Imagine if you will, that you awaken one morning in another world. As you rub your eyes to get accustomed to the bright sunshine, you see that it is in many respects a world not unlike this one. All around you there are creatures that, to your eyes, look identical to the human beings with whom you are used to sharing the world. You observe them going about their daily activities, living their lives, engaging in conversation with others, making the myriad choices and decisions that life inherently demands. The picture looks reassuringly familiar and normal.
But in this world, you soon discover that things are not necessarily as they seem. For these are not human beings. No, these are "body/mind organisms" which, unlike their human counterparts, do not have the ability to choose between options or to make decisions. In fact, these organisms do not have anything even resembling what we would call free will. The scripts of their entire lives were written in stone long before they were born, leaving them only to go mechanically through the motions of acting out their programming. These seemingly human creatures, it would appear, are not unlike machines. While to all appearances they seem to behave like ordinary freethinking individuals, busily engaged in daily activities, strangely, when asked, they maintain that they are not doing anything at all. In fact, in this peculiar world, they say that there are "no doers." Furthermore, no one in this world is ever held accountable for anything. Even when one of these beings appears to harm another, there is no remorse felt and no blame attributed. If you were to ask one of these body/mind organisms about it, the response would be that there was no one who had done anything. Ethics is an unknown concept here. The laws of nature do not seem to apply in this brave new world. Or maybe they have been rewritten here, since the beings do seem to observe some strange laws. You wonder where on Earth you could be. But you are not on Earth. You have landed on Planet Advaita.
http://www.wie.org/j14/balsekar.asp?page=1
also check out the rest of the site
Full Version: check it out: i am not doing anything!
What does that mean? "I am not doing anything."
no no, i said, "i am not doing anything"
are you asking cuz you didnt read the whole article or youre gonna ask me a series of questions to teach me something or youre testing me?
either way i guess, i can only tell you true, when i first read that interview/article, i thought it was such a trippy idea i couldnt believe it, i posted it here right away - i dont kno if anybody else got as tripped out as i was...
so i decided not to think about it consciously for a while and remove its trippiness.
but at first, "i am not doing anything" was just the catchy phrase for my title, as at the time it seemed like so monsterously trippy an idea that i couldnt say anything about it other than just cut and paste and give you the link to the whole thing. and maybe by posting it, i somehow was trying to relieve myself of the burden of its trippiness.
but now as im thinking about it, if i have to put it into words id say that it means (to me) the whole phenomenal universe and all ideas about will or intent is sort of a -well, sort of a trick.
i say this becuz i was once in a situation where my will to live struggled on long after i decided i really didnt care anymore. i just sorta watched while the struggle to live went on, i didnt really feel one way or the other about it, i just kinda observed, untill it was over and i was me again, wet and cold and tired and relieved.
but that part when the survival struggle was going on, it seemed kinda mechanical to me, it didnt require my attention at all for the body to do its thing, the body was just walking thru the snow, and when it fell over, it got up again and went on all by itself, without any direction or intelligence at all.
and i just think the same kind of thing could be happening even when i am in "normal veda mode" all the while believeing that its my decision to stand up or sit down, and that its me that is standing myself up or sitting my body down.
so its not me thats doing anything its the complete total overall ME that is doing everything.
tho its really hard to let go of the idea of free will
are you asking cuz you didnt read the whole article or youre gonna ask me a series of questions to teach me something or youre testing me?
either way i guess, i can only tell you true, when i first read that interview/article, i thought it was such a trippy idea i couldnt believe it, i posted it here right away - i dont kno if anybody else got as tripped out as i was...
so i decided not to think about it consciously for a while and remove its trippiness.
but at first, "i am not doing anything" was just the catchy phrase for my title, as at the time it seemed like so monsterously trippy an idea that i couldnt say anything about it other than just cut and paste and give you the link to the whole thing. and maybe by posting it, i somehow was trying to relieve myself of the burden of its trippiness.
but now as im thinking about it, if i have to put it into words id say that it means (to me) the whole phenomenal universe and all ideas about will or intent is sort of a -well, sort of a trick.
i say this becuz i was once in a situation where my will to live struggled on long after i decided i really didnt care anymore. i just sorta watched while the struggle to live went on, i didnt really feel one way or the other about it, i just kinda observed, untill it was over and i was me again, wet and cold and tired and relieved.
but that part when the survival struggle was going on, it seemed kinda mechanical to me, it didnt require my attention at all for the body to do its thing, the body was just walking thru the snow, and when it fell over, it got up again and went on all by itself, without any direction or intelligence at all.
and i just think the same kind of thing could be happening even when i am in "normal veda mode" all the while believeing that its my decision to stand up or sit down, and that its me that is standing myself up or sitting my body down.
so its not me thats doing anything its the complete total overall ME that is doing everything.
tho its really hard to let go of the idea of free will
I say that 'free' in 'free will' is misinterpreted to mean abstractly 'free'. In this interpretation, there appears to be no 'free will' as all movement appears to not be abstractly caused, and thus cause is seen as impersonal. However, if we think of 'freedom' in 'free will' as the motivation of movement by need, with the satisfaction of need rendering the feeling of freedom, then there is nothing but 'free will'. In this interpretation, impersonal causality as motivation of movement is the illusion. At best, impersonal causality is limitation on movement, and not the motivation of movement.
we are always free to try
8)
we are always free to try
8)
Great description Veda. Free will is the freedom to recognise reality. To see yourself distant from it or unite with it.
What you experienced was witnessing. Similar to the pluralistic description of Souls that Shawn mentions in the post on cults.
From the higher self witnessing the creation unfold without the usual attachment the ego has in its belief of being in the world and of it.
What you experienced was witnessing. Similar to the pluralistic description of Souls that Shawn mentions in the post on cults.
From the higher self witnessing the creation unfold without the usual attachment the ego has in its belief of being in the world and of it.
The whole point in calling it free will, Dan, is to emphasize the fact that it is abstract. It's not a misinterpretation. It's a deliberate distinction.
Your perspective is a reinterpretation of the intended definition of the term. The theory behind the definition might be incorrect, but I don't think you can call it a misinterpretation.
I don't really agree with your interpretation either. In order to say that we are always free to try, you must define freedom to try as "the motivation of movement by need, with the satisfaction of need rendering the feeling of freedom." In other words, freedom is the feeling associated with what is motivated and satisfied by need. Thus, you conclude, that there is nothing but free will after you have subtly defined freedom to be the subject experience of necessary motivation. You sound like Rousseau speaking about forcing people to be free. It is a contradiction in terms cleverly disguised by an inappropriate definition. Something can be either necessary and determined, or it can be free and incontingent, but not both. There is nothing free about the motivation of movement by need.
Your perspective is a reinterpretation of the intended definition of the term. The theory behind the definition might be incorrect, but I don't think you can call it a misinterpretation.
I don't really agree with your interpretation either. In order to say that we are always free to try, you must define freedom to try as "the motivation of movement by need, with the satisfaction of need rendering the feeling of freedom." In other words, freedom is the feeling associated with what is motivated and satisfied by need. Thus, you conclude, that there is nothing but free will after you have subtly defined freedom to be the subject experience of necessary motivation. You sound like Rousseau speaking about forcing people to be free. It is a contradiction in terms cleverly disguised by an inappropriate definition. Something can be either necessary and determined, or it can be free and incontingent, but not both. There is nothing free about the motivation of movement by need.
[quote]The whole point in calling it free will, Dan, is to emphasize the fact that it is abstract. It's not a misinterpretation. It's a deliberate distinction.[/quote]
I'm trying to call to attention that the reason for posing the question is to reconcile the feeling of 'freedom' with the apparent evidence of impersonal causality. The feeling of freedom exists, however the idea of freedom as the existence of 'abstract' motive is logically inconsistent (how does abstract know 'what' to do? 'abstract' is to be empty of structure, thus there can be no direction derived from it. ergo, nothing will happen and the freedom is empty). Thus, to characterize freedom as abstract motivation is to make an inconsistent definition. Any debate assuming this definition as true is doomed from the start
[quote] Something can be either necessary and determined, or it can be free and incontingent, but not both. There is nothing free about the motivation of movement by need. [/quote]
there's nothing consistent about the idea of an abstract freedom to 'do'. there's simply no motivation in abstraction, thus such a freedom is impotent. nothing will happen.
yet, I feel free as I 'do'
I'm trying to call to attention that the reason for posing the question is to reconcile the feeling of 'freedom' with the apparent evidence of impersonal causality. The feeling of freedom exists, however the idea of freedom as the existence of 'abstract' motive is logically inconsistent (how does abstract know 'what' to do? 'abstract' is to be empty of structure, thus there can be no direction derived from it. ergo, nothing will happen and the freedom is empty). Thus, to characterize freedom as abstract motivation is to make an inconsistent definition. Any debate assuming this definition as true is doomed from the start
[quote] Something can be either necessary and determined, or it can be free and incontingent, but not both. There is nothing free about the motivation of movement by need. [/quote]
there's nothing consistent about the idea of an abstract freedom to 'do'. there's simply no motivation in abstraction, thus such a freedom is impotent. nothing will happen.
yet, I feel free as I 'do'
Dan
Well we agree that freedom cannot be characterized as abstract, although perhaps not for the same reasons. I guess I just don't see how this leads you to conclude that impersonal causality is illusory. For me the exact opposite implication seems apparent--freedom is an illusion; there is only impersonal causality, which with respect to the self, is subjectly experienced as inapplicable to consciousness.
Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean by the terms abstract and causality.
Well we agree that freedom cannot be characterized as abstract, although perhaps not for the same reasons. I guess I just don't see how this leads you to conclude that impersonal causality is illusory. For me the exact opposite implication seems apparent--freedom is an illusion; there is only impersonal causality, which with respect to the self, is subjectly experienced as inapplicable to consciousness.
Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean by the terms abstract and causality.
'abstract' means 'existing undefined'
'causality' means 'necessity'
'impersonal causality' means 'logical necessity'
......................................................
I recognize that I 'will' action and that I often feel 'free' to 'will what I want'. Thus, 'free will' is a true intuition insofar as I feel free to will what I want, although I am apparently guided in my choices by 'want' (or 'need').
it is the sequence of the will to satisfy need and the subsequent satisfaction of need that generates the feeling of 'freedom' and 'free will'.
However, the will to satisfy need does not always lead to the total satisfaction of need thus I feel an 'impersonal causality' inhibiting me. this 'impersonal causality' is not an active 'motive' but a passive 'constraint'. It is secondary to will in action
.......................................................
a state of abstract impersonal freedom cannot cause motivation because motivation is a 'vector' (directed) and to logically conjure a 'vector' from abstraction is not logically explainable in principle.
