Free Will

[Dontaskme]

Not paying attention, DAM. Too much empty drama for me.

Did it tickle your big fat ego to tell me that.

You could have just ignored me like your partner in crime Henry does, but you like to crack that whip don’t you.

Truth is, you cannot answer the very hard questions I ask you can you can’t?

Just admit you don’t know the answer when I ask you ….who told you you are a human?

A real man would answer or just say I don’t know. But we all know you are as fake as fuck.

It would be nice if Immanuel Can even understands what the question means, and its import for philosophy, but I guess he does not understand the question.

He’s intellectually intelligent …but that’s just having a good memory and being able to recite knowledge learnt.

However, He doesn’t agree or believe that reality is nondual … so while he’s stuck firm with his god beliefs, he’ll never know clarity, and that niggles him a little, and is why he blanks me out, he hates to be called out, he’s met his match with me, so it’s scary for him, because I make him think too hard….I make him dig for those answers that have never been taught within mainstream education.

[RCSaunders]

Because those who imagine they know empirical things for certain -- i.e. beyond possibility of doubt -- are epistemologically and scientifically naive at best ...

There you go again, assuming what others think or mean.

Not at all. One doesn't have to "assume" that all inductive knowledge is probabilistic: it is, by definition. So long as one knows what "inductive" involves, one knows that.

First you assume I think knowledge is based on empiricism, and now you assume that means I must accept the false premise that science is based on induction.

Empirical or scientific knowledge IS all inductive.

If you believe that you had to have been taught it by some knowledge-hating professor somewhere. No knowledge is established by induction. There is no such epistemological method as induction. The fact that some things can be observed in similar relationships, or repeated, is often called, "induction," but it is nothing more than observation and record keeping. It's not, "science." No knowledge is established by it beyond the record, but it is often a reason for true scientific investigation to discover the nature of those observed relationships to identify the certain principles of science that explain them, like the discovery of genetics, and the fact that the circulation of the blood is out from the heart and back to the heart, or that a moving magnetic field will produce an electric current in a conductor. Or do you think those things are only statistically likely and that sometimes the blood only goes out from the heart to the brain to be cooled and that sometimes a moving magnet field will produce popsicles in a conductor.

Science is not done by, "induction," and there is no special kind of knowledge called, "inductive." It is popular today to call things like statistics and taxonomy scientific, but neither of those establishes any scientific principles. It doesn't matter how many college professors or academic philosophers claim those things are what science are. Even if, in some cases, they are used as investigative tools, neither can establish any scientific principle and no established scientific principle depends on either.

Anything claimed as science based on nothing but, "statistical studies," is not science. That's how so many pseudo-scientific lies get put over.

[RCSaunders]

In order to learn something one did not know before?

The nature of learning is dynamic, and open ended.

Is that how you learn what you think you know? How can you learn anything from someone who doesn't know anything?

You learn from somebody who knows nothing by hearing and paying attention to any questions they may ask. You can also learn from somebody who knows nothing by seeing what they do and how they conduct themselves.

You can do it that way if you want. I don't have time to listen to idiots to sort out what their demented minds might mean. I read 50 to 100 books a year by the best minds I can find, and spend many hours reading the works of others as well. With an almost inexhaustible number of the best minds in history, in every possible field to learn from, why would I waste my time on the stupid and ignorant?

How do you distinguish between gullibility and keeping an open mind?

Gullibility is having an open mind like a cesspool into which just anything can be dumped and it will be accepted. A leaning mind is one that rationally guards against accepting anything based solely on authority or expertise and will only accept what that mind, using its own reason, understands how and why what it accepts is true.

It is better to remain ignorant than to embrace some false idea just to fill some gap in one's knowledge. Once one has believed a lie, it is very difficult to dislodge it, to replace it with the truth.

[Immanuel Can]

Did it tickle your big fat ego to tell me that.

You forgot your question mark. And no, I was just saving you time.

[Immanuel Can]

You assume that means I must accept the false premise that science is based on induction.

No. You can be wrong if you want to. I've never denied you that right.

But I get it: I "went in your yard and shot your dawg." That is, I pointed out a serious flaw in your pet theory. So you're not happy. I get it.

Problem was, nobody told you that "dawg" was dead already.

[Belinda]

Is that how you learn what you think you know? How can you learn anything from someone who doesn't know anything?

You learn from somebody who knows nothing by hearing and paying attention to any questions they may ask. You can also learn from somebody who knows nothing by seeing what they do and how they conduct themselves.

You can do it that way if you want. I don't have time to listen to idiots to sort out what their demented minds might mean. I read 50 to 100 books a year by the best minds I can find, and spend many hours reading the works of others as well. With an almost inexhaustible number of the best minds in history, in every possible field to learn from, why would I waste my time on the stupid and ignorant?

How do you distinguish between gullibility and keeping an open mind?

Gullibility is having an open mind like a cesspool into which just anything can be dumped and it will be accepted. A leaning mind is one that rationally guards against accepting anything based solely on authority or expertise and will only accept what that mind, using its own reason, understands how and why what it accepts is true.

It is better to remain ignorant than to embrace some false idea just to fill some gap in one's knowledge. Once one has believed a lie, it is very difficult to dislodge it, to replace it with the truth.

Trying to explain an idea as simply and concisely as possible helps me to edit my ideas. Participating with others whose way of life is different from my own helps me to learn better than I can learn those ways of life from books.

