Regarding Franko...

[wraith]

Franko,

oh, excuse me, "wraith"

What on earth does any of that have to do with what I wrote?

Upchurch

Im just saying that you need to use logic

 

[MRC_Hans]

Its always fun to answer riddles, e.g.:

Can you create something more conscious than yourself?
Do you control TLOP?

First question: Unanswerable. We dont know what consciousness is or how to quantify it. Can I create something conscious at all?

Second question: Basically, yes. Tlop as they apply to me describe or confine what I can do. If I change the range of what I can do, I thereby change tlop. But of course it all depends on the definition of tlop.

Hans

 

[wraith]

How old are you?
12?

 

[Q-Source]

Wraith,

What time is it there?

You should go back to bed now.

You surprise me!!

Q-S

 

[Upchurch]

How old are you?
12?

Fra ...er, "wraith",

Just how, then, do you quantify consiousness?
Upchurch

 

[BillyJoe]

Franko’s quotes in ordinary type

Billyjoe’s reply in bold type

----------------------------------------------------

I am happy for A-Theists to have an "illusion of free will" because the "illusion of free will" is real. The problem is that the "illlusion of free will", which is real, makes it seem as if "free will" is real. "free will", however, is not real.

Franko, you are not saying anthing with which I disagree.

BTW … God is real …

Now you are.

Well, I’d say you are half right [regarding the statement: Like the optical illusion, the "illusion of free will" and the "illusion of God" are also real but, like the square and the different shades of grey, "Free will" and "God" are not there.

Well, I’d say you are half right.

Speak for yourself. You have no idea how I perceive reality.

Well, okay, you deny not only “free will” but also the “illusion of free will”
This is hard for me to believe.
Okay, it’s all just FATE but doesn’t it at least seem like “free will” to you?
How do you “make” all those decisions that you must “make” every moment of your life if you don’t at least accept the “illusion of free will”?
The alternative is that you feel yourself following a predetermined path. Is this really how it feels for an LD. Following a predetermined path, “making” no decisions?
If so, I bet it took a hell of an effort to get yourself to feel this way. I’ll bet you didn’t start off this way. I’ll bet you at least started off feeling as if you had “free will”

Your claim is as absurd as me claiming that ALL A-Theists experience the “illusion of God”, or the “illusion of afterlife”, or all A-Theists experience the “illusion of invisible pink dragons living in their garage”.

But we don’t come face to face with the concepts of “God” and “Afterlife” until these concepts are presented to us by our parents and teachers. But we do come face to face with “free will” long before this concept is presented to us.
If you really do not have the “illusion of free will” now, then I think it was there at the beginning until you philosophically cast it out.

Well …technically you can’t say that it is NOT conscious. Technically you can only claim that YOU are more conscious. If you want to precisely define consciousness, then perhaps, you could claim the CAR is NOT conscious. Do you have a definition of consciousness?

The simple answer is that a car is not conscious.
I do not need a complete definition of consciousness to determine that a car is not conscious.
It obviously isn't.
(Remember, I’m answering the simple question here)

[BillyJoe: The complex answer is that a car is conscious because it is the artifact of a conscious being.]
Frankpo: Just like YOU are a conscious artifact of TLOP?

I do not disagree.
The point is that the complexity goes from left to right.
YOU are more complex than TLOP and the CAR is more complex than YOU
(Remember, I’m answering the complex question here where the CAR being an artifact of YOU includes the complexity of YOU)

[BillyJoe: So we actually have an evolutionary process...
TLOP -> -> -> non-conscious entities -> -> -> transitionally conscious entities -> -> -> conscious entities -> -> - > artifacts ]
Franko: Is this what you call a proof Billyjoe? This looks more like a logical contradiction to me. You are simply CLAIMING that TLOP is non-conscious. You might as well be claiming that your CAR is more conscious then you are. Why the contradiction? You have done nothing to explain it, you have simply asserted that there is NO contradiction.

But your assertion is no proof; it’s just an assertion.

I’m just demonstrating the evolutionary process from simple to complex, from non-conscious through transitionally conscious to conscious to higher consciousness.

So if complexity increase to the right, then you are claiming that your CAR is more conscious then YOU are!!! So is your CAR GOD Billyjoe?

Remember though that artifacts include/imply the consciousness of the producer of the artifact.
Suppose you visited another planet on your intergalactic travels. What would you regard as more important, finding a life form or a watch?
The watch implies more than the existence of a life form. It implies the existence of a life form intelligent enough to produce a watch.

So you CAR is more evolved than YOU? Without humans, how many CARS would exist?

But the CAR implies the existence of YOU.
In evolution, consciousness PRECEEDED artifacts.
So the presence of artifacts implies a higher form of consciousness.

Well your “illusions of free will” comments aside, I think we see eye to eye in that this conversation was FATED to happen at this moment, and what you said, and how I would respond was also FATED. The question is will this conversation have any ultimate effect on Your Fate overall?

None.
Because what happens in the future is determined by the present state of play (which, of course, was determined by what came before).

This is my answer but I’m not confident that I am correct…..

Many would say that contingency means that, if you wind back the clock and let her rip again, you would not get the same result. Determinacy means that the result would be roughly the same but contingency means that it would not play out indentically.

The question is: Is [/I]contigency[/I] just determinacy once removed?
Would that meteor strike again and wipe out the dinosaurs?

So TLOP produces US … we produce TOASTERS; ergo Toasters are more evolved then we are?

Yes, artifacts imply forms of consciousness capable of producing them.
YOU cannot produce a TOASTER.
That requires knowledge of electricity, electrical generators, mining of metals, manufacturing of metals etc etc. At a deeper level, it even requires knowledge of quantum theory.
YOU don’t have that knowledge.
That required a lot of conscious intelligences spread through time and space.
The artifact that resulted – the TOASTER – implies all of this.
This is the complex answer to your question.

You can make a Toaster, can a Toaster make you?

YOU cannot make a TOASTER.
That TOASTER is at the end of a long line of evolutionary change

TLOP can make you, can you make TLOP?

The problem is who made TLOP?
If the answer is God made TLOP or God is TLOP, then who made God….and it’s turtles all the way up

You can’t even comprehend TLOP!

This is the mystery at the beginning of the universe: Why these laws? Why anything at all?
This mystery is not solved by saying “God” because “God” is also a mystery solved by saying “Supergod” ….and it’s turtles all the way up.

I agree [that they are both equally unjustified in their belief because neither "free will" nor "God" exist.]
But, perhaps you should have a chat with CWL and straighten him out. He has deluded himself into believing you agree with him on this point …

I think CWL agrees.
It’s just that he has removed that extra bit out of the definition of “free will” so as to that he can believe in “free will”.
His “free will” is my “illusion of free will”

So you are actually claiming that the Rocket is somehow more conscious then the Astronaut? (at least that is consistent)

A rocket is a good example.
Imagine how many consciousnesses it took to get that rocket up there in space.
If an alien came here to evaluate life on Earth what do you think would impress him more, YOU or a ROCKET.
The ROCKET would tell him a whole lot more about life on Earth than YOU.

Is that what you believe (that energy is a zero sum)???

Ohhh, I’d love to see you try and prove that assertion Billyjoe. What you say may be True from the POV of a Pseudo-Materialist, but only as a theory. No one has ever been able to prove this claim, nor will they.

Energy = Matter + Gravity
The positive Energy of Matter is balanced by the negative Energy of Gravity.
Energy = 0

There is only one type of particle in reality … Gravitons. There are two varieties – Posi-Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons. One types produces/creates/generates Energy/”Matter”(Information), the other type destroys/annihilates Energy/”Matter”(Information).

Says who?

The thing is, that the Anti-Gravitons have this tendency to annihilate themselves. So over time, the Posi-Gravitons are increasing in number relative to the whole.

Again, says who?

What you are claiming is that Machines make Minds. All of the evidence indicates that the opposite is TRUE.

What evidence indicates minds make machines?

Are you familiar with Mandelbrot? What you are claiming is analogous to looking at some of the fine detail after generations and generations of recursion on the Mandelbrot set, and claiming that this fine detail is more complex then the original algorithm and program that is generating the fine detail you are observing.

My understanding of Mandlebrot is “simplicity produces complexity”.
A simple algorithm produces a complex drawing
My understanding is that Mandlebrot had no idea what drawings his algorithms would produce. The equations he used were very simple and the idea of iterating them was also very simple idea. But the result was amazingly complex.

So now you are the Elephant claiming that Zero and Infinity are the same thing? Let me give you a warning, my Friend. The Elephant made the mistake of looking at Time before he should have. It fried out his little brain.

Actually, what did happen to UCE?

But I can’t remember claiming that zero and infinity are the same.
The point I was trying to make is that if we are programs in Gods computer, then God could be a program in a Supergod’s computer…..and it’s turtles all the way up

In other words, there’s no explanatory power in positing God.

Sure! Why not just claim it was “Magic”?

A quantum fluctuation is a real phenomenon.
Why there should be a quantum fluctuation is a mystery.
This mystery is not resolved by positing a mysterious God.

If your prefer a magical answer to Godel’s solid Math, then knock yourself out, my Friend. Personally I think you are fooling yourself, and you aren’t exactly convincing me that these aren’t religious beliefs on your part.

They are based on objective evidence.
Subject, of course, to correction if further evidence should demand it.

[BillyJoe: The point is that no one really knows.]
Franko: Sure you do – THERE IS NO GOD!

Well, okay, an overstatement I admit – but not much.
There is no evidence that God exists….
…..so I live my life as if God doesn’t exist.
Ditto for the faeries at the bottom of my garden.
This is a long way from saying that THERE IS NO GOD

If your definition of “Science” involves calling something FALSE when you have NO EVIDENCE it is FALSE, then I have a different definition of “Science” then you do.

See above

If it weren’t for thought experiments, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein would have never been heard of.

I love thought experiments but ultimately they mean nothing unless they produce falsifiable hypotheses like those of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.

Actually your inability to explain an obvious logically contradiction is what I call A-Theism of the Gaps. It is only God of the Gaps when a Theists dodges logical inconsistencies in Their beliefs. But when you A-Theists use this fallacious argument it is YOUR problem.

I do not see the contradiction.

Here is a hypothetical conversation between us. Please make any corrections on your side …

Franko: Does Darwin provide any evidence for the origin of Life? In other words, is Darwin a Proof of Abiogenesis?
Billyjoe: No, Darwin only proves evolution (change over time) once life got started. Darwin – in and of himself – says nothing about life’s origin.
Franko: So Darwin provides no proof that Matter makes consciousness?
Billyjoe: No, Darwin does not prove Matter makes consciousness
Franko: So what empirical evidence do you have that Matter makes consciousness is True? It is merely an assumption on your part, is it not? Why even bother to mention Darwin?
Billyjoe: ???

Okay confession…..

I looked back and, surprise, I did in fact raise Darwin in the context of abiogenesis.
Apologies.
It is obviously an easy mistake to make even when you know better.

But, in answer to your question regarding empirical evidence for non-life -> life.
There is no direct evidence but a lot of pointers as to how this could happen.
Your cynical comment about amino acids in a previous post suggests to me that you are not interested in pointers however. Obviously you want nothing short of life from non-life in the laboratory. Well, it hasn’t happened. It is a big mountain to climb and we’re only a little way up from base camp. Maybe we’ll never get to the top but there’s no other way to get there.

Theologians think they are sitting up there already but how would they know when they've got their heads in the clouds
(Sorry, Franko, just foolin’ around)

Well this is a lot of question begging and unfounded assumptions on your part. I could just as easily claim:

A-Theistic Science is subjective. (No evidence = FALSE???[are you crazy?])
God is objective.
A-theistic Science tries to hide the gaps.
God fills in the gaps.

Yes, but what is your basis for saying so.

The products of science are many and varied. How subjective is your washing machine, your television or your computer.
On the other hand, how objective is God? Where is your empirical proof of God?

As for “No evidence = FALSE???[are you crazy?]”………….

Let me just repeat again:
I am not saying that “No evidence” = FALSE.
I am saying that “No evidence” = IRRELEVANT.

If there is no evidence that God exists, God is irrelevant (meaning I do not take God into account when considering how to live my life) until such time as this evidence is forthcoming.

 

[CWL]

I think CWL agrees.
It’s just that he has removed that extra bit out of the definition of “free will” so as to that he can believe in “free will”.
His “free will” is my “illusion of free will”

Correct.

The world is complex and dichotomous. Whether or not a concept "exists" or not depends on the context.

What you are saying regarding "actual free will" is correct from a strictly materialistic point of view. From this perspective ("it all boils down to chemicals in our brain", or something to that effect) the concept of "free will" looses its meaning. This does however not mean that in a social context - from a humanistic perspective - that our perception of free will is false.

This is where you admit that "the illusion of free will" (what I have simply referred to as "free will") is real. I would argue that the choice of the word "illusion" is rather unfortunate (I would prefer "perception") but otherwise I think that you have done an oustanding job on formulating this analysis - my compliments.

What I am saying (and I belive that we are still in agreement) is that on a social level - for all practical reasons - we may, should and must assume that we possess free will. Otherwise all that is left is nihilism. Forget about society, ethics or laws.

That a concept "looses its meaning" from a certain perspective is not the same as that concept "not being true". The concept of free will derives from and exists within a humanistic perspective. It is pointless to debate or question it from a materialistic perspective. Hence Franko's confusion.

 

[Upchurch]

That a concept "looses its meaning" from a certain perspective is not the same as that concept "not being true". The concept of free will derives from and exists within a humanistic perspective. It is pointless to debate or question it from a materialistic perspective.

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to go back over some of my old college philosophy stuff and I remembered something I had forgotten, which your post brings up.

Arguements require a great deal of definition in order to establish their validity. It's assumptions must be agreed upon (or at least taken as granted), terms must be defined, and context (or point of view or perspective) must be established. Without it, as CWL points out, there is a great deal of confusion.

Upchurch

 

[Franko]

Billjoe:

My Friend, are you seriously telling me you don’t see a contradiction here?

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

You can’t say that you are superior to the left side, AND superior to the right side at the same time. At least, you cannot do it and maintain any sort of sense of Logical Consistency.

Franko:
[The “illusion of free will” …]Speak for yourself. You have no idea how I perceive reality.

Billyjoe:
Well, okay, you deny not only “free will” but also the “illusion of free will”
This is hard for me to believe.

Why do you say that?

You deny not only “God”, but the “illusion of God”? Don’t you feel God’s presence hovering around you all day? Watching over you?

What makes you think that I perceive this “illusion” just because you do?

If another individual tell you that he believes Extraterrestrial Aliens make regular visits to Earth in their “flying saucers”, does that make you believe in “flying saucers” too?

Flying saucers aren’t real Billyjoe. Some people just imagine they see them. Same with “free will”.

BJ:
Okay, it’s all just FATE but doesn’t it at least seem like “free will” to you?

Not really, but then again I wouldn’t call a “square” a “4-sided triangle” either.

How do you “make” all those decisions that you must “make” every moment of your life if you don’t at least accept the “illusion of free will”?

My “decisions” were preordained by events in my past. All of my “decisions” are merely the inevitable result and logical consequence of my previous “decisions”.

The alternative is that you feel yourself following a predetermined path. Is this really how it feels for an LD. Following a predetermined path, “making” no decisions?

You aren’t making “decisions” either. The only difference is, I realize this and perceive accordingly. You on the other hand are programmed to pretend as if something FALSE is actually TRUE. It is a serious flaw in your algorithm. Fortunately, in your case, the error can be corrected.

If so, I bet it took a hell of an effort to get yourself to feel this way. I’ll bet you didn’t start off this way. I’ll bet you at least started off feeling as if you had “free will”

The Evil of Atheism is far more pervasive then most people realize. The Atheists have even managed to convince many Christians that they have this “illusionary free will”. It reminds me of an old saying, that the best Trick the Devil ever preformed was convincing people that he didn’t exist. It is kind of like Atheism. Their best trick was convincing people that they weren’t really a Religion.

Franko:
[All people experience the illusion of “free will” …]Your claim is as absurd as me claiming that ALL A-Theists experience the “illusion of God”, or the “illusion of afterlife”, or all A-Theists experience the “illusion of invisible pink dragons living in their garage”.

BillyJoe:
But we don’t come face to face with the concepts of “God” and “Afterlife” until these concepts are presented to us by our parents and teachers. But we do come face to face with “free will” long before this concept is presented to us.

Really? None of my children ever believed in “free will”.

This is an unwarranted assumption on your part.

Franko:
[Your Car …]Well …technically you can’t say that it is NOT conscious. Technically you can only claim that YOU are more conscious. If you want to precisely define consciousness, then perhaps, you could claim the CAR is NOT conscious. Do you have a definition of consciousness?

Billyjoe:
The simple answer is that a car is not conscious.
I do not need a complete definition of consciousness to determine that a car is not conscious.
It obviously isn't.
(Remember, I’m answering the simple question here)

Okay so a Christian answering a simple question …

Does God exist? (simple question)
Obviously God exist.
(Remember, I’m answering the simple question here)

In Logic you cannot just declare things as TRUE or FALSE, you have to prove them True or False within a logically consistent framework.

I say that my CAR is less conscious then ME, because 1) I control my CAR, and 2) I make a CAR far easier than a CAR makes ME.

[BillyJoe: The complex answer is that a car is conscious because it is the artifact of a conscious being.]
Franko: Just like YOU are a conscious artifact of TLOP?

I do not disagree.
The point is that the complexity goes from left to right.

[TLOP controls YOU controls CAR]

YOU are more complex than TLOP and the CAR is more complex than YOU
(Remember, I’m answering the complex question here where the CAR being an artifact of YOU includes the complexity of YOU)

Billyjoe, I can’t believe you are saying your CAR is more Complex, or Superior to YOU in any way analogous to YOU being Superior or more complex to TLOP.

Tell me, I can make a CAR, but I can’t make TLOP. Why is the less complex thing (TLOP – according to you) more difficult for me to make and understand than the CAR; which, according to you is more complex and Superior?

BillyJoe:
So we actually have an evolutionary process...

TLOP -> -> -> non-conscious entities -> -> -> transitionally conscious entities -> -> -> conscious entities -> -> - > artifacts

Franko:
Is this what you call a proof Billyjoe? This looks more like a logical contradiction to me. You are simply CLAIMING that TLOP is non-conscious. You might as well be claiming that your CAR is more conscious then you are. Why the contradiction? You have done nothing to explain it, you have simply asserted that there is NO contradiction.

But your assertion is no proof; it’s just an assertion.

Billyjoe:
I’m just demonstrating the evolutionary process from simple to complex, from non-conscious through transitionally conscious to conscious to higher consciousness.

Franko:
So if complexity increase to the right, then you are claiming that your CAR is more conscious then YOU are!!! So is your CAR GOD Billyjoe?

Billyjoe:
Remember though that artifacts include/imply the consciousness of the producer of the artifact.

… And like I said, you are an artifact of TLOP!!!

Ergo, TLOP is more conscious then you are – by your own Logic.

Suppose you visited another planet on your intergalactic travels. What would you regard as more important, finding a life form or a watch?
The watch implies more than the existence of a life form. It implies the existence of a life form intelligent enough to produce a watch.

Does the watch imply that? Maybe the watch just randomly formed according to the Laws of Physics? Why posit that the laws of physics first made “Intelligent Aliens”, who then in turn made watches? Maybe TLOP just cut to the chase, and is producing watches directly now?

I agree with your point, but you are still begging the question of Materialism. Why does a watch imply a consciousness intelligent enough to produce a watch, while universe does NOT imply the existence of a life form intelligent enough to produce a Universe?

Franko:
So you CAR is more evolved than YOU? Without humans, how many CARS would exist?

Billyjoe:
But the CAR implies the existence of YOU.

But YOU imply the existence of GOD (or TLOP).

In evolution, consciousness PRECEEDED artifacts.

Really? If that is True, then how did non-conscious TLOP make consciousness?

Of course if TLOP were already conscious (just like you) then TLOP makes you, and you make cars. Or maybe one day, you make robots, and one day robots make something else?

So the presence of artifacts implies a higher form of consciousness.

I agree completely – O’artifact of Almighty TLOP.

Franko:
Well your “illusions of free will” comments aside, I think we see eye to eye in that this conversation was FATED to happen at this moment, and what you said, and how I would respond was also FATED. The question is will this conversation have any ultimate effect on Your Fate overall?

Billyjoe:
None.
Because what happens in the future is determined by the present state of play (which, of course, was determined by what came before).

Yes, but that is My point. Our conversation from yesterday (and now this one) are art of your past already. The information from these exchanges is affecting the output of your MPB algorithm, as we speak.

This is my answer but I’m not confident that I am correct…..

Many would say that contingency means that, if you wind back the clock and let her rip again, you would not get the same result. Determinacy means that the result would be roughly the same but contingency means that it would not play out indentically.

The question is: Is [/I]contigency[/I] just determinacy once removed?
Would that meteor strike again and wipe out the dinosaurs?

This is why Dawkins and others like him are Nitwits. Contingency is an absurd and logically inconsistent notion. Reality does NOT operate like that.

If I erased your memory of the last 10 years and sent you back in Time 10 years in the past. You would relive those 10 years exactly the same as you did the first time. The only way that ANYTHING would ever be different is if somehow you retained some memory of your previous run through the cycle.

Did you ever see Groundhog Day with Bill Murray? Bill Murray becomes more and more powerful in that reality, because he is gaining information throughout. Meanwhile the other individuals of that town are being reset to their previous state at the end of each Groundhog day. They do not retain their memories; ergo on the following day, they do the exact same thing, unless the Billy Murray character interacts with them.

Franko:
So TLOP produces US … we produce TOASTERS; ergo Toasters are more evolved then we are?

Billyjoe:
Yes, artifacts imply forms of consciousness capable of producing them.

Once again I agree. But clearly, You and I are artifacts of TLOP in an analogous manner to the way that Toasters are artifacts of You and I.

YOU cannot produce a TOASTER.

Of course I could.

That requires knowledge of electricity, electrical generators, mining of metals, manufacturing of metals etc etc. At a deeper level, it even requires knowledge of quantum theory.

… or I could put a piece of bread on the end of a stick, and hold it over a fire.

YOU don’t have that knowledge.

Perhaps, but the Toaster in my Kitchen is evidence that some humans DO have that knowledge. Since those humans are intrinsically no different then I am, it is easily within the realm of possibility that I could learn to make Toasters.

Besides … how do you know that I don’t work in a Toaster factory?

That required a lot of conscious intelligences spread through time and space.

So why do you assume that TLOP isn’t “a lot of conscious intelligence spread through time and space”? Are you saying that TLOP is not spread through time and space?

YOU cannot produce a Consciousness.
YOU don’t have that knowledge.
The artifact that resulted – Toaster – implies all of this.
This is the complex answer to your question.

Exactly! … just like The artifact that resulted -- YOU – implies all of this.

Franko:[/b]
You can make a Toaster, can a Toaster make you?
TLOP can make YOU, can YOU make TLOP?

Billyjoe:
YOU cannot make a TOASTER.
That TOASTER is at the end of a long line of evolutionary change

Billyjoe! … Please!

Obviously TLOP makes humans, and humans make Toasters. Is this really so complicated?

Franko:
TLOP can make you, can you make TLOP?

The problem is who made TLOP?
If the answer is God made TLOP or God is TLOP, then who made God….and it’s turtles all the way up

Why is that a problem? Remember Mandelbrot? How about Godel? Godel explained all of this (mathematically), and then Mandelbrot demonstrated it.

The problem is who made TLOP?

Me: Who made you?
You: my parents.
Me: Who made your parents?
You: my grandparents.
Me: Who made your grandparents?
You: My great grandparents …

So why is it a problem? That’s not a problem, that is cause and event. Pretending that everything appeared like magic in the Big Bang is no more of an explanation, it is far far less of one.

Franko:
You can’t even comprehend TLOP!

Billyjoe:
This is the mystery at the beginning of the universe: Why these laws? Why anything at all?
This mystery is not solved by saying “God” because “God” is also a mystery solved by saying “Supergod” ….and it’s turtles all the way up.

No.

It is only a mystery, if you want to pretend that it is a mystery. TLOP is nothing more than the rules of the game. If you were God, and we were all inside your mind, your communications to me and everyone else would be perceived by us as something akin to the Laws of Physics. Think about it, and perhaps you will see what I mean.

It is like the game Dungeons and Dragons. The referee (DM) is like God. He is the frame of reference, and creator and arbiter of the rules. The DM generates the reality, but does not physically manifest himself. The world and the rules are his manifestation. The DM tells everyone where they are located relative to everyone else. When you want to act, you must act through the DM.

Another analogy would be a game of chess. You are one of the pieces on the board, when you want to move, you make a request to God, with where you want to move to. If your move is a valid one, then God moves your piece, but you cannot move anywhere without God’s say so. It’s her game. She ultimately controls ALL of the action.

Billyjoe:
I agree [that they are both equally unjustified in their belief because neither "free will" nor "God" exist.]

Franko:
well perhaps you should have a chat with CWL and straighten him out. He has deluded himself into believing you agree with him on this point …

Billyjoe:
I think CWL agrees.
It’s just that he has removed that extra bit out of the definition of “free will” so as to that he can believe in “free will”.
His “free will” is my “illusion of free will”

Kind of like a Christians concept of “afterlife” is your concept of “crazy talk”; same with CWL and his talk of “free will”.

Franko:
So you are actually claiming that the Rocket is somehow more conscious then the Astronaut? (at least that is consistent)

Billyjoe:
A rocket is a good example.
Imagine how many consciousnesses it took to get that rocket up there in space.

Yeah … think how many consciousnesses TLOP had to make before it could build You.

If an alien came here to evaluate life on Earth what do you think would impress him more, YOU or a ROCKET.
The ROCKET would tell him a whole lot more about life on Earth than YOU.

Really?

So if an Alien ship ever crashed on Earth, you are claiming you would be more interested in their Spaceship then in the Aliens themselves?

Personally, that sounds to me like claiming it is better to possess One Physical Wheel, then it is to possess the knowledge of “the Wheel”.

Franko:
Is that what you believe (that energy is a zero sum)???

Ohhh, I’d love to see you try and prove that assertion Billyjoe. What you say may be True from the POV of a Pseudo-Materialist, but only as a theory. No one has ever been able to prove this claim, nor will they.

Billyjoe:
Energy = Matter + Gravity
The positive Energy of Matter is balanced by the negative Energy of Gravity.
Energy = 0

1) This simply isn’t True.
2) You have no idea of how gravity works exactly (remem the missing Higg’s boson?), so I don’t see how you can even make this claim.
3) If Energy = Zero, then how do you explain all of the Energy apparently lying around?
4) Stand in a burning fire and try telling yourself that Energy = 0.
5) If this is True, then what caused the Big Bang?
6) we don’t really need to get sidetracked on this now.

Franko:
There is only one type of particle in reality … Gravitons. There are two varieties – Posi-Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons. One types produces/creates/generates Energy/”Matter”(Information), the other type destroys/annihilates Energy/”Matter”(Information).

Billyjoe:
Says who?

Says reality.

Franko:
The thing is, that the Anti-Gravitons have this tendency to annihilate themselves. So over time, the Posi-Gravitons are increasing in number relative to the whole.

Billyjoe:
Again, says who?

Same source. You could also say it was Fate, but don’t confuse “Fate” with “Lady Fate”, they are two different things.

Franko:
What you are claiming is that Machines make Minds. All of the evidence indicates that the opposite is TRUE.

Billyjoe:
What evidence indicates minds make machines?

Do you see this post?
See the screen that frames it?
See the cables leading off to a nearby box?
That box is a machine. That machine was made by a consciousness.

There is abundant evidence that Minds make machines, but there is no evidence that Machines (or “Matter”) makes minds. The only example you could site is Living creatures, but unless you have definitive proof that TLOP is NON-conscious (which you do not), then you have no evidence – not one shred – of Machines making Minds. That it is even possible is simply an assumption on your part.

Franko:
Are you familiar with Mandelbrot? What you are claiming is analogous to looking at some of the fine detail after generations and generations of recursion on the Mandelbrot set, and claiming that this fine detail is more complex then the original algorithm and program that is generating the fine detail you are observing.

Billyjoe:
My understanding of Mandlebrot is “simplicity produces complexity”.
A simple algorithm produces a complex drawing
My understanding is that Mandlebrot had no idea what drawings his algorithms would produce. The equations he used were very simple and the idea of iterating them was also very simple idea. But the result was amazingly complex.

Exactly right. As it turns out Mandelbrot is an excellent analogy for reality. Simple ideas, plus a lot of recursion – and Waa-laa – elaborate and seemingly complex universe with You and I talking about Mandelbrot!

Actually, what did happen to UCE?

But I can’t remember claiming that zero and infinity are the same.

Have you heard of the Halting problem? The halting-problem is actually a real type of problem -- a class of problems – that actually exist in reality. The LD call them H-Mobius problems. These are a special class of logic problems that can reiterate indefinitely inside your consciousness. They can trap you, and eventually drive you insane – annihilating You in the process.

