Thread: A breakdown of how a choice occurs?

---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.

---Hmph

---I see no compliments, criticisms or comments after 11 days, which is interesting.
---You would think that there should have been something. Or is it that I have simply jumped in and posted a new thread without taking the time to put comments on other threads, which would give others the chance to have some understanding of my thinking process and the type of (online) person I might be?
---I am looking for any of the above three concepts to get some feedback on the breakdown and that is all at this point in time. Should I find some thread which catches my eyes, I might put something in, but I am not really interested on causing any controversy in any other threads, with any aspects of my hypotheses of reality, because I usually end up having to write books to explain it and I have no wish to take the time to do so right now.
---If you wish to have some understanding of my thinking, simply do a google search on my name and if you wish to be more specific in the search, add in the first six words of my signature (in quotation).

---Hmm. Still no for or against. Ah well.

---Last bounce.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---Hmm. Still no for or against. Ah well.

---Last bounce.

Thank you

As you are aware, you are not guaranteed a response. Bouncing the topic with fresh posts is frowned upon. If this is your last attempt, that is fine. If you do it again, however, I will have to delete this thread.

The sunshine Warrior

In Moderator Mode.

Futrethink, you may or may not have a valid point, but I cannot be bothered to read a lengthy text written the way yours is. And I suppose few people can.

If you want to get your point across, please write more briefly, in plain English (perhaps in a new thread for a fresh start), and remember it's to be read by humans, who - unlike computers - do not expect a header with macro declarations.

****As for your problem with tabbing, you can use the ALT-0160 character. Hold down the Alt key and type 0160 on the numeric pad, then release Alt. You can copy-paste this character in the edit window to get more of them with less typing. This is what I did to indent these paragraphs.

****On a laptop keyboard with no numeric pad, you may have to use NumLock and some of the letter keys will then work as the numeric pad. Then you will have to turn NumLock off so those letters become available again. This is annoying but it works.

****Use Preview to make sure it's working.

Looking forward,
L.L.

___Leszek Luchowski.

___Is this easier for you to understand? I wouldn’t want to make things too, too hard for you in having use too much energy in thinking. I am still trying to figure out if you mean ‘plain English’ to mean smaller words or not.

___Your answer has shown me something I have found interesting among the, supposedly, scientific and open minded mind of the science community, which I have found on other science minded sites as well. That being that when it comes to a different way of doing things it is better to ignore or insult it, rather than intelligently work around, with or through such a different thing.

___See, I can easily change my way of thinking to adapt to another’s different culture or thinking style, but most so called scientists would rather stay within the comfortable mental and psychological box that they find themselves in.

___If you, and who knows how many others, find this style so confusing that you can’t even begin to understand the concept which I’ve put forward, I shan’t even begin a discussion on this site about the existing and logical paradox of every individual being frozen in time and moving in time, at the same time. That would probably be too much.

___This probably will be my last answer to you in this simplistic and contrary to the teachings of basic teachings of English I learned in school, because while you make find such usage confusing, I have to believe that what I was taught about how to write English was the true style and not a lie. There is nothing wrong with changing the English language to suit the times, but the education system should be changed so that such English is not taught anymore, because it seems to be too confusing to the highly intelligent.

the problem isn't so much that we will ignore something different, it's more that this difference express a very real breakdown in communication that would make any real attempt to decipher your post's either a lost cause or massive waste of time and energy. That is the point of concise and deliberate wording and writing when trying to communicate a point. If it looks odd, and it's broken English, then there is little to be gained by expending effort on trying to read and respond to the post.

Your are writing in broken english, and it's very obviously not your first language. It's hard to make sense of your sentence structure, and as such hard to see your point. The grammar, as well, was convoluted. I'm a native English speaker born and raised in California, USA. I believe whatever you were taught in school was wrong, if it has anything to do with the way your first post was written.

---Arcane_Mathematician.

That is the point of concise and deliberate wording and writing when trying to communicate a point.

---So. What was not concise or deliberate about my wording?

Thank you Arcane

Peace and clarity,
L.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---So. What was not concise or deliberate about my wording?

It may well have been deliberate. It is impossible to tell if it was concise. A concise statement conveys the intended message with the minimum of words. Your post lacked clarity: therefore its message could not be discerned, so we cannot comment on its concision. I shall comment, since it may aid you, on features of your writing that were obscure, annoying, or just plain wrong.

A choice is defined, by most dictionaries, as one of two things: a noun and an adjective. With the word ‘choose’ being a verb.

1. Wrong. A choice is classified as a noun, not defined as one. The definition of choice is its meaning, not its nature as a part of speech.
2. Ambiguous. The sense of choice as an adjective is quite different from its use as a noun..
3. Wrong. The period before With is unnecessary and destroys the meaning of the sentence.
4. The consequence of these three things is that you deliver an error ridden, confusing, grammatically flawed offering as the first words in your thesis. Do you think this would encourage anyone to read further? Do you think this would lead your readers to put out intellectual effort to overcome deficiencies that lie with the author?

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.

Ambiguity. The first sentence is grammatically incorrect. It could mean you can’t make a choice/choose unless you have nouns and adjectives upon which a verb can act. Or, it could mean you can’t make a choice/choose unless you have nouns and adjectives which will invoke or intiate a verb.
These are almost opposite meanings.

So here we are, sentence two of your opus, and you are piling confusion on inaccuracy.

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 am a native English speaker. I have read this sentence over forty times. I still have no idea what you mean by it.

I could continue, but I would simply be adding more of the same. What you think is a novel, concise, dynamic writing style appears to be sloppy, vague and ambiguous. Yet you say the following: "If you, and who knows how many others, find this style so confusing that you can’t even begin to understand the concept which I’ve put forward, I shan’t even begin a discussion on this site about the existing and logical paradox of every individual being frozen in time and moving in time, at the same time. "

That is amusing. I really think someone who is so incompetent at communication, as you have demonstrated, would benefit from a display of humility. I doubt I shall see it.

Originally Posted by futrethink

What was not concise or deliberate about my wording?

In the spirit of constructive criticism, I would suggest going through your initial post and simplifying the language by removing words that don't add much to the sentence, or even by cutting your word usage in half. For example:

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.

Is it necessary to specify the possible future rather than say simply the future? You needn't worry that readers will mistakenly include impossible futures when they process this sentence.

From the same sentence:

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.

By definition, the future can only be perceived from a previous point in time, so it isn't necessary to spell it out. Besides, the previous point in time is already assumed by the past tense of the phrase "what was expected."

Again from the same sentence:

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.

I don't think you would lose much if you eliminated either "accepted" or "acknowledged," and you certainly wouldn't lose much if you eliminated "brought forward." If an idea is being acknowledged, then it is assumed that is has already been "brought forward." In fact, I suspect the entire sentence would make just as much sense if you eliminated both and just went with "examined." You may believe that "bringing forward," "accepting/acknowledging," and "examining" are three distinct steps in their own right, but these nuances are largely lost among readers.

Right now it sounds like you are taking a very ordinary phenomenon, decision-making, and making it sound scientific by dividing it into a series of steps that are functionally identical to each other. I could easily claim, for example, that before an idea can be fully "brought forward" it must first be "half" brought forward; that is, it must be considered partially before it can be considered fully. Semantically my claim would be indisputable but in practical terms I've said nothing of substance. It adds nothing to our understanding of decision-making. In order to convince readers that you are not doing the same, you will probably have to eliminate these similarly empty steps from the model you're trying to build, or at least explain why "bringing an idea forward" is not merely an example of sentence-padding.

Anyway, good luck with your ideas.

I read it, and its largely incoherent.

Work on conveying information more succinctly, rather than using five quasi-synonyms to describe something (e.g. "likely/probable/positive/okay/good futures/timelines" ); that's what contributes to the incoherence.

It's comforting to know that there are other fora with participants incomparably more literate than us. Presumably, Futrethink has now moved there to find the understanding that was lacking here.

Good luck, Futrethink.

Ooop, my bad. Futrethink has just sent me a PM pointing out that he did warn he might be away for awhile, as he doesn't have web access all the time.

---Ophiolite.

That is amusing. I really think someone who is so incompetent at communication, as you have demonstrated, would benefit from a display of humility. I doubt I shall see it.

---See the humility or the logic proof of such an occurrence as individuals existing in two opposing states? It is amusing that I have to explain the error in judgment for the first and leave the latter for later.
---The humility is found in the opening post and is written in simple and plain English for anyone to understand:

(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 for further proof you need only look at the first sentence in my post that shows that I might have made mistakes, showing a connotation of my being wrong, and from that request (for help in finding them) a lack of the arrogance that is being shown by some on this thread.

1. Wrong. A choice is classified as a noun, not defined as one. The definition of choice is its meaning, not its nature as a part of speech.
2. Ambiguous. The sense of choice as an adjective is quite different from its use as a noun.

---If someone was standing by themselves, shouting out the word or what can be considered a symbol, “Choice” and you wished to find out what they were meaning by such a statement, what questions would you ask them to find out what it means or how it is defined by them?
---You’ll do the same things that others have done and attempt to nitpick, but you won’t like the answers I give you in the Socratic Method.

3. Wrong. The period before With is unnecessary and destroys the meaning of the sentence.

---Thank you for the constructive criticism.

Ambiguity. The first sentence is grammatically incorrect. It could mean you can’t make a choice/choose unless you have nouns and adjectives upon which a verb can act. Or, it could mean you can’t make a choice/choose unless you have nouns and adjectives which will invoke or intiate a verb.
These are almost opposite meanings.

---They do seem that way, unless you include the passage of actual time upon the actual concept and from that, both are true as proof of my 2 ‘ambiguous’ statements and the ‘sentence two’ of my opus: connections are occurring between the nouns, adjectives and verbs to have a choice happen. Or are you trying to tell me that a choice can occur without any contexts surrounding it?

---Lyn.

In the spirit of constructive criticism, I would suggest going through your initial post and simplifying the language by removing words that don't add much to the sentence, or even by cutting your word usage in half.

---Thank you.
---The post is written that way it is because, in previous debates with others I usually end up having to show every little nit and pick of every point through lengthy posts, and I merely wished to eliminate, “some predictable arguments arising from a miscommunication of an improper concept.”

Is it necessary to specify the possible future rather than say simply the future? You needn't worry that readers will mistakenly include impossible futures when they process this sentence.

---Yes it was, because logically there is subjective futures and an objective future. I merely wished to show such.
---‘Impossible futures as possible’ is something that I’ll try to leave out of the discussion.

By definition, the future can only be perceived from a previous point in time, so it isn't necessary to spell it out. Besides, the previous point in time is already assumed by the past tense of the phrase "what was expected."

---What happens when you ‘assume’ things? I have no knowledge of all the possible reader’s education levels or if they have the knowledge of such connections.
---More to the point, I even posted, “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.”

If an idea is being acknowledged, then it is assumed that is has already been "brought forward."

---Once again, an assumption is assumed and hard science allows for no such things, correct?

---This is not just for you, but for all the readers wishing to be critical of my styles: instead of just tearing apart my disruptive usage of the English language, how about you read through it and think about what I am trying to say. After all, which is more important; the word/symbol or the concept it is attempting to be an analogue for? To my way of thinking it is neither and both, but I am curious as to your answers.

---Chronman.

---Is it incoherence or merely a different way of seeing and describing things, which is something not used to or new?

Originally Posted by futrethink

If an idea is being acknowledged, then it is assumed that is has already been "brought forward."

---Once again, an assumption is assumed and hard science allows for no such things, correct?

Correct (sort of), but this particular criticism is not about the tenets of hard science but about simple grammar and syntax. When you say things like "the future as it is perceived at a previous point in time," you are repeating yourself. And the trouble with this is not simply that we're having difficulty following you (though that is true too); the trouble is that it reinforces our suspicion that your hypothesis consists mostly of superfluous steps that make a very ordinary phenomenon look unnecessarily complicated. We may be wrong about that but we won't know for sure until you show us that your hypothesis can be stated without the superfluous steps. That is why we seem to you to be scrutinizing your grammar rather than your argument. In fact, we're doing both because the two are not unrelated: so far your argument looks more semantic than substantive, consisting of grammatical gestures that don't actually get you anywhere.

Which is not to say you're wrong, necessarily. You might simply be stating a tautology. You seem to be going for a Grand Unifying Theory that explains how choices (all of them, really?) are made. As with all Grand Unifying Theories, in order to account for every possible scenario the hypothesis has to be correspondingly general, and the more general it is the less useful it is as an explanation of any one particular instance. The problem with your hypothesis, in my view, is that it works in every case, which means it works regardless of the case, which means it works without regard for the case. What good is a theory if it gives you the same answer every single time? Given any particular example, I have no doubt that you could make it fit your model, and that is the problem: the theory can't be wrong. When something can't be wrong then there's little to be gained in stating that it is right.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---Chronman.

---Is it incoherence or merely a different way of seeing and describing things, which is something not used to or new?

Its plain incoherence.

Futrethink, in my first post on this thread I tried to suggest ways of getting your point across to more readers. You chose to respond with condescension, both in public and by PM.

Now discussing the flaws and/or merits of your style in writing ranks pretty low on my list of priorities. Let's say I assign it a weight of about 1.3, on a scale where 1 is scratching my ear when it itches and 100 is averting an immediate destruction of all of humanity including myself and my loved ones. You chose to discuss your style, rather than explaining your original point with more clarity. What does this tell me? That even to you, your original point (whatever it is) matters less than defending your style. If that's the way you feel towards your own brain child, why should I bother to study it, gnawing through a presentation I find convoluted and hard to disentangle?

I might write in this thread again sometime, but don't hold your breath.

Clearly and accurately stated, as always Leszek.

futrethink, why don't you try again, if you want anyone to understand your hypothesis, and present it in plain English and a conventional style? If you do that you might get your point across. If not, you won't. It's your choice.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---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

Futrethink, as many of the other members of the forum have told you in this and your other threads, the use of "---" makes your posts much harder to read. Can you not just use space in between paragraphs like everyone else?

Originally Posted by futrethink

and should anyone have knowledge of how to properly insert a blank space/tab to replace the dashes, I would appreciate the information.

Someone has already showed you how to do this, but again, it's still unnecessary.

___Is this more satisfactory for you, ladies and gentlemen? It makes it simpler, to your minds, but eliminates aspects of what I am trying to show. Oh well.

