Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 135 of 135

Thread: A breakdown of how a choice occurs?

  1. #101  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
    if you thank ther is such a thang as free will... give an esample of it.!!!
    I choose not to.
    Is ther a reason you wont give an esample of it.???
    Actually, his post was meant to be an example of an act of free will.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Sophomore cluelusshusbund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indina USA
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Actually, his post was meant to be an example of an act of free will.
    Do you thank it was a good esample.???
    Go here an play the "Guess Game".!!!

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/gener...uess-what.html

    When the curent game is guessed... post anuther photo for us to... "Guess what this is" :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Sophomore cluelusshusbund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indina USA
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
    The world is the way it is because thats the only way it can be... ie... no such thang as "free-will" (un-influenced choises).!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Uninfluenced choises, huh?

    Well I would have to agree that all choices are certainly influenced. Even so, ultimately, we still make choice from between the influences - either *this, or **that.

    I would rather maintain that the two influences between which we make our every choice, effectively supports the concept of free will, for we indeed make a free will selection from between the two SPIRITUAL resources seeking influence over that choice.
    Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
    "me/the person" is made up of a physical body... emotions... INTELIGENCE... an a mind.!!!

    "Physical body" (includes the brane).!!!

    "Intrinsic influences" are emotions an INTELIGENCE.!!!

    "Emotions" are a spiritual influence... essential for life... owned by me... but also make it posible that bad decisions can be made.!!!

    "INTELIGENCE" is a spiritual influence an on loan from the omnipresent ocean of INTELIGENCE... an the mor you make use of INTELIGENCE... the stronger you becom an will beter appreciate you'r emotions.!!!

    "Mind/mentality" is spiritual... an is activated into action by emotions an INTELIGENCE... an it has a power supply which causes the physical body to behaive in a particular way.!!!

    My mind chooses whether to consider the influences which coms from my emotions an INTELIGENCE... an in its need to choose from the influences it chose to consider... it then determines which influence it wants to control me... an it causes my physical body to behaive in particular ways.!!!

    So "im" a physical body... emotions... INTELIGENCE... an a mind.!!!

    Does my INTELIGENCE have free will to do anythang other than be an INTELIGENT influence.???

    I know that my spiritual INTELIGENCE ant realy mine... its on loan from the omnipresent ocean of INTELIGENCE... but whare did my spiritual emotions an spiritual mind com from... an do they have free will.???
    Go here an play the "Guess Game".!!!

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/gener...uess-what.html

    When the curent game is guessed... post anuther photo for us to... "Guess what this is" :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    JX
    JX is offline
    Forum Junior JX's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    288
    I've split this topic here so that anyone wishing to continue this thread may do so without the issue of whether or not cluelusshusbund is a troll. The posts split are in a new thread in Phil and anyone wishing to weigh in there may do so, but that thread will obviously be trash or moved at the very least when a consensus is reached.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Uninfluenced choices, huh?

    Well I would have to agree that all choices are certainly influenced. Even so, ultimately, we still make choice from between the influences - either *this, or **that.

    I would rather maintain that the two influences between which we make our every choice, effectively supports the concept of free will, for we indeed make a free will selection from between the two SPIRITUAL resources seeking influence over that choice.
    Quote Originally Posted by CluelessHusband
    "me/the person" is made up of a physical body... emotions... INTELLIGENCE... and a mind.!!!

    "Physical body" (includes the brain).!!!
    Generally correct, even though the first point is further explored below.


    Quote Originally Posted by CluelessHusband
    "Intrinsic influences" are emotions and INTELLIGENCE.!!!
    Correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by CluelessHusband
    "Emotions" are a spiritual influence... essential for life... owned by me... but also make it possible that bad decisions can be made.!!!
    Generally, as ''I' get older and more 'set in my ways', 'my' emotions pressure a growing negative spiritual demand upon 'my' choices, yet are effectively owned by, and flow into 'my' reasoning; from 'my' physical flesh. We can best recognise this, through pain or a sensation of hunger.

    *It is interesting to note here, that 'my' emotions have evolved through the choices made during the course of my lifetime - based upon an increasing attitude of slavery toward them, into being so profoundly negative and controlling.



    Quote Originally Posted by CluelessHusband
    "INTELLIGENCE" is a spiritual influence and on loan from the omnipresent ocean of INTELLIGENCE... and the more you make use of INTELLIGENCE... the stronger you become and will better appreciate your emotions.!!!
    The stronger I become in the making of my choices through (or under) INTELLIGENCE - that is; towards being intelligent, in turn has the effect of releasing 'me' form the pressure of living under(so to speak) bondage. Therefore I can increasingly afford to appreciate my emotions, as their superiority over me decreases - in deference to my intelligence and subsequently my choices.

    It really presents, as a hierarchical order of 'me', where 'I' am (ALWAYS) at the central position - being the choices I make through my reasoning at any time, and the aggregated result of those choices. Above me in this order, is my 'master'; generally and naturally - my emotions, and below 'me', is my 'servant' - my intelligence.

    However we would all like to see ourselves in the converse configuration; where 'my' intelligence is 'my' master etc. - which is certainly preferable and possible - ONCE (and only) IF 'I' make an informed choice for such alternative configuration of 'me'. Yet we generally have no concept that such a choice is available to 'me', so we generally remain as subservient to our emotional slave-master all our lives - even to the inevitable end of such a focus - death itself!


    Quote Originally Posted by CluelessHusband
    "Mind/mentality" is spiritual... and is activated into action by emotions and INTELLIGENCE... and it has a power supply which causes the physical body to behave in a particular way.!!!
    I am convinced that it is the actual coming together of these two spiritual antagonists, that actively sparks into existence the requisite electrical charge/impulse (the power supply) that motivates/causes the physical body to behave in the only way it can - as obedient to that choice.


    Quote Originally Posted by CluelessHusband
    My mind chooses whether to consider the influences which come from my emotions and INTELLIGENCE... and in its need to choose from the influences it chose to consider... it then determines which influence it wants to control me... and it causes my physical body to behave in particular ways.!!!
    Yes indeed - as above.


    Quote Originally Posted by CluelessHusband
    So "I'm" a physical body... emotions... INTELLIGENCE... and a mind.!!!
    Well again, the mind is comprised of the two spiritual influences. It would merely exist as a physical piece of cranial flesh and be worth nothing more than just that, if it didn't have the two essential influences constantly flowing into it and provoking a need to make a choice from between the two.


    Quote Originally Posted by CluelessHusband
    Does my INTELLIGENCE have free will to do anything other than be an INTELLIGENT influence.???
    Any individual free we may consider ourselves as having, is a result that comes from the fact we have two antagonistic inputs into our reasoning which causes us to make a choice from between the two. INTELLIGENCE has no inbuilt antagonism towards itself in any way similar, therefore has no 'free will' in the sense of your question.


    Quote Originally Posted by CluelessHusband
    I know that my spiritual INTELLIGENCE isn't really mine... its on loan from the omnipresent ocean of INTELLIGENCE... but where did my spiritual emotions and spiritual mind come from... and do they have free will.???
    Firstly 'my' mind is spiritual, as are 'my' emotions and intelligence, however 'I' do not actually own any of them. What 'I' own, are my choices towards reasoning, the choices that come from that reasoning and the actions that emanate from those choices. Consequently, 'I' am the sum total of these, which 'I' 'own'.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Sophomore futrethink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Halifax, N.S. Canada
    Posts
    106
    ___cluelusshusbund.

