Free will ~ A product of imagination

[Quantum Quack]

Summary:
[1]The product of the imagination is NOT determined by the laws of physics.

[2]The product of the imagination does not need to defy the laws of physics but renders them irrelevant as per choice.

...and now we can add one more clarifying point inspired by Angelus,

[3]The human ability to produce fiction including choices and decisions, uninhibited by the Laws of Physics, is biologically "hard wired" into our brains by those very same laws...

[4]The criteria that for freewill to be more that an illusion of appearance it must defy the laws of physics has *therefore* been refuted.

 

[Baldeee]

So , uhm do you have any unreal plans for Easter?

The plan is real in as much as it is a pattern of activity, and that pattern follows the laws of physics.
The subject of those patterns are not real, and have no reality.
As and when those plans actually transpire, that is when they become real.

What are your unreal thoughts about reality?
oh i see, you can't express them because they aren't real....
So what are you going to post next?

More "unreal" nonsense?
After all your post would be merely a product of your imagination, would it not?
So every time you post you contradict yourself...

How do I contradict myself?
The process of imagination follows the laws of physics.
The subject need not do so - until one attempts to make it real.
If I imagine I can fly unaided to the moon, how does that prove a defiance of the laws of physics?
If I actually do fly unaided to the moon (I.e. If the imagination becomes reality) then you may have a point.

Until then you are just posting an inane triviality that unreal things do not need to obey the laws of physics, as if this proves that a real thing also need not obey the laws of physics.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The process of imagination follows the laws of physics.
The subject need not do so - until one attempts to make it real.

and if that subject is a choice or a decision?
What then?
btw you are only repeating what I wrote earlier, you do realize this don't you...
we actually agree... hee hee

 

[Baldeee]

Summary:
[1]The product of the imagination is NOT determined by the laws of physics.

You still need to clarify by what you mean as "the product of the imagination".
Do you mean the subject matter of what we imagine?
Or do you mean the act of imagining?
Or perhaps the subject matter somehow made real?

The process of imagination follows the laws of physics, because the process is a real process.
The subject matter need not do so, because it is not real.

[2]The product of the imagination does not need to defy the laws of physics but renders them irrelevant as per choice.

Again you need to provide clarification of what you mean by "product of the imagination" as per above.
Second, you need to show how the "choice" is reached.
If the process of "choosing" follows the laws of physics, irrespective of what you are choosing between, how does the subject matter of what you are choosing between bear any relevance to the matter of freewill?

...and now we can add one more clarifying point inspired by Angelus,

[3]The human ability to produce fiction including choices and decisions, uninhibited by the Laws of Physics, is biologically "hard wired" into our brains by those very same laws...

Unsubstantiated claim.
You need to show that the ability to choose is "uninhibited" by the laws of physics.
This is certainly not what angelus was arguing.
You have simply ignored the gist of his argument and made a further unsupported claim.
And you are begging the question.

[4]The criteria that for freewill to be more that an illusion of appearance it must defy the laws of physics has *therefore* been refuted.

This is a non sequitur from the first three points.
There is simply no valid logic between them, for the reasons I have indicated above.

I don't expect you to address these reasons, though.
I expect you to just continue posting the same inane points again and again, ignoring the criticism, as you tend to do.

 

[Baldeee]

Double post.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Originally Posted by Baldeee:
The process of imagination follows the laws of physics.
The subject need not do so - until one attempts to make it real.

and if that "subject", as you call it, or "product" as I call it, is a choice or a decision?
What then?
btw you are only repeating what I wrote earlier, you do realize this don't you...
we actually agree... hee hee

 

[Quantum Quack]

I couldn't resist . What a classic!

View attachment 7027

 

[Baldeee]

and if that "subject", as you call it, or "product" as I call it, is a choice or a decision?
What then?

