Here's the opener, by fellow tin foil hat wearer, Jon Rappoport.
-----
I wrote this piece as an introduction to the scientific tyranny which has overtaken us: the premise that we are machines, and we can be decoded and transformed by genetics.
This is a lie on every possible level.
*
Interviewing the dead Albert Einstein about free will
It was a strange journey into the astral realm to find Albert Einstein.
I slipped through gated communities heavily guarded by troops protecting dead Presidents. I skirted alleys where wannabe demons claiming they were Satan’s reps were selling potions made from powdered skulls of English kings. I ran through mannequin mansions where trainings for future shoppers were in progress. Apparently, some souls come to Earth to be born as aggressive entitled consumers. Who knew?
Finally, in a little valley, I spotted a cabin, and there on the porch, sitting in a rocker, smoking a pipe and reading The Bourne Ultimatum, was Dr. Einstein.
He was wearing an old sports jacket with leather patches on the elbows, jeans, and furry slippers.
I wanted to talk with the great man because I’d read a 1929 Saturday Evening Post interview with him. He’d said:
“I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will…Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being.”
Dr, Einstein went inside and brought out two bottles of cold beer and we began our conversation:
Q: Sir, would you say that the underlying nature of physical reality is atomic?
A: If you’re asking me whether atoms and smaller particles exist everywhere in the universe, then of course, yes.
Q: And are you satisfied that, wherever they are found, they are the same? They exhibit a uniformity?
A: Surely, yes.
Q: Regardless of location.
A: Correct.
Q: So, for example, if we consider the make-up of the brain, those atoms are no different in kind from atoms wherever in the universe they are found.
A: That’s true. The brain is composed entirely of these tiny particles. And the particles, everywhere in the universe, without exception, flow and interact and collide without any exertion of free will. It’s an unending stream of cause and effect.
Q: And when you think to yourself, “I’ll get breakfast now,” what is that?
A: The thought?
Q: Yes.
A: Ultimately, it is the outcome of particles in motion.
Q: You were compelled to have that thought.
A: As odd as that may seem, yes. Of course, we tell ourselves stories to present ourselves with a different version of reality, but those stories are social or cultural constructs.
Q: And those “stories” we tell ourselves—they aren’t freely chosen rationalizations, either. We have no choice about that.
A: Well, yes. That’s right.
Q: So there is nothing in the human brain that allows us the possibility of free will.
A: Nothing at all.
Q: And as we are sitting here right now, sir, looking at each other, sitting and talking, this whole conversation is spooling out in the way that it must. Every word. Neither you nor I is really choosing what we say.
A: I may not like it, but yes, it’s deterministic destiny. The particles flow.
Q: When you pause to consider a question I ask you…even that act of considering is mandated by the motion of atomic and sub-atomic particles. What appears to be you deciding how to give me an answer…that is a delusion.
A: The act of considering? Why, yes, that, too, would have to be determined. It’s not free. There really is no choice involved.
Q: And the outcome of this conversation, whatever points we may or may not agree upon, and the issues we may settle here, about this subject of free will versus determinism…they don’t matter at all, because, when you boil it down, the entire conversation was determined by our thoughts, which are nothing more than atomic and sub-atomic particles in motion—and that motion flows according to laws, none of which have anything to do with human choice.
A: The entire flow of reality, so to speak, proceeds according to determined sets of laws. Yes.
Q: And we are in that flow.
A: Most certainly we are.
Q: The earnestness with which we might try to settle this issue, our feelings, our thoughts, our striving—that is irrelevant. It’s window dressing. This conversation actually cannot go in different possible directions. It can only go in one direction.
A: That would ultimately have to be so.
Q: Now, are atoms and their components, and any other tiny particles in the universe…are any of them conscious?
A: Of course not. The particles themselves are not conscious.
Q: Some scientists speculate they are.
A: Some people speculate that the moon can be sliced and served on a plate with fruit.
Q: What do you think “conscious” means?
A: It means we participate in life. We take action. We converse. We gain knowledge.
Q: Any of the so-called faculties we possess—are they ultimately anything more than particles in motion?
A: Well, no, they aren’t. Because everything is particles in motion. What else could be happening in this universe? Nothing.
Q: All right. I’d like to consider the word “understanding.”
A: It’s a given. It’s real.
Q: How so?
A: The proof that it’s real, if you will, is that we are having this conversation. It makes sense to us.
Q: Yes, but how can there be understanding if everything is particles in motion? Do the particles possess understanding?
A: No they don’t.
Q: To change the focus just a bit, how can what you and I are saying have any meaning?
A: Words mean things.
Q: Again, I have to point out that, in a universe with no free will, we only have particles in motion. That’s all. That’s all we are. So where does “meaning” come from?