___ A choice is shown, 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 unless you have nouns with which to do the verb. Thereby, the entirety of the concept of an objective ‘choice’ is any and all nouns, from the past, present and possible future, in connection with and the verb itself.
___That being out of the way, on to the breakdown of how a choice occurs on all levels and seemingly instantaneously:

______1: A choice is required as a part of a linear temporal existence. To make that choice, the following occurs; an objective concept is interacted with. This could be considered as a massenergy object appearing within an individual’s perceptions, an idea or goal 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.
______2: Available information from past existence is taken, brought forward and acknowledged as a part of that individual’s existence.
______3: The surrounding environment and all information pertaining to that point in space and time is accepted as being a part of the individual’s existence.
______4: The original concept of what was expected to be the possible future is brought forward, acknowledged and then examined in connection with the previously noted concept.
______5: During the examination of the original future, the connection between the new concept and the new concept itself, the previously mentioned past and present information is brought forward and used to predict any and all, new possible futures that might result.
______6: Examinations of the new possible futures are made.
______7: The most probable timelines are selected and the remaining futures are noted as negative or not possible and eliminated from the choice process.
______8: A single possible end-result is selected as the most positive choice. A period of time for that end-result is determined. The possible timelines and the information needed for to reach the previously selected end-result are examined.
______9: The information and the timeline that is believed the most possible to reach the single possible end-result are selected. All other information and timelines are believed to be the least likely for to reach that single possible end-result and discarded.
___10: The final action of the choice is to cause an action to occur that will start that one singular timeline to become a part of existence and that might have the believed to be one possibly final needed end-result.

___Lyn.

When you say things like "the future as it is perceived at a previous point in time," you are repeating yourself.

___Actually, I am not. I have torn apart something which is important to existence and broken it down to its most basic level possible. The explanations I use can be changed to suit whom I am debating, but the objective concepts connected with ‘choice’ don’t disappear, because people simply don’t want to read them.
___I don’t have any proof that the person who might be reading my writings will understand exactly what is involved and what I am trying to show them, so I have to explain it in a way which anyone can understand, when they take the time to think about it, without complaining about a misplaced comma, period or colon. For someone who only sees exactly what is in front of them and thinks only about what they know, without thinking about what others might know or might be trying to say, they lose sight of the objective concept right on the table in front of them and start to only argue about what they think is right instead of understanding and agreeing to what might be the truth (and yes, I know that it sounds arrogant).

We may be wrong about that but we won't know for sure until you show us that your hypothesis can be stated without the superfluous steps.

___See the above simplification of the breakdown and tell me if there are any unnecessary steps. I have had discussions where people have stated that I don’t show enough details, because they want to be led by the hand to the end of the path and other people telling me I am being too detailed. Each person knows different things and what might be an extraneous detail to one might be a needed explanation to another, who asks why I didn’t tell them such a thing in the first place. See the problem?

You seem to be going for a Grand Unifying Theory that explains how choices (all of them, really?) are made.

___For this thread it is just about choices, yes.

The problem with your hypothesis, in my view, is that it works in every case, which means it works regardless of the case, which means it works without regard for the case.

___Something which is a part of reality and existence (two differing concepts to my way of thinking) can work without a context? Interesting idea. It works in every case I know of, but only with the information relating to each case.

Given any particular example, I have no doubt that you could make it fit your model, and that is the problem: the theory can't be wrong.

___It’s not my model, per se, but an understanding of what happens as a part of reality. I don’t try to fit it to suit me, I’ve simply taken what I’ve observed and wrote about it, whether I like the information or not.

When something can't be wrong then there's little to be gained in stating that it is right.

___The only way it could be 100% right would be for the person stating such to know everything, but since there is such a thing that we describe as ‘nonexistence’, as a part of reality, the possibility exists for it to be wrong. Hence, me stating something seeming to be right and letting others, who might have the right knowledge to prove it wrong, look at it and show how it might be so.

___Chronman.

Its plain incoherence.

___As others have understood it, your statement would seem to be subjective, and not a full and objective truth.

___Leszek Luchowski.

You chose to discuss your style, rather than explaining your original point with more clarity.

___I have no problems discussing it with more clarity, but since it has only been until lately that some of you have been showing what areas of confusion exist for each of you, I didn’t plan on writing a book to do so for each and every detail of each and every line.

That even to you, your original point (whatever it is) matters less than defending your style.

___If I don’t exactly understand what you don’t understand about any specific points of the post, how can I defend any specific points? See the problem?
___I have limited time to type my arguments and prefer to not have to take the time to write books for explanations about everything, when I can explain about a little something here and there.

Originally Posted by futrethink

Something which is a part of reality and existence (two differing concepts to my way of thinking) can work without a context? Interesting idea.

Theories can be proposed without a context. Whether they "work" without a context is another matter. Some can, some can't. The ones that can often work only without a context and fall apart the moment a specific example is applied. Philosophy is full of them.

Originally Posted by futrethink

It works in every case I know of, but only with the information relating to each case.

Then there's a good chance the theory is a tautology. To say that all choices fit this model thus becomes the equivalent of saying "all objects are made of matter." Both statements are defined as true (as opposed to being shown to be true through testing) and, for that reason, both statements tell us very little of consequence. That might be why the initial post got a silent response at first.

___Lyn.

Theories can be proposed without a context.

___True and all theories are guesses, which include a certain percentage of faith. The problem with thinking that I don't have any contexts with any of my hypotheses is that I never forget the known objective contexts, which is what every individual's subjective existence is all about.

Then there's a good chance the theory is a tautology.

___Is this to mean that the preceding information and logic used for showing that an electron (or whatever the known energy considered for the basis of existence is) has what can be called a ‘memory’, can be considered true as well? Or how about the resulting logic, from this breakdown, showing how 'fate' and 'free will' are equally a part of every individual’s existence?
___If it was such, would you be able to prove or disprove any, and if not all, aspects of the breakdown (through psychology for instance)?
___As much as it would be easier for some of you to think so, no, it isn’t only a ‘necessary logic’ or that it’s ‘a formula whose negation is unsatisfiable’, because of the logic, observable psychology and science (certain Laws accepted by scientists), and any other information I used to figure out how it works.

To say that all choices fit this model thus becomes the equivalent of saying "all objects are made of matter."

___Where do I say that it fits all choices, because I only stated that it only fits the things I have learned of and I ain’t omniscient. (Yes, I know that it sounds sarcastic. Or am I merely stating a truth?)

___It always perturbs and amuses me how easy it is for people, I talk to, to state that this or that is a tautology. You can dismiss existence as being real, but it will still hit you in the face if you cross a busy street without looking.

Originally Posted by futrethink

.. and all theories are guesses,

No theory to which the word can properly be applied is ever a guess.

Originally Posted by futrethink

Is this to mean that the preceding information and logic used for showing that an electron (or whatever the known energy considered for the basis of existence is) has what can be called a ‘memory’, can be considered true as well? Or how about the resulting logic, from this breakdown, showing how 'fate' and 'free will' are equally a part of every individual’s existence?

Beats me. If you want to explain electron memory so I can speculate about its tautological status, I'm game.

Originally Posted by futrethink

As much as it would be easier for some of you to think so, no, it isn’t only a ‘necessary logic’ or that it’s ‘a formula whose negation is unsatisfiable’, because of the logic, observable psychology and science (certain Laws accepted by scientists), and any other information I used to figure out how it works.

Certainly feel free to share some of the observable psychology and scientific laws that you used to figure out how this model works. So far you haven't. Everything you've stated has been a hypothetical situation--observable but not actually observed. If you have any data of the latter type, it would definitely bolster your case.

Originally Posted by futrethink

It always perturbs and amuses me how easy it is for people, I talk to, to state that this or that is a tautology. You can dismiss existence as being real, but it will still hit you in the face if you cross a busy street without looking.

Your point escapes me. All you've stated here is that existence is not tautological, since there is a way to test it. I can't think of anyone who would disagree, and I can't think of what this has to do with anything.

___Ophiolite.

No theory to which the word can properly be applied is ever a guess.

___Every theory is a guess, because even though there is proof that it has been true in the past and is true in the present, there always exists the possibility of something about it being proven wrong, in the future. So, while a theory has a high probability of never being wrong, as long as any possibility exists for it to be wrong at any time or in any way (even if it is an infinitesimal chance), it falls within the definition of being a “guess”.
___And the kicker for it falling within that concept of “guess” is that in most definitions, found in the average dictionary, of the word comes the subjective idea of what can be considered “‘sufficient’ information or evidence.” After all, if one person can decide what is sufficient, why can’t another decide that it is insufficient? In essence, there can be something or anything unknown and as long as there exists that unknown about what you are theorizing, you are still guessing about it.
___So it comes down to semantics and subjective perceptions, while thinking about things as objectively and self-honestly as possible, doesn’t it?

___Lyn.

All you've stated here is that existence is not tautological, since there is a way to test it. I can't think of anyone who would disagree, and I can't think of what this has to do with anything.

___Since you can test existence, a general concept to describe what is everywhere and every-when, does this mean that everything within existence can be tested? Or are you going to subjectively limit what can and can’t be tested? I am going to agree that there is one test which will never be proven, because there would be no way to observe the final result of that test, should the known theory be proven untrue, but there are few (if any) other tests that can’t be done.

Certainly feel free to share some of the observable psychology and scientific laws that you used to figure out how this model works.

___Um, no. That is not how my version of the Socratic Method works to show and teach what can be observed by anyone. If any readers can’t figure out even the two most obvious Laws or Principles connected with the breakdown, you might want to re-examine your analytical skills. It may sound as if I am attempting to cop-out or be arrogant, but, no, I am not. If any of you readers think as well as you have attempted to show me you think you do, it is time to back it up. I am simply testing as to such truths, as I did with the previously complained about writing style.

So far you haven't. Everything you've stated has been a hypothetical situation—observable but not actually observed.

___So you’ve never observed yourself making a choice? A silly question, I know, because you can’t see yourself think, can you. But, how many people have been studied and observed using MRIs and other scientific methods to show the activity of the brain and for the time perception of an object occurs or even when a choice occurs?

Certainly feel free to share some of the observable psychology and scientific laws that you used to figure out how this model works.

___How about we discuss how and what happens when a known choice occurs over an extended time period (for the choice itself and not the discussion)? Say, like the one that happens for when an individual decides to get a house built or builds a house. So we can break it down from the time the concept first appears into that individual’s perceptions to the point that two pieces of building materials are first joined together for to physically build the structure.
___From there we can start reducing the time period and concepts to see if there is any change in the proof, alright?

If you want to explain electron memory so I can speculate about its tautological status, I'm game.

___So am I. I still want to explain the paradox of actively moving in time and frozen in time at the same time, but for both I can wait to explain the obvious.

Originally Posted by futrethink

___Ophiolite.

No theory to which the word can properly be applied is ever a guess.

___Every theory is a guess, because even though there is proof that it has been true in the past and is true in the present, there always exists the possibility of something about it being proven wrong, in the future. So, while a theory has a high probability of never being wrong, as long as any possibility exists for it to be wrong at any time or in any way (even if it is an infinitesimal chance), it falls within the definition of being a “guess”.
___And the kicker for it falling within that concept of “guess” is that in most definitions, found in the average dictionary, of the word comes the subjective idea of what can be considered “‘sufficient’ information or evidence.” After all, if one person can decide what is sufficient, why can’t another decide that it is insufficient? In essence, there can be something or anything unknown and as long as there exists that unknown about what you are theorizing, you are still guessing about it.
___So it comes down to semantics and subjective perceptions, while thinking about things as objectively and self-honestly as possible, doesn’t it?

You clearly have not the slightest idea of what is meant by the word theory within science.
You also have no bloody idea what a guess is.
Indeed your stunning inability to discern the meaning of words renders me speechless.
Goodnight.

___While we’re waiting to see if Lyn wishes to continue the debate, on whether my breakdown is a tautology or not, with someone the majority of you probably consider a blind, deaf and delusional person, how about we see if Ophiolite or the rest of you can admit the knowledge I have about what a ‘guess’ and what a ‘theory’ are hard scientific truths. Hm?

You clearly have not the slightest idea of what is meant by the word theory within science.
You also have no bloody idea what a guess is.

___Really.
___I would set up the links for any and all dictionaries I could find, but it would be a waste of my time and energy, because you seem to be showing the idea that the people who create dictionaries, everyone who uses dictionaries and all the people who use the words in all situations and contexts are beneath you in intelligence and wisdom.
___I think in as realistic a manner as possible, when defining or using words in these forums, because (when I have the time) I have to think about and to use words which anyone can understand and find in any dictionary. This means that I am using an understanding of as many dictionary definitions as possible relating to this situation or context, time and place. Or to put it another way, I am using as objectively a concept as can be described by as many people as I can find, which I then use in connection with as many contexts similar to the appropriate situation as can be thought of and then use the most suitable word. Which is why I usually take a while to answer any opponents or posters on threads; because I am thinking with as much self-honesty as possible about my answers (which include admitting my mistakes and apologies [when necessary{Showing no arrogance or delusions about my study and hypothesis concerning reality}]).
___Can anyone, says the teacher to the almost empty of students auditorium, please explain the differences between a ‘hard theory’ and a ‘wild theory(*1)’ or the differences between a ‘hard guess (*2)’ and a ‘wild guess (*3)’?
___Anyone? ___Anyone? ___Anyone?
___Moving on. The differences between a ‘hard’ theory/guess and a ‘wild’ theory/guess are simply time, the changing of probabilities and the changing of information.
___Any disagreements on those points?
___In some perceptions or ways of sensing and understanding things, you could look at a ‘hard’ concept’, a ‘wild’ concept and the space between them as a spectrum. True?
___That portion of the spectrum relating to ‘theory’, with any and all concepts having even a tenuous connection to it can be cut away from the entirety of the spectrum and considered a singular concept, correct?
___As well, that portion of the spectrum relating to ‘guess’, with any and all concepts having even a tenuous connection to it can be cut away from the entirety of the spectrum and considered a singular concept, correct?
___So, you have two, say, spheres or circles containing everything relating to both concepts. Could you intersect those spheres at any points where equal concepts within each circle could overlap?
___Now. Can anyone see where I am going with this or shall I continue in the next post?

