On Apr 19, 5:22 am, Mark Ty-Wharton <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a completely hypothetical argument and has no ground in reality -
------------- :-) Fine. Take any past action/decision that you believe you have enabled through an independent volition, that has defined/or is defining your life ...........sit in a corner, in silence and calmly and honestly decipher. The process of deciphering has been shown. ---------- if you want to assert we have no free will then you need to make assertions using specific events as reasoning and not ones you just made up. :-) See above comment. And incidentally this is not an assertion of no free will. This is a display that for free will to exist or not to exist..........there has to be the existence of discreteness. There has to be isolatable loci, on which the presence or absence of an entity .....has to get anchored. In the absence of this discreeted entity, the very issue of it's further attributes, including the presence or absence of free will..... ..... is moot. > > Sent from an iPhone > > On 18 Apr 2011, at 18:50, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 4/18/2011 7:50 PM, Mark Ty-Wharton wrote: > > >> Okay here is one... > > >> Right now, I am making a decision not to share a decision or action of > >> significance and enable such a decision t withhold experience out of my > >> independent volition. > > >> Decipher away! > > > Without the previous reply, would that decision not to share ever occur, as > > a reaction? > > > Visit to this forum are rare .....this visit was due to a time slot which > > became available. > > > That time slot became available due to 4 different events that > > happened about which you Mark have no clue or have any connection > > whatsoever. > > > Incidentally one of these events occurred in Israel. > > > Even in the rare visits, invariably mails under the sender named Mark > > Ty-Wharton get automatically deleted. > > > This time it did not. > > > As the deciphering gets deeper and deeper, the web emerges more and more.... > > > .....and it is not too difficult to see that each strand of the web had to > > happen exactly in the manner it did, > > > .....at the time it did... > > > ..for a decision to arise through an object named Mark Ty-Wharton, not to > > share, at the time it did. > > > A different web, a different set of neuro-transmitter chemical profile > > precisely in the moment, in the object named Mark, > > > a different thought process would have occurred, producing a different > > decision. > > > Comprende? > > > Take any action, any decision and work backwards as to what happened just > > previous to the event being deciphered. > > > And then go back. > > > And back > > > And back > > > And see that there is not a single event, mental, emotional or physical > > which has an iota of an independent volition about it. > > > The very characteristics, physical, mental, emotional which makes the > > object Mark what it is... > > > ...is the physical actualization of one specific sperm getting attached > > with one specific ovum. > > > Another set and the object Mark Ty-Wharton could have been an hermaphrodite. > > > Or a decision to abort and this conversation would have never started, > > forget the decision not to share. > > > Another environ in which nurturance took place, and Mark Ty-Wharton could > > be speaking Tulu and wearing the hula as a formal dinner dress. > > > There was no independent volition involved in the birth of the object > > popularly known as Mark Ty-Wharton, there will none in the death of the > > same object. > > > The mundane events in between, have none either.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
