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

[marx_2012]

[quote='Rhythm' pid='245104' dateline='1330279054']
[quote]You did rule out free will in your hypothetical. Maybe you didn't intend to? [/quote]

I ruled out free will in the current materialist ideological structure of science in its current paradigm. I believe that the nature of free will and conciousness are paramount to the structuralist creation of the universe in general. As can crudely be seen in the current perception of the nature of quantum physics. There is more than enough scientific evidence in quantum that when a concious entity perceives elements of reality, that that reality is then reorganised by the concious mind that perceives it. Taken to an ideological standpoint, that the current scientific methods cannot perceive, right now, we could theoretically extend these ideas to understand that the universe is the collection of concious entities, that are simultaneously creating physical reality at the same time. Put that in your pipe and some it!

[quote]Free will as defined by whom? I could define free will as the illusion of choice that is the effect of the vast number of variables that are too great for our minds to comprehend. We surely seem to be making choices (to us), but are we?[/quote]

The computer you are typing on only operates because of a vast number of variables that are too great for your mind to understand. Are you ready to personally except that you are bound by same physical variables of your computer?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, laying aside that I actually do know how a computer works (and laying aside that the way our computers work and the way our brain works is only superficially similar), yeah, I am. Will this be a one way exchange, or will you be answering any of the questions asked of you?

[marx_2012]

[Challenge accepted and completed, I even went the extra mile for you Marx. I have never, nor do I now believe in anything even remotely approximating free will or free choice. So, that experiment has been run for a few decades in my case. Why was this supposed to be challenging btw? Was something amazing supposed to happen?

Challenge denied and opened my friend. Read the posts beyond yours. Free choice determines every concious element of our mind, without the nature of free choice how can you define your concious life from that of a plant? Free choice is more than just some philosophical argument that you can choose to deny by your choice. If I fired a firework in the air is it your choice to look up, or to not look up. Is it your choice to perceive the the specific elements of the world that you choose, if so are you choosing to perceive whatever elements of the world, that you choose to philosophically defend by your concious 'rationality'?

Speaking of the body's electromagnetic fields and your "aura" garbage, do compasses spin wildly when you hold them? If not why not?

Besides the physical nature of the brain, that stays exactly the same at the moment of death, what is the difference between a living brain and a dead brain? Electricity!

---

On that note, if every decision that could happen does happen in a parallel universe, than every single prediction of the future or a future choice ever made was absolutely correct. The trick becomes lining up your prediction with a specific parallel.

The problem of this theory is that it extends to the choices made by our body's by the fact that rationally atomic science is formed from quantum science. Therefore in this theory your choices are governed by infinite dimensions but so is everything else, therefore there 'rationally' has to be a universe where while I am typing this, I transformed into a blue monkey and shit on the queens head. By the fact that quantum mechanics overrides and creates the laws of atomic physics, and created infinite dimensions where anything is possible! Even a universe where my girlfriend doesn't whine at me any chance she gets!

---

Well, laying aside that I actually do know how a computer works (and laying aside that the way our computers work and the way our brain works is only superficially similar), yeah, I am. Will this be a one way exchange, or will you be answering any of the questions asked of you?

What questions do you want me to answer that I haven't already?

---

Well, laying aside that I actually do know how a computer works (and laying aside that the way our computers work and the way our brain works is only superficially similar), yeah, I am. Will this be a one way exchange, or will you be answering any of the questions asked of you?

So your computer perceives? As you do? Is it your computer answering these questions or you?

[The Grand Nudger]

Challenge denied and opened my friend. Read the posts beyond yours. Free choice determines every concious element of our mind, without the nature of free choice how can you define your concious life from that of a plant? Free choice is more than just some philosophical argument that you can choose to deny by your choice. If I fired a firework in the air is it your choice to look up, or to not look up. Is it your choice to perceive the the specific elements of the world that you choose, if so are you choosing to perceive whatever elements of the world, that you choose to philosophically defend by your concious 'rationality'?

I find your examples entirely unconvincing. Is this my choice, or is it simply my nature? My perception is limited by my biology, it isn't a matter of choice. I cannot "choose" to see that which my eyes cannot detect. I cannot perceive that for which I am not equipped. Try again. Similarly, if you fire a firecracker into the air I'm likely to look up without making any "choice" in the matter whatsoever. Just as you have likely done countless times in your own life, so I'm baffled as to why you would have "chosen" this as an example..or, is this sort of thing just in your nature?