___(*1) A ‘wild theory’ is the same as the same as the ones Copernicus had in his time or at least the ones that turned him into a heretic by some of the scientific communities of that time. You could also say that the theory about the earth being flat is a ‘wild theory’ Some conspiracy theories, such as relating to Kennedy’s assassination or the ones relating to aliens, can be considered such.
___(*2) A ‘hard guess’ is the same as, say, one person(a) standing in front of another(b), after just arriving at that location, and the person(b) saying, “Just a guess but, you’re here?”
___(*3) A ‘wild guess’ is that same second person, without any prompting except for hearing a small sound (out of sight) and then saying, “Just a guess but, you’re here?”

futrethink;

My reaction after reading your original post: if I'm standing in the road and a car is coming, by the time my choice is made, I'll be runover!
I don't think making a choice is that complicated.

"the future as it is perceived at a previous point in time,"

At a previous time, the future is speculation/unknown/theoretical, because knowledge is incomplete.

without complaining about a misplaced comma, period or colon.

Sorry to hear you misplaced your colon.

You have gotten much advise on grammer, so I offer none.

I agree that human activity is goal oriented, but you don't specifically
mention motive.

___phyti.

My reaction after reading your original post: if I'm standing in the road and a car is coming, by the time my choice is made, I'll be runover!

___In one millisecond of time, at any point in time, what happens? Only one thing or multiple things happening seemingly instantaneously? Why do researchers try to dissect what happens when a nuclear explosion happens, even though it seems to happen instantaneously?
___This breakdown happens, in its shortest known perception, in a Planck length of time.

I don't think making a choice is that complicated.

___I could simplify it, as I originally used to, by simply stating,” At any point in time an individual is always choosing between what they like and what they hate, and that they are always, always choosing what they like.”, but I would then get arguments about me being too vague and that I am not giving enough proof showing the logic of such.

At a previous time, the future is speculation/unknown/theoretical, because knowledge is incomplete.

___True. So each choice about what will happen in the future has a lie, a theory or a belief (describe it as you believe is best) as an intrinsic part of what happens during the breakdown.

I agree that human activity is goal oriented, but you don't specifically mention motive.

___Are you asking about what specifically causes each individual to orient on their own chosen specific goal?

___My apologies, but I have been distracted of late and forgot to add some important information about individuals choosing: ” At any point in time an individual is always choosing between what they like and what they hate of the available options, and that they are always, always choosing what they like of the available options.

Originally Posted by futrethink

how about we see if Ophiolite or the rest of you can admit the knowledge I have about what a ‘guess’ and what a ‘theory’ are hard scientific truths. Hm?.......snip.......I would set up the links for any and all dictionaries I could find, but it would be a waste of my time and energy, because you seem to be showing the idea that the people who create dictionaries, everyone who uses dictionaries and all the people who use the words in all situations and contexts are beneath you in intelligence and wisdom.

Thank you for your unequivocal confirmation that you have no idea what a theory is in science.

Dictionaries deliver the meaning of words in common usage. The meaning of the word theory within science is not common, it is specialised. It has a meaning peculiar to science. Although it is spelled the same as the word used in common parlance the meanings are quite different. You were - and it seems, insist on remaining - unaware of this vital difference.

It would behove you to understand and accept that how the word theory is used in the everyday world bears little relation to its meaning in the world of science. If you meet me in a bar and say"I've got a theory that the barmaid here is rude to me as a way of her containing my unbridled lust for my body." I shall nod sagely and buy you another round. You have used the word theory correctly in that context.

When you come here, to a science forum, and seek to use theory in the same way then I shall correct you. It is up to you whether or not you choose to profit from that correction.

Originally Posted by futrethink

___Can anyone, says the teacher to the almost empty of students auditorium, please explain the differences between a ‘hard theory’ and a ‘wild theory(*1)’ or the differences between a ‘hard guess (*2)’ and a ‘wild guess (*3)’?
___Anyone? ___Anyone? ___Anyone?
___Moving on. The differences between a ‘hard’ theory/guess and a ‘wild’ theory/guess are simply time, the changing of probabilities and the changing of information.

Science does not entertain the notion of hard theories and wild theories. Science does not confate theories and guesses.

futrthink, you are simply wrong on this point. If you are unwilling or unable to accept this then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Originally Posted by futrethink

___phyti.
” At any point in time an individual is always choosing between what they like and what they hate of the available options, and that they are always, always choosing what they like of the available options.

I know thought is very brief, but chose a humorous way (imo) of saying it's a little verbose.
Like and hate/good and bad/... is too simplistic a criterion for choices made.
Sometimes you choose what you don't like if it results in a favorable outcome, e.g. going to the dentist.
Sometimes you choose without knowing the outcome. A person gambles. If he wins that's good, if he loses, that's bad. He can choose to gamble, but he can't choose the outcome.
A person jumps in the water to rescue another, because he believes it's good, but drowns, which is bad.
All cases are not in the control of those choosing,...'a victim of circumstances' as the phrase goes.
Motive is the reason for the choices. If you lookup the meaning, it considers many factors, some good, some bad.
Our sense of values determines how we classify those factors.

Life is meant to be enjoyable, so we would expect human choices to be consistent with that purpose. History (the best parts) shows that people knew this long before there was an established science community.

I'd like to add that free will is similar to randomness with respect to predictablility.

___Ophiolite.

Thank you for your unequivocal confirmation that you have no idea what a theory is in science.
Science does not entertain the notion of hard theories and wild theories. Science does not confate theories and guesses.

___No. Actually scientists, in your style and understanding of science, simply choose to not use the word ‘guess’ or any synonyms to describe the same things because, it seems to cause too much confusion, in your minds and would disrupt your beliefs in the way reality works.

It would behove you to understand and accept that how the word theory is used in the everyday world bears little relation to its meaning in the world of science.

___Yes, it certainly does behove me to have an understanding of the exact way the word is used in your understanding/world, because it allows me to separate the ones who have and haven’t been locked into perceiving the world in only ones, zeros and dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s exactly all the time to get ideas across.
___It also allows me to find the ones who don't require such things to understand other people and the ideas that they might not be getting across exactly.

futrthink, you are simply wrong on this point. If you are unwilling or unable to accept this then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

___I would have thought my leaving you speechless and your little ‘Goodnight’ from your previous post was the sign that you had already finished dealing with me, so why waste your time telling me that you are wasting your time?

___phyti

Like and hate/good and bad/... is too simplistic a criterion for choices made.

___Ye-ah. Hence the need for me to show the breakdown in most discussions proving it.

Sometimes you choose what you don't like if it results in a favorable outcome, e.g. going to the dentist.

___True. Which is why I often end up explaining that ‘like’ merely describes one of the two generalities of choice, within existence: positive and negative. For example, you have a pirate with a sword telling you that you have to walk off the end of the plank into shark infested waters, while you are bleeding and that if you don’t he will kill you as he has already shown he will do by killing others. You obviously aren’t going to like either choice of dying, but you either choose or the choice is made for you (after some time has passed), so you choose one or the other option that you hate the least or as I describe it; you choose what you like of the available options.

Sometimes you choose without knowing the outcome. A person gambles. If he wins that's good, if he loses, that's bad. He can choose to gamble, but he can't choose the outcome.

___Then the gambler is choosing to believe that the possibilities are better that he will win then that he will lose. The other thing to look at is another overriding choice that they live by and that is that they like gambling, even though the odds or possibilities of winning at gambling, depending on the game and controllers of the game, are usually not the best. The proven possibilities of not winning are something that they know scientifically, but chose not to like or believe as being right.
___Choices are something that are happening to each individual all the time and are not just happening one after another, but have different levels of choices happening at all times.

Motive is the reason for the choices. If you lookup the meaning, it considers many factors, some good, some bad.

___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.
___Would you say that those two parts of the breakdown cover (in general) ‘motive’?

Our sense of values determines how we classify those factors.

___Values which we chose to believe are best for our own lives out of all the available options found out there to live by, correct?

I'd like to add that free will is similar to randomness with respect to predictablility.

___True. Which is why the breakdown shows 'fate' and 'free will' as being a part of choice and every individual's existence.

Originally Posted by futrethink

]No. Actually scientists, in your style and understanding of science, simply choose to not use the word ‘guess’ or any synonyms to describe the same things because, it seems to cause too much confusion, in your minds and would disrupt your beliefs in the way reality works.

It causes no confusion whatsoever. Many scientists will use the word guess in informal conversation about their research specialities. They will not use these words in a formal context because guesses would be inappropriate in such a context, e.g. published papers. They do certainly not confuse guesses they might make to lay out some provisional research with hypotheses and theories they would develop as a consequence of that research.

Your implication is that some scientists would be comfortable using 'guess' and 'theory' in the same way as yourself. Please provide evidence of this with quotations from the published works of such scientists.

Originally Posted by futrethink

Yes, it certainly does behove me to have an understanding of the exact way the word is used in your understanding/world, because it allows me to separate the ones who have and haven’t been locked into perceiving the world in only ones, zeros and dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s exactly all the time to get ideas across.

Do stop being so silly. At no time have I declared, implicitly or explicitly, that scientists don't make guesses. What I have declared is that your conflation of theory and guess is pure ignorance. Initially it was excusable. It is now beyond a joke.

Originally Posted by futrethink

I would have thought my leaving you speechless and your little ‘Goodnight’ from your previous post was the sign that you had already finished dealing with me, so why waste your time telling me that you are wasting your time?

Frustration at your willfull display of ignorance and a desire to prevent lurkers being taken in by your thoughtless nonsense.

Originally Posted by futrethink

___Then the gambler is choosing to believe that the possibilities are better that he will win then that he will lose. The other thing to look at is another overriding choice that they live by and that is that they like gambling, even though the odds or possibilities of winning at gambling, depending on the game and controllers of the game, are usually not the best. The proven possibilities of not winning are something that they know scientifically, but chose not to like or believe as being right.

-Rather than like or believe: The person who gambles despite knowing the odds, is ignoring that information, motivated by the small chance they might win. Its' not a belief as much as a fantasy.

___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.
___Would you say that those two parts of the breakdown cover (in general) ‘motive’?

-Past experience has modified a persons principles, if necessary, therefore there is no need of acknowledgement. The person only has to consider relevant details in the time available, not all information.
Motive is not tangible and thus not measurable. How much motive/sympathy/love can you put into a container?
Motive is why you do something. Two people donate equal amounts of money to a library. The first believes public access to information is a worthy cause. The second wants a plaque with their name on it for recognition.

___Values which we chose to believe are best for our own lives out of all the available options found out there to live by, correct?

-Not just our own but for others. We help others because it benefits society.

___True. Which is why the breakdown shows 'fate' and 'free will' as being a part of choice and every individual's existence.

-I would use circumstances in place of fate, because there is no predestination in our lives. Free will choice cannot be predicted, the same as true randomness. It only appears to be predictable based on histories of individuals or group statistics.
1. In actual cases of a person abducted by a stranger, the victim can't know if they will be killed. It depends on the strangers values/principles, i.e., what motivates them. Even if you know somebody, they may do something unexpected or out of character.
2. A person may choose to fast as a means of protesting something. The choice of not eating isn't what they like, but their motive is to correct/improve. They also don't like protesting, so there is nothing to like in their choice.
3. There is also the good choice involving poor judgment, that becomes a bad choice.
This is the critical free will factor.
A person can choose to do what is bad. This is excluded by your theory.
Killing someone is considered bad by most of humanity. The judicial system
representing the people does not consider the act a choice of doing what
is good, regardless of what the individual thinks (excluding self defense).

¬¬¬___ Ophiolite.

Frustration at your willfull display of ignorance and a desire to prevent lurkers being taken in by your thoughtless nonsense.

¬¬¬___Oh, you cut me to the quick. Ye-ah. Can we get past that level.
¬¬¬___Sometimes I wonder why I waste my time typing out answers to some of my opponents posts.
¬¬¬___Especially when it would be so easy to copy and paste the repeated answers to the predictable responses some of your type bring up.
¬¬¬___You do know that by changing your perceptions of my post, “No. Actually scientists, in your style and understanding of science, simply choose to not use the word ‘guess’ or any synonyms to describe the same things because, it seems to cause too much confusion, in your minds and would disrupt your beliefs in the way reality works.”, and in comparison with your post of, “Many scientists will use the word guess in informal conversation about their research specialities. They will not use these words in a formal context because guesses would be inappropriate in such a context, e.g. published papers.”, you will find that we both are describing the same objective concept. But, I suppose I will have to be more obvious and detailed in explaining how for those not capable.
¬¬¬___Any real and accredited scientist who understands science (in the manner or style of it being the one and only true way of it being science) will only use words in one specific way, because using the word ‘guess’ in place of ‘theory’ would be inappropriate or confusing in any other scientist’s mind, because in the one and only true world of science, which you believe is the only way reality objectively can be perceived and described, you can’t leave an ‘i’ un-dotted, a ‘t’ uncrossed, a ‘1’ used in the place of a ‘0’ or a general analogue/word (or even better, with a mathematical equation) used to describe something you feel should only be described exactly the way it should be. Or was I incorrect in my original described posting of the world of science in your style and understanding of it?
¬¬¬___You are only thinking that the word is more important then the object or idea being described, but the subjective words or symbols or analogues are no more or less important than the objective concept for reality.

At no time have I declared, implicitly or explicitly, that scientists don't make guesses.

___No, you haven’t and I never said anything like that. Your type of scientist can only see and describe reality in exact and specific points or symbols, because you only understand that reality works in that manner or only following a logic with a plus*1, a minus*2 and a zero*3, but it doesn’t. It works with specifics and generalities or to describe to you how weird it actually is; it works with a six point perception rather then only a three point*.

What I have declared is that your conflation of theory and guess is pure ignorance.

___Yes it is, no it isn’t, it is both, it is neither, it is all of the previous and it is none of this description.
___Oh, wait. I forgot that the Law of Contradiction, which is something created by human science and an understanding of the way reality works, says that such a thing can’t be true.
___The funny thing is is that science shows a logical contradiction of every individual, within existence, being frozen in time and moving through time, at the same time. For a hint to this logic start with examining any one point in time or start with this post, on another site and read from there: http://www.atheistforums.com/i-belie...55.html#412123
___There are other post connected with that little point, including one idividual admitting to the logic, but I'll leave it at that.
___If you don't mind, leave the topic of that thread out of this debate.

¬¬¬___phyti.

