update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

Ok I have been following the thread to the best of my abilities but now I am lost. Could you please provide an example of a direct expierence of an effect that did not have a initial cause?

This is exactly what we see in nature. You have one gender of an animal with it's own unique DNA. Combine that with another gender of the same species with it's own unique DNA and you end up with a new animal with it's own unique DNA, that is a compilitation of the previous two. The two sets of DNA were compared and combined to create a unique new animal.I also have alot of problems with your example of choosing left or right as evidence for anticipation theory. From what I can glean from your posts. It appears that you are suggesting that the decision to proceed in one direction or the other is made with out cognitive thought. When in reality that is not the case. If I have a decision to make, my brain will run through all the possible advantages/ disadvantages of either choice and determine which is the most suitable decision. After that process I am still left with the ability to pick which alternative I choose regardless of how advantages’I may have determined it to be.

Ok that is not actualy an answer to anything. Stucture in freedom? Philosophizing about brains? All I did was describe a part of the cognitive thought process. Which is what we actualy observe in the real world. Exploring the structure of freedom is nothing but philosophy. Could you please explain something, anything that you are talking about.

ummmmm no that doesn't indicate anything like that. In fact I can't even fathom what one has to do with the other or how you can make that equivication. That is nothing but a statement with no purpose. alternatives are in the future. If I am at a crossroad on a path, I can choose which direction to proceed. In this case my path will continue in the future down one of the selected paths. However that does not mean that the alternatives are in the future. I could still have the option in the present to change my mind and select a different alternative. one more comment. There are plenty of studies that show the brain is the component when it comes to making decisions.Human decision making These decision do not stem from an external process.

You keep restating this, however you never say why. Give me an example. Please explain why my philosophy, that decision making is a function of the brain, is inconsistent with my practical common knowledge that, decision making is a function of the brain. Please show me an example of the general principles in common knowledge. Whatever that means.

Have you been able to find any evidence about anticpation that would be usefull to this discussion? I don't believe anyone here involved in this, myself included, has a clue about what you have been going on about. You state an opinion that alternatives are in the future, as proof that this theroy is true and consiquintly that creation is true because of it. Yet you have done nothing to show how anticipation theory works nor how it ties to creationism. You can't even demonstrate the one statement that you keep repeating(that alterantives are in the future) I could just as easily assert that alternatives are in the present, or that alternatives do not exist, or that any alternatives are merely in my mind and physically there is only the present. Your one linears are just not cutting the mustard. Please expand one your thoughts so that we can further this discussion.

Sorry but that is not evidence for anything.
1. If an alternative does lie in the future how can you have a direct experience of it?
2. If I have a choice to make between left or right than both alternatives converge in the present so alternatives are both in the present and the future.
3. There is no way of proving that an unrealized alternative still exists (since you say that both alternatives are in the future than my decision would be unable to eliminate a non realized alternative.)
4. time pregression can be stated as a series of desicions in the present, with knowledge of past expeirences and without any alternatives in the future.
5. You never stated why this is sufficient for creationism or why this would prove creationism and not any other alternative. Why is this not sufficient for evolution. Evolution states that what we see today is a progression of realized decisions in the past.
6. You have never stated where this mysterious decision making power comes from if it is not internalized.
7.Even if all these unaswered and contradictory statements are incorrect, you still haven't answered the biggest question. So what? What does time pregression have anything at all to do with the equivication to creationism?
Please stop rehashing the whole left right thing and get down to the nitty gritty of it.

No I am asking for clarification. How can you have a direct experience of something that is in the future? My point being that inorder to directly eperience something you and it would have to occupy the same time. If I wanted to experience something that is in my future I have to wait till it and I occupy the same time frame, in which case it is no longer in the future but in the present. If I want to subjectively experience something in my future I could fathom probabilities but that boils down to best quess, since I can not predetermine all of the variables that lie on my course to this said future experience.

So my philosophizing on the assumption of your most basic premise is irrelevant. So long as it allows you to presuppose your assumption and then begin to establish your own philosophy of the ramificatios? With no proof that your most basic premise is correct? That is not very scientific or even logical. In fact it is a little to open minded. however since this is a free for all I will concede and allow you the benefit of the doubt, if for nothing more than to allow us to further the conversation. Decisions occuring in the present effect alternatives in the future.
However I would like you to expand on the other questions and points I raised in message 260.
Ok the ball is yours, philosophize away.

Are you sure you understand what relative motion is? Relevant motion states that I can toss a ball on a moving train and it will appear to me that the ball moved straight up and down. While another observer would state that the ball flew in an arc. Both observation are correct based on the relative motion of each observer. In other words the laws of physics do not break down for an object moving at constant velocity in reference to another object. There is plenty of direct evidence for relative motion. How does your time progression lead to a rejection of this principle of relativity? What and how does material predetermine? Also decisions are based on much more complex issues than god/ bad. If you are deciding on the quality or goodness/ badness of a said persons' behaivor you would have to judge them by any number of things. Some of which are material. Examples include that which was said/ done by them, appearence etc. etc.. All material things. Also as was stated before we have very reliable evidence that decisions are processed in the brain, which is very material. Or are you stating that this idea of goodness and badness just floats into your head from an unknown outside source?

If by that you mean that, it allows you to equate your misunderstood principle of physics to your reality. time as regarded by physics is a scalar quantity and geometrical dimension. you may want to research a little more about the Arrow of time Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

no I believe that you need to stop equivicating and misconstruing philosophy inorder to align it with choosen belief. For example you insist that time is a function of past decisions. I say time is a measure of increased entropy. Both may be right however neither one is evidence of creation. Lets say instead of time we talk about distance. You claim that the only way to measure distance is by meters, I say we can use feet. Who is correct in this scenario? Does your use of meters invalidate my use of feet? You insist that your past alternatives are being directed, however you haven't presented any evidence that would lead one to reach this conclusion. Until you present some way to show that decisions as you call them are being directed by an outside source, you have nothing but an assertation based on a misguided assumption of time.Edited by rueh, : grammer (probably still wrong)

Trust me I am trying to understand your point. It is not my fault you make it very hard to do so. baseless assertation that contrasts with evidence. Another assertation that conflicts with evidence. Life did not show up in the universe for billions of years according to all the evidence we have at the time. purely subjective appeal to athority. You state that I make decisions but then elsewhere you claim that decisions come from an unknown source. how can I be preoccupied with decisions? From the basis of your argument wouldn't my preoccupation come from this unknown source. You may believe that is the case, however it is very reasonable to examine the premise and see if it lines up with the evidence. For the points that you have been making the answer is a resounding no. Try referencing some evidence and you may be able to further your understanding as to how the real world opperates. It may not lead you to furthering your belief, but at least then you will be able to understand.