It is not a choice, or a decision.
Those are a process.
Not a subject.

btw you are only repeating what I wrote earlier, you do realize this don't you...
we actually agree... hee hee

Yes, in part, but in doing so I am attempting to explain why you can not simply take what you apply to the unreal (such as not needing to obey the laws of physics) and apply it to the real.
One does not exist.
The other does.
I have no issue with agreeing with the triviality that unreal things need not obey the laws of physics.
But it is an irrelevancy when you wish to understand real things.

I might just as well tell you that the sun is 150m km away, and then say "hence the moon is made of cheese".
Because that is what your line of thinking is akin to.
You state a triviality, and then erroneously link it to an otherwise unsupported claim.

 

[Quantum Quack]

But it is an irrelevancy when you wish to understand real things.

and I presume you think understanding is somehow real according to your criteria?

It is the fact that you think it is trivial that prevents you from making sense.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Will you address the glaringly obvious or not?

but wait I think you tried to... unbelievable...!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Question:
How many fictional products of the imagination does it take to change a light bulb?
edit: add... "in a city 15,000 kms away?" (just for dramatic effect)
~rhetorical question...

The knowledge you hold in your head is really that trivial, do you think? (I could but I choose not to )

 

[Baldeee]

and I presume you think understanding is somehow real according to your criteria?

Understanding is a process that goes on in the brain.
In that sense it is real.
The subject of what we understand, the mental image of that understanding, has no reality other than as part of that process.

It is the fact that you think it is trivial that prevents you from making sense.

What are you struggling to make sense of?
I think it is trivial because it is...
The notion that things that are not real do not have to obey the laws of physics is (or should be) obvious to everyone.
You have failed to make a logically coherent case of why we should pay any more attention to it than we do.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Understanding is a process that goes on in the brain.
In that sense it is real.
The subject of what we understand, the mental image of that understanding, has no reality other than as part of that process.
What are you struggling to make sense of?
I think it is trivial because it is...
The notion that things that are not real do not have to obey the laws of physics is (or should be) obvious to everyone.
You have failed to make a logically coherent case of why we should pay any more attention to it than we do.

says someone who thinks his own knowledge is trivial... I suppose you think your use of logic is trivial as well?
Why should I grant you any credibility what so ever? Why?
I have absolutely no reason to, given your net forum blood sport preoccupations.
I suppose you think meaning is somehow a process too?

Maybe you should post at a forum like at JREF and ask the same question about their knowledge?
You never know you might win yourself $1 million dollars, with out even having to sit a test. [chuckle] ...

 

[Quantum Quack]

'tis so funny when I think on it...

Proof of paranormal activity is in the knowledge you keep in your head... what a joke!

Using your TV analogy:
"They open up the brain of a dead human Footballer and they find imprinted in the grey matter, images of little people kicking a ball in a crowded stadium...and what's more they are animated images" bah!

From JREF

2.2 What is the definition of “paranormal” in regards to the Challenge?

Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “paranormal” as “not scientifically explainable; supernatural.”

Within the Challenge, this means that at the time your application is submitted and approved, your claim will be considered paranormal for the duration. If, after testing, it is decided that your ability is either scientifically explainable or will be someday, you needn’t worry. If the JREF has agreed to test you, then your claim is paranormal.

I think the product of the imagination actually qualifies... what say you?
It is unreal fiction and has no scientific explanation...according to Baldeee...
So the mere fact that they could write their definition is evidence of paranormal activity... [ what a hoot!]

 

[Baldeee]

says someone who thinks his own knowledge is trivial...

Where have I said that my own knowledge is trivial?
Some of it undoubtedly is: having no use other than being something I know.
Some of it undoubtedly is not.
This would probably be true of everyone else as well.

I suppose you think your use of logic is trivial as well?

No.
It serves its purpose.

Why should I grant you any credibility what so ever? Why?

You shouldn't grant people credibility.
You should look at what they write.
The credibility of those words will stem from listening, understanding, and being logical in your responses.

I have absolutely no reason to, given your net forum blood sport preoccupations.

And what "net forum blood sport preoccupations" would those be?
Bear in mind that it is you who continually insults me.
You who continually looks to attack the person through cheap jibes to cover an inability to arrive at a sensible counter.

