The burden of proof relating to conciousness, free choice and rationality

[marx_2012]

Oh i don't know Apo, it looks like he may be fooling at least one person. Marx, if you arent willing to question your own assumptions, then why should I do it for you? You have the answer you feel comfortable with, why argue it out? Perhaps that's just in your nature, as it is in your nature to manufacture a clever con...even one where you are yourself the victim (but don't feel bad, it;s in all of our natures...or is it?) Can you stop believing in free will?



(I try to avoid arguing ancillary points, and there's a reason for it. I asked you a simple question, whether or not you could demonstrate the existence of a thing called free will. You cannot. People such as yourself can however bury any meaningful conversation under a literal mountain of garbage, and honestly, I'm sick of it. So, time to put up or shut up.)

---

-And this is why....

[quote='marx_2012' pid='249185' dateline='1331007248']
Define your nature and your subjective experience in an objective scientific term if we are to take you seriously! You keep stating that it must be 'your' nature without defining the term in any rational sense. Define your nature!!

Just your everyday average human nature, as best as we can describe it. I'm limited by the same things that you are limited by, we're both working with the same toolkit, our responses to many things can be easily predicted by those who make it their business to do so. My nature need not be stated in a rational sense, and why would you assume that it could be, we are not rational creatures..we are rationalizing creatures.[quote]

The fact that you cant answer my question and define your terms of nature shows me that you too 'can however bury any meaningful conversation under a literal mountain of garbage'. You clearly are using terms relating to your free will Rythm by all your assertions and statements or they are clearly not your own, they do not come from your conciousness because in your ideology this discussion is just an exchange of matter between one element of the universe and the other. The fact is that you cannot define your 'nature' as you put it and have to rely on whatever ego statements you have left.


[quote]You're the one that wishes for this to be so, it's your job to make it so, not mine to show you why it is not.

This was your statement Rythm not mine and again you cant answer it but try and pass the ball back in my court. Its not my job to answer for you. Yet again you cant state clear definitions of what you mean just random sceptical BS.

I allowed a definition for a word, nothing more. You seem to have run farther than the rope allowed amigo.

Your arguing semantics now my friend and still you cant define what you really mean.

Oh heavens no, nothing to do with religion, free will isn't something I get to hear bandied about day in and day out, why oh why would I make such a comment? Lord only knows. I say "free will" itself is a religion, and judging by your response to my skepticism..I'd say I'm at least close to correct.

I follow no religion so your not even close. And again this IS your opinion without any reason or logic behind it. Looks like those Kudos and sycophantic comments may not be as well deserved as you would like to think my friend.

Demonstrate that free will exists. Then, and only then, will we require an explanation for it.

My evidence is that the quantum particles that you are observing right now depend on your conciousness to exist in the state that they do. Nuff said. Look it up!

---

No heres the latest from CERN, 'Professor Stephen Hawking, of Cambridge University, said: "It is premature to comment on this. Further experiments and clarifications are needed."'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scien...iment.html

The question is Rythm can you deny that modern scientific theories are revisionist?
You cant all you can do is choose to post you petty replies without any true substance.
You are by far the most annoying random accumulation of matter that does not think or choose, but does spout shit into universe.

And you have still absolutely ignored what you define as 'nature' like if you can ignore it for long enough you wont have to explain yourself.

Quantum, he said quantum! That settles it, free will is a quantum effect, and anything quantum can be said to exist even in the absence of evidence. By the by, it;s called observer effect, not consciousness effect. The observer can be damned near anything.

That doesn't change the fact that only a biological observer will change the outcome. And it doesn't change the fact that besides this forum the only interaction you have with the world is when your mom tells you to clean your spunk rags out the bathroom. Jerkoff. Thats not an insult its again what your mom told me to tell you to stop doing.