    ___First off, I must apologize to you as I did not realize the exact level of perception/understanding that you were taking the definition of free will to, even though you explained it completely.
    ___Of course that level of free will is something that can’t be proven, because as long as there is a ‘choice’ being made, there will be ‘something’ affecting or influencing the direction a choice will take.
    ___But. You must admit that as long as there is an ‘unknown’ something of a temporal or spatial nature (parts of existence in general) which causes each choice to require a ‘belief’ about what will happen in the future, there can never be a completely fated, determined or predictable existence for any individual, correct?
    I dout that even you can prove that somptin dont esist
    ___True, you can’t prove that something like that exists, but you can show that something like that has an existence in a way, even if it is only by a perception of an absence or limits of a known something.
    The world is the way it is, because we like it this way.
    Otherwise, we would change it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Sophomore futrethink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Halifax, N.S. Canada
    Posts
    106
    ___Apopohis Reject.
    Of what benefit would “self-honesty” be to this exchange?
    Oh, come on. You did not really ask that?!?
    See what I mean - you ask a profoundly mundane question, but continue failing to recognise that fact with even more by way of mundane sniping - even after I offer you the chance to authenticate it.
    ___You are really not going to like the fact that you asked that question. I was hoping that I would not have to show what you lack in knowledge by explaining the blatantly obvious, but you made the choice to push the issue.
    ___Self-honesty, at the most objective level, requires an understanding of fairness at the level that is a part of the reality we live in. I won’t take it to that level of explanation, but I will explain it as simply as possible. You have probably heard of the saying, “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.”? Well, that only works towards a better society as long as you do not have a personality which enjoys pain so much, that you will go out and randomly give pain to people, so that you might have people give you pain randomly. In some ways, this can be described as a sado-masochist (no insult intended to those disciplined in the art), because they give pain to get pain.
    ___To show that you care more, it should be, “do unto others, as you would have others do unto you and those you care about.” because then comes the question, “Who should you care about?” Only the people you know about or should you include the people affecting those you care about and those you will never know and who will never know you.
    ___In a roundabout way, I am trying to explain that whatever you don’t want in society to happen to you and those who you care about, you won’t do to others. So if you want people to admit they’re wrong to you when they are in the wrong, to admit that they are responsible when they are responsible for something they did wrong, that they don’t lie when the truth is asked for or needed and all the other things you want others to choose to do to you and those you care about, you will do those things to create such a society. Because, if you don’t like the types of people who do the things you hate to you and those you care about., how can you look in a mirror at yourself (after you do the things you say you hate) and say with any self-honesty that you like the person facing you.
    ___An example for you relating to the altered saying is the same sado-masochist: that type of person might like a world of giving and receiving pain, but if they actually care about others, how likely are they going to do anything to create a world of pain if the person, they care about, doesn’t like pain?
    ___As to how self-honesty would benefit this discussion, if you actually wanted an intelligent discussion, and to find out what objective and hard ‘truths’ there are in the world (instead of merely wanting to push your hypothesis) you would leave out insults, be prepared to admit that there are things you don’t know and that you might be wrong about, and in doing so show that you aren’t afraid to learn new things. As I do, mostly (except for days of high stress), in any discussion I am in. Wouldn’t an honest and objectively (rather then politically or a self-absorbed) scientific discussion be preferable and the result of having self-honesty in this discussion?
    Live in the past if you like, but I an NOT interested, sorry. The discussion has evolved to where it is now, not stuck in Feb. 2010 - full stop!
    ___This discussion has not evolved past the breakdown of how a choice occurs, because (as I have done to others) I am merely being polite and giving you enough room/time to hang yourself with your own words. I was also taking the time, as I usually do, to think about what you are saying and to look for inconsistencies of objective logic. Of which, you have shown doozies.
    ___And while you would probably prefer this discussion fall completely into something you believe you have a complete understanding of, so as to keep control of it, no, I am sorry. You will actually have to take the time and energy to put your hypothesis/beliefs under another’s microscope, while you think about it and the information shown you in posts more carefully and logically.
    ___First off, how about you answer my question about a living cell, “So if emotions and intellect aren’t making it move, and winds/the tides of water/gravity or other outside variables aren’t making it move, what is causing a living creature to move, attack and retreat during different circumstances?” Because, it is making choices. This is true because, changes occur and choices are about change or if you look at it in another way and as has already been mentioned, “a reaction that is a non-reaction.”
    Again you don't seem to appreciate the concept/term 'choice', alternatively you urgently need to define it as per your expectation.
    ___Oh, I appreciate it immensely. I even look objectively at what a ‘choice’ is, accept it for what it is and don’t just try to make it fit into the box I want it to fit into.
    Furthermore, I do NOT consder physical bodies as the only things that make choices. In fact - quite the opposite; for mine - it is NOT the physical (anything) that can ever make a choice, but rather it is the SPIRITUAL that makes choice, that the physical subsequently obeys - makes physical.
    Now work all that out.
    ___Actually, I had already worked it out long ago, but in thinking about it I found a gap in the logic only filled by the inclusion of a third objective concept making an affect on a choice. To put it simply, the “intellectual essence” you keep mentioning would logically process and calculate that it would be always in the right and keep fighting, while the “emotional essence” would feel and have faith that they were in the right and do the same. The only possibility of a finalization of the battle/coming to a decision would be for something to exist that would be a balance of cold, calculating fairness with an understanding of how emotion and intellect both affect and are a part of each other. This ‘something’ would not make the final decision of what to do, but fight equally both the emotions and intellect, as the emotions fight equally this ‘physical’ and the intellect, and as the intellect would do the same for the physical and emotion.
    ___Think about it this way; you have two people arguing eternally on two seemingly opposing sides and a third comes in to try to work out a compromise. It is only by accepting that the third person has equal power/knowledge and that this third person is trying to only have a peaceful existence of their own by calming the fight, do the two opponents finally come to accept the information of the third person and work out a compromise.
    No-one has been able to show, or even explain how the brain works, much less the mind, so the very closest we can get at this stage, is predominantly philosophical conjecture (plus) a few 'hard science' observations of the brain, such as those you mention - which are merely some of the mechanics.
    ___And since it is only the mechanics which are known facts, those are what we work with in science: the physical. We take the physical, which is the obvious and factual reality and then intellectually put the information together in previously unknown new ways, which with emotionally charged feelings of hope and faith we try to prove (as time passes) as new truths and facts.
    ___So, once again, “Are those (emotion and intellect [let’s include the spiritual {as you define it}]) the only scientifically proven things that are required in connection with thought ( or intelligence as you seem to understand it)?”
    You have misinterpreted much of what I have posted because the concept is new to your appreciation, but that really is not your fault, well - not entirely. For you have always lived in the overall atmosphere of a society that has failed to comprehend - due to the complex religious underpinning of beliefs upon which that society is predicated.
    ___And you have prejudged me in ways that are only known to you. Just as there are followers (the persons you are describing in this paragraph) and leaders, there are people who are neither and usually ignored or forgotten. I have never been a sheep who accepts what others tell me as truths, but how could you know that, right? Unless, you simply read and took the time/energy/thought to work out what I am explaining as objectively as possible. The previous line could come to mean that I am explaining things objectively or that you should do those things objectively and seems confusing, correct? Why can’t it be both, as I objectively intended it to be?
    BTW, I will NOT bring up 'instinct', because for mine, it has never existed, apart from within the mentality of most people - those who have swallowed that particular myth.
    ___So you choose to accept that you are right and any or all other evidence for the opposite can’t be right, correct?
    I have no problem with 'memory' being defined as "a storage of information".
    ___Good. Do you accept that that storage of information, at its most basic and objective level, is simply a record of previously existing patterns of energy.
    The world is the way it is, because we like it this way.
    Otherwise, we would change it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Of what benefit would “self-honesty” be to this exchange?
    Oh, come on. You did not really ask that?!?
    See what I mean - you ask a profoundly mundane question, but continue failing to recognise that fact with even more by way of mundane sniping - even after I offer you the chance to authenticate it.
    You are really not going to like the fact that you asked that question. I was hoping that I would not have to show what you lack in knowledge by explaining the blatantly obvious, but you made the choice to push the issue.
    Self-honesty, at the most objective level, requires an understanding of fairness at the level that is a part of the reality we live in. I won’t take it to that level of explanation, but I will explain it as simply as possible. You have probably heard of the saying, “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.”? Well, that only works towards a better society as long as you do not have a personality which enjoys pain so much, that you will go out and randomly give pain to people, so that you might have people give you pain randomly. In some ways, this can be described as a sado-masochist (no insult intended to those disciplined in the art), because they give pain to get pain.
    To show that you care more, it should be, “do unto others, as you would have others do unto you and those you care about.” because then comes the question, “Who should you care about?” Only the people you know about or should you include the people affecting those you care about and those you will never know and who will never know you.
    In a roundabout way, I am trying to explain that whatever you don’t want in society to happen to you and those who you care about, you won’t do to others. So if you want people to admit they’re wrong to you when they are in the wrong, to admit that they are responsible when they are responsible for something they did wrong, that they don’t lie when the truth is asked for or needed and all the other things you want others to choose to do to you and those you care about, you will do those things to create such a society. Because, if you don’t like the types of people who do the things you hate to you and those you care about., how can you look in a mirror at yourself (after you do the things you say you hate) and say with any self-honesty that you like the person facing you.
    An example for you relating to the altered saying is the same sado-masochist: that type of person might like a world of giving and receiving pain, but if they actually care about others, how likely are they going to do anything to create a world of pain if the person, they care about, doesn’t like pain?
    My father lived for the game of soccer, but was never much good at it. My son on the other hand, played the game at a reasonably high standard - then there was me in the middle - looking both ways. So this observation indeed is about - those I care about!

    It always amused me that on one hand, I was watching a man who FULLY believed he understood everything about the sport, and in this belief worked at promoting another (whom he loved) to superlative heights - even via anger, if he thought it appropriate. However the 'student' on his worst day, could run rings around the 'professor' - on his best.

    Even though a great respect between the two continued throughout, I remain astounded at the profound dysfunction this observation has presented to my witnessing, as well as the vast array of parallels I see every day throughout humanity.


    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    As to how self-honesty would benefit this discussion, if you actually wanted an intelligent discussion, and to find out what objective and hard ‘truths’ there are in the world (instead of merely wanting to push your hypothesis) you would leave out insults, be prepared to admit that there are things you don’t know and that you might be wrong about, and in doing so show that you aren’t afraid to learn new things. As I do, mostly (except for days of high stress), in any discussion I am in. Wouldn’t an honest and objectively (rather then politically or a self-absorbed) scientific discussion be preferable and the result of having self-honesty in this discussion?
    Contrary to your assertions, I am constantly re-evaluating and adjusting everything I believe/learn. Consequently, I never cease to doubt/question the precepts upon which my assertions are based. I am necessarily required to be like this, because my assertions are non-generic, to say the least.

    There is no insult in the above, nor in the observation that you have so far, failed to comprehend anything I have posted to you, so continually reduce yourself to inane sniping, which will have to cease.

    On the other (tired) point - ultimately my level of self-honesty, as is yours - is a matter of self determination, self evaluation, and self attenuation, so let's now leave this issue alone.


    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Live in the past if you like, but I an NOT interested, sorry. The discussion has evolved to where it is now, not stuck in Feb. 2010 - full stop!
    This discussion has not evolved past the breakdown of how a choice occurs, because (as I have done to others) I am merely being polite and giving you enough room/time to hang yourself with your own words. I was also taking the time, as I usually do, to think about what you are saying and to look for inconsistencies of objective logic. Of which, you have shown doozies.
    Again - perhaps you might (now) commence upon a smattering of explanation/evidence in regards to your mounting claims of inane negativity, or simply give it up. This will be my last reply to you if this sort of crap continues.

    BTW, your 'doozies' of inconsistencies of objective logic, in my opinion - exist entirely within your reasoning, because - thus far you have failed to understand anything in my posts, therefore cannot possibly make such determination in regards those things which I attest.


    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    And while you would probably prefer this discussion fall completely into something you believe you have a complete understanding of, so as to keep control of it, no, I am sorry. You will actually have to take the time and energy to put your hypothesis/beliefs under another’s microscope, while you think about it and the information shown you in posts more carefully and logically.
    I welcome (more than you imagine) any microscopic investigation, but it will first need to be honest. I'm not yet sure you can cut it on that score.


    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    First off, how about you answer my question about a living cell, “So if emotions and intellect aren’t making it move, and winds/the tides of water/gravity or other outside variables aren’t making it move, what is causing a living creature to move, attack and retreat during different circumstances?” Because, it is making choices. This is true because, changes occur and choices are about change or if you look at it in another way and as has already been mentioned, “a reaction that is a non-reaction.”
    Any living creature makes choices, which causes it to act/move, yet you are clearly missing the vital core ingredients in your question. For emotions and intellect/intelligence, are indeed the very two such core ingredients underpinning any choice towards any action.


    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Again you don't seem to appreciate the concept/term 'choice', alternatively you urgently need to define it as per your expectation.
    Oh, I appreciate it immensely. I even look objectively at what a ‘choice’ is, accept it for what it is and don’t just try to make it fit into the box I want it to fit into.
    So far, you have neither demonstrated you understand the concept of 'choice', nor have you defined it.


    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Furthermore, I do NOT consder physical bodies as the only things that make choices. In fact - quite the opposite; for mine - it is NOT the physical (anything) that can ever make a choice, but rather it is the SPIRITUAL that makes choice, that the physical subsequently obeys - makes physical.
    Now work all that out.
    Actually, I had already worked it out long ago, but in thinking about it I found a gap in the logic only filled by the inclusion of a third objective concept making an affect on a choice. To put it simply, the “intellectual essence” you keep mentioning would logically process and calculate that it would be always in the right and keep fighting, while the “emotional essence” would feel and have faith that they were in the right and do the same. The only possibility of a finalization of the battle/coming to a decision would be for something to exist that would be a balance of cold, calculating fairness with an understanding of how emotion and intellect both affect and are a part of each other. This ‘something’ would not make the final decision of what to do, but fight equally both the emotions and intellect, as the emotions fight equally this ‘physical’ and the intellect, and as the intellect would do the same for the physical and emotion.
    Think about it this way; you have two people arguing eternally on two seemingly opposing sides and a third comes in to try to work out a compromise. It is only by accepting that the third person has equal power/knowledge and that this third person is trying to only have a peaceful existence of their own by calming the fight, do the two opponents finally come to accept the information of the third person and work out a compromise.
    Two people arguing and a third deciding upon a compromise, is a reasonable way of looking at the process, as long as we recognise that third person is 'me', and 'I' am the accumulated result of all 'my' previous slavish choices at 'compromise' in favour of the emotional aggressor, when I would have been better off supporting the peaceful intelligent alternative.

    Furthermore, this intrinsic but essential 'fight' will never be 'calmed', for we - by virtue of simply being born, approach the entire process in the manner least likely to deliver calm, by continually surrendering to that party which is solely responsible for the fight in the first place, rather than choosing to support the other. This ultimately means the far less confrontational side becomes a mere punching bag - to the antagonist, and effectively to 'me' (via my choices). The result of this slavish process of course, is a constant lacking in 'calm', an ongoing dysfunction, and eventually - death.


    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    No-one has been able to show, or even explain how the brain works, much less the mind, so the very closest we can get at this stage, is predominantly philosophical conjecture (plus) a few 'hard science' observations of the brain, such as those you mention - which are merely some of the mechanics.
    And since it is only the mechanics which are known facts, those are what we work with in science: the physical. We take the physical, which is the obvious and factual reality and then intellectually put the information together in previously unknown new ways, which with emotionally charged feelings of hope and faith we try to prove (as time passes) as new truths and facts.
    So, once again, “Are those (emotion and intellect [let’s include the spiritual {as you define it}]) the only scientifically proven things that are required in connection with thought ( or intelligence as you seem to understand it)?”
    Thought and intelligence are two entirely different essential ingredients/commodities per our reasoning towards subsequent choice/s.