A: “We understand language” is a true proposition.
Q: You’re sure.
A: Of course.
Q: Then I suggest you’ve tangled yourself in a contradiction. In the universe you depict, there would be no room for understanding. Or meaning. There would be nowhere for it to come from. Unless particles understand. Do they?
A: No.
Q: Then where do “understanding” and “meaning” come from?
A: [Silence.]
Q: Furthermore, sir, if we accept your depiction of a universe of particles, then there is no basis for this conversation at all. We don’t understand each other. How could we?
A: But we do understand each other.
Q: And therefore, your philosophic materialism (no free will, only particles in motion) must have a flaw.
A: What flaw?
Q: Our existence contains more than particles in motion.
A: More? What would that be?
Q: Would you grant that whatever it is, it is non-material?
A: It would have to be, but…
Q: Then, driving further along this line, there is something non-material which is present, which allows us to understand each other, which allows us to comprehend meaning. We are conscious. Puppets are not conscious. As we sit here talking, I understand you. Do you understand me?
A: Of course.
Q: Then that understanding is coming from something other than particles in motion. Without this non-material quality, you and I would be gibbering in the dark.
A: You’re saying that, if all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom. There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.
Q: Yes. That’s what I’m saying. And I think you have to admit your view of determinism and particles in motion—that picture of the universe—leads to several absurdities.
A: Well…perhaps I’m forced to consider it. Otherwise, we can’t sit here and understand each other.
Q: You and I do understand each other.
A: I hadn’t thought it through this way before, but if there is nothing inherent in particles that gives rise to understanding and meaning, then everything is gibberish. Except it isn’t gibberish. Yes, I seem to see a contradiction. Interesting.
Q: And if these non-material factors—understanding and meaning—exist, then other non-material factors can exist.
A: For example, freedom. I suppose so.
Q: And the drive to eliminate freedom in the world…is more than just the attempt to substitute one automatic reflex for another.
A: That would be…yes, that would be so.
Q: Scientists would be absolutely furious about the idea that, despite all their maneuvering, the most essential aspects of human life are beyond the scope of what they, the scientists, are “in charge of.”
A: It would be a naked challenge to the power of science.
Einstein puffed on his pipe and looked out over the valley. He took a sip of his beer. After a minute, he said, “Let me see if I can summarize this, because it’s really rather startling. The universe is nothing but particles. All those particles follow laws of motion. They aren’t free. The brain is made up entirely of those same particles. Therefore, there is nothing in the brain that would give us freedom. These particles also don’t understand anything, they don’t make sense of anything, they don’t grasp the meaning of anything. Since the brain, again, is made up of those particles, it has no power to allow us to grasp meaning or understand anything. But we do understand. We do grasp meaning. Therefore, we are talking about qualities we possess which are not made out of energy. These qualities are entirely non-material.”
He nodded.
“In that case,” he said, “there is…oddly enough, a completely different sphere or territory. It’s non-material. Therefore, it can’t be measured. Therefore, it has no beginning or end. If it did, it would be a material continuum and we could measure it.”
He pointed to the valley.
“That has energy. But what does it give me? Does it allow me to be conscious? Does it allow me to be free, to understand meaning? No.”
Then he laughed. He looked at me.
“I’m dead,” he said, “aren’t I? I didn’t realize it until this very moment.”
I shook my head. “No. I would say you WERE dead until this moment.”
He grinned. “Yes!” he said. “That’s a good one. I WAS dead.”
He stood up.
“Enough of this beer,” he said. “I have some schnapps inside. Let me get it. Let’s drink the good stuff! After all, I’m apparently Forever. And so are you. And so are we all.”
-----
Let the discussion begin...
free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...
-
henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
-
Impenitent
- Posts: 4360
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...
the pineal gland is made up of atoms...
the ghost in the machine is aptly named...
-Imp
the ghost in the machine is aptly named...
-Imp
-
promethean75
- Posts: 5005
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...
Oh shit it's another freewill debate? Damn dude do I gotta type out a long ass post again and explain how the theory is nonsense? I've done this a hunerd times over five forums in twenty years and I ain't about to do it again. Here lemme just grab one from another forum that I already posted and put it here.
This particular rendition was presented as a short lecture to a small collection of softly retarded half-wit ass rangers who haven't a clue what the freewill/determinism debate is essentially about. You will note the scathing sarcasm and mockery throughout - this is all one can do in the company of unredeemable philosophical clowns - but rest assured that this is not directed at any of you... lest you too be unredeemable philosophical clowns. I will certainly give you a chance to decide for yourself, before I decide for you.
