The Face of God....

[Olga]

Matter can't. Living creatures can. Living creatures are an emergent phenomenon from biochemistry. Emergent means "mor thna the su of its parts."


No it doesn't.

The laws of physics describe the natural world. in the natural world, I can 'go' or 'stop' at a stop light. The laws of physics (and its derivative: biochemistry) describe how this can be so.


Physics doesn't have point of view.

I am a living creature with agency over my actions. Prove otherwise.



So what?


No it isn't.

If we are talking about agency and free will, we are talking about philosophy and metaphysics.


Please use the quote feature so I can tell what you are talking about. What did I say I didn't like?


Let them. I don't know "some people".

I have will and I have responsibility. Moreso than you, it appears, since you defer an alarming amount of will and responsibility to God.

There's some real irony here, having a believer in an all-powerful master puppet of all creation and very living thing according to his own laws try to tell an atheist about responsibility and free will. You should probably quit digging before you hit bedrock.



Sure.

Atheists assume responsibility; believers defer responsibility.

You yourself said Nature acts according to God's laws. You think you act according to God's laws. It follows then that you can't take responsibility. You do not have freedom.

That's really telling. You can't see yourself as having free will, because you have to act the way God tells you to, and so you can't comprehend the idea of anyone else having agency or responsibility or free will.

That is a helluva trap you've put yourself into.

I'd suggest you free yourself from that trap, but - as you just acknowledged - you can't, since God won't allow you to - you have no free will do do anything but follow his laws.

These are your words - your assertions. I am not second-guesing things you say; this is your logic, applied to you.



What gives you that idea? See how you have to second-guess me? Nothing I said indicates I don't want freedom. You had to make that up. That's a strawman.

More to-the-point: is this just another attempt at baiting an emotional argument? It's pretty dumb to try to tell me what I think. It makes it very hard to take you seriously.



Great. So can the rummy on the corner of fifth and main who's been drinking perfume. Do you go and listen to him for advice? No. Neither do I.



And many of them teach some people very useless things.

Well said.

Дэйв, живые существа - это тоже материя. И она так же подчиняется законам физики. Ноль, сколько бы вы его не складывали, будет в сумме равен нулю. Так же и с этим вашим эмерджентным свойством: если свободы воли нет ни у одной из химических реакций, происходящих в вашем теле, то её не будет и у миллиона таких химических реакций вместе взятых. Как бы вам этого не хотелось.

Это вы можете "ехать, или остановиться на светофоре", потому что у вас есть душа, обладающая свободой воли. Вот светофор, например, никуда ехать не может, хотя в нём тоже протекают химические реакции. Знаете почему? Потому что у него нет водительского удостоверения, а нарушать правила он не хочет. Да-да, точно это так.

Да, Дэйв - вы живое существо, обладающее душой, которая обладает свободной волей, и именно поэтому вы можете управлять своими действиями. Зачем мне это опровергать?

Бог не нарушает наших свобод. Он создал Вселенную, и человека в ней, обладающего свободной волей. Поэтому мы несём ответственность не только за свои действия, но даже и за свои помыслы. Так что все ваши аргументы о "безответственности" верующих, не состоятельны. Верующий знает, что он будет отвечать перед Богом, который всезнающий,в любом случае. А атеист думает, что он отвечает только перед людьми, от которых можно скрыть что нибудь. Видите разницу?

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, living things are matter too. And they are also subject to the laws of physics. Zero, no matter how many times you add it up, will always add up to zero. Same with this emergent property of yours: if there is no free will in any of the chemical reactions occurring in your body, then there will be no free will in a million of those chemical reactions combined. No matter how much you want that to happen.

This is false.

You might as well say "Since no individual dab of paint is the Mona Lisa, there can be no painting on the Mona Lisa, no matter how many dabs of paint you add."

You will not understand your problem here until you learn about emergent phenomena. That's your shortcoming, not mine.

It is you who can "go or stop at a traffic light" because you have a soul that has free will.

A soul is not necessary to describe my actions at a stoplight.

You are using circular logic here.

It is hard to take you seriously.

For example, a traffic light cannot go anywhere, although chemical reactions also occur in it. Do you know why? Because it does not have a driver's license, and it does not want to break the rules. Yes, yes, that is exactly right.

Because it is not living. Specifically, because it does not have sensory inputs, a nervous system to process those inputs, or means of locomotion to doing anything about it.