    Thought is a process of reasoning, whilst intelligence is an essence that underpins and is an input into; that reasoning. Our individual emotions (at any time) are something else again - another separate essence - the second of two inputs.


    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    You have misinterpreted much of what I have posted because the concept is new to your appreciation, but that really is not your fault, well - not entirely. For you have always lived in the overall atmosphere of a society that has failed to comprehend - due to the complex religious underpinning of beliefs upon which that society is predicated.
    And you have prejudged me in ways that are only known to you. Just as there are followers (the persons you are describing in this paragraph) and leaders, there are people who are neither and usually ignored or forgotten. I have never been a sheep who accepts what others tell me as truths, but how could you know that, right? Unless, you simply read and took the time/energy/thought to work out what I am explaining as objectively as possible. The previous line could come to mean that I am explaining things objectively or that you should do those things objectively and seems confusing, correct? Why can’t it be both, as I objectively intended it to be?
    You may not be a sheep, yet your 'explanations' can sometimes be construed as written by one who has been foraging a little too closely to the patch of suspect mushrooms for his own good.

    In any case, I am still working at gaining a grasp upon your thoughts/beliefs, so I have not prejudged you to anywhere near the degree you perceive. It is a struggle however, so we had better start getting down to the nitty-gritty, as some of the grazing livestock fraternity might call it.


    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    BTW, I will NOT bring up 'instinct', because for mine, it has never existed, apart from within the mentality of most people - those who have swallowed that particular myth.
    So you choose to accept that you are right and any or all other evidence for the opposite can’t be right, correct?
    Incorrect on both counts.


    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    I have no problem with 'memory' being defined as "a storage of information".
    Good. Do you accept that that storage of information, at its most basic and objective level, is simply a record of previously existing patterns of energy.
    Define 'patterns of energy'.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    22
    @ Futurethink

    Mate, don't try to pass off your pseudophilsophical analysis of choice as something intellectually revolutionising because it's not.

    X
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by evilwill32
    @ Futurethink

    Mate, don't try to pass off your pseudophilsophical analysis of choice as something intellectually revolutionising because it's not.

    X
    Often, there are technical posts, on this forum, I cannot follow. It is likely that if I had a deeper knowledge of maths/physics I would be able to understand them.
    Whether I would ever have been able to develop a deeper knowledge is another question.
    At other times I read posts, couched in non-mathematical language, and I wonder if I have the ability to understand them. For a short time I wasn't totally sure about this thread but I must say I do agree with the above comment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Often, there are technical posts, on this forum, I cannot follow. It is likely that if I had a deeper knowledge of maths/physics I would be able to understand them.
    Whether I would ever have been able to develop a deeper knowledge is another question.
    At other times I read posts, couched in non-mathematical language, and I wonder if I have the ability to understand them.
    For mine, you are doing just fine. Indeed the very first prerequisite to learning and growth, is humility and willingness to ask genuine questions, and on that score you are way ahead of the game. By that I mean; you are well advanced by the standards of most members here.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Often, there are technical posts, on this forum, I cannot follow. It is likely that if I had a deeper knowledge of maths/physics I would be able to understand them.
    Whether I would ever have been able to develop a deeper knowledge is another question.
    At other times I read posts, couched in non-mathematical language, and I wonder if I have the ability to understand them.
    For mine, you are doing just fine. Indeed the very first prerequisite to learning and growth, is humility and willingness to ask genuine questions, and on that score you are way ahead of the game. By that I mean; you are well advanced by the standards of most members here.
    Altho' I have made a few posts to the Science Forum I do believe a little humility is in order as I stopped studying, maths and physics, when I was eighteen years old-some time ago now!
    However I do find the placid tone of your post slightly surprising considering I have criticised the content of a thread to which you have made a significant contribution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113 PLAY-DOH! 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Often, there are technical posts, on this forum, I cannot follow. It is likely that if I had a deeper knowledge of maths/physics I would be able to understand them.
    Whether I would ever have been able to develop a deeper knowledge is another question.
    At other times I read posts, couched in non-mathematical language, and I wonder if I have the ability to understand them.
    For mine, you are doing just fine. Indeed the very first prerequisite to learning and growth, is humility and willingness to ask genuine questions, and on that score you are way ahead of the game. By that I mean; you are well advanced by the standards of most members here.
    Altho' I have made a few posts to the Science Forum I do believe a little humility is in order as I stopped studying, maths and physics, when I was eighteen years old-some time ago now!
    However I do find the placid tone of your post slightly surprising considering I have criticised the content of a thread to which you have made a significant contribution.
    Huh, me placid? Perish the thought I say!

    As for your criticism re. the content of this thread; I considered it at the time a most reasonable observation. Perhaps I might now need to reconsider, huh?

    In any case, you perhaps would best understand (if you haven't already), that almost everyone who seeks to ponder and explore such ethereal concepts that emerge through philosophical consideration, is generally to some extent; talking through their hats. The reason is we are actually delving into realities, that whilst being intrinsic enough, yet we simply cannot hold or smell or play around with, like some romantic naturally occuring play-doh.

    Sure folk have always considered, appreciated and adopted to a degree, philosophical observations by self and others, and subsequently moulded themselves in some measure per those adopted observations, so in effect the play-doh in this case, might well be considered as our personal and tribal existence. Yet in the end; any philosophical concepts are usually just that - conceptual, and given into the mix; our tendancy to be a little territorial - especially on internet forums such as this, well - placidity usually need not apply.

    So my contributions whilst permitted; continue towards this thread, and my aim will always be to remain as relaxed as possible, even in the face of some bitter binary belligerence. So I guess, we are sometimes required to present as conceptually carnivorous, particularly once our astral antagonists seek to digitally dispatch us into the ethereal earth beneath our personal processor pulpits.

    Ultimately however, I will always appreciate, apprise and applaud humility whenever and wherever I find it.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Sophomore futrethink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Halifax, N.S. Canada
    Posts
    106
    ___Apopohis Reject.
    BTW, your 'doozies' of inconsistencies of objective logic, in my opinion - exist entirely within your reasoning, because - thus far you have failed to understand anything in my posts, therefore cannot possibly make such determination in regards those things which I attest.
    ___It is not that I don’t understand you, but that you aren’t thinking about what I am describing.
    So far, you have neither demonstrated you understand the concept of 'choice', nor have you defined it.
    ___Here’s another doozy of you missing the obvious, as I have shown an objective way of defining “choice.” Reread the opening post and you’ll find it in the fifth and six paragraphs. Or. If you don’t mind taking the time, check through all the definitions found on all the links on this site: http://onelook.com/?w=choice&ls=a
    There is no insult in the above, nor in the observation that you have so far, failed to comprehend anything I have posted to you, so continually reduce yourself to inane sniping, which will have to cease.
    ___Including this little statement and adding it to the following, how many subtle insults does that make?
    ” Frankly my LQ, I couldn't give a damn, and I'm NOT going to further entertain such Narcissistic discourse!”
    “Perhaps you would do best to take a few minutes break, and read this - being one of my more recent threads, then perhaps reassess your capacity to reason cognitively before making your next CHOICE.”
    “But even now, it's as if I am explaining something that should be plainly obvious even to a 10 year old, and I am tiring of it - fast!”
    Any living creature makes choices, which causes it to act/move, yet you are clearly missing the vital core ingredients in your question. For emotions and intellect/intelligence, are indeed the very two such core ingredients underpinning any choice towards any action.
    ___Really?!?
    You: “Does each of your cells consciously make their own choices, and if so, how do you manage to co-ordinate them all?”
    Me: “Each cell makes choices, but they aren’t conscious choices or, at least, not involving ‘thought’ as you understand it.”
    You: “Then they are NOT - by definition; CHOICES! Make up your mind!”
    “Additionally; a choice is the outcome of a process of reasoning and selection - in turn requiring some level of neuronal activity - in turn requiring some form of brain - in turn (by my estimation) requiring at least two (neuron) cells - in order for one to bounce it's ideas off another prior to the two coming to a compromise towards decision - indeed, towards enacting any resultant choice.

    So, back to your amoeba - please explain for us all; does this particular entity have a functioning brain, from which it can DECIDE upon any particular selection, or the alternative?”
    ___Do you see the problem of understanding which side of the line you stand on? Where is the objective logic in the total of your answers?
    ___For that matter, what emotions, intelligence or “neuronal activity” would the first living cell have when it (as is scientifically believed) came into being? Unless you are considering the idea that it came into being with a pre-created intelligence, because that just wouldn’t be logical. And the reason for it being illogical would be; an intelligence would not have evolved yet.
    Two people arguing and a third deciding upon a compromise, is a reasonable way of looking at the process, as long as we recognise that third person is 'me', and 'I' am the accumulated result of all 'my' previous slavish choices at 'compromise' in favour of the emotional aggressor, when I would have been better off supporting the peaceful intelligent alternative.
    ___So you believe that it follows along the idea of two individuals giving advice to a third person, instead of (the idea that I am putting forward) three equal individuals compromising and working in exact unity to a common goal?
    ___The compromise works out into something you have already mentioned, “So the persuasiveness is not the same in all individuals, nor is it the same in each individual all the time, because we all have occasions when we feel weaker - to our emotions, and alternatively - other times when we feel stronger.” Each time a choice comes into view, it affects each of the three (mind, body and spirit) in different ways. To make the decision at each different point in time and space might require two to override one, one might be stronger than the other two or one/two might simply see that the choice doesn’t need their input and lets the other(s) make the ‘choice’ on how the compromise will happen.
    Furthermore, this intrinsic but essential 'fight' will never be 'calmed', for we - by virtue of simply being born, approach the entire process in the manner least likely to deliver calm, by continually surrendering to that party which is solely responsible for the fight in the first place, rather than choosing to support the other. This ultimately means the far less confrontational side becomes a mere punching bag - to the antagonist, and effectively to 'me' (via my choices). The result of this slavish process of course, is a constant lacking in 'calm', an ongoing dysfunction, and eventually - death.
    ___Ah, so thinking that the three individuals, like energy, take the path of least resistance and compromise or use a pack mentality to compromise would go against what you are describing?
    ___The ‘calm’ waxes and wanes as in any area of competition. Just as one point of calm arises between the three (mind, body and spirit), another point of disagreement/choice comes up.
    Thought and intelligence are two entirely different essential ingredients/commodities per our reasoning towards subsequent choice/s.
    ___Yes and no.
    So you choose to accept that you are right and any or all other evidence for the opposite can’t be right, correct?
    Incorrect on both counts.
    ___Your own words showing that you think the idea and the logic for instinct to be ’flawed’: ” Of course, instinct’ – if it existed - would also fit into this SPIRITUAL criteria. However, the validity of such a conceptual notion, I would maintain - is a profoundly flawed conclusion, which has notably - extensively averted attention away from the authentic and genetic spiritual reality of INTELLIGENCE – as explained above.
    Define 'patterns of energy'.
    ___Pick you own definition for ‘pattern’, as it would relate to energy and the perceived level of energy you want to use.