A basic materialism/reductionalist reproach to the theory of freewill, with is absolutely metaphysical in content and therefore a great bit of insidious nonsense.
......
Okay here's a really easy way to explain it which will help you understand what role platonic/Cartesian substance dualism has in the freewill thesis, and how it fails to make any sense whatsoever.
When a person makes a choice to do or not do something, that choice is followed either by a physical action or, in the case of doing nothing, the inhibition of a physical action.
Okay so how does the human body set itself into motion (or not)? Where does this process of moving, begin? That's right, very good! In the nervous system. And what organ controls the nervous system in its coordination of physical movement? Hey you're getting good at this. The brain. Okay, so then how does the brain work... how does it communicate with the muscles? Yes!! Jesus you guys are like regular neurologists. I might have to retract what I said earlier about'cha.
Through the nerves. And what are the nerves, essentially? Circuits that carry charges.
Now let's back up for a second and go back to the brain. Before this communication with the muscles through the nerve circuit occurs, a charge must be produced by ionized potassium particles travelling across and through the membrane of a cool little joint called a dendrite... and these sit on the ends of nerves called axons.
Okay, so, in order to produce communication with a nerve leading to a muscle which will produce physical movement, the dendrite must discharge those ionized particles and send a transmitter across a space called a synapse, to another dendrite. Pretty neat, right?
So what happens is, a dendrite will either fire - if what's called an action potential is built by the charge - or not. If it does, the transmitters stimulate the receiving dendrite to send a signal down the axon, through the nerve, and to the muscle.
And wah-lah, you stand up from your chair. It's totally awesome.
Now watch this. Where, and at what point in this chain of events, does 'freewill' enter into the equation?
We've established that it's the electrical impulse that stimulates the muscle movement. And we know what causes this electrical impulse; ionized particles travelling across a membrane.
Uh-oh... now we have a problem. If this entire process is physical, beginning with the choice to get up, and the result of getting up, how can we say that the choice is not also a result of the same process... only at a prior time preceding the result of getting up? Does the act of choosing originate in some other way that doesn't involve the processes we've described?
That is to ask again, what is a choice-event, and how does it happen.
A substance dualist will claim that there is an immaterial substance in the body that acts upon the body to generate that electrical process, but which cannot be observed while doing so. This immaterial substance does the thinking, makes a choice, and then presto... the electrical process begins to put the body in motion. Moreover, not only is this immaterial substance 'free' of the physical causes that create the organized process of such nervous activity, but it can also act as a causative agent itself, much like a cluster of ionized particles.
Alrighty now let's do a quick little multiple choice at this point before we go further. Select an answer from the following options:
A) this sounds cool af so imma be a Cartesian. Fuck science and the principle of verifiability.
B) wait let me read this whole post again.
C) why doesn't prom75 allow me to continue believing I am right. He's such an asshole.
D) I am a moron who never had a fucking clue what I was talking about when I said freewill exists.
This particular rendition was presented as a short lecture to a small collection of softly retarded half-wit ass rangers who haven't a clue what the freewill/determinism debate is essentially about. You will note the scathing sarcasm and mockery throughout - this is all one can do in the company of unredeemable philosophical clowns - but rest assured that this is not directed at any of you... lest you too be unredeemable philosophical clowns. I will certainly give you a chance to decide for yourself, before I decide for you.
A basic materialism/reductionalist reproach to the theory of freewill, with is absolutely metaphysical in content and therefore a great bit of insidious nonsense.
......
Okay here's a really easy way to explain it which will help you understand what role platonic/Cartesian substance dualism has in the freewill thesis, and how it fails to make any sense whatsoever.
When a person makes a choice to do or not do something, that choice is followed either by a physical action or, in the case of doing nothing, the inhibition of a physical action.
Okay so how does the human body set itself into motion (or not)? Where does this process of moving, begin? That's right, very good! In the nervous system. And what organ controls the nervous system in its coordination of physical movement? Hey you're getting good at this. The brain. Okay, so then how does the brain work... how does it communicate with the muscles? Yes!! Jesus you guys are like regular neurologists. I might have to retract what I said earlier about'cha.
Through the nerves. And what are the nerves, essentially? Circuits that carry charges.
Now let's back up for a second and go back to the brain. Before this communication with the muscles through the nerve circuit occurs, a charge must be produced by ionized potassium particles travelling across and through the membrane of a cool little joint called a dendrite... and these sit on the ends of nerves called axons.
Okay, so, in order to produce communication with a nerve leading to a muscle which will produce physical movement, the dendrite must discharge those ionized particles and send a transmitter across a space called a synapse, to another dendrite. Pretty neat, right?