The problem with the notion of impersonal 'stuff' is the source of motive for creating the 'stuff'. To conjure motive in impersonal terms is to 'force' it from logical necessity. If there is to be a beginning of such an impersonal existence, it must be truly empty (which is logically 'abstract' (i.e., there is no 'implicit' or 'potential' structure)). And, as I pointed out, there is no logical way for motive to emerge from abstraction. Thus, there can be no true beginning of an impersonal, logically motivated universe. The only way for such an idea to be consistent is to assume that the universe is 'eternal' in some sense, and thus to supply an infinite sequence of cause/effect whose beginning can never be logically indentified in principle. A real logical snafu to say the least.
and, aside from all this, there is no 'in' for a 'subject' in an impersonal 'logically necessary' universe. this is a subtle problem, one that is usually dismissed without being answered.
8)
'causality' means 'necessity'
'impersonal causality' means 'logical necessity'
......................................................
I recognize that I 'will' action and that I often feel 'free' to 'will what I want'. Thus, 'free will' is a true intuition insofar as I feel free to will what I want, although I am apparently guided in my choices by 'want' (or 'need').
it is the sequence of the will to satisfy need and the subsequent satisfaction of need that generates the feeling of 'freedom' and 'free will'.
However, the will to satisfy need does not always lead to the total satisfaction of need thus I feel an 'impersonal causality' inhibiting me. this 'impersonal causality' is not an active 'motive' but a passive 'constraint'. It is secondary to will in action
.......................................................
a state of abstract impersonal freedom cannot cause motivation because motivation is a 'vector' (directed) and to logically conjure a 'vector' from abstraction is not logically explainable in principle.
The problem with the notion of impersonal 'stuff' is the source of motive for creating the 'stuff'. To conjure motive in impersonal terms is to 'force' it from logical necessity. If there is to be a beginning of such an impersonal existence, it must be truly empty (which is logically 'abstract' (i.e., there is no 'implicit' or 'potential' structure)). And, as I pointed out, there is no logical way for motive to emerge from abstraction. Thus, there can be no true beginning of an impersonal, logically motivated universe. The only way for such an idea to be consistent is to assume that the universe is 'eternal' in some sense, and thus to supply an infinite sequence of cause/effect whose beginning can never be logically indentified in principle. A real logical snafu to say the least.
and, aside from all this, there is no 'in' for a 'subject' in an impersonal 'logically necessary' universe. this is a subtle problem, one that is usually dismissed without being answered.
8)
Um...you sound like Joe.
never!
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg14520 date=1065547177]
'causality' means 'necessity'
'impersonal causality' means 'logical necessity'
this 'impersonal causality' is not an active 'motive' but a passive 'constraint'. It is secondary to will in action
[/quote]
what's the distinction between 'logical necessity' and 'necessity'? That is, in what sense can 'necessity' not be 'logical necessity'?
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg14520 date=1065547177]
The problem with the notion of impersonal 'stuff' is the source of motive for creating the 'stuff'.
[/quote]
why can't the very existence of 'impersonal stuff' follow by (logical) necessity from its very nature, just as the three angles of a (cartesian) triangle always sum to 180 degrees because that is of their nature?
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg14520 date=1065547177]
If there is to be a beginning of such an impersonal existence, it must be truly empty (which is logically 'abstract'). And, as I pointed out, there is no logical way for motive to emerge from abstraction.
[/quote]
what's your proof of these two claims? And how is motive being defined here, as what we experience as motive, or as something more general?
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg14520 date=1065547177]
Thus, there can be no true beginning of an impersonal, logically motivated universe.
[/quote]
because the beginning transcends our human notions of 'time', which makes it, in a sense, beginningless or beyond time? Why would you choose to characterize the universe as 'logically-motivated' which seems a blatant anthropomorphism, instead of simply saying that logic is part of the nature of the universe?
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg14520 date=1065547177]
The only way for such an idea to be consistent is to assume that the universe is 'eternal' in some sense, and thus to supply an infinite sequence of cause/effect whose beginning can never be logically indentified in principle.
[/quote]
not necessarily 'eternal', but certainly transcending our human notions and experiences of time as such. I don't think this is far-fetched in the least, but rather simply an obvious consequence of the fact that we are all limited by our experiences, and as such, our notions of time will certainly have little or no applicability when we talk about events that are very far removed from our normal experiences, or for that matter, of what the very notion of 'event' means when we're talking about 'that' which exists before (or beyond) time. You presume that the only way to make such an idea consistent is to assume that the universe is 'eternal' (i.e., infinite time) and consists of infinite sequences of cause/effect, but I would say that this is an error on your part because you're extrapolating from your meager and humanly notions and experiences of time, and trying to say that such notions of time are logically always valid, which simply isn't the case. In fact, physicists have even recognized this matter (see Hawking's and Weinberg's works), which is precisely why they can (and do) speak of 'that' which existed before (or more correctly, outside of) the beginning of the universe and of time altogether.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg14520 date=1065547177]
and, aside from all this, there is no 'in' for a 'subject' in an impersonal 'logically necessary' universe. this is a subtle problem
[/quote]
unless sentience follows from or is a part of the very nature of the impersonal 'logically necessary' universe. I see no subtlety here, unless I misunderstood you
'causality' means 'necessity'
'impersonal causality' means 'logical necessity'
this 'impersonal causality' is not an active 'motive' but a passive 'constraint'. It is secondary to will in action
[/quote]
what's the distinction between 'logical necessity' and 'necessity'? That is, in what sense can 'necessity' not be 'logical necessity'?
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg14520 date=1065547177]
The problem with the notion of impersonal 'stuff' is the source of motive for creating the 'stuff'.
[/quote]
why can't the very existence of 'impersonal stuff' follow by (logical) necessity from its very nature, just as the three angles of a (cartesian) triangle always sum to 180 degrees because that is of their nature?
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg14520 date=1065547177]
If there is to be a beginning of such an impersonal existence, it must be truly empty (which is logically 'abstract'). And, as I pointed out, there is no logical way for motive to emerge from abstraction.
[/quote]
what's your proof of these two claims? And how is motive being defined here, as what we experience as motive, or as something more general?
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg14520 date=1065547177]
Thus, there can be no true beginning of an impersonal, logically motivated universe.
[/quote]
because the beginning transcends our human notions of 'time', which makes it, in a sense, beginningless or beyond time? Why would you choose to characterize the universe as 'logically-motivated' which seems a blatant anthropomorphism, instead of simply saying that logic is part of the nature of the universe?
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg14520 date=1065547177]
The only way for such an idea to be consistent is to assume that the universe is 'eternal' in some sense, and thus to supply an infinite sequence of cause/effect whose beginning can never be logically indentified in principle.
[/quote]
not necessarily 'eternal', but certainly transcending our human notions and experiences of time as such. I don't think this is far-fetched in the least, but rather simply an obvious consequence of the fact that we are all limited by our experiences, and as such, our notions of time will certainly have little or no applicability when we talk about events that are very far removed from our normal experiences, or for that matter, of what the very notion of 'event' means when we're talking about 'that' which exists before (or beyond) time. You presume that the only way to make such an idea consistent is to assume that the universe is 'eternal' (i.e., infinite time) and consists of infinite sequences of cause/effect, but I would say that this is an error on your part because you're extrapolating from your meager and humanly notions and experiences of time, and trying to say that such notions of time are logically always valid, which simply isn't the case. In fact, physicists have even recognized this matter (see Hawking's and Weinberg's works), which is precisely why they can (and do) speak of 'that' which existed before (or more correctly, outside of) the beginning of the universe and of time altogether.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg14520 date=1065547177]
and, aside from all this, there is no 'in' for a 'subject' in an impersonal 'logically necessary' universe. this is a subtle problem
[/quote]
unless sentience follows from or is a part of the very nature of the impersonal 'logically necessary' universe. I see no subtlety here, unless I misunderstood you
well, 'Bluebear', I see you're back for more. Maybe you think you can win this one?
[quote]what's the distinction between 'logical necessity' and 'necessity'? That is, in what sense can 'necessity' not be 'logical necessity'? [/quote]
Here I am trying to illustrate 'subjective' vs. 'objective' necessity.
[quote]why can't the very existence of 'impersonal stuff' follow by (logical) necessity from its very nature [/quote]
the idea here is, before the stuff is there it is not there. Now how does it get there? It's 'nature' is not available until it is there, so it's 'nature' cannot be its cause
[quote]If there is to be a beginning of such an impersonal existence, it must be truly empty (which is logically 'abstract').
what's your proof of (this claim)?[/quote]
This is by definition. The idea 'impersonal existence' implies lack of 'subject'; thus, there can only be 'object'. The 'beginning' is, by definition, the moment when the first 'object' comes to exist. In this universe, before the beginning there is no subject and no object by definition; it is 'truly' empty. To call this state 'logically abstract' is to say that it is dissociated from any particular logical instance. It must be the 'empty set', but with no subject to 'think' it
[quote]there is no logical way for motive to emerge from abstraction.
what's your proof of (this claim)? [/quote]
The proof of this claim is simply that it is a logical non-sequitor for motivation to logically appear without cause
[quote]because the beginning transcends our human notions of 'time', which makes it, in a sense, beginningless or beyond time? [/quote]
because it is illogical and because, in this universe, 'logic' is the basis of reality
[quote]Why would you choose to characterize the universe as 'logically-motivated' which seems a blatant anthropomorphism, instead of simply saying that logic is part of the nature of the universe?[/quote]
I am referring to the proposed 'impersonal' universe, which obviously cannot be anything but 'logical' in its composition and motivation.