Yes, Dave, you are a living being with a soul that has free will, and that is why you can control your actions. Why should I refute that?

Because there is no evidence of a soul. And also because a soul is not necessary to describe life.

God does not violate our freedoms. He created the Universe, and man in it, who has free will.

You said everything acts according to his will. Therefore you cannot have free will to act on your own; you act on God's will.

Therefore, we are responsible not only for our actions, but even for our thoughts. So all your arguments about the "irresponsibility" of believers are untenable. A believer knows that he will answer to God, who is all-knowing, in any case. And an atheist thinks that he answers only to people from whom he can hide something.

An atheist answers to himself. That is what it means to be responsible.

I have killed exactly as many people as you. Zero.

You don't kill because someone else tells you how to behave - God, the Bible, some priest.

I don't kill because I take personal responsibility for my actions. I internalize right from wrong because there is no spiritual authority that I can lean on who will tell me what to do.

Do you see the difference?

I do. Atheists take responsibility for themselves, by definition, because there is no one to take responsibility for them.

Believers, on the other hand, responsibility to their God and and his laws and his omnipotence and his manual of How to Behave, as you have been doing here.

 

[Opine]

Dave, living things are matter too. And it also obeys the laws of physics. Zero, no matter how much you add it, will add up to zero. It's the same with this emergent property of yours: if none of the chemical reactions that occur in your body have free will, then a million of these chemical reactions combined will not have free will. No matter how much you want it.

It is you who can "drive or stop at a traffic light" because you have a soul that has free will. For example, a traffic light, for example, cannot go anywhere, although chemical reactions also take place in it. Do you know why? Because he does not have a driver's license, and he does not want to break the rules. Yes, yes, that's exactly the case.

Yes, Dave is a living being with a soul that has free will, and that's why you can control your actions. Why should I refute this?

God does not violate our freedoms. He created the universe, and man in it, who has free will. Therefore, we are responsible not only for our actions, but even for our thoughts. So all your arguments about the "irresponsibility" of believers are untenable. The believer knows that he will answer to God, who is all-knowing, in any case. And an atheist thinks that he is responsible only to people from whom he can hide something. Do you see the difference?

It is actually consciousness or mind that is a priori to the brain, or fundamental. Matter or brain is contained within the mind. Consciousness does not originate from the brain but finds its source in all things. That is why it is fundamental. The opposite is materialism, which has mislead the entire scientific enterprise of the 20th century.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is actually consciousness or mind that is a priori to the brain, or fundamental. Matter or brain is contained within the mind. Consciousness does not originate from the brain but finds its source in all things. That is why it is fundamental. The opposite is materialism, which has mislead the entire scientific enterprise of the 20th century.

Got any evidence that the mind is more fundamental than the brain?

I know of some brains without minds. Do you know of any minds without brains?

 

[Olga]

This is false.

You might as well say "Since no individual dab of paint is the Mona Lisa, there can be no painting on the Mona Lisa, no matter how many dabs of paint you add."

You will not understand your problem here until you learn about emergent phenomena. That's your shortcoming, not mine.



A soul is not necessary to describe my actions at a stoplight.

You are using circular logic here.

It is hard to take you seriously.



Because it is not living. Specifically, because it does not have sensory inputs, a nervous system to process those inputs, or means of locomotion to doing anything about it.


Because there is no evidence of a soul. And also because a soul is not necessary to describe life.


You said everything acts according to his will. Therefore you cannot have free will to act on your own; you act on God's will.


An atheist answers to himself. That is what it means to be responsible.

I have killed exactly as many people as you. Zero.

You don't kill because someone else tells you how to behave - God, the Bible, some priest.

I don't kill because I take personal responsibility for my actions. I internalize right from wrong because there is no spiritual authority that I can lean on who will tell me what to do.



I do. Atheists take responsibility for themselves, by definition, because there is no one to take responsibility for them.

Believers, on the other hand, responsibility to their God and and his laws and his omnipotence and his manual of How to Behave, as you have been doing here.

Дэйв, я знаю что такое эмерджентность. Только в отношении такого понятия, как "свобода воли", оно неприменимо. Потому что в науке нет такого понятия, как "свобода воли". По крайней мере, ни в физике, ни в химии, ни в астрономии, его нет. Вы не можете взять температуру, плотность, массу, и ещё что-нибудь подобное, сложить это всё, и получить "свободу воли". Или соединить вместе различные химические реакции, и получить что-либо, обладающее свободной волей. Вы можете собрать систему, обладающую искусственным интеллектом, но никакой свободной воли у такой системы не будет, даже если со стороны и может показаться иначе.