So what happens is, a dendrite will either fire - if what's called an action potential is built by the charge - or not. If it does, the transmitters stimulate the receiving dendrite to send a signal down the axon, through the nerve, and to the muscle.
And wah-lah, you stand up from your chair. It's totally awesome.
Now watch this. Where, and at what point in this chain of events, does 'freewill' enter into the equation?
We've established that it's the electrical impulse that stimulates the muscle movement. And we know what causes this electrical impulse; ionized particles travelling across a membrane.
Uh-oh... now we have a problem. If this entire process is physical, beginning with the choice to get up, and the result of getting up, how can we say that the choice is not also a result of the same process... only at a prior time preceding the result of getting up? Does the act of choosing originate in some other way that doesn't involve the processes we've described?
That is to ask again, what is a choice-event, and how does it happen.
A substance dualist will claim that there is an immaterial substance in the body that acts upon the body to generate that electrical process, but which cannot be observed while doing so. This immaterial substance does the thinking, makes a choice, and then presto... the electrical process begins to put the body in motion. Moreover, not only is this immaterial substance 'free' of the physical causes that create the organized process of such nervous activity, but it can also act as a causative agent itself, much like a cluster of ionized particles.
Alrighty now let's do a quick little multiple choice at this point before we go further. Select an answer from the following options:
A) this sounds cool af so imma be a Cartesian. Fuck science and the principle of verifiability.
B) wait let me read this whole post again.
C) why doesn't prom75 allow me to continue believing I am right. He's such an asshole.
D) I am a moron who never had a fucking clue what I was talking about when I said freewill exists.
-
promethean75
- Posts: 5005
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...
My concern... or I should say my modus operandi... is to show you, dear comrades, how religion and its greatest strong-arm, the theory of freewill, were weaponized by ruling class philosophers ('numpties' - Rosa the Red) thousands of years ago and refined even further by the scholastics all the way up to the enlightenment (Calvin is excluded; his theory of predestination was only a clever experiment to try and get the same results - control of the masses - by reversing the theory of freewill). I call it the GREAT POISONING.
Now what I wish to do is rid you of these psychological restraints to liberate you from the shackles of your conscience. I want to fill you again with the courage to misbehave, to engage in wanton mischief, to smash 'n grab at your favorite department store, to walk into a church and slap the dogshit out of the pastor, to seek out and beat unmercifully any conservatives and right-wingers you might find, to tell your employer to go fuck himself, to destroy your apartment with such fury that your deposit will only cover a third of the landlords repair costs, to take your dog for an hour long walk down the public streets without bringing any doggy-bags, to ask for a free water cup at taco bell and fill it with mellow yellow (be careful tho because they can hear the soda pump switch on behind the machine when you do), and to suggest to your neighbor that he ought to let you fuck his wife.
Western civilization and all its institutions must be accosted at any cost. We must bring total mayhem to the streets, the schools, the work place, the shopping malls, the town halls, everywhere the capitalist has laid his dirty hands... and we must not be afraid, comrades. Not anymore. Free your mind from the curse of freewill and take responsibility for your actions.
Wait a minute. *scratches head*
No I mean DON'T take responsibility for your actions, but only great pride and honor, for the spirit of history works through you... to bring about a new golden age... to build from the ashes of a bygone era... a world created in our image, free of the tyranny of all gods and masters!
No go, Philosophy Now! Go! The time is at hand!
Now what I wish to do is rid you of these psychological restraints to liberate you from the shackles of your conscience. I want to fill you again with the courage to misbehave, to engage in wanton mischief, to smash 'n grab at your favorite department store, to walk into a church and slap the dogshit out of the pastor, to seek out and beat unmercifully any conservatives and right-wingers you might find, to tell your employer to go fuck himself, to destroy your apartment with such fury that your deposit will only cover a third of the landlords repair costs, to take your dog for an hour long walk down the public streets without bringing any doggy-bags, to ask for a free water cup at taco bell and fill it with mellow yellow (be careful tho because they can hear the soda pump switch on behind the machine when you do), and to suggest to your neighbor that he ought to let you fuck his wife.
Western civilization and all its institutions must be accosted at any cost. We must bring total mayhem to the streets, the schools, the work place, the shopping malls, the town halls, everywhere the capitalist has laid his dirty hands... and we must not be afraid, comrades. Not anymore. Free your mind from the curse of freewill and take responsibility for your actions.
Wait a minute. *scratches head*
No I mean DON'T take responsibility for your actions, but only great pride and honor, for the spirit of history works through you... to bring about a new golden age... to build from the ashes of a bygone era... a world created in our image, free of the tyranny of all gods and masters!
No go, Philosophy Now! Go! The time is at hand!
Re: free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...