    ___Another doozy that you have missed is that this thread was not about who makes a decision, but what happens during the process of choice. I would have preferred to avoid the subject of who or from where the control of choice arises, but it is always inevitable that someone will not notice the original direction, as has been proven by not only you.
    ___Amusingly enough you have, only in a general manner in your posts, described what happens during a choice, but not in detail.
    The world is the way it is, because we like it this way.
    Otherwise, we would change it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Sophomore futrethink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Halifax, N.S. Canada
    Posts
    106
    ___evilwill32.
    Mate, don't try to pass off your pseudophilsophical analysis of choice as something intellectually revolutionising because it's not.
    ___If you think that the breakdown is “psuedophilisophical” instead of logical, take the challenge I have offered to others and pick any type of choice and let’s take it apart point by point to see if it follows the described breakdown.
    ___And, I never said that the breakdown was revolutionary, did I? All I posted was that it was a personal hypothesis.
    The world is the way it is, because we like it this way.
    Otherwise, we would change it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    22
    @ Futurethink

    If it's a personal hypothesis, then put it where it belongs:-

    "New Hypotheses and Ideas
    Hypotheses or ideas that lack both solid disproof and substantial empirical support, be it from a lack of research in the field or a current lack of technology/data that would enable research in the field, to be discussed in solid scientific terms. This does not include ideas that are purely untestable under any conditions. "

    However, judging from the response, I'm sure most people here would put it in the pseudoscience section...

    X
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Sophomore futrethink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Halifax, N.S. Canada
    Posts
    106
    ___evilwill32.

    However, judging from the response, I'm sure most people here would put it in the pseudoscience section...
    ___Which response to whom? If this is concerning my discussion with Apopohis Reject, it is simply, for me, a mental exercise of previously known information.
    ___If this is concerning the actual breakdown and the logic I use which is “based on observation, experience, or experimentation” take the challenge and you tell me if it is pseudo-anything? For that matter, you don’t even have the take the challenge here. Simply take the time by yourself or with any person who might take an interest in the psychological aspect of ‘choice’ and go through it point-by-point to see what might or might not be wrong with it.
    ___As for it being in the philosophical section? Since the breakdown affects or is included in the debates of fate and free will, objective and subjective reality, hard physics, moral and ethics, and paradoxes, why shouldn’t it be here?
    The world is the way it is, because we like it this way.
    Otherwise, we would change it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Evilwill32, the thread belongs here, which is why it's still here and not in Pseudoscience, New Hypothesis, or Trash. Simply because you have an issue with this, doesn't mean it belongs in a different sub forum. Hell, it isn't exactly a 'new hypothesis' either, seeing as it isn't a theory of any kind.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Evilwill32, the thread belongs here, which is why it's still here and not in Pseudoscience, New Hypothesis, or Trash.
    I’ve given up trying to work out or argue with the placements of threads or parts thereof. I guess for mine now, as long as the mod or other ‘authority’ thinks it to be, must make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    It is not that I don’t understand you, but that you aren’t thinking about what I am describing.
    And therein lies the problem for both of us. You are giving no consideration to what I am posting, and apparently I am not thinking about what you are describing – for we are both seeking what the other (or at least our perspective of it) is unwilling to offer. This is an issue that rears it's ugly head many times on this site, because the vast majority of the members here are highly territorial and defensive, resulting in their posts being aggressive and demanding and often deliberately obtrusive, and subsequently when a member presents in a less grandiose manner, they are perceived as weak or unthinking, or simply disregarded.

    In any case, as I have explained previously, and despite your original contentiousness about it; I have NOT in fact read to any great extent your (previous) posts, that perhaps you believe I should be ‘thinking about’. So in effect I have likely been frustrating your efforts at communication by entering the discussion at the stage I did without first appreciating your original exploration. Therefore I will now disregard for the moment, the remainder of your last post towards myself, and get back to basics, read your OP and forthwith comment from that position.

    We may at a later time, return to your last post – given such opportunity, and if considered prudent – that being ok with you.

    First a complaint, is with the way you have presented it, which as previously noted; makes it quite difficult to appreciate and now refer back to. So I will attempt to interpret, simplify and discuss your individual proposals via an injected numerical point system, even though the longevity of this process (and post) is obviously going to annoy the tripe out of everyone else. So with apologies to all members, here goes;

    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    1. A choice is defined, by most dictionaries, as one of two things: a noun and an adjective. With the word ‘choose’ being a verb.
    2. To my way of thinking, you can’t make a choice/choose unless you have nouns and adjectives with which to do a verb. Thereby, the entirety of the concept of an objective ‘choice’ is any and all nouns and adjectives, from the past, present and possible future, in connection with the verb/action itself.
    I’m not sure of the relevance of these two points to your overall argument – that is if I understand them in the first instance. You are attempting to define a choice to a far greater extent than any dictionary, so the above already seems superfluous.

    It’s fair to note, that a choice is a process (please consider a bridge) towards an action (your verb), yet until that choice has been made (the bridge being crossed), the action has not yet commenced, so to that point, is still a mere non-physical concept within the genetic reasoning process of the individual.

    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    3. That being out of the way, on to the breakdown of how a choice occurs on the physical(matter) and/or spiritual(emotional) and/or mental(thinking) levels and seemingly instantaneously:
    I now see why this thread has tweaked my interest to the extent it has.

    Indeed you have made the first and perhaps most essential connection here, that most others are unable or unwilling to consider; with your use of the term ‘spiritual’, as pertaining to the intrinsic yet non-physical emotions underpinning each and every choice - an excellent start. But you really should not stop there, for our emotions are certainly not alone in this spiritual realm of reasoning, the choices that emanate from it, the visceral actions that obey it, or the corporeal results from it.

    Now, absolutely nothing of a physical nature eventuates until after this spiritual (non-physical) process towards any selection is completed, which in turn provides the definition of engagement towards the respective choice being mechanised – indeed via the means of our physicality. In other words; our carnal being obeys the given instructions towards realising the actual product directed it by the entirety of our spiritual consciousness. Therefore commencing with both elemental halves into it, the emergent selection is made from the two suggestions - towards the resulting concrete realisation via our physical structure.

    Therefore, because we have choice, the emotions are certainly NOT the only spiritual aspect to be considered towards the contouring of our choices, for there is another (even more) essential constituent; our intelligence - the second half of our reasoning underpinning each and every selection. Then of course, the entire process of reasoning/thinking/consideration is again quite non-physical, so also is – spiritual.

    Therefore, in order to put a little meat on the bones of this observation, please let's consider this process as akin to making a pie. We first need to decide what kind to produce by considering what to cook inside that pie. So the relative ingredients towards this formulative selection would be;
    A. What we consider purely as the correct thing to eat (without considering taste) – so pertaining to our intellect, and;
    B. What we might feel like tasting (without considering correct/incorrect) – pertaining to our emotions.

    So far nothing of a resultant substance has commenced, so the process so far is entirely ethereal (non-physical), and therefore yet; spiritual. Even when we eventually arrive at the moment of making the choice, the concept of a physical pie is still completely non-physical (spiritual), so effectively we can consider the choice itself as the bridge between the spiritual (ethereal) and the physical (reality) – it is the point at which the spiritual process is transformed into a physical absolute, even if the pie is not yet finalised.

    Nevertheless, the spiritual process has not by any means culminated, for even whilst in the physical actualisation towards a physical pie, we are constantly required to consider a whole range of (still) spiritual concepts towards the completion of the physical result. For instance (among a great many considerations) – how much butter, sugar, milk, water, salt etc to use and when to introduce each into the mix, and where did I put my cell phone, and can I get this finished in time to see Dr. Phil, wash the dog and phone my mom, prior to Johnny arriving home from school, and will I be able to him with his math and did I make the best choice with this pie and would it be better to stop now or keep going?

    Clearly none of these future physical possibilities have yet been realised, so presently remain as non-physical considerations that are being tossed around in the realm of the spiritual (the mind/consciousness) even whilst performing each physical task set before us by our choices, at least until each respective connection is made through the bridge that is ‘choice’ – towards each being in turn actualised - ie. made physical.

    And yes, as you point out – all of these spiritual processes towards eventually being made physical, seemingly develop instantaneously and even concurrently - although this is simply a perception due to the incredible agility of process and transition, of which our (spiritual) mind/consciousness is capable.

    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    4. A choice is required as a part of a linear temporal existence. To make that choice, the following occurs; an objective concept is perceived/interacted with. This could be considered as a mass energy object appearing within an individual’s perceptions, a path/need/ideal that is to be reached or in another manner. Either way; the first thing that occurs is an interaction of perceptions. An individual doesn’t cooperate with something that it has just perceived, it just interacts with it.
    Your first sentence is axiomatic, yet your second is insufficient, as the vast majority of choices are made via interaction with a subjective rather than objective consideration.

    So even though I have no idea about the relevance of your ‘mass energy object’, I would argue in regards your ‘interaction of perceptions’; you are indicating this objective/subjective issue, which for mine, is again about the two-core input underpinning every choice – intelligence and emotions. Therefore we could well regard the objective considerations behind a choice, to be according intelligence, and our subjective; the prevailing emotions.

    So if we please, again reference our pie; objectively (or intelligently) I might recognise the need to produce something entirely nutritious, yet subjectively (emotionally), I may want a totally irrelevant result - to anything but the demand coming from my taste buds of that moment. So what do I almost always opt to support – my objective intelligent need, or subjective emotional demand?

    Answer - my subjective emotional demand/s – naturally!

    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    5. Available facts/information/variables from past existence is taken and brought forward and acknowledged as a part of that individual’s existence.
    It appears you are referring here to those concepts/information that form a part of our individualistic stored ‘memory’, which are indeed details (I would suggest emotional residue) of our past experiences, that we often include in the reasoning process towards that bridge being reached and crossed – (again) our emergent choice towards the finalised physical result - the finished pie.

    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    6. The surrounding environment and all information pertaining to that point in space and time is perceived/accepted as being a part of the individual’s existence.
    Again proverbial yet insufficient. It's true that our immediate environment is another consideration that further underpins a choice – at least perhaps to the extent of when it eventuates. For instance; if I am currently sitting in my car on the way to the airport, the transformation from spiritual to physical for my (future) pie, will have to await an appropriate time when my surroundings are more conducive to the physical product being actualised.

    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    7. The original idea/belief/concept of what was expected to be the possible future, from the previous point in time, is brought forward, accepted/acknowledged and then examined in connection with the previously noted object/objective.
    It looks to me as if you are getting a little mixed up between previous considerations and arriving at the bridge; being the actual process of making that respective choice.

    Indeed both are entirely spiritual (non-physical), however I would argue that a mental cogitation towards a future choice (or not), and the actual process of making any choice, should be separated as two entirely separate progressions of reason. Therefore; as they all seem to cover the same issue, I would disregard this and points 8. & 9. (below) as unnecessarily complicating the investigation.

    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    8. During the examination of the original future, the connection between the new object/objective and the new object/objective itself, the previously mentioned past and present information is brought forward and used to predict any and all, new possible futures that might result.
    9. Examinations of the new possible futures are made.
    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    10. The most likely/probable/positive/okay/good futures/timelines are selected and the remaining futures are discarded/removed/noted as negative/the least likely/evil from the choice process.
    Now your observations are becoming further confused, for this has already been sufficiently covered in points 3 to 5, in appreciating the two core inputs into and underpinning each choice, being (your terms); good/evil, positive/negative or selected/discarded – which again are essentially according the two essentials - intellectual/emotional or objective/subjective.

    The likely/least likely, and probable/removed parameters relate more to the immediate environment noted at point 6.

    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    11. A single possible end-result is selected as the most positive choice. A period of time for that end-result is determined. The possible futures/timelines and the information needed for to reach the previously selected end-result are examined.
    This likewise seems to be repeating previous points, including a time frame, being a consideration of the many variables mentioned in points 5 & 6. Therefore I would regard this mention to also be redundant.