Rather than like or believe: The person who gambles despite knowing the odds, is ignoring that information, motivated by the small chance they might win

___”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.”
___In making any choice about any next point of the future, each individual chooses one possible fantasy over another and lies to themselves about what will happen. It is only until that possible future moment becomes the ‘now’ that it is proven to be a truth or a fantasy.

Past experience has modified a persons principles, if necessary, therefore there is no need of acknowledgement. The person only has to consider relevant details in the time available, not all information.

___To put it another way, you can simply say that the obvious statement of, “Oh, this is the way it has been and this is what is happening now.” occurs. It is true that not all information is relevant to what is happening, but that doesn’t change that all that information(including negative information) is there and has to be admitted as being facts.

Motive is not tangible and thus not measurable. How much motive/sympathy/love can you put into a container?

___True and false. It is indeed not measurable and yet, every individual takes a count to measure what they can, as part of why they feel the way that they do and why they will be doing what they choose.

Not just our own but for others. We help others because it benefits society

___In helping society, a something which the individual is a part of, does it not make it a better society, which aids or is best for the individual? Whether we choose to consider it important or not, the pack mentality is a part of making choices about our own values, which is the best idea for the individual’s survival or happiness.
___Or do you believe that you can separate society from the individual? And yes, I know that you can separate, obviously (not obscurely), the individual from society, by the individual living in a cave, but that is not what I described, is it?

I would use circumstances in place of fate, because there is no predestination in our lives.

___So, you are not fated to make a choice?
___The predestination is different for each, true, but you have no choice or free will about making a choice, do you, because the lack of a choice is a choice itself, isn’t it? And isn’t that what fate is described as; the lack of options to choose from, because there will be only one way for things to happen.

A person can choose to do what is bad.

___Bad for whom?

This is excluded by your theory.

___Yes, it is.

Killing someone is considered bad by most of humanity. The judicial system representing the people does not consider the act a choice of doing what is good, regardless of what the individual thinks (excluding self defense).

___Is it the judicial system or humanity making the choice that happened previously in time? This falls back into the individual considering certain information positive/important or negative/unimportant enough for what they want to happen in the future.

___To anyone who has checked the link, to a site which has banned me, in order to look at the information pertaining to the time paradox, I want to bring something up to think about. A part of the subject that I was discussing is completely against anything that an atheist has as a part of their belief system, so discrediting me and making me look foolish (which they couldn’t, requiring the banning to avoid any more discussion about something entirely against something they believe to be true and that can be shown as logically wrong) would be something important to any opponent I would have and yet... I have one person agreeing to the logic and definitions relating to something which should be illogical.

'opponents'?!

This is a forum for philosophy, not paranoia.

Nor is this a blog.

Stick to the rules or I will start deleting.

In mod mode.

When I first read the original post... I was like ".....?"

Then I skip to the last page to find out some clue

and sunshinewarrior's post's like telling me "Yeah...you should be like : ......?"

___ArezList.

___Your point?
___Do you read only the first page of a book and the last to get the entirety of what it contains?
___If it makes it simpler for you, this post http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=238865#238865 has a less exact description of the opening post.

Originally Posted by futrethink

___ArezList.

___Your point?
___Do you read only the first page of a book and the last to get the entirety of what it contains?
___If it makes it simpler for you, this post http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=238865#238865 has a less exact description of the opening post.

I guess your keyboard doesn't have a 'Tab' key....

___Arcane_Mathematician.

___You're back to amusing yourself with comments about my writing style instead of analysing the topic again, eh?
___If you've found the topic too complicated as a single post, we can take it apart and go through it line by line to make it simpler for you to read and understand. This is something that I have mentioned, to another, and that I am willing to do for any who wish to put forward constructive criticisms only about the breakdown of how a choice occurs.

Originally Posted by futrethink

______1: A choice is required as a part of a linear temporal existence. To make that choice, the following occurs; an objective concept is interacted with. This could be considered as a massenergy object appearing within an individual’s perceptions, an idea or goal 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.

Okay. Sentient beings perceive something before they are capable of thinking about it. I see nothing wrong with this statement.

Originally Posted by futrethink

______2: Available information from past existence is taken, brought forward and acknowledged as a part of that individual’s existence.

Is this truly necessary, or even always accurate? What about Alzheimer's patients, or extreme compulsive individuals?

Originally Posted by futrethink

______3: The surrounding environment and all information pertaining to that point in space and time is accepted as being a part of the individual’s existence.

Interesting statement, though I'm not sure of it's relevance to the point, would you mind elaborating why this is necessary?

Originally Posted by futrethink

______4: The original concept of what was expected to be the possible future is brought forward, acknowledged and then examined in connection with the previously noted concept.______5: During the examination of the original future, the connection between the new concept and the new concept itself, the previously mentioned past and present information is brought forward and used to predict any and all, new possible futures that might result.
______6: Examinations of the new possible futures are made.

Again I question the necessity and even the accuracy of these statement, for the same reason as number 2. Why is there a presupposition of an "original concept of an expected future" being brought forward? Is there always an expectation of the outcome of events? Do sentient beings always attempt to predict any and all "expected futures"?

Originally Posted by futrethink

______7: The most probable timelines are selected and the remaining futures are noted as negative or not possible and eliminated from the choice process.

This statement describes a distinct logical step

Originally Posted by futrethink

______8: A single possible end-result is selected as the most positive choice. A period of time for that end-result is determined. The possible timelines and the information needed for to reach the previously selected end-result are examined.

see past criticisms

Originally Posted by futrethink

______9: The information and the timeline that is believed the most possible to reach the single possible end-result are selected. All other information and timelines are believed to be the least likely for to reach that single possible end-result and discarded.

this somewhat describes a logical step, at least in part.

Originally Posted by futrethink

___10: The final action of the choice is to cause an action to occur that will start that one singular timeline to become a part of existence and that might have the believed to be one possibly final needed end-result.

and at this point we have made a choice, and this particular statement I have no issue with, only due to the explanation and the fact that it follows your line of reasoning.

Here's my assessment of you breakdown.

___Arcane_Mathematician.

Sentient beings perceive something before they are capable of thinking about it.

___Fine. We’ll leave it at that level of perception for you in our discussion.

Is this truly necessary, or even always accurate? What about Alzheimer's patients, or extreme compulsive individuals?

___You don’t think that the past is important or, at least, the information or facts about the past that is available to the individual? When you make a decision, do you make it with or without your available factual knowledge acquired from your past?

Interesting statement, though I'm not sure of it's relevance to the point, would you mind elaborating why this is necessary?

___To put it another way, you can simply say that the obvious statement of, “Oh, this is what is happening now.” occurs. It is true that not all information is relevant to what is happening, but that doesn’t change that all that information (including negative information) is there and has to be admitted as being facts.

Why is there a presupposition of an "original concept of an expected future" being brought forward?

___In the previous point in time/past, you thought or believed that things would work out a certain way, for a chosen specific time period of a second, minute, hour..., and when the next predicted point in time/future became ‘now’, you found that the prediction was true or false. So, you take that past belief or prediction (which was unproven and could not be proven at the time of the choice) which you once had, connect and examine it with what is happening ‘now’, so that you can use it to make another choice.

Is there always an expectation of the outcome of events? Do sentient beings always attempt to predict any and all "expected futures"?

___Yes, there is always an expectation and that expectation is an attempt to predict the future. An individual can only predict futures which they can understand and which they are capable of predicting, using the past and the present available information or facts.

8: A single possible end-result is selected as the most positive choice. A period of time for that end-result is determined. The possible timelines and the information needed for to reach the previously selected end-result are examined.

see past criticisms

___The individual uses past available information to show that some things take time to occur and makes a choice as to how soon or far into the future that single end-result could or is wanted to happen.

Originally Posted by futrethink

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

Originally Posted by futrethink

2: Available information from past existence is taken, brought forward and acknowledged as a part of that individual’s existence.

Is this truly necessary, or even always accurate? What about Alzheimer's patients, or extreme compulsive individuals?

___
You don’t think that the past is important or, at least, the information or facts about the past that is available to the individual? When you make a decision, do you make it with or without your available factual knowledge acquired from your past?

Sorry for jumping in, but does this "step" take into consideration the notions of "spontaneity" into the equation? Something akin to making a decision disregarding the outcome, much like walking past a jackpot, and thinking "what the heck", pop in a token, and see if lady luck is shining on you today. If yes, you win some. And if no, life goes on.

If I have misunderstood this part of your conversation, please just ignore my interruption.

___scoobydoo1.

___This step does not include that consideration, but step 3 does include it. What you have to look at is the time that it takes for a choice to occur and at its fastest, it is seemingly instantaneous.
___How much time passes while you are walking past that jackpot machine and how many choices have occurred in that amount of time?

How would you classify an instinctive response that is or might be similar to actually making a "choice"?

Not sure if an instinctive response translates to being...

1) an unconscious choice,
2) a conscious choice,
3) a mix of both (like being somewhat semi-aware that you have acted without thinking, but decided to give it some *more* thought before acting),
4) or something else entirely different,
5) etc.

The way I see it, instincts are choices, just in a very limited short term sense of his algorithm.

___scoobydoo.

How would you classify an instinctive response that is or might be similar to actually making a "choice"?

___It is a choice.
___Choices happen all the time and at all levels of existence, at the same time. A simple way of describing it, at the obviously perceived human level, is that they occur on the mental, physical and spiritual or emotional levels.
___Let me give you something to think about: does a computer or, to simplify, a calculator make choices? And they are not conscious beings, are they?

Originally Posted by futrethink

___scoobydoo.

How would you classify an instinctive response that is or might be similar to actually making a "choice"?

___It is a choice.
___Choices happen all the time and at all levels of existence, at the same time. A simple way of describing it, at the obviously perceived human level, is that they occur on the mental, physical and spiritual or emotional levels.
___Let me give you something to think about: does a computer or, to simplify, a calculator make choices? And they are not conscious beings, are they?

The answer is No, to the question regarding computers or calculator.

I'm curious how the following scenarios factor into your equation?

When a father returns home very drunk, and "somehow" ended up raping his daughter, or beating his wife and children. Would you say he "made a choice" to rape/beat his wife and child? (where he might not have done so if he was sober, or less "impaired")

Similarly so if someone who had too much to drink, ended up driving home, and along the way, perhaps killed someone on the road. Would you say he "made a choice" to drive, and/or perhaps cause harm/death to people on the road? (where he might not have done so if he was sober, or less "impaired")

edits: I guess, what I am asking is "How does our primal instincts works out in regards to making "choices"?

Originally Posted by scoobydoo1

Originally Posted by futrethink

___scoobydoo.

How would you classify an instinctive response that is or might be similar to actually making a "choice"?

___It is a choice.
___Choices happen all the time and at all levels of existence, at the same time. A simple way of describing it, at the obviously perceived human level, is that they occur on the mental, physical and spiritual or emotional levels.
___Let me give you something to think about: does a computer or, to simplify, a calculator make choices? And they are not conscious beings, are they?

The answer is No, to the question regarding computers or calculator.

I'm curious how the following scenarios factor into your equation?

When a father returns home very drunk, and "somehow" ended up raping his daughter, or beating his wife and children. Would you say he "made a choice" to rape/beat his wife and child? (where he might not have done so if he was sober, or less "impaired")

Similarly so if someone who had too much to drink, ended up driving home, and along the way, perhaps killed someone on the road. Would you say he "made a choice" to drive, and/or perhaps cause harm/death to people on the road? (where he might not have done so if he was sober, or less "impaired")

edits: I guess, what I am asking is "How does our primal instincts works out in regards to making "choices"?

in short, instincts are choices that we've already made, in preparation for given scenarios.

Interesting.

I think my confusion comes from trying to figure out just how deeply seeded our (un)conscious mind ties in to our primal baser instincts with regards to making choices.

the act of making a choice, if I understand futurethink's point, is not dependent on "thought" as you would think about it. All it takes to make a choice is to react to a situation, even if that reaction is a non-reaction. If something can't react, it can't make a choice. Machines act based on choices made by the person/people who made, calibrated, and programmed(where applicable) them.

My apologies if my posts are off-topic and not as coherent as I would prefer them to be.

So, our ability/capacity/(un)willingness to react is part of this "choice process"? How does our biology fit into it? Like breathing naturally or trying hard not to fall asleep? I have always thought that "choice" was a conscious act. Perhaps I was mistaken.

___scoobydoo1.

When a father returns home very drunk, and "somehow" ended up raping his daughter, or beating his wife and children. Would you say he "made a choice" to rape/beat his wife and child? (where he might not have done so if he was sober, or less "impaired")

Similarly so if someone who had too much to drink, ended up driving home, and along the way, perhaps killed someone on the road. Would you say he "made a choice" to drive, and/or perhaps cause harm/death to people on the road? (where he might not have done so if he was sober, or less "impaired")

___Did the father/someone knowingly make a choice to impair themselves? Presumably, as part of the available information at the time of that choice to become drunken/drugged, they know that such an impairment causes a temporary loss of inhibitions and information, which will affect any choices that they make later, but they chose to think that such available information isn’t important and ignore it. Does the father know that being drunk makes him violent and horny and that he likes the idea of the odds being increased he will do something regrettable, even if he chooses to not think or care about it? Does the someone know that driving impaired can cause the odds of killing someone to be increased and that they will do something regrettable, even if they choose to not think or care about it?

edits: I guess, what I am asking is "How does our primal instincts works out in regards to making "choices"?

___Acrcane_Mathematician stated it clearly enough, but you might want to include the information that some of those already-made-choices are also ‘programmed’ into us through our genetic evolution. Take fight-or-flight as the most obvious. Others can be the instincts to try and prove ourselves better, if not to ourselves then to others and the underlying instinct of procreation involved with the interest in sex (practice makes perfect or as a part of a learning process).

I think my confusion comes from trying to figure out just how deeply seeded our (un)conscious mind ties in to our primal baser instincts with regards to making choices.

___Are there not days when you feel depressed or in an up mood and you can’t figure out why? Don’t those emotions tie to how you make your choices during the time that you feel either of those emotions? You haven’t knowingly made any choice about how you feel when you wake up, but a choice has been made by you because those emotions are tied to your physical being, which are tied to your mental process. And all three are you.
___Conscious mental choices can be made to alter the physical or emotional, but only with time.

So, our ability/capacity/(un)willingness to react is part of this "choice process"?

___Yes.

How does our biology fit into it? Like breathing naturally or trying hard not to fall asleep?

