Fore Will (origin at its finest), page 6

privacy

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 26-2-2010 @ 05:55 PM by Golden Boy

Originally posted by dzonatas
reply to post by Golden Boy

Seriously, how does that give you the reason to dispute: "The origin of existence is WILL" as stated in the OP.

I never said that it did. You asked for evidence of the things that I claimed you did. I supplied it. It had nothing to do with the topic, and you yourself said that it didn't.

You can agree with it or not.

Not, thanks.

If you think someone that takes different sides in a scientific manner is a liar

Oh, no. I don't think that those who take the opposite side is a liar. I think that people who lie are liars.

At least I do not create multiple persona and use that multiple persona to pretend to be someone else

Okay, seriously. Why do you think I'm a sockpuppet? Of whom? And why do you think that?
As I stated in my introduction thread, I was referred here from a site called DiscussTheParanormal.com, where I go by the username Commander Eagle. You can also find me on YouTube under the username TheWildMagic, The Thinking Atheist as Unbeliever, and the James Randi Educational Foundation forums as Pure_Argent. I have never been to this site before my signup, which was very recent.
So if you're going to accuse me of being a sock, you'd best have some evidence to back it up.

Guess it took WILL for you to believe who is being honest and who is being dishonest, as stated in the OP: "It takes a will to believe and think."

"LIVING is WILL."

Undoubtedly. I never disputed this. I did dispute that will is the "ultimate origin", and that nothing can be done without will. You are strawmanning.

Obviously, there is change and there is no change and either could be a force of will. As you asked: "Gravity does things. Does gravity have a will?"

It is either gravity has will or it is not gravity that has will.

And there is absolutely zero evidence that gravity has a will. So why believe that it does?

reply posted on 26-2-2010 @ 06:00 PM by Golden Boy

Originally posted by Jezus
I really don't know how else to explain it.
The evidence is all around you; it is a matter of understanding it.

Except that the things that you have presented as evidence aren't evidence. If they are, you have failed to explain how.

The mind/consciousness can only be studied indirectly by studying correlations between brain activity, chemicals, and behavior.

I have explained this to you multiple times. The consciousness can be studied.

It is important to understand the difference between correlation and causation.

It is important to understand the difference between bare assertion and evidence.
Really. I do understand what you are referring to. I understand the fallacy that you are accusing me of. But, in this case, there is zero evidence that the correlation and the causation are not one and the same. You claim that the chemical reactions are a product of consciousness, but all the evidence claims that they are. If you say that they are not, present evidence to that effect.

Logically we assume that other entities have consciousness but you can NEVER prove scientifically that another entity has consciousness.

Yes, you can. I have explained how.

Consciousness is a fundamentally abstract idea, it is not something physical.

No, it isn't, and yes, it is, respectively. I've explained this.

The brain synthesizes the message created by the senses.

Yes.

Consciousness is the experience of this message.
The mind responds to this message. You are the mind.

This is where we break off.
You are asserting a distinction between "mind" and "consciousness" which does not necessarily exist. If it does, present evidence that it does.

When we study the brain physically we are only seeing one side of the equation.

You have also presented no evidence to support this assertion.

reply posted on 26-2-2010 @ 06:22 PM by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Logically we assume that other entities have consciousness but you can NEVER prove scientifically that another entity has consciousness.

Yes, you can. I have explained how.

I'm not trying to insult you but this really is a matter of comprehension.

You can NEVER prove scientifically that another entity has consciousness.

This is a fundamental fact of consciousness; this isn't debatable.

Logically we use science and make assumptions that other people have consciousness and are not biological robots simply reacting to stimuli, but from a scientific perspective you can never really prove this is not true.

reply posted on 26-2-2010 @ 06:26 PM by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy
It is important to understand the difference between bare assertion and evidence.
Really. I do understand what you are referring to. I understand the fallacy that you are accusing me of. But, in this case, there is zero evidence that the correlation and the causation are not one and the same. You claim that the chemical reactions are a product of consciousness, but all the evidence claims that they are. If you say that they are not, present evidence to that effect.

It doesn't work like that.

You don't assume causation until proven otherwise...