    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    12. The information and the future/timeline that is considered/believed the most wanted/positive/possible to reach the single possible end-result are selected. All other information and futures/timelines are noted as/believed to be the most negative/least likely for to reach that single possible end-result and discarded.
    Also redundant, as previously covered.

    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    13. The final action of the choice is to cause an action to occur that will cause/start that one singular future/timeline to become a part of existence and that might have the believed to be one possibly final needed end-result.
    In other words – the action, once a choice is entered into (bridge is crossed), is the process of the spiritual - being made physical, and then becoming a part from that moment onwards; of our physical existence. So therefore it will forever remain a fact of 'my' overall historical record that, even if I never tasted it; "I" physically made that pie.

    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    14. I might have missed a few steps or thought that they were unimportant enough to put in, but the above is as basic as I believe is needed for now.
    As noted above; I feel you included and repeated far too many steps which took a basic premise to confusing levels. Of course there is more to this overall scenario, yet for mine you have covered the basics in points 3-6; being the relevant issues of an extremely essential observation for us all; of how we make our every choice - perhaps tens of millions of them during the course of our lives.

    On the other hand, we have not yet commenced upon discussion of just why this is such an essential exploration for our general understanding and what difference it makes to us - individually for the entirety of our lives as well as our impending demise. And all that is an exceptionally interesting and pertinent observation indeed - far more so than most can possibly imagine!

    So now I have acquiesced in giving thought to what you have been describing, can we at least commence upon some agreement on any of the above points?
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Sophomore futrethink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Halifax, N.S. Canada
    Posts
    106
    ___Apopohis Reject.
    You are giving no consideration to what I am posting,
    ___I know that this is only a part of a sentence and is contradicting what I have mentioned already to you about taking only parts of sentences, but I think that no contexts have been dismissed, by my doing so.
    ___Anyway. Except for when I am being rushed by time, I very rarely don’t take the time to reread and consider carefully what any person discusses with me, which is one of the reasons why I seem to take so long in answering anyone.
    In any case, as I have explained previously, and despite your original contentiousness about it; I have NOT in fact read to any great extent your (previous) posts, that perhaps you believe I should be ‘thinking about’.
    ___Which should make you question a previous point that you rather emphatically seemed to believe in and became quite incensed about my attempts to point out otherwise,
    Our respective posts may have, in your opinion; had a similarity or two, yet I can (for the last time) assure you; I did NOT restate nor re-word anything you posted - ever!

    I obviously cannot satisfactorily prove such to a reasoning as yours - so take it or leave it. Frankly my LQ, I couldn't give a damn, and I'm NOT going to further entertain such Narcissistic discourse!
    Since you didn’t read through the thread, how could you be objectively sure that you hadn’t “just restated (in a reworded manner) quite a lot of what I have explained already.”
    First a complaint, is with the way you have presented it, which as previously noted; makes it quite difficult to appreciate and now refer back to.
    ___That complaint was already made by many others on this thread (even though others on other thread have had very little problems understanding my unusual posting style) and dealt with by my posting a less detailed or verbose version http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=238865#238865 .
    I’m not sure of the relevance of these two points to your overall argument – that is if I understand them in the first instance. You are attempting to define a choice to a far greater extent than any dictionary, so the above already seems superfluous.
    ___The breakdown is not a definition of “choice”, but an examination of what happens during a choice. The breakdown shows what an objective choice is and not a subjective perception of what a human being might think it should be. There is a difference in being that specific. From a general point of view, yes, the breakdown does seem to be a definition of “choice”, but in hard science it is the exacting details/fine points which make or break the evidence of a hypothesis or scientific guess.
    ___This breakdown is evidence toward a hypothesis: Every individual at all points in time, choose what they like of the available options. Which is a sub-hypothesis of my main hypothesis found in my signature. The signature hypothesis is missing some description/explanation, but the missing concepts can be found out by simple and logical reasoning of my writings.
    It’s fair to note, that a choice is a process (please consider a bridge) towards an action (your verb), yet until that choice has been made (the bridge being crossed), the action has not yet commenced, so to that point, is still a mere non-physical concept within the genetic reasoning process of the individual.
    ___A choice is indeed a process, which requires an alteration of the individual’s physical existence during the process, and that might seem to be spiritual aspect of choice, but falls under what can be called an “objective limiter”, because of the limits that are imposed upon each individual point of mass-energy that makes up an existing being. In essence, an individual’s very physical being has to change (make choices of available options) during a choice, so that the final verb can be acted out.
    ___What you are missing is a level of existence based upon the physical, which is outside the mental and the spiritual, and until you figure out that piece of the puzzle you will never see some parts of the whole. As long as you see choice only on a spiritual and mental level, you will continue to see reality as only a subjective state. You are showing this, because the “intellectual or spiritual” essence you describe would be a part of a “living” individual and from what you are mentioning, you might want to consider the concept you are describing a “living” individual in a sort of “coma”, in which it is neither dead nor alive.
    ___If you have some or have had some questions asked of you that you can’t honestly answer with the information you do have, would a part of the reason be because your hypothesis might be missing some pieces?
    ___And when you include the pieces I perceive, you will see that the puzzle/reality exists, doesn’t exist, is both, is neither, all of the previous and none of this sentence. Or as Ophiolite has, somewhat, described it, “The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine.”
    Now, absolutely nothing of a physical nature eventuates until after this spiritual (non-physical) process towards any selection is completed, which in turn provides the definition of engagement towards the respective choice being mechanised – indeed via the means of our physicality.
    ___Okay. Going from here, do you think that a computer has ‘choice’ as a part of its existence?
    ___You’ll probably answer in the negative, but I still have to ask it to prevent any subjective knowledge on my part about you.
    ___And on the topic of computers and physical choices, I would like to continue our discussion concerning an electron having a memory and the connective concept that an electron makes choices: choose your own definition for patterns of energy and tell me if you accept or not that that storage of information (which you agreed to as a basic definition of memory), at its most basic and objective level, is simply a record of previously existing patterns of energy.
    Your first sentence is axiomatic, yet your second is insufficient, as the vast majority of choices are made via interaction with a subjective rather than objective consideration.
    ___And what about the minority of choices not made via interaction with a subjective rather than objective consideration? Or is it that you think such a minority is unimportant and not really a part of reality?
    Therefore, in order to put a little meat on the bones of this observation, please let's consider this process as akin to making a pie.
    “our emergent choice towards the finalised physical result - the finished pie.“
    ___The second quoted article is again taken out of the full context, but my answer does not act upon the context.
    ___Since you bring up the example of a pie and eating, where of your two essences of intellect and spiritual would you consider the concept of ‘hunger’ (a need to absorb energy to replenish ‘used/lost’ energy) or to be more generalized, basic ‘survival’ to fall into?
    It appears you are referring here to those concepts/information that form a part of our individualistic stored ‘memory’, which are indeed details (I would suggest emotional residue) of our past experiences, that we often include in the reasoning process towards that bridge being reached and crossed
    ___Yes, but not only the ‘emotional residue’.
    Again proverbial yet insufficient. It's true that our immediate environment is another consideration that further underpins a choice – at least perhaps to the extent of when it eventuates. For instance; if I am currently sitting in my car on the way to the airport, the transformation from spiritual to physical for my (future) pie, will have to await an appropriate time when my surroundings are more conducive to the physical product being actualised.
    ___Yes. For that choice of, “I want to make a pie.” (made when you were... sitting at work), the environment of being in a car on the way to the airport would be wrong and the final timeline for that choice would not be reached. So why do you consider my description of that aspect of a choice ‘insufficient’?
    It looks to me as if you are getting a little mixed up between previous considerations and arriving at the bridge; being the actual process of making that respective choice.
    ___There is no confusion, on my part. In the past, a choice(a) was already made about what might happen in the future (the present that you are in now), which would include a possible future timeline and a chosen length of time for that choice to come to fruition. When the new objective concept comes into the picture, you look at it and see how it connects to the past choice
    Now your observations are becoming further confused, for this has already been sufficiently covered in points 3 to 5, in appreciating the two core inputs into and underpinning each choice, being (your terms); good/evil, positive/negative or selected/discarded – which again are essentially according the two essentials - intellectual/emotional or objective/subjective.
    ___Again, there is no confusion, on my part.
    ___As an objective and self-honest scientist, when I show evidence, I must show ALL the points of evidence and must make as few as possible assumptions about the knowledge of the reader of the evidence.
    ___Points 8, 9 and 10 (as you have numbered them) are what happens and thinking that not mentioning them is something that should be done, because they are subjectively perceived as unimportant, confusing, they are redundant or that they are exactly as any other point mentioned would be an egregious error on my part and the part of any individual who would think that.
    ___Point 8 is taking everything from the present and the past, putting them on a table and saying, “Now. What is everything possible for the future.”
    ___Point 9 is taking the time to examine each and every possible future.
    ___Point 10 is when you separate the possible into the impossible, and put the impossibles into the trash.
    The likely/least likely, and probable/removed parameters relate more to the immediate environment noted at point 6.
    ___In point 6, all that happens is the individual saying, “This is what is around me.”, and nothing more. You don’t note what is or isn’t likely or what is and isn’t possible, because what is around you is what is around you and that’s it.
    This likewise seems to be repeating previous points, including a time frame, being a consideration of the many variables mentioned in points 5 & 6. Therefore I would regard this mention to also be redundant.
    ___Point 11 is when you sit at the table and go through all the possibles to find the one that is believed to be the most possible and how long it might possibly take.
    ___Point 12 is when you say, “This is the one I think will work.”, and trash the other possibles that you believed wouldn’t happen.
    In other words – the action, once a choice is entered into (bridge is crossed), is the process of the spiritual - being made physical, and then becoming a part from that moment onwards; of our physical existence. So therefore it will forever remain a fact of 'my' overall historical record that, even if I never tasted it; "I" physically made that pie.
    ___No and yes. Unless your ‘being’ made all the things needed for that pie and even physically provided the heat from your own being, you only started the process. You made the original choice, but as time passed and you made other choices, you continually had to make choices to confirm that you were staying the path of the original choice to make that pie and that anything else interacted with was unimportant to that choice.
    As noted above; I feel you included and repeated far too many steps which took a basic premise to confusing levels.
    ___The basic premise for choice is as follows: 1) Every individual at every point in time of their lives MUST choose between what they like and what they hate of the available options and 2) Every individual at every point in time of their lives have no choice in that they MUST choose what they like of the available options. The problem was that I have had to argue time and again with others to show the premise in as scientific a manner as possible. The breakdown is merely that: my argument in a nutshell.
    The world is the way it is, because we like it this way.
    Otherwise, we would change it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    This is becoming ridiculously extended, so we will need to simplify things by crossing off one or fifteen hurdles - real soon.

    You are still trying to argue points of discussion with me, but I am NOT at all interested in why you posted this or what I was thinking when I wrote that. This is either going to be a discussion about how a choice is made - or forget it, ok?

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Our respective posts may have, in your opinion; had a similarity or two, yet I can (for the last time) assure you; I did NOT restate nor re-word anything you posted - ever!

    I obviously cannot satisfactorily prove such to a reasoning as yours - so take it or leave it. Frankly my LQ, I couldn't give a damn, and I'm NOT going to further entertain such Narcissistic discourse!
    Since you didn’t read through the thread, how could you be objectively sure that you hadn’t “just restated (in a reworded manner) quite a lot of what I have explained already.”
    This will be the very last time I get into another discussion with you, about motivations of past discourse – particularly on this issue. So - how could I possibly re-write or re-word what you had previously posted if I had not yet read it? At the very outside, the closest observation you could possibly make, was that my words – to some extent sounded like your previous post. There is a considerable difference – think about it, then please - forget it!