___You can take it to the most basic level of choice that an individual makes every moment of time, “Do I exist or not exist with the choices I make?” If I choose to exist, I have to accept that everything connected with existing is intrinsic to my existence and will affect my choices at some time or another in my future, be it breathing, absorbing energy (in some form or another), feeling good or bad or neither/numb.

I have always thought that "choice" was a conscious act. Perhaps I was mistaken.

___That is for you to choose on.

The answer is No, to the question regarding computers or calculator.

___We’ll leave that alone until later, until you understand the entirety of choices pertaining to every level of being human.

___Arcane_Mathematician.

All it takes to make a choice is to react to a situation, even if that reaction is a non-reaction. If something can't react, it can't make a choice.

___A lack of a choice is a choice itself or the individual chooses to not make a choice, correct?
___There is a reaction, but how do you prove that there has been reaction if there has been no obvious reaction/change and the choice has been made in the past?

Thank you futrethink & Arcane_Mathematician.

Since I'm not the "brightest bulb in the bunch", I think I'll retreat to the corner and try to make sense of what you both have said as far.

Originally Posted by scoobydoo1

have always thought that "choice" was a conscious act. Perhaps I was mistaken.

For mine, you were NOT in the least mistaken, for any choice is ALWAYS a conscious act, even if an original selection, somewhere down the line, was to severely limit any reasonable clarity of mind when making subsequent choices.

The interesting point about all this though, lies at the core components of each and every choice into which we ever enter - which includes perhaps many thousands of lesser choices between the original decision, and the completed action. For instance (re. these lesser choices) even if I make a relatively simple choice to (say) retrieve mail from my letterbox, I will be subsequently required to enter into many intermediate choices along the pathway, once set in motion - such as; first standing up, then moving my leg in taking a step, proceeding to my door, stopping while I lift my hand and turn the knob, then step back to permit the door to swing, now another step and yet another, and so on. Along the process I will also be choosing where my eyes and other sensors are focusing and making decisions on how to respond to any given stimuli. So at any moment between the first (major) selection, and again sitting down in my chair, I am constantly making a vast array of intermediate choices, and yet, even within each of these, will likely be many even less obvious selections of action.

Naturally, added to the above - at any instant along the way, I am constantly making an almost imperceptible choice over and over again - perhaps many times every second - to remain upright and moving towards the conclusion of the original major choice. As becomes reasonably obvious; the vast majority of our choices between the originating selection and the completed (multitudinous) action, are entered into and completed with almost zero awareness, for they all seem to take place within our 'sub-consciousness'.

But now, to the most awesome issue about all this - being the two core components of each and every choice - yes, even those we may not be so aware of making.

The first and most basic point is; we will never make any choice towards action, unless our EMOTIONS are first excited. So regardless of what we might expect, it is WANT that is the catalyst towards action, and is the first component in any choice. However we need more than our feelings of desire. We also require a power source - being our INTELLECT. So for mine, at any point (and many intermediates) of decision to enact, we best present like a car with two occupants - the core components towards each choice.

At any given moment, and for each of the million (perhaps even billions) of choices each of us ever make during our lifespan, we spark into action via a reasoned selection, from a place somewhere between;

A. Our (internal driver) EMOTIONS, and
B. Our (internal navigator) INTELLECT.

However, this all presents an extremely major dilemma for each of us, for even though we might all choose to relate to ourselves as 'INTELLIGENT', the plain simple fact is; the driver of our personal vehicle is very young, opinionated and brash, yet has virtually zero understanding. He is at the same time, not in the least interested in what the navigator, who also happens to be the owner of the vehicle and the mechanic that makes everything (per choice) eventuate, is recommending. So he always seeks to plant the foot and brazenly head off in any direction that 'feels' good (to him) at any time, paying no respect nor heed to the one who understands such concepts as the mechanisms of 'action and consequence'.

___Apopohis Reject.

___In your post, you have just restated (in a reworded manner) quite a lot of what I have explained already, but you seem to be missing or haven't shown some information in your beliefs.

For mine, you were NOT in the least mistaken, for any choice is ALWAYS a conscious act, even if an original selection, somewhere down the line, was to severely limit any reasonable clarity of mind when making subsequent choices.

___So from that, are we to understand that the individual living cells in your body or in a plant or a lowly amoeba either don’t make choices or that they are consciously making choices?

But now, to the most awesome issue about all this - being the two core components of each and every choice - yes, even those we may not be so aware of making.

The first and most basic point is; we will never make any choice towards action, unless our EMOTIONS are first excited. So regardless of what we might expect, it is WANT that is the catalyst towards action, and is the first component in any choice. However we need more than our feelings of desire. We also require a power source - being our INTELLECT.

___How well do those two components work without a body or containing form/energy to act with and on?
___It is very well to want something, but the basic human needs for life of food, air water, a temperate environment and freedom of choice are also imperatives that force human choices and action to occur, right?

Originally Posted by futrethink

___Apopohis Reject.

___In your post, you have just restated (in a reworded manner) quite a lot of what I have explained already, but you seem to be missing or haven't shown some information in your beliefs.

I have NEITHER restated nor re-worded anything you have posted. What my post offerred was a little support to you in your shaky uncertainty. However I can assure you that presently you have no concept of my position, and will certainly need to considerably widen your viewing platform in order to; begin getting acquainted with it - if that indeed be your choice.

And yes - there is much detail I have not as yet explained, because;

A. I do NOT know all the questions, much less the answers to them, and
B. I doubt the site admin would appreciate a 20,500 word posting.

Originally Posted by futrethink

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

For mine, you were NOT in the least mistaken, for any choice is ALWAYS a conscious act, even if an original selection, somewhere down the line, was to severely limit any reasonable clarity of mind when making subsequent choices.

So from that, are we to understand that the individual living cells in your body or in a plant or a lowly amoeba either don’t make choices or that they are consciously making choices?

Your kidding, right? How do you even ask this kind of question from my observation, paraphrased as such; "even if a person gets drunk (somewhere down the line), and thereby renders themself less than capable of later making informed (INTELLIGENT) decisions, nevertheless they still make choices"?

Does each of your cells consciously make their own choices, and if so, how do you manage to co-ordinate them all?

Originally Posted by futrethink

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

But now, to the most awesome issue about all this - being the two core components of each and every choice - yes, even those we may not be so aware of making.

The first and most basic point is; we will never make any choice towards action, unless our EMOTIONS are first excited. So regardless of what we might expect, it is WANT that is the catalyst towards action, and is the first component in any choice. However we need more than our feelings of desire. We also require a power source - being our INTELLECT.

How well do those two components work without a body or containing form/energy to act with and on?

You really need to exercise your imagination and powers of INTELLECT a little more, and think outside your Comfy Zone - that well worn physical box - before you can consider asking such questions.

For a start, if there is no physical body, how do emotions (for instance) first become generated, let alone get acted upon? Perhaps you can illustrate for us all, a non physical entity that has emotions ...... please?

Originally Posted by futrethink

It is very well to want something, but the basic human needs for life of food, air water, a temperate environment and freedom of choice are also imperatives that force human choices and action to occur, right?

Such a narrow focus. Please refer to the previous response. Alternatively, consider your questions a little more deeply, and re-ask.

___Arcane_Mathematician.

___My apologies for not understanding your understanding of choice, “All it takes to make a choice is to react to a situation, even if that reaction is a non-reaction.” Am I correct in assuming that you catch on that the situation, as you stated it, could be any perceived concept of a macro/micro physical nature and/or a mental idea created from past situations?
___That part of your post and my answer to you has been in the back of mind for a while and nagging me that I read it wrong, and with my answering post I showed my ineptitude in perception of another’s objective concept.

the act of making a choice, if I understand futurethink's point, is not dependent on "thought" as you would think about it.
Machines act based on choices made by the person/people who made, calibrated, and programmed(where applicable) them.

___Have you thought upon how these two statements of yours work or don’t work together?

___Apopohis Reject.

I have NEITHER restated nor re-worded anything you have posted.

___Actually, you have. Give it time to reread and think about my past posts and you should find many similarities when compared your post.

Your kidding, right? How do you even ask this kind of question from my observation, paraphrased as such;"even if a person gets drunk (somewhere down the line), and thereby renders themself less than capable of later making informed (INTELLIGENT) decisions, nevertheless they still make choices"?

___I asked the question, because you are of the opinion that all choices are only consciously made. Obvious choices might be made by human beings, but that doesn’t mean that we are the only ones who make choices. Unless you are under the arrogant assumption that human beings are the ONLY individuals deserving of that honour?

Does each of your cells consciously make their own choices, and if so, how do you manage to co-ordinate them all?

___Each cell makes choices, but they aren’t conscious choices or, at least, not involving ‘thought’ as you understand it. As for coordinating them, that works out based upon previous evolutionary choices for survival through cooperation among packs or mobs.
___I noticed that you didn’t mention the plant cells or the amoeba, but from your posts it was expected. How about we ignore human choices and work on those two, eh? Or even better, let’s stick with the simple amoeba, shall we? Does or does not an amoeba make choices?

You really need to exercise your imagination and powers of INTELLECT a little more, and think outside your Comfy Zone - that well worn physical box - before you can consider asking such questions.

For a start, if there is no physical body, how do emotions (for instance) first become generated, let alone get acted upon? Perhaps you can illustrate for us all, a non physical entity that has emotions ...... please

___Trust me, when I tell you that go way out of my own comfort zone and others’ when I analyze and seek the answers to what puzzles me. I might not like the answers I find, but I admit (to myself and others) to my errors and learn from them.
___As for the question of the physical body, you were the one who stated that the “the two core components of each and every choice” were only emotions and intellect. Since those two can’t work without a physical body, wouldn’t it be more correct to state that there are three core components of choice?

Such a narrow focus

___My focus isn’t narrow, because my perceptions of what each of those analogues/words stand for are different then what you might think.

A. I do NOT know all the questions, much less the answers to them, and
B. I doubt the site admin would appreciate a 20,500 word posting

___You have shown that you have some understanding of wisdom, but will you take the next right step?

Originally Posted by futrethink

___Leszek Luchowski.

___Is this easier for you to understand? I wouldn’t want to make things too, too hard for you in having use too much energy in thinking. I am still trying to figure out if you mean ‘plain English’ to mean smaller words or not.

___Your answer has shown me something I have found interesting among the, supposedly, scientific and open minded mind of the science community, which I have found on other science minded sites as well. That being that when it comes to a different way of doing things it is better to ignore or insult it, rather than intelligently work around, with or through such a different thing.

___See, I can easily change my way of thinking to adapt to another’s different culture or thinking style, but most so called scientists would rather stay within the comfortable mental and psychological box that they find themselves in.

___If you, and who knows how many others, find this style so confusing that you can’t even begin to understand the concept which I’ve put forward, I shan’t even begin a discussion on this site about the existing and logical paradox of every individual being frozen in time and moving in time, at the same time. That would probably be too much.

___This probably will be my last answer to you in this simplistic and contrary to the teachings of basic teachings of English I learned in school, because while you make find such usage confusing, I have to believe that what I was taught about how to write English was the true style and not a lie. There is nothing wrong with changing the English language to suit the times, but the education system should be changed so that such English is not taught anymore, because it seems to be too confusing to the highly intelligent.

1. Your neuronic network shows a great compliment to itself, this prevents us from understanding what you say.

2. Hard languages requires few braincells to work until they're fragmented. That's why they die early.

3. On all levels of existence there is a mechanism which is self dependent. The mechanism grows according to a fractal (based on that it has a complex proportionality factor) eventually it reach zero and dies. To predict a such particle can be done in no higher pace then the speed of light. I get that the relation between the average prediction and prediction max is v(earth)/c.

I then draw the conclusion that your prediction will be small compared to the maximum one. The maximum conclusion one can draw one draw is proportional to whatever conclusion you could've drawn is proportional to the size of your soul.

4. The determinism devided with determinism maximum is not 1. Is that really a question? There is a question that cannot be answered that is true, that's proven mathematically. In the same way the uncertainty principle clearly states that the faster you move, the more determined is your path (so if you move in lightspeed, you're totally deterministic. Again determinism / determinism max is proportional to v/c. A black hole can understand your soul, and fully understand it.

(which you cannot get into your mind because it is infact newtech and not trustworthy for you, now prove it wrong?)

If half of it is true, where did that get you then?

Originally Posted by futrethink

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I have NEITHER restated nor re-worded anything you have posted.

Actually, you have. Give it time to reread and think about my past posts and you should find many similarities when compared your post.

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!

Originally Posted by futrethink

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Your kidding, right? How do you even ask this kind of question from my observation, paraphrased as such;"even if a person gets drunk (somewhere down the line), and thereby renders themself less than capable of later making informed (INTELLIGENT) decisions, nevertheless they still make choices"?

___I asked the question, because you are of the opinion that all choices are only consciously made. Obvious choices might be made by human beings, but that doesn’t mean that we are the only ones who make choices. Unless you are under the arrogant assumption that human beings are the ONLY individuals deserving of that honour?

Huh? I'm at a complete loss as to how you can arrive at the kind of conclusions you do from the given data. 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.

Originally Posted by futrethink

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Does each of your cells consciously make their own choices, and if so, how do you manage to co-ordinate them all?

___Each cell makes choices, but they aren’t conscious choices or, at least, not involving ‘thought’

Then they are NOT - by definition; CHOICES! Make up your mind!

Originally Posted by futrethink

I noticed that you didn’t mention the plant cells or the amoeba, but from your posts it was expected. How about we ignore human choices and work on those two, eh? Or even better, let’s stick with the simple amoeba, shall we? Does or does not an amoeba make choices?

I didn't see any reason to include cells in my response, that were not under discussion - would you? In any case, as for your trite amoeba query; please refer to the previous response (above).

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? Furthermore; in your single-neuron universe, (let's imagine) a single unhappy and intransigent cell of a heart, makes a decision to relocate to the foot; so how does this physical entity achieve the physical result of that single-cell choice? Or is it just dreaming, and lives out a most frustrating existence - for it can never realise the resolution/s of any choice it makes????

Originally Posted by futrethink

Trust me

Thank you, but if it's all the same to you - I'd rather not. For I have something far more significant in which to TRUST - than you (most likely) will ever recognise.

Originally Posted by futrethink

As for the question of the physical body, you were the one who stated that the “the two core components of each and every choice” were only emotions and intellect. Since those two can’t work without a physical body, wouldn’t it be more correct to state that there are three core components of choice?