But how could ANY one 'decide for them self' if they do not have 'free will'?promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 8:05 am Oh shit it's another freewill debate? Damn dude do I gotta type out a long ass post again and explain how the theory is nonsense? I've done this a hunerd times over five forums in twenty years and I ain't about to do it again. Here lemme just grab one from another forum that I already posted and put it here.
This particular rendition was presented as a short lecture to a small collection of softly retarded half-wit ass rangers who haven't a clue what the freewill/determinism debate is essentially about. You will note the scathing sarcasm and mockery throughout - this is all one can do in the company of unredeemable philosophical clowns - but rest assured that this is not directed at any of you... lest you too be unredeemable philosophical clowns. I will certainly give you a chance to decide for yourself, before I decide for you.
Will you inform us of what the words 'free will' even mean or refers to, to you?
From what you have written so far here you appear to be MISSING THE MARK, by a long way, I will admit.
So far STILL absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with 'free will', itself. But carry on.promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 8:05 am A basic materialism/reductionalist reproach to the theory of freewill, with is absolutely metaphysical in content and therefore a great bit of insidious nonsense.
......
Okay here's a really easy way to explain it which will help you understand what role platonic/Cartesian substance dualism has in the freewill thesis, and how it fails to make any sense whatsoever.
When a person makes a choice to do or not do something, that choice is followed either by a physical action or, in the case of doing nothing, the inhibition of a physical action.
Okay so how does the human body set itself into motion (or not)? Where does this process of moving, begin? That's right, very good! In the nervous system. And what organ controls the nervous system in its coordination of physical movement? Hey you're getting good at this. The brain. Okay, so then how does the brain work... how does it communicate with the muscles? Yes!! Jesus you guys are like regular neurologists. I might have to retract what I said earlier about'cha.
Through the nerves. And what are the nerves, essentially? Circuits that carry charges.
Now let's back up for a second and go back to the brain. Before this communication with the muscles through the nerve circuit occurs, a charge must be produced by ionized potassium particles travelling across and through the membrane of a cool little joint called a dendrite... and these sit on the ends of nerves called axons.
Okay, so, in order to produce communication with a nerve leading to a muscle which will produce physical movement, the dendrite must discharge those ionized particles and send a transmitter across a space called a synapse, to another dendrite. Pretty neat, right?
So what happens is, a dendrite will either fire - if what's called an action potential is built by the charge - or not. If it does, the transmitters stimulate the receiving dendrite to send a signal down the axon, through the nerve, and to the muscle.
And wah-lah, you stand up from your chair. It's totally awesome.
Wow, now I am REALLY intrigued into KNOWING what the words 'free will' mean or refer to, to you.promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 8:05 am Now watch this. Where, and at what point in this chain of events, does 'freewill' enter into the equation?
I hope you had the COURAGE to CLARIFY above, but if NOT, then will you now?
If no, then WHY NOT? What are you AFRAID OF, EXACTLY?
Yes maybe so. But STILL has absolutely NOTHING to do with 'free will'. That is the 'free will' being referred to in the 'free will AND determinism' discussion.promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 8:05 am We've established that it's the electrical impulse that stimulates the muscle movement. And we know what causes this electrical impulse; ionized particles travelling across a membrane.
Who EVER said that 'the choice' had to NOT be?promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 8:05 am Uh-oh... now we have a problem. If this entire process is physical, beginning with the choice to get up, and the result of getting up, how can we say that the choice is not also a result of the same process... only at a prior time preceding the result of getting up?
Does this have absolutely ANY thing to do with 'free will', itself?promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 8:05 am Does the act of choosing originate in some other way that doesn't involve the processes we've described?
If yes, then 'what', EXACTLY?
A 'choice-event' is, OBVIOUSLY, an event where or when a 'choice' is made. And, how a choice-event happens is when One makes a choice, or makes a decision, OBVIOUSLY.promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 8:05 am That is to ask again, what is a choice-event, and how does it happen.
Working out, or uncovering, who and what that One IS, EXACTLY, then things will become MUCH CLEARER here for 'you', "promethean75".
E)promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 8:05 am A substance dualist will claim that there is an immaterial substance in the body that acts upon the body to generate that electrical process, but which cannot be observed while doing so. This immaterial substance does the thinking, makes a choice, and then presto... the electrical process begins to put the body in motion. Moreover, not only is this immaterial substance 'free' of the physical causes that create the organized process of such nervous activity, but it can also act as a causative agent itself, much like a cluster of ionized particles.
Alrighty now let's do a quick little multiple choice at this point before we go further. Select an answer from the following options:
A) this sounds cool af so imma be a Cartesian. Fuck science and the principle of verifiability.
