Fate V Free Will

On the contrary thats why I am here, the forums are about the challenges being made to modern science are they not? and plenty more besides, I respect the sport, just don't beleive its 100% reliable, it may be a religion to you (and u are a brainwashed believer) but to me science is a child growing and developing and I enjoy it as such.

My point to you is you can't say 'science says' when science is only as good as today, as tomorrow it'll be saying something different.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

me too. but understand that such visions are NOT set in stone. they are possibilities depending on the PRESNTchpices and their POSSIBLE outcomes.
but i see clearer whjere you are coming from now. that in 'seeing te future' so to speak, you imagine that that somehow proves 'no wy out'. but have you thought, they could be kind of dimensional 'warnings' modes of experiencing, rathe than defininate laws of what is 'bound' to happen

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I did tell my opinion on the first page, really. Don't you read your own started thread?

Actually, no. I know how brain works too well to believe anything it tells me I see, hear or perceive in any other form.
It gets the incoming data, then it tries to make sense of the data, convert it into information.
The information I get is not the raw material of what happened, it's just how my brain interpreted what happened.

There is no reason to think that what we see is the complete picture of what's actually there, just like when you look at your hand, you don't see it at subatomic level, just as you don't feel cosmic particles passing through your body.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Avatar..haha..you are quite a curious persona. in another thread i heard you speak of meditiative SUBJECTIVE journeys you see to enkoy. yet here and many othe places put subjectivity down. as IF--imPLYING there can be possibility of pure objectivity. there is not. tis is your paradox kid, not mine

 

hmm dimensional warnings, I think I know what you mean, I believe I have had warnings about following certain courses of action and I have used my free will to ignore them at my cost! re the premonitions though, they were nothing I could have interfered with, the knowledge served no purpose in my hands so I feel it just came upon me by chance, tapping accidentally into something. Although having said that I have indeed had premontions (really silly simple things) that I did use to my advantage when they played out.
I believe in lots of things not suitable for sciforum so I'll keep quiet on those!

 

There is no paradox, I enjoy my mind and visiting the worlds it creates.
But I don't claim my fantasies have any objective properties.

 

and you cant have pure subjectivity neither

 

well now you've just reiterated everything I have said in another thread.
But while agreeing 100% with all this, at the end of the day we have to 'pretend' we are what we perceive are, otherwise no point in discussing anything? May as well just say its all non existant, that reply would go for every question posed. just makes more interesting reading to go along with the life we are presented with yes?

 

There are objective reasons of why I imagine that and not something else, like past experiences, what chemicals I've taken before going to bed, what book I read of film I saw before, even music heard, it all is objective circumstances that influence my subjective thought.

But there are no reasons to believe that a world I see in my fantasy does really exist anywhere elsewhere than just in my mind.

 

Avatar, yer close, ut still dont quite get it. yes I N T E R P R E Tion! that's what we do. and YOURinterpretation is imited. it is only accepting one side. in your case, your idea-concept of 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity'---and your view of how te 'brain' 'works.

 

No. I'm honest to myself. I've no wish to invent a reality.

It depends on what you are talking about and the level of depth.
Our mind is a biochemical and electrical process, it doesn't exist as physical things exist,
that can be said about our ego and personality, our memories and thoughts - they don't exist.

Our body is made of cells, cells are made of atoms, atoms are made of smaller particles, particles are made of energy and energy exists. Saying "atom" is just another way of saying "energy",
saying "I know", is just another way of saying "my mind has an idea of what might have happened" and even that idea is nothing, jst an emerging property out of synaptic connections, movement neurons and processes mentioned above.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz sorry but this is going in circles.

 

Of course, and so is your's.

You have anything better than logic and critical thinking?
Seeing hallucinations that result from intoxication maybe? (You love your shrooms)

Agree. Completely.

I'm not claiming that I know, I'm saying that I don't know (because of our limited ability to physically detect and perceive complete picture of reality) - I have only assumptions, theories, ideas - as we all, including you and your friend.

 

Of course, because we have too different subjective views on the objective reality.
And it is only going in circles if your intention is to achieve a compromise or "win" this discussion, whereas I'm just bored and indifferent on the outcome or what you will think the outcome is.

 

your opinion is that we have no opinion (brain chemistry blah blah blah) hence circlesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

 

yes Av we have two interpretations agoin on here. well included of course is rel's etc.....but just fo mo focusin on our two ones. you are coming from a materialistic interpretation. i am not. so who is closer to te mark?
i've askd you before this crucial question: how is it we gwt sibjectivity from dead random matter? you claim it is mere interaction of chemicals and electrcity, yet very strangely you don not inlude consciousness. even to yu use it now to explore this and hafve your visions

the interpretation that insights that matter-energy is sentient to BEGI with, as it WLAYS is, isfar more plausible than the idea of atoms just happnin togther and then subjective consciousness 'happening' to be---just like that

your interpreation is one sided. i Do accept the importance of checmical and electrical organic process, but also see that consciousness IS how it FEEL from te inside

tis insight clears up lots of shit materialistic science cannot answer and even refuses to even look at. ie., tat consciousness does no have to rely on complex brains to produce it. brains are more like transceivers....look we cant be in a 3D world witout a body. agreed? matter-energy and consciousness knows it, and as it is live and creative ises us....forms us. ISus, as it forms trees, and all forms creatively. the meaning IS LIVING process

 

Let's just agree that I'm not your science teacher and thus I'm relieved of any duty to explain anything to you.
Good night then

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

p.s. There is no "dead" or "alive" matter, just matter.

 

ex-plain

 

y r u assuming? if i did know the lion was in i would be a prophet, fortune teller ...etc but that isn't the case normally, u don't know the consequence until u actually enter the experience, no!

ur assuming again, who said the rooms r connected? that needs proof, doesn't it?

theories shouldn't be based on what u feel, this must be a discussion of logics and if one experience had those roads connected or reaching same ends, u can not emply this to all cases..

I too gave it as an example not that i was assuming that fate is all about death, i'm sorry if i didn't clarify this point earlier