update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

You should be able to answer that question yourself by now. If toothbrushes decide then dead brainless mice decide too. Perhaps this is incorrect, it doesn't really seem to matter to the point at issue. They decide their state themselves or a decider decides their state for them, creationism would still be true, because freedom would still be true.

You have repeatedly asserted that it is common sense and obvious that freedom is true. However I do not think many sane people would consider it common sense or obvious that dead mice with their brains removed continue to make choices and decisions.
Despite the fact that your asertions seem literally insane to me I am prepared to put that on hold for one moment to further investigate your thinking.Surely you must admit that the apparent and observable ability of living creatures with functioning brains to make choices and decisions beyond those of inanimate objects or dead brainless creatures? Do you indeed recognise this? Or not?How do you account for this via freedom theory?
If you cannot account for, or even acknowledge, all the observational evidence that brainless entities appear to exhibit less freedom than their brained conterparts via freedom theory is this not a fairly significant flaw in the theory as a whole?A theory of decisions that explains none of the observational evidence regarding the ability to make decisions. That is a pretty weak position wouldn't you agree?

that was already asked and answered a couple of times.You still seem to be stuck with a concept of freedom that is not spiritual, that inhibits your understanding. The thing can go left or right, the decision is free, so theres nothing predetermining either way. So what decides is spiritual, and can only be known subjectively. You just need to follow common knowledge, in which goodness and badness for instance can make a decision, while we know we cant know good and bad objectively. So you see a brain does not decide at all really, nothing decides, that is objective fact.

Where? I have yet to see you directly answer a single question in this thread. You keep asserting this but it is false and it obviously demonstrates the exact opposite to that which you claim to be true.I can decide to go left or right. You can decide to go left or right. The living, functioning brain owning mouse can decide to go left or right. The thing we all have in common is that we all have functioning brains (well....arguably partially functional in your case)A toothbrush, a planet or a dead, de-brained mouse however give no observable indication of being able to decide to go left, right or anywhere else. These things do not have functioning brains.Can you see a pattern emerging here at all? Brains = Ability to decide to go left or right.
No brains = No ability to decide to go left or right.
Is this not what the obervable evidence suggests?Even using your own simplistic left/right example just demonstrates the opposite to everything you are asserting.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Syamsu, I think it's inhibiting all of our understandings. What other concept of freedom is there other than that which works in reality? I, and perhaps the other folks on this thread, don't understand what you mean by 'spiritual freedom'? You can't just combine 2 words like spiritual and freedom and hope they make sense to people.Specifically what do YOU mean when you say 'spiritual freedom'? Well then if it can only be known subjectively, then it will never be considered a fact. Subjective experiences are limited when it comes to verifiable proof. You just de-bunked your own theory. Im not following. Good and bad don't make decisions, people make decisions based off of their own subjective experiences, right? What determines what is good and bad is the rest of our subjective experiences of what that person did. Like lets say a devout Christian blows up and abortion clinic. His subjective expreinces with his faith lead him to believe that the right thing to do, based off of spiritual beliefs, was to blow up that clinic. The rest of society does not however, feel he was doing 'good', and therefore his subjective interpretation of the spiritual experience he had was deemed WRONG by the sane members of society. So just because you have a subjetive experience, it doesn't mean its correct...like with your subjective interpretation of what 'freedom' is.As a side note: How can 'good' and 'bad' make a decision over someone? Wouldn't that remove a persons 'freedom' to decide? I think this is where you are making your mistake, the brain is where every neural funtion happens, and therefore it is the only place where thought can exist. The brain receives information from its sensory funtions and then makes decisions based off of many many factors such as intelligence, past experiences, up bringing etc, etc. And THAT is objective fact. Your sensory funtions and your brain are what makes you YOU. Even subjective experiences require the sensory functions and the brain to do their thing. Decisions are mechanical funtions and a result of having a brain. So is love, laughter, hate, anger etc, etc. You have freedom because you have an independant brain with it's own sensory funtions experienceing the world around you and, because it is free from other brains, makes it's own decisions...and that is what I would define as 'freedom'.Conclusion: In reality nothing without a brain can have freedom to do anything.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi, Syamsu. How is this not the exact opposite of what you've been arguing throughout this thread?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

The decision comes from nothing and nowhere, as I have said repeatedly, which is a scientific fact proven by anticipation theory.As before, the logic does not work any other way, because we can't have anything at all predetermining the decision, because then it wouldn't actually be a decision, then it would be forced and not free. So nothing, zero, does not predetermine, and therefore it is suitable for decisions to be there.And you all very well know that the cutting edge science of love as brainfunction is pseudoscience. The rule for science not to speak about what ought and ought not is a dead letter with a science of love. Why is it that many of those sciencefans do not follow daily rites in sustaining faith, sustaining their subjective opinion about what ought and ought not ?

None of this tackles the issue of why things with brains are observed to have considerably more freedom than those things that do not have brains.Not explaining this rather obvious observation would seem to be a particularly fundamental flaw in your theory.How do you address this?

Hi, Syamsu.I realize English probably isn't your first language. I think you should take a little more time constructing your posts and trying to make your meaning more clear. It would really help if you put in "qs" or "quote" boxes. You have not said this repeatedly: you haven't even said it once. Here's what you were saying before (Message 127): So, does the decision come from "nothing and nowhere" or does it come from the toothbrush?----- First of all, what "other way" are you talking about?Second, do you realize that "anticipation" is roughly the same thing as "predetermination," and that Edwina Taborsky's essay was, in fact, claiming that this is the way things work?Third, if nothing is predetermining the decision, not only is there no anticipation, but the statement "alternatives in the future" loses the last bit of meaning it could possibly have.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

As said before, creationism would still be true if inanimate things did not decide, because freedom would still be real.so inanimate things don't decide, only brains decide, creationism is trueinanimate things decide, brains also decide, creationism is trueI hope this is clear to you now after telling you 4 times or so.

Yes you are just not reading my posts. Professor Dubois really is a notable scientist, and it really is a first for some scientist to explain free will mathematically like that. So regardless of the merit of my argument, you should not blunder into something that is new and respected in science with your I've seen it all before attitude.post 50 - the decision comes from nothing, ie there is no brain, or knowledge, or any substance or process at the origin, there is instead nothingpost 63 - And to observe anything in consideration of it coming from nothing by decision from the spiritual domainpost 199 - That means we must trace back the likelyhood of the elephant coming to be to zero, finding all decisions along the way

The fact that you think that creationism is true regardless of evidence, regardless of argument, regardless of reason and regardless of any comprehension of anticipation theory is indeed very very very clear.What is less clear is what exactly you think freedom is, what it is freedom actually applies to and why any of this would conceivably support any creationist position?Your whole argument seems to amount to: I can decide to go left or right therefore creationism is true.The problem with this is that conventional science does not deny you the ability to decide to go left or right. In fact conventinal science suggests that you do have this ability to decide whilst a toothbrush or a dead brainless mouse do not. As observed.

This is clearly a free for all topic. Syamsu will never supply any supporting evidence so we either shut this down or let it go in Free for All.I will move it shortly so don't start new posts.

Thread copied to the update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside thread in the Free For All forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.