I suppose you think meaning is somehow a process too?

Relevance?

Maybe you should post at a forum like at JREF and ask the same question about their knowledge?
You never know you might win yourself $1 million dollars, with out even having to sit a test. [chuckle] ...

Ask what question?
The only one I asked that you are responding to is: "What are you struggling to make sense of?"

 

[Baldeee]

'tis so funny when I think on it...

Proof of paranormal activity is in the knowledge you keep in your head... what a joke!

Using your TV analogy:
"They open up the brain of a dead human Footballer and they find imprinted in the grey matter, images of little people kicking a ball in a crowded stadium...and what's more they are animated images" bah!

What exactly are you trying to explain with this?

From JREF


I think the product of the imagination actually qualifies... what say you?
It is unreal fiction and has no scientific explanation...according to Baldeee...
So the mere fact that they could write their definition is evidence of paranormal activity... [ what a hoot!]

Where have I said it as no scientific explanation?
Please support this accusation.
Do you intend to just raise strawmen, or are you going to actually address the posts and arguments people do make?

 

[Quantum Quack]

What exactly are you trying to explain with this?
Where have I said it as no scientific explanation?
Please support this accusation.
Do you intend to just raise strawmen, or are you going to actually address the posts and arguments people do make?

If as you say the product of the imagination has no reality to it, is unreal and can "exist" independent of the laws of physics then isn't that exactly what you are saying?
That it is by extension, effectively "paranormal" and has no scientific explanation?

 

[Baldeee]

If as you say the product of the imagination has no reality to it, is unreal and can "exist" independent of the laws of physics then isn't that exactly what you are saying?
That it is by extension, effectively "paranormal" and has no scientific explanation?

I'm saying that it is not real, does not exist, and thus scientific explanation is meaningless.
The paranormal would be an experience (i.e. something real) that has no scientific explanation etc.
Something that is not real can thus not qualify as paranormal.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Baldeee

Where have I said that my own knowledge is trivial?

You appear to be having trouble with "logical extension" or logical outcomes.

Line of argument:

[1]The product of the imagination is NOT determined by the laws of physics. [true or false]

[2]The product of the imagination does not need to defy the laws of physics but renders them irrelevant as per choice. [true of false]

[3]The human ability to produce fiction including choices and decisions, uninhibited by the Laws of Physics, is biologically "hard wired" into our brains by those very same laws...[ true or false ]
....for how else is [2] possible?

[4]The criteria that for freewill to be more that an illusion of appearance it must defy the laws of physics has *therefore* been refuted. [logical outcome of the above being proven true]

So example:

If [1] is true
then so is [2]
if [1] and [2] are true then [3] is to.
if [1], [2], and [3] are true then [4] is also.
it is called logical extension..
If you claim that the product of the imagination has no reality, [yet is the subject matter of our imaginations] then by logical extension you are saying that it has no scientific explanation. Therefore by further extension one could quite justifiably suggest that you are referring to the product of the imagination as being "paranormal".
[1] The product of our imaginations is unreal and is not determined by the laws of physics.

[2] We make use of this unreal product continuously in the making of unreal choices and decisions.

[3] There is no scientific explanation as the product is unreal.

[4] Therefore the product of our imaginations is "paranormal" as defined by Webster Online dictionary.

So going from [1] through to [4] is by logical extension, where one point leads to the other..

 

[Quantum Quack]

I'm saying that it is not real, does not exist, and thus scientific explanation is meaningless.
The paranormal would be an experience (i.e. something real) that has no scientific explanation etc.
Something that is not real can thus not qualify as paranormal.

on the face of it this is full of contradiction... but i shall grant you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to explain it.
list your logic trail... it makes it easier for you and others to understand what you are trying to say... [called a mind mapping technique]

Suggestion:
Start with:


[1]Is the product of your imagination real or unreal ? [According to you]
and based on your answer how does this logically extend?
ie.
If the product of my imagination is unreal then........?
list the outcomes of you extension...