According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[peacegirl]

... has concluded that the claims must be false because it sounds too good to be true.

It diesn't sound good at all. It sounds like the ramblings of an idiot.

Sounds are deceiving.

 

[peacegirl]

Bilby, please stop chopping up my posts.

Peacegirl, If you only post one error at a time, I will.

Your petulant demands that everyone should post only in the way you want them to is not compatible with the idea that you know how to change the world, either.

Most spolied little girls grow out of that futile attitude by the time they reach adulthood.

You are not the boss of me.

It's just deceptive, or you wouldn't post this way. Taking words out of context is a dead giveaway. You sound like a kid on a playground: "Na na na na na, you aren't the boss of me."

 

[peacegirl]

It's not a non sequitur. You just haven't followed the reasoning because I never got there.

You can't get there from here. If you could, you would have by now.

Your effort at using a cliffhanger to sell your book has foundered on the disinterest of your audience in reading any further nonsensical tripe.

I'm really okay with you going to other threads or discussing other ideas on this thread. Trust me, I will survive.

 

[peacegirl]

You never showed an ounce of interest in seeing what follows

Oh, I did; But that was long ago.

You have since presented vast volumes of text, none of which turned out to be interesting (except in the sense that seeing a train wreck is interesting).

That I have now lost interest in your father's ramblings is entirely your fault - if he had anything interesting to say, you should have posted that to begin with.

Life is too short; You had a chance to interest your audience, and you blew it. That's entirely on you (and is not compatible with your claimed knowledge of a secret that can change the world - you can't even change IIDB).

IIDB is now the great think tank?, the top echelon of great thought?, the cream of the crop?, the determiners of truth or falsity?, the ones who can make no mistake? Give me a break,

 

[bilby]

You never showed an ounce of interest in seeing what follows

Oh, I did; But that was long ago.

You have since presented vast volumes of text, none of which turned out to be interesting (except in the sense that seeing a train wreck is interesting).

That I have now lost interest in your father's ramblings is entirely your fault - if he had anything interesting to say, you should have posted that to begin with.

Life is too short; You had a chance to interest your audience, and you blew it. That's entirely on you (and is not compatible with your claimed knowledge of a secret that can change the world - you can't even change IIDB).

IIDB is now the great think tank?, the top echelon of great thought?, the cream of the crop?, the determiners of truth or falsity?, the ones who can make no mistake? Give me a break,

If you were able to read for comprehension, you would understand that that's the opposite of what I was implying.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl's theme song Standing On Shaky Ground..

A little funk will sooth the soul. Start by moving your toes in your shoes. Move up to your knees. Then your shoulders. Next thing you know you are dancing.

Google Search

And Sly And Family Stone,. Saw them in the 60s at the old Fillmore East.

Yo0u can make it if you try

Google Search

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl's theme song Standing On Shaky Ground..

A little funk will sooth the soul. Start by moving your toes in your shoes. Move up to your knees. Then your shoulders. Next thing you know you are dancing.

Google Search

And Sly And Family Stone,. Saw them in the 60s at the old Fillmore East.

Yo0u can make it if you try

Google Search

 

[steve_bank]

Let the battle of the music link begin.

'The revolution will not be telivised ' Gil Scot Heron.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegorl.

On the contrary I did red through the link to part of your book at the beginning posting my view, and I have read your posts to a point.

Your redefinition of determinism is murky to me and your examples and reasoning are at times contradictory.

 

[steve_bank]

Given tb escalation of conflict with Europe how would you Papergirl apply your philosophy to de-escalate?


Seriously, can we move from the academic debate to real world application?
over Greenland how would you Papergirl apply your philosophy to de-escalate?

 

[peacegirl]

Given tb escalation of conflict with Europe how would you Papergirl apply your philosophy to de-escalate?


Seriously, can we move from the academic debate to real world application?
over Greenland how would you Papergirl apply your philosophy to de-escalate?

No, what you are doing is trying to apply this knowledge to what is happening now. You can't do that because there would be no conflict between countries. You refuse to even try to understand, which means you won't ever. It will take others.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegorl.

On the contrary I did red through the link to part of your book at the beginning posting my view, and I have read your posts to a point.

Your redefinition of determinism is murky to me and your examples and reasoning are at times contradictory.

They are not contradictory. If you felt that way, why didn't you ask questions before concluding he was wrong in his analysis?

 

[peacegirl]

Let the battle of the music link begin.

