There's more to free will than the existance
> > of "alternative results" (which you persist in lying about and
> > claiming that scientists and historians don't believe alternative
> > results even exist).
>
> What do you man by free will? On second thought... don't bother :)

Don't ask.

> > You stated a "universal law" as a fact, not as your personal
> > interpritation of a single paper. Now you're removing the universal
> > law part and walking back from it.
>
> Remember who you are talking to here.

Whe can forget?

Mitchell

[Perseus]

it depends one what you mean by "making decisions". If making
decisions means acting, people is making decisions more or less
continuously. Like animals do it. A lion is sleeping for as long as
his belly is full of meat, it needs a lot of time to digest his food.
Or could be simply sleeping, or just laying, because the weather is
too hot for go hunting.
Then, animals have habits of behavior as well as humans. Then, to
each instance of behavior you can say he has made a decision. But
this to me do not look perfectly clear.
When I am typing, my fingers go automatically towards each key without
any need to think. And when in a hot weather we look for the shade,
to get a little cool, this is not a decision either, is an automatic
behavior.
Then, if we reserve the idea of "making decisions" for those instances
in which we act after a more or less long period of hesitation... does
it means this piece of acting was the result of a decision? Why were
we hesitating? What was the reason for out hesitation?
Perhaps, our mind for being forced to act for reasons we do not like
at all, like when you had received an order to present to the office
of recruitment, for you are required to enlist for a war on course.
So, you dislike the idea of going to war, and you are pondering what
would be the consequences of not presenting yourself on that office.
You are pondering the rights and wrongs of either decision, to
present yourself or not to the office of recruitment. Then, you do
not like any of the options, as far as you are guessing the
consequences of any of those actions; to go or not to go. Then, in a
moment, this day or the next day, you go or not go. This is called a
decision, not for you like to do, but because you do not like it at
all. You simply act forced by an outside power to you. Then, in a
way, to accept an act we do not like at all, can be call a decision.
An example, you are condemned to die by hanging on a rope. You can
decide to go on your own foot, or if the officers would carry to you
to the site where your are going to be hanged. Then, to ponder this,
you have to think about your own image. How do you want to be seen?
You want people see you go meekly to your own execution? Or would you
prefer to go proudly with you head up like challenging the world? It
is mostly a question of your own image. Even the guards that have the
task of bringing you to the place of your death, would prefer you go
on your own foot and very proud of your fate, and your deeds.

But these actions can be called "decisions"? Can you say about a
tennis player that he is making a decision each time he moves to hit
the ball that come flying to his side? I think, that the acts more
or less automatic, cannot be decisions. We call decisions to those
acts we perform after much doubts and hesitations, after a great deal
of pondering.
Then, the real meaning of a decision is insecurity and fear of the
consequences of either acting or holding back our acting. It simple
means, we felt not sure or we dislike the probably consequences of our
acting.

It the expectation of our acts would clearly pleasant, without any
hint of fear, we would act like automatically; we would not hesitate
at all, like when we are playing tennis, and all our intentions are
focusing on hitting the ball back with our racket. An automatic
behavior, like when we drink a beer.

Perseus

[Syamsu]

Delusional nerd, one can subjectively read expression of the spirit in
the rocky mountains, as well as in the creases of a face.

Love is not an artefact, it is only identified through a way or
choosing.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

(big snip)

your words:

> Delusional nerd, one can subjectively read expression of the spirit in
> the rocky mountains, as well as in the creases of a face.
>
> Love is not an artefact, it is only identified through a way or
> choosing.

This must be like your use of the word "exclusive"...
Are you really saying that the Rocky Mountains have, and express.
emotions?

Why rocks, and not toasters or thermostats?

What's the matter, ickle uggums? The hordes of people flocking to
your other forum just wearing you out?
Don't you have important evangelization and proselytization to
do..over there?

[Boikat]

Anyone who cannot grasp the difference between inanimate matter, and
living organisms with the ability to think deserves to be laughed at.

Boikat

[Boikat]

You mean "think like a creationist"? That is demonstrated on a daily
basis in this news group. Creationists decide to ignore facts that
contradict their beliefs all the time.

> I know that
> in my own experience, I have not been able to intentionally modify any
> of my beliefs. Of course, to me a belief is never fully defined and
> never totally accepted, but rather always tentatively based on
> experience/evidence and/or emotion/desire. So I am not saying that one
> never changes beliefs, since inputs change, but rather one cannot
> arbitrarily choose beliefs. Here is one more experiment: Flip a coin
> 100 times, and after each heads toss, truly believe in Odin and
> disbelieve in the Tooth Fairy and on every tails toss, truly believe
> in the Tooth Fairy and disbelieve in Odin. Good luck with that.
>

How's this, instead: look at your daily activities. How many of the
things you did today were optional?

> > > > > There are
> > > > > alternatives, they are decided, that is free will.
>
> > > > Rocks do not decide anything.
>
> > > People do not decide anything.
>
> > People make decisions all the time, whether you like it or not.
>
> How would you set up an experiment to draw that conclusion? What
> evidence do you have? What makes people special in this regard? This
> seems to be an unfounded belief (illusion) of yours.

I've never seen a rock decide on what to have for breakfast.

Boikat

[Boikat]

I was taking yoiu seriously until that last bit.

Boikat

[Boikat]

No, you cannot. Mountans have no mind or emotions. Take your meds
and call your shrink in the morning.

>
> Love is not an artefact, it is only identified through a way or
> choosing.

You appear to be stuck in some sort of weird mental feedback loop.
You might want to check into that.

Boikat

[Boikat]

If you break it into enough pieces, maybe even a class action suit....

Boikat

[Syamsu]

I prefer usa should be given back to indians, and guys like boikat are
shoved off to the moon or something.

[Slow Vehicle]

Tyramisu:

> I prefer usa should be given back to indians, and guys like boikat are
> shoved off to the moon or something.

Temper, temper, sweetie. Ikkle uggums needs a nap....

Why are you still here? I mean, with your busy schedule, and the
hordes of worshippers making hajj to your site and all...

[wiki trix]

Not one that I know of with certainty. How would one determine that?

> > > > > > There are
> > > > > > alternatives, they are decided, that is free will.
>
> > > > > Rocks do not decide anything.
>
> > > > People do not decide anything.
>
> > > People make decisions all the time, whether you like it or not.
>
> > How would you set up an experiment to draw that conclusion? What
> > evidence do you have? What makes people special in this regard? This
> > seems to be an unfounded belief (illusion) of yours.
>
> I've never seen a rock decide on what to have for breakfast.

Perhaps rocks are only limited in terms of human communication skills.
How do you test for cognition etc.?