|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Did you shove a red or blue pill down somebodys throat today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
It does not seem to consist of anything by that relative notion. So you see the superior creationist logic clarifies a lot. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
from your reference.
... It is vividly recognized by consciousness. It is equally insisted on by our reasoning faculty, which tells us that a reversal of the arrow would render the external world nonsensical. It makes no appearance in physical science except in the study of organization of a number of individuals. ... Now replace randomness in your reference with alternatives, and you have pretty much all i have been saying. You need to step up your thinking a bit. All of this is hopeless if you do not have this vivid recognition that Eddington talks about and be true to that evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dokukaeru Member (Idle past 4615 days) Posts: 129 From: ohio Joined: |
Main Entry: de·lu·sion
1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded 2 a: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state I assume by your lack of answer you cannot even begin to explain how freedom pushes aside natural selection. You fail to even understand what is science and what is crap eating up bandwith Let me know if you ever leave this freedom dreamworld and come back to reality. It must be really hard typing with that straight jacket on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
In my world freedom is real. I obviously know a lot more about it then you do, so you should try and learn something, and present a studious attitude. I know that in all probability your knowledge about freedom consists of some philosophical meandering here and there, an undefined mess.
Go talk to your fellow Darwinists about freedom, shifting the definitions around a bit amongst each other, like the definition of "conscious" and the definition of "aware", without making any point, constructing a big mess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
dokukaeru, this is a reminder that this is in "Free for All". That is a hint that you might be wasting time discussing in topics put here.
Just ignore the nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
Now replace randomness in your reference with alternatives, and you have pretty much all i have been saying. 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.You need to step up your thinking a bit. Edited by rueh, : grammer (probably still wrong)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I already said several times what does the deciding is objectively nothing, subjectively spiritual. Guidance in science can only be understood then as in alternatives being constrained, or one decision influencing another. As mentioned before some basic forms are likely since the start of the universe, fourlegged creatures etc. So we have this decision at the start of the universe which guides the decisions that produce variation.
Newton also distinghuised between true time, and vulgar common time (days, years etc.) Why dont you just use reason and direct evidence. The sequence of decisions is a real thing of itself, noting how far the earth circles the sun is arbitrary measurement of true time. There is no possible better notion of time then the sequence of decisions, because decisions are based on final causes. You cant get beyond final. Why do you keep pretending that freedom is kind of irrellevant in the universe while in daily life you are preoccupied with making decisions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
And this is all besides the point, lets discuss your attitude v knowledge about freedom.
Dubois is a wellknown scientist, won some awards, chaired some conferences. You also have direct evidence of freedom. So why is it that you are hostile to anticipation theory. Why dont you just enquire into it with reasonability. What is going through your mind that you prefer to end up with knowledge about freedom that is a collection of philosophical meanderings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
Trust me I am trying to understand your point. It is not my fault you make it very hard to do so.
I already said several times what does the deciding is objectively nothing, subjectively spiritual. baseless assertation that contrasts with evidence.
As mentioned before some basic forms are likely since the start of the universe, fourlegged creatures etc. So we have this decision at the start of the universe which guides the decisions that produce variation 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.
The sequence of decisions is a real thing of itself, noting how far the earth circles the sun is arbitrary measurement of true time. purely subjective
Dubois is a wellknown scientist, won some awards, chaired some conferences. You also have direct evidence of freedom. So why is it that you are hostile to anticipation theory. appeal to athority.
Why do you keep pretending that freedom is kind of irrellevant in the universe while in daily life you are preoccupied with making decisions. 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.
Why dont you just enquire into it with reasonability 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Time is not a series of decisions rather it is a series of instants. We have all experienced instants. So instants obviously exist. Decisions are a subjectively derived cause and effect amalgam of sequentially simultaneous instants by means of which the predetermined pathways of time are traversed. The scientific method is the unconscious subjugation of instants such that various instants can be analyzed from a pseudo objectified perspective. Thus the conclusions of science are reached.
Where freedom theory falls down is in the application of instants to the decision making capabilities of toothbrushes. Toothbrushes obviously cannot make decisions because they lack the capacity to instantantionalise reality. On the other hand coffee cups do have some decision making capacity as "coffee breaks" and other such "events" require the instantaneous sharing of parallel instants with conscious beings such as mice and humans. Overly caffeinated mice however should always be restrained unless their brains have first been removed. Otherwise instantational pulses will cause the increased immorality of planetary motions thus breaking the conservation of instantons which will in turn lead to a loss of spatial awareness. Instantly. Thus freedom theory has been demonstrated to be flawed. It is an approximation method to the true workings of instants theory.I suggest that those advocates of freedom theory stop resisting the self evident existence of instants as experienced in person by every one of us and immerse themselves in this fascinating superior model. I am happy to answer any questions regarding this topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Well obviously we are getting nowhere. Your knowledge about freedom remains a mess, but i guess you are happy with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Theres something not right when i see you philosophically meandering without evidence in the thread evolving conscousness, and then you complain of lack of scientific merit of a theory that is mathematically worked out and experimentally established.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
and then you complain of lack of scientific merit of a theory that is mathematically worked out and experimentally established. And what theory might that be? There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Look in the link in post 1, use the references in that paper.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024