|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 1, 2021 15:50:08 GMT
1. Free will requires a deterministic order for the changes to result from a decision.
2. Determinism requires free will to exist given it is determined that free will is discussed.
3. Free will and determinism coexist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 1, 2021 17:14:13 GMT
Compatibilism.
I also hold this view, while the reasons for it are different.
If there's a graph (free, with random numbers of branches), then all the repeatable branches which tried to one point repeat our decisions. The more reasonable question is what purposes are we following? So, in general free will and determination indeed coexist.
An example: if I choose another root for my homecoming and a sister of mine want to meet me on a way home, but she doesn't know which one I've chosen this time, I will have free chances (the number of it is a function of the number of branches) to not meet her on a porch.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 4, 2021 12:38:11 GMT
1. Free will requires a deterministic order for the changes to result from a decision. 2. Determinism requires free will to exist given it is determined that free will is discussed. 3. Free will and determinism coexist.
Solid.
But the consequence of this is that we now have a mind-body "problem". The conclusion must be that the mind (soul/spirit) is fundamentally different to the body.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 7, 2021 17:59:16 GMT
1. Free will requires a deterministic order for the changes to result from a decision. 2. Determinism requires free will to exist given it is determined that free will is discussed. 3. Free will and determinism coexist.
Solid.
But the consequence of this is that we now have a mind-body "problem". The conclusion must be that the mind (soul/spirit) is fundamentally different to the body.
The same format of the above argument can be used. 1. The soul requires a body through which to act in time and space. 2. The body requires a soul in order to act as the souls is the thought and memory required for action to occur. 3. The mind and body coexist and are intermingled in two seperate respects at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 7, 2021 18:27:52 GMT
Solid.
But the consequence of this is that we now have a mind-body "problem". The conclusion must be that the mind (soul/spirit) is fundamentally different to the body.
The same format of the above argument can be used. 1. The soul requires a body through which to act in time and space. 2. The body requires a soul in order to act as the souls is the thought and memory required for action to occur. 3. The mind and body coexist and are intermingled in two seperate respects at the same time. But which is more vital? Even dualism can be construed as a 49-51 split, the real question is thus still: did the mind evolve from the body, or the body from the mind...? more specifically we need to apply that to the whole universe: has the universe been designed? or are we just random arrangements of particles? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 7, 2021 18:43:37 GMT
The same format of the above argument can be used. 1. The soul requires a body through which to act in time and space. 2. The body requires a soul in order to act as the souls is the thought and memory required for action to occur. 3. The mind and body coexist and are intermingled in two seperate respects at the same time. But which is more vital? Even dualism can be construed as a 49-51 split, the real question is thus still: did the mind evolve from the body, or the body from the mind...? more specifically we need to apply that to the whole universe: has the universe been designed? or are we just random arrangements of particles? Action results in form. Form results in action. The body and soul coexist with the soul resulting in a body through which to act and the body resulting in the formation of action through the soul. Both coexist thus necessitating both holding equal value in one respect. However considering the soul changes bodies the soul in one respect is more vital considering vitality is the act of change and the soul is the agent of change. Dually in another respect the body can change the soul. Vitality is that which is the primary change thus in determining which is more vital, the soul or the body, it depends on which one the person(s) emphasizes in developing through free will. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 9, 2021 11:38:31 GMT
But which is more vital? Even dualism can be construed as a 49-51 split, the real question is thus still: did the mind evolve from the body, or the body from the mind...? more specifically we need to apply that to the whole universe: has the universe been designed? or are we just random arrangements of particles? Action results in form. Form results in action. The body and soul coexist with the soul resulting in a body through which to act and the body resulting in the formation of action through the soul. Both coexist thus necessitating both holding equal value in one respect. However considering the soul changes bodies the soul in one respect is more vital considering vitality is the act of change and the soul is the agent of change. Dually in another respect the body can change the soul. Vitality is that which is the primary change thus in determining which is more vital, the soul or the body, it depends on which one the person(s) emphasizes in developing through free will. Can the body change the soul? Or is it that the body changes our imperfect perception of the soul? Action results in change of form. Form is the antithesis of change. but 2 types of change: creative and degenerative. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 9, 2021 14:51:53 GMT