So what would your third core component be - the physical body? Think again, for your dissertation leading to the above question, is so profoundly full or flaws, even if they are generally accepted ones; that your failure to recognise your conclusion, as being anything but logical and/or verifiable, becomes obvious.

A.

"Since those two can’t work without a physical body"

Incorrect! ONLY one (emotions) of the two fails to 'work', much less initiate - without a body.

B. The emotions and the body are far more affiliated than you recognise.

C. You first need to understand, then verifiably and consistently define INTELLIGENCE - before making any conclusions about it, such as you propose.

Originally Posted by futrethink

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Such a narrow focus

___my perceptions of what each of those analogues/words stand for are different then what you might think.

The difference my friend, is I am fully aware of the basis of your generic and catholic interpretations, for I myself; have for the majority of my life, been right there.

You however; have NEVER been here.

___Apopohis Reject.

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!

___Ye-ah,sure, you’re right. It’s not like the proof is right there in front of you, and any other readers of this thread, in black and white.

The difference my friend, is I am fully aware of the basis of your generic and catholic interpretations, for I myself; have for the majority of my life, been right there.

You however; have NEVER been here.

___Snicker. What leads you to believe I have any Catholic interpretations? Especially, since you are the one who attempts to describe and lead the focus of intelligence upon a spiritual level in your linked posting.
___Moreover, since you seem to enjoy taking only the portions of my sentences which seem to suit you and ignore the rest of it, in an attempt to prove your points, I would say that you ain’t even close to here, there or anywhere.
___If this is in reference to the link showing the information about being frozen in time and moving in time or more specifically, the thread it is on, you’re way off. In debating that topic with atheists, I have had them call me a theist and in debating that topic with theists, I have had them call me an atheist. I am not a theist, an atheist, an agnostic or any variation thereof.

So what would your third core component be - the physical body? Think again, for your dissertation leading to the above question, is so profoundly full or flaws, even if they are generally accepted ones; that your failure to recognise your conclusion, as being anything but logical and/or verifiable, becomes obvious.

___My third core component is indeed a body. In talking with you I’ve stuck with a physical body, as you know it to be, only because you seem to be focused on it and probably can’t accept any logic otherwise.

Incorrect! ONLY one (emotions) of the two fails to 'work', much less initiate - without a body.

___Please show scientific proof of this statement? As a ‘body’ is to be considered as any type of container of a physical or energy nature. Even a (hmm, how to keep it understandable to you) magnetic bottle can be considered such.

Then they are NOT - by definition; CHOICES! Make up your mind!

___My mind is made up and to reiterate the full sentence, of which you seem to have ignored part of to suit your own purposes, “Each cell makes choices, but they aren’t conscious choices or, at least, not involving ‘thought’ as you understand it.”
___For that matter, why don’t you explain what the ‘spirit” actually is? You’ve posted about it in a general manner in those two posts in that thread, but why don’t you explain it in a clear and logical manner.
___You do that and I’ll show how an electron has a memory, in order to show how what you think is thought isn’t all it is.

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.

___Are those the only scientifically proven things that are required in connection with thought ( or intelligence as you seem to understand it) and choices or are there multiple scientifically perceived levels of action and reaction occurring?

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?

___Obviously it doesn’t have functioning brain, but as it acts and reacts to its environment and any internal factors it does make choices.

Furthermore; in your single-neuron universe, (let's imagine) a single unhappy and intransigent cell of a heart, makes a decision to relocate to the foot; so how does this physical entity achieve the physical result of that single-cell choice? Or is it just dreaming, and lives out a most frustrating existence - for it can never realise the resolution/s of any choice it makes????

___Wishing something to be and having that something as a part of its available options are two different things and are shown in the breakdown.

You first need to understand, then verifiably and consistently define INTELLIGENCE - before making any conclusions about it, such as you propose.

___I can (as I have to others), show you the entirety of my understanding, to put a limit on it for your understanding, of human intelligence or more preferably thought (as being intelligent is a quantity and not a quality), but it will be in the usual Socratic manner I use for these debates. It will require self-honesty on your part, but I don’t expect it.

I asked the question, because you are of the opinion that all choices are only consciously made. Obvious choices might be made by human beings, but that doesn’t mean that we are the only ones who make choices. Unless you are under the arrogant assumption that human beings are the ONLY individuals deserving of that honour?

Huh? I'm at a complete loss as to how you can arrive at the kind of conclusions you do from the given data.

___As I had no knowledge of any of your other beliefs, I had to accept the limitations of your statements and make choices based upon the given information. To do otherwise is to make assumptions with no known basis in facts concerning you personally.

I didn't see any reason to include cells in my response, that were not under discussion - would you?

___As I had made an inquiry with the inclusion of them, why shouldn’t you have?

Originally Posted by futrethink

The world is the way it is, because we like it this way.
Otherwise, we would change it.

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).!!!

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Originally Posted by futrethink

The world is the way it is, because we like it this way.
Otherwise, we would change it.

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).!!!

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.

Originally Posted by futrethink

If this is in reference to the link showing the information about being frozen in time and moving in time or more specifically, the thread it is on, you’re way off. In debating that topic with atheists, I have had them call me a theist and in debating that topic with theists, I have had them call me an atheist. I am not a theist, an atheist, an agnostic or any variation thereof.

Sorry - I have no idea what you are talking about - having never read anything on that thread. BTW, I also have not read ANY of your posts you claim are re-written and for which you believe I now claim credit.

Originally Posted by futrethink

My third core component is indeed a body. In talking with you I’ve stuck with a physical body, as you know it to be, only because you seem to be focused on it and probably can’t accept any logic otherwise.

It is interesting how you manage to come to such conclusions, for my focus in this instance, is certainly NOT at all on the physical (body), but rather on the SPIRIT/UAL, that is - INTELLIGENCE and emotions - such that have jurisdiction over the (physical) body.

You perhaps would do well to work a little harder at understanding what has been written - prior to arguing for or against it.

Originally Posted by futrethink

Please show scientific proof of this statement?

I would be delighted to oblige you - just as soon as we can find ourselves close to being on the same page. Until then, misunderstanding and frustration will abound, and be of no benefit for anyone.

Originally Posted by futrethink

My mind is made up and to reiterate the full sentence, of which you seem to have ignored part of to suit your own purposes, “Each cell makes choices, but they aren’t conscious choices or, at least, not involving ‘thought’ as you understand it.”

See what I mean? We are not nearly yet on the same page. So why don't you explain how you perceive each cell as making 'choices' that do not involve thought/reasoning? That would make for an interesting start, I would have expected.

Originally Posted by futrethink

For that matter, why don’t you explain what the ‘spirit” actually is?

Look up - second point of this post - simple and logically sound, even if not widely recognised. You will find more info in this regard as you read on.

Originally Posted by futrethink

You do that and I’ll show how an electron has a memory

Done, now your turn!

Originally Posted by futurethink

Are those 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 different things. Thought and reasoning are closely related, yet INTELLIGENCE is a mere half of the equation in each case. And for that matter - comes in at a poor second (half) on nearly every occasion.

Originally Posted by futurethink

Wishing something to be and having that something as a part of its available options are two different things and are shown in the breakdown.

Whilst the first part of this sentence is reasonably self explanatory, I have no idea what be this 'breakdown' to which you refer.

Originally Posted by futurethink

I can (as I have to others), show you the entirety of my understanding, to put a limit on it for your understanding, of human intelligence or more preferably thought (as being intelligent is a quantity and not a quality)

INTELLIGENCE is an essence - a definable yet non-physical core attribute of existence, of which we have a (partial) use - whilst being alive.

Your alternative definition of INTELLIGENCE on the other hand; is incomplete (to say the least) and therefore lacks a consistently verifiable underpinning. You, my friend; really need to fully understand what it is of your promotion, or the conversation is a total waste of time, and useful only for generating frustration for all concerned.

Originally Posted by futurethink

It will require self-honesty on your part, but I don’t expect it.

Who would you expect to be the arbiter in such things, and how do you expect it to be of benefit to this exchange?

Origionaly 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).!!!

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

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.

Give a specific esample of a person makin a free-will selection so it will be clear to me what you'r understandin of free will is.!!!

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

(Origionaly 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).!!!

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

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.

Give a specific esample of a person makin a free-will selection so it will be clear to me what you'r understandin of free will is.!!!

I have no idea what you guys are talking about in regards 'polarless particles' and such. If you can explain what that is, and how it is relevant, I would appreciate it. Not saying I will agrre, but I will enjoy getting a handle on that part of the discussion. In the meantime;

My example is - I'm looking in a window of an ice cream parlour. Hmmmm don't they all look yummy?

Q A - Do I want one (choice 1), or not (choice 2)? = a freewill choice.

Q. B - Ok, I'll will, but which one -Strawberry (choice 1) , or chocolate (choice 2)? = another freewill choice.

Q. C - Which girl will I ask to fetch it for me - The brunette (choice 1) , or Blonde (choice 2)? = yet another freewill choice - and so on.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

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.

Give a specific esample of a person makin a free-will selection so it will be clear to me what you'r understandin of free will is.!!!

My example is - I'm looking in a window of an ice cream parlour. Hmmmm don't they all look yummy?

Q A - Do I want one (choice 1), or not (choice 2)? = a freewill choice.

But what are the "two SPIRITUAL resources seeking influence over that choice"... an what determines which one will have the mos influence on you.???

LeavingQuietly's post has been deleted due to its being nonsense. I did not see it before I responded in this thread. We try to be respectful of all scientific opinions, however, claiming to be some sort of supernatural being capable of dispersing omniscient truth does not qualify.

All subsequent posts by LeavingQuietly in this thread, and their responses - including my own, have been deleted. I apologize to any members this may have affected, but I apologize even more that I didn't catch this sooner.

JX

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

My example is - I'm looking in a window of an ice cream parlour. Hmmmm don't they all look yummy?

Q A - Do I want one (choice 1), or not (choice 2)? = a freewill choice.

But what are the "two SPIRITUAL resources seeking influence over that choice"... an what determines which one will have the mos influence on you.???

Well first we need to define what I mean by SPIRIT/UAL - being the original definition - prior to religion stuffing everything up for us - resulting in a problem we may forever struggle with.

This is about those two commodities/essences which are an intrinsic part of each of us, yet have no physicality whatsoever. If they were to any degree be physical, they could not be termed 'spirit/ual'. These two core intrinsic originators that govern the conscious actions of each of us, are our respective;

1. Emotions

2. INTELLIGENCE

Secondly, the vast majority of the intrinsic consideration processes towards choice to action, take place within milliseconds, and therefore we are virtually unaware of the struggle going on within our mentality, until faced with a relatively new situation, which promotes the process for the time being; to a more conscious level of reasoning.

We make thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of conscious decisions per day, and each and every one, is dependent upon a coming together of these two spiritual agents through a process of reasoning (consideration), which will often involve argument. Because they both seek to have influence over every choice, we therefore effectively choose from between the two prior to each conscious action eventuating.

So now, a choice might go something like this; I look at the ice creams on display and my INTELLIGENCE whispers to me, that I really do not need any of it, so just walk away and take care of something important that still needs doing, and I will be so better off and stronger - for selecting that intelligent option. This will always be an honest, truthful and gentle suggestion from one half of my reasoning.

*Vital fact 1; INTELLIGENCE is ALWAYS 100% truthful with us, and positive.

The second half (emotions) of my reasoning on the other hand, employ a completely different strategy, by screaming demands at me; something to the effect that I will die if I don't get something sweet into my stomach right away, so sit down and forget all my troubles while I enjoy. Obviously my emotions are loud and demanding, highly deceptive, oppositional, illogical, illusory and selfish.

*Vital fact 2; Emotions virtually always oppose the logical suggestion of INTELLIGENCE, and are generally negative.

Therefore, I have to make my choice from between the two options, as presented to my evaluation process at that moment. Ultimately BOTH will need to be called upon in order to complete the action of choice, but the decision will only serve one of the two - and almost always my emotions, For this is the way we are programmed - to make our selection according to how we feel/what we would like at that moment.

Of course, even during the (perhaps) 3 or 4 seconds of the above relatively long process towards the ice cream decision, I would have concurrently made; maybe hundreds of far less obvious choices.

Now there is a very vital distinction between these two core spiritual imperatives over and above all that mentioned above, and this will most likely astound you, but when you logically reason it through, you will realise it to be a simple, yet virtually unrecognised fact.

*Vital fact 3; INTELLIGENCE is entirely existent and dynamic, and ultimately; scientifically consistent and definable, however;

*Vital fact 4; Even though they sure feel real at any time, our emotions are all but non-existent - predominantly conceptual in nature. They are at best; benign.

Of course, this is the reason our emotions are profoundly deceptive and negative - forcefully promoting themselves as vital and dynamic, and far too often bringing us to our knees in submission, even when we know logically it would be far better to simply agree with our INTELLIGENCE, say 'no' and walk away!

Once we appreciate the ongoing core mechanics within our mentality, it becomes obvious that there is an intrinsic war for supremacy going on, for we in effect present as a dysfunctional dichotomy - being a term that seems to cause some to become offended, in assuming I'm referring to some discredited theory of a hundred or so years ago - into which, I have never investigated. But all that is another story.

Thanks for that nicely layed out reply which gives me a much beter understandin of you'r idea of what free will is.!!!

My example is - I'm looking in a window of an ice cream parlour. Hmmmm don't they all look yummy?

Q A - Do I want one (choice 1), or not (choice 2)? = a freewill choice.

But what are the "two SPIRITUAL resources seeking influence over that choice"... an what determines which one will have the mos influence on you.???

Well first we need to define what I mean by SPIRIT/UAL ...

This is about those two commodities/essences which are an intrinsic part of each of us, yet have no physicality whatsoever. If they were to any degree be physical, they could not be termed 'spirit/ual'. These two core intrinsic originators that govern the conscious actions of each of us, are our respective;

1. Emotions

2. INTELLIGENCE

We make thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of conscious decisions per day, and each and every one, is dependent upon a coming together of these two spiritual agents through a process of reasoning (consideration), which will often involve argument. Because they both seek to have influence over every choice, we therefore effectively choose from between the two prior to each conscious action eventuating.

So now, a choice might go something like this; I look at the ice creams on display and my INTELLIGENCE whispers to me, that I really do not need any of it, so just walk away and take care of something important that still needs doing, and I will be so better off and stronger - for selecting that intelligent option. This will always be an honest, truthful and gentle suggestion from one half of my reasoning.