Ваши действия на светофоре могут быть либо подчинёнными программе, созданной в процессе эволюции природой, и тогда вы автоматически остановитесь на красный свет светофора, исходя из соображений безопасности, либо вмешается ваша свободная воля, и вы можете, например, добровольно въехать под грузовик. Хотя, не въехать под него, вы тоже можете добровольно.

Т.е. , вы отличаетесь от светофора только сложностью? Или есть ещё что то?

Тогда опишите, чем вызваны те, или иные ваши действия. Любые действия. Давайте просмотрим всю цепочку от начала.

Дэйв, у вас есть воля. Но это же не отменяет того факта, что у других она тоже есть.

Дэйв, по большому счёту, мы все здесь делаем, что хотим, в пределах разрешённого законами. Если вы добрый от природы, то вы будете мирным и отзывчивым человеком, не смотря на то, являетесь ли вы атеистом, или верующим. Мне приходилось встретить в жизни и добрых, честных, порядочных атеистов, и тех, кто называя себя верующими, были равнодушными и жестокими. Христос сказал:" Дерево определяют по плодам, а человека - по делам". Кем бы кто себя не называл. По настоящему верующих на самом деле не так уж и много. Если вы не можете пройти мимо плачущего котёнка - вы добрый человек, и Бог вас не оставит. А если идёте убивать, прикрываясь религией - вы никакого отношения к истинной вере не имеете. Таких Христос называл фарисеями. Такие и Его распяли. Тоже верующими себя называли. Вообще, мы во многом похожи. У меня такой же аналитический склад ума, и я ко многому отношусь со скептицизмом. Разница между нами, как разница между оптимистом и пессимистом: оптимист смотрит на стакан, и говорит - стакан наповину полон, а пессимист смотрит на тот же стакан, и говорит - стакан наполовину пуст. Верующие - это оптимисты, а атеисты - пессимисты.

 

[Olga]

It is actually consciousness or mind that is a priori to the brain, or fundamental. Matter or brain is contained within the mind. Consciousness does not originate from the brain but finds its source in all things. That is why it is fundamental. The opposite is materialism, which has mislead the entire scientific enterprise of the 20th century.

А это не может быть разными сущностями, равнозначными сущностями?

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, I know what emergence is. It just doesn't apply to something like "free will." Because there is no such thing as "free will" in science. At least not in physics, chemistry, or astronomy.

Of course there is. That's what biology and behavioral science is all about.

You can't take temperature, density, mass, or anything else like that, put it all together, and get "free will."

Free will is not a "thing" one "gets".

It is an emergent product of living creatures with sufficiently complex nervous systems.

Emergent phenomena are still soemthing you are not grasping.

Or put different chemical reactions together, and get something with free will.

Yes you do. it's called insemination, genetic inheritance, foetal development, birth and environmental nurturing. You are standing here as a testament.

All those things together lead to me (and you), while sitting at a stoplight, having the personal agency to take any of the virtually infinite actions physically available to us at a stoplight.

You can put together a system that has artificial intelligence, but that system doesn't have free will, even though it might seem that way.

Because it is insufficiently complex, does not have 4 billion years of evolution to create instincts, has no central nervous system and does not think.

Your actions at a traffic light can either be subordinate to a program created by nature in the process of evolution, and then you will automatically stop at a red traffic light, based on safety considerations, or your free will will intervene, and you can, for example, voluntarily drive under a truck. Although, you can also voluntarily not drive under it.

You are trying to play reductionist - reduce everything to its simple forms, then sift through the simple forms and say "Nope. No free will here among these atoms."

A bit like chopping up the Mona Lisa in a blender, separating out all the pigments one-by-one and saying "Nope not a single one of these pigment molecules has a Mona Lisa in it."

So, you differ from a traffic light only in complexity? Or is there something else?

I listed quite a few ways I am different from a traffic light. Most of them are also criteria for "life" versus "non-life".

Then describe what caused these or those actions of yours. Any actions. Let's look at the whole chain from the beginning.

I decided I wanted to move forward. Tomorrow, I have the free will to make a different decision. Including making no decision.

You have yet to tell me why any of my actions might be limited by any choices I am physically capable of performing at that stop light. And you have yet tell me what your idea of free will might be that is different from that.