[quote]not necessarily 'eternal', but certainly transcending our human notions and experiences of time as such. I don't think this is far-fetched in the least, but rather simply an obvious consequence of the fact that we are all limited by our experiences, and as such, our notions of time will certainly have little or no applicability when we talk about events that are very far removed from our normal experiences, or for that matter, of what the very notion of 'event' means when we're talking about 'that' which exists before (or beyond) time.[/quote]
That's just mumbo-jumbo, 'bluebear'. According to the logic of this idea, you are not capable in principle of ever establishing this idea as irrefutably true. By it's own logic, it can never be proven and thus to believe it requires some irreducable measure of faith
[quote]You presume that the only way to make such an idea consistent is to assume that the universe is 'eternal' (i.e., infinite time) and consists of infinite sequences of cause/effect, but I would say that this is an error on your part because you're extrapolating from your meager and humanly notions and experiences of time, and trying to say that such notions of time are logically always valid, which simply isn't the case.[/quote]
Again, I refer you to your own logic which dictates that you simply cannot be sure that you are right. I say you are wrong
[quote]In fact, physicists have even recognized this matter (see Hawking's and Weinberg's works), which is precisely why they can (and do) speak of 'that' which existed before (or more correctly, outside of) the beginning of the universe and of time altogether.[/quote]
What have Hawkings and Weinberg said 'that' is? I am curious
[quote]unless sentience follows from or is a part of the very nature of the impersonal 'logically necessary' universe. I see no subtlety here, unless I misunderstood you [/quote]
'subject' is not an 'object' (by definition), and the impersonal 'logically necessary' universe is a universe of 'objects'
[quote]what's the distinction between 'logical necessity' and 'necessity'? That is, in what sense can 'necessity' not be 'logical necessity'? [/quote]
Here I am trying to illustrate 'subjective' vs. 'objective' necessity.
[quote]why can't the very existence of 'impersonal stuff' follow by (logical) necessity from its very nature [/quote]
the idea here is, before the stuff is there it is not there. Now how does it get there? It's 'nature' is not available until it is there, so it's 'nature' cannot be its cause
[quote]If there is to be a beginning of such an impersonal existence, it must be truly empty (which is logically 'abstract').
what's your proof of (this claim)?[/quote]
This is by definition. The idea 'impersonal existence' implies lack of 'subject'; thus, there can only be 'object'. The 'beginning' is, by definition, the moment when the first 'object' comes to exist. In this universe, before the beginning there is no subject and no object by definition; it is 'truly' empty. To call this state 'logically abstract' is to say that it is dissociated from any particular logical instance. It must be the 'empty set', but with no subject to 'think' it
[quote]there is no logical way for motive to emerge from abstraction.
what's your proof of (this claim)? [/quote]
The proof of this claim is simply that it is a logical non-sequitor for motivation to logically appear without cause
[quote]because the beginning transcends our human notions of 'time', which makes it, in a sense, beginningless or beyond time? [/quote]
because it is illogical and because, in this universe, 'logic' is the basis of reality
[quote]Why would you choose to characterize the universe as 'logically-motivated' which seems a blatant anthropomorphism, instead of simply saying that logic is part of the nature of the universe?[/quote]
I am referring to the proposed 'impersonal' universe, which obviously cannot be anything but 'logical' in its composition and motivation.
[quote]not necessarily 'eternal', but certainly transcending our human notions and experiences of time as such. I don't think this is far-fetched in the least, but rather simply an obvious consequence of the fact that we are all limited by our experiences, and as such, our notions of time will certainly have little or no applicability when we talk about events that are very far removed from our normal experiences, or for that matter, of what the very notion of 'event' means when we're talking about 'that' which exists before (or beyond) time.[/quote]
That's just mumbo-jumbo, 'bluebear'. According to the logic of this idea, you are not capable in principle of ever establishing this idea as irrefutably true. By it's own logic, it can never be proven and thus to believe it requires some irreducable measure of faith
[quote]You presume that the only way to make such an idea consistent is to assume that the universe is 'eternal' (i.e., infinite time) and consists of infinite sequences of cause/effect, but I would say that this is an error on your part because you're extrapolating from your meager and humanly notions and experiences of time, and trying to say that such notions of time are logically always valid, which simply isn't the case.[/quote]
Again, I refer you to your own logic which dictates that you simply cannot be sure that you are right. I say you are wrong
[quote]In fact, physicists have even recognized this matter (see Hawking's and Weinberg's works), which is precisely why they can (and do) speak of 'that' which existed before (or more correctly, outside of) the beginning of the universe and of time altogether.[/quote]
What have Hawkings and Weinberg said 'that' is? I am curious
[quote]unless sentience follows from or is a part of the very nature of the impersonal 'logically necessary' universe. I see no subtlety here, unless I misunderstood you [/quote]
'subject' is not an 'object' (by definition), and the impersonal 'logically necessary' universe is a universe of 'objects'
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
well, 'Bluebear', I see you're back for more. Maybe you think you can win this one?
[/quote]
I only have Truth on my side. I see you have buffoonery on yours.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
Here I am trying to illustrate 'subjective' vs. 'objective' necessity.
[/quote]
please define 'objective' and 'subjective' necessity.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
It's 'nature' is not available until it is there, so it's 'nature' cannot be its cause
[/quote]
sure it can. For example, the nature of cartesian triangles is that their angles always sum to 180 degrees. Are you claiming triangles existed before their nature required that their angles sum to 180 degrees?
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
The idea 'impersonal existence' implies lack of 'subject'; thus, there can only be 'object'.
[/quote]
the idea 'impersonal existence', or any idea whatsoever for that matter, implies a subject. I hope you understand this. Perhaps you mean some correlate of the idea, or the thing-in-itself, in which case you still cannot prove that the thing-in-itself lacks a 'subject'. In other words, you can't disprove panpsychism. Whatever 'impersonal existence' you speak of, you can't prove lacks a subject. In fact, it's seems more likely and convincing to me that any type of existence, personal or impersonal, must contain a subject (which indian sages has been claiming for millennia). If you are limited by your personal ego, then don't know the experience of depersonalization and of impersonal experience. As such, it is precisely because you are limited by your ego that you cannot understand or appreciate the concept of 'impersonal existence'.
Furthermore, your division of things into 'subject' and 'object' is dualistic, simplistic, misleading, and in the final analysis, a chimera. I do not accept this division as being reflective of anything deep, but rather that it merely reflects your own dualistic manner of thinking and experiencing, which implies you have not experienced 'unitary experiences' in which constructs of 'subject' and 'object' dissolve altogether into one. Am I right?
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
The proof of this claim is simply that it is a logical non-sequitor for motivation to logically appear without cause
[/quote]
this is not convincing, and simply saying it's a logical non-sequitor does not make it so. You must show why it is. And further, why do you use awkward phrases like "logically appear"? After all, how many different ways are there to appear? And also, you have not made explicit your many assumptions underlying your "proof", and neither have you justified those assumptions. Thus, your "proof" is in desperate need of proof.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
in this universe, 'logic' is the basis of reality
[/quote]
I think you mean, in "Dan's" Universe, as you experience it or choose to interpret it, for it is clear that 'logic' to you means something different than it does to other people, and certainly different than it does to a logician or mathematician. I think you meant to say, "In my subjective universe that I, Dan, probably create in my head, I believe that my interpretation of logic is the basis of my reality, even though I, Dan, willingly ignore or otherwise repress irrational, illogical, and supralogical elements since they do not conform to my logical universe", Certainly, you can't hope to impose your view of reality on others or even promote it to having an altogether independent existence from your experience of it.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
By it's own logic, it can never be proven and thus to believe it requires some irreducable measure of faith
[/quote]
I would like to see you prove that. There's this thing called "mathematics" that has proved quite useful for describing 'that' which lies outside of time. Read Hawking's "First three minutes" (or something like that) or Weinberg's work.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
I refer you to your own logic which dictates that you simply cannot be sure that you are right.
[/quote]
What is 'right' after all? Do I know that my experiences are 'right'? Do we know that our experience of 'I' is 'right'? Do we know that an 'objectively' existing universe is 'right'?
What we are 'right' about is our experiences since these are things we experience directly. What are usually not right about is our 'interpretations' of our experiences. You cling to your particular interpretation, which makes sense to you for your experiences, but to me, it's a false interpretation because it has its foundation solely in a rather naive brand of dualistic thinking. I mean, come on, let's face it, it very likely that no-one else has your particular interpretation or worldview, so what does that say about the likely validity of your interpretation, or whether it's 'right'? It seems to me that a more intelligent perspective (or interpretation) would encompass all other perspectives (or interpretations).
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
'subject' is not an 'object' (by definition)
[/quote]
that definition is meaningless within the context of unitary experiences in which 'subject' and 'object' dissolve into one. As such, your definition is limited to a rather peculiar form of consciousness. Furthermore, by my definition, 'subject' is 'object' AND 'subject' is not 'object', which is a definition that takes into account the multiplicity and the unity of everything. If only your definition could ring of so much truth! Unfortunately, your limited definition, like your whole limited outlook, rings rather hollow. Hence the loud noise, I suppose.
well, 'Bluebear', I see you're back for more. Maybe you think you can win this one?
[/quote]
I only have Truth on my side. I see you have buffoonery on yours.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
Here I am trying to illustrate 'subjective' vs. 'objective' necessity.
[/quote]
please define 'objective' and 'subjective' necessity.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
It's 'nature' is not available until it is there, so it's 'nature' cannot be its cause
[/quote]
sure it can. For example, the nature of cartesian triangles is that their angles always sum to 180 degrees. Are you claiming triangles existed before their nature required that their angles sum to 180 degrees?
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
The idea 'impersonal existence' implies lack of 'subject'; thus, there can only be 'object'.
[/quote]
the idea 'impersonal existence', or any idea whatsoever for that matter, implies a subject. I hope you understand this. Perhaps you mean some correlate of the idea, or the thing-in-itself, in which case you still cannot prove that the thing-in-itself lacks a 'subject'. In other words, you can't disprove panpsychism. Whatever 'impersonal existence' you speak of, you can't prove lacks a subject. In fact, it's seems more likely and convincing to me that any type of existence, personal or impersonal, must contain a subject (which indian sages has been claiming for millennia). If you are limited by your personal ego, then don't know the experience of depersonalization and of impersonal experience. As such, it is precisely because you are limited by your ego that you cannot understand or appreciate the concept of 'impersonal existence'.
Furthermore, your division of things into 'subject' and 'object' is dualistic, simplistic, misleading, and in the final analysis, a chimera. I do not accept this division as being reflective of anything deep, but rather that it merely reflects your own dualistic manner of thinking and experiencing, which implies you have not experienced 'unitary experiences' in which constructs of 'subject' and 'object' dissolve altogether into one. Am I right?