'The revolution will not be telivised ' Gil Scot Heron.

The revolution won't have to be televised, which is very biased by mainstream media. That's what he is talking about, and if that is the meaning of this song, it's true. Nothing will be televised. Love it. Thanks, Steve.

 

[steve_bank]

You miss the point. There is always change. You might say the American Revolution never ended.

In 1900 we were not what we were in 1800. Culturally, politically,philosophically, and economically.

Today we are not what we were in 2000.

As the old saying goes the only constant is change.

The revolution Heron was referring to did happen. The cultural revolution. The black Civil Rights movement kicked open the door on what freedoms and rights mean for us. Back then there was a lot of direct government censorship on speech.

Lenny Bruce, the Smother's Brothers show, the Richard Pryor show, George Carlin at WBAI NYC were prominent.

Trump is trying to take us back to those days. Government intimidation.

Without looking it up do you know what the Pentagon Papers were?

So your claiming the philosophy of your book whatever that may be is coming is but one stinyl claim out of many changes we are watching in real time..

 

[peacegirl]

You miss the point. There is always change. You might say the American Revolution never ended.

In 1900 we were not what we were in 1800. Culturally, politically,philosophically, and economically.

Today we are not what we were in 2000.

As the old saying goes the only constant is change.

This was on page 19 regarding this very subject.

You may look back and smile at the unconscious ignorance of our ancestors, but pay close attention to what happened to me as I draw up a perfect comparison with which you can identify. Because my discovery was purely scientific, my attention was drawn to an article by Eric Johnston, now deceased, who was once, among other things, the president of the Motion Picture Association. It appeared in the November 6, 1960 issue of This Week Magazine of The Baltimore Sun.

“If there is one word which characterizes our world in this exciting last half of the twentieth century, the word is change. Change in political life; change in economic life; change in social life; change in personal life; change in the hallmark of our times. It’s not gradual, comfortable change. It is sudden; rapid; often violent. It touches and often disrupts whole cultures and hundreds of millions of people. Behind it all lies an explosive growth in scientific knowledge and accomplishment. Some 90% of all the scientists who ever lived are living today, and the total accumulation of scientific knowledge is doubling every ten years. But this is reality. If we remember that, then we will never flinch at change. We will adjust to it, welcome it, meet it as a friend, and know it is God’s will.”

Since my discovery would bring about the greatest change in all of history, it appeared that this man would be willing to let me explain my findings. By convincing him on the phone that it was now possible to put a permanent end to all war as a result of my discovery, he agreed to meet me on a Sunday afternoon in Washington, D.C. Our conversation went as follows:

The revolution Heron was referring to did happen. The cultural revolution. The black Civil Rights movement kicked open the door on what freedoms and rights mean for us. Back then there was a lot of direct government censorship on speech.

Lenny Bruce, the Smother's Brothers show, the Richard Pryor show, George Carlin at WBAI NYC were prominent.

Trump is trying to take us back to those days. Government intimidation.

Without looking it up do you know what the Pentagon Papers were?

It was about lies regarding the scope of the Vietnam War. Again, this has nothing to do with the knowledge in this book because government, as we know it, is coming to an end.

So your claiming the philosophy of your book whatever that may be is coming is but one stinyl claim out of many changes we are watching in real time..

I thought you knew what the book was about? How can you know when you say things like "the philosophy of your book, whatever that may be?"

 

[steve_bank]

Okey dokey,

Infinitum is as infinitum does. So does ad nauseam.

You are the one who claims free will is absolutely false, you know it because you feel it. and you cut and paste 'proof' forum your book. When the book is rejected you say it is because nobody read it.

A number of ideas and variations on the topic have been offered but you reject all of it outright.


Is there anything left to debate on your part?

I'd like to see in specifics how your philosophy would be directlyy applied in the real world.

Inn what specif ways is it working philosophy.

Pacifism is a working moral philosophy.

Capitalism and free market economics is a working economic philosophy.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you Papergirl. Peacegirl the podium is yours.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I am Papergirl and I will be talking about a revolutionary new philosophy that can be appled to your life and the world ....

 

[peacegirl]

Okey dokey,

Infinitum is as infinitum does. So does ad nauseam.

You are the one who claims free will is absolutely false, you know it because you feel it. and you cut and paste 'proof' forum your book. When the book is rejected you say it is because nobody read it.

First of all, the book was not read, so to say that it was rejected on that basis is false.

A number of ideas and variations on the topic have been offered but you reject all of it outright.

Free will is false, period. We cannot have free will (the ability to do otherwise) and no free will (the inability to do otherwise) at the same time. One has gotta go, and it's free will. But it is the knowledge that lies behind this fact that matters.

Is there anything left to debate on your part?

I'd like to see in specifics how your philosophy would be directlyy applied in the real world.

I'd like to see you ask one relevant question to show me that you read anything.

Inn what specif ways is it working philosophy.

Pacifism is a working moral philosophy.

This is not pacifism.

Capitalism and free market economics is a working economic philosop

Ladies and gentlemen I give you Papergirl. Peacegirl the podium is yours.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I am Papergirl and I will be talking about a revolutionary new philosophy that can be appled to your life and the world ....

I think you're posting in the wrong thread, but here goes.

Though we would all like to see an end to evil, there are two issues that need to be considered. No one could be pleased if their source of income was taken away as well as the very thing that gives meaning to their lives. Doctors are sincerely interested in making their patients well, but they want to be the ones to do it. Religion would like to see us delivered from evil, but in some manner that confirms what has been looked for — Judgment Day. The Chinese government would like to see an end to all evil, but in terms of communism. Is it possible for the supporters of socialism and communism to relinquish the thought that they are right when they think they are not wrong? Politicians would like to see an end to all evil, but they want to find the solution. Would it be possible for the leaders of capitalism to willingly resign their jobs when they think their services are no longer required? How is it humanly possible for the organizations that fight for peace, for health, for security, those that wage a war against the evils of humanity, to be sincerely happy about the very removal of the things they need for their ultimate satisfaction? Everybody would like to see a great change… “I have a dream,” said Dr. Martin Luther King, “this view from the mountaintop, but no one desires any intruders or interlopers.” These individuals, who at present control the thinking of mankind, set up a fallacious standard for the conscious purpose of protecting themselves against others and will react with hostility towards anything that shows they may be wrong unless it is presented in such a mathematical manner that it is impossible to disagree without revealing a still greater ignorance. If this book were not a mathematical revelation — which scientists will soon confirm — what do you think the clergy, the government, the medical and teaching professions, and many others would do if they thought for one moment this work was someone’s opinion that threatened their security, power, and leadership position in world affairs? They would tear this book to shreds.

This discovery has incurred the wrath of the establishment because it upsets the apple cart and disrupts the status quo. No one wants to willingly admit they don’t have the answer. The fact remains that these individuals are trying to solve problems that are very much over their heads, and what is being revealed to them is only a method of accomplishing the very things they have been attempting to do, without success. Unfortunately, those endeavoring to correct our ills appear to be cutting off the heads of a diseased hydra; the more psychiatrists we graduate, the greater becomes our mental illness; the more policemen and moralists we have, the greater and more prevalent become our crimes; the more diplomats, statesmen, generals, and armies we have, the greater and more destructive become our wars. And as an expedient to the situation, we find ourselves being taxed to death while our cost of living steadily rises. Wouldn’t you like to see an end to all this? Therefore, before I begin, I would like to ask you the following questions: Do you prefer war or peace, unhappiness or happiness, insecurity or security, sickness or health? Do you prefer losing the one you have fallen in love with or winning and living happily ever after? Since I know that happiness is preferable to unhappiness and health to sickness, I shall now begin a revelation of knowledge that no one will be able to deny, provided the relations are understood.

While the moral code, the Ten Commandments, our standards of right and wrong will be completely extirpated, all premarital relations, adultery and divorce will be a thing of the past, changing the entire landscape of family relationships. Where did you ever hear anything so fantastic or paradoxical? And aren’t you jumping to the conclusion that this is against all human nature? If all the people in the world who get displaced because their services are no longer needed were to know as a matter of undeniable knowledge that the income necessary to sustain their standard of living, whatever the cost, would never be stopped as long as they live, would they have any reason to complain about someone showing them a better way — the only way to accomplish that for which they are getting paid? Although they and others will be dissatisfied to learn the truth when it deprives them of personal fulfillment, they are compelled to be silent because to utter any words of protest would simply expose an illusion of knowledge, which Stephen Hawking claimed “is the greatest enemy.” I shall now set sail on a voyage that will perform this virtual miracle by igniting a chain reaction of thought that will explode across the planet and destroy with its fallout every conceivable kind of hurt that exists among human relations, never to return. It is now within our power to reach that mountaintop — the Golden Age of man — that we have all hoped and dreamed would one day become a reality.

 

[Jarhyn]

Admittedly, there is some question about the Brave New World philosophy of PeaceGirl's Daddy.

In some respects, I myself propose something similar in outcome, although philosophically opposed due to the underlying process and the lack of apparent consent involved in PeaceGirl's proposed approach.

It appears to be a philosophy of burning or manipulating rather than sorting the books. It seems to me not a philosophy of giving people a way they will choose over the negative way, but as a philosophy of keeping ignorance over other ways of thinking.

If this world is a "choose your own adventure" of sorts, having a map of where the choices lead, even if sometimes the result is a dice roll, it pays to know at least the shape and table of the dice being rolled. Preferably we may learn the dynamics of how to throw the dice to cheat the roll and take it out of the realm of dice and into attainable skill to choose directly and strategically.

Part of this has to do with the conceptual duality of "type"/"set" vs "instance"/"member", and so on for the known nontrivial systems of axioms.

This is because whenever you say "can", and discuss possibility, alternatives, and so on, you are really using the language of "type" and not of "instance".

Part of this has to do with the "Axiom of Infinity" saying that you can form a set of the unique members ∅, {∅}, {{∅}},..., unto "infinity" forming "base 1", mostly because that's where we get such things as the equivalence class of that sort of statement and the statement 1!=2 under N and so forth.

At any rate, the properties of a set of a thing are different from the strict properties of a set of that thing, or a set of sets of that thing, and so forth.

The intent of set theoretic or type theoretic language or measure theoretic language or any axiom-based theory is to handle groups of things in general ways and this language has a strict correspondence to modal language in that "can" and "must" correspond strictly to set and type theoretic language.

"must" concerns statements about all members of a set, and identifies a common quality of the set irrespective of member. It isn't a word that applies to the instance, being reserved for set use in common language.

For me, it is the case that this set is identified into brute existence by the fact of my contract to acknowledge myself outside of the border of my skull and frame of birth leading to the individual here and now. And so it is, as if by magic, a decision to share some aspect of identity to common purpose, though it is by magic of the existence of a recipe of action to make it so and by the magic of useful work.

It feels vaguely hypothetical, but for me it's only as "hypothetical" as a secure network really there, listening and waiting for the right handshake to come across the wire, but without any handshakes across it but a fuzzy one that is long expired and too sotted with interference and rumor and missing any checksum.

But as I look at more abstract ideas of "me" from "the exact abstract momentary me, with the same universal contextual history up till now", to "me, as a human, replaceable in the context with any other human", or even "me as a text processing unit inside a human skull replaceable with a text processing unit inside a computer or other construct" with regards to the set in question, I can readily identify members of those sets otherwise than me here and now, even if the only otherwise they experience is a stray ancient graviton coming from their relative gravitational ceiling rather than their relative gravitational floor, or even if some of those versions of me are literally "me here and now, but experiencing closed eyes and an open imagination generated by some other subset of that thing".

Some of them can do the thing because some of them did do the thing, and the question is really, can I do the fundamental act of "making above be so as it is below; or to make it so below as it is above", of compiling instructions into truths and changing usefully ordered intentions about the future into machines with a nature to make things as per the intent.

This is fundamentally what sources about "magic" discussed.

But only by acknowledging power and the open-ended-ness of our abilities can we find among those open ends the ends which go better for us than the ones we have explored. It will ever be thus, that we must brave the unknown and to even treat the know as unknown and re-explore it for posterity, including our mistakes.

What I can say for certain, however, is that the complete and utter insanity of "ten commandments" religion on display here is telling.

I will reject your bullshit morality, Peacegirl, in favor of morality based on sensible and straightforward principles of equality of justifications among people.

 

[bilby]

Free will is false, period.

Well that clears that up. We can close the thread now.

Thanks to everyone who participated.

 

[peacegirl]

Jaryn, you must have misread or didn't read at all. You probably saw the Ten Commandments written and assumed that's what the book is about. Read again.

While the moral code, the Ten Commandments, our standards of right and wrong will be completely extirpated, all premarital relations, adultery, and divorce will be a thing of the past, changing the entire landscape of family relationships. Where did you ever hear anything so fantastic or paradoxical? And aren’t you jumping to the conclusion that this is against all human nature?