B) wait let me read this whole post again.
C) why doesn't prom75 allow me to continue believing I am right. He's such an asshole.
D) I am a moron who never had a fucking clue what I was talking about when I said freewill exists.
Re: free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...
So, what is the reason WHY you do NOT do these and other things?promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 9:12 am My concern... or I should say my modus operandi... is to show you, dear comrades, how religion and its greatest strong-arm, the theory of freewill, were weaponized by ruling class philosophers ('numpties' - Rosa the Red) thousands of years ago and refined even further by the scholastics all the way up to the enlightenment (Calvin is excluded; his theory of predestination was only a clever experiment to try and get the same results - control of the masses - by reversing the theory of freewill). I call it the GREAT POISONING.
Now what I wish to do is rid you of these psychological restraints to liberate you from the shackles of your conscience. I want to fill you again with the courage to misbehave, to engage in wanton mischief, to smash 'n grab at your favorite department store, to walk into a church and slap the dogshit out of the pastor, to seek out and beat unmercifully any conservatives and right-wingers you might find, to tell your employer to go fuck himself, to destroy your apartment with such fury that your deposit will only cover a third of the landlords repair costs, to take your dog for an hour long walk down the public streets without bringing any doggy-bags, to ask for a free water cup at taco bell and fill it with mellow yellow (be careful tho because they can hear the soda pump switch on behind the machine when you do), and to suggest to your neighbor that he ought to let you fuck his wife.
And what would be the purpose for doing these things, EXACTLY?promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 9:12 am Western civilization and all its institutions must be accosted at any cost. We must bring total mayhem to the streets, the schools, the work place, the shopping malls, the town halls, everywhere the capitalist has laid his dirty hands... and we must not be afraid, comrades. Not anymore.
Who or what are 'you', which SUPPOSEDLY has "its mind"? And, what is the 'mind', EXACTLY, to you?promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 9:12 am Free your mind from the curse of freewill and take responsibility for your actions.
Also, having 'free will' would side more with 'taking responsibility for your mis/behaviors' then NOT have 'free will' would.
For how, EXACTLY, could ANY one 'take responsibility for their Wrong doing' if they did NOT FREELY choose to do those things?
But if you 'take great pride and honor' for just doing what is Right, then surely you are very insecure individual. Also, one does NOT need to 'take responsibility' for just doing what is Right. But, it would be a much better world if ALL of 'you', adult human beings, did start 'taking responsibility' for ALL of the Wrong that 'you' ALL do do.promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 9:12 am Wait a minute. *scratches head*
No I mean DON'T take responsibility for your actions, but only great pride and honor, for the spirit of history works through you... to bring about a new golden age... to build from the ashes of a bygone era... a world created in our image, free of the tyranny of all gods and masters!
Re: free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...
WHY, EXACTLY, do these things here, supposedly, HAVE TO BE 'non material'?henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 3:10 pm Here's the opener, by fellow tin foil hat wearer, Jon Rappoport.
-----
I wrote this piece as an introduction to the scientific tyranny which has overtaken us: the premise that we are machines, and we can be decoded and transformed by genetics.
This is a lie on every possible level.
*
Interviewing the dead Albert Einstein about free will
It was a strange journey into the astral realm to find Albert Einstein.
I slipped through gated communities heavily guarded by troops protecting dead Presidents. I skirted alleys where wannabe demons claiming they were Satan’s reps were selling potions made from powdered skulls of English kings. I ran through mannequin mansions where trainings for future shoppers were in progress. Apparently, some souls come to Earth to be born as aggressive entitled consumers. Who knew?
Finally, in a little valley, I spotted a cabin, and there on the porch, sitting in a rocker, smoking a pipe and reading The Bourne Ultimatum, was Dr. Einstein.
He was wearing an old sports jacket with leather patches on the elbows, jeans, and furry slippers.
I wanted to talk with the great man because I’d read a 1929 Saturday Evening Post interview with him. He’d said:
“I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will…Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being.”
Dr, Einstein went inside and brought out two bottles of cold beer and we began our conversation:
Q: Sir, would you say that the underlying nature of physical reality is atomic?
A: If you’re asking me whether atoms and smaller particles exist everywhere in the universe, then of course, yes.
Q: And are you satisfied that, wherever they are found, they are the same? They exhibit a uniformity?
A: Surely, yes.
Q: Regardless of location.
A: Correct.
Q: So, for example, if we consider the make-up of the brain, those atoms are no different in kind from atoms wherever in the universe they are found.
A: That’s true. The brain is composed entirely of these tiny particles. And the particles, everywhere in the universe, without exception, flow and interact and collide without any exertion of free will. It’s an unending stream of cause and effect.