Besides the physical nature of the brain, that stays exactly the same at the moment of death, what is the difference between a living brain and a dead brain? Electricity!

Looks like someone doesn't know wtf they're talking about.

What questions do you want me to answer that I haven't already?

I didn't realize that you'd answered any questions. All I see are claims, claims are not answers. But, in the name of good sport, I asked you a question about compasses, I was wondering how they behaved when you held them.

[marx_2012]

I find your examples entirely unconvincing. Is this my choice, or is it simply my nature? My perception is limited by my biology, it isn't a matter of choice. I cannot "choose" to see that which my eyes cannot detect. I cannot perceive that for which I am not equipped. Try again. Similarly, if you fire a firecracker into the air I'm likely to look up without making any "choice" in the matter whatsoever.

Therefore you deny the possibility of not looking up at the fire cracker? You say you are 'likely' to look up that is not the denial of the choice to look up. You cannot choose to see that which your eyes cannot detect, but if we were sitting side by side with roughly the same view point we would be looking at different objects within that viewpoint. Therefore it is our choice of perception.

Looks like someone doesn't know wtf they're talking about.

Ad hominem. Then explain to me the difference between a live brain and a dead one. Since I seem to be speaking to the later.

I didn't realize that you'd answered any questions. All I see are claims, claims are not answers. But, in the name of good sport, I asked you a question about compasses, I was wondering how they behaved when you held them.

When you perceive a compass you get a reading of a direction! Whats your point?

[The Grand Nudger]

Therefore you deny the possibility of not looking up at the fire cracker? You say you are 'likely' to look up that is not the denial of the choice to look up. You cannot choose to see that which your eyes cannot detect, but if we were sitting side by side with roughly the same view point we would be looking at different objects within that viewpoint. Therefore it is our choice of perception.

Try to stick to "choice", rather than flailing around about "possibility". There's a word for this sort of argument. Whether or not I look up at the firecracker may be entirely unrelated to choice, regardless of any possibility for either outcome.

Ad hominem. Then explain to me the difference between a live brain and a dead one. Since I seem to be speaking to the later.

It's a statement of fact, you don't know wtf your talking about. If you'd like to make a point, then educate yourself and start over. That's not my responsibility, it's yours.

When you perceive a compass you get a reading of a direction! Whats your point?

How, does, a, compass, behave, when, you, hold, it? Does, it, spin, wildly? If, not, why, not?

-Just in case you were having trouble understanding the question.

[marx_2012]

Try to stick to "choice", rather than flailing around about "possibility". There's a word for this sort of argument. Whether or not I look up at the firecracker may be entirely unrelated to choice, regardless of any possibility for either outcome.

I have stuck to the question at all times. It seems you have a problem understanding me.

It's a statement of fact, you don't know wtf your talking about.

Its not a statement of fact its the ramblings of a man who is loosing a rational argument. Argument resolved.

How, does, a, compass, behave, when, you, hold, it? Does, it, spin, wildly? If, not, why, not?

What is your incompetent argument? What are you trying to suggest? That the human body doesn't exert an electromagnetic field? That the nature of Einstein's argument is flawed? Just because an entity exerts electromagnetism doesn't mean its going to send compass haywire! Compasses detect the electromagnetism of the earth's field which is quite abit larger than a human body. Yet smaller than your ego.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have stuck to the question at all times. It seems you have a problem understanding me.

Absolutely, except those moments where you decided to argue possibility and then draw conclusions about choice. Which would be every moment.

Its not a statement of fact its the ramblings of a man who is loosing a rational argument. Argument resolved.

I'd rather have a giggle at your complete lack of understanding than waste my time trying to drill any knowledge into your head. Like I said, if you want to make a point, educate yourself, and then start over.

What is your incompetent argument? What are you trying to suggest? That the human body doesn't exert an electromagnetic field? That the nature of Einstein's argument is flawed? Just because an entity exerts electromagnetism doesn't mean its going to send compass haywire! Compasses detect the electromagnetism of the earth's field which is quite abit larger than a human body. Yet smaller than your ego.

How many times will I have to repeat this question before you decide to answer it? Compasses will also detect interference from a magnet the size of my pinkynail..but strangely, not my "aura". I'm just wondering if your "aura" is bigger than my "aura".

[marx_2012]

I apologise for the ad hominem i got carried away. Im really enjoying this discussion and respect your oppinions.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, you think this is a debate don't you? It isn't....lol