Action results in form. Form results in action. The body and soul coexist with the soul resulting in a body through which to act and the body resulting in the formation of action through the soul. Both coexist thus necessitating both holding equal value in one respect. However considering the soul changes bodies the soul in one respect is more vital considering vitality is the act of change and the soul is the agent of change. Dually in another respect the body can change the soul. Vitality is that which is the primary change thus in determining which is more vital, the soul or the body, it depends on which one the person(s) emphasizes in developing through free will. Can the body change the soul? Or is it that the body changes our imperfect perception of the soul? Action results in change of form. Form is the antithesis of change. but 2 types of change: creative and degenerative. 1. Only listening to the irrational desires of the body, without keeping them in check with reason, can corrupt the soul. 2. Form is the continuity of change. For example the form of a car is the vibration of the particles which compose it. 3. Creation and degeneration go hand in hand. For example the degeneration of the body is the creation of soil. The degeneration of soil (soil no longer existing as soil) is the formation of a body. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 24, 2021 9:58:55 GMT
Can the body change the soul? Or is it that the body changes our imperfect perception of the soul? Action results in change of form. Form is the antithesis of change. but 2 types of change: creative and degenerative. 1. Only listening to the irrational desires of the body, without keeping them in check with reason, can corrupt the soul. 2. Form is the continuity of change. For example the form of a car is the vibration of the particles which compose it. 3. Creation and degeneration go hand in hand. For example the degeneration of the body is the creation of soil. The degeneration of soil (soil no longer existing as soil) is the formation of a body. "the vibration of the particles" the particles can only vibrate due to limits on their nature those limits are the real form here we can talk of energy changing form - going from one state to another but the form itself is not the vibration, but what forces the energy to vibrate precisely the way it does, that is the form the form of the car comes from the mind of the car-designer for the most part, constrained by the limitations as to what can designed and what can be used as materials without that mind, it is not a car thus we can see that mind imposes form on the world thus the world with such forms must have existed by imposition of Mind does it HAVE to be God that made this universe and its laws? no advanced humans will one day create a whole universe with laws of its own, no doubt thus how can we suggest the universe we are in came from anything else other than something similar, at least, if not blandly identical with common humanity? |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 24, 2021 19:00:33 GMT
The same format of the above argument can be used. 1. The soul requires a body through which to act in time and space. 2. The body requires a soul in order to act as the souls is the thought and memory required for action to occur. 3. The mind and body coexist and are intermingled in two seperate respects at the same time. But which is more vital? Even dualism can be construed as a 49-51 split, the real question is thus still: did the mind evolve from the body, or the body from the mind...? more specifically we need to apply that to the whole universe: has the universe been designed? or are we just random arrangements of particles? Stuck in passive Postmodern decadence, it's no wonder you don't realize that there is another alternative: Intelligent Self-Design, including self-improvement of the creative intelligence. So the body evolved from the mind, which originally placed itself in a primitive, fragile, undeveloped, and seriously threatened body. The inanimate universe is random. But random arrangement is a contradiction in terms (what Diploma Dumbos mistakenly call an "oxymoron"). Through random trial and error, it eventually arranges into a stable structure to avoid chaos. What doesn't arrange itself destroys itself. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 4, 2021 10:19:28 GMT
But which is more vital? Even dualism can be construed as a 49-51 split, the real question is thus still: did the mind evolve from the body, or the body from the mind...? more specifically we need to apply that to the whole universe: has the universe been designed? or are we just random arrangements of particles? Stuck in passive Postmodern decadence, it's no wonder you don't realize that there is another alternative: Intelligent Self-Design, including self-improvement of the creative intelligence. So the body evolved from the mind, which originally placed itself in a primitive, fragile, undeveloped, and seriously threatened body. The inanimate universe is random. But random arrangement is a contradiction in terms (what Diploma Dumbos mistakenly call an "oxymoron"). Through random trial and error, it eventually arranges into a stable structure to avoid chaos. What doesn't arrange itself destroys itself. The reason for being placed within the body is that the old universe had died, and we had to be reborn into the new universe via the body. Either way, the banned answer cult-of-the-dead and its repressive masking of truth will devour those not righteous to simply cut them down like wheat in a field with a scythe and yet it could all be so much more gentle if you just slapped a masktard today. |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jul 6, 2021 19:41:46 GMT
The Rulers Arrange Your Mind to Choose Among a Diversity of False Answers. "None of the Above" Is Banned.Stuck in passive Postmodern decadence, it's no wonder you don't realize that there is another alternative: Intelligent Self-Design, including self-improvement of the creative intelligence. So the body evolved from the mind, which originally placed itself in a primitive, fragile, undeveloped, and seriously threatened body. The inanimate universe is random. But random arrangement is a contradiction in terms (what Diploma Dumbos mistakenly call an "oxymoron"). Through random trial and error, it eventually arranges into a stable structure to avoid chaos. What doesn't arrange itself destroys itself. The reason for being placed within the body is that the old universe had died, and we had to be reborn into the new universe via the body. If It's Not Remembered, It Wasn't Worth Remembering
That makes sense, except I can't answer the objection of why we aren't aware of a previous mother-universe existence. I can only answer that we feel we had a pre-life, a deja-vu memory of it. There is so much to be concerned with and fight in this life that we don't have the mental energy for memories that won't have any practical use in this universe. Or maybe it's like we have no memory of our infancy. I was two years old when my father died but don't remember him at all.
I can connect this with the irrational mistake that all mystics make. They believe that the other life, or hypostasis (Plotinus) universe, is superior. There is no reason to believe it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 6, 2021 20:51:47 GMT
The reason for being placed within the body is that the old universe had died, and we had to be reborn into the new universe via the body. If It's Not Remembered, It Wasn't Worth Remembering
That makes sense, except I can't answer the objection of why we aren't aware of a previous mother-universe existence. I can only answer that we feel we had a pre-life, a deja-vu memory of it. There is so much to be concerned with and fight in this life that we don't have the mental energy for memories that won't have any practical use in this universe. Or maybe it's like we have no memory of our infancy. I was two years old when my father died but don't remember him at all.
I can connect this with the irrational mistake that all mystics make. They believe that the other life, or hypostasis (Plotinus) universe, is superior. There is no reason to believe it is.
The nature of memory is that it gets triggered by similar instances. We do not recall most of the details of our lives. Only when we are reminded of events do we typically recall them. After decades of intense introspection I have one crystal clear memory of a past life about 800 years ago - it came to me as I woke in the middle of night about 30 years ago. Its impossible for me to describe the details of its relevance in this context - but the vivid realness is unlike anything of a dream - in fact it is more clear than even normal memories. But the detail was so utterly important psychologically to the evolution of my consciousness, that i cannot ever forget it - in this lifetime. |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jul 7, 2021 16:15:40 GMT
If It's Not Remembered, It Wasn't Worth Remembering
That makes sense, except I can't answer the objection of why we aren't aware of a previous mother-universe existence. I can only answer that we feel we had a pre-life, a deja-vu memory of it. There is so much to be concerned with and fight in this life that we don't have the mental energy for memories that won't have any practical use in this universe. Or maybe it's like we have no memory of our infancy. I was two years old when my father died but don't remember him at all.
I can connect this with the irrational mistake that all mystics make. They believe that the other life, or hypostasis (Plotinus) universe, is superior. There is no reason to believe it is.
The nature of memory is that it gets triggered by similar instances. We do not recall most of the details of our lives. Only when we are reminded of events do we typically recall them. After decades of intense introspection I have one crystal clear memory of a past life about 800 years ago - it came to me as I woke in the middle of night about 30 years ago. Its impossible for me to describe the details of its relevance in this context - but the vivid realness is unlike anything of a dream - in fact it is more clear than even normal memories. But the detail was so utterly important psychologically to the evolution of my consciousness, that i cannot ever forget it - in this lifetime. Clear your mind of the idea that past lives must have been experienced on this planet, or even in this universe. This narcotic fantasy is repeated so often that people are made to believe that it must follow if we have past lives at all. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 9, 2021 21:33:34 GMT
The nature of memory is that it gets triggered by similar instances. We do not recall most of the details of our lives. Only when we are reminded of events do we typically recall them. After decades of intense introspection I have one crystal clear memory of a past life about 800 years ago - it came to me as I woke in the middle of night about 30 years ago. Its impossible for me to describe the details of its relevance in this context - but the vivid realness is unlike anything of a dream - in fact it is more clear than even normal memories. But the detail was so utterly important psychologically to the evolution of my consciousness, that i cannot ever forget it - in this lifetime. Clear your mind of the idea that past lives must have been experienced on this planet, or even in this universe. This narcotic fantasy is repeated so often that people are made to believe that it must follow if we have past lives at all. I understand why you might say that. But in my case you are wrong. And I can prove it. If you properly understand the relationship between math and physics, that is. The defining benchmark of science was Newton's formula for gravity. But it only accurately described 1 orbit in 2D. After 400 years, the only progress was to make it into a binary orbit in 2D. Until communion with the spirit John the Baptist allowed me to resolve the problem in 3D with endless bodies. That communion also involved the transcendental experiences which included past-life memories. The formula in this link is as perfect as Pythagoras or Euclid. It is NOT a fantasy. It is very real. Very much physical. www.flight-light-and-spin.com/n-body/n-body-build.htmAnd it came purely from beyond my own self, as part of the entire cosmology which resolves all major debates on the issue, in the minds of those who are honest with themselves. try that link, or just type some more lazy rhetoric, and watch your own mood and consciousness drown in the shadow of your laziness. The choice is yours. |
|