Dave, you have a will. But that doesn't change the fact that others have one too.

Correct. Was anyone saying otherwise?

Dave, by and large, we all do what we want here, within the limits permitted by law. If you are kind by nature, then you will be a peaceful and sympathetic person, regardless of whether you are an atheist or a believer. I have met both kind, honest, decent atheists in my life, and those who, calling themselves believers, were indifferent and cruel. Christ said: "A tree is known by its fruit, and a man by his deeds." No matter who someone calls themselves. There are not so many true believers.

Yup, all of which is true without you once having to mention a soul or God.

The soul and God are superfluous to the functioning of sufficiently complex creature with a nervous system.

If you can't pass by a crying kitten, you are a kind person,

Well,I currently have a ten week old kitten that was abandoned in my work shed at three weeks.

Look at me! Having agency, without a soul.

and God will not abandon you.

Since I don't grant the existence of God, let alone Olga's personal God, that's kind of meaningless.

But if you go to kill, hiding behind religion, you have nothing to do with the true faith.

Preaching.

Not relevant to free will.

Christ called such people Pharisees. Such people crucified Him. They also called themselves believers. In general, we are similar in many ways.

This is not Sunday school. Stay on-topic please.

The difference between us is like the difference between an optimist and a pessimist: an optimist looks at a glass and says - the glass is half full, and a pessimist looks at the same glass and says - the glass is half empty. Believers are optimists, and atheists are pessimists.

Atheists are optimists. An atheist's world is unwritten, unprophesied, has no pending fate, no judgment. The world is an atheist's oyster.

Believers will always have the sword of Damocles over their head - a being that is all-seeing and all-powerful and could - if they chose to - punish the believer if the believer doesn't so what the believer thinks the God wants them to do. By definition of a higher authority, You can never take responsibility for your own actions because God is always there overseeing you. That is not merely pessimism - that is hell - a hell you have built for yourself.

I don't know how you can tell me with a straight face that you think you're an optimist, when you tell me your entire reason for existence - and everything you do - is overseen and judged and in the control of a superior force.

Believers are akin to teenagers living in their dad's basement, always deferring to dad for advice, obligation, action and law (as you have done, several times, just in the last few posts). Oh, and convincing themselves they're grown ups.

Atheists have moved out of their parents' basement and live on their own terms. That's what being grown up means.

 

[Olga]

Of course there is. That's what biology and behavioral science is all about.



Free will is not a "thing" one "gets".

It is an emergent product of living creatures with sufficiently complex nervous systems.

Emergent phenomena are still soemthing you are not grasping.



Yes you do. it's called insemination, genetic inheritance, foetal development, birth and environmental nurturing. You are standing here as a testament.

All those things together lead to me (and you), while sitting at a stoplight, having the personal agency to take any of the virtually infinite actions physically available to us at a stoplight.



Because it is insufficiently complex, does not have 4 billion years of evolution to create instincts, has no central nervous system and does not think.



You are trying to play reductionist - reduce everything to its simple forms, then sift through the simple forms and say "Nope. No free will here among these atoms."

A bit like chopping up the Mona Lisa in a blender, separating out all the pigments one-by-one and saying "Nope not a single one of these pigment molecules has a Mona Lisa in it."



I listed quite a few ways I am different from a traffic light. Most of them are also criteria for "life" versus "non-life".



I decided I wanted to move forward. Tomorrow, I have the free will to make a different decision. Including making no decision.

You have yet to tell me why any of my actions might be limited by any choices I am physically capable of performing at that stop light. And you have yet tell me what your idea of free will might be that is different from that.



Correct. Was anyone saying otherwise?



Yup, all of which is true without you once having to mention a soul or God.

The soul and God are superfluous to the functioning of sufficiently complex creature with a nervous system.



Well,I currently have a ten week old kitten that was abandoned in my work shed at three weeks.

Look at me! Having agency, without a soul.



Since I don't grant the existence of God, let alone Olga's personal God, that's kind of meaningless.


Preaching.

Not relevant to free will.


This is not Sunday school. Stay on-topic please.



Atheists are optimists. An atheist's world is unwritten, unprophesied, has no pending fate, no judgment. The world is an atheist's oyster.

Believers will always have the sword of Damocles over their head - a being that is all-seeing and all-powerful and could - if they chose to - punish the believer if the believer doesn't so what the believer thinks the God wants them to do. By definition of a higher authority, You can never take responsibility for your own actions because God is always there overseeing you. That is not merely pessimism - that is hell - a hell you have built for yourself.