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
The proof of this claim is simply that it is a logical non-sequitor for motivation to logically appear without cause
[/quote]
this is not convincing, and simply saying it's a logical non-sequitor does not make it so. You must show why it is. And further, why do you use awkward phrases like "logically appear"? After all, how many different ways are there to appear? And also, you have not made explicit your many assumptions underlying your "proof", and neither have you justified those assumptions. Thus, your "proof" is in desperate need of proof.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
in this universe, 'logic' is the basis of reality
[/quote]
I think you mean, in "Dan's" Universe, as you experience it or choose to interpret it, for it is clear that 'logic' to you means something different than it does to other people, and certainly different than it does to a logician or mathematician. I think you meant to say, "In my subjective universe that I, Dan, probably create in my head, I believe that my interpretation of logic is the basis of my reality, even though I, Dan, willingly ignore or otherwise repress irrational, illogical, and supralogical elements since they do not conform to my logical universe", Certainly, you can't hope to impose your view of reality on others or even promote it to having an altogether independent existence from your experience of it.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
By it's own logic, it can never be proven and thus to believe it requires some irreducable measure of faith
[/quote]
I would like to see you prove that. There's this thing called "mathematics" that has proved quite useful for describing 'that' which lies outside of time. Read Hawking's "First three minutes" (or something like that) or Weinberg's work.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
I refer you to your own logic which dictates that you simply cannot be sure that you are right.
[/quote]
What is 'right' after all? Do I know that my experiences are 'right'? Do we know that our experience of 'I' is 'right'? Do we know that an 'objectively' existing universe is 'right'?
What we are 'right' about is our experiences since these are things we experience directly. What are usually not right about is our 'interpretations' of our experiences. You cling to your particular interpretation, which makes sense to you for your experiences, but to me, it's a false interpretation because it has its foundation solely in a rather naive brand of dualistic thinking. I mean, come on, let's face it, it very likely that no-one else has your particular interpretation or worldview, so what does that say about the likely validity of your interpretation, or whether it's 'right'? It seems to me that a more intelligent perspective (or interpretation) would encompass all other perspectives (or interpretations).
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15222 date=1067394559]
'subject' is not an 'object' (by definition)
[/quote]
that definition is meaningless within the context of unitary experiences in which 'subject' and 'object' dissolve into one. As such, your definition is limited to a rather peculiar form of consciousness. Furthermore, by my definition, 'subject' is 'object' AND 'subject' is not 'object', which is a definition that takes into account the multiplicity and the unity of everything. If only your definition could ring of so much truth! Unfortunately, your limited definition, like your whole limited outlook, rings rather hollow. Hence the loud noise, I suppose.
[quote]I only have Truth on my side. I see you have buffoonery on yours[/quote]
you're such a cute little bluebear, 'bluebear'
[quote]please define 'objective' and 'subjective' necessity.[/quote]
'objective' necessity is ordinary mechanical causality, which can be completely described using a trivial logical formulation. I think science has pretty much mastered the world through this paradigm. 'Subjective' necessity is need-as-cause, where the 'subject', through need, 'causes'.
[quote]the idea 'impersonal existence', or any idea whatsoever for that matter, implies a subject. I hope you understand this. [/quote]
actually, a 'subject' has ideas. no need for gluing this together backwards with the word 'implication'
[quote]Perhaps you mean some correlate of the idea, or the thing-in-itself, in which case you still cannot prove that the thing-in-itself lacks a 'subject'. In other words, you can't disprove panpsychism. Whatever 'impersonal existence' you speak of, you can't prove lacks a subject. [/quote]
It's a paradox, 'bluebear'. Don't get into a tizzy trying to explain it to me in so many words. However, there are those who posit it, and try to understand the world from this basis. I simply play with these constraints to show the absurdity. what did you call it...., a reductio ad absurdum?
[quote]In fact, it's seems more likely and convincing to me that any type of existence, personal or impersonal, must contain a subject (which indian sages has been claiming for millennia). If you are limited by your personal ego, then don't know the experience of depersonalization and of impersonal experience. As such, it is precisely because you are limited by your ego that you cannot understand or appreciate the concept of 'impersonal existence'.[/quote]
your 'impersonal' is not my 'impersonal', as you are allowing a 'subject' into yours. By my definition, 'impersonal' is without subject
[quote]Furthermore, your division of things into 'subject' and 'object' is dualistic, simplistic, misleading, and in the final analysis, a chimera. [/quote]
no, it isn't
[quote]I do not accept this division as being reflective of anything deep, but rather that it merely reflects your own dualistic manner of thinking and experiencing, which implies you have not experienced 'unitary experiences' in which constructs of 'subject' and 'object' dissolve altogether into one. Am I right?[/quote]
no, you're a buffoon
[quote]this is not convincing, and simply saying it's a logical non-sequitor does not make it so. You must show why it is. [/quote]
it is a logical non-sequitor whether or not I declare it as so. There is simply nothing to cause anything else. Try to explain how 'something' should begin as a logical consequence of nothing. All you can do is start waxing mystical, and I'm not interested in such illogic
[quote]you have not made explicit your many assumptions underlying your "proof", and neither have you justified those assumptions. Thus, your "proof" is in desperate need of proof.[/quote]
yes I have and no it isn't
[quote]I think you mean, in "Dan's" Universe, as you experience it or choose to interpret it, for it is clear that 'logic' to you means something different than it does to other people, and certainly different than it does to a logician or mathematician. [/quote]
no, I mean in the posited impersonal universe (again, not your 'impersonal' universe). If you tried actually understanding logic instead of just bragging about how many logicians you've read and how many logical formulas you know, you might 'get' what I've written about on this thread
[quote]I think you meant to say, "In my subjective universe that I, Dan, probably create in my head, I believe that my interpretation of logic is the basis of my reality, even though I, Dan, willingly ignore or otherwise repress irrational, illogical, and supralogical elements since they do not conform to my logical universe", Certainly, you can't hope to impose your view of reality on others or even promote it to having an altogether independent existence from your experience of it. [/quote]
I think you just don't get it, 'bluebear'. But you do make for good entertainment
[quote]I would like to see you prove that.[/quote]
I bet you would
[quote]There's this thing called "mathematics" that has proved quite useful for describing 'that' which lies outside of time. Read Hawking's "First three minutes" (or something like that) or Weinberg's work.[/quote]
yeah, well there's also this thing called "bullshit" that has proved quite annoying at claiming all sorts of nonsense under the guise of 'authority'
[quote]What is 'right' after all? [/quote]
surely you aren't serious
[quote]Do I know that my experiences are 'right'? Do we know that our experience of 'I' is 'right'? Do we know that an 'objectively' existing universe is 'right'? [/quote]
does 'being right' depend on whether or not we know it as such?
[quote]What we are 'right' about is our experiences since these are things we experience directly. What are usually not right about is our 'interpretations' of our experiences. [/quote]
sounds good so far
[quote]You cling to your particular interpretation, which makes sense to you for your experiences, but to me, it's a false interpretation because it has its foundation solely in a rather naive brand of dualistic thinking. I mean, come on, let's face it, it very likely that no-one else has your particular interpretation or worldview, so what does that say about the likely validity of your interpretation, or whether it's 'right'? [/quote]
Your interpretation is interesting, of course. I just don't think it is right
[quote]It seems to me that a more intelligent perspective (or interpretation) would encompass all other perspectives (or interpretations).[/quote]
but not trivially. there's plenty-o-contradiction to be had amongst these perspectives, and your 'encompassing' interpretation must actually dissolve these instead of just claiming that they are dissolvable or nonexistent
[quote]that definition is meaningless within the context of unitary experiences in which 'subject' and 'object' dissolve into one. As such, your definition is limited to a rather peculiar form of consciousness. Furthermore, by my definition, 'subject' is 'object' AND 'subject' is not 'object', which is a definition that takes into account the multiplicity and the unity of everything. If only your definition could ring of so much truth! Unfortunately, your limited definition, like your whole limited outlook, rings rather hollow. Hence the loud noise, I suppose. [/quote]
your a nut, 'bluebear'. I hope the pills taste good
8)
you're such a cute little bluebear, 'bluebear'
[quote]please define 'objective' and 'subjective' necessity.[/quote]
'objective' necessity is ordinary mechanical causality, which can be completely described using a trivial logical formulation. I think science has pretty much mastered the world through this paradigm. 'Subjective' necessity is need-as-cause, where the 'subject', through need, 'causes'.
[quote]the idea 'impersonal existence', or any idea whatsoever for that matter, implies a subject. I hope you understand this. [/quote]
actually, a 'subject' has ideas. no need for gluing this together backwards with the word 'implication'
[quote]Perhaps you mean some correlate of the idea, or the thing-in-itself, in which case you still cannot prove that the thing-in-itself lacks a 'subject'. In other words, you can't disprove panpsychism. Whatever 'impersonal existence' you speak of, you can't prove lacks a subject. [/quote]
It's a paradox, 'bluebear'. Don't get into a tizzy trying to explain it to me in so many words. However, there are those who posit it, and try to understand the world from this basis. I simply play with these constraints to show the absurdity. what did you call it...., a reductio ad absurdum?
[quote]In fact, it's seems more likely and convincing to me that any type of existence, personal or impersonal, must contain a subject (which indian sages has been claiming for millennia). If you are limited by your personal ego, then don't know the experience of depersonalization and of impersonal experience. As such, it is precisely because you are limited by your ego that you cannot understand or appreciate the concept of 'impersonal existence'.[/quote]
your 'impersonal' is not my 'impersonal', as you are allowing a 'subject' into yours. By my definition, 'impersonal' is without subject
[quote]Furthermore, your division of things into 'subject' and 'object' is dualistic, simplistic, misleading, and in the final analysis, a chimera. [/quote]
no, it isn't
[quote]I do not accept this division as being reflective of anything deep, but rather that it merely reflects your own dualistic manner of thinking and experiencing, which implies you have not experienced 'unitary experiences' in which constructs of 'subject' and 'object' dissolve altogether into one. Am I right?[/quote]
no, you're a buffoon
[quote]this is not convincing, and simply saying it's a logical non-sequitor does not make it so. You must show why it is. [/quote]
it is a logical non-sequitor whether or not I declare it as so. There is simply nothing to cause anything else. Try to explain how 'something' should begin as a logical consequence of nothing. All you can do is start waxing mystical, and I'm not interested in such illogic
[quote]you have not made explicit your many assumptions underlying your "proof", and neither have you justified those assumptions. Thus, your "proof" is in desperate need of proof.[/quote]
yes I have and no it isn't
[quote]I think you mean, in "Dan's" Universe, as you experience it or choose to interpret it, for it is clear that 'logic' to you means something different than it does to other people, and certainly different than it does to a logician or mathematician. [/quote]
no, I mean in the posited impersonal universe (again, not your 'impersonal' universe). If you tried actually understanding logic instead of just bragging about how many logicians you've read and how many logical formulas you know, you might 'get' what I've written about on this thread
[quote]I think you meant to say, "In my subjective universe that I, Dan, probably create in my head, I believe that my interpretation of logic is the basis of my reality, even though I, Dan, willingly ignore or otherwise repress irrational, illogical, and supralogical elements since they do not conform to my logical universe", Certainly, you can't hope to impose your view of reality on others or even promote it to having an altogether independent existence from your experience of it. [/quote]
I think you just don't get it, 'bluebear'. But you do make for good entertainment
[quote]I would like to see you prove that.[/quote]
I bet you would
[quote]There's this thing called "mathematics" that has proved quite useful for describing 'that' which lies outside of time. Read Hawking's "First three minutes" (or something like that) or Weinberg's work.[/quote]
yeah, well there's also this thing called "bullshit" that has proved quite annoying at claiming all sorts of nonsense under the guise of 'authority'
[quote]What is 'right' after all? [/quote]
surely you aren't serious
[quote]Do I know that my experiences are 'right'? Do we know that our experience of 'I' is 'right'? Do we know that an 'objectively' existing universe is 'right'? [/quote]
does 'being right' depend on whether or not we know it as such?