Q: And when you think to yourself, “I’ll get breakfast now,” what is that?
A: The thought?
Q: Yes.
A: Ultimately, it is the outcome of particles in motion.
Q: You were compelled to have that thought.
A: As odd as that may seem, yes. Of course, we tell ourselves stories to present ourselves with a different version of reality, but those stories are social or cultural constructs.
Q: And those “stories” we tell ourselves—they aren’t freely chosen rationalizations, either. We have no choice about that.
A: Well, yes. That’s right.
Q: So there is nothing in the human brain that allows us the possibility of free will.
A: Nothing at all.
Q: And as we are sitting here right now, sir, looking at each other, sitting and talking, this whole conversation is spooling out in the way that it must. Every word. Neither you nor I is really choosing what we say.
A: I may not like it, but yes, it’s deterministic destiny. The particles flow.
Q: When you pause to consider a question I ask you…even that act of considering is mandated by the motion of atomic and sub-atomic particles. What appears to be you deciding how to give me an answer…that is a delusion.
A: The act of considering? Why, yes, that, too, would have to be determined. It’s not free. There really is no choice involved.
Q: And the outcome of this conversation, whatever points we may or may not agree upon, and the issues we may settle here, about this subject of free will versus determinism…they don’t matter at all, because, when you boil it down, the entire conversation was determined by our thoughts, which are nothing more than atomic and sub-atomic particles in motion—and that motion flows according to laws, none of which have anything to do with human choice.
A: The entire flow of reality, so to speak, proceeds according to determined sets of laws. Yes.
Q: And we are in that flow.
A: Most certainly we are.
Q: The earnestness with which we might try to settle this issue, our feelings, our thoughts, our striving—that is irrelevant. It’s window dressing. This conversation actually cannot go in different possible directions. It can only go in one direction.
A: That would ultimately have to be so.
Q: Now, are atoms and their components, and any other tiny particles in the universe…are any of them conscious?
A: Of course not. The particles themselves are not conscious.
Q: Some scientists speculate they are.
A: Some people speculate that the moon can be sliced and served on a plate with fruit.
Q: What do you think “conscious” means?
A: It means we participate in life. We take action. We converse. We gain knowledge.
Q: Any of the so-called faculties we possess—are they ultimately anything more than particles in motion?
A: Well, no, they aren’t. Because everything is particles in motion. What else could be happening in this universe? Nothing.
Q: All right. I’d like to consider the word “understanding.”
A: It’s a given. It’s real.
Q: How so?
A: The proof that it’s real, if you will, is that we are having this conversation. It makes sense to us.
Q: Yes, but how can there be understanding if everything is particles in motion? Do the particles possess understanding?
A: No they don’t.
Q: To change the focus just a bit, how can what you and I are saying have any meaning?
A: Words mean things.
Q: Again, I have to point out that, in a universe with no free will, we only have particles in motion. That’s all. That’s all we are. So where does “meaning” come from?
A: “We understand language” is a true proposition.
Q: You’re sure.
A: Of course.
Q: Then I suggest you’ve tangled yourself in a contradiction. In the universe you depict, there would be no room for understanding. Or meaning. There would be nowhere for it to come from. Unless particles understand. Do they?
A: No.
Q: Then where do “understanding” and “meaning” come from?
A: [Silence.]
Q: Furthermore, sir, if we accept your depiction of a universe of particles, then there is no basis for this conversation at all. We don’t understand each other. How could we?
A: But we do understand each other.
Q: And therefore, your philosophic materialism (no free will, only particles in motion) must have a flaw.
A: What flaw?
Q: Our existence contains more than particles in motion.
A: More? What would that be?
Q: Would you grant that whatever it is, it is non-material?
A: It would have to be, but…
Q: Then, driving further along this line, there is something non-material which is present, which allows us to understand each other, which allows us to comprehend meaning. We are conscious. Puppets are not conscious. As we sit here talking, I understand you. Do you understand me?
A: Of course.
Q: Then that understanding is coming from something other than particles in motion. Without this non-material quality, you and I would be gibbering in the dark.
A: You’re saying that, if all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom. There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.
Q: Yes. That’s what I’m saying. And I think you have to admit your view of determinism and particles in motion—that picture of the universe—leads to several absurdities.
A: Well…perhaps I’m forced to consider it. Otherwise, we can’t sit here and understand each other.
Q: You and I do understand each other.
A: I hadn’t thought it through this way before, but if there is nothing inherent in particles that gives rise to understanding and meaning, then everything is gibberish. Except it isn’t gibberish. Yes, I seem to see a contradiction. Interesting.