Solipsism, Fate, God, and Time are all examples of H-Mobius problems. But not all of these problems are equal. Time is actually many different H-Mobius problems.

… but getting back to the point, the Elephant tried to solve Time first, and there was no way he was going to be able to do that. He became convinced that Zero and Infinity were the same value. An entirely logical conclusion from his POV, but based on a faulty initial premise none-the-less. Essentially he became trapped in a loop of his own creation. I believe this manifested as his “Juggler” persona (note the obvious, around and around connotation of that nick).

The point I was trying to make is that if we are programs in Gods computer, then God could be a program in a Supergod’s computer…..and it’s turtles all the way up

What you are saying here is entirely possible. But I have no way of knowing myself. The Logical Goddess is the most powerful entity that I perceive, I am unable to perceive any entity Superior to Her; ergo there is no evidence for me to speculate on a entity which is Superior to Her.

But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible.

In other words, there’s no explanatory power in positing God.

That is analogous to claiming that there is no explanatory power in positing “atoms”.

[BillyJoe: The point is that no one really knows.]
Franko: Sure you do – THERE IS NO GOD!

Billyjoe:
Well, okay, an overstatement I admit – but not much.
There is no evidence that God exists….
…..so I live my life as if God doesn’t exist.
Ditto for the faeries at the bottom of my garden.
This is a long way from saying that THERE IS NO GOD

Franko:
If your definition of “Science” involves calling something FALSE when you have NO EVIDENCE it is FALSE, then I have a different definition of “Science” then you do.

Billyjoe:
See above

This is where the Atheists lose me.

X + Y – Z = N

1) TRUE
2) FALSE
3) UNKNOWN

Absent ANY evidence, my answer is #3 – UNKNOWN. You seem to be claiming that somehow You know that the answer is #2 – FALSE.

In my mind, that is utterly ridiculous. Would you really live your life as if this equation is FALSE? Why not act as if the equation is UNKWOWN?

Will you be alive next year at this time?

1) True
2) False
3) Unknown

Billyjoe, are you seriously telling me that you are living your life as if #2 (False) is the correct answer to this question? Running up your credit cards? Eating and drinking whatever you want? Smoking, womanizing, gambling all your money away?

…..so I live my life as if God doesn’t exist.
Ditto for the faeries at the bottom of my garden.

Ditto for will I be alive next year?

Franko:
If it weren’t for thought experiments, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein would have never been heard of.

Billyjoe:
I love thought experiments but ultimately they mean nothing unless they produce falsifiable hypotheses like those of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.

That’s True in a sense, but what empirical evidence do you really need to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 inside your own head?

Okay confession…..

I looked back and, surprise, I did in fact raise Darwin in the context of abiogenesis.
Apologies. It is obviously an easy mistake to make even when you know better.

Good Karma for you, My Friend.

But, in answer to your question regarding empirical evidence for non-life -> life.
There is no direct evidence but a lot of pointers as to how this could happen.
Your cynical comment about amino acids in a previous post suggests to me that you are not interested in pointers however. Obviously you want nothing short of life from non-life in the laboratory. Well, it hasn’t happened. It is a big mountain to climb and we’re only a little way up from base camp. Maybe we’ll never get to the top but there’s no other way to get there.

Not only haven’t they been able to produce life in the lab, but “they” have also failed to produce a consciousness on a computer, which would be another possible way to prove that Matter makes consciousness. I say possible, because it is also possible that a computer life form may actually just confirm that Consciousness makes Matter.

Theologians think they are sitting up there already but how would they know when they've got their heads in the clouds
(Sorry, Franko, just foolin’ around)

No offense taken my friend. To a large degree I concur. Dogma is the enemy of us all.

 

[Loki]

CWL,

What you are saying regarding "actual free will" is correct from a strictly materialistic point of view. From this perspective ("it all boils down to chemicals in our brain", or something to that effect) the concept of "free will" looses its meaning. This does however not mean that in a social context - from a humanistic perspective - that our perception of free will is false.

This is pretty much how I put it to Franko a year ago - I used the approach of "two Free Wills", the 'Apparent' and the 'Real'. Since then I've been introduced to the topic of compatibilism, which essentially encompasses this by defining Free Will in terms of human behaviour (Freedom from Coercion). Of course, this is rejected by Franko!

 

[hammegk]

CWL,
.... compatibilism, which essentially encompasses this by defining Free Will in terms of human behaviour (Freedom from Coercion).

How did you avoid "coercion" beginning at your conception up through now? (Unless you are the solipcist? )

 

[Franko]

Of course, this is rejected by Franko!

Yet, if I explain why I reject this nonsense again. I will hear the full chorus of weena-whiners singing the hymn of repetitiveness.

No wonder I have to repeat myself over and over and over and over and over again. It is because A-Theists are so retarded you have to say everything to them 500 times. I swear, small children comprehend things better.

Loki … isn’t the Moon also “free from coercion”? So does the Moon have “free will”?

This stupid compatibilism didn’t work for Vicky D. how do you imagine that new life has been breathed into it?

Its like frickin Jason, from those Friday the 13th slasher movies! Every time you think you have finished off this stupid monster, it just jumps back up again. It is like a relentless, mindless Zombie.

 

[Loki]

hammegk/Franko,

My comment was for CWL - perhaps he will find the topic interesting and "inline" with his current perceptions, perhaps not. I understand that both of you reject it, although you are united only in your rejection - what you would offer as alternatives are completely opposite to each other.

hammegk - Comments like "How did you avoid "coercion" beginning at your conception " reveal that you either (a) don't undestand compatibilism, or (b) want to construct a few straw men that yoiu can dismantle. Either way, I see no value in trying to take it further. If you disagree, then take the first step - present a post/thread on why you disagree with compatibilism, and what you feel are it's weaknesses. Do that and I'll put some effort into a serious discussion. Otherwise, I'll leave you to resume your one line assertions.

Franko - "Every time you think you have finished off this stupid monster...". I may have missed the relevent posts. Easy to do given the enormous volume of posts you produce. I've never seen you offer *any* serious discussion of compatibilism, except to simply dismiss it out of hand. Your manner seems to be to declare it "unworthy of serious comment". Given that approach, I see no value to offering any reply. Again, feel free to take the first step and offer a post/thread in which you lay out you understanding on compatibilism, and your specific reasons for rejecting it. Otherwise, I can't see why I should spend time offering up a new soapbox for you to rain assertions down on me from.

 

[hammegk]

hammegk - Comments like "How did you avoid "coercion" beginning at your conception " reveal that you either (a) don't undestand compatibilism, or (b) want to construct a few straw men that yoiu can dismantle.

Well. Loki, if you can't tell the difference between a question -- testing for understanding -- and an assertion -- stating a position -- you must have a lot of difficulties with people around you.

At least thank you for refraining from "humorous" revision or offtakes of my username.

 

[Loki]

hammegk,

Loki, if you can't tell the difference between a question -- testing for understanding -- and an assertion -- stating a position -- you must have a lot of difficulties with people around you.

I can tell the difference fine - at least, most of the time! Given your recent posting history, your original reply looked like yet another "leading question". Asking a loaded question that (appears to) contain a preferred conclusion seems to be a style you have embrassed lately.

But perhaps I was incorrect in my assumption, and you were actually asking a genuine question. "Coercion" in the compatibilst sense is a 'human' concept - it belongs to the realm of human behaviour. Free Will does not imply "ability to do anything I desire". It relates to the degree to which a human is able to make a decision free from direct influence. As such, Free Will is a relative thing, changing with circumstance. The greater the coercion, the less the Free Will.

How did I avoid "coercion" from contraception to now? The question appears to be poorly phrased. The "degree" of coercion is variable.

 

[hammegk]

hammegk,
"Coercion" in the compatibilst sense is a 'human' concept - it belongs to the realm of human behaviour. Free Will does not imply "ability to do anything I desire". It relates to the degree to which a human is able to make a decision free from direct influence.

And I don't understand why you ignore the absolute fact that from the moment of conception -- and it seems to me in egg & sperm & all that came before -- that materialism can provide nothing except stimulus & response, each response absolutely hard-wired to previous stimuli/responses. The most direct influence is *you* in every case as I see it.

Compatibilism does nothing to interrupt this chain imo.

As such, Free Will is a relative thing, changing with circumstance. The greater the coercion, the less the Free Will.

Or, coercion is coercion, subtle or great, and you can only respond as you must.

 

[Franko]

hehehe … ahhh Brother Hand, these silly A-Theists and their illusions of “free willy” … heheehe … I explained to this one, a relative age ago, how a Hand moves Pebbles; and NOT the other way ‘round … hehe …

 

[Loki]

hammegk,

Compatibilism does nothing to interrupt this chain imo

Of course! Again, you seem to have no idea of what compatibilism is. It doesn't seek to interrupt or remove this 'chain'. It seeks to provide a definition of Free Will that is compatibile with reality, by placing Free Will where it belongs - in the realms of human behaviour.

Discussing Free Will in terms of "determinsitic stimulus & response" is the equivalent of discussing a symphony in terms of "air vibrations". It may be technically correct, but you lose the "essence" of what you discuss when you change the frame of reference.

 

[Franko]

Loki,

… It may be technically correct, but you lose the "essence" of what you discuss when you change the frame of reference.

change Your frame of reference …

Machines make Minds? Or Minds makes machines?

Matter makes consciousness? Or Consciousness makes matter?

change Your frame of reference …

Suddenly perceiving things from the POV of a consciousness makes sense?

Tell me more about non-conscious TLOP-God?

Perception = frame of reference = point of view = relative to YOU = Internally Logical

Logical Perception = Relative to All = Externally Logical

change Your frame of reference …

 

[wraith]

Wraith,

What time is it there?

You should go back to bed now.

You surprise me!!

Q-S

it was almost midnight from memory