I don't know how you can tell me with a straight face that you think you're an optimist, when you tell me your entire reason for existence - and everything you do - is overseen and judged and in the control of a superior force.

Believers are akin to teenagers living in their dad's basement, always deferring to dad for advice, obligation, action and law (as you have done, several times, just in the last few posts). Oh, and convincing themselves they're grown ups.

Atheists have moved out of their parents' basement and live on their own terms. That's what being grown up means.

Дэйв, я то вас понимаю, и что такое эмерджентность, тоже понимаю. А вот вы никак понять не можете, и каждым своим высказыванием противоречите сами себе. Как работает нервная система, вы знаете? Как работают ваши рецепторы, и всё остальное? Получают сигнал - отвечают какой-нибудь реакцией. И отвечают не как попало, не случайным образом, а вполне себе определённо, согласно программе, выработанной в процессе эволюции. Где здесь свобода воли? И ещё: вы всё время говорите - "я". "Я решил", и т.п. Кто этот "я"? Кто принимает решения? По каким принципам и критериям он их принимает? Чем он при этом руководствуется?

Атеисты - пессимисты. Вся их жизнь не имеет смысла, потому что они верят, что умрут и исчезнут навсегда. Тогда зачем вообще нужна была вся эта суета? Вы идёте по жизни, зная, что идёте в пропасть. Вы когда-нибудь были на краю бездны, Дэйв? Она жуткая. Леденяще жуткая. Жуткая настолько, что вы даже представить себе этого не можете. Не зря все живые существа боятся смерти. А для верующих есть надежда, что впереди не конец всему, а начало новой жизни. Почему вы не хотите поискать этому доказательства? Почему вы решили, что впереди ничего нет, Дэйв? Разве это не пессимизм, Дэйв?

 

[DaveC426913]

But you just can't understand it, and you contradict yourself with every statement you make. Do you know how the nervous system works? How do your receptors and everything else work? They receive a signal - they respond with some kind of reaction. And they respond not just anyhow, not randomly, but quite specifically, according to a program developed in the process of evolution. Where is the free will here?

Again: how do you define free will?

I can take any action I am physically capable of doing. I cannot violate the laws of nature. So I can't fly, or appear on the Moon. Yes, we are bound by the laws of physics, I am sure you agree.

So where do you think my actions are limited or otherwise controlled? What actions do you think I could do but am somehow prevented from doing at that stoplight? What would happen if I tried? Would my brain seize up?

Atheists are pessimists.

You have no idea how atheists feel. Look: Your values are different, whaat you value is not what atheists value, so you mistakenly think they see negatives when what atheists see are positives.

What makes life worth living for me is being sure that there is no sky daddy watching and controlling and judging me. My life is my own and my future is a blank page, and I am the only author. How you describe your life, wth God and the Bible sounds to me like hell-on-Earth, with more hell waiting for you after death.

How depressing it would be if every search for how the world works simply came down to "Goddidit." Now there's a depressing thought!

Their whole life has no meaning because they believe that they will die and disappear forever.

You've got that exactly backward.

My life has meaning.
Apparently, for you, your death has meaning.
Which one of us is living our current life to the fullest?

Then what was the point of all this fuss? You go through life knowing that you are walking into an abyss.

So you do, you just believe your abyss looks prettier.

For me, meaning is in this life.
Apparently, for you, meaning is in death?

That's weird, and kind of sad from where I'm standing.

Like Miss Haversham in Great Expectations who lived out her life in her wedding dress since she got left at the altar. She chose to wait for something that might never come - instead of living her life while she was alive. Her hope led her astray.

But again, you're falling for the same "wishful thinking" fallacy.

You seem to believe in an afterlife because you like it better. Because you want it to be true. (At least, that's the argument you're making here that you hope I will buy.)
You seem to say I should believe in an afterlife because it's prettier.

I am not looking to convince myself into believing in things I'd like to be true. I am interested in the truth, whether or not I "like" it.

You have said this before - that your God is what you want to see.

That is not rational.

Now, it doesn't have to be rational - I'm not saying you have to run your life rationally.

But I choose to run mine rationally - and that means seeking truth - whether I like it or not.

If evidence of God or the afterlife or the soul ever presents itself, I will - rationally - examine it.

And for believers, there is hope that what lies ahead is not the end of everything, but the beginning of a new life.

Yep. Hope. Hope is not truth. I do not wish to surround myself with soft pillowy things that feel nice - not if they're not true.

This is the same wishful thinking fallacy you have promulgated many times. Wanting something doesn't make it real.

Surround yourself in your beliefs. They're yours, and you're entitled to them. But don't try to convince anyone that they exist outside your own head. You've just got no leg to stand on there.


Finally, if you run true-to-form, you are coming up on the time where you get bored and change your tactics to gaslighting. Oh, here it is:

Why don't you want to look for evidence of this?

Why don't you stick to stick to your own beliefs and motives, and try not to second-guess mine, m'kay?

 

[Olga]

Again: how do you define free will?

I can take any action I am physically capable of doing. I cannot violate the laws of nature. So I can't fly, or appear on the Moon. Yes, we are bound by the laws of physics, I am sure you agree.

So where do you think my actions are limited or otherwise controlled? What actions do you think I could do but am somehow prevented from doing at that stoplight? What would happen if I tried? Would my brain seize up?



I can't take you seriously.



You've got that exactly backward.

My life has meaning.
Apparently, for you, your death has meaning.
Which one of us is living our current life to the fullest?



So you do, you just believe your abyss looks prettier.

For me, meaning is in this life.
Apparently, for you, meaning is in death?

That's weird, and kind of sad from where I'm standing.
Like Miss Haversham in Great Expectations who lived out her life in her wedding dress since she got left at the altar. She chose to wait for something that might never come - instead of living her life while she was alive. Her hope led her astray.

Also, yo'ure falling for the same wishful thinking fallacy.
You seem to believe in an afterlife because you like it better. Because you want it to be true. (At least, that's the argument you're making here that you hope I will buy.)
You seem to say I should believe in an afterlife because it's prettier.

I am not looking to convince myself into believing in things I'd like to be true. I am interested in the truth, whether or not I "like" it.

You have said this before - that your God is what you want to see.

That is not rational.

Now, it doesn't have to be rational - I'm not saying you have to run your life rationally.

But I choose to run mine rationally - and that means seeking truth - whether I like it or not.

If evidence of God or the afterlife or the soul ever presents itself, I will - rationally - examine it.



Yep. Hope. Hope is not truth. I do not wish to surround myself with soft pillowy things that feel nice - not if they're not true.

This is the same wishful thinking fallacy you have promulgated many times. Wanting something doesn't make it real.

Surround yourself in your beliefs. They're yours, and you're entitled to them. But don't try to convince anyone that they exist outside your own head. You've just got no leg to stand on there.


Finally, if you run true-to-form, you are coming up on the time where you get bored and change your tactics to gaslighting. Oh, here it is:

Why don't you stick to stick to your own beliefs and motives, and try not to second-guess mine, m'kay?

Не знаю. Я не знаю, что такое свобода воли. А вы знаете? Расскажите.

Я тоже живу полной жизнью. Намного полнее, чем вы думаете. Только я не живу как страус, не прячу голову в песок. Я вижу реальность. Самое смешное, что вы обвиняете меня в том, что я от неё бегу. Не бегу, даже в мыслях не бегу. Жизнь короткая, и надо успеть многое понять. А современная наука находится на таком примитивном уровне на самом деле, что не может дать ответ ни на один по настоящему серьёзный вопрос. Ну хотя бы ответить: кто такой этот "я"? Кто принимает решения? Нейроны? Каким образом? Большинством при голосовании?

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't know. I don't know what free will is. Do you know? Tell me.

I have been. The 100 balls on the table; the infinitude of choices at a stoplight.

The thing is, it doesn't need to be defined as a thing, unless you think it's not natural. Free will is simply what complex life does to go about its bunsess. Whatever business it wants.

So, if you're going to argue it has to have some supernatural origin, you're going to have to show why we can't all go about our business.

I also live a full life. Much fuller than you think.

I did not suggest otherwise.

I see reality.

No. You have admitted you do not. You have said so, on record, for all to read at their leisure.

Again:
1. Your God appears to you how you decide you want it to appear. That is the antithesis of reality.
2. You admit that you have no way to show if your God exists outside your head. That is the antithesis of reality.

These are things you have said.

I could go on with other things you have said to us all, here, on record, but really they all stem from your own admission that your beliefs are built on what you want to be true, and that you only know they exist in your own head. The polar opposite of reality.

 

[Olga]

I have been. The 100 balls on the table; the infinitude of choices at a stoplight.

The thing is, it doesn't need to be defined as a thing, unless you think it's not natural. Free will is simply what complex life does to go about its bunsess. Whatever business it wants.

So, if you're going to argue it has to have some supernatural origin, you're going to have to show why we can't all go about our business.



I did not suggest otherwise.



No. You have admitted you do not. You have said so, on record, for all to read at their leisure.

Again:
1. Your God appears to you how you decide you want it to appear. That is the antithesis of reality.
2. You admit that you have no way to show if your God exists outside your head. That is the antithesis of reality.

These are things you have said.

I could go on with other things you have said to us all, here, on record, but really they all stem from your own admission that your beliefs are built on what you want to be true, and that you only know they exist in your own head. The polar opposite of reality.

Я ничего не поняла из вашего объяснения. Какими делами, кто занимается? Мне нужно объяснить конкретно - кто/что принимает решения? Это нейроны? Их много. Они проводят голосование, или у них авторитаризм? Объясните мне как инженер: как это работает?

 

[DaveC426913]

I didn't understand anything from your explanation. What kind of work, who does it? I need to explain specifically - who/what makes decisions? Are they neurons? There are many of them. Do they vote, or do they have authoritarianism? Explain to me as an engineer: how does it work?

All of which will be apparent if you do a little light review on emergent behavior in the brain to supplement your already prodigious knowledge of the phenomenon.

 

[Olga]

All of which will be apparent if you do a little light review on emergent behavior in the brain to supplement your already prodigious knowledge of the phenomenon.

Вы уходите от ответа, Дэйв. Так нечестно. Если вы не знаете, как это работает, скажите честно - я не знаю. Или просто объясните по пунктам, как это работает. Кто/что принимает решения? Это нейроны?

 

[DaveC426913]

You're avoiding the question, Dave.

I'm not your teacher. You're being lazy. And you're making assertions at me in an absence of knowledge about a subject you keep claiming you understand. This does not entice me to indulge you.

(And cue parting shot in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...)

 

[Olga]

I'm not your teacher. You're being lazy. And you're making assertions at me in an absence of knowledge about a subject you keep claiming you understand. This does not entice me to indulge you.

(And cue parting shot in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...)

Что и требовалось доказать... Ты не знаешь, как это работает, но гордыня не позволяет тебе в этом признаться. Для чего тогда нужны научные сайты, если никто не может объяснить мне даже таких простых вещей? Какой толк от такой науки, которая основ не знает? Я просто попросила объяснить мне : как это работает? Без какой-либо эзотерики, без привлечения сверхъестественных сущностей, и прочего - и вы не смогли этого сделать. Простой же вопрос: кто/что принимает решения?

 

[DaveC426913]

You don't know how it works, but your pride won't let you admit it.

Yep, right on cue. You are too predictable.

Blame others for your laziness.

Why would I want to help someone who is like this all the time?

 

[Olga]

Yep, right on cue. You are too predictable.

Blame others for your laziness.

Why would I want to help someone who is like this all the time?

Ха, так вы не мне помогайте. Нас и другие читают, которые вам те же вопросы задать могут. Им помогите. Но вы не можете, поэтому вам скажут:"Доктор, излечи сначала себя!", что в переводе на общедоступный язык означает:"Разбирись сначала сам в вопросе, прежде чем кого то учить!"

 

[DaveC426913]

Ha, so you are not helping me.

You have a history of trolling and bad faith argument. This is on-record. You happen to have caught me when I do not have you on Ignore, so I'm engaging on a topic I found interesting. But your good-faith participation has a limited shelf life, and this batch has expired.

Given that, I don't know why you think I would feel obliged to teach you about a topic you claim to already understand, especially since you can just Google it. And you're just going to use it to promulgate your belief that your God is the best and everyone else is dumb. Teaching you something you don't want to hear is a waste of my time.

 

[Olga]

You have a history of trolling and bad faith argument. This is on-record. You happen to have caught me when I do not have you on Ignore, so I'm engaging on a topic I found interesting. But your good-faith participation has a limited shelf life, and this batch has expired.

Given that, I don't know why you think I would feel obliged to teach you about a topic you claim to already understand, especially since you can just Google it. And you're just going to use it to promulgate your belief that your God is the best and everyone else is dumb. Teaching you something you don't want to hear is a waste of my time.

Ну, мне всё понятно. Думаю, другим тоже.