« First « Previous Comments 199 - 214 of 214 Search these comments
This is what a layer is: an abstraction of the layers below it. And when I say "We make a choice" (which you now agree on) it's not something that is apparent if you look at the particle soup. It is something that is apparent only because we look at higher layer. And this is in fact the layer we consciously experience.
So layers matter.
I'll say it again: layers matter BECAUSE this is only way we can look at concepts like "choice", or "will", or "belief". We don't look at these concepts as a soup of atom. We couldn't understand them as soup of atoms. We experience them as something happening on a layer above the soup of atom. Therefore trying to discuss these as soup of atom is unlikely to produce any meaningful argument.
All this was said in the context that free will is meaningful in and only in your "higher layers". It's not, but if the "higher layers" created free will, they would have to violate the laws of nature. They cannot.
And where in that did I say that the conscious layer is non-deterministic?
And where did I say that you said the conscious layer is non-deterministic?
You have attempted to make the case that what you call layers create free will, and since free will violates the laws of nature, your layers would have to. That is why your argument is wrong.
You can spend your life talking of a concept "ass boogers". If you can't even tell whether this concept is present or not, this is humongous waste of time.
Bullshit. I can tell the square root of two cannot be represented as the ratio of two numbers even thous I cannot tell what a universe in which it could be would be like. And that is the point I made. I never said that we cannot tell that free will does not exist. I have proven it does not. I said since free will completely contradicts causality, one could not extrapolate the properties of a universe in which free will exists. This is a point that you have not refuted and cannot refute.
You have attempted to make the case that what you call layers create free will, and since free will violates the laws of nature, your layers would have to . That is why your argument is wrong.
here.
You have attempted to make the case that what you call layers create free will, and since free will violates the laws of nature, your layers would have to . That is why your argument is wrong.
here.
Honey, that statement doesn't imply that I am saying you said consciousness is non-deterministic. God, do I have to talk in terms of see Dick, see Jane?
I have proven it does not. I said since free will completely contradicts causality, one could not extrapolate the properties of a universe in which free will exists. This is a point that you have not refuted and cannot refute.
Except of course you said this is the definition of "ass boogers" that priests, pope and other people use, and they think they have it. No in fact they think they experience it, which is a stronger statement because no one can tell you that you are not experiencing what you are in fact experiencing.
If "ass boogers" doesn't exist, then what is it they experience?
this is humongous waste of time.
Just like this thread. God's revenge on the atheists--He certainly has a sense of humor.
God
When did you become a believer?
No in fact they think they experience it, which is a stronger statement because no one can tell you that you are not experiencing what you are in fact experiencing.
I can be certainly correct in stating that a person isn't experiencing what he thinks he's experience. If a person believes the government is using secret microwaves to control people's brains and that tin foil hat protects him, I can be quite confident that the person is not experiencing the government mind-control attempts he thinks he is.
If "ass boogers" doesn't exist, then what is it they experience?
A delusion that they inflict upon themselves.
You have attempted to make the case that what you call layers create free will, and since free will violates the laws of nature, your layers would have to . That is why your argument is wrong.
here.
Honey, that statement doesn't imply that I am saying you said consciousness is non-deterministic. God, do I have to talk in terms of see Dick, see Jane?
Yes this statement implies that I tried to make the case that adding the notion the layers could somehow create freewill passing YOUR definition.
You can't even conceive that I try to make an argument for something different than YOUR definition.
If "ass boogers" doesn't exist, then what is it they experience?
A delusion that they inflict upon themselves.
So you use their definition, and insist this is the right definition, while claiming they are deluded about what they are talking about.
Nice trick.
Yes this statement implies that I tried to make the case that adding the notion the layers could somehow create freewill passing YOUR definition.
No it doesn't. And making that assertion doesn't make it true.
So you use their definition, and insist this is the right definition, while claiming they are deluded about what they are talking about.
We can debate endlessly on which definition is the right one.
The question is meaningless. There is no such thing as a right definition or a wrong definition. It's the meaning of statements that are either true or false.
You should stop repeating yourself. If you want to open a thread discussing the affects of consciousness on decision making, then do so. This thread is about the concept of free will as shown in the video of the original post. You are simply off topic.
If you want to open a thread discussing the affects of consciousness on decision making, then do so. This thread is about the concept of free will as shown in the video of the original post. You are simply off topic.
In other words "Anything outside my preconceived beliefs is simply off-topic and I don't want to discuss with you. ". "But I believe in truth. ".
If you want to open a thread discussing the affects of consciousness on decision making, then do so. This thread is about the concept of free will as shown in the video of the original post. You are simply off topic.
In other words "Anything outside my preconceived beliefs is simply off-topic and I don't want to discuss with you. ". "But I believe in truth. ".
Bullshit. You are not even debating sincerely. The topic of this thread is clear. You are simply trying to play a game of bait and switch and I'm not falling for it. If you have nothing else to add the conversation, then simply stay silent.
Anything outside my preconceived beliefs
What he really means is anything, anything to keep it going...
« First « Previous Comments 199 - 214 of 214 Search these comments
Brilliant man. Brilliant video. If I were gay, I'd totally marry Sam Harris.
www.youtube.com/embed/gfpq_CIFDjg
#scitech #politics #religion