On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 09:03:41 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com
>Total fucking asshole, that you insist that decisions are in the mind only, it can only mean that you define choosing in terms of what is best.
That doesn't follow at all. You're just babbling now.
>The weather can turn out one of several different ways, this you say is not a decision, because the weather does not consider what option is best.
No, I say that how weather turns out is not a decision because WEATHER
IS NOT SENTIENT. IT IS NOT CAPABLE OF MAKING A DECISION.
>You are just a liar, as also shown by that you insist that to define choosing in terms of making one of alternative futures the present, is wrong, because of that definition not being popular
No, I say your definition is wrong because decisions don't make one of
alternative futures the present.
>The number 1 definiition of choosing in the dictionary, is to define it in terms of what is best.
You appear to be missing the point here rather badly. A prudent person
will of course consider the likely outcomes of a decision, but doing
so is not essential to the definition of choosing. One is, of course,
always free to make extremely poor decisions if one
wants to. But why would one want to?
> So then if popularity is an indication for what is right
Which it isn't. Do I really have to explain THAT to you?
>then choosing defined in terms of what is best must be right.
>Then against your idea that what is most popular is right,
That is NOT my idea. I have never suggested or implied any such thing,
because it's not true. It's downright bizarre that you insist on
making up positions for me that I don't hold in any way.
>you pick the second definition in the dictionary, which definition is really just an extension of the first definition, trying (but failiing) to relate deciding to physically acting. Deciding on a course of action. Which is obviously an error of circular reasoning, in defining choosing with deciding.
Can you rephrase that coherently, please?
>Asshole, when you define choosing as being in the mind only,
Again, where else do you think it occurs?
> then you can never relate choosing to acting physically
That does not follow.
>. Then you are stuck with acting in the mind, acting in fantasy.
No, making a decision without ever acting on it would consign that
decision to the realm of a fantasy. You are as confused as it is
possible to be.
>A photon comes to a split, where it can go either route A or B. Then routes A and B converge at a second split, where it can go route C and D.
>If routes A and B are open, then the photon will always go route D at the second split. If either route A or B is blocked, and the photon goes the unblocked route, then the photon goes either route C or D at the second split.
>A database with a searchalgorithm is placed at route B. The search algorithm is activated, by a non interactive way detector, if a photon passes the detector. If the element is found in the database, then a mechanism immediately closes route B, preventing the photon from reaching the second split.
>So then if the photon turns up at route C, then it is known that the search algorithm would have found the element in the database, if it had run.
>Proving that possiblities, and the decisions on them, are real things of physics.
Or that you don't have any idea what the experiment actually involves
or what it means, both of which were well-demonstrated the last time
you brought it up in this group.
> And not as you make believe, a cultural fantasy about what is best.
>There is no evidence whatsoever for what is making the decision on the route that the photon takes.
There is no decision involved. Inanimate objects cannot make
> Nor could there possibly be any evidence of it, because it is entirely subjective.
It is entirely imaginary. Inanimate objects cannot make decisions.
> Meaning it is identified with a chosen opinion.
That does not follow, as usual, and opinions are not normally chosen.
>One can feel what it was that made the decision turn out the way it did,
There wasn't a decision involved, and feelings are irrelevant to
> and then choose an opinion on it, by spontaneous expression of those feelings with free will.
You realize that's self-contradictory, right...?
>That is how it works.
That's not how anything works.
> And that you assert that personal character can be established as fact forced by the evidence of it
An individual's character can be discerned by observing their actions
over time, sure. Do you dispute that?
> is what makes you a nazi.
That's NOT the defining characteristic of a Nazi by any stretch of the
imagination. The Nazis attributed a specific character to entire
groups of people based on pseudoscientific nonsense about race.
Neither I nor anyone else here has argued for anything remotely like
>That is the essence of nazi ideology
That is you being badly confused, as usual.
>It provides for horrific emotionless judgment, asserted as hard scientific fact, which is the evil of nazism.
No one is arguing for judging people based on race or other form of
group membership. You're nuts.
>And it is obvious that the current epidemic of mental illness, and bad political opinions, is due to the education system turning people into fact obsessed morons who are clueless about how subjectivity works.
No one is confused on the topic. As I have noted dozens of times,
you're fighting madly against a problem that doesn't exist, Don
> Because the education system throws out subjectivity, in throwing out creationism, and pretends all in reality is objective. The entire subjective part of reality is discarded.
>Every day in the news there is some professor with a nutty opinion.
I see that your sense of irony is as deficient as your proficiency in
>And all the fascism against free speech, the socialism,
Fascism or socialism: pick one and only one.
> it is centered around the universities, academics.
>It makes perfect sense, be clueless about how subjectivity works, consequently systematically produce bad subjective opinions.
How does one judge whether something subjective is good or bad? That
would require some objective standard by which to do so.
>So you are at fault for royally fucking up society with your retarded atheism that is based on being stupid about how subjectivity works.
My atheism is based on the fact that there's no good reason to think
that any deities exist, and many good reasons to think that they're
>To argue that popularity is what makes a definition right, is intellectual fraudulence.
Indeed. It's a basic logical fallacy. BUT I HAVE NBVER CLAIMED ANY
SUCH THING, so why the hell do you imagine that I think such a thing?
> A definition is right when it works without error, and when it also does not produce error in relation to other words.
That rules out yours.
>When it all fits together. And the terminology of the creationist conceptual scheme, the definitions all fit together perfectly.
That doesn't mean a thing if they don't actually correspond to
reality. That a framework is coherent does not mean that it is also
correct. (That your ideas aren't coherent for the most part either is
another problem entirely.)
>To not have any proper name to denote all what is identified with subjectivity
There is one, Einstein: SUBJECTIVE.
>is also intellectual fraudulence. It is a 1984 fascist trick, to make an issue go away, by not having any words to talk about it.
There are already. There is no need for you to try to shoehorn another
one into the discussion.
>The word spiritual is a good word for it
It's a terrible word for it if you want other people to understand
what you're trying to say.
>And the association of the word spiritual to, woo-woo, that is actually just appropiate. Because woo-woo indicates it is not an objective issue, which is correct.
"Woo-woo" indicates that something is risible nonsense, Einstein, so
yes, it does apply well to your ideas.
>You're total shitbag of lies, fraud, willful ignorance. And there is no doubt about it that this will reflect in real life that you are a criminal. To intellectually mangle the concept of the human spirit, it must mean that you will also commit crimes against the human spirit in real life.
Says the guy who leaves the English language battered and gasping for
breath in every post he makes.