No evidence exists to suggest in any way that consciousness equals chemical reactions.

Correlation is not causation.

reply posted on 26-2-2010 @ 06:27 PM by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
I never said that it did. You asked for evidence of the things that I claimed you did. I supplied it. It had nothing to do with the topic, and you yourself said that it didn't.

You showed us evidence of WILL based on my request to show it was my will. It is now only a question of corroboration.

Oh, no. I don't think that those who take the opposite side is a liar. I think that people who lie are liars.

This honesty is the opposite of dishonest, so this is an opposite side: I always lie.

Explain how that makes someone a liar.

Okay, seriously. Why do you think I'm a sockpuppet?

Don't lose control, again, Golden Boy. Justice is swift when the realization sets in that only anecdotal evidence of opinion and comparison is what a lie constitutes. Obviously, if it was of any constellation then notice the difference that people's memories and experiences are just that -- different. To even expect anybody to be the same then it is best not to worry about it. If there ever was a first, then obviously the second wasn't the first.

I did dispute that will is the "ultimate origin", and that nothing can be done without will. You are strawmanning.

Speak without infinite tense. So many people to work with just to simply try to understand them when they can't even speak perfect tense. If this is not understood then simply somewhere the truth of perfect tense was lost, and some of us continue to speak the language. Perfect tense is tried and proven to be 100% technically exact in college comprehension, yet obviously teachers prefer corrective tense. Ultimate origin is obvious by the will of perfect tense.

And there is absolutely zero evidence that gravity has a will. So why believe that it does?

Perfect tense has gravity like the willing.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by dzonatas]

reply posted on 26-2-2010 @ 11:54 PM by Astyanax

reply to post by davesidious

Soon it'll be just you in your own little ATS, after having ignored everyone else.

Ignore list suggestion: auto-expire and permanent options

Give you three guesses who the thread starter is

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 12:35 AM by Astyanax

Originally posted by Jezus
The mind/consciousness can only be studied indirectly by studying correlations between brain activity, chemicals, and behavior. It is important to understand the difference between correlation and causation.

You're right, it is very important. So let's try to understand it, shall we?

A causal relationship between events A and B implies that A causes B or vice versa. A correlationship between A and B implies that both are the result of a third cause, which we can label C. If brain activity correlates to behaviour, either one causes the other (in which case the cause would be brain activity because this always precedes behaviour) or else both are caused by a third entity, C, which you call mind or consciousness.

Now this can happen two ways:

Consciousness (or mind) causes chemical changes in the brain, which in turn cause behaviour.
Consciousness (or mind) causes behaviour, as well as some unrelated chemical changes in the brain.

We can, I think, agree that the second option is pretty meaningless, and concentrate on the first. An intangible, nonphysical entity, called by you consciousness or mind, causes chemical changes in the brain, and that makes behaviour happen.

At once we encounter a problem. We know, for example, exactly how chemical changes in the retina of the eye (which is part of the brain) are caused. They are caused by light. Light falling on the retina causes physical changes in the chemical rhodopsin, which eventually causes an electrical signal to be sent up the optic nerve to other parts of the brain, where they cause more chemical changes to occur. The process is entirely unconscious; until it is over, consciousness is unable to apprehend the object viewed, and so, obviously, is unaware of it. How We See

Logically we assume that other entities have consciousness but you can NEVER prove scientifically that another entity has consciousness.

Neither can you prove, even to yourself, that you are conscious. Cogito, ergo sum was comprehensively debunked by Nietzsche and others centuries ago.

What this implies for your argument is that a key assumption is invalidated. Consciousness cannot be proved to exist; therefore you are invoking an imaginary entity in order to explain a physical process--even though the process can be explained just fine without it!

Give us your honest opinion. Doesn't this sound a lot like special pleading?

Consciousness is a synonym for freewill.

You are wrong. It is, if it exists, the possessor of free will. But does even free will exist? The reluctance of all you will-powered folk to respond to my first post in this thread suggests the question is, to say the least, problematic.

