The illusion of free will

you don't always attack his arguments, you tend to throw in your opinion as to who you think he is also.
whats that line? genius/insanity/fine line..

not saying anyone here is a genius, but it would do you honor to eliminate the 'who you think he is' from your posts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then I will say that I think it is wholly the result of the laws of physics (and biology, chemistry etc - i.e. the laws of the universe). If you think it insufficient to say that then you'll have to define what you mean by "determined", as I do not think you fully grasp what it means in a philosophical context. Do that and then I will provide any further clarification.
Because I do understand the question, but I do not think you do, and I wouldn't want to give you a "yes/no" response that you take incorrectly due to misunderstanding your own question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do attack his arguments. But I admit I do comment on what I think they say of him, true. But don't confuse that for attacking him as a counter against his arguments... I treat his arguments on whatever merit I can find within them.
And please don't go anywhere near that line... 'cos QQ certainly doesn't.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, this is priceless, QQ. Seriously.
But maybe you're right in that I should just put you on ignore (either actually or metaphorically) the way almost everyone else does that can't be bothered to deal with your inanity. But whereas most ignore you outright, I have tried to show you what I see as the errors in your thinking. But instead of addressing those criticisms you just repeat, repeat, repeat, like last night's chili.

 

so you are saying quite clearly that the product of the imagination is determined by the laws of physics?
that creative product such as "Super man" , "pigs that fly", "pink elephants" and "unicorns" are somehow determined by the laws of physics ?

So what is the color blue?
is it red to you?
Is it green?
Or is it yellow?
or is the color blue
unable to be seen by you?

Accordingly your opinion is worthless.

You are claiming that it has causal efficacy not me yet you accuse me of doing so..
I am not to blame for your ineptitude... only you have responsibility for that. If you wish to extend the logic, at least take responsibility for that extension and don't blame me for your errors.

The center of gravity can only be determined by it's effect... [is what I am postulating]
Again you have claimed something falsely and again reinforced in my mind that your opinion is worthless.

How many time do you need to be caught blatantly and deliberately lying before the moderators ban you?

 

@Sarkus

I'll repeat it seeing as you enjoyed it so much the first time:

The problem is, Sarkus, you are envious of not having the "imagination" to deal with this issue "freewill is an illusion", adequately.
You have contributed almost nothing to solving this historically intractable issue.
So you resort to constant obfuscation, diversions, and hostility disguised as genuine discourse.
Your use of insult is spectacular I must admit. However it is your only way of avoiding admitting to yourself a few salient truths about your apparent intellectual competence and how easy it is for a rather brilliant mind to become so distorted with envy and a heart so filled with hatred you probably spit green bile as you respond to my posts!

Your opinion becomes and is worthless because of it...

 

The criteria that for freewill to be real it must defy the laws of physics has been refuted.
The product of the imagination is NOT determined by the laws of physics.
The imagination does not need to defy the laws of physics but renders them irrelevant as per choice.

There is no need for me to bring in other more complex arguments than the above...

Choices and decisions etc are made with the use of the imagination. A total fiction until "published" into action.

Thus freewill is actual and real and in no way an illusion. [ as defined in this thread ]

 

So very true, as one endeavors to find common ground to express from. Having a hostile and negatively motivated audience is not easy to deal with either.
Having your posts deliberately distorted and consistently misquoted doesn't help either. [re Sarkus]

if referring to t=0 yes.

But in this case I am referring to the temporal person doing the imagining using an internal "fictional" time of his choosing.
[Example: Doctor Who and the Tardis, product. "The time machine" by H.G Wells. etc]

In this universe, according to the well accepted laws of physics, absolute rest is only (non)achieved at t=0 duration, so therefore any object, including imaginary, at absolute rest is non-existent. [in this 3 dimensional universe or 4 dimensional if one includes time >0]
Support:
If a photon stops moving it ceases to exist as a value.


Therefore:

x+(-)x + (t=0 duration)= nihilo, is a valid analogy of absolute thermodynamic equilibrium.

 

I want one.

so mass and volume just disappear when an object is at absolute rest?