[quote]What we are 'right' about is our experiences since these are things we experience directly. What are usually not right about is our 'interpretations' of our experiences. [/quote]
sounds good so far
[quote]You cling to your particular interpretation, which makes sense to you for your experiences, but to me, it's a false interpretation because it has its foundation solely in a rather naive brand of dualistic thinking. I mean, come on, let's face it, it very likely that no-one else has your particular interpretation or worldview, so what does that say about the likely validity of your interpretation, or whether it's 'right'? [/quote]
Your interpretation is interesting, of course. I just don't think it is right
[quote]It seems to me that a more intelligent perspective (or interpretation) would encompass all other perspectives (or interpretations).[/quote]
but not trivially. there's plenty-o-contradiction to be had amongst these perspectives, and your 'encompassing' interpretation must actually dissolve these instead of just claiming that they are dissolvable or nonexistent
[quote]that definition is meaningless within the context of unitary experiences in which 'subject' and 'object' dissolve into one. As such, your definition is limited to a rather peculiar form of consciousness. Furthermore, by my definition, 'subject' is 'object' AND 'subject' is not 'object', which is a definition that takes into account the multiplicity and the unity of everything. If only your definition could ring of so much truth! Unfortunately, your limited definition, like your whole limited outlook, rings rather hollow. Hence the loud noise, I suppose. [/quote]
your a nut, 'bluebear'. I hope the pills taste good
8)
Dan, I don't have time for a full reply at the moment, but you should know that all proofs are incomplete in a Gödelian sense. All we know with certainty is our direct experience and Being.
"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth."
~Niels Bohr
I do not grant that you're in possession of any profound truths, but nonetheless, agree with Bohr. We both gaze up at a group of stars in the night sky, and I may see Orion whereas you see your favorite farm animal, but both of these are interpretations, and this division of yours into subject and object is likewise just an interpretation of your experiences, but certainly this interpretation is not valid for everyone else.
But then again, I grant the remote possibility that I don't "get" what you've written about in this thread, and so I'll look it over more when I get the chance.
[img width=185 height=240]http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~hull/vlog/yeomen/newimage/buffoon.gif[/img]
"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth."
~Niels Bohr
I do not grant that you're in possession of any profound truths, but nonetheless, agree with Bohr. We both gaze up at a group of stars in the night sky, and I may see Orion whereas you see your favorite farm animal, but both of these are interpretations, and this division of yours into subject and object is likewise just an interpretation of your experiences, but certainly this interpretation is not valid for everyone else.
But then again, I grant the remote possibility that I don't "get" what you've written about in this thread, and so I'll look it over more when I get the chance.
[img width=185 height=240]http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~hull/vlog/yeomen/newimage/buffoon.gif[/img]
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg15231 date=1067417270]your a nut, 'bluebear'.
[/quote]
you ain't seen nuttin yet 8)
ok, I've read over the entire thread, and I must confess that I find the whole question of free will vs determinism to be rather meaningless. I find that most people who believe most strongly in "free will", as a thing that's different from determinism, do not even understand precisely what's "free" in "free will", nor know much about the nature of "freedom" and "free will" as such. Is "free will" just acting randomly or creatively or choosing from among several options, or is it a feeling? Whichever of these you choose, there's no conflict with determinism. However, I wouldn't necessarily characterize "free will" as an illusion, at least when considered as a legitimate feeling, since the feeling as such is actually something we experience directly, and to call this feeling an illusion would result in you having to call other emotions, like joy and anger, illusions. And even if you insist they're illusions, then the argument degenerates into semantics since the experience of the feeling is the same regardless of what you choose to call it.
Spinoza may help illuminate the problem of "free will" vs "necessity", for he recognizes that things act only according to "necessity", but decides to call a thing "free" if it acts under its own nature, as opposed to being acted upon by outside influences that are not part of one's nature. Thus, according to Spinoza, only God, which he defines as a Totality of sorts, acts absolutely freely since It's always acting from It's nature and is never acted upon from something other than its nature. However, human beings can act from their inner necessity, and be "free" according to Spinoza, or they can be acted upon from the outside (and thereby, not "free").
Dan, you seem to offer two definitions of free will: 1) as the feeling of free will, and 2) as the abstract notion of free will. You've already argued that, under definition 2, we cannot be said to possess free will, and you seem to offer definition 1 as the more acceptable of the two. However, I would have to agree with Timothy that you sound too much like Rousseau. The feeling of free will is not what most people mean by free will, and so to try to substitute your definition is inappropriate. At best, you can say that the feeling of free will is a valid feeling, but the feeling itself is not synonymous with what most people take to be free will.
Furthermore, I maintain all of my previous objections to your unproven claims that 1) 'impersonal existence' implies lack of 'subject', 2) a things 'nature' is not available until it is there, so it's 'nature' cannot be its cause, and 3) in this universe, "Dan's logic" is the basis of reality. To claim 1, you replied that, by definition, 'impersonal existence' does not have a subject, but even if I accept this definition, you haven't provided any proof whatsoever that 'subject-less existence' exists. To claim 2, you simply ignored my objection, which was a challenge to prove that the nature of cartesian triangles (in which the sum of the angles is 180 degrees) did not exist prior to the actual appearance of cartesian triangles in the universe. Hence, I conclude you cannot meet my challenge, and thus, you have not proven your claim 2. To claim 3, you replied to my objection presuming to know all about the 'logic' of your posited 'impersonal universe', which by definition is 'subjectless'. But if you know the logic of your subjectless universe, then it no longer is subjectless, now is it? Thus, your claim 3 fails. In sum, none of your claims has been proven, to which I must conclude that your reasoning and 'logic' which lead you to your claims is fallacious.
[/quote]
you ain't seen nuttin yet 8)
ok, I've read over the entire thread, and I must confess that I find the whole question of free will vs determinism to be rather meaningless. I find that most people who believe most strongly in "free will", as a thing that's different from determinism, do not even understand precisely what's "free" in "free will", nor know much about the nature of "freedom" and "free will" as such. Is "free will" just acting randomly or creatively or choosing from among several options, or is it a feeling? Whichever of these you choose, there's no conflict with determinism. However, I wouldn't necessarily characterize "free will" as an illusion, at least when considered as a legitimate feeling, since the feeling as such is actually something we experience directly, and to call this feeling an illusion would result in you having to call other emotions, like joy and anger, illusions. And even if you insist they're illusions, then the argument degenerates into semantics since the experience of the feeling is the same regardless of what you choose to call it.
Spinoza may help illuminate the problem of "free will" vs "necessity", for he recognizes that things act only according to "necessity", but decides to call a thing "free" if it acts under its own nature, as opposed to being acted upon by outside influences that are not part of one's nature. Thus, according to Spinoza, only God, which he defines as a Totality of sorts, acts absolutely freely since It's always acting from It's nature and is never acted upon from something other than its nature. However, human beings can act from their inner necessity, and be "free" according to Spinoza, or they can be acted upon from the outside (and thereby, not "free").
Dan, you seem to offer two definitions of free will: 1) as the feeling of free will, and 2) as the abstract notion of free will. You've already argued that, under definition 2, we cannot be said to possess free will, and you seem to offer definition 1 as the more acceptable of the two. However, I would have to agree with Timothy that you sound too much like Rousseau. The feeling of free will is not what most people mean by free will, and so to try to substitute your definition is inappropriate. At best, you can say that the feeling of free will is a valid feeling, but the feeling itself is not synonymous with what most people take to be free will.
Furthermore, I maintain all of my previous objections to your unproven claims that 1) 'impersonal existence' implies lack of 'subject', 2) a things 'nature' is not available until it is there, so it's 'nature' cannot be its cause, and 3) in this universe, "Dan's logic" is the basis of reality. To claim 1, you replied that, by definition, 'impersonal existence' does not have a subject, but even if I accept this definition, you haven't provided any proof whatsoever that 'subject-less existence' exists. To claim 2, you simply ignored my objection, which was a challenge to prove that the nature of cartesian triangles (in which the sum of the angles is 180 degrees) did not exist prior to the actual appearance of cartesian triangles in the universe. Hence, I conclude you cannot meet my challenge, and thus, you have not proven your claim 2. To claim 3, you replied to my objection presuming to know all about the 'logic' of your posited 'impersonal universe', which by definition is 'subjectless'. But if you know the logic of your subjectless universe, then it no longer is subjectless, now is it? Thus, your claim 3 fails. In sum, none of your claims has been proven, to which I must conclude that your reasoning and 'logic' which lead you to your claims is fallacious.
[quote]The feeling of free will is not what most people mean by free will, and so to try to substitute your definition is inappropriate. At best, you can say that the feeling of free will is a valid feeling, but the feeling itself is not synonymous with what most people take to be free will.
[/quote]
what people mean by 'free will' is that they feel free to do as they will. it's really not complicated at that level, it gets complicated under 'philosophical' analysis which 'most people' are not doing
[quote]Furthermore, I maintain all of my previous objections to your unproven claims that 1) 'impersonal existence' implies lack of 'subject', 2) a things 'nature' is not available until it is there, so it's 'nature' cannot be its cause, and 3) in this universe, "Dan's logic" is the basis of reality. [/quote]
so? I maintain that your objections are a result of your lack of understanding coupled with your belief that you understand
[quote]To claim 1, you replied that, by definition, 'impersonal existence' does not have a subject, but even if I accept this definition, you haven't provided any proof whatsoever that 'subject-less existence' exists. [/quote]
No shit, Sh...er,...'bluebear'! Do you think I'm actually claiming that such a 'state' actually exists?