[edit on 27/2/10 by Astyanax]

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 01:00 AM by TheWalkingFox

reply to post by Jezus

What makes you think consciousness exists, exactly? You seem to be buying into the concept that you are somehow separate from the physicality of your body, that "you" exist as a separate, individual, distinct entity from the shambling mass of meat and bone and dinner sitting in your gut that is your body. That there is something exceptional and outstanding about the idea that you can think.

There's not. Indeed there's even evidence that you don't think, but instead react in a pre-programmed way to very fine levels of stimulus. That you are in fact not a conscious, individual, thinking person... but simply a quivering lump of proteins jittering occasionally in reaction to chemical and electrical impulses; some of which may be caused by whatever it is you just ate.

The philosophy you are espousing is the equivalent of an optical illusion formed in your brain during early childhood and often not abandoned until late into the teenage years, whereby your "thought" is a different entity from your "action" - or in the case of this discussion, where your will is a separate entity from the machine that you wield to accomplish that will. This is an illusion caused because you're quite certain that your hands and feed don't suffer the pangs of individual thought. To your perceptions, you are an incorporeal entity driving a human body and telling it what to do.

Fact is, when you reach for something, say the keys on your keyboard as you type a reply to this - your hand is thinking before you give it will. it sends an electrical impulse to your brain saying "Okay, moving here now" and your brain responds either with "all is well, carry on" or "no! Stop!" by which time you will have already made the typo - and started deleting it before you think "I should delete that"

Consciousness is an illusion brought to you by an underdeveloped childhood brain. It's similar to the notion that we see by projecting energy from our eyes - seeing something feels like we are sending something, when in fact we are receiving. In both cases it's simply your method of explaining a sensory deception perpetrated upon you by an imperfect body that you don't really understand yet, interacting with a world you don't fully comprehend yet.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 04:29 AM by The Matrix Traveller

reply to post by dzonatas

Those that are Aware... have The Gift of LIFE, and those who are Not Aware are the Walking Dead, simply "program" Not Knowing LIFE..

Can't do much about it...... as these are the opposites...

You will always have the Living and the Dead.

Ether One can't be the other...

No point in trying to convince the Walking Dead, about LIFE if they can't know LIFE...

Don't waist your time on the Dead it isn't worth it…

You can never convince the Dead…

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 04:31 AM by dzonatas

Originally posted by Astyanax
A causal relationship between events A and B implies that A causes B or vice versa.

Besides the attempt example you tried to give, there was the obvious fallacy where the observed can't be the observer. There is a question of what is being affected what remains unaffected. In your made-up reality, like others complain about made-up words, that doesn't seem to be of any well-known theory or scientific fact.

Now this can happen two ways:

Despite where people want to say we are all the same under common ground and 'therefore' the brain exists, neither way that you have pointed out shows any direct connection between the brain and mind as chemical.

How We See

Note, observed can't be the observer. There is no proof your eyes can see the retina of your eyes or the brain upon which it is attached. There is no direct proof.

There is only third-party evidence, so there is never just A and B in such case.

Give us your honest opinion. Doesn't this sound a lot like special pleading?

If someone want to point out what exactly what is logical and exactly what is illogical is a matter of choice. We know what is not logical -- it doesn't happen.

Maybe all is possible in the pleiades meteor storms.

Consciousness is a synonym for freewill.

You are wrong. It is, if it exists, the possessor of free will. But does even free will exist? The reluctance of all you will-powered folk to respond to my first post in this thread suggests the question is, to say the least, problematic.

"Do two wrongs make a right?"

Sure. Sounds like a transistor to me:

A source. A drain. Something in between.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 04:39 AM by dzonatas

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

If the movie Project X doesn't convince anybody, then we already have our proof of who can't be convinced.

There is obvious lost truth among the destruction. Some feel a responsibility to rebuild and make neat again; some just do it naturally.

We all seem to laugh about adobe bricks being stacked... stacked.... stacked. Just don't want to stand behind the horse at the wrong moment.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 04:48 AM by The Matrix Traveller

reply to post by dzonatas

Support the Living as they shall never die...

The Living can't die,

and the Dead can't Live

Only LIFE can give the Gift of LIFE No human can give LIFE...

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 06:06 AM by Astyanax

reply to post by dzonatas

Had second thoughts about ignoring me, I see. Good, good...

Originally posted by dzonatas
Besides the attempt example you tried to give, there was the obvious fallacy where the observed can't be the observer.

Oh, no? Ever looked in one of these?

[edit on 27/2/10 by Astyanax]

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 06:48 AM by dzonatas

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

Oh we know how much of me supports living...

... it's in my motherly nature.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 06:49 AM by dzonatas

reply to post by Astyanax

A mirror? A virtual reality device that only shows what it wants to show and not what you see.

You only see the light of the reflection off the mirror and therefore you see the light and not the mirror.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 12:41 PM by davesidious

reply to post by dzonatas

Actually, you can easily see the mirror by the imperfections in it. No mirror is 100% reflective. But I'm sure you're using some definition of the words "mirror" or "reflection" or "not" that no one else is, so my point is most likely moot.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 01:41 PM by dzonatas

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by dzonatas

Actually, you can easily see the mirror by the imperfections in it. No mirror is 100% reflective. But I'm sure you're using some definition of the words "mirror" or "reflection" or "not" that no one else is

Provide evidence and let's get the proof done. Surely you don't want to make mere accusations and not provide any proof or evidence. That would be highly ignorant.

To ignore providence of evidence is ignorant.

Deny Ignorance.

, so my point is most likely moot.

Then don't even make the accusation if you don't even intend to prove it at all. There is no purpose to your statements, and they are not written in exact ideas.

In the computer, we call this a machine language program that is the same thing as a bunch of NOP instructions.

This is a thread about WILL and the origin of WILL. Somehow you didn't not acknowledge the WILL of gravity or not gravity that the light used to reflect off the mirror. This was already proven in this thread. If that WILL affects the image of the reflection of the mirror then that is a virtual image and not the real image.

You would have to prove the observed can't be the observer.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 01:49 PM by davesidious

reply to post by dzonatas

You're kidding, right? You want proof that mirrors are not 100% reflective? Your idea of a mirror, that is one that is perfectly reflective and does not absorb anything, is called a "Perfect mirror", and is currently theoretical and yet to be demonstrated to exist. If you read that article, you'll see that the best mirrors made are only 99.999% reflective, in a narrow margin of wavelengths, meaning they are rather easy to spot using even very basic equipment, as they absorb 0.001% of light hitting it. Of course, those mirrors can and do absorb 100% of other EM energies hitting it.

I can't believe I'm having to explain that to you. I feel dumber.

reply posted on 27-2-2010 @ 01:58 PM by Jezus

Originally posted by Astyanax

Logically we assume that other entities have consciousness but you can NEVER prove scientifically that another entity has consciousness.

Neither can you prove, even to yourself, that you are conscious. Cogito, ergo sum was comprehensively debunked by Nietzsche and others centuries ago.

Well consciousness individually is primary evidence. It is directly observable. I am conscious.

However, understanding that you can NEVER prove scientifically another person has conscious, even though logically it might seem obvious, is important in understanding the relationship of consciousness to science. Science is based on physical observable moving pieces.

Also, your example of the eye is the physical side of the equation. The external world interacts with our senses; this message is synthesized by the brain and eventually becomes part of our conscious experience. Our mind responds to this “feeling” (conscious is fundamentally a feeling) and the second part of the equation is our mind’s response going back in the opposite direction of information.

Originally posted by Astyanax
What this implies for your argument is that a key assumption is invalidated. Consciousness cannot be proved to exist; therefore you are invoking an imaginary entity in order to explain a physical process--even though the process can be explained just fine without it!

Exactly.

For all you know I am not really conscious.
For all you know I am simply a biological robot that responds to stimuli without actually feeling anything.

It is impossible to prove that I FEEL. You can prove that I respond and react but feeling is personal.

But what part CAN'T be explained without it?

The part (I assume) you are experiencing right now as I am.

Feeling is not physical; it is the opposite.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Consciousness is a synonym for freewill.

You are wrong. It is, if it exists, the possessor of free will. But does even free will exist? The reluctance of all you will-powered folk to respond to my first post in this thread suggests the question is, to say the least, problematic.