 

me too!
Imagines Cher in her underwear singing "If I could turn back time"

yep, but do realize that absolute rest for anything of value is not possible in this universe if t= >0
Edit: Please note I edited the post you have quoted to avoid confusion - "imaginary and otherwise " have been deleted.

 

Imagine (in contradiction to the laws of physics

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) :
You take all the mass and everything of value in the universe as a whole and delete it.
What would you have left over?
How big would the universe be?

 

Yes. They are concepts, and those concepts are merely extrapolations of what we observe, what we see.
We see birds fly, and we see humans... so why not imagine a human that flies?
What you are clearly confusing, as you have previously done, is the concept and that concept made real.
In what way is our imagination defying the laws of physics?
How does it go against the laws of physics to conceptualise that which does not exist in reality?

The colour blue is EM radiation with a wavelength of c.475nm. How I perceive it is possibly unique to me, it is not something I can tell. But what I perceive it as I have labelled "blue". The same way as you have labelled whatever you perceive it as as "blue".

Why? Because I can answer your question, albeit in a manner that probably doesn't suit your agenda?

I have shown precisely how I reached that conclusion, using your own claims in a logical manner.

And if it effects something then, BY DEFINITION, it is a cause. To effect something is synonymous with being a cause!

And you have shown again that you are incapable of understanding the terms you use.

If that is what you think I am doing, report me. I have provided links when you have required it (albeit merely posting the post number and what I consider the pertinent comment, rather than whole mess). I have detailed how I have reached the conclusion I have.
All you have done is cry foul, like an Italian footballer tripping over a daisy on the pitch and flinging himself to the ground clutching his shin!

 

Where? Just post one link to where it has been refuted, where the supposed refutation has not been shown to be false.
Please... just one.

Another unsupported claim.

Renders what "irrelevant as per choice"? Your sentence needs explanation.

There are no arguments above. Just unsupported claims.

"Fiction" does not equate to "defying the laws of physics". Again, what is it precisely that you think defies the laws of physics? What is it in the act of imagination that requires physics to stop working as it does everywhere else in the universe? A mere unsupported claim will not cut it.

And again you go from unsupported claim to conclusion.

 

according to you. Not me.

How can nothing be a cause?
Yet it certainly can have an effect..
An empty/vacant chair doesn't cause you to sit down on it now does it...?
A space of vacuum doesn't cause pressure to move into it, now does it?
Is vacuum a cause?

 

@Sarkus,
Another case of selective quoting and then deliberate distortion, the post you are refering to:

Note the bit about how the imagination does not need to defy the laws of physics...but renders them irrelevant as per choice.
Why did you miss that bit... is it because it invalidates your position perhaps...?


Why did you lie about what I posted?

 

@ SArkus,
I'll re-post the same so you can have another go at wriggling out of it's ramifications:

let's see what you come up with this time.
Take it one line at a time if you like.... [Oh I do realize that it is far from perfect but certainly sufficient for it's purpose]

 

too tall for me, (although I like the idea of my head being the same level as her boobs..
first thing I would do is go back with a video cam and watch jesus.
then I would gather as many 'how to' books as I can find, and find a nice place to live and make money, pry the beginning of the industrial area, when the west was still the west.

so how would mass and volume disappear?
just because we cant measure it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

How is it selective quoting when I have quoted everything from that post? Refer to post #913.

Perhaps you will note post #913 and see that I did not miss it. In fact I clearly said that this particular line needs further explanation on your part.

I didn't lie - I actually quoted it line by line before responding to each - refer to post #913.

 

You mean like I did in post #913 the first time?

Oh, one line at a time? You mean as I did in post #913?

Learn to read. Learn to understand what is written. Learn to understand what you also write. And try not to be so reactive in your responses: throwing around unfounded accusations isn't going to help your cause.

 

Can you explain this post:

Why are you referring to defying the laws of physics?

When I have explicitly stated:

Why do you think that I am saying that being a total fiction defies the laws of physics?

Edit01: A software bug seems to have occurred. Page 47 is unavailable.
Possible Conditions : The software failed to accept my reply to post via the browser [ firefox ] yet appears to have accepted it twice forum side.
Edit02: The problem appears to have been resolved after I posted Edit01 above