[quote]To claim 2, you simply ignored my objection, which was a challenge to prove that the nature of cartesian triangles (in which the sum of the angles is 180 degrees) did not exist prior to the actual appearance of cartesian triangles in the universe. Hence, I conclude you cannot meet my challenge, and thus, you have not proven your claim 2. [/quote]
I often tend to ignore silly objections. I defy you to show me where this 'nature' of the cartesian triangle is 'stored' if not in your own mind while you are thinking of it. All we really have here is humans doing logic, and imagining such 'entities' on the spot. That's all there is, 'bluebear'
[quote] To claim 3, you replied to my objection presuming to know all about the 'logic' of your posited 'impersonal universe', which by definition is 'subjectless'. But if you know the logic of your subjectless universe, then it no longer is subjectless, now is it? Thus, your claim 3 fails[/quote]
I know logic and I know the definition, so I can apply logic to the definition and reach conclusions. How hard is that to understand?
keep trying, maybe you will eventually 'get it'. who knows, stranger things have happened
8)
[/quote]
what people mean by 'free will' is that they feel free to do as they will. it's really not complicated at that level, it gets complicated under 'philosophical' analysis which 'most people' are not doing
[quote]Furthermore, I maintain all of my previous objections to your unproven claims that 1) 'impersonal existence' implies lack of 'subject', 2) a things 'nature' is not available until it is there, so it's 'nature' cannot be its cause, and 3) in this universe, "Dan's logic" is the basis of reality. [/quote]
so? I maintain that your objections are a result of your lack of understanding coupled with your belief that you understand
[quote]To claim 1, you replied that, by definition, 'impersonal existence' does not have a subject, but even if I accept this definition, you haven't provided any proof whatsoever that 'subject-less existence' exists. [/quote]
No shit, Sh...er,...'bluebear'! Do you think I'm actually claiming that such a 'state' actually exists?
[quote]To claim 2, you simply ignored my objection, which was a challenge to prove that the nature of cartesian triangles (in which the sum of the angles is 180 degrees) did not exist prior to the actual appearance of cartesian triangles in the universe. Hence, I conclude you cannot meet my challenge, and thus, you have not proven your claim 2. [/quote]
I often tend to ignore silly objections. I defy you to show me where this 'nature' of the cartesian triangle is 'stored' if not in your own mind while you are thinking of it. All we really have here is humans doing logic, and imagining such 'entities' on the spot. That's all there is, 'bluebear'
[quote] To claim 3, you replied to my objection presuming to know all about the 'logic' of your posited 'impersonal universe', which by definition is 'subjectless'. But if you know the logic of your subjectless universe, then it no longer is subjectless, now is it? Thus, your claim 3 fails[/quote]
I know logic and I know the definition, so I can apply logic to the definition and reach conclusions. How hard is that to understand?
keep trying, maybe you will eventually 'get it'. who knows, stranger things have happened
8)
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15255 date=1067492047]
what people mean by 'free will' is that they feel free to do as they will. it's really not complicated at that level, it gets complicated under 'philosophical' analysis which 'most people' are not doing
[/quote]
Though Philosophy has had several millenia to try to answer our questions about free will, because it is a rather 'soft' discipline as such, it has not done a very precise nor rigorous job, but fortunately, it looks like Science will come to its rescue once again.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15255 date=1067492047]
so? I maintain that your objections are a result of your lack of understanding coupled with your belief that you understand
[/quote]
I perceive this as a rather humorous though unsuccessful ploy to divert my attention away from the real issue at hand, which is the proof, or rather, the lack of proof, regarding your outrageous claims. Predictably, you'll likely reply (though probably not now that I've brought it up) that this perception forms part of my 'mistaken' beliefs, to which I could counter that you too maintain mistaken beliefs, but this doesn't get us very far, now does it? And so, it's up to the readers of this thread to decide for themselves which of us lacks understanding and which of us has mistaken beliefs.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15255 date=1067492047]
Do you think I'm actually claiming that such a 'state' actually exists?
[/quote]
A 'state' of subjectless existence, or a 'state' of proof of subjectless existence? If you can't prove that subjectless existence exists, then you have no basis for it, so why talk about it as if you have some basis for it?
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15255 date=1067492047]
I defy you to show me where this 'nature' of the cartesian triangle is 'stored' if not in your own mind while you are thinking of it.
[/quote]
Does a tree that falls in the forest make a noise if no-one's around to hear it? Ok, maybe that's too simplistic, so try this one: Can a tree really "fall" if no-one's around to witness it? In a similar vein, do you believe that the nature of the cartesian triangle exists if no-one is around to think it?
Now, on a slightly different note, what if my mind/consciousness is universal and is the basis of All? Do not take this as a provable claim, but merely as a hypothetical axiom. Then it follows that the nature of the triangle is always in my mind.
Regardless of whether the triangle is stored in the mind or not, this is completely irrelevant because it still does not address my objection to your unfounded claim that a thing's appearance precedes its nature.
Furthermore, you have never demonstrated that logic forms the basis of All, which I would also like to call in dispute. Nor have you shown that there is such a thing as "the basis" as opposed to multiple, or even infinite, bases.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15255 date=1067492047]
I know logic and I know the definition, so I can apply logic to the definition and reach conclusions. How hard is that to understand?
[/quote]
Syllogisms and the like, though fun to play with, will not take you very far towards realizing Truth. If someone with god-consciousness tries to talk to someone without it, there will be little understanding regardless of how much logic both of them know, because at a fundamental level, all meaningful discourse between two individuals presumes a large degree of commonality between experiences and levels of awareness. If two individuals have completely different types of experiences and levels of awareness, then there's little basis for meaningful discourse, with or without logic.
And, to answer you in advance, 'No', I did not take 'Cop-Outs 101', though I expect you to say that the preceding paragraph is a cop-out, though I would reply that it's simply a statement of fact, and that to the person lacking such experiences, they will sometimes opt to rationalize such things as 'cop-outs' in a misguided effort to maintain their self-esteem and soothe their ego, as I predict you will attempt to do.
If all you're doing is applying logic to definitions, then you can't expect to get very far with your relatively limited experiences and level of awareness, because when you define things that reside outside your sphere of experiences and awareness, then all you know of these things is indirect and hypothetical, and as such, will, in general, always be open to scepticism and doubt.
You may find Spinoza's "Ethics" to be right up your alley, where he demonstrates his ethics and metaphysics geometrically and logically.
what people mean by 'free will' is that they feel free to do as they will. it's really not complicated at that level, it gets complicated under 'philosophical' analysis which 'most people' are not doing
[/quote]
Though Philosophy has had several millenia to try to answer our questions about free will, because it is a rather 'soft' discipline as such, it has not done a very precise nor rigorous job, but fortunately, it looks like Science will come to its rescue once again.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15255 date=1067492047]
so? I maintain that your objections are a result of your lack of understanding coupled with your belief that you understand
[/quote]
I perceive this as a rather humorous though unsuccessful ploy to divert my attention away from the real issue at hand, which is the proof, or rather, the lack of proof, regarding your outrageous claims. Predictably, you'll likely reply (though probably not now that I've brought it up) that this perception forms part of my 'mistaken' beliefs, to which I could counter that you too maintain mistaken beliefs, but this doesn't get us very far, now does it? And so, it's up to the readers of this thread to decide for themselves which of us lacks understanding and which of us has mistaken beliefs.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15255 date=1067492047]
Do you think I'm actually claiming that such a 'state' actually exists?
[/quote]
A 'state' of subjectless existence, or a 'state' of proof of subjectless existence? If you can't prove that subjectless existence exists, then you have no basis for it, so why talk about it as if you have some basis for it?
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15255 date=1067492047]
I defy you to show me where this 'nature' of the cartesian triangle is 'stored' if not in your own mind while you are thinking of it.
[/quote]
Does a tree that falls in the forest make a noise if no-one's around to hear it? Ok, maybe that's too simplistic, so try this one: Can a tree really "fall" if no-one's around to witness it? In a similar vein, do you believe that the nature of the cartesian triangle exists if no-one is around to think it?
Now, on a slightly different note, what if my mind/consciousness is universal and is the basis of All? Do not take this as a provable claim, but merely as a hypothetical axiom. Then it follows that the nature of the triangle is always in my mind.
Regardless of whether the triangle is stored in the mind or not, this is completely irrelevant because it still does not address my objection to your unfounded claim that a thing's appearance precedes its nature.
Furthermore, you have never demonstrated that logic forms the basis of All, which I would also like to call in dispute. Nor have you shown that there is such a thing as "the basis" as opposed to multiple, or even infinite, bases.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15255 date=1067492047]
I know logic and I know the definition, so I can apply logic to the definition and reach conclusions. How hard is that to understand?
[/quote]
Syllogisms and the like, though fun to play with, will not take you very far towards realizing Truth. If someone with god-consciousness tries to talk to someone without it, there will be little understanding regardless of how much logic both of them know, because at a fundamental level, all meaningful discourse between two individuals presumes a large degree of commonality between experiences and levels of awareness. If two individuals have completely different types of experiences and levels of awareness, then there's little basis for meaningful discourse, with or without logic.
And, to answer you in advance, 'No', I did not take 'Cop-Outs 101', though I expect you to say that the preceding paragraph is a cop-out, though I would reply that it's simply a statement of fact, and that to the person lacking such experiences, they will sometimes opt to rationalize such things as 'cop-outs' in a misguided effort to maintain their self-esteem and soothe their ego, as I predict you will attempt to do.
If all you're doing is applying logic to definitions, then you can't expect to get very far with your relatively limited experiences and level of awareness, because when you define things that reside outside your sphere of experiences and awareness, then all you know of these things is indirect and hypothetical, and as such, will, in general, always be open to scepticism and doubt.
You may find Spinoza's "Ethics" to be right up your alley, where he demonstrates his ethics and metaphysics geometrically and logically.
[quote]I perceive this as a rather humorous though unsuccessful ploy to divert my attention away from the real issue at hand, which is the proof, or rather, the lack of proof, regarding your outrageous claims. [/quote]
outrageous claims? All I've done is consider how a universe that is intrinsically 'non-subjective' might go about the business of 'becoming' (and, similarly, considered the idea of 'emergent subjectivity' in such a universe). I've used simple definitions and simple logic, and have pointed out places in the logic of the argument where 'illogic' is necessary for completeness (but, the argument then becomes 'inconsistent').
[quote]A 'state' of subjectless existence, or a 'state' of proof of subjectless existence? If you can't prove that subjectless existence exists, then you have no basis for it, so why talk about it as if you have some basis for it? [/quote]
Neither! Don't you understand the meaning of the word definition?
[quote]do you believe that the nature of the cartesian triangle exists if no-one is around to think it?[/quote]
Your argument for platonic idealism is simply unconvincing. You are considering the 'self-evidence' of ideas such as the elements of euclidean geometry to prove that these ideas somehow have a 'nature' somewhere. It's all in your head, 'bluebear', and only when you are 'thinking' it.
[quote]Regardless of whether the triangle is stored in the mind or not, this is completely irrelevant because it still does not address my objection to your unfounded claim that a thing's appearance precedes its nature.[/quote]
My 'claim' is in respect to the 'impersonal' universe, where 'objects' are all there is. In this universe, the only available 'nature' is the properties of and relations between existing objects.
[quote]Furthermore, you have never demonstrated that logic forms the basis of All, which I would also like to call in dispute. Nor have you shown that there is such a thing as "the basis" as opposed to multiple, or even infinite, bases.[/quote]
I am stating this as a definition for the sake of argument.
[quote]Syllogisms and the like, though fun to play with, will not take you very far towards realizing Truth. If someone with god-consciousness tries to talk to someone without it, there will be little understanding regardless of how much logic both of them know, because at a fundamental level, all meaningful discourse between two individuals presumes a large degree of commonality between experiences and levels of awareness. If two individuals have completely different types of experiences and levels of awareness, then there's little basis for meaningful discourse, with or without logic. [/quote]
I wonder how you became a scientist thinking like this, 'bluebear'. Reading things like this does not instill in me much faith in your future scientific abilities or even your present scientific projects. However, much of scientific work is not much more than glorified beancounting, and maybe you can still contribute in that sense. Just remember, religion ain't science
8)
outrageous claims? All I've done is consider how a universe that is intrinsically 'non-subjective' might go about the business of 'becoming' (and, similarly, considered the idea of 'emergent subjectivity' in such a universe). I've used simple definitions and simple logic, and have pointed out places in the logic of the argument where 'illogic' is necessary for completeness (but, the argument then becomes 'inconsistent').
[quote]A 'state' of subjectless existence, or a 'state' of proof of subjectless existence? If you can't prove that subjectless existence exists, then you have no basis for it, so why talk about it as if you have some basis for it? [/quote]
Neither! Don't you understand the meaning of the word definition?
[quote]do you believe that the nature of the cartesian triangle exists if no-one is around to think it?[/quote]
Your argument for platonic idealism is simply unconvincing. You are considering the 'self-evidence' of ideas such as the elements of euclidean geometry to prove that these ideas somehow have a 'nature' somewhere. It's all in your head, 'bluebear', and only when you are 'thinking' it.
[quote]Regardless of whether the triangle is stored in the mind or not, this is completely irrelevant because it still does not address my objection to your unfounded claim that a thing's appearance precedes its nature.[/quote]
My 'claim' is in respect to the 'impersonal' universe, where 'objects' are all there is. In this universe, the only available 'nature' is the properties of and relations between existing objects.
[quote]Furthermore, you have never demonstrated that logic forms the basis of All, which I would also like to call in dispute. Nor have you shown that there is such a thing as "the basis" as opposed to multiple, or even infinite, bases.[/quote]
I am stating this as a definition for the sake of argument.
[quote]Syllogisms and the like, though fun to play with, will not take you very far towards realizing Truth. If someone with god-consciousness tries to talk to someone without it, there will be little understanding regardless of how much logic both of them know, because at a fundamental level, all meaningful discourse between two individuals presumes a large degree of commonality between experiences and levels of awareness. If two individuals have completely different types of experiences and levels of awareness, then there's little basis for meaningful discourse, with or without logic. [/quote]
I wonder how you became a scientist thinking like this, 'bluebear'. Reading things like this does not instill in me much faith in your future scientific abilities or even your present scientific projects. However, much of scientific work is not much more than glorified beancounting, and maybe you can still contribute in that sense. Just remember, religion ain't science
8)
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg15270 date=1067548408]
outrageous claims?
[/quote]
Yes, outrageous, and to refresh your memory, here a list of them:
1) subjectless existence exists
2) a things appearance precedes it nature
3) logic, as you understand it, is the sole basis of all reality
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg15270 date=1067548408]
I've used simple definitions and simple logic,.... Don't you understand the meaning of the word definition?
[/quote]
of course I do, but a definition alone does not imply the existence of that which the definition implies or points to, which is all I felt inclined to remind you about.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg15270 date=1067548408]
Your argument for platonic idealism is simply unconvincing.
[/quote]
this is a straw man since I never made such an argument. All I did was pose a couple of questions. I never argued for platonic idealism.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg15270 date=1067548408]
It's all in your head.... In this 'impersonal' universe, the only available nature is the properties of what exists and the relations between all existing objects.
[/quote]
This 'impersonal' universe is all in your head.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg15270 date=1067548408]
I am stating this as a definition for the sake of argument.
[/quote]
you never made it clear that it was just a definition, but rather made a dogmatic announcement of its validity, which is why I took you to task for it.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg15270 date=1067548408]
I wonder how you became a scientist thinking like this, 'bluebear'. Reading things like this does not instill in me much faith in your future scientific abilities or even your present scientific projects. However, much of scientific work is not much more than glorified beancounting, and maybe you can still contribute in that sense. Just remember, religion ain't science
[/quote]
and this is coming from someone who's worthy to make such judgements? I don't think so. Why don't you take a good hard look in the mirror, and maybe, just maybe, you'll drop your shallow egotistical facade and wake up.
("`-/")_.-'"``-._
. . `; -._ )-;-,_`)
(v_,)' _ )`-. ``-'
_.- _..-_/ / ((.'
((,.-' ((,/
outrageous claims?
[/quote]
Yes, outrageous, and to refresh your memory, here a list of them:
1) subjectless existence exists
2) a things appearance precedes it nature
3) logic, as you understand it, is the sole basis of all reality
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg15270 date=1067548408]
I've used simple definitions and simple logic,.... Don't you understand the meaning of the word definition?
[/quote]
of course I do, but a definition alone does not imply the existence of that which the definition implies or points to, which is all I felt inclined to remind you about.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg15270 date=1067548408]
Your argument for platonic idealism is simply unconvincing.
[/quote]
this is a straw man since I never made such an argument. All I did was pose a couple of questions. I never argued for platonic idealism.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg15270 date=1067548408]
It's all in your head.... In this 'impersonal' universe, the only available nature is the properties of what exists and the relations between all existing objects.
[/quote]
This 'impersonal' universe is all in your head.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg15270 date=1067548408]
I am stating this as a definition for the sake of argument.
[/quote]
you never made it clear that it was just a definition, but rather made a dogmatic announcement of its validity, which is why I took you to task for it.
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg15270 date=1067548408]
I wonder how you became a scientist thinking like this, 'bluebear'. Reading things like this does not instill in me much faith in your future scientific abilities or even your present scientific projects. However, much of scientific work is not much more than glorified beancounting, and maybe you can still contribute in that sense. Just remember, religion ain't science
[/quote]
and this is coming from someone who's worthy to make such judgements? I don't think so. Why don't you take a good hard look in the mirror, and maybe, just maybe, you'll drop your shallow egotistical facade and wake up.
("`-/")_.-'"``-._
. . `; -._ )-;-,_`)
(v_,)' _ )`-. ``-'
_.- _..-_/ / ((.'
((,.-' ((,/
[quote]Yes, outrageous, and to refresh your memory, here a list of them:
1) subjectless existence exists
2) a things appearance precedes it nature
3) logic, as you understand it, is the sole basis of all reality[/quote]
goddarnit, 'bluebear', do I have to hold your hand in order for you to cross the street of 'getting' what I am saying?
1) I am not trying to prove that 'subjectless' existence exists, I am trying to refute the notion that the universe is motivated solely by 'non-subjective' causality.
2) In this proposed universe, there is nothing but that which exists. A 'nature', as you so blithely put it, is something in the universe composed only of 'things', thus it is after the fact of the beginning
3) In this proposed 'universe', there is no 'subject' thus no 'subjective logic'. The logic must be purely mechanical, or 'trivial'
[quote]of course I do, but a definition alone does not imply the existence of that which the definition implies or points to, which is all I felt inclined to remind you about. [/quote]
And this is what I am trying to show, by virtue of illustrating the logically unavoidable absurdities of such a position!
jesus christ >:(
[quote]this is a straw man since I never made such an argument. All I did was pose a couple of questions. I never argued for platonic idealism. [/quote]
'all you did' was declare that a 'nature' of objects (or ideas) exists, and from our disagreement I can only assume you mean this as apart from a particular instance of said object (or idea). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonist
[quote]This 'impersonal' universe is all in your head[/quote]
Yeah, and I'm trying to illustrate this to Tim (that it is also just in his head)
[quote]you never made it clear that it was just a definition, but rather made a dogmatic announcement of its validity, which is why I took you to task for it.[/quote]
I just figured that you understood what I was saying. Sorry
:
[quote]and this is coming from someone who's worthy to make such judgements? I don't think so. [/quote]
think again
:-*
1) subjectless existence exists
2) a things appearance precedes it nature
3) logic, as you understand it, is the sole basis of all reality[/quote]
goddarnit, 'bluebear', do I have to hold your hand in order for you to cross the street of 'getting' what I am saying?
1) I am not trying to prove that 'subjectless' existence exists, I am trying to refute the notion that the universe is motivated solely by 'non-subjective' causality.
2) In this proposed universe, there is nothing but that which exists. A 'nature', as you so blithely put it, is something in the universe composed only of 'things', thus it is after the fact of the beginning
3) In this proposed 'universe', there is no 'subject' thus no 'subjective logic'. The logic must be purely mechanical, or 'trivial'
[quote]of course I do, but a definition alone does not imply the existence of that which the definition implies or points to, which is all I felt inclined to remind you about. [/quote]
And this is what I am trying to show, by virtue of illustrating the logically unavoidable absurdities of such a position!
jesus christ >:(
[quote]this is a straw man since I never made such an argument. All I did was pose a couple of questions. I never argued for platonic idealism. [/quote]
'all you did' was declare that a 'nature' of objects (or ideas) exists, and from our disagreement I can only assume you mean this as apart from a particular instance of said object (or idea). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonist
[quote]This 'impersonal' universe is all in your head[/quote]
Yeah, and I'm trying to illustrate this to Tim (that it is also just in his head)
[quote]you never made it clear that it was just a definition, but rather made a dogmatic announcement of its validity, which is why I took you to task for it.[/quote]
I just figured that you understood what I was saying. Sorry
:
[quote]and this is coming from someone who's worthy to make such judgements? I don't think so. [/quote]
think again
:-*
I feel confident enough in the validity and soundness of my arguments and reasoning to let the readers of this thread decide for themselves who it was that presented the stronger case, and furthermore, since I see that you've let your egotism and emotions get the better of you and have started to resort to ridiculous and irrelevant ad hominems instead of actually supporting your original argument or even modestly trying to understand where I'm coming from, I see little point in continuing this conversation because, imho, it's simply not worth my time. So, congratulations, you can keep your silly delusions and 'happy' state of ignorance, plus, you can have the last word, however childish you wish to make it is completely up to you.