Q: And if these non-material factors—understanding and meaning—exist, then other non-material factors can exist.
A: For example, freedom. I suppose so.
Q: And the drive to eliminate freedom in the world…is more than just the attempt to substitute one automatic reflex for another.
A: That would be…yes, that would be so.
Q: Scientists would be absolutely furious about the idea that, despite all their maneuvering, the most essential aspects of human life are beyond the scope of what they, the scientists, are “in charge of.”
A: It would be a naked challenge to the power of science.
Einstein puffed on his pipe and looked out over the valley. He took a sip of his beer. After a minute, he said, “Let me see if I can summarize this, because it’s really rather startling. The universe is nothing but particles. All those particles follow laws of motion. They aren’t free. The brain is made up entirely of those same particles. Therefore, there is nothing in the brain that would give us freedom. These particles also don’t understand anything, they don’t make sense of anything, they don’t grasp the meaning of anything. Since the brain, again, is made up of those particles, it has no power to allow us to grasp meaning or understand anything. But we do understand. We do grasp meaning. Therefore, we are talking about qualities we possess which are not made out of energy. These qualities are entirely non-material.”
He nodded.
“In that case,” he said, “there is…oddly enough, a completely different sphere or territory. It’s non-material. Therefore, it can’t be measured. Therefore, it has no beginning or end. If it did, it would be a material continuum and we could measure it.”
He pointed to the valley.
“That has energy. But what does it give me? Does it allow me to be conscious? Does it allow me to be free, to understand meaning? No.”
Then he laughed. He looked at me.
“I’m dead,” he said, “aren’t I? I didn’t realize it until this very moment.”
I shook my head. “No. I would say you WERE dead until this moment.”
He grinned. “Yes!” he said. “That’s a good one. I WAS dead.”
He stood up.
“Enough of this beer,” he said. “I have some schnapps inside. Let me get it. Let’s drink the good stuff! After all, I’m apparently Forever. And so are you. And so are we all.”
-----
Let the discussion begin...
Just because "einstein" or ANY one "else" says that matter can NOT be conscious, understand, and/or free does NOT mean that this is absolutely and irrefutably true.
Re: free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...
The reason 'you', human beings, had STILL, in the days when this was written, NOT YET UNCOVERED and SEEN what thee ACTUAL Truth is here is because 'you' turn things into "debates", "one side OR the other", or "this VERSES that".
What thee ACTUAL Truth IS here is NOT ANY of these three things, but rather is a combination of BOTH.
Thee Truth is SEEN, UNDERSTAND, and KNOWN NOT by fighting/argue over "one side OR the other" but rather by just LOOKING AT what thee ACTUAL Truth is, from just a Truly Honest and OPEN perspective.
-
henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
an 'excellent' start
So, here's what we got so far...
Imp: enigmatic, as usual...pro-Ryle? Anti-Ryle?
*
Pro75: describes the workings of the meat and never addresses the man (no surprise there); and tosses in some pedestrian libertinism for effect.
*
Age: foists up four posts wherein his most salient contribution is...
Imp: enigmatic, as usual...pro-Ryle? Anti-Ryle?
*
Pro75: describes the workings of the meat and never addresses the man (no surprise there); and tosses in some pedestrian libertinism for effect.
*
Age: foists up four posts wherein his most salient contribution is...
-
promethean75
- Posts: 5005
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...
You are what you eat, Henry.
Accept this premise like a real man, and you will for the first time in your life be proud of being a pussy.
Buh dum tshhh
Thank you, thank you! Really, you're too kind.
Accept this premise like a real man, and you will for the first time in your life be proud of being a pussy.
Buh dum tshhh
Thank you, thank you! Really, you're too kind.
-
henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...
You are what you eat, Henry.
so, that makes you a dick
Accept this premise...
that you eat dick?
sure, no problem
so, that makes you a dick
Accept this premise...
that you eat dick?
sure, no problem
-
promethean75
- Posts: 5005
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...
Well played, Henry. But you should have just simply said: 'now I know why you're such a dick', without the bold quoting. It would have been cleaner and more succinct, without taxing the reader's eyes. It's all about the delivery.
-
henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...
taxing the reader's eyes
this...
this...
...is taxing?henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 2:44 pm You are what you eat, Henry.
so, that makes you a dick
Accept this premise...
that you eat dick?
sure, no problem
-
promethean75
- Posts: 5005
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...
Absolutely. All we needed was the punchline. You didn't have to quote me because anybody reading would infer that much. You want the punchline to sit alone, shining, in all its glory, without interference from extraneous text. Delivery, bro.
-
vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...
The excellent 'Don't look up' was made with the Henry's of the world in mind.