*Vital fact 1; INTELLIGENCE is ALWAYS 100% truthful with us, and positive.

The second half (emotions) of my reasoning on the other hand, employ a completely different strategy, by screaming demands at me; something to the effect that I will die if I don't get something sweet into my stomach right away, so sit down and forget all my troubles while I enjoy. Obviously my emotions are loud and demanding, highly deceptive, oppositional, illogical, illusory and selfish.

*Vital fact 2; Emotions virtually always oppose the logical suggestion of INTELLIGENCE, and are generally negative.

Therefore, I have to make my choice from between the two options, as presented to my evaluation process at that moment.

Ultimately BOTH will need to be called upon in order to complete the action of choice, but the decision will only serve one of the two - and almost always my emotions, For this is the way we are programmed - to make our selection according to how we feel/what we would like at that moment.

One thang im not clear about... Is the evaluation process a seperate spiritual essence from emotions an intelegence... or is the final decision (choise) meerly the winer of the battle between emotions an intelegence.???

Is the persuasiveness of the emotions an intellegence equaly strong in all individuals.???

You are surprising me, my friend - such great questions.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

One thang im not clear about... Is the evaluation process a seperate spiritual essence from emotions an intelegence...

Indeed the evaluation process is spiritual, because nothing physical goes into it and nothing physical has eventuated from it - until the respective choice has been made, and then enacted. However the evaluation itself is NOT an essence, but a procedure of mentally interpreting and processing the two core essentials - being the two essences underlying and influencing our reasoning - towards choice. then towards action.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

or is the final decision (choise) meerly the winer of the battle between emotions an intelegence.???

That is it precisely, and for mine - you are also a winner! And now - to the very most insightful question I have been asked in centuries..................

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Is the persuasiveness of the emotions an intellegence equaly strong in all individuals.???

Well, this is really a question that requires a library of books written about it. So I will try very hard to condense it down as much as possible, right now.

Naturally enough; more emotional people will generally make more emotional choices, however for everyone; the strength or lack thereof at any time of the persuasiveness of an individual's emotions over their INTELLIGENCE, is very much dependent upon their thinking, that is - their powers of reasoning at that moment, which in part will be due to quite a few intrinsic and extrinsic factors. A few of these influences would be;

1. Our emotional stability at any moment.
2. The condition/health of our mental faculties.
3. The amount of extrinsic influences in (or not) our system, such as alcohol and drugs and a girl/boyfriend's demands/expectation.
4. Level of education.
5. Quality of our respective education.
6. The examples set for us by others, such as parents, religion, media and friends.
7. How many times we have previously 'surrendered' to our emotions, re. that particular temptation.
8. How alert or weary we might be at the time.
9. How much time we feel entitled to, in making the choice - if we for instance, are too panicked, we will almost always default to our emotions.
10. The demands/expectations/insecurities we place upon our own performance.

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. The interesting thing to recognise however, is when we feel stronger - we (not surprisingly) make our more INTELLIGENT choices towards action.

Ultimately, it is an unfortunate but realistic fact, that we all (whether we like to admit it or not) favour our emotions the majority of the time. In fact, it is by virtue of being born human; simply the way we are programmed and live out the entirety of our days. That is - unless we individually make an alternative decision to override that naturally set condition, and there truly is ONLY one other decision to make in this regard.

Which is why this is such an essential principle to understand - which, even though it is not so widely recognised, is possible, and entirely available to each of us, however we simply cannot make it, unless we are first aware of the intrinsic problem we have, and the possibility that such a solution exists - and the enormously amazing benefits for us - from making it.

I know this is an observation that I harp on, and on, and on - but the biggest problem for all of us, is that religion itself, has succeeded for too long in hiding all of this from our awareness, which is why the vast majority of us have no idea we even have a dichotomy that causes all of this dysfunction, much less that there is an available remedy to this profoundly human flaw.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

You are surprising me, my friend -such great questions.

Well thanks... im interested in understandin you'r pont of view.!!!

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
One thang im not clear about... Is the evaluation process a separate spiritual essence from emotions an inteligence...

Indeed the evaluation process is spiritual, because nothing physical goes into it and nothing physical has eventuated from it - until the respective choice has been made, and then enacted. However the evaluation itself is NOT an essence, but a procedure of mentally interpreting and processing the two core essentials - being the two essences underlying and influencing our reasoning - towards choice - towards action.

oK... so that i understan this befor goin on to other thangs... the evaluation is spiritual an a procedure of mentally interpreting and processing the influence of the two core essentials (emotions an inteligence)... but whats in control of the spiritual evaluation.???

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

oK... so that i understan this befor goin on to other thangs... the evaluation is spiritual an a procedure of mentally interpreting and processing the influence of the two core essentials (emotions an inteligence)... but whats in control of the spiritual evaluation.???

Well I'm not entirely certain I understand the question, so I will respond to what I believe you are asking. You can ask again if I am mistaken.

The evaluation process, while it can be regarded as 'spiritual' in concept, is not actually 'spirit', because it has no influential bearing, but is rather the processing of the two spiritual influences, in our need to arrive at a conclusion towards a materialisation of that conclusion - when it is made.

If you again care to consider for instance; I'm standing at the window of that ice cream parlour with the two suggestions fighting it out in my mind - walk away or indulge - yes or no. Nothing has eventuated in a physical sense, until I decide which action I will embark upon, so the only thing that is going on at this point, is non-physical, therefore is spiritual. It is a spiritual weighing up (of the two spirits) - my 1. emotions and 2. INTELLIGENCE.

Therefore the only thing that controls the spiritual evaluation of the two spiritual options, is my selection to consider the possibilities, or not - another 'yes' or 'no' = another choice. Of course, this is a choice, which I may make many times over, but it is still a choice - 'no' - not to proceed yet, until I have decided what to do. It is again fair to note at this point, this entire processing, may be taking place in milliseconds - from start to action.

It's fascinating to further note when we consider these realities of our mental processing; how we discover that even though our general regard of our mind/mentality is according it as being complex, in a similar manner to how we might perceive the workings of a computer - nonetheless, simplicity is really the essence of the entire operation.

Both the computer and mind function in a remarkably similar manner, by reducing each step along the pathway towards functionality, to a basic 'yes' or 'no' - 'on' or 'off', then precisely the same options for the next issue, and so on. The amazing thing is the speed at which both can perform each consecutive function - over and over, which gives the appearance of complexity, when it is really a picture of highly efficient steps - performing many consecutive tasks - quickly, rather than simultaneously.

You avatar by the way, looks like me when I feel obliged to walk away rather than indulge in my fave - rum n raisin.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Well I'm not entirely certain I understand the question, so I will respond to what I believe you are asking. You can ask again if I am mistaken.

The evaluation process, while it can be regarded as 'spiritual' in concept, is not actually 'spirit', because it has no influential bearing, but is rather the processing of the two spiritual influences, in our need to arrive at a conclusion towards a materialisation of that conclusion - when it is made.

Mayb the theme of my questons below will make it mor clear what i dont fully understan about what you'r sayin.!!!

When i thank of an evaluation... i pitcher "sombody" preformin that evaluation... so im not clear about "who/what" is preformin the evaluation which determines the winer of the emotion inteligence battle.???

If you again care to consider for instance; I'm standing at the window of that ice cream parlour with the two suggestions fighting it out in my mind - walk away or indulge - yes or no. Nothing has eventuated in a physical sense, until I decide which action I will embark upon, so the only thing that is going on at this point, is non-physical, therefore is spiritual. It is a spiritual weighing up (of the two spirits) - my 1. emotions and 2. INTELLIGENCE.

oK... when you said "my mind"... an "I deside" (above)... are those the sam thang... an is "my mind" an "I" somptin seperate from emotions an inteligence.???

Therefore the only thing that controls the spiritual evaluation of the two spiritual options, is my selection to consider the possibilities, or not - another 'yes' or 'no' = another choice. Of course, this is a choice, which I may make many times over, but it is still a choice - 'no' - not to proceed yet, until I have decided what to do. It is again fair to note at this point, this entire processing, may be taking place in milliseconds - from start to action.

An agan... you reference such thangs as "my" an "I"... an im not clear if "my" an "I" is somptin seperate from emotions an inteligence.???

It's fascinating to further note when we consider these realities of our mental processing; how we discover that even though our general regard of our mind/mentality is according it as being complex, in a similar manner to how we might perceive the workings of a computer - nonetheless, simplicity is really the essence of the entire operation.

Is "mind/mentality" seperate from emotions an inteligence.???

You avatar by the way, looks like me when I feel obliged to walk away rather than indulge in my fave - rum n raisin.

That avatar was givin to me about the time (several years ago) that i was labeled "complete dullard"... i thout they was both funny an kept usin 'em... my name in real life is Tim... an i was also givin the name "Pasture Timmy" (by a Christan Lady)dew to the way i spell an "preech" about Jesus/God... cluelusshusbund is the name i started usin (in discuss groops) about 12 years ago as the fictional husband of a female poster

As your questions become increasingly penetrating, the responses will be more germane and testing, and consequently not so easily defined, or perhaps comprehended. But please don't permit any of that to stand in the way of your investigation of vitality.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Mayb the theme of my questons below will make it mor clear what i dont fully understan about what you'r sayin.!!!

When i thank of an evaluation... i pitcher "sombody" preformin that evaluation...

Correct. We actually do this perhaps tens or even hundreds of millions of times during our lifetime - evaluate (weigh up) between 'A' and 'B' - to make a choice- towards physical action.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

so im not clear about "who/what" is preformin the evaluation which determines the winer of the emotion inteligence battle.???

The person who is the owner of the choices is performing the evaluation - even though he is really only the owner of the emotions half of the equation. The INTELLIGENCE half, is only at his disposal for the time being, and if he rejects it enough, it will no longer be available to him. Even so, it will certainly NOT cease to exist - in the greater omnipresent ocean of INTELLIGENCE.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Originally Posted by Apopohis reject

If you again care to consider for instance; I'm standing at the window of that ice cream parlour with the two suggestions fighting it out in my mind - walk away or indulge - yes or no. Nothing has eventuated in a physical sense, until I decide which action I will embark upon, so the only thing that is going on at this point, is non-physical, therefore is spiritual. It is a spiritual weighing up (of the two spirits) - my 1. emotions and 2. INTELLIGENCE.

oK... when you said "my mind"... an "I deside" (above)... are those the sam thang... an is "my mind" an "I" somptin seperate from emotions an inteligence.???

Imagine a bottle of water. The bottle itself being the physical vessel carrying around the (SPIRITUAL) water inside. Now while the bottle is necessary in it's own right, the internal stuff is the reason for anyone (other than the incredibly physically minded) regarding in the first instance; the combination of the two as important.

Now imagine that the water has had a sweetness (say lemon and honey flavour) added into it, and instantaneously we notice it is this tasty addition that becomes the reason someone might choose it, over (say) a beer. Even though the water is the reason we might NEED the contents, the flavour/s has become the reason we WANT it - another double polarity (dichotomy).

So now, please consider your body (including brain) as the bottle (vessel), the water as your (spiritual) mind, and the lemon and honey as the two intrinsic influences - within your mind. It is your mind - the water, that chooses to consider anything that comes across your path at any time - like the ice creams in the window. And in your need to make a choice in regards each requirement that presents itself, you will choose from between the lemon and honey - A or B, on or off.

You might also notice that the two flavours are somewhat opposing each other - one sweet and the other bitter - the dichotomy itself. You will also recognise that the sweet half will always be sweet, and the bitter half will always be bitter. But ultimately, you will be required to drink both together.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Therefore the only thing that controls the spiritual evaluation of the two spiritual options, is my selection to consider the possibilities, or not - another 'yes' or 'no' = another choice. Of course, this is a choice, which I may make many times over, but it is still a choice - 'no' - not to proceed yet, until I have decided what to do. It is again fair to note at this point, this entire processing, may be taking place in milliseconds - from start to action.

An agan... you reference such thangs as "my" an "I"... an im not clear if "my" an "I" is somptin seperate from emotions an inteligence.???

Again consider the bottle of water with the added (double) flavour.

'I' and 'my' is the whole thing - the entire person, however the physical bottle itself (our flesh, bone and blood) can be almost disregarded in this context; being merely the means of transportation of the more essential (spiritual) individual inside. So the water is really the 'I' and 'my", but the two flavours are also almost entirely water, so are included in the 'I' and 'my' and are the essence that gives dimension to the SPIRITUAL 'I' and 'my' - which again, is each of us.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

It's fascinating to further note when we consider these realities of our mental processing; how we discover that even though our general regard of our mind/mentality is according it as being complex, in a similar manner to how we might perceive the workings of a computer - nonetheless, simplicity is really the essence of the entire operation.

Is "mind/mentality" seperate from emotions an inteligence.???

Indeed it is, however this might get a little difficult to appreciate on the first reading, so be patient.

Even though the mind/mentality and the two core options are separate, and entirely spiritual, they are so closely linked, it is an almost impossible task to define the difference in a coherent manner. Even so, here I go.......

Our mind is like the software in your computer - not physical - therefore spiritual. The physical brain in our head is like the physical computer itself - the hardware.

So we can readily see that there are two separate parts - the physical and the spiritual. The spiritual half (software) is of course - in turn made up of two recurring choices - the core influences - yes/no, or on/off. However to make all these parts of the computer (and self) an entity that actually achieves something; a spiritual (non-physical) mentality - being the person sitting at the keyboard, needs to make some decisions between all the yes/no, or on/off choices, that piece by small piece, work through the vast array of consecutive options - towards a finalisation of the task selected.

So in the computer scenario, the guy at the keyboard is making the selections, and in the human version, this is the Spiritual' 'I', 'me', and 'my'. But any decision 'I' make, is only as good as the on/off or yes/no switch that in turn, moves us onto the next decision - and so on, towards the spiritual choice being made physical by our hands, feet, tongue, or any other part of our physical being.

Excellent questions indeed. It makes me wonder if you have ever previously come across any concept such as this???? Or do you simply have the most dynamic and dexterous imagination on this forum?