Regarding gullibility, could you briefly and clearly explain how to sort information into helpful information or conspiracy theories? Nearly everybody uses their own reason.Regarding conspiracy theories what reasoning is sound and what reasoning is unsound, and why?

[RCSaunders]

You assume that means I must accept the false premise that science is based on induction.

No. You can be wrong if you want to. I've never denied you that right.

But I get it: I "went in your yard and shot your dawg." That is, I pointed out a serious flaw in your pet theory. So you're not happy. I get it.

Problem was, nobody told you that "dawg" was dead already.

You seem to be confused, sir. I never owned a dawg. Not sure what you shot. Check your foot.

[RCSaunders]

You can do it that way if you want. I don't have time to listen to idiots to sort out what their demented minds might mean. I read 50 to 100 books a year by the best minds I can find, and spend many hours reading the works of others as well. With an almost inexhaustible number of the best minds in history, in every possible field to learn from, why would I waste my time on the stupid and ignorant?

How do you distinguish between gullibility and keeping an open mind?

Gullibility is having an open mind like a cesspool into which just anything can be dumped and it will be accepted. A leaning mind is one that rationally guards against accepting anything based solely on authority or expertise and will only accept what that mind, using its own reason, understands how and why what it accepts is true.

It is better to remain ignorant than to embrace some false idea just to fill some gap in one's knowledge. Once one has believed a lie, it is very difficult to dislodge it, to replace it with the truth.

Trying to explain an idea as simply and concisely as possible helps me to edit my ideas. Participating with others whose way of life is different from my own helps me to learn better than I can learn those ways of life from books.

Regarding gullibility, could you briefly and clearly explain how to sort information into helpful information or conspiracy theories? Nearly everybody uses their own reason.Regarding conspiracy theories what reasoning is sound and what reasoning is unsound, and why?

What is a conspiracy theory?

[Belinda]

You can do it that way if you want. I don't have time to listen to idiots to sort out what their demented minds might mean. I read 50 to 100 books a year by the best minds I can find, and spend many hours reading the works of others as well. With an almost inexhaustible number of the best minds in history, in every possible field to learn from, why would I waste my time on the stupid and ignorant?


Gullibility is having an open mind like a cesspool into which just anything can be dumped and it will be accepted. A leaning mind is one that rationally guards against accepting anything based solely on authority or expertise and will only accept what that mind, using its own reason, understands how and why what it accepts is true.

It is better to remain ignorant than to embrace some false idea just to fill some gap in one's knowledge. Once one has believed a lie, it is very difficult to dislodge it, to replace it with the truth.

Trying to explain an idea as simply and concisely as possible helps me to edit my ideas. Participating with others whose way of life is different from my own helps me to learn better than I can learn those ways of life from books.

Regarding gullibility, could you briefly and clearly explain how to sort information into helpful information or conspiracy theories? Nearly everybody uses their own reason.Regarding conspiracy theories what reasoning is sound and what reasoning is unsound, and why?

What is a conspiracy theory?

That is what I was asking you about. Could you define conspiracy theory?

[Dontaskme]

Did it tickle your big fat ego to tell me that.

You forgot your question mark. And no, I was just saving you time.

Who told you that time exists?

Was it your clock…. You know that inanimate round object that has absolutely no idea the clock or the time exists…hahaha!

You tripping again?

[Immanuel Can]

You assume that means I must accept the false premise that science is based on induction.

No. You can be wrong if you want to. I've never denied you that right.

But I get it: I "went in your yard and shot your dawg." That is, I pointed out a serious flaw in your pet theory. So you're not happy. I get it.

Problem was, nobody told you that "dawg" was dead already.

You seem to be confused, sir. I never owned a dawg.

You would have, if you lived in the American South.

[RCSaunders]

Trying to explain an idea as simply and concisely as possible helps me to edit my ideas. Participating with others whose way of life is different from my own helps me to learn better than I can learn those ways of life from books.

Regarding gullibility, could you briefly and clearly explain how to sort information into helpful information or conspiracy theories? Nearly everybody uses their own reason.Regarding conspiracy theories what reasoning is sound and what reasoning is unsound, and why?

What is a conspiracy theory?

That is what I was asking you about. Could you define conspiracy theory?

Why would you ask me? I've never used the term and have never thought about it. I have no idea what it might mean to those who use it. Is it one of those absurd ideas popular on social media?

[Belinda]

What is a conspiracy theory?

That is what I was asking you about. Could you define conspiracy theory?

Why would you ask me? I've never used the term and have never thought about it. I have no idea what it might mean to those who use it. Is it one of those absurd ideas popular on social media?

I asked you particularly as I thought you were clued up on how we can know stuff. Never mind it does not matter I will try to find out from someone else who does think a conspiracy theory is a thing.

[RCSaunders]

No. You can be wrong if you want to. I've never denied you that right.

But I get it: I "went in your yard and shot your dawg." That is, I pointed out a serious flaw in your pet theory. So you're not happy. I get it.

Problem was, nobody told you that "dawg" was dead already.

You seem to be confused, sir. I never owned a dawg.

You would have, if you lived in the American South.

I live in South Carolina. I own dos gatos, no dawgs.

[RCSaunders]

That is what I was asking you about. Could you define conspiracy theory?

Why would you ask me? I've never used the term and have never thought about it. I have no idea what it might mean to those who use it. Is it one of those absurd ideas popular on social media?

I asked you particularly as I thought you were clued up on how we can know stuff. Never mind it does not matter I will try to find out from someone else who does think a conspiracy theory is a thing.

OK.