On 22 Sep, 13:01, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Na na naaaa Pat.
>
LOL!! Very mature.
> I just don't agree with you.
>
Whew!! THAT'S better!!
> Let me just say that by 'free will' I mean the freedom of choice in
> accordance with your will.
>
So, when you say free, you mean 'constrained by you'. And, if there
is only One, and 'That thou art', whose will is it that is being
exercised?
> I awoke this morning and choose to come to work, I could have choosen
> the oposite and then faced teh consequesnces, but the only thing that
> governed my choice was my will.
>
Let's, perhaps, put the shoe on the other foot. You make the positive
claim that 'free will' exists. Prove it. I go by the accepted
understanding of 4-D space-time and that a classical 4-D space-time
implies there is NO free will, because all the 'world tubes' that we
are are already a part of the whole. The fact that our space-time IS
a 4-D Minkowski space has been demonstrated by several experiments and
is NOT up for debate--it's a fact demonstrated by countless time-
dilation experiments that would NOT work unless reality was, indeed, a
4-D Minkowski space. If my word isn't good enough, have another:
http://www.deutschesfachbuch.de/info/detail.php?isbn=1402063172&part=1&word=&PHPSESSID=159ed9abd493decf018860a75b4acb1d
Look for the phrase 'free will'. In particular, you'll find the
quote:
"The impact of the implications of a real 4D world for our entire
world view would constitute perhaps the greatest intellectual
challenge humankind has ever faced. It is sufficient to mention just
one of those implications - that there is no free will in the frozen
Minkowski world."
Now, if you can PROVE otherwise and actually demonstrate that branches
(choices) can occur, then, not only will you convince me, but you'll
get a Nobel Prize in Physics for disproving what's already been
proven. And, no, a thought experiment that only demonstrates your
ability (in the present) to 'speculate' (about the future) is just NOT
good enough. Rather, MY explanation grants you the same APPARENT
choices, as you have no access to the future. Back to the point, you
assert the positive claim; I'll call your hand and ask you to prove
it. It's very rare that I turn tables like this and play the card
that usually gets thrown my way, but, this time, science is on my side
and the facts have already been established. The implications,
however, as pointed out in the hyperlinked article, are, as you find,
difficult to come to terms with. However, a bit of insight into the
whole process and the universe becomes even more beautiful because of
such a unique and twisty way that our view of 'free will' arises.
> When a non human animal shares food with the pack is it because of a
> moral obligation to do so or some sort of instinctive drive?
God only knows! Probably, like us, a bit of both. And, of course,
moral obligation is a perception. As far as I know, no human has ever
learned how to perceive as if they were a member of a different
species...lycanthropes excluded, of course. ;-)
>Do lower
> order animals really have the capacity to reason out the the whys and
> wherefores of sharing or not sharing food?
>
Of course they can reason--within the capacity of their structure,
just like us. Although our structure is more complicated, so our
reasoning ability may be 'wider'.
> You comments on a greater God being one with morality in essance
> lowers God down to a human level. This is I think a mistake, how can
> a greater being be greater by being lowered?
>
It can't. Your logic is bad. Man is in God's image, not the other
way around. WE have morality because He does. And, when we act
according to His, we are, supposedly, rewarded and punished if we do
not.
> No I stick by what I have said, morality is wholey a human concern.
>
Morality is an individual concern, and there are more individuals than
just humans...thank God! ;-)
Talk to you tomorrow!!
> On 22 Sep, 11:37, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 22 Sep, 09:38, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Hey Pat,
>
> > > Why do I think there is a differance? Come now Pat you know the
> > > answer to that one, free will.
>
> > Either your will is constrained by you (and, thus, the One through
> > you), or it is 'free' and can act of its own accord. IF you are in
> > control of it, then it is not 'free', rather, it is yours; if it is
> > 'free', you would find yourself doing all sorts of things as 'your
> > will' goes about executing ITS freedom over/from you. Exactly how
> > free do you want 'your will' to be? ;-)
>
> > > As to morality, I think that is wholey a human concern.
> > > As you say 'God is that than which nothing greater can be', also the
> > > creator, beyond birth and death, without fear or enemies, of course
> > > God undertands morality but why would the supreame being have such a
> > > thing?
>
> > For the very reason that slipped past your own hand. If God is 'that
> > than which nothing greater can be', then it's easy to see that a God
> > with morality is greater than a God without, so, actually BEING 'that
> > than which nothing greater can be' forces Him to have ALL that which
> > would make Him greater, thus He has morality and, through Him (as we
> > are all only an extension of the One, rather than separate from Him),
> > others, too, can have morality. Now, for the exact details of why a
> > 'particular' morality over any other, THAT requires an understanding
> > of TRUE eschatology, which, in turn, requires a perfect (quantum-
> > state) view of 'the end', and THAT, my friend, neither of us has.
>
> > > Do animals have a morality? I would argue not, and because morality
> > > is a code for humans on how to treat each other.
>
> > I would argue that, depending on the animal, their morality/ethics
> > will vary with the requirements of their social structure, as ethics
> > are a social consideration. For example, dogs in packs and wolves
> > will ostracise (and or kill) pack members who act outside the code of
> > the pack, which comes from the Alpha male, no doubt, 'the prophet' of
> > their society. We are animals, you know. Animals and ethics go
> > together so long as the animals are social animals. Loners follow
> > their own code, thus, would only have 'morals', i.e., a personal code
> > of behaviour. I would find it far easier, to argue against vegetable
> > ethics than animal ethics. But, as 'awareness' is the REAL key--and
> > plants HAVE awareness, you'd even be wrong then:
>
> >http://whorledleaves.blogspot.com/2008/06/new-findings-on-social-beha...
>
> > > On 21 Sep, 17:29, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 21 Sep, 13:03, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Oh yes there are links between dyslexcia and a whole host of other
> > > > > 'skills' . It may be that my areguments are purly semantic Pat, it
> > > > > may well be that is the case.
>
> > > > > Heh still on this anti free will kick huh?
>
> > > > > I guess even though you make some interesting arguments for your case
> > > > > I'll never be able to agree with you, perhaps for the reason you
> > > > > suggest, I think though mostly because I simply cannot agree with what
> > > > > it means for us if you are indeed correct.
>
> > > > > If you are right then I'll never agree with you, and what does that
> > > > > matter as that must be my lot in life, that is how the One has made me
> > > > > to be I can't even choose to submit, nor realise that I already have.
>
> > > > > Yet you see where that leaves us? No blame nor merit can be attached
> > > > > to anything that we do, nothing we do matters as we have no control
> > > > > over it, there is no 'I' to make any desicion, all crimes are not
> > > > > really crimes they are just the capriciouse side of the one.
>
> > > > > Yet I can use the word capriciouse, I have a sense of morality, why is
> > > > > this I wonder? When I have no choice at all, what use is the
> > > > > knowledge of good and evil? No sir you cannot be correct and even if
> > > > > you are, I'll never admit to such, now I wonder if that is my free
> > > > > choice or just the way that the One intends me to be!
>
> > > > Ahh, I love that last line: even if I am, you'll never admit to such.
> > > > That's classic!! Why do you think there's a difference between the
> > > > 'way you are' and the 'way the One intends...'? There can be no
> > > > difference to the One, the difference lies in your realisations (some
> > > > of which you have already made, some of which you have not: but God
> > > > knows them ALL already). Which, as you have noted will either be made
> > > > or not. I am correct, but there's more to the story than just 'no
> > > > free will'. The inescapable illusion is good enough, in that it's
> > > > inescapable, so, as long as God has informed people how He would like
> > > > them to act, then reward and punishment are justifiable. This, of
> > > > course, means accepting that God would actually convey a moral code to
> > > > humans. Well, it just so happens that such a thing has been posited
> > > > in the past (a few times!!). And, a God that can be imagined to
> > > > reward and punish is less than a God that CAN and DOES reward and
> > > > punish, and God is 'that than which nothing greater can be', then the
> > > > whole morality thing fits in quite well.
>
> > > > Also, if YOU have a sense of morality, is that not proof positive that
> > > > the One does via YOU?
>
> > > > > On 21 Sep, 12:36, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 16 Sep, 13:36, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > David Beckham in fact trained very hard and put in an imensse
> > > > > > > amount
> > > > > > > of practice kicking a ball so that it dropped exactly where he
> > > > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > it to. Of course an early interest in a subject means that you
> > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > the practice earlyer.
>
> > > > > > > There is something in biological triats that may make the
> > > > > > > performing
> > > > > > > of some actions easier, but this I would say is not talent, but
> > > > > > > biological advantage.
>
> > > > > > As far as musical talent goes, though, have a read of this:
>
> > > > > >http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/080429_music-genes.htm
>
> > > > > > It seems that there's a connection between dyslexia and musical
> > > > > > aptitude. But, is the difference between 'talent' and 'biological
> > > > > > advantage' just a semantic one? Funy how we seem to have no problem
> > > > > > admitting to being coded, yet some still persist in thinking that we
> > > > > > can escape the coding of space-time itself (by the mystical power of
> > > > > > 'free will'). I reckon it's a gene that prevents people from seeing
> > > > > > the forest because of the copper in the chlorophyll in the leaves on
> > > > > > the trees. ;-)
>
> > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 12:58, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 12:22, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Well does it?
>
> > > > > > > > > I say no, practice makes pefect, but what do you think?
>
> > > > > > > > Practice makes perfect but, how long does it take to train a
> > > > > > > > chimpanzee to write Shakespeare? To date, the only readable
> > > > > > > > thing any
> > > > > > > > chimp has ever typed was the word 'Jamiroquai' (thus the name
> > > > > > > > for Jay
> > > > > > > > Kay's band), which is completely meaningless. I had, for a
> > > > > > > > long time,
> > > > > > > > been scared to attempt to play a guitar because, I felt, it
> > > > > > > > took so
> > > > > > > > much time to learn it. But, after having one for about 3
> > > > > > > > weeks, I had
> > > > > > > > already developed one little ballad. But, of course, growing
> > > > > > > > up with
> > > > > > > > a father who had a degree in music and a mother 'talented
> > > > > > > > enough' to
> > > > > > > > teach herself voice and keyboards, I reckon that I'd inherited
> > > > > > > > something that made it a little easier for me to play music
> > > > > > > > than it
> > > > > > > > would have been had I not had that genetic and environmental
> > > > > > > > kickstart, as it were. If talent exists, then it is, most
> > > > > > > > likely, a
> > > > > > > > heritable trait, but there can be talents for many things. For
> > > > > > > > example, David Beckham has a natural talent for kicking a
> > > > > > > > football
> > > > > > > > pretty accurately and, of course, that talent was noticed and
> > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > developed. I doubt that I would have the same skill even if I
> > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > been given the exact same 'development', as the underlying
> > > > > > > > talent
> > > > > > > > isn't as great. Which is why, when I play footy, I'm either a
> > > > > > > > defender or, preferably, a goalkeeper, as I have a 'talent' for
> > > > > > > > getting myself in the way of others. This has even been
> > > > > > > > evidenced in
> > > > > > > > some of the things I write. ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted
>
> ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