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

That avatar was givin to me about the time (several years ago) that i was labeled "complete dullard"... i thout they was both funny an kept usin 'em... my name in real life is Tim... an i was also givin the name "Pasture Timmy" (by a Christan Lady)dew to the way i spell an "preech" about Jesus/God... cluelusshusbund is the name i started usin (in discuss groops) about 12 years ago as the fictional husband of a female poster

Fictional husband? That is kinda like a spiritual husband, so if I may ask - are you also a physical husband to a physical wife, who must struggle to keep on her toes when you get going?

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

As your questions become increasingly penetrating, the responses will be more germane and testing, and consequently not so easily defined, or perhaps comprehended. But please don't permit any of that to stand in the way of your investigation of vitality.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Mayb the theme of my questons below will make it mor clear what i dont fully understan about what you'r sayin.!!!

When i thank of an evaluation... i pitcher "sombody" preformin that evaluation...

Correct. We actually do this perhaps tens or even hundreds of millions of times during our lifetime - evaluate (weigh up) between 'A' and 'B' - to make a choice- towards physical action.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

so im not clear about "who/what" is preformin the evaluation which determines the winer of the emotion inteligence battle.???

The person who is the owner of the choices is performing the evaluation - even though he is really only the owner of the emotions half of the equation. The INTELLIGENCE half, is only at his disposal for the time being, and if he rejects it enough, it will no longer be available to him. Even so, it will certainly NOT cease to exist - in the greater omnipresent ocean of INTELLIGENCE.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Originally Posted by Apopohis reject

If you again care to consider for instance; I'm standing at the window of that ice cream parlour with the two suggestions fighting it out in my mind - walk away or indulge - yes or no. Nothing has eventuated in a physical sense, until I decide which action I will embark upon, so the only thing that is going on at this point, is non-physical, therefore is spiritual. It is a spiritual weighing up (of the two spirits) - my 1. emotions and 2. INTELLIGENCE.

oK... when you said "my mind"... an "I deside" (above)... are those the sam thang... an is "my mind" an "I" somptin seperate from emotions an inteligence.???

Imagine a bottle of water. The bottle itself being the physical vessel carrying around the (SPIRITUAL) water inside. Now while the bottle is necessary in it's own right, the internal stuff is the reason for anyone (other than the incredibly physically minded) regarding in the first instance; the combination of the two as important.

Now imagine that the water has had a sweetness (say lemon and honey flavour) added into it, and instantaneously we notice it is this tasty addition that becomes the reason someone might choose it, over (say) a beer. Even though the water is the reason we might NEED the contents, the flavour/s has become the reason we WANT it - another double polarity (dichotomy).

So now, please consider your body (including brain) as the bottle (vessel), the water as your (spiritual) mind, and the lemon and honey as the two intrinsic influences - within your mind. It is your mind - the water, that chooses to consider anything that comes across your path at any time - like the ice creams in the window. And in your need to make a choice in regards each requirement that presents itself, you will choose from between the lemon and honey - A or B, on or off.

You might also notice that the two flavours are somewhat opposing each other - one sweet and the other bitter - the dichotomy itself. You will also recognise that the sweet half will always be sweet, and the bitter half will always be bitter. But ultimately, you will be required to drink both together.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Therefore the only thing that controls the spiritual evaluation of the two spiritual options, is my selection to consider the possibilities, or not - another 'yes' or 'no' = another choice. Of course, this is a choice, which I may make many times over, but it is still a choice - 'no' - not to proceed yet, until I have decided what to do. It is again fair to note at this point, this entire processing, may be taking place in milliseconds - from start to action.

An agan... you reference such thangs as "my" an "I"... an im not clear if "my" an "I" is somptin seperate from emotions an inteligence.???

Again consider the bottle of water with the added (double) flavour.

'I' and 'my' is the whole thing - the entire person, however the physical bottle itself (our flesh, bone and blood) can be almost disregarded in this context; being merely the means of transportation of the more essential (spiritual) individual inside. So the water is really the 'I' and 'my", but the two flavours are also almost entirely water, so are included in the 'I' and 'my' and are the essence that gives dimension to the SPIRITUAL 'I' and 'my' - which again, is each of us.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

It's fascinating to further note when we consider these realities of our mental processing; how we discover that even though our general regard of our mind/mentality is according it as being complex, in a similar manner to how we might perceive the workings of a computer - nonetheless, simplicity is really the essence of the entire operation.

Is "mind/mentality" seperate from emotions an inteligence.???

Indeed it is, however this might get a little difficult to appreciate on the first reading, so be patient.

Even though the mind/mentality and the two core options are separate, and entirely spiritual, they are so closely linked, it is an almost impossible task to define the difference in a coherent manner. Even so, here I go.......

Our mind is like the software in your computer - not physical - therefore spiritual. The physical brain in our head is like the physical computer itself - the hardware.

So we can readily see that there are two separate parts - the physical and the spiritual. The spiritual half (software) is of course - in turn made up of two recurring choices - the core influences - yes/no, or on/off. However to make all these parts of the computer (and self) an entity that actually achieves something; a spiritual (non-physical) mentality - being the person sitting at the keyboard, needs to make some decisions between all the yes/no, or on/off choices, that piece by small piece, work through the vast array of consecutive options - towards a finalisation of the task selected.

So in the computer scenario, the guy at the keyboard is making the selections, and in the human version, this is the Spiritual' 'I', 'me', and 'my'. But any decision 'I' make, is only as good as the on/off or yes/no switch that in turn, moves us onto the next decision - and so on, towards the spiritual choice being made physical by our hands, feet, tongue, or any other part of our physical being.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

That avatar was givin to me about the time (several years ago) that i was labeled "complete dullard"... i thout they was both funny an kept usin 'em... my name in real life is Tim... an i was also givin the name "Pasture Timmy" (by a Christan Lady)dew to the way i spell an "preech" about Jesus/God... cluelusshusbund is the name i started usin (in discuss groops) about 12 years ago as the fictional husband of a female poster

Fictional husband? That is kinda like a spiritual husband, so if I may ask - are you also a physical husband to a physical wife, who must struggle to keep on her toes when you get going?

Below is my understandin (from you'r post above) of what these thangs are an/or do.!!!

"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 spiritual... a bad influence owned by me.!!!

"INTELIGENCE" is spiritual an a good influence... an on loan from the omnipresent ocean of INTELIGENCE.!!!

"Mind" is spiritual... it contains the emotions an INTELIGENCE... but its seperate from the emotions an INTELIGENCE.!!!

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 then the actions of my physical body behaves accordinly.!!!

Please make corections as necesary which can then lead us to bein on the sam page on this issue.!!!

Posted prevously
Excellent questions indeed. It makes me wonder if you have ever previously come across any concept such as this???? Or do you simply have the most dynamic and dexterous imagination on this forum?

Thank you... an this (interestin) concept is new to me (hinse the questons)... but in answer to the las part of you'r queston... im a qurious un-educated fuggin-genious who ant afrad to understan other peoples ideas... an even tho my ego is near 100%... i realize i coud be rong about everthang :-)

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
That avatar was givin to me about the time (several years ago) that i was labeled "complete dullard"... i thout they was both funny an kept usin 'em... my name in real life is Tim... an i was also givin the name "Pasture Timmy" (by a Christan Lady)dew to the way i spell an "preech" about Jesus/God... cluelusshusbund is the name i started usin (in discuss groops) about 12 years ago as the fictional husband of a female poster

Fictional husband? That is kinda like a spiritual husband, so if I may ask - are you also a physical husband to a physical wife, who must struggle to keep on her toes when you get going?

Yes... an im a atheist type who got married almos 40 years ago to a church-goin Pennycost girl an shes been my sweet an perty wife ever sinse... an yes it was a bit of a struggle for her durin the firs 3 years... but she caught on to the concept of unconditional love as she discarted the idea of a lovin heavenly father who woud inflict punishnent when she messes up.!!!

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Below is my understandin (from you'r post above) of what these thangs are an/or do.!!!

"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 spiritual... a bad influence owned by me.!!!

I doubt we can use the word 'bad' here. Emotions of course, are an essential part of being alive and without them we wouldn't survive in any case. Apart from other needs for life, they inform our mentality when we have a need to eat and drink, and when our leg is about to fall off. Therefore the body depends upon them for sustenance and survival, and they also afford us the pleasure of companionship and desire, even though this is clearly an area of 'me' that 'I' have forever tended to overemphasise and abuse - via those emotions, or at least; choices to surrender to such.

See the point Tim? It is NOT the emotions that are 'bad', but we might not be able to say the same thing about our choices, for it is these which effectively give the emotions free reign, when it would have been far more efficient and supportive of 'me' to favour, in my decisions to action; the other half of my reasoning - that is, my given portion of INTELLIGENCE.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

"INTELIGENCE" is spiritual an a good influence... an on loan from the omnipresent ocean of INTELIGENCE.!!!

A nice way of putting it, however this is an extremely interesting observation, because just as with emotions, the more 'I' tend the seeds of INTELLIGENCE in my garden, the more INTELLIGENCE will come into bloom, and the more I can enjoy the results, and in turn, the more seeds I am entitled to plant, and interestingly enough, the more I will appreciate my emotions as a result. It really is an all-round win-win for 'me'.

Here is simplicity defined; it all started with a simple CHOICE to get real with 'me' (my rampant and destructive emotions) - you know "The truth will set you free!". Secondly, another simple CHOICE; to favour my given INTELLIGENCE. After that, it was easy - because ultimately, intelligence is infinitely more real and powerful than emotions, so took over the show from there.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

"Mind" is spiritual... it contains the emotions an INTELIGENCE... but its seperate from the emotions an INTELIGENCE.!!!

Well it isn't separate as such, but is a term with a separate definition. For mine, the mind is like a two-stroke engine. It would not function and be entirely useless, without the fuel and oil mix constantly pouring into it. The fuel and oil in the case of a mind, being the emotions and intelligence, with the engine being the mentality - processing that supplied mix and production towards a physical result - via choice.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

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 then the actions of my physical body behaves accordinly.!!!

I couldn't have said it better.

Now, there is a power supply which flows outward from the mind through it's choice, towards 'my' hands or feet, tongue or eyes, or any other part of my physical flesh, which results in that choice being made physical. So even though the choice itself is non-physical, it's entire purpose for being, is to be made physical.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Thank you... an this (interestin) concept is new to me (hinse the questons)... but in answer to the las part of you'r queston... im a qurious un-educated fuggin-genious who ant afrad to understan other peoples ideas... an even tho my ego is near 100%... i realize i coud be rong about everthang :-)

I need to inform you Tim, that the last two statements you wrote (above) are in fact repugnant to each other. You cannot have a 100% ego and at the same time, believe you could be wrong - about anything at all. You will have to make up your mind which of these is more appropriate in your case, and which to further cultivate for the assured long-term benefits.

Pssssssst; I believe I already know the answer to this dilemma, via your posts.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Yes... an im a atheist type who got married almos 40 years ago to a church-goin Pennycost girl an shes been my sweet an perty wife ever sinse... an yes it was a bit of a struggle for her durin the firs 3 years... but she caught on to the concept of unconditional love as she discarted the idea of a lovin heavenly father who woud inflict punishnent when she messes up.!!!

Well that certainly seems to be an easier box to tick for Pentecostals, than other religious influences. There is one thing about Pentecostals which certainly gives me great concern however, apart from all that belief in religious myth of course; is their favouring of emotional exuberance. But that could be a subject for another forum, huh?

oK... ive updated what i wrote befor... an agan... let me know what needs changin... cause if we dont have a understandin on what these words mean it woud be pontless to even begin a discussion about "your{?)" ideas.!!!


"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.!!!

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 then the actions of my physical body behaves accordinly.!!!

Apopohis Reject---"Now, there is a power supply which flows outward from the mind through it's choice, towards 'my' hands or feet, tongue or eyes, or any other part of my physical flesh, which results in that choice being made physical. So even though the choice itself is non-physical, it's entire purpose for being, is to be made physical."
===================

...an even tho my ego is near 100%... i realize i coud be rong about everthang :-)

I need to inform you Tim, that the last two statements you wrote (above) are in fact repugnant to each other. You cannot have a 100% ego and at the same time, believe you could be wrong - about anything at all.

Unless you thank as i do that the universe is deterministic... an yet i live my life as if i have free will... an that combination seems to allow me to have my cake an eat it to in regard to "ego" an realizin i may not know squat about anythang :-)

You will have to make up your mind which of these is more appropriate in your case, and which to further cultivate for the assured long-term benefits.

Pssssssst; I believe I already know the answer to this dilemma, via your posts.

That souns burdonsom (not my cup-O-tea)... lol... an "luckly" for me not necesary sinse it ant a dilemma... cause i dont "work-at" improvin myself... i except myself as i am... includin change as it occurs.!!!

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Yes... an im a atheist type who got married almos 40 years ago to a church-goin Pennycost girl an shes been my sweet an perty wife ever sinse... an yes it was a bit of a struggle for her durin the firs 3 years... but she caught on to the concept of unconditional love as she discarted the idea of a lovin heavenly father who woud inflict punishnent when she messes up.!!!

...There is one thing about Pentecostals which certainly gives me great concern however, apart from all that belief in religious myth of course; is their favouring of emotional exuberance. But that could be a subject for another forum, huh?

I thank thats a fun subject for any fourm... lol... i only went to church wit her 3 times... an 1 of those times was the church Chrismus play... an when thar i ask her... "whos decision was it that "XXXXX" woud play the part of Virgin Mary... she tolt me that "XXXXX" had begged the preecher to play the part so he let her... which seemed a bit ironic/hypocritical sinse i had dated that girl a couple of weeks earlier an i know for a fact she wasnt no virgin

But bak to you'r issue... the emotional exuberance they displayed was fasinatin to watch... women runnin up an down the isles wit ther eyes closed... speekin in "tongues"... standin thar prayin to God wit 1 or both hands up in the air wit tears streamin down ther faces... but other than that it was a waste of time... i only went cause my wife-to-be had ask me to go.!!!

___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).!!!

___You’ve made a statement and now must come the proof to back it up, because reality works upon something that can be described as a combination of fate and free will.
___Free will exists as long as the concept that we describe as ‘nonexistence’ has an existence (even if it doesn’t exist) because it creates the unknown or ‘free’ part of choices.
___Fate exists as long as there are no other possible actions and while the choices change at each point in time and space, you are still fated to make a choice between doing something different, stop choosing things at all and doing nothing.
___I am still reading, carefully, the rest of the debate between you and Reject (from their post answering mine), so I may or not join into that part.