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    I’m not sure of the relevance of these two points to your overall argument – that is if I understand them in the first instance. You are attempting to define a choice to a far greater extent than any dictionary, so the above already seems superfluous.
    The breakdown is not a definition of “choice”, but an examination of what happens during a choice. The breakdown shows what an objective choice is and not a subjective perception of what a human being might think it should be. There is a difference in being that specific. From a general point of view, yes, the breakdown does seem to be a definition of “choice”, but in hard science it is the exacting details/fine points which make or break the evidence of a hypothesis or scientific guess.
    This breakdown is evidence toward a hypothesis: Every individual at all points in time, choose what they like of the available options. Which is a sub-hypothesis of my main hypothesis found in my signature. The signature hypothesis is missing some description/explanation, but the missing concepts can be found out by simple and logical reasoning of my writings.
    Again – superfluous explanation. I will again make this point however – you do not understand what you are saying with your ‘’objective choice’, because all human choices are subjective. Objective choices can only be made, by such as a tree, or your amoeba - IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    It’s fair to note, that a choice is a process (please consider a bridge) towards an action (your verb), yet until that choice has been made (the bridge being crossed), the action has not yet commenced, so to that point, is still a mere non-physical concept within the genetic reasoning process of the individual.
    A choice is indeed a process, which requires an alteration of the individual’s physical existence during the process,
    I would argue that ‘alteration’ (provided I understand your use of the term), is a part of the process immediately prior to a choice, and necessarily after it, yet the choice itself (the bridge) is so close to instantaneous, that any corresponding alteration as such, is virtually impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    and that might seem to be spiritual aspect of choice, but falls under what can be called an “objective limiter”, because of the limits that are imposed upon each individual point of mass-energy that makes up an existing being. In essence, an individual’s very physical being has to change (make choices of available options) during a choice, so that the final verb can be acted out.
    I do not understand this in the slightest - but I doubt it makes a great deal of difference because it appears to be based upon a false premise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    What you are missing is a level of existence based upon the physical, which is outside the mental and the spiritual,
    What you are missing is; the mental IS the spiritual, or if you prefer – the spiritual IS the mental – take it any way you like. And furthermore, the physical IS the tangible expression of the (non-physical) spiritual. So what is this 'level of existence' I am missing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    and until you figure out that piece of the puzzle you will never see some parts of the whole.
    I'm not so sure I want to see the whole of your puzzle, because I'm not sure you have it yet untangled.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    As long as you see choice only on a spiritual and mental level, you will continue to see reality as only a subjective state. You are showing this, because the “intellectual or spiritual” essence you describe would be a part of a “living” individual and from what you are mentioning, you might want to consider the concept you are describing a “living” individual in a sort of “coma”, in which it is neither dead nor alive.
    Huh? Reality is BOTH objective and subjective, which I will explain further in this post. As for this point, you continue to argue without explanation - commencing by seemingly saying something, yet your conclusion thereafter makes no sense – to me at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Now, absolutely nothing of a physical nature eventuates until after this spiritual (non-physical) process towards any selection is completed, which in turn provides the definition of engagement towards the respective choice being mechanised – indeed via the means of our physicality.
    Okay. Going from here, do you think that a computer has ‘choice’ as a part of its existence?
    You’ll probably answer in the negative, but I still have to ask it to prevent any subjective knowledge on my part about you.
    Ok if I must for the sake of getting on with it – you're correct, the answer is - no! However your reference is NOT to 'subjective knowledge', but rather 'opinion' - which is generally subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    And on the topic of computers and physical choices, I would like to continue our discussion concerning an electron having a memory and the connective concept that an electron makes choices: choose your own definition for patterns of energy and tell me if you accept or not that that storage of information (which you agreed to as a basic definition of memory), at its most basic and objective level, is simply a record of previously existing patterns of energy.
    Don’t attempt to coax me. You can continue your discussion, but not until you explain your definition, for which I previously asked; of this ‘previously existing pattern/s of energy’ concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Your first sentence is axiomatic, yet your second is insufficient, as the vast majority of choices are made via interaction with a subjective rather than objective consideration.
    And what about the minority of choices not made via interaction with a subjective rather than objective consideration? Or is it that you think such a minority is unimportant and not really a part of reality?
    Huh? Again – EVERY human choice is made via subjective consideration. If the discussion is going to be about this, then let’s get on with it – for mine, there exists in the general sense; no objective choices. For even those which appear to be more (or mostly) objective, are yet subjective. I guess we might argue that we can get reasonably close to an objective choice, when we make one on behalf of another individual, sitting outside our immediate sphere of personal concern, but I would maintain even such as these, are ultimately subjective.

    Alternatively, here is my challenge to you; offer an example of a choice you consider purely objective, and see if I can show you how it is, in fact subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Therefore, in order to put a little meat on the bones of this observation, please let's consider this process as akin to making a pie.
    “our emergent choice towards the finalised physical result - the finished pie.“
    The second quoted article is again taken out of the full context, but my answer does not act upon the context.
    Since you bring up the example of a pie and eating, where of your two essences of intellect and spiritual would you consider the concept of ‘hunger’ (a need to absorb energy to replenish ‘used/lost’ energy) or to be more generalized, basic ‘survival’ to fall into?
    Finally we get to some meat.

    Firstly, the two essences into every choice ever made, are NOT 'intellect' and 'spiritual', for these terms are basically interchangeable. The two spiritual essences then, are intellect and emotions.

    Hunger is a part of the emotional demands upon the reasoning towards our selections, therefore it is according that respective half of the (abovementioned) spiritual essence underpinning all our choices; emotions.

    You might find it easier to consider it this way - our emotions relate and respond to our personal environment - our physicality - subjectively. Whereas our intellect relates and responds to our greater environment - if you like, the universe - objectively. Our biggest problem has always been that we like to see the universe in our own terms - therefore subjectively, which means we get the two mixed up and ourselves into a pickle of confusion.

    Note; you have been making this same mistake with your argument re. this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    It appears you are referring here to those concepts/information that form a part of our individualistic stored ‘memory’, which are indeed details (I would suggest emotional residue) of our past experiences, that we often include in the reasoning process towards that bridge being reached and crossed
    Yes, but not only the ‘emotional residue’.
    Huh? If you're suggesting an intellectual residue, I personally doubt it. However as a point of discussion, we are presently way short of that level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Again proverbial yet insufficient. It's true that our immediate environment is another consideration that further underpins a choice – at least perhaps to the extent of when it eventuates. For instance; if I am currently sitting in my car on the way to the airport, the transformation from spiritual to physical for my (future) pie, will have to await an appropriate time when my surroundings are more conducive to the physical product being actualised.
    Yes. For that choice of, “I want to make a pie.” (made when you were... sitting at work), the environment of being in a car on the way to the airport would be wrong and the final timeline for that choice would not be reached. So why do you consider my description of that aspect of a choice ‘insufficient’?
    Again, please let’s not get into more semantics discussion. My previous suggestion is the explanation per this request. It is not about wrong or right, but rather about consideration to (maybe) engage towards something in the future, which is about the difference between a future set of choices to action on the one hand, and on the other; an actual (current) choice - to action.

    You have been confusing the issue all along, by mixing up a theoretical with an actual/physical, as if they are the same thing. They clearly are NOT.


    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    It looks to me as if you are getting a little mixed up between previous considerations and arriving at the bridge; being the actual process of making that respective choice.
    There is no confusion, on my part.
    As just explained - indeed there is!


    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    In the past, a choice(a) was already made about what might happen in the future (the present that you are in now), which would include a possible future timeline and a chosen length of time for that choice to come to fruition. When the new objective concept comes into the picture, you look at it and see how it connects to the past choice
    Again, you are referencing two completely different processes. A consideration for a future choice can indeed be withdrawn at any moment between that consideration and the subsequent choice to action (the bridge), which on the other hand; once entered into, simply cannot be discontinued; other than once it has commenced in the physical, at least.

    From the other perspective, which will hopefully make more sense - you are exploring the possibilities of crossing the bridge/making the pie when (and if) you eventually get there. In comparison, I am explaining the process of actually crossing the bridge - physically entering into action (crossing over) upon arrival at that bridge.

    Honestly now, considering the possibilities of making a choice in the future, and actually making it for real, do not define the same process. It is as simple as that, and if your failure to recognise this continues, then this communication is going nowhere at great speed, so it will soon be time to put it (and everyone on this site) out of it's misery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Now your observations are becoming further confused, for this has already been sufficiently covered in points 3 to 5, in appreciating the two core inputs into and underpinning each choice, being (your terms); good/evil, positive/negative or selected/discarded – which again are essentially according the two essentials - intellectual/emotional or objective/subjective.
    Again, there is no confusion, on my part.
    Again, obviously there is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    As an objective and self-honest scientist,
    While the jury remains out studying the evidence in regards such deliberation, I will have to take your word on all that, huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Point 8 is taking everything from the present and the past, putting them on a table and saying, “Now. What is everything possible for the future.”
    This is NOT a choice as such, but a consideration towards an actual - future choice - if indeed it is (in turn) ever made. As such, it remains extraneous to the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Point 9 is taking the time to examine each and every possible future.
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Point 10 is when you separate the possible into the impossible, and put the impossibles into the trash.
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    The likely/least likely, and probable/removed parameters relate more to the immediate environment noted at point 6.
    In point 6, all that happens is the individual saying, “This is what is around me.”, and nothing more. You don’t note what is or isn’t likely or what is and isn’t possible, because what is around you is what is around you and that’s it.
    Again – considerations regarding a FUTURE choice, rather than the choice itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    This likewise seems to be repeating previous points, including a time frame, being a consideration of the many variables mentioned in points 5 & 6. Therefore I would regard this mention to also be redundant.
    Point 11 is when you sit at the table and go through all the possibles to find the one that is believed to be the most possible and how long it might possibly take.
    Point 12 is when you say, “This is the one I think will work.”, and trash the other possibles that you believed wouldn’t happen.
    I hope by now, you are recognising that everything you are arguing here, is associated with a completely SEPARATE process, than that of an actual choice. For they are all presenting considerations (perhaps) – PRIOR TO – that is; towards/underlying an ACTUAL CHOICE, rather than the selection itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    In other words – the action, once a choice is entered into (bridge is crossed), is the process of the spiritual - being made physical, and then becoming a part from that moment onwards; of our physical existence. So therefore it will forever remain a fact of 'my' overall historical record that, even if I never tasted it; "I" physically made that pie.
    No and yes.
    You say ‘no and yes’ because you are talking about two – listen now - TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE processes!

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Unless your ‘being’ made all the things needed for that pie
    Which would all be indicative of previous choices - to action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    and even physically provided the heat from your own being, you only started the process. You made the original choice, but as time passed and you made other choices, you continually had to make choices to confirm that you were staying the path of the original choice to make that pie and that anything else interacted with was unimportant to that choice.
    The process of the pie coming into existence, yes - is about a combination of varying injected influences such as the heat from the oven and flour from the mill/shop, however the original actual selection (to enaction) as well as the physical injection of each stage, which is the entire point of this thread – towards the physical pie, is purely via choice, which is NOT physical, even though the action (outflow) of each choice, will ALWAYS be physical.

    So right there is yet another definition why yours is an illogical reasoning. When a choice is made, the immediate outflow MUST be physical, yet your (suggested) choice/s are towards another series of ruminations, in turn perhaps; towards an eventual choice - to action being made. Therefore your (non-physical) selection is merely a pre-cursor of yet another (non-physical) process of selection, rather than directly re. a physical outcome.