Hey Bluebear (and hello by the way), and all,
Do you by any chance concur with me, that the difficulty that some people (reading the opinions of others who have deep thoughts, on complex matters), are suffering from is caused by the ambiguities of language in the written word.
The result is often frustration, which leads to accusations and 'unfriendly' comments.
I think it is time for us all to be able to hear (via earholes) each other!
Then, we can interject and clarify, and sort things out one at a time.
Should we ask Shawn to look at what would be involved in providing / enabling such a speech feature?
Do you agree with me?
Would it be better than the chat room?
Should it be as well as the chat room?
Should it be restricted to two people at a time?
I find it difficult to believe that any of us have ulterior motives in our discussions. We are free thinkers wishing to teach or learn!
We may disagree with each other at the moment, but I suspect that half the time we are misunderstanding each other.
We may still fail to concur because of our own experiences, but with speech we should at least be sure that misunderstandings have been removed.
The biggest weakness of 'speech' on a forum, imho is that no record remains (ie, posts) for others to read. I would propose that if such a feature became available, it should be used to talk about a post before writing a response (ie, clarify points before responding).
ADDITION
After further thought on this point, I realise that speech would have one major drawback. If an author was being questioned by several people we could not expect him or her to speak to each one in turn! (time differences also cause a problem).
And, if only two are involved, the chat room should be nearly as good as speech. IM's can be used to set up a suitable time. Bill
Best regards, Bill.
Do you by any chance concur with me, that the difficulty that some people (reading the opinions of others who have deep thoughts, on complex matters), are suffering from is caused by the ambiguities of language in the written word.
The result is often frustration, which leads to accusations and 'unfriendly' comments.
I think it is time for us all to be able to hear (via earholes) each other!
Then, we can interject and clarify, and sort things out one at a time.
Should we ask Shawn to look at what would be involved in providing / enabling such a speech feature?
Do you agree with me?
Would it be better than the chat room?
Should it be as well as the chat room?
Should it be restricted to two people at a time?
I find it difficult to believe that any of us have ulterior motives in our discussions. We are free thinkers wishing to teach or learn!
We may disagree with each other at the moment, but I suspect that half the time we are misunderstanding each other.
We may still fail to concur because of our own experiences, but with speech we should at least be sure that misunderstandings have been removed.
The biggest weakness of 'speech' on a forum, imho is that no record remains (ie, posts) for others to read. I would propose that if such a feature became available, it should be used to talk about a post before writing a response (ie, clarify points before responding).
ADDITION
After further thought on this point, I realise that speech would have one major drawback. If an author was being questioned by several people we could not expect him or her to speak to each one in turn! (time differences also cause a problem).
And, if only two are involved, the chat room should be nearly as good as speech. IM's can be used to set up a suitable time. Bill
Best regards, Bill.
hey 'bluebear'
who cares what 'the readers of the thread' think? If you intend to interact with me only to convince 'the readers' of some position, then you have missed the boat. I'm here, and I'm willing to explain myself. However, I am not willing to continue along all the tangent directions that you seem to be going. I thought I made my position clear enough, and I am disappointed that you do not 'get it' and that you would let my 'style' get to you.
oh well, maybe next time eh?
8)
who cares what 'the readers of the thread' think? If you intend to interact with me only to convince 'the readers' of some position, then you have missed the boat. I'm here, and I'm willing to explain myself. However, I am not willing to continue along all the tangent directions that you seem to be going. I thought I made my position clear enough, and I am disappointed that you do not 'get it' and that you would let my 'style' get to you.
oh well, maybe next time eh?
8)
[quote author=rhymer link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg15278 date=1067560567]
Should we ask Shawn to look at what would be involved in providing / enabling such a speech feature?[/quote]
hi Bill,
providing/enabling such a speech feature would probably be rather difficult. I say that because I don't believe I've ever seen such a feature at other websites, though I have seen it on IM services, like MSN IM. I'll look into it, though.
What do you think of having a small shoutbox at the top of the forum? A shoutbox is like a chat room, except that it only updates when you refresh the screen, and so it doesn't take up all the computer resources that a chat room does, plus, it would be relatively easy to implement.
take care,
Shawn
Should we ask Shawn to look at what would be involved in providing / enabling such a speech feature?[/quote]
hi Bill,
providing/enabling such a speech feature would probably be rather difficult. I say that because I don't believe I've ever seen such a feature at other websites, though I have seen it on IM services, like MSN IM. I'll look into it, though.
What do you think of having a small shoutbox at the top of the forum? A shoutbox is like a chat room, except that it only updates when you refresh the screen, and so it doesn't take up all the computer resources that a chat room does, plus, it would be relatively easy to implement.
take care,
Shawn
Hi Shawn,
I have edited that post of mine.
I can't make up my mind what might be best. I'm not even sure if I spotted a potential explanation for possible 'unsatisfactory' responses, ie., ambiguity in language (I don't mean they are unsatisfactory, but that they do not resolve issues). Maybe with every aid available we would have no improvement - our methods of thinking, our own experiences or absence of them, may be sufficiently different to preclude total understanding. It may be worth delaying action until and if other members respond.
I do think a shout box may be useful for requesting a member to 'come for a chat' though.
Best regards, Bill.
I have edited that post of mine.
I can't make up my mind what might be best. I'm not even sure if I spotted a potential explanation for possible 'unsatisfactory' responses, ie., ambiguity in language (I don't mean they are unsatisfactory, but that they do not resolve issues). Maybe with every aid available we would have no improvement - our methods of thinking, our own experiences or absence of them, may be sufficiently different to preclude total understanding. It may be worth delaying action until and if other members respond.
I do think a shout box may be useful for requesting a member to 'come for a chat' though.
Best regards, Bill.
hi Bill,
in the coming days, I'll play around with setting up a shoutbox to see whether people find it useful or not.
Please let me know if you have any other ideas.
take care
in the coming days, I'll play around with setting up a shoutbox to see whether people find it useful or not.
Please let me know if you have any other ideas.
take care
Hey Shawn
what's your opinion on the debate subject of this thread?
what's your opinion on the debate subject of this thread?
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=0#msg15314 date=1067637690]
Hey Shawn
what's your opinion on the debate subject of this thread?
[/quote]
hi Dan,
for good reason, a forum admin's role doesn't reside so much with getting directly involved in debates as it does with arbitrating them.
Hey Shawn
what's your opinion on the debate subject of this thread?
[/quote]
hi Dan,
for good reason, a forum admin's role doesn't reside so much with getting directly involved in debates as it does with arbitrating them.
does this mean you have no opinion?
???
???
[quote author=Dan link=board=6;threadid=2856;start=#msg15392 date=1067817294]
does this mean you have no opinion?
???
[/quote]
/ethics.php
no hard feelings. There are rare occasions when I prefer not to be associated with my admin status, as it allows me to say more of what I mean on topics that I otherwise wouldn't get involved in, and the anonymity allows me to avoid having to deal with irrelevant personal comments or ad hominems. I'm sure you understand and can judge for yourself how well that went.
In any event, it's probably not such a good idea to press one's luck, particularly where power's involved. Know what I mean, jellybean?
all right now that's out of the way,
i wanna lay this down on ya: i been thinking bout it and i decided it doesnt matter.
free will vs. determinism , subjectless universe, objectless universe, meh... its both pointless and fruitless to even think about it this much, or anymore.
remember i mentioned the self refential thing? well godel showed his thing, turing came along and showed theres no loigcal/mathmatical/mechanical way to determine which formulas are provable or not.... 'this statement is false' ... 'i have free will'
changing around the definitions doesnt answer anything, theres no way to test or find out, and most importantly in my mind, either way, everything works out the same.
it doesnt matter. when i read, uh i mean my friend, yeah that's it, my friend pinkbear, well when my friend pinkbear reads those trashy romance novels, she gets a kick out of the descritpions of the farmhand's muscles rippling and his bronze skin glistening with sweat in the noonday sun, she heaves right along with the heaving breasts, she's frightened by the danger of the young lovers being discovered by sneaky mcbadguy, she laughs, she cries, even tho the ending is already resolved into a happy one and printed out on the last few pages of the book.
so thats what i think. it doesnt matter if the ending to the story is already worked out or not, the important part is getting there.
i wanna lay this down on ya: i been thinking bout it and i decided it doesnt matter.
free will vs. determinism , subjectless universe, objectless universe, meh... its both pointless and fruitless to even think about it this much, or anymore.
remember i mentioned the self refential thing? well godel showed his thing, turing came along and showed theres no loigcal/mathmatical/mechanical way to determine which formulas are provable or not.... 'this statement is false' ... 'i have free will'
changing around the definitions doesnt answer anything, theres no way to test or find out, and most importantly in my mind, either way, everything works out the same.
it doesnt matter. when i read, uh i mean my friend, yeah that's it, my friend pinkbear, well when my friend pinkbear reads those trashy romance novels, she gets a kick out of the descritpions of the farmhand's muscles rippling and his bronze skin glistening with sweat in the noonday sun, she heaves right along with the heaving breasts, she's frightened by the danger of the young lovers being discovered by sneaky mcbadguy, she laughs, she cries, even tho the ending is already resolved into a happy one and printed out on the last few pages of the book.
so thats what i think. it doesnt matter if the ending to the story is already worked out or not, the important part is getting there.
[quote]In any event, it's probably not such a good idea to press one's luck, particularly where power's involved. Know what I mean, jellybean? [/quote]
the question is, do I care?
the question is, do I care?
[quote]the question is, do I care?[/quote]
The answer to that question is that whether you care or not is irrelevant to anyone but you. For unless you openly announce your feelings no one will know, and most won't care if you do anyway....
The answer to that question is that whether you care or not is irrelevant to anyone but you. For unless you openly announce your feelings no one will know, and most won't care if you do anyway....
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.