    And yes – once made, that choice (if it is to reach fulfilment) needs to be maintained throughout the process towards its physical completion – through many other (perhaps subordinate/lesser) choices; being a point I made previously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    As noted above; I feel you included and repeated far too many steps which took a basic premise to confusing levels.
    The basic premise for choice is as follows: 1) Every individual at every point in time of their lives MUST choose between what they like and what they hate of the available options and 2) Every individual at every point in time of their lives have no choice in that they MUST choose what they like of the available options.
    Both your above points 1), and 2), are effectively definition of "subjective", rather than 'objective' consideration. Please, let's see if we can at least cross this and a dozen or so others off our list of hurdles per this intercourse, before we are both banned for exessive postage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    The problem was that I have had to argue time and again with others to show the premise in as scientific a manner as possible. The breakdown is merely that: my argument in a nutshell.
    Your premise may be towards your nutshell, yet your argument has been anything but scientific. You simply can't argue logically, by mixing up;

    A. A (non-physical) theoretical consideration towards (perhaps) a negotiation of a future bridge, with the completely separate process;
    B. A (non-physical) bridge towards a (physical) reality, and then call your conclusion 'scientific', on the basis that fundamentally you don't appreciate the difference between the two.


    Footnote; Perhaps you would have been well advised to title this thread "A breakdown of considerations leading to how a choice is made" - for that is indeed the subject matter pertaining to your argument.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by Futurethink
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Our respective posts may have, in your opinion; had a similarity or two, yet I can (for the last time) assure you; I did NOT restate nor re-word anything you posted - ever!

    I obviously cannot satisfactorily prove such to a reasoning as yours - so take it or leave it. Frankly my LQ, I couldn't give a damn, and I'm NOT going to further entertain such Narcissistic discourse!
    Since you didn’t read through the thread, how could you be objectively sure that you hadn’t “just restated (in a reworded manner) quite a lot of what I have explained already.”
    This will be the very last time I get into another discussion with you, about motivations of past discourse – particularly on this issue. So - how could I possibly re-write or re-word what you had previously posted if I had not yet read it? At the very outside, the closest observation you could possibly make, was that my words – to some extent sounded like your previous post. There is a considerable difference – think about it, then please - forget it!
    Apophis, here is an intended helpful hint. To the best of my knowledge, having been a native English speaker for six decades, having taken an interest in the lanaguage, and having demonstrated a reasonable command of it, I am confident when I say you are wrong.

    The phrase "you are just restating that" is equivalent to "your words are more or less equivalent to my words". This is certainly the colloquial usage and it is my definite belief that it matches formal usage also.

    I mention this because it is a prime example of what is a source of frustration for those discussing with you: you don't use words with the meanings assigned to them by the rest of us. I can't check your signature while I'm replying, but I think you even have a quote from another forum member warning of using terminology differently. Yet, for whatever reason, you repeatedly ignore your own advice.

    I'm not criticising, I'm not demanding you change, I'm simply observing on the basis that the observation might be of use to you - and if you did change it would sure as heck make life easier for the rest of us. (And as a side note, it was such persistent, apparently careless and self indulgent behaviour that led me to make negative remarks about you in other threads and possibly this one too.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Apophis, here is an intended helpful hint. To the best of my knowledge, having been a native English speaker for six decades, having taken an interest in the lanaguage, and having demonstrated a reasonable command of it, I am confident when I say you are wrong.

    The phrase "you are just restating that" is equivalent to "your words are more or less equivalent to my words". This is certainly the colloquial usage and it is my definite belief that it matches formal usage also.

    I mention this because it is a prime example of what is a source of frustration for those discussing with you: you don't use words with the meanings assigned to them by the rest of us. I can't check your signature while I'm replying, but I think you even have a quote from another forum member warning of using terminology differently. Yet, for whatever reason, you repeatedly ignore your own advice.

    I'm not criticising, I'm not demanding you change, I'm simply observing on the basis that the observation might be of use to you - and if you did change it would sure as heck make life easier for the rest of us. (And as a side note, it was such persistent, apparently careless and self indulgent behaviour that led me to make negative remarks about you in other threads and possibly this one too.)
    Well I have to thank you for your helpful note in this regard. If I am indeed in the wrong here, I will surely apologise, but prior to that, please permit me to further enquire in a little detail.

    So now; if you were to make a note in a post (for instance) such; "futurethink is a particularly intelligent man". And I, whilst completely ignorant and independant of your statement, made another which sounded almost identical, such as 'In my opinion futurthink is a very intelligent human' - that I have re-worded or re-written your previous post, even though I had no knowledge of it whatsoever?

    If the answer to this question is 'yes' as you indicate, then I really need to get another dictionary, for mine would appear to have a totally different definition, as follows;

    Re-word:
    1. to put into other words
    2. to repeat.

    Repeat:
    1. to say or utter again (something already said): to repeat a word for emphasis.
    2. to say or utter in reproducing the words, inflections, etc., of another: to repeat a sentence after the teacher.
    3. to reproduce (utterances, sounds, etc.) in the manner of an echo, a phonograph, or the like.
    4. to tell (something heard) to another or others.
    5. to do, make, or perform again: to repeat an action.
    6. to go through or undergo again: to repeat an experience.

    All the above (save perhaps point 5.) would seem to involve an implicit knowledge of the previous action, thereby defining the 'again', which I must conclude - supports my seemingly erroneous understanding.

    So what if I may ask, is the colloquial forum definition for the term, and how does it differ from my dictionary? For it would appear; either my dictionary is incorrect, or forum discussions such as this have an patently contradictory set of definitions.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Stop being bloody obtuse.

    Future think said something.

    You said much the same thing.

    Ergo, you restated his thoughts. It matters not that you never read what he wrote. You expressed the same idea in other words. In many cases, perhaps most, restating may be used as you wish to exclusively use it, but that need not be in all cases.

    It is also true that in science we should seek to use terms clearly and as unambiguously as possible. But we also need to use common sense to discern the intent of the writer. Futurethink was expressing, as far as I can see, the thought that you had introduced nothing new to the conversation and were in fact agreeing with him.

    Rather than accept that this was the case you go into a round-the-houses session of nitpicking. Your response to my post struck me as much the same.

    Simplicity.

    I'll try again: if you say something that someone else has said in different words you are restating their position. It does not matter whether or not you know about that position.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Ok then, consider the bloody obtuse nit-picking from my end - at an end, and my subsequent regrets to futurethink on this issue, as set in stone!

    One final point though - if futurethink thought I was agreeing with him - he was incorrect. As I have explained numerous times, we did NOT at the time, and still do not agree on most particulars - even if he believed/believes we do. The length of the posts, and the amount of disagreement involved, is clearly indicative of this.

    Now we have that sorted with my appreciation to you duely expressed, perhaps we may leave this side issue behind, and get back on topic.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Now we have that sorted with my appreciation to you duely expressed, perhaps we may leave this side issue behind, and get back on topic.
    Certainly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127 A 'breakdown' of how a choice occurs? 
    Forum Sophomore futrethink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Halifax, N.S. Canada
    Posts
    106
    ___Apopohis Reject.
    The breakdown shows what an objective choice is and not a subjective perception of what a human being might think it should be. I will again make this point however – you do not understand what you are saying with your ‘’objective choice’, because all human choices are subjective.
    ___Sigh. Yes, each choice is subjective, but you have missed something again or, more likely, I haven’t used simpler words for you to understand my point, so I’ll try it another way and see how this explanation goes over: each choice made during each point in time and space is subjective to those two factors and each individual’s past existence, but what is objective and beyond the mind is the process of choice and what happens during any and all choices. To be as objective as possible THE objective concept of CHOICE and the overall breakdown has to not change during every possible situation and perception. Subjectively, certain parts of the breakdown/choice might not be considered an available option for the individual to use, at the time and place of the choice, but those parts of the whole process don’t disappear (for forever) simply because they are not used or perceived.
    I would argue that ‘alteration’ (provided I understand your use of the term), is a part of the process immediately prior to a choice, and necessarily after it, yet the choice itself (the bridge) is so close to instantaneous, that any corresponding alteration as such, is virtually impossible.
    ___My answer to this post should eliminate some lengths of any future posts to anyone who thinks about it, but... Nevermind. Let’s see how the future unfolds, shall we.
    ___You keep mention that the ‘choice’ is the actual crossing of the bridge or as I have described it in the opening post: “With the word ‘choose’ being a verb.”, but you can’t cross that bridge until you do and use a few other things (make a choice of the choicest choices) or as you have been calling them ‘considerations’ beforehand. What a choice is is, “any and all nouns and adjectives, from the past, present and possible future, in connection with the verb/action itself.” What is obvious to any who have read through the opening post and thought about it is that there are sub-choices within the whole breakdown/choice.
    ___Moreover, since you have already admitted that the mind and spirit of an individual (human and similar levels of existence which can choose [your perception only]) can’t work or make choices without a body, and that there is a subjective and objective (outside the mind) reality, you should be able to see that the body is connected to the mind, but is outside of it and objective. Thereby showing that choices are being made within your being, but not in any way controlled on the mental or spiritual level. In essence, an electron, or any level of energy you want to look at, must move from one point/synapse within your being or brain to another part of your being or brain as a choice is being made. What you are saying that the mind and spirit essences/energies are completely separate from the body (with the energy which is a proven part of it) and that there is ABSOLUTELY no connection at all between the three types of energies or is it that you are saying that the spiritual ‘essence’ controls all energy? You are also saying that any and all medical evidence showing the electrical changes in the brain occurring during choices aren’t really evidence, because you have evidence that choices are made before any electrical change occurs.
    I hope by now, you are recognising that everything you are arguing here, is associated with a completely SEPARATE process, than that of an actual choice.
    ___Since you are considering only the verb as a ‘choice’ and I am saying “you can’t make a choice/choose unless you have nouns and adjectives with which to do a verb”, of course I know that they are three differing concepts and have so from the beginning. You do know what a ‘breakdown’ is, don’t you, as it relates to this discussion/context? That it is a http://education.yahoo.com/reference...ntry/breakdown An analysis, an outline, or a summary consisting of itemized data or essentials. OR. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/breakdown e : division into categories : classification; also : an account analyzed into categories OR. http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861592540 4. data summary or explanation: a summary, explanation, or analysis of data items collected

    5. decomposition into parts: a breaking down of something into its essential components or parts ,and that it includes multiple and different parts or areas of the whole?
    So right there is yet another definition why yours is an illogical reasoning. When a choice is made, the immediate outflow MUST be physical, yet your (suggested) choice/s are towards another series of ruminations, in turn perhaps; towards an eventual choice - to action being made.
    ___The outflow or final part of a choice is either a choice of an action or an action of inaction, true. And I have never said anything differently.
    And yes – once made, that choice (if it is to reach fulfilment) needs to be maintained throughout the process towards its physical completion – through many other (perhaps subordinate/lesser) choices; being a point I made previously.
    ___And, I have never said anything differently either.
    Both your above points 1), and 2), are effectively definition of "subjective", rather than 'objective' consideration.
    ___Um, no. They are not. What is chosen is subjective, but how and not why those subjects are chosen (the objective process) is something that you will have to spend all of your life trying to prove as wrong and I wish you luck in doing so.
    The world is the way it is, because we like it this way.
    Otherwise, we would change it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    A certain breed of deterministic thinking might conclude that free will does not exist. If the clock were set back, the biological processes that produce a "choice" would occur in the same fashion, producing an identical outcome. In the deterministic frame of reference, the breakdown of the process behind making a choice will remain fixed for all choices. Here, I would like to point out that your decision-making algorithm aligns with deterministic thought that I have described except for one thing. Determinism does not pretend its conclusions are still open to philosophical debate, sprinkling popular words like "subjective" and "objective" into its concise message. Determinism is a rather closed-off mindset for philosophy, leaving only applications in the soft sciences and the arts. Thus, your breakdown has no further relevance philosophically unless one considers the fact that determinism could be wrong.

    Determinist arguments delve very deeply into physical reasons why the brain would not function differently in a given circumstance. In order to defeat the determinist conclusion that all thoughts and actions are predetermined, free will has to exist. To defeat determinism, to legitimize the idea that choices can be made, and make your breakdown of a choice a philosophical debate, one must introduce randomness. An element of randomness allows the possibility of multiple outcomes to one set of conditions. Most important of all, randomness has the ability to circumvent or ignore elements of decision-making that you have described. In a later post you made, you mentioned the possibility of certain steps being skipped over, but still included in the process. I find this to be an ugly contradiction of your earlier statements that should not stand undisputed. If you allow steps to be omitted or skipped over depending on the situation, infinitely many steps could be added and then skipped over, rendering your whole argument for choice-making too ambiguous. It no longer stays in the realm of discussable topics.

    Where would randomness come from? On that front, the answer may lie in Quantum Physics and/or Mathematics, each of which, interestingly enough, address the issue in their own ways, but I digress.

    Do you care to explain the embarrassing contradictions of your proposition?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    Do you care to explain the embarrassing contradictions of your proposition?
    Nicely nailed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Sophomore futrethink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Halifax, N.S. Canada
    Posts
    106
    TheDr.Spo.
    Do you care to explain the embarrassing contradictions of your proposition?
    ___Though it may seem as what I am describing is belonging to the ‘fated’ side of the debate, it is not. I have no problem showing the underlying logic of my hypothesis, but there are no actual contradictions when you think about the whole picture and how it all works, even if it looks like I have paradoxes running throughout what I am attempting to explain.
    ___A choice is fated, free-willed, both at the same time, neither of them, all of the previous and none of this sentence. Confusing I know, but, this six-point perception/multi-valued/fuzzy logic seems to be the only way lately I can describe and show the way that I understand the entirety of existence and nonexistence work together. The logic behind it is solid and as far as I can find out, cannot be found incorrect. Which is one of the reasons why I go online in search of others who might have information, which I don’t, to prove that my hypothesis is wrong (even in one small way). Because, if it can be wrong in that one way, it can be wrong in others (and I hope to find that it is so).
    Where would randomness come from?
    ___ In answer to where randomness comes into the game, as I (somewhat) explained it to cluelesshusband, “But. You must admit that as long as there is an ‘unknown’ something of a temporal or spatial nature (parts of existence in general) which causes each choice to require a ‘belief’ about what will happen in the future, there can never be a completely fated, determined or predictable existence for any individual, correct?”
    ___The parts of existence that, in general, are unknown are what is outside of what each individual has perceived and remembers as a part of their past history or what they are perceiving at the point of time described as ‘now’. These things that are unknown in any way, shape or form to that individual can be described as ‘subjectively nonexistent’, because some other individual will have a perception of that thing from another other point in time and space. This is one way that randomness comes into the making of a choice: subjective nonexistence.
    ___The other is something that can only be described by the symbols ‘objective nonexistence’ and cannot be actually perceived.
    ___I know that this seems to be an evasion of your generalized question, but such a generalized question could have too many differing answers. By answering the following question, I can start to give you specific answers, because I will understand (where and at which level) exactly what you are perceiving as the contradictions.
    ___What exactly have I shown to be predetermined for each individual’s choice at each and every point in time and space of their existence? Sorry, that is also a generalized question. Take the 'ice cream' example given previously in this debate and please show what you think I am showing is predetermined in that scenario?

    ___Addendum: While it may seem arrogant for to post that I understand how the entirety of existence and nonexistence work together, I wish to state outright that even though it may seem that way, I would first have to have that much of an ego, but that isn’t likely. Another thing would have to be the animal instinct of wanting to be first/right always/better then others overpowering how I chose to be and that also isn’t true in discussing this hypothesis, because both of those things aren’t a part of this search for ‘why’ that I never grew out of or lost.
    ___I understand the generalities of how it works and only through discussions do I come to understand the specifics of area after area.
    The world is the way it is, because we like it this way.
    Otherwise, we would change it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    Choice does not occur. All actions are a result of other things. All these other things are the result of others etc. Eventually, you get down to one cause. This doesn't mean we don't have the illusion of choice- but our experiences and upbringing etc. influence us. Those in turn were influenced.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Sophomore futrethink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Halifax, N.S. Canada
    Posts
    106
    ___15uliane.

    ___As I believe I have mentioned to others before, I really hope that you are not attempting to bring the debate of ‘fate vs free will’ here. Part of this is due to my beliefs concerning that whole thing, which you can find in my answer to TheDr.Spo in the second paragraph.
    Choice does not occur.
    ___Then this should be an interesting discussion, due to you admitting that there is a concept described as ‘choice’ that exists or has an existence, even if thinkers like you consider it only as an illusion.
    ___ http://onelook.com/?w=choice&ls=a Take into consideration ALL of the definitions found to describe the concept we use the symbol ‘choice’ for.
    ___Whether it is a fated or a free willed choice, when an individual reaches a point in existence where multiple possibilities (across the spectrum of what is positive and what is negative) could happen or be chosen from, a choice does occur.
    ___Consider an electron in a box with two exits or even one exit (I can’t, at this time, remember the name of this experiment). Whether the electron exits the box out of one of the two holes or doesn’t even exit, a choice occurs.
    The world is the way it is, because we like it this way.
    Otherwise, we would change it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133 Re: A breakdown of how a choice occurs? 
    Forum Freshman LotusTiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by futrethink
    ---The following is a personal breakdown of how a choice occurs. I use it in discussions to prove points and wish to have it analyzed by as many individuals as possible to point out any possible errors.
    ---You will have to excuse my posting style, but I prefer to use the “---“ to show a tab/where the opening of a ‘paragraph’ has started (just following the teachings of basic English usage {and yes, I know that I will make obvious errors, so point them out if necessary}) and should anyone have knowledge of how to properly insert a blank space/tab to replace the dashes, I would appreciate the information. My posting style also includes multiple and seemingly synonymous words with a “/” between them to show the overall and relatively objective concept described by all the words, but it is important for me to do so to try and avoid some predictable arguments arising from a miscommunication of an improper concept.
    ---I do not have a computer at home, which results in the usage of library and internet café computers only, so if some time passes before I reply to anyone’s post, please be patient.

    ---To any readers who think that this post is an insult to their intelligence, due to any multiple and blatantly obvious statements of information, I must mention that this is not how it should be seen. As with any hypothesis, as many of you already know, the originator of such must present all their facts in connection with it and all the connections between those facts that brought it about.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ---A choice is defined, by most dictionaries, as one of two things: a noun and an adjective. With the word ‘choose’ being a verb.
    ---To my way of thinking, you can’t make a choice/choose unless you have nouns and adjectives with which to do a verb. Thereby, the entirety of the concept of an objective ‘choice’ is any and all nouns and adjectives, from the past, present and possible future, in connection with the verb/action itself.
    ---That being out of the way, on to the breakdown of how a choice occurs on the physical(matter) and/or spiritual(emotional) and/or mental(thinking) levels and seemingly instantaneously:
    ~~~~~~A choice is required as a part of a linear temporal existence. To make that choice, the following occurs; an objective concept is perceived/interacted with. This could be considered as a massenergy object appearing within an individual’s perceptions, a path/need/ideal that is to be reached or in another manner. Either way; the first thing that occurs is an interaction of perceptions. An individual doesn’t cooperate with something that it has just perceived, it just interacts with it.
    ~~~~~~Available facts/information/variables from past existence is taken and brought forward and acknowledged as a part of that individual’s existence.
    ~~~~~~The surrounding environment and all information pertaining to that point in space and time is perceived/accepted as being a part of the individual’s existence.
    ~~~~~~The original idea/belief/concept of what was expected to be the possible future, from the previous point in time, is brought forward, accepted/acknowledged and then examined in connection with the previously noted object/objective.
    ~~~~~~During the examination of the original future, the connection between the new object/objective and the new object/objective itself, the previously mentioned past and present information is brought forward and used to predict any and all, new possible futures that might result.
    ~~~~~~Examinations of the new possible futures are made.
    ~~~~~~The most likely/probable/positive/okay/good futures/timelines are selected and the remaining futures are discarded/removed/noted as negative/the least likely/evil from the choice process.
    ~~~~~~A single possible end-result is selected as the most positive choice. A period of time for that end-result is determined. The possible futures/timelines and the information needed for to reach the previously selected end-result are examined.
    ~~~~~~The information and the future/timeline that is considered/believed the most wanted/positive/possible to reach the single possible end-result are selected. All other information and futures/timelines are noted as/believed to be the most negative/least likely for to reach that single possible end-result and discarded.
    ---The final action of the choice is to cause an action to occur that will cause/start that one singular future/timeline to become a part of existence and that might have the believed to be one possibly final needed end-result.

    ---I might have missed a few steps or thought that they were unimportant enough to put in, but the above is as basic as I believe is needed for now.

    Actually futurethink I think you say some very intelligent things. My style is a bit different from your's. Like you I would call myself a complex thinker. People in philosophy tend to have two styles. One being that is very concise and relevant issues and others giving many different concepts under a system. Like you I'm the second.

    Let’s take you’re idea on most probable, positive, etc.

    We have a number of possible futures. Each have a comparative value and are part of “value set” we could say. They have a value in that they have the potential for one to be chosen over others. A “value set” means they all belong to one set in that between them all one or a few will be chosen over the others. It may be that you get “Boxes” will say in the value sets. These are a combination of possible futures or choices which can be made together in the value set. Some “boxes’ may share common choices/futures. We will call this a box that has this potentiality a “patterned box” and the box it’s patterned too it’s “pattern based box”.
    When saying some boxes may have patterned choices/futures lets take it for simplicity sake that these are boxes between the same “Value Set”. Not different “Value Sets”. That is set of choices where one or more can be made over others. So what I mean here is were not talking about whether I go to the shop and walk there rather then run in the next hour and yet speak of it as being a patterned box to a box of another value set. For exp on next Monday whether you go to the café and walk there rather then run. As another Value Set. These are two different value sets. However they share patterned boxes. We could call this “Intra Value Set Patterned boxing” and Patterned boxing in the same value set “Inter Value Set Patterned Boxing”. Two boxes are patterned based boxes too each other and that is always. In that if one is to the other the other shares this relationship to it. A box can have multiple patterned boxes. We will call this if it arises a “Multiple Patterned box Possibility. “B” box may be patterned with g,lm,r box but with r only with B,d.

    I was actually thinking I’d answer some other aspects of what you said but I thought I might like perhaps if you just respond to some of this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Freshman LotusTiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    34
    Futurethink what are your'e books and what are they about? :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Sophomore futrethink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Halifax, N.S. Canada
    Posts
    106
    ___LotusTiger.

    ___From what I read, you are showing a manner in which to classify the grouping of possible futures/choices. Am I reading it right?
    Futurethink what are your'e books and what are they about?
    ___What books are you asking about? Ones I’ve read or are you asking if I’ve written books? I just read whatever catches my eyes and I don’t write books.
    ___My writings on the internet are the only writings I’ve done.
    The world is the way it is, because we like it this way.
    